PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH JOINT SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THURSDAY
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a joint Salt Lake
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, May 7, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Joanne Milner, Tom Rogan, Deeda Seed, Roger Thompson, Bryce Jolley, and Keith Christensen.
Also in Attendance: Kay Christensen, Deputy Mayor/Chief of Staff; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Roger Black, Director of Management Services; Joel Paterson, Avenues/HLC/Contract Planning; Emil Pierson, Special Projects Planner; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Long Range Planner; Bill Wright, Planning Director; Jan Stri , Project Manager/Landmark Design; Clark King, Legislative Auditor; Anne Gerber, Budget & Policy Analyst; Gary Mumford, Senior Legislative Auditor; David Dobbins, Community and Economic Development Management Analyst; Roger Boyer, Boyer Corporation; Dave Moreno, Boyer Consultant; Alison Gregersen, Deputy Director of Community and Economic Development; and Bonnie Ferrin, Deputy City Recorder.
Council Chair Jolley presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5:50 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. RE: GATEWAY.
Bill Wright took questions open space with the urban parks from the audience regarding the system, Jordan River, and the attached handouts entitled
wetland environment. He said "Creating An Urban Neighborhood"
many of the connections would and "The Gateway Specific
Plan."
A discussion was held regarding the Gateway District Land Use & Development Master Plan Public Review draft.
Jan Striefel said the key to mixed use was thinking in terms of compatibility, not nonconformity.
Mr. Wright said the Open Space Master Plan was a series of ways to connect the foothill open space with the urban parks system, Jordan River, and the
wetland environment. He said many of the connections would come through these areas so they built on the strengths of those connections.
Ms. Striefel said the estimated population living in the gateway neighborhood would be approximately 12,000. She said this would be a density equivalent to the east downtown neighborhood. She said housing included everything from boarding houses to high-end condominiums, providing a broad mix of income housing.
Mr. Wright said the one type of housing not definitely targeted was single family, subdivision housing. He said there might be a rare cottage type housing which would work. He said over the last 30 years the City had down-zoned a lot of Salt Lake City.
Councilmember Seed asked how to make sure there was mixed use housing.
Mr. Striefel said the traditional view of zoning would need to be thrown out. She said discretion played a big role in mixed use. She said a person could look at an area and have a sense of what the mixes would be. She said there were already good examples in the Gateway area, including commercial uses on the lower levels and residential uses on the upper levels. said it took a lot of involvement from policy makers and administrators to make sure the City was headed in the right direction. She said the land-use plan showed host or
focused uses, which was important.
Mr. Wright said there had been discussion about whether to regulate
The mixed use or provide it as an option.
Ms. Strifel said the Salt Lake City School District had expressed an interest in a school site in the Gateway area.
Mr. Wright said there was a landscaping plan which followed the corridor, but was not an excess element. He said the City had been working more on the entry points into the City.
Mr. Wright asked the audience for their comments and/or suggestions.
#2. RE: BOYER SPECIFIC PLAN.
Roger Boyer said the Boyer Corporation had entered into a contract with Union Pacific to buy a of property located behind the Union Pacific Depot. He said this property went from approximately 200 South to North Temple, between 400 and 500 West and north of North Temple. He said it then narrowed as it went further north. He said the parcel he was presenting to the Council was south of North Temple. He said this was the development of approximately 23 acres. He said there was currently an environmental study going on. He said it was not known what the outcome of the study would be. He said even though did not own the Union Pacific Depot, it was included in project and made a wonderful entry way. He said the Boyer Corporation engaged a team to do an economic study and the initial results were optimistic. He said the project would be an urban, downtown village, which would include every type of multiple use. He said entertainment, retail, and restaurants would make up close to 20% of the project. He said office space, hotel, and cultural pieces were also included. He said they spoke to one of the local university's about a downtown campus. He said residential would be equivalent to that dedicated to commercial, and would be a big part of the project. He said Thomas Associates identified a primary market when the project was completed in 2001.
Dave Moreno said his organization had done work all over the world and felt this was one of the best opportunities he had seen. He said this was because Lake City already had a viable downtown. He showed a slide presentation and
gave an overview of the project.
#3. RE: HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING NON-DISCRIMINATION.
Councilmember Jolley said he, along with Roger Cutler, Council Members Thompson and Rogan created a proposal. He said Mr. Cutler had concerns about some of the changes made.
Roger Cutler said he had three concerns, the first was found on the bottom of Page 2, Sub-paragraph "B". He said the City needed to be concerned about the way the courts would interpret the ordinance and how it would be perceived by second tier managers. He said managers had the direct responsibility for supervising personnel and handling issues which needed to be addressed from a disciplinary point of view.
He said the language in Paragraph "B" would change the way the courts reviewed a case. He said Utah courts ruled there was no implied good faith and fair dealing clause making employee conduct judged by what felt fair to a judge. He said the original language was intended to avoid this consequence and if a manager had a rational basis for making a decision, the courts would uphold it. He said the new language would change the word "rational" to "reasonable", so there would be a balancing of the facts.
Councilmember Rogan said he felt this change was necessary to accomplish what he understood to be the common ground on which the Council was moving with the ordinance. He said this was to arrive at a situation where the class of individuals who were specifically identified in the prior ordinance, and who were not now specifically covered, would receive a measure of protection which fell short of them being identified as a specific class. He said he hoped Council would take a step in this direction, because it would give any employee the right to have a judge look at the ordinance differently because of the new language.
Councilmember Seed said the Council was skirting around the issue of protecting people based on sexual orientation. She said as a result of not wanting to deal with the issue in legislation, the City had something convoluted which might create an unintended consequence with other employment related decisions. She said she was frustrated that the Council did not have an ordinance dealing with protection based on sexual orientation.
Councilmember Thompson said the traditional approach when dealing with discrimination was that it was okay to discriminate, except against specified people. He said this new approach did not discriminate against anyone if they were doing their job. He said the Council ran the risk of including everyone and making it more difficult to discipline certain employees if they were on the edge.
Councilmember Thompson asked Mr. Cutler if changing the word "rationally" to "reasonably" would use a "reasonable man" standard. He asked if this would substitute the judgment of the judge and his definition of what was reasonable verses the judgment of the supervisor.
Mr. Cutler said the wording had the potential shifting to the courts or administrative body, the right to judge whether someone should be disciplined by whether it was reasonable or not. He said the other language suggested that the decision made would be upheld if based on a rational reason. He said it shifted the burden and allowed the courts to substitute their judgment for that of the supervisor.
Councilmember Thompson said Council would look at the ordinance again in a year to see if it was working.
Councilmember K. Christensen said Mr. Cuter outlined his feelings, which was that the Council should not create classes. He said if the City wanted equality, the Council should not create favored status. He said he was firm on equality, with no special classes. He said he reserved some concern that this would take away from City managers the prerogative of management, and that judges would become the personnel managers of the City.
Councilmember C. Christensen he assumed that the judicial system would not be the first course of discipline that a City employee would have.
Mr. Cutler said the class of people he was talking about would have to go to an appeals board or Civil Service Commission.
Mr. Cutler said his second concern was found Page 3; on deletion of Paragraph 1, Sub paragraph IV. He said, for the record, he understood the concept was not being eliminated, but considered in the context of some of other provisions. He said he did not have a problem with it being deleted in this context. He said there could be individuals who were skilled at performing the functions of their employment, but who could disrupt the working environment, and it was not appropriate to have them in the work force. He said the ordinance was not intended to remove the element or the possibility of supervision from City managers. He said he understood this language, in context, might be misread and would be taken out for this reason. He said it was not to preclude people who interfered with close working relationships from being immune from discipline.
Councilmember K. Christensen said if this paragraph were del from the ordinance, it should be made clear that the City had done legislative background or dialogue to show that it was Council intent to have it this way.
Mr. Cutler said the tape of meeting would be saved to show that this was the understanding of the quorum. Mr. Cutler said he was most concerned that the language in Paragraph 2 was basically a summary of a Supreme Court decision. He said deleting the word "immutable" to say that any personal or physical characteristics, irrelevant in the job performance, could not be used in disciplinary action. He said it was so over-reaching and broad that people with short tempers could take inappropriate behaviors and attribute it to a personal characteristic. He said this would not reflect directly on their ability to do a given job, but would bring discredit upon the department they worked He said even in question was overly board and would create problems down the road. He urged the Council to either delete the language or come up with another word.
Councilmember Jolley asked what would happen if Item No. 2 were deleted and how would effect what the Council was trying to accomplish.
Mr. Cutler said he thought it would work just as well without the paragraph in the ordinance. He said the paragraph was put in to give additional comfort to those concerned that work related criteria might not provide the protection wanted. He said this was a supplemental assurance, and was not critical unless there was a modifier. He said in that case the Council would be better off deleting the language, because it could impact the workforce and the City's ability to discipline the majority of disciplinary actions they would have to deal with.
Councilmember Jolley said the purpose of this discussion was in response to the action taken a few months ago. He said it was felt that the gay and lesbian community was being discriminated against and needed to have some protection. He said the goal was for the Council to come up with an ordinance which would protect not only the gay and lesbian community but everyone. He said he was committed to changing what was needed in order to see that the focus was on job related criteria and that everyone was protected. He said if the Council felt this document did not improve the current ordinance, he had no problem keeping the current ordinance.
Councilmember K. Christensen said he was opposed to a protected class and believed in equality for everyone. He said equity was not created by creating a special class. He said if a paragraph or two could not be deleted, the Council should at least go back to the immutable language. He said he was okay with either deleting the paragraph or including the immutable language.
Councilmember Thompson said he thought the language should be left in, even if modified. He said regarding the inclusion of the term "immutable characteristics, he sensed from the gay and lesbian community that it was language which came out of Federal case law. He said this helped to define for some of the Federal courts, under the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, what a protected class was. He said the language protected anyone with an immutable characteristic so it would not be the grounds for a job related criteria. He said he thought the problem for the gay and lesbian community was that this immutable characteristic had not been uniformly found in the courts of law, but the majority had not found that homosexuality was an immutable characteristic. He said he felt that as a group, they did not feel it was helpful.
Councilmember Thompson said this was the reason the wording was changed to something which would be more of a personal or physical characteristic. He said the relevant descriptive was not necessarily a personal characteristic, although it could be, and felt it could be left in the proposed ordinance. He said the concern was more "characteristic", or putting it in addition to.
Mr. Cutler said he had considered it, but had concerns. He said there had been problems in the past with City departments and that these types of problems were not isolated. He said this was a bad provision, if adopted, and the Attorney's Office would be back with illustrations. He said he felt he had a duty to advise the Council they would have to take the responsibility for interfering with supervisors abilities to supervise and discipline their people.
Councilmember Jolley said he had spoken to other legal experts who had cautioned him about this as well.
Councilmember Seed asked Mr. Cutler if he considered religion to be an immutable characteristic. She said she felt it was not. She said this was why it would be important to specify classes. She said an individual's protection was based on their religious beliefs by Federal law. She said she was still concerned that ordinance was not being specific enough about protection from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. She said they would so be protected from discrimination based on their religious beliefs, which were not immutable characteristics.
Councilmember C. Christensen said he felt a moral obligation to continue to put an ordinance in place which he felt would deal fairly with everyone. He said he wanted to get away from protected classes from a standpoint that everyone was entitled to be protected. He said from a legal standpoint, he was not comfortable leaving loopholes. He said he was comfortable with omitting the paragraph or putting the phrase "immutable characteristics" back in.
Councilmember Rogan said there should not be a suggestion that the Council was not recognizing specific classes in the ordinance. He said they did so by incorporating the State and Federal statutes.
Councilmember Jolley said there was still a lot of discussion ahead of the Council and suggested that if there were additional questions, Council Members should call and discuss them with Mr. Cutler.
Councilmember Thompson asked if the Council wanted the subcommittee to rework the ordinance again.
Councilmember Jolley said that would be fine.
Per Mr. Cutlers request, tape was saved (see File No.0 97-33).
#4. RE: CONSIDER ADOPTING A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAB CODE, TO DISCUSS LITIGATION.
ACTION: Councilmember Thompson moved and Councilmember C. Christensen seconded to go into Executive Session, which mot ion carried, all members voted aye.
An Executive Session was held. Confidential tape in File M 98-2
#5. RE: BOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING BUDGET AND POLICY OVERVIEW AND CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES.
Anne Gerber briefed the Council using the attached handouts. Councilmember Rogan said by hiring Police Officers under Federal funding the City would be put in the position of having to fund them later on. He suggested using photo radar because he learned that traffic calming was not effective if only the capital improvements were made. He said an enforcement component was needed as well.
Councilmember Jolley said he wanted to see a breakdown in the balance between the administrative part police enforcement and the street officer. He asked if this ratio was constant or if it had increased significantly.
Councilmember Jolley asked if it was possible to have traffic enforcement officers non-sworn, to help maintain traffic.
Councilmember Thompson said the yield was going down in some of the franchise fees. He said some of the utility expenses were being reduced through efficiencies throughout the system. He said since the tax was based on a percentage the bill, the amount had gone down. He asked if there were another way to measure the taxes.
Cindy Gust-Jenson said Roger Black had a staff member currently working on a policy paper regarding this issue.
Councilmember Thompson said there was built-in animosity toward photo-radar. He suggested Individuals being fined the first few tickets, and construction, and its impact on neighborhoods. She said the public was now asking for an enhancement to help motorists become more aware of the problems
Councilmember C. Christensen said it might be traffic calming to send speeders a picture themselves going too fast.
Councilmember Thompson said in order to amortize bonds for Capital Improvement Programs (CIP), the City would need revenues. He asked if the City would be pledging a portion of the future CIP revenue to do this, or if there was another increased source for repayment of the bond.
Ms. Gerber said this was what the City would be doing on municipal revenue bonds. She said Liberty Park would be a general obligation bond.
Councilmember Jolley said a list of the top ten Council priorities were handed out and unless there were objections, staff would use the priorities as they evaluated the budget. He said Councilmember Rogan made some changes in the Council's "Focus on Children resolution and asked the Council to review his suggest Council Members Rogan and Jolley went over some suggested changes in the resolution language.
Councilmember Milner said there was nothing in the proposed resolution regarding what private industry could do to address this need.
Councilmember Jolley said the Council should be encouraging parents to take care of their own children, rather than having outside care.
Councilmember Seed said Councilmember Milner was not talking about the ideal
situation for children, but a need for quality child care. She said this could mean either a parent or a substitute for a parent. She said society had to recognize that there were many ways that children were cared for. She said the importance was the quality of that care. She said a whole set of economic
realities existed in the City, making it unrealistic for the vast majority of people to stay at home.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.