PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 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.
Report of the Executive Director: Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council about items on their agenda. In conjunction with the ordinance to rezone Hillside Avenue and North Main, the Council expressed concern that property owners abutting a proposed rezoning were not notified of public hearings by the Recorder’s Office. Phil Erickson stated that the Recorder’s Office would begin notifying all abutting property owners of public hearings on rezoning matters.
Phil Erickson mentioned that a report on the reorganization of the Recorder’s Office was ready. Ms. von der Esch stated that it would be scheduled for the Council as soon as possible.
Report on Fleet Management Audit: Jim McClure, Director of Fleet Management, reported to the Council on items covered in the audit of Fleet Management.
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, MARCH 16, 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 Grant Mabey conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Bill Rounds.
Pledge of Allegiance.
From City Council.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, March 9, 1982, as amended, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
M 82-2
PETITIONS
692 of 1977, 693 of 1977, and 376 of 1978 relating to the annexation of Emigration Canyon.
RE: City policies on major issues involved in the annexation of Emigration Canyon. On March 2, 1982, the City Council discussed an ordinance which would complete the Emigration Canyon annexation. At that meeting, the motion on this issue included the establishment of a policy statement regarding the annexation. Councilmember Davis stated that the preliminary draft of the policies had been presented on Thursday, March 11, 1982; since that time a meeting was held with LeRoy Hooton, Public utilities, Jerry Kinghorn, Emigration Improvement District, Wally Miller, City Attorney’s Office, Craig Peterson, Development Services, Larry Livingston, Council Office, and Councilmember Ione Davis. Ms. Davis further stated that valuable input was received at the meeting and Wes Dewsnup, Planning and Zoning, has prepared new proposals on the different issues.
Wes Dewsnup addressed the City Council. He stated that the letter submitted with the policies emphasizes that these policies are concepts and have legal and practical potential; however, they may not bind the lawful discretion of future Mayors or City Councils, or the rights of property owners in the area proposed for annexation. He further read from the letter stating that these concepts are based upon a willingness of all interested parties to cooperate and concede to the compromises required by this proposal. Should such cooperation not be forthcoming, or should legal or practical obstacles arise during review of implementation, these policies may require revision.
Mr. Dewsnup stated that it was the recommendation of the Department that the Council give conceptual approval and not final approval. Mr. Dewsnup then outlined, individually, each issue and the changes which had been made from the preliminary draft. Issue 1: Delete, “...with no potential for residential or commercial development, nor access across that property for residential or commercial development.” Rewritten, “All City owned land in the canyon remain in public ownership with potential for watershed, recreation or open space uses.” The Attorney’s Office felt that a perpetual commitment on the Council’s part to remove all city-owned land from usage other than open space, recreation, or watershed had legal implications that need to be studied.
Issue 2: The language was modified to specify what sections of the zoning ordinance may apply. Change from, “All platted lots existing in the canyon prior to annexation will be recognized without a development right unless the requirements of the Site Development Regulations, Zoning Ordinances, Subdivision Ordinance and any other applicable regulations are met.” Change to, “All platted lots which have not had development rights vested at the time of annexation will be recognized without a development right unless the requirements of the Site Development Regulations, and the regulations outlined by the adopted zoning for the canyon and any other applicable regulations are met.”
The concept is to control the development within the canyon as per the adopted ordinances by the City. Mr. Dewsnup stated that if a property owner in the Canyon, at this time, receives a building permit and becomes vested then annexation should not affect his investment. Issue 3: Mr. Dewsnup stated that there were no changes made from the preliminary draft. This issue reads, “A developable lot in the canyon must meet the minimum standards for lots as contained in the Zoning Ordinance, Site Development Regulation, Subdivision Ordinance or any other applicable regulations.
Issue 4: This issue has been changed, not in concept, but in language to allow flexibility and to tie development potential to a master plan for the canyon. A new first paragraph was added to this issue, it reads, “ The general policy is to place a ceiling on the new subdivision activity in the canyon and to distribute it equitably. The methods will be finally determined by a master plan for the canyon to be undertaken upon annexation of the canyon in accordance with the following general guidelines.”
Mr. Dewsnup continued reading, “ All unplatted, developable land in the canyon will be divided into subareas, each representing a percentage of the total developable area. Each of the subareas will be assigned a percentage of allowable dwelling units that can be built in each subarea.” The example was changed from, “A subarea representing 10% of the total developable area will be assigned 10% of the total allowable number of dwelling units,” to read, “A subarea representing 10% of the total developable area would be assigned an appropriate percentage of the total allowable number of dwelling units, dependant upon the suitability of the subarea for development.”
Mr. Dewsnup continued reading from the new draft, “Parcels of unplatted land, capable, in accordance with City site development, zoning and subdivision regulations, of being subdivided into three or more building lots are subject to: a) All applicable subdivision, site development and zoning regulations. b) A ceiling on the total number of dwelling units for new subdivisions of between 420 and 620 units as finally determined by the master planning process for the canyon. c) The above stated distribution calculations.” Mr. Dewsnup stated that the following paragraph was new, “ The criteria to be used in identifying subareas and determining suitability for development shall include, but not be limited to, topography, soils, slopes, ownership, access to the road, potential impact on the road and others as identified in the master plan for the canyon.” Mr. Dewsnup continued reading, “In addition to the range of units allowable above, parcels of unplatted land not capable of being subdivided into three building lots and all existing plated lots are subject to: a) All applicable subdivision, site development and zoning regulations. h) The extension of sewer and water services.”
Councilmember Davis recommended to delete the sentence, “...of between 420 and 620 units...”, associated with the ceiling on the total number of dwelling units. A number should not be determined until surveys are completed. Councilmember Shearer wanted clarification about how the road will determine development in the canyon. Mr. Dewsnup stated that the road and its physical factors will be the limiting factor. Mr. Drexal addressed the Council and stated that if the residents didnot know the number of dwelling units so that they would have an idea of the density involved then it may be difficult to get a petition for whole canyon annexation. Councilmember Davis reiterated her previous statement about the difficulty in determining numbers at this time.
Mr. Dewsnup stated that this issue will be included in the master plan and the citizens will have a great deal of input on the master plan. Issue 5: The concept has not changed; language was added to clarify points. Mr. Dewsnup read from the new draft, “The cost of extension of sewer and water services in the canyon be borne by the developers and users of those systems. Within two to five years, the final time determined by the master plan, after extension of services, everyone within the serviced area he required to hook up to both sewer and water services. After annexation and after the extension of water services to the Canyon, where existing water is available in the canyon we will insist that when connected to the City’s culinary water system that their water system be totally separate in order to prevent the possible contamination of the City’s water system through back flow. Where there have been improvements to the City’s water and sewer systems that will benefit users or developers in the canyon, the city will assess an impact fee, based on tests of reasonableness established by the courts, to cover the costs of those improvements on a pro rata basis.”
Issue 6: Mr. Dewsnup read from the new draft, “That the level of service for the road that is considered acceptable when the canyon is fully developed will correspond to the design capacity of the road. Studies show that capacity to be level of service C with peak hours in D.” Issue 7: Mr. Dewsnup read from the new draft, “The resultant cost to the City for urban services delivery after annexation be substantially offset by the revenues expected to be generated by the allowable development in the canyon. Further, extension or delivery of those services will be accomplished upon the petition for extension or delivery, and the willingness of the recipients of those serviced to bear the costs involved, through acceptable financial mechanisms. In determining whether to act favorably on an annexation petition for the canyon, the City will consider carefully whether the costs of servicing the canyon will be substantially greater than the revenue generated.” Mr. Dewsnup summarized by stating that this report was a distillation of issues raised at this point in time and conceptual approval is recommended. Any final or binding commitment should be reserved until the petition for annexation is being evaluated and the annexation agreement in and of itself is being formulated.
Councilmember Shearer asked Roger Cutler if Salt Lake City residents are entitled to certain city services. Mr. Cutler replied that a citizen is entitled to all available city services including a reasonable response time for police and fire, however, a 3-minute response time could not be expected for the canyon area. As the area is annexed, the city does have the power, as alluded to in the statement, to require the people doing the developing to donate the land and the cost to provide the amenities necessary to service the area. Ms. Shearer asked if it was usual for developers to be asked to support a fire station.
Mr. Cutler stated that this was sometimes arrived at through an impact fee; he cited a case which happened in Lindon, Utah, where the courts established a fairly complicated procedure where the fees can be disproportionate and force the new residents to subsidize the existing residents in the system. Payment can be required for the burden placed on the system. Mr. Dewsnup stated that the conceptual approval of the policy statement needs to include the cover letter which is attached to the report; the first sentence may be deleted. The cover letter offers explanation to the body of the text and should not be separate; conceptual approval should he subject to the items pointed out in the cover letter.
Mayor Wilson stated that Issue 4 was a potentially explosive item. It is important to research other similar allocation processes and determine the legal parameters. Mr. Dewsnup stated that 90% of the vehicle that would limit development is already enacted, such as the Site Development regulations, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations. There are tools that make distribution under a general plan much more even but the State enabling legislation does not allow immediate advantage to be taken. Mr. Dewsnup stated the implementation procedure was not being adopted, but a policy to guide development.
Mr. Cutler stated that the letter indicates there are problems that still need to be resolved. Councilmember Davis invited citizens from the audience to comment and stated that after tonight it was up to the citizens to initiate the annexation petition. Craig Smay addressed the Council with his questions. He stated that it is implied at the end of Issue 4 that water and sewer services may not be extended everywhere and Issue 5 implies that there will be a water and sewer system. Does this include a decision that the residents have to have a new water and sewer system or is this a policy that would apply supposing there is a system. There have been notions discussed that the city may want the water and sewer system in some places and not others; it is possible that the city may want water and sewer systems which are on-site systems rather than extensive pipeline system. Does this imply a decision as to an overall water and sewer system and if so what decision is implicit there. Mr. Dewsnup stated that the implication is that if and when a centralized culinary water and sewer system is extended the city will require hookup; it does not imply that upon annexation the system will be installed, it will be installed on an “as need, as affordable” basis and the users and developers of the system will pay the capital costs of extending the lines. Where the serviced area exists then those people will be required to hook up.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if water and sewer lines would be installed only if requested by the residents. Mr. Dewsnup stated that sewer and water is not automatically extended to development unless it is requested. If there are other systems acceptable to the city, the extension of the centralized system is not mandatory. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she was concerned about the pollution of the stream in the canyon. Mr. Dewsnup stated that the extension of the sewer system would make a minor impact on the problem of pollution.
Mr. Smay stated that he had a concern about Issue 6. He stated that historically the standard, level of service C with peak hours in D, is not a design capacity of the road. Does the statement imply that current design criteria for new urban areas will be applied, is this a statement of that design criteria or does this have to do with the notion of how the road was designed. Mr. Dewsnup stated that studies done by the Traffic Engineering Division indicate that the road can safely support the level of service C with peak hours in D.
Mr. Smay stated that he would feel more comfortable with the statement if it said that ordinary design criteria applied in urban areas in the city will be applied to this road. Mr. Dewsnup stated that the road would not be redesigned; the existing road has design features in it the make it capable of handling level C traffic with peaks in D. Councilmember Shearer stated that Issue 6 was probably too short; it needs more explanation. The policy in conjunction with that could be that there will not be development of such a nature that will over run C and D traffic.
Mr. Smay stated that the normal design criteria in new areas do not allow the D peak, for example, to exceed a certain number of hours per day. It would be better to say that the criteria which would be applied in the canyon will not be in exception of criteria which other people in the city are expected to bear; the present design criteria for new urban areas should apply. Mr. Cutler stated that this street was not in the middle of a subdivision; it is an arterial street. A developer could say that the number of homes and development has been limited based on this being a subdivision road when it has been determined that the road can bear a certain traffic load. Mr. Cutler stated that he doubted the road was designed with any particular capacity in mind but he understood that the traffic engineer could determine the capacity which the road could bear. Mr. Smay summarized by stating that a qualifier could be added to Issue 5 indicating that this is not based upon the prejudgment about the extent of the sewer and water system; and in Issue 6 address the matter of not exceeding the capacity of the road from the standard of measuring it scientifically and not exceeding the capacity of the road from the standard of what this area is asked to bear in comparison of what is normal in other areas of the city. Mr. Smay further stated that he was supportive a total canyon annexation.
The Mayor stated that he felt Mr. Smay’s comments were well put about giving the canyon residents some assurance that the traffic will be of a moderate level and not a bumper-to-bumper situation. He further stated that he felt Mr. Smay was saying that the people are going to read the document carefully and the annexation petition depends upon them getting some comfort from this document. James Kimball, Boyer Company, addressed the Council. He commended the Council and Mr. Dewsnup for preparing these policies so quickly. Mr. Kimball asked how long it would take to develop a master plan.
Mr. Dewsnup stated that after funding is made available, it could take anywhere between 12 to 18 months; time could be shortened depending on the funding and staff available for preparation. Mr. Kimball stated that he agreed with the deletion of the numbers 420 and 620 in regards to a ceiling on the total number of dwelling units. Jim Webster, Sorenson Group, addressed the Council about Issue 4. He stated that the sentences relative to the criteria to be used in identifying subareas and determining suitability for development (regarding topography, soils, slopes, ownership, access to the road, potential impact on the road) appear to be similar to Issue 6.
But if Issue 6 is intended to imply what the acceptable standard is, as based on ongoing and dynamic inventory of traffic as it occurs, then Issue 6 has a valid place. If that is the case then it would be difficult to establish a ceiling before the fact. Mr. Dewsnup stated that basically the statement in Issue 4 is saying that any kind of limit placed in the canyon will be tied to the road. Issue 6 is saying that if the average daily traffic on the road exceeds a level of service C with peak hours at D then that becomes a limiting factor to the statement in Issue 4.
The Council reiterated the changes made to Issues 4, 5, and 6. In Issue 4, the words, “...of between 420 and 620 units...” were deleted. The language in Issue 7 which talks about delivery of services would be added to Issue 5, “Extension or delivery of those services will be accomplished upon the petition for extension or delivery, and the willingness of the recipients of those serviced to bear the costs involved, through acceptable financial mechanisms.” In Issue 6, it was decided that language needed to be added which was acceptable to the Council, the residents, and the City.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to accept the seven issues subject to the changes that have been recommended by the Council and also by the public, and accept the cover letter submitted by Craig Peterson, with the deletion of the first sentence, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Parker who was absent when the vote was taken.
The preliminary draft presented March 11, 1982 and the draft presented March 16, 1982, are on file in the Office of the City Recorder for further inspection.
P 82-29
403 of 1981 submitted by Salt Lake City.
RE: Redesign 500 North and close a 55-foot strip on the north side of 500 North between 700 West and Grant Street. On February 9, 1982 a public hearing was held to discuss this petition. At that meeting, the motion was made to refer the petition to the Land Use Committee for review and schedule a field trip so the Council could inspect the area.
Councilmember Whitehead addressed the Council on this issue stating that half the street will go for a park and the other half will go for a housing development on the next block. Mr. Whitehead stated that the people who own the home on the corner objected to the way the street was going to be designed because they would be gaining more property; since this is a rental unit, the owners did not want to maintain more property.
Mike Chitwood addressed the Council and stated that the Council had requested the Redevelopment Agency to contact the owner which was done. If the owner does not want to take the land then it would be given to the developer and they would be required to maintain the property. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if options on disbursement of the property would remain open if this ordinance was adopted. Mr. Chitwood stated that by vacating the property it would automatically go to the abutting property owner; but if the owner does not want the land, then they can contact the Redevelopment Agency and a Quit Claim deed will be written deeding the property to the Agency who would sell the property.
Mr. Craig Peterson stated that the disposal of the property was not covered in this ordinance but the property could be disposed under the property ordinance. Councilmember Shearer stated that the ordinance before the Council dealt with the closure of the street and not the disposition of the property. Mr. Chitwood pointed out that on page two of the ordinance the intent as to the disposition of the property is clarified. Councilmember DePaulis read from the proposed ordinance, Section 2, Narrowing of right of way of 500 North Street between 700 West and Grant Streets (Parcel 1) and closure of 700 West Street north of narrowed 500 North Street to I-15, (Parcel 2), “To achieve the goals of encouraging maximum use of pub1ic resources and the construction of the housing project by the redesign and narrowing of 500 North, there is created a strip of land on the north side of 500 North Street between Grant Street and 700 West Street of 45-53’ in width: Said Strip (Parcel 1) and 700 West Street north of 500 North (Parcel 2), no longer shall be necessary for use as public thoroughfares. Said parcels, more particularly described below, are hereby declared to be CLOSED and no longer available for use as public streets, avenues, alleys or pedestrian ways.
However, said parcels hereby closed for use as streets are hereby reserved as City property which may be made available for future transfer to enlarge the housing project upon terms and conditions as the Mayor may deem appropriate.” Councilmember Whitehead stated that if the ordinance is adopted as written then the property in front of the house becomes City property and City responsibility for maintenance. Councilmember DePaulis stated that it may be made available for future transfer to enlarge the housing project; Mr. DePaulis did not know if that statement limits the type of transfer which can take place.
Mr. Cutler stated that the Mayor has the power to dispose of the property as long as it meets with the property disposal ordinance. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the disposition of the property would be made at a later time. Ms. Bohman addressed the Council. She stated that she is upset that the Council would sell the property in front of her house to an outside party. Councilmember Whitehead stated that if she did not want the property then it would be maintained by the developer. She stated that her main objection to getting more property is that it would add to the maintenance.
Councilmember Mabey asked if the property owner would have to pay for street improvements in front of the additional property. Mr. Chitwood stated that assessments are usually on a front-foot basis and the front footage would stay the same. Councilmember Whitehead stated that the owner would have to pay additional taxes. Ms. Bohman also stated that not much can he done with a great amount of property in the front yard and it would be harder to get renters because renters do not want to maintain a lot of property. Mr. Mabey reiterated the two options available, either the property owner can take the land and maintain it or the land will go to the developer who will maintain the property.
Mr. Bohman was concerned that the developer would build something on the property to which the Council replied they could not. Councilmember DePaulis asked the value of the twin homes which will be constructed. Mr. Chitwood stated that the cost will probably be between $48,000 and $50,000 per unit and this will either maintain or increase the property value.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve Petition 403 of 1981 and adopt Ordinance 20 of 1982, regarding the redesign, narrowing and closure of portions of 500 North at 700-800 West and closure of 700 West north of 500 North to I-15, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
P 82-10
435 of 1981 submitted by Jerald Sarafolean.
RE: An appeal by Jerry Sarafolean of the decision of the Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission to refuse to extend the City’s District “A” liquor area one block west from 300 West to 400 West. Mr. Sarafolean is requesting the issuance of a class “C” beer license at 348 West 500 South, Salt Lake City.
Roger Cutler stated that this appeal is an administrative matter and the Council does not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal; the Council can only amend the ordinance. Councilmember Mabey referred this item to the Land Use Committee to consider amending the ordinance; referred without objection.
P 82-48
575 of 1981 submitted by Robert Wiltshire.
RE: Requesting that property located on the northeast corner of North Main be rezoned from Residential “R-5A” and “R-4” to a residential “R-2” classification. A public hearing was held February 9, 1982, at which time this request was approved. Based on the action of the Council at the public hearing, an ordinance was prepared providing for the rezoning of this area.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 21 of 1982, amending Section 51-12-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to zoning and fixing boundaries of use districts, specifically changing the zoning at the northeast corner of North Main and Hillside Avenue, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-5
602 of 1981 submitted by Alexander M. Henricks III and Sylvia Henricks
RE: Requesting that an alley between Ramona and Hollywood Avenues and between 14th and 15th East Streets be vacated. A public hearing was held before the Council on January 12, 1982, at which time this request was referred to the Land Use Committee.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Couricilmember Parker seconded to approve Petition 602 of 1981, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-3
603 of 1981 submitted by Gus Teseros.
RE: Requesting property presently zoned residential R-7 in Block 51 between 400 and 500 East and 100 and 200 South be rezoned to C-3A. A public hearing was held on February 9, 1982 at which time this request was approved. Based on the action taken by the Council at this public hearing, an ordinance was prepared providing for the rezoning of this area. Councilmember DePaulis stated that the petitioner agreed that this area would be for mixed-use purposes. Councilmember Parker expressed concern about the legal description outlined in the ordinance and stated that it needed to be understood that the northern 495 feet does not include the Board of Education property which is in that block.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to refer the ordinance back to the Attorney’s office for clarification of the property legal description, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
P 82-12
6 of 1982 submitted by BMS Realty, Inc.
RE: Requesting that property being annexed under Petition 25 of 1980 (Meikier/Gubler Annexation) he zoned “M-lA” classification instead of the “C-3A” classification that was originally recommended. It is recommended that the Council hold a public hearing on April 13, 1982 to discuss this petition.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing on April 13, 1982 to discuss Petition 6 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-49
21 of 1982 submitted by the L.D.S. Church.
RE: Requesting the vacating of 7th South from a point running approximately 165 feet east of 8th West, east to the freeway and a 17-foot alley running east and west in the rear of the properties facing on 7th South Street.
Leigh von der Esch stated that she had received an ordinance from Judy Lever in the Attorney’s Office; however, Ms. von der Esch indicated that the Quitclaim Deed needed to be reviewed by the petitioner. Ms. von der Esch stated that this matter could be approved subject to the petitioner’s review of the Deed.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to substitute the word “closure” for the word “vacating”, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 22 of 1982, providing for the closure of 700 South Street between Blocks 11 and 14, Plat C from approximately 700-775 West, and approve the Quitclaim Deed subject to review by the petitioner, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-27
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: The enactment bond resolution authorizing the sale of bonds for 185 Associates for the office building on the northeast corner of State Street and 2nd South.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt the enactment bond resolution, Resolution 32 of 1982, authorizing the sale of bonds for 185 Associates, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Q 82-15
RE: Ordinance amendment, Section 32-7-4, regarding curfew for minors.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Section 32-7-4 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City.
DISCUSSION: The case, Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2c1 1065 was decided October 13, 1981. Here, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Louisiana City night time juvenile curfew ordinance similar to Salt Lake’s. After thorough research, it was determined that Salt Lake City’s present curfew ordinance (Section 32-7-4, Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended) does not meet constitutional requirements. Generally curfew ordinances, prohibiting minors’ mere presence upon public streets or in public places, have been stricken down as unconstitutional; that fact is true even though the laws provided exceptions for minors who are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian or were involved in some legitimate business, trade, profession or occupation. The proposed ordinance, amending Section 32-7-4 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, is drafted to broaden the exceptions to meet the Johnson case rationale. For example:
(1) The proposed ordinance would legalize an underage person to be on the streets after designated curfew hours if in the presence of any parent, guardian or other person having legal care and custody of said minor. The present section made it illegal for any such person to allow or permit any minor to go or be in or upon any sidewalk, street, alley or public place and provided no exception therefor. (2) The amendment would change the mere presence on a city street to a loitering standard. (3) The proposed amendment would provide certain circumstances where an under aged person would not be in violation of the curfew ordinance in the event such minor was in a restricted area after the prescribed curfew. Thus, a minor would not be in violation of the curfew ordinance, if said under aged person was:
(a) married; (b) accompanied by a parent, guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of said minor; (c) returning home from, going to or being in attendance at any religious or school function, organized dance, theater, sports event or other such associational activity; provided, however that going to or from such activity would be by a direct route and within a reasonable time of the commencement or termination of an event; (d) engaged in legitimate employment and could produce evidence of such employment (e) in a motor vehicle engaged in normal travel, while traveling to, from or through the City on an interstate trip; or (f) if such minor were within the immediate vicinity of the minor’s residence. Considering all of these required exceptions there seems little left of the curfew prescriptions. Thus, it was the opinion of the Attorney’s Office that, in view of constitutional problems with curfew ordinances it might be best to eliminate any curfew ordinance. However, Chief of Police Bud Willoughby stated that a curfew ordinance is very desirable in that it is an effective deterrence for juvenile crime. It is also helpful for the police to induce juveniles to get off the streets between the late and early morning hours.
For those reasons, the proposed amendment to Section 32-7-4 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, is being submitted for review and discussion. As drafted it appears to meet current constitutional standards, but careful policy review is requested. In the meantime, the police have been instructed to consult with the Attorney’s Office before arresting any juvenile for a curfew violation under present City ordinances. Councilmember Mabey referred this ordinance amendment to the Public Safety Committee; referred without objection.
O 82-17
CITY COUNCIL
RE: A resolution identifying contributions of Salt Lake City to the Salt Palace expansion project including land redevelopment appropriations and $110,000 to be applied to fees relating to expansion of the project. Lance Bateman, City Controller, indicated that there is a category where the money can be placed without having to reopen the budget. It was originally suggested to use a contingency amount to pay the $110,000 out of which would be received back so the City does not lose funds; there is an appropriation for contingency that can be used. Mr. Bateman stated that there is not a specific line item that says “donations so perhaps the budget should be reopened.
Mr. Cutler stated that there may already be an appropriation which can be used to expand within the budgeting process. Councilmember Shearer stated that it would have to come through the Council if the contingency funds were used and put into any other department to which Mr. Cutler stated that was correct. Mr. Cutler further stated that the budget opening requires 7-days published notice. Mr. Bateman stated that the money would not need to be transferred out of the department where it is budgeted; the line item would just need to be changed from contingency to donation. Mr. Cutler suggested that the Council conceptually approve the resolution and the details could be worked out.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 31 of 1982, indicating the contributions of Salt Lake City, Utah, to support and facilitate the Salt Palace Expansion Project, subject to developing a mechanism for effectuating the $110,000 fee forgiveness, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
R 82-9
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RE: Tentative list of funded projects to the 8th year Community Development Block Grant funding. A question was raised about the NHS (Neighborhood Housing Services) not being included as one of the projects already budgeted for funding under Housing. Leigh von der Esch stated that Councilmember Davis had said she wanted to leave the CDAC recommendations as they were. In order to do that, $50,000 had to be deleted from NHS that was not included as a CDAC recommendation.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt the tentative list in the amount of $3,878,140 for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye. The Council then discussed the list of proposed deletions. Operation Paintbrush: Councilmember Mabey stated that this program will address some of the problems throughout the City and will encourage people to paint their homes. When a house becomes run down it soon spreads to other houses; this program might stop additional spreading of blight in an area.
Councilmember Parker stated that he thought $25,000 was a lot of money for paint and wanted to know how much money had been used in previous years. Stephanie Loker stated that last year the budget was $16,000 and $9,000 was added for a total of $25,000. Ms. Loker stated that the program was well received. Councilmember Parker stated that he was not in favor of eliminating the program just keeping the budget at $16,000.
Ms. Loker stated that the paint and supplies are purchased but the home owner supplies the labor. Building and Housing Services can get the paint at cost through different dealers; ladders, rollers, and paint brushes are available for borrowing. Ms. Loker stated that hopefully 100 homes would benefit and most of the requests were from the target areas. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if a project could be added back to the list at the time of final approval if it was deleted at this time and not published, to which Ms. Loker replied that a project could be added again at the time of final approval.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to add Operation Paintbrush to the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Parker who voted nay.
El Centro Civic Center: Councilmember Davis stated that this project was not recommended by the CDAC committee. Dave Conine, CDAC chairman, addressed the Council and stated that the initial concern with the proposal was that it is a large cost item and is for a partially complete building which needs additional work. Subsequent to the CDAC rejection of the large amount of money there was the Mayor’s recommendation for a smaller amount which would be utilized for updating the architectural drawings to see if the building could be completed in a subsequent funding year or move toward completion. The present drawings are 1968 drawings and are not up to current code. The CDAC committee rejected the large dollar amount with the concern being that the maximum-use benefit would not be realized from the CD funding. Most of the committee supports the recommendation to update the drawings. Mr. Conine stated that there was a tentative amount of $150,000 budgeted for 9th year.
Doug Carlson stated that City staff recommended a 9th-year level of $150,000. The burden is being placed on the El Centro people for the remainder of the funding. In 8th year, the architectural work would be done so that they could know how much the building would cost. The people would have one year to raise the necessary funds; one of the conditions for 9th year funding would be that this money is raised. If sufficient private funds were not raised then the Council would not approve the project and the $150,000 would be allocated to another area.
Mr. Carlson stated that a possible option would be for the El Centro group to raise money for the update of the architectural plans to see if the project is feasible and then come before the Council for 9th year funding. Councilmember DePaulis asked if an intent on the three-year plan could be made at the time of the final vote that if the group updates the plan and it is feasible then money could be allocated in 9th year; Mr. Carlson stated yes.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve the deletion of this project from the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Fonnesbeck, DePaulis, and Parker who voted nay.
NHS (Neighborhood Housing Services): Councilmember Davis asked why CDAC did not approve the project. Dave Conine stated that he felt this was not included because the CDAC Committee did not have good background information on the precise use of the money when the decision was made. Mr. Conine stated that personally he felt the project should have been supported.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to increase the tentative approval to $70,000 and add the project to the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Fire Station: Councilmember DePaulis stated that he understood this project would be for design purposes of a fire station and the funds would ultimately come from the sale of the fire station that currently exists behind the Tri-Arc. Councilmember Whitehead stated that the money could be reimbursed from the sale of the land but there is no money to get started. The Mayor stated that the property could be liquidated to accommodate the project but that would put a substantial delay on the project. If this is deleted the Mayor suggested that the Council ask Chief Pederson for further explanation for the final hearing.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve the deletion of this project from the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Land Write-Down: Craig Peterson stated this money had been appropriated this year to NNS to purchase homes in Councilmember Mabey’s district. The Council appropriated $1.2 million this year; this has been reduced to $100,000 for next year because all of the $1.2 million has not been spent. This money goes to the Redevelopment Agency for housing land write-down. Mr. Peterson stated that there was some consideration of eliminating land write-down for next year as long as it remained in the three-year plan. Mr. Peterson stated that there is plenty of money to keep projects operating through this year. He further stated that there is no land write-down money included in the total $3.8 million CDBG 8th year funding.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve the deletion of this project from the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Master Plan CWA Drainage Ditch #4: Councilmember Whitehead stated that there is money coming from the County Flood Control but this funding will help the project move along faster. The Mayor stated that the City receives a pro-rated share of the County Flood Control money. Councilmember Shearer stated that this would not be double taxation because federal money is being added and not general fund money. Ms. Davis read the project description stating that this money would be used for preliminary planning and design.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to add this project to the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Implementation of Economic Development Plan: Craig Peterson indicated that this project is associated with the major duties performed by Mike Coulam, Economic Development Planner, who reviews the economic viability of projects. For example on annexations there should be a certain rate of return within 25 years and there should be a certain rate of return for housing projects.
Mr. Coulam would be doing a cost-benefit analysis on all public-private partnerships, on all I.R.B.’s and on all annexations or subdivision approvals. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why this project was being funded by CD funds and not general funds. Mr. Peterson stated that much of the planning department’s activities are a hold-over from the 701 program, which was a federal program that encouraged cities to get into advanced planning. When Community Development replaced the 701 program, there was a provision made that the Community Development Block Grant could be used for planning activities. Because of the short-fall in general fund revenue, this city has had a policy since the inception of the Community Development Block Grant to fund the bulk of advanced planning out of community development.
Doug Carlson stated that it had been traditional to fund planning projects known to benefit a low or moderate income people or to affect areas of the city that are considered eligible for Community Development funding. This is the fist year that HUD has eased up on their eligibility rule for planning projects and now planning activities can be carried on anywhere in the city. HUD allows cities to spend up to 20% for planning and administrative purposes. It has been traditional to carry a large amount of the Planning and Zoning Department’s budget with the block grant.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to add this project to the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
State Street Strip Commercial Study:
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to approve the deletion of this project from the list to be published, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Energy Study Citizen Handouts: Craig Peterson stated that this study would work towards developing a new zoning ordinance including a new energy zoning ordinance for the city. This would include such items as solar capabilities, making provisions for solar housing to be included in zoning, considering wind power, and other items that would supplement the zoning code for energy. Mr. Peterson stated that this project needed to be renamed to Energy Master Plan Study.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if the new zoning study would adversely impact the traditional low-income target areas. He stated that he did not want to see any more housing lost in target areas as opposed to being able to stabilize housing in target areas. Mr. Peterson stated that emphasis would not be on density but design; it is not anticipated that this study will be an entire upzoning of everything that has been rezoned within the last five to six years.
It would be consolidating neighborhoods and drawing lines as to where commercial encroachment should occur and where it should not. He stated that he would anticipate, for example looking at the Central City area, after the zoning ordinance, commercial development will be de-emphasized in that area and that mixed use housing will become the requirement for any type of density east of 300 East. This is associated with the Compatibility Review ordinance. Mr. Peterson further stated that it was important to the Energy Advisory Committee that there be a handout available to citizens regarding the results of the study and encouraging the use of alternate energy sources and providing “how to” information.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to add this project, Energy Master Plan Study, to the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Salvage Depot: Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the deletion of this project from the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who voted nay.
Minority Community Economic Development: Councilmember Whitehead stated that this project is for the renovation of an office building to be located on the west side (about 900 West and North Temple) to be made available to individuals proposing to start new businesses; it will reach out to the people living in that area. The area is currently zoned for this use.
Ben Medina addressed the Council and outlined the project. He stated that his group offers office space initially to people starting businesses; once the business is under operation then they are relocated within the city where they can carry on their business. The same office space is then made available to other individuals. Councilmember Davis asked if any of the services needed by the business were paid for such as secretaries and telephones to which Mr. Medina stated that the business is required to pay some of the initial costs and overhead expenses but the office space is offered free of charge; a common reception area is offered.
Mr. Medina stated that the organization has a substantial amount of money as the result of the sale of a housing project and they would probably sublease part of the proposed office space in order to make the mortgage payments. There would be around 4,000 square feet available to the minority support businesses. Councilmember Shearer asked how the participants would be chosen. Mr. Medina stated that in conjunction with SBA and also the National Economic Development Association and other minority business groups, the businesses would be chosen according to their feasibility. Mr. Medina said there is a committee established to make those decisions.
The Mayor stated that once these businesses become profitable and are able to sustain themselves then they are phased out and new businesses are brought in. Councilmember Shearer asked if the City was in any kind of liability problem with this kind of project. Doug Carlson stated that the only liability from a block grant perspective is the very remote possibility of a reverse discrimination suit. Mr. Carlson stated that in other projects where work has been done with one specific minority or group, the group signs a statement indicating that they will abide by the applicable laws and regulations for civil rights. Mr. Medina stated that it had been discussed earlier that the term “minority” would be deleted.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to add this project to the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
The Council next considered the discussion items: Sugarhouse Park Application and Westminster Mini-Park: Councilmember Parker stated that he felt these projects should be considered for next year; he stated that both of these projects would fit into the CDBG eligible area. The Sugarhouse Park indicated is the old Sugarhouse Park, the area between 2100 South and Wilmington behind Hygia Ice Company. Mr. Parker strongly recommended these two projects for 9th year funding.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to delete these projects from the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Mixed Use Housing Project: Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that this was part of the American Cities plan for the west side and it is specifically a group that is ready to proceed with this mixed use housing project. This will be a combination housing, craft area, and sales area; there is a 5 to 1 dollar match for funds.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to change the funding to $225,000 as recommended by CDAC, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
KRCL Donation: Bill Wright addressed the Council and stated that the staff felt this should he under the administrative budget so that the program would be operated as a media program rather than labeling the funds for KRCL. If KRCL met the needs for advertising the CD program then KRCL would be used; if the need arose to use a television spot or another radio station, then those possibilities would be available. This project is listed in the administrative budget under planning and zoning and the amount is $7,200. He further stated that when the administrative costs, $318,000, are considered, there is a line item which could go toward media and a portion of that could go to KRCL.
Councilmember Shearer stated that there are certain publishing and media requirements to the CD grant. It is felt that some of these are met by KRCL but others may be met by different media and therefore services from other media might be purchased.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to delete consideration of the KRCL donation and consider it with Administrative Costs, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
All Administration Costs: Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to add all Administration Costs, $318,000, to the list for publication, of which KRCL is a part, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
The Council next considered the proposed additions: Green Street: Councilmember DePaulis stated that he wanted to withdraw this project for publication purposes because there may be a legal problem with the assessment being paid on the current curb and gutter.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to delete this project from the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
6th East Islands: Councilmember DePaulis recommended this funding with the hope that the City can work with the Trolley Square people and get the funding for the block from the project that they are constructing. There has been some commitment in the past that they would pay for the redesign and the raising of the islands in front of Trolley Square since these were destroyed when the parking structure was built. This is not only an opportunity to fund this block through the private interest but raise the islands throughout the stretch.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to add this project to the list for publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Marketing Salt Lake City Neighborhood: Stephanie Loker stated that this project should be $10,000 instead of $7,500. Councilmember Shearer stated that this is the project to promote Salt Lake City. Displays will be erected in various areas to advertise Salt Lake City. Councilmember DePaulis stated that this is part of an overall marketing strategy and fits well within the concepts of the housing element, housing proposals, and master plan studies. Craig Peterson stated that this program was modeled after a program being used in Boston.
Doug Carlson stated that if this project is approved, the contingency fund will be under $200,000; the proposed contingency amount was $253,000, which is only 5% of the block grant and is a low contingency fund for a program of this size. He further stated that there are two 5th year CD projects that are dormant and within the next week a recommendation was going to be prepared requesting the Council to officially delete those projects and reprogram the money to new projects. The staff was going to present the option that the Council consider funding the 6th East Islands project from the 5th year money.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to include this project on the list for publication and increase the funding to $20,000, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Parker who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to authorize publication indicating that the Statement of Community Development Goals and Objectives and Proposed Use of Funds is available and also set April 6, 1982 as the date to make a final decision on the 8th year projects, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
T 82-1
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Ordinance change regarding escort bureaus.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of Title 32 of the revised ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to offenses involving morals, by adding new Chapters 15 and 16 relating to escort services.
DISCUSSION: The Police Department and City Licensing have run into a problem of licensing escort bureaus. The Police Department, in running background checks on some of the applicants for licenses, has found that some are involved in prostitution and drug charges and that forming an escort service is just a means to attempt to legalize this activity. Licenses have been denied, and at present there are no escort bureaus that operate legally. Both City Licensing and the Police Department Vice Squad have reviewed this ordinance and feel it is needed and should be adopted. Councilmember Mabey referred the proposed ordinance amendment to the Public Safety Committee; referred without objection.
O 82-18
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: The appointment of L.C. Romney on the Sugar House Park Authority; Mr. Romney’s term expired November 1981. The Mayor recommends that Mr. Romney be reappointed for another five-year term to expire November 1986. The Sugar House Park Authority has unanimously approved the recommendation of Mr. Romney for another term. He has been committed to Sugar House Park for many years and has made a significant contribution to its success.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to move the appointment of L.C. Romney to the April 6, 1982 consent agenda for approval, subject to receiving a financial disclosure statement, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
I 82-12
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (continued)
RE: The appointments of Kem Gardner, Jess Agraz, and Mirvin Borthick to the Air Travel Commission. The term of Kern C. Gardner expired December 1, 1981, and the term of Jess A. Agraz expired February 1, 1982. Mayor Wilson recommends that Mr. Gardner be reappointed for another three-year term to expire December 1, 1984, and that Mr. Agraz be reappointed for another three-year term to expire February 1, 1985. The term of Mirvin D. Borthick expires May 16, 1982. The Mayor recommends that Mr. Borthick be reappointed for another three-year term to expire May 16, 1985.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to move the appointments of Kern Gardner, Jess Agraz, and Mirvin Borthick to the April 6, 1982 consent agenda for approval, subject to receiving a financial disclosure statement, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
I 82-13
POLICE DEPARTMENT
RE: Introduction of proposed traffic code ordinance amendment, Sections 186 and 191.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Section 186 and 191 of the Salt Lake City traffic Code relating to left-turn lanes.
DISCUSSION: The recommendation that a new ordinance be drafted prohibiting vehicles from “driving in between the newly designated traffic separators”.
Councilmember Mabey referred this proposed ordinance to the Public Safety Committee and the Public Works Committee; referred without objection.
O 82-19
PUBLIC UTILITIES
RE: $17 million water and sewer revenue bond, 1982 series.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the bond resolution for the issuance of $17 million in revenue bonds.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Debt service to be retired from capital improvements rate increase of August 18, 1981.
DISCUSSION: The Department of Public Utilities plans to construct or pay for the following capital improvements from the $17 million bond issuance: 1. Near-Term Improvements at the Water Reclamation Plant $5.4 Million. 2. Big Cottonwood Conduit Replacement $7.6 Million. 3. McEntire Reservoir $1.6 Million. Total $14.6 Million. Capitalize reserve fund 2.4 Million. Total $17.0 Million.
Councilmember Shearer stated that she had questions about the document and wanted to know the time restraints on this issue. Nick Smith addressed the Council and stated that they had no time urgency. The document before the Council is a notice of sale establishing the time and place for accepting bids. He further stated that it was up to the Council when they choose to accept the bids. Mr. Smith stated that the draft before the Council was preliminary and not final; there are changes that still need to be made. Councilmember Davis stated that she was concerned about the McEntire Reservoir project. Ms. Davis referred to an information sheet which had been mailed by the Department of Public Utilities to citizens of Salt Lake City.
She stated that on the information sheet McEntire Reservoir was listed as a project under construction from other funding sources, which intimates that this project is not included in the bonding; however, in the bond document before the Council McEntire Reservoir is included. Wendell Evensen stated that the McEntire Reservoir has been paid with a loan from the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City. The interest rate on that loan is whatever the current money market is at. By having that kind of loan with the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City it makes that loan senior in the bond market.
Rather than making the bond issues junior, and to get the better interest rate available through the bonding program, it is the proposal to pay off the debt with the Metropolitan Water District. Mr. Evensen reiterated that there are several items which need to be included in the bond document. Councilmember Shearer stated that at the time the fees were raised the Council requested a list of the projects to be funded. She stated that the concern was that notices were sent to all the water users notifying them of the projects and now the list has changed.
Mr. Evensen stated that the McEntire Reservoir was number one on the list, otherwise it would not have been built at that time; he further stated that the Public Utilities Department was trying to save money by going through the bonding program to get a better interest rate and also insuring that the bonds being sold are not junior to the agreement with the Metropolitan Water District. Ms. Davis also mentioned that the proposal indicates the cost of Big Cottonwood Conduit to be $7.6 million and the information sheet stated $6.9 million; Mr. Evensen stated that inflation has increased the cost.
He further stated that the Department was hoping to go out to bid on the project the first of April; it is felt that the bids will be less than the cost listed and the city will get a good price. Ms. Davis stated that she was concerned with what the residents of Salt Lake City were promised and what the Council now will approve. Mr. Evensen stated that the County was having a public hearing on March 29 to discuss the Big Cottonwood Conduit construction project; everyone is moving forward to get this constructed and if the bonds are not sold then this project cannot proceed. Councilmember Shearer asked what would be left off the list since McEntire was included; now something cannot be built that the citizens were told would be built. Mr. Evensen stated that when the list was established it was prioritized; some of the lower priority items would have to be left off unless construction costs come in lower. Mr. Smith stated that the bids should not be awarded until the bonds are sold; the Council is being requested to set a date for the sale of bonds. In the meantime, the errors in the document are being corrected; in order to open the bids the document will have to be corrected, finalized, distributed, and approved. Mr. Smith stated that the changes will be incorporated into the document and the Council’s next approval would come on the final official statement which would not be finalized until the sale of bonds when the interest rate is known.
The Mayor stated that flexibility was necessary to modulate these programs; there also has to be flexibility in the bond documents. The Mayor stated that he did not feel the basic presentation of the projects to the public had changed, there had been some flexibilities assigned to it. The bond issue cannot be written so tightly that the program cannot be changed to meet the best interests of the taxpayers. The Mayor then reiterated what Mr. Evensen had said about making the bonds junior to the agreement with the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake. The Mayor concluded by stating that the Council is setting legislation by setting the general funding and the rate and it is up to the executive branch to do the modulating.
Mr. Smith stated that this document cannot be submitted until it is correct. Perhaps the Council would feel more comfortable if the corrections were made and the bond sale set at a later meeting; that decision is up to the Council. Councilmember Shearer stated that in order for the work to be done this season on the Big Cottonwood Conduit the bond sale needs to be set according to schedule which would be April 13.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Resolution 30 of 1982 authorizing the advertisement for sale of $17,000,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1982, of Salt Lake City, Utah, to be sold April 13, 1982, and that the document be scrutinized to insure its accuracy, which motion carried, all members voting aye. The time for the bond sale was set for 6:00 p.m.
Q 82-16
PUBLIC WORKS
RE: Special Improvement District No. 38-622, Exchange Place Beautification.
RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the recommendation and decision which will: 1. Allow the City Council acting as a Board of Equalization and Review for this project, to accept the assessments as contained on the assessment rolls as being equitable and constituting a benefit to the properties to be assessed. 2. Send “Notice to Property Owners” and set a date for a public hearing for the purpose of raising the interest rate for abutters on the special tax assessment from 7% as outlined in the Notice of Intention to the applicable interest rate borne by the City at the time the bonds are issued. Recommend that a public meeting be held no less than 60 days from the date of this decision, City Council approve the levying of assessments for this project.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Redevelopment Agency and property owner assessment.
DISCUSSION: The Cactus/Exchange Place Beautification Project was constructed during 1979 and completed in early 1980. A Board of Equalization and Review was held with members of City Council acting on the Board on July 15, 16, and 17, 1980. Two written complaints were received from owners of property abutting this project. No other persons protested in writing or attended the hearing of the Board of Equalization and Review. The complaints concerned the property owner’s concern with the high cost of the project.
It is, therefore, felt the assessments as proposed are equitable and the improvements financed constitute a benefit to the properties to be assessed. It is also felt that due to the lapse of time between construction of the project and the levying of assessments, and the corresponding increase in the interest rate, the current market rate of interest should be charged abutting property owners.
Councilmember Mabey referred the issue of Special Improvement District 38-622 to the Public Works Committee; referred without objection.
Q 82-3
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.