66 of 1969 - A resolution declaring that the public convenience, necessity and interest require incorporation of Resolution No. 66
By Mayor J. Bracken Lee
COMMISSIONER
Declaring that the public convenience,
necessity and interest require in-
corporation of a Public Transit District
to consist of Salt Lake City, City of
South Salt Lake, Murray, Midvale,
Sandy and Bingham Canyon.
Presented to the Board of Commissioners
AND PASSED
DEC 1 11960
I1 icyNsv .l
CITY RECOP'
ICI
I,
11
,
4�II SALT LAKE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
146 SOUTH MAIN. SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84101 "364 3631
March 4, 1970
Mr. Herman J. Hogensen
Recorder of Salt Lake City
City & County Building
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Dear Mr. Hogensen:
Enclosed is a copy of the certificate which was submitted to the
Titan Secretary of State regarding the incorporation of the public transit
district.
Certain minor changes on page one of the certificate were made
by me after the certificate was drafted by the City Attorney's Office.
This certificate is a copy of the final certificate as presented to the
Secretary of State and is forwarded to be included in your file on the
public transit district.
Verytrruly yours,
William D. bswald
Legal Counsel
WDO:crz
Enclosure
SERVN- THE INTER 1CJiN'TA'N EM.HIRE-THE CENTER 0= SCENIC AMERICA
CERTIFICATE
TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF UTAH:
Please be advised that on the 4th day of November, 1969, the
incorporated cities of SALT LAKE CITY, SOUTH SALT LAKE, MURRAY,
MIDVALE, SANDY, and BINGHAM CANYON, pursuant to the provisions
of Chapter 12, Laws of the State of Utah, 1969, First Special Session, sub-
mitted a proposition to the duly qualified electors of said cities to deter-
mine if a Public Transit District should be formed in the area of said
cities.
That the above-named cities represent all of the cities and
the entire area originally proposed to be included in the Transit District
as proposed in the original initiating ordinance.
That each and all of the above-named incorporated cities
votes affirmatively on the proposition and that said named cities repre-
sent 100 percent of the total assessed valuation of the property within the
District originally proposed as shown by the County assessment records
declared by the latest County assessment roles.
That, pursuant to law, subsequent to said election, each of
the cities above designated have conducted a public hearing to determine
if it is in the public interest to incorporate and organize a Public Transit
District. As the result of said public hearings, the incorporated cities
of Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, Murray, and Bingham Canyon have
determined that question in the affirmative.
That, accordingly, the Secretary of State should issue a
Certificate of Incorporation reciting that the District composed
-2-
of the incorporated cities of Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake,
Murray, and Bingham Canyon has been duly incorporated as a
Public Transit District according to the laws of the State of
Utah.
DATED this Vje day of March, 1970.
;
MAYOR
CITY RECRDE'
710 feaniut9 Sew ee
v(CE
Samuel S 7a011
Highest Quality ,.•..is �o#yreh-sp..iyg.@Idw.,✓ICE
Hearing Aids �,. 35 t lON Main$tree'f'-'
andMind tio:/36w235 7745)
Haring unseling "There Is More to Hearing Than a Hearing Aid" `5WIC SF�t(y l-'*i oh84106
12 DEC 69
Salt Lake City Board of Commissioners
City and County Building
Salt Lake City, Utah
GentlEmen: In accordance with t_:e request granted at the time of the
Salt Lake Transit District Hearing on 11 Dec 69 in the City Chambers,
this letter of protest and dissemination of information respecting poss—
ible unconstitutional features of the PUBLIC TRANSIT DISTRICT LAW," 1969,
FIRST SPECIAL SESSION, SEAT;, HILL
44, UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE, is being
submitted for inclusion as a part of the official procedings.
I believe in a rapid, low—cost, mass transportation system encompassing
cities and towns on the north—south line of the Wasatch Front from Logan
south to Provo including their suburbs. I believe no more funds should be
appropriated for construction of new road systems. Funds normally act:ruing
to such projects instead should be allocated towards the completion of the
above hoped for transportation system. Air pollution can better be elimin—
ated. as a result. The tragedies of deaths and injuries from and the
economic wastes of *vehicular traffic accidents can be drastically reduced.
P.:any years ago, when I first became a candidate for the Legislature, I
had proposed this system. I believe though that a transit system will be
an economic waste if the "convenience" of auto usage is further established
by habit and promotion.
The deceptions used by the sponsoring Greater Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce
in promoting the vote of the public acceptance of the present transit
proposal is to be deplored and not condoned. The Chamber publishes and
distrio ated brochures definitely stating that there was "NO TAXING AUTHORITY"
with the District and with a further emphasizing sub—headline "The Public
Transit District will not ("not" printed in bold type) be empowered to
levy and collect taxes." The word "deception" is mild. Section 16, item 4,
definitely empowers the District to "levy and collect taxes". Further,
Section 45 provides for liens and foreclosures against property owners who
fail to pay the tr-:nsit t—x. In the "srochure, the Chamber tearfully purported
to be interested in the welfare of the poor, the aged and handicapped in
soliciting public acceptance. Yet, these are the very ones who will be least
able to pay the transit tax and who may have their homes sold for failure to
pay. Odd how the Chamber representation ::as lacking when bus fares Yncreases
were sought. Too, I objected to the "scare" tactics used by the Chamber
by its continued .references to "bus service may be discontinued unless
there is a "yes" vote. The Chamber represented Downtown interests and very
little else.
A citizen suit voiding the vote on this Transit Proposal can possibly have
it declared unconstitutional. Section 50 of the Transit 3111 permits Board
of Director members and transit employees to own up to 5% interest EACH in
companies with which they do business. Further, Section 16, item 9, permits
rejections of bids by a 2/3 majority vote of the Board of Directors and to
negotiate with companies of their own choosing for purchases "provided there
---AFORE_---
•
Letter to Salt Lake City Board of Comm` esioners re Transit District-Page 2
is a lesser cost'rthan that in the rejected bid. The lesser cost can be
a dollar less. And they can negotiate with companies in which they have
interests. The potential for conflicts of interests, the potential for
public suspicion are great since every conceivable advantage the law allows
is permitted.
Too, I objected to the fact that a public hearing was orderer an' --squired
AFTER the fact of election and not BEFORE the fact of election. All
disclosures should have been made possible BEFORE the election so that a
more intelligent vote might have been effected. •
The Legislature created a poorly devised. bill. The Governor of Utah,
Calvin Rampton, signed a poorly dev,i,sed bill.
Respd3tfully s bmitted,
�SAMUEL S TAYLOR
3682 South 5th East
Salt Like City, Utah 84106
Phone 266-7745
completion
P.S.---Before and since the public hearing and the matting of this
letter of protest, I personally have talked with 5 of the 8
members of the "CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY
PROGRESS". The names listed on the back of the brochure tended
to deceive the public because the "OFFICAL" positions of these
members were also listed and this gave impressions to many people
that the institutions so listed "officially" gave affirmation.
None of the 5 with whom I spoke were aware of the implications of
the Transit Bill. Two expressed personal regrets that they had not
read the bill before lending their names to it.
E0. E.65-200
ROLL CALL Decent er 11 9
VOTING Aye Nay Salt Lake City,Utah, ,196
Barker. , . .
I move that the Resolution be adopted.
Harrison /.7
/% F/ `�/
Holley . . . .
Mn Chairman . v
RESOLUTION
Result . . . .
WHEREAS, a jsublic hearing was had at 10:00 A.M., December 11,
1969, in the Chambers of the Salt Lake City Board of Commissioners,
the same being for the purpose of determining whether the public
interest would be served by incorporating and organizing a Public
Transit District; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was duly advertised and
held pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 12, Laws of the State of
Utah, 1969, First Special Session; and
WHEREAS, an election was held upon the question of the organi-
zation of a Public Transit District, November 4, 1969, and the voters
of Salt Lake City and all other cities which were proposed to be
included in said district, overwhelmingly voted in favor of the crea-
tion of such district; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing all persons were invited to
express their opinions and be heard for and against the organization
of said district; and
WHEREAS, it appeared that not sufficient information was pre-
sented to the Commission which would demonstrate that it would be
contrary to the public interest to create a Public Transit District;
and
WHEREAS, it appeared that because of the mandate of the voters
at said election that the duty of the Board of Commissioners was clear;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF SALT LAKE CITY that:
1. It is hereby declared that the public convenience, necessity
and interest require incorporation of a Public Transit District.
2. That the names of the municipalities and area to be included
within the jurisdiction of the proposed district is as follows:
City of Salt Lake City
City of South Salt Lake
Murray
Midvale
Sandy
Bingham Canyon
3. That the necessary proofs, papers and instruments should be
transmitted to the Secretary of State in order that the incorporation
of said Public Transit District can be completed according to law.
Passed by the Board of Commissioners of Sa Lake City, Ut
this llth day of December, 1969.
MAYOR
CIThh DER