PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 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 SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK IONE M. DAVIS PALMER DEPAULIS EDWARD W. PARKER.
Councilmember Grant Mabey was absent from this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted the meeting.
CONSENT AND POLICY
Leigh von der Esch informed the Council that due to scheduling and publication of certain dates the new Committee structure would be implemented April 1, 1982. The Council will tour the site proposed for street narrowing in conjunction with Petition 403 of 1981 (500 North between 700 West and 800 West) on Thursday, March 4, at 4:30 p.m. Leigh von der Esch announced that the Administration has requested that the Council postpone consideration of the Collective Bargaining amendments until further notice. Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on Councilmember Mabey’s concerns about the Blue Ribbon Committee.
Councilmember Mabey had received a complaint that the Administration was not providing the information needed to the committee for their review. He is concerned that the Council will not receive an impartial and thorough report because their information is limited. Albert Haines stated that he had heard no complaints about access to information and stated that John Wheat is working with the Committee and is providing information as requested and in a timely fashion. CDBG funding will be considered in the Council’s meeting as the Committee of the Whole on Thursday, March 4, in order to complete consideration of this item.
Councilmember Davis briefed the Council on their options in consideration of the Emigration Canyon annexation. She indicated that they could either accept the motion, or table the motion ending filing of new petitions. Alan Moll and Carl Hendricks briefed the Council on Salt Lake County’s requests in conjunction with the expansion of the Salt Palace. Mr. Moll expressed the desire of the County that there be cooperation with the City as the expansion is in the interest of both entities. Mr. Moll and Mr. Hendricks suggested the exchange of certain fees for the fees involved with the Cottonwood aqueduct. Mayor Wilson spoke to the Council and stressed that the Salt Palace is in the City’s direct benefit and that the Council should try to accommodate the plans for expansion.
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 2, 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 SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK IONE M. DAVIS PALMER DEPAULIS EDWARD W. PARKER.
Councilmember Grant Mabey was absent from this meeting.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided and conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Bob Johnson.
Pledge of Allegiance.
From City Council:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, February 16, 1982, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
M 82-2
PETITIONS
692 of 1977, 693 of 1977, and 376 of 1978 relating to the annexation of Emigration Canyon.
RE: The adoption of an ordinance completing the Emigration Canyon annexation approved by the City Commission on April 10, 1979.
Councilmember Davis addressed this issue. She stated that she had assumed the responsibility of spearheading a study of the annexation of Emigration Canyon. Last Thursday evening, February 25, 1982, a meeting was held which was attended by more that 100 property owners, residents, or interested parties; further information was gathered at this meeting. Ms. Davis stated that various letters have recently been received by individuals and developers alike; new information gathered has been distributed to the Council Members in their packets. Councilmember Davis stated that she felt with the tremendous amount of information acquired, the time has come to take action on the three petitions that have been pending for over two years. Councilmember Davis further stated that she has met with many people and she has letters from the Water District, from Sorenson Development, and from the Boyer Company and it is her impression that all of these people are desirous of whole-canyon annexation. She felt that the Council would be remiss in not setting aside the three petitions until a later date so that a request for complete annexation could he filed; Councilmember Davis felt that 90 days would be sufficient time. Councilmember Shearer commended Ms. Davis for her hard work on this issue. Ms. Shearer was concerned about the Council setting aside the three petitions and then having to consider them again in 90 days; she further asked why the Council did not act now.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that he felt he would rather see the whole Canyon annexed but if the residents do not submit that request then the Council should be able to vote on the three petitions already submitted. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that at this point a petition requesting the annexation of the entire canyon may be submitted and by postponing a vote on the three petitions is a way of keeping all the options open. If the petitions are voted down, and a new one not submitted, then the possibility of annexing part of the Canyon is eliminated. Councilmember Shearer asked if there would not be an advantage of starting over since the petitions are so old. Councilmember Whitehead stated that it was not fair to the developers to have to start again.
The question was raised about waiting 90 days for a decision. Councilmember Davis stated that after discussing this issue with the parties concerned, they were in agreement about the 90-day period. She further stated the district needs to be established; the recommended district is the Canyon Improvement District. The boundaries have been established but the people still need to be notified. Ms. Davis stated that the three petitions can be used as leverage; by holding these petitions on file the canyon residents will realize that if they want total annexation they must submit the request within the 90-day period or the Council will consider the partial annexation of the Canyon.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that the Canyon would be developed whether it is under the City or the County and development would be better under City restrictions. If the residents are serious about annexing they now have the chance to request total annexation. Mr. Whitehead stated that he would rather have part of the Canyon developed under the City than have all of it developed under the County. Councilmember Depaulis stated that if the Council acted unfavorably on the three petitions at this time, the perception would be that the issue is dead. It would be more to the Council’s advantage to keep the issue open; there would be more flexibility.
The Mayor stated that if the Council voted at this time to approve the petitions the option of total annexation would be closed. Leon Shay, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the District, addressed the Council. He stated that when the three petitions came before the City Commission, the Emigration Improvement District was not in favor of piecemeal annexation and they have not changed their attitude. The District is interested in a petition for total annexation and wanted to see the three petitions nullified. Councilmember Whitehead asked who would spearhead the annexation program to which Mr. Shay replied that there are three members involved in the District and Jerry Kinghorn is their attorney; it is their intent to work with the City and the developers.
James Kimball, employee of the Boyer Company, addressed the Council and stated that the Boyer Company favors total Canyon annexation; the Company will use their best efforts to cooperate with and help those who seek the new petition. He also stated that if the three petitions are voted down that action will be taken literally as a rejection of the petitions and the 4 1/2 years of effort. The incentive would be gone for the Canyon owners to come forward with a petition. Mr. Kimball also commended Councilmember Davis on her efforts in this issue; he also commended Wes Dewsnup, Planning and Zoning Department.
Roy Drexall asked the Council if he understood correctly that the Council would have their policy statement in two weeks to which Councilmember Davis replied that was correct. Councilmember Shearer asked Mr. Kimball why it was important to keep the three petitions open if the residents are interested in total Canyon annexation; why do they need this incentive. Mr. Kimball replied that this was a sensitive issue and he felt the incentive was necessary; he wanted to see the Council keep this option available.
Councilmember Davis stated that she trusted the residents would sign a petition for total annexation, but if it is not filed within 90 days, at least the developers would have the possibility of partial annexation. Councilmember DePaulis commended Wes Dewsnup for his work on this issue; the Mayor thanked Councilmember Davis for her hard work.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded the following motion: The three petitions before the Council on the annexation of Emigration Canyon be filed with the Salt Lake City Clerk; the City Council establish a policy statement on the following seven items regarding this annexation and that they would consider the annexation of the entire canyon: 1. A City policy on the disposition of City-owned land in the Canyon; 2. A City policy on the status of existing platted lots in the Canyon; 3. A City policy on the parameters that will define a developable lot in the Canyon; 4. A City policy on how the development potential of the Canyon will be distributed; 5. A City policy on sewer and water facilities for the Canyon; 6. A City policy on the road; 7. A City policy on the cost of City services versus the revenue; a final decision to be made by the Council in 90 days (June 15, 1982), which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
P 82-29
626 of 1981 submitted by Salt Lake International Center.
RE: The petitioner requests the closure of Deseret and Learned Avenues.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on April 13, 1982 to discuss Petition No. 626 of 1981.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The property will either be traded or sold for fair market value to the petitioner as determined by the Chief Administrative Officer. This decision is predicated on the Council’s decision to close and will be submitted to the Council under the terms of the property ordinance.
DISCUSSION: This petition has been reviewed by Planning, Engineering, Public Utilities, Fire, Fixed Asset and City Attorney’s Office. They recommended that the streets be closed subject to the following conditions: 1. Preservation of rights of way and rights of entry for existing utilities and existing private rights which would survive the closure. 2. Require petitioners to bear expense of relocating or abandoning utility service lines within the street. 3. Condition final effect of the ordinance to follow review of the project’s building plans by the Planning Commission before property can be transferred and before the ordinance is recorded. 4. Condition the ordinance so that if the terms of approval, including plan approval, purchase price, and building permit review are not completed and construction begun within a specific time frame, the ordinance will become void and expire under its own terms (12 months).
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to schedule a public hearing for April 13, 1982, at 6:45 p.m. to discuss Petition 626 of 1981, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
P 82-28
21 of 1982 submitted by the L.D.S. Church.
RE: The petitioner requests the vacation of 7th South from a point approximately 165’ east of 8th West, east to the Freeway and a 17’ alley running east and west in the rear of the properties facing on 7th South Street.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council discuss Petition Mo. 21 on March 16, 1982.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: If the street is closed, the property should be sold to the petitioner at fair market value.
DISCUSSION: This petition has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and is presently being reviewed by Engineering, Transportation, Water, Fire, Fixed Asset and the Law Department. These recommendations will be in the March 16 Council packets. The petitioner has obtained all the necessary signatures of the abutting property owners and a public hearing will not be required. It is recommended that the property owners on the part of the T-shaped alley that is not being vacated be notified, by the City Recorder, that the City Council will be discussing this petition. Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck referred Petition 21 of 1982 to the Land Use Committee and to the consent agenda for March 9, 1982; referred without objection.
P 82-27
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: An ordinance amending Title 24 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, by amending Chapters 5 through 11 relating to municipal government. Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck referred this ordinance to the Budget Committee; referred without objection.
O 82-11
CITY COUNCIL
RE: Proclamation designating the week of March 1 through 7, 1982, as 4-H week in Salt Lake City. Councilmember DePaulis presented this proclamation. Members of various 4-H groups addressed the Council and briefly outlined the activities available through the 4-H program. This year the emphasis is on leaders.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the proclamation, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
G 82-8
RE: A resolution supporting a bid to bring the 1985 American Bowling Congress Convention to Salt Lake City. Councilmember DePaulis presented this resolution. Councilmember Parker stated that there were two reasons why Salt Lake City was able to compete for the bid. First, a local bowler, Dr. Boyd Pexton, is the 8th National Vice President of the A.B.C.; second Emanuel Floor has made it possible for this tournament to be held.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 28 of 1982, supporting a bid to bring the 1985 American Bowling Congress Convention to Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
R 82-8
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Amendment to assessment ordinance for Special Improvement District 38-533.
RECOMMENDATION: The Council adopt an amended Assessment Ordinance in connection with the assessment of property in Salt Lake City Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-533, so that the interest rate to accrue on unpaid assessment balances will be 7% per annum instead of the interest rate or rates provided in the Assessment Ordinance.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Excess interest earnings in other Improvement Districts will be available to finance the difference in interest rates.
DISCUSSION: The maximum interest rate indicated in the Notice of Intention dated October 3, 1978, consistent with a Salt Lake City Ordinance then in effect, stated in part: “Any assessment may be paid in ten (10) equal annual installments with interest on the unpaid balance not to exceed seven percent (7%) per annum until due and then after at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum until paid.” Section 5 of the Assessment Ordinance provided for interest on unpaid balance at a rate of thirteen percent (13%) and a provision that the interest rate is to be paid to the net effective rate of assessment bonds when issued based on new State Statutes and City Ordinances passed since October 3, 1978. The purpose of the amended assessment is to effectively charge all individuals the legal rate of interest at the time construction was completed.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred to the consent agenda for March 9, 1982, the Amended Assessment Ordinance regarding Special Improvement District 38-533; referred without objection.
Q 82-4
HOUSING AUTHORITY
RE: Presentation of the Annual Report from the Housing Authority. David Luscher from the Housing Authority addressed the Council on this issue. Mr. Luscher distributed copies of the annual report and highlighted what had been done in 1981. After one year’s work, the Housing Authority is in the process of putting together a seven-unit elderly citizens project in the new development on 9th South and 5th East; construction should begin early this summer. About the same time, rehabilitation on a unit in the Avenues will begin. Sixteen family units on about 1700 South West Temple will be developed; these units are Section 8 new construction and will depend on the bonding ability in the next month.
Also being completed is a single-family, multi-family mixed allocation which was received in 1981; this should be completed by the end of the year and the units should be occupied. Mr. Luscher stated that the Housing Authority was very excited about the loans-to-lenders program. The Housing Authority has received commitments from almost 10 developers for a substantial amount of money. Mr. Luscher indicated that the management operations has improved greatly. He also stated that the financial report is an unaudited report because audits are only done every two years; the next audit will begin in June.
C 82-9
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: Introduction of a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 17 of Title 5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to Energy Code Requirements by adding Section 5-17—2 creating an interim alternative applicable to qualifying residential construction.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Section 5-17-1 of the Salt Lake City Code.
DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Energy Advisory Committee, working with Building and Housing Services and the Homebuilders Association, formulated Interim Energy Code Amendments to simplify the requirements for passive solar design and clarify energy conservation standards. They create an alternative to existing standards for one and two-family dwellings.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 16 of 1982, amending Chapter 17 of Title 5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to Energy Code Requirements by adding Section 5-17-2 creating an interim alternative applicable to qualifying residential construction, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
O 82-9
RE: The appointment of Wayne I. Baer to the Civil Service Commission. This appointment is to fill the remaining term of Dr. James Mayfield who submitted his resignation effective December 15, 1981. Thus the appointment would be for the remainder of Dr. Mayfield’s term, July 1984. Mr. Baer will bring to the Civil Service Commission an excellent business and civic background. Mr. Baer addressed the Council and briefly explained his background. He stated that he has been a banker in Salt Lake City for about 32 years working heavily in all phases of banking.
He stated that he has had several civic responsibilities including being the Chairman of the City-County Board of Health; he has been appointed to various committees by the Governor such as the Tax Revision Committee and the I.P.P. Committee. Mr. Baer stated that he was happy to serve in this capacity and that the Civil Service Commission should rely on the written rule and exceptions to that rule should be few and far between. If the rules need to be changed they should he changed and not altered by administrative decree.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the appointment of Wayne I. Baer to the Civil Service Commission, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
I 82-9
PUBLIC WORKS
RE: Extra Work Order for EMCON Associates, Consultants hired by the Landfill Council to perform an engineering study on the landfill site.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Extra Work Order.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Funds are available in the Landfill budget.
DISCUSSION: During the course of EMCON’s work on an engineering study on the Landfill site, extra design requirements were placed upon them due to the City’s Planning Commission and incorrect base data. Therefore, an extra $10,278.23 has been added to the total amount to be paid to the consultant. The minutes of the Landfill Council meeting have been approved and ratified by the City Council that pertain to this subject, therefore, this is a follow-up formality.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 29 of 1982 approving the Extra Work Order for EMCON’s engineering study on the Landfill site, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
C 82-94
RE: Introduction of Proposed Parking Ordinance amendment: Section 170 of the Salt Lake City Traffic Code.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider addition of Section 170 of the Salt Lake City Traffic Code.
DISCUSSION: Residential parking lots completed last year in two Community Development Project areas (Capitol Hill and Central City) are being used for purposes other then the parking of personal vehicles owned by residents of the street. The recommendation would improve availability of off-street parking spaces to residents and their guests in areas where streets are too narrow for vehicle parking and prevent these lots from misuse. The ordinance would make it unlawful to: 1) Park any vehicle continuously in excess of 72 hours. 2) Park any vehicle over 18 feet in length or 8 feet wide. 3) Abandon any vehicle. 4) Make repairs on any vehicle. 5) Park any vehicle, required by law to be registered in this state, which does not bear a valid license plate and current Utah State inspection sticker.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 17 of 1982, amending Section 170 of the Traffic Code of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah 1965, relating to Residential Parking Lots Owned by Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
O 82-14
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Comments were made about stop signs in the Avenues, particularly the signs in the area of 3rd Avenue and Virginia Street. The following citizens commented: Woody Moyle, Bill Coles, Hal Cole, Heidi Clawson, Nadene Heiner, Terry Rodgerson, Laurel Perry, Pam Stewart, Daphne Draper, Ron Holliday, Judy Moyle. The comments that these citizens made were that the stop signs should be left and more signs added to the area. The traffic travels too rapidly along Virginia Street and there is a safety problem for children crossing the street to go to school. The area is also heavily traveled by joggers. A petition was circulated and the people in the area feel that the signs should be left; the petition was presented to the Mayor.
Comments were also made that during school hours a crossing guard is present to help children and he has stated that cars travel too fast. Several children have been hit and killed by cars in the area. The Mayor stated that he was supportive of the stop signs and there is a tendency for people to pick up speed as they come down the hill. The Mayor also stated that there is a tendency for people to try to make up for “lost” time by speeding up between stop signs. The Mayor stated that people in the upper Avenues had complained about the signs when they were first installed, but that complaining has subsided.
Norman Barnett, Traffic Division, stated that the Department is in the process of evaluating each location of stop signs in the Avenues. Mr. Barnett also reiterated the Mayor’s comment about people increasing their speed between stop signs to make up for “lost” time. Councilmember Fonnesbeck briefly commented on this issue. She stated that the process to put the signs in the Avenues area had been a long and labored procedure. A series of small hearings had been held to consider requests made by the Greater Avenues Community Council. Requested items that met with resistance were not pursued. However, after several large public hearings, the support for the installation of signs was overwhelming.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck continued by stating that as soon as the signs were installed people started to complain, but the complaints were from people who lived outside the immediate area. She stated that due process had been followed in this issue and people are more important than cars. Ms. Fonnesbeck stated that money has been spent on a downtown traffic study and perhaps money should be spent for residential traffic studies. Councilmember Fonnesbeck concluded by stating that a meeting is going to be held on the fourth Tuesday in April at the Washington School from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. and if the supporters of this issue could attend she would appreciate their support.
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.