PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
The Salt Lake City Council met with Jerry McClain and Dave Lamb of Arthur Young and Company regarding the status of the city audit for Fiscal Year 1981-82. Mr. McClain indicated that at present the audit is approximately 100 hours behind schedule due to problems with different parts of the audit. Mr. McClain indicated that city staff would be working with Arthur Young to make up the lost time between now and the end of the audit. Arthur Young will brief the Council on the status of the audit in the policy session on Tuesday, October 5, 1982.
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items on the agenda. The schedule for upcoming meetings was discussed. The Council agreed to schedule discussion of the 201 Study and sewer rate increase and the legislative agenda on Thursday, October 7, in the Committee of the Whole.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 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 and Ray Montgomery, Assistant Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember Ronald J. Whitehead conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Cliff Higbee.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, September 7, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Fonnesbeck and DePaulis who were absent when the vote was taken.
(M 82-2)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
RE: Introduction of proposed airport use fee ordinance amendment: Sections 2-2-20, 2-2-27.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Sections 2-2-20, 2-2-27 of the Salt Lake City Code.
DISCUSSION: This refers to the terms and conditions of the Airport Use Agreement (AUA) dated July 1, 1978 between the city and American, Frontier, Republic, PSA, Texas International, United and Western (participating airlines). Exhibit C, Part I, Section (d) of the AUA requires the airport review and adjust terminal rentals and landing fees at Salt Lake City International Airport in order to reflect operating conditions for the coming fiscal year. Effective July 1, 1982 space rentals are estimated at $38.50 psf (from $31.50) and landing fees at $.40 per M lb. (from $.60). The large decrease in landing fees is due to the substantial increase in Western Airlines Operation. (N.B. Western’s increase has no effect on terminal space rental.)
In order to provide rentals and fees for the non-participating airlines and commuters that are consistent with those established for the participating airlines for the current fiscal year, the rates established by ordinance also require adjustment. They are estimated at: 1) basement and bag make-up space - $19.25 psf (from $15.75), 2) all other terminal space - $38.50 psf (from $31.50), 3) landing fees - $.4O per N lb. (from $.6O). Calculation of the estimated fees for FY 83 were agreed to by the Airport Affairs Committee (airlines) on June 23, 1982 and the Airport Authority Board on June 23, 1982.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 69 of 1982, amending Sections 2-2-20 and 2-2-27 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to airport use fees, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 82-50)
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: Introduction of proposed impounding of vehicles ordinance, Section 20 of Traffic Code.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Article 20 of the Traffic Code of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, regarding vehicle impounds.
DISCUSSION: There has recently been an increase in the number of civil rights actions filed across the country regarding the impoundment of vehicles. These cases have resulted in increased costs to municipalities due to judgments regarding impound procedures which have been held insufficient to protect an individual’s rights of due process and the imposition of attorney’s fees. Therefore, it was felt necessary to amend the city’s impound ordinance in order to incorporate recent case law developments in this area.
The ordinance provides that notice will be provided to owners of vehicles within 48 hours after the owner’s vehicle has been impounded. It also gives the owner of the vehicle an opportunity to request a hearing before a hearing examiner to determine whether there existed probable cause to initially impound the vehicle. The ordinance also narrows the situations for which a car may be impounded; currently a vehicle may he impounded for any violation of the traffic code. The police department and the city prosecutor’s office have reviewed and approved the provisions of the ordinance.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 70 of 1982, amending Article 20 of the Traffic Code of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, regarding impounding of vehicles, by amending Sections 284, 284.a through 284.e and adding a new section 284.f, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 82-51)
RE: Proposed ordinance amending Section 20-16-1(1) of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to the definition of secondhand dealer.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 71 of 1982, amending Section 20-16-1(1) of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to definition of secondhand dealer, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 82-52)
RE: An ordinance amending Title 24 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by amending Chapters 5 through 11, relating to Municipal Government. Councilmember Shearer stated that she felt there was a problem with bonding on purchases. The state has repealed its bonding requirement and since the city is immune to prosecution, this means that suppliers and laborers of city contractors who might go bankrupt would be hurt unless the city requires bonds. Councilmember Shearer stated that she did not feel comfortable passing this ordinance without having some protection for the suppliers and laborers who will work on city jobs. Ms. Shearer stated that a reinstatement of the former state law or a reasonable substitute needed to be included in this ordinance. Ray Montgomery, Assistant Attorney, pointed out that written in all the contracts is a requirement for bonds - bid bond, labor and material, and the performance bond.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer this ordinance back to the Attorney’s Office with instructions to include language regarding laborers and materialmen for their protection when they enter into contract with city contractors, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-11)
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PLANNING
RE: Funding for the Special Arson Fire Enforcement Unit.
RECOMMENDATION: That $16,200 be allocated from the General Fund contingency as Salt Lake City’s contribution to the Special Arson Fire Enforcement Unit.
DISCUSSION: Chief Pederson’s letter has been reviewed and James McGuire, Budget Manager, concurs in his recommendation that the Contingency Fund be used to provide funding for the arson unit. This contribution was not anticipated in the Fire Department’s 1982-83 appropriation. The unit’s FY 1982-83 budget is $50,000. Local governments throughout the county are contributing funds based upon their assessed value as a percentage of the total county’s assessed value. Councilmember Whitehead referred this item to the Council agenda for September 21, 1982; referred without objection.
(C 82-560)
RE: Fee change for the regulation of work in the public ways.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the ordinance to revise the permit and inspection fees for regulation of work in the public ways.
DISCUSSION: The Office of Budget and Management Planning recently completed a management review on the regulation of construction work in the public ways. It was found that the new permit and inspection fees are higher than the actual increased cost to the city to provide the service. This new ordinance adjusts the fees so the city will only recover the incremental cost associated with this program.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 72 of 1982, amending Section 41-5-6 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as last amended by BILL 36 of 1982, relating to excavation and obstruction, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 82-36)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: Historical Landmark Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: Appoint the following individuals to the Historical Landmark Committee: Frederick R. Anderson, Stuart L. Loosli, Michael D. Gallivan, Tom Sieg, Elizabeth K. Burns, Steve England.
DISCUSSION: There are presently six vacancies on the Historical Landmark Committee. The positions that need to be filled include four members-at-large, one member of the Planning Commission, and one member representing the historical societies of the city. Five of the terms are for three years beginning July 14, 1982 and ending July 14, 1985. The sixth term has been vacant for one year and would therefore, run from July 14, 1981 until July 14, 1984.
It is recommended that the following individuals be appointed: Frederick R. Anderson who is a faculty member of the University of Utah College of Law and specializes in environmental (including preservation) law; Stuart L. Loosli who is a founding member of “Friends of South Temple” and has completed his first term as a member-at-large on the Historical Landmark Committee; Michael Gallivan who works for a local advertising agency and was Utah’s State Historic Preservation Officer in 1977-78; Tom Sieg who is one of the owner/developers of the renovated New York Hotel and has experience in preservation from a developer’s standpoint; Elizabeth K. Burns who has been recommended by the Planning Commission members to be their liaison with the Historical Landmark Committee; and Steven England who is an architect living in the Capitol Hill area who previously worked as a project foreman for the Historic American Building Survey.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the appointments of Frederick R. Anderson, Michael Gallivan, Tom Sieg, Elizabeth K. Burns, Steven England, and the reappointment of Stuart Loosli to the Historic Landmark Committee, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(I 82-21)
RE: Funding for Wasatch Front Regional Council for $13,600 for planning studies.
RECOMMENDATION: Join with Salt Lake County, Sandy and West Valley City in the CDBG funding of this proposal.
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the August 10, 1982, City Council meeting request, the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) funding proposal has been re-reviewed. Of the three planning studies proposed by the WFRC, Study No. 1, Growth Projections, was questioned as to its validity as a non-duplicative and useful planning tool for the city. After reviewing the proposal, it has been determined that this study will not be a duplication of existing growth projects but part of an ongoing process to update region-wide projections.
Much of the raw data used for these projections are generated in each local community; however, the role of the WFRC is to assimilate, computerize and assemble the local data into regional projections. These projections provide a data base for region-wide planning, i.e., transportation, air quality, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal planning, etc. The WFRC estimates that only 25 percent of the total project cost will be charged to growth projection element. The balance of the budget will cover the costs of developing local policy guidelines for the management of the Wasatch Canyons in Salt Lake County and a study of the potential for shared facilities by Salt Lake County general purpose governments, both of which will be meaningful studies to the city.
The cost to Salt Lake City for these studies is $13,600 which represents 32 percent of the total cost. Salt Lake County, Sandy and West Valley City have all appropriated funds for their share of the studies. The WFRC has indicated that this is a one-time Community Development Block Grant request and will next year seek non-CDBG funds for planning and Salt Lake County Council of Governments support. This request was originally denied on September 7, 1982, but was brought back before the Council for reconsideration. No motion was made to reconsider this request.
(T 82-22)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Sale of Land.
RE: The proposed sale of a parcel of land located at the southeast corner of 13th Avenue and “K” Streets. Also the proposed sale of a parcel of land located on the south side of 700 North at approximately 1650 West.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the sale of these two parcels of land. Councilmember Shearer stated that these two pieces of property were to be sold to fund the Capitol Improvement fund for this budget year. Ms. Shearer indicated that the Avenues property appraisal was higher than the budget estimate and asked how the sale of this land was progressing. David Hales, Fixed Asset Control Division, addressed the Council. He stated that advertising for the sale of these two pieces of property was to begin after the public hearing. Mr. Hales stated that considerable interest has been expressed in the “K” Street property and possibly bids may exceed the estimates. This property would be divided into three building lots and it is recommended that the property be advertised as three different lots. The high bids on each lot would then be considered. The total appraised value of this land is $171,000; the two lots on 13th Avenue are in the $60,000 range and the lot on “K” Street is in the $50,000 range.
Councilmember Davis asked if lots of this size were being sold in the Avenues for this price. Mr. Hales stated that it has been many years since comparable lots have been sold in this area so the appraiser was faced with an obstacle because there was not recent sales data available; however several parties have expressed interest in buying lots in this area. Councilmember Shearer stated that the appraisal on the 700 West 1650 North property is considerably different from the proceeds that were estimated to go into the Capitol Improvements fund. Mr. Hales stated that it was originally thought last year that the property was larger but when the land was purchased 10 years ago 700 North was re-routed and a considerable portion of the east parcel was taken so this is an irregular shaped parcel.
Mr. Hales stated that there is approximately 150 feet of frontage that would possibly make three lots; this area is zoned R-2 so duplexes could be built, however there has not been a demand for duplexes. Not much interest has been expressed in this land. The appraisal on this property is $46,800. Councilmember Whitehead stated that the ideal way to develop the parcel would be to develop it as one piece of property. The abutting owners could be contacted to determine if they are interested in purchasing the property so that it can be developed as one piece.
Mr. Hales stated that the abutting property owners will be notified about the sale of this land when the advertisement runs in the paper. Councilmember Shearer stated that she wanted the Council to be kept advised on the sale of this land. There were no comments from the audience.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(W 82-7)
Petition 195 of 1982 submitted by Gordon O’Neil.
RE: Mr. O’Neil is requesting that the alley which runs between 5th and 6th East and Commonwealth Avenue and 2100 South be vacated. The petition has been reviewed by Planning, Engineering-Transportation, Public Utilities, Fixed Assets, and the Fire Department.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss Petition 195 of 1982. Mark Hafey, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the Council. He stated that the petitioner is requesting the vacation of an “L” shaped alley. Originally the Fire Department opposed this vacation because the department indicated that the alley could be used for fire fighting purposes; however, they reconsidered the petition and recommended vacation of the alley. The petitioner did not obtain 100% approval from abutting property owners, therefore, a public hearing was necessary. Mr. O’Neil, the petitioner, addressed the Council. He said that there were two opposers to this vacation. He indicated that they were in opposition because they have a business tenant who uses the alley for pick up of garbage. Mr. O’Neil stated that he is only requesting to have the east end vacated so the west end would still be open and could be used for this purpose. He felt that the alley is not being used.
Mr. O’Neil stated that he is proposing to construct a building which he believes will improve that area. He currently owns the property to be used for the building but if the alley is not vacated he can not build. Mr. O’Neil stated that he has received an option for the adjoining property owners’ portion of the alley. Mr. O’Neil distributed pictures showing the current condition of the area - two vacant businesses. Mr. O’Neil stated that he owns a store on 620 East 2100 South and would use the new building for his business; he then intends to lease his present building to another business. Mr. O’Neil stated that if the alley is vacated he would require a variance to build to the rear property line on the south side.
He stated that he has signatures of all the property owners along the alley requesting that he build to the property line and not leave a 10-foot buffer. Mr. Hafey indicated that a 10-foot buffer against the residential area is needed. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the Council could opt to close the alley and sell the property. She stated that this is usually done when the property is to be used for a commercial use. Mr. O’Neil indicated that he just wants the east end vacated and would be willing to buy the property. Mr. Mullenax, a resident of the area, addressed the Council. He stated that he felt most of the property owners want the whole alley vacated. He stated that it is a nuisance and no one uses the alley. He indicated that there is room in front of the businesses for pick up of garbage.
Mr. Sorensen, a resident of the area, addressed the Council. He stated that trucks cut through the lot with the vacant A & W drive-in to get to the area in order to pick up garbage and unload bikes. Trucks will also back down the alley from 6th East. Mr. Sorensen felt the bikes could be unloaded from the front of the building. He also felt that the alley is a nuisance and thought the entire alley should be closed. Mr. O’Neil stated that the owner of the bike shop intends to remodel and bikes could then be unloaded from the front of the building.
He also reiterated that trucks cut through the vacant businesses for access and actually the alley is overgrown with foliage. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that half of the alley is zoned residential and half is zoned commercial. Normally when an alley is to be used for commercial purposes it is closed and sold. If the alley is sold, the property would have to be offered to the residents as well as to Mr. O’Neil. Mr. Hafey stated that Mr. O’Neil indicated that he has an option from the property owners for their half of the alley. Another area resident addressed the Council and felt that the majority of the property owners wanted the entire alley to be closed or left open. She was also concerned with the condition of the alley and asked why the city does not maintain the alley since it is owned by the city. The Council informed her that property owners are responsible for its maintenance the same as property owners are responsible for the maintenance of parking strips in front of their property.
Mr. Longhurst, Lomco Inc. (owners of the building at 522 East 2100 South), addressed the Council. He stated that they use the alley behind their property as an entrance since the driveway from 2100 South is very narrow. Mr. Longhurst stated that he is against closing a portion of the alley. At the present time trucks use a portion of his property for public access and partial closure would multiply the problems. Ms. O’Neil, petitioner’s wife, addressed the Council and stated that Mr. O’Neil takes pride in the community and the building he is proposing to build will benefit the neighbors and Sugarhouse in general.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she felt the problem was that the alley is half commercial which is normally sold and half residential which is normally vacated. If half of the width is sold and half is vacated then the commercial owner can purchase the other half from the residential owner and the resident has gained money at the city’s expense. However in the past residents have never been asked to buy the property. In other residential areas people have incorporated the property into their yards.
Councilmember Shearer stated that trash behind the bike shop and Tunex seems to be a problem but the buildings are so established that the alley would not be maintained and the businesses would probably not purchase the property. Councilmember Parker suggested that this petition be referred. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she was not opposed to closing the alley but she felt legal work needed to be done on this issue. Councilmember Whitehead stated that the east end of the alley could be closed and the rest of the alley addressed as a separate issue. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the Council would still have to decide on how to dispose of the east end. Councilmember DePaulis felt the alley should be treated as a whole issue and not separated.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to refer Petition 195 of 1982 to the Land Use Committee for further study, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-223)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Ms. Johansen, Ms. Jolley, and several other residents living in the 2700 South 900-1100 East area addressed the Council. These citizens expressed their anger about irrigation water flooding 2700 South. They felt that the problem is caused by recent curb and gutter which was constructed and because the water was diverted from ditches located in the Atkin Avenue area. The citizens stated that originally they did not want the curb and gutter constructed and now they have to pay the cost.
Ray Montgomery stated that the water belongs to the Parley’s Water Users Association; the city has an obligation to pass the water under the streets. Mr. Montgomery suggested contacting LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities, to determine if the water has been diverted. Richard Johnston, Deputy City Engineer, addressed the Council. He stated that there was an open irrigation ditch along 11th East so when the curb and gutter was constructed in that area a pipe had to be installed. Before, some water would percolate into the ground but since the pipe was installed there is excess water.
There was water that flowed down Atkin Avenue and now it runs along 2700 South. However, there are plans to install a box in the irrigation line which would direct a portion of the water back down Atkin Avenue. Atkin Avenue does not have the capacity to handle a great deal of irrigation water so some of the water needs to run along 2700 South; the intent is to get the majority of the irrigation water off the street. A pipe is being installed on 2700 South to take the water from the south side to the north side.
Councilmember Shearer stated that she had been assisting citizens to get curb and gutter along 13th South but there are several irrigation ditches in that area and she did not want to see the same problem. Mr. Johnston stated that there is a storm drain on 13th South to collect excess irrigation water so there would not be the problem. But if a storm drain is not available, as is the case on 2700 South, the excess irrigation water flows down an existing ditch or curb and gutter until it is conveyed to a storm drain.
Councilmember Mabey suggested adjusting the flow of water at the head gate. The Mayor agreed with this suggestion and felt a meeting with the Parley’s Canyon Water Users would be helpful. Ray Montgomery stated that part of the problem is storm run-off water as well as irrigation water. Councilmember Davis felt that the situation with the irrigation water should have been taken into consideration during the planning stages of the project.
Councilmember Whitehead suggested that a group spokesman meet with Albert Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, to discuss this problem. Mr. Haines indicated that he would meet with the citizens as well as the engineering department and water department. He also stated that there are two sources of excess water; it is either coming out of the head gate too fast or is excess water running off the lots of those few people irrigating their property. Mayor Wilson stated that there is a lot of water diverted into irrigation ditches that is only used sometimes. It is hard to control the volume of water coming down the irrigation ditch system. Mr. Montgomery stated that in keeping with contractual agreements a certain amount of water has to be furnished. Councilmember Mabey stated that construction on projects should be stopped at the time problems arise and not proceed until the problem is corrected; this would hopefully eliminate these types of situations.
The Mayor stated that the proper administrative personnel would meet immediately to determine the symptom of the problem so a solution could be reached as quickly as possible.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.