PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MT AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 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 SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK IONE N. DAVIS PALMER DEPAULIS EDWARD W. PARKER.
Council Vice-Chairman Ed Parker presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items appearing on the agenda. Councilmember Davis discussed her concerns about the addition of an employee in the public utilities department to handle reservations for City Creek Canyon picnic facilities. She requested that the item be sent to committee for review. Ms. von der Esch informed the Council that Mr. and Mrs. Abbott had withdrawn their petition requesting vacation of an alley. Al Haines and Tim Harpst discussed Special Lighting District #2. Mr. Haines stated that the budget impact of the recent public service commission ruling would not be known until April 1983. Councilmember Davis asked whether the savings could be passed on to the ratepayers.
Mr. Harpst and Mr. Haines indicated that they were not sure what formula would be used but that they would attempt to distribute savings fairly. Tim Harpst briefed the Council on the Transportation Division’s plans to merge the current 38 lighting areas of the City into five districts. He indicated that they hope to realize some savings through increased efficiency. Councilmember Whitehead asked whether the 75’ corner lot exemption would be retained. Mr. Harpst indicated that his department would recommend that the corner lot exemption be retained. Councilmember Davis asked how ornamental poles were assessed.
Mr. Harpst stated that the cost of power and cost of maintenance were the basis for the rates. He indicated that he would meet with Councilmember Davis to discuss rates. Al Haines indicated that a report on the Council’s legislative intent on street lighting had been prepared. He indicated he would provide members with copies. Councilmember DePaulis briefed the Council on meetings he and Councilmember Fonnesbeck have attended with the administration of the University of Utah to discuss traffic and parking problems. He presented the draft of a letter that will be sent to people invited to sit on a committee to discuss the overall traffic situation. Council Members Shearer and Davis stated that since 85% of the traffic going to the University flows through Districts #5 and #6, that traffic impact on these districts be considered by the committee.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 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 SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK IONE M. DAVIS PALMER DEPAULIS EDWARD W. PARKER.
Albert Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Vice-Chairman Edward W. Parker presided at this meeting. Councilmember Alice Shearer conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Bruce Jenkins.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meetings held Tuesday, March 8, 1983, and Thursday, March 10, 1983, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(M 83-1)
Bid Opening: Bid opening for Street and Storm Drain Improvements for 1300 South Street from 400 West to 200 East streets, Project No. 38-681. Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, opened bids; Al Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, read the bids; Joel Harrison, representing the City Engineer, tabulated the bids, this information is on file in the office of the city recorder. Councilmember Shearer, without objection, referred the bids to the engineering department and finance department for their recommendation. Tabulations and recommendations to be returned to Council for further consideration by April 5, 1983 meeting.
(Q 82-34)
Special Presentation: Dick Klason, Assistant Director of the Utah State Department of Natural Resources and Energy, and Barbara Gardener, Wasatch Front Area Forester. Mr. Klason introduced Ms. Gardener who made the presentation of the Natural Resources and Energy’s new book “Community Forestry Manual.” Ms. Gardener explained that this new manual was a “how to book,” how to prune and how to manage rather than just stating these things should be done. The manual was presented to the Mayor and Council. Councilmember Depaulis asked if other agencies that are in the tree pruning business will be part of the educational program in regards to the proper trimming of trees. Mr. Klausen said yes they can be, meetings and training sessions have been held and these people have been approached to attend.
Special Recognition: Resolution of Appreciation to Blaine Kay and the Utah Department of Transportation for their responsible effort in protecting the water supply in Mt. Dell Reservoir. The Resolution of Appreciation was read by Councilmember Shearer.
(R 83-5)
PETITIONS
Petition 330 of 1982, submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abbott and Mr. and Mrs. Gudmundson.
RE: Vacation of 15-foot alley approximately 139 feet in length between 726 and 752 Goshen Street.
This Petition has been reviewed by the planning commission, finance, public utilities, fire, public works and the city attorney’s office. Each of the departments have recommended that the alley be vacated subject to retaining all existing easements and rights of way. The alley was dedicated as a part of the Seventh South Subdivision, only the Abbott property is located within this subdivision. The property owned by the Gudmundsons is part of a separate subdivision. Therefore, upon vacation of the alley, ownership of the entire alley will revert to the Abbotts rather than the usual instance of each abutting owner receiving a one-half interest. All the abutting property owners have signed the petition. Petitioners have submitted a letter requesting that their petition be withdrawn from consideration to vacate the alley.
Councilmember Depaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded that petition #330 of 1982 be withdrawn from consideration, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 83-170)
Petition 149 of 1982 Submitted by John Kuepper.
RE: Closure of an alley Eastward from the intersection of Harvard Avenue and 200 East Street northward from Hampton Avenue.
Pursuant to directive of City Council, the attorney’s office has prepared an ordinance closing an alley located between Harvard and Hampton Avenues. The closure was requested by John Kuepper in a petition signed by the abutting property owners to the alley. The attorney’s office has also prepared the revocable permit which will enable the petitioners to erect gates at either end of the alley in an attempt to reduce vehicular traffic and criminal activity in the neighborhood. The city recorder should be instructed to have the petitioner sign the revocable permit after the ordinance is published and becomes effective. The permit may then be executed by the Mayor and filed in the office of the recorder.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve and adopt Ordinance 12 of 1983, closing an alley located between Harvard and Hampton Avenues, which motion carried all members present voting aye.
(P 82-306)
Petition 21 of 1982 Submitted by the LDS Church.
RE: Closure of the eastern 3/4’s of 700 South between 700-775 West and a 17’ alley (675 South) running east/west from approximately 725-775 West. This item was withdrawn from the consent agenda without motion or comment from the Council Members.
(P 82-27)
Petition 329 of 1982 Submitted by Joey Montrone.
RE: Vacation of alley that runs north and south between Richard Street and West Temple and starting one lot north of 2100 South running to one lot south of Hartwell Avenue.
This alley is fenced off and landscaped with the exception of 100 feet at the north end and 125 feet on the south end which have remained open to allow access to the garages at the back of these lots. The petitioners have requested that only the fenced off and landscaped part of the alley be vacated. The planning commission has recommended that the entire alley be vacated provided the property owners who use the ends of the alley retain easement access to their garage or parking accommodation to the rear of their lots. There are also overhead utilities along the alley that will require retention of a utility easement. The public works, public utilities, fire, city attorney, and finance departments have reviewed the petition and concur with the planning commission recommendation.
Councilmember Whitehead moved, seconded by Councilmember Parker that a public hearing be scheduled for Tuesday, April 12, 1983, at 7:15 p.m. in Room 301, City and County Building to discuss petition 329, of 1982, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 83-221)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ATTORNEYS
#1 RE: Industrial Revenue Bonds for Leads Northrup Co.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a date for a public hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 1983, at 6:15 p.m., Room 301, City and County Building, to discuss the IRB and consider authorization of a resolution relating thereto.
DISCUSSION: Industrial Revenue Bonds for Leads Northrup Company in the amount of $2,750,000 for the purchase of 7 1/2 acres of land at 5425 West Amelia Earhart Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah and construction of a 40,000 square foot office and light manufacturing building.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded that a public hearing be scheduled for Tuesday, April 5, 1983, at 6:15 p.m., Room 301, City and County building, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(Q 83-6)
#2 RE: Ordinance amending Chapter 5, of Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 5, of Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances.
DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance amends Chapter 5, Title 51 by deleting Section 4 relating to height of fences and enacting Section 4A relating to grade change to be a new Section 4; amending Subsection 7 of Section 51-5-5 relating to side yard exceptions; amending Subsection 11 of Section 51-5-6 relating to rear yard exceptions; amending Subsection 1 of Section 51-5-7, relating to front yard exceptions; deleting Section 12 thereof relating to barbed wire fences prohibited; and adding new Sections 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 thereto relating to fence regulations.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded that Ordinance 13 of 1983 be approved and adopted, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(O 83-5)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1 RE: Proposed modifications of Title 5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 12, 1983, at 7:45 p.m. in Room 301, City and County Building to discuss the proposed modifications of Title 5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City which are necessary to adopt the 1982 Edition of the Uniform Construction Codes.
DISCUSSION: Some major revisions are being suggested involving new codes for shopping malls and for atrium construction. We have attempted to simplify and eliminate some of the unnecessary wording found in Title 5. The fee schedule suggested in the 1982 Code is the same schedule which has already been adopted as part of the 1979 Code. We are, however, recommending fee adjustments as they relate to plumbing, mechanical and electrical permit issuance.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded that a Public Hearing be scheduled on Tuesday, April 12, 1983, at 7:45 p.m., in Room 301, City and County Building, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(O 83-12)
#2 RE: Proposed ordinance to require dedication of land for future parks and recreation facilities by subdividers.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 12, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. in Room 301, City and County Building to discuss the proposed ordinance.
DISCUSSION: The planning commission has approved the draft ordinance and referred it to the city attorney for a legal analysis. The legal analysis has been completed and the proposed ordinance drafted.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded that a public hearing be held on Tuesday, April 12, 1983 at 7:30 p.m., in Room 301, City and County Building to discuss the proposed ordinance, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(O 83-13)
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT
#1. RE: Amendment to Budget for Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1982 and ending June 30, 1983.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a public hearing to approve a resolution amending the Budget.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 1983, at 6:30 p.m. in Room 301, City and County Building to discuss an amendment to the budget for Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1982 and ending June 30, 1983, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(B 82-4)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: Amendment to Chapter 6, of Title 49 of the revised ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to culinary water.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the proposed amendment.
DISCUSSION: As a result of the recent performance audit of the customer service division of the Department of Public Utilities, it was recommended that the turn-on fee for water turn-ons be increased from $10 to $21 in order to recover the actual costs incurred to discontinue water service and restore it due to nonpayment. This recommendation was approved by the Public Utilities Advisory Committee at its January 27, 1983 meeting. Councilmember Shearer referred the item without objection to the consent agenda for April 5, 1983.
(O 83-10)
#2. RE: Closure of City Creek Canyon for general public access and establish reservation and fee system for canyon use.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt an ordinance (Section 49-4-13 and Section 49-4-14) restricting the use of City Creek Canyon and establish a fee system for reservation of canyon facilities.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Cost to take reservations and to man the canyon gate is estimated at $19,314 annually. It is anticipated that the fees collected will cover these additional costs.
DISCUSSION: In a letter dated June 24, 1982, addressed to Mayor Wilson, Utah State Senator Richard J. Caning called attention to the violence which has been experienced [n City Creek Canyon and proposed limiting access to the canyon. This request was reviewed by the department of public utilities and in light of the department’s experience in the canyon, the department concurred with the suggestion to better control the canyon. It is believed that the best method to restrict canyon use is by requiring reservations and charging a fee for access.
This recommendation is based on the following: Canyon Use. It is estimated that over the last five years canyon use has more than doubled. This increase is attributed to the closeness of this recreational area to the large population centered along the wasatch front and to high energy costs necessary to travel to more remote recreation areas. Another factor contributing to the increased use in City Creek is that most of the City and county parks and forest service facilities charge a fee for use; thus, city creek canyon provides free recreational opportunities which in turn, encourages more people to use this canyon.
Traffic Loading. With the increased use of the canyon there has been a corresponding increase in traffic on the narrow road creating accidents and numerous near accidents. The road is not designed for heavy traffic or vehicles that exceed the posted speed limit. Violence and Vandalism. The number of violent incidences has increased, mainly related to drinking within the canyon. Over the past several years city police have forced beer drinking out of the City parks and the county sheriff’s department has patrolled the other major canyons to keep down the number of beer busts and large parties. According to a City police memorandum other problems exist in the canyon such as voyeurs, arson, and drug activities.
The following items are included in the overall plan to close the canyon for general use and required reservation for entrance: That the entire canyon require reservations similar to that required at the present time above the treatment plant facility. This will require one additional six month employee in the public utilities department to answer phones, log reservations and collect fees and one additional employee to man the lower gate. The upper gate will stay in place to tightly control the canyon above the plant intake to protect water quality. That the number of persons allowed in the canyon be reduced to a level consistent with available facilities.
That a fee be established for users within the canyon as follows: Large pavilion, $30; small pavilion, $15; large picnic area, $10; regular picnic area, $5; and small picnic area, $2.50. These fees were recommended to the public utilities advisory committee and approved for the 1982-83 fiscal year for the area above the treatment plant, however, we would recommend that they now be applied to all facilities within the canyon. That the effective date for canyon reservations and fee ordinance be May 1, 1983.
Councilmember Shearer referred this item without objection to the public safety and community affairs committee.
(O 83-11)
#3. RE: Fifth South reservoir landscaping project.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the proposed resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperative agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the University of Utah.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: We have budgeted $14,000 in the 1983-84 department of public utilities budget to cover the cost of this project.
DISCUSSION: The only portion of City-owned property bordering the University of Utah which has not been landscaped is the south side of the City’s 500 South reservoir bordering on 500 South. The University of Utah has agreed, through the proposed interlocal agreement, to maintain the landscaping on all of the City’s property at this reservoir site after the proposed landscaping has been completed. The agreement provides for the University to furnish the landscaping plans, subject to City approval, and the City will pay the actual costs of the landscaping up to a maximum of $14,000. This will improve the appearance of the area which is in close proximity to the Guardsman Way entrance to the University of Utah.
Councilmember Shearer referred this item to the April 5 consent agenda without objection.
(C 83-79)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Proposed improvements or creation of Sugarhouse Beautification Special Improvement District No. 38-708.
RECOMMENDATION: Consider and approve a resolution creating Sugarhouse Beautification Special Improvement District, Project No. 38-708, and authorizing the City to proceed with advertising of the construction bids. Councilmember Shearer said that a citizen had further comment on the project and asked the Council if they wanted to answer questions or re-open a public hearing. Councilmember Whitehead said he did not want to open a public hearing. Council agreed to hear the comments but this was not to be considered a public hearing. Dick Jones, a property owner in the beautification project area, said he wanted the Council to reconsider the procedure used for the assessment method for the project.
Mr. Jones said that most of the people who had protested the project were not against the project itself, but were against the assessment procedures which they felt were unfair. He said that State Statute gave five or six different methods which can be used for assessment. Mr. Jones recommended that a property area assessment rather than a frontage assessment be utilized. He gave the example of Granite Furniture, which he felt was getting more benefit than they were paying for, in that the “common area” which is nearer them was being paid for by the other property owners as well.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked the Council if the assessment procedure was established by ordinance. Rick Johnston, engineering department, said that there are several alternatives which can be used to make the assessment. This was one of the items discussed with the advisory committee when the project was being planned, and no matter how the assessment was accomplished, somebody would always feel that they were being cheated a little bit. It was felt that the best way to handle the assessment was the same way the Main Street project was handled, along with other curb and gutter projects. Also many general types of improvements were being made, and there may be a misunderstanding as to the general improvements and the common area improvements. General improvements were for the good of the whole area where common area improvements was only a small portion of the project.
Councilmember Parker said that the property owners were the ones directly concerned with this project, and have been studying this project for over a year. They have had a committee established by the property owners which held countless meetings. All meetings have been public, yet some people wait until the last minute and then do the most complaining. The tally, and hearing was heard last meeting, March 8, 1983, then the matter was referred to the committee of the whole, where it was recommended to be placed on the consent agenda. Councilmember Parker said he was having difficulty as to why the Council should keep looking at the matter; the ones who keep talking are the ones who voted against the project.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that she seriously questioned, at this point of the project, if the Council could go back and reconsider the alternatives. The Council could look at it for future projects, but that should be done before the project has been approved. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said there were different methods of assessment, however the notice of intention which was published stated that assessment would be done on a linear foot basis. Therefore, if the assessment was changed we would have to start all over again with a new notice of intention, as the other parties who agreed might have reason for contention. Secondly, the statute states that the assessment will be according to the benefit received. There is a mechanism to adjust that, a board of equalization is set up after the assessment is made. If a person feels that his assessment is greater than the value received he has an opportunity to be heard and if approved, ultimately referred to the Council to have adjustments in the assessment made.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded that Resolution 19 of 1983 be approved, creating Sugarhouse Beautification Special Improvement District, Project No. 38-708, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(Q 83-3)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 151 of 1982, Submitted by Mr. Robert Peterson.
RE: Requesting that property in the vicinity of 3165 South 1300 East be annexed to Salt Lake City.
The petition has been reviewed by the planning commission, city engineering, transportation, public utilities and the city attorney’s office. They have recommended that the petition be approved subject to the following conditions as requested by the city engineer: 1. The petitioner would be responsible to prepare and submit a plat abiding by the platting requirements of the city engineer. 2. That the petitioner, as part of an annexation agreement, would be obligated to install curb and gutter and sidewalk and street improvements along the frontage of his property, including Richmond Street and Woodlawn Avenue (3175 South).
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to consider this petition. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning department, said that the property requested to be annexed was located on the east side of Richmond Avenue or 1300 East, across from Brickyard Road. He said that the property is contiguous with the City limit line on the north and on the east. The planning commission recommends that the Council annex the property and that it be zoned Commercial “C-1” classification. Robert B. Peterson, 1638 Indiana Avenue, owner of property, said that he was completely surrounded by City property and was a block away from City water. He currently has to pipe water from Highland Drive. He has been doing this for 20-25 years and feels that sooner or later that line is going to break and he does not desire to have to dig up a half mile of pipe to find the break. If he is annexed he would be able to connect to City water across the street at Harmons. Councilmember Shearer asked what is currently constructed on the property. Mr. Peterson said a private club is there. Councilmember Parker asked if the property was known as P.J.’s., Mr. Peterson indicated that it was. Rawlins Young, chairman of the sugarhouse council, said that the council has become concerned about the nature of annexation occurring around the Brickyards. They are not particularly opposed to Mr. Peterson’s annexation proposal. Their interest is for the residents and the amount of traffic on Richmond Street which is brought about by the buildup of the brickyard area. Mr. Young stated that there is no curb, gutter or sidewalk in the area of 30th South and Brickyard Road except when a commercial building is established.
He asked if in the future the City, county and state, who owns the road, were going to deal with this dangerous situation. He said the council was concerned that commercial property seemed to have little to offer the surrounding residential properties. This leaves the residents searching for services from either the county or the City which creates a confusing situation, plus causing housing to lose its value. He hoped that a more rational approach to annexation could occur around the brickyard.
Councilmember Parker said that annexation is not a question of the City going out and saying “you will be annexed,” but that the residents must request this action of the City. Councilmember Shearer said that it was her understanding that Mr. Peterson would be putting in curb and gutter, and as soon as the weather permits, that curb and gutter will be placed on the west side of 1300 East in that area also.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember DePaulis asked Mark Hafey what the county zoning of the area was now, and if the present City “C-1” area contiguous to it, was the proper zoning from a planning perspective for that area. Mark Hafey said that the county zoning was and landscaping would be accomplished later. Councilmember DePaulis also asked what would happen in regards to the liquor licensing process. Mark Hafey said that as long as Mr. Peterson continued paying his license he would be in a nonconforming status. Councilmember Whitehead asked why the Council was being asked to rezone the property from “C-3” to “C-1”. Mark Hafey stated that if they did not rezone it would be considered spot zoning.
Councilmember Davis asked about the curb and gutter in the area. Mark Hafey pointed out the curb and gutter that is in place along Woodland and Miller streets. Councilmember Davis also asked if Mr. Peterson would or would not landscape under the proposed zoning. Mark Hafey said that he was not required to put the landscaping in at this time. However, if he adds on to the building or remodels, the City could require landscaping as a condition to his building permit. Councilmember Depaulis asked if in the annexation proceeding the petitioner has to be the owner of record. Mark Hafey stated that the owner of record has to submit the petition and Mr. Peterson is the owner of record in this case. Councilmember Davis asked if Mr. Peterson could put in some landscaping without going to a great expense. Mr. Peterson said that there is a retaining wall which was built with this in mind and will be used as a planter.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded, that petition 151 of 1982 be approved and that the property be annexed to Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 83-60)
Solicitation, Peddling, Transient Merchants.
RE: An ordinance amending Chapter 17 of Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to solicitations, peddling, etc.
Lance Bateman, city controller, said the Downtown Retail Merchants Association had requested the City to sponsor the ordinance. Bob Templeton, director of a gun shows, said the shows are put on three times a year at the Salt Palace, exhibitors are charged $25 - $30 per table for the gun show and also the gun collectors shows which are held at the Hilton Hotel. The proposed ordinance would add $10 per day per exhibitor to the original charge, an increase of 90%, which if not eliminating the show entirely, would force it to go somewhere other than Salt Lake City. He said that the need to protect legitimate business interests within the town is understood, but it is felt that the hobbyist oriented shows do not adversely affect the downtown merchants, rather they contribute to the overall downtown area by bringing outside people into the area for lodging, dining, etc. He requested the Council provide an exemption to the hobbyist-type shows.
Dave Hansen, general manager of the Expo Mart, said he supports the request of the Downtown Retail Merchants Association regarding the transient merchants, however, as an exhibitor or place of exhibition, he does not want to see the fees get too far out of hand to the point of discouraging these shows coming into the City. There are approximately 26 - 30 shows booked for this year, which will bring approximately 100,000 people into the downtown area this coming year. Councilmember Shearer asked Mr. Hansen what he considered was too much, and what he considered was a reasonable fee. Mr. Hansen said he felt that possibly a blanket fee be charged to the promoters of the exhibitions for a year as they come in more than once in a year’s time. Or possibly a one time fee to the exhibitor, i.e. $10 - $15, to cover the whole show rather than a daily charge.
Walter Larson, Director of an antique show, held at the Expo Mart, is concerned, as most of the exhibitors are from Salt Lake. The show comes to town three times per year and runs for four days, at $10 per day; that is a $120 license for the exhibitors. He knows of no other City that charges that amount. The largest show in California only charges $5 per show, per exhibitor. Most exhibitors are retired and find that the show is a place to trade and sell items without being in the business full time. Most visitors to the show are from out of state and come to the shows to purchase the local items. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Larson about the .50 cent discount on the tickets and said that must be a margin of profit and none of that goes to the exhibitors. Councilmember Davis asked what is the purpose of the admission fee. Mr. Larson explained that the admission fee pays for additional expenses of the show and his salary.
Edward Smith, Clearfield, Utah, representing the Utah Gun Collectors Association, which has three shows in Ogden, and two in Salt Lake every year. Said he is opposed to the ordinance as it is prohibitive in cost. Councilmember Shearer asked if she would be able to walk into a gun show and purchase an item. Mr. Smith said she could and that sales tax is collected. Ruell Ware, representing the retail merchants, said that the association does not want to discourage outside shows from coming into the downtown area. The question is what is the fair share for paying for the burden of policing and governing our town. The association came to the Council within the last year asking that their own licenses be increased by double the amount, because they felt that this was in the best interest of the downtown area. So along with this it is felt that the people who come in from out of town should also help in the development of the market area.
Lynn Templeton, co-producer of the Salt Palace Gun Show, said that they do pay a transient merchant sponsor fee of $100 per day which equals to $600 a year to Salt Lake City for their license. They requested that that fee be doubled and the daily exhibitor fee be canceled. Councilmember Shearer asked where the sales tax licenses are registered. Ms. Templeton, stated that the exhibitors collect the 5% sales tax on sales and turn in that amount to the producer at the end of the show to be collected by the state sales tax division.
John Huffman, Sunset, Utah, participant in the gun show, said he attends the gun shows in Los Angeles where the participants are not charged any fees. He stated that if the tax is imposed he will lose money as his total gross sales for the last show were $220, if it will cost $30 for the table and $20 tax he will lose money. Charles Stevenson, Salt Lake City, business owner within a few blocks of the downtown area, said he had become upset with the downtown merchants in trying to make an ordinance to attract business downtown when they should be taking care of their business in a business-like manner. He said the City spent $20 million to build the Salt Palace and does not promote ways to help pay for it.
Ruth Dyer, license supervisor, said that changes had to be made in the transient merchants ordinance because Section 20-17-36, titled the Group Display License, was written specifically for the Salt Palace. It applies only to conventions and displays using publicly owned buildings. At the time the ordinance was written, the Salt Palace was the only place that anything like this was held. When the Expo Mart opened, the first big sale was held under this ordinance, which was not correct. So in all fairness the ordinance has to be re-written. This was done by repealing the group display license and treating everyone fairly. The individual that comes into the hotels, etc., selling goods must pay a $100 per day transient merchant license. It is felt that when 350 people come into the Salt Palace to participate in a sale that $10 per day is not excessive.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Ms. Dyer if there was a way to distinguish between those who are hobby in nature and those who are professional in nature. Ms. Dyer stated that if the exhibitors are there to display only, then the City would not charge those individuals, just those who are selling. Councilmember Davis asked about the home and garden show, where some of the booths were selling different items, under the new ordinance would they be required to pay the tax. Who would police to see if the five booths out of 100 were paying their fee.
Ms. Dyer said they would have to pay the tax. The license division’s intent is to have the Salt Palace or Expo Mart make it clear to the producer who rents the facility that those who come with the intent to sell are notified of the tax and that the tax must be paid in advance. She also stated that the license division would have to police the ordinance.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Depaulis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to refer this item to the Budget Committee, for Thursday, March 17, 1983, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(O 83-9)
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.