PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WRITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK PALMER DEPAULIS.
Councilmember Edward Parker was absent.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items appearing on their agenda. Peter Maier discussed items relating to the proposed wastewater treatment facility and current testing methods utilized at the existing facility. Jim Talebreza presented slides on the Downtown Beautification project and items relating to the Transportation Grant.
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, JULY 6, 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 PALMER DEPAULIS.
Councilmember Edward Parker was absent.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember Ione Davis conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Kent Goble.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meetings held Thursday, June 10, 1982, and Tuesday, June 15, 1982, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(M 82-2)
PETITIONS
692 of 1977, 693 of 1977, and 376 of 1978 relating to the annexation of Emigration Canyon.
RE: The adoption of an ordinance completing the Emigration Canyon annexation approved by the City Commission on April 10, 1979.
Councilmember Davis addressed the Council stating that this issue has been before the Council since they were elected three years ago. During the last three and one half months there has been extensive discussion and negotiation between Councilmember Davis, Larry Livingston, Emigration Improvement District, and the developers, Boyer Company and Sorensen Company, who have petitions before the Council. Three and one half months ago it was approved that these petitions be placed on the table until July 6th for further action. During the last week, Councilmember Davis and Larry Livingston of the Council Office have met daily to discuss this issue.
Councilmember Davis feels that there has been a lot of information compiled by meeting with the Mayor, the Attorney’s Office and the other people involved. Councilmember Davis stated that there were several representatives present and invited them to speak to the subject. Jerry Kinghorn addressed the Council. He stated that he had delivered a packet last Friday to the Council Office for each Councilmember. Mr. Kinghorn stated that his office represents the Emigration Improvement District, and they have been working on this matter intensively for the last five or six months.
He stated that they have been attempting to negotiate an intergovernmental agreement, through the Mayor’s Office, with the City which would embody the policies adopted by the Council in April. He stated that he invites detailed consideration of the draft agreement. Mr. Kinghorn stated that he feels the Council’s increased participation in this matter would appear to be necessary if an intergovernmental agreement is going to be worked out. The district is taking the position that an intergovernmental agreement is necessary on two issues before the district can make certain assurances to residents and property owners in the canyon, which would enable them to circulate and promote the petition for all canyon annexation.
To that end, they met with the Mayor’s Office and several of the city departments, many of the staff people of the city, and cosponsored a meeting with the city where they presented their positions to property owners and residents, and answered their questions and tried to generally inform everyone of the issues being considered. Mr. Kinghorn stated that after the meetings a proposed agreement was prepared subject to negotiation, which was submitted to the city the first part of June. He stated they did not receive a response from the city until the end of June when a letter was received from Craig Peterson. (Council has copies of Mr. Peterson’s letter and the districts response letter). He stated that at this time the district would urge the Council to vote down the three petitions, by voting no, and clear the air of that pending matter; those petitions have been a source of a great deal of aggravation, not only with the present trustees but with many of the residents in the canyon. They feel that they are being asked to consider something very serious under a threat of something happening that no one is really in favor of. There is obviously a prospect of continued litigation in this matter if those petitions are adopted.
The district wants to have a resolution of the Council as whether or not it would be appropriate to continue to negotiate with the city around the issues that are presented in the draft agreement as presented in the packets. He stated they feel that what they are asking in the agreement is entirely, completely, and totally consistent with the Council’s policies. There is always room for misreading or some disagreement about language and they would, of course, interchange some negotiations on the areas of the agreement that are felt to be unworkable or inappropriate or a misstatement of the Council’s position. But, as stated, they have had no response on the negotiation process with the Attorney’s Office or with the Mayor’s Office.
Mr. Kinghorn also stated that there has been a question about whether the district is actually speaking for the people in the canyon. They would invite some type of special election in the canyon, and would be happy to sponsor it to find out whether people in the canyon really feel that the district is representative of those who are constituents in the canyon or whether it is not. He further stated that he feels it is the only way the air can be cleared of this issue if the City insists that the air be cleared before conducting further negotiations.
Mr. Kinghorn stated that he feels their position is very clear, and that they have tried to substantiate some very honest and good faith energetic work toward a total canyon annexation petition. They feel that an agreement is necessary because people in the canyon have stated that they want assurance on some points before they can sign a petition for annexation in good faith; namely, the traffic safety issues and the way water and sewer systems will be financed in the future.
Mr. Kinghorn stated that they would be happy to meet with the Council to find out if the Council agrees with the language in the agreement. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions or present any documentation. Councilmember Davis stated that the idea of sponsoring an election is a new idea. Ms. Davis indicated that she was aware that it takes ten percent of the residents to request an election and asked how long it would take to establish an election. Mr. Kinghorn stated that he did not know, due to the fact that he was just authorized to make the offer this evening. He stated that he would have to check with the County Clerk’s Office. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked who authorized Mr. Kinghorn to make the offer, and whether or not they are elected. Mr. Kinghorn stated that the trustees of the district had authorized this and they are not elected, but they are appointed by the Salt Lake County Commission under the provisions of the district law under which they operate. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked who the City would be making the agreement with. Mr. Kinghorn stated that it is a governmental body, a water and sewer district organized under the provisions of Title 17, Chapter 6 of the Utah Code.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that this is not the way the rest of the City operates, and wondered if the City wants to recognize that type of situation. Councilmember Mabey stated that to have a separate district telling the City else what they are going to do or provide, is not even fair to the City. Councilmember Davis stated that the Council does not have the power to make this agreement, but the Mayor does. Mayor Wilson asked if the election would be on whether the district represents the canyon or if it would be on annexation. Mr. Kinghorn stated that it could be on either issue, on qualified annexation of the canyon or whether residents in the canyon feel that the present trustees of the district are representing them in a satisfactory way.
Mr. Kinghorn stated that the trustees have had only the response that they are representing the people satisfactorily. Mayor Wilson stated that in a previous meeting the City went out of its way to make it clear that they cannot delegate certain functions of this government. State statutes indicate this cannot be done, and yet the document requests planning options and approval options. Mayor Wilson feels the document goes far beyond what the City can permit. He stated that the City does not want to annex a canyon where it farms out governmental functions, because it cannot be done.
Mr. Kinghorn stated that this is not what they were asking for and if there are provisions in the agreement that can be read that way, they will be happy to negotiate and change them. They want to make it absolutely clear that they are not trying to obtain a delegation of authority from the City or take away any of the City’s power, but simply trying to utilize the agreement as a vehicle to encourage a total canyon annexation petition to the City. The trustees of the district believe that the canyon will be better managed under the City than under the County.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that 90 days ago a request was made, that they come back with a plan for total annexation. Since that time she has been contacted by eight to ten people asking who to contact in order to sign a petition, which leads to the feeling that there has not been an attempt to petition people for total annexation. Mr. Kinghorn stated that they had been informed by many people that they would not sign a petition until some assurance was reached with the city on certain issues. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if any attempt was made to get a petition signed, because these people stated that they had never seen a petition. Mr. Kinghorn stated that they had not circulated a petition because the trustees had always taken the position that it would be improper to circulate a petition for annexation until certain assurances were in place. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what has taken place in the last 90 days. Mr. Kinghorn stated that they had to find out if the administration would even enter into negotiations on an agreement, which took a considerable amount of time just to get an appointment.
After meeting with the City, he began to gather information to include in the document. It took a considerable amount of time to schedule a meeting with Traffic Engineering. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she saw a Traffic Engineers report prior to the meeting 90 days ago, and was aware at that time that the City was not willing to enter into that kind of agreement. Mr. Kinghorn stated that the Traffic Engineers Office during their meeting, and by letter, confirmed that there was some significant misunderstanding about the traffic study. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked the relationship between the traffic study and the decision to annex or not to annex.
Mr. Kinghorn stated that it was the basic question of public safety on the road and the policy the Council adopted in terms of maintaining a level of service “C” during ordinary traffic hours and peaking into “D”. The district wanted to find out what that meant in terms of numbers of cars and in terms of numbers of homes. He stated that the meeting with Traffic Engineers Office was very useful in clearing up this issue. Mr. Kinghorn further stated that he did not have the City’s policies until the middle of April. Councilmember Davis stated that he had them as soon as they were passed.
Mr. Kinghorn stated that he was told to work through Mr. Dewsnup in the Planning Department and a letter Mr. Dewsnup sent transmitting the policies. He also stated that Mr. Dewsnup had given him a draft earlier but was told that they were going to be revised. Mayor Wilson asked why the City received a document that asks for considerable responsibility. Mr. Kinghorn stated that he could only ask that the mayor be specific as to what language is doing that. The mayor stated that he did not have the document, but one item was zoning provisions. Obviously from the document, the improvement district wants to have a lot to say about the government of the canyon.
The City certainly invites full input, but cannot transfer government of the canyon to the sewer district except to the extent that they have specific purpose under the law. Mr. Kinghorn stated that there is a very distinct possibility, because of the authority they have, the district can sponsor some improvements in an area of the canyon where the City does not desire to have improvements; there is a very distinct conflict possible. He stated that he wanted to go through the agreement line by line and find out where the problems are. Mayor Wilson stated an interlocal agreement could be signed on those matters that the improvement district has statutory authority for, but the city cannot delegate their responsibilities. Councilmember Davis stated that there was one section where the district asked for 350 residential units. Mr. Kinghorn stated that this was taken from the Traffic Engineers suggestion. The district does not know if the number of trips per day generated from residents in the canyon is going to remain the same. Future study will have to be done to find out if our assumptions about traffic generation rates are correct.
Councilmember Davis stated that whether correct or not correct, she interpreted the agreement as dictating to the City the 350 homes is all the improvement district will allow in the canyon. She stated that of all the issues in the agreement that was the one she took the greatest exception to. Mr. Kinghorn stated that is was just a suggestion of a place to stop and conduct a traffic study to see if the generation rates were holding at the same rate that occurred when the study was made and see if the level of service policy is rational in view of those. This was merely an interim point to re-examine some technical issues related to traffic safety.
Mr. Kinghorn stated that if the City feels another interim point would be more suitable or does not feel that a phased development of the canyon is appropriate, then that can be changed. Councilmember Davis stated that the process within the City determines that. When the City receives an annexation petition it is presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Department experts; they review the entire issue, and make the recommendation as to how many homes, or how much traffic, and incorporating the site development ordinance, they would recommend the master plan which has been discussed. The issue would then come to the City Council for approval.
Councilmember Davis stated that is what she thought was happening when the seven policies were established Mrs. Davis stated that she agreed with the mayor regarding the concerns about the agreement. Mr. Kinghorn again stated they would go over the agreement and make appropriate changes. Mr. Kinghorn stated that he got the most recent annexation roll from the assessors office, took the steps necessary to put together a petition, and they are prepared to begin circulating that petition while negotiating the agreement in anticipation of concluding it successfully. He stated they know how many signatures are needed and what is going to constitute one third of the assessed valuation to make a successful petition. He stated that the agreement leaves all the discretion in the City’s hands ultimately.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that three months ago the Council was told that if they would give a three month delay, then they would have a petition for the entire canyon, that it would be presented by July 6th; the petition has not begun. Mr. Kinghorn also stated that they have done nothing to stifle a petition. Councilmember Whitehead asked who was going to do the petition. Mr. Kinghorn stated that he did not know who would be prepared to do an unqualified petition. The City was notified in December of 1981 that the district would go ahead with the petition if an agreement could be concluded that reconciled some of the service issues. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the Council votes down the petitions, why they would have to worry about it. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if in three months there would not be a thousand homes in the process of being built under the County ordinances of which there is no site development ordinance and there is no land use control. Mr. Kinghorn stated that he thinks it is a distinct possibility. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she thinks it is an absolute probability.
Mr. Kinghorn stated that there is a serious problem with providing water in the canyon. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she understood that the problem has been taken care of. She stated that people had been calling stating that if there was no annexation there would be no growth; she asked where they are getting that information. Mr. Kinghorn stated that he did not know, nor did he know about the water problem having been taken care of. Ms. Fonnesheck stated that she had been told by a commissioner in another county that they are very willing to sell water and work it out.
Mr. Kinghorn stated that he did not know who that would be but he is aware of an application for water in the Weber basin that would require that it be pumped over into Emigration Canyon. He stated he is also aware that the site at the Weber basin is very water short and there would be an enormous series of protests similar to the types of lawsuits Park City has become involved in. Ms. Fonnesbeck asked if Mr. Kinghorn agreed that without annexation there would be no growth on the basis that there is no water.
Mr. Kinghorn stated that he did not think there would be no growth but he did not think growth would occur very rapidly. He stated that they had received applications from developers for water. He stated that they have some water requests that have been in the process in the State Engineers office for years which could be accelerated and approved for some of the requests, but they were delayed while trying to negotiate with the City. This was done in an effort to work jointly rather than a situation where the district has some water and helps some developers and the City has some water and helps some developers.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she did not know of a time when the City has turned down a request to sell water. She asked if Mr. Kinghorn thought that the City would change their policy if the canyon is not annexed. Mr. Kinghorn stated that there is a probability that the City would not desire to get involved in a massive water sale in Emigration Canyon. This idea might change but then the city would be selling water to some developers, the district selling water to other developers and the total result will be that nobody will masterplan with a view towards solving the problems of the entire canyon. We will end up with a canyon road that is a giant public safety problem. Ms. Fonnesbeck agreed. Mr. Kinghorn stated that this is not desirable. Ms. Fonnesbeck agreed and stated that the one way to overcome that would be with annexation. Leon Shay addressed the Council and asked if an exemplary petition would have a very slight if not impossible chance of being approved. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she was not sure that was our business at this point. Councilmember Davis stated that she did not think anyone could know what the outcome of an annexation petition would be. Councilmember Davis stated that the residents had told her they want whole canyon annexation. Mr. Shay stated that he is one of the trustees of the district, and stated that Mr. Kinghorn has been effectively working with the district in an attempt to bring before the Council a petition for annexation.
Mr. Shay stated that their policy had not changed and that they are trying to bring an annexation petition before the Council. He stated that they have been advised and the Council received information recently from the Canyon group regarding specifications they were interested in seeing the Council consider and approve. The only thing the district has done is attempt to assure the people of the canyon that they would be able to have some voice in their future. In an effort to eliminate problems at the initiation of annexation, the district is attempting to get an interlocal agreement so that when the residents of the canyon have the petition before them, they really should have no reason to object.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that every neighborhood wanted to have assurances and the methods for that are through zoning. She stated that she did not feel special types of power should he given to one neighborhood. Mr. Shay stated that they are not trying to do that. He stated that what they are trying to do is give the individual owners of the canyon a potential in the development of the canyon. We did not come up with the limitations on the numbers. The figure of 350 was a figure that was derived with Mr. Harpst and Mr. Dewsnup in a meeting. This is in line with an engineering study. In order to maintain a level consistent with what you have in Salt Lake City for roads, the first breaking point was 350 units.
Mr. Shay stated that the district has not been stonewalling this project, but have spent a lot of time on this and have attempted to project the fact that we are interested in submitting the petition for annexation and have been for many, many years. We do not want obstacles. We are trying to work this out so that we will present a petition to you and the people of the canyon will accept it. The input that we have had from the Emigration Citizen’s Council has all directed us toward this kind of an objective.
We are not trying to fight the City. We are not trying to say that it is going to be impossible to get it through. We want to get one petition through. We want to have it a feasible petition. We want to have it acceptable to the people in the canyon, and want to have the people in the canyon who are not the big developers have a say so, so they too can have a potential to develop their individual parcels. Councilmember Davis stated that the Council spent many hours preparing the seven policy statements and the Council has been waiting for this petition and nothing has materialized. Ms. Davis felt that the district was trying to change the policies that this City Council established. Mr. Shay stated that that was not true. He stated that the Council presently has three petitions which actually encompass developers’ property. The Council also has before it a petition from the people of the canyon objecting to these petitions and they number in the hundreds. The people in the canyon are not interested in partial annexation and they wish to have the Council reject those petitions.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that 90 days ago the Council invited a whole canyon petition and Craig Smay said we would do it in 90 days. She did not see any reason to further negotiate what was agreed to at that time. Maxine Shoppe, a resident of the canyon, addressed the Council. She stated that she asked some time ago if it were not possible to have an election and was told that they would have to go to the legislature in order to negotiate this. She stated that this should be placed on an open vote to the canyon. She indicated that the mayor stated that the improvement district is not the governing board for the canyon, and yet those in the canyon have thought that they were the governing agent and were waiting for them to act.
Ms. Shoppe stated she wanted to know who initiates this vote and how long it would take. She stated that this is the only fair, democratic, and honest way of receiving an answer as to how a majority of the canyon residents feel in regards to annexation. Councilmember Davis agreed and informed her that they are under the direction of the County Commission and ten percent of the residents of the canyon have to petition the County Commission for a special election. Mayor Wilson stated that it depends what the residents are voting on. If it is a straw ballot for annexation ten percent is not needed. That is not a governmental question. Councilmember Davis stated that it is a question of the legality of the improvement district.
Mayor Wilson stated that cannot be determined by vote, but that is by statute. Councilmember Davis stated their charter was issued 12 years ago and they have not had an election; and all the officers of the district in the last 12 years have been appointed by the County Commission. She stated that the City would benefit by having an election so that the City would be dealing with the truly elected officials of the canyon and not people appointed by the County Commission.
James Kimball, Boyer Co., addressed the Council. He stated that the Boyer Co. wanted to urge the Council to vote and not delay a decision. He stated that he shared the disappointment in not having an annexation petition for the total canyon. He stated that he did not realize there were any conditions set upon an all canyon annexation petition that was supposed to come forward. He stated that 90 days ago no conditions were set. He stated that to delay this another two weeks would accomplish nothing. Pat Shay addressed the Council. She stated that Mr. Kimball was present three months ago when an all canyon annexation petition was brought up. She asked why he or why anyone else did not initiate the petition. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that it was clearly her understanding that there was at least one individual who said that he would assume responsibility for that and that was not Mr. Kimball. Mayor Wilson stated that was a clear commitment of the residents. He stated that Craig Smay indicated that he would have a petition in 90 days.
The mayor stated that perhaps Mr. Smay was not speaking for the district. Ms. Shay indicated that she would not sign a petition because there was no commitment from the City as far as the people in the canyon are concerned. Councilmember Mabey asked how the Council could make special commitments that are not made to the rest of the City. Maxine Shoppe asked if these three petitions were acted upon if that meant that just some parcels would be annexed and not the entire canyon. Councilmember Davis stated that the three petitions are for partial canyon annexation.
Ralph Johnson, Sorenson Development Co., addressed the Council. He stated that they wanted to see this issue voted upon. Whether the property can be used one way or the other, now is the time for that decision to be made. Councilmember Davis addressed Mr. Cutler, City Attorney. She stated that she understands the existing petitions have some uncertainties surrounding them. She stated that some of the people have either passed away or submitted letters requesting their names be withdrawn. She stated that the information she received is that it would be advisable for these petitions to be held until Councilmember Parker is present so that the full Council has an opportunity to vote.
Mr. Cutler indicated that the legal advice has nothing to do with the vote or validity of the petitions; all that is needed is two thirds vote of the Council. As long as there are five votes, it makes no difference if six or seven members are present. Mayor Wilson stated that he thought the Council should vote. He stated that a decision should be made. Sometimes all interests cannot be reconciled. He further stated that if the petition fails, County ordinances would prevail which would allow much more permissive use of planning, a much more permissive use of the canyon.
He stated that he feels the County has a good planning staff, but they do not have the body of law that the City does to deal with site preparation and planning. He stated that the Council should consider this idea. Councilmember Davis brought up a question of the sewer; the mayor has control to give them a sewer connection. She asked what the mayor would do if the City County Board of Health prohibits building until the canyon connects to the City sewer system or builds a treatment plant in the canyon. The mayor indicated that it was a very complicated question that he could not answer on the spot. He stated that as he understands it county ordinance does allow the use of holding tanks. He stated that he did not know if the Health Board could override that and for sanitary reasons not allow building. Councilmember Shearer stated that there was some previous discussion about selling City water even though there was no annexation and the Mayor deferred that decision until after the annexation decision. She asked what his decision would be on that issue now. He stated that he is not comfortable with selling water if the city does not have some control over the development. He stated that he would not make a final decision on that tonight.
Councilmember Mabey asked what kind of doors a no vote would open as far as interlocal agreements. The Mayor stated that the City does not have to enter into any kind of interlocal agreement with the county that is against City monetary interests. Mr. Mabey stated that we have done a lot with the fire and police. Mayor Wilson stated that they have been a wash in term of economics. We would be under no obligation to provide those services without getting full payment from the county.
Councilmember DePaulis asked Mr. Kinghorn if he is recommending a “no” vote by the Council is he willing to take the initiative for perhaps some other form of either incorporation or recognition of a special improvement district, or possibly a petition for whole canyon annexation. There are a number of possible alternatives which would outweigh voting against the developers securing water or sewer and causing development under the county. Mr. Kinghorn stated that he has a governing board to respond to and he could only answer in the context of what he is advised he could do. He stated that the first preference would be to still try and negotiate some type of agreement with the City, and then bring an all canyon annexation to the City.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if that meant they would negotiate with the City in terms of the policy provisions that have already been outlined. Mr. Kinghorn stated that they would negotiate within those terms. Councilmember DePaulis stated that they would be anticipating some change, mutual meeting of the minds of those policy statements. Mr. Kinghorn answered affirmatively, stating that what they have drafted fits within what the Council had previously adopted. He stated that if they are incorrect they want to modify it because they want to be within the Council policy. He stated that they only want to address those issues people indicate they want addressed before they will sign an annexation petition.
Mr. Cutler stated that Mr. Kinghorn referred to a lack of negotiation and stated that what the City Administration is saying is that we are not going to enter into a binding contract which gives the contractual rights of enforcement on discretionary governmental functions concerning planning and zoning, and load peaks and subdivision approval and units and where they are going to be, to the district through a contract. We adopted a seven point plan that the Council approved as to a statement of intents and purposes, but to sign a contract where we are committing future legislative bodies to planning and zoning and the executive branch to planning and zoning decisions within the discretionary parameters of existing ordinance is not only probably illegal, but inappropriate. He stated that they want guarantees that certain load factors are not going to be exceeded, that certain development factors are going to be met, and the City is saying that is our intent and we would be willing to state that as an intent and policy.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that the larger issue at this time is not whole canyon annexation because there may be other alternatives to that. He stated that what Mr. Kinghorn seems to be indicating is that a “no” vote would weigh in favor of the risk that perhaps no development would occur or very limited potential development would occur because of the water situation. Mr. Kinghorn stated that he is doing as the trustees instructed which is to say they are getting a lot of feed back from people in the canyon that they do not like these things being held as a threat. The issue of whether there will be no development with a “no” vote is really not conveyed.
Maxine Shoppe asked if the vote is “yes” and the canyon is annexed just in parcels what must be done for the entire canyon to be annexed and how long will it take. The Council indicated that the residents would have to petition for the remainder of the canyon. Councilmember Davis made a motion to delay the vote until July 20, 1982, when Councilmember Parker will return, the reason being, she felt new information had been presented at this meeting. Councilmember Davis stated that a vote in haste could cause some serious complications with the City as well as with the canyon residents. She stated that she does not want Emigration Canyon developed the way California mountain areas have been developed, and the only control over that is in the site development ordinance that the Council has worked on.
Councilmember Shearer asked if a delay in the vote would hasten a whole canyon petition. Councilmember Davis stated that the Council has displayed that this is what they would recommend. Councilmember Davis stated that she did not think the agreement should be the issue on whether the Council voted tonight or not. Councilmember Whitehead stated that this is the reason they have not circulated a petition. Councilmember Davis stated that the agreement was submitted by the improvement district and she knows of a number of other people preparing petitions on their own. She stated that she is hoping within the two-week period there will be a petition circulated.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that regardless of the vote the residents could proceed with a petition anyway. Councilmember Davis brought up the point about the litigation attached to the old petitions. She stated that there has been, and still is, a lawsuit pending. She stated that she has been informed that the lawsuit will be initiated immediately upon the action of the Council should they vote for partial annexation, therefore, it could possibly tie up the annexation for several more years in the courts. She stated that she feels a new petition without the stigma would be best. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that if the Council were to vote the petitions down, or not vote at all, the developers could withdraw the petitions and develop under the County. She stated that they are not guaranteeing whole canyon annexation by delay. Councilmember Davis stated that the Council could not guarantee canyon annexation, but it must come from the canyon residents. No second was made to Councilmember Davis’ motion.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt the ordinance completing the Emigration Canyon Annexation approved by the City Commission on April 10, 1979, which motion failed due to a lack of two-thirds majority, (5 affirmative votes required); Council Members Whitehead, Mabey, Fonnesbeck, and DePaulis voting aye, and Council Members Shearer and Davis voting nay.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck explained her vote indicating that if she felt to vote “no” to this annexation would stop development, then she would vote “no” because she is against development in the canyons; but she is convinced that development is going to take place and she believes that development would best take place under the City Site Development Ordinance. Councilmember DePaulis asked what kind of vote it would take to recall the motion and vote on this again when Councilmember Parker returns.
Councilmember Shearer stated that someone who voted on the prevailing side would have to raise the issue. Mr. Cutler indicated that he did not know whether the Council ever adopted those requirements. They are not codified in statute. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if Councilmember Parker could call for a vote. Mr. Cutler stated that the Council sets their own procedure about calling things up, he is just pointing out that it is not a requirement that the people on the prevailing side call it up under state statute.
Mayor Wilson stated that Councilmember Parker could bring it up, but the question is could he be seconded by someone who voted aye. Mr. Cutler stated that the Council would have to set their own rules of procedure, there is nothing in the state statute that prohibits anybody from bringing it up again for a vote if it passes by the required constitutional majority. In the state statute concerning voting, the rules about failing are rules set by this legislative body, they are not encodified in state statute, so technically he did not know if the Council had adopted those rules or not.
Councilmember Shearer stated that they have in practice because they have used them several times. Mr. Cutler stated that they have in practice, but he did not think that had codified them, so he was indicating that was something they would have to deal with as the legislative body. There is nothing in state law that would prohibit anyone of the Council Members from bringing it up and voting and if passed by the vote it would be valid.
(P 82-29)
319 of 1981 submitted by Foothill-Sunnyside Neighborhood Council.
RE: An ordinance providing for the closure of that portion of Foothill Drive located between Ninth South Street and Hubbard Avenue retaining the City’s interest in underlying property. Councilmember Davis stated that this petition request was approved on February 9, 1982, and the ordinance would effectuate the closure of that street.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 50 of 1982, effectuating the closure of Foothill Drive from 900 South to Hubbard Avenue, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 82-2)
20 of 1982 submitted by Brickyard Associates.
RE: Change of zoning in the Brickyard Shopping Center from Commercial “C-1” to “C-3A”. Pursuant to action of the Council at a public meeting held May 11, 1982, the Attorney’s Office has prepared and herewith submits a proposed ordinance providing for the rezoning of the Brickyard Shopping Center, excluding therefrom the Harmon property having frontage along 1300 East Street. The ordinance will change the existing Commercial “C-1” to a Commercial “C-3A” classification.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Ordinance 46 of 1982, rezoning interim portions of the Brickyard Shopping Center from “C-1” to “C-3A”, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 82-63)
61 of 1982 submitted by Robert L. Case.
RE: Request to vacate alley between Cleveland Avenue and Roosevelt Avenue and 3rd and 4th East.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing August 10, 1982 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 61 of 1982 submitted by Robert L. Case. The petitioner is requesting that an alley located between Cleveland and Roosevelt Avenues and between 300 East and 400 East Street be vacated.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The petitioner is required to pay a $35 advertising fee to the City Recorder.
DISCUSSION: The petition has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, Fire, Transportation, Engineering and Fixed Assets. They have recommended that the alley be vacated subject to retaining a right of way for existing public utilities. The Transportation Department has also noted that the residence at 320 Cleveland Avenue has an illegally paved side yard that is being used as a drive and parking area. Access to this area is through the alley. A curb cut on Cleveland Avenue would legalize the drive and provide access to the house. Building and Housing is investigating this situation. The City Attorney’s Office has prepared the necessary vacating ordinance and it is ready for Council signature if Council approves this vacating.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to set a date for a public hearing August 10, 1982 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss Petition 61 of 1982 submitted by Robert L. Case, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 82-172)
190 of 1982 submitted by Ferrall G. Johnson.
RE: Petition 190 Submitted by Ferrall C. Johnson.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on July 20, 1982 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss including the Brickyard Plaza Shopping Center in a District A classification. A District A classification allows for Class “C” beer licenses or Class “B” private club licenses to be issued in the area.
DISCUSSION: Ferrall C. 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 licenses or a Class “B” private club license to a District A classification. The Brickyard Shopping Plaza is not included in this classification. Mr. Johnson is now requesting that the Brickyard Plaza be given a District A classification. If granted the official City maps, numbers 19372 and 19373 will have to be revised to show the change. The Planning Commission has reviewed this request and their recommendation is attached to the petition.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to set a date for a public hearing on July 20, 1982 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss including the Brickyard Plaza Shopping Center in a District A Classification, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 82-173)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
RE: Introduction of proposed fuel and oil royalty fees - Airport Facilities Amendment: Sections 2-2-28.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider an amendment to Section 2-2-28 of the Salt Lake City Code as presented.
DISCUSSION: To offset the rising cost of providing general aviation services (N. B. Operating costs of $295,300 of FY 1982 were 14.5% of FY 1980), it is proposed to increase the fuel royalty assessed on aviation fuel sold at Salt Lake City International Airport and Airport II. The present rate per gallon is two and one-half cents and the proposed rate is three cents. It is estimated that this proposed revenue adjustment would increase this revenue source by $22,000 per year. This change in the fuel royalty was approved by the General Aviation Subcommittee on March 10, 1982 and by the Airport Authority Board on April 14, 1982.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Ordinance 47 of 1982, relating to fuel and oil royalties at airport facilities, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(O 82-38)
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: An ordinance amending Section 51-32-3 relating to Historic Districts and Landmark Sites - City Historic Register.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilinember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Ordinance 48 of 1982, amending Section 51-32-3 relating to Historic Districts and Landmark Sites - City Historic Register, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(L 82-2) and (L 82-3)
RE: An ordinance closing and narrowing portions of 200 West Street from South Temple to 100 South to accommodate the Salt Palace Expansion Project. The ordinance involves the two strips on each side of the road that the Council agreed to make available for inclusion with the structural framework of the project. The ordinance is in proper form for passage if it meets with the Council approval. The rest of the transfer documents should be completed and before the Council in the next 7-10 days.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmeniber DePaulis seconded to adopt Ordinance 49 of 1982, closing and narrowing portions of 200 West Street from South Temple Street to 100 South Street to accommodate the Salt Palace Expansion Project, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(R 82-9)
RE: An ordinance amending Article 9 of the Traffic Code relating to prohibitng hazardous extensions on the sides of vehicles. Councilmember Davis referred this ordinance amendment to the consent agenda for July 20, 1982, and asked that the Council attorney review this ordinance; referred without objection.
(O 82-42)
CITY COUNCIL
RE: Items relating to proposed Liberty Park Circulation Plan and expenditures of funds for Liberty Park Circulation Plan in conjunction with the Legislative Intent for 1981-1982. Councilmemeber Davis stated that John Swain and John Gust were present. The committee of Council Members DePaulis, Mabey and Davis have reviewed this at the park, and the plans have been posted in the Council office. John Swain addressed the Council, pointing out the lake, the aviary, and existing amphitheater berm on a map. He stated that their intent is to construct a parking lot north of the aviary and south of the existing swimming pool to accommodate approximately 127 cars. This would mean relocating some existing playground equipment throughout the park. Part of the development will be continuing the landscaping of 6th East to continue the pedestrian corridor theme, which has already been started adjacent to the lake, and also provide circulation around the amphitheater berm, which will also be landscaped (not as part of this project, but this year).
Councilmember Davis stated that the Legislative Intent was for $90,000, and asked if what had been pointed out could be done for the $90,000 or if they would need additional funds. Mr. Swain stated that they are running through cost estimates to see how far they can go with the $90,000. He stated that the first priority is the parking. They will then continue with 6th East as the money allows. Councilmember Davis asked if they had sufficient funds for the amphitheater and to landscape that area. Mr. Swain stated that the money would be used for pedestrian circulation around the mound if there is enough of the $90,000 and if not they will look to future funding or in-house capabilities.
Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Swain to explain the traffic pattern on 900 South and 1300 South and the striping. Mr. Swain stated they have come up with a system whereby traffic could enter from north or south. Traffic entering from the north could make one complete loop, either exiting the south end or continuing around and having to exit on the north. In working with Traffic Engineering they are proposing striping at 450 angle parking on the interior of the road. This will help provide parking on the interior and closer to the actual use in the park and therefore getting the cars away from the outside. He stated that this striping project is not part of the $90,000, but something to be done with in-house funds.
Councilmember Shearer asked if they would eliminate the skate lane. Mr. Swain stated that the Traffic Engineer is working on a concept where the outside of the road would be free space proposed for a continuous bike or skate lane. Perhaps in the future striping or installing a curb to separate the vehicular circulation and the bicycles would be included. Councilmember Mabey asked if that would leave two lanes for traffic or just a single lane. Mr. Swain indicated that there would be one good size lane to accommodate backing and a five foot lane for bikes.
Councilmember Davis stated that she had some concerns about this being a complete loop. She stated that she thought it would remain as it is presently. Mr. Swain stated that this was a suggestion that the Traffic Engineer made. He stated that the traffic would not be able to continue the cycle, but they would be able to go around the park should they enter on the north. John Gust indicated that they like the way is presently, that this was just a suggestion by the Traffic Engineer. Councilmember DePaulis stated that what happens is the circulation point becomes extended from 900 South to the first island on 600 East. The cars come around and go across 900 South, circulate around the island and go right back into the park. The fear would be that this would make that easier. Secondly, once people know how to deal with the circulation of the park, it does not take long before they enter from the appropriate side, which relieves the traffic congestion at 900 South. He stated that he would be opposed to allowing circulation.
Councilmember Mabey stated that since then we have passed the ordinance where people are now permitted to make U-turns. Mayor Wilson stated that he thought there was a posted “No U-turn” sign, and was informed there is none. Councilmember DePaulis stated that once the traffic starts around the first island and it backs up, they start around the second island, and some even go to the end of the block and then come back. Councilmember Mabey stated that we might want to post signs two blocks away. Councilmember Shearer stated that she understood the proposal was being brought to the Council for approval but it seems that there are still questions with the plans and exactly what is going to happen.
Councilmember Davis stated that the Traffic Department only recently supplied the Parks Department with this circulation information. Councilmember Shearer stated that she wanted to know which circulation pattern was going to be used before she votes on this issue. Mr. Gust stated that the department has tried to resolve these questions; the Parks Department does not want circulation but were asked to get a recommendation from the Traffic Department. The rest of the plans are set.
Councilmember Shearer asked to be supplied with a written description of the circulation plan. She also asked if the new parking lot would eliminate the old picnic area; Mr. Gust stated that only 1/4 of that area would be eliminated and the rest would be upgraded. He also stated that the Council is welcome to review the final bid before it is let out. Mr. Gust indicated that if the Parks Department can start working on the parking lot and the mall area then they will work with the Council on the question of vehicular circulation.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the $90,000 expenditure of funds for Liberty Park Circulation Plan, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(B 82-6)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Industrial revenue bond application: Alta Industries.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider the approval of an inducement resolution for an industrial revenue bond for Alta Industries in the amount of $3,500,000. The following conditions have been met: 1. That the City Attorney approve the resolution as to form. 2. That the application meet all necessary financial requirements of the city. 3. That Alta Industries pay the established non-refundable fee for processing.
DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to acquire and construct warehousing to replace facilities now located on the northeast corner of North Temple and 4th West, which they have outgrown. Councilmember Davis referred the industrial revenue bond for Alta Industries to the Budget, Finance and Administration Committee; referred without objection.
(Q 82-27)
RE: A resolution amending Salt Lake City Council Resolution No. 96 and a resolution amending Resolution No. 97 authorizing separate issues of industrial development revenue bonds for the construction of parking facilities for the Triad Center Development during the 10-year period commencing November 3, 1981.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Resolution 69 of 1982, modifying Resolution 96 of 1981 and adopt Resolution 70 of 1982, modifying Resolution 97 of 1981, both resolutions are subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(Q 82-26)
OFFICE of the MAYOR
RE: Central Business Improvement District.
RECOMMENDATION: That Craig Peterson, Director of Development Services, be appointed an ex-officio member of the Central Business Improvement District to represent Salt Lake City Corporation.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the appointment of Craig Peterson as an ex-officio member of the Central Business Improvement District, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(T 82-8)
RE: The appointments of Mirvin D. Borthick and Eddie Mayne to the Airport Authority Board. This item was pulled from the agenda.
(I 82-14)
RE: The appointment of Robert Doherty to the Art Design Board. This item was pulled from the agenda.
(I 82-15)
RE: Planning and Zoning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: That Keith Stepan, an architect from the Rose Park area, be appointed to fill the vacancy on the Planning and Zoning Commission created by Dave Stanley’s resignation. Mr. Stepan’s appointment would expire July 1, 1983.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to approve the appointment of Keith Stepan to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(I 82-16)
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: That the City-County Health Department and Salt Lake City Police Department have joint responsibility for enforcing the noise ordinances, and the Salt Lake City-County Board of Health has the equipment to test for noise violations and the Salt Lake City Police has the police power required to pull violators over and issue citations, and 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.
Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Haines to check if revenues to be generated by this agreement have been included in the 1982-83 budget. Councilmember Davis referred the interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County for noise enforcement services to the Committee of the Whole for review; referred without objection. Councilmember Davis also referred this item to the consent agenda for July 13, 1982, however, Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck did not indicate this action on the motion slip.
(C 82-391)
RE: Revised ordinance relating to activities of dancers and patrons.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an ordinance amending Sections 20-34-1, 20-34-5, and 20-34-6 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to professional dancers and adding new sections 20-34-5.1, 20-34-5.2, and 20-34-12 of the Revised Ordinances relating to activities of dancers and patrons.
DISCUSSION: That the recommendation for ordinance amendment stipulate license requirements for professional dancers, the activities of dancers and patrons, costume requirements, etc. The Police Department Vice Squad has reviewed this ordinance and feels it is needed and should be adopted. Councilmember Davis referred this revised ordinance to the Council attorney for review and then report to the Council has a whole; referred without objection.
(O 82-40)
RE: Introduction of proposed ordinance amendment relating to drug paraphernalia: Section 32-8A-l.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendment to Section 32-8A-1 of the Salt Lake City Code.
DISCUSSION: The recommendation that Section 32 be amended by adding a new section 8A to include the purpose of the amendment, which is to discourage the use of narcotics by eliminating paraphernalia designed for processing, ingesting, or otherwise using a controlled substance. Also, to define “Drug Paraphernalia” and considerations in determining whether object is drug paraphernalia. Councilmember Davis referred this proposed ordinance amendment to the Public Safety and Community Affairs Committee; referred without objection.
(O 82-41)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
RE: Public hearing to consider amending Title 37 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council ratify the public notice for the setting of a public hearing for July 13, 1982, at 7:15 p.m.
DISCUSSION: This public hearing is for the purpose of considering completely amending Title 37 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to sewers. The entire Title 37 has been revised along with inclusion of an EPA-required Wastewater Ordinance/Rules and Regulations, which relates to an industrial pretreatment program which controls industrial discharges into the city’s sanitary sewer system.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to ratify the public notice setting a hearing for July 13, 1982, at 7:15 p.m. to consider amending Title 37 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(C 82-46)
RE: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City Corporation.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the agreement which has already been approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Funds have been budgeted in the 1982-83 fiscal year budget of the Public Utilities Department to cover the $50,059 cost.
DISCUSSION: Employees of the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department were being exposed to potentially dangerous situations in enforcing the city watershed ordinance in the canyons. For that reason, an agreement has been negotiated with the County Sheriff’s Office for them to assume the prime responsibility of enforcing City-County watershed regulations and ordinance. This will result in adding two deputies to their force in addition to the six deputies, already assigned to canyon surveillance and law enforcement, to be trained in the area of environmental concerns in order to enforce the city’s watershed ordinance.
They will provide enforcement coverage in the watershed from 7 a.m. to the following 2 a.m. With this modification of the program and with the remaining personnel concentrating on the maintenance work and surveillance of private toilets, a job time analysis indicates that public utilities will be able to cover more efficiently all the work which needs to be done to protect the city’s water supply. This agreement is scheduled to become effective on July 1, 1982. Councilmember Davis referred this interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County to the consent agenda for July 13, 1982; referred without objection.
(C 82-392)
PUBLIC WORKS
RE: Agreement between Salt Lake City and Utah Transit Authority for Central Business District Transit Improvement Project on Main Street.
RECOMMENDATION: Council recommends the city enter into the agreement.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Redevelopment Agency and property owner special improvement district.
DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City has been coordinating with Utah Transit Authority in the preparation of an application to request federal funding from Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) for the purpose of providing transportation improvements in the city’s central business district area. The improvements requested will enhance the economic, social and physical environment within downtown, improve downtown auto accessibility and circulation, upgrade and improve pedestrian accessibility and circulation, and upgrade public transit downtown to a first-class system. The application which was submitted to UMTA in January of 1982, will involve the following items: 1. Main Street from South Temple to 300 South. Modifications to the existing street geometry to include removal of curb extrusions and relocation of bus shelter facilities to provide for more efficient bus loading and unloading facilities. 2. Main Street from 300 South to 400 South. Extending the Main Street beautification treatment as it exists between South Temple and 300 South after above mentioned modification to include narrowing and reconstruction of the existing Street and construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter, fountains, tree planters, and Street furniture.
3. Main Street from North Temple to South Temple. Improvements in this area would include the provision of pedestrian launching pads at intersections and at mid-block crossings, possible relocation of west curb line and construction of two bus shelters. 4. Traffic signals and street lighting improvements on Main Street from North Temple to 400 South. 5. Street graphics and signage on Main Street from North Temple to 400 South. Although the original application had included the possible construction of median islands on Main Street between 300 and 400 South, and between North Temple and South Temple, feedback from both UMTA and local businesses and property owners has indicated the median islands will not be advisable.
Following approval of this agreement by the Mayor, it will be transmitted to UMTA for review. If approved by UMTA the next phase of the project would include the preliminary design engineering for the project. In keeping with City Council’s previous desires concerning this project, all project designs will be reviewed for approval by the City Council prior to submitting to UMTA for construction approval. This agreement also includes a provision for UTA to create a “Free-Fare Zone” in the project area immediately after completion of the project.
Councilmember Whitehead indicated that this agreement has already been voted on and approved by UTA. Representative Sam Taylor addressed the Council and expressed his strong opposition to this agreement. He stated that enlarging bus bays will not increase ridership. The problem occurs in that cars parked in the bus bays to load and unload passengers; if the regulation of “No Parking” in the bays was enforced, then the problems would be relieved. He further stated that the problems are caused by management and policy and UTA should be forced to find a way to increase ridership without costing the taxpayers any money.
Mr. Taylor also indicated that the “Free-Fare Zone” for three or four blocks downtown would not work; the UTA is paid for by all county taxpayers and should benefit everyone not just the downtown area. He also indicated that an effort could be made to get downtown merchants to validate bus tickets. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the proposed agreement outlines improvements for several different areas of Main Street not just enlarging bus bays. Craig Peterson, Director of Development Services, addressed the Council and stated that when the City Council and the administration looked toward an urban design strategy within the Central Business District there were three goals that the Council indicated they wanted pursued in preserving the district: The discouragement of development to the east; the encouragement of mixed-use development to the west; and to save the south end of Salt Lake. Mr. Peterson indicated that no money will be spent until the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors, which is the City Council, approves the expenditure.
No money will be spent between 3rd and 4th South unless a special improvement district is approved by the adjoining property owners also no money will be spent between South Temple and North Temple unless a special improvement district is secured there. Mr. Peterson hoped that the Council would act favorably on this agreement so that it could be forwarded to UTA and negotiations could be continued; nothing has been finalized at this point. Mr. Peterson stated the intent is that the administration would enter into a separate agreement with the Redevelopment Agency once this agreement has been signed by UTA. The Redevelopment Agency controls the matching funds and this control should be formalized through an agreement with the city.
Councilmember Davis asked if any of this information had been forwarded to the Central Business District Advisory Board. Mr. Peterson indicated that this was an excellent idea and they should be contacted. Councilmember Fonnesbeck indicated that the Council could approve this agreement to further the process and then make the necessary decisions relating to the project as they arise.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the Mayor to proceed in negotiating on the agreement with the Utah Transit Authority, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(C 82-393)
SALT LAKE CITY BUDGET: FISCAL YEAR 1982-83
RE: The City Employee Compensation Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ratify an ordinance relating to the compensation of city officers and employees.
DISCUSSION: The ordinance incorporates all those items approved by the Council on June 15, 1982. The City Attorney advised that formal ratification would be in order. Mr. Haines indicated that this compensation plan is the same document that the Council approved last year with the exception of the amendments made by the Council on June 15, 1982. He stated that the Council was being asked to ratify those amendments; these amendments were incorporated into the existing plan. Councilmember Shearer expressed concern about controversial items in the plan. Mr. Cutler indicated that the non-controversial items which were approved are amendments to the existing plan. Councilmember Fonnesbeck indicated that the controversial items are part of last year’s plan; the Council approved non-controversial items which were incorporated into the existing plan. Anything the Council did not change reverted back to the old plan; the controversial items were not altered from last year’s plan. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the Council will initiate the action on the controversial items. Councilmember Shearer indicated that she does not endorse every item in this plan and she anticipates looking closely at the plan and changing a number of items.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Ordinance 51 of 1982, regarding the City Employee Compensation Plan, which motion carried, all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who voted nay. Note: The Council requests that items, both excluded amendments and points of the old plan, be brought back to the Council within the next few weeks for further discussion.
RE: The Employment Staffing Document for Salt Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the ordinance adopting an Employment Staffing Document for Salt Lake City.
DISCUSSION: This ordinance formally adopts the staffing level for Salt Lake City as adopted by the City Council in the FY 1982-83 Budget. Councilmember Davis stated that last January she had requested that names be included along with the positions. Mr. Haines stated that the information will be supplied in the quarterly report. Councilmember Shearer asked about the “difference” column in the document. Alan Bridge explained that once the base document is approved there will be changes and the difference column is reserved to show the differences that go on during the year. Ms. Shearer also asked if the Council would be supplied, on a quarterly basis, with information regarding empty positions; Mr. Haines indicated that this was correct.
Councilmember Shearer stated that there is an intent with the budget to remove the position of Director of Finance and Administrative Services (Page 31, job code 1220). Mr. Haines stated that deleting the position would require statutory changes. Under the Administrative Code, the Director of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services functions as the City Auditor, as defined under the Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act. The position also has a directive responsibility for all employees, under the Administrative Code, within that department. Mr. Haines recommended that the Council approve the position of Chief Administrative Officer with an amendment adding Director of Finance and Administrative Services to that title; the other position could then be eliminated.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to delete the position of Director of Finance and Administrative Services from page 31 (job code 1220), and add it to the position of Chief Administrative Officer on page 24 (job code 0003); the position title would read Chief Administrative Officer/Director of Finance and Administrative Services, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Ordinance 52 of 1982, regarding City Employment Staffing Document, as amended, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(O 82-31 & O 82-30)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
John Rapp, Rapp Construction Company, addressed the Council to discuss items relating to City Engineering and the Wild Wave Swimming Pool. Mr. Rapp read a prepared statement (this statement is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). Mr. Rapp informed the Council about the procedure which had been used in awarding the bid for the Wild Wave Pool. He was angry with the period of time from when Rapp Construction Company submitted a proposal until they received the notice to proceed on the project; he indicated that there had been a 78-day lapse after bidding the project (the signed documents were returned on October 27, 1978, and the written notice to proceed was received on December 1, 1978).
He was also angry about a request for extension of construction time which was not granted. Mr. Rapp stated that $15,000 was retained by the city because the project was completed late. Mr. Rapp stated that the company settled out of court a suit they had with Salt Lake City but he wanted to make this information available so the contractual procedures can be studied. Councilmember Mabey asked if an allowance was made to contractors for bad weather. Jim Talebreza indicated that climate is considered at the beginning by adding days to the completion date. If the weather is extremely abnormal, then negotiations are made with the contractor. Mayor Wilson indicated that he would be happy to meet with Mr. Rapp to discuss the procedure.
(G 82-25)
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adjourn regular Council meeting and go into Executive Session to consider items relating to salary and labor negotiations, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Council Members Shearer and Davis who voted nay, and Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(B 82-6)
The regular Council meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.