PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS PALMER DEPAULIS EDWARD W. PARKER.
Council Vice Chairman Ronald J. Whitehead conducted the meeting.
CONSENT AND POLICY
The Council received a briefing on the status of legislative intents for Fiscal Year 1981-82 from Albert Haines. The Council agreed to hear a report on the reorganization of the Fire Department from Chief Pete Pederson on Thursday, February 4, 1982.
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, JANUARY 12, 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 PALMER DEPAULIS EDWARD W. PARKER.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck was absent from this meeting.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Vice Chairman Ronald J. Whitehead presided at and conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Dick Talbot.
Pledge of Allegiance.
From City Council:
Councilmember Parker 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 5, 1982, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
OTHER CITY BUSINESS
FROM FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond Application: Mime Truck Lines, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider the approval of an Inducement Resolution for Industrial Revenue Bonds for Milne Truck Lines, Inc. in the amount of $1,725,000 subject to the following conditions: That the City Attorney approve the resolution as to form; that the application meet all necessary financial requirements of the City; that Milne Truck Lines, Inc. pay the established non-refundable fee for processing.
DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to acquire 150 28-foot trailers and related equipment to be domiciled exclusively in Salt Lake City. Mike Easton, Treasurer for Milne Truck Lines, Inc., and Tara Lundgren, Ray Quinney & Nebeker Bond Counsel, addressed the Council. Ms. Lundgren requested the City Council adopt the Inducement Resolution in the amount of $1,725,000 for the acquisition of 150 truck trailers and equipment; the Inducement Resolution meets all State and Federal requirements. Councilmember Shearer asked if the trucks would be purchased locally to which Mr. Easton replied that they would be purchased from a Salt Lake firm. Councilmember Davis asked if this was a United States firm; to which Mr. Easton replied that it was.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Resolution 7 of 1982 for Industrial Revenue Bonds for Milne Truck Lines, Inc. in the amount of $1,725,000, subject to the conditions outlined above, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Q 82-2
FROM PUBLIC UTILITIES
RE: American Water Works Association Landmark Designation for Mt. Dell Dam, Award Presented by Officers of the Intermountain Section of the American Water Works Association.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept award presentation at City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION: The American Water Works Association recognizes official water landmark properties that are at least 50 years old and are landmarks within the community. As part of this program the Intermountain Section of the AWWA sponsored Mt. Dell Dam for inclusion as a National Water Landmark. The structure located 13 miles east of Salt Lake was constructed in 1916 with and addition in 1925 utilizing the patented design of John S. Eastwood and is known as an Eastwood Multiple Arch Dam. The structure provides both flood control and raw water storage of one billion gallons of water for use by the citizens of Salt Lake City. The structure was recognized by the Utah Historical Register in 1980 and is among 79 approved American Water Landmarks throughout the United States, and is the only one designated in the Intermountain West. LeRoy Hooton introduced Cliff Fitzsimmons and Bill Anderton from the American Water Works Association who addressed the Council and outlined the history of the Dam and the events that lead to the presentation of this award. Bill Anderton distributed a copy of AWWA’s Centennial magazine to each Councilmember and presented a plaque to Mayor Wilson; the plaque will be placed at Mt. Dell Dam. Mayor Wilson accepted the plaque on behalf of Salt Lake City and stated that he was honored to receive the award.
L 82-1
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Sugarhouse Urban Development Action Grant.
A public hearing was held before the City Council to discuss the need for an Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) for the Sugarhouse Redevelopment project. Doug Carlson, Office of Budget and Management Planning, addressed the Council regarding the UDAG grant application. He stated that the Office of Budget and Management Planning had been requested by the Mayor’s Office to prepare a UDAG application. He further stated the purpose of this hearing was to discuss the need for an Urban Development Grant. A second hearing will be held to review the draft application; upon approval, the application will be submitted to HUD for their consideration.
Tal Biesinger, Clark Financial Corporation, addressed the Council to discuss their need for the UDAG grant. He stated that the $2 million would assist in constructing an office building in the Sugarhouse area. The grant is in the form of a loan from the city at 8% interest which would amount to $185,000 of profit each year for the City. Mr. Biesinger further stated that hopefully the funds would be re-routed to the Sugarhouse area for needed improvements. He also stated that Clark Financial Corporation is requesting a three year deferral before repayment starts so there can be a rental increase on the project. He further stated that Sugarhouse cannot justify the same rental income as a new project in the downtown area because Sugarhouse is a suburban office market; however, it will cost the same per square foot to build the office building.
He also stated there is a parking deck involved in the project and unlike downtown it would be impossible to charge parking fees in the Sugarhouse area at the present time. The structure is projected to cost $13.9 million; $11.9 million is leveraged, and Clark Financial Corporation is putting in $4.5 million of their own funds; however the project can not proceed without the UDAG funds. Mr. Biesinger introduced a petition signed by many of the businessmen in the Sugarhouse area requesting the Council’s cooperation in helping the Sugarhouse area become rejuvenated. A blight survey has just been completed indicating 80% of the Sugarhouse community can be legally defined as blighted. Councilmember DePaulis asked Mr. Biesinger to explain “vacancy during rental”, to which Mr. Biesinqer answered that it will take approximately one year to obtain full lease on the project. They have some funds that are set aside to protect against a short fall to carry the mortgage for that period of time. He also stated they were 35-50% preleased at this time; during construction they hope to increase that to 75%. Councilmember Shearer asked what would happen to the money in the event they have success in leasing. He stated they wanted to subtract that amount from the $4.5 million they are investing in the project.
Councilmember Parker asked if the parking deck would be for employees working in the building or if some of it would be set aside for public parking. Mr. Biesinger replied that the parking would he provided for the employees of the building. Mr. Biesinger presented a resolution from the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce endorsing the use of UDAG funds in the Sugarhouse area as well as industrial revenue bonds, Community Development Block Grant funds, and tax increment financing. Councilmember Davis asked if this project would infringe on any other property in the area with the exception of two medical doctors. He stated that it did not affect any other property and that it would probably increase the value of the surrounding properties.
The Sugarhouse Community Council has been involved in hearings pertaining to this project and the rejuvenation of Sugarhouse. They have prepared an overall master plan strategy which has been provided to Planning and Zoning. Mr. Biesinger stated he felt this was the first step to achieving those goals. Mayor Wilson added his endorsement to the project stating it is an anchor to begin the revitalization of the Sugarhouse area. Councilmember Parker added there would be a meeting at Highland High School on January 13, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss the improvement district for the area.
Helen Hansen addressed the Council regarding the project and stated that she had spoken with Mike Chitwood, Redevelopment Agency, regarding the Sugarhouse Redevelopment project. He had stated that the issue to be presented to the Council was an application from Clark Financial Corporation for UDAG funds to assist in constructing their project. She felt this issue could be mistaken for a Redevelopment project and hearing for the development of the Sugarhouse area in general; she was not aware that it was a hearing to discuss the application for UDAG funds for Clark Financial Corporation.
Doug Carlson explained that the Sugarhouse Redevelopment Project was a title derived for this project by his office and stated that the title could be changed. He felt the title was a good one because this project is a good way to start the redevelopment process of the area; it is not necessary to establish a redevelopment area for this project. Ms. Hansen also asked if this would in any way declare this area a redevelopment area; Mr. Carlson stated that it would not. Councilmember DePaulis asked it was possible to change the title of the project since it had already been published the way it was. Mr. Carlson replied that he could change the name of the project and republish with a different title. John Keele addressed the Council and stated that he was in favor of the development of Sugarhouse but he objects to using UDAG funds to destroy good substantial housing. He does not object to using the funds to make improvements in the area, but he feels housing is being hurt by this type of development; especially housing for the elderly. He feels that monies should be used to improve the residential areas of Sugarhouse and that more areas be left residential. He asked what percentage of the area designated as blighted is residential. Mr. Biesinger outlined the boundaries.
Rawlins Young, Sugarhouse Council, stated that there was some concern on the part of the Sugarhouse Council about using City property for projects of this nature. He further stated that about 5 1/2 acres of the old Sugarhouse park, included in their Master Plan Document, should he maintained by the City and beautified. He stated Mr. Biesinger is requesting 1 1/2 acres of this land and expressed some concern about the future use of this land especially as it is utilized as Parley’s Creek. The Sugarhouse Council also recommended that all the creeks in the area be maintained for public use. Norma Stevens, owner of Penthouse Fasions across from the proposed building, addressed the Council and asked if the Clark Financial Corporation could apply for a UDAG grant even though they do not own the property.
Doug Carlson replied that his office wanted to see options on the property before money is disbursed, but they can apply for the grant. Ms. Stevens also stated that no one on Wilmington who would be affected by the plan was asked to sign a petition. Councilmember Davis asked if she objected to the building and Ms. Stevens replied that the only objection she would have is if anyone was displaced because of it. Ms. Davis replied that Clark Financial does not have that power. Finally Ms. Stevens asked about the grade of the road and Mr. Biesinger replied that they hope to eventually take the grade from 20% to an 8% grade.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye. A second public hearing on this matter is scheduled for January 19, 1982 at 7:00 p.m.
T 82-2
City Register of Cultural Resources
A public hearing was held before the City Council to consider a recommendation by the Historical Landmark Committee and Planning Commission to have the following buildings designated to the City Register of Cultural Resources as landmark sites: Carl M. Neuhausen House, 1265 East 100 South; Neils C. Christensen House, 375 North Quince Street. Linda Ediken addressed the Council stating that the request to add these two homes to the City Register was initiated by the owners. She also stated that the Landmarks Committee and Planning Commission have reviewed the procedures necessary for placement and recommends that these two homes be added to the Register. Ms. Ediken then gave a slide presentation illustrating the architectural design of each home. She explained that the Neuhausen home was built in 1901 and that Mr. Neuhausen not only designed this home but other noted structures such as the Cathedral of the Madeleine and the Orpheum Theatre, which is now the Promised Valley Playhouse. The Neils C. Christensen home was built in 1887. This structure is a unique example of the Victorian eclectic style typical of the early working class families in the Valley.
Councilmember Parker asked what the advantages were to the homes and the owners of being placed on the Register. Ms. Ediken replied that the buildings come under the jurisdiction of the Landmarks Committee which is responsible for design review so that the character and the significance of the buildings is not altered; they are also eligible for the revolving loan program; there is also a conditional use provision in the ordinance which applies to historic buildings.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to place the Carl M. Neuhausen and Neils C. Christensen homes on the City Register of Cultural Resources as landmark sites, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
L 82-3
Petition 602 of 1981 submitted by Alexander M. Henricks III
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council to consider Petition 602 of 1981 submitted by Sylvia and Alexander M. Henricks III requesting that an alley between Ramona and Hollywood Avenues and between 14th and 15th East Streets he vacated. Mark Hafey, Planning and Zoning, outlined on a map the area to he vacated. He also stated that not 100% of the abutting property owners were in agreement with the vacation. Mr. Hafey further stated the Planning Commission recommendation was to hold the public hearing and vacate the entire alley; those people who need the alley to gain access to their property could get together and deal with it as a right of way and have it become a private driveway.
Councilmember Davis asked if the alley would be divided equally once it is vacated. Mr. Hafey stated that the City would quit claim half of the alley to the abutting owners; the owners would then be required to pay property tax on their portion. Ms. Davis then asked if the property owners would have to pay for the property to which Mr. Cutler stated that there is no compensation except for the acquisition and filing of a quit claim deed. Because they felt it posed fire hazards, security problems, and was used as a dumping ground by juveniles and some homeowners, the following citizens were in favor of vacating the alley: Alexander Henricks, Carl Oswald, Vern Rasmussen, Jack Berkstead, Jenette Gifford, and Bruce Beers. The following citizens were against vacating the alley because they use the alley to gain access to their driveways and garages, off street parking, and to haul debris from their property: Carol Thomas, Clyde Nelson, Carl Paulsen, and Warren McAllister. Rawlins Young, Sugarhouse Council, recommended that the 28 homeowners affected be contacted and a consensus be reached. Councilmember Davis stated that if the alley was vacated the property owners on the corners would have access to their property.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye. Councilmember Parker asked Councilmember Mabey if the Public Works Committee has established a policy with regard to this type of closure or vacation of alleys to which Councilmember Mabey replied they have established a policy to vacate those alleys that no longer are in use or necessary.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer to the Land Use Committee Petition 602 of 1981 requesting the vacation of an alley between Ramona and Hollywood Avenues and between 14th and 15th East Streets, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
P 82-3
Petition 319 of 1981 submitted by Foothill-Sunnyside Neighborhood Council.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council to consider Petition 319 of 1981 submitted by Foothill-Sunnyside Neighborhood Council requesting the closure of that portion of Foothill Drive between 900 South and Hubbard Avenue and requesting to have a Special Improvement District developed to construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along the entire length of Foothill Drive, and the jog which would be created by the closure of Foothill Drive between 900 South and Hubbard Avenue, from 2100 East to Sunnyside.
Craig Peterson, Director of Development Services, addressed the Council. He stated there was an error in publication of the hearing; the agenda was published by the Salt Lake Tribune with the correct information, therefore he stated that it was appropriate to proceed with the public hearing and take comments from citizens but the Council should wait until February 9, 1982 to make a decision.
Mark Hafey, Planning and Zoning, outlined the area on a map and stated that the Planning Commission recommended not to close Foothill Drive between 900 South and Hubbard Avenue, but to narrow the road to a 40-foot width and plant trees on both sides of the street. Curb and gutter would be installed with provisions for adequate storm drainage. Appropriate traffic signs would be installed, and other special improvements would be created to include additional planting of foliage and the extension of sprinkler systems. Street parking would be parallel except in the vicinity of churches. Richard Johnston, Deputy City Engineer, stated that funds have been budgeted for the 1981-82 Capital Improvement Program for improvements on Foothill Drive. The cost of the project is estimated at $300,000; the abutters’ portion would be $100,000, the rates have been estimated to range from $16.50 to $37.70 a front foot based on existing curb and gutter. Construction is scheduled to begin in July with completion by October 1, 1982. If there are any delays, the project will not be completed until 1983. Jan Green, Foothill-Sunnyside Council, addressed the City Council. She stated that the Sunnyside Council was elected in 1980 to specifically find an alternative to a plan initiated by the City to make Foothill Drive a 52-foot right of way along with installing curb and gutter.
The impetus of this action was an awareness by the City of the serious deterioration of the road bed, the very inadequate drainage causing flooding and pooling of water, and the resulting loss of gravel that continues to wash into the road. The Council has attempted to incorporate the concerns and criteria of the neighborhood into a viable plan that would also accommodate the needs of the City. The mandate was to return Foothill Drive to the status of a neighborhood road. Foothill Drive presently has no visual barriers and is 100-feet wide at one point. Commuters approaching the intersection of Foothill Drive and Sunnyside Avenue, use Foothill Drive to avoid traffic and in so doing speed down the street. The neighborhood’s concern is that a high speed right-of-way creates hazardous conditions for the approximately 50 school children who must cross the street to gain access to schools.
There is also concern that if the triangular area were boarded on all three sides by high-speed roads it would become physically removed from the neighborhood in which it is a part. Concern was expressed that this would create a transitional neighborhood with eventual increase in rental properties and alterations in zoning to accommodate the rapid development in the Research Park and Emigration Canyon areas. The Council reviewed several proposals, the first was to narrow Foothill Drive to 36-40 feet keeping it straight and installing curb and gutter. Problems with this plan are that it will not diminish the visual straight-shot access that now exists; nor will it deal with the large parcels of land on each side which will be owned by the City.
As long as Foothill Drive is straight it will encourage a great deal of commuter traffic and, according to a radar station which has been in effect since September, mast of the commuters are speeding through the neighborhood. This petition accommodates the concern of the neighborhood as well as conforms to the needs of the City. Ms. Green stated that the Neighborhood Council proposes that Foothill Drive be narrowed to 36-feet for its entire length and that curb and gutter be constructed for its entire length and that the entire portion of Foothill Drive between Hubbard Avenue and 900 South be vacated. The Council is also requesting that stop signs be placed at various locations in that area. Ms. Green summarized by saying that the purpose of this request is to return Foothill Drive to its function as a neighborhood street and to eliminate the visual straight-shot access as well as physically bringing the triangle into the lower neighborhood. She further stated that this plan will not impact other neighborhood roads, but will encourage commuters to use designated commuter arteries. Robert Sloan, member of the Neighborhood Council, addressed the City Council and outlined the history of a small parcel of land adjacent to the road in the area for proposed closure. He stated that until 1976, the piece of land was an eyesore until a local citizen cleared the ground, installed a sprinkling system and maintained the area.
After the citizen moved, there was no maintenance to the ground except for watering which as been done by another citizen. Mr. Sloan stated that this parcel of ground was unusable and if the street were just narrowed there would be a bigger parcel of unusable land. He further stated that by closing the area there would be enough land to accomplish a viable project. James Byrne, a member of the Council, addressed the City Council stating that he was in favor of closure for the reasons already mentioned and also because a vast majority of the traffic comes from the south end of the Valley and carpooling should be encouraged. If neighborhoods are turned into commuter thoroughfares, they will deteriorate.
The following citizens spoke in favor of the closure of that portion of Foothill Drive between 900 South and Hubbard Avenue for the reasons as outlined by the previous speakers: John Moray, Dr. Swineyard, Marilyn Rasmussen, Boyd Vogler, Theodore Jacobsen, Steve Whipple, G.G. Brandt, Dorice Elliott, Tom Ellison, Kathryn Anderson, Roger Weaver, Rob Reece, Jerry Brown, Bruce Jensen. Henry Nygaard addressed the Council as spokesman for many of the individuals in the neighborhood who are opposed to the closure. He stated that they endorse the recommendation that was prepared and accepted by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission.
At a hearing held before that body it was pointed out that if the street was narrowed, curb, gutter and sidewalk installed, shrubs and trees planted, and appropriate guard walks and signing, that would result in lighter traffic going through that particular area. He felt that those opposing the closing were over-reacting to problems that will never come to pass. He stated that they were shifting the burden from an orderly street by creating a jog, which would create severe problems.
With the engineering that is being proposed the problems that the Neighborhood Council are raising will not be in existence. The question of safety for children has been raised before; if the basis for protecting children is to block roads, an improper precedent is being established because there are many other streets within Salt Lake City that have heavier traffic. He stated that he felt the solution has been resolved by the Planning Commission. He suggested several areas that the Council should consider, they are: All of the utility lines are in the roadways; should the utility lines be covered with a park or should the traditional systems be followed of having utility lines near the curb and gutter; will the park within the triangle become a Special Improvement District at a cost to taxpayers to maintain the park or will it become a larger junkyard. He stated that the plan that has been approved and recommended by the Planning Commission is consistent with the policy of the County and City in maintaining roads that are easily maintained, safely traveled, and are maintained for the benefit of the children who cross. He suggested that the schools involved place guards at the various crosswalks to assist the children.
The real danger is the width of the street. He suggested a problem with closing the road would be the number of cars that travel Wasatch Drive toward the University; when there is snow and ice it is critical for safe traffic that there be some way of egress and ingress up the hill. There may occasionally be more traffic on Foothill Drive, but when hazardous situations exist it may be worth having Foothill Drive open as a means of re-routing traffic throughout the area.
He summarized by stating that there were a number of individuals who live within the area designated for the jog who do not want to have their peaceful neighborhood disrupted, but they have been made the scapegoat for those who want to have a better road for their own purpose. He stated that the jog would not solve the problem, but merely shift the burden upon other people living east of Foothill Drive. He also stated that he mailed to each of the Council Members a presentation prepared by those in opposition that outlines their position and asked that they refer to the material again to get a better picture of what their feelings are.
Cherry Ridges, Vie Wood, and A. J. Ray addressed the Council and reiterated the points made in the position outlined above. Councilmember Davis stated that she has requested the drainage problem on the street be improved by making a ditch across the road, she further stated that gravel was placed in the area of “Jackson Lake”, but that it has not alleviated the problem. John Delaney addressed the Council and stated that the proposed closure fails to do equity to the neighborhood. He stated that 900 South would then become what Foothill is today, and that installing regulatory signs will not control the traffic. He proposed an alternate plan to close Foothill Drive between Sunnyside Avenue and 900 South or to barricade the streets of 900 South, Hubbard and Michigan.
Warren Pettin, Vice President of Zion Lutheran Church, addressed the Council and stated that their property runs about 600-700 feet along Foothill Drive and was improved about 17 years ago. He further stated that whatever plan is ultimately adopted he does not feel they should be assessed for improvements. He also requested that angle parking not be placed on the side of the street where the church is located, and that access to the church not be interrupted. Tim Harpst, Assistant Traffic Engineer, addressed the Council stating his office has been working with the Community Council for approximately two years, and support the petition and feel they can make improvements in the traffic flow. The narrowing of the street and the jog in the roadway will reduce the traffic volume that is now on Foothill Drive and bring it to a point where it will act as a neighborhood street. He also stated that the other arterial streets will be able to handle any increase in traffic.
Tom Ellison, Planning Commission, addressed the Council and stated that he was against the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He stated the Commission met four times and votes were taken. On one of those occasions a staff report was provided that he felt the Commission did not have adequate time to read before the vote was taken. Mr. Ellison stated he did not feel the Planning Commission’s recommendation is a strong one, but that the majority of the Commission is concerned about preserving the neighborhood.
John Boyden commented that after the decision has been made the property owners in that area will still have to live together as neighbors. David Whitten addressed the Council and stated that the over-riding concern is safety for children. He asked if road closure was the only means for children to walk in the area safely. He then stated that he felt narrowing the street, constructing dips and installing flashing lights would have the same effect as closure. He further stated parents have a responsibility to teach their children some traffic safety.
Mayor Wilson commented that there are always advantages and disadvantages to every issue. He felt we need to refocus on the fact that if that street weren’t there, there would still be adequate means of travel. He added his support to regaining the neighborhood and keeping that street from being a continual hazard. He summarized by stating that he would like to add his support to some sort of final solution, such as the one that has been presented. Craig Peterson clarified for the Council that if they follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation it would not constitute a narrowing of the pavement; there would be an increase in the size of the pavement.
The Department of Public Works and the Department of Development Services disagree strongly with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. They recommend that the City Council give serious consideration the closure of the road subject to the condition that a Special Improvement District he approved.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
P 82-2
Central Parking and Improvement District
A public hearing was held before the City Council to consider an ordinance creating the Central Parking and Business Improvement District. The boundaries of proposed said district are as follows: The north side of South Temple Street, south to the south side of 4th South Street, and from the east side of State Street, west to the west side of West Temple Street. Jess Agraz addressed the Council regarding the creation of a Central Parking and Business Improvement District. The original intent of the Downtown Business Improvement District was to address an imbalance that was created on 300 South when the Cross Roads and Z.C.M.I. Malls were constructed; this caused some problems for the merchants on 300 South.
Mr. Agraz stated that when he was a City Commissioner a series of meetings were held with the Chamber of Commerce and a seven-point plan was developed for improving conditions downtown. He stated this plan was felt to be the best mechanism to improve the downtown area and utilize the dollars already invested in the area. Additional objectives include create and maintain an atmosphere attractive to all businesses, gain and maintain attention of consumers and facilitate access to the downtown area. Mr. Agraz further stated that they were trying to create a unified approach; it was felt that a unified approach equitably shares financial investment among all beneficiaries, creates a professional approach to promotion, and instills pride and vitality. It also promotes healthy downtown economy and it directly benefits the entire Salt Lake City community in terms of a tax base.
Mr. Agraz outlined the boundaries of the district and explained the District included all the businesses across the street from the interior of the district; there are approximately 1226 businesses within the boundaries. He further explained that a nine member board was appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council. Those members of the hoard represent a cross section of the community. Mr. Agraz stated that the business license surtax was considered to be the most equitable means of funding because all businesses would contribute according to their size and all businesses pay according to their ability to pay and ability to benefit.
He stated the budget for the first year and for subsequent years of operating expenses for a part-time person operating out of the Chamber offices was about $10,000. Research would be conducted to find out why people were not utilizing the downtown area. After the data is analyzed a promotional agency would be employed for theme development of a slogan or logo to attract more people into the area. Mr. Agraz explained that Christmas decorations were one of the bigger items included in the budget.
Because they benefit the entire downtown area by bringing more people to the area and increasing the sales tax revenues, the Board felt they were a necessity. He further stated that Christmas decorations put the downtown area into a Christmas spirit and can even be expanded to other areas such as West Temple. Mr. Agraz stated that the Chamber of Commerce Downtown Improvement Committee, the Chamber Board of Governors, Downtown Retail Merchants, Salt Lake Jaycees and Salt Lake Council for the Arts support the concept and the proposal. Fred Ball addressed the Council and stated they were concerned about the vacant store fronts. He also stated that people within the business district should help fund the promotion; promotion monies help attract the right kind of commercial businesses.
W. Kerm Hamilton read a resolution from the Board of Directors of the Downtown Retail Merchants’ Association stating that they voted to endorse the concept of the Downtown Business Improvement District and the increase in the business license fee to be levied upon businesses within the stated boundaries. Randy Heisen, Salt Lake Jaycees, distributed a resolution supporting the Downtown Improvement District. He also spoke regarding the lighting of downtown during Christmas and the Christmas decorations. He stated that $1000 had been contributed from approximately 20 businessmen, but he estimated $9000 was needed to light the streets. He commented more taxes could be generated through people coming to the downtown area to view the lights.
Bill Seifrit, Executive Director of the Council of the Arts, pledged support from the Arts Council and stated they would place renewed interest in revitalizing the downtown business district. Alma Allred, Beehive Parking, stated that he was concerned about the language in the proposal promoting free parking. Mayor Wilson stated that he was concerned that the emphasis be placed on the total downtown area and not just the retail merchants. He thought it was a well chosen proposal to entice people to visit the downtown area. Councilmember Mabey asked if they had ever conducted a survey of the businesses in favor of this proposal, to which Mr. Agraz replied that they had not but notices were sent to every business to advise them that there was a public hearing.
Councilmember Mabey then asked if any percentage of the monies would be put into the maintenance because of the type of sidewalks we currently have. Mr. Agraz replied that none of the monies would be used for maintenance. He further stated that they don’t want to go above and beyond the efforts now being performed. Mr. Agraz replied that none of the monies would be used for maintenance. He further stated that they don’t want to go above and beyond the efforts now being performed. The Mayor stated that the Council has already raised the maintenance money for the downtown area, recognizing that they did not want the Special Improvement District to be a vehicle to take away the City’s responsibilities.
Councilmember Mabey stated that he would not vote for the ordinance unless it was rewritten and the language dealing with parking was taken out. Councilmember Shearer stated that she felt that amendments should be made to the ordinance with reference to the open-meetings law and the size of the Board, stating that the Board should consist of an odd number of members. Ms. Shearer read from the proposed ordinance, “all actions taken by the Board shall constitute recommendations to the Mayor and that the Mayor shall have the power to review, ratify, modify, or veto any action submitted by the Board or refer the matter to the Council, if appropriate”. She then asked what was meant by the term “if appropriate”. Mayor Wilson commented anything would be appropriate that would apply to the Council’s rightful powers of government, which would include funding or anything else under the executive branch. He stated he did not feel it meant he was the last word on the Board’s actions.
Councilmember Shearer asked about another section of the proposed ordinance specifically, “the Board will, with the Mayor, review not less often than annually, the income from all sources, the expenditures for all purposes, and the relationship of anticipated revenue to anticipated expenditures and felt that there may he some problem with taxation without representation”. Mayor Wilson replied that he had no problem with any changes that would honor the legal responsibilities of the Council. Roger Cutler also stated that the proposal they were dealing with was for a downtown improvement district that has enabling power and rights that are set out by State Statute which authorizes this Board to set up and perform certain budget functions for their own budget. He further stated that the Mayor was included in the process to have political accountability.
Mr. Cutler further stated if the Council contemplates having the budget being set by the Council and an annual appropriation being different from that which is proposed in the ordinance then the matter should be further discussed. Mr. Agraz read from the State Statute, “the district shall be governed by the general laws relating to such matters applicable to the County or Municipality which established the district, but at all times these funds and expenditures from these funds shall be separately accounted for and utilized only for district purposes.”
He further read “that a district adopted under this section, shall be adopted and administered in the same manner as the budget for general purposes of the County or Municipality.” Councilmember Davis asked what assurance the Council had that 51% of the people involved were in favor. Mr. Agraz stated that 51% must submit a protest within 15 days after action has been taken. Councilmember Parker asked that if this proposal is approved by the Council would Mr. Agraz feel that it would have any practical carry-over to other communities that display Christmas decorations, to which Mr. Agraz yes.
Bill Lapsley stated that he was concerned that the Special Improvement District not be a vehicle to turn land into free parking. The free parking may be developed for promotional purposes. Councilmember DePaulis commented that there would be a certain amount of benefit for non-retail business.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to the close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the creation of a Central Parking and Business Improvement District subject to ratification upon revisions made in the ordinance, which motion carried, all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who voted nay.
T 82-8
Petition 186 of 1981 submitted by Union Pacific Railroad
A public hearing was held before the City Council to invite public comment concerning the request by Union Pacific Railroad for the granting of a franchise by Salt Lake City Corporation to said Railroad for the purpose of constructing new trackage in the area of South Temple and 600 and 700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, to facilitate train movement in the train yard area. Steve Goodsell, Union Pacific, outlined the area on a map the proposed site of the new trackage. He stated that the trackage would be beneficial to Union Pacific and Salt Lake City because it will expedite the flow of rail traffic, thus cutting delays to pedestrians and motorists.
Mr. Goodsell further stated that when the speed of the trains is slow children try to catch rides or cross between cars. He stated that Union Pacific and Western Pacific agree to erect predictor signals at 900 West; these signals will be activated based upon the speed of the trains thus improving the traffic flow. Mr. Goodsell stated that they plan to move the “cross-over” of the Union Pacific and Western Pacific traffic west to Orange Street. Councilmember Whitehead asked if any switching of trains would be involved, to which Bob Irion stated that the only switching would occur in the train yard.
B.T. Price addressed the Council and stated that he was a business owner and stated that he felt he would be put out of business if this petition was approved. He further stated that trains in the area already posed a problem to emergency vehicles by delaying traffic. Mike Stewart also addressed the Council and stated that additional trackage would create damage and hardship to people in the area and that he was not in favor of the City “giving away” streets and alleys. He also reiterated the fact that paramedics, fire trucks, and police cars have been stopped by trains which impairs the well being of citizens.
John Russell, attorney representing Mr. Price and Mr. Stewart, stated that it didn’t appear that the matter had been studied. He is not aware of any reports from either Police and Fire Departments on this issue and feels that an impact study should he submitted to the Council before a decision is made. He further commented that the City has no duty to grant this request. Councilmember Shearer asked where the proposed trackage would be in relation to the Union Pacific Depot. Mr. Goodsell stated it would be placed two blocks behind the depot. Councilmember Mabey expressed his concerns by stating that presently that north-south travel in that area is difficult and a study has not been made with the new impact. He further stated that he was concerned about trains passing the school on 900 South at times when children are present. Steve Goodsell stated that Union Pacific did not want to construct new double trackage hut maximize the double trackage that is already existing to make the system more effective.
Mayor Wilson asked if the placement of new trackage would involve more trains, to which Mr. Goodsell replied that it would not, because the number of trains would increase anyway and without the new trackage the area would be more congested. Rick Johnston stated that Norman Barnett, City Traffic Engineer, made a study and recommended that it would improve the rail traffic issue. The possibility of constructing a viaduct at 900 West has been studied, but presently data indicates there is no justification warrant construction.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer this issue to the Public Works Committee, which motion carried, all members present voting aye. Councilmember Whitehead stated that this issue will be scheduled for action on Tuesday, February 2, 1982.
P 82-4
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.