SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
TRAINING SESSION
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Thomas Cerruti, Susan Deal, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Craig Paulsen, and Robert Young. William Damery, Billie Ann Devine, William Littig, and Lynn Morgan were excused.
Present from the Preservation Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Supervisor, and Elizabeth Giraud. William T. Wright, Planning Director, and Boyd Ferguson, Assistant City Attorney, were also present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. She stated that since this was a training session, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Mr. Wright informed the Commission about the changes in the Staff which supports the Historic Landmark Commission. He said that Mr. Paterson would continue in the supervisory capacity, and Ms. Giraud would continue as the Preservation Planner, assigned to this Commission. Mr. Wright said that there would be a new Assistant Planner that would be part of the decision-making process. He said that Ms. Miller would shift duties and not be focused on preservation planning. Ms. Blaes extended her appreciation, on behalf of the members, for Ms. Miller's commitment in working with the Commission on preservation issues.
Framework of Public Preservation
Ms. Giraud stated that there were state and federal historic preservation offices that could provide the Historic Landmark Commission with support material. She briefed the Commission on each level of government in the following manner:
National level: In 1966 the National Environmental Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act was adopted. The National Park Service administers much of the funding for preservation, as well as support literature for the national Historic Preservation Act. The National Park Service is also responsible for publishing the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Pertinent literature was circulated to the members, copies of which were filed with the minutes of this meeting. It is a difficult task to make the public and some politicians understand the importance of following all those standards, and not picking and choosing the preferred ones.
There are four component levels to be considered in preservation in terms of renovating or rehabilitating a structure: 1) Preservation; 2) Rehabilitation; 3) Restoration; and 4) Reconstruction of historic buildings. Many of these Certificates of Appropriateness are either approved or denied by Staff. Guidelines were read for each level. There was much discussion where members cited buildings which met all four levels of preservation and also relayed actual experiences with buildings at all four levels in various areas of the country.
Mr. Wright spoke of the design review process that is required for the expansion of the Frank E. Moss courthouse building, so that the Government Service Agency (GSA) would not be exempt from the City's Zoning Ordinance.
• State level: State preservation offices are included in different state agencies in different states throughout the country. The Utah State Preservation Office, commonly known as SHPO, is located within the Utah State Commerce Department. It is under the umbrella of State History. The members were briefed regarding the funding offered by this office for preservation projects, as well as other information. A discussion continued. A suggestion was made that Ms. Barbara Murphy from SHPO could be invited to speak more about the preservation process at the state level, especially the provided tax credits.
Local level: The public preservation at the local level were the Historic Landmark Commission and the Preservation Staff.
Ms. Giraud said that there were other federal agencies that have to comply with preservation standards. She said that the National Historic Preservation Act, requires federal agencies to mitigate adverse effects on historic properties or archeological sites.
Ms. Giraud explained the different standards that are required to include a building on the National Register of Historic Places and the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. She talked about the eligibility of a property owner to receive tax credits if the property is included on the National Register, which is administered by the state agency. The City only has control of properties listed on the City Register. She explained a fallacy that people think that if a property was eligible for the National Register, it would automatically be included on the City register. Mr. Wright further explained the confusion of the City's preservation ordinances prior to 1978.
The discussion continued with members of the Commission commenting on the subject matter of which Mr. Giraud spoke.
The Commission's Role and Procedures
Ms. Blaes gave a brief explanation of the changes in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings since the new zoning ordinance was adopted. She said that she remembered when Commission meetings had twenty items to be reviewed. Ms. Giraud said that even before the changes in the zoning ordinance, the Commission allowed the Preservation Staff to approve simple projects, such as new fences or windows, which shortened the Commission meeting agenda, considerably.
Mr. Paterson made a brief presentation what the responsibilities of the Historic Landmark Commission were, as he referred to Chapter 21A.06.050 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Paterson said that because there have been questions about the "Open Meetings" law, he passed out copies of that legislation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He said that this act was adopted to ensure that public forums, like this Commission, do not exclude public from the process. Mr. Paterson explained the notification requirement pertaining to this act. He said that if the Commission has a quorum in place and the members are acting upon matters which the Commission has jurisdiction or advisory power, notices have to be sent to the public. He said that social events do not have to be noticed, but precaution has to be made that there would be no business conducted.
Mr. Paterson said that Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney, wrote a memo, dated October 2, 1997, where he responded to several inquiries made by the Commission members. Regarding the banning of cameras from meetings, Mr. Pace wrote, "I have not done any legal research on this issue, but I have discussed it with Roger Cutler, City Attorney. Roger informed me that he believes that the Historic Landmark Commission has the authority to ban cameras from its meetings so long as the ban is uniformly applied (to both citizens and the media) and so long as people are still granted public access to the meetings. However, this type of policy would need to be enacted through an amendment to the Historic Landmark Commission policies and procedures, according to the amendment procedures set forth therein." A copy of the memo was filed with the minutes of the November 5, 1997 meeting. Mr. Paterson further said that the Commission's "Rules and Procedures" could be amended to include this issue, if the Commission is amiable to that. The Commission could ban video cameras and say that it was interfering with the conduct of the meeting. The discussion continued.
Mr. Paterson made the distinction between a "closed meeting to the public" according to the "Utah Open Meetings Act" and when the Historic Landmark Commission moves into executive session before making a decision. In a Commission meeting, during the closed portion, the public is allowed to remain in the room. He briefly spoke of the seven criteria the purpose of the closed meeting would have to meet. He said that if the Commission wanted to take action on any matter, that would have to be deferred to another meeting. Mr. Wright said that there had to be a two-thirds vote to have a closed session. He said the meeting would be recorded and minutes available to the public. The 24-hour posting notice of any Commission meeting, and the 14-day notification by mail of surrounding property owners was discussed.
Mr. Wright explained the terminology used when the Commission goes into an executive session. He suggested that language would be used to say, "I moved that we close the public hearing portion of this meeting, where we have been receiving testimony and no further public comment will be accepted." The comment was made that Ms. Blaes uses correct language when the Commission goes into executive session.
In answer to a question, Mr. Wright said that in case of a law suit, the City would be named and sometimes the Historic Landmark Commission or individual members if the plaintiff believed there was malice or misfeasance involved. He said that the City Attorney would represent that board.
Discussion Regarding the Proposed "Repeal and Re-enactment of Chapter 2.44 of the Salt Lake City Code Relating to Conflicts of Interest and Municipal Ethics
The subject turned to the draft of the Conflict of Interest Ordinance, being proposed by the Administration and the City Council, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Wright said that it was important that all the boards and commissions have an opportunity to review the draft. He introduced Mr. Boyd Ferguson, of the City Attorney's Office, who had been attending the various meetings regarding this
proposed ordinance.
Mr. Ferguson stated the following: "We currently have in effect a Conflict of Interest statute and much of what is in the new draft is already in effect. He pointed out the sections of the draft that were already in effect. The gift provision inclusions are significantly different for executive employees, elected officials, and members of a board or commission.
The following issues of the Repeal and Re-enactment of Chapter 2.44 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to Conflicts of Interest and Municipal Ethics was discussed:
ISSUE: A client's right to confidentiality while dealing with a firm, during the same time that a member of that firm would serve on this Commission was discussed, which is found in Subsection A, Disclosure Required, in Section 2.44.070, Receiving Compensation for Assistance in Transactions Involving the City. The argument was why would a client's confidentiality have to be disclosed, when an issue regarding that client might not come before a board or commission. The ordinance would penalize people for serving on a board or commission and severely penalize employers of members who are willing to give the member the time to serve on a board or commission.
ISSUE: Mr. Ferguson said that Section 2.44.150, Restrictions on Employment Of Present And Former Public Servants was an entirely new concept. It came from a model procurement code, and was recommended that all states adopt this code.
ISSUE: After a short discussion took place regarding Subsection A, Contemporaneous Employment Prohibited, Mr. Ferguson said that he was going to suggest to the Council that this subsection be changed because it was too harsh and limiting. He said that he wanted to add a "directly participate" kind of concept in the draft, so a member of a board or commission could not participate, but someone else from his or her place of employment would be allowed to participate. Mr. Wright said that each member of this Commission was appointed to this position representing a specific organization, as required by ordinance, and some of those organization have contracts with the City.
Mr. Wright added that that this drafted ordinance would conflict with other portions of the City Code.
ISSUE: It was interpreted that in Subsection B, Restriction On Former Public Servants Regarding Their Former Duties, members could not do any work in an historic district if that person was involved with the decision-making process with making that district an historic district. Mr. Ferguson said that this subsection is limited to an individual and not a firm where he or she is employed. Mr. Ferguson suggested that if a member did not believe that he or she could be objective on an issue, that person would need to be recused and leave the room. However, there are circumstances where a member of the Commission is a sole proprietor, that member would recuse himself or herself from the Commission for the entire meeting in order to represent a client.
ISSUE: Mr. Ferguson pointed out that the word "entity" will replace the word "business" in some places in Subsection C, Disqualification of Business When A Public Servant Has A Financial Interest. He said that he would make the suggestion that a member recuse himself or herself, and let it be known that there was a conflict of interest, so the public would receive fair treatment.
Mr. Wright concluded by stating that the City Council would be thoroughly briefed on this draft ordinance before a vote would be taken.
Ms. Blaes suggested that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission attend Council meetings where this issue would be addressed; that it would be important for the Council to know that the Historic Landmark Commission has a real interest in these issues.
Ms. Blaes discussed the proposed schedule of future training sessions. As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Ms. Deal. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:00P.M.