PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982, AT 4:45 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
Mr. Phil Erickson briefed the Council regarding the Legislative Intent to look at the Animal Control program. He explained that they would have specific areas of assignment and have mapped out the city to see where the animal control problems are concentrated. Mr. Erickson felt that the assignment of officers would help increase productivity. Councilmember Whitehead asked if they were going to use tranquilizer guns. Glen Mahler said they currently have a training program for animal control officers to learn to use tranquilizer guns. Councilmember Parker briefed the Council on the Sugarhouse Beautification Committee and the different alternatives for improvements in the Sugarhouse area. He also briefed the Council on the Sugarhouse merchant survey regarding merchants’ perceptions of the Sugarhouse area as a place to do business.
The policy session adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 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.
Mr. Albert Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Vice Chairman Ronald J. Whitehead presided at and conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Allen Roden.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, September 14, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmembers DePaulis and Davis who were absent when the vote was taken.
(M 82-2)
PETITIONS
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. Mr. Larry Livingston, Legislative Analyst, addressed the Council and stated that from Mr. O’Neil’s point of view there is still a possible problem with the abutting owners that might have a right to use the alley. Even though the possibility is remote, Mr. O’Neil may wish to withdraw his petition before it becomes final. However, Mr. Livingston stated that Mr. O’Neil wanted the Council to uphold the recommendation of the Land Use Committee to direct the attorney’s office to prepare the ordinance and have it on the agenda for the next Council meeting.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance vacating the alley in Petition 195 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to place this ordinance on the Council agenda for October 5, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-223)
Petition 265 of 1982 submitted by the Wasatch Presbyterian Church.
RE: The petitioner is requesting that property located west of the northwest intersection of 17th South and 17th East be rezoned from an “R-2” classification to an “R-2A” classification for the purpose of constructing housing for the elderly.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on October 12, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 265 of 1982.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The petitioner has paid the required $50.00 filing fee.
DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission has reviewed this petition and has recommended that the request be denied. They feel that the proposed development is not in keeping with the existing character of the district. Peter Stirba representing the Wasatch Presbyterian Church has requested a hearing before the City Council to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for October 12, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss Petition 265 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-264)
Petition 269 of 1982 submitted by Gordon S. Sloan.
RE: The petitioner is requesting that the zoning for the property owned by the Ambassador Club located at 145 South 5th East street be changed from its present “R-7” zoning to a Commercial “C-3A” zoning.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on October 12, 1982 at 6:45 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 269 of 1982.
DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission has reviewed this request and it is their feeling that the proposed development is in keeping with the proper land use in this area and with the surrounding development. They have recommended that the public hearing be held to change the zoning subject to retaining the current right-of-way.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for October 12, 1982 at 6:45 p.m. to discuss Petition 269 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-265)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
#1. 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. Mr. Cutler stated that in last week’s Council meeting the Council had expressed a desire to include language in the ordinance regarding materialmen’s bonds. He suggested that if it is the Council’s desire to require bonding, the Council should give the administration the discretion to waive bonding if the project is under $10,000 so all small projects do not require materialmen’s bonds.
(Mr. Cutler made reference to a letter sent to the Council explaining the history and evolution of the draft ordinance submitted in November 1981 - a copy of the letter and the exhibits is on file in the Office of the City Recorder.) Mr. Cutler explained that Exhibit A of his letter is the standard specifications of the contract which is used on construction projects. He stated that the contract specification is only used on contracts requiring bonding; sometimes materialmen’s bonds are required on contracts that are less then $10,000. Mr. Cutler stated, however, that the state law no longer makes the city liable if the materialman or laborer is not paid. He recommended that the city keep the flexibility of not requiring bonding on small projects so that small contractors can be used and the city can avoid the cost of using bonded contractors. Councilmember Shearer stated that she felt $10,000 seemed like a high threshold; it can be a lot of money for the small supplier or laborer. Mr. Cutler stated that $10,000 was not a lot of money on a city construction project.
Councilmember Shearer referred to Exhibit B of Mr. Cutler’s letter and stated that she understood Exhibit B would replace Section 24-11-3 (1) of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Shearer read Exhibit B as submitted to the Council: Sec. 24-11-3. Performance Bonds. (1) The contractor shall be required to post performance and materialmen’s bonds; provided, however, that if the estimated construction cost is under $10,000 and in the opinion of the Public Works Director or the Purchasing Agent and the City Attorney, the cost of requiring the bond(s) will exceed the risk or benefit to the City, the City may waive the bonding requirement.
Ms. Shearer asked who represents the city in waiving bonding requirements. Mr. Cutler stated that the attorney ultimately approves the contract as to form. Depending on whether it is a construction project managed by the engineer or a contract let by the purchasing agent, if the Public Works Director or the Purchasing Agent and City Attorney agree on the standards then the bonding requirement can be waived if the project is under $10,000. Mr. Cutler stated that, as a matter of practice, materialmen’s bonds have been required on major projects.
Councilmember Shearer reiterated that without the bonds the city would not be hurt but the materialmen and laborers would and perhaps a $10,000 threshold is too high. Councilmember Mabey asked if a contractor could take out a general bond bonding him on any job. Mr. Cutler stated that some large contractors have open-ended bonding; the smaller contractors usually buy a separate bond for each individual contract which adds to the cost of the project.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to amend the ordinance to include Exhibit B with the threshold number being $5,000 and with that amendment adopt Ordinance 73 of 1982, amending Title 24 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, by amending Chapters 5 through 11, relating to Municipal Government, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 82-11)
#2. RE: Amendment of Section 46-6-109, Alcoholic Beverages in Motor Vehicle.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendment to Section 46-6-109 of the Salt Lake City Code.
DISCUSSION: The prosecutor’s division of the City Attorney’s Office has reported a need to conform city ordinance of “Drinking in or about an auto” to the state law which was recently passed. This ordinance conforms city laws to the new state law. It will allow prosecutions to proceed smoothly without encountering technical motions which claim the state preempted the city’s ordinance. The intent of the new ordinance remains the same as the intent of the prior ordinance and will be used in the same manner.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 74 of 1982, amending Section 46-6-109 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to drinking alcoholic beverage and open containers in motor vehicle prohibited - definitions - exceptions - penalty for violation, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 82-46)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Ordinance change regarding escort bureaus.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an ordinance amending Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to license and business regulation, by adding thereto new Chapter 37 relating to marriage, dating, and escort services.
DISCUSSION: The police department and city licensing have run into a problem of licensing escort bureaus. The police department, in running background checks on some of the applicants for licenses, has found that some are involved in prostitution and drug charges and that forming an escort service is just a means to attempt to legalize this activity. Licenses have been denied, and at present the city has no escort bureau that operates legally.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 75 of 1982, amending Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to license and business regulation, by adding thereto new Chapter 37 relating to marriage, dating and escort services, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 82-18)
#2. RE: Regular Council meeting: September 28, 1982.
RECOMMENDATION: That the 1982 annual meeting schedule of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah be amended to include a regular meeting on Tuesday, September
28, 1982.
DISCUSSION: That the City Recorder provide notice of regular meeting by posting a copy of the resolution in the recorder’s office and publishing notice of said meeting on or before Friday, September 24, 1982. This is to meet all required notifications to award the bid for Special Improvement District, Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-622.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 85 of 1982, amending the annual meeting schedule of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-265)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
# 1. RE: Interlocal agreement for arson unit.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the interlocal agreement to allow Salt Lake City to continue to participate in the Special Arson Fire Enforcement Unit (SAFE).
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Financing to come from the Salt Lake City Corporation general fund.
DISCUSSION: There is a need to coordinate across jurisdictional boundaries. Having the county prosecutor involved throughout the case is necessary to successfully prosecute difficult cases. By coordinating efforts and equipment, the central agency can accomplish far more than any individual agency. A successful arson unit deters people considering this crime. Marvin C. Kimball, Deputy Chief of Fire Department, addressed the Council and stated that arson requires both police work and fire investigation. There had not been much success in prosecuting arson until the task force concept was implemented. The SAFE Unit would be a continuation of the Arson Mobile Squad and the same people would be used.
Councilmember Shearer stated that this was a federal program which was deleted and the money being asked for is a total of about $50,000 with the city’s share being about $16,000. A request has been made for the money to come from the Contingency Fund. Albert Haines stated that 90% of the fire department budget is for salaries. He stated that he could certify the funds for this project were not in the fire department budget. A number of positions were cut and it was anticipated that two of these positions would be handled by retirement, however, one retirement has not materialized. Mr. Kimball stated that this program was not ready to function until after the budget had been adopted and so the fire department did not have an opportunity to present the program in their budget. Councilmember Shearer asked if there was a mechanism to line-item this request so if less money is actually required the remainder of the $16,200 is not spendable. Mr. Haines stated that this money could be earmarked. The Council could allow the contingency transfer, the amount of which is conditioned upon the amount of the actual expenses incurred not to exceed $16,200. Any surplus from the amount would not be available for expenditure or transfer into other object codes.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to amend the resolution as follows: In the last paragraph delete the words “referred to herein” and “in the amount of”; after the words “Special Arson Fire Enforcement Unit” add “paying only actual expenses of the Unit not to exceed”, also add as the last paragraph, “Be it further resolved that the Mayor is empowered to sign the interlocal agreement effectuating this Special Arson Fire Enforcement Unit”; and with that amendment adopt Resolution 86 of 1982, approving the appropriation of $16,200 from the Contingency Fund for a Special Arson Fire Enforcement Unit, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(C 82-560)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: Art Design Board.
RECOMMENDATION: There is presently one vacancy on the Art Design Board. It is recommended that Virginia Probes be appointed to fill that position. Councilmember Whitehead referred the appointment of Virginia Probes to the consent agenda for October 5, 1982; referred without objection.
(I 82-22)
#2. RE: Golf Advisory Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: The terms of Wayne Hadley, Virginia Ferguson, and Norma Carr on the Golf Advisory Committee are presently expired. It is recommended that these individuals be reappointed for one additional term. Councilmember Whitehead referred the reappointments of Wayne Hadley, Virginia Ferguson, and Norma Carr to the consent agenda for October 5, 1982; referred without objection.
(I 82-23)
#3. RE: The 1982 budget of the Central Business Improvement District.
DISCUSSION: In accordance with the ordinance governing the Central Business Improvement District, the budget is delivered to the Council for adoption. Albert Haines stated that a revised letter from the Mayor, as well as his recommended 1982-83 budget for the Central Business Improvement District Fund, had been distributed to the City Council (a copy is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). Mr. Haines read from the Mayor’s letter stating the intended purpose of the fund is to improve and promote the city’s downtown business district. The budget provides for development of a downtown promotional package, a downtown promotion event and downtown Christmas lights. The Mayor recommended that the Council adopt the budget as a tentative budget and set a hearing for October 5, 1982 at 6:15 p.m. to discuss the tentative budget.
In addition, because of the need to immediately proceed with purchase of Christmas lights in order for them to be available for this Christmas season, the Mayor requested immediate conceptual approval of such purchase. Mr. Haines reiterated the recommendation that the Council accept the tentative budget, set the public hearing date and direct a notice of the hearing to be published. He further stated that the major concern was for conceptual approval of $50,000 in order to purchase the lights. He stated that it was not without precedent to give approval prior to the budget adoption.
Larry Larsen, Poole Display, addressed the Council and asked why the bid on this project was awarded to the highest bidder. He stated that proposals were submitted on September 7, 1982 and on September 15 the steering committee made a tentative decision as to what they had in mind for the project; originally when the proposals were submitted it was very vague. When the decision was narrowed down only two of the four firms bidding on the project were allowed to resubmit bids.
Mr. Haines stated that if the Council provides conceptual approval of the $50,000 appropriation then the bidding procedure can be reviewed; a meeting will be held with members of the board to determine if proper procedures have been followed. However, if conceptual approval is not given then Mr. Larsen’s issue is moot. Mr. Cutler reiterated these points. Councilmember Davis asked if the Downtown Improvement District would have to comply with the city bidding ordinances. Mr. Haines stated that they would. He further stated that he understood the Downtown Improvement District Board to be a recommendatory body only and that any expenditures or other activities would be under the established policies of the administration.
Councilmember Davis asked if there would be enough money left for promotions if $50,000 of the $90,000 budget is approved for lighting. Mr. Haines stated that if the Council made a policy decision that Christmas lighting and all costs associated with lighting would be paid for out of that fund there would have to be some restrictions established on the remainder of the budget. He further stated that he was not convinced that the promotional aspect of the budget would be restricted in such a way as to be ineffective.
Councilmember Whitehead asked what the light bill would be for the time the Christmas lights are in place; he also asked how long the lights last. Craig Peterson, Director of Development Services, stated that he understood that Utah Power & Light donates the lighting expense and in the past the City Parks Department has donated labor to hang the lights. Mr. Peterson stated that it is the intent of the District to use a large sum of money to improve the lighting and each year reduce that amount and use the rest of the money for downtown promotional considerations. The District also wants to tie the theme of the downtown area into Temple Square.
Phyllis Steorts, Chairman of the steering committee, addressed the Council and stated that the committee has been drawing on the knowledge and expertise of people who are experts in their fields. These people are artistically inclined as well as mechanically inclined; they are aware of the engineering possibilities and problems. Criteria were used in making decisions and creativity, taste level, pertinence of proposal to request for proposal, cost considerations, and qualifications of the presenting firm were discussed with each presenter.
Bob Donkin, a citizen from the audience, addressed the Council and asked why the businesses did not contribute to this project. He also felt the budget should be broken down into categories. Councilmember Whitehead stated that the license fees have been doubled for businesses and they are paying the cost. He also stated that the budget would be broken down when it is discussed at the public hearing. Jess Agraz, Chairman of the Central Improvement District, addressed the Council and stated that he thought the budget had been approved when the Council adopted the District but later found out that this was not the case. A budget was then submitted to the Council for approval.
Mr. Agraz stated that he did not feel the people who have worked hard on this project should be penalized nor should the downtown area and the citizens. If the Mayor’s plan can be followed then the details can be worked out. Mr. Agraz also stated that more durable lights will be purchased. Councilmember Davis asked if the Junior Chamber of Commerce would participate in this project and if so how many man-hours will be involved. Larry Hunter, President of the Junior Chamber of Commerce, stated that they would participate and the manpower provided would be between 400 to 600 hours. In the past the Salt Lake City Parks Department has removed, packaged and stored the lights.
Councilmember Shearer stated that she had serious objection to appropriating from the fund balance for this special improvement district and she also had questions about how much contribution the city should make; however she stated that she did not have a problem with conceptually approving the line-item for Christmas decorations.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to give conceptual approval for no more than $50,000 for the purchase of Christmas decorations, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Davis referred to a contract negotiated with an employee hired by the District and asked if the contract was null and void until the budget is approved. She wanted to make sure that the $50,000 is for decorations and not for services. Mr. Agraz stated that the contract has not been signed but a verbal agreement has been approved by the board; at the time the board did not know the budget had not been approved. He felt that the person should be compensated for work done to the present because it is in conjunction with the Christmas lighting program.
Roger Cutler suggested that the date for the public hearing be set so the budget can be adopted. It is conceded that money cannot be spent from a budget that has not been approved by the Council, but Mr. Haines has suggested that parks department money can be used to back up the order for the decorations with the expectation that this aspect of the budget will be adopted.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for October 5, 1982 at 6:15 p.m. to discuss the budget of the Central Business Improvement District, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote.
(T 82-8)
#4. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation, Salt Lake City/County Health Department, Utah State Department of Health, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Amoco Oil Company. Roger Cutler stated that he thought it was the administration’s recommendation to approve the agreement subject to the agreement containing language approved by the attorney’s office that would not release or remove the city’s right to claim over against Amoco if 1) the law is changed requiring something else to be done with the material, or 2) the design proves to be inadequate to solve the problem and contain the material.
Councilmember Shearer moved to refer this item to the consent agenda for October 5, 1982; there was no second to this motion. Paul Barber, Mayor’s Office, stated that Amoco is anxious to begin construction and could do so within days after the agreement has been executed. Councilmember Shearer stated that there was no bar to the Mayor signing the agreement; the request before the Council is for $45,000.
Mr. Cutler stated that this is an interlocal cooperation agreement and the Mayor cannot sign the contract without the resolution authorizing execution being approved by the Council. Mr. Barber stated that the money has not been set aside because it was uncertain when an agreement would be reached with Amoco. Mr. Cutler stated that, in speaking with Amoco’s counsel, they are very anxious to begin and if the project is not started the contractor which has been hired indicates that the weather will prohibit them from completing the project this year. Councilmember Shearer stated that the money factor is not involved with the resolution which has been presented to the Council.
Councilmember Shearer moved to adopt the resolution authorizing the execution of the interlocal agreement; there was no second to this motion. Mr. Cutler stated that the agreement which the Council has as part of the resolution has to be modified to meet the Council’s concern and the Mayor’s concern.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to accept the resolution with the exception of the items which need to be negotiated with Amoco Oil as discussed at a previous meeting; this motion was later withdrawn.
Councilmember Shearer asked if funds were available to cover the $45,000 cash contribution which is expected; she stated that the contract could not be signed without an identified funding source. Albert Haines stated that there are two sources for the money, either a line-item can be identified in another appropriation; or the contingency fund could be used, in which case a resolution would have to be brought back before the Council. Mr. Cutler stated that the resolution before the Council could be approved on the conceptual terms but the contract could not be signed until the funds are identified.
If this is approved, the city can negotiate to determine if an accommodation has been reached with the EPA and Amoco. Mr. Cutler stated that he thought the money situation had been resolved. Mr. Haines stated that he understood that a funding commitment would not be required for this fiscal year; he also stated that the terms of the agreement were not known until after the agenda had been posted for this meeting. He recommended that no action be taken; refer the item to committee.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to refer this item to the consent agenda for October 5, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(C 82-582)
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
#1. RE: Approval of agreement for CETA Summer Youth Program.
RECOMMENDATION: The Salt Lake City Council approve the agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for CETA Summer Youth Program.
AVAILABILITY OF’ FUNDS: Cost of program for wages to be paid by county CETA program.
DISCUSSION: The annual agreement allows the city to hire youth who qualify under CETA regulations to fill hourly summer jobs with the city at no cost. The program provides work experience for the youth while helping the city fill positions that otherwise might go unfilled because of budget constraints. Councilmember Whitehead referred this item to the Budget, Finance and Administration Committee; referred without objection.
(C 82-584)
POLICE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: Revised ordinance relating to activities of dancers and patrons.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an ordinance amending Sections 20-34-1, 20-34-5, and 20-34-6 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to professional dancers and adding new Sections 20-34-5.1, 20-34-5.2, and 20-34-12 of the Revised Ordinances relating to activities of dancers and patrons.
DISCUSSION: That the recommendation for ordinance amendment stipulate license requirements for professional dancers, the activities of dancers and patrons, costume requirements, etc. The police department vice squad has reviewed this ordinance and feels it is needed and should be adopted.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 76 of 1982, amending Sections 20-34-1, 20-34-5, and 20-34-6 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to professional dancers and adding new Sections 20-34-5.1, 20-34-5.2, and 20-34-12 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to activities of dancers and patrons, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 82-40)
#2. RE: Revised ordinance relating to wrecker service within Salt Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an ordinance amending Sections 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Chapter 32 of Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to wrecker service.
DISCUSSION: Any wrecking service providing towing service for Salt Lake City Corporation must be licensed through the Salt Lake City License Assessor. Revised ordinance states the definition of a wrecker service and tow truck. The fee for license shall be $25 per annum, plus $25 for each tow truck in excess of one. The city license division must have on file a certificate of insurance for the wrecking service licensed which names Salt Lake City as a named insured.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 77 of 1982, amending Sections 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Chapter 32 of Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to wrecker service, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 82-54)
#3. RE: Interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for noise enforcement services.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the agreement between Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City Corporation to provide joint undertakings and services relating to enforcement services and disposition of funds.
DISCUSSION: That the City-County Health Department and Salt Lake City Police Department have joint responsibility for enforcing the noise ordinances. The Salt Lake City-County Board of Health has the equipment to test for noise violations and the Salt Lake City Police Department has the police power required to pull violators over and issue citations. Because of rising costs, it is necessary for the Board of Health to adopt a $15 vehicle inspection fee to be paid by persons who receive a traffic citation for violation of the city’s noise ordinance and referred to the health department for vehicle inspection. The health department will collect $15 for each citation and will pay $10 to Salt Lake City Corporation and $5 to Salt Lake County Treasurer.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 87 of 1982, authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for noise enforcement services, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(C 82-391)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: Salt Lake City’s 201 Plan and increase in charges and fees to finance plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Salt Lake City’s 201 Plan for the construction of treatment facilities at an estimated cost of $102.2 million (1981 dollars) to meet sewage treatment needs through the year 1995 and to amend Section 37-6-2, Schedule 3 Rates, of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to sewer service charges increasing the minimum from $2 to $4, the unit cost for sewer service from 54 cents to $1.08 per 100 cubic feet and the sewer connection fee from $300 per residential equivalent to $1,000, effective January 1, 1983. All other fees and schedules will be adjusted proportionately.
The recommended rate increase will not fully fund the Plan and the sewer user charge will need to be increased in the future in order to complete the construction of facilities. It is estimated that rates again will need to be increased during 1984-85 under a bonding plan and/or by 1986-87 under a cash-flow plan. Other incremental increases are projected through the year 1994 under the proposed plan. In order to provide the lowest possible cost to the sewer users, it is further recommended that the facility implementation plan be as flexible as possible to take advantage of options that may come available during the implementation phase of this plan.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Revenue derived from the sewer service charges and connection fees will be used to finance the cost of new wastewater treatment facilities and to fund increasing D & M costs to the sewer utility division.
DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City was granted a $150,000 EPA 201 Facilities planning grant on September 3, 1980, with the Public Utilities Department financing the balance from sewer utility funds. CH2M Hill, a consulting engineering firm, was hired to conduct the study on October 9, 1980, with the draft report and hearing presented to the City Council on June 15, 1982. The Plan, as recommended by both the 201 Citizens Advisory Committee and the Public Utilities Advisory Committee, includes the following:
1. Expand the existing wastewater plant to 56 MGD including sludge disposal at the International Airport and energy recovery. 2. Construct a new 32 MGD (16 MGD first phase) wastewater treatment plant northwest of the International Airport which includes a discharge pipeline into the wetlands, sludge disposal on-site and at the International Airport, and energy recovery. 3. Construct a pumping plant and raw sewage bypass pipeline from the existing facility to the new treatment plant to convey sewage flows above 56 MCD to the new facility. It was recommended that the Plan be divided into two 10-year increments, and therefore, the first phase of construction would be a 16 MGD treatment plant to provide capacity through the year 1995.
At the Public Utilities Advisory Committee’s meeting of August 26, the Committee recommended that a flexible financial plan be adopted to fund the construction of treatment facilities. This was decided due to a number of variables which could affect the total cost of the program. It was deemed advisable to make financial decisions as they became necessary and therefore, take advantage of the best possible circumstances. The variables are as follows: 1. The current depressed economy, resulting in a down-turn in growth, especially in new housing starts within Salt Lake City which may allow the city to implement a cash-flow plan. Depending on the growth rate, adjustments could be made to the implementation schedule. 2. Because of high interest rates it would not be to the city’s advantage to go to the bonding market at this time. It is estimated that millions of dollars could be saved by waiting for more favorable interest rates or financing on a cash-flow basis.
3. Currently the city is not eligible for any federal or state funds to aid in the construction of new facilities, however, these funds may become available in the future and the city could take advantage of them at that time. 4. Current EPA standards for pretreatment and sludge disposal are being re-evaluated by congress and these changes may affect the total cost of the projects.
The Public Utilities Advisory Committee recommends that given the unknown variables, maximum flexibility is needed in order to reduce the cost to implement the 201 Plan and the decisions relative to its implementation should be made at each critical point in time. This deferred decision-making does not diminish the urgent need to construct additional capacity and have it available by 1986 when it is estimated that the existing treatment facility no longer will be able to meet projected waste flows.
The recommended cash flow plan with the option to bond is as follows: 1. The cash-flow plan depends on being able to lengthen the construction of needed improvements over a period of time so that revenue can be generated to pay as we go. However, under the cash-flow plan (or bonding option) the engineering phase must begin at once for: a. Pilot program for secondary polished standards at the existing plant. b. Improvements to upgrade existing facility to 56 MGD. c. Site investigation and purchasing of necessary land and rights of way for new treatment facilities. Included in the site investigation would be wetland study, applying for a discharge permit, all necessary soils and geotechnical studies and identifying needed rights of way. d. Pilot sludge injection program.
2. Formal request to postpone secondary polished standard to 1990 at existing treatment facility. 3. Use of South Salt Lake’s treatment facility as an interim measure in order to provide needed capacity to carry the city through the time necessary to “stretch” the construction period to match cash-flow plan. In summary, it is recommended that the two-plant plan be adopted and the charges and fees be increased effective January 1, 1983. Also, that the engineering begin immediately to implement the plan and, finally, make financial decisions at key points during the implementation phases which are estimated at the following dates: 1. July 1983 - Before purchasing the property for new treatment facility. 2. January 1984 - At the completion of the new site investigation. 3. July 1984 - At the completion of design for the enlargement of the existing plant to 56 MGD. 4. July 1985 - At the beginning of design for improvements necessary to upgrade the South Salt Lake treatment facility. 5. July 1986 - At the beginning of design for treatment process to achieve polished secondary standards. 6. July 1987 - At the beginning of design for new treatment facilities in the Northwest Quadrant. 7. Or at any point in time that conditions and/or information warrants a decision. Mr. LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities, addressed the Council. He briefly reiterated the information which as been presented in the above statement. He stated that when this study was begun two years ago the flow was 47.2 million gallons at the plant for the month of August.
Two years later the average flow for that same month was 54.2 million gallons or almost a 15% increase in the flows. During 1980, there was only one recorded overflow at the relief point; for the first six months of 1982 there have been 79 overflows recorded. The plant is receiving increasing flows despite conservation efforts. Action will have to be taken in the near future to avert serious problems or consequences. Mr. Hooton stated that the issue before the Council is to adopt the 201 Plan; there is a November deadline to complete the project. Once the plan is adopted it has to be implemented and along with that comes a recommendation to increase the sewer charges and connection fees.
Mr. Hooton stated that more detail and a formal presentation would be given in Council committee meeting. Councilmember Davis felt that a public hearing should be held as soon as possible to allow enough time to hear from constituents. Mr. Hooton indicated that the hearing could be set anytime after October 7, 1982.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer this item to the Committee of the Whole for October 7, 1982, and schedule a public hearing for October 12, 1982 at 7:15 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(C 82-56)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Sale of Land
RE: Proposed sale of a parcel of vacant land containing 0.985± acre located south of North Temple Street at approximately 4600 West in Salt Lake City.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this proposed sale of land. David Hales, Fixed Asset Department, addressed the Council. Mr. Hales stated that the airport boundary lies on the easterly boundary of this parcel of land. Back in the 1970’s when the Salt Lake City Airport Authority was expanding and acquiring land to the west of the current airport, they acquired quite a bit of land from the State Road Commission which was held over from the right-of-way acquired for the interstate freeway. In that acquisition some irregular shaped parcels were acquired, one of which was this triangular shaped piece which went further west than what was later agreed upon as the westerly boundary for the airport. Since this parcel lies outside the boundary the airport had no objections to having it declared surplus and sold.
Mr. Hales further stated that the zoning in the area is “C-3A”; there is no access off of Interstate 80, the only access to the property would be across city-owned land (the airport property), or through the land currently owned by the Salt Lake International Center (to the west). Mr. Hales stated that when the tract of property was purchased from the state the cost was approximately $8,000-$9,000 per acre; that was the value between 1977-1979. He further stated that the International Center is considering developing all the property east of Wright Brother’s Drive over to the airport boundary; they would like to tie this parcel into the other development.
The type of industry on this parcel would be commensurate with the other light manufacturing, commercial developments in the rest of the park. Mr. Hales stated that the city will retain an avigation easement over this one acre, there will be height restrictions as well as protection against noise and other disturbances. Bob Donkin, a citizen from the audience, asked about future expansion of the airport. Councilmember Mabey stated that the master plan does not call for expansion in that direction; it will go west and north of North Temple.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Note: A meeting (minutes unavailable) was held October 29, 1982 wherein Resolution 96 of 1982 was adopted. (Obligating Salt Lake City Corporation to expend $45,000 to be realized from the sale of .985 acres of land acquired with Federal Aid and located within the boundaries of Salt Lake City International Airport)
(W 82-8)
Urban Develoment Action Grant
RE: Discuss the need for UDAG involvement in the Block 53 project and receive public comment regarding such need. Price Development Company is desirous of UDAG involvement to provide partial financing for their Block 53 Phase I development and has requested that the city submit a UDAG application to HUD in October 1982. The city is required by UDAG regulations to hold two public hearings to receive public comment prior to submitting the application.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss the proposed UDAG application for the Block 53 Phase I project. Doug Carlson, Office of Budget and Management Planning, addressed the Council and stated that the city has been recently approached by Price Industries concerning possible UDAG assistance in connection with the Block 53 project. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss and receive public comment on the need and desirability of UDAG involvement in the project. A Council endorsement or authorization is not requested at this time and to date no application has been prepared. In the second public hearing, details of the application will be explained to the public. Peter Cook, Price Industries, addressed the Council. He stated that the company was concerned about their proposed parking structure and felt they could get assistance through the use of a UDAG. This would enable the company to construct underground parking which is needed to handle the demand that will be created by the Block. Mr. Cook stated that a grant would not be given for parking without a building above; 50% of the first phase has to be leased beforehand, so the criteria are strict.
Mr. Cook stated that he felt it was good for the city to be in a competitive situation for these types of grants because the money will come back and be used for other projects. Mr. Cook stated that since UDAG’s are in such great demand they work like any equity participation situation with insurance or pension funds. Basically an agreement is entered into over a negotiated pay-back schedule; the company would be paying the city cash payments. Mr. Cook stated that the UDAG would be for approximately $5 million and the total investment is about $20 million. Councilmember Parker commented that he had received information that HUD officials are anxious to provide UDAG’s for Salt Lake City.
Mr. Carlson stated that UDAG’s are presently so competitive that it usually involves a loan at an interest rate from 5 to 12% and also usually involves some sort of an equity participation by the city in the project. If the project is sold then the city would receive a portion of the capital gain or if it is retained by Price Industries the city would probably receive a percentage of the cash flow on an annual basis. Councilmember Shearer was uncertain as to the return the city would receive; will the city get money and an equity position or just an equity position and interest.
Mr. Carlson stated that it starts off with the basic UDAG loan with interest and in addition to that, the city would get an equity position and yearly cash flow or capital gains on a sale. Councilmember Shearer also asked who was at risk if the project goes broke. Mr. Carlson stated that usually HUD requires this to be handled like a second mortgage and the loan would be secured by the structures. Councilmember DePaulis asked if the prospectus was in error which the Redevelopment Agency prepared regarding the Block. Paul Mendenhall, associated with Price Industries, stated that the prospectus per se was not in error but the error was in the feasibility study done on Block 53.
He further stated that in a normal situation underground parking would cost about $7,500-$8,000 per space; because of the ground conditions on Block 53, the state spent about $12,000 per space. Price Industries can pare the cost down but the company cannot bring the price down to a normal competitive situation for underground parking for a similar situation. If the company can obtain the UDAG grant at a reasonable rate the overall cost can be brought to a level where the company can provide themselves and the equity partner a reasonable return on their funds.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(T 82-27)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Art Hurry addressed the Council regarding lotteries. He distributed information to the Council about lotteries currently being held. He was concerned about lotteries and stated that he felt there should not be any lotteries or sweepstakes where a person has to pay to be a participant. Mr. Hurry stated that he wanted the City Council to request Roger Cutler to assemble the city ordinance, revised ordinance, county ordinances, state law, and two recent Supreme Court rulings so that this information will be available.
Mr. Cutler stated that he has information available which Mr. Hurry can get from the attorney’s office; policy questions will have to be addressed by the Council. He stated that the information which Mr. Hurry has given to the Council is partially supportive of why the Council needs to address this difficult issue.
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.