D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 1 THE SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL, STATE OF UTAH, MET ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2015, PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2015, AT THE HOUR OF 4:02:52 PM , AT THE SALT LAKE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 2001 SO. STATE STREET, ROOM N1-110, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: JENNIFER WILSON JIM BRADLEY ARLYN BRADSHAW MICHAEL JENSEN1 AIMEE WINDER NEWTON SAM GRANATO STEVEN DEBRY MAX BURDICK RICHARD SNELGROVE, Chair
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: BEN MCADAMS, MAYOR By: LORI BAYS, DEPUTY MAYOR SIM GILL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PLANNING & ZONING MEETING; By: CHRIS PRESTON, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY JASON ROSE, LEGAL COUNSEL, COUNCIL OFFICE SHERRIE SWENSEN, COUNTY CLERK By: KIM STANGER & GAYELENE GUDMUNDSION, DEPUTY CLERKS
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Council Member Snelgrove, Chair, presided.
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Mr. Patrick Reimherr, Director of Government Relations and Senior Advisor, Mayor’s Office, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake County Council meeting held on Tuesday, October 6, 2015. The motion passed unanimously, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Ms. Dorothy Owens spoke under “Citizen Public Input” regarding the closure of the Community Access to Technology (CAT) Labs and the impact that will have. She stated the presentation made during the Committee of the Whole meeting today outlined how the libraries
1 Participated electronically 1 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 in Salt Lake County would step up to fill any gaps from these closures. The CAT labs that are being closed are in Salt Lake City, not the County, and the people who use the CAT labs have transportation issues. She asked the Council to delay its vote to close the CAT labs for two weeks in order to give citizens the opportunity to look through the presentation and make comments. The unused funding from the closure of the labs should be used in ways to help meet the needs of the underserved population.
Council Member Bradshaw stated Ms. Owens could talk with Karen Crompton, Director, Human Services Department, regarding ways the leftover funding could be used to help with the transition.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Steve Van Maren spoke under “Citizen Public Input” regarding the purchase of a right-of-way by Questar on property located at 13800 South Upper Canyon Road for $1,934.00. He stated this seems like a small value for this right-of-way.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Todd Poulsen spoke under “Citizen Public Input” regarding the proposed Pet Ordinance. He stated the County already has an ordinance in place relating to dog breeding. According to the proposed ordinance, he could not buy any animals from registered breeders that the County has already set standards for. Pet stores help the dog breeders get rid of the puppies they cannot sell. Another problem is he could only get dogs from animal shelters or rescue agencies. Most of the rescue agencies are against pet stores and would like to put them out of business, so the Council can imagine the kind of dogs he would be able to get. This is an unfair way to go about regulating this issue.
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Mayor Ben McAdams submitted letters requesting the Council’s advice and consent to the reappointments of David E. Gee and Lori Feld as members of the Cultural Core Budget Committee to serve three-year terms. Their terms will begin October 13, 2015, and end October 13, 2018.
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to ratify the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole meeting. [Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Burdick, moved to approve the appointments and forward them to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Member DeBry was absent for the vote.] The Council motion passed unanimously, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Mr. Lee Colvin, Manager, Real Estate Section, submitted a letter recommending approval of the following RESOLUTION authorizing execution of a RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT GRANT and a TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT between Salt Lake
2 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 County for its Real Estate Section and Questar Gas Company. Salt Lake County will grant an easement at approximately 13800 South Upper Corner Canyon Road (Parcel No. 34-04-176- 008) to Questar Gas to construct a high pressure gas pipeline for the fair market value of $1,934.00.
RESOLUTION NO. 5002 DATE October 13. 2015
A RESOLUTION OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF AN EASEMENT AND RELATED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS TO QUESTAR GAS COMPANY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE
RECITALS
A. Salt Lake County (“County”) owns a parcel of land at South Mountain Golf Course, identified as Tax ID No. 34-04-176-008 (the “Property.”)
B. Questar Gas Company (“Questar”) wants to construct a high pressure gas pipeline across the northerly portion of the Property at approximately 13800 South Upper Corner Canyon Road.
C. Questar has requested that the County sell to it a 20-foot wide Right-of-Way and Easement Grant and a Temporary Construction Easement for the fair market value of $1,934.00.
D. It has been determined that the best interests of the County and the general public will be served by selling the Right of Way and Easement Grant and the Temporary Construction Easement as provided in the terms and conditions of the attached Easement Purchase Agreement. The execution of the Easement Purchase Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable state statutes and county ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Salt Lake County Council that the attached Easement Purchase Agreement is accepted and approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute the Easement Purchase Agreement on behalf of Salt Lake County.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED by the Salt Lake County Council that the Mayor is authorized to execute the Right of Way and Easement Grant and the Temporary Easements attached to the Easement Purchase Agreement on behalf of Salt Lake County and to deliver these documents to Questar upon receipt of the agreed upon purchase price.
2APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13 th day of October, 2015.
SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL
ATTEST (SEAL) By /s/ RICHARD SNELGROVE Chair
3 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 By /s/ SHERRIE SWENSEN County Clerk
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Ms. Antigone Carlson, Contracts Coordinator, Contracts & Procurement Division, submitted a letter recommending approval of the following Resolution authorizing execution of AMENDMENT NO. 2 to the INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT between Salt Lake County for its Sheriff’s Office and the UNIFIED POLICE DEPARTMENT (UPD) – Law Enforcement Functions. Salt Lake County wishes to increase funds for disbursement under the 2013 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. This amendment increases the amount of the subaward paid to UPD by $6.46 for a total of $4,546.46, which is part of a total award of $8,900.46 for the purchase of stun cuffs to support law enforcement efforts. All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement and Amendment No.1 remain in full force and effect.
RESOLUTION NO. 5003 DATE October 13, 2015
A RESOLUTION OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNIFIED POLICE DEPARTMENT AND SALT LAKE COUNTY TO INCREASE FUNDS FOR DISBURSEMENT UNDER THE 2013 EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM.
RECITALS
A. Through a joint application to the United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Salt Lake City (the “City”) and Salt Lake County (the “County”) have been awarded a joint award for the purpose of carrying out ordinary law enforcement and justice programs as designated by the U. S. Department of Justice.
B. Whereas, a portion of the award delegated to the County must be used for law enforcement functions. The County and the Unified Police Department (the “UPD”) previously entered into an Interlocal Cooperative Agreement (the “Agreement”) to use the funds for a specified purpose. The County and UPD now desire to increase the amount of the subaward by $6.46 for a total of $4,546.46, which is part of a total award of $8,900.46 for the purchase of stun cuffs to support law enforcement efforts. The purchases are more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Salt Lake County Council that the attached Amendment #2 to Council Contract CA0000000091 is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of Salt Lake County.
3APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13 th day of October, 2015.
SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL
ATTEST (SEAL) By /s/ RICHARD SNELGROVE 4 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 Chair By /s/ SHERRIE SWENSEN County Clerk
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to ratify the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole meeting. [Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Burdick, moved to approve the resolutions and forward them to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Member DeBry was absent for the vote.] The Council motion passed unanimously, authorizing the Chair to execute the resolutions and directing the County Clerk to attest his signature, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Mr. Lee Colvin, Manager, Real Estate Section, submitted a letter recommending approval of the following RESOLUTION authorizing execution of a REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT between Salt Lake County and Archer & Beck – Purchase of 2.5 Acres and Two Buildings located at 193 West and 195 West 2100 South. This property will be used to improve access to the Central Pointe Station Trax Stop, S-Line Street Car, and Parley’s Trail. Salt Lake County will purchase this property for $4,000,000 subject to an appraisal, which will be done to verify that the fair market value of the property is that amount or greater.
RESOLUTION NO. 5004 DATE October 13, 2015
A RESOLUTION OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE ATTACHED REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTACT OFFER TO PURCHASE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY ARCHER & BECK L.L.C. CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 2.5 ACRES LOCATED AT 2100 SOUTH AND 100 WEST, SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, NEXT TO THE CENTRAL POINTE STATION TRAX STOP
RECITALS
A. Archer & Beck L.L.C. (the “Seller”) owns certain real property located at approximately 2100 South and 193 and 195 West in South Salt Lake City, next to the Central Pointe Station Trax Stop, more specifically identified as Exhibit A to the attached Real Estate Purchase Contract Offer to Purchase (the “Property”).
B. Salt Lake County (the ”County”) desires to purchase the Property to provide support for regional development, and to improve public access, including access to the Central Pointe Station Trax Stop, S-Line Street Car, and Parley’s Trail.
C. On August 4, 2015, the Salt Lake County Council authorized the execution of a Real Estate Purchase Contract Offer to Purchase, which was delivered to the Seller but not accepted.
5 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 D. The County and the Seller continued negotiations for the sale and acquisition of the Property, which has resulted in a new Real Estate Purchase Contract Offer to Purchase attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
E. The County shall exercise due diligence in the purchase of the Property, including preparation of an appraisal of the Property, a survey of the Property, an environmental study of the Property, a physical inspection of the Property, a report on compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local law, ordinances, and regulations with regard to zoning and permissible uses of the Property.
F. It has been determined that the best interests of the County and the general public will be served by purchasing the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the attached Real Estate Purchase Contract Offer to Purchase (the “Offer”) for the purposes herein stated. The purchase of the Property will comply with all applicable state statutes and County ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Salt Lake County Council that the County shall move forward with due diligence to purchase the Property from Archer & Beck L.L.C. in accordance with the terms and conditions of the attached new Real Estate Purchase Contract Offer to Purchase. The Mayor is authorized to sign the new Real Estate Purchase Contract Offer to Purchase and proceed with due diligence, finalizing the purchase at closing for a price not to exceed $4,000,000; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED by the Salt Lake County Council that the Mayor and County Clerk are hereby authorized to execute such other documents as may be reasonable and conditions contemplated by the Real Estate Purchase Contract offer to Purchase and the County’s due diligence, including, but not limited to, finalizing the purchase at closing for a price not to exceed $4,000,000; receiving for the County a Special Warranty Deed, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit C to the attached Real Estate Purchase Contract Offer to Purchase; and executing the Purchase Option, (substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the attached Real Estate Purchase Contract Offer to Purchase.
4APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13 th day of October, 2015.
SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL
ATTEST (SEAL) By /s/ RICHARD SNELGROVE Chair By /s/ SHERRIE SWENSEN County Clerk
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to ratify the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole meeting. [Council Member Bradley, seconded by Council Member Bradshaw, moved to approve the resolution and forward it to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Member DeBry was absent for the vote.] The Council motion passed unanimously, authorizing
6 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 the Chair to execute the resolution and directing the County Clerk to attest his signature, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Mr. Scott Tingley, County Auditor, submitted letters recommending reduction of taxes on the following properties, pursuant to an order of the Utah State Tax Commission. He also recommended that refunds in the amounts indicated, plus appropriate interest, be issued to the taxpayers.
Taxpayer Parcel No. Year Reduction Refund
Elizabeth Koyen 08-27-202-013 2014 $ 1,244.25 to $1,182.04 $ 62.21
Oasis International 28-28-351-009 2014 $ 1,781.46 to $ 1,603.47 $ 177.99
M. Carlson 27-12-228-013 2013 $ 755.03 to $ 499.75 $ 255.28
Michael Carlson 27-12-228-032 2013 $ 3,397.88 to $ 2,569.05 $ 828.83
Associated Fresh Markets 22-17-154-020 2014 $ 55,781.88 to $ 54,912.79 $ 869.09
Bonham Construction 21-01-278-021 2014 $ 8,486.40 to $ 7,550.40 $ 936.00
Kenneth & Ann Croft 16-35-106-045 2013 $ 6,413.28 to $ 5,122.75 $ 1,290.52 16-35-106-045 2012 $ 6,180.83 to $ 4,717.38 $ 1,463.45
Tio Milestone James Pointe Apartments 22-19-426-002 2014 $187,440.05 to $183,955.20 $ 3,484.85
Russco Group 16-06-179-005 2014 $ 20,515.73 to $ 15,156.54 $ 5,359.19
Salt Lake City Memoriam 09-32-203-004 2014 $ 35,752.85 to $ 10,786.60 $24,966.25 09-32-203-004. 2013 $ 37,111.56 to $ 11,203.83 $25,907.73
Larkin Mortuary 16-06-127-014 2014 $ 51,043.28 to $ 40,002.79 $11,040.49 16-06-127-007 2014 $ 15,376.47 to $ 10,146.47 $ 5,229.73
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Scott Tingley, County Auditor, submitted letters recommending reduction of taxes on the following properties, pursuant to an order of the Utah State Tax Commission. No payment has been made. He recommended adjustment of penalties and interest accordingly.
Taxpayer Parcel No. Year Reduction
Sil 16-29-330-076 2014 $ 11,083.49 to $ 9,419.40
7 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 Dredge Management 15-08-100-026 2014 $ 29,947.25 to $ 26,084.79
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Scott Tingley, County Auditor, submitted a letter recommending reduction of 2014 taxes from $6,411.39 to $544.53 on the Holy Trinity Lutheran Church property identified as Parcel No. 27-34-451-086, pursuant to a Stipulation for Settlement by the Utah State Tax Commission. He also recommended the adjustment of penalties and interest to the remaining balance owed.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Kevin Jacobs, County Assessor, submitted a letter recommending refunds in the amounts indicated be issued to the following taxpayers for overpayment of vehicle taxes:
Taxpayer Year Refund
Robert M. Underwood 2015 $150.00 Brett Knecht 2015 $ 45.00 Eric A. Marlett 2015 $113.00 Brayden P. Monsen 2015 $ 83.00 Traci A. Taylor 2015 $113.00 Carol Townsend 2015 $153.00 Ryan S. Ure 2015 $113.00
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Kevin Jacobs, County Assessor, submitted letters recommending that refunds in the amounts indicated be issued to the following taxpayers for overpayment of personal property taxes:
Taxpayer Tax Roll # Year Refund
Dannon 122567 2015 $10,067.00
Interstate Brick/PABCO Building Products 37 046251 2015 $16,495.73
Sun Products 13 157725/2 2015 $ 9,657.16 01A 157725/1 2015 $ - 0 -
H &R Block 13 158576/18 2015 $ 218.91 25B 1585876/7 2015 $ 257.04 32B 158576/6 2015 $ 451.09 37 158576/2 2015 $ 75.91 37 158576/3 2015 $ 121.99 38B 158576/9 2015 $ 358.26
8 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 42 158576/5 2015 $ 680.35 42 158576/12 2015 $ 399.74 55 158576/4 2015 $ 180.94 61 158576/1 2015 $ 218.11 63A 158576/19 2015 $ 185.36
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Kevin Jacobs, County Assessor, submitted a letter recommending refunds be issued to the following taxpayers for overpayment of 2015 manufactured home property taxes.
Taxpayer Account No. Refund
German F. Alvarez 24 030890 $ 75.55 Edward Anderson 61 035025 $ 90.74 Kathryn G. Bird 35D 207395 $254.39 Janet M. Button 21 200409 $186.66 Daniel Clayton 01Q 201107 $ 71.90 Paul or Carol Cunningham 37 207219 $207.30 Ilene Evans 61 029068 $122.15 Dolores George 37 201169 $149.65 Betty Gieseke & Blair Vernieuw 36D 038244 $ 72.14 Thomas A. Haines 24 201352 $175.04 Carl Hodges 01Q 034262 $ 78.03 Jaranda Louise Pain 15A 202473 $291.78 Tyler Timmreck 61 036068 $ 63.97 Pat Weston or Richard Jensen 24 027197 $ 62.02 Bill Wood 13 038288 $176.40
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Kevin Jacobs, County Assessor, submitted a letter recommending adjustment of 2014 taxes from $3,658.80 to $3,019.02 on the Alan Kruckenberg Construction property identified as part of Parcel No. 22-20-279-001. Per the County Recorder’s Office, .03 acre was erroneously put in the ownership of Alan Kruckenberg Construction, and in fact should have been put in the ownership of Murray City. He recommended abatement (refund if paid) of property taxes plus penalty and interest.
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to approve the recommendations. The motion passed unanimously, authorizing the County Treasurer to effect the same, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Mr. Adam Miller, Deputy District Attorney, submitted the following ordinance relating to the sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits at commercial animal establishments in Salt Lake County:
9 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 ORDINANCE NO. 1786 DATE: October 13, 2015
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, ENACTING SECTION 8.03.035 OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES, 2001, RELATING TO THE SALE OF DOGS, CATS, AND RABBITS AT COMMERCIAL ANIMAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN SALT LAKE COUNTY
The County Legislative Body of Salt Lake County ordains as follows:
SECTION I. The amendments made herein are designated by underlining the new words.
SECTION II. Section 8.03.035 of the Salt Lake County Code of Ordinances, 2001, is enacted to read as follows:
8.03.035 sale of dogs, cats and rabbits at commercial animal establishments.
A. It is unlawful for any person to display, offer for sale, deliver, barter, auction, give away, transfer, or sell any live dog, cat, or rabbit in any pet shop, retail business or other commercial animal establishment located in the County, unless the dog, cat, or rabbit was obtained from an animal shelter. All pet shops, retail businesses, or other commercial animal establishments selling dogs, cats, or rabbits shall maintain a certificate of source for each of the animals and make it available upon request to animal control officers, law enforcement, code compliance officials or any other County or other employee charged with enforcing the provisions of this section.
B. For purposes of this section, a certificate of source is defined as any document from the source animal shelter declaring the source of the dog, cat, or rabbit on the premises of the pet shop, retail business or other commercial animal establishment.
C. This section shall not apply to the display, offer for sale, delivery, bartering, auction, giving away, transfer, or sale of dogs, cats, or rabbits from the premises on which they were bred and reared.
D. Nothing in this section shall prevent the owner, operator, or employees of a pet shop, retail business, or other commercial animal establishment located in the County from providing space and appropriate care for animals owned by an animal shelter and maintaining those animals at the pet shop, retail business, or other commercial animal establishment for the purpose of public adoption.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall become effective fifteen (15) days after its passage and upon at least one publication of the ordinance or a summary thereof in a newspaper published and having general circulation in Salt Lake County.
5APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13 th day of October, 2015.
SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL
10 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015
ATTEST (SEAL) By /s/ RICHARD SNELGROVE Chair By /s/ SHERRIE SWENSEN County Clerk
Council Member Newton stated the Council discussed this ordinance last week and her position has not changed. She does support animal shelters and abhors puppy mills, but believes this ordinance is problematic for the following reasons:
1) It infringes on the rights of business owners. Government should not interfere with free market principles.
2) The County already has a breeder ordinance in place and should put its efforts into enforcing that ordinance.
3) This ordinance only allows commercial establishments to get dogs, cats and rabbits from animal or rescue shelters. These establishments should be able to obtain animals from licensed breeders as well.
4) This ordinance will create a black market, making it harder for the County to regulate.
5) Typically, planning and zoning issues go through community councils for their input. This ordinance has not.
She would be in favor of passing a resolution, which would encourage pet stores to obtain animals from shelters and educate the public on why that is a good thing.
Council Member Bradshaw stated puppy mills exist anywhere in the country and puppies can be transported for sale, which is why the ordinance is written the way it is. The free market is not innately benevolent - it supported slavery, child labor, unsafe working conditions and a number of things. Whenever society makes a decision that something is morally wrong, it puts restrictions in place, which is entirely appropriate.
Council Member Snelgrove stated puppy mills are the first cousin to animal cruelty. This is an animal cruelty issue and that is why he supports the ordinance.
Council Member DeBry asked if the Council would be averse to sending this ordinance to the community councils for their recommendations since it impacts their communities.
Council Member Bradshaw stated this is not a planning and zoning item. The Council has not sent other ordinances of this nature to community councils for input. This is not a land use item.
11 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 Council Member DeBry stated by sending this ordinance to the community councils, it says the Council wants to empower them, which is the purpose of creating townships.
Council Member Wilson stated the Council cannot send every ordinance that impacts the unincorporated area to community councils for input. The Council is still the governing body for the unincorporated area and needs to govern until the township bill is passed. If citizens want to provide input, they can during the Committee of the Whole or Council meetings. This is a good time to adopt the ordinance because there are no pet stores in the unincorporated area that would be affected.
Council Member DeBry asked for clarification. He wanted to know if this ordinance would affect, in anyway, breeders that breed field trail dogs, hunting dogs, seeing eye dogs, or police service dogs. The breeders take very good care of these dogs; it is their livelihood.
Council Member Bradshaw stated the ordinance has a specific exemption that it does not apply, in anyway, to the place and location where an animal is bred and reared. Those types of breeders are specifically exempted in the language of the ordinance.
Council Member Burdick stated he is against puppy mills, but he believes this ordinance is targeting the wrong area to fix this problem. It says the only place a commercial establishment can get a dog, cat, or rabbit is from a shelter. There are no establishments in the unincorporated area that would be impacted by this ordinance.
Council Member Bradshaw stated yes that is correct and that is why this is a preventative measure.
Council Member Burdick stated it is unfair to tell a commercial establishment that the only place it can obtain dogs, cats, or rabbits is from an animal shelter.
Council Member Bradshaw stated the title has a broader definition of an animal shelter; it could be a 501(c)3 organization that participates in animal rescue.
Council Member Burdick stated this ordinance is targeting the wrong area when looking for a solution to puppy mills.
Council Member Newton stated this ordinance does not punish puppy mills; it punishes pet stores. If a dog has a litter and the owner wants a good place for them to go, a pet store would come in handy. Another thing she finds curious is the County is licensing breeders so wondered why the ordinance did not include the purchase of animals from licensed breeders. This is a message bill; it will be used to go to other cities to get them to pass the same ordinance. This ordinance punishes pet stores, not puppy mills. It is going after the wrong organization.
Council Member Bradshaw stated the exemption for breeders to be able to sell on site also promotes humane treatment. If a breeder has a humane facility, it would have no problem selling from its facility. It is the puppy mills that treat animals inhumanely and need to
12 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 use pet stores as a mode to move the puppies to market. That is why it is appropriate to target pet stores that use that sourcing.
Council Member Jensen stated the vote for a metro township is less than one month away. This ordinance could be used to say the County is overbearing, which could affect the election. The timing for this ordinance is completely wrong. He asked why the Council is even considering this ordinance since it does not affect any establishment in the unincorporated area.
Council Member Wilson asked at what point the Council should stop governing because of an election. This point could apply in many other areas as well. This is a type of ordinance that does not typically go through the community council process. The Council is operating as it always has in representing its unincorporated residents. It is following normal procedures.
Council Member Jensen stated of course the Council has to govern, but what this ordinance is doing is allowing Millcreek, Magna and Kearns to say they do not want the County to be involved in their business because it is overbearing.
Council Member DeBry stated community councils need to be included in this discussion before a decision is made. Council Member Bradshaw made a comment earlier relating to free market and slavery. The constitution at the time is what allowed slavery; it was not the free market. So that is not applicable to this situation at all.
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Wilson, moved to approve the ordinance. The motion passed 5 to 4, authorizing the Chair to sign the same, directing the County Clerk to attest his signature, and to publish the ordinance summary in a newspaper of general circulation, showing the vote to be Council Member Bradshaw voting “Aye,” Council Member Granato voting “Aye,” Council Member Wilson voting “Aye,” Council Member Bradley voting “Aye,” Council Member Snelgrove voting “Aye,” Council Member Jensen voting “Nay,” Council Member Newton voting “Nay,” Council Member Burdick voting “Nay,” and Council Member DeBry voting “Nay.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Mr. Craig Wangsgard, Deputy District Attorney, submitted a letter recommending approval of the following RESOLUTION declaring the Council’s official intent to reimburse expenditures to the General Fund or other County funds for the financing, or projected costs associated with acquiring, constructing and/or improving new buildings for the District Attorney’s Office including land for parking; two new health buildings and land; a new Parks and Public Works Operation Center; land under or near the Salt Palace; and related facilities.
RESOLUTION NO. 5005 DATE October 13. 2015
RESOLUTION OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL DECLARING OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES TO ITS GENERAL FUND OR OTHER COUNTY FUNDS FOR THE FINANCING OR PROJECT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ACQUIRING, CONSTRUCTING, AND/OR IMPROVING
13 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 NEW BUILDINGS FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE INCLUDING LAND FOR PARKING; TWO NEW HEALTH BUDILINGS AND LAND; A NEW PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS OPERATION CENTER; LAND UNDER OR NEAR THE SALT PALACE AND RELATED FAICLITIES.
The Legislative Body of Salt Lake County resolves as follows:
WHEREAS, Salt Lake County (“County”) expects to issue tax-exempt obligations to provide the funding for acquiring constructing and/or improving (i) new buildings for the District Attorney’s office, including land for parking, (ii) two new health buildings and land, (iii) a new parks and public works operation center, (iv) land under or near the Salt Palace and related facilities (“Projects”); and
WHEREAS, because the funds will not become available prior to January 1, 2016, the County must provide interim financing to cover the costs of the Projects incurred for certain capital expenditures including due-diligence, initial acquisition and construction and planning expenses; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that permanent long-term financing will be authorized and issued at a time when the Project plans are finalized and approved and is acquired by the County; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary, desirable, and in the best interests of the County to advance moneys from it funds on hand on an interim basis until the obligations can be issued and the bond funds become available.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Salt Lake County Council as follows:
1. The County intends to finance the Projects with long-term debt to be issued by the County.
2. The County shall make expenditures as needed from its funds on hand to pay the costs of the Projects until the proceeds of the bond obligations become available.
3. The County hereby declares its official intent under 26 CFR Section 1.150-2 to reimburse said expenditures advanced for the Projects with proceeds of the bond obligations, the principal amount of which is not expected to exceed $60 Million dollars.
4. No funds for payment of the Projects from sources other than the obligations are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside by the County pursuant to its budget or financial policies.
5. Resolutions of the County together with minutes of meetings and other documents pertinent to the Projects are and will be reasonably available at the office of the Council Clerk, Salt Lake County Government Complex, 2001 South State Street, N2-700, Salt Lake City, Utah and will be reasonably available as they are developed at the office of the Salt Lake County District Attorney, Suite S3-600, Salt Lake County Health Dept., Suite S2-600 and Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation, Suite S4-700, offices are located at the Government Center.
14 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015
This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption and approval.
6APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13 th day of October, 2015.
SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL
ATTEST (SEAL) By /s/ RICHARD SNELGROVE Chair By /s/ SHERRIE SWENSEN County Clerk
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Jensen, moved to ratify the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole meeting. [Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Burdick, moved to approve the resolution and forward it to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Member DeBry was absent for the vote.] The Council motion passed unanimously, authorizing the Chair to sign the same, and directing the County Clerk to attest his signature, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Mayor Ben McAdams submitted letters requesting approval of the recommendation of the Contribution Review Committee for the following community contributions to be approved from the Mayor’s 2015 budget:
Ouelessebougue Alliance 2-$100 golf cards 2-$ 50 Planetarium cards
Utah Coalition of LaRaza (Turkey Drive) $1,000
Camp Kostopolis $1,000
Clark Planetarium (20-$50 cards) $1,000
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to ratify the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole meeting. [Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Burdick, moved to approve the requests, found that the County received fair and adequate consideration for the contributions, and forward them to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Member DeBry was absent for the vote.] The Council motion passed unanimously, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
15 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 The Council reviewed its agreement made during the Committee of the Whole meeting regarding Community Preservation, that in order to determine voting districts for the new Municipal Services District and any new cities, the County Clerk and Surveyor will put together a proposal. The proposal will then go to a working group for approval. The working group will be made up of Council Members Burdick, Granato, and Jensen, and one At Large Council Member or their staff, Council’s Legal Counsel, as well as staff members from the offices of the Mayor, District Attorney, Surveyor, and Clerk.
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to approve the agreement. The motion passed unanimously, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Mayor Ben McAdams submitted a letter requesting the Council’s advice and consent to the appointment of Karen Crompton as the new Human Services Department Director.
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to ratify the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole meeting. [Council Member Granato, seconded by Council Member Jensen, moved to consent to the appointment and forward it to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Members Bradshaw, Newton and DeBry were absent for the vote.] The Council motion passed unanimously, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Mr. Tim Whalen, Director, Behavioral Health Services Division, requested approval to participate in an integration pilot program with accountable care organizations if Medicaid expansion is approved.
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to ratify the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole meeting. [Council Member Winder Newton, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to approve the request and forward it to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Member DeBry was absent for the vote.] The Council motion passed unanimously, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Ms. Karen Crompton, Director, Human Services Department, requested approval to close the Community Access to Technology (CAT) labs as of November 13, 2015.
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to ratify the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole meeting. [Council Member Wilson, seconded by Council Member DeBry, moved to approve closure of the CAT labs as of November 13, 2015, and redistribute the remaining funds to take care of the employees
16 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 impacted by the closure, provide some funds to the Youth Services Division for an FTE, and offer funds to VITA to do outreach during the upcoming tax season, and to forward the matter to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously.] The Council motion passed unanimously, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Mr. Scott Baird, Director, Flood Control & Engineering Services Division, submitted a letter requesting approval for an interim budget adjustment of $130,000 for a bond call for the Millcreek Fire Flow Special Improvement District.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Scott Baird, Director, Flood Control & Engineering Services Division, submitted a letter requesting approval for an interim budget adjustment to transfer $205,000 from the 6200 S. 5100 W. signal project, which has been canceled, to the 2300 E road improvement project to cover an unanticipated match for additional federal funds.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Scott Baird, Director, Flood Control & Engineering Services Division, submitted a letter requesting approval for an interim budget adjustment to transfer $101,525 from the Dimple Dell project, which has been canceled, to the 3900 S. sidewalk project; and to transfer $175,000 from the General Excise Tax Bond project to complete an overlay project on 3100 E. in the unincorporated Sandy islands.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Scott Baird, Director, Flood Control & Engineering Services Division, submitted a letter requesting approval for an interim budget adjustment to transfer $95.419 from remaining funds for the 1300 E. and 1700 E. sidewalk projects to the 3900 S. sidewalk project to complete construction.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Scott Baird, Director, Flood Control & Engineering Services Division, submitted a letter requesting approval for an interim budget adjustment to transfer $55,000 from remaining funds for the Galena Drive storm drain project to Phase 3 of the 5400 S. Kearns storm drain project.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Seth Jarvis, Director, Clark Planetarium, submitted a letter requesting approval for an interim budget adjustment to transfer $60,000 from the Operations Appropriation Unit to the Cost of Goods Sold Appropriation Unit to increase inventory levels for the holiday season.
17 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Daniel Hayes, General Manager, Salt Palace Convention Center, submitted a letter requesting approval for an interim budget adjustment to transfer $25,000 from the Exhibit Hall 5 floor repair project under expend to the boiler ventilation project to pay for increased costs.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Daniel Hayes, General Manager, Salt Palace Convention Center, submitted a letter requesting approval for an interim budget adjustment of $90,000 to purchase small equipment. This will entail transferring funds from the fund balance.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Daniel Hayes, General Manager, South Towne Exposition Center, submitted a letter requesting approval for an interim budget adjustment of $69,500 to purchase small and large equipment for the South Towne Exposition Center. This will entail transferring funds from the fund balance.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Daniel Hayes, General Manager, South Towne Exposition Center, submitted a letter requesting approval for an interim budget adjustment of $16,000 to replace a boiler refractory at the South Towne Exposition Center, and an interim budget adjustment of $1,740 for the Exhibit Hall sprinkler system for the seismic bracing project. Both requests will require transferring funds from the carpet project under expend.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Carlton Christensen, Director, Office of Regional Development, submitted a letter requesting approval for an interim budget adjustment of $60,000 to purchase 15 radios for the Public Works Department to remain compatible with the Smartnet Radio System. This will entail transferring funds from the fund balance.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Mr. Scott Baird, Director, Flood Control & Engineering Services Division, submitted a letter requesting approval for an interim budget adjustment to transfer $35,000 from Vehicle Replacement Purchase to Machinery and Equipment to purchase a tilt-deck trailer in which to haul flood control equipment.
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to ratify the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole meeting. [Council Member Jensen, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to approve the requests and forward them to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Member DeBry was absent for the vote.] The Council motion passed unanimously, authorizing
18 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 the County Chief Financial Officer to effect the same, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Mr. Wilf Sommerkorn, Director, Regional Planning and Transportation, reviewed the following proposed ordinance: 4:31:25 PM
Application #29629 – Salt Lake County to enact a County Ordinance designating an area of unincorporated Salt Lake County as the Mountainous Planning District and creating the Mountainous Planning District Planning Commission.
Mr. Sommerkorn stated House Bill 351 was passed during the 2015 Legislative Session, which allows for the creation of a Mountainous Planning District (MPD) in Salt Lake County. This district would include the area of the Wasatch Mountains in unincorporated Salt Lake County, generally east of existing cities and township boundaries, excluding the Town of Alta. The ordinance creates a Mountainous Planning District Commission consisting of 9 members. The intent is for the members to be drawn from around the County, including residents who live in cities and have an interest in the future of the area. Once the MPD is created any annexation of the land within the District would allow the annexing entity to excise all legal municipal powers over the land except the power regulating land use and planning. That power would remain with the MPD. On September 16, 2015, the Millcreek Township Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and recommended the following three actions:
1) That the property owned by Doug Shelby, adjacent to Cottonwood Heights City (approximately 50 acres), be excluded from the MPD.
2) That at least one planning commission member reside within the MPD, and in addition, at least two planning commission members shall, either by permanent or temporary residence, or by ownership of a residence, business or property, have a particular interest in the area, be included in the MPD.
3) That funding should be representative of the countywide benefit realized by the creation of the district (from the General Fund), application funding should be representative of the municipal governance at the time of application (unincorporated if the parcel is in unincorporated County, from the County General Fund or a city general fund from the city that annexed the parcel.)
He then turned the time over to Neil Cohen, Chair, Salt Lake County Planning Commission, to submit recommendations from that board.
Mr. Neil Cohen, Chair, Salt Lake County Commission, read the following statement:
At our meeting on September 16, we made the following two recommendations to the proposed ordinance you are hearing today:
19 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 1) We recommend approval of the proposed ordinance Chapter 2.75a, that creates the MPD according to the map that is on file.
2) We recommend that the proposed ordinance Chapter 19.07, that creates the Mountainous Planning District Planning Commission (MPDPC) be approved with modifications: Those are:
a) To modify the proposed ordinance in order to merge the current County Planning Commission into the MPDPC so that the planning and land use jurisdiction of the MPD and the unincorporated islands and areas of Salt Lake County (including White City which the Council has assigned to the County PC) are handled by one commission.
We recommended this modification because the areas to be in the MPD are currently under the jurisdiction of the County PC. By merging the PCs there would be continuity, historical knowledge, and experience on the new PC. Having one PC instead of two would put less strain on the County staff and support.
In making this recommendation, we discussed that because of the sunset provision, the MPD statute could be repealed on June 1, 2016. In that case, if the planning commissions were merged, the County PC has to be able to survive and continue its planning authority. One way to do that would be to create and incorporated the MPDPC under the existing County PC ordinance Chapter 19.05, expand the membership to 9 people and two alternates, and allow the members to be selected from both unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County. The result would be to have a larger County PC fulfill the role of the MPDPC with an expanded base from which to draw qualified members.
b) We recommend that in addition to one member who, by statue, must live within the MPD, that at least 2 additional members must reside within the district, with the Mayor and County Council giving consideration to residents of the district’s canyons to fill those three spots.
In summary, the purpose of our recommendations is to have one planning commission with jurisdiction over the MPD, in this case the central Wasatch, as a consolidated area, treated holistically, and with jurisdiction over the remaining, ever shrinking, unincorporated areas.
Mr. Sommerkorn stated once the MPD is in place, all existing land use regulations and ordinances do not change. There are proposed changes underway to the Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ); and it is hoped that the new MPD Commission will review the changes and make recommendations to the County Council.
Council Member Wilson stated she would like additional time to look into this proposal and do some independent research. She asked what the suggested timeline was for Council approval.
20 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015
Mr. Sommerkorn stated the Council needs to move this ordinance along as quickly as possible. The legislation that allowed for the creation of the MSD includes a sunset date of June 1, 2016. It was anticipated that the MSD would have a track record to show how it works and that it can work well so at the next legislative session they can ask to have the sunset date extended or removed. Time is running out to get this up and running to develop a track record.
Council Member Newton, seconded by Council Member Bradshaw, moved to open the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.”
Ms. Jemina Keller, member, Mount Olympus Community Council and Millcreek Town Council, asked the Council to exclude Millcreek Canyon from the Mountainous Planning District. The four community councils in Millcreek, comprised of 40 publically elected officials, all voted unanimously and independently to keep Millcreek Canyon within the confines of the Millcreek Township. The Zions Bank Executive Summary shows that the Millcreek Township has a surplus of tax revenues with which to maintain the canyon. Additionally, Millcreek Canyon cannot be compared with the other canyons; it has no resort development, nor does it have its own fire station. The first responder to the canyon is the Unified Fire Authority in Mount Olympus, and that was evident in a recent Mountain Aire subdivision fire, for which the UFA, Forest Service, and Camp Williams came together in a coordinated effort. Also, most of the land in Millcreek Canyon is already Forest Service land, and the Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ) ordinances already address the land owners there. It seems a duplicative effort to include this canyon in the Mountainous Planning District.
Mr. Patrick Shea, Friends of Alta, stated he supported the Mountainous Planning District, and it should have a separate planning commission from the Salt Lake County Planning Commission. The Mountainous Planning District Commission needs to include specialists who understand the hydrology and nature of the areas to protect the water supply. If the County allows for encroachment by Millcreek Township and Cottonwood Heights City, there will be development in the canyons much like there is in Park City. That will benefit very few and ruin the watershed for many others. The wildlife and vegetation also have to be protected. He urged the Council to approve the ordinance as written.
Ms. Laura Briefer, Deputy Director, Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, stated the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities is the water provider for about 350,000 people within the Salt Lake Valley, and about 60 percent of its water supply comes from watersheds within the proposed Mountainous Planning District. These watersheds are important in terms of water quality, quantity, and reliability. The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities is in support of this ordinance because the Wasatch Canyons are a regional resource, and a Mountainous Planning District can meet the objective of regional representation, and will facilitate better coordination between the multiple jurisdictions in the canyons.
Mr. Will McCarvill, President, Wasatch Mountain Club, stated the Wasatch Mountain Club board endorses the mountainous planning district concept. It can provide
21 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 uniform, reliable, and predictable development in the Central Wasatch. Members of the Wasatch Mountain Club depend on the Wasatch Range for high quality outdoor recreation.
Mr. Roger Kehr suggested the Mountainous Planning District Commission include three members from the Salt Lake County Planning Commission as the first one-year members to ensure the intelligence of the Salt Lake County Planning Commission is passed onto the Mountainous Planning District Commission.
Mr. Carl Fisher, Executive Director, Save Our Canyons, read the following statement:
The Wasatch Mountains are different than other areas of our county; we’d go as far to say they are special. No other place in the country, or even the world, has proximity and access to a natural environment, a valued landscape, like the Wasatch Mountains. Because of this proximity we see nearly 6 million annual visits to the areas immediately adjacent to the burgeoning Salt Lake Valley. These visits are inclusive of hikers, skiers (resort & backcountry), climbers, hunters, anglers, painters and photographers, leaf peepers or just a family establishing a connection to place. These visitors hail from all over the county, all over the country, all over the world.
While we might not have control over the country or the world, this esteemed council does have jurisdiction over portions of the Wasatch. The citizens of Salt Lake County, through numerous planning initiatives over the past decade or more, have asked for increased representation in the decision making processes concerning the Wasatch. Many people have been unintentionally cut out of the process, or cut out of serving their community, over the years as less and less of our population are residing in unincorporated areas of the valley. By establishing the proposed Mountainous Planning District, you’ll be fostering and creating an environment of inclusion over the exclusive environment that exists today - inviting new perspectives that truly value the Wasatch into the decision making framework of our government.
Discussion and deliberation are at the heart of our democracy. Our canyon environments are deserving of a diverse and deliberative body that has a good grasp on the ordinances that are relevant to decision making. Here's an area where we disagree with the SLCO planning commission’s recommendation. There are some 50 ordinances on the books in Salt Lake County, only a handful of those are relevant to the Mountainous Areas on a regular basis. By shifting from a Planning Commission that represents both urban and alpine regions of the county to a Mountainous Planning District that has an acute focus on the zones relevant to stewarding our watersheds and forests, we will be able to have better informed discussions on the unique landscape that is important to so many of us.
When managing a landscape, size matters. The MPD encompasses an area nearly 115,000 acres in size, of that just over 24,000 acres of land are private and would be part of this MPD. It will protect these places from additional political
22 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 fragmentation and ensure that our treasured Wasatch stay whole. While the establishment of the Mountainous Planning District will not guarantee our landscapes and watersheds remain un-fragmented and intact, it will ensure that land use stays within the purview of Salt Lake County as a whole and not to the political subdivisions that could potentially annex portions of the Wasatch away. Additionally, it will help prevent against zone shopping. We’ve watched developers incorporate their properties into municipalities in attempt to develop, only to fail and come back to the County to try here. This is an abhorrent process that pits communities and municipalities against one another. Salt Lake County should be the forum to discuss these issues, much as the SL Ranger district is the forum to discuss the issues concerning the public domains of the Wasatch.
Special places deserve special treatment, and that special treatment is carried out in part by establishing a Mountainous Planning District. They are home to three federally designated Wilderness Areas, they receive over 6 million annual visits from locals and tourists, they are truly the gem of northern Utah and are deserving of diverse panel of interests to help ensure for their protection and careful deliberation. Our county, state, country, and world are changing – we need to innovate new ways to include diversity in our communities and the Mountainous Planning District helps accomplish that, in part, with an eye towards stewardship of a shared natural resource. The one thing that this board will do is force a working relationship for disparate interests. Working as volunteers on projects like that strengthens our community bonds and in our opinion not only leads to better decision making that transcends political appointments, but makes our community a more accepting and thoughtful place to call home.
Mr. Ed Marshall stated he and Log Haven Restaurant are in favor of excluding Millcreek Canyon from the boundaries of the Mountainous Planning District. The issues relating to Millcreek Canyon are very different from those in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, so it should not be lumped in with the other canyons. The Forest Service owns all the land in Millcreek Canyon except two parcels – Log Haven Restaurant and the Boy Scouts of America, so the Mountainous Planning District Commission would only have control over one business. The owners of Log Haven have devoted their lives to making it a special place to the community, and would like the local people who use it the most to make the future decisions for it. Also, the Millcreek Township desires to annex the canyon into the metro township in the future, but if it were included in the Mountainous Planning District, the township would no longer have control over its land use. The community preservation vote is supposed to preserve the rights and interests of the local township. Taking Millcreek Canyon away from the township would not be in accord with the spirit and the meaning of that election.
Mr. Bob Bonar, President and General Manager, Snowbird Resort, read the following statement:
The Council will vote on the creation of the Mountain Planning District and proposals for a new Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ), and the Mountain Resort Zone (MRZ). While we support the need for a diverse, functioning planning commission, the commission is only as effective as the ordinances created for proper long-term development. The newly proposed
23 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 FCOZ and MRZ have not been thoroughly studied to be competitive with other resort areas in the western region.
For the new FCOZ, the Blue Ribbon Commission only studied ordinances in the following sensitive overlay zones: 1. Aspen, Colorado 2. Weber County, Utah (Snowbasin) 3. Salt Lake County’s current FM Zone (Forestry Multifamily)
For the Recreation District in the MRZ they studied: 1. Park City’s Recreation Zoning District Ordinance
Therefore, we oppose a vote on the Mountain Planning District, revised FCOZ or MRZ until a more extensive zoning study has been completed including resort areas competitive to the resorts in the state of Utah.
We’ve conducted a broader study on the ordinances of the following locations that are comparable to the Central Wasatch Area: 1. Park City Sensitive Land Overlay Zone, Utah 2. Telluride, Colorado 3. Town of Breckenridge, Colorado 4. Town of Vail, Colorado 5. Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado 6. Summit County, Colorado 7. Town of Frisco, Colorado 8. Crested Butte, Colorado 9. Aspen, Colorado 10. Jackson, Wyoming 11. Squamish, Canada
Our study has shown that many of the zoning ordinances in these locations allow for safe and reasonable development while protecting and preserving the environmental and aesthetic values in resort areas. For example, the slope requirements in the new FCOZ and MRZ restrict development on slopes greater than 30% without a waiver. Ordinances in many of the comparable locations that we’ve studied allow for development on slopes greater than 30% with a thorough study of environmental and building issues completed by qualified engineers.
We believe that a broader study on resort area ordinances will provide more comprehensive zoning ordinances that will provide better long-term development planning that will preserve the mountainous areas. We oppose establishing the Mountain Planning District or approving the new FCOZ and MRZ until these studies are completed.
Mr. Dave Robinson stated the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities may have extra territorial jurisdiction and the final say how things are done, but time after time it has made very arbitrary decisions. If the County wants to see land conservation and smart growth,
24 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 and protect the canyons, it must insist on consistent data and information from Salt Lake City. The County needs to take time and really vet things out before approving the Mountainous Planning District because there are some holes in the proposal.
Ms. Marie Taylor, former Salt Lake City Planning Commission member, stated approximately 20 percent of the land in the Mountainous Planning District area is private – ten percent is resort-owned and the other 10 percent is polka-dotted all over the place. While this ordinance addresses the resort zone, there are no proposals to address the other lands that may be developed or sold for development. If new development is sprawled and polka dotted throughout the canyon, it may cause problems for avalanche mitigation work and some of the safety response issues.
Mr. Warren Henderson, canyon resident, stated the new planning commission seems to have two roles – a long-term vision for planning in the canyon and the short-term implementation of FCOZ that affects development by private land holders. The makeup of the committee seems appropriate for the long-term vision, but not the implementation of FCOZ. FCOZ can be interpreted differently because there are a lot of nebulous factors in it, and if people on the commission had an antagonistic view about development in the canyon, they might apply FCOZ to anyone applying for a permit. So in order to implement FCOZ fairly, the planning commission needs to have some understanding of what it is like to live in the canyons. The existing planning commission has been doing a good job of balancing environmental protection and private property rights. A commission formed from the metro areas could change the makeup of the canyons and cause a conflict where none has been before.
Council Member Bradley, seconded by Council Member Debry, moved to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.” Council Member Jensen was absent for the vote.
Council Member Wilson stated she is generally in favor of the Mountainous Planning District, but would be taking time this week to address some issues, maybe ask for some modifications, and look at the appropriate weighing of board members. Moving quickly is important to allow time to work out glitches with the Legislature. She would also be spending time this week to look through correspondence from the public, and asked that if anyone here had supplementing documents to send them to her. Her door would also be open for anyone who wanted to meet with her.
Council Member Newton stated she is in favor of the Mountainous Planning District overall and thought the concept was good since the mountains are an asset for everyone in the County. However, she had a couple of concerns with the planning commission makeup. The FCOZ ordinances are separate from this issue today, but the Mayor’s Office needs to look at them and make sure they are good. She asked Mr. Sommerkorn if the Mountainous Planning District passed as an overlay ordinance, whether the Millcreek Township or municipality could annex Millcreek Canyon in the future.
Mr. Sommerkorn stated it is possible, but Millcreek would not have the land use authority. The only way to change that is amend the district itself, and the Council would have to do that through an ordinance change.
25 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015 Council Member Granato stated he wanted to add his name to the list of publically elected officials who are in favor of excluding Millcreek Canyon from the Mountainous Planning District, bringing that total to 41.
Council Member DeBry stated Millcreek Canyon is not part of the Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area. It is funded out of the General Fund. All of the canyons are currently funded out of the General Fund because everyone uses them. He was also willing to meet with anybody at any time on these issues because they are important and they impact everyone.
Council Member Bradshaw stated he was generally supportive of the Mountainous Planning District. It is the most appropriate way going forward to govern land use in the shared canyons. He pointed out that the night of the public hearing when the Council approved the Millcreek boundary there were members of the community also arguing that the Mountainous Planning District was an appropriate mechanism for the Millcreek Canyon.
Council Member Burdick stated he is supportive of the Mountainous Planning District. It has come a long way, but has a little way still to go. A week is not enough time to make a decision. Some FCOZ issues need to be worked out first before approving the Mountainous Planning District. The County needs to work with the ski resort neighbors and others in the canyons on that. He was also worried about having just one representative who resides in the canyon on the Mountainous Planning District Commission. Certainly everyone enjoys the canyons and has a stake in them, but having eight members who live outside the canyons may have shifted too far.
Council Member Wilson stated the FCOZ review is happening independently of this process. She was comfortable taking a week to review this, but the Council could continue it for another week if it needed to.
Council Member Wilson moved to continue deliberations on the Mountainous Planning District for one week, and place it on next week’s agenda as the first reading.
Council Member Burdick asked if it could be continued for more than one week. He hated to have people keep coming back.
Council Member Bradley stated the Council does not have to reopen the public hearing. He asked that Council Members take this week to look at the issues, they remember the value of the canyons to the people of Salt Lake County, not just to the people who live at the base of the canyons or in Millcreek, and to remember the economy they generate just by being beautiful. The Salt Lake County Planning Commission and Millcreek Township made some reasonable suggestions in terms of looking at the membership. However, the core reason for doing a mountainous planning district was to protect the canyons both environmentally and to the betterment of the community as a whole.
Council Member Wilson, seconded by Council Member Burdick, moved to continue deliberations on the Mountainous Planning District for one week, and place it on next week’s agenda as the first reading. The motion passed unanimously, showing that all Council Members present voted “Aye.” Council Member Jensen was absent for the vote.
26 D A T E T U E S D A Y O C T O B E R 13, 2015
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 5:34:50 PM until Tuesday, October 20, 2015, at 4:00 p.m.
SHERRIE SWENSEN, COUNTY CLERK
By ______Deputy Clerk
______CHAIR, SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
27