The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a special meeting as a quasi-judicial Impact Fee Authority on Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 315, Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State.
The following Council Members were present:
Kyle LaMalfa Jill Remington Love Charlie Luke
Søren Simonsen
The following Council Members were absent:
Luke Garrott Carlton Christensen Stan Penfold
Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Neil Lindberg, Council Legal Director; Katie Lewis, Senior City Attorney; and Sonya Kintaro, Chief Deputy City Recorder were present.
Also present were the appellants: Dale Gardiner, Counsel for Utah Metal Works; Chris Lewon, Vice-President of Utah Metal Works; and Don Lewon, Chairman of the Board for Utah Metal Works.
Councilmember LaMalfa presided at and conducted the meeting.
1.5:36:07 PM INTRODUCTION BY COUNCIL CHAIR
Councilmember LaMalfa said the Council was present to hear an appeal by Utah Metal Works regarding an impact fee associated with a building permit to the Salt Lake City Department of Community and Economic Development.
Neil Lindberg explained the procedure for the hearing.
2. 5:37:58 PM CASE PRESENTATION BY APPELLANT View Attachments
Dale Gardiner said Utah Metal Works was entitled to appeal the impact fees that were paid because 1) they built a new structure to house a new baler for metals, and 2) the old building would become an accessory structure.
Chris Lewon said the new structure was a steel building similar in size to the old structure and the new baler was a replacement for a 22-year-old baler. He said there would be no impact because the traffic flow on the street would not change.
Councilmember Love asked if the old facility would continue to be used. Mr. Lewon said they were contemplating dismantling the old baler.
Don Lewon said when the new baler was fully functioning, the old baler would no longer be used. He said their company had done much to keep the area updated. He said impact fees were not justified.
Councilmember LaMalfa asked if the new baler would be more productive than the old baler. Mr. Lewon said yes.
In summary, Mr. Gardiner said Utah Metal Works was building a replacement structure with a replacement baler which qualified as an exemption. He said there was no impact on roads, parks, trails, fire, and police. He said there was no increase in traffic or employees.
Councilmember Simonsen asked for clarification on their statement of dismantling the baler. Mr. Lewon said the equipment itself would be dismantled and the building would not be removed. He said the building could be used for storage and was limited in its use unless the building was redesigned.
Katie Lewis asked Utah Metal Works to explain what their operations were when metal first arrived on their property.
Mr. Lewon said they received metals from many sources, and their goal was to get the metal to a certain size where the metal could be re-melted to make new material. He said by reducing the size and sorting the material into similar type, the cost of shipping was more advantageous for melters and processors.
3. 5:51:18 PM RESPONSE BY APPELLEE View Attachments
Ms. Lewis explained the process on how the City collected impact fees. She said the Utah Metal Works application for a building permit incurred an impact fee of $20,880 for an 8,000 square foot industrial building. She said Utah Metal Works introduced new information at this hearing. She said when the application was made, the City understood the permit was for a new baler and it was not a replacement for the old baler. She said because it was an “add-on”, the City was justified to collect impact fees.
Ms. Lewis said if the principal use of the old building was for their business operations such as cutting, sorting, or packaging metals, then the impact fees would be justified. She said if the old building could be categorized as an accessory structure, the City could refund Utah Metal Works the difference of the impact fees paid for the old building and that of the new building. She said Utah Metal Works would need to establish that the old building was used only as an accessory structure. She said for the credit to be issued, the change in use had to occur within 12 months after the submittal of the building permit application which occurred on April 1, 2013.
4. 5:59:18 PM REBUTTAL BY APPELLANT
Mr. Gardiner said they would accept the refund of the impact fees. He said it would be advantageous for the two parties to meet and work out the refund of the impact fee.
Mr. Lindberg commented on procedural clarification.
Ms. Lewis said the proper procedure would be to withdraw their appeal and not wait for a decision by the Council. She said the Council’s decision would be based on the facts at hand. She said Utah Metal Works should provide evidence to the City that would establish the old baler building would not house the old baler, would not use the old baler, and would be truly an accessory structure.
Councilmember Love asked Ms. Lewis if Utah Metal Works withdrew their appeal, would their right to appeal again be waived. Ms. Lewis said they could appeal again because it would be based on a new set of facts. She said the City would not change its position unless it saw significant evidence the old baler building was an accessory structure.
Mr. Lindberg said he was agreeable to the procedure.
Mr. Gardiner said Utah Metal Works wanted to withdraw their appeal.
5. ADJOURN TO CLOSED MEETING TO DELIBERATE
This item was not held because Utah Metal Works withdrew their appeal and deliberation was not needed. View Attachments
The meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m.
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as additional discussion may have been held; please refer to the audio or video for entire content.
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the Impact Fee Appeal hearing by Utah Metal Works, Inc. before the Salt Lake City Council held December 4, 2013.
sk