PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1983, 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 Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Carole Stokes briefed the Council on the agenda. Councilmember Mabey discussed the land write-down project on 600 South with the Council. He indicated that the Redevelopment Agency would have to pay more for the property as it had been reappraised. He said that the owner had given the Redevelopment Agency 90 days to purchase the property. Councilmember Shearer asked whether the Neighborhood Housing Services could make a proposal for the project. Mike Chitwood said he would contact Dave Nimkin and have an answer for the July 7 board meeting. Mr. Chitwood presented the final Redevelopment Agency budget which includes the amendments made during the June 2 board meeting. He also distributed a letter sent to local banking institutions asking for bids on the Single Family Housing Loan program.
Bob Springmeyer, representing Lantis Fireworks Company, addressed the Council concerning the proposed fireworks ordinances. He expressed concern that the ordinances were too restrictive and that the licensing fees were too high. Mr. Springmeyer asked that the ordinances be amended to reduce the footage required between stands and other buildings from 25 feet to ten feet, to strike the requirement that fireworks not be sold within 20 feet of another property line, and to reduce the footage required between stands and flammable materials from 50 feet to 25 feet. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Chief Baker of the fire department how the footage requirements were determined. He said that national and state safety regulations were used. He also indicated that he felt the footage requirements could not be reduced without making the sale of fireworks less safe.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1983, 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.
Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, and Roger Cutler, city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and Councilmember Ronald Whitehead conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Bruce Jenkins.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, June 7, 1983, and to approve the minutes of the emergency meeting held Thursday, June 2, 1983, and the special meeting held Monday, June 6, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(M 83-1)
Special Recognition:
#1. RE: An award received by the fire department from Public Technologies Inc. for Health and Human Services “Selective Dispatching in Emergency Medical Services”. Fire Chief Pederson said that this award was an honor for the City and the fire department. Selective dispatching is an innovative approach and Salt Lake City is the “model city” in the United States for this program. Chief Pederson said that Dr. Clawson, the medical advisor for the fire department, designed this program two years ago and Chief Florence’s employees and the 370 firefighters in the department make the program work.
Chief Pederson said that this is a controversial program but it has worked. Benefits realized by the City have been the elimination or reduction of paramedic “burn out”, reduction in medical calls by about 40%, reduction of vehicle accident ratio by 78%, and increased availability of paramedics for needed critical emergencies. Chief Pederson briefly described the program by saying that calls are screened at the dispatch level and the level of response is determined.
Dr. Clawson said that Public Technologies Inc. is a private group which promotes the exchange of ideas and advances in technology among municipal governments in the United States and Canada. He then read the award and said that the program based on the model in Salt Lake is being implemented in over 40 states and five Canadian provinces, about 270 municipalities in North America. Councilmember Shearer said that she serves on the paramed board and explained that Dr. Clawson designed questions that the dispatchers ask to determine calls which are nonemergencies.
PETITIONS
Petition 400-37 of 1983 submitted by Kevin Nelson.
RE: A request for the vacation of an alley located between 500 North and Ouray Avenue and between Colorado Street and 1300 West.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council hold a public hearing to discuss this request.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Mr. Nelson has paid the $35 public hearing advertising fee.
DISCUSSION: This request is to vacate a 17.3 foot wide alley which runs north and south between Ouray Avenue and 5th North located at approximately 1350 West. Presently there is no surfacing, gravel or asphalt on a majority of the alley. The only present use is by the owners of the two north lots. The northeast lot is a commercial business of carpet sales and they use the alley for a second access to their parking. The northwest lot uses the alley for access to their garage which faces 500 North. Neither of these property owners has signed the petition for the vacation. Nine of the abutting 14 landowners adjoining the alley have signed the petition.
All of the affected City agencies have responded in favor of the vacation subject to the maintenance of the easements for utilities. There are utility poles that presently run along the east side of the alley. It would be desirable if the entire alley were vacated and the owners of the properties on the two north lots could give easements to each other allowing for the continued use of this property as access to their properties. However, if such an agreement cannot be reached, it may be desirable to vacate all the alley except for the north 55 feet. After a decision has been reached the city attorney’s office should be directed to prepare the necessary vacating ordinance as to the extent of the vacation.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to schedule a public hearing for July 12, 1983 at 7:15 p.m. to discuss Petition 400-37 of 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-326)
Petition 400-46 of 1983 submitted by Reba Kiter.
RE: A request for the vacation of a 14.5 foot wide alley running east and west between West Temple and Richards Street for approximately 314.25 feet at approximately 1720 South.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council hold a public hearing to discuss this request.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Ms. Kiter has paid the $35 public hearing advertising fee.
DISCUSSION: There are five property owners adjacent to this alley, four of which have signed the petition. The person that will not sign is the grocery store owner. A total of four of the adjoining property owners are presently using the alley. Problems have been created because of the commercial and residential uses that share the access. A similar request was denied previously in 1974. It appears a solution to the use conflict needs to be reached or it will keep coming back. The Traffic Engineer posted a weight limitation to help restrict the truck traffic. The residents have evidence that shows the limitation is ignored by the delivery trucks. Even though most of the residents use the alley, they are strongly requesting it be closed to remedy the use conflicts.
The grocery store delivery area would still function if the alley were vacated. The party that would be most adversely affected by the vacation is the property owner that submitted the petition. She has limited access to her garage unless a portion of the alley is maintained as a right-of-way. City staff met with the property owners who have requested the vacation and a workable solution has been reached by them; therefore it is recommended to approve the request subject to the following conditions:
1. Maintaining a utility easement, 2. Notice to the Traffic Engineer to allow recovery of the “No Truck” signage, 3. A right of way to be shared by the two westerly property owners. The attorney’s office has prepared the necessary vacating ordinance.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to schedule a public hearing for July 12, 1983 at 7:45 p.m. to discuss Petition 400-46 of 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-327
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
#1. RE: Resolution approving and authorizing Prudential Federal Savings and Loan Association to execute and deliver a partial reconveyance to Beehive International along with the execution of other documents necessary to carry into effect release and partial reconveyance of property, and amending lease agreement, deed of trust, loan agreement, and industrial development revenue bond to effect release and partial reconveyance of property.
DISCUSSION: On August 26, 1982, Randall L. Romrell, General Counsel for Beehive International, wrote to the Council asking for a partial reconveyance of property. This matter has been investigated and the trustee and bondholder have determined that the value of the total property has increased sufficiently to cover the security even without the property sought to be reconveyed. Therefore the trustee prepared a reconveyance to which the bondholder has consented. In order to complete the transaction the Council must execute the resolution. Roger Cutler said that this was a request to release property from a previous industrial revenue bond mortgage arrangement. The property is no longer needed as collateral and the owners are requesting its release so the property can be transferred from the trustee and sold. Mr. Cutler said his office had no objections to this request. Councilmember Shearer asked what collateral the City would have to cover the industrial revenue bond. Mr. Cutler said he was assured that all of the bondholders, the people that have loaned the money, are satisfied and they authorized this collateral to be released and transferred.
Councilmember Shearer asked if this was reflected in documents which were received by the City. Mr. Cutler indicated it was because the City did not have the ability to jeopardize their collateral without their consent and they have signed the transfer.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Resolution 61 of 1983 approving and authorizing Prudential Federal Savings and Loan Association to execute and deliver a partial reconveyance to Beehive International along with the execution of other documents necessary to carry into effect release and partial reconveyance of property, and amending lease agreement, deed of trust, loan agreement, and industrial development revenue bond to effect release and partial reconveyance of property, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-18)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Ordinance amending Section 51-3-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City relating to the Board of Adjustment.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council hold a public hearing to discuss this ordinance amendment.
DISCUSSION: The amendment is in keeping with the recent action of the Legislature authorizing cities to appoint alternate members to the Board of Adjustment, and to have a zoning administrator who can handle, under the direction of the Board of Adjustment, routine and non-contested matters. The amendments to the State Enabling Act were recommended by the Planning Commission and sponsored by Salt Lake City as a step to improve the function of the Board of Adjustment, to alleviate the difficulty of having a quorum to act on the cases and to facilitate routine matters before the board, thus better serving the public. The necessary ordinance has been prepared by the city attorney’s office.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to schedule a public hearing for July 12, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. to consider an ordinance amending Section 51-3-1 relating to the Board of Adjustment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-25)
#2. RE: Proposed Urban Development Action Grant applications.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council schedule public hearings to consider applications for Triad Center Phase II on Block 85 and for the Salt Lake Renaissance Center on Block 49.
DISCUSSION: In order to have both applications ready by the July 30 deadline, it will be necessary to schedule the hearings on July 5 and July 19. The purpose of the first public hearing on July 5 will be to discuss the need for UDAG assistance with these projects. At the second public hearing on July 19, a complete UDAG application will be provided to the Council along with a staff recommendation. If the Council concurs with the administration’s recommendations, a resolution or a motion authorizing the Mayor to submit the applications should be passed.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to schedule public hearings for July 5, 1983 at 6:15 p.m. and July 19, 1983 at 6:15 p.m. to discuss Urban Development Action Grant applications for Triad Center Phase II and the Salt Lake Renaissance Center, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 83-15) & (T 83-17)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Industrial Revenue Bond for Rocky Mountain Bank Note.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council set a date for a public hearing to discuss this request.
DISCUSSION: This is a request for Industrial Revenue Bonds in the amount of $8,000,000 for the construction of a facility at 4867 Harold Getty Drive to house the company’s distribution system.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to schedule a public hearing for July 12, 1983 at 8:00 p.m. to discuss the request by Rocky Mountain Bank Note for Industrial Revenue Bonds, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-19)
#2. RE: Sale of $21,000,000 Salt Lake City, Utah, Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 1983.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution providing for the issuance, sale and delivery of $21,000,000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 1983.
DISCUSSION: Adoption of a resolution is necessary to complete the sale of the Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 1983. It is recommended that the City Council award the sale of these notes to Ehrlich Bober & Co., Inc. The terms and conditions of their proposal best meet all the goals and objectives outlined by the City in the request for proposal for the issuance of a variable rate note. Albert Haines and Cheryl Cook, city treasurer, reiterated the above information.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Resolution 60 of 1983 authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale of the $21 ,000,000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 1983 of Salt Lake City, Utah, providing for the form of note and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-15)
#3. RE: Industrial Revenue Bond extension for Headlund Limited.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve an amendment to the memorandum of agreement for an Industrial Revenue Bond for Headlund Limited, subject to the following condition: That the City Attorney approve the supplemental memorandum of agreement as to form.
DISCUSSION: The Industrial Revenue Bond proceeds will be to convert the Headlund Building into office space for lease to professional firms. The original application was approved by the Planning Director. Headlund Limited wishes to extend the period of time by 12 months. Lance Bateman, city controller, said that the financial aspect of this request had been reviewed and he recommended approval since the request is only for an extension of time.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 90 of 1983 allowing the amendment to the memorandum of agreement by granting a twelve-month extension for Industrial Revenue Bonds to Headlund Limited, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-17)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: Interlocal agreement with Riverton City to allow for dispatch services to Riverton City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution to allow Salt Lake City Fire Department to enter into an agreement with Riverton City to provide dispatch services to Riverton City.
DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Fire Department is presently dispatching emergency calls for Riverton City, and it is a mutually agreeable service. This is an update of an original contract.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Resolution 62 of 1983 authorizing the Mayor to execute an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Riverton City providing Riverton City with fire dispatch services, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 82-13)
#2. RE: Ordinances relating to fireworks.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt ordinance changes to allow for safer use of fireworks and sales of said fireworks.
DISCUSSION: There is a need to have some control and coordination in the sale of fireworks both to control safety as well as the discriminate sale of fireworks. With control, there will be better protection for the citizens of Salt Lake City and better control of emergencies. The following ordinances are proposed to amend the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended:
1 - An ordinance amending Chapter 24, Title 51, by adding a new Subsection 51-24-1(75) thereto, relating to seasonal sales of fireworks. 2 - An ordinance amending Chapter 21, Title 51, by adding a new Subsection 5l-21-2(1)(c) thereto, relating to seasonal sales of fireworks. 3 - An ordinance amending Chapter 16, Title 5, by adding a new Subsection 5-16-2(5) thereto, relating to permit requirements: 4 - An ordinance amending Title 20 by adding a new Chapter 38 thereto, relating to fireworks sellers and fireworks displays. 5 - An ordinance amending Chapter 16, Title 5, by adding a new Section 9 thereto, relating to bond required.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to pull these five ordinances from the consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
The Council then discussed each ordinance individually. 1 - An ordinance amending Chapter 24, Title 51, by adding a new Subsection 51-24-1(75) thereto, relating to seasonal sales of fireworks. Councilmember Shearer asked for an explanation as to the purpose of this ordinance. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, said that this ordinance pertains to the zoning ordinances. He said that as far as zoning is concerned fireworks can be sold from any retail store. But the fire department is concerned about the potential fire hazard of selling fireworks in stores and would prefer that fireworks only be sold in special buildings outside the store. Presently the zoning ordinance allows for temporary buildings to be constructed outside of a business and a parking lot could be used in a “B-3” zone for this purpose.
Mr. Jorgensen said that the location of the structure within the parking lot is limited. Required parking facilities cannot be occupied, the required setback must be maintained, the structure must be located at least 50 feet from any flammable liquid or gas dispensing device and 25 feet from any building so that the fire hazard to a gas source or other building is minimal. Mr. Jorgensen said that the purpose of this ordinance is to permit fireworks stands as a temporary use on a parking lot with the maintenance of all the requirements of a “B-3” zone. Mr. Jorgensen said that businesses unable to sell fireworks from a temporary structure outside the building can sell them in the building as long as fire requirements inside the building are met.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 33 of 1983, amending Chapter 24, Title 51, of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, by adding Subsection 51-24-1(75) thereto, relating to seasonal sales of fireworks, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken. 2 - An ordinance amending Chapter 21, Title 51, by adding a new Subsection 5l-21-2(1)(c) thereto, relating to seasonal sales of fireworks. Councilmember Shearer said that this ordinance also applies to the zoning ordinances.
Councilmember Whitehead said that an individual had suggested to change the requirement regarding the location of the temporary structure in relation to other buildings from 25 feet to 10 feet. A suggestion had also been made to delete the requirement that the structure be located 20 feet from any property line and change the requirement of 50 feet from flammable liquid or gas. Fire Chief Pederson said that Jim Owens, representing the retail merchants, has indicated on various occasions that he feels comfortable with the proposed ordinances. Chief Pederson read from the state code which indicates that nothing in the regulations shall prohibit a county, City or town from enacting laws, rules and regulations governing the retail storage, handling and sale of Class C fireworks which are more restrictive than the state code requirements.
Chief Pederson said that the recommended changes outlined by Councilmember Whitehead were those that the Utah Fire Prevention Board made as minimum standards. Planning and zoning, the city attorney’s office, and the fire department felt that the minimum standards were too liberal for the City. Chief Pederson said that merchant groups have been contacted and they have expressed their satisfaction with these ordinances. Chief Pederson was concerned for the safety of the properties involved and the distances suggested were determined to be the minimum needed in case of fire.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the requirement that the temporary structure be located 25-feet from any other building would encompass the requirement that that structure be located 20-feet from any property line. Vernon Jorgensen said that the zoning requirement in a “B-3” zone will place the structure 20-feet from the front property line and if the side property line is a common boundary the requirement is 10-feet. The idea presented to planning and zoning was the need for access completely around the structure because of the high possibility of fire. Mr. Jorgensen said that this requirement would not apply if fireworks are sold within the permanent building.
Councilmember Shearer asked if fireworks sold inside a business would be restricted from being within 50-feet of flammable liquid or gas and referred to 7-11 stores which are small and sell flammable liquids. Chief Pederson said that a 7-11 representative has supported the restrictions. He also indicated that the fire department has had to be flexible with the retailers so that no group would be excluded from selling fireworks. He said that the recommendations were made by the fire marshals of Salt Lake County.
Councilmember Mabey suggested that small stores like 7-11 could remove their flammable liquids while selling fireworks. Bob Springmeyer, representing Lantis Fireworks Company, said their concerns were with the proposed distance requirement from other buildings, the property line, and the distance from the flammable liquids. He also asked the Council to give consideration to the nonprofit groups in terms of the regulatory fees. Mr. Springmeyer said that under the present law all small stores would be excluded from having a fireworks stand in their parking lot. This would impact about six small supermarkets and at least 15 7-11 stores.
Ike Wong said that he was a director of nonprofit organizations and most of the groups have made arrangements to locate their stands in a 7-11 location. The ordinances as presented would exclude these locations. Mr. Wong said that the Fire Prevention Board has established 25-feet to be a minimum requirement as far as location from flammable liquids. He also reiterated that the 20-foot requirement from the property line would be an imposition to these groups. Lastly Mr. Wong said that the $1,000 bond requirement would be too high for these groups. He said that other cities have required $100 personal check for a clean-up fee.
Councilmember DePaulis indicated that in the past fire department recommendations for safety have been the best suggestions to follow. Mr. DePaulis felt that by reducing location requirements the Council would be ignoring the professional advice given by the fire department. Councilmember Shearer asked what happens to the outdoor stand after a store closes. Mr. Wong said that the merchandise is removed nightly and the area is cleared of trash. The merchandise is put on private residential property or private storage areas. Mr. Springmeyer said that groups are discouraged from taking the merchandise into residential areas. Mr. Jorgensen said that according to the ordinance it is illegal to take the merchandise into a residential area.
Councilmember Whitehead expressed concern about encouraging nonprofit organizations to sell fireworks. Councilmember Fonnesbeck felt that the Council had to decide if the limitations established by the fire department were legitimate. She did not feel that she could question those standards. Mr. Springmeyer said that Salt Lake was the only City he knew of that was proposing the 20-foot distance from property lines. Councilmember Shearer reiterated that the ordinance requires a 25-foot cleared area which would include the 20-foot requirement. Craig Peterson, director of development services, suggested that in the ordinance the word “building” be changed to “structure” so that the ordinance would indicate that a temporary stand could not be located within 25-feet of another structure. He also suggested that the 20-foot property line requirement be exempted but the 50-foot requirement from flammable liquids remain. Bernice Cook asked if these temporary fireworks stands were required to have a City business license. Councilmember Whitehead indicated that a license is required.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to amend the ordinance by changing the word “building” to “structure” and deleting the line “twenty (20) feet from any property line”, so that the phrase would read “... shall not be located within twenty-five (25) feet of any other structure and fifty (50) feet from...’; and also to adopt the Ordinance 34 of 1983, as amended, amending Chapter 21, Title 51, by adding Subsection 51-21-2(l)(c) thereto, relating to seasonal sales of fireworks, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
3 - An ordinance amending Chapter 16, Title 5, by adding a new Subsection 5-16-2(5) thereto, relating to permit requirements. Councilmember Shearer indicated that this ordinance requires a $50 fee per year for temporary fireworks stands or trailers. She asked if the City was assuming liability if a stand passed inspection and then caught fire. Roger Cutler said that the State Governmental Immunity Act has an exemption for inspection, however, there is case law indicating that there is liability for negligent inspections.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Ordinance 35 of 1983, amending Chapter 16, Title 5, by adding Subsection 5-16-2(5) thereto, relating to permit requirements, which motion carried, all members voting aye. 4 - An ordinance amending Title 20 by adding a new Chapter 38 thereto, relating to fireworks sellers and fireworks displays. Councilmember Shearer said that this ordinance included the regulatory license fee which was proposed to be $250. Councilmember DePaulis asked if nonprofit groups could be exempted from paying this fee.
Roger Cutler said that nonprofit groups would not have to pay a business license fee but since the proposed ordinance indicates a $50 fee for outdoor stands the nonprofit groups would have to pay this fee. Mr. Cutler said that they would have to pay the regulatory license of $250, which he thought was being imposed to cover the cost of fire department inspections. There would not be an exemption of this fee unless one is created for charitable organizations.
It was Mr. Springmeyer’s opinion that the fees were excessive. Mr. Cutler indicated that if the fees were waived for charitable groups a paragraph needed to be included in the ordinance indicating that intent. Councilmember Whitehead felt that perhaps the fees should be reduced rather than exempting nonprofit groups. He did not know if the Council wanted to encourage nonprofit groups to sell fireworks by exempting their fees. Mr. Springmeyer suggested the imposition of a flat fee for everyone. Mr. Cutler indicated that if the fees are combined and called business license fees then the nonprofit groups probably would not have to pay because they are not businesses. Councilmember Shearer felt that $250, as proposed in the ordinance, for one month’s regulation was high. Mr. Cutler said that it is expensive to regulate.
Councilmember DePaulis suggested that the regulatory fee be lowered to $200. Since nonprofit groups could be classified as not being a business they would not have to pay the business fees so their overall cost would be lower. Mr. Cutler said the proposed ordinance states that outdoor stands and temporary businesses would pay a $50 fee suggesting that whether the group is or is not a temporary business the fee is required. If the words “outdoor stands and” are deleted then charities would be exempt from paying the fee. Because of the bond requirement in connection with selling fireworks, which would also add an additional fee, Councilmember DePaulis suggested that the regulatory fee be reduced to $150 to keep the cost as low as possible.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to delete the words “... outdoor stands and...” and to change the regulatory license from $250 to $150, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to insert the words “except for the year 1983” in the sentence stating that the fees must be paid at least ten days prior to the opening of the business, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 36 of 1983, as amended, amending Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, by adding Chapter 38 thereto, relating to fireworks sellers and fireworks displays, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
5 - An ordinance amending Chapter 16, Title 5, by adding a new Section 9 thereto, relating to bond required. Mr. Springmeyer said that a $1,000 bond for relocatable office buildings is appropriate but may be excessive for a small stand. He suggested that a $100 bond be required for fireworks stands or trailers. Craig Peterson indicated that the bond requirement would provide funds so that if a stand is abandoned the City would have money to move the structure which would cost more than $100 if the City has to bid for a contractor to remove the stand.
Councilmember Shearer suggested that the bond requirement be $200 and indicated that this would be a deposit to be returned if the structure is dismantled and not abandoned. Councilmember DePaulis asked if a check would be accepted in place of a bond. Mr. Cutler indicated that other ordinances have been amended to allow for cash rather than a bond and he suggested that this ordinance could be amended to reflect that cash or bond would be posted.
Councilmember Shearer referred to the sentence regarding fireworks stands or trailers and asked if the word “trailers” was limited to fireworks or if it could include construction-type trailers. Mr. Cutler said that the word “trailers” could be deleted but felt that as worded in the ordinance “trailers” was modified by the word “fireworks”.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to amend Section 5-16-9 as follows: Add the words “cash or” in the second sentence after the word “post” and add the words “post cash or a bond in the penal sum of $200 which shall he conditioned upon the permittee removing the temporary premises” in the sixth sentence after the word “trailers” so that the sentences read “...shall post cash or a bond in the penal sum of $1,000...” and “...in the case of fireworks stands or trailers post cash or a bond in the penal sum of $200 which shall be conditioned upon the permittee removing the temporary premises within five days...”, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 37 of 1983, as amended, amending Chapter 16, Title 5, of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, 1965, by adding Section 9 thereto, relating to bond required, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 83-20 through (O 83-24)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Special Service District 3-W-2.
RE: Public hearing to receive protests relating to the proposed creation of a special service district designated as Salt Lake City Special Service District 3-W-2 in the northwest area of Salt Lake City.
A public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. to receive protests. Rick Johnston, deputy city engineer, reiterated that the purpose of the hearing was to receive comments regarding the City’s proposal to establish a subsurface drainage special service district. He said that this district was in response to petitions from two property owners, Michael R. Holmes, vice president of Prowswood, and Vern Cooley, Ivory and Co., requesting establishment of the special service district. This would provide for the operation and maintenance of the subdrainage system in the vicinity of the West Pointe Development. Mr. Johnston said that under the provisions of the district all property owners within the areas receiving subdrainage benefits would receive operation and maintenance of the system and the costs would be borne by the property owners serviced through the district. Mr. Johnston outlined the boundaries of the district on a map and said that basically the district is the area bounded by Interstate 15 to Redwood Road and from 900 North to 1700 North with the exception of the new Rose Park subdivision which is already developed.
Mr. Cooley, Ivory and Co. - West Pointe subdivision, indicated that this request was made because basements are essential for a marketing program and that is the purpose of providing the special service district. He said that Ivory and Co. and Prowswood would install all of the improvements and then it will be incumbent upon the special service district to maintain the improvements. Mr. Cooley said that in the initial phase there would be two pumps, twin pumps with one being a back-up pump. These will be operated electrically and there will be an emergency switchboard in case the pumps do not function properly the City will be alerted and will provide emergency service with a generator.
Mr. Cooley said that the property owners would be assessed on a pro rata basis for the expenses that are incurred by the district. Councilmember Shearer said that property owners would also be assessed for a continuing service cost similar to a street lighting district. She further said that the advantage to having this done as a special district is that the mechanism is in place for the collection of had debts. Mr. Cooley said that another advantage is that FHA requires a service district. Councilmember Whitehead said that this special service district will have a positive impact on the area and the fears of flooded basements will be diminished. No one from the audience opposed this request.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 63 of 1983 establishing Special Service District 3-W--2, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-12)
Petition 325 of 1982 submitted by William Kearns.
RE: The request that the alley between 548 and 556 Dexter Street be vacated. The petition has been reviewed by traffic engineering, city engineering, finance department, fire department and public utilities department. The public utilities department notes it will be necessary for the petitioner to arrange to have a private service line serving a residence on 800 West reconnected on 800 West as a condition of vacation. The finance department raises the question of compensation for the alley inasmuch as the petition would award the entire alley to Mr. Kearns. All the abutting property owners have signed the petition.
A non-advertised public hearing was held at 6:15 p.m. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map. He said that the vacation would not create a dead-end alley since another alley extends to the east. He said that there is a private water line in the alley and if the alley is vacated then the public utilities department recommends that the ordinance not take effect until after the water line is moved and made into a public line. Mr. Jorgensen said that both of the abutting property owners have signed the petition and the alley is not needed for public use. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to approve Petition 325 of 1982 requesting that the alley between 548 and 556 Dexter Street be vacated contingent upon the relocation of the water line, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-261)
Petition 400-50 of 1983 submitted by Linda Tracy/Benchmark 2100.
RE: The request that the property located on the west side of 21st East and north of 13th South be rezoned from its present Residential “R-2” to a Residential “R-3A” classification for the purpose of constructing a 12-unit residential condominium. Due to the size and shape of the property in question and its location just north of an existing business district, it is the recommendation of the planning commission that the property be rezoned as requested.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. to consider Petition 400-50 of 1983. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said that the property abuts Emigration Creek and is currently vacant. He reiterated that this proposal was to rezone the property to “R-3A” which would allow for a 12-unit development. Under the “R-3A” zoning any development that has 10 or more units or comprises an acre or more requires a hearing on the specific plan. This creates some control over the development. The developers have proposed a 12-unit condominium taking into special consideration the creek in the rear.
Mr. Jorgensen said that an informal hearing was held before the planning commission and they felt that this would be a good transitional use for the area. Linda Tracy, petitioner, indicated that she was requesting the zoning change not to increase the density of the area but to make allowances for the shape of the property. An aesthetic plan cannot be achieved under the “R-2” zoning. With the current zoning, duplexes could be constructed but that would require 12 driveways backing onto 21st East whereas only one driveway would be needed with the condominium proposal. The zoning change would allow for an improved design. Ms. Tracy showed the Council drawings of the proposed plan. Councilmember DePaulis asked about fire protection and if there would be enough room for fire trucks and service trucks. Mr. Jorgensen indicated that there was enough room. Sam Parker, representing home owners in the area, said that the residents on the opposite side of the creek are happy that the property is going to be developed but they are concerned about the maintenance of the creek and their property value. He said the development has great potential but the residents will oppose the building plans if certain conditions, already agreed to, are not kept.
Mr. Parker said that the home owners do not want the buildings constructed on the creek side of the property so that they view solid concrete walls. He said that they want landscaping so the beauty of the creek will be maintained. Mr. Parker said that the residents of the area want to see the final plans and will oppose them vigorously if the conditions are not met. Councilmember Shearer said she understood that the plans will be submitted to planning and zoning for approval. If there is a problem and the plans are not satisfactory then an appeal will come before the Council.
Mr. Jorgensen said that the neighborhood wanted to be on record that they are approving the plans which have been formulated with the developers and will oppose a substantial change in the plans. Councilmember Davis said that Linda Tracy has assured the Council that the area will he appropriately landscaped. Ms. Davis said that the Council has worked with Ms. Tracy before and she follows through with her commitments.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the zoning change, as requested in Petition 400-50 of 1983, from “R-2” to “R-3A” and direct the city attorney’s office to prepare the appropriate ordinance, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-288)
Petition 400-7 of 1982 submitted by James Hardy, et al.
RE: The request to vacate a portion of a 12-foot wide alley which runs east from 900 West between 513 South and 517 South for approximately 141 feet. The petition has been reviewed by the appropriate departments and each concur that the vacation of the alley would not have an adverse impact on the needs of the public. The petition has been signed by two of the three abutting property owners, as shown on the tax assessment rolls of the county recorder. The third signature is that of a person buying one of the abutting properties on contract. The signature of the legal owner has not been obtained on this petition.
A public hearing was held at 6:45 p.m. to consider this request. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said the request was to vacate one leg of an alley. He reiterated that there are three abutting property owners, two have signed and the third abutting owner has signed but is purchasing the property on contract so the owner of record has not signed the petition. Mr. Jorgensen said that this alley is not being used and the various departments involved recommend vacation subject to the maintenance of any utility easements.
Mr. Hardy, petitioner, indicated that the abutting property owners are in agreement as to how the alley will be divided. He said there is a problem with people parking in the alley and if it becomes private driveways then the problem should be eliminated. Currently the alley becomes a bottleneck and Mr. Hardy said that he uses the alley for access to his garage. No one from the audience opposed this request.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 38 of 1983, vacating a portion of a 12-foot wide alley which runs east from 900 West between 513 South and 517 South for approximately 141 feet, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-262)
Employee Compensation Plan.
RE: Update of the compensation plan of Salt Lake City employees. The compensation plan update contains primarily minor changes in wording in two sections. It is proposed to change the titles only of several executives and delete two positions from the executive pay plan. The only major change is a request to place the city treasurer on the executive pay plan.
A public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the compensation plan. Albert Haines said that the technical purpose for the public hearing was to discuss the revision of salary for a statutory officer, city treasurer. However, Mr. Haines requested that the Council consider adopting the ordinance relating to the employee compensation plan. Alan Bridge, personnel director, briefly discussed the changes to the compensation plan. He indicated that under Section D (Elected Officials) of the category titled Wages and Salaries there was a statement regarding the Mayor’s salary and the amount of that salary needed to be determined by the Council. Mr. Haines indicated that the administration had been directed by the Council chairman to incorporate 10% of the Mayor’s annual salary into the budget for an increase in that salary. They had also been directed to leave the Mayor’s salary blank in the compensation plan and the Council would consider the salary at the time the plan was to be adopted. Mr. Bridge said that under Section E (Statutory Officers) of Wages and Salaries, a change has been made in the salary for the city treasurer to reflect the addition of that position to the executive pay plan at level eight. Mr. Bridge said that Section G (Special Provisions for Fiscal Year 1983-84) under Wages and Salaries was the largest change to the document. Basically the purpose of this section is to allow flexibility in administering the compensation through the year based on the aggregate amount that the Council adopted on June 7, 1983
There may be some groups that prefer having the money contributed to their retirement rather than receiving a cost-of-living increase and other groups may prefer a lump sum payment rather than a cost-of-living increase. Councilmember Shearer asked if the document reflected that base salaries would not increase by more than 5%. Mr. Haines said that the aggregate change will not exceed the amount budgeted or the intent of the 5% base salary increase. Councilmember Shearer asked for clarification of Section G. Roger Cutler, city attorney, indicated that the purpose of the first paragraph in the Section is to clarify that the City is exercising the “funds available” clause in the employee contracts and that the 10% pay adjustments will not be granted. It needs to be confirmed legislatively that the Council is invoking the clause so that the unions cannot return in the future and claim that the City owes the employees 10%.
Councilmember Shearer expressed concern about the second paragraph of Section C which indicates that the City can administer the increase in the manner they choose. Mr. Cutler indicated that the intent is to give the administration the flexibility to put the money into retirement or in individual cases give an increase which may exceed 5%. This clause is intended to protect the Council so that no more than $1.6 million will be spent on the adjustments and in the aggregate will total 4% of the base salary.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if this clause was giving the administration the authority to take money from one pay class and use it for another pay class. Mr. Haines said this was not the case. He also said that the administration did not want to give an across-the-board 3% increase in July and 2% increase in January. There may be some of the bargaining units that do not want this increase added to the base salary, specifically the police and fire units may want the money applied to retirement benefits. Mr. Haines indicated that the administration was asking the Council for management flexibility in administering the compensation within the budgeted amounts.
Mr. Haines said that there were three compensation schedules attached to the proposed plan: executive, 300 level, and fire. None of these salary programs reflect the 3%/2% increase. The administration does not want to increase these salary schedules but would rather move employees within the established schedules. Mr. Haines indicated that last year he committed to the Council not to recommend an adjustment to the 300 and executive salary ranges for another year or two. Councilmember Parker asked what limitations the administration would place upon its flexibility in terms of the amount of increase. Mr. Haines indicated that the limitations were imposed by the Council because a specific amount of money has been established to be distributed. In order to determine the amount of money needed by each department, the 3%/2% increase was applied across the board to all the employees. Mr. Cutler said that the Fiscal Procedures Act prohibits the administration from transferring monies between departments without Council approval.
Mr. Bridge finished outlining the compensation plan by referring the Council’s attention to minor wording and title changes. Bernice Cook said that she was offended that City employees would try to get a raise on the basis that they worked hard on the flood. She said that she did not know of other cities which were giving raises to their employees for that reason. She also said that the volunteers were not getting payment for their efforts. Ms. Cook referred to the “if funds are available” clause in the employee contracts and said that funds are not available. She also said that she was offended to think that taxes would be raised to give employees a raise in salary.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if a dollar amount had been recommended for the Mayor’s salary increase. Mr. Haines said that it was the Council’s decision. Councilmember DePaulis suggested increasing the salary to $45,000 which is less than the mid-range of the executive salary schedule. Councilmember Shearer felt that it was bad timing to increase the Mayor’s salary even though she realized that the salary for the position had not been increased in several years. She said that the City was having a difficult time with taxes this year and felt that it would be inappropriate to raise an elected official’s salary. Councilmember Parker felt that the Council needed to consider the fact that the Mayor’s salary has been the same for four years. Councilmember Davis asked if the Mayor would continue to receive the car allowance. Councilmember Whitehead said that only the salary would change. Councilmember Davis felt that $45,000 was excessive.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve the Mayor’s salary at $45,000 as of January 1, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Council Members Davis and Shearer who voted nay. Councilmember Shearer expressed concern that the clerical and office employees were in the low range of their pay schedule and she wanted to make sure that they were given appropriate consideration. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Haines if the fire and police agreed with the compensation plan. Mr. Haines said that he has not met with the unions but based on earlier discussions an interest was expressed in having the salary increase applied to retirement benefits. Councilmember Shearer felt that the Council should not be involved in approving union contracts as required by the collective bargaining resolution.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Ordinance 39 of 1983, amending Section 25-1-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as last amended by Bill 51 of 1982, relating to compensation of city officers and employees, including placing the city treasurer on the executive pay plan, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-19)
Petition 400-52 of 1983 submitted by Dale Barton & Hardage Enterprises.
RE: The request to rezone the south side of Linden Avenue between 7th and 8th East from a Residential “R-6” to a Commercial “C-l” classification. This involves the extension of the existing “C-l” zoning on the north side of 4th South north to Linden Avenue. In the opinion of the Planning Commission the proposed rezoning, which as explained by the petitioner would allow for the development of a residential-type motel complex, would create a buffer for the residents on the north side of Linden Avenue and would actually be a protection and an enhancement to the adjoining residential area.
A public hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this request. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, said that the property facing on 4th South between 7th and 8th East is zoned Commercial “C-1” which permits retail businesses and motels. The property behind this location is zoned “R-6” which allows high-density apartment houses. Mr. Jorgensen said that the petitioner has acquired most of the property facing on 4th South and extending north. The request is to rezone the “R-6” property on the south side of Linden Avenue to “C-l” for the purpose of constructing an apartment-type motel.
The proposal is that the developer would build 16 separate structures each containing approximately eight units. The units would consist of a kitchen, sitting area, and bedroom designed for a person staying for several days or weeks. Mr. Jorgensen said that the “C-1” zone requires a 15-foot landscaped setback from all property lines. The plan submitted has all access coming from 4th South with no access onto Linden. An informal hearing was held before the Planning Commission and some of the property owners facing on 8th East requested that their properties not be included in the rezoning.
Mr. Jorgensen reiterated that the request was to rezone all the property on the south side of Linden Avenue from 7th East, east to the rear of the properties facing on 8th East and extending south to the existing “C-1” zoning. He said that the Planning Commission gave this request a favorable recommendation. Councilmember DePaulis asked if there was a guarantee that the proposed project would be constructed. Mr. Jorgensen said that from a zoning standpoint if the property is rezoned it is zoned for any use allowed in a “C-1” zone. The “C-1’ permits any type of an office or retail use. Mr. Barton, petitioner, indicated that in the many years he has owned the property in question the present offer is the only one that he has ever entertained or accepted for the development of the property. He told about a need for facilities close to the various hospitals where people can stay when a family member is in the hospital. The Salt Lake area hospitals serve many people from out of state and the proposed facilities would meet the needs of the family members staying in the area while a relative is in the hospital. Mr. Barton said that there is a great deal of stress in major operations and having family members close to the hospital so they can lend their support is vital.
Mr. Barton assured the Council that no other project would be built on this property. Bill Vickrey, representing Hardage Enterprises, briefly explained the project. He said that the facility is an all-suite hotel; every room contains a fully-equipped kitchen and many of the units have fireplaces. The facility is designed for the business traveler who would stay in the area for several nights. The facility accepts over-night business but the project is designed for the long-term visitor.
Don Shafer, 350 South 8th East, said that his portion of the block in question has been excluded from the zoning change which is what he and his neighbor wanted. He said they are part of the North Central Neighborhood Council and are concerned about the residential nature of the area. Mr. Shafer indicated that the residents want only this project constructed and are in favor of the project as outlined. He also said that he wanted the Council to include in a motion that if this project is not built then the zoning would revert back to “R-6” or be reconsidered.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the Council cannot legally make that stipulation but the Council could ask for a deed restriction from the owner. Jason Yew expressed his support for this project. He said that his property is located on the corner of 8th East and Linden Avenue and wanted his property included in the zoning change. J.C. May, North Central Neighborhood staff support, distributed a letter from Michael Error, the chairman of that council. The letter emphasized the need for guarantees and restrictions surrounding this property if the proposed project is not constructed. Mr. May said that the neighborhood supports the “R-6” zoning for the strip of property along 8th East so it will be a residential buffer.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember DePaulis asked how the deed restriction would be accomplished. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that it can only be done between the owner and the seller, the Council cannot participate. Mr. Barton indicated that he did not oppose a deed restriction and again assured the Council that only the proposed project would be built. Mr. Vickrey indicated that he did not oppose the deed restriction and said that if the proposed project is not built then his company has no use for the property.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve Petition 400-52 of 1983 requesting the rezoning of the south side of Linden Avenue between 700 and 800 East from a Residential “R-6” to a Commercial “C-1” classification, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-289)
Industrial Revenue Bond for Salt Lake Residence Corporation.
RE: An Inducement Resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond for Salt Lake Residence Corporation in the amount of $8,000,000 for the construction of 16 buildings to be located at 400 South between 700 and 800 East, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, the meeting of all necessary financial requirements of the city, and the payment of the established nonrefundable fee for processing.
A public hearing was held at 7:45 p.m. to consider this request. Mr. Fred Olsen from Fox, Edwards and Gardiner, bond counsel for the IRB, said that the appropriate notice for the hearing was not published in the newspaper and he requested that the hearing be continued to July. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to continue the public hearing to July 12, 1983 at 8:15 p.m. to discuss the Inducement Resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond for Salt Lake Residence Corporation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-16)
BUDGET: FISCAL YEAR 1983-1984
Tax Levy: RE: A resolution determining the rate of tax levy and levying taxes upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City, Utah, made taxable by law, for the year 1983.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 64 of 1983 determining the rate of tax levy and levying taxes upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City, Utah, made taxable by law, for the year 1983, with 18.79 mills for general fund and for general City purposes and 3.39 mills for libraries, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(R 83-7)
Legislative Intents: RE: The Legislative Intents relating to the Fiscal Year 1983-84 budget. The Legislative Intents were presented as follows: #1. Response to Intents - It is the intent of the City Council that its Legislative Intents be acted upon immediately by the administration. To that end, questions and points for clarification should be raised no later than July 15, 1983 so action on intents can begin immediately. #2. Employee Compensation - It is the intent of the City Council that a maximum of $1.6 million be allocated for employee compensation and that base salaries not increase more than the 3% cost-of-living increase effective July 1, 1983 and the 2% cost-of-living increase effective January 1, 1984 agreed upon by the City Council on June 7, 1983. #3. Flood-Related Expenses - It is the intent of the City Council that the administration seek reimbursement for all flood-related expenses through federal, state, and county agencies. #4. Emergency Work Program - It is the intent of the City Council that the funding approved for the Emergency Work Program be used in the cleanup of flood-related damage. Such funding is to be used for flood-related activities as a first priority; should any emergency work program money remain after the flood cleanup is complete it may be applied throughout the City as needed.
#5. Travel - It is the intent of the City Council that expenditures for travel not exceed the amount appropriated and noted in the 1983-84 budget. #6. Insurance - It is the intent of the City Council that proposals to reduce the cost of health and life insurance policies be submitted to the Council and administration by January 15, 1984. Such proposals should include the cost- effectiveness of second opinions and increased deductibles. #7. Fund Balance - It is the intent of the City Council that any funds in the fund balance in excess of the legal limit he utilized to fund capital improvements projects approved for funding by the City Council.
#8. Municipal Affairs Budget: Utah League of Cities and Towns - It is the intent of the City Council that Salt Lake City’s contribution to the Utah League of Cities and Towns be delayed pending a report on the League’s services to Salt Lake City. Such report should be completed and presented to the City Council no later than January 1, 1984.
#9. Mayor’s Office: Community Affairs Management - It is the intent of the City Council that the policy regarding the resolution of citizen complaints which states that “a complaint is considered resolved when the City’s liability is satisfied” be examined. Further, it is the intent of the City Council that a report on methods used to resolve citizen complaints be prepared and presented to the City Council by September 1, 1983.
#10. Attorney’s Office - In approving this budget, it is the intent of the City Council that by July 1, 1983 necessary hiring procedures be initiated in order to retain by September 1, 1983 an additional attorney. It is the intent of the City Council in providing the funding for this position that this attorney be retained for the purpose of addressing those land use issues which are primarily legislative in nature, and that he or she work with other City attorneys now involved in land use questions, and with the City Council, and with the Planning Commission and staff, in revising and updating the land use ordinances of the city.
#11. Development Services - It is the intent of the City Council that master plans be prepared for approval by the Council within the time frame established at the time an appropriation is initially approved. It is the Council’s intent that staff be available to accomplish all requested master plans within the time frame specified.
#12. Development Services - It is the intent of the City Council that necessary ordinances be prepared to address the issue of impact fees. These ordinances should be written to enable the City to levy such fees when there is a need to do so in order to fairly allocate the costs of new development. It is the intent of the Council to follow the legal standards of reasonableness laid down in Banberry Development Corp. vs. South Jordan City and related Supreme Court of Utah cases.
#13. Finance and Administrative Services - It is the intent of the City Council that should the administration elect to contract with the City/County Health Department for animal control services that no service level decrease result from contracting; rather, that noticeable improvements in animal control services be reported to the City Council no later than April 1, 1984. However, the contract amount for animal control services should not exceed the amount requested by the administration for animal control in the 1983-84 budget.
#14. Finance and Administrative Services - It is the intent of the City Council that the administration actively pursue the sale of the program for the automated purchasing system to interested public and private entities. #15. Fire Department - It is the intent of the City Council that charges for dispatch services for other governmental entities be audited during the 1983- 1984 fiscal year to insure that charges are commensurate with the value of the service and savings realized by other entities. #16. Fire Department - It is the intent of the City Council that alarm systems utilized within the Fire Department be audited to insure that such systems are necessary for delivery of fire protection services to the residents and businesses of Salt Lake City.
#17. Parks - It is the intent of the City Council that designs for new parks or parks department projects and plans for modification to existing parks or parks department projects be submitted to the City Council for information and review prior to implementation of the plans or advertising for construction bids. #18. Parks - It is the intent of the City Council that procurement of air rights over mini-park sites in the Sugar House area be pursued. These sites include property on Hillcrest Avenue and property under the I-80 freeway.
#19. Parks - It is the intent of the City Council that the administration pursue a joint venture with other governmental entities that would accomplish the completion of the Hansen Hollows Nature Park. #20. Police Department - It is the intent of the City Council that requests for school crossing guards in addition to those specifically funded in this budget be investigated, and where requested by the City Council, guards be hired to protect school children. It is further the intent of the City Council that legislation be considered for introduction in the next general session of the Utah State Legislature that would transfer financial responsibility for school crossing guards to individual school districts. #21. Public Utilities - It is the intent of the city Council that information be provided to the City Council demonstrating the savings realized by improvements to the meter reading program.
#22. Public Works - It is the intent of the City Council that requests from City residents for individual street lights be investigated, and where warranted under the Street Lighting Policy, installed. Funds for street lights should come from the existing street lighting program. #23. Public Works - It is the intent of the City Council that Salt Lake City cooperate with the Salt Lake City School District to construct traffic safety turnouts at Hawthorne Elementary School and Lowell Elementary School by authorizing $12,000 to match funds appropriated by the Salt Lake City School District for this construction. #24. Public Works - It is the intent of the City Council that the Neighborhood Clean-Up Program be scheduled to begin after April 1, 1984.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the Legislative Intents numbered 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, which motion carried, all members voting aye. The remaining intents, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 17, were then discussed individually. #2. Employee Compensation Mr. Haines said that this intent would be contrary to what the Council passed in the employee compensation plan. The Council agreed that this intent was not needed. No motion was made to approve Intent #2. #3. Flood-Related Expenses Councilmember Shearer felt that the various enterprise funds and the redevelopment agency should participate as appropriate in the city’s share of the flood expenses.
Councilmember Davis suggested that meetings be scheduled with the County Commissioners to discuss the county’s liability in terms of the flood damage in Salt Lake City. Councilmember Shearer suggested amending the intent by adding the following sentence: To the extent any specific expense is not totally covered by federal, state or county funds, the city should look first to insurance, the enterprise funds or the redevelopment agency, as appropriate, before the general fund.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to approve Intent #3 with the addition of the following sentence at the end, “To the extent any specific expense is not totally covered by federal, state or county funds, the city should look first to insurance, the enterprise funds or the redevelopment agency, as appropriate, before the general fund”, which motion carried, all members voting aye. #5. Travel Councilmember Whitehead indicated that this intent identifies one item in the budget that should not exceed the amount appropriated and actually the Council does not want any area to exceed appropriated funds. Councilmember Shearer indicated that she did not think it was inappropriate for the Council to specify with this intent that they feel travel should be justified and beneficial to the City. Mr. Haines said that the travel budgets have been frozen for two years and this will be the third year that no increase in travel has been made. The Council has expressed their intended desires in this area by approving the budget. Mr. Haines felt that this intent would be redundant. Ms. Shearer said that the Council has approved the appropriation but they want to be specific as to how the Council wanted the funds to be spent.
Councilmember Davis referred to a computer printout indicating cost overruns in travel expenditures throughout various departments. Mr. Haines indicated that for the last two years more control has been placed on travel expenditures and there are not excess funds in the departments. He also said that sometimes the wrong cost center is identified and an overrun occurs. For instance there was a problem differentiating between conventions and travel so this year those two items were combined. Councilmember DePaulis felt that perhaps enough money was appropriated for the overall travel budget but not enough was budgeted in certain cost centers under travel and that was why there were overruns in travel expenditures.
Councilmember Mabey said that there needed to be flexibility in the overall travel budget. Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to approve Intent #5, which motion failed, all members voting nay except Council Members Shearer and Davis who voted aye. #7. Fund Balance Councilmember Whitehead suggested that of the income generated for the emergency fund $1 million should be allocated to the emergency fund and the balance should be allocated to a fund that cannot be used until all the expenditures have been account for in connection with the flood. He said this would allow for flexibility rather than having all the money in the emergency fund.
Mr. Haines said that as a practical matter this intent has no meaning because there is no authority to do anything with fund balance unless the Council, through the public hearing process, initiates an action. Neither the administration nor the Council at this point can deal with this issue. If the fund limit is exceeded the Council can either appropriate the excess through a public hearing process or they can reduce taxes. Councilmember Whitehead indicated that he wanted a fund which would allow money to be used for the emergency fund or capital improvements. Mr. Haines said that if there is an excess in the emergency fund it can be appropriated.
Councilmember Whitehead said that about $2 million was appropriated to the emergency fund. When the City is reimbursed for flood damages that money will be put into the emergency fund and the fund may be over the legal limit. Mr. Whitehead said that he felt money should be available to do capital improvements rather than have all the money in the emergency fund. He said that only the excess money in the emergency fund can be used for other purposes. Mr. Cutler reiterated that fund balance is limited to be appropriated for emergencies. If there is a surplus over and above the legal limit the law requires that the money be appropriated in the next year’s budget. Mr. Cutler indicated that if fund balance is in the black when money is reimbursed then it can possibly be appropriated before it is put into fund balance but a deficit cannot be created. No motion was made on Intent #7. #10. Attorney’s Office Councilmember Davis asked if this intent needed to indicate that CDBG funding would be used. Councilmember DePaulis said that this had already been indicated in the budget.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to approve Intent #10, which motion carried, all members voting aye. #12. Development Services Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Cutler if he had read this intent. Mr. Cutler indicated that he had and that he had no concerns about the intent.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to approve Intent #12, which motion carried, all members voting aye. #17. Parks Mr. Haines said he would be concerned, in terms of this intent, if a Councilmember or group of Councilmembers wanted to review and unnecessarily postpone the implementation of a project. Councilmember Shearer said that if a majority of the Council postponed a project then perhaps it would be appropriate. Councilmember Davis said that this intent was in part a result of the Nibley Park golf course clubhouse, which design has received numerous complaints.
Mr. Haines said that it was appropriate for the Council to review plans for informational purposes. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the Council was asking for the courtesy of seeing the plans but there is a difference between reviewing the plans and demanding to make changes. She thought the same review courtesy ought to be extended to neighborhood councils. Councilmember Shearer said that this intent does not imply that changes can be made to the project. Mr. Haines said that if there is an attempt at interference the administration will resist. He said that designs for parks are an administrative function.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve Intent #17, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(B 83-3)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
#1. Dorothy Pulley expressed her appreciation to the Council for the hard work that had been done to keep the flood waters contained. Ms. Pulley also said that when curb and gutter was installed in her area storm drains should have been added. She suggested that when future projects are constructed the City should consider including storm drains at the same time.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.