CITY OF
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL
MEETING
CITY
OFFICES
PRESIDING Council Chair Casey Fitts
CONDUCTING Council Member John Weaver
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS John Ferguson
SERIOUS MOMENT OF REFLECTION/ Council Member Rea Goddard
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
William Anderson, Marilyn Brusch, Casey Fitts, Rea Goddard,
Mike Rutter, Shane Siwik and John Weaver
STAFF PRESENT:
Mayor Robert Gray
David Carlson, City Attorney
Kyle Kershaw, Finance Director
Larry Gardner, Director, Community/Economic Development
Craig D. Burton, City Recorder,
Karen Rynearson, Deputy City Recorder
OTHERS PRESENT:
See List
Council Member Weaver moved to agenda item one on New Council Business
NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Appointment by the Mayor. Mayor Gray introduced Roy Turner for the Council’s advice and consent as a member of the Planning Commission. He is more than willing to serve.
Council Member Anderson moved to suspend the rules so the Council could vote tonight.
MOTION: William Anderson
SECOND: Rea Goddard
Motion carried unanimously
Council Member Anderson moved to approve the appointment of Roy Turner to the Planning Commission
MOTION: William Anderson
SECOND: Casey Fitts
Motion carried unanimously
The Council then moved back to the beginning of the agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Casey Fitts
SECOND: Rea Goddard
Motion carried unanimously
MOTION: Casey Fitts
SECOND: Marilyn Brusch
Motion carried unanimously
NO ACTION
COMMENTS
1. INFORMATION. Chamber of Commerce Update on
A city-wide event is being planned
for Friday and Saturday, June 22 and 23, 2007.
The Friday event will be for trade people and Saturday for the general
public. There will be a
In measuring the success of the
event, they feel the first measurement will be how many businesses participate. The goal is to get a significant number
participating in this first event.
Second, would be the number of trade people who attend and the public
attendance. Ways the City could
participate would be through increased street cleaning during the event,
sprucing up of the public properties in the area and increased code enforcement
that would start to change the appeal of the area. As long range City participation, the
Executive Committee has discussed several times, and really likes the idea of,
having some type of a lighting program in the area that would mark that you’re
in
Joint efforts of the business
community and the City could be gateway entry features marking that you’re
coming into
Mrs. Liddiard said the businesses are wholeheartedly behind this.
Council Member Fitts thanked Mr. Strait for his influence and his participation. He’s encouraged by the fact that the things the Chamber is asking for from the City are the things that the City should be doing already. As the Chamber and City foster their relationship, understand the other’s responsibilities and work together, they will benefit each other.
Mrs. Liddiard said the businesses are volunteering their time to see this project succeed. They are taking time out of their day to come to the meetings and planning. It’s going to be a wonderful program.
Council Member Brusch asked how many businesses were on board presently.
Mrs. Liddiard answered twenty to twenty-five. Right now each member of the executive committee is sending out an invitation letter to at least 100 businesses inviting them to participate.
2. SCHEDULING. The City Recorder informed those at the meeting of upcoming events, meetings, activities, etc.
3. MAYOR COMMENTS. The Mayor reported that the City has a new tenant on the third floor that wants to rent 5,300 square feet. The receipts gain from this will be approximately $75,000 a year. There is some remodeling that needs to be done that will need to be brought to you on a budget amendment. The remodeling costs will be approximately $22,000. The tenant is Green River Financial a financial services group. We are filling up all of the space in the building quite rapidly.
4. COUNCIL COMMENTS. Council Member Anderson thanked Representative Wiley for his responsiveness. He is easy to get in touch with and returns messages about issues that are important to the City. He appreciates his willingness to represent the City.
Council Member Siwik asked for an update on pushing 900 West through River Run.
Mayor Gray said there’s a lot of misunderstanding that this
is going to run through the River Run Condominiums but that is not the
case. The only thing he is aware of is
that it is going to divert at
5. CITIZEN COMMENTS. There were no citizen comments.
The Council moved to the public hearings at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING –
To receive public input regarding a request
from Steve Pluim to amend 17.26.030 (3) of the zoning ordinance requiring
temporary staffing agencies to be a conditional use but removing the
requirements that temporary staffing agencies not be subject to resident
population limits or proximity requirements from R-1 zones which are currently
expressed in the ordinance.
Mr. Gardner explained that Mr. Pluim has a temporary
staffing agency that was located on the south side of 3900 South in
Mr. Pluim explained that he made a blunder because he didn’t
understand the ordinance when he moved into
Council Member Fitts asked what type of staffing Mr. Pluim specializes in.
Mr. Pluim answered that this office is used for clerical staffing. The reason they left the building they were in is because the landlord wasn’t maintaining the facility.
Council Member Siwik asked how many people he has on staff.
Mr. Pluim answered that he has 4 people working in the office. Part of what they do is medical staffing. They place nurses and doctors in positions. They do a little bit of that and they do most of the clerical and customer support and service type work.
Council Member Weaver opened the meeting for public input at
Council Member Siwik clarified that Mr. Gardner’s recommendation to make it a permitted use is going to contradict the Planning Commission’s recommendation that it be a conditional use.
Mr. Gardner said if the Council would like it to be a conditional use, that’s fine. His concern with making it a conditional use is what we’re trying to steer towards in our ordinances is to establish conditions for conditional uses in the ordinance. If he looks at an office use, he’s not sure what conditions they would place on them.
Council Member Siwik said he’s all for making the change; however, the temporary day job service site will have large numbers of people show up looking for day work. How can we avoid something like that? He thinks the change needs to happen but he would hate to see the loitering that happens at the job service site.
Mr. Gardner answered that we can make a condition where people can’t stand outside.
Council Member Brusch asked Mr. Pluim about what they have now at their location.
Mr. Pluim explained that there is a difference between day labor and a staffing firm. The day labor places pay you every day. There aren’t a lot of those left in the industry any more. He is not one of those. Making conditions on where that would be all right and where it wouldn’t be all right makes sense to him. But most of the firms don’t act like that anymore and have gone out of business.
Council Member Siwik asked Mr. Gardner if they could specify in the ordinance staffing services versus day labor facilities - that day labor is a conditional use and professional staffing service is a permitted use.
Council Member Anderson asked that Mr. Carlson review the definition as well to be sure that we don’t need something clearer so that somebody can’t come in operating as a day labor service under the name of a staffing service.
Mr. Gardner agreed.
Council Member Siwik moved to place this item on Unfinished Council Business for the next meeting.
MOTION: Shane Siwik
SECOND: William Anderson
Motion carried unanimously
PUBLIC HEARING –
To receive public comment regarding
projects and programs eligible for funding in the 33rd year of the
Mr. Kershaw introduced Karen Wiley who recently assumed the
top post in
The City was allocated $235,000 this year which is the same sum as last year. The Mayor’s recommendation for the CDBG grant for the 33rd year is:
Assist $ 40,000
Life Care Bank 15,000
Fannie Mae Loan Debt Service 130,000
Neighborhood Revitalization 46,000
Food Collection and Distribution 1,000
211 Information and Referral 1,000
Road Home
2,000
Total $ 235,000
The Fannie Mae Loan Debt Service is for the City-owned
apartments near
Council Member Weaver opened the meeting for public input at
Karen Wiley,
Community Development Coordinator for
Council Member Anderson asked Mrs. Wiley to explain the “soft cost” requirement issue.
Mrs. Wiley explained that HUD allows only 15% of the grant to go towards operational expenses for the human service kinds of organizations like Road Home, South Valley Sanctuary, Rape Crisis Center, Utah Food Bank, etc. because CDBG is basically a bricks and mortar program. That’s how it started. Once the federal government started cutting the human service programs then they made it available for CDBG.
Council Member Anderson asked how the County goes about allocating the CDBG funds they receive to the different municipalities.
Mrs. Wiley explained that because
Council Member Anderson asked how the County factors in retaining half of the total.
Mrs. Wiley explained the County takes the administration fee off the top because they have to administer the grant. Then they have a seed out committee that has about $960,000 that they are able to spit between hard and soft costs for the unincorporated County area. They also use that for economic development.
Council Member Anderson asked how the formula breaks down to about 50/50 between the County and the small cities.
Mrs. Wiley said it is also done on a formula of areas that
have eligible areas, that are low and moderate income. Many of the small cities do not have eligible
areas.
unincorporated county is the other part that is actually below 80% of the poverty level and is eligible. That’s how the formula breaks things out.
Celeste Eggert, 264
New Century Lane. She is the
Development Director for the Road Home.
She thanked the Mayor and City Council for their support of housing
projects for chronically homeless men and women.
Roger Borgenicht, 218 East 500 South. He is the director of Assist. It is a non-profit community design center. Their main programs are the emergency home repair program and accessibility design for people with disabilities. Their program for emergency home repair works on the continuum of repair and maintenance programs starting with Life Care that does the handyman type repairs, Assist’s program that does critical repairs that require contractors, and if there’s a laundry list of items they refer them to the various housing rehab programs. They also do a lot of accessibility design to help people with infirmities or disabilities stay safely and independently in their homes.
Kristin McDonald, Utah Food Bank Services which operates the former Life Care Bank Home Repair Program. Assist handles projects that need a contractor, while they handle projects that can be done with a handyman. They do basic plumbing, electrical, painting, and safety needs, etc. The organization used to be called Community Services Council. The boxes for food service and collection will help with distribution. They get a lot of donations and they need the boxes and totes to package and distribute the goods.
211 Information is free call to connect anyone who needs help with their information specialists who can guide them to all of the agencies in the state for any assistance they may need. If you’re in need of housing or food you can call this number and get connected with those who can help.
They also have a tax assistance program that helps low income individuals who qualify for the earned income tax credit to file their taxes for free and get that credit back.
The public hearing was closed at
Council Member Anderson moved to approve the resolution adopting the Community Development Block Grant allocations for the 33rd year as outlined.
MOTION: William Anderson
SECOND: Mike Rutter
Roll Call Vote
Brusch Aye
Fitts Aye
Goddard Aye
Rutter Aye
Siwik Aye
Weaver Aye
Council Member Siwik thanked Mr. Kershaw and Mrs. Park for their screening and preparing the CDBG allocations.
The Council returned to Unfinished Council Business on the Council Agenda.
UNFINISHED COUNCIL
BUSINESS
1.
An ordinance
amending Section 2.60.010 “Statement of Policy”, of Chapter 2.60 “Personnel”,
of Title 2 “Administrative Code” of the City of
Council Member Siwik asked if Sonya Crouch, from Human Resources was involved in the changes.
Mr. Carlson answered yes.
Council Member Fitts moved to approved the ordinance amending Section 2.60.010 “Statement of Policy”, of Chapter 2.60 “Personnel”, of Title 2 “Administrative Code”
MOTION: Casey Fitts
SECOND: John Weaver
Roll Call Vote
Brusch Aye
Fitts Aye
Goddard Aye
Rutter Aye
Siwik Aye
Weaver Aye
2. An ordinance amending Chapter 5.46 “Motels, Hotels and Apartments”, of Title 5 “Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations” of the City of South Salt Lake Municipal Code by requiring standard and regulatory licenses and providing a discounted fee for participation in the City’s Good Landlord program. Mr. Carlson explained they made some changes based on the Council’s recommendations from the last Council meeting. They added specific requirements of the kinds of proof a landlord would have to provide in order to be certified under the Good Landlord Program. They include providing proof they have made arrangements with someone who can conduct background checks, show that they have a lease form that meets the requirements of the City ordinance, and they have to recertify every two years. The City can revoke their certification for failure to comply with their agreement with the City.
The burden will be on the landlord to provide the proof that he is in compliance. The other enforcement would be on an incident-by-incident basis. As we have incidents at apartments, if it becomes apparent to the City that they’re not complying with their agreement, then we would take some action on their business license at that time. We also made it clear that if their certification were revoked, they would have the right to appeal that.
Council Member Weaver asked why recertification was every two years. He thought it was an annual thing.
Mr. Carlson explained the reason it would expire after two years was that they require them to go through the training every two years, which requires them to come in at least every two years and bring us certification that they have done those things. That gives us a chance to make them come to us with proof that they are complying.
Council Member Fitts added that even though they only certify every two years they could still be disqualified in the off year for non-compliance.
Council Member Anderson noticed that the landlord must procure a lease form that allows prompt eviction for criminal or nuisance behavior. Then in a later paragraph it states the landlord must serve a notice of eviction upon receiving substantial evidence that a tenant, or tenant’s guests, have been involved in criminal activity on the premises. Council Member Anderson asked if “nuisance” could be added to the later paragraph. If we’re going to have “or nuisance” behavior in the lease, we might as well have it in the reasons why they should serve an eviction notice.
Mr. Carlson said he would add it.
Council Member Anderson moved to approve the ordinance amending Chapter 5.46 “Motels, Hotels and Apartments”, of Title 5 “Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations” of the City of South Salt Lake Municipal Code by requiring standard and regulatory licenses and providing a discounted fee for participation in the City’s Good Landlord program
MOTION: William Anderson
SECOND: Casey Fitts
Roll Call Vote
Brusch Aye
Fitts Aye
Goddard Aye
Rutter Aye
Siwik Aye
Weaver Aye
Council Member Anderson took a point of personal privilege, saying: “It just is unfair for the residents of this City to continue to bear the extraordinary costs exacted upon them by negligent landlords, particularly those who don’t live in our City. They have an opportunity to make good money renting their properties to people in this City and have zero consequences for their poor choices that the City then has to put up with, and I’m hopeful that this ordinance will help turn that around. If you’re not going to be a responsible landlord in this City then you’re going to have to pay some of the costs that you’re making us incur. And I would like to see us continue to evaluate what those costs are. If there are administrative costs which are not now included in those fees, we can continue to keep a close eye on what those costs are and make sure those negligent landlords get what they deserve, in terms of the extra costs that they incur for this City.”
3.
An ordinance
repealing Section 17.02.030 “Board of Adjustment” in its entirety and replacing
it with Section 17.02.030 to be titled “Appealing of Land Use Decisions and
Variances”. Larry Gardner said he
and Mr. Carlson had modified item B to reflect what the administrative judge
would be adjudicating on.
Council Member Weaver asked what is the point of origin for this proposed change in ordinances.
Mr. Carlson explained that state law required that we have a Board of Adjustment. Then two years ago they changed that to give us some flexibility about how we could handle appeals of land use decisions. So the Planning Commission recommended this change. Also, it’s based on our experience with the Board of Adjustment. We have so few and they’re really not well trained. Mr. Gardner and Mr. Carlson’s assessment was that they really just rubber- stamped whatever the city staff recommended to them because they’re not trained, they don’t understand the law, and they don’t meet often enough to really feel comfortable with their position. They felt they should have a position that was more efficient and fair for the property owners.
Mr. Gardner said if the Planning Commission rejects or denies a proposal due process would go to the Administrative Law Judge. If he denies it then they’ve exhausted their administrative remedies through the municipality. Then they could take it to court. The Administrative Law Judge is used for an appeal of any administrative decision. The language for this ordinance came from the state statute.
Council Member Siwik asked for a clarification on the ordinance that states on number 5, “The appeal authority may not grant a use variance,” and then in number 6 it says, “In granting a variance…”
Mr. Gardner explained that number 5 is a stand-alone declarative statement, “may not grant a use variance.” Nothing about use can be talked about in a variance. It can only be specific to a parcel of property and the problem created by that property. A variance cannot be granted if you create your own hardship.
Council Member Rutter asked who appoints the administrative law judge and are there any qualifications.
Mr. Carlson said the Mayor appoints and the City Council confirms the appointment. It’s a two-year appointment.
Council Member Anderson read from the Municipal Code that “a person appointed to serve as an administrative judge shall either be law trained or have significant experience with the requirements and operation of administrative processes.”
Mr. Gardner pointed out that the City’s administrative law judge is not only an attorney, but he also has a degree in city planning.
Council Member Siwik asked how long a normal board of adjustment issue takes by the time it comes to Mr. Gardner until it is resolved, and how much will it be streamlined by changing to an administrative law judge.
Mr. Gardner said the administrative law judge has to set a hearing within 15 days. With the Board of Adjustment it is the next available meeting or within the next 30 days.
Council Member Weaver asked if this only applies to the Planning Commission and staff.
Mr. Gardner confirmed that was correct. The City Council is a legislative body and they have no authority to change your recommendation because they would then be creating legislation.
Council Member Anderson moved to approve the ordinance repealing Section 17.02.030 “Board of Adjustment” in its entirety and replacing it with Section 17.02.030 to be titled “Appealing of Land Use Decisions and Variances”.
MOTION: William Anderson
SECOND: Shane Siwik
Roll Call Vote
Brusch Aye
Fitts Aye
Goddard Aye
Rutter Aye
Siwik Aye
Weaver Aye
NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS
2. Building inspection contract. Mr. Kershaw explained that there is a temporary situation at the Hamlet Homes, Waverly Station Project where they have a number of units that will be in need of quick and timely inspections and the City staff, because of work load, may not be able to keep pace. The realistic view is we may need to contract out 20 to 25 of these units to be inspected by contract inspectors and that would cost about $12,000. The group they’re considering contracting with is Sunrise Engineering. They will charge us $500 per unit.
Council Member Rutter asked if we could pass those charges on to Waverly for trying to get it done fast for them.
Mr. Kershaw answered that we have already collected $41,000 in fees and for the remainder of the units can expect about an additional $100,000. So it probably justifies some expense to the City to expedite their process. Mr. Gardner and Mr. Kershaw will review this and get it to Mr. Carlson and the Mayor in final form. There’s still some negotiating left to do on some fees. We may come to you later with some budget adjustments for this.
Mr. Gardner said he would review
weekly with
Council Member Siwik asked if there
would be any issues having two different sets of inspectors doing the job with
one doing it one way and one another.
Would it be better to have
Mr. Gardner said that was a budget issue.
Council Member Weaver said it either meets code or it doesn’t and if there are some discrepancies, they could be worked out. He understands there could be different points of emphasis.
Mr. Kershaw said there are 84 units left to be inspected. The City has already inspected about one third of them. So, you already have a mixed bag of inspectors.
Council Member Weaver said he’s sure Mr. Gardner can reconcile any discrepancies.
Mr. Carlson said we do that now. Different inspectors see different things and have different interpretations and Mr. Gardner already has to work those things out.
Mr. Kershaw said that this is a $32,000,000 project and he thinks it is responsible on the City’s behalf to try to help them. They want to finish and be off the site by November this year.
Council Member Anderson explained the costs of the building fees are to recover the costs that the City incurs to do inspections and other administrative work to support the project. That’s why we charge the fees.
Council Member Fitts asked if it’s
possible to contract with the
Mr. Gardner said he could look into that if they wanted him to. He hadn’t heard that the County does that.
Council Member Siwik said he would
like to see the City check with
Mr. Carlson explained that the Council can suggest that, but it’s really the Mayor’s call.
Council Member Anderson moved to adjourn.
MOTION: William Anderson
SECOND: Rea Goddard
Motion carried unanimously
Council meeting adjourned at
____________________________________
Casey R. Fitts, Council Chair
____________________________________
Craig D. Burton, City Recorder