PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 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.
Lance Bateman, City Controller, was present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items on the Council agenda and on Council scheduling. The Council agreed to discuss refinancing of water bonds and the executive salary study on November 18, 1982. Mike Chitwood discussed the status of the UMTA grant for the downtown area. Mr. Chitwood explained the process for accepting the grant and that no final action on what is to be done has been scheduled on the grant. Dave Rothchild, Arthur Young, and Lance Bateman, Finance and Administrative Services, discussed the cash management recommendations prepared by Arthur Young several months ago.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 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 Wilson, Lance Bateman, City Controller, and Walter Miller, Deputy City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Allen Roden.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, November 2, 1982, and approve the minutes for the Committee of the Whole meeting held Thursday, November 4, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 82-2)
PETITIONS
Northwest Quadrant Annexation: Petitions 94, 180, 203, 277 and 288 of 1982.
RE: Northwest Quadrant Annexation: Petition 94 of 1982 (Northpoint #2 by Gossner-Sheffield); Petition 180 of 1982 (Northpoint #3 by LDS Church); Petition 203 of 1982 (Northpoint #4 by LDS Church); Petition 277 of 1982 (Bothwell/Swaner); and Petition 288 of 1982 (Gilimor/Peck). The above five petitions request the annexation of approximately a total of 10,079 acres of property in the northwest quadrant.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution accepting the five petitions for the purpose of reviewing the request and schedule public hearings on Tuesday, December 14, 1982 to consider said annexation.
DISCUSSION: The petitions have received favorable review from the Planning Commission together with other departmental review. The combined effect of the five petitions, if accepted, would be to extend the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to approximately 8800 West from approximately 700 South to approximately 3200 North. Each of the petitions, in their present status, include the necessary signature of the majority of the property owners that also represent more than one-third of the assessed valuation of each petition, calculated by individual petition and collectively.
Each of the petitions also have contiguity to the existing Salt Lake City Corporation municipal limits. However, in the Gillmor annexation petition, there is one parcel that is detached from the rest of the Gillmor parcel which lacks, at the present time, contiguity. However, it will have contiguity with and upon the annexation of Northpoint #4, or could be added to Northpoint #4 which presently already has contiguity.
The basic zoning recommended by the Planning Commission is that of industrial “M-1A” for petitions 94, 180, and that portion of 288 involving the eastern one-half of Section 25. Property within the remaining petitions is proposed to be zoned agricultural “A-1” for a holding zone pending appropriate plans for development and preparation of the northwest quadrant and master plan. The petitions have received favorable review from other departments which support the annexations subject to a number of conditions which are reflected within the various petitions.
These conditions generally relate to development constraints and commitments that should be addressed in an annexation agreement through other formal language to be decided upon.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 103 of 1982 accepting the Northwest Quadrant Annexation petitions for purpose of City Council review and schedule public hearings for Tuesday, December 14, 1982 to discuss the five petitions; the times are as follows: Petition 94 at 6:45 p.m., Petition 180 at 7:00 p.m., Petition 288 at 7:15 p.m., Petition 203 at 7:30 p.m., and Petition 277 at 7:45 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-312)(P 82-313)(P 82-314)(P 82-315)(P 82-316)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
#1. RE: Handicap Parking.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider repealing Section 149(5) and adding new Section 160-A of the Traffic Code of Salt Lake City.
DISCUSSION: The state statute gives a preferential parking right to handicapped persons; however, this law is vague and ambiguous in many respects. Because of these difficulties, there have been some problems for handicapped persons to know where they may and may not park. To avoid confusion and to more affirmatively state the city’s commitment to providing adequate and appropriate handicap parking spaces, a clarifying ordinance has been drafted. This ordinance has been reviewed and approved by John E. B. Myers, attorney for the Legal Center for the Handicapped. The ordinance’s basic provisions are as follows:
1. It defines what is a “restricted” area available for parking to handicapped persons; the areas include freight loading, passenger loading and time limited parking zones. Handicapped persons may park at these locations, without fee, for the designated time periods. 2. It identifies with specificity those areas which are prohibited to any parking; these locations include areas in front of fire hydrants, fire lanes and similar inherently dangerous localities. 3. It makes it a criminal offense for someone to unlawfully use a handicap parking license plate, that is, it is a crime for a non-handicapped person to improperly use a truly handicapped person’s parking privilege.
4. It grants the city transportation engineer the authority to reserve public areas for handicap parking and makes it illegal for a person, who is not handicapped and not possessing a handicap license plate, to utilize these reserved spaces. It is believed this ordinance will be of assistance to the city and to the handicapped community by: (a) permitting designated parking places, (b) providing more effective means of enforcing the reservation of these spaces for the truly handicapped and (c) removing the ambiguity of the state law concerning what reserved spaces are available for parking and what “reasonable” means as far as duration of permitted parking. In short, the ordinance accommodates the needs of the handicapped community while balancing life safety and other legitimate public concerns.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 82 of 1982, repealing Section 149(5) of the Traffic Code of Salt Lake City, Utah, relating to handicap parking at meters, and adding new Section 160-A of the Traffic Code of Salt Lake City, Utah, relating to parking for the handicapped, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-58)
#2. RE: Salt Lake City Industrial Revenue Refunding Bonds for Fluor Supply Company formerly known as RS Supply Company of California.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution for an industrial revenue bond issue for refunding bonds in an amount not to exceed $2 million.
DISCUSSION: This is an industrial revenue bond issue for refunding the bonds issued approximately two years ago by RS Supply Company of California and guaranteed by its parent, Fluor Corporation. Since the first bonds were issued, RS Supply Company of California has merged into a Texas corporation and the name has been changed to Fluor Supply Company, a Texas corporation. However, the essential character of RS Supply Company as far as its Utah operation is concerned is unchanged. Because of market conditions which existed two years ago, Fluor Corporation elected to issue only short-term bonds. They now desire to have these bonds refunded with longer-term bonds.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 102 of 1982 authorizing the issuance of not exceeding $2,000,000 principal amount of Industrial Revenue Refunding Bonds of Salt Lake City, State of Utah, for the purpose of refunding previously issued industrial revenue bonds, and otherwise approving such actions as may be necessary for issuance of said bonds, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-33)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Notice of Intention for Curb and Gutter Special Improvement District 38-723.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the Notice of Intention and authorize the city to proceed with advertising of the Notice of Intention in accordance with the schedule.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Fiscal Year 1983/84 capital improvement funds and property owner assessments (special improvement district).
DISCUSSION: Curb and Gutter District 38-723 is comprised of numerous residential streets in the southeast and east portions of the city. The project will consist of the construction of curb and gutter, sidewalk, roadway and drainage facilities. It is intended to bid the project next spring with the majority of construction to take place during the summer of 1983. Because administration has not prepared the FY 83/84 budget submittal, it is unknown at this time if administration will recommend the construction of the project for FY 1983/84 funding approval. The total estimated cost of the city’s portion for this project is $617,450 and would have to be allocated in the 1983/84 capital improvement budget for curb and gutter special improvement districts before construction could start.
A provision will be made in the construction contract to allow delaying the contract award until after July 1, 1983, when construction funds could be available. Requesting Notice of Intention approval for this project at this time will remove streets protested from the district before finalizing city’s capital improvement funds for 1983/84 and permit the remaining streets to be designed and bid for construction.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 101 of 1982 declaring the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City to construct improvements on certain streets within Salt Lake City, to create Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension 38-723 and provide notice of intention to authorize such improvements and to fix a time and place for protests against such improvements or the creating of said district, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-32)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Designation of Five Buildings as Landmark Sites.
RE: The designation of the Forest Dale Golf Course Club House, the Leffler-Woodman Building at 859 East 900 South, the 29th Ward Assembly Hall at 1102 West 400 North, Fire Station #8 at 258 South 1300 East, and the Royle Home at 635 East 100 South as landmark sites and the addition of these buildings to the City Register of Cultural Resources. The Planning Commission and Historical Landmark Committee have reviewed these buildings and recommend that they be designated to the City Register of Cultural Resources as landmark sites.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this issue. Linda Ediken, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the Council. She distributed copies of the National Register Criteria of Evaluation. Ms. Ediken stated that the city landmark committee has adopted the criteria used in the national register for evaluating buildings. She then read through the information (a copy of this information is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). She stated that the landmark committee reviews the criteria when they consider designating properties but they put more emphasis on local importance. The five buildings being considered for designation as landmark sites have been reviewed to determine if, based on their architectural and/or historical merit, the buildings warrant recognition on the city register and encouragement for preservation as a cultural resource.
Ms. Ediken then outlined the history of each building. Briefly: Forest Dale Golf Course Club House: This building was constructed in 1905 and the majority of the building seems to be of original design. The building is associated with the early Salt Lake residents who introduced the game of golf to Utah. The landmark committee felt that this building was eligible because of its historical significance and association with a recreational theme; there are very few recreational historic sites in Salt Lake. The Sugarhouse Community Council initiated this nomination.
Leffler-Woodman Building: This is actually two buildings - the rear which was used as a flour mill and the front used as a commercial building. These are significant as representatives of early industrial and commercial activities in Salt Lake. The mill was built in approximately 1878 and the commercial building was constructed in 1911. The owner of this building requested this nomination. 29th Ward Assembly Hall: This was one of several late gothic or victorian gothic meeting houses built by the LDS Church during a major expansion of its wards in 1902. This building was distinguished by its outstanding arched glass windows, in the front of the building, and by its lack of a tower. The arched glass windows no longer exist.
Major alterations have negatively affected the original appearance, but the landmark committee nominated this building for its historical significance and the part it played in the life of the northwest community. Fire Station #8: This building was constructed in 1929 in a period revival style. The building, of academic architectural importance, has a broad gabled roof facing the street and a gabled front entrance bay. The owner plans to convert the building into a restaurant and will replace the front garage doors with glass; there will also be skylight type structures added to the roof (this was approved by the landmark committee).
Johnathan and Eliza Royle Home: This house is a significant representative of important architectural and historic themes in Salt Lake City. Built in about 1875, it was one of the earliest high-style houses to be constructed along First South. It also stands as one of the finest of the relatively few examples of Residential Italianate Architecture. Councilmember Whitehead asked if designating the Forest Dale Golf Course Club House as a landmark site would create any problems for the parks department as far as their plans for the building.
John Gust, Director of Salt Lake City Parks Department, indicated that he felt this designation would not cause any problems. He stated that he understood the Sugarhouse Community Council wanted the building to be placed on the register and then a feasibility study would be conducted regarding restoration of the building. The cost of restoration would be evaluated and as long as the community council waits for these costs to be determined then the parks department would agree with this designation. Gene Davis, Sugarhouse Community Council, addressed the Council. He stated that the council was hoping to find community slippage monies to conduct the feasibility study.
Councilmember Davis asked how much the feasibility study would cost. Mr. Davis stated that he did not know but Councilmember Parker stated that it cost about $7,000 to do a study on the cottage in Fairmont Park, which is a much smaller building. He guessed that the cost would be around $20,000 or $25,000. Mr. Davis stated that currently inside the building there is a concessionaire’s stand and golf carts are stored in the ballroom area. The women’s locker room needs repair as well as the men’s restroom. The concessionaire lives in an apartment on the second story of the building. There are currently no men’s locker facilities.
Councilmember Davis asked what the procedure would be if restoration of the building was not feasible. Ms. Ediken stated that the Salt Lake City ordinance does not prevent demolition of a building; if the landmark committee, in reviewing all the facts, feels that the building is appropriate for demolition they will approve this action. If they feel that more study has to be done then they have the option of delaying the demolition for five months. The Council has the final determination as far as remodeling or additions to the building.
Councilmember Davis asked Ms. Ediken if she felt the historical society would contribute money for the study. Ms. Ediken stated that their funds are scarce, but community development funds would be a good source. Councilmember Shearer asked if the parks department was planning on replacing the building within next year’s budget. John Gust stated that the building would be on the 1984-85 capital improvement projects list. He further stated that he asked the Utah Golf Association if they were interested in seeing the building restored and if so would they be interested in the PGA and UGA concentrating their golf activities out of that facility - leasing the building as a golf house or museum. These associations expressed an interest in this idea.
Mr. Gust stated that he was not sure if the building would be used as a golf shop. Mr. Gust reiterated that putting the building on the register will not have a negative impact. He stated that he wanted the feasibility study to be conducted as soon as possible so a decision can be made.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the designation of the Forest Dale Golf Course Club House, the Leffler-Woodman Building, the 29th Ward, Fire Station #8, and the Royle Home as landmark sites and add them to the City Register of Cultural Resources, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(L 82-7)
Petition 262 of 1982 submitted by General Distributing Company.
RE: The petitioner is requesting that the east 150 feet of Girard Avenue (approximately 530 North) be closed and sold to them to enable further expansion of their operation. The petition has been reviewed by planning and zoning, fire, engineering, transportation, fixed assets, public utilities and the city attorney’s office. All departments recommended that the alley be closed subject to public utilities’ recommendation that a utility easement be retained and that before the Street is utilized for any construction purposes that the petitioner arrange at his expense to have the 1-inch private line providing utility services plugged and removed. Should the Council desire that the alley be closed, the property should be sold to the petitioner at fair market value; M.A.I. estimated the amount of $3,185 plus $125 to cover the cost of the appraisal. The petitioner has submitted all required signatures including the property owner who fronts on Sixth West and rely’s on the end of Girard Avenue for access to their garage.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition 262 of 1982. Alan Johnson, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the Council and indicated the location of the alley on a map. He stated that the request is to close and sell the east 165 feet by 33 feet of Girard Avenue between 400 West and 500 West. The area is a small street which leads from 500 West east to a large industrial complex. This is a dead-end street and closing the east portion would make it a shorter dead-end street.
Mr. Johnson stated that the information he has is that all the affected property owners have participated in the petition or have been informed of the closure. The Planning Commission recommends closure and sale of the street. Mr. Johnson stated that a letter from Judy Lever, in the attorney’s office, favored the recommendation subject to an appraisal of the property and the petitioners paying market value for the street and paying for the appraisal. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmembers Fonnesbeck and Davis who were absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded that the property on Girard Avenue be closed and sold to the petitioner and that the city attorney’s office be directed to prepare the ordinance effectuating this change, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-289)
Amending Compensation Plan.
RE: Amending the compensation plan for Salt Lake City Corporation employees regarding increasing the annual compensation of elected officials.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this issue. Art Hurry, from the audience, addressed the Council. He stated that he attended the meeting in January of 1980 when the Council’s and Mayor’s salaries were discussed. At that time he recommended that the Council be paid $200 per week. After two years the Council is still only getting $8,500 per year and a $200 per year increase is a gross insult to the Council. Mr. Hurry felt that raising their salary to $200 per week would not be out of line with other city employees which have received 21%.
Bernice Cook, People’s Freeway, agreed with Mr. Hurry and stated that she felt the Council should get more than a $200 per year raise. She recommended that the Council be given a raise. She also stated that if the Council feels uncomfortable about giving themselves a raise they should do what the state did a have a committee make the decision.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Parker stated that he had initiated this $200 per year increase. It was not intended that this be construed as a raise but a demonstration so that people would not think the Council is locked into the present salary figure. Mr. Parker reiterated that over the last three-year period city employees have received approximately 21% in increases and the Council Members and Mayor have not received an increase. He had hoped to initiate a discussion about the appropriateness of an adjustment.
Councilmember Whitehead indicated that he felt there was a dilemma about how to proceed and the question was when or if it is appropriate for a public official to get a raise. Mr. Whitehead stated that there was no mechanism of how to address this issue because it has not been addressed since the initial salary figure was set. Councilmember DePaulis agreed with Council Members Parker and Whitehead and stated that he felt this was not necessarily a raise but an adjustment since the Council receives no other benefits.
He further stated that the Council did not want any part of their salary to be sheltered or non-taxable. Mr. DePaulis reiterated that he viewed this increase as an adjustment and not as a raise. He also viewed this as a mechanism to adjust the salary for expenses. Councilmember Shearer stated that this Council is being paid more than most councils working in cities of the same size. Councilmember Parker stated that when doing a survey about councils’ salaries consideration has to be given to hours spent on the job, fringe benefits, and other allowances that may be given. Councilmember Shearer stated that all those variables were considered when the survey was conducted. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that if the salary is too low the job would not attract the type of people that the citizens would want on the Council.
People would serve because they have an independent income or they would serve in order to supplement their income. On many councils across the United States people are serving for a special interest. But the salary should not be so high that it attracts people who are only interested in the money. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she has been proud of this City Council because in their three years of service they have been totally above suspicion or corruption. Something needs to be done to get off dead center; every year there is not a salary adjustment makes it more difficult politically to change the salary.
Ms. Fonnesbeck stated that the Council wanted the increase small enough so that the money was insignificant but the point be made that the Council was moving off dead center. Ms. Fonnesbeck stated that she did not feel this was a political or monetary issue but a responsibility of the Council to be cognizant of those who follow. Ms. Fonnesbeck stated that if this becomes a political maneuver she would vote against it. Councilmember Mabey stated that he agreed with the points raised and further stated that when constituents have problems they want to meet individually with the Council Members.
He stated that he has driven all over his district to meet with people or check into problems; this costs money. But he stated that he would hate to see the Council Members feel like they cannot afford to get out into their district. He thought perhaps a gas allowance would be appropriate. Councilmember Parker stated that there was concern about the lack of good people wanting to run for City Council. In the last election there were only seven candidates. Councilmember Davis stated that she had mixed feelings about this issue. She felt that the Council has made a contribution to Salt Lake City; many people have told her that the Council is an improvement over the commission form of government.
She also stated that she is proud that the Council is responsive to the community and checks into the various problems in the districts. The Council is in a unique situation because they have the ability to set their own salary. Other city employees do not have that option and the Council determines whether or not they deserve a salary increase. Ms. Davis stated that she is in a quandary as to which position to take. She stated that she spends numerous hours at this job and she has empathy for the other members of the Council who work full or part time. Sometimes Council Members are in meetings until 12:00 at night. Ms. Davis stated that she would have to abstain from voting on this issue. Mayor Wilson stated that he felt this Council works very hard and they deserve more money than they are getting, however, he felt that this was not a good time to increase their salary. But he felt that a commission should be gathered to deal with the principal of this problem. The Mayor also felt that the Council should immediately get expenses and benefits; giving the Council city benefits would not be burdensome to the city.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to refer this issue back to the Committee of the Whole to be considered in January of 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who abstained from voting.
(B 82-9)
Coin-Operated Amusement Devices.
RE: The proposed amendment to Section 20-8-3 and 20-8-4 and adding new Section 20-8-4.1 relating to coin-operated amusement device license fees.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:00 p.m. to discuss this issue. Lance Bateman, City Controller, addressed this issue. He stated that the Council was given draft ordinances rather than final ordinances in order to accommodate changes (a copy of the ordinances is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). Mr. Bateman outlined changes in the ordinance regarding automatic amusement devices. On page 4 regarding distributor’s license fee, the fee has been changed from $200 to $500; the proprietor’s license fee has been changed from $20 to $50 for each device; and the section dealing with arcade license fee has been added. On page 7 a new section has been added regarding personal supervision.
Mr. Bateman then outlined changes in the ordinance regarding penalty for late payment of license fees. He read Section 20-1-13(2) regarding penalty for nonpayment of license fees. The penalty would be 100% of the amount of the fee added to the original amount. Mr. Bateman stated that this was included at the Council’s request so that a penalty would be assessed against the operator if the license is not paid in advance. Mr. Bateman stated that this provision would apply to all business licenses. He then outlined the revenue that would be realized from the ordinance changes (this information is on file in the Office of the City Recorder).
Mr. Bateman stated that the increases have been asked for in order to cover costs; both the vice and patrol sections of the police department are involved, building and housing, planning and zoning, the health department and licensing department are also involved in enforcement. Finally, Mr. Bateman presented information regarding police investigations or actions on three arcades from January 1980 to present (this information is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). Miles Holman, attorney representing the Utah Amusement Music Association, addressed the Council. He stated that this association consists of arcade owners, game wholesalers, and distributors. The Utah Amusement Music Association has two concerns with the proposed ordinances. The industry is concerned that they not be called upon to pay an unreasonable license fee. Secondly they are concerned that the fees they pay not be out of proportion to the fees that other industries pay. Presently there is a $20 per machine fee with a $500 maximum for any location and a $200 distributor’s fee. The proposal would increase the per machine fee and the distributor’s fee 150%. An increase of this nature would be unreasonably high and would be out of proportion to what other businesses are paying in the community.
Mr. Holman stated that the licensing fee for candy and cigarette vending machines is $.50 per machine; the fee for food vending machines is $6 per machine. The fee for renewal of beer licenses is $301 after the first year. The $20 fee per video machine may be disproportionately high. The proposed ordinance levies the fee upon the premises owner and not necessarily upon the owner of the machine; the premises owner charges that fee back to the distributor so the distributors are also paying the per machine fee. Mr. Holman also stated that there was a problem with the definition of an arcade being three or more machines. This would include many businesses where the machines are incidental to that business.
Mr. Holman outlined suggestions to the Council: (1) If a charge on each machine is to be levied, the fee should be no greater than $30; (2) The fee should be levied upon the machine owner and there should be a maximum of $1,000; (3) An arcade fee should not be levied separate and apart from the fees on the machine. (4) If a distributor’s fee is to be levied, it should only be $300. The Utah Amusement Music Association agrees with the proposed penalty fee. They wish to adhere to laws and if people do not register their machines the penalty should be severe; those people should pay the costs of having machines which go unregulated.
The members of the association wish to pay their way but they do not want to pay an excessive or unreasonable fee or one which is disproportionate to other businesses. Councilmember Shearer stated that there seemed to be a problem in identifying the actual owner of machines and she asked how a city inspector would know who owns the machine. Mr. Holman stated that there should be a sign on the machine identifying the owner, otherwise, the owner of the premises ought to know. Ms. Shearer asked how the association felt about having machines in unattended locations.
Craig Johnson, President of the Utah Amusement Music Association, stated that installing video game machines is a major expense for a business; the association can not afford to install games in unattended locations. That part of the ordinance would protect the games from vandalism and abuse and the association would support an arrangement whereby games could not be installed in unattended locations. Bernice Cook, People’s Freeway, addressed the Council. She stated that she objects to having these machines in locations such as restaurants, laundromats, and grocery stores. She has seen children with food stamps make a small purchase and then use the change to play the video games; she has also heard numerous times of children taking money from parents. Ms. Cook felt that these machines should not be allowed in public buildings.
Earl Zawanie, owner of Earl’s Arcade, addressed the Council. He stated that the association was proposing an increase of fees to $30 per machine (50% increase); increase the game operator’s license 50% to $300; increase the owner’s license 50% to $750. He further stated that he did not want to pay an un-proportionate amount of the fees. Mr. Zawanie referred to the information submitted regarding the number of police calls to arcades; he stated that there were more calls made to the west side of the City and County Building.
Greg Nivaro addressed the Council and stated that he was concerned with the video game operators right to make a decent profit. If the proposed ordinances pass, the machine license fee will be raised 150%, the operator’s fee will be raised by 150%, and the license fee for a large city arcade, Earl’s Arcade, will be raised by 800%. He stated that the clientele at Earl’s Arcade is regulated and any person suspected of using or being under the influence of drugs or alcohol is escorted out of the arcade; also those people who become disorderly are escorted out of the arcade. Mr. Nivaro stated that arcade owners are business men and they have a right to make a reasonable profit.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Mayor Wilson stated that he felt there ought to be a maximum added to the ordinance; the marginal costs of enforcement go down with the size of the arcade. The Mayor felt that $1,000 to $1,500 would be reasonable. The Mayor also felt that there ought to be some increase per machine; perhaps charge $30 or $40 per machine. There ought to be an arcade charge but an arcade could be defined in larger terms rather than three or more machines. There should be an element of compromise.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded that the license fee be doubled as a penalty, as drafted in Section 20-1-13(2) of the proposed ordinance dealing with penalties, when a business is started without first paying the license fee, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer clarified that if a license renewal fee is not paid, then the penalty is 25%. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she felt strongly about Section 20-8-12 regarding supervision and this ought to remain in the ordinance regarding automatic amusement devices. Councilmember Shearer briefly outlined the fees. The per machine fee is recommended to change from $20 to $50; the distributor’s fee is currently $200 and the proposal is to raise this fee to $500; there is currently no arcade license and the proposal is to add an arcade license fee, besides the per machine license, of $200. Presently there is no ceiling.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded that the license fee per machine, Section 20-8-4, be $30 instead of $50; the distributors fee, Section 20-8-3, be $300 instead of $500; that the arcade fee, Section 20-8-5, stay at $200 but the per machine cost change from $50 to $30; and that there be no ceiling, as drafted. Councilmember DePaulis asked the reason for having an arcade fee. Councilmember Whitehead indicated that other businesses pay a business license fee as well as a fee for any machines they may have, such as candy or cigarette machines.
Councilmember Shearer stated that the arcade has to pay for a business license along with the per machine fee but the arcade fee would be in addition to these other fees. Mr. Bateman stated that he felt the per machine fee should be more than $30. The low range around the communities of the state is $30 per machine and Salt Lake City takes a lot of effort in regulation so the city should be reimbursed for what they do by charging $50 per machine. Mr. Bateman stated that he would agree with having a maximum.
Councilmember Whitehead’s motion failed, all members voted nay except Councilmember Whitehead who voted aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded that the license fee per machine, Section 20-8-4, be $40; the distributor’s fee, 20-8-3, be $400; that there be no arcade fee; that there be a $1,500 maximum per location, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-49)
Jefferson School.
RE: The proposed use of Jefferson School as a social service facility.
A hearing was scheduled before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this issue, however, this hearing was indefinitely postponed.
(G 82-42)
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.