The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Regular Session on Tuesday, November 19, 1996, at 6:00 p.m., in Room 315, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present:
Stuart Reid Joanne Milner Sam Souvall
Deeda Seed Tom Godfrey Bryce Jolley
Keith Christensen
Mayor Deedee Corradini; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy City Recorder were present.
Council Chair Christensen presided at and Councilmember Souvall conducted the meeting.
#1. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#2. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to approve City Council minutes from November 5, 1996, and November 12, 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
#3. Councilmember Souvall and Mayor Corradini presented plaques from Key Bank to Good Neighbor Award recipients.
CITIZENS COMMENTS
Bob Fisher, 2172 Hannibal, said he had a claim with the City for damage done to his car in Sugar House Park.
The following citizens spoke in favor of seeking independent Counsel to review gifts given to the Mayor.
John Hawkins, 756 East Harrison Avenue. Steven Pace, 181 "B" Street. Mike Lonhs, 2100 East Bengal Boulivard. Clair Gettis, United We Stand. Neils Little, 1533 South 900 West.
The following citizens spoke in favor of the appeal by John and Samantha Francis of the decision for conditional use Petition No. 410-96-238 submitted by Traveler's Aid Society for an overflow homeless shelter to be located at 399 Andrew Avenue in a Commercial "CG" zone.
Kevin Fisher, 1410 Hope Avenue. Mike Jimenz, 325 West Andrew Avenue.
The following citizens spoke in opposition of light rail on Main Street
Minutes amended 1-14-97,removed David Leta and Ramona Rudert form opposition of light rail speakers. (See file M 97-1)
The following citizens spoke in opposition of light rail on Main Street.
Fred Ball, 2055 East Sierra View Circle. Verl Topham, Pacific Corp. Ira Rubinfeld, Attorney representing First Security Corp. Carol Hunter, Pacific Corp. 201 South Main. Richard Kieffer representing Salt Lake on Track. Scott Nelson, First Security Corp. Dan Loewen, 1203 South 1900 East. Drew Chamberlain, 1980 South Richards Street. Blaine Overson, 428 West 200 North, carriage operator. Annette Hamilton, 428 West 200 North, carriage operator Byron March, No address given.
The following citizens were in opposition of light rail but did not wish to speak.
Eric Liebelt, no address given. Colleen Thurston, 265 North Vine Street. Rela Wardle, 265 North Vine Street.
The following citizens spoke in favor of light rail.
Robert Weyher, 165 South Main Street. Alison Gregerson, Director of Business Services, presented letters of support for light rail running on Main Street. (See file C 96-718 for letters).
Annabella Roig, 30 Hillside Avenue, was in support of light rail but did not wish to speak.
David Leta, Colition for Balanced Transportation, 1380 Chancellor Way, did not take a position on the alignment of light rail through downtown, but urged adoption of the UTA agreement.
Romona Rudert, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, indicated with a written statement that the current board of Governors of the Chamber of Commerce had not taken a position on the alignment of light rail.
(See file C 96-718)
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
#1. RE: Approving the appointment of Jill Carter to the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee for a term extending through August 31, 2000.
(I 96-22)
#2. RE: Approving the appointment of Helen Mary Peters to the Capital Improvement Program Citizen Board for a term extending through June 1, 1998.
(I 96-3)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
#1. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Utah Transit Authority, relating to the construction of a light rail transportation system on certain streets within the City, and related matters
(C 96-718)
#2. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a Fixed Guideway Transit Corridor Agreement between the City and Utah Transit Authority, granting to Utah Transit Authority the right to use certain City Streets and other City property for an extended term for purposes of construction and operating a light rail system, and related matters.
(C 96-719)
#3. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a Bus Services Agreement between the City and Utah Transit Authority, providing for a shuttle system to compliment light rail service, providing certain terms for regular bus service, and related matters
(C 96-720)
#4. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of an Arts in Transit Agreement between the City and Utah Transit Authority, providing for participation in the Arts in Transit program in connection with the light rail project, and related matters.
(C 96-721)
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Reid seconded to adopt Resolution 73 of 1996 authorizing approval of the four interlocal cooperation agreements between Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority were titled the Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement, the Fixed Guideway Transit Corridor Agreement, the Bus Services Agreement, and the Arts in Transit Agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign the documents on behalf of the City with the following amendment to Section 11, Paragraph D, Subsection iii, after the words "property owners" insert the words "business tenants and neighborhood residents", which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Christensen who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Souvall said the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) and Salt Lake City would spell out the roll, relationship and responsibility between the two. He said the agreements would cover alignment, easements, busses and shuttles and Art in Transit. He said this was the first phase of light rail in Salt Lake City. He said the issue of light rail on Main Street had been open to public comment since July of 1992. He said the City had asked for comment and welcomed comment.
Councilmember Souvall gave a brief history of light rail in Salt Lake City. He said light rail began in 1988 with a plan developed by an Urban Assistance Team. He said in 1991 a comprehensive transportation plan recommended building the north/south phase of light rail. He said the process for the environmental impact study then began. He said several alternates for the light rail corridor were looked at. He said in 1992 the public meeting process for the environmental impact began. He said a County wide referendum for light rail failed except in Salt Lake City. He said the referendum had included a .25 cent sales tax increase.
Councilmember Souvall said on June 17, 1993 the Salt Lake Planning Commission voted to support the Main Street alignment. He said on July 13, 1993, a public hearing was held on the proposed alignments. He said the City Council approved by a 6 to 1 vote the Main Street alignment and incorporated the environmental impact statement at that time. He said in the summer of 1995 a Design Review Committee lead by Downtown Alliance re-visited the light rail question and in November of 1995 they affirmed a double track on Main Street.
Councilmember Godfrey addressed his motion. He said he had been on the City Council in 1993 when the Main Street alignment was chosen. He said at that time the Council looked at what would be the best alignment for everyone in the City. He said the Council had looked at the dollar amount, and where the streets would need to be torn up. He said he did not understand people saying the Council was moving too fast. He said when he made the motion in 1993, he had included in the motion that a committee be appointed to study look the problems which were raised. He said to his frustration the committee spent the next two years looking at the alignment on Main Street. He said the Council, in December of 1995 decided Main Street was still the favored alignment. He said then technical issues needed to be discussed.
Councilmember Godfrey said when the City Council had visited Portland, everyone had wanted to be on the light rail line. He said business people saw being on the light rail line as a benefit. He said once the downtown of Portland was dead and now it was booming. He said he was frustrated so much time and energy had been wasted in the community on realigning light rail.
Councilmember Seed said her concerns about light rail were the money which would be spent, the inconvenience for merchants on Main Street during the construction, and the impact of light rail on residents living on 200 West. She said she was concerned about what light rail would look like, what it would do to a neighborhood, and what inconveniences residents would experience. She said she was concerned about the efficiency of the system and what the ridership would be. She said she was concerned with the board of UTA and the management of UTA.
Councilmember Seed said most of her concerns had been answered and she would support Councilmember Godfrey's motion. She said three years was long enough to debate the issue. She said the Council and the Administration had established a serious commitment to do light rail in a way which was sensitive to businesses and residents. She complimented the Administration on the way which concerns of the 200 West neighborhood had been taken care of.
Councilmember Seed said a commitment had been established from UTA that regardless of the outcome of personal and professional difference, the UTA would sign a Memorandum of Understanding. She said a commitment from the Administration and the Mayor, that every effort for addition Federal funding would be made. She said many opportunities were available with the 2002 Winter Olympics coming. She said serious attention should be paid to the air quality. She said light rail would benefit air quality. She said she urged looking at other forms of mass transit and to take a regional view of transportation needs across the cities and towns.
Councilmember Christensen spoke against the motion. He said the problem was not light rail. He said he supported light rail. He said the problem was in the design. He said traffic in downtown would be increased. He said parking would be eliminated. He said it would be an unfair financial burden to the businesses on Main Street. He said City staff had estimated a 10% to 25% loss in sales tax revenue during construction. He said the historic nature of Main Street would be lost. He said a large majority of people who live in Salt Lake City opposed light rail on Main Street. He said the same number of people support light rail. He said a survey had shown that did not want 71% light rail on Main Street.
Councilmember Christensen said it was his hope to encourage people who come into Salt Lake City to ride the light rail. He said it made more sense to use a wider influence running a track on State Street and West Temple. He said this would afford a wider area of use. He asked that Main Street not be destroyed. He said letters submitted opposing light rail on Main Street by substantial business and property owners numbered 21 plus the Chamber of Commerce. He said these same people supported light rail in another place.
Councilmember Christensen asked for a cost analyst of a loop on Main Street to be done by an engineer. He said six months to a year was not a long time to wait on a decision while this was being done. He said Portland did not have a unique central Main Street like Salt Lake City. He said Portland was laid out different from Salt Lake City. He said Salt Lake was different and he wanted to keep it that way.
He said the agreement did not address an east/west route. He said the cost of the system was funded in part by the sale of assets which the City owned. He said this was the same as a tax increase. He said the same assets could be sold and badly needed Capital Improvement projects be paid for. He said although he was in favor of light rail he did not expect light rail to make a profit. He said mass transit never made a profit. He said cleaner air, reduced traffic on the interstate and in the downtown area were benefits.
Councilmember Jolley said he had tried to be as open as possible regarding the proposals for light rail. He said he was anxious to hear opinions from constituents and business owners. He said two months ago a 3-D presentation was shown to the Council as to what Main Street would look like with light rail. He said the administration had now changed that to a more appealing and functional plan. He said it now could be an asset to the downtown area. He said once the east/west spur was designed and built, a loop could be created with a free fair shuttle using the same tracks as the light rail. He said he felt Main Street was the best solution.
#5. RE: Consider adopting an ordinance approving the assessment list; levying an annual assessment upon property in Salt Lake City, Utah Special Lighting District No. 2 (The "District"); establishing the effective date of the 1996 assessment ordinance; and related matters.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to adopt Ordinance 88 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 96-6)
#6. RE: Consider an appeal by John and Samantha Francis of the Planning Commission decision for conditional use Petition No. 410-96-238 submitted by Traveler's Aid Society for an overflow homeless shelter to be located at 399 Andrew Avenue in a Commercial "CG" zone.
ACTION: Without objection the item was moved to Committee of the Whole for discussion.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Souvall seconded that the City Council demand that conditional use Petition No. 410-96-238 go back to the Planning Commission for clarification of their position and clarification of the following issues 1) site improvements, such as parking, internal circulation etc. 2) the Planning Commission's intention of the use of the word temporary and issue a decision containing clarification requested above, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Discussion: Councilmember Godfrey said the word temporary was the biggest problem and would be a legal problem in the future. He said the second problem with parking should be reviewed by the Planning Commission again.
Councilmember Souvall said he knew the Council was a neutral appeal body, but the fact was the City needed an overflow shelter.
Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney, said the use of the word temporary as something prohibitive in one clause and the use of it as insisted upon in another clause was a problem which needed to be clarified.
Councilmember Reid said the Council tried to balance various interests on the basis of public policy. He said if that was not done the Council would fail. He said the Council had to be consistent relative to public policy issues. He said the Council did not have any other choice than to send the issue back to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Seed said the confusion was a problem and unfortunate because the City needed an overflow shelter.
Mr. Pace said he wanted the Council to understand that if they remanded the issue, it would became a reversal and would prohibit Travelers Aid from going ahead.
(H 96-16)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 1996-97 Budget.
ACTION: Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to adopt Ordinance 89 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(B 96-1)
#2. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance regarding the 1997 Budget for the Salt Lake Solid Waste Management Facility
ACTION: Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to refer to the December 3, 1996 City Council meeting for action, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(B 96-4)
#3. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance renaming a portion of 1930 West Street to Doralma Place, pursuant to Petition No. 400-96-85.
ACTION: Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 90 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(O 96-35)
The meeting recessed at 7:45 p.m. and continued in the Committee of the Whole to discuss Item F-6, an appeal by John and Samantha Francis of the Planning Commission decision for conditional use Petition No. 410-96-238.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
cm