PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, MAY 4, 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 Councilmember Palmer DePaulis conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items on their agenda. Phil Erickson, Kathryn Marshall, Lynda Domino, and Margaret Miller briefed the Council on items relating to policies, priorities, and procedures of the Office of the City Recorder.
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, MAY 4, 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 Palmer DePaulis conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Frank Jacobsen.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, April 20, 1982, and Tuesday, April 27, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
M 82-2)
PETITIONS
598 of 1981 submitted by Robert Trujillo.
RE: An ordinance narrowing a portion of Ashton Avenue by vacating a three-foot strip on the north side of Ashton Avenue (approximately 2335 South), presently used as a pedestrian walkway between Hannibal Street and 1875 East.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer the ordinance regarding Petition 598 of 1981 to the Land Use Subcommittee, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-9)
603 of 1981 submitted by Gus Teseros.
RE: An ordinance changing the zoning at 100-175 South 400-500 East Street from “R-7” to a Commercial “C-3A” district. This ordinance rezones three-quarters of Block 51.
Councilmember Shearer stated that the school board building was located in this block and asked if they were in favor of the zoning change; several Council Members responded that the school board was in favor of this change.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 32 of 1982, regarding a change of zoning at 100-175 South from 400-500 East Streets, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-12)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
RE: Requesting an amendment to the Airport Authority’s revised FY 1981-82 budget. The adopted budget was amended and the revised budget was approved by the city Council on January 26, 1982. The requested amendment only affects the capital portion of the FY 81-82 revised budget. The need for the change in the FY 81-82 budget was caused by the recent low bids received to complete the North and South East-West connecting taxiways. When the original amendment to the FY 81-82 budget was submitted, it was anticipated that the contract for the South taxiway would be let in FY 81-82 and the contract for the North taxiway would be let in FY 82-83.
On September 2, 1981, the Airport Authority Board approved the construction of the South Cross Taxiway Project at a budget cost of $2,907,000 which included the Concourse U3U Bypass Taxiway. At the same time, the Airport Authority Board gave contingent approval to completion of the North Cross Taxiway subject to the availability of federal funds. The budget cost for this project was $3,425,000. Accordingly, both cross taxiways were bid concurrently. Bids were received for the three phases of the project on March 31, 1982. The low bid for the South Taxiway and Bypass Taxiway was $1,691,903 with Peter Kiewit & Sons as low bidder. The low bid for the North Taxiway was $2,108,645 with Gibbons and Reed low. The total bid cost for all phases was $3,800,548 versus the budget cost of $6,332,000. The Airport Authority has received an ADAP grant in the amount of $2,237,000. In order to fully utilize the grant, a portion of the North taxiway or other eligible project must be included. The South Taxiway work will use $1,400,000 of the grant, leaving $837,000 for use elsewhere.
Considering the excellent bids which were received on the project and the benefits to airport operations from completing both taxiways as early as possible, the Airport Authority Board approved the award of the contract for the North Cross Taxiway and the enclosed adjustment to the FY 1981-82 budget at their regular meeting on April 14, 1982. Therefore, it is requested that the budget revisions schedule be considered for City Council approval.
Paul Gaines, Director of Airports, addressed the Council and reiterated that when their budget was prepared, the cost estimates for some of the taxiway work were high; accordingly the Airport did not budget for the full work because it was felt that it would not be an accurate reflection of what would be accomplished in the current fiscal year. Mr. Gaines further stated that the bids were taken as an alternate and the bids came in $2 million under the $6 million estimate and funding is available to complete the taxiway work.
However, the Council needs to give the Airport the authority to spend the money; the Airport needs another $1.6 million in appropriation authority. Funds are available to pay for the work from the surpluses that the Airport Authority generates and from an FAA grant.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 45 of 1982 amending the Airport Authority’s Fiscal Year 1981-82 budget, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(B 82-3)
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: Proposed Traffic Code Ordinance amendment: Section 46-6-104 pertaining to driving or being in control of a vehicle with a blood alcohol level of .10% or greater.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider enacting a new Section 104 to the Salt Lake City Traffic Code.
DISCUSSION: This ordinance is intended to supplement Section 105 of the Traffic Code, “Driving under the Influence”. The ordinance would make it unlawful for persons having a blood alcohol content of .10 or greater to drive or be in control of a vehicle. The ordinance, patterned after Section 46-6-44, Utah Code Annotated, will grant the police department and the city prosecutor greater leeway in charging individuals in traffic cases involving alcohol; the proposed ordinance establishes an objective standard which, in many cases, would be easier to enforce. Councilmember DePaulis referred this proposed Traffic Code Ordinance amendment to the Public Safety and Recreation Committee; referred without objection.
(O 82-24)
RE: Proposed amendment to Traffic Code concerning vehicle owner’s responsibility for parking violations.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Section 155 of the Salt Lake City Traffic Code.
DISCUSSION: Difficulties in enforcement of parking laws require legislative clarification of vehicle owner responsibilities for illegal parking. This ordinance has been upheld in other jurisdictions to establish clear responsibility on vehicle owners for the parking of their vehicles.
Councilmember DePaulis referred this proposed Traffic Code amendment to the consent agenda for May 18, 1982, pending review by the Council Attorney; referred without objection.
(O 82-25)
RE: An ordinance regarding political activities of city officers and employees.
DISCUSSION: This ordinance was prepared at the request of the Personnel Committee of the City Council and addresses political activities of city employees. The City Council was previously provided with a draft ordinance on political activities of city employees; however, a request was made for various amendments in that draft. That request closely related to legislation (H.B. No. 34) and to an executive order (appointed positions). This ordinance specifies what political activities employees are to avoid, and what activities may be pursued.
Councilmember DePaulis referred this ordinance to the Budget, Finance & Administration Committee; referred without objection.
O 82-26
RE: An ordinance regarding career service with the City.
DISCUSSION: This ordinance was prepared at the request of the Personnel Committee of the City Council and addresses merit rights of city employees. The ordinance specifies what employees are to be excluded from career status employment with the city.
Councilmember DePaulis referred this ordinance to the Budget, Finance & Administration Committee; referred without objection.
O 82-27
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RE: Plan adoption process.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review and approve the plan adoption process.
DISCUSSION: On March 24, 1982, the Planning Commission approved the plan adoption process. The purpose of the process is to insure that any plan assignment is approved and supported by the Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission prior to preparation, with the objective that the plan will not gather dust, but will be used by the policy makers. This process is one result of the reorganization of Development Services to insure that all plans support and implement the City’s growth management strategy.
Councilmember DePaulis referred the plan adoption process to the Land Use Subcommittee; referred without objection.
G 82-13
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 we have no escort bureau that operates legally. Both City Licensing and the Police Department vice squad have reviewed this ordinance and feel it is needed and should be adopted.
Councilmember DePaulis referred this proposed ordinance change to the Public Safety Committee; referred without objection.
O 82-18
FIRE DEPARTMENT
RE: Memorandum of understanding and an agreement providing for mutual exchange of fire protection and rescue services between Salt Lake City and West Valley City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve this agreement so that the two cities will be able to mutually help each other in case of emergency.
DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Fire Department and the City of West Valley have worked out a mutually agreeable contract and it has been signed by the Mayor of West Valley. It has been approved by the city legal department.
Councilmember DePaulis referred this memorandum of understanding and agreement to the consent agenda for May 18, 1982; referred without objection.
C 82-251
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: Appointments to the Central Business Improvement District Advisory Board.
DISCUSSION: The Mayor recommends that the following individuals be appointed to this Board: Jess Agraz, Kent Money, Stewart Hanson, Jr., Richard Schubach, Fred Wheeler, Phyllis Steorts, Clinton P. Mott, Ronald Carnago, and Fred S. Ball.
Councilmember DePaulis referred these appointments to the consent agenda for May 18, 1982, pending the receipt of the proper conflict of interest forms; referred without objection.
T 82-8
RE: The Mayor’s recommended annual budget for Salt Lake City covering the fiscal period July 1, 1982, to June 30, 1983. The budget is in balance and totals $174,800,049 for all funds. The general fund budget proposed for next year totals $64,519,803, an increase of 4.4 percent over the comparable 1981-82 amended budget. Mayor Wilson addressed the Council. He stated that for some time reports have been circulating regarding the budget difficulties of Salt Lake City.
The original budget requests submitted by department heads exceeded revenue projections by $9 million and problems were compounded by a weak economy and a decrease in traditional city revenue sources. As preparation began on the city’s budget, various options were discussed, including the option of substantially increasing taxes in order to maintain the current growth rate in the city budget. The Mayor further stated that the budget being presented maintains essential services without a tax increase.
This budget is designed for frugal times. As it was prepared, the city recognized the problems that taxpayers have in paying new taxes at a time when unemployment is rising, personal income is dropping and high interest rates are stifling business activity. The Mayor further stated that it was also recognized that the delivery of basic city services is very important to the safety arid well being of the community and that a cut in these services would only add to the economic distress the business community is experiencing. With these two goals in mind, a budget has been prepared which places Salt Lake City’s government, both its operations and capital improvements program in a holding pattern. The budget being presented is designed to maintain an adequate level of services with very little growth or expansion. The Mayor stated that he is proposing to cut the growth rate of the city’s budget in half, from 9.1% increase, which was adopted last year, to 4.3%. The only way to reduce the growth rate of the budget is by trimming the size of government and making it smaller. Consequently, the new budget calls for the elimination of 64 jobs.
The Mayor stated that he is confident that these jobs can be eliminated without seriously damaging the delivery of city services. The Mayor added that he does not like to do this; of the 64 jobs only about 20 are incumbent positions where someone will actually have to be laid off. If these cuts are accepted, then 208 comparable full-time positions will have been trimmed or 10% of the city’s work force during the past two years. The Mayor stated that as the budget is reviewed, the Council must pay special attention to the terms of the collective bargaining agreements.
During the collective bargaining sessions last year, the city anticipated the possibility that the 1982-83 fiscal year might be impacted by a downturn in the economy or a loss of franchise tax or sales tax revenue. Consequently, the agreements which were signed contain clauses which provide for certain types of pay increase, “if money is available”. Even though the budget is tight, there are certain modifications which can be made in the compensation plan which meet the spirit and substance of these agreements. These modifications would give a majority of employees equal, or better, net take-home pay adjustments at a cost the city can afford without having to raise taxes.
The Mayor continued by stating that the necessary funds have been included to meet the July 1 portion of these agreements in the budget. Also included are adequate funds to pay the employee contribution to the retirement program beginning in January 1983. This is the best that could be done considering “money available”. The Mayor stated that he felt fairly confident that the city departments will be able to implement additional cost cutting programs prior to January 1st which will enable the city to meet the full terms of the agreement.
The Mayor stated strongly that this portion of the budget should be passed. City employees deserve assurance that the city’s commitment to them at the bargaining table will not be abrogated in the same manner that the taxpayers deserve to pass another year without a net tax increase. The Mayor stated that this budget contains significant cuts in the road paving program and proposes the sale of surplus city property to finance other capital improvement projects. The Mayor stated that he realizes that the city cannot continue to balance the budget at the expense of the capital improvement program. If the economy does not improve during the year and the city is faced with a dismal revenue situation next year, the Mayor stated that he would recommend looking at the use of Community Development Block Grant funds, where applicable, to finance capital improvement projects. The Mayor continued by stating that this budget calls for the closing of Fire Station 15. He stated that he realizes that this is a controversial issue. The closing of a fire station is always hotly contested. In anticipation of the controversy, the Mayor stated that he wanted to assure the Council that the closing of this station is necessary to achieve a better deployment of the fire department.
The city is not closing the fire station to balance the budget; the station is being closed to shift badly needed fire fighting resources to the west side. Closing fire station 15 will not decrease the safety of the University of Utah nor the surrounding neighborhoods. However, if the Council chooses to keep Fire Station 15 open, it will not require an increase in the budget. Whether or not the station stays open, the fire fighting capabilities need to be increased on the west side. If resources from Station 15 cannot be transferred, it will cost the city more money to provide them on the west side. There has been a proposal to convert this station to a volunteer operation; this option should be considered closely.
The Mayor stated that the city has worked very hard to develop a budget which avoids a tax increase. This has been a difficult goal to achieve because of revenue loss. On July 1 of this year, the franchise tax will be reduced as a result of a change in federal laws governing the telephone industry and as a result of the settlement of a law suit brought against the city by Mountain Bell. This reduction in the franchise tax applied to Mountain Bell will cost Salt Lake City 1.2 million dollars. Unfortunately, Salt Lake City is not in a position to absorb such a tax cut without further lay-offs and further cuts in basic city services.
The Mayor stated that he is proposing to recoup the revenue lost from a reduction in the franchise tax by a 1.5 mill increase in the property tax. By reducing the franchise tax and increasing the property tax, the taxpayers should not experience an increase in their taxes and the city will have the revenue it needs to maintain basic city services. The Mayor stated that he would prefer to make up the difference by some means other than raising the property tax; property tax is one of the worst taxes we have. But it is the only tax the city has which can raise the needed revenue.
The Mayor stated that at the request of some members of the Council, he has asked the City Attorney to research the possibility of adjusting business license fees for hotels and motels. This question will be researched and the answer given to the Council in the near future, soon enough for the Council to consider it as an option prior to the final adoption of the budget. The city has also included in the budget a contingency fund of $500,000. The Mayor stated that he thinks it is very important to set aside a contingency fund when you consider how quickly revenues can change. He further stated that as the Council begins to review this budget, he thinks they will find that it maintains a level of services which will help guarantee the health and safety of the residents without imposing a new tax burden on the taxpayers. With the current state of the economy and the reduction in city revenue sources, balancing these two goals has certainly been a challenge. The Mayor thanked Rodger Neve and his staff for working so hard on the budget; he also thanked Albert Haines for all his hard work and thanked the department heads for cutting where needed. The Mayor stated that he was still uncertain as to what type of process the Council is going to follow in reviewing the budget, but he requested that they let administration know as soon as possible so that the appropriate staff members can participate in the review.
The Mayor stated that he felt the process this year as been more successful than the process last year; he thanked the Council for talking with departments conceptually and philosophically about department services. The Mayor further stated that none of the budget is a surprise, generally, because each segment has already been given to the Council; he encouraged the Council to study the bigger issues. The Mayor concluded by requesting that the Council adopt this tentative budget in order to meet the budget timetable. He stated that he is not requesting that the Council adopt this as the final budget, merely as a tentative city budget. A resolution has been prepared for this purpose.
After the Mayor concluded his address, Albert Haines addressed the Council and outlined the packet of materials which was presented to the Council. Briefly, Mr. Haines stated that the Council received a resolution adopting tentative budgets for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1982 and ending June 30, 1983. Adoption of this resolution would allow the legal timetable to be set in motion and would also allow the budget to be posted in the Recorder’s Office. This resolution is not a commitment on the part of the Council to consider or to endorse any of the provisions of the budget but rather to make it available for public review and comment.
The resolution sets Tuesday, May 25, 1982, at 5:30 p.m. for the public hearing date on the tentative budgets and anticipates a final adoption of the budget on June 8, 1982. Mr. Haines stated that the next document in the budget packet is a letter directed to the Council Chairperson, Sydney Fonnesbeck, and the Council. The message is regarding the budget and a brief overview of that document.
The next document is the Mayor’s recommended budget entitled “Salt Lake City Program Performance Budget 1982-83”; included in the budget is the authorized position listing for the city and also the first year of the capital improvements budget is incorporated. The next document is the “Mayor’s Recommended Five Year Capital Improvement Program and Statement of Policy”. Mr. Haines stated that there is also a packet prefaced with a cover letter regarding ordinances and resolutions relating to the fiscal year 1982-83 budget; Mr. Haines stated that this letter outlines a series of ordinances and resolutions. Per Council request, those documents have been identified that would be material to the implementation of the budget; Mr. Haines outlined the documents. First, a resolution adopting budgets of Salt Lake City for the fiscal year beginning July 1 , 1982. Second, a resolution determining the rate of tax levy and levying taxes upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City. Third, an ordinance relating to the adoption of an employment staffing document for Salt Lake City; this document is incorporated in the budget. Fourth, a resolution of intent establishing a policy governing service fees and charges to enterprise funds; in conjunction with this resolution it is intended to present the Arthur Young study as well as discussion of fundamental policies relative to those kinds of charges.
Fifth, an ordinance adopting an employee compensation plan. Sixth, an ordinance amending business, license fees; seventh, an ordinance amending excavation and obstruction fees; eighth, an ordinance amending cemetery fees; and ninth, an ordinance amending park fees. Mr. Haines stated that there is a resolution increasing parking meter rates which was listed on the agenda for action; he recommended that this resolution be incorporated along with the nine items as listed above.
Councilmember Shearer stated that it was her understanding that if the fire station remains open it will require .5 million dollars. Mr. Haines stated that the priority is for a fire station on the west side to enhance fire protection; both cannot be done with the budget as it has been submitted. The Mayor reiterated that Fire Station 15 does not need to be closed to balance the budget; the idea is to redirect those resources to the west side of the city where there is more expansion and less protection at the present time.
Mr. Cutler replied that the resolution adopting the tentative budget could be adopted because it had been given adequate notice. He further stated that there should not be any objection because this is just the tentative budget. Mr. Cutler stated that the tentative budget has to be adopted and on display 10 days prior to adopting the final budget (June 8); notice of the June 8 meeting has to be published seven days prior to that meeting.
Mr. Haines stated that the resolution needed to be considered at this meeting for adoption simply to streamline the nature of the activity. If this is not considered until next Tuesday, it will delay making the budget available to the public for inspection. Mr. Cutler stated that if there was a concern about how this item was posted on the agenda, the resolution could he adopted at this meeting and ratified in another meeting; this would allow the budget to be placed on display for public inspection.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Resolution 44 of 1982 adopting tentative budgets for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1982 and ending June 30, 1983, and pursuant to the City Attorney’s advice ratify this resolution Thursday, May 6, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember DePaulis thanked the Mayor for this budget and stated that the Council has appreciated working with the Mayor and Mr. Haines. Mr. DePaulis stated that the Council felt that the meetings with department heads to discuss policies and concepts of their departments have been very beneficial. The Council is eager to begin on the budget and is ready to offer their best efforts.
B 82-4
PUBLIC WORKS
RE: Salt Lake City Ordinance of 1982 Parking Meter Rates.
RECOMMENDATION: Change the city-wide parking meter rate to fifteen cents per one-half hour.
DISCUSSION: To increase revenue. Councilmember DePaulis referred this item to be incorporated with the other budget ordinances and resolutions as outlined in the budget packet information; referred without objection.
O 82-28
RE: Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council actions for the March 31 , 1982 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council and County Commission place $10,000 in the Transportation Fares Meetings account when budget adjustments are made because the landfill is becoming a more sophisticated operation and more money should be available for travel to technical/training seminars. Also recommending that Phase II of the Resource Recovery Project be finalized and do not proceed with Phase III at this time.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The landfill is on an enterprise fund and these monies are already available in a budget surplus account.
DISCUSSION: At this time the Board felt that we should wait four to five years before proceeding with Phase III and if resource recovery is more feasible in the future the project could be revived. Jim Talebreza addressed the Council and stated that there are two items needing Council consent. The first one is that the Landfill Board is recommending not to continue with Phase III of the Resource Recovery Project and the other item is placing $10,000 in the Transportation Fares Meetings account.
Mr. Haines stated that this requires ratification by the Council because there are appropriation changes made. Mr. Talebreza stated that the money is already budgeted and this is just an adjustment of that line item. Mr. Haines stated that as he understood the bylaws of the committee, the City Council and County Commission have to approve those minutes that contain appropriation adjustments between line items. Councilmember Mabey asked if the resource recovery project would automatically be dropped by not proceeding with Phase III. Mr. Talebreza stated that was correct and that would be the end of the commitment; the committee has recommended not to go with Phase III based on cost analysis, it is felt that the landfill would still be cheaper to operate. Mr. Mabey pointed out that from the beginning it was felt this project would be too costly. Mr. Haines stated that the action item was the placement of $10,000 in the Transportation Fares Meetings account and the other item was to call to Council attention the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council decision not to proceed with Phase III of Resource Recovery.
Mr. Haines stated that he did not feel that there was a need for the Council to take action on the Phase III issue. Mr. Cutler also stated that he too felt this was an informational item. However, the Council did indicate that they would not make a motion against the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve page 2, paragraph 2 of the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council actions of March 31, 1982 regarding $10,000 being placed in the Transportation Fares Meetings account when budget adjustments are made, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 82-3)
PUBLIC HEARING
Sale of City Property to Clark Financial Corporation.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council to discuss the sale of approximately 5.15 acres of city-owned land located along Parley’s Creek west of 1300 East Street and north of Wilmington Avenue. Spence Clark, Clark Financial Corporation, is requesting to purchase this land. This offer for sale of public property is conditional upon the awarding to Salt Lake City Corporation an Urban Development Action Grant to be used in connection with the proposed office building and complex the grantee will be constructing on the east end of this property.
The city’s standard form Quit Claim Deed which would be used in any final conveyance of this land will include a restriction clause that will bind the grantee to treat as a natural amenity that portion of Parley’s Creek that will flow west of the proposed office building. Green space and landscaping will be required in order to maintain the stream in its natural state. It is noted that the Council is not in a position to make a final decision on this matter. The Council called the public hearing and any decision passed is in an advisory position only.
Craig Peterson addressed the Council and stated that the purpose of this public hearing was for the Council to exercise their right of review under the new property ordinance. The proposal is tied to two conditions: First, this is subject to the awarding of an Urban Development Action Grant for Clark Financial Corporation; second, green space and landscaping will be provided in terms of a parkway along Parley’s Creek. The proposal is to sell the property for approximately $1.86 per square foot which, in the final appraisal, would be about $417,000. Mr. Peterson stated that the sale would not be consummated until the city has received notification from HUD that the UDAG award is coming. The intent of bringing this before the Council at this time is so that when the UDAG is awarded the review process would have already occurred. Mr. Peterson stated that the money from this sale would be put in the Capital Improvements Fund/Surplus Property and he thought it would be part of the 1982-83 revenue budget.
Tai Biesinger, Clark Financial Corporation, addressed the Council and stated that the company is asking that the sale of the property not be conditioned upon the UDAG and that the company be allowed to purchase the property now. Mr. Biesinger stated that they would not know until July 1 the outcome of the UDAG; however, the agreement reads that everything is null and void unless the UDAG funds are awarded. This will not help Sugarhouse; the project needs to keep pushing ahead and this is a key parcel which will play a roll in the redevelopment of the community.
Having to wait until July 1 delays the project until August or September. This condition was imposed by the Grant Division; it was felt that the application to UDAG would be stronger if it was tied to the property. Mr. Biesinger stated that he has spoken with the HUD representative in Denver who said that outright sale of the property will give greater strength to the grant. The company cannot proceed with plans or drawings until they know that the property has been acquired; Mr. Biesinger stated that he has talked with the Mayor and Mr. Haines and neither seems to have a problem with dropping the condition.
Mr. Biesinger stated that the appraisal is broken down into several parcels of property; he distributed maps to the Council indicating the area where the property is located. The various parcels of land were appraised differently. Councilmember Mabey asked what percentage of the property was considered useful. Mr. Biesinger stated that the appraiser has given estimates of use for each parcel so it is variable. Councilmember Shearer asked if the appraisal included Elizabeth Street to which Mr. Biesinger stated no.
Mr. Bieslnger indicated where Elizabeth Street ends and stated that the piece of the street being purchased is not dedicated. Councilmember Shearer was concerned because this portion is used to get to the parking lots of various stores. Councilmember Shearer asked why this property was not advertised for a bid. Mr. Haines stated the reason was because the property is tied to the condition of the UDAG. Mr. Haines also stated that previous commitments had been made between the city and Clark Financial. Mr. Biesinger stated that a proposal was made to the city stating that this purchase would be subject to a final survey; the public rights-of-way would be designated in the survey and those areas would be omitted from the final transfer of sale. Mr. Cutler stated that one solution is to transfer the property with restrictive covenants indicating that rights-of-way will be maintained; transfer the property subject to easements and rights of ingress and egress across the parcels. Councilmember Davis requested that copies of the appraisal report and title search be provided to the Council.
Councilmember Fonnesheck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Parker stated that the Council needed to keep in mind the comments made, particularly Mr. Biesinger. The Clark Financial Corporation has been very supportive of the needs of the Sugarhouse area. With the recent closure of a major furniture store in the Sugarhouse area, the Clark Financial Corporation has done their best to support this furniture company and keep this type of profession alive in Sugarhouse. Hopefully another furniture business will come into the area.
Mr. Parker asked how Clark Financial Corporation’s plans would be affected if the property is sold and the UDAG is not awarded. Mr. Biesinger stated that the project would be thrown into limbo; if the sale can be consummated then contingency plans can be made. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that selling the property without a bid is based on a specific set of plans in which UDAG is in favor. Ms. Fonnesbeck stated that at this time she feels uncomfortable with not tying this property purchase to the UDAG because people have called her and asked why this property has not been offered to everyone and she has told them it is because of the UDAG.
Mr. Biesinger stated that this situation dates back two years ago. A specific development plan was proposed for the rejuvenation of Sugarhouse and Clark Financial Corporation was chosen as the developer of the site. A resolution was passed by the Redevelopment Agency indicating that a plan needed to be developed, the creek needed to be used as an amenity, and that the land on Wilmington Avenue needed to be acquired. Clark Financial has spent the last 2 1/2 years acquiring land on Wilmington Avenue. In the preliminary Sugarhouse Redevelopment Plan it stated that the Commission would parcel the land and sell it back to Clark Financial. With that commitment, Clark Financial bought several parcels of land.
The company’s first project for Sugarhouse is the proposed office building and the land in question is a vital part. The sale of the property has been discussed with the Mayor's Office for almost two years; the company has agreed to buy the property at fair market value. Mayor Wilson stated that the city has been working with Clark Financial for two years and strong commitments have been made; the Mayor stated that he intends to follow through with those commitments. Unless the Council finds some substantial reason, then Clark Financial is going to get the property. Councilmember Parker stated that unless there are serious objections the Council ought to help Clark Financial get underway with the project. Councilmember Whitehead felt that it would be unfair to the company to make the sale of the property contingent upon the UDAG. Mr. Cutler stated that the land can be sold with a condition subsequent that the property would revert back to Salt Lake City if the UDAG was not approved or if the property was not developed in substantial compliance with the UDAG plans. This gives the Council the assurance that the property will be developed in harmony with the proposal and it gives Clark Financial the assurance that they have the property if they build according to the plans as now specified.
Mr. Biesinger stated that if the UDAG is not approved and Clark Financial has the property to develop, some shifting and down-sizing of the building may have to be done. Councilmember Davis stated that she is totally in favor of the development of Sugarhouse but she feels the Council has not been supplied with adequate information regarding this property sale.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to recommend to the Mayor that he proceed with the sale of this property contingent on approval of the UDAG and proper use of green space as designated in the plans, also to give attention to Elizabeth Street right-of-way, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmembers Whitehead, Mabey, and Davis who voted nay.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to recommend that the sale of the property not be contingent on the UDAG but include preservation of green space and protection of the Elizabeth Street right-of-way, also that any new plans be reviewed, which motion failed of passage, Councilmembers Mabey and Parker voting aye, Councilmembers Fonnesbeck, DePaulis, Shearer, and Davis voting nay; Councilmember Whitehead was absent when the vote was taken.
P 82-68
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Ms. Cornia addressed the Council and stated that she has petitions with over 200 signatures to keep the University of Utah No. 15 Fire Station open and there will be from 500 to 1000 more. Most of the people who signed the petition said that they would rather pay more taxes and keep the fire station. There is no objection to building a fire station in the International Center but the fire station at the University has all ready been paid for by the University, therefore, why can’t the International Center do the same thing.
Ms. Cornia asked how the city could justify closing fire stations so the police could take home their cars. She further stated that an area containing high intensity use such as hospitals or commercial centers would have a higher priority or strategic importance than a zone containing undeveloped or sparsely developed land. Christine Rushton addressed the Council and stated that she is a nurse at the Veterans Administration Hospital. Ms. Rushton stated that there have been three fires within the last two years and Fire Station 15 has been the first to answer the call. There is a concern about the time involved in answering calls if fire trucks are required to drive up the hills to the University. This fire station has been paid for and the concern is for public safety. There are two hospitals that rely on the fire station and as well as the students at the University.
Ms. Rushton felt that since the fire station on 1300 East was closed the city cannot afford to close No. 15 too. Ms. Rushton stated that it was felt that there are more dangers in the University area than at the International Center. Mayor Wilson stated that his recommendation has been given to the Council and it is up to them to make a decision. This recommendation is not a political move; the Mayor stated that he has an obligation to the entire city.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.