PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 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 DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairperson Sydney Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted the meeting.
CONSENT AND POLICY
The Council discussed the I.R.B. policy as it relates to zoning. The Council will include the question of zoning in its consideration of I.R.B. applications. Representatives of the Salt Lake City Bowling Association presented a film on the American Bowling Conference tournament. They would like to have the tournament held in Salt Lake City. They are requesting some form of support such as a resolution from the City Council to help with their bid. They are also requesting that the City consider some financial contribution. Pete Kutulas will bring a resolution for the Council’s consideration.
Review of agenda: Items C-1 and C-4 (Resource Recovery Facility). Roger Cutler explained that the Council has no financial obligation unless they enter into a contract for the Resource Recovery Facility. The Council will send these items to the Public Works Committee for further discussion.
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 2, 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. FONNESEBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Albert E. Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember Ronald J. Whitehead conducted the meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance.
From City Council:
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, January 26, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmembers Shearer and Davis who were absent when the vote was taken.
M 82-2
PETITIONS
Petition 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 the Council was unable to tour the site of the proposed area for new trackage. He further stated that the Council would be taking the tour on February 3, 1982 at 11:45 a.m. and, therefore, wanted to postpone making a decision until after this tour.
Steve Goodsell, Union Pacific, addressed the Council and stated that he had received a copy of Jim Talebreza’s memorandum to Sydney Fonnesbeck and the City Council Members raising a question concerning a Rio Grande franchise application which was recently filed. On January 8, 1982, representatives of Union Pacific met for over one hour with Councilmember Mabey, Norm Barnett and Rick Johnston from the Public Works Department and also Ray Montgomery from the City Attorney’s Office, at which time the Rio Grande interest in this area was discussed. Mr. Goodsell further stated that at the public hearing held three weeks ago a representative from Rio Grande did not attend the meeting even though they were aware of the Union Pacific franchise application and no protest was filed.
Mr. Goodsell concluded by stating that he did not want the Council to postpone making a decision on the Union Pacific request or refer the item back to the Public Works Committee because of the Rio Grande request. Councilmember Fonnesbeck pointed out that the motion for postponement was due to the field trip and not because this item was going back before the Public Works Committee.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to postpone a decision on this request until February 16, 1982 to allow for the Council Members to take the necessary field trip, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-4
Petition 598 of 1981 submitted by Robert Trujillo.
RE: Petition 598 submitted by Robert Trujillo requesting that the City vacate a portion of Ashton Avenue adjoining his property at 2332 South 1800 East Street.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 9, 1982 at 6:45 p.m. to discuss Petition 598 of 1981.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Mr. Trujillo is required to pay a $35 advertising fee to the City Recorder.
DISCUSSION: This petition was denied by the Planning Commission on November 17, 1981. It is their opinion that the existing walkway is desirable as it provides a pedestrian access through the neighborhood; to close the walkway would create an undesirable dead-end alley to the west. Mr. Trujillo has requested a public hearing before the City Council to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision. The petition has been reviewed by the City Engineer, Public Utilities, Transportation, Fire and Fixed Assets. Their recommendations are attached to the petition.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to set the public hearing for March 9, 1982 at 6:45 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-9
OTHER CITY BUSINESS
FROM CITY ATTORNEY
RE: The Administrative Code containing the following changes: 1) Page 4 the words “be constituted” have been changed to “consist”. 2) Page 8, the City Attorney. The language suggested has been employed which shortens the list of functions performed by the City Attorney, but makes it clear that the Attorney is accountable to both legislative and administrative branches of government. It deletes the language originally desired by the Council setting up the procedure by which they could access information from the executive branch and deletes the specific reference to the Attorney’s power to approve contracts as to form and execute verifications on behalf of the City.
These matters can appropriately be handled through executive order and procedural mechanisms; thus, the language is not harmful to the Council or the Mayor’s prerogatives. It does create a situation of potential conflict of interest with the Attorney, which will have to be adjusted by separate counsel should issues become one of ethical proportions. 3) The City Recorder, on page 11, has been modified as requested to still retain its line authority in the Department of Finance; however, it is made clear that the Recorder is responsible also to the Council who shall independent and equal access for legislative functions. Also, the section eliminates a substantial portion of the job description. It may be advisable to delineate these functions through administrative order or through a job description, so as to catalog the Recorder’s respective responsibilities scattered throughout the code and City Ordinances. 4) Council powers on page 15 has been modified. The language selected should accommodate the desire of the Council concerning advice and consent issues. 5) On page 17, meeting agenda schedule language modified to make clear that the Council shall cause the agenda to he prepared. Councilmember Shearer stated that the only sections in which she recommended changes are those dealing with Council. The following changes were outlined by Ms. Shearer: On page 15 of the document, Section 24-4-3 entitled Meetings of Council, delete the entire sentence beginning, “Until otherwise provided...”; in Section 24-4-4 (2), page 17, replace “cause an agenda” with “post an agenda” and delete “to be prepared”.
At this time Mr. Roger Cutler addressed the Council, and stated that the word “cause” had been used because the next sentence mentions posting of the agenda. He also stated that the sentence as written fixes the responsibility as to who is to prepare the agenda; that the Council supervises the preparation of the agenda. Ms. Shearer then stated that she felt comfortable with this and it did not need to be changed. Councilmember Shearer continued with her changes: In Section 24-4-6, Council Vacancies, change “A vacancy shall be declared by the Council if...” to read “A vacancy shall occur if...”
Councilmember Parker stated that on Page 15, Section 24-4-2, Council Powers, “and resolutions” should be added to the first sentence so it reads, “... the adoption of ordinances and resolutions...” Mr. Cutler asked the Council to read the last two lines of the same section and indicated that “as required by State law” could be removed; the Council concurred, Mr. Parker mentioned that it was redundant. Mr. Cutler pointed out the repealing sections of the ordinance and stated that part of the original package included the adoption of three sections in reorganized Title 25. Mr. Cutler further stated that if possible this ordinance should be approved and the other Chapters need to be considered next week so that they could be published at the same time as this ordinance. Mr. Cutler said that there would be 30 days in which to make changes.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the amendments: 1) Section 24-4-3, remove the sentence beginning “Until otherwise provided...”; 2) Section 24-4-6, change “...shall be declared by the Council if...” to read, “...shall occur if...”; 3) Section 24-4-2, add “and resolutions” after “... of ordinances.. .“; 4) Section 24-4-2, remove “as required by State law”, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Leigh von der Esch addressed the Council and stated that she wanted clarification on page 4 of the ordinance so that nothing would be misconstrued to prohibit the Council’s right to act within their own branch of government.
She read from Section 13 regarding the Mayor establishing job descriptions, job functions, job classifications or reclassifications and compensation and stated that she did not want this to he misconstrued to prohibit the Council from determining their own job classifications and compensations. Mr. Haines stated that he did not feel the Mayor would have that kind of interest and unless it was the desire of the Council to create their own personnel system then classification and compensation levels should be pursued under present city policies. Ms. von der Esch stated that this was not covered in the Council section of this ordinance.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to amend Section 24-4-2, Council Powers, to include, “The Council shall supervise, appoint, and direct its own staff and establish job descriptions, job functions, job classifications or reclassifications and compensation therefor, within the budgeted appropriations and consistent with State law”, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Larry Livingston addressed the Council and stated that he had a question with Section 24-2-3, Relationship of City Council to Mayor and Departments. He read from this section and stated that the following phrase should be included: “nothing herein shall prevent the Council from requesting said information directly from any employee of the City”. Mr. Livingston felt that the way this section is written it is the Mayor unilaterally that makes the decision. Councilmember Shearer stated that she felt the Council had broad powers in information gathering, and stated that informational requests are ultimately the duty of the Mayor and he is responsible.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Ordinance 9 of 1982, as amended, relating to administrative organization, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
O 82-8
RE: A resolution to establish the Central Business Improvement District; an ordinance amending Title 40 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding thereto a new Chapter 2 relating to Central Business Improvement District Tax; and an ordinance creating a new Title 8 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, and adding new Chapter 2, relating to Central Business Improvement District Advisory Board.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked for clarification on the Central Business Improvement District Tax ordinance in Section 40-2-3. She stated that it appears to read as if each time the license fees are raised the Business District would collect an equal amount. Mrs. Fonnesbeck stated that she asked Mr. Roger Cutler to provide a remedy for this situation; the following wording was added to the end of this section for clarification: After the word ordinance “... or such other amount as shall hereafter be duly adopted legislatively by the council”. Mr. Cutler stated that the amount of fee would be that which is in effect as of the day the ordinance is adopted, or the amount subsequently adopted in Section 20-3-2.
Councilmember Fonnesheck reiterated by stating that an increase would not happen automatically; it means that the amount stays the same unless the Council otherwise specifies. Councilmember Shearer stated that she felt the Section would be better clarified by leaving off “...or such other amount as shall hereafter...” Mr. Cutler replied that by leaving this sentence off, the section will have to be amended if the fee schedules are later amended; he further stated that the additional language was added so that this section could remain the same and change the fee structure in Title 20 rather than Title 40. Mrs. Shearer stated that she felt the Titles should be independent; to which Mr. Cutler replied the only reason they were being considered together was 1) that was the proposal; and 2) to enable the use of the collection mechanism of the license tax so that there wouldn’t be two collections.
Councilmember Fonnesheck moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to amend the ordinance so that Section 40-2-3(1) ends with the word “ordinance”, deleting the sentence, “... or such other amount as shall hereafter be duly adopted legislatively by the Council”, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Davis stated that when this issue was presented several weeks ago she was the dissenting vote. She further stated that she had researched several different aspects of the Special Improvement District. She felt one of the biggest issues was the Blue Ribbon Tax Committee that has been spending time reviewing different revenue sources. Ms. Davis stated that she presented her concerns to the Sub-Committee regarding user fees stating that she felt the City Council was taking action prior to the Council receiving the report that they had asked the Sub-Committee to research. Ms. Davis then read a letter from Stephen Harmsen, Sub-Committee Chairman.
The letter stated that the Sub-Committee was reviewing many proposed sources of new revenue for the City and that it is apparent that the City’s licensing statutes are antiquated and in need of major reform. This reform should address the issues of impact, use of City services, cost of regulation, etc. The Sub-Committee is of the opinion that revision of the license statutes is in order and that substantially increased revenue to the City could result. The letter further stated that a Sub-Committee report would be provided to the full Committee by February 15, and the full Committee would have its preliminary report to the City Council by March 1, 1982.
Ms. Davis continued by stating that she felt the Council would make a mistake to proceed with the proposal on the Special Improvement District 30 days prior to receiving a complete overview of all resources available for taxing purposes. She supports the Central Business District in what they want to do (purchasing Santa Clause suits and decorations, advertising to bring additional business to the downtown area); she stated that she is 100% in favor of this.
Her major concern is that if this is approved, the City Finance Department would have to send notices out the first of March to 1100 business where the fee is involved; then after the Blue Ribbon Committee meets and if one of their recommendations is to increase the license fee, the City would again have to send out 1100 notices 30 to 60 days after the first notice had been sent. Councilmember Davis stated that her recommendation is to withhold any action on this issue until the Council receives the report on March 1. Ms. Davis concluded by stating the Charlie Quick from the Committee was available at the meeting for questions. Councilmember Mabey asked Mr. Quick if the increase would be a one, two, or three times increase; what level did the committee set. Mr. Quick answered by stating that at this time the Committee was not ready to make a recommendation other than it was generally agreed that the fees are in need of revision and it would be a major source of income for the City.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Quick that if the Council approved this issue would it impact what the Committee was doing; would they stop looking at license fees because this had been made into a Special Improvement District. Mr. Quick stated that this figure would be added to the license fees, assuming that the ordinance is passed as written, and the businessmen may believe that their license fees have been unreasonably raised. Councilmember Fonnesbeck further stated that the two issues should be done separately so that the businesses understand by the first notification that it is for a Special Improvement District and the second notification is a tax oriented item for the City.
She further stated that she hoped the Committee would not interpret Council approval as meaning that they did not want the Committee to consider the business fees because the Central Business District would only encompass a small area. Councilmember Mabey stated a concern about a dramatic increase in fees causing some small businesses to move out of Salt Lake City. Mr. Mabey also stated that when this item was first being considered he had been concerned about issuing a press release so that people who did not approve of the plan could send letters; not many letters have been received and he was concerned that if this was passed the Council would be deluged with protests. Ms. Davis stated that was why she was proposing they wait.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she understood the enabling legislation sets a time period for negative response and asked Mr. Cutler if the time could be extended. Mr. Cutler replied yes, and further commented that the way the State Statute is structured people have 15 days after the public hearing is closed in which to protest and if 51% protest the district will not be established. Councilmember Shearer asked why it was necessary to have a resolution, to which Mr. Cutler replied that the resolution creates a need for the district and the ordinance creates the district.
Ms. Shearer further commented that there was nothing in the ordinance that allowed the City to be reimbursed the cost of collecting the tax; and since it will cost at least $5,000 to collect the tax the city should be reimbursed. Mr. Cutler stated that the Council approves the budget for the Business District and that consideration could he included.
Councilmember Davis moved to postpone the action regarding the Central Business Improvement District until the Council receives the report on revenue and taxation from the Blue Ribbon Committee on March 1, 1982. There was no second to this motion.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Resolution 19 of 1982 establishing the Central Business Improvement District; adopt Ordinance 10 of 1982, as amended, amending Title 40 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding thereto a new Chapter 2 relating to Central Business Improvement District Tax; and adopt Ordinance 11 of 1982, creating a new Title 8 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, and adding new Chapter 2 relating to Central Business Improvement District Advisory Board, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who voted nay.
T 82-8
FROM CITY COUNCIL
RE: Council policy resolution concerning the sale of surplus water.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 20 of 1982 regarding the sale of surplus water, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
R 82-2
FROM FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond application: Prowswood, Inc., a Utah Corporation.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider an application for Industrial Revenue Bonding for the construction of an eight story office complex at 400 South 300 East, northeast corner.
DISCUSSION: Evaluation of proposal based on 8/14/80 draft criteria, project description. Councilmember Shearer stated that the application has been before the Council and the Council Members have had an opportunity to visit the proposed site. Councilmember Mabey had a concern that the Council was making zoning changes as part of their IRB criteria and policy; he felt this situation had similar problems as the Hermes request. Councilmember Shearer pointed out that there had not been a zoning change requested or needed for this IRB.
Councilmember DePaulis felt that when an area is master planned for mixed use the City Council is promoting the construction of office buildings by granting Industrial Revenue Bonds. He felt there was a connection between what developers observe the Council doing and what is happening in an area, in that if a piece of property is asked to be rezoned there is a tendency to later ask for an IRB. Mr. DePaulis further stated that if this tendency occurs then the Council is developing a process in which property is rezoned and IRB’s are granted to induce the building of office buildings. Mr. Mabey reiterated that the zoning issue needs to be addressed in the policy for future considerations but Hermes should not he penalized now. Councilmember DePaulis further stated that in the last year two buildings have been built on the east side as a result of IRB’s; the Council is concerned about promoting growth to the west.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt the inducement resolution, Resolution 21 of 1982, for the Industrial Revenue Bond application submitted by Prowswood, Inc. to construct an eight story office complex at 400 South 300 East, northeast corner, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Whitehead, Fonnesbeck, and DePaulis who voted nay.
Councilmember Mahey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to recall the Hermes IRB application for consideration on February 16, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmembers Fonnesheck and DePaulis who voted nay.
Q 82-1l
FROM OFFICE OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PLANNING
RE: Re-opening the Budget for Fiscal Year 1981-82.
Councilmember Shearer proposed an amendment to remove $50,000 from the Capital Projects fund, earmarked for the Athletic Park, remain in the Capital Projects fund and not be moved to other projects. Ms. Shearer explained that when the budget was passed the Parks Department indicated they were applying for matching funds for two or three projects and at that time the funds had been earmarked so that they could not he spent without the matching funds. Ms. Shearer stated that her proposal was that the money not he taken out of the project for the Athletic Park because it was the original intent for the money and it should be spent for that purpose.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that if the $50,000 is put back in the budget for the Athletic Park then there will be a deficit in another area. Ms. Shearer commented that John Gust explained that he originally contributed the $50,000 because the grant did not come through. The request came to assist in repairing prior flood damage to Memory Grove and Mr. Gust indicated that these funds were available. Councilmember Shearer further stated that the recommended use for these funds was to transfer them to another area in Parks.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why the funds should be kept for the Park if there are no matching funds. Ms. Shearer stated that she did not intend for the money to remain; she stated that she is proposing that the Council ask for a plan to use the money for the Athletic Park and even though there are no matching funds, $50,000 can do some of the work needed to improve the Park. Ms. Fonnesbeck asked where the funds would come from to take care of the flood damage to which Ms. Shearer replied none of the $50,000 was going to flood but to the 4th Avenue and “U” Street improvements and Tanner Park. Ms. Shearer further stated that the sale of the property (street) to L.D.S. Hospital was the largest amount of money going for the repair. Rodger Neve, Office of Budget and Management Planning, responded by stating that money will not be added to projects only insofar as they overrun and adjustments need to be made by the Mayor’s Office. If money is left over in the projects then these monies will be available for the Council to use for new projects; the money will not be put on new projects without Council approval.
Councilmember Shearer asked if the carry-over amounts listed for CD projects are line item. Mr. Neve stated that these funds were being formalized into the budget process and the monies will be designated as carry-over in the various departments. Councilmember Shearer stated again that she wanted the budget amended to leave the $50,000 in the contingency fund for Athletic Park by not putting $40,000 into 4th Avenue and “U” Street and Tanner Park and taking take $10,000 from another area.
Mr. Neve stated that the money has been used in balancing the budget and if the money is used for Athletic Park then there is a need for additional money in order to balance the budget. Mr. Neve also stated that the there would not he money available to complete the other two projects.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to amend the budget leaving $50,000 for Athletic Park, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Fonnesbeck, DePaulis, and Parker who voted nay.
Leigh von der Esch addressed the Council and made a clarification on the CDBG carry-over. She stated that the Council was not adopting a policy relating to all CDBG funding; she stated that Bill Barrett was concerned that no precedent be set for future funding.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 22 of 1982, as amended, amending the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1981 and ending June 30, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who voted nay and Council Members Mabey and Parker who abstained from voting.
After the vote there was further discussion regarding balancing the budget; a question was raised as to where the money would come from to balance the budget.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to rescind all previous actions taken on the budget, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Shearer who voted nay, and Councilmember Davis who abstained from voting.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 22 of 1982, amending the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1981 and ending June 30, 1982 appropriating $40,000 from the general contingency fund and $10,000 from the emergency fund and moving $50,000 back to the Athletic Park fund, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
B 82-2
FROM OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: The reappointment of Howard Dunn to the Board of Adjustment.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the reappointment of Howard Dunn, which motion carried, all member voting aye.
I 82-4
RE: Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: That Howard Dunn be reappointed to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
DISCUSSION: The term of appointment for Mr. Dunn will expire on December 31, 1981. He has contributed greatly to the efforts of the Public Utilities Advisory Committee and has performed an outstanding service for the citizens of Salt Lake. Inasmuch as Mr. Dunn has only served for two years and this committee is in the middle of a number of major programs; i.e. water and sewer bonding, 201 Facilities Plan, etc., it is important that he serve a full term.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the appointment of Howard Dunn, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
I 82-5
RE: Introduction of a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 17 of Title 5 of the revised ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to energy code requirements by adding section 5-17-2 creating an interim alternative applicable to qualifying residential construction.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Section 5-17-1 of the Salt Lake City Code.
DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Energy Advisory Committee, working with Building and Housing Services and the Homebuilders Association, formulated the attached Interim Energy Code Amendments to simplify the requirements for passive solar design and clarify energy conservation standards. They create an alternative to existing standards for one and two family dwellings. Councilmember Whitehead referred to the Land Use Committee the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 17 of Title 5, relating to energy code requirements, referred without objection.
O 82-9
FROM PUBLIC UTILITIES
RE: Introduction of proposed watershed ordinance amendment to Section 49-3-22.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider an amendment to Section 49-3-22 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965.
DISCUSSION: Residents of the Brighton area of Big Cottonwood Canyon have been desirous of keeping a dog at their residence in that area. In order to preserve the quality of the water flowing from the Big Cottonwood Canyon watershed which is used by people in Salt Lake City for culinary purposes, dogs have been prohibited from being in the canyon. In an effort to reach an acceptable compromise, meetings have been held between members of the Big Cottonwood Canyon Association, the City-County Health Department, and City staff.
With the restrictions contained in this proposed amendment to City ordinance it is felt that the needs of the residences in the Canyon and the concerns of the Public Utilities Department can both be satisfied. Councilmember Whitehead stated the County has passed the same ordinance; members of the Public Utilities Department have met with people in the canyon and an acceptable compromise has been reached.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 12 of 1982, amending Section 49-3-22 of the revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to dogs running at large prohibited, and adding thereto new Section 49-3-22.1, relating to permits for dogs on watershed, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
O 82-10
PUBLIC WORKS
RE: Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council Action; December 18, 1981 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Landfill Council action taken at the meeting in accordance with terms set forth in our 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: 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 Whitehead referred to Public Work Committee the Landfill Council action taken at the meeting of the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management, referred without objection.
M 82-3
RE: Interlocal Co-operation Agreement to provide for the financing of the Salt Lake Solid Waste Management Project.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Interlocal Co-operation 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. Up to $200,000 extra local funds may 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 agreement and is under no obligation to the project. Councilmember Whitehead referred to Public Works Committee, the Interlocal Co-operation agreement regarding Salt Lake City Solid Waste Management Project, referred without objection.
C 82-62
RE: Notice of Intention for Curb & Gutter Special Improvement District No. 38-700.
RECOMMENDATION: The Council adopt the Notice of Intention and authorize the City to proceed with advertising of the Notice of Intention in accordance with the attached schedule.
AVAILABILTY OF FUNDS: Fiscal Year 1981/82 Capital Improvement Funds and Property Owners Assessments (Special Improvement District).
DISCUSSION: Curb & Gutter District No. 38-700 is comprised of numerous residential streets in the southeast, Avenues, and west portions of the City. The project will consist of the construction of the curb and gutter, sidewalk, roadway and drainage facilities. Maps are attached to the paperwork showing the streets which will be reconstructed along with the informational sheet and letter to abutting property owners and a schedule of events for hearings, meeting 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 1982.
The total estimated cost of the City’s portion for this project is $1,058,132 which is $385,132 over $673,000 allocated in the 81/82 Capital Budget for Curb and Gutter Special Improvement Districts. The reason for requesting Notice Intention approval for a project in excess of available funds is to better insure a project approval large enough to spend existing funding, this in the event that portions of the project are protested out. If the entire project is approved by the property owners, we would request the remaining $385,000 be made available from the 82/83 Capital Improvement Projects budget for Curb and Gutter Special Improvement Districts. The Public Works Department will make a provision in their construction contract which allows for delaying the award of a portion of the bid until after July 1, 1982 in the event that the 82/83 funds are needed.
Rick Johnston, Deputy City Engineer, addressed the City Council and outlined the streets to be included in the SID. He stated that the Notice of Intention will be advertised in February, and informal meetings will held throughout February and early March. The protest hearing is scheduled for March 9, 1982 before the Council. Mr. Johnston further stated that the property owners would be assessed 40% of the project cost with the City paying 60%. If this is approved the department can proceed with final design and bid the project for construction this summer. Mr. Johnston explained that the portion of Foothill Drive being considered for closure, 900 South to Hubbard Avenue, is included.
If the street is closed that area can be eliminated from the project; however, that area needs to be included at this time so that if it is not closed a new Notice of Intention will not have to be sent. Councilmember Davis asked if the improvements would be made regardless of the closure of that portion of Foothill Drive, to which Mr. Johnston replied yes, however if the street is closed there are some properties which will not receive an assessment whereas if it is left open they would. Councilmember Parker stated that there were some typographical errors on the informational sheet. Mr. Johnston that the actual Notice of Intention has been corrected. Councilmember Mabey asked if there was any reason why this SID needed to go to committee to which Mr. Johnston replied no.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Resolution 18 of 1982, creating Salt Lake City, Utah Curb & Gutter Extension No. 38-700, which motion carried all members voting aye.
Q 82-12
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M.