PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1984
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1984, 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 EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at and conducted the meeting.
POLICY SESSION
#1. Ms. Leigh von der Esch, council executive director, briefed the Council on agenda items. A discussion on the Westside Special Sewer District was referred to the Committee of the Whole meeting for Tuesday, May 15 at 5:00 p.m.
#2. Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, discussed the creation of a westside Special Improvement District. Mr. Haines advised the Council that the protest rate was higher than anticipated. He requested that during the regular Council meeting the Council hear only from individuals who had not filed written protests. He suggested that the hearing on this district be extended to the second week in August and that the Council consider the following: 1. Miscommunication between residents and city officials has engendered misconceptions concerning the project. 2. Written protests from residents should be discussed with Rick Johnston for clarification. 3. The city administration is willing to go to property owners to discuss the “fairness” of the proposal.
#3. A decision on the status of the Donahue house was referred to the second week of September.
#4. Carole Stokes, policy analyst, and Leigh von der Esch discussed the scheduling of specific budget items with the Council. Councilmember Whitehead suggested that any potential problems be evaluated by the Council staff and then forwarded to the Council to avoid unnecessary discussion or redundancy.
#5. Carole Stokes discussed reported problems with the cable television franchise. She referred this problem to Rodger Neve who said that the problems with service calls and installation were symptoms of a young company experiencing “growing pains” and did not merit city interference. Ms. Stokes then discussed a measure that would allow the city to raise the cost of a fireworks sales license to $350. Ms. Stokes said that this rate was compatible with the rate in the county and with many other cities’ rates. Councilmember Mabey suggested that an ordinance to raise these rates be prepared and submitted to the Council. May 22 was set as the date for a public hearing on this issue.
The policy session adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1984, 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 EARL F. HARDWICK.
Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, and Roger Cutler, city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Mayor Ted Wilson was absent from the meeting.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at and Councilmember Sydney Fonnesheck conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Royal Ewing.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes, as amended, of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, May 1, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 84-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 500-18 of 1983 by Triad Utah.
RE: A request that the Tavern and Private Club Location Map be amended by extending the “A” district to include the areas between 300 and 400 West and North Temple and 100 South.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, May 22, 1984, at 6:45 p.m. to discuss Petition 500-18 of 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 84-31)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: A resolution authorizing an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County enabling county personnel to issue city parking citations.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 50 of 1984 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County enabling county personnel to issue city parking citations in county parking lots and providing for furnishing by city to county of Salt Lake City ticket books for such use, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 84-148)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County to obtain computer files and enable each entity to retrieve public information via computer from the other entity.
Without objection, Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred this resolution to the consent agenda for May 15, 1984.
(C 84-168)
LIBRARY BOARD
#1. RE: The library budget for 1984-85.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to suspend the rules and accept on first reading for public display, the Fiscal Year 1984-85 budget for the Salt Lake City Public Library and schedule a public hearing on the budget for May 22, 1984, at 6:30 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(B 84-4)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: The appointment of Edith Roberson to the Salt Lake Art Design Board.
Without objection, Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred this appointment to the consent agenda for May 15, 1984.
(I 84-9)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: The floor repair and grouting of the Big Cottonwood bypass channel.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to suspend the rules and approve on first reading, a quantity change for the floor repair and grouting of the Big Cottonwood bypass channel, referred to in Resolution 14 of 1984, approved January 17, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 84-2)
#2. RE: A resolution declaring the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, to create a special improvement district to be known as Salt Lake City Public Utilities Project 50-1295 (18-inch main sewer pipeline) sometimes referred to as the “District”. It is the intention of the City Council to make improvements within the District and to levy special taxes as provided in Chapter 16, Title 10, Utah Code Annotated, (1953), as amended, on the real estate lying within said District for the benefit of which such taxes are to he expended in the making of such improvements.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to refer this resolution to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-8)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for improvement of 7200 West between Interstate 80 and 700 South.
Without objection, Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred this resolution to the consent agenda for May 15, 1984.
(C 84-165)
#2. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department of Transportation for work to beautify the area under the I-80/Highland Drive overpass (for “passive mini-park”) to be performed by Maas Grassli & Associates.
Without objection, Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred this resolution to the consent agenda for May 15, 1984.
(C 84-l66)
#3. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department of Transportation for lease of property lying west of Highland Drive (under I-80/Highland Drive overpass) for use as a public “passive mini-park”.
Without objection, Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred this resolution to the consent agenda for May 15, 1984.
(C 84-167)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Special Improvement District 40-R-E5.
RE: Protests in connection with the improvements or creation of SID 40-R-6, which includes various non-contiguous streets within Salt Lake City.
A public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this matter. Max Peterson, city engineer, explained that the improvement district boundaries are between 4th East and State Street and between 4th South and 4th Avenue. The preliminary tabulation of protests indicates that there is a 3.3% protest rate. These protests are scattered throughout the district and are not concentrated in one area. Councilmember Shearer mentioned that the gutter at 350 South 400 East which is recommended for replacement does not appear as though it needs to be replaced. She thought that replacement was not done if the area is in good condition.
Mr. Peterson said that if an area meets the replacement criteria as outlined in the ordinance then the work is done. He indicated that questionable areas will be evaluated and staff members will meet with property owners to determine if replacement is necessary. If the determination is made that the area does not need to be replaced then the work will not be done. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing and refer this matter to the City Engineer for tabulation of protests, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 84-5)
Special Improvement District 38-763.
RE: Protests in connection with the improvements or creation of SID 38-763, which includes westside streets and interchanges.
A public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this matter. Rick Johnston, deputy city engineer, said that the deadline to receive protests was May 7, 1984, and the preliminary tabulation indicates that there is a 60% protest rate for this project. However there are several properties which are still in question as to whether or not they are protesting. Some protesters felt that the city should pay more of the improvement costs and many felt that the city should pay the entire cost of the improvements. Some felt the improvements are not needed but the majority of the protests opposed the method of financing the proposed improvement district and wanted a broader taxing base in order to reduce individual assessments. Mr. Johnston said that two informal public meetings had been held to further explain the proposed district.
The following individuals expressed opposition: Kay Freckleton, 550 West 8th South, Stephen Lee, 4062 Mercury Drive, representing Eaton Metal, Vic Movitz, 1888 Fremont Drive, William Howard Smith, Helen Franke, 1271 Concord, Lawrence Thatcher, 1900 Fortune Road, Wilford Freckleton, 510 East 2050 South, Bountiful, Dale Nichols, Nichols Realty Corporation, Kent Rutherford, representing Deere & Company, Larry Williamsen, 642 18th Avenue. The main concern expressed was that the taxing base for this district is too small and it should be broadened so that a few are not paying for the interchange and the other improvements which will benefit many people. It was felt that taxing this small geographical area would hinder the incoming industry. Many felt that the state has a greater responsibility for the interchange. Reference was made to the high protest rate and some felt the district should not be approved for that reason.
The question was asked if property owners have been taxed in the past in order to construct a freeway access. Mr. Johnston explained that the federal highway department is beginning to require cities to provide local funds if they want an interchange project. Mr. Johnston also explained that $8 million in federal funds and UDOT match will be used for the freeway construction and tentative approval has been given for an additional $2.7 million in federal funds to be used for the arterial roads, mainly California Avenue.
This is a total of $10.7 million in federal highway funds so it will probably be another five to six years before the city can request federal funding for another major highway project. He mentioned that recently St. George had to provide local funding for an interchange project being constructed and the method they are using to raise funds is through an SID. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that the public hearing be continued so that funding alternatives can be considered. For the following reasons, Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, recommended that the Council continue the public hearing.
First, there seems to be concern about the “fairness” of financing and he said that they would he willing to meet with the property owners and reconsider the formula. Second, it is the recommended policy that since property owners derive specific benefits from these projects they should fund a portion of the cost. Third, the city would be willing to renegotiate with the state for additional state support. And fourth, the issue of total growth and impact of total growth needs to be considered. Mr. Haines recommended that the hearing be continued to August 14, 1984, which would allow time to meet with property owners to discuss concerns and determine alternatives.
Councilmember Mabey felt that the roads in this area are vital and as development takes place traffic will increase. Construction of these roads cannot be delayed. Councilmember Shearer mentioned that in discussing alternatives the current project boundaries can only be considered because the area cannot be enlarged. She felt that it would be better to close the hearing (in effect defeating the project because of the high protest rate) and have the project resubmitted with enlarged boundaries. Mr. Haines said that even though the boundaries cannot be changed, the funding commitments can be changed. He added that UDOT is under a planning deadline and without a commitment soon from the city, the area for the interchange will not be provided.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to continue the public hearing to August 14, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Shearer who voted nay.
(Q 84-6)
Petition 400-106 of 1983 by Ray Marler, et al.
RE: Vacation of a public alley located within the Waterloo Addition Subdivision, said alley being 13 feet wide and running north from Bryan Avenue to Kensington Avenue between 300 and 400 East Streets in Salt Lake City.
A public hearing was held at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this petition. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and explained that a non-advertised public hearing had previously been held on this petition. At that time an ordinance was passed vacating the alley but subsequently it came to the attention of the attorney’s office that the petition was not signed by all abutting property owners and the hearing should have been advertised. Therefore, the Council rescinded the ordinance and the hearing was rescheduled and advertised. Mr. Hafey said that there are two property owners who have not signed the petition. The recommendation of the Planning Commission to vacate the alley is still being followed.
Ray Marler, petitioner, explained that people leave trash in the alley, the alley is not paved, it has been used as access to burglarize homes, and there is a lot of traffic in the alley such as motor bikes. He indicated that one owner who did not sign the petition does not have a driveway to access his parking but Mr. Marler felt that there was room on this owner’s property to make a driveway. J. E. Martin, owner of the property at 1546 South 4th East, indicated that the duplex at this address has no access to the parking except by the alley. Mr. Martin disagreed that there is room to construct a driveway to the rear of this property. He opposed the vacation of the alley and said that without the alley this property would not have access to parking in the rear and the cars would have to park on the street.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that the end of the alley abutting Mr. Marler’s property be vacated and the other end remain open so the duplex has access to the parking. Mr. Whipple, purchasing the duplex at 1546 South 4th East, indicated that the alley is narrow and he felt that closing half of the alley would make it difficult for vehicles entering from Bryan Avenue and parking at the rear of the duplex, to back out of the parking and exit south to Bryan Avenue. He felt that the north end of the alley is used just as much as the south end. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that it may be convenient to have use of the entire alley but both portions are not necessarily needed. Bob Stokinger, 369 Bryan Ave., supported the vacation of half the alley and felt that the duplex would have adequate access from Bryan Avenue. Mr. Stokinger felt that vacation of half the alley would solve the problems mentioned by the petitioner. George Vanikiotis, 1534 South 4th East, supported the vacation of the alley.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mahey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to vacate the north portion of the alley and ask the planning department to make a recommendation on the length that should he vacated, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 84-5)
Petition 400-159 of 1984 by Gus Papanikolas.
RE: Rezoning of property located at 709 South 700 East from Residential “R-5A” classification to Business “B-3” classification.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this petition. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map. Presently the corners of 7th South and 7th East are zoned “B-3”; the surrounding areas on the east side of 7th East are zoned “R-5A” and on the west side the zoning is “R-3A”. Mr. Hafey referred to the property in question, southeast corner of the intersection, and explained that on this corner the “B-3” zone extends 90 feet north and south and 82 feet east and west. According to the ordinance if the zoning line and the furthest property line away from the zoning line are within 30 feet of each other, then the zoning extends to the far property line.
The property in question is divided by the zoning line which is not within 30 feet of the south property line so the entire piece of property is zoned “R-5A”. A "B-3” zone would allow retail businesses and offices. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the rezoning request. If the property is rezoned, several variances would be required in order to convert the existing building to a business. Terry Cononelos, representing the petitioner, felt the petitioner had been misinformed about the split zoning of the property and that according to the ordinance dealing with transitional zoning he felt this property should have the highest zoning usage. Since apparently there had been a misunderstanding.
Mr. Cononelos said that they would be satisfied with conditional use for the property. Mr. Hafey reiterated that if the zoning line and the furthest property line are within 30 feet of each, then the zoning extends to the far property line. However in this case the zoning line is not within 30 feet of the south property line. Councilmember Shearer said that just because the zoning on the property is split does not mean that highest zoning usage will automatically be allowed. This is only the case if the property line is within 30 feet of the zoning line, which had been pointed out by Mr. Hafey. Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred to the reasons given by the Planning Commission for recommending denial. First, there ought not to be a “creeping” business zone moving down 7th East. Second, there would be development problems due to the size of the lot. The third and fourth reasons indicate that the zoning change would not be an improvement to the area and it would be contrary to the master plan.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the petition request, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 84-29)
Landmark Site.
RE: Designating the James T. and Mary M. Donahue house, 141 South 200 East, as a landmark site and placing it on the City Register of Cultural Resources.
Without objection, the public hearing was continued to September 11, 1984.
(L 84-1)
Water Meter Rates.
RE: An ordinance amending Sections 49-6-51 and 49-6-52 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to water meter rates and minimum charge of culinary water.
A public hearing was held at 7:15 p.m. to discuss this ordinance. LeRoy Hooton, director of public utilities, said that the public utilities department water utility fund has not had a rate increase for its operations and maintenance budget since 1980. Operating costs have increased by 30%, however, operating revenue has only increased 1% during this period of time. Mr. Hooton said that in order to provide a high level of service, continued preventative maintenance programs, and operations and maintenance programs, a 20% increase in revenue will be required.
Mr. Hooton said that the proposal is to raise the rate from $4.50 per month to $5.50 for the first 1,000 cubic feet of water. In the commodity charge a change is proposed from 3l per 100 cubic feet to 38 per 100 cubic feet. The average customer who now has an annual water bill of $112 would have a water bill of about $134 per year. Mr. Hooton concluded by saying that revenues have not been increased through water sales and there has been additional flood damage and costs to the utility. Councilmember Mabey thought that in order to reduce water bills people may conserve and the anticipated revenue will not be generated through this proposed rate increase. He suggested that perhaps people should be encouraged to use the water so that revenue is generated without having to increase the rates. Mr. Hooton said there is a conflicting situation because if people are encouraged to use water then the water plants are overloaded and there are distribution problems. The sewer program encourages conservation to reduce the overloading at the waste water plant but this affects water sales. He indicated that a balance has to he determined in order to operate these two enterprise funds. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer this ordinance to the Committee of the Whole for consideration with the 1984-85 budget, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-9)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
#1. Mr. Sterne McMullen, 334 “A” Street, addressed the Council concerning Peace Observance Day scheduled for May 19, 1984. The March for the Americas Committee proposed that the Council consider adopting a resolution supporting Peace Day in Salt Lake City.
Councilmember Whitehead said that this request would he submitted to the Mayor’s office. He suggested that Mr. McMullen contact the Mayor’s office later in the week.
(G 84-15)
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.