City of South Salt Lake

CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

COUNCIL MEETING Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:00 p.m.

CITY OFFICES 220 East Morris Avenue – Suite 200 South Salt Lake, Utah 84115

PRESIDING Council Vice-Chair Michael Rutter

CONDUCTING Council Member LeRoy Turner

SERIOUS MOMENT OF REFLECTION/ Council Member Boyd Marshall PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

SERGEANT AT ARMS John Ferguson

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Casey Fitts, Ryan Gold, Boyd Marshall, Michael Rutter, LeRoy Turner and John Weaver

COUNCIL MEMBERS EXCUSED: Irvin H. Jones, Jr.

STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Cherie Wood Charee Peck, Chief of Staff Lyn Creswell, City Attorney Paul Roberts, Deputy City Attorney Ron Morris, Fire Chief Chris Snyder, Police Chief Kyle Kershaw, Finance Director Mike Florence Community Development Director Glenn Smith, Urban Livability Director Dennis Pay, Public Works Director Sharen Hauri, Urban Design Director Craig Burton, City Recorder

STAFF EXCUSED: Kayla Moss, Deputy City Recorder

OTHERS PRESENT: See attached list

1 South Salt Lake- Regular Council Meeting April 25, 2012

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. March 28, 2012 Work Meeting. Council Member Weaver moved to approve these minutes.

MOTION: John Weaver SECOND: Boyd Marshall Voice Vote: Fitts Aye Gold Aye Jones Absent Marshall Aye Rutter Abstain Turner Aye Weaver Aye

Council Member Rutter abstained because he was not present at this meeting.

NO ACTION COMMENTS

1. SCHEDULING. The City Recorder informed those at the meeting of upcoming events, meetings, activities, etc.

2. CITIZEN COMMENTS/QUESTIONS. Greg Leavitt, 2765 South 200 East. Mr. Leavitt is concerned about the dumpster enclosure ordinance. It’s an undue hardship. He just has a three unit apartment complex.

Carolyn Hendricks, 3751 South 300 West. Ms. Hendricks had a hearing today with the Administrative Law Judge and everything has to go the same as was originally ordered. They have hauled many loads and gotten rid of many vehicles. She’s not saying it didn’t need cleaning up but it has to be down to the dirt and cement put down if a vehicle is going to be parked on it. She has come to believe in conspiracies. It’s a secret union for an evil person. It’s a plot and scheme to get what they wanted. It’s against the people. It’s not for the people. That’s exactly what it has turned out to be, everything gone. So she’s got no reason to stay where she has for fifty-six years because everything will be gone. That’s what they wanted in the first place because they want to get rid of residential areas. It’s like a dictatorship. The judge today was a very nasty judge. You have to go along to get along. All we have to do is get rid of everything and move over to 3700 South West Temple in the “stack ‘em and pack ‘em” houses.

3. MAYOR COMMENTS. Mayor Wood thanked all the residents and staff that came out and helped with the 2012 Shake Out disaster preparedness drill this last week. She also thanked everyone who participated in the day of service. They had 900 volunteers from South Salt Lake and Comcast had 3,000 volunteers for Salt Lake Valley.

Groundbreaking for the Streetcar will be on May 9, at 2:00 p.m. at the Main Street track corridor.

4. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS. City Attorney, Lyn Creswell, reported that Deputy City Attorney, Paul Roberts, has been asked to give a presentation at the Utah Municipal Attorney’s Association Conference. He will be doing that on May 10. He is a very conscientious and a great support to the City. Mr. Creswell wanted to acknowledge his service.

5. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS. Council Member Gold said the day of service was a great day. He got to meet a lot of people. He thanked all who came.

6. INFORMATION. None.

ACTION ITEMS

NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS

1. Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance (JAG) Grant – Critical radio replacement. Police Chief, Chris Snyder, explained that last year the Police Department started their critical radio replacement program to keep up with UCANS upgrades. This year the JAG Grant Award is $35,102 dollars. His intention is to submit for fifteen portable radios to help offset the cost to the City. He wanted to run that by the Council to make sure they are okay with it.

PUBLIC HEARING – 7:30 P.M. (OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS POSSIBLE)

To consider a proposed amendment to the South Salt Lake Consolidated Fee Schedule in relationship to business license fees. The City is proposing a new fee structure for business license fees that will affect commercial business, home occupations, and rental fees. Application is made by the City of South Salt Lake. Deputy City Attorney, Paul Roberts, reviewed a Power Point presentation with the Council regarding the business fee study. A copy of this presentation is attached to these minutes and incorporated by this reference. The main impetus behind this is the State Code which says fees charged reflect the amount necessary to reasonably regulate business activities including costs of disproportionate or enhanced levels of service. In the study that Lewis, Young, Robertson, and Burningham completed they removed outliers. So, if there is one or two businesses out of a group of forty or fifty that have astronomical police or fire calls, they removed those from the calculus so that the rest of the businesses in that category wouldn’t be adversely affected. The fees would have been substantially higher if they hadn’t done that. Strip malls were difficult to calculate so they were removed from the study.

Community Development Director, Mike Florence, explained that it has been fourteen years since the City last updated its fees. At that time the City began to charge for a base fee, employee fees, vehicle fees, and some others that are no longer allowed by State law. In preparing for this update the City conducted a fee study. It identified the current business licensing deficiencies. The staff developed a recommendation for a fee structure using the study. Mr. Florence reviewed a handout regarding the strategic objectives of the staff, proposed fee changes, and comparison of fees from surrounding municipalities. Mr. Florence pointed out that 3 South Salt Lake- Regular Council Meeting April 25, 2012 it is hard to compare because they don’t know how many employees each business employs. Depending on the number of employees the fees are comparable. A copy of this presentation is attached to these minutes and incorporated by this reference. Staff is proposing charging thirty- five percent of the disproportionate fee for most businesses. They would also like to hire a new business license employee to be the liaison between the businesses and the City, to help administer the new nuisance businesses ordinance, handle business complaints, educate businesses, and help with enforcement of zoning and business license regulations.

Council Member Weaver asked what the time frame used to determine the average calls per unit for the single family residents was.

Cami Slade, of Lewis, Young, Robertson, and Burningham, answered that it was the last three years of call data.

Council Member Weaver said that for the purposes of calculating a fee, removing the outliers is an appropriate approach. For the purposes of paying the fee, they are subsidizing the pour behavior of the outliers. The rest of the group gets to foot the bill and the outliers don’t feel the direct consequence.

Fred Philpot, of Lewis, Young, Robertson, and Burningham, said he hopes communities don’t look at this as a one-time process. This should be reviewed periodically to ensure, as businesses change, behavior fees are adjusted.

Council Member Weaver asked how they handled traffic accidents.

Mr. Philpot explained that all traffic related calls were removed from the study as well as calls for service that they could not specifically identify and locate on a property.

Council Member Weaver said he hasn’t seen any information on what the revenues for business licenses have been for the last three years compared to what is anticipated.

Mr. Roberts answered that they got the 2010 numbers from Lewis, Young, Robertson, and Burningham, the 2011 numbers were calculated and it was around $580,000. The revenue numbers are not from the same three years as the call study numbers were based on.

Council Member Weaver thought that they would try to mirror the years for the revenues and the calls to see exactly what the correlation is.

Mr. Roberts advised that all the numbers Lewis, Young, Robertson, and Burningham, did were from 2010. It would be a lot more work and a lot more expensive to have them do three years’ worth of data so they usually pick one year. Staff is expecting that this will be done every five to six years so they get a better idea of it.

Council Member Weaver reemphasized that staff picked one revenue year and three calls years and that’s what they’re going with.

Mr. Florence agreed. What they did was look at current fees. That’s what they concentrated on.

Mr. Philpot explained that the primary foundation for this study was that the fees charged for a business group have to be uniform. All businesses in that group are assessed the same fee whereas, when you have a different fee schedule for the number of lanes, a bowling alley may be assessed a different fee even though it’s within the same business category.

Council Member Weaver asked when the new State law went into effect.

Mr. Roberts estimated it was 2009 or 2010.

Council Member Weaver clarified that the City then collected fees after the legislation changed and said that they shouldn’t be collected.

Mr. Florence agreed and said that was one of the things that lead to this study. Staff is trying to be responsive.

Council Member Weaver asked if there was any discussion about those who have never had a call for service and a good actor incentive or break.

Mr. Roberts explained it wouldn’t be lawful under State code. People in the same category can’t be treated differently. Mr. Roberts also pointed out that other businesses are not paying for the outliers. The general tax revenues of the City were covering that. The businesses in the category are not paying extra.

Council Member Weaver clarified that the category would be underfunded in order to pay for the rest of the bad actors in the category.

Mr. Florence agreed that in 2010 the City was still subsidizing the fees. Mr. Florence clarified that the City did amend the business license fees once when they included the good landlord fee in the study. That is the only time in fourteen years they have modified it.

Council Member Turner opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m.

Ed Winter, 2992 South 600 East. Mr. Winter advised that he should be happy because his license went down by five dollars. However a lot of the landlords are going to pass on possible increases to their tenants. Those tenants are residents here and with high unemployment rates this could be a real hardship on renters.

Les Ferrin, 3050 South 300 East. Mr. Ferrin owns a PUD at this address. He rents out a couple of houses there. He turned a $165,000 project into $3.2 million. He thinks that should be considered in the good landlord program. He thinks the good landlord program is “stupid”. He gave up his contractor license after 30 years because of all of the fees. He is going to get out of South Salt Lake because of how much the City is charging him. Mr. Ferrin also wants to know when the duck park up by Millcreek is going to be removed.

Frank Pignanelli, Foxley and Pignanelli. Mr. Pignanelli came to the meeting representing Maverik Country Stores. There are three Maverik stores in South Salt Lake, and soon to be a fourth store opening in May. They are proud to be good corporate citizens of South Salt Lake City. The management wants to express their appreciation to the Business Licensing department in South Salt Lake. They have found them very good to work with. Maverik also wants to express their appreciation to the Chamber for the outreach that was done last week. Since January 2011 in the three stores in the City there have been 832,116 fuel transactions in total. Total transactions, including in store transactions, are over 1.5 million. According to the risk management department of Maverik there have been 23 total calls for all three stores since that date as well. In looking at that they are concerned about the raise in fees from $600 per store to $6,000 per store. With the fourth store that would be $24,000 a year. They don’t feel that the fee accurately reflects what is actually happening. If this fee is imposed they would have to switch to the prepay option only for fuel. They feel this is a problem for a couple of reasons. First, prepay is a hassle. Secondly, it is unfair to the residents. Maverik thinks that the City Council should relook at the fee increase.

Renee Fasbender, 3344 South 300 East. Ms. Fasbender advised that they own a small recording studio at this address. They have been there for about twelve years. They have had police service a couple of times. One time was because a snow plow threw a rock and it went through the door and set the alarm off, the second time was because they were tagged. Their fee goes from $97 to $186. She doesn’t know how they differentiate size of business. She feels this increase is unfair to small businesses.

Mike Johnson, Trinity Care Center. Mr. Johnson apologized to Paul Roberts, Deputy City Attorney, and Mike Florence, Community Development Director, for the information he got the other day. He had a good conversation with Mr. Florence and received an outline of what is happening. Their business is a 37 bed Medicaid facility. He and his wife purchased the facility two years ago. If he would have known that property tax values were going to go up he might have changed his mind. Last year they paid $403 and now it is proposed at about $1,600. This is almost a 300% increase. Being a Medicaid facility they pay $12,000 per month to the State of Utah. It is difficult for them to have to pay this fee. There are about 45 employees at their business. With this increase they will have to make some cut backs. When they bought the property they decided they wanted to help the elderly and give them good quality of life. They bought a couple of buses and a van so that they could go out to movies and fishing and do other activities with the residents. They will not be able to do these things if this is increased. They have put $150,000 into the facility to improve it and make it a nice part of the community. He would like to see this looked into further. He thanked the Council for their time and for everything they do for the businesses in the City.

Jean Querry, 2773 Adams Street. Ms. Querry has a single rental home next door. She has had the same woman in there for 20 years. They have never had a police or fire call and every year it seems like they add something else that they have to do. She does not think it’s fair to raise the fee by three times. She doesn’t want to have to pay for other people not doing what they are supposed to.

Eric Lichtenberg, 2875 South Main Street. Mr. Lichtenberg isn’t sure what category he falls into for the business license fees. He has only had one police call in the five years he has been in South Salt Lake. He has generally had a positive experience with being in South Salt Lake. He enjoys the location. His business is run on a part time basis. It is a firearms related business. They do a lot of auctions, and are federally licensed. Government has made his business a lot more difficult. He cannot take antique firearms any more without being a pawn broker. It is a $250 fee to be a pawn broker. Now he is also getting this fee increase. They don’t make a whole lot of money. It is a very legitimate business; most is done on national auctions or sold at gun shows. Very little retail business is done at the store; it is more of an office space. Sales tax is also higher in South Salt Lake than other surrounding cities. It feels like they can’t report anything to the Police for fear of the fees that might be charged to them. He thinks that this might be a bad decision made by the Council.

Maurie Winter, 353 East 3300 South. Mr. Winter has a problem with the codes changing and nothing being enforced until just now. He isn’t able to rent anything out right now because of the fees.

Teri Morris, 3092 South State Street. Ms. Morris is appalled by the increase of business license fees. She is struggling to make it and this just makes it harder. She has had her license since 1982 and it was her grandfathers before that. She has never called the police or fire department. She thinks that the City should be encouraging the tax base of South Salt Lake, not discouraging it.

Council Member Marshall advised everyone that they have public hearings to sort out things that might not seem right. The Council might not have the same perspective as everyone else and that is why they have public hearings; so that they can hear the other perspectives before decisions are made. He is not ready to pass this right now; he would like to see more information on it. This is not set in concrete right now.

Council Member Fitts appreciated the comments that were made. There is probably some information that they can’t answer tonight. He wanted to know more specifics for these fees. They have to do what was asked by changes in the State law. The City might not have been fast enough to respond but they got there as fast as they could. South Salt Lake is one of the first cities to do so. He thinks that when you get used to things they seem like the better option but that isn’t always the case. Government is based on compromise; the City is trying to do the best they can. He thinks this might need to be scaled back a little bit. He would like to look at being 100% revenue neutral. There can’t be an extra position added right now.

Council Member Rutter thanked citizens for coming tonight. He also apologized that it took fourteen years to look at the business license fees. He takes this responsibility seriously and wants to make sure that they deal with this prudently.

Council Member Weaver is the first to acknowledge that he sees great value in having resources on call if and when they’re needed. He would prefer to look at three revenue years instead of just one to get the appropriate call volume. He does not agree with adding an additional FTE. He

7 South Salt Lake- Regular Council Meeting April 25, 2012 thinks this is the wrong time to do so. He understands that the City can’t discriminate within categories but wondered if it were possible to have a flat business license fee.

Lyn Creswell, City Attorney, advised that the disproportionate fee by State law expects that you create business categories. There is a base fee, but you can’t elevate that fee.

Paul Roberts, Deputy City Attorney, advised that charging a base fee and then charging businesses based on their calls for service would be illegal under State law. All businesses in the category have to be treated equally.

Council Member Weaver’s over all concern is the idea of “death by one thousand cuts”. The City has done a number of things that individually seem small but they add up. The requirements for dumpster enclosures cost $1,000 or more. Sales tax is also higher here than surrounding communities. He thinks that the ordinances are very prescribed causing enforcement of certain issues to be quite trivial. He doesn’t want to continue to make requirements. He can appreciate that not addressing this issue for fourteen years is problematic. This is a precarious time at which to be “nicking” residents.

Council Member Gold pointed out that this is a whole new method of business licensing fees. It has gone from paying per bowling lane to a study that was made on the amount of emergency calls. In the past if you wanted to own a business you might have thought twice about having a bowling alley because you knew you’d be assessed a fee for each lane. So you might choose a different kind of business. Some businesses are prone to crime. He wonders if there is a way to stretch out the fee to the businesses that are hit harder to make it less of a burden.

Mike Florence advised that it would be hard to administer a payment plan to all of the businesses.

Council Member Fitts clarified that this fee isn’t based solely on emergency response services. The base fee has already been established based on the service that the Community Development Department provides to the businesses.

Mr. Creswell advised the council that the State Legislature created the disproportionate fees to provide the municipalities a vehicle by which the cities can collect revenue to address the disproportionate costs associated with businesses in their community. The proposal is to collect 35% of what you can collect. If you go below that you’re still going to have to use property and sales tax to cover the police services to the community. The other option would be to reduce fire and police services. A decision here will likely affect other policy decisions in the budget arena.

Council Member Rutter made the motion to move this to a work meeting to further discuss this topic.

MOTION: Michael Rutter SECOND: Boyd Marshall

Roll Call Vote: Fitts Aye Gold Aye Jones Absent Marshall Aye Rutter Aye Turner Aye Weaver Aye

Council Member Marshall thinks that everyone needs to remember that we all pay an insurance policy. That insurance policy is the police and fire in the City. You hope you never have to use it but you’re glad it’s there when you do need it. He doesn’t think anyone on the Council would want to see the police and fire services scaled back.

PUBLIC HEARING- 9:00 P.M.

A public hearing for final plat amendment and lot consolidation for an eighty (80) unit apartment building located at 3808 S. West Temple. This same project was proposed and approved by the City as a condominium project on 27 July 2011. The entitlement period lapsed for the previous developer so a new developer is proposing to construct the project. Application is made by Jeff Southard. Mike Florence, Community Development Director, advised the Council that this has been before the Council numerous times. The difference between this application and previous applications is that this project is being proposed as apartments. The three times before it was proposed as condominiums. It was not built before because of economic downturn. The developer is proposing a market rate project. This will not be a subsidized rental development. This project is located in the TOD zone, it’s right next to the Trax station. The project will have eighteen two bedroom units, forty-three one bedroom units, and nineteen studio units, for a total of eighty units. The best project to compare this to would be the Central Pointe condos at 2100 South and Main Street. This project is 1.06 acres and Central Pointe was 1.35. The overall height is 65 feet. The developer is asking for a 25% reduction in parking. The TOD ordinance allows the City Council and Planning Commission to reduce the parking by 25% if the project is mixed use or provisions are provided to encourage using Trax or light-rail ridership. Central Pointe was given a reduction of 30% in their parking. The open space is within an atrium that the apartments look down onto. The top floor will have a large common workout area with some hot tubs. The TOD master plan calls for medium to high density residential. Staff came up with possible proposals to qualify for the 25% reduction. Including the applicant provide dedicated and secure bicycle parking for each unit, provision for transit passes equal to the number of parking spaces reduced on a first come first served basis. The developer does not want to do that. Dedication of an off street pedestrian and bicycle path to the adjacent right light-rail platform. At a minimum the applicant should work with staff to provide a safe pedestrian access to the Meadowbrook Trax Station. Staff believes that this project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Council Member Rutter is concerned about people parking on the street because there aren’t enough stalls for all the cars. He doesn’t think it will be fair for those wanting to go to the park.

Jeff Southard represents the group that owns this property. He has not been before the Council before but he does know that the project has been before the Council three times before. The group that owns it currently had to foreclose on the property a couple of years ago. He has been asked by them to retitle it as apartments so that they can have the option of building it out themselves. It is not possible to obtain financing for condo’s at the moment. The owners are not developers, they are lenders. Mr. Southard is a developer and home builder and that is why he is involved with them. They want to build these units to condominium specifications. They would like to have the option to turn this into condominiums eventually. The parking required is based on the number of bedrooms per unit, so a two bedroom unit requires two and a half parking spaces, a one bedroom requires two spaces and a studio requires two spaces. It hasn’t made sense that the studio apartments have the same parking requirement as a one bedroom. According to the ordinance they are required to have 169 parking spaces. The 25% reduction they are asking for puts them at 126.75 spaces. Their plans currently hold 122 spaces. They are five spaces short of the 25% reduction. That puts them at 1.525 spaces per unit. They would like to be given forgiveness on the five spaces. They have to find a way to get the other five spaces if they aren’t given the forgiveness. They might be able to lease five spaces from UTA. They are going to have bike lockers outside of every unit that would house two bicycles each. They believe this will attract clientele who is looking to ride Trax and have other travel opportunities besides a car. He doesn’t think that every apartment will have two cars because he doesn’t believe all of them will have two residents. They have decided to gate the three entrances to their parking lot. This seems to be a value to the City, tenants, and the property owners. They can’t guarantee that people won’t park on the streets but he feels the gated parking will be the first option for the residents.

Council Member Gold loves the idea of the bike lockers. He wondered if the apartments could be sold individually.

Mr. Southard advised that the whole building will be recorded with one tax I.D. number so it isn’t possible to sell them until they are converted to condominiums.

The public hearing was opened for public comment at 9:25 pm.

Rick Golden, one of the owners of the law firm next to the property. They have had some issues with the property. They do not like the idea of apartments being built here. There hasn’t been much cooperation between them and the current property owners. There has been a dispute over an easement. They are in the middle of litigation with the property owners over the sewer and water easement. They are very concerned about parking. He feels that the residents are going to park in their parking lot. They are also worried about their right of way to their business.

The public hearing was closed at 9:30 pm.

Mr. Florence advised the Council that the Planning Commission tried to address some of Mr. Golden’s concerns through the conditional use process. State law says that the purpose of conditional uses is to mitigate the impact of that use. They made it a condition that easement is granted to the law firm. That is up to the developer and the law office to work out.

Council Member Weaver doesn’t think they could find a better location for high density housing. Condominiums are not going to happen in the market right now. He doesn’t think standing in the way of a viable project over issues that don’t regard the City directly is smart. He would like to move forward with the project. He is not concerned about the five extra parking spaces.

Council Member Weaver moved to approve the project as presented with the parking as shown on the diagram, giving a forgiveness of the five parking stalls.

MOTION: John Weaver SECOND: Boyd Marshall Voice Vote: Fitts Nay Gold Aye Jones Absent Marshall Aye Rutter Aye Turner Nay Weaver Aye

Council Member Fitts wanted to see this on the Council agenda for the next meeting. He thought this was passed too soon.

PUBLIC HEARING – 8:30 P.M. (OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS POSSIBLE)

A public hearing for final approval to amend the South Salt Lake City Land Use Code. The hearing is to incorporate a commercial land use matrix as part of the comprehensive code update to the land use code. Application is made by the City of South Salt Lake.

The hearing was scheduled to begin at 8:30 p.m. but started at 9:41 p.m.

Mr. Florence advised that this is the fourth update for the comprehensive zoning code update. This will make it easier for business owners and residents because anybody can come in with their idea of what they want to do and see what zones they can do it in. Otherwise, they will be looking through each separate zoning code to see where the permitted and conditional uses are.

Council Member Turner opened the public hearing at 9:44 p.m.

There was no public comment.

Council Member Turner closed the public hearing at 9:44 p.m.

Council Member Weaver moved to put this item on Unfinished Business of the May 9 Council Meeting.

MOTION: John Weaver SECOND: Casey Fitts 11 South Salt Lake- Regular Council Meeting April 25, 2012

Roll Call Vote: Fitts Aye Gold Aye Jones Absent Marshall Aye Rutter Aye Turner Aye Weaver Aye

Council Member Fitts moved to adjourn to Closed Meeting to discuss strategy for the sale, purchase, exchange or lease of real property pursuant to Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, Sec. 52-4-204 and Sec. 52-4-205(1)(d) and (e).

MOTION: Casey Fitts SECOND: John Weaver Voice Vote: Fitts Aye Gold Aye Jones Absent Marshall Aye Rutter Aye Turner Aye Weaver Aye

The Council adjourned to Closed Meeting at 9:45 p.m.

In accordance with U.C.A. Section 52-4-204, 1953, as amended by Chapter 180, Laws of Utah, 1987, as amended, written minutes were made of the Closed Meeting held to discuss the sale, purchase, exchange or lease of real property. Such minutes are protected records under Title 63, Chapter 2, Government Records Access and Management Act.

Closed Meeting ended at 10:08 p.m. Council Members returned to Council Chambers.

Council Member Gold moved to adjourn.

MOTION: Ryan Gold SECOND: John Weaver Voice Vote: Fitts Aye Gold Aye Jones Absent Marshall Aye Rutter Aye Turner Aye Weaver Aye

The meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m.

______Irvin H. Jones, Jr., Council Chair

______Craig D. Burton, City Recorder