PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch discussed miscellaneous items relating to the agenda.
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, JUNE 15, 1982, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember Alice Shearer conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Albert Haines, Chief Administrative Officer.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, June 8, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(M 82-2)
PETITIONS
301 of 1981 submitted by Arthur and Fred Fairclough.
RE: The request that property at the northeast corner of the intersection of 9th West and 17th South be reclassified from a “B-3” and “R-2” classification to a Commercial “C-2’ classification.
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the action of the Council at a public meeting on March 9, 1982, an ordinance has been prepared providing for the rezoning of the northeast corner of a block at the intersection of 900 West and 1700 South Streets. This parcel is a rectangle extending east 429 feet and north 273.6 feet from said corner. This ordinance will change existing R-2” and “B-3” zoning to a Commercial C-2 classification.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 42 of 1982, effectuating a change of “B-3” and “R-2” zoning to “C-2” at the northeast corner of the intersection of 900 West and 1700 South, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-38)
308 of 1981 submitted by Colleen B. Hardwick.
RE: Curb and Gutter repairs desired on Harvard Avenue from State Street to 200 East.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a public hearing on this issue to determine if an appropriation is warranted in order to repair the damage.
DISCUSSION: It is the contention of the petitioner that damage occurred to the curb and gutter in the area as result of work performed by Mountain Fuel Supply Company and the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Included as part of the petition are letters from the Department of Public Utilities and Mountain Fuel Supply denying any responsibility for the damages. The recommendation from Jim Talebreza offered several proposals to address this problem. One would be for the city to assume the total cost for the repair of damages on Harvard Avenue. The second proposal is that a 50/50 participation proposal be offered to the residents. In either event, an immediate solution will require an emergency appropriation by the Council to cover the expense of the repairs.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for July 13, 1982 at 6:45 p.m. to address the issue of curb and gutter repairs on Harvard Avenue from State Street to 200 East, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-139)
124 of 1982 submitted by Franklin Financial.
RE: The request that property at 150 North Main Street be changed from its present “R-5” zoning classification to a “C-l” zoning classification.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on July 13, 1982 at 6:15 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 124.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The petitioner is required to pay a $50 advertising fee to the City Recorder.
DISCUSSION: The petitioner is requesting the zoning change to allow the already converted Kimball Apartments, which is a residential condominium, to a shared ownership condominium. A shared ownership or timeshare condominium is viewed as a hotel and not a permitted use in the Residential “R-5" district. The Planning Commission has reviewed this petition and recommended that a public hearing be held.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for July 13, 1982 at 6:15 p.m. to discuss the request that property at 150 North Main Street be rezoned from “R-5” to “C-l", which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-140)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
RE: Proposed fuel and oil royalty fees - airport facilities amendment: Section 2-2-28.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider an amendment to Section 2-2-28 of the Salt Lake City Code.
DISCUSSION: To offset the rising cost of providing general aviation services (N.B. Operating costs of $295,300 in FY 1981 were 14.5% over 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 Shearer referred this proposed amendment to the consent agenda for July 6, 1982; referred without objection.
(O 82-38
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: Proposed amendment to Section Chapter 1 of Title 32 of city ordinances by amending Section 32-1-5 and adding 32-1-5.1.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Chapter 1 of Title 32 of the Salt Lake City ordinances.
DISCUSSION: The two proposed companion ordinances have been drafted in order to assist the enforcement personnel in discharging their official duties. Section 32-1-5 clarifies the offense of interfering with an officer and now includes all enforcement personnel of the city, not just police officers and firemen. Section 32-1-1.5 is a new ordinance, patterned after the state law, designed to punish persons who willfully obstruct the criminal justice system by aiding and assisting criminal suspects avoid apprehension, prosecution, or conviction.
Councilmember Shearer referred to the Public Safety and Recreation Subcommittee the two proposed ordinances drafted in order to assist enforcement personnel in discharging their official duties; referred without objection.
(O 82-39)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RE: Three homes to be added to the City Register of Historic Buildings.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on July 13, 1982 to discuss the request of three property owners to have their homes placed on the City Register of Historic Buildings.
DISCUSSION: The homes are the Charles H. Jenkins house - 31 Gray Avenue; James and Susan Langton house - 648 East 100 South; and Robert R. Widdison house - 464 Pugsley Avenue. The Landmarks Committee has reviewed and inventoried their homes and found that they meet the standards and recommends that these homes be placed upon the historic register. The Planning Commission has concurred with Landmark’s recommendation and recommended that a public hearing be held.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for July 13, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the addition of three homes to the City Register of Historic Buildings, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(L 82-5)
RE: Alignment of Indiana Avenue from Redwood Road to the west city limits.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on July 13, 1982 at 6:30 p.m. to adopt the official map showing the new alignment of Indiana Avenue from Redwood Road to the west city limits.
DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission has reviewed the official map and has recommended that it be adopted. The eventual construction of Indiana Avenue as shown will correct serious inadequacies as to width and correct the alignment as it passes under I-215 and crosses over the Surplus Canal at right angles into 9th South Street. The adoption of the official map will legally provide for the preservation of the needed right-of-way until the project can be completed.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for July 13, 1982 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the official map showing the new alignment of Indiana Avenue from Redwood Road to the west city limits, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(W 82-5)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-622.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Consider for possible adoption an assessment ordinance for Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-622 levying a tax and providing for the assessment of property; imposing an interest rate of seven percent (7%) per annum on current assessment payments and eighteen percent (18%) on delinquent payments; and 2. Make a motion approving the form of notice of assessment and directing the Acting City Treasurer to mail notices of assessment to the property owners in Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-622.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-622 will require the interest difference between the 7% charged to the abutters and the rate at which the bonds were sold to be made up from the Guarantee Fund.
DISCUSSION: In order to fund Special Improvement Districts, the city needs to bond those eligible districts whenever possible. This district is eligible for bonding. Albert Haines addressed the Council and reiterated the information as outlined above. Dick Fox, Fox, Edwards and Gardiner, stated that a special hearing was held on the question of the interest rate and because of the protests that were filed, the rate was included on the agenda item; the interest rate will be below the market rate at which it is expected the bonds will be sold. Other than that, this is a standard approval of assessment rolls and levy of the assessments; the interest rate is consistent with the old ordinance. Mr. Haines stated that the funds that would provide the increment between the 7% and the bid will be covered out of the Special Improvement Guarantee Fund; it has been determined that the fund balance will not be depleted.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Ordinance 41 of 1982, confirming the assessment rolls and levying a tax providing for the assessment of property in Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-622; imposing an interest rate of 7% per annum on current assessment payments and 18% on delinquent payments; and approving the form of Notice of Assessment and directing the Acting City Treasurer to mail notices of assessment to the property owners in Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-622, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(Q 82-3)
RE: Special Improvement Districts.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Consider bids received for the purchase of $38,000 Special Assessment Bonds for Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-555-1 and possible adoption of a resolution awarding the sale of the bonds; 2. Consider for possible adoption a Bond Resolution for Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-555-1 authorizing the issuance and prescribing the form and terms of the Bonds; 3. Consider bids received for the purchase of $144,000 Special Assessment Bonds for Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-533 and possible adoption of a resolution awarding the sale of the Bonds;
4. Consider for possible adoption a Bond Resolution for Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-533 authorizing the issuance and prescribing the form and terms of the Bonds; 5. Consider bids received for the purchase of $39,000 Special Assessment Bonds for Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-601-2 and possible adoption of a resolution awarding the sale of the Bonds; and 6. Consider for possible adoption a Bond Resolution for Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-601-2 authorizing the issuance and prescribing the form and terms of the Bonds.
DISCUSSION: In order to fund Special Improvement Districts, the city needs to bond those eligible districts whenever possible. These districts are eligible for bonding. Albert Haines stated that the Council received a summary of bids along with letters informing the Council about the low bidders; he then outlined that information. 1. RE: $38,000 Salt Lake City, Utah, Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 38-555-1. The apparent low bidder for the purchase of $38,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 38-555-1 of Salt Lake City, dated July 1, 1982 was the bid submitted by Continental Bank and Trust Company of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Continental Bank and Trust Company bid was submitted in compliance with all provisions contained in the Official Notice of Sale and was accompanied with a certified good faith check in the amount of $760. It is recommended that the City Council award the $38,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 38-555-1 to Continental Bank and Trust Company at a net effective interest rate of 12.488479%.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 62 of 1982 confirming the sale of $38,000 Special Assessment Bonds to Continental Bank and Trust Company for Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-555-1 and also adopt Resolution 63 of 1982 authorizing the issuance and providing for the sale of $38,000 Special. Assessment Bonds for Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-555-1, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
Mr. Haines stated that the only change in the resolutions is the designation of the Treasurer. 2. RE: $144,000 Salt Lake City, Utah, Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 38-533. The apparent low bidder for the purchase of $144,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 38-533 of Salt Lake City, dated July 1, 1982 was the bid submitted by Continental Bank and Trust Company of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Continental Bank and Trust Company bid was submitted in compliance with all provisions contained in the Official Notice of Sale and was accompanied with a certified good faith check in the amount of $2,800. It is recommended that the City Council award the $144,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 38-533 to Continental Bank and Trust Company at a net effective interest rate of 12.49378%.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 64 of 1982 confirming the sale of $144,000 Special Assessment Bonds to Continental Bank and Trust Company for Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-533 and also adopt Resolution 65 of 1982 authorizing the issuance and providing for the sale of $144,000 Special Assessment Bonds of Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-533, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
3. RE: $39,000 Salt Lake City, Utah Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 38-601-2. The apparent low bidder for the purchase of $39,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 38-601-2 of Salt Lake City, dated July 1, 1982 was the bid submitted by Continental Bank and Trust Company of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Continental Bank and Trust Company bid was submitted in compliance with all provisions contained in the Official Notice of Sale and was accompanied with a certified good faith check in the amount of $780. It is recommended that the City Council award the $39,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 38-601-2 to Continental Bank and Trust Company at a net effective interest rate of 12.48858%.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 66 of 1982 confirming the sale of $39,000 Special Assessment Bonds to Continental Bank and Trust Company for Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-601-2 and also adopt Resolution 67 of 1982 authorizing the issuance and providing for the sale of $39,000 Special Assessment Bonds of Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-601-2, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council- member Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(Q 82-4)(Q 82-18)
RE: Tax Anticipation Notes.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Consider bids received for the purchase of up to $17,700,000 Tax Anticipation Notes, Series 1982, of Salt Lake City, Utah and possible adoption of a resolution awarding the sale of the Notes; and 2. Consider for possible adoption a Note Resolution for the $17,700,000 Tax Anticipation Notes, Series 1982, providing for their issuance and prescribing the form and terms of the Notes.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: These Tax Anticipation Notes will require amendment of the FY 1982-83 Budget.
DISCUSSION: The $17,700,000 in Tax Anticipation Notes is needed to provide working capital for the city from July 1, 1982, through November 30, 1982, at which time property tax collections will be received. Albert Haines outlined the information contained in a letter addressed to the City Council regarding $17,700,000 Salt Lake City, Utah, Tax Anticipation Notes, Series 1982. The apparent low bidder for the purchase of $17,700,000 Tax Anticipation Notes, Series 1982 of Salt Lake City, dated July 1, 1982 was the bid submitted by Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York City, New York.
The Morgan Guaranty Trust Company bid was submitted in compliance with all provisions contained in the Official Notice of Sale and was accompanied with a certified good faith check in the amount of $354,000. It is recommended that the City Council award the sale of $17,700,000 series 1982 Notes to Morgan Guaranty Trust Company at a net effective interest rate of 9.5289%. Mr. Haines stated that there were eight bidders as outlined on the summary of bids; the local agent for the Morgan Guaranty’s bid is Zion’s First National Bank. Their bid is relatively good for this market time and is about one percentage point above tax anticipation notes issued one year ago.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 68 of 1982 awarding the sale of the $17,700,000 Tax Anticipation Notes, Series 1982, to Morgan Guaranty Trust Company and providing for their issuance and delivery and setting forth the note form, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(Q 82-22)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: Airport Authority Board.
RECOMMENDATION: Reappoint Mirvin Borthick to another four-year term, to expire January 1986, and appoint Eddie Mayne to a four-year term, to expire January 1986.
DISCUSSION: The terms of Mirvin P. Borthick and Alvin W. Joseph on the Airport Authority Board expired January 1982. Mr. Joseph has expressed his desire to step down; therefore, the appointment of Eddie Mayne, President, Secretary-Treasurer of the Utah State AFL-CIO, is recommended along with the reappointment of Mirvin Borthick.
Councilmember Shearer referred to the Public Works Subcommittee the appointments of Mirvin Borthick and Eddie Mayne to the Airport Authority Board; referred without objection.
(I 82-14)
RE: Art Design Board.
RECOMMENDATION: Appointment of Robert Doherty to a three-year term to expire March 1985.
DISCUSSION: The term of Robert Fowler on the Art Design Board expired March 1982 and he has indicated that he will be unable to continue serving on the Board. Therefore, it is recommended the Mr. Doherty be appointed to the Board; Mr. Doherty was recommended by the members of the Art Design Board. He is Director of the Salt Lake Art Center and has an excellent background in the arts. Councilmember Shearer referred to the Public Improvements Subcommittee the appointment of Robert Doherty to the Art Design Board; referred without objection.
(I 82-15)
OFFICE of PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
RE: Renewal of contract with City/County Health Department for Fiscal Year 1982-83.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County and the Salt Lake City-County Board of Health.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Budgeted in the Office of Personnel Management 1982-83 fiscal budget.
DISCUSSION: This is a renewal of basically the same contract executed last year for physicals for new employees, industrial injuries, and annual public-safety physicals. The contract reflects a small increase in per-item costs. Councilmember Shearer referred to the Budget Committee the renewal of the contract with the City/County Health Department; referred without objection.
(C 82-324)
SALT LAKE CITY BUDGET: FISCAL YEAR 1982-83
RE: Ordinances dealing with the City Employment Staffing Document, Motor Vehicle Use, and the City Employee Compensation Plan.
Albert Haines indicated that there were non-controversial items in the City Employee Compensation Plan which needed action at this time. He further indicated that action could be delayed on the ordinances regarding the City Employment Staffing Document and Motor Vehicle Use so that the administration had an opportunity to spend time with the Council and explain the rationale behind these recommendations.
Employment Staffing Document
An ordinance amending Section 25-1-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to the adoption of an Employment Staffing Document for Salt Lake City. The ordinance regarding the Employment Staffing Document was held for Committee of the Whole so the Council has time to compare it with the budget document.
Motor Vehicle Use
An ordinance repealing Section 33-3-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Motor Vehicle Use. No action was taken on the ordinance regarding Motor Vehicle Use to allow for further review.
Employee Compensation Plan
An ordinance amending Section 25-1-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to City Employee Salaries and Benefits. Albert Haines indicated that the Council needed to consider the non-controversial components of this document; he then outlined those areas (this document is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder). Approval of the following items was requested, the asterisk indicates changes made by the Council. I. Effective Date - entire section. II. Eligible Employees - entire section. *The Council deleted the second sentence of subsection A (Part-time, Seasonal, and Hourly Employees). III. Wages and Salaries - the first paragraph of subsection A (Executive Officers); the first two paragraphs of subsection B (Merit Employees); the whole of subsections C (Fire Department Personnel), D (Elected Officials), B (Statutory Officers), and F (Adult School Crossing Guards).
Councilmember Shearer indicated that the salaries of Executive Officers were identical to this year with the exception of the Director of Airports. Mr. Haines stated that subsection D is the same as the current plan; subsection E identifies reductions in the last two positions (City Treasurer and City Recorder). IV. Pay Premiums, Differentials and Allowances - the whole of subsections B (Overtime Compensation), C (Certification Incentive Pay), and D (Other Allowances). Mr. Haines indicated that subsection D basically reflects no change to the current plan. *Under subsection D, number 2, paragraph 3 (Automobiles), the Council deleted the word “of” after “rate” and included “not to exceed” so that the sentence reads “...a rate not to exceed $250 per month.” V. Leaves of Absence - the whole of subsections A (Holidays), E (Hospitalization Leave), F (Funeral Leave), G (Military - Entry into Service), H (Military - Annual Encampment), I (Leave for Jury Duty), and J (Additional Leaves of Absence). Mr. Haines stated that there is no change to these subsections from the current plan. VI. Insurance - entire section. VII. Retirement - entire section. Mr. Haines stated that there was a change in subsection B (Retirement Programs) in that it identifies retirement incentives which can be developed.
Mr. Haines stated that the areas identified for approval were either incorporated in the current plan or reflected a change that administration felt an urgency to deal with. Councilmember Mabey asked about the possibility of specifying a number of vehicles or persons in the paragraph regarding the automobile car allowance. Mr. Haines stated that the executive policy currently being followed sets the conditions for determining who gets the allowance as opposed to a take-home vehicle on the basis of cost. Mr. Haines further stated that justification for a vehicle is considered, not necessarily based on miles but on use, and it is determined if it is better for the city to pay an allowance, to pay mileage, or to make a car available.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve the non-controversial sections of the City Employee Compensation Plan as outlined and amended, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Davis and Whitehead who were absent when the vote was taken.
(O 82-30, O 82-37, O 82-31)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 250 of 1981 submitted by Raija Maddock.
RE: Requesting permission to vacate a 12-foot alley running approximately 132 feet east from Beverly Street and 125 feet north of Stratford Avenue. A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this request. Craig Peterson, Director of Development Services, indicated the location of the alley on a map. He stated that the alley begins at Beverly Street, 1380 East, 125 feet north of Stratford Avenue, 2625 South; the alley is 132 feet long. When Highland Park Plat “A” Subdivision was approved by the City Commission in 1909, part of the design of that subdivision was T-shaped alleys on each block. In 1947, this particular alley was closed except for one portion; the only utility easement is electrical, there are no water or sewer lines. All city departments concur in the vacation of the alley.
Mr. Peterson further stated that there are four property owners’ approval or signature required for the closure of this alley. Mr. Maddock was unable to obtain the signature of one abutting property owner, owner-of-record, but the person purchasing the home on contract is in agreement to the closure. There is no entrance to the alley with the exception of Mr. Maddock’s driveway. It is recommended that the alley be closed. Mr. Maddock addressed the Council and stated that he petitioned to close the alley because it is an eyesore. He stated that he wanted to be able to clean up the alley and install a fence in order to make the neighborhood more presentable. Mr. Maddock distributed pictures showing the surrounding area of the alley. No one from the audience spoke on this issue.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 43 of 1982, effectuating the vacation of a 12-foot alley remnant running east from Beverly Street (1380 East) at approximately 2675 South, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-82)
Final 201 Facilities Report
RE: Presentation of the final 201 Facilities Report. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities received an EPA grant to conduct a 201 Facilities Plan to determine Salt Lake City’s sewage treatment needs through the year 2005; under EPA regulations a pubic hearing is required.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this issue. LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities Department, addressed the Council and stated that the purpose of the hearing was to provide an opportunity for public input on the draft 201 Facilities Wastewater Plan. Once the public comments are taken and incorporated into the final draft, the report will be submitted for final approval. Mr. Hooton stated that a special 201 citizens group was formed to work on this study; he then named those persons: Norman Dean, Ernest Snider, Richard Chong, Vice Chairman, Sarah Michi, G.G. Brandt, and Mary Tuddenham, Chairman.
Representing the City Council on this project were Ron Whitehead, Paul Barber, Ralph Steenblik, Mary Steadman, Blair Walkington, Dick Moffitt, Bob Wright, Jean Binyon. Mr. Baton thanked Ms. Florence Bittner and Ms. Deborah Areida for their effort in coordinating the public meetings. Mr. Hooton then gave a brief overview of the plan. When the plan was undertaken it was approached for three different reasons: 1. To improve the existing facility and provide a quality treatment facility that would be a good neighbor to the local residents; 2. To meet high water-quality standards. By 1985, the existing facility is required to go to secondary polish treatment; 3. Growth. The city’s wastewater plant has increased its flow by 100% over the last 16 years and all indicators point to the fact that Salt Lake City will experience continued growth. Even if there was a no-growth situation the city would still be faced with upgrading the existing facility and meeting higher water-quality standards. Mr. Hooton outlined the information in a packet which was distributed to the Council. A copy of this information is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder. Mr. Hooton called the Council’s attention to a graph indicating flow projections and stated that by the year 2005, according to projected historic waste flows, the city would need 88 million gallons of treatment capacity; presently the plant is designed for 45 million gallons. A curve on the graph representing a total of 73 million gallons of capacity is based on population projections that indicate by the year 2000, the city will have a 37% increase in residential growth and the work force will increase by 54%.
Mr. Hooton stated that the city is impacted by the institutions located in the city, the commuter work force, and the visitors who daily use the facilities. Based on the flow projections, the fact that the existing plant cannot treat beyond 56 million gallons per day and the fact that it takes four to five years before a facility is operable, action needs to be taken this summer in order to have those facilities on line by 1986 when they will be needed. Mr. Hooton then outlined the alternative waste water programs. Alternative 1 is to enlarge the existing plant from the current 45 mgd to 56 mgd, construct a sewage transfer pipeline to a new 16 mgd treatment facility located in the Northwest Quadrant.
A treatment facility will be constructed to meet polished secondary standards at a capital cost of $102.10 million. Alternative 2 is the same plan except it postpones the polished secondary requirements; the cost would be $83.6 million. This plan would require pumping the sludge off site to a disposal site on International Airport property; the drying beds are one of the major problems facing the existing plant because of possible odor problems. Alternatives 1 and 2 were developed by the advisory groups but two other options have also been provided.
Mr. Hooton continued by stating that Alternative 3 would delete the transfer pipeline, enlarge the existing plant to 63 mgd, and construct a new 6 mgd plant in the Northwest Quadrant; the polished secondary standards would be postponed. The cost would be $65.10 million. Alternative 4 is the same but the 6 mgd plant would not be constructed; the cost would be $34.9 million. Mr. Hooton stated that all of the alternatives utilize the off site sludge disposal system on property owned by the International Airport.
Mr. Hooton referred the Council’s attention to a financial plan which was developed in order to finance the options; this would require increasing sewer and connection fees to finance the facilities. He stated that the assumptions under this financial plan include 100% local financing without EPA funds, using an 8% inflation rate and a 12% interest on bonds over a 25-year period. Financing Alternative 1 would require increasing the minimum sewer charge from $2 per month to $4, raising the connection fee from $300 per residential equivalent to $1,000; the user fees would be raised by 250% which would make the average residential bill increase from $4.32 to $10.40. Alternative 2 is the same except the user charge would be raised 194% making the average bill $8.40; Alternative 3 is also the same with the user charge being raised 148% which would make the average residential bill $6.40. Alternative 4 would raise the minimum rate to $4 with the connection fee being $800 per residential equivalent and the average residential bill, with a 139% increase, would be $6 per month.
Mr. Hooton referred to a chart indicating comparative monthly user costs and stated that most of the treatment facilities in Salt Lake County are faced with the same problems. As indicated by the chart, the user fees within the other areas of Salt Lake County will be equivalent to Salt Lake City fees. Based on use, the commercial users in Salt Lake City, which represent about 9% of the connections, will pay about 2/3 of the cost because they are bigger users. Mr. Hooton further stated that because sewer charges are based on use, 50% of the residential users will pay more than $10.40 per month; the $10.40 is an average but many residential customers will pay around $25 per month because they use more water.
Councilmember Davis asked if the $1,000 connection fee was the same as other cities of comparable size. Mr. Hooton stated that fees vary but this fee is close to what is occurring in most communities; but each community has a different financial basis. Mr. Hooton stated that some fees in Sandy are higher than the proposed fees. He further stated that the Advisory Board has been sensitive to providing a means for low income and retired people so if they want to manage their use they can have a minimum bill that is reasonable.
Emanuel Floor, Public Utilities Advisory Board, addressed the Council and stated that the 201 study, which has been underway for about 1 1/2 years, has addressed the long-range problems facing Salt Lake City in the area of sewer. Even though federal funds are not currently available to solve these problems, all of the federal guidelines have been followed in completing the study should funds become available; also it was the most effective way to involve citizen participation. The citizen involvement has been throughout the city and has not been limited to those citizens who have the sewage plant in their area.
Mr. Floor further stated that interim recommendations regarding the study had been presented to the Council upon several occasions prior to this hearing. In September of 1981, the Council was requested to consider the two-plant concept and it was recommended that the city request the state to reduce the 1985 water-quality standards so that the new plant would not have to meet the secondary treatment until a point in time when that treatment would be a more effective and reasonable approach for the plant. In December of 1981, it was recommended that the Council adopt the two-plant concept and it was suggested that the plants be connected with the transfer line so that all parts of the city would have adequate sewage treatment at all times and the sewage could be moved in case of an emergency in either plant. In February of 1982, the financial plan was introduced and the recommendation was to adopt the plan before the new plant was operable so that there would be a reserve of funds. Mr. Floor continued by stating that on May 25, the Public Utilities Advisory Board, passed the following resolution unanimously, “The Public Utilities Advisory Committee at its May 25, 1982 meeting adopted a resolution that the city should approve the 201 Facilities Plan as presented.
It was further recommended that the city proceed with Alternative 2 as outlined in the plan conditional upon the postponement of secondary polished treatment standards by the State Water Pollution Control Committee. In the event that the standards are not postponed, then Alternative 1 would become the recommended alternative. The Committee further recommends that in the design phase of the facilities a detailed pre-design analysis be made comparing the costs of a trickling filter versus an oxidation ditch-treatment process before a final decision is made relative to which process will be used at the new treatment facility to be constructed west of the International Airport.”
Mr. Floor commented on the last paragraph of this recommendation by stating that there is a philosophical difference between the two kinds of plants. One is very energy intensive so the cost of energy becomes an issue in whether or not that treatment process is the best. Councilmember Mabey asked how many people operate the current plant and how many will operate the new facility. Maurice Johnson, Public Utilities Department, indicated that there are 31 people in operations to handle the existing plant; it is estimated that 25 people would be required to operate the new facility. These numbers are based on surveys of these types of plants all over the country.
Mr. Floor stated that a new staffing program has been implemented at the existing plant; employees now work in 12-hour shifts which has cut down on turnover, absenteeism and has increased productivity. Mr. Floor also indicated that there would be single administration and lab testing for both facilities so that services would not be duplicated. Mr. Hooton indicated that there would have to be adequate lab facilities to handle both plants. Currently under consideration is the possibility of having a joint laboratory to serve the entire County on more exotic testing. A large-scale lab will not be included in the new facility only labs to handle the day-to-day analysis.
Councilmember Mabey asked why the new facility would require fewer employees; he also asked if the number of personnel would be reduced when the existing plant is upgraded and less maintenance is required. Mr. Hooton indicated that the present pre-treatment plant is located apart from the main treatment plant and because of OSHA regulations, employees have to be on shift to operate both separate facilities; that is why the additional people are needed. At the new plant there will be one location and the transfer pipeline will take advantage of existing personnel and pumping facilities. Councilmember DePaulis asked about the possibility of growing faster than what has been projected. Mr. Floor stated that the opinion of most committee members is that the numbers are conservative and will probably be exceeded. However, by designing the plants incrementally, there will be time to react if the trend is higher than what has been projected. Richard Chong addressed the Council on behalf of the 201 Citizens Advisory Committee and stated that the committee felt this had been a well-run citizen participation program in terms of support from consultants, the Public Utilities Department, and the Citizen Participation staff. Requested information was supplied quickly and the committee had their questions answered.
Mr. Chong stated that the committee recommended the adoption of Alternative 1; this plant would meet the polished secondary standards. Meeting the additional standards imposed by the state should be done if it is determined they are needed after examination of the cost benefit. The committee also felt favorable towards the proposed injection of solids into airport ground as a means of disposal. The committee recognized the need to bring the present facility to, but not beyond, the original design capacity as a first step in the program. Also, the position in the Rose Park area must be appreciated and the resistance to any expansion beyond the original design capacity could delay or block action.
Any plan must handle the question of odor in an effective manner. The committee recognized the need for a phased, modular construction of a second treatment plant in the Northwest Quadrant; the scale of the modules to be such as to provide an optimum balance between immediate need, initial cost, and the ultimate cost of expansion. The committee did not favor a short-term cost benefit approach. Mr. Chong commented about gauging facilities with population projections by stating that larger plants are not built to accommodate increased load but the time frame is accelerated in which the increments are built so there is as little time as possible with excess capacity. Mr. Chong further stated that the committee favored immediate action to establish funding; this is based on committee information as well as feedback received from the community.
Insofar as is reasonable, expansion in the new areas of the city should be paid for by developers; however, increased fees to all residents and businesses were recognized as the most important source of funds. The committee favored initial increases that would meet the long-term need rather than bit-by-bit increases. The concept of establishing a capital fund immediately with these fee increases was endorsed so the amount the city would have to bond could be lowered. Additional tax levies were not favored unless absolutely necessary, specifically property tax. Mr. Chong stated that the committee recognized the importance of water conservation and of the continuation of a program to reduce leakage into the sewage system. These two programs play an important role in buying time until action can be completed on the first two recommendations. The public must not be led to believe that these programs will eliminate the necessity for timely actions on the design and development of a sewage treatment facility. Councilmember Mabey asked about the possibility of expanding the new facility if required in the future; he was concerned that the capacity would be limited to the projected 32 mgd. One of the representatives working on the study indicated that the facility could be expanded if necessary. Councilmember Shearer, on behalf of the Council, thanked the citizens committee for working so hard on this issue. Gayle Taylor representing the League of Women Voters addressed the Council and complimented the Council and the Public Utilities Department on the fine public participation program.
The league supports the waste water program as outlined in Alternatives 1 or 2; however, with regard to Alternative 2, the league is concerned about the postponement of the 15/10 standards. The cumulative effect of lower standards on the Great Salt Lake is unclear and with increased use of the lake for recreation, measures could not be supported which affect health and welfare of users. The lake is a unique resource and should be protected. There is some reluctance to support 25/25 standards if the result is the postponement of reaching the higher standards in other parts of the county or state.
Ms. Taylor stated that the league supports the user fees to finance the necessary treatment facilities; user fees are equitable, encourage conservation, and demonstrate sensitivity to the needs of those on fixed incomes. The league supports the immediate imposition of higher fees in order to fund a reserve that will have the effect of keeping capital costs lower; Salt Lake City fees are not unreasonable and compare favorably with those in other parts of the county. Ms. Taylor stated in summary that the league supports the development of waste water treatment facilities of a size consistent with plans for future growth and land use.
Kerry Sadler, Director of Environmental Health for Salt Lake City/County Health Department, addressed the Council and stated that he feels the document has been well researched and much effort has gone into the plan and design of the 201 Facility project. His office concurs with the findings of the study but their only concern is with the proposed method of sludge disposal, the land-injection system. He stated that his office has not received all the information they need to make a final determination as to whether or not they will support and recommend this disposal system. However, it is a viable alternative and with the additional information required, the system could be approved.
Jack Grover asked if the Council and the city would entertain a proposal from private enterprise to operate the treatment facility. His opinion was that the current design is not used adequately and the present plant could be used past the year 2000 without any expansion. Joe Smith, Northwest Community Council, indicated support for Alternative 1. Regarding fees, Mr. Smith stated that consideration should be given to disadvantaged people. Norman Dean, Rose Park Community Council and member of the 201 study, stated that the treatment facility is not Rose Park’s sewer plant but the Salt Lake City sewer plant. The property in Rose Park has been devalued by the newspapers and Rose Park has been cast as a bad smelling, high crime area which are problems of the area surrounding Rose Park. He stated that the problems should be referred to as Salt Lake City problems. Phil Halstrom, Chairman of the Housing Development Committee, addressed the issue of fees. He stated that the quantity of material flowing into the treatment plant has been increasing more than the population. An inordinate amount of the cost of the new plant is being attributed to new household formations, connections for households onto the system.
If there is a population stability and the material has been increasing, then the material has to be coming from uses other than household uses. The question has to be answered as to whether or not there is a valid infiltration of ground water into the sewage system; if this is the case, then it is a maintenance item rather than a new capital expenditure item. If infiltration is not the problem, then the determination needs to be made as to what uses are causing the increase in material. More information has to be obtained about the contributors to the sewage system before a decision is made about the user fees.
Councilmember Mabey asked if figures were available on water use for the average home. Mr. Hooton stated that the average per capita for Salt Lake City is 85 gallons per person per day in a residential unit; however, 2/3 of the water used that ends up at the waste water plant is contributed by 9% of the connections which are the industrial/commercial/institutional establishments. The residential customers are only contributing 1/3 of the flows. Approximately 30% of the flow is caused by infiltration into the system; 50% of the system has been checked to seal out those flows. There is a point at which all the infiltration cannot be eliminated from a 100 year old system without being less cost effective.
Mr. Chong stated that the committee and staff tried to reach an equitable balance between all the various interests which are in conflict and the recommendations in the 201 report are an attempt to reach that balance. Alex Gilbert addressed the Council and stated that the residents of Salt Lake City were being asked to bear the burden of the expansion and annexations taking place in Salt Lake City. New development and growth should fund their own sewage treatment plant. Mr. Gilbert stated that he is a landlord and increased costs will have to be passed on to his renters; he felt it was not fair that he or his renters should have to pay for the cost of expansion.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that those who use the system should pay for that use. In essence, anything built since 1962, which would include Mr. Gilbert’s mobile home park, has contributed to the problem at the present sewage treatment plant. The residents cannot expect a new facility to be funded solely by expansion and growth because everything built since 1962 has been contributing to the problem. Mr. Gilbert stated that Florida is studying “gray water” ordinances. All of the water out of the house does not go to the sewer treatment plant; various types of waste water is treated in different ways. Perhaps Salt Lake could consider something similar. Peter Maier submitted a letter containing his statements regarding the 201 Facilities Plan. This letter is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder.
Terry Holzworth, Director of the Salt Lake County Flood Control and Water Quality Division, stated that his office has submitted four pages of technical comments to Mr. Hooton which can be appropriately incorporated into the final report. Mr. Holzworth stated that his only comment was on the question of standards. He hoped that the state standard is a reflection of the local community values; the standards have been set higher than the rest of the country. The state standard is also the standard of the Salt Lake County Water Quality Management Plan. Mr. Holzworth stated that he had no objection to adjusting the standards but rather than trying to get the state to relax the standard, it should be examined internally first.
Mr. Holzworth stated that a local standard should be established on which everyone agrees and then convince the state that adjustments need to be made to the present standard. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Floor if his committee had reviewed the possibilities of giving control of the treatment plant to private enterprise. Mr. Floor stated that this had not been addressed. He stated that there are sensitive areas in water treatment; the plant is under an EPA discharge permit and if the standards of the permit are not met then the city is fined substantially and the plant can be closed down. It would be difficult to contract this to someone else.
Mr. Floor also stated that Mr. Grover indicated that the present facility could be used until the year 2005. He encouraged Mr. Grover to submit in writing his ideas as to how this can be done. Experts who have addressed this issue have indicated that a capacity point has been reached. On the issue of water quality standards, Mr. Floor stated that the committee has not suggested that the state standards are too severe or too light. In examining the cost alternatives, the committee believes that there is some justification in considering the fact that effluent flowing into various bodies of water may require different standards.
For instance, effluent flowing into the Provo River may have a different standard requirement as compared with effluent flowing into the Great Salt Lake. Mr. Floor stated that perhaps the state standard should not be the same for every plant but should be based on the discharge location of that plant; it would be foolish to make the effluent cleaner than the water into which it flows. One of the alternatives being considered is the ditch oxidation concept in which nature does some polishing; the higher standard effluent is created but not by mechanical means. This might be a cheaper way to meet the standard. Fern MaComb stated that the people in her area are on fixed incomes who canot afford a rent increase as a result of increased sewer charges. She stated that the sewer should be imposed on the business expansion west of the city and not on the residents who have lived in the city for many years. Ms. MaComb submitted a letter opposing fee increases which was signed by the residents living in the Sherwood Forest Mobile Home Park (this letter is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder).
Dan Filip, Bureau of Water Pollution Control for the State of Utah, addressed the Council regarding the polished secondary standards. These standards were promulgated on the basis of public health considerations. If one exclusion is made to the standards, then there would have to be a state-wide exclusion policy. The position of the water pollution control committee regarding a delay or possible omission of the standards is still under study. Mr. Filip stated that Salt Lake City or any city should not consider the deletion of the standards as a real possibility. Three possibilities exist concerning a delay: 1. No delays will be granted to any community in the state; 2. Delays on a case by case basis, the individual community would have to provide a good reason for the delay; 3. Delaying compliance until a specific future date. However, at this time there will probably be no delays and probably no deletion of the polished secondary standards.
Dr. Hank Dehm stated that he is a scientist who has lived in Salt Lake City for 22 years. He felt that the new facility would open the flood gates to further uncontrolled development and it certainly would not improve the quality of life in this area. Councilmember Whitehead made the following comment for the record, “The citizens of Rose Park have lived with the Salt Lake Sewage Treatment Plant since 1962. Many things told the residents by former politicians just were not so. I believe the 201 committee has acknowledged and has recognized the problems the residents have had.
I am concerned about the proposed rate increase but I am more concerned about not being able to use the toilet, bath tubs, sinks, etc. I have been told to put all costs on new construction because they are creating the problem. I believe any construction since 1962, when the plant was built, has also contributed to our present dilemma. In fact, anyone on the system contributes to the problem. New construction should cover much of the new cost but everyone must help.
If Mr. Grover can meet with the administration and prove that no additional capacity is needed, then by all means we should look that way first. But we are not looking for a fly-by-night band-aid approach; we have lived with that approach for too long and I will gather the many residents of Rose Park and we will lobby hard to eliminate any further problems that we have lived with for so long.”
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 82-56)
CBD Neighborhood Development Plan.
RE: Redevelopment Plan entitled “CBD Neighborhood Development Plan” (preliminary plan) dated May 1, 1982 to provide for redevelopment projects to be undertaken by the Agency with the Central Business District and adding Blocks 49, 60, 61, 37, 38, and 48 to the plan and project area relating thereto.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this issue pursuant to published notice. Michael Chitwood, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, addressed the City Council. He stated that the Redevelopment Plan is divided into two parts: 1) The Neighborhood Development Plan, and 2) the report on the plan. Mr. Chitwood then briefly outlined specific parts of the preliminary plan which are proposed changes or amendments to the existing plan (this plan is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder).
Mr. Chitwood referred the Council’s attention to the legal description of the Redevelopment Project Area including the new blocks; he also referred their attention to the map showing these blocks (pages 2 and 3). He stated that the general plan is the premise on which redevelopment activity is based; these premises have been discussed in previous years and previous public hearings. The report of the plan is an economic and social discussion concerning the effects of the plan. The major components are the new proposed activities which would affect property owners.
Mr. Chitwood stated that the 1982-1983 Fiscal Year Implementation Program (eighth year) outlines the activities of the Agency during the next fiscal year and reiterates the items which have not been completed from previous years, items 1 through 8. Item 9(i) starts identifying the new activities which will be undertaken during the period July 1 through June 30. Item 9(i) deals with the acquisition of property under Block 79 for part of the Triad program, an offer has been tendered to the owner but negotiation has not been completed.
This is a condemnation action but it has not been started as of this time. Mr. Chitwood stated that item 9(j) deals with utility improvements in terms of the Triad construction; these activities have not yet started but as construction moves forward the Redevelopment Agency will have to work with the utilities in these street improvements. Item 10 discusses the acquisition of properties located on Block 49; this is the major area of activity (Mr. Chitwood referred the Council’s attention to pages 6, 7, 8 which outline the parcels scheduled for acquisition).
This land acquisition and the site improvements as they relate to Triad are the major program activities that will be undertaken and funded by this year’s tax increment budget. The budget is found on the last page of the implementation program. Mr. Chitwood stated that in a previous public hearing a question was posed as to the continuation of improvements along main street as part of a transportation program; funding has not been identified for this program although the activity has been left as an allowable activity within the program. Once the federal grant is tendered to Salt Lake City and the costs identified, those costs would be pulled out of the contingency fund.
Councilmember Davis referred to the budget and asked if the $4,670,000 allocated for land acquisition was strictly for Block 49. Mr. Chitwood stated that this money was only for acquisition of those parcels identified on Block 49. He further stated that if a parcel is privately developed, in accordance with the concept for Block 49, without the Agency having to acquire the parcel, those funds could be recycled into a coming year’s program and the Council would be notified of the costs savings.
Emanuel Floor addressed the Council in support of expanding the designation of the redevelopment area, particularly with regard to the block which has been added at North Temple between 300 West and 200 West. The south half of the block is a part of the Triad Center development and it was felt appropriate to add the north half of the block so that the infrastructure along the edge of the street could be properly coordinated. With regard to the south end of the expansion, Mr. Floor stated that he was impressed by the Council’s support of the American Cities plan for that area; this would be complimentary to the development at the north end and would cohesively develop the whole Gateway area.
Linda Tracey addressed the Council and asked if specific development has been designated for the blocks. She asked if any planning had been done beyond the American Cities basic study for this area. Mr. Chitwood stated that in addition to the American Cities planning documents, the city planning department has prepared a document entitled the “West Downtown Master Plan”; this is the next step above the American Cities plan and it addresses some of the activities within the other blocks which are being included. There is a definitive implementation plan for Block 49 and the planning effort and development will continue in a series of phases for west downtown.
Ms. Tracey stated that while she was not opposed to redevelopment, she expressed concern on continued expansion of the Redevelopment Agency’s control over these blocks and the erosion of the tax base. It affects city and county taxes as well as the school district. She questioned if more blocks should be added to the redevelopment area. She suggested that more study should be made as to what the policy will be in terms of tax increment financing for these projects. Ms. Tracey stated that she was against adding blocks until further study is given to the issues of when the blocks will be taken off of redevelopment, what will happen to the school district’s tax base and the city’s tax base. She asked the Council to consider further study of the issue regarding the tax base for all of the taxing entities that will be affected by these additions before any additions are made. Councilmember Mabey stated that the existing tax base would not be lost. Ms. Tracey stated that she agreed but as development starts in an area designated as a redevelopment area, it seems the area keeps growing in order to complete the project. Councilmember Mabey stated that either the city will be developed to make it better or the city will decay. Ms. Tracy stated that there was a need for redevelopment; however, even though this Council knows what their policy is and where they expect to be with this policy, perhaps there will be a different Council at the time specific developments are proposed.
Premature movement without a definition of how far city taxes, school board taxes, and county taxes are going to be committed can have serious effects to a future body. Councilmember Parker stated that he has not heard concern expressed by Dr. Thomas, Superintendent of Schools, regarding this issue. Dr. Thomas is more concerned with building up and rejuvenating some of the depressed areas in the western part of the city; he feels that this is a plus rather than a tax loss. There are no children coming from these blocks, and if the blocks could be built up, perhaps families would move back to the area.
Councilmember Mabey stated that the American Cities plan, which is redevelopment, proposes constructing more housing units thus making Salt Lake City more stable. Mr. Mabey felt that the city is in a process of revitalization and businesses will move back into the city. He stated that blocks needed to be taken off redevelopment, but it needed to proceed slowly until the revitalization takes place. Ms. Tracey stated that the Redevelopment Agency is very large, in her view, and there is no policy set for controlling its growth and no policy set for what purposes tax increment financing will be committed.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that there are such policies. There was a clear policy set that tax increment funds, once development began, could only be used for those things that the city would normally pay for or for public uses. She stated that the policy is complex in that the Council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, must decide at what point it is necessary to intervene and create a public-private partnership so that the necessary revitalization can take place. She stated that this assures development will take place thereby returning taxes.
Ms. Tracey felt that before new blocks are added as redevelopment areas, a policy needs to be established whereby blocks would be removed from redevelopment. She felt that a decision on adding these new blocks should be delayed pending the establishment of a policy. Councilmember Whitehead indicated that there were property owners who wanted to sell property now, but the Redevelopment Agency could not do anything until the plan is adopted. Councilmember Shearer indicated that, in her opinion, the citizens have not yet realized any property tax return from the redevelopment.
Mr. Chitwood stated that at the present time the redevelopment project area is generating approximately $4.2 million over the incremental base. The present budget calls for $3.2 million, so there will be a $1 million return from within the Central Business District to all taxing agencies in Salt Lake City. Councilmember DePaulis asked how much cumulative money has not been used by the Redevelopment Agency that has gone back to the taxing entities over and above the base that was established when the agency took in the first tax increment blocks. Mr. Chitwood stated since 1976, when tax increment money was first utilized, approximately $3 million has flowed through the system and has not been used which the Agency might have been authorized to use.
This is a direct immediate return of tax dollars that would not have existed had not the Redevelopment Agency existed. Councilmember Mabey asked if staff would have to be increased if the new blocks are added. Mr. Chitwood stated that the staff has decreased by one member and no addition is contemplated. Councilmember Davis asked when a policy could be established regarding block removal. Councilmember DePaulis indicated that the committee could meet immediately, but the Council individually has also been discussing potential plans. Councilmember DePaulis felt that the Council had been pursuing a program whereby the Redevelopment Agency develops anchors, excitement and the beginnings for development in an area that would not normally be developed, and then moves out.
Councilmember Mabey stated that he has lived on the westside all his life and has seen little growth take place. The area has always been deteriorating. Redevelopment is one opportunity to get development started in the area and the rejuvenation will spread to other areas; the developer will then be able to do development on his own because the business will be established. Councilmember Shearer stated that she was uncomfortable in proceeding without greater details. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Chitwood to give the Council a list indicating pros and cons about adding specific blocks.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. William D. Oswald, attorney for Redevelopment Agency, indicated that if the Council wished to adopt the plan, they should adopt the CBD Neighborhood Development Plan, dated May 1, 1982, by ordinance and then adopt the 1982-1983 Annual Implementation Program by ordinance.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that he wanted to make a proposal of a resolution from the City Council to the Redevelopment Agency to undertake, in its committee, the prioritized study of alternatives to deal with the issue of how to approach the Agency in the future about adding or deleting blocks. Mr. Oswald indicated that this should be a separate motion from the City Council requesting the Redevelopment Agency to conduct the suggested study. Roger Cutler indicated that the action to study the deletion of property from the project area was not on the open meetings agenda, however, it is a statement of the intent and would probably not be subject to attack. If this action was adopted, it could be ratified at a later meeting but it should be placed on an agenda. Councilmember DePaulis stated that he would state his proposal to indicate his intent, and ask that this item will be placed on a future agenda.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 44 of 1982, adopting the C.B.D. Neighborhood Development Plan, dated May 1, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Shearer and Davis who voted nay.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 45 of 1982, approving the 1982-1983 Fiscal Year Implementation Program, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Shearer and Davis who voted nay.
(T 82-20)
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.