PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items relating to the agenda. Albert Haines introduced Cheryl Cook to the City Council. Ms. Cook has been recommended to the Council for appointment as City Treasurer. Larry Livingston briefed the Council on items relating to the rezoning request of Franklin Financial Corporation in the area of the Kimball Apartments and items relating to the Goates petition for Alta Street closure.
Councilmember Grant Mabey briefed the Council on the status of developing a process for vacating city alleys. Richard Nordlund and Howard Marsh briefed the Council on items relating to changes in the Triad Project and requested the Council to waive requirements of holding a public hearing to make changes in the project. The item will be placed on the Committee of the Whole agenda for July 22.
The policy session adjourned at 5:59 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1982, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember lone Davis conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Bob Johnson.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, July 13, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 82-2)
PETITIONS
Petition 624 of 1979 submitted by Claudia T. Goates.
RE: A request to close a portion of Alta Street north of Fairfax Road, but reserving to the city a six-foot way for access to the north.
DISCUSSION: In 1980, the Council concurred with the Mayor’s recommendation conceptually favoring making a portion of Alta Street available to the petitioner for enlarging their abutting Lot 1 of the new Federal Heights Subdivision. Closure in lieu of vacation was approved subject to the conditions: (1) that the purchase price be $3,700; (2) easements for existing utilities be reserved, and the expense of any rerouting or adjustment be borne by petitioner; and (3) before any existing public street improvements are removed or altered, the petitioners would be responsible to design and construct modified curb, gutter and street/sidewalk improvements to connect the east side of Alta Street to the north side of Fairfax Road to connect the surface drainage system according to specifications of the City Engineer. Because of a trade of land with the school board north of Alta Street, all action on the matter was deferred to determine need for access to the site.
It is understood that the Council desires to proceed under the same conditions with an additional requirement that the city preserve a six-foot wide public way along the northwest edge of the lot in issue, provided the Goates agree to extend the public way on to their Lot 1 to provide access to the north. The Attorney’s Office has been informed that the Goates are agreeable to this. To implement Council action requires the first step of closure and secondly transfer agreements. The latter is where details of the transfer will be completed. The closure ordinance for the first step has been prepared. To prepare the transfer agreements, the Attorney’s Office needs further instructions as to whether the Council prefers to retain title to the six-foot way or whether the Council prefers to retain an easement.
The transfer agreement should also address the issues of maintenance, fencing, landscaping, etc., and the allocations between the city and the Goates. Larry Livingston, Council Legislative Analyst, addressed the Council and stated that the ordinance is subject to the sale of the property at fair market value. The appraisals are dated and, therefore, it would probably be appropriate to recommend to the Mayor that the property management division reconsider these appraisals. Mr. Livingston stated that the easement could be handled in one of two ways: the city could either retain title to the six feet of property or an easement could be granted to the city from the purchasers; this detail can be taken care of when the transfer documents are made. Mr. Livingston stated that the ordinance is in order as written. Councilmember Davis stated that she understood there would be quite a difference between appraising the property (the property to be closed) as a lot and appraising it as a street. Councilmember Shearer stated that since this would be used as a lot and not as a street it would seem appropriate to appraise it as such.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Ordinance 54 of 1982, effectuating closure of Alta Street north of Fairfax Road with reservation of the 6-foot way, and also recommend that the appraisal be updated to reflect current value of property as a building lot, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-197)
Petition 308 of 1981 submitted by Colleen B. Hardwick, et al.
RE: The petitioner desires curb and gutter repairs on Harvard Avenue from State Street to 200 East. It is the contention of the petitioner that damage occurred to the curb and gutter in the area as a result of work performed by Mountain Fuel Supply Company and the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. The Department of Public Utilities and Mountain Fuel Supply deny any responsibility for the damages. Several proposals were offered to address this problem. One would be for the city to assume the total cost for the repair of damages on Harvard Avenue. The second proposal is that a 50/50 participation proposal be offered to the residents. In either event, an immediate solution will require an emergency appropriation by the Council to cover the expense of the repairs.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that the city engineers should check the street to establish the level of repair needed and determine if the entire curb and gutter needs to be replaced or just portions. Rick Johnston, Deputy City Engineer, stated that the department would explore the most cost effective way to correct the situation.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve Petition 308 of 1981 and provide funding from the CDBG funding source (8th year slippage), also the city engineers need to examine the street to determine the level of repair needed and how the repairs can be accomplished in the most cost effective way, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-139)
Petition 4 of 1982 submitted by State of Utah Department of Natural Resources.
RE: Requesting the vacation of Gertie and Irving Streets.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council deny Petition 4 of 1982. It is recommended that the alley be closed - not vacated, and sold to the abutting property owners at fair market value. However, the alley should not be closed without a commitment from the petitioners to purchase the land. The drainage problem should then be corrected.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The property has been appraised by Edward P. Westra at approximately $162,342.
DISCUSSION: The petition has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, Public Utilities, Fire, Engineering, Transportation, Fixed Assets, and the City Attorney’s Office. They have recommended that this public property is not needed as a street, and closure and sale may be appropriate subject to the following conditions: 1) standard utility easements be retained, and 2) that the petitioner execute the standard form agreement entitled Waiver of Installation of Public Way Improvements. It is the staff’s position that the drainage problem, which began occurring after the Natural Resources building was constructed, is the state’s responsibility and they are held liable for any damages caused by the drainage problem. The state has declined to accept such responsibility and has failed to take action to solve the problem.
If the petitioners decline to purchase the property, the city has two options: 1. Give the state formal notice to resolve the drainage problem or the city will bring suit for injunctive relief. 2. If the Council believes the drainage threatens to create a public nuisance, give the state formal notice to resolve the problem, or after a fixed period, the city will resolve the problem (estimated cost $2,000 - $10,000) and bring suit against the state for reimbursement. Mark Hafey, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the Council and outlined the area on a map. He stated that Gertie Avenue is a 66-foot wide right of way which runs east from Redwood Road; Irving Street runs north from North Temple and intersects Gertie.
The streets were subdivided several years ago but were never constructed. Both property owners involved have signed the petition requesting that the streets be vacated. The Planning Commission heard this petition and recommended approval of closure. The petitioners wanted the streets vacated because the streets were never constructed and access from these streets to the existing structures is not needed. There is a drainage problem that has developed since construction and it appears the only way this problem can be solved would be to construct the streets, which the owners do not need, or vacate the streets and let the necessary modifications be made.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that during nine months of the year there is standing water in this area and in some places it gets three feet deep. Children in the area play in this water and it is a dangerous situation. Mr. Whitehead stated that there were a number of ways to solve this problem. He indicated that if the city repairs the damage the cost will be $2,000 to $10,000. He suggested that perhaps one solution is for the state to beautify the area by building a park or a place for employees but place a restrictive covenant on the property so that if it is not used in this manner the property would revert back to the city. Claudia Dissel, Department of Natural Resources and Energy, addressed the Council and distributed pictures showing the flooded condition of the area. She stated that in 1977, the state received a section of Gertie Avenue, by vacation, for the purpose of constructing the present building. With this precedent, the department is asking for the vacation of the 66-foot wide strip of property which forms an “L” from North Temple to Redwood Road. If this property is vacated, the state will work with the private owner to install the necessary drainage. Ms. Dissel indicated that the state has discussed maintenance of the property with the Craig family and the conclusions have been that the area would be maintained by planting grass seed and installing a catch basin or some compromise of this plan would be worked out with the Craig family.
Ms. Dissel stated that the water problem has been ongoing for several years and it is the opinion of the state that this problem is caused by natural precipitation and not the fault of the state. Ms. Dissel indicated that the state would not want to purchase the property because there is no intention of expanding in that direction. If the property is vacated, it would be maintained. Roger Cutler stated that if the property is vacated, by statute, the property will automatically go to the abutting property owners. If the sStreet is closed, then title can be transferred for whatever consideration or restrictive covenants the Council would choose.
Ron Carlson, representing the Craig family, addressed the Council and stated that the best way to solve the problem would be to vacate the streets. He stated that there had been concerns about the value of the land; he checked the appraisal, which is in the fixed asset office, and it indicates the value to be $54,000 - the would-be value was multiplied out to get the higher figure. If the city owned the property outright, if there were no easements, and if the property were wide enough to have any value and there was redevelopment pressure then the property would have greater value.
Mr. Carlson stated that this situation was caused by neglect of the property. He stated that he wanted a chance to negotiate with the city and talk with a representative about vacating the street. He indicated that the two options would be to either vacate the property or have the city assume its responsibility and maintain the area. Mr. Cutler reiterated that in order to keep restrictions on the property the streets would have to be closed and then transfer title with a restrictive covenant; if the property is vacated, title would automatically go to each abutting property owner.
Councilmember Whitehead asked Mr. Cutler if the Council could state in their motion that the lawsuit against the city would be dropped. Mr. Cutler suggested that any lawsuits be dismissed with prejudice and that appropriate releases, as approved by the Attorney’s Office, be signed on the condition of the city vacating the street. If this is the Council’s intent it should be part of the motion. Mr. Cutler stated that he understood Mr. Carlson to be saying that the city would be held harmless and any claim would be released. Mr. Cutler stated that a motion of this type is not without precedent; a similar situation occurred with Smith Food King. He also stated that the Council has a resolution which was adopted saying that as a matter of principle the Council will close streets and receive fair compensation. As in the Smith Food King case, there are policy questions that the Council will have to weigh, such as is the policy of solving this neighborhood problem worth the potentiality of trying to sell the property, and is there a buyer in the area. Mr. Cutler again stated that by vacating the street, the city would receive no money for the property.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to vacate Gertie and Irving Streets contingent on an appropriate release to be signed to hold the city harmless and any claim released (agreed verbally to by petitioner) to be dismissed with prejudice, also refers to tenant, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-195)
Petition 124 of 1982 submitted by Franklin Financial.
RE: The petitioner is requesting that property at 150 North Main Street be changed from its present “R-5” zoning classification to a “C-1” zoning classification. The petitioner is requesting the zoning change to allow the already converted Kimball Apartments, which is a residential condominium, to be used as a shared ownership condominium. A shared ownership or time-share condominium is viewed as a hotel and not a permitted use in the Residential “R-5” district.
Councilmember Whitehead asked if Franklin Financial and the residents had discussed this situation and reached an agreement that pleases both parties. Ralph Marsh, representing Franklin Financial, addressed the Council and stated that the company had come to the Council committee meeting, held July 15, with a proposed restrictive covenant which would limit the use of the property to essentially what Franklin Financial has proposed and eliminate certain commercial uses. This document has been submitted to the city attorney who has revised some of the recitals and the format of the document. Mr. Marsh stated that he feels essentially this document has been agreed to as a compromise.
Peter Atherton, Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council, addressed the Council. He read a letter from Devon Olson, Kimball neighborhood leader (this letter is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder). The letter indicates that the Neighborhood Council’s concerns have centered on several issues including the encroachment of commercial zoning into the residential area of the neighborhood. It was felt that the proposed zone change severely disrupts the boundary between commercial and residential zones. The issue of an urban timeshare condominium is viewed by the community council as akin to a motel operation and thus commercial in nature and incompatible with a residential zone. While the community council continues to view these issues with great concern, it will accept Franklin Financial’s offer of a restrictive covenant as an assurance against the encroachment of less restrictive commercial uses on the neighborhood and withhold its opposition to the rezoning of this property. Mr. Atherton concluded by stating that the community council appreciates the concern and interest in this issue which has been expressed by the City Council.
Desmond Barker, past chairman of the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council. He stated that the Chamber of Commerce respects the citizens’ concerns in this issue but businesses feel that they are also a part of the community. He stated that there has been an upgrading in the area by the business community and the Franklin project is a means of improving a disastrous circumstance. At the onset of this project, Franklin Financial met with the subcontractors of the original project and told them that if they would work with the company then this project could be constructed so there would be a minimal loss.
This is far more responsible to the area than just leaving the property in a negative circumstance. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Cutler who would enforce the restrictive covenant. Mr. Cutler stated that the restrictive covenant conditions are enforced by the grantee, the person to whom the restrictive covenant is awarded. In this case, Salt Lake City is made the grantee by the owners of the property. The document was restructured to clarify that the city is agreeing to this for $10 and other valuable consideration.
Councilmember Davis also asked Mr. Cutler if because there is not currently a provision for time-shares, the definition of the zoning was being changed by including them. Mr. Cutler stated that he would not view it this way. He stated that the purpose in changing the zoning of this property is to meet the city’s interpretation of the zoning law that a time-share is a commercial use more similar to a hotel. Mr. Cutler felt the developers were not intending to use this as a “block-busting” measure but they intended to limit the use of this property just for their time-share project.
Councilmember DePaulis asked what other property owners in the area would have to do if they wanted the zoning of their property changed. Mr. Cutler stated that they would have to petition for a rezoning. He further stated that the Council’s decision should be based on overall land use planning decisions in the area and not on economic decisions. A zoning decision is a policy decision for the use of land and decisions need to be premised on this foundation.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve Petition 124 of 1982 requesting the property at 150 North Main Street be rezoned from “R-5” to “C-l”, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who voted nay. Councilmember DePaulis stated that he was basing his decision on overall good planning and land use; he felt that this was the best use from a zoning land use proposal. Councilmember Mabey concurred stating that he felt it was the best use at this point. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she thought this was not an appropriate use of land.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to request that an ordinance be drafted and requested covenants be added as necessary and lawful, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-140)
Petition 171 of 1982 submitted by the American Cancer Society.
RE: Allowing the use of surplus school buildings and historical buildings by charitable organizations.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on August 10, 1982 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 171 submitted by the American Cancer Society. The petitioner has submitted a proposed ordinance change allowing surplus school buildings to be utilized by charitable organizations as an office and to allow historical buildings to be utilized by a charitable organization as an office and service center.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The petitioner has paid the $50 advertising fee.
DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission has reviewed this petition and has recommended that the petition be denied. It is the Planning Commission’s opinion that schools are an essential part of residential neighborhoods, but when the need for the school ceases the property should then be used for residential development in an effort to maintain the stability of that neighborhood.
The Planning Commission has directed the planning staff to conduct a study as to the number and location of public buildings such as churches, libraries, fire stations and schools and determine the best possible reuse of these sites. The Planning Commission felt that there is not sufficient information available at this time to make a change in the zoning policy that could be extremely detrimental to the stability of residential neighborhoods. The petitioner is appealing the Planning Commission decision.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for August 10, 1982 to discuss Petition 171 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-202)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: An ordinance amending Article 9 of the Traffic Code relating to prohibiting hazardous extension on the sides of vehicles. The Council pulled this item from the agenda and referred it back to the Public Safety Committee.
(O 82-42)
RE: A resolution authorizing the sale of Industrial Revenue Bonds in the amount of $750,000 for construction of an office and warehouse, equipment and related property improvements located at 1700 South between 2nd and 3rd West for Ralph Hafer and Marjorie Hafer (Six States Distributors).
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 73 of 1982 authorizing the sale of Industrial Revenue Bonds in the amount of $750,000 to finance an industrial development project for Ralph C. Hafer and Marjorie Hafer, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-21)
CITY COUNCIL
RE: Resolution of appreciation for F. David Stanley who has served on the Planning Commission of Salt Lake City since December 12, 1972. Councilmember Davis presented the resolution. Mr. Stanley thanked the Council for their consideration and stated that the real contribution comes from the city staff. He stated that this had been a real experience for him and he hoped that Salt Lake City had been helped by his contribution.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 74 of 1982, expressing appreciation to F. David Stanley, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 82-15)
RE: Expression of appreciation to Shizuko Zupon, Office of Budget and Management Planning. Councilmember Shearer expressed appreciation to Ms. Zupon on behalf of the City Council. She stated that Ms. Zupon is leaving the state and thanked her for her service. Ms. Shearer stated that the Council will miss her expertise. Ms. Zupon thanked the Council and stated that she appreciated having had the opportunity to work in the Office of Budget and Management Planning and with the Council. She stated that she has enjoyed living in Salt Lake City and will miss Salt Lake.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RE: Amendment to the zoning ordinances to allow group homes as a conditional use in all residential districts.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on August 10, 1982 at 6:45 p.m. to discuss amending the zoning ordinances to allow group homes as a conditional use in all residential districts.
DISCUSSION: At the present time group homes are allowed as conditional uses in all residential districts except “R-l” and “R-2” districts. The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposed ordinance and feels that the change will bring the city’s ordinance into conformity with the recently enacted state statute. The Planning Commission has recommended that group homes be allowed as a conditional use in all residential districts and that the “R-1” district not be excluded.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for August 10, 1982 at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this issue, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-44)
RE: Alignment of Indiana Avenue from Redwood Road to the west city limits.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the official map showing the new alignment of Indiana Avenue.
DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission has reviewed the official map and has recommended that it be adopted. The eventual construction of Indiana Avenue as shown on the map will correct serious inadequacies as to width and correct the alignment as it passes under 1-215 and crosses over the surplus canal at right angles into 9th South Street. The adoption of the official map will legally provide for the preservation of the needed right-of-way until the project can be completed.
Councilmember Mabey stated that the committee wanted Rick Johnston to renegotiate with the property owners and determine if they agree with this alignment. If they disagree, then the committee needs to discuss this item further. Mr. Johnston stated that negotiations for property acquisition would be done through the property acquisition office. The only concern left may be with the Nickerson property. Councilmember Mabey indicated that Mr. Nickerson’s concern was where and how he would add on to his existing buildings. What the committee meant by renegotiating with Mr. Nickerson was to show him that property is available for expansion so he would change his opinion. If there is no problem the project can proceed.
Mr. Johnston stated that the concept has been reviewed with Mr. Nickerson and he is aware that extra property will become available to him. Mr. Johnston indicated that Mr. Howells was agreeable with this plan when he was assured that some type of fence could be built to protect his property. These types of situations can be worked out in the negotiation process for acquisition of the property. Mr. Johnston indicated that the proposed map would establish the main right of way and appendage roads would not be included. Mr. Johnston stated that the construction of the road will be done in the future but since a major relocation was being considered, it was important to inform all of the property owners and purchase the property which is most affected so the owners can develop their property with this change in mind. Councilmember Shearer stated that if any property has to be condemned, the request would have to come before the Council. Councilmember Mabey stated that is the reason the committee wanted Mr. Johnston to explain the plan again to Mr. Nickerson and point out things he may not understand.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt the map based on negotiation with the abutting property owners, at impasse this would be returned to the Council, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(W 82-5)
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PLANNING
RE: Mayor’s recommendation to the City Council for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding of new local option projects.
RECOMMENDATION: That the following new local option CDBG projects be recommended to the City Council for funding. 1. Handicapped Barrier Removal; City & County Building and Metropolitan Hall of Justice - $25,000. 2. 6th East Street Islands Rehabilitation - $220,000. 3. Preservation/Redevelopment Planning - $8,000. A description of project proposals received is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: $253,000.
DISCUSSION: Requests for new projects to be funded from unallocated surplus (slippage) CDBG funds are periodically received from city departments, community groups, non-profit organizations, etc. These requests are reviewed for eligibility and merit as community development projects by city staff, and a public meeting is held on a quarterly basis to receive comments from interested citizens. Once the amount of CDBG funds available is determined, a staff recommendation for funding is made to the Mayor through the Chief Administrative Officer. The Mayor then passes a recommendation on to the City Council for a final decision.
The funding level requested for the 6th East Street Islands Rehabilitation project has been increased from $130,000 to $220,000. This increase is based upon more accurate cost estimates received from the engineering department. It is estimated that each block will cost approximately $40,000 to rehabilitate, and while $220,000 will not rehabilitate all the blocks from South Temple to 900 South, a significant portion of the project can be completed.
On March 16, 1982 the City Council tentatively budgeted $130,000 in 8th year CDBG funds from the 6th East Islands project. In providing these funds, the City Council substantially reduced the 8th year CDBG contingency budget to $195,263, or 3.9 percent of the total 8th year CDBG entitlement amount. On April 6, 1982 the City Council gave final approval of the 8th year CDBG program. At that time the City Council deleted the 6th East Street Islands Rehabilitation project and moved that this project be funded from previous program years contingency. The 8th year contingency budget was increased to a satisfactory level. Councilmember Mabey stated that the committee reviewed these recommendations and agreed with what the Mayor had recommended.
Councilmember Davis read the committee recommendation which was to approve the Mayor’s recommendations but indicate that the Council wanted to see the 8th year slippage funding: $60,000 for Harvard Avenue, $13,000 for Crime Outreach Worker, and $30,000 for the East Bench Masterplan. Councilmember Mabey stated that approval is being given to the Mayor’s recommendations but the Council wanted to see these other projects go forth.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the Mayor’s recommendation for the CDBG funding for new and local option projects with the slippage funding as outlined, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 82-16)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: Art Design Board.
RECOMMENDATION: That Robert Doherty be appointed to the Art Design Board.
DISCUSSION: The term of Robert Fowler on the Art Design Board expired March 1982 and he has indicated that he will be unable to continue serving on the Board. Therefore, it is recommended that Robert Doherty be appointed to a three-year term to expire March 1985. Mr. Doherty was recommended by the members of the Art Design Board. He is Director of the Salt Lake Art Center and has an excellent background in the arts.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mahey seconded to approve the appointment of Robert Doherty to the Salt Lake Art Design Board, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 82-15)
RE: Airport Authority Board.
RECOMMENDATION: That Eddie Mayne be appointed to the Airport Authority Board.
DISCUSSION: The term of Alvin W. Joseph on the Airport Authority expired January 1982. Mr. Joseph has expressed his desire to step down. Therefore, the recommendation is to appoint Eddie Mayne, President, Secretary-Treasurer of the Utah State AFL-CIO, to a four-year term to expire January 1986. Councilmember DePaulis stated that this appointment would continue the representation of labor on the committee. The conflict of interest or objections raised are not germane exactly to the appointment itself. This is the consensus of the committee and this appointment is recommended to the Council for approval. Councilmember Parker brought up the point that the other members of the board also represent specific professional and occupational groups. The voice of labor is needed and would be valuable to the Airport Authority.
Eddie Mayne addressed the Council and stated that the AFL-CIO is a federation of labor organizations to represent and speak for the working people. The AFL-CIO does not negotiate contracts or arbitrate cases. In serving on various committees, Mr. Mayne feels his responsibility is to serve on the committees and represent the concerns of working people. Mr. Mayne stated that Mr. Joseph never got involved in labor disputes; he tried to help resolve the disputes when they occurred and Mr. Mayne stated that he would view his role in the same fashion.
Councilmember DePaulis asked Mr. Cutler if there was a legal conflict-of-interest situation. Mr. Cutler stated that in this case the Council needed to consider what the board does. It is an advisory board and does not make final decisions; their recommendations are not binding. Also, the board is not involved directly in formulating negotiating policy. Mr. Cutler stated that he did not see a legal conflict.
Councilmember Shearer quoted from USCS 501-A stating that a labor organization’s officers, agents, shop stewards, and other representatives occupy positions of trust in relation to the organization and its members as a group. The statute imposes five particular duties on such persons which, taken into account the special problems and functions of the labor organization, are: 1. To hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and members; 2. To manage, invest, and expend its money and property in accordance with its constitution and bylaws; 3. To refrain from dealing with such organization as an adverse party in any matter connected with his duties; 4. To refrain from holding or acquiring any pecuniary or a personal interest which conflicts with the interest of the organization; and, 5. To account to the organization for any profit received by him.
Mr. Cutler stated that this statute talks about the fiduciary duties that a labor leader owes to the labor organization. The issue before the Council is not Mr. Mayne’s duties that he may owe to the AFL-CIO but the Airport Authority Board having a conflict in its relationship with Salt Lake City. The statute referred to is not applicable to this situation; the applicable statute is the one dealing with conflicts of interest of city employees or agents and the city ordinance dealing with whether there is a conflict of interest in Mr. Mayne as a labor leader sitting on an advisory board of Salt Lake City Corporation. Councilmember Shearer stated that if Mr. Mayne performs his fiduciary duty to the union, according to the federal law, then he inevitably would seem to come into conflict with the duties that he would have occasionally on the Airport Authority board.
Mr. Cutler stated that Councilmember Shearer was indicating that there may not be a legal violation of state or city ordinance but the obligations of loyalty that Mr. Mayne owes to the labor organization as codified in the federal code may create a policy conflict; this raises a question of policy not legality.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that if Mr. Mayne has a conflict in an issue, he would have to declare his conflict and abstain from voting. The Mayor stated the Mr. Mayne is not serving on the Airport Board as the president of AFL-CIO; any fiduciary language in the federal code would refer to his obligation to his membership. He has a right to serve on the board as a citizen without involving his fiduciary relationship. The Mayor stated that he saw a need to have someone on the board who understands and has expertise in labor aspects.
Councilmember Davis asked if Mr. Joseph’s main source of income was from the union while he served on the board. Mr. Joseph replied that it was. Mr. Mayne stated that he served on the Salt Lake County Fireman’s Civil Service Commission. The firefighters are members of the AFL-CIO but in the five years he served they had a good commission and fire department. Councilmember Mabey expressed concern about losing potential appointees and their expertise unless the Council considers all appointees equally as citizens.
Councilmember Davis stated that she has received numerous phone calls from constituents in opposition to this appointment. Councilmember DePaulis asked Mr. Cutler if there would be conflict under the ordinance which establishes the Airport Authority Board. Mr. Cutler stated that he did not feel there was a conflict of interest under the Officers and Employees Ethics Act, the city ordinance, or the Airport Authority Board and the appointment would be legal. The main concern seems to be the policy issues involved. In the future, there may be conflict on a specific issue which Mr. Mayne would have to declare but because he is an officer under the AFL-CIO does not preclude him under city law from being appointed.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the appointment of Eddie Mayne to the Airport Authority Board, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Shearer and Davis who voted nay.
Mr. Mayne stated that he was proud of his involvement in the community and would do nothing to violate the trust which the Council has given him. Mr. Joseph also stated that he was pleased to see this appointment because it has been a tradition in this state that the working man has a representative on most of the committees.
(I 82-14)
POLICE DEPARTMENT
RE: Interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for noise enforcement services.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the agreement between Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City Corporation to provide joint undertakings and services relating to enforcement services and disposition of funds.
DISCUSSION: The City-County Health Department and Salt Lake City Police Department have joint responsibility for enforcing the noise ordinances. The Salt Lake City-County Board of Health has the equipment to test for noise violations and Salt Lake City has the police power required to pull violators over and issue citations. Because of rising costs it is necessary for the Board of Health to adopt a $15 vehicle inspection fee to be paid by persons who receive a traffic citation for violation of the city’s noise ordinance and referred to the Health Department for vehicle inspection. The Health Department will collect $15 for each citation and will pay $10 to Salt Lake City Corporation and $5 to Salt Lake County Treasurer. This item was pulled from the agenda and referred back to the Public Safety Committee.
(C 82-391)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 190 of 1982 submitted by Ferrall Johnson.
RE: A request to include the Brickyard Plaza Shopping Center in a District A classification. Ferrall Johnson has requested permission to locate a private club in the Brickyard Plaza Shopping Center. This property was recently rezoned “C-3A” which permits a private club; however the license ordinances of Salt Lake City Section 19-2-19 limits the location of establishments for either Class “C” beer license or a Class “B” private club license to a District A classification. The Brickyard Shopping Plaza is not included in this classification. If this request is granted the official city maps, numbers 19372 and 19373, will have to be revised to show the change.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this request. Mark Hafey, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the Council. He stated that the map adopted for taverns and private club locations had become outdated in regards to city limits so it needed to be redrafted. The map has been updated and the Brickyard has been included in the A district. The Planning Commission held a hearing to consider Mr. Johnson’s request and they have recommended that the district be changed to an A district.
Mr. Hafey also stated that there needed to be a recommendation from the Planning Commission and the police department for location of bars not on major streets; this was considered and approval has been recommended. Mr. Hafey indicated that the entire revised map needed to be adopted. Councilmember DePaulis asked if there were any changes in the map other than the Brickyard change. Mr. Hafey pointed out an island which was annexed into the city and an area along the freeway which was also annexed; both areas were surrounded by a B district and, therefore, included in that district. Councilmember Mabey expressed concern about noise affecting the residents. Mr. Hafey stated that this club would be located in the interior of the mall and it does not front on a street; there are mainly businesses in the surrounding area. Mr. Hafey stated that the Planning Commission held an informal hearing before the zoning in this area was changed to “C-3A” and the condominium owners were notified about this possible change as well as the possibility that a private club could be included in this zone.
A representative for the petitioner addressed the Council and stated that the club is for executives and is not a discotheque; it is more of a supper club and memberships will be $25 apiece. So far there have been no objections to this club. John Hiskey addressed the Council and stated that he acted as the hearing officer for this consideration and no opposition was received from the condominium owners. No member from the audience addressed the issue.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 55 of 1982, regarding boundaries of liquor license districts, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-173)
Sale of City Property
RE: The sale of 30 acres of city-owned property in Davis County.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this issue. Leigh von der Esch stated that because the notice of sale was received late, the hearing was scheduled to meet the 15-day deadline. Ms. von der Esch stated that if the Council needed or wanted written information concerning this sale then the hearing could be continued to August 3, 1982. Councilmember Shearer indicated that the bid opening would be July 22 and Ms. von der Esch indicated that the bid would not have to be awarded at that time.
David Hales, Fixed Asset Control Supervisor, addressed the Council. He stated that the property was being advertised and the bid opening would be July 22. The appraised market value of the property is $945,000. A minimal acceptable bid on the property was not stated but Salt Lake City Corporation reserves the right to reject any and all bids. Mr. Hales stated that at this time there has not been a great deal of interest expressed in the purchase of this property. It is a large tract of land and there is a lot of industrial park development in that area. The interest in the property would not be known until the bid opening because bids are hand delivered at the time of the opening. Councilmember Shearer asked how the Council would know any further information about this property. Mr. Hales stated that after the bids are opened and tabulated, the tabulation along with a recommendation is submitted to Lance Bateman, Deputy Director of Finance, to discuss the matter with Mr. Haines. Fixed Asset is then given notification of the administration’s decision. Mr. Hales stated that he did not see a problem with sending a memo to the Council outlining the tabulation information.
Mr. Haines stated that in addition to tabulation information the effect on the budget could also be provided to the Council. Councilmember Davis stated that several pieces of property are being sold to make up the budget and the Council should know for what price property is being sold. Mr. Haines stated that the Council would be provided with information concerning the tabulation, the process followed, the decision, and the effect on the budget. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(W 82-6)
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.