The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, May 5, 1998, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State.
The following Council Members were present:
Carlton Christensen Joanne Milner Tom Rogan
Deeda Seed Roger Thompson Bryce Jolley
Keith Christensen
Mayor Deedee Corradini; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder were present.
Councilmember Jolley presided at and Councilmember Rogan conducted the meeting.
#1. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#2. Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Milner seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council meeting held April 21, 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 98-1)
#3. MAYOR DEEDEE CORRADINI PRESENTED THE PROPOSED SALT LAKE CITY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-99. A copy of the Mayor's presentation and the proposed budget are on file in the City Recorder's Office.
(B 98-1)
#4. LIBRARY BOARD CHAIR KEN LUKER PRESENTED THE PROPOSED LIBRARY FUND BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-99.
Mr. Luker said this year marked the hundredth year anniversary of the Library. He said their budget was approximately two and one half percent above last year's budget which was well within the expected revenues. He said the total budget was $10,705,634. He said approximately $8,500,000 was operating costs and the balance was capital. He said some of the capital balance was a carry over from contingency funds and the prior year's capital budget.
Mr. Luker said this was the eighth consecutive year the Library budget was within the current tax rate. He said 16% of the operating budget was used to purchase collections for the Library. He said they were in the final program planning phase for the new proposed Library.
Mr. Luker said in the coming year there were plans to enhance the meeting room space at the Anderson-Foothill Branch Library and provide some additional space for youth services at the Sprague Branch Library. He said the Library received a grant to initiate planning for a civic network.
A copy of the proposed Library budget is on file in the City Recorder's Office.
(B 98-3)
#5. CONSIDER ADOPTING A JOINT RESOLUTION WITH THE MAYOR DECLARING MAY 9, 1998 TO BE "LETTER CARRIERS FOOD DRIVE DAY".
ACTION: Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to adopt Resolution 19 of 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
The resolution was presented to the recipients by the Mayor and City Council.
(R 98-1)
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
#1. RE: Setting the date of May 19, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance adding the Odd Fellows Building at 39 West Market Street as a landmark site to the City's Register of Cultural Resources pursuant to Chapter 21A.34.020 (C) (1) of the Salt Lake City Code and Historic Landmark Committee Case No. 001-98.
(P 98-30)
#2. RE: Setting the date of May 19, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance adding the James Freeze house at 734 East 200 South as a landmark site to the City's Register of Cultural Resources pursuant to Historic Landmark Committee Case No. 009-98.
(P 98-32)
#3. RE: Setting the date of June 2, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning two parcels of property at 25 G Street from Residential RMF-35 to Residential R-O pursuant to Petition No. 400-97-59.
(P 98-33)
#4. RE: Setting the date of June 2, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance closing a portion of Lucy Avenue located between 400 West and Interstate 15, pursuant to Petition No. 400-97-29.
(P 98-34)
#5. RE: Approving the appointment of Denise Dragoo to the Land Use Appeals Board for a term extending through December 31, 2000.
(I 98-8)
#6. RE: Approving the appointment of Kathleen E. McDermott to the Utah Air Travel Commission for a term extending through September 1, 1999.
(I 98-15)
#7. RE: Approving the appointment of Kenneth L. Neal to the Community Development Advisory Committee for a term extending through July 3, 2000.
(I 98-16)
#8. RE: Adopting Resolution 25 of 1998 authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the State of Utah Teen Alternative Secure Confinement Work Program for the purpose of employing teenagers involved in the T.A.S.C. Work Program to provide general labor and lawn care services at the City's Franklin Quest Field.
(C 98-191)
ITEMS #9 THROUGH #21 WERE REFERRED TO MAY 19, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING FOR COMMENTS AND TO JUNE 9, 1998 FOR FORMAL CONSIDERATION.
#9. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and Local 1004 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) representing the "100 Series" City employees.
(O 98-8)
#10. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and Local 1004 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) representing the "200 Series" City employees.
(O 98-9)
#11. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving the Compensation Plan for "300 and 600 Series" employees of Salt Lake City.
(O 98-10)
#12. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and Local 1645 of the International Association of Firefighters representing the "400 Series" City employees.
(O 98-11)
#13. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving the Compensation Plan for "700 Series" employees of Salt Lake City.
(O 98-12)
#14. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving the Compensation Plan for "800 Series" employees of Salt Lake City.
(O 98-13)
#15. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving the Compensation Plan for "900 Series" employees of Salt Lake City.
(O 98-14)
#16. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving the Compensation Plan for Executive Employees and Elected Officials of Salt Lake City.
(O 98-15)
#17. RE: Adopting an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement, for fiscal year 1998-99, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Salt Lake Police Association, International Union of Police Associations, Local 75, AFL-CIO dated June 26, 1997.
(O 97-7)
#18. RE: Adopting an ordinance adopting the rate of tax levy upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1998 and ending June 30, 1999.
(O 98-16)
#19. RE: Adopting an ordinance amending Section 17.16.070, Salt Lake City Code, relating to the amount of franchise fees collected on Public Utilities Department billings.
(O 98-17)
#20. RE: Adopting an ordinance amending Section 5.04.210, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to 911 Emergency Service fees.
(O 98-18)
#21. RE: Adopting an ordinance repealing Section 12.56.070, Salt Lake City Code, and amending Section 12.56.450, relating to time-limited parking on certain streets, Section 12.56.550, relating to unauthorized use of streets, and Chapter 12.96, relating to impoundment of vehicles.
(O 98-19)
NEW BUSINESS
#1. RE: Consider approving a resolution adopting the tentative budgets of Salt Lake City, including the tentative budget of the Library Fund, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1998 and ending June 30, 1999. This resolution will also set a hearing date to accept public comment on May 19, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. All budget related ordinances will be discussed at that time.
ACTION: Councilmember Thompson moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Resolution 26 of 1998 and set the date of May 19, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. for a public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(B 98-1)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
#1. RE: Consider adopting an appropriation resolution adopting 24th Year Community Development Block Grant funding, Home Investment Partnerships Program funding, and Emergency Shelter Grant funding (1998-99) and approving interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
ACTION: Councilmember Thompson moved and Councilmember K. Christensen seconded to adopt Resolution 27 of 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(T 98-1 & C 98-190)
#2. RE: Consider approving a resolution adopting the budget of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City for fiscal year beginning July 1, 1998 and ending June 30, 1999.
ACTION: Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to recess as the City Council and convene as the Municipal Building Authority, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to set a hearing date of May 19, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. and to June 9, 1998 for formal consideration, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adjourn as the Municipal Building Authority and reconvene as the City Council, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(B 98-2)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance closing a portion of Federal Way to restrict access from Federal Way to North Campus Drive, pursuant to Petition No. 400-97-31.
ACTION: Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Ordinance 22 of 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Kenneth Smith, 1442 Federal Way, said he would speak for a number of people in the audience. He said the University of Utah's Facilities Planning Department, Avenues Community Council, East Center Community Council, and City planning officials were involved in this two year process. He said a number of options were explored and felt the proposal before the Council was the best solution. He said during a three month trial closure, one thousand cars per day were diverted. He said the proposed closure met the Council's policy for balanced vehicular access and neighborhood preservation.
The following people submitted written support of the proposal. Dan Franks, 8 North Wolcott Street; Mary McDonald, 986 Third Avenue, #6; Robert Sanders, 1419 Federal Way; Susan Tillman, 1410 East South Temple; David Jones, 1415 Federal Way; Marjean McKenna, 1408 Federal Way; Ann Robinson, 19 South Wolcott Street; Janice Ruggles, 1515 East Military Way; Rick Ostler, 1401 East Sigsbee Avenue; and Branden Burningham, 1474 East Federal Way.
(P 98-20)
#2. RE: Accept public comment regarding proposed intermodal hub sites, west/east light rail alignment, and proposed high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane locations.
ACTION: Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Thompson moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded that the City Council support a light rail alignment recommended by the Transportation Advisory Board and the Planning Commission which uses North Temple, 400 West and 400 South streets with the understanding that the following conditions were met: 1) Construction impacts along the corridor be minimized and that full access to businesses and residences be maintained throughout the construction period, 2) Urban design elements consistent with the City's north/south light rail enhancements be included in the project cost and not be at the City's expense, 3) The City reserves further approvals of final design details, construction management issues, the interfacing of buses and light rail, and urban design, 4) A public involvement and design review program similar to the north-south light rail project be continued to include all interested parties, particularly businesses and residents along the corridor who would be affected by the project, 5) A right-of-way be identified and preserved to allow a future light rail extension to the International Center, 6) A right-of-way be identified and preserved along Foothill Boulevard to allow a future light rail extension to serve the Research Park/Hogle Zoo area and areas further south, and 7) The railroad grade separation located at North Temple and 500 West be given high priority for further review and evaluation. The process should include the City and nearby neighborhoods and businesses, and pertinent governmental agencies and businesses such as the Utah Department of Transportation and Union Pacific Railroad. The City Council's ideal preference for a grade separation is a shortened underpass, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember C. Christensen seconded that the City Council: 1) reiterate its support for the December 6, 1994, resolution adopted by the City Council addressing freeway ramp locations including the resolution's opposition to freeway ramps at 200 South and North Temple streets, 2) Accept a high occupancy vehicle ramp at 100 South Street in any future improvements to Interstate 15 north of Salt Lake City with the understanding that the following conditions were met: 3) An acceptable memorandum of understanding be reached among the City, the Utah Department of Transportation, and the Utah Transit Authority regarding the use of State roads, including North Temple Street, necessary for an east/west light rail line, 4) The touchdown point of the ramp be west of the 600 West Street intersection, 5) Full access be allowed at the 600 West and 100 South intersection, and 6) An arbitration process that should include but not be limited to a national panel of experts be agreed to between the City and the Utah Department of Transportation to resolve access issues at the intersection of 600 South and 500 West streets. The City Council's preference was for as much access as possible for the intersection, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember C. Christensen seconded that the City Council support the recommendations of the Planning Commission locating the intermodal hub initially at 600 West 200 South, leaving a window of opportunity open for a more elaborate commuter rail system at a future date when funding and ridership justify it, and including the following Planning Commission recommendations: 1) That the 500 West right-of-way be expanded to 190 feet the entire length, from 600 North Street to 900 South Street, including existing railroad right-of-way between North Temple and 600 North streets, 2) That no major public utilities be located in 500 West, or minimally, that they be concentrated in one corridor within the right-of-way and that the street be left clear of underground obstructions, 3) That additional utilities should be discouraged from locating within 200 South between 500 West and Main streets, 4) That no major public utilities be located in 500 West and 300 South streets or, minimally, they be concentrated in one corridor within the right-of-way and the street be left clear of underground obstructions, 5) That the grade of 500 West Street be modified over time to "flatten" the street in its north and south orientation, 6) That the staff work with the developer of the Union Pacific South Yard property to insure a viable pedestrian corridor between 500 West and the Union Pacific Depot, preferably internal to the buildings, be fully integrated into the development to accommodate any potential future commuter rail stations or stops in 500 West, and 7) That the City supports the continued study of commuter rail and the expansion of service hours and frequency; including the option of creating a separate rail corridor where smaller, more agile and more frequent commuter rail trains could be used, which motion failed, Council Members Milner, Rogan, Seed, and Thompson voted nay and Council Members C. Christensen, Jolley, and K. Christensen voted aye.
Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Thompson seconded to continue the intermodal hub discussion at the May 12, 1998 Council meeting, which motion carried, Council Members Milner, Rogan, Seed, and Thompson voted aye and Council Members C. Christensen, Jolley, and K. Christensen voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Tim Harpst, Director of Transportation, gave a staff report. Mr. Harpst said all three transportation issues had been studied for over one year and involved public input throughout the process. He said over the past two months the City was involved in the final stages of the public input process on the findings and recommendations.
Mr. Harpst said recommendations from the City's Transportation Advisory Board and the Planning Commission included a west/east light rail line on the 400 South, 400 West, North Temple alignment and an Interstate 15 (I-15) HOV access on 100 South at 600 West. He said the Planning Commission recommended a transportation intermodal center at 600 West 200 South. He said the Transportation Advisory Board recommended a tie between the Union Pacific Depot and the 600 West 200 South site for an intermodal transportation center.
He said the Planning Commission's recommendations were given to the Council and discussed at an earlier briefing. He said two letters supporting the document were recently received and given to the Council.
Ted Lewis, 401 West 100 South, submitted a written handout and asked the Council to review the information. He said he was the Railroad Superintendent for the Union Pacific Railroad. He said he was concerned about the suggestion of an intermodal hub being located at 500 West. He said complex rail movement was critical and the volume, flow, and velocity of the trains needed to stay together.
Jan Striefel, 2834 Highland Drive, said her company, Landmark Design, was the prime consultant to Salt Lake City for the gateway district land use and development plan. She said in November 1997 a large number of people and organizations met to review alternative sites for commuter rail station locations. She said six rail station configurations were identified. She said five planning assumptions were developed to be applied to each configuration. She said after combined analysis only two sites remained, 600 West 200 South and South Temple at approximately 450 West. She said neither would require new tracks to be laid in surrounding neighborhoods.
Mary McDonald, 986 Third Avenue, #6, presented a written handout to the Council. She said she was with the Greater Avenues Community Council Traffic Committee. She said they felt the Union Pacific Station would be the best location and asked the Council for their support.
Samantha Francis, 70 West Van Buren Avenue, said she was the People's Freeway Community Council Chair. She said the Community Council voted for an intermodal hub at 200 South 600 West. She said they supported the Planning Commission's recommendations for all transportation issues.
James Wolf, 210 South Canal, Suite 510, Chicago, Illinois, said he was the Director of Governmental Affairs for Amtrak. He said Salt Lake City was a vital part of Amtrak's inner city rail service. He said Amtrak provided daily service to Salt Lake City and Utah ridership in 1997 was over 40 thousand. He said Amtrak employed 53 people with salaries over $2.5 million. He said Amtrak had a lease which allowed them to remain at their present location until the year 2006. He said Amtrak preferred to move to the 600 West 200 South site as long as light rail, commuter, and bus service moved with them.
Milton Braselton, 2718 Lake Street, said he wanted the Council to consider changing the east/west light rail alignment from 400 South to 300 South.
Boyer Jarvis, 2357 Blaine Avenue, said the Amtrak terminal should be located at 600 West 200 South and the terminal for commuter rail on 500 West.
Peggy Christensen, 266 Fourth Avenue, #108, said the intermodal hub needed to be located at the Union Pacific Depot, light rail needed to be located on 400 South, and the HOV ramps needed to be located at 600 North and 900 South.
Drew Chamberlain, 4013 West Yorkshire Drive, South Jordan, said according to the United States Department of Transportation some western cities lost ridership due to light rail systems. He said light rail needed to be replaced with HOV bus or carpool lanes.
Tom Ellison, 2257 Country Club Lane, submitted a handout to the Council. He said he served on the Planning Commission through the 1980s and supported their recommendations. He said his handout covered problems with the 500 West intermodal hub location. He said he was in favor of the 600 West location.
John Sittner, 1560 Tomahawk Drive, said he did not feel the three issues being discussed had been integrated into a masterplan which had a well designed and identified implementation plan. He said the goals of the gateway needed to be identified in relation to the issues being discussed and suggested the establishment of a moratorium.
Robert Bliss, 27 University Street, said the planning problem for the intermodal hub was regional, not local. He said this area was the traffic exchange system for the Wasatch front and had to work.
Don Mahoney, 1727 Garfield Avenue, said he was an architect and served as the current President of the American Institute of Architects, Salt Lake Chapter. He said the Chapter wanted the Council to select the Union Pacific Depot or a site adjacent to it for the hub location.
Rawlins Young, 2135 South 1900 East, submitted a handout to the Council. He said the light rail alignment should be the same as the bus alignment.
Edie Trimmer, 246 South 1300 West, said she was on the Transportation Advisory Committee. She said she was in favor of the 600 West 200 South site for the intermodal hub.
Mary Woodhead, 880 West 200 South, said she represented the Poplar Grove Community Council. She said they were in favor of the 600 West 200 South site.
Stan Christenson, 105 Daly, Park City, said the Union Pacific Station would be the best location for the intermodal hub.
Ed McCaffrey, 2430 Granite Hills, Sandy, said he was the Chairman of the Transportation Management Association. He said light rail ridership needed to be the main focus.
John Francis, 70 Van Buren Avenue, said the intermodal hub at 600 West 200 South; light rail at North Temple, 400 West 400 South; and HOV access at 100 South 600 West were the best choices available.
Ben Alivio, 1229 East Laird Avenue, said he did not support the 600 West 200 South intermodal hub location and the proposed location for light rail needed to be reviewed.
Prescott Muir, 1221 Gilmer Drive, said he was a Downtown Alliance Boardmember and chaired their Transportation Council. He said written comments had previously been submitted to the Council. He said ridership was a primary concern and commuter rail needed to be studied in greater detail. He said the systems should work together and adhere to a 50 year masterplan.
Richard Haglond, 1932 East 900 South, said the City should not be in a hurry to make decisions on these issues.
Dan Moshin, 415 2nd Avenue #2, said there should only be one hub which was convenient and easy to use.
James Coles, 679 Terrace Hills Drive, said placing the hub near future development would increase property values. He said he was in favor of a location near the Union Pacific Station.
Fred Fife, 842 West 900 South, said he was a member of the Planning Commission and the Poplar Grove Community Council. He said he wanted the intermodal hub located at 600 West 200 South. He said this site offered the most flexibility for the gateway plan.
Michael Steed, 1145 North Morton Drive, said he was a member of the Planning Commission and supported the 600 West 200 South site for the intermodal hub.
June Williamson, 35 F Street #361, said she was concerned about the appearance the City gave to visitors. She said the Union Pacific Station was a visible landmark and should be preserved as a center of transportation.
Jeff Laver, 1957 South 900 East, said proposed locations for the intermodal hub and other transportation corridors needed more research and discussion.
Amy Brunvand, 1744 South 600 East, said the Union Pacific Station was already the transportation hub of the City. She said transportation systems needed to be designed so users did not have to transfer.
Kevin Korpela, 777 East 200 South, #7, said he was an architect student. He said the Union Pacific Depot needed to be preserved and used to promote Salt Lake City.
Ann Floor, 30 U Street, said she was a member of the Future Moves Coalition. She said the decision on the intermodal hub was being rushed and more time was needed to consider the consequences. She said she was in favor of the Union Pacific site.
Darren Menlove, 1400 West North Temple, said he represented a number of organizations. He said light rail and state roads were not a compatible mix. He said he was concerned about left turns at mid block. He asked the Council to review the study because portions of it were incorrect.
Alan Kimball, 1541 Chandler Drive, said he was opposed to the 400 South light rail alignment and other alternatives needed to be considered.
McKay Edwards, 1400 East 900 South, said he was a member of the Transportation Advisory Board. He said transportation issues needed to be handled correctly and the Union Pacific site or the 500 West site would be the best choices.
Fredrick Kluss, Clearfield, said he was in favor of the Union Pacific Depot as the intermodal hub.
Christopher Quann, 936 Princeton Avenue, said he was opposed to a light rail spur from 400 West to 600 West. He suggested commuter rail could run along 500 West to the Rio Grande Depot and then west under the 500-600 South overpasses.
William Hanewinkel, 1332 Dover, said the transportation system needed to encourage ridership from other towns and cities.
Steve Winters, 2605 Commonwealth Avenue, said he was in favor of the Union Pacific Station for an intermodal hub and opposed to a light rail spur along 400 South.
Melanie Wallace, 1460 University Village; Kathy Kluss, Clearfield; Jan Miller, 211 Fifth Avenue; Sharon Washington, 999 South 1500 East; Stacey Michael, 1581 South 400 East, and Stephanie Peterson, 1346 Laird Avenue, submitted written comments.
Councilmember K. Christensen suggested the three items be addressed separately. Council Members were in favor of discussing the west/east light rail alignment first, the HOV lane locations second, and the intermodal hub sites third.
Councilmember C. Christensen asked Mr. Harpst for clarification concerning left turn options along North Temple. Mr. Harpst said left turn options would be worked out through the design stage. He said he preferred to have protected signalized crossings. He said access needs for abutting property owners would be looked at to determine the best crossing locations.
Councilmember Thompson asked about an existing right-of-way which ran parallel to the Union Pacific right-of-way. He asked what the issue was and whether or not anything was done. Ralph Jackson, DeLeuw-Cather, said three alignments, South Temple, North Temple, and 600 North, were considered. He said the community strongly indicated they were in favor of North Temple.
Mr. Jackson said pedestrian access was mainly from the north. He said businesses along North Temple wanted to have closer access to the transit system, and the railroad running west was shortened due to I-15 construction. He said for those reasons the North Temple alignment was recommended.
Councilmember Milner asked Bill Wright, Planning Director, why the east/west alignment through the Euclid neighborhood as proposed by the master plan was not considered. Mr. Wright said 200 South, 900 West, and North Temple were options reviewed during the process. He said there were concerns about multiple main line crossings and connecting the loop system for downtown.
Mr. Jackson said the 900 West alignment required over and under passes which required three blocks to accomplish. He said 200 South required another crossing over or under. He said continuing the line to 200 East was discarded relatively early because the ramp going into the Gallivan Center did not leave enough right-of-way unless the ramp was removed. He said one master plan objective was to develop a transit system which better supported the areas south and west of downtown. He said the loop configuration including either 300 or 400 South accomplished that objective.
Councilmember Seed said during the feasibility study Mr. Jackson said the west/east light rail made sense only if other spurs happened along the north/south line. She asked Mr. Jackson to explain that issue. Mr. Jackson said the west/east line was a distributor line. He said as more spurs where added on the north/south line more trips to downtown would require additional distribution along the west/east alignment. He said the addition of commuter rail would increase the demand for east/west distribution. He said the City was currently at the margin for a west/east line by itself. He said as the other corridors came on line, there would be a greater need or requirement for that distribution system.
Councilmember Thompson asked Mr. Jackson to review the 400 South alignment option. Mr. Jackson said residents east of 200 East were very concerned about light rail going through residential neighborhoods. He said fairly early on, they concluded it was more appropriate to have light rail on 400 South rather than 300 South. He said detailed analysis was done which indicated there would only be a minimal reduction in the through carrying capacity as long as three lanes were retained. He said they would work with adjacent business owners regarding access.
Mr. Jackson said west of 200 East they looked at 300 South versus 400 South. He said the problems with 300 South included an additional turn in the overall alignment, existing parking structures which needed to be integrated, and the line going west needed to turn north at 400 West.
Councilmember Thompson asked if there were any mid block turns permitted on 400 South. Mr. Jackson said existing medians restricted any turns mid block.
Councilmember Jolley said the motion addressed the businesses along 400 South. He stressed the need for access to be maintained for those businesses.
Discussion on light rail
Councilmember Christensen said the motion was not an approval to build a west/east light rail. He said this was a recommendation of support for a proposed alignment.
Councilmember Seed said the motion was not an approval but would move the City in that direction. She said constituents in her district were concerned about light rail being located close to their homes and the effect it would have on property values. She said the alignment would impact residential neighborhoods and businesses. She said she wanted to have more discussions with her constituents to see if they wanted light rail going through their neighborhoods. She said she would support the motion but wanted the Council to consider the impact to surrounding neighborhoods. She said she was concerned that things were moving too quickly and the Council needed to be more thoughtful about the process.
Councilmember C. Christensen said he had reservations concerning the impact light rail would have on North Temple including access to existing businesses. He said the Council needed to consider the impact while working towards fulfilling the conditions of the motion.
Councilmember Thompson said he wanted the Council to hold a future discussion to consider if money was available to ameliorate some of the effects of construction impacts along the light rail corridor.
Councilmember Rogan said he shared concerns others had about light rail transit. He said the City could learn from the experiences other cities had with light rail.
Discussion was held on a possible referendum in the year 1999.
Discussion on HOV
Councilmember Seed asked for details concerning the HOV ramp design. Mr. Harpst said there would be one lane in each direction. He said from the north, the lane would be located in the center of the interstate system. He said it would go up and over the north bound I-15 lanes and then come down over the main line railroads and then down to 100 South just west of the 600 West intersection. He said as the lane touched down it could possibly flare into four lanes just before the signalized intersection to allow stacking room for the traffic signal which would be needed to allow access north/south.
Councilmember Christensen said part of the motion dealt with 500 West. He said full access north and south on 500 West was vital to the interests of the gateway project.
Councilmember Rogan said he worked with neighborhood groups to insure they had an opportunity to reconsider the proposed location.
Discussion on intermodal hub.
Councilmember Seed said an important decision was being made which would impact the development of the gateway and the Central Business District. She said she felt these decisions were being made under artificially imposed time constraints. She said she felt the Council did not have all the information necessary to make a thoughtful decision. She said she had concerns with the 600 West site. She said mass transit needed to be a viable option for users. She said Amtrak should not be an issue and more information was needed about the 500 West site before a decision was made.
Councilmember K. Christensen said the system which the City decided to use needed to be user friendly, effective, and allow easy transfers between different modes of transportation. He said the Union Pacific Depot needed to be preserved. He said if federal funding was lost, the City would have to fund whatever system was used at a cost of approximately $11 million.
Councilmember K. Christensen said Amtrak and Union Pacific were issues that needed to be considered. He said they had a lease until the year 2006. He said if Amtrak was not relocated, the Utah Department of Transportation would not open the off ramps from I-15. He said he did not want the viaduct system back. He said approximately 22 miles of tracks needed to be removed.
Councilmember K. Christensen said from a land planning standpoint, 600 West was the best option. He said if the 500 West option was used the City would have to condemn property. He said Union Pacific said the 500 West site did not work for them and the City needed their cooperation. He said the 600 West site provided the most flexibility. He said the Union Pacific Depot did not create easy access between different modes of transportation and funding had not been identified for that location. He asked Mr. Wright if transfers were platform to platform at 600 West.
Mr. Wright said it was not envisioned platform to platform but there would probably be no more than 100 feet between trains. He said the trains would be on the same level which would make easy access from one to the other.
Councilmember Thompson asked once a user boarded the light rail at the 600 West hub, would they have to transfer to get downtown. Mr. Harpst said not with the circulator system.
Councilmember Thompson asked in terms of planning, if the intermodal hub were located at 500 West and South Temple, would it be feasible for people to walk two blocks to the light rail station. Mr. Harpst said it was feasible. He said the generally accepted walking distance was two City blocks. Councilmember Thompson asked what would happen to light rail if the referendum failed. Mr. Harpst said there would be no light rail system unless another source of funding was made available. He said the current ideas on the referendum were to fund the operation and maintenance of west/east light rail but would also help fund the operation and maintenance of the commuter rail and additional bus system service throughout the entire Utah Transit Authority regional area where the referendum would be held.
Councilmember Thompson asked if funding for the station at 600 West 200 South was in place. Mr. Harpst said funding was available to accomplish property acquisition and begin design. He said he was ready to start the third funding application which would allow the completion of all design and construction.
Councilmember Thompson asked if the proposed referendum was a total package or could specific items be chosen. Mr. Harpst said the design of the referendum had not been put together. He said the operator of transit systems needed to show they had the revenue available to operate and maintain the systems. He said currently UTA had the ability to operate their bus system and the north/south light rail.
Councilmember C. Christensen said he received answers to all his questions and felt comfortable with the 600 West 200 South location. He said he agreed the train depots needed to be renovated and used as City assets.
Councilmember Jolley said there were a number of challenges and difficulties involved with making the Union Pacific Depot work. He said he looked at the 600 West 200 South location from a land and transportation use perspective. He said a proposal on 500 West would provide a 100 foot wide park which could be used as an urban amenity. He said this amenity would be lost by placing the intermodal hub on 500 West. He said the 600 West 200 South site preserved all the available options.
Councilmember Milner said the intermodal hub needed to be feasible for users of public transportation. She said the Council needed to support a transportation hub which would benefit residents and consider the impacts growth and development would have on the City.
Councilmember Rogan said the same types of issues on 500 West existed for the 600 West location. He said park blocks and commuter rail trains could be located on the 500 West site. He said the City needed to decide the location of the intermodal hub and then invite Amtrak and Union Pacific to participate. He said new consultants could provide more information by June 15, 1998 and more discussion was needed by the Council.
Councilmember Thompson said he believed the land use issues were better served at the 600 West 200 South location. He said he felt there needed to be more consensus on the location and more discussion and involvement was needed.
Councilmember K. Christensen asked the Administration what delaying a decision would do. He also wanted to know who would fund the additional independent study. He asked about the bidding process and who the study would be conducted by. Mr. Harpst said there were letters in the Council packet which addressed the timing issues.
Mr. Harpst said May 5, 1998 was considered an outside window and a delay of the decision not only put into jeopardy the ability to acquire the funding but also to physically be able to construct the facilities. He said in terms of the additional work being requested, the City would probably need to go out to bid to acquire a firm to perform the work. He said that would take substantial time. Councilmember K. Christensen asked if the process could be completed by June 15, 1998. Mr. Harpst said it could not.
Councilmember Rogan asked Mr. Harpst how long the process would take. Mr. Harpst said a typical process to put a work scope out for bid, receive and review bids, interview consultants, and provide consultant with a notice to proceed would take a minimum of approximately 60 days. Councilmember Rogan asked under the circumstances, how soon could the process be completed. Mr. Harpst said the Council would need to provide a refinement to the scope of work. He said adding the time it would take to have the consultant perform the work, the total process would take between 90 to 120 days minimum. Councilmember Rogan asked if that was expedited, not typical. Mr. Harpst said it was.
Councilmember K. Christensen asked what the cost would be. Mr. Harpst said it depended on the size of the scope and the detail the Council wanted to see.
Councilmember Jolley said he was concerned about questions Council Members needed answers to. He said questions asked over the past two years had been answered and the information was available. He said answers would not change between now and June 15, 1998.
Councilmember Seed said the purpose of the delay was to obtain more information about the 500 West site. She said she did not have a good sense of the comparison to the 600 West 200 South site. She asked Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director, what would be involved in getting someone to help the Council get answers on the 500 West site.
Ms. Gust-Jenson said the process outlined by Mr. Harpst was the typical process which the Council Office would follow. She said the time would also be the same. She said both the Administration and the Council had the authority to go outside the process under certain circumstances. She said it was possible the process could be completed more quickly. She said the Council Office had never hired engineers and writing a scope would be difficult and would require a lot of time and a June deadline would not work.
Mayor Corradini said there was not enough time to wait until June 15, 1998. She said she worked on the project over the past five years. She said the issues had been carefully and fully studied. She said there was a tight time schedule and a decision was already seven months overdue. She said $16 million was needed to build the gateway project.
Councilmember Thompson wanted to postpone the decision for two weeks and asked the Mayor if that would give her enough time. Mayor Corradini said two projects involving $5 million were being held up in Ogden and Park City. She said those parties needed to be contacted to see if they could wait for two weeks.
Councilmember Thompson said he did not feel the Council had an opportunity to fully discuss the issues as a group and wanted to have another working session. He said he also wanted to meet with Amtrak and Union Pacific representatives.
(G 98-13)
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.