02/13/1990 - Minutes PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1990
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of
the Whole on Tuesday, February 13, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City
County Building, 451 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present:
Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk
Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Don Hale
Nancy Pace
Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting.
The Council interviewed Linda Councilmembers to contact Sena-
Peterson prior to consideration of tors.
her appointment to the Golf Advi-
sory Board. She indicated that Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council
she had been asked by Executive Director, reviewed the
Councilmember Godfrey to consider evening' s agenda, noting the
the appointment. She said she addendum to the agenda for the
played the city golf courses Charles Bennett resolution. The
almost exclusively and did have Council decided to have
some concerns. Councilmember Hale read the reso-
lution.
Councilmember Whitehead asked
what concerns she had. Ms. Ms. Gust-Jenson reminded the
Peterson said the fee increases Council of the Executive Session
concerned her as well as the immediately following the regular
condition of the greens. council session.
Councilmember Kirk asked Ms. She said the Redevelopment
Peterson if she was aware of the Agency had provided information
controversy with the golf issues about the national NAHRO confer-
and whether she would be prepared ence and that Councilmembers
to receive complaints. Ms. should notify the RDA as soon as
Peterson indicated that she did possible if they were going to
not know what to expect from attend. Councilmember Godfrey said
serving on this board but she the League meeting would be two or
wanted the opportunity to have a three days following the Utah
voice in what was being done with NAHRO conference. Ms. Gust-Jenson
the city courses. indicated that she would obtain
further information from the RDA
Councilmember Godfrey briefed as to their agenda.
the other members on a "fuel tax
for roads" bill that passed the Ms. Gust-Jenson noted that
House of Representatives. The the monthly Mayor-Council general
bill was not expected to pass as discussion meeting was scheduled
easily in the Senate. The state for Thursday, February 15th. The
did not spend its general fund for meeting would be held at 4:00 p.m.
roads. He asked that staff obtain in the Mayor' s Office. She asked
information from Joe Anderson, that Councilmembers submit any
public works director, on city agenda requests to her by 3:00 on
costs for roads, and encouraged Wednesday in order to meet the
posting requirement.
90-41
PROCEINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1990
She mentioned that the annual
SLACC neighborhood conference
would be held on May 5th this year
and that this conference had
historically been well attended.
The briefing session was
adjourned.
90-42
PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1990
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session
on Tuesday, February 13, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council
Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present:
Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk
Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Don Hale
Nancy Pace
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Lynda Domino,
Chief Deputy City Recorder, and Doc Kivett, Deputy Recorder, were
present.
Council Chair Hardman presided at and conducted the meeting.
OPENING CEREMONIES CONSENT AGENDA
#1. The invocation was given Councilmember Godfrey moved
by Police Chaplain Herbert Lilly. and Councilmember Whitehead sec-
onded to approve the consent
#2. The Council led the agenda, which motion carried, all
Pledge of Allegiance. members voted aye.
#3. Councilmember Godfrey #1. RE: Approving the ap-
moved and Councilmember Kirk pointment of Curley C. Jones to
seconded to approve the minutes of the Community Development Advisory
the Salt Lake City Council for the Committee.
regular meeting held Tuesday, (I 90-2)
February 6, 1990, which motion
carried, all members voted aye. #2. RE: Approving the ap-
(M 90-1) pointment of Linda Peterson to the
Golf Advisory Board.
#4. The Mayor and Council (I 90-5)
presented a resolution recognizing
Charles Bennett. Councilmember #3. RE: Adopting Resolution
Hale said Mr. Bennett had made a 16 of 1990 authorizing the execu-
great contribution to Sugar House, tion of an interlocal cooperation
Salt Lake City, and the State of agreement between Salt Lake City
Utah. He read the resolution Corporation and the Utah Depart-
honoring Mr. Bennett for devoting ment of Transportation to relocate
his life to serving his family, the city's water and sewer facili-
church, students and the communi- ties, Project No. HES-018(23) .
ty, and for giving compassionate (C 90-54)
and unselfish service.
#4. RE: Adopting Resolution
Councilmember Hale moved and 17 of 1990 authorizing the execu-
Councilmember Godfrey seconded to tion of an interlocal cooperation
adopt Resolution 18 of 1990, which agreement between Salt Lake City
motion carried, all members voted Corporation and Utah State Bureau
aye. of Criminal Identification to
(R 90-1) define the responsibilities of the
90-43
PROCEINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1990
city in accessing information He said the ordinance would
provided by the Utah State Bureau require all connection fees for
of Criminal Identification. the water service meters to be
(C 90-55) prepaid by the developer prior to
installing the watermain. This
#5. RE: Setting a date to would insure that they would use
hold a public hearing on March 13, water appropriately through
1990, at 6:40 p.m. to receive meters. He said there would also
public comment and consider an be a $10.00 charge for water used
ordinance adopting the Block 57 during construction. This nominal
Master Plan. fee would provide between 12,000
(T 90-6) and 16,000 gallons of water and
would reduce the problem of water
PUBLIC HEARING theft and borrowing water meters.
He said the ordinance would pro-
#1. RE: A public hearing at vide the same requirements for
6:20 p.m. to receive comment sewer.
concerning an ordinance amending
Sections 17. 16.300, 17. 16. 120, He asked the Council to make
17.48.050 and enacting a new a wording change on the first line
Section 17. 16.345 of the Salt Lake on Page 3. He said they should
City Code, relating to water and add the word "applicable" in the
sewer main connections. sentence "All service connection
fees" so that it would read "All
ACTION: Councilmember applicable service connection
Whitehead moved and Councilmember fees. " He said this change could
Godfrey seconded to close the reduce a developer' s up-front cost
public hearing, which motion by $1, 000.
carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Whitehead asked
Councilmember Kirk moved and if this ordinance would discourage
Councilmember Whitehead seconded development of large subdivisions.
to adopt Ordinance 8 of 1990, as Mr. Doxey said it shouldn't be-
amended to add the word "applic- cause they could phase the costs
able" in the first sentence at the by streets or cul-de-sacs.
top of Page 3, which motion car-
ried, all members voted aye. No one from the audience
spoke.
DISCUSSION: Tim Doxey, public (0 90-2)
utilities department, said the
need for this ordinance arose
because contractors had laid The meeting adjourned at 6:30
pipelines at the wrong eleva- p.m.
tions prior to installing improve-
ments and infrastructure. He said
the ordinance would allow sub 414.1 -
-
grading of a development prior to Counci Chair
installing pipelines and would
require developers to submit a
bond for work in Salt Lake City
and Salt Lake County. He men- Ci y Re der
tioned that the county was cooper-
ative in this issue.
90-44
I . tv7.94,A kiilicipd—,,i16 6L-
Gicac... SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA /V`' 111 1
(&D COht�ck{,t - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERW n
C / R _�yA N 2(� / ROOM 315
., ''l1 le /k�,,o L,_ CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING
j � t� �"` 451 SOUTH STATE STREET \lb) , .
A C
N �(C(�,b-L&�4XJC( ^_� Tuesday, February 13, 1990 6\ .
"5 6:00 p.m.
Crlda &W.() (tar& CIA,Abt-tej ar3 t(-77-67-1-(fit4A.
A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451
South State.
1 . Report of the Executive Director.
a
) The Council will interview Linda Peterson prior to consideration of her
appointment to the Golf Advisory Board.
B. OPENING CEREMONIES:
`v .. 1 . Invocation.
(ij2. Pledge of Allegiance.
N(J' 3. Approval of the Minutes. I ` f>,.
C. COMMENTS:
1 . Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
2. Citizen Comments to the Council.
D. CONSENT:
1. Community Development Advisory Committee
Consider approving the appointment of Curley C. Jones to the
Community Development Advisory Committee.
(I 90-2)
Staff recommendation: Approve.
2. Golf Advisory Board
Consider approving the appointment of Linda Peterson to the Golf Advisory
Board.
(I 90-5)
Staff recommendation: Approve.
3. Interlocal Agreement Re: Water and Sewer Facilities Relocation
Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah
Department of Transportation to relocate the City's water and sewer
facilities, Project No. HES-018(23) .
(C 90-54)
Staff recommendation: Adopt.
4. Interlocal Agreement Re: Utah State Bureau of Criminal Investigations
Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah State
Bureau of Criminal Investigations to define the responsibilities of the City
in accessing information provided by the Utah State Bureau of Criminal
Investigations.
(C 90-55)
Staff recommendation: Adopt.
5. Block 57 Master Plan
Set date to hold a public hearing on March 13, 1990 at 6:40 p.m. to receive
public comment and consider an ordinance adopting the Block 57 Master Plan.
(T 90-6)
Staff recommendation: Set date.
E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS:
F. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS:
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1 . Ordinance: Water and Sewer Main Connections 6 :20 p .m.
Receive public comment and consider adopting and ordinance amending sections
17. 16.300, 17. 16. 120, 17.48.050 and enacting a new section 17. 16.345 of the
Salt Lake City Code, relating to water and sewer main connections.
(0 90-2)
Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt.
H. ADJOURNMENT.
#I FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITE1 ON THIS AGENDA
DATED: / 1/771
•
BY:
CHIEF DEPUTY CIT CORDER
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss.
On the 9th day of February, 1990 I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing
notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous
view, at the following times and locations within the City and County Building, 451
South State Street , Salt Lake City, Utah:
1 . At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, Room 415; and
2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 343.
AO
11.Atik. 41Pftil
CHIEF DEPUTY CI " y CORDER
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of February, 1990.
/1
Totary Public resi ing i th
State of Utah
My Commission Expires:
Public 1
x a ►wuctr
e iJf1_is 44 S_o.SIC St Rn81441/�5,I
f Z r"' S�LiW j Vim.W1VS
`; ►can s
-, woo
APPROVAL:
E CU VE DIRE TOR
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
ROOM 315
CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING
451 SOUTH STATE STREET
Tuesday, February 13, 1990
6:00 p.m.
ADDENDUM
B. OPENING CEREMONIES:
4. The Mayor and Council will consider a resolution recognizing Charles Bennett .
** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA
DATED: -J ] leip
�BY: I ' iittdaalf1-11_—
CI Y 'ECO ' '
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss.
On the 12th day of February, 1989, I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing
notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous
view, at the following times and locations within the City and County Building, 451
South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah:
1 . At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, Room 415; and
2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 343.
CIT CO
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of Febru&ry, 1989.
otary Public resi
State of Utah
My Commission Expires:
7.4.00 in
C S oi.1- J APPROVAL:
EXEC IVE D RECTOR
L51_1 11.1“
, , ..-•
_
,
ilk., .
,
, .
, E-- .
..,
.
.
_ ,
. .. ..
._
.
.... .
• .
_.
..,
..
_
_. , ,
mirlifilikHERS
• _
&a
.
.
1990 NAHRct Legislative Conference
,fr
,.. .
I's trig 21.1990 0-,L•- Kilarc - - , Renaissance Ramada
Hoteto.999,K Street NW Washtngton
. '
- • . .,----,:;,
.. .
DC
.27 I __,...,
• -1,-14...7
,.._.... -
-
--,...
..- ,
,, •
. _
. ..
. , .. .
- - . _
Secretary JIck.Kemp
President George Bush _ , • .. ,,,, . , , -- • _ ,•••=...• - , ' ,- 14P-
f':,-g • - ,,' ., . _ `1.',. - • -.- .,- . , •-• : , ,-.,-,' .' , -. ,:„ •.., -,--,- , .. ...'
• ' • •4"5-T, -' :. ..-::•4'14.. . ., - .• , '1, - „:.1.-'4.: -' _ : ' , -,--1`•, - '. ,:::_. '3r .. ., _
::.• ' '• i: . 7''' - 1 -, ..:4,4t,t,*.-- „- .' - 111•4 '. - ' '4 :- ..- - ''v• - - • •
mit .400111%
" t. ,
Sen_Jake Gam
Sen.Barbar-a Mikulaki
Rep-Bill Green
Rep.gob Traxler
' .`- ,`. - •
I---..1.-----.
. ,
-•;%:-.•••,..,,-
_....4... .,....,......,-:....
0--%7.;='
. ,
. .
--;•.,— • • •
• ,• •
— 0-
. , -41-.---'7,' t-
. ..,: -
`..47' •
- - .
'4-..- . ' •S•Nairg:
. . .
..-...,. :1:::•±,.. .-..,:'• .
R iy ;6.°nlier' - , , '''' - - '.'`..- ••- '. '.-• .: '2.- - ' , ,• ,,• ,., .
Flen , Er . • - _ • ,.- •., ,:e. • ,,,-•,?• ..- -- ' il'',...-.•p%1l-f1'_',iA-'.t'::..'-!=-'-;1.-_-1,''.'',,-'.'-.1t,:,'',‘,'''„,-``':1`,.§7:'(I,-,'t;<-'.'.-;'''‘".-:..'`..e,';12.,,r'.,'e•:4.,i1 1-:t,-•';.,•Z4_4;.,,0'.;'.;'-;....%.2:.--.:•-''R._•..---,C-',41r'•":ii_i..',•-,,A;.1-',,4,,,'-1.Y,1'::-N.''-S;,''t,:2x._!.'''q.",-.:;:''-.;'4 i;--,.t:'%,-„.,,.:1-'-.'''1-,•'.1-.;--,'t.-',.-,`•t''•:','_-'",';''::•,'-.1:i".4•.'1':':1/.='.!•''','-,:';':.1`..-‘',.'•'',.••1:`-''..•',-:''1,-.,''.-l_i 16'f`.::1ti'., ,1't' ':.;
,`-''sl'g)lef3'.-‘?•.,:''*,•.':;-p.'tz'-':'°;:''..-:,' , 7•:'-t..1-4..•0t.'".:....l;.'4:i•:-r-i's•'''',''1,',',-1_'.-,.';''•,;.'...4'1,1'c'4-",':,,::-1g i:",`',; 1-'t;"'`-•:''""'t-' -..;'.:-'":.o:•2:'.•:--7.N-,.'‘-':!,'r-,.-,•.'.`'':;-t,,.'. jii;,,€...44.:
. T Ir % - 0 :. 7Si
'• 4 ‘ - 2 '4
, , . , , ''' ` . •4f - 1_ , -1 0
,
-i ' . ' - y . ' :-t'i!:1
- - aX *t •
:• "'•-,'-'.'2:,.%:'v4•J'=':"i-,,,',.,,,,
;-
"
,.-....%,(z ,,„:,.4
- -'.•, '_,,,-:•1;:-.
.•.. 4,,,k„ -Tx..J• •• •.:, 1-'_.. ,:t.1 .-.
4.i_N-,..., --:-'4 •„t •',-• •--`-'. .
D,Arnato
Sen-AlforlSe
Sen.Alan Cranston
,t:t' ..,.-'::.; ' -., -' ' •••••::::,',".4 , " ')tir ...z. s• "'V.',"-
•••-•.t..; - ,'" • ,?'• ---.,:t."2"..,.,,
4.: ‘.',.'..•-•.!•,
,.`',('t••••.,.„ ., -,,,,i... • *,_':-.1.`.....;
.r. f. ' .:4,',')'-.,,' e• 204' .-..,' "....`Y..-:.•.•
Join us to hear from:
- . -.•-•-• c-it It''''''-':;1V--4', ''.;:t.''- •,,',; ,4,-... CI -,'1''''A
•
47;1r";Y". -.,.,'ts'':'•-.. " .'4Y'' h'.!_,..'-;,,..,-.4:".4.1.1ki.,•'•,_4:1'.4"1.
1;4'4.r'••••4.'sk': - AV 4..4,»4 'ij,,; --,V.g--.'
Washington Movers
. . .. •
and Shakers on
,1/4,,- ..i. -.0.., : .,-1,......4;.,-
"HOPE"
' '' '" ' ' '4.''r.-• .7..-,, V..
' '' '4.-gi',!.:,. ...-s-- 5'.• '11% .1`'1'4 ft ,,,,,,,V1.1'4 i,‘,.r l'..-4,..,'I''
* the Bush/Kemp
initiative
.-. ,,,, - . ....,,,., 3,,,, .„, ,,-,-.."-.4.,':'-..: --,, r-f-t."•-(44,-,tiN.-
using and Community ,---..„..t._,,, .--.---..„-_,..1-.1 ,,..,
' 1.L., '.3.f f,',..-41.14„f••••-. -„••••••,...,,
. ,,,,,,g4 r-'• .''. 'i 4.144 4 ' " 4,"-,:•,.4`',,-(.' -., , ..--.4.
* the Housing
Act for the 19909 S ' r--te::.;...'',I -,-ehy. - ,,,z ,",,..` :) .' , V':7"-r,,,,t,r,111.
Development
4, „ _,.., ,...; =:',',,, ,, ,,,•.%?,'1,--;':T.
v-,,..-1" ?,,,,,;•.-;*--,,s . -z .-..;,": '-47,,--1- •-• - .31,: --7- -:
* the HUJD spending bill for fiscal
.
is behind us _;..:.,;:.-- ;,.....f,i.:,,--,,,,,,,,,,,,.,..,-..,,....„--,-.:4,-:.9.,,,,----„,-, ,:,--,.,.r ,...f'.- .,t,''',,r.., it-,,._ -•=f4_,-:
year 1991
--,--, . ,,,..1„...„,......„..7.1.„,,,,,,...,.....i..-,t.,..--,,-,-...:-.-1-, •.....?,,,,,,,,,...--.--.-, .1-0;:_!-4.,,-,..it.
• ,---,_- „, ..;,, ...02t.---0.4,,,e. '•''' --. .' ----- .r.lv.‘• .-_ ,...;
the HUD scandals ••••,-,:,..,'
*- putting
_—__---:-_--- .... - ____._, _ _r,_ .
_m. - ..—+ ..-• en 1...,....
17-_ ._- , . _ _ A --....-.... ,...._,..__T *
Tn.'...I.+,,,IL.
11 1::.....:7.vs a 11=-111--=--- 1--.---Illits i1911
ru,t Ur 31_,U L4 U1/3
MOVING O HUD PROGRAMS =.
1
& SHAKING THINGS UP
ow that the HUD scandals have been addressed in Come to your Nation's Capital to hear and meet
HUI)Reform legislation,will Congress turn its HUD and Congressional policy makers
attention to reauthorization of proven HUD programs $ear the directions they are proposing for housing
that work? and community development programs
What about the new initiatives of Senators CranstonLearn the NAHRO Legislative Agenda for 1990
and D'_Amato and of President Bush and HUD
Secretary Kemp?What are the prospects for the Meet with your Members of Congress as part of a
reauthorization of HUD programs by Rep_Gonzalez? NAHRO chapter delegation to advance the NAHRO
1 Will bipartisan cooperation prevail to see a Legislative Agenda
reauthorization bill through to enactment? Renew your Washington contacts and establish new
What does President Bush's budget proposals for ones with Members of Congress,Capitol Hill staff,
HUD for fiscal year 1991 tell us? HUD officials,and allied interest groups.
The annual HUD spending bill is crucial Does Return to your community as a NAHRO Mover and
Congress have the will to shift spending priorities and Shaker with Congress and a closer perspective on
get HUD back on track? where the Administration and Congress are headed
with programs you operate at the local level_
•
Mondial, March 19
Morning PROGRAM 01fiERIlle
General Session y vv~ -
irk -. Congressional Movers * Modcrniration of Pub
* -` and Shakers Housing:Reducing the
�E .,;v Backlog and Freeing Up
R * of HUD spending sub- the Pipeline
- committees and their prior
k -' '• ides for fiscal year 1991
-.,.; Jade Quinn appropriations Tuesday,
_NAFIRO * of Housing sub- March 20
The• Honorable senior vice President
committees on planned
Jack Kemp action on reauthorization Morning
Serrr<1uny offluuthr.y rtrlrl of housing and community Capitol Hill ViSlts.
Urban De1:W.vpmr1 development programs and
* on the fiscal year 15191 , , ,---i new initiatives
HUD budget request by the r Meet with your Membe
Administration Afternoon •.- • of Congress on Capitol
r "Power Moves" through Chapter and
NAHRO Leadership Regional breakfasts an
* How to become a Mover individual meetings to
* on the NAHRO - and Shaker for the NAHRO present the NAI•IRO Le
Legislative Agenda Legislative Agenda lative Agenda
• Roland L,:Turpin .
NABIZ d Vice President-- * The Community Devel-
17ousing opment Block Grant Pro- Afternoon
gram:Back to Basics 'What's Shaking !
* Lead Paint Abatement in On Capitol Hill:
Public Housing:Cost, Capitol£1111 staff will I
" Safety,and Timing vide an inside real wo
Jane I7p�vrung Considerations view of how CongresE
NA$1�0 Vice Presiczt— really works,what the
�k Drug Free Neighbor-
* .
Apolonio"Norio"Flares Community Revita1L anon hoods:Community Tide need to know,and wh
they need to know it.
NAHRO President and Development Strategies
02 ;13/90 17:04 73'801 538 0128 RDA OF SLC 1 004
REGISTRATION IImIRMATION
SAVE MONEY-REGISTER TODAY! -
I.All delegates,guests,speakers and press must register for Your Registration Fees
the Legislative Conference on the official NAHRO Registration 5.Please enter your appropriate fee on your Registration
Form. Form.
2.Full payment must accompany your form.You may pay by Individual Individual -
check,agency purchase order,claim voucher,VISA or Savings AND Agency OR Agency . Non-
MasterCard. - Category Member Member Member
Note:You must enclose payment in full,your purchase order, Advance $295 $:315 $350
or claim voucher for NAHRO to process your registration- -
3.Mail your Registration Form,together with full payment, January 15 $320 $340 5375
-
purchase,order or claim voucher to: Post`" ` •
NAHRO Conference Registration Center Late— $34 $360 $400
P.O.Box 809254 February la'
Chicago,11 60680 • Postmark
Note:Please duplicate the form for each individual registrant. 'After February 15,you must register On-Site.Register now and take
4.NAHRO cannot accept any telephone registrations_ advantage of the lower rated .
Registration questions?
Call(812) 782-2958. 6.registration fee does not include meals or hotel_ •
• 7.Your registration will be confirmed by NAHRO in writing.
• • You must receive official confirmation to attend.
-
. 8.Registration must be paid in full and postmarked before
Within HUD: - • Wednesday, February 20, 1990_Registrations postmarked after that date
HUD officials will describe . must pay the On-Site fee. .
their agenda for the corn- March 21 .
ing year and respond to the Cancellations and Refunds•
NAHRO Legislative • . • • 9.Cancellations must be in writing and should be sent to:
Agenda. Morning . - • . . NARRO Conference Registration Center
General S - ion • P.O.Box 809254 .
Within the Rousing Chicago,'IL 60680.
and Community *An Office of Manage- Sorry,no telephone cancellations!
Development ment and Budget(OMB) 10.Cancellations po,Livarked by February 15,1990 will
• Profession: official will show how the . . receive a full refund minus a$50 cancellation fee. .
*The Many Faces of Resi- HUD budget fits into the 11.No refunds after February 20, 1990. .
dent Involvement in Public overall$1 trillion federal
Housing budget .
* Affordable Housing Save on Hotel Accommodations!
Opportunities through the •
12.A limited number of specially priced hotel rooms have
Resolution Trust the HUD snrials,Congres- your Hear the perspective been reserved for this conference.To receive low room
Corporation sional ethics,and what it rate,your must request reservations on your Registration Form
*Partnerships That means for HUD low income through the NAHRO Conference Registration Center-You'll
Deliver receive confirmation of your room reservation by return mail.
programs from a Member of
it Self-Sufficiency Efforts Congress and the media 13.Specially-priced rooms have been reserved at
* Supportive Services Hotel Single Double Twin
. Initiatives - *Join your colleagues for Ramada $ 97 $108 $108
. a feedback session with Renaissance
EveningNAHRO officers to discuss Techworld
how the NAHRO message
Washington wasreceived on Capitol Hill Renaissance 5122133 $133
Club
Reception
Please note:No requests for reservations can be processed
Join the IrAHRO Board of after February 15, 1990_Alter that date,please contact the •
Governors and your col- hotel directly.
leagues in greeting Mem-
bers of Congress,HUD, Save on Airline Reservations!
FrHA officials and allied 3.4.Call the NAHRO Conference Travel Center 1-800-368-3239
interest groups.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT t,AKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of
the Whole on Tuesday, February 6, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City
County Building, 451 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present:
Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk
Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Don Hale
Nancy Pace
Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting.
Council Chair Hardman opened bers had expressed interest about
the meeting by requesting that the having vegetarian dishes available
report of the Executive Director at the retreat. She asked that
be delayed until after the Council those interested contact her.
completed the board appointment
interview. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Wayne
Owens had requested a meeting with
Mr. Curly Jones was inter- the Council regarding the wilder-
viewed prior to his consideration ness bill. She said if several
for appointment to the Community members were interested she would
Development Advisory Committee. schedule the meeting. The alter-
He said he had been employed at native would be for Council Mem-
the University of Utah for eigh- bers to discuss this with Mr.
teen years and had observed the Owens in Washington, D.C. , during
different developments, especially the March conference.
in the central city area. He
expressed his interest in serving. She said this Thursday was
He said he had been attending the Redevelopment Agency meeting
meetings since September of 1989 and the fine arts discussion was
and was aware of the time commit- scheduled for the Committee of the
ment. He said he was asked to Whole meeting immediately follow-
serve on the committee and favored ing. She said one of the fine
the opportunity. arts representatives would have a
scheduling conflict unless this
Linda Peterson, scheduled for item could be completed prior to
an interview prior to her consid- 7:20 that evening.
eration for appointment to the
Golf Board, was not present. This prompted a discussion
regarding the duration of the
Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Redevelopment Agency' s meetings.
Executive Director, distributed Councilmember Hardman suggested
copies of the updated events the possibility of holding RDA
calendar. She said the Mayor- meetings twice a month until their
Council retreat was scheduled for agendas lightened. Councilmember
Saturday, February 10, at the Godfrey suggested that breaks be
Doubletree Hotel from 9 :00 a.m. to taken from RDA business to conduct
5:00 p.m. She said packets for pressing Committee of the Whole
the retreat would be distributed business, which had been done in
on Thursday. the past. Or to postpone Commit-
tee of the Whole agenda items when
She also said Council Mem- necessary and appropriate. The
90-28
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
Council decided to discuss sched- Regarding Items D-4, D-5, D-6
uling options at future RDA meet- and D-7, she said this was the end
ings and to take a break on Thurs- of the process regarding the Sandy
day in order to accommodate the City annexation into the Metropol-
fine arts schedule. itan Water District and LeRoy
Hooton, public utilities director,
Ms. Gust-Jenson reviewed the was present to answer questions.
evening' s agenda noting that Item Mr. Hooton said the agreements
B-4 was a presentation of a cer- would be signed on Wednesday,
tificate to a citizen. The Coun- February 7, by all the Mayors of
cil decided that Councilmember the affected jurisdictions.
Hardman as the Chair would read Councilmember Kirk inquired and
the certificate during the meet- Mr. Hooton confirmed that five
ing. members would be appointed to the
Board of Directors by Salt Lake
Councilmember Kirk offered City and two members would be
information about the Steiner appointed by Sandy City. The
Aquatics tour scheduled for Council ' s appointment authority
Councilmembers. She said the tour was not impacted by the revisions.
was worthwhile and was intended to
give information. She indicated Councilmember Pace suggested
that the tour revealed much more a field trip prior to the North-
than could be seen from the road. west Community Master Plan Update
Due to conflicts of the various appearing on the agenda. All
members in making a 3:30 tour members agreed that a tour should
time, it was suggested that the take place and could be scheduled
Steiner organization be contacted in conjunction with a Committee of
about a later time in the day. the Whole meeting. Ms. Gust-
Jenson asked the Council to give
Councilmember Hale said Tom her suggestions for dates.
Welch had indicated a willingness
to give an update on the Olympics. Regarding Item F-1, pertain-
Emilie Charles of the Mayor' s ing to the Street Lighting Special
Office said the Mayor' s staff had Improvement District, Dick Fox,
been working to set a time with bond counsel, explained that a
the various individuals and would change in the state statute al-
arrange possible times with the lowed revenues from improvement
Council Office Director. This districts to be adjusted. He said
update would probably be given this improvement district would
during a Committee of the Whole utilize the adjustment concept
meeting and February 22 was being which allowed for a change in
considered. installments to prevent surplus or
deficit funds.
Regarding Item B-5, Ms. Gust-
Jenson said the Urban Design Award Councilmember Kirk asked if
was annually presented during a those affected by this assessment
Council meeting. This year the could anticipate an increase or a
Council was being presented with decrease and how they would be
an award for their action on the notified. Mr. Fox said the Yale-
North Temple Interchange. The crest area could anticipate an
Council decided that Councilmember increase in costs, since operating
Hardman as Chair would accept the costs had increased.
award.
90-29
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
Councilmember Whitehead said
a problem existed when neighbors
compared their assessment fees,
and he wondered if there was any
way to make the fees more uniform.
It was pointed out that certain
areas were still paying off the
capital expense for the light
posts and once these were paid
off, the rate would decrease to be
comparable to other rates.
Steve Meyer, transportation
department, indicated that Scott
Vaterlass from his office would be
sending letters and meeting with
the various Community Councils to
explain the change.
Councilmember Hardman asked
for suggestions about special
issues that Council Members wanted
to discuss with the congressional
delegation. Councilmember
Whitehead indicated a priority
should be placed on the war on
drugs. Councilmember Hardman
asked Council Members to give any
other suggestions to the Council
Office Director.
Councilmember Godfrey said
the League of Cities generally
established the agenda for the
meetings.
The briefing session ad-
journed.
90-30
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session
on Tuesday, February 6, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council
Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present:
Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk
Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Don Hale
Nancy Pace
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn
Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder,
were present.
Council Chair Hardman presided at and conducted the meeting.
OPENING CEREMONIES Judge Memorial High School.
#1. The invocation was given He explained the Leaf Bag
by Police Chaplain Thomas Kaiser. Program by saying that about
500, 000 pumpkin-colored bags were
#2. The Council led the distributed around Halloween to
Pledge of Allegiance. Salt Lake City residents through
the fire stations. He said during
#3. Councilmember Godfrey the flood years the volunteer
moved and Councilmember Kirk spirit rose in Salt Lake City
seconded to approve the minutes of because city crews could not pick
the Salt Lake City Council for the up leaves. He said had the leaves
regular meetings held Tuesday, gotten into the drainage system,
January 16, 1990, and Tuesday, they would have caused trouble
January 23, 1990, which motion during the winter. Citizens came
carried, all members voted aye. to the rescue and filled bags with
(M 90-1) leaves and the city took them to
the landfill. He said now with
#4. The Mayor and Council the new recycling program, the
presented certificates of appre- city was considering how to mulch
ciation to the Salt Lake Area the leaves and discard the bags so
Jaycees and to Thomas Peters for they didn't become a problem.
their volunteer efforts with the
Leaf Bag Program. He said this program had
lowered the city's costs in terms
Mayor DePaulis said the Leaf of drainage clean up and the
Bag Program had become popular and Jaycees had been an integral part
the number of leaf bags distribut- of the program. He said Mr. Peters
ed had consistently increased. He had distributed bags to homebound
said the Jaycees had been in- and elderly residents and had also
volved in this program since its organized all the volunteers at
inception so he wanted to present Fire Station #4.
a certificate of appreciation to
them. He also said he wanted to Councilmember Hardman read
present a certificate to Thomas the certificates and he and the
Peters, a citizen volunteer from Mayor presented them.
90-31
PROCEEDINGS uF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
#5. The Mayor presented the agenda except for Item #2, which
Urban Design awards for 1989. He motion carried, all members voted
said these awards had been given aye.
every year since 1985 and were
sponsored by the Urban Design #1. RE: Adopting Resolution
Coalition and cosponsored by the 8 of 1990 authorizing the execu-
Deseret News. He presented tion of an interlocal cooperation
awards to the following: agreement between Salt Lake City
Corporation and the University of
The Historic Landmarks Com- Utah for the City Prosecutor to
mittee of the Planning and Zoning prosecute misdemeanor citations
Commission - recognized for ongo- issued by the University of Utah
ing decisions addressing the police.
historic fabric of the city. (C 90-47)
The Regional Urban Design #2. RE: Setting a date to
Assistant Team Steering Commit- hold a public hearing on March 13,
tee - for interest in careful 1990, at 6: 40 p.m. to consider an
growth and development of the down ordinance adopting the Northwest
town. Community Master Plan Update.
Mr. H. David Burton, Presid- ACTION: Councilmember White-
ing Bishopric of the Church of head moved and Councilmember God-
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day frey seconded to set the hearing
Saints - for commitment and in- date for April 3, 1990, at 6:20
volvement in long-range planning p.m. , which motion carried, all
in the down town area and for members voted aye.
working with such community groups (T 90-5)
as the Urban Design Committee and
the R/UDAT Steering Committee. #3. RE: Adopting Resolution
9 of 1990 authorizing the execu-
The Salt Lake City Council - tion of an interlocal cooperation
for their decision not to permit a •agreement between Salt Lake City
new freeway interchange at North Corporation and the State of Utah
Temple. to provide grant funds under the
provisions of the "E.M.S. Per-
The Utah State Division of Capita Grants Program. "
Facilities Construction and Man- (C 90-48)
agement - for their decision to
build the employment security #4. RE: Adopting Resolution
building on Block 53. 10 of 1990 authorizing the execu-
tion of an interlocal cooperation
"Howard and Martha" - a wood agreement between Salt Lake City
cutout, voice-activated, story- Corporation, Metropolitan Water
telling display placed at various District of Salt Lake City and
downtown locations to inform and Sandy City Corporation for the
educate people about making wise treatment of Little Cottonwood
choices for the down town area. Creek water.
(C 90-49)
CONSENT AGENDA
#5. RE: Adopting Resolu-
Councilmember Godfrey moved tion 11 of 1990 authorizing the
and Councilmember Whitehead sec- execution of an interlocal cooper-
onded to approve the consent ation agreement between Salt Lake
90-32
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT i,AKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
City Corporation and Sandy City 1990, which motion carried, all
Corporation regarding the Metro- members voted aye.
politan Water District of Salt (Q 89-9)
Lake City, Resolution No. 1633,
and the composition of the Water #2. RE: A resolution de-
District's Board of Directors. Glaring the intention of the City
(C 90-50) Council of Salt Lake City to
create Lighting District No. 1;
#6. RE: Adopting Resolution to operate, maintain, patrol, and
12 of 1990 authorizing the execu- power lighting improvements; to
tion of an escrow agreement for defray a portion of the original
the annexation of Sandy City into capital cost of lighting improve-
the Metropolitan Water District of ments, and the operation and
Salt Lake City. maintenance expenses of said
(C 90-51) improvement district by special
assessments to be levied against
#7. RE: Adopting Resolution the properties benefited by such
13 of 1990 approving the "Water lighting and improvements; to
Supply and Distribution Plan for provide notice of intention to
Salt Lake County 1991-2000. " authorize such lighting and im-
(C 90-52) provements and to fix a time and
place for protest against such
#8. RE: Approving the lighting and improvements or the
appointment of Guy Kroesche to the creation of said district on
Salt Lake Art Design Board. Tuesday, March 13, 1990, 6:00
(I 90-4) p.m. ; and related matters.
#9. RE: Approving the ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey
appointment of William Bohling to moved and Councilmember Whitehead
the Housing Advisory and Appeals seconded to adopt Resolution 15
Board. of 1990, which motion carried, all
(I 90-6) members voted aye.
(Q 90-2)
#10. RE: Approving the
appointment of Stephen Beard to #3. RE: A motion supporting
the Recreation Advisory Board. the release of funds appropriated
(I 90-7) in Fiscal Year 1989-90 for the
Salt Lake Association of Community
UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS Councils' staffing.
#1. RE: A resolution to ACTION: Councilmember Hor-
create the Salt Lake City, Utah, rocks moved and Councilmember Pace
Curb and Gutter Extension Special seconded to support the release of
Improvement District #38-758, as funds, which motion carried, all
described in the Notice of Inten- members voted aye.
tion, concerning the district and (T 90-2)
authorizing the city officials to
proceed to make improvements as #4. RE: A motion supporting
set forth in the Notice of Inten- the release of funds appropriated
tion to create the district. in Fiscal Year 1989-90 for the
creation of a Salt Lake City
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey Community Development Corporation.
moved and Councilmember Pace
seconded to adopt Resolution 14 of
90-33
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey for a planned unit development in
moved and Councilmember Horrocks the future. He said this would be
seconded to support the release of beneficial to the area since there
funds, which motion carried, all were some relatively large lots
members voted aye. and this would allow for increased
(T 90-3) development.
PUBLIC HEARINGS He said this petition re-
quest would not affect any commer-
#1. RE: A public hearing at cial or industrial zones in the
6:30 p.m. to receive comments and area. He then pointed out that in
consider adopting an ordinance the "R-2" zone there were 256
rezoning the property between the single-family units and 33 duplex-
Jordan River and 700 West and 900 es; in the "R-4" zone there were
South Street to California Avenue about 100 single-family units, 2
from "R-4" and "R-2" to "R-1" and duplexes and one 4-plex. He said
"R-lA" classifications. the Planning Commission recommend-
ed the zoning changes.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey
moved and Councilmember Hale Councilmember Godfrey asked
seconded to close the public what the master plan recommended.
hearing, which motion carried, all Mr. Wirth said it recommended a
members voted aye. low to medium density residential
area. Councilmember Godfrey asked
Councilmember Whitehead moved if the master plan recommended a
and Councilmember Pace seconded to specific zone. Mr. Wirth said it
adopt Ordinance 6 of 1990, which did not.
motion carried, all members voted
aye except Councilmember Godfrey Councilmember Godfrey said
who voted nay. the Planning Commission minutes
reflected some concern that the
DISCUSSION: Terry Wirth, zoning change would not follow the
planning and zoning staff, out- master plan. Bill Wright, deputy
lined the area on a map. He planning director, said the bulk
pointed out that the area current- of the area between 800 West and
ly zoned "R-4" was east of 800 the Jordan River was master
West and the area currently zoned planned in 1972 for low density
"R-2" was west of 800 West. He residential use, although the
said the Planning Commission master plan did not designate
recommended rezoning the "R-2" whether that meant "R-1" or "R-2" .
area to "R-1" and rezoning the In regards to the area currently
"R-4" area to "R-1" and "R-lA" . zoned "R-4" , Mr. Wright said in
1972 it was in a land use category
He said this change would be of low to medium density residen-
consistent with the current master tial use. He said this area
plan and the dominant present land remained zoned "R-4" which sent a
use which was single-family dwell- message to the private sector
ing units. He said the rezoning about multiple-family development.
would reflect the single-family
residential character of the He explained that during the
area and would aid in maintaining master plan update process, the
and supporting the population. He "R-4" zone was targeted as an area
said the purpose for rezoning the of potential conflict. He said
"R-4" area to "R-1A" was to allow the "R-4" zone would send the
90-34
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
signal that this area could be industrial zones in the petition
developed as 4-plexes when cur- area had been adjacent for 40
rently the overwhelming land use years. He said the preservation
was low density. He said he of the neighborhood was strong.
believed the zoning change would
be consistent with the current Councilmember Horrocks said
land use. He expressed concern he had lived in this area since
that the "R-4" zone would encour- 1949 and was one block from the
age people to buy single family "M-2" zone. He said there were
homes and tear them down to build many long-term residents who had
4-plexes. remodeled and maintained their
homes, and this was a stable area.
Councilmember Godfrey re- He said the west part of Salt Lake
ferred to an industrial area valley was unique because indus-
adjacent to the residential zone trial zones abutted residential
and asked if it was contradictory zones. He said rezoning this area
to have a low-density residential would protect the residential
zone next to an industrial zone flavor.
without a buffer in between. Mr.
Wright explained that the Councilmember Whitehead asked
"buffer" theory was being ques- if the homes currently in the "R-
tioned in the planning profession 2" area conformed to the zoning.
and they were not adhering to it Mr. Wright said the bulk of the
as a strong planning theory. homes were single-family dwellings
so they conformed to the "R-2"
He said the issue concerned zoning.
design rather than adjacency and said if the adjacent industrial Mr. Whitehead asked how
zone was lowered from "M-2" to "M- rezoning the area to "R-1" would
1A" , there were design and use affect the home owners' ability to
standards that could allow the remodel. Mr. Wright said the
industrial and residential uses to front yard, side yard and rear
be compatible. He said he didn't yard standards were the same in
think there was a need to buffer the "R-2" and "R-1" zones. He
the residential and industrial said the difference was in the
zones with high-density housing area requirement; in the "R-2"
since that was no more compatible zone a single-family house could
than an established neighborhood be located on a 5, 000 square-foot
of single-family housing. lot and in an "R-1" zone it would
need 7, 000 square feet. He said
Councilmember Godfrey asked the bulk of lots in the petition
where in the city adjacent resi- area were greater than 6,000
dential and industrial zones square feet. He said there would
occurred. Mr. Wright said this probably be situations where
occurred frequently along the west requests for building permits
side neighborhoods which abutted would have to go before the Board
the freeway and industrial corri- of Adjustment, but the proposed
dors. He also pointed out that zoning change was not the same as
the new development pattern on the changing the zone from high-densi-
west side was to maintain the ty, such as "R-6" , to "R-1" . He
single-family housing rather than said in that case the standards
tear it down to construct higher would change drastically.
density housing. He also pointed
out that the residential and
90-35
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
In reference to the "R-4" Councilmember Whitehead said
area, he said the "R-1" zoning the "R-2" area was already devel-
change would conform to the cur- oped and he asked why it needed to
rent use. In this case owners be downzoned. Councilmember
would not have the option to add Horrocks said the West Side Commu-
another unit to their property, nity Council wanted to protect the
but he said the bulk of those predominantly single-family areas.
properties could not accommodate
another unit. He said in order to Councilmember Whitehead
actually develop multiple units in expressed his concern that the "R-
this area, developers would have 1" zone would restrict people from
to buy two homes, tear them down, improving their property. Mr.
and join the lots. He said this Wright said owners would have the
would be contrary to the character ability to expand within the
of the neighborhood. confines of rear, side and front
yard requirements. He pointed out
Councilmember Horrocks said that this was an issue of confor-
there were two areas in his dis- mity with the existing land use
trict that were developed as and the goals of the neighborhood.
duplexes. He said one of the
areas had become a slum and the He said rarely did people
other area was overcrowded and legally convert single-family
there were traffic problems. He dwellings to duplexes without a
also said the duplexes had become building addition. In this case
a haven for crime. He said he existing structures would have to
wanted to protect the residential be demolished in order to rebuild
areas. a duplex. He said the goal of the
neighborhood was single-family
Councilmember Whitehead units and they wanted people to
suggested that a better mixture of reinvest in a single-family home
single and multiple family housing versus speculating about duplexes.
would eliminate the problems of
concentrated multiple-family Mel Ingersoll, 766 West 1300
units. South, said his property was
located in the "R-4" zone and he
Mr. Wright reminded the asked about the advantages of an
Council that in the petition area "R-1A" zone versus an "R-1" zone.
there were 349 single-family Mr. Wright said the "R-lA" zone
houses and 35 duplexes. had the same square footage re-
quirements as an "R-1" zone,
Councilmember Whitehead asked except the "R-lA" would allow for
about raw land in the area. Mr. a planned unit development with-
Wright said it was located in the out building a dedicated public
area proposed to be zoned "R-lA" street. He said this meant that a
and the bulk of it was owned by smaller street could be construct-
the Ingersoll family. He said the ed with sidewalk on only one side.
planning department recommended He pointed out a potential disad-
the "R-1A" zoning in order to vantage which was that the city
preserve development options. He would not own the street so would
said "R-1A" would allow planned not be responsible to plow the
unit developments but the develop- snow, collect the garbage or
er would not be required to build maintain the road. He said the
a dedicated public street. homeowners would be responsible
for those services.
90-36
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
Mr. Ingersoll asked if the the Council changed the zoning he
"R-1" zone allowed for planned would not be able to convert his
unit developments. Mr. Wright property.
said it did not so the planning
staff recommended the "R-lA" zone Councilmember Whitehead said
in order to allow for development the neighborhood wanted the area
options. to remain single-family homes. At
this point to allow people to
Mr. Ingersoll said he was construct 4-plexes would be con-
part owner of a large parcel of tradictory.
vacant property within the peti-
tion area. He acknowledged that Mr. Ingersoll asked the
the residents would have more of Council to delay the effective
an advantage if they abutted an date of the rezoning in order to
"R-1" zone rather than a zone allow him time to proceed with his
which would allow for 4-plexes, plans for a 4-plex. Similar to
since 4-plexes were considered a what they had done in another
"bad" neighbor. He said higher- recent rezoning issue.
density housing was usually a
better development since more Councilmember Godfrey reaf-
money was invested and the units firmed with Mr. Ingersoll that he
were managed. He said he had wanted to convert his property to
mixed emotions about whether he a 4-plex but did not have the
preferred the "R-1 " zone or an "R- appropriate permit. Mr. Godfrey
5" or "R-6" zone, which would said if the Council rezoned the
emphasize a better development. area to "R-lA" then Mr. Ingersoll
would not be able to proceed with
He said he would support the his 4-plex. He also indicated
petition with one exception. He that the Council shouldn' t rezone
said he was currently expanding the area if they were going to
his existing home in order to have delay the rezoning in order to
9, 000 square feet. He indicated allow Mr. Ingersoll time to com-
that at some future point he plete his 4-plex. Councilmember
wanted this property to be used as Whitehead said the purpose of the
a 4-plex, which would not be rezoning was to avoid further
allowed if the "R-4" zoning was construction of 4-plexes in this
changed. He pointed out that when area.
he received the permit to expand
his home, it did not indicate that Mr. Cutler reiterated that
he was changing the home into a 4- Mr. Ingersoll had applied for and
plex. He reiterated his support received a building permit for a
of the petition if he could be single-family dwelling and did not
allowed to continue with his apply as a 4-plex. He said Mr.
plans. Ingersoll would not have a non-
conforming use right if this area
Roger Cutler, city attorney, was downzoned.
said he understood that Mr. Inger-
soll had a building permit for a Mr. Ingersoll said he was
single-family home and wanted to underway with his development and
be grandfathered under the "R-4" thought he should be able to
zoning in order to convert the proceed. In regards to the re-
home into a 4-plex at a future mainder of the rezoning petition,
date. He said Mr. Ingersoll did Mr. Ingersoll said he did not
not have a vested interest and if object.
90-37
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT 'AKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
Mr. Cutler reiterated to Mr. tion to compensate people for
Ingersoll that he should not base their property rights.
his decision on a different zoning
circumstance and should not rely Councilmember Godfrey asked
on a concession from the Council . Mr. Stangle if he owned property
He said if Mr. Ingersoll wanted to in this area. Mr. Stangle said he
contest the proposed zoning change owned property in the adjacent "M-
then he should do so and not have 2" area and his main concern would
the expectation that the Council be with that proposed zoning
would delay action based on a change.
previous rezoning issue with
different circumstances. June S. Cox, owner of the
duplex at 1335 and 1337 South on
W.W. Hales, owner of the 900 West, asked how the zoning
property at 804 West 1300 South, change would affect his property.
indicated his desire to keep the Councilmember Godfrey said his
area as single-family homes. He property would remain a duplex.
expressed his concern that large Mr. Cox said he wanted to keep the
homes in the area would convert to neighborhood looking nice and
duplexes or 4-plexes. He said if didn't object to the rezoning as
the City Council rezoned the area, long as it didn' t affect his
then it would remain as single- duplex.
family homes and would not be open
for speculation. He supported the Mr. Ingersoll, on behalf of
zoning change. the Ingersoll family property
interests, said there was no other
F.C. Stangle, construction parcel of vacant property in the
company owner and real estate designated area of any appreciable
developer, opposed the change. He size that was zoned "R-4" . He
said the current zoning in the referred to the Cannon Farm Subdi-
area had existed for 20 to 30 vision, between 1000 West and the
years and the people living there Jordan River near 1700 South, and
had been comfortable with it. He said it had been an unsuccessful
said he thought there was a attempt to develop a single-family
presumption that people wanted the subdivision. He said any new
"R-1" zone and he said some people single-family homes in the peti-
may not be aware of the repercus- tion area would be built next to
sions of the zoning change. older homes and an industrial
district. He referred to the
He said the bulk of the land Hartland Apartments on the north
was already developed and only side of 1700 South near Redwood
about 5% was not developed, the Road and said this project was
majority of which was owned by the completed and was 91% occupied.
Ingersolls. He said he thought
they had a right to their invest- He referred to the Planning
ment. He suggested that the Commission hearing and said the
Council research further what reason given for rezoning this
damage would occur for the proper- area was to control gangs and
ty owners because of the rezoning. prostitution. He said he thought
He pointed out that the zoning these situations could be better
change would create more than 30 controlled in a multiple-unit
nonconforming uses . He said he development with a manager.
thought along with the right to
rezone property went the obliga-
90-38
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT 1,AKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
He suggested that the city Councilmember Kirk asked
should not limit housing potential Councilmember Horrocks how the
when it was suffering from a neighborhood felt about the zoning
decrease in population, which change. Councilmember Horrocks
affected the tax base and receipt said the neighborhood held a
of federal funding. He said the public meeting and there were 3
proposed rezoning reduced the or 4 opposed, 2 were undecided and
property owners ' options to devel- the majority supported the change.
oping single-family residences and (P 89-235)
the sales potential was next to
nothing. He said his property #2. RE: A public hearing at
was purchased for its zoning and 6:40 p.m. to receive comments and
this change would hurt his proper- consider adopting an ordinance
ty value. making technical amendments to
zoning ordinances to correct
Councilmember Godfrey said he inaccuracies and omissions, and to
would vote against adopting the improve the readability of the
ordinance because he thought there zoning ordinances prior to re-
was confusion as to what the printing.
zoning would and would not do. He
also said he was not comfortable ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey
without a buffer or transition moved and Councilmember Whitehead
zone between the "R-1" and "M-1" seconded to close the public
zones. hearing, which motion carried, all
members voted aye.
Councilmember Whitehead said
the area had been stable for a Councilmember Godfrey moved
long time but he thought as the and Councilmember Kirk seconded to
area got older, the bigger homes adopt Ordinance 7 of 1990, which
would convert to duplexes or 4- motion carried, all members voted
plexes if it wasn' t rezoned. He aye.
said the downzoning would send a
signal that this area would remain DISCUSSION: Bill Wright,
single-family dwellings. He said deputy planning director, outlined
the area was already developed and the eight changes:
the rezoning would not change its
character. He expressed concern 1. Updating the filing fee
that if the current zoning re- for the Board of Adjustment.
mained, people would speculate
about developing multiple-family 2. Repealing a temporary
units. moratorium on fraternity and
sorority houses at the University
Councilmember Pace asked of Utah.
Councilmember Godfrey to clarify
his reason for voting against the 3. Correcting an omission of
rezoning. Councilmember Godfrey the area requirements for residen-
said he was not suggesting that tial development in the Residen-
the area remain zoned "R-4" but he tial "R-6" zoning district.
said he thought an "R-2" zone
would be more accurate for this 4. Clarifying the issue of
area. He said he didn't think lots facing on public streets.
there would be a large number of
people converting homes into 5. Clarifying that driveways
duplexes. must be hard surfaced.
90-39
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990
6. Clarifying parking re-
quirements for residential devel-
opments.
7. Clarifying parking re-
quirements for apartments in the
commercial and industrial zoning
districts.
8. Setting the fee schedule
for sign permits by the Uniform
Building Code.
Councilmember Pace asked what
the date was of the most recently
published complete zoning ordi-
nance. Mr. Wright said the ordi-
nance was updated quarterly and it
took about one quarter to revise
it. The most up-to-date version
was still the June 1989 issue
since they had not yet received
the October 1989 version.
No one from the audience
addressed this issue.
(0 90-3)
The meeting adjourned at 8:00
p.m.
COUNCIL CHAIR
CITY RECORDER
90-40
t`"
Board Appointment Interview
Linda Peterson for the Golf Advisory Board
Ms. Peterson is scheduled for her interview this evening, and in addition has
been placed on the consent agenda for you to consider approval of her
appointment.
Rather than duplicate her paperwork for both sections, (briefing session and
formal agenda) , her application and financial disclosure statement, as well as
the Board membership summary appear in the consent section.
Please refer to item D2 for this information.
Di'
Community Development Advisory Committee
ORDINANCE CITATION: 2.41.010
MEMBERSHIP: 15 members
TERM: 3 years, staggered terms.
QUALIFICATIONS: One member from each council district; representatives of low
and moderate income, ethnic minorities, handicapped, elderly and
female-headed households.
ADVICE AND CONSENT: yes
OATH OF OFFICE: yes
PURPOSE: This committee provides citizens an opportunity to participate in
the city's planning of its community development program. The committee
recommends to the Mayor the projects that should be completed with Community
Development Block Grant Funds.
NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM
DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE
1. Kim Anderson 1 10/87(7/88) 2nd Term
768 No. Redwood Rd. 118 10/88 7/00/91
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Phone: (H) 539-1972 (W) 546-6637
2. Rosemarie Rendon 1 10/87(7/89) 2nd Term
356 North 600 West 9/89 7/00/92
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Phone: (H) 355-3955
3. Bernice Cook 2 10/87 1st Term
1746 South West Temple 7/00/90
Salt Lake City, Utah 84115
Phone: (H) 485-9304
4. Hermoine Jex 3 10/87(7/88) 2nd Term
272 Wall Street 10/88 7/00/91 •
-
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
Phone: (H) 364-5326
5. Ranae Pierce 3 10/87(7/89) 2nd Term
191 Canyon Road 9/89 7/00/92
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
Phone: (H) 364-4075 (W) 363-5733
6. Peter Netka RESIGNED 3 10/87 1st Terra
471 M Street 7/00/90
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
Phone: (H) 359-0179
7. Russell Allred 4 10/87(7/88) 2nd Term
1169 South 300 East 10/88 7/00/91
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Phone: (H) 467-6851
r,
Community Development Advisory Committee
Page Two (77)
8. Rosemary Grim 5 10/87(7/88) 2nd Term
773 East 1300 South 10/88 7/00/91 •
Salt Lake City, Utah 84105
Phone: (H) 484-7590 (W) 487-7771
9. Barbara Bennent VACANCY 5 10/87 1st Term
1164 Herbert Ave. 7/00/89
Salt Lake City, Utah 84105
Phone: (H) 583-4227 (W) 321-3300
10. Paul Osborn 6
2248 Wilson Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108
Phone: (H) 581-1215 (W) 261-4077
11 . Diana Smoot 7 10/87(7/88) 2nd Term
2592 Elizabeth Street #5 10/88 7/00/91
Salt Lake City, Utah 84106
Phone: (H) 486-0634
12. Rawlins Young 7 10/87(7/89) 2nd Term
2135 South 19th East 9/89 7/00/92
= 0 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106
Phone: (H) 467-5164
13. Marion Willey 2 12/88(7/89) 1st Term
237 Montrose Avenue 9/89 7/00/92
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Phone: (W)535-1000 X7337
(H)359-8462
14. Nancy Saxton 4 4/88 1st Term
164 South 900 East 7/00/90
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
• 15. Glenda D'Nell Armour 1 10/03/89 1st Term
• 937 North Colorado Street 07/00/92
P.O. Box 16842
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Phone: (H) 363-7804 (W) 355-3037
,. .!+}". •i ` ..:):n.VC::f <,'••,;7-7 - .. -Ti',.t7fNi'::"MI'g•+)1Wi.F -r r':,,r f£-:.+.r..:., r,-�r' ^-�-t. ^>""i:,...:'•
Community Development Advisory Committee
Page Three
Meeting Schedule:
Meeting Schedule Set by Committee
(Usually twice a month for 3 hours on Tuesday or Thursday)
Human Resources Training Room
Room 442, City and County Building
Staff Support: Stephanie Loker 535-7902
09/11/89rbc
•
•
•
•
•
D2
GOLF ADVISORY BOARD
E.
ORDINANCE CITATION: 2.38.010
t MEMBERSHIP: 7 voting members; 5 ex-officio non-voting members: The Mayor,
City Council, Parks Superintendent, City Engineer and the City Attorney.
TERM: 4 years
QUALIFICATIONS: 21 years old, a resident of the State of Utah and not engaged
in any commercial golf venture.
ADVICE AND CONSENT: yes
OATH OF OFFICE: yes
PURPOSE: The Board serves the golfing public in a variety of ways. It
provides input from the public concerning day-to-day operations and
maintenance. It reviews all capital improvements and the budget. All fee
structures are also presented to the Board for its recommendation prior to
recommending them to the Mayor and City Council for adoption. Through the
Board, the public golfer has access to the management of City golf courses.
NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM •
DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE
1. Mayor Palmer DePaulis Ex-Officio
500 City Hall
324 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Phone: 535-7704
2. Councilmember Willie Stoler Ex-Officio
=`= 300 City Hall
324 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Phone: 535-7600
3. John Gust Ex-Officio
1965 West 500 South
Salt Lake City, Utah
Phone: 972-7805
4. Roger Cutler Ex-0fficio
Citt Attorney
324 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Phone: 535-7788
5. Max Peterson Ex-0fficio
City Engineer
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Phone: 535-6231
6. Virginia Ferguson 2 11/80( 1/82) 3rd Term
1671 West 300 South 8/82(1/86) 1/90
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 7/86
Phone: 363-8287
Golf Advisory Board
Page Two
!`;`,1
7.7. Garth Campbell 1 8/87 1st Term
1111 Sonata Street 1/91
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Phone: (H) 359-3390
(W) 533-0547
8. Jim Jensen 7 8/88 1st Term
1773 Romana Ave. 1/92
Salt Lake City, Utah 84107
Phone:
9. George Marks 4 3/88 1st Term
908 East South Temple, 1E 1/92
• Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
Phone: (H)363-8424
•
10. Judd Jackson 7 7/87 2nd Term
866 South 2300 East 1/91
Salt Lake City, Utah
Phone: (W) 292-4461
(H) 583-0460
fug 11. Norma Carr VACANCY 7 4/80(1/81) 3rd Term
2435 East 2900 South 8/82(1/85) 1/89
Salt Lake City, Utah 1/85
Phone: 295-2321
12. Fred Sanford 1 3/88 Unexpired Term
1046 West 600 North 1/90
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Phone: (H) 595-6099
Meeting Schedule:
Third Wednesday, 8:15 a.m.
Parks Department Conference Room
1965 West 500 South
Staff Support: Scott Gardner 972-7805
8/24/89rbc
LEROY W. HOOTON, JR.
DIRECTOR
WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. MI2 1P4slui,�� g 1oxf
17 1i11 l 1 Ar
SUPERINTENDENT �-
WATER SUPPLY E.WATERWORKS
E. TIM DOXEY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
SUPERINTENDENT Water SUPPIy.,& Waterworks PALMER DEPAULIS
WATER RECLAMATION
Water Reclamation' - MAYOR
JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. v
CHIEF FINANCE E. 1530'-SOUTHWEST TEMPLE
ACCOUNTING OFFICER
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115
GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E.
CHIEF ENGINEER
January 25, 1990
TO: Salt Lake City Council
RE: Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and
the Utah Department of Transportation for relocating City's
water and sewer facilities Project No. HES-018(23) .
Recommendation: That the Council approve the agreement and forward to
Mayor for execution in behalf of the City.
Availability of Funds: UDOT
DISCUSSION; UDOT's reconstruction of 2100 South between 200 West
and 900 West requires relocation of the City's water and sewer
mains located in 2100 South, at UDOT's expense.
1. Please return four (4) agreements to this office to be
forwarded to UDOT for final execution.
•
Submitted by:
LER Y W. HOOTON, Jr
Director
Department of Publi. ities
Cont. 1/srb
III� Attachments
File
C-11
RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
AND
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Ann. , 1953, as
amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative
agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and
WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to
accomplish said purposes;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake
City, Utah:
1. It does hereby approve the attached agreement
generally described as follows:
UDOT' s reconstruction of 2100 South between 200 West
and 900 West requires relocation of the City' s water
and sewer mains located in 2100 South, at UDOT' s
expense.
2 . Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is
hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt
Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this
day of , 1990.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
RLM:rc
•
HES-018( 23) ; Salt Lake County
2100 South (SR-201 ) from 200
West to 900 West
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Authority No. 4945
WP-421
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
day of , 1989, by and between the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as the "UDOT" and SALT
LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Municipal Corporation in the State of
Utah, hereinafter referred to as the "City",
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS , the UDOT is engaged in preparing plans ,
specifications and estimates of costs toward reconstructing that
certain section of roadway, identified as HES-018(23) , 2100 South
(SR-2011 from 200 West to 900 West in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake
County, Utah. Said reconstruction necessitates work consisting
of relocating City' s culinary water and sewer facilities as
shown on City furnished plans, which by this reference are made a
part hereof; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City for the UDOT to ;,
include in its construction plans, items of work for replacing
and adjusting City's culinary water and sewer facilities in
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Highway
Administration' s "Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual" , Volume 6,
Chapter 6, Section 3, Subsection 1. The City reserves the right
to inspect said work and will perform the necessary operation of
valves to accommodate said work; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the "Federal-Aid Highway Program
Manual" , Volume 6, Chapter 6, Section 3, Subsection 1, the City
has determined, with the concurrence of the UDOT, that expired
service life credit is not required as a result of said work; and
WHEREAS, the UDOT has determined by formal finding that
payment for said work on public right of way is not in violation
of the laws of the State or any legal contract with the City;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Highway Administration's
requirements as contained in FHPM 6-6-3-2 and 6-4-2-12, any
relocation work not performed under the highway Contractor's
signing, flagging and safety measures will be accomplished in
accordance with the provisions of the "Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices" by flagging personnel having been certified by
UDOT.
1
HES-018( 23 ) ; Salt Lake County
2100 South (SR-201) from 200
West to 900 West
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Authority No. 4945
WP-421
THIS AGREEMENT is made to set out the terms and conditions
whereunder said work shall be performed.
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties
hereto as follows :
1 . The UDOT has, with its regular engineering forces,
prepared plans, specifications and estimates and in conjunction
with the above noted highway project will advertise for bids,
will award a contract to the low bidder and will administer
construction of the work covered by this agreement.
2 . The City shall perform the necessary operation of
valves to accommodate said work and, should it desire to do so,
perform inspection of the work on City' s facilities which will
be performed by UDOT's Contractor. The City' s engineer and/or
inspector shall work with and through UDOT's Project Engineer and
shall give no orders directly to UDOT's Contractor unless
authorized in writing to do so.
41,4
3 . The UDOT, through its Project Engineer, will notify the ' ('
City at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of performing
any work covered by this agreement.
4 . The City' s personnel shall notify UDOT's Project
Engineer or his authorized representative upon arriving and
leaving the project site for verification of work performed by
City for reimbursement purposes .
5 . The City shall be reimbursed by the UDOT for the
actual costs incurred by the City. An estimate of the cost of
said work at said location was furnished by the City to the UDOT
under date of October 13, 1989 in the amount of $1,030.00. The
estimate is based upon the prices of materials and labor current
as of the date of said estimate. The estimate does not account
for increases due to unknown and unforeseen hardships in
accomplishing the work. The details of said estimate follow:
COST ESTIMATE
Install invert covers in 2 35 . 00 ea. 70 . 00 630A
sanitary sewer manhole per public
utility
Engineering & Inspection 30 hrs. 30. 00/hr. 900 . 00 ---
2
HES-018( 23 ) ; Salt Lake County
2100 South (SR-201 ) from 200
West to 900 West
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Authority No. 4945
WP-421
COST ESTIMATE (Cont'd)
Survey 1 hr. 60 .00/hr. 60 . 00 - --
TOTAL 1,030.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST TO UDOT IS $1,030.00
6 . All materials recovered from the existing facilities
shall be credited to the cost of the project in accordance with
FHPM 6-6-3-1, paragraph 10 .
7 . In the event there are changes in the scope of the
work, extra work, or changes in the planned work covered by this
agreement, reimbursement therefore shall be limited to costs
covered by a modification to this agreement approved in writing
by all parties hereto prior to the start of work on the changes
or additions .
8 . The UDOT will, by its standard specifications and/ors^
special provisions, make its Contractor aware of the coordination
and cooperation required for timely completion of utility work.
The Contractor shall be advised of the approximate schedule for
completion of the utility relocation and/or adjustments and the
utility owner shall diligently pursue its work so that completion
can be accomplished as soon as possible after having been
authorized to proceed.
9 . The City agrees that , upon completion of the
construction of said water and sewer facilities, to accept said
culinary water and sewer facilities as a part of City's
facilities and to maintain said water and sewer facilities at no
cost to UDOT. UDOT agrees that City shall be the sole owner of
said water and sewer facilities upon completion of the project.
To the extent it may lawfully do so, City further agrees to
relieve UDOT from any responsibility or liability that may result
from the construction and continuing operation of City' s water
and sewer facilities .
10 . The UDOT will reimburse the City within sixty (60)
days after receipt of itemized bills in six ( 6 ) copies bearing
the project number together with supporting sheets therefore,
covering the costs incurred by the City for performing the work
required under the terms of this agreement. Reimbursement will
be made only for items complying fully with the provisions of
FHPM 6-6-3-1 . Said itemized bills covered said work shall be
submitted by the City within one hundred twenty ( 120 ) days
3
HES-018(23) ; Salt Lake County
2100 South (SR-201) from 200
West to 900 West
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Authority No. 4945
WP-421
10 . (Cont'd)
following completion of the work to: Office of Construction,
UDOT/DPS Complex, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah
84119 , Attention : Contracts , Estimates and Agreements
Supervisor. All bills shall be reviewed by UDOT's Project
Engineer for verification of the work performed. Any work
performed without proper notification to UDOT' s Project
Engineer's office shall be cited to the City and deducted from
the reimbursement.
11 . Reimbursable costs for work performed under the
provisions of this agreement shall be developed in accordance
with Paragraphs 8 and 10 of FHPM 6-6-3-1 .
12. The UDOT and/or the Federal Highway Administration
shall have the right to audit all cost records and accounts of
the City pertaining to this project in accordance with the
auditing procedure of the Federal Highway Administration and FHPM
6-6-3-1 . Should this audit disclose that the City has been
oxioi
underpaid, the City will be reimbursed by the UDOT upon
submission of additional billing to cover the underpayment.
Should this audit disclose that the City has been overpaid, the
City will reimburse the UDOT in the amount of the overpayment.
13 . It is understood that access for maintenance and
servicing of the Company's property located on right Of way of
said project will be permitted only by permit issued by the UDOT
to the Company, and that the Company will obtain said permit and
abide by conditions thereof for policing and other controls in
conformance with UDOT's "REGULATIONS FOR THE ACCOMMODATION OF
UTILITIES ON FEDERAL-AID AND NON-FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-
WAY" , a copy of which has been furnished to the Company and any
supplements or amendments thereto.
4
HES-018(23) ; Salt Lake County
2100 South (SR-201) from 200
West to 900 West
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Authority No. 4945
WP-421
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these
presents to be executed by its duly authorized officers as of the day
and year first above written.
ATTEST: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
a Municipal Corporation in the
State of Utah
By
Title Title
( IMPRESS SEAL)
********-********************* ************************************
ATTEST: UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By
Secretary Director
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: FUNDS AVAILABLE:
Engineer for Preconstruction Budget Officer Date
APPROVED:
Engineering Coordinator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
R. PAUL VAN DAM, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Director of Finance
By
Assistant Attorney General
5
• D
FIRE DEPARTMENT
PETER O. PEDERSON 315 EAST 200 SOUTH
CHIEF OF FIRE DEPARTMENT SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111
799-4101 •
January 8, 1990
Mayor Palmer DePaulis
City and County Building
Room 306
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Dear- Palmer:
Attached is a Utah State Bureau of Criminal Identification Users
Agreement.
This agreement specifies responsibilities of insuring accurate,
complete and timely information pertaining to (A) Utah
Computerized Criminal History, (B) National Crime Information
Center, (C) National Law Enforcement Teletype System, (D) Utah
Division of Motor Vehicles, (E) Utah Driver License Division.
This agreement also provides for security and privacy of
information.
There are no funds involved with this agreement.
Sincerely,
George A. Sumner
Acting Fire Chief
Salt Lake City Fire Department
GAS/aa
Attachments - 3 copies
UTAH STATE
BUREAU OF CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION
USERS AGRERDENT
tLI: • M+usri;,0,01 OF
�r
• '• (I
-44 MINIM
rn
e1896•.
cc�
a
ca
..•
trTAlk
4501 SOUTH 2700 WEST
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84119
965-4446
UTAH STATE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION
USERS AGREEMENT
PARTIES. This agreement is made and entered into this day of
, 19 , by and between the Utah Bureau of Criminal
Identification, a criminal justice agency operating under the authority of the
Utah Department of Public Safety, Administrator of the Utah Criminal Justice
Information System, hereinafter referred to as "Control Terminal Agency
(CTA)", and
hereinafter referred to as "Terminal Agency (TA)".
GOVERNING LAW. This agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the
laws of the State of Utah.
PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT. Information that flows across computer lines is
subject to human error. Because the information that law enforcement deals
with is vital to safeguarding the lives and property of citizens in this
country, assurances must be made that the information disseminated is the most
accurate and timely it can possibly be.
This agreement specifies the Disseminating Agency responsibilities of insuring
accurate, complete, and timely information as it pertains to:
A. Utah Computerized Criminal History (UCCH).
B. National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
C. National Law Enforcement Teletype System (NLETS)
D. Utah Division of Motor Vehicles (14V).
E. Utah Driver ,License Division (DLD).
In addition, this agreement provides for security and privacy of information,
in that dissemination to other criminal justice agencies shall be limited to
purposes of the administration of criminal justice and criminal justice agency
employment, and dissemination to other individuals and agencies shall be
limited to those authorized by federal and state regulations and shall be
limited to the purpose(s) for which it was given and may not be disseminated
further.
Furthermore, the agreement specifies the relationship of each Terminal Agency
Coordinator (TAC) to the State Bureau of Criminal Identification pertaining to
data quality control on the part of the User. Each terminal agency will
play an active role in assuring an effective training program in each on-line
agency to further enhance the effectiveness of the criminal justice
information system.
UTAH TERMINAL AGENCY
USER AGREEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION.
Since their inception, NCIC and NLETS, have operated under a shared management
concept between their agencies and the state users. A single state agency in
each state was appointed to assume the responsibility as the Control Terminal
Agency (CTA). In the state of Utah the CTA is the Bureau of Criminal
Identification (BCI), Department of Public Safety.
BCI's responsibilities under this shared management concept includes
provision of:
1. Timely information on all aspects of system usage by means of
the BCI Operations Manual, Terminal Operators Guide, NCIC
NCIC Operating Manual, and related documents.
2. Staff research assistance.
3. Training and training materials.
4. Accurate and timely NCIC transactions.
5. Complete and accurate Utah Criminal History Record
Information and other criminal justice information as is
available.
•
•
The following documents are incorporated by reference and made part of
this agreement:
1. BCI Operations Manual
2. Utah Code Annotated 77-26
3. Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20.
4. National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Operating Manual
(including Triple I and Computerized Criminal History (CCH)
concept and policy).
5. Minutes, by laws and standards of the NCIC Advisory Policy
Board and Regional Working Groups.
6. National Law-Enforcement Teletype System (NLEIS) Manual.
7. Applicable federal and state laws and regulations.
II. DEFINITIONS.
Following the same concept of shared management and in compliance with
national regulation, each agency that houses a terminal accessing BCI
controlled information is designated as a Terminal Agency (TA) and must
appoint a Terminal Agency Co-Ordinator (TAC). The responsibilities of the TA
and the TAC as they pertain to BCI controlled files are outlined in this
agreement.
1. TERMINAL AGENCY (TA)
An agency housing a terminal authorized to State of Utah, Bureau of
Criminal Identification controlled files and providing service to its
criminal justice users with respect to NCIC, NLETS, UCCH, Driver
License and Motor Vehicle files.
2. TERMINAL AGENCY CO-ORDINATOR (TAC)
A TAC representative shall be appointed by the head of each TA.
The TA must allow the TAC sufficient time to perform all necessary
duties related to TAC responsibilities. The TAC and his/her agency
will be responsible for:
- Monitoring system use;
- Enforcing system discipline;
- Attending TAC training held by BCI;
- Provide local training of all personnel authorized access to
BCI controlled files;
- Proper certification of all terminal operators;
- Insure all materials, manuals, policies and procedures
from BCI are properly distributed and maintained;
- Assure that BCI operation procedures are followed by all
users of the BCI controlled files;
- All other related duties as outlined by this agreement.
III. SECURITY.
The Terminal Agency is required to protect its information against
unauthorized access, ensuring confidentiality of the information in accordance
with state and national laws, policies, regulations, and standards.
Terminal Agencies must provide physical security where terminal devices
are located.
IV. DISSEMINATION.
That all information released is in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations, as indicated in this agreement under each individual file.
V. AUDIT.
A Terminal Agency (TA) shall submit to a BCI audit on an annual basis. The
object of this audit is to verify adherence to policy and regulations and is
termed a compliance audit.
A compliance audit may be conducted on a more frequent basis should it be
necessary due to failure to meet standards of compliance or should BCI
receive any allegations of security violations.
TA may be audited at least once every two years by FBI NCIC staff.
TA must institute a program of auditing those agencies accessing
information thru their agencies terminal.
A. UTAH COMPUTERIZED CRIMINAL HISTORY FILE (UCCH)
UCCH services include providing user with:
I. Furnish User with complete and accurate criminal history record
information as is available in the Utah Computerized Criminal
History files (UCCH).
Responsibilities of Terminal Agency (TA) as a user of Utah Computerized
Criminal History Files System includes:
I. Abide by all present rules, policies and procedures of UCCH as
approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety as well as any
rules, policies and procedures hereinafter adopted by BCI and
approved by the BCI Staff, Commissioner of Public Safety, and
Attorney Generals Office.
II. Implement reasonable procedures of security to protect UCCH
information from unauthorized access.
5
III. When it is determined UCCH information is no longer needed it
must be destroyed in a manner that secures its privacy. (i.e.
shred, burn, etc.)
IV. Information used in-house by TA will be limited to authorized
personnel only.
V. Information will be disseminated to authorized personnel at
non-terminal law enforcement agencies for purposes of the
administration of criminal justice and criminal justice agency
employment only.
VI. Private citizens requesting to access their own UCCH files must
be directed to BCI where fingerprints will be taken to insure
proper identification before record information is released to an
individual. This does not include requesting information that
pertains to the local agency files only. Law Enforcement
Agencies are encourged to insure proper identification of the
individual prior to releasing local information. (i.e. Driver
License, State ID Card, Social Security Card, etc. )
VII. Not giving confirmation of the existence or non-existence of UCCH
information to any person or agency that would not be eligible to
receive the complete UCCH information.
VIII. Dissemination of information will follow the procedures set forth
by the Bureau of Criminal Identification.
IX,�A record of 'on f 'min ation must be
mainta'ned at least twelve (12) months.
B. NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (NCIC)
NCIC Services include providing user with the capability of communicating with
and receiving responses from all current and future NCIC files as follows:
- Article
- Boat
- Canadian Warrant
- Gun
- Interstate Identification Index (III) including the NCIC Federal
Offenders File and the FBI Automated Identification Division
System (AIDS)
- License Plate
- Missing Person
- Securities
- Unidentified Person
- U.S. Secret Service Protective
- Vehicle
- Wanted Person
- ZO - ORI number interpretation
Responsibilities of Terminal Agency (TA) as a user of National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) System includes:
I. ADHERENCE.
Abide by all present rules, policies and procedures of NCIC as approved
by the NCIC Advisory Policy Board as well as any rules, policies and
procedures hereinafter adopted by NCIC and approved by the NCIC
Advisory Policy Board.
II. TIMELINESS.
The primary responsibility for the entry and maintenance of accurate,
timely, and complete records lies with the entering agency.
1. ENTRY/MODIFICATION .
NCIC records must be entered promptly to insure maximum system
effectiveness.
WANTED/MISSING PERSON FILE. -
A timely entry/modification in the Wanted/Missing Person
File is one made immediately once:
A. The decision to arrest or authorize arrest has
been made; and
B. The decision has been made as to whether and how
far to go for extradition.
The date of want or date of warrant must be the date on
which all those decisions are made.
VEHICLE/PLATE/PART FILE.
A timely entry/modification in the Vehicle/Plate/Part
File is one made immediately once a cross-checking with
Motor Vehicles Registration Files has been completed.
GUN/ARTICLE/SECURITIES FILE.
Timely entry of Gun/Article/Securities information means
within a few hours of the time complete information is
available.
2. REMOVAL.
WANTED/MISSING FILE.
A timely removal from the Wanted/Missing File means an immediate
removal once the originating agency has documentation the
fugitive has been arrested or is no longer wanted.
ALL OTHER FILES.
A timely removal from all other NCIC files means an immediate
removal when recovery is made or it is determined maintaining the
entry serves no further purpose (i.e. length of time, unable to
contact victim, etc.).
3. INQUIRY.
Timely system inquiry means initiation of the transaction before
an officer begins writing an arrest or citation document of any
kind and also, inquiry prior to the release of a person who
has been incarcerated, and inquiry upon those who appear at a
custodial facility to visit inmates.
III. VALIDATIONS.
Validation listings are prepared pursuant to a schedule as published in
the NCIC Operating Manual. Appropriate portions of this listing are
mailed to the agency of entry for validation. Validation obliges the
ORI to confirm the records are complete, accurate, and still
outstanding or active, within the specified period of time indicated on
the materials.
IV. ACCURACY.
The accuracy of NCIC data must be double-checked to insure that data in
the NCIC record matches the data on the investigative report.
V. HIT CONFIRMATION.
An originating agency must, within ten minutes, furnish to an agency
requesting a record confirmation, a response indicating a positive or
negative confirmation or a notice of the specific amount of time
necessary to confirm or reject.
VI. TRIPLE I (III)
III must be used for criminal justice purpose or criminal justice
employment only.
Due to variance in state laws and policies, the III cannot be used
for licensing or non-criminal justice employment purposes.
VII. NCIC HIT LOCATES
A locate message must be transmitted to BCI when an agency other than
the originating agency of the NCIC record finds the missing person,
apprehends the wanted person, or recovers the property on file in NCIC.
C. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TELETYPE SYSTEM (NLETS)
NLETS services include providing user with:
I. 24 hour Communications Network linking all law enforcement ine:
- The Continental United States
- Hawaii
- Alaska
- Puerto Rico
II. Communication facilities to the following State and Federal
Agencies:
- Department of Corrections
- Courts
- Wildlife Management
- Bureau of Customs
- U. S. Marshal
- Postal Inspector
.
•
- Secret Service
- Internal Revenue Service
- Military Provost Marshals
III. Rapid confirmation of NCIC hits with the feature of a hardcopy.
IV. Near instantaneous response to computer based inquiries
originated at any point in the United States.
V. High performance communication service, which enables law
enforcement agencies anywhere in the United States to
exchange vital information within seconds of any incident.
Responsibilities of Terminal Agency (TA) in the National Law Enforcement
Telecommunication System includes:
I. Abide by all present rules, policies and procedures of NLETS as
approved by the NLETS Governing Board as well as any rules,
policies and procedures hereinafter adopted by NLETS as approved
by the NLETS Governing Board.
II. No information delivered from NLETS is to be used for any
purposes other than what was originally intended.
III. NLh15 has provided its users with a "Control-Field" in the
message which must be returned to the user in all responses to
the original message.
IV. All traffic over the system must be in the prescribed message
form. Unnecessary messages with superfluous verbage or
embellishments are prohibited.
V. No use of non-standard abbreviations.
VI. Departments originating want messages of any type must cancel'
these messages when they no longer apply.
VII. Cannot be used for:
1. No social announcements, (i.e. , Christmas messages,
retirements, convention notices, death or funeral
announcements).
(This excludes the report of the FBI regarding the death of
police officers for planning, research, and training
purposes.)
2. No recruiting of personnel.
•
1
3. Messages in which the complainant is interested only in
the recovery of property.
4. No attempts to locate vehicle (breach of trust) without
warrant. For the protection of the arresting officer,
messages should not be dispatched until a warrant is
secured.
S. No excessingly long messages.
6. No transmission of subpoenas.
7. Use of vehicle registration or driver's license
information obtained via NLETS is limited to law
enforcement, criminal justice, or t4V purposes only.
Curiousity inquiries are forbidden.
D. UTAH DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE FILES (DMV)
DMV services include providing user with access to registration information in
the following files:
I. Motor Vehicle Information by License Number.
II. Motor Vehicle Information by Vin Number.
III. Motor Vehicle Information by Owner Name.
IV. Recreational Vehicle Information by License Number.
V. Recreational Vehicle Information by Vin Number.
VI. Recreational Vehicle Information by Owner Name.
VII. Recreational Vehicle Information by State Assigned Number
(Boats only).
Responsibility of Terminal Agency as a user of the Utah Department of Motor
Vehicle Files:
I. Abide by all present rules, policies and procedures of the
Division of Motor Vehicle as approved by the Division Director as
well as any rules, policies and procedures hereinafter adopted by
Division of Motor Vehicle as approved by the Division Director.
II. Information will be provided to criminal justice agencies only.
III. Informaton will be used for criminal justice purposes only.
I
•
IV. Purposes of a civil nature which include requests for Division of
Motor Vehicle information will be referred to the Division of
Motor Vehicles to be handled in accordance with Motor Vehicle
policy and procedures.
E. UTAH DRIVER LICENSE DIVISION FILES
DLD services include providing user with access to:
I. Driver License Division information by Operator License Number.
II. Driver License Division information by Operator Name.
Responsibility of Terminal Agency as a user of the Utah Driver License
Division Files:
I. Abide by all present rules, policies and procedures of the Driver
License Division as approved by the Division Director as well as
any rules, policies and procedures hereinafter adopted by Driver
License Division as approved by the Division Director.
II. Information will be provided to criminal justice agencies only.
III. Information will be used for criminal justice purposes only.
IV. Purposes of a civil nature which include requests for Driver
License Division information will be referred to the Driver
License Division to be handled in accordance with Driver License
Division policy and procedures.
SANCTIONS
These sanctions should be viewed as part of the package of an improved user
agreement and proactive quality assurance measures.
Discontinuance of System access for a TA is the ultimate sanction available to
BCI management for enforcement of System policy, procedures, and
non-compliance. Usually problems of a serious nature are corrected quickly
through telephone conversations among the parties involved. Each case has
peculiarities of its own.
CONSIDERATIONS
GENERAL:
- Failure to comply with this agreement and those documents referenced
in this agreement.
- Failure to comply with the rules, regulations, policies and
procedures of those agencies files that are BCI controlled for
law-enforcement access.
- Misuse of any BCI controlled files.
- Improper dissemination of information from BCI controlled files.
- Unsatisfactory TA audit and failure to comply after notification and
appropriate time allotment for correction (30 days).
- Failure to assure security of equipment and data.
- Failure to provide qualified operators.
NCIC
- Failure of prompt and proper handling of NCIC hit confirmation
requests.
- Failure to notify BCI of all confirmed NCIC hits.
- Failure to complete NCIC entries/modifications/removals promptly.
- Failure to make complete NCIC entries.
- Failure to validate or unsatisfactory validation.
- Entry of invalid or non-qualified records.
1. SUSPENSION
BCI reserves the right to immediately suspend services in any BCI
controlled file when rules, policies, procedures or contents of this
agreement have been violated. BCI will reinstate services in such
instances upon receipt of satisfactory assurance that such violation
has been corrected to the satisfaction of BCI.
,
2. FINE
Terminal Agency or Individual also agrees to be subject to a
misdemeanor and/or a fine for knowingly violating this agreement or any
rules, policies and procedures of BCI controlled files. (Per Utah Code
77-26-20)
3. CANCELLATION
1. This agreement may be terminated by BCI or Terminal Agency upon
thirty (30) days written notice by either party after a determination
that the information is no longer needed.
2. This agreement may be terminated by BCI immediately if it is
determined that the Terminal Agency is no longer supported by the
necessary documents which grant the right and privliage of such access.
4. REMOVAL
- Removal from the system due to serious error trend.
- Failure to comply after notice of non-compliance.
- Failure to comply with rules, regulations and procedures
after notification of such violations.
Upon satisfactory proof TA has corrected its deficiencies, BCI
may reinstate.
INDEMNIFICATION
The Terminal Agency or Individual hereby agrees to idemnify and save
harmless the State of Utah, the System, and the System's officers,
agents and employees from and against any and all loss, damages,
injury, liability, suits, and proceedings howsoever caused, arising
directly or indirectly out of any action or conduct of the Terminal
Agency or Individual in the exercise or enjoyment of this agreement.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
As a Terminal Agency (TA) accessing BCI controlled files, I hereby acknowledge
the duties and responsibilities as set out in this document as well as those
documents incorporated by reference. I acknowledge that these duties and
responsibilities have been developed in order to ensure the reliability,
confidentiality, completeness, and accuracy of all records contained in the
BCI controlled files. I further acknowledge that a failure to comply with
these duties and responsibilities will subject my agency to various sanctions
as approved by BCI. These sanctions may include the termination of access to
any or all of BCI controlled files.
SIGNATURE Ft TITLE OF TERMINAL AGENCY HEAD DATE
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY DATE
CONTROL TERMINAL AGENCY (CTA)
CHIEF, BUREAU OF CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION DATE
CONTROL TERMINAL AGENCY OFFICER (CT0)
iyci VI\
it pl.! • y
4GaM4N w 3ANCc?-_2 .=4 1.i.-
STATE OF UTAH
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAfETI
N
o f I C t
TO: Law Enforcement Terminal Agency
FROM: Ucan guresu or Criiiilnal Iuent:tiCaCLo11
DATE: May 1987
RE: Users AKree:ne:ht
Due
� numerousc nas to requests from user agencies, 1 been deciueu by the
Utah bureau of Criminal Identification in conjunction - . .::1 the Drivers License
Division and the Department of Motor Vehicle adminis:. acors to permit user
agencies to access information in audition to that set Eortn in the agreement.
Use will be further permitted as follows:
1I
"On rare occasions Utan Driver License and f ah Motor Venicle
information may be used at the aiscreti .<i of tie Chief
Administrator wnen it is determined there are existing
circumstances involved tnat would hamper future law enforcement
working relations with the re4uestor."
It is suggested this notice be placed in your users agreement for
future reference.
Richard J. ownsend
ureau Chief
Judy k:: Sorenton, Manager
Taecommun ica c ion s
3UPEAU 3 P.M NAL DE.':- -G.4;:ON
RicnarC Thwnsena. 3iracar
'
JF TA,
Trk
C. •
NORMAN H. BANGERTER. GOVERNOR w ,� I;1� ay JOHN T. NIELSEN. COMMISSIONER
.e •
0. DOUGLAS BOORERO. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Iced L. DALE ELTON. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
STATE OF UTAH
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
POLICY STATEMENT
REGARDING THE DISSEMINATION OF CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION
OVER AUTHORIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT RADIO AWEQUENCIES
It shall be the policy of the Utah Department of Public Safety to not
impose restrictions on the dissemination of Utah Computerized Criminal History
(UCCH) Information 'over law enforcement radio frequencies. This applies to
authorized and legislated law enforcement agencies in the State of Utah as
defined in Section 77-1 of the Utah Code Annotated. State, County, and local
law enforcement agencies are encouraged to develop policy guidelines as to
when and under what circumstances UCCH information may be disseminated over
their radio channels.
It should be recognized when developing local dissemination policies,
that criminal history information is sensitive in nature. Because many
different agencies are involved in developing an individual 's criminal
history, the information can be incomplete and at times inaccurate.
Particular attention should he given to the fact that many people use police
scanners and dissemination of UCCH or local criminal history information could
be potentially harmful to a person's reputation.
BUREAU OF CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION 1501 . urn :n Nest
iic^ard Townsend. Division Director gait �,Ke City. Jtan J» :9 I
l-.Kf^ 1
RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND
UTAH STATE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
WHEREAS, Title 11 Chapter 13 of the Utah Code Annotated 1953
as amended allows public entities to enter into cooperative
agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and
WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to
accomplish said purposes;
THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake
City, Utah:
1 . That it does hereby approve the attached agreement
generally described as follows:
An Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and
the Utah State Bureau of Criminal Identification
defining responsibilities of the City as it accesses
information provided by the Utah State Bureau of
Criminal Investigations .
2 . Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah is
hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt
Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms .
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City this day
of , 1990 .
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
Salt Pica
CAW
CITY RECORDER
FMN:cc
5
CRAIG E. PETERSON a�\QJ Csd�.l1N d(04023 g® . �J�®_ 1
DIRECTOR !a
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
TELEPHONE 535-7777
TO: Salt Lake City Council February 9, 1990
RE: Block 57 Master Plan
Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 13,
1990 at 6:40 p.m. to discuss the Block 57 Master Plan.
Availability of Funds: Not applicable
Discussion and Background: The Planning Conuuission has reviewed this
Master Plan and has given conceptual approval of the plan. The Planning
Commission also submits their findings as additional public policy
necessary to guide and evaluate the implementation of the Plan. The
Planning Commission will take final action on the Block 57 Master Plan on
March 1, 1990.
Due to the advertising requirements the date be will be set and advertised
before the Planning Commission has taken final action to ensure a timely
adoption of the Plan.
Legislative Action: A resolution will be prepared and submit before the
March 13, 1990 hearing date.
Submitted by:
ICHAEL B. Z
Interim Director
Community and Economic Development
`.. 'f�aJTY( ono°je I JJf
AL LEN C JOHNSON. AICP PLANNING AND ZONING
".ANNP:G DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS.
d✓IL LIAM T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER
OEP;T DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL
t.;'EP SOR LUNG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER
AND URBAN DESIGN THOMAS A. ELLISON
SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL
RICHARD J. HOWA
SECBETARv ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RALPH P. NEILSON
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS
TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN
February 8, 1990
Mr. Mike Zuhl, Director
Department of Community & Economic Development
Salt Lake City Corporation
BUILDING
Dear Mike:
It is our pleasure to submit to the City Council the Planning Commission's and
Planning Division's recommendations for conceptual approval of the "Block 57
Master Plan" and the attached "Planning Policy Position Paper". The
Commission unanimously supports this recommendation and submits its findings
as additional public policy necessary to guide and evaluate the implementation
of the Plan.
Last November, the Planning Commission committed to the City Council to "fast
track" the Plan review and adoption process to accommodate new development on
the block. The Commission has performed rigorously to comply with that
commitment. Prior to final adoption by the City Council, however, the
Planning Commission respectfully requests additional time to convene a final
public hearing and submit a final recommendation. The Conunission can schedule
this informal hearing on Thursday March 1, 1990. Following that date, we
recommend that the City Council hold a public hearing to receive comment on
the Plan/Policies and adopt it as an element of the City's Downtown Master
Plan.
The Planning Conunission and Planning Division compliment the consultants, FE'KR
Architects and Wallace Associates, for their extraordinary accomplishments in
the process of developing the master plan and the "handsome" document visually
portraying the planning concepts. The input of citizen comments, the Planning
Staff, Historical Landmark Committee and the Planning Conunission, has directed
the final vision portrayed in the master plan.
Mr. Mike Zuhl
February 8, 1990
Page Two
The planning process that has been followed since the first Draft was
prepared, has greatly improved the plan to direct the successful redevelopment
of Block 57 and the City's Central Business District. The Planning Coitunission
recommends that the City Council conceptually approve the "Block 57 Master
Plan" with the attached "Planing Policy Position Paper" as an element of the
City's Master Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
ake.„-.170,44-
William T. Wright, AICP
Deputy Planning Director
Salt Lake City Planning Division
WIW:skm
cc: LaVone Liddle-Gamonal, Chairperson
Salt Lake City Planning Coituttission
Revi scd
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
Salt Lake City Planning Division
Planning Policy Position for the "Block 57 Master Plan"
Since July 1989, the "Block 57 Master Plan" has been in preparation by FFKR
Architects/Planners and Wallace Associates Consulting Croup. The contract is
with the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. The Planning Staff, the
Historical Landmark Committee, the Planning Commission's Downtown Development
Subcommittee and the Planning Commission have participated in the development
of the plan as now drafted. The Planning Division and Planning Commission
support the "Block 57 Master Plan" and recommend to the City Council and
Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors that the Plan be conceptually approved
as an element of the Downtown Master Plan and as an Implementation Plan of the
Central Business District Neighborhood Development Plan.
The Plan as now presented responds to the urban design and development
criteria directed by many City Master Plans. The Master Plan effectively
marries the planning policies for the block with the economic market analysis
to attain a plan with a high certainty of implementation. The staff and
Commission believe the Master Plan contains adequate flexibility of land use
options and development densities to allow the market forces to work toward
the final development without violating public planning policies.
The Planning Commission submits the following findings to be attached to the
"Block 57 Master Plan" as additional public policy necessary to guide and
evaluate the implementation of the Master Plan.
Land Use and Development Density Policies
1. The Block 57 Master Plan promotes a preferred "medium density" mixed use
development plan.
2. The developed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the block shall not be less than
4:1. (This includes underground parking structures. )
3. The building square footages delineated within the plan shall be
considered minimums for buildings developed on the southwest, northeast
and southeast corner sites.
4. A major urban plaza/park shall be developed by the City and maintained as
public open space.
5. Preservation of the national and local historic structures or their
facades should be encouraged in the future development of the block.
Specifically, the USTB and Brooks Arcade buildings require special
marketing programs by the City with criteria for restoration and reuse.
Design of adjacent structures should be sensitive to the height, scale and
character of these buildings. The Clayton building should undergo
additional structural and economic analysis by a consultant working with
the Historical Landmark Committee to identify preservation and reuse
alternatives.
The review and approval process currently established under the Historic
Districts and Landmark Sites Ordinance (21.74) will be followed on the
decisions for reuse or demolition of all of the historic structures on
this block.
6. Permits for demolition of structures on the block shall follow the
conditional use process for the reuse of the property as outlined in the
Commercial "C-4" zoning district.
7. Retail uses, service commercial or other uses with public orientation,
should occupy the first floor level on the street and plaza frontages of
all buildings.
Design Policies
1. The "street wall" along Main Street shall be maintained with only one
"clear to the sky" opening into the urban plaza/park. The size of the
plaza/park at the opening shall be subject to a design review, but shall
be no greater than approximately 75 foot on Main Street.
2. The preferred building bulk/massing along Main Street will continue a
street wall height similar to the USTB building (approximately seven
stories) . The minimum acceptable height of the street wall along Main
Strcct is throe stories.
3. All business and commercial buildings shall use clear glazing on windows
at the street and plaza level. Sixty percent of the ground level building
facade along the street frontage and plaza shall be transparent.
4. The space between the 201 South Main building and the USTB or its addition
should be enclosed by use of an architectural facade at the Main Street
entry. This design concept will maintain the Main Street "street wall"
while providing interior access to 201 South Main building.
5. View corridors to the mountains and other important visual sites for Block
57 shall be considered in the design review process.
6. The design of the urban plaza/park shall be finalized in a separate design
process considering the schematic design elements in the "Block 57 Master
Plan" with the goal to promote the regular, diverse and flexible use of
the plaza/park by people.
Parking and Transportation Policies
1. All parking on the block shall be underground structured parking accessed
at three major points of entry, one each on 200 South, 300 South, and
State Streets.
2. Vehicular entry to the underground parking facilities shall occur in the
street and pass under the sidewalk to minimize pedestrian conflicts.
3. The parking program will provide approximately 1924 stalls under the
public plaza/park and will be allocated to the major uses on the block
based upon minimum zoning ordinance requirements (excluding prior
contractual obligation to 201 South Main building) .
4. Parking shall be provided for all new development at the minimum zoning
requirements. Additional parking stalls requested by the developer shall
be provided by the developer, under the new structures, up to a maximum of
2.2 stalls per 1000 square feet of building. Building density of the
Block will not be reduced from the minimums delineated in the Plan.
5. The underground parking shall be managed on a "seamless" basis with cross-
over agreements to offer efficient parking allocations.
6. Parking lease rates shall function at the market rate for the entire
parking structure. Lease rates shall be consistent throughout the Block
independent of their location.
7. Parking shall be made available for public parking on evenings and
weekends and shall maintain reasonable hours of operation.
8. Mass transit shall be encouraged to serve Block 57 along Main Strout. No
parking lot entries are permitted on Main Strout to eliminate conflicts
with busses and potential light rail transit. Pedestrian amenities along
the Main Street frontage shall be designed to support mass transit. The
density of the block may increase with the addition of a light rail system
and a corresponding decrease in parking requirements.
Management Policies
1. A management entity, either public, private or a combination of the two
should manage and market the use, public safety and maintenance of the
urban plaza/park and parking structure. Management alternatives should be
prepared for the city by a consultant.
2. The entire urban plaza/park and underground parking structure should be
constructed in a single phase.
3. The City should proactively market the remaining development parcels on
the Block with an aggressive marketing campaign outlining the development
expectations, guidelines and incentives.
4. An overlay zoning ordinance should be prepared to establish a design
review process and approval by the Planning Commission for compliance with
the Master Plan and design criteria. Prior to the establishment of the
design review overlay zone by ordinance, any proposals on Block 57 should
be reviewed by the Planning Division and the Planning Commission for
consistency with the Block 57 Master Plan prior to City approval.
5. Restrictive covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be placed upon
all properties on Block 57 to ensure that development of the Block is
consistent with the adopted Master Plan. The covenants shall include the
review and approval process to be followed by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
Public Process
1. The Planning Commission shall convene a public hearing to receive public
comment on the printed "Block 57 Master Plan" and these Planning
Commission policies prior to submitting a recommendation for final
adoption by the City.
Following that process, the Planning Commission shall submit to the City
Council and the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors, a final
recommendation to adopt the plan and policies as the official "Block 57
Master Plan" as an element of the Downtown Plan and as an official "Block
57 Design Plan" to guide implementation by the Redevelopment Agency of
Salt Lake City.
The Planning Commission's conceptual or final approval of the "Block 57
Master Plan" excludes the "CBD Edges Study" (Page 9) which is subject to
additional public policy analysis and review.
2. The process to amend this plan shall include a public review process with
the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Water and Sewer Main Connections
February 2, 1990
STAFF REcomENDATIoN BY: Cindy Gust-Jenson
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL;_ Hold a public hearing and adopt an ordinance
amending three sections and adding a section relating to water and sewer main
connections.
BACKGROUND INFORHATION: This Ordinance:
1. Requires developers of subdivisions to rough grade new streets before
water and sewer pipelines are installed and requires that a bonded
plumbing contractor set all meter boxes, yokes and meters.
2. Requires that a bond to guarantee the underground water and sewer
facilities be posted by the developers. This has been required in
the City, but this will be a new requirement for the area in the
County served by the district. The County supports the requirement.
Developers are already required by the County to do a subdivision
bond, and it is anticipated that this coverage for water and sewer
could be added to those bonds by contractors without excessive costs.
3. Requires that the connection fees for each lot in a new subdivision
(or logical phase of a subdivision) be paid for prior to pipeline
installation.
4. Requires that a $10 fee be charged on each lot which will allow an
unmetered connection, making water more convenient for construction
uses.
Public Utilities is has been moving in the direction outlined in the
ordinance. The adoption of the ordinance formalizes their process and ensures
equity with all developers in the City and the area of the County which lies
within the service district. This is a standard practice in other cities
around the country.
STAFF ANALYSTS:
At the briefing session, some Councilmembers questioned whether the
subdivision grading requirement placed an undue burden on contractors. I have
confirmed that the entire subdivision doesn't need to be done at once, but
could be done in logical phases. For example, one street could be done as a
phase, rather than three streets being required to be done. It doesn't appear
that a developer could grade the road one house at a time, however.
The reason for the grading requirement is that problems have been caused by
contractors installing service lines in subdivisions before the road is sub-
graded. The service lines are sometimes too shallow, they have frozen and
higher maintenance costs for the Public Utilities Department have resulted.
In addition, tearing up roads after asphalt is laid has a significant impact
on the life of the road.
Jai
•
•
•
LEROY W. HOOTON,JR.
CIREC CR
WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. t r ((t�, �f R T yJ��J
SUPERINT?vCE.NT ` \ 1 Al a HEY� .,_ORP Vl I f I,O j
•.�.r ..........� �►ti.a... �lv�..y v.ar.....r`r.ri
WATER SUPPLY&WA-:iwCRKS
E. TIM DOXEY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
SUPERINTENDENT Water Supply & Waterworks PALMER DEPAULIS
WATER REC_AuATTCN
Water Reclamation NAYOR
JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A.
a+IE°cv+Ar�+ 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE
AC.^']UNTWG CCER
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 •
GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E.
CHIEF ENGINE
November 20, 1989
TO: Salt Lake City Council
RE: New City Ordinance
Recommendation: That the Council approve the new ordinance and
---- forward to Mayor for execution in behalf of the City.
Availability of Funds: None required.
DISCUSSION; The Public Utilities Department, in the past, has
experienced developers installing service laterals at improper grades.
Developers have not provided bonds for water and sewer facilities on
their projects. The proposed ordinance, when implemented, will
require streets to be rough graded before water and sewer pipelines
are installed. The connection fees for each lot in new subdivisions
will all have to be paid prior to the pipeline installation. This
will allow better control and inspection. A $10.00 fee will also be
imposed on each lot for water to be used for construction. Past
experience allowed some builders to take water without paying.
Submitted by:
LEROY Wes! HOOTON, R.
Director
Department of Public ilities
Cont.1/srb
Attachments
C-12
I x�
t
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 1989
(Water and sewer main connections)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 17 . 16 . 300, 17 . 16 . 120,
17 .48 . 050 AND ENACTING NEW SECTIONS 17 . 16 .345 AND 17 .40 .060
OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO WATER AND SEWER. MAIN
CONNECTIONS.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah:
SECTION 1. That Section 17 .16 .300 of the Salt Lake
City Code, relating to installation procedures and expenses,.
be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:
17.16.300 Installation procedures and expenses.
All water main extensions shall be made at the expense
of the person, persons or corporation petitioning for the
extension, and shall be made without special taxes being
levied to pay for the same. All water mains shall be
extended, at minimum, to the far end of the lot being
serviced. All roads shall be sub-graded prior to
installation of the public utilities facilities. All
service connection fees shall be paid for each lot to be
served thereby prior to installation of the water main
extension. A bonded plumbing contractor shall set all meter
boxes, yokes and meters in the parking area of the street at
the center of each lot or such other location as is approved
by City, install all service laterals from the main to the
meter and tap the main. A fee for aid to construction may
be imposed by the city for development of water facilities,
as recommended by the public utilities advisory board and
approved by the public utilities director. All water mains
and water facilities installed shall be subject to the
acceptance of the department of public utilities .
SECTION 2 . That Section 17 . 16 . 120 of the Salt Lake
City Code, relating to license, registration and bond
required, be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:
17.16.120 License, registration and bond required.
Within the City's service area, no person shall make
any connections to, or in any manner perform any work upon
any of the mains, connections or appliances pertaining to
the city waterworks until such person shall have secured a
license, been registered, and filed, where applicable, a
[bend] performance bond guaranteeing the installation of the
water facilities within the city' s service area as required
by ordinance and statute.
SECTION 3. That Section 17 .40.060 of the Salt Lake
City Code, relating to petitioning contracts, be, and the
same hereby is, enacted to read:
17.40.060 Petitioning Contracts.
All new main pipelines must be petitioned for to the
public utilities director. All mains shall be extended, at
a minimum, to the far end of the lot being served. All
roads shall be sub-graded prior to installation of the
-2-
public utilities facilities . All service connection fees
shall be paid for each lot to be served thereby prior to
installation of the main extension. All sewer mains and
related facilities installed shall be subject to the
acceptance of city' s department of public utilities . All
conditions required by the city shall be the same as
applicable ordinance sections 17 . 36 et seq. , 17 .44 et seq.
and 17 .48 et seq.
SECTION 4 . That Section 17 .48.050 of the Salt Lake
City Code, relating to connection to POTW sewer -
requirements, be, and the same hereby is, amended as
follows:
17.48.050 Connection to POTW sewer - Requirements.
No person shall make any connections to, or in any
manner perform any work upon any of the mains, connections
or appliances pertaining to the sewer facilities of Salt
Lake City until such person shall have secured a license,
been registered, and where applicable, filed a performance
bond guaranteeing the installation of underground sewer
facilities within the city service area. The applicant for
the building sewer permit shall notify the POTW manager when
the building sewer is ready for inspection and connection to
the POTW sewer. The connection shall be made under the
supervision of the POTW manager or his/her representative.
The connection of the building sewer to the POTW sewer shall
conform to the requirements of the building and plumbing
-3-
codes, or other applicable laws, rules and regulations of
federal, state and local entities . All such connections
shall be made watertight. A bonded licensed plumber shall
install service laterals from the main to the property line
at the center of the lot or such other location as is
approved by city.
SECTION 5 . That Section 17 . 16 . 345 of the Salt Lake
City Code, relating to lot hydrant - fee, be, and the same
hereby is, enacted to read as follows:
17.16.345 Lot Hydrant - Fee.
When a culinary water service meter is not used for
construction purposes, then during any lot or subdivision
construction in the city' s service area, contractor shall
install for each lot a hose bib (standpipe with automatic
drain) meeting the requirements of the city' s Director of
Public Utilities . A flat fee for water used during
construction of $10. 00 per residential lot shall be charged
to and paid by the contractor. Commercial properties shall
pay metered rates .
SECTION 6 . This ordinance shall take effect upon its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,
this day of , 1989 .
CHAIRPERSON
-4-
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on
Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
RLM:cc
-5-