CITY OF
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL
MEETING February 13,
2008
CITY
OFFICES
PRESIDING Council Chair LeRoyTurner
CONDUCTING Council
Member Shane SiwikRea Goddard
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/
SERIOUS MOMENT OF REFLECTION Council Member LeRoy Turner
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marilyn Brusch
(arrived at
Michael Rutter, Shane Siwik, LeRoy Turner and John Weaver
STAFF PRESENT:
Mayor Robert D. Gray
David Carlson, City Attorney
Kyle Kershaw, Finance Director
Larry Gardner, Director, Community/Economic Development
Dennis Pay, Public Works Director
Bruce Shoemaker, Fire Marshal
Craig D. Burton, City Recorder
Karen Rynearson, Deputy City Recorder
Christie Bascom (attended portion related to waste recycling)
OTHERS PRESENT:
See Attached List
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Council Member Weaver asked for
a typographical correction on page one of the
Council Member Weaver moved to
approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held
MOTION: John Weaver
SECOND: Rea Goddard
Voice
Vote:
Brusch Absent
Fitts Aye
Goddard Aye
Rutter Aye
Siwik Aye
Turner Aye
Weaver Aye
Motion carried with six “aye” votes. Council Member Brusch did not arrive at the meeting until after the vote was taken
NO ACTION COMMENTS
a. T. E.A.M./P.A.L. Youth Leadership Presentation. Police Chief Snyder reported that through their association with P.A.L. they have been able to do some great things through funding they have received from grants. They have an excellent partnership with the City’s Recreation Department. They are working with the Youth Leadership Program that is run through the Recreation Department at Granite Park Junior High. It gives teen young adults the opportunity to learn some great life skills and to get involved with a lot of community service projects that benefit our residents. Chief Snyder said he is excited about the direction of P.A.L. and is excited about the things they have lined up for the coming months.
Myrna Clark introduced Jessi Bath, site supervisor for the T.E.A.M./P.A.L program. She also introduced Kaneisha Julian and Skyy Balderas, two of the youth who went to the conference this past summer.
Jessi Bath explained they have taken several youth programs
and put them together in one program.
They teach the youth about leadership and they do a lot of service
projects, such as cleaning up the school grounds at Granite Park Junior
High. In November they are going to help
the refugee families at
Kaneisha Julian and Skyy Balderas reported on what they had done and learned at the conferences they attended.
Myrna Clark said this is the second year for this program. The first year they had five kids show up, but by the end of the term the kids had recruited about 40 to 45 kids. This past year they started with 12 kids and they ended up with 44 kids enrolled. In that group there were seven to ten different languages spoken. Because of all the diversity, it was a challenge. They had to ask some kids to stop coming because they were being a bad influence, but the kids kept coming. They said they kept coming because the program was the only positive influence they could surround themselves with after school. Ms. Clark said that Officer Jerry Silva has been there working with the kids. This year they started with 12 kids and they probably will end up with over 40 kids.
Chief Snyder
introduced Officer Jerry Silva who grew up here and went to school in
Officer Jerry Silver noted that our junior and senior high schools do not have athletics to involve the kids. So P.A.L. and the Rec Department are beneficial for the kids. They do flag football after school and have good rapport with the kids. He thanked the Mayor, the Council and the Chief for their support.
b. Recreation Department Grant Review. Tim Williams presented to the Council an
information sheet of current grants, a copy of which is attached to these
minutes and incorporated by this reference.
The grants that the City has done have created a lot of good community
partnerships. They work with the Police
Department, the schools, religious groups and several civic groups. Currently there are about 80 students at both
Woodrow Wilson and
c. 21st Century Grant. Tim Williams explained that this summer Troy Bennett and some of the community partnerships wrote a 21st Century Grant. That grant is out of the State Office of Education and is typically given to schools. The City wrote a proposal where we would fund the Hser Ner Moo Community Center at South Parc and help to create more after-school funding for Woodrow Wilson. The grant is $200,000 for the first three years. It loses $50,000 in the fourth year and loses $100,000 in the fifth year. We have matching grants from several partnerships that will help sustain that grant. The City is very happy with those partnerships.
The grant is fully funded through the 21st Century Grant, but the City will be looking to hire a full-time coordinator to administer the grants through that funding. There will also be two part-time site managers that are funded through the grant. The Rec Department is working with Mr. Kershaw. Mr. Williams answered questions from Council Members Weaver and Turner about the new positions.
Finance Director Kyle Kershaw advised that when any of these people are hired it is with a contract. When the grant expires the positions will be eliminated so nobody will have an expectation of this being a permanent encumbrance on any future City funds that aren’t supported by a grant.
In response to
a question from Council Member Siwik, Mr. Williams
advised that the
Mr. Kershaw
advised that the Community College is in the process of approving some
financial assistance to the City. The
2. SCHEDULING. City Recorder Craig Burton informed those
at the meeting of upcoming events, meetings, activities, etc. Founders Day activities will be held
Saturday, October 11, from
3. MAYOR COMMENTS. Mayor Gray has requested a work meeting of the Council on Wednesday, October 15, to discuss the Wikstrom Report on the ambulance service. After discussion among the Council and the Mayor, it was decided to have a work meeting at 7:00 p.m. on October 15, to hear from the Wikstrom people and to have a further work meeting one hour prior to the regular Council meeting on October 22.
4. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS. Council Member Brusch thanked the Rec Department for all the work they do with the after-school programs and for the work they do with the grants that help fund the programs.
Council Chair Turner also thanked the Rec Department and the Police Department for the PAL program.
Council Member
Fitts thanked the Mayor and his staff, and
particularly Dennis Pay, regarding the dedication of the new facilities at
Council Member Fitts asked about the letter from Marlow & Company stating that the City Council had arrived at the decision to terminate its contract with the company.
Mayor Gray explained that Marlow & Company was the original contract we did last year. It expired and the lobbyist who worked with the City and handled all of our accounts switched corporations. We decided to stay with him in the interest of continuity. Mayor Gray advised it was an administrative decision to make that change and not the decision of the Council.
Council Member
Rutter thanked the Mayor for quickly moving ahead
with the Wikstrom study. He commended the City for Pioneer Craft
House,
Council Members talked among themselves about the fact that many times they are not able to be at special events sponsored by the City. It’s not that they don’t want to come but other things do come up.
There were no citizen comments.
PUBLIC HEARING –
An ordinance of the City of
The hearing was scheduled to
begin at
Larry Gardner explained there have been several complaints over a period of time about buildings that have become vacant or abandoned that tend to degrade and become derelict and eyesores in the neighborhood and run down everyone’s property values. Mr. Gardner made a Power Point presentation.
As of this date a survey conducted by Fire Marshal Bruce Shoemaker says there are 38 vacant/abandoned single family homes. This does not include abandoned/vacant commercial structures or other buildings. Abandoned buildings cause a lot of problems in the neighborhoods they are in. Mr. Gardner showed photos of several abandoned buildings in the City.
Mr. Gardner summarized the ordinance. A copy of the summary is attached to these minutes and incorporated by this reference.
Council Member Siwik opened the meeting for public input at
Uleta Moss, 155 East 2700 South – She asked Mr. Gardner if this ordinance goes against lots where they have started to build a foundation. Mr. Gardner’s response could
not be heard because he did not speak into a microphone. Mrs. Moss responded “Good.” (That must mean that Mr. Gardner responded in the affirmative to her question.)
Council Member Siwik closed the public hearing at
Council Member Weaver asked Mr.
Gardner if the notification is a single notification by
Council Member Weaver asked if the imposition of a permit to board up is a disincentive to board things up. City Attorney David Carlson said the idea is to create a disincentive for people to leave their property unproductive.
Council Member Siwik asked what the City would do in the same situation with a commercial building. Mr. Gardner replied the City would do the same thing. This applies to commercial as well as residential.
Council Member Siwik commented that if people are in dire straits and cannot maintain or currently take care of a property, they are not going to have $1,200 to pay to have it boarded up. Mr. Gardner said he doesn’t think that the City wants to be concerned with that. Council Member Weaver commented that a $1,200 expense to keep something boarded up is far less than any type of improvement.
Council Member Rutter said the ordinance goes to what the Council has been discussing about code enforcement and a follow-up to what citizens have come to us and said, “Get this stuff done.” The first thing he heard as a Council Member was clean this City up. This is a good thing.
Council Chair Turner said it looks very reasonable to him when you look at the whole package.
Council Member Weaver noted that when the Council first launched into responding to the citizens’ requests to beautify and improve our community, to increase code enforcement, to put into effect a good landlord program, to create positive incentives for responsible property ownership, etc., there has been consensus that there is no one single “fix”. This is one more step in the right direction to get where we want to be. This is part of the process and makes complete and total sense.
Council Member Weaver also noted there are certain groups that have used building permits and extensions to their advantage by not completing the project to avoid meeting obligations. We want something that’s clear-cut and doesn’t leave a lot of gray area.
Council Member Fitts added that the 38 buildings in the City that are vacant/abandoned provide no benefit to this community. They detract from residents who want to maintain their properties and have a nice place to live.
Mr. Gardner and the Council discussed and clarified other parts of the ordinance.
Council Member Rutter moved that the Council approve the ordinance creating Chapter 8.44 “Securing of Vacant Buildings and Property” of Title 8 “Health and Safety”.
MOTION: Michael Rutter
SECOND: LeRoyTurner
Roll
Call Vote:
Brusch Aye
Fitts Aye
Goddard Aye
Rutter Aye
Siwik Aye
Turner Aye
Weaver Aye
UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE MAKING CERTAIN CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 72 OF TITLE 13 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING A SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS, ESTABLISHING A CITY-WIDE WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAM AND PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION OF FEES FOR HOUSEHOLD WASTE AND RECYCLABLE WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE. Council Member Weaver pointed out two corrections in the current draft the Council has.
City Attorney David Carlson explained that if household waste collection was ever terminated to a residence, it is suggested that it be administered by the Utility Department that handles water service termination, and that waste collection termination be handled the same way – there would be several prior notifications.
Mr. Carlson has also added text regarding the suggestion of how to handle hardship issues. There is a much simpler definition on poverty guidelines that is published by the Department of Health and Human Services that Mr. Carlson suggests using. The recommendation is that we require residents to continue to provide proof of hardship every year.
Mr. Carlson noted that at the last meeting it was not decided about what to do with the fee for a second garbage can. It has not been decided on how often to bill the $3 fee. Mr. Kershaw suggests that it would save the City quite a bit of money if it was billed only twice a year. It costs about $800 to $900 for every billing.
Council Member Weaver said that the City is promoting recycling. He suggests making the cost of a second waste container (which is an additional service) $10/month.
In response to Council Member Fitts’ question, Mr. Kershaw said it costs about $4.08/can per month for collection of garbage on a weekly basis. The cost for a second waste container is $1.50. City-wide recycling would be $2.30/month. Presently there are about 400 second waste containers. Total waste collection is about 4,000 cans/week. Council Member Weaver said the City doesn’t want to encourage the use of a second can when there would be access to a recycling can. The number of second cans will diminish naturally with the use of recycle cans.
There was a discussion of fees between Mr. Kershaw and the Council – that the fee is for the program itself, not just recycling. There is a single fee, but there will be two cans, one curbside, one recycle.
Council Chair Turner said he has a real problem. He said the Council voted several weeks ago not to charge a fee. That held. We’ve increased it, lowered it, compromised on it and increased it again. We are in difficult times. His phone rings off the hook, people from his district and other districts. They don’t like the idea of this.
City Attorney David Carlson suggested not taking final action tonight. If we are going to make some changes it should be brought back to the Council in final form.
Council Member Weaver moved to take the same policy and procedure currently used for discontinued service in water and apply that to waste, that we take the definition from Health and Human Services for the poverty level, that we make the minor definition corrections discussed at this meeting, that we strike the one paragraph that no longer has meaning, that we look at what Council Member Fitts proposed, a $5 fee for an additional can for household waste and that the billing cycle be on a semi-annual basis with billing coming to residents in December and June each year.
MOTION: John Weaver
SECOND: Michael Rutter
Roll
Call Vote:
Brusch Nay
Fitts Aye
Goddard Nay
Rutter Aye
Siwik Nay
Turner Nay
Weaver Aye
David Carlson raised a concern. The last time the Council met the issue was that we were running out of time to lock in the $2.30 rate. The Council had indicated to staff that the option you wanted to select was the recycling for every resident. Based on the Council’s vote, the Mayor has selected that option and notified the contractor in writing that that is the option. The deadline ran out the end of September. The City has already notified the contractor that that was the City’s option so that we could lock in on that rate. In terms of the contract it’s too late to back up now.
Council Member Weaver said he wants to get this clear: Because of the compromises and commitment that were made by Council at the last meeting to authorize the Mayor to move forward to do this, we are now obligated for the contract the way that it has been stipulated with Ace Disposal. So we have pulled on recycling. It seems the issue at this point becomes, are we going to continue to subsidize this out of General Funds to a greater degree now, or are we going to stick with the compromise that was reached at our last meeting.
Council Fitts added that at the last meeting it was established that the minimum charge would be $3/month for both cans.
Council Chair Turner said that at the last meeting the Council approached the ordinance separate from the fee. He knows the contract and procurement process pretty thoroughly. Any contracting procurement officer worth their salt always puts a “funds availability” termination clause in a contract. Even if they don’t, international procurement law still allows a contract or a placement against it to be cancelled or modified, or sometimes there will be a penalty. We are not locked into this without any option to come out.
David Carlson replied that it’s not that simple. We do put those types of provisions in contracts, but if you break the contract that means you have no garbage service – you have no contractor and no contract. If you’re twisting arms, you’re twisting your own. Staff asked for direction at the last meeting. It was very clear that the issue was that we were running out of time to exercise that option in the contract and we needed a signal from the City Council. We were not asking anyone to pick one option or the other. It was the City Council that chose that. That was the direction you gave the Mayor and the Mayor acted under your direction.
Council Member Siwik said the motion that was made failed, but there is still an ordinance before the Council.
Council Member Weaver reminded the Council that there’s a problem with the ordinance that is before the Council.
Council Member Siwik moved that the Council decline the proposed ordinance completely.
There were random comments and discussion.
Council Member Fitts remarked he is curious why, when the majority of the Council at the last meeting voted to go that direction, would we change that at this meeting.
There was more confusing discussion about what decisions had been made and when.
Council Member Rutter asked what the hang-up is. Council Member Siwik responded that we have balanced the budget by pulling monies out of Reserves. He sees us doing this now simply because we can. We have gotten by for decades with garbage service the way it is. There was a huge tax increase a couple of years ago and now we come along and nickel and dime the community to death. This is the same argument Council Member Rutter made a month or so ago. We have to determine what we’re willing to give the community (what is a priority). Council Member Siwik said to him garbage is a priority above other things. First of all we need to find out if the contract can be cancelled. We have all said that recycling is important and that garbage is important. For him personally, he would rather fund garbage than some other things.
David Carlson said he thinks if the Council backs out at this point it will damage the good name of the City. You’re going to subject the City to possible litigation. As legal counsel he said this is a foolish course to take. Now that you have committed to the contractor, not to go forward with this would do a lot of damage to the City by back-tracking at this point.
Council Chair Turner remarked that if we pursue the course of charging the citizens for this extra service, then we’ve lost faith with the residents of the City who have made it very clear how they feel about it.
Council Member Fitts answered that not all residents have said they don’t want this. The majority of people he has spoken with…… Several people began talking at once.
Council Chair Turner said people from other areas call him because they know he is on their side.
Council Member Weaver commented that Council Chair Turner is representing himself to have some type of overwhelming support. For Council Chair Turner to be getting so many phone calls and nobody else to be getting those phone calls…. This Council has listened to a vocal minority for so long that the loudest few have driven the course of this City on the backs of elected officials who were more concerned about getting elected the next time than they are about seeing that forward-thinking decisions are made.
Council Member Siwik said he cannot support a dime more being passed on to residents for something we have provided for 50 years for free. All of a sudden on the edge of the worst economic crisis……Let’s find out if contracts can be cancelled.
Council Member Weaver offered that Council Chair Turner’s lack of understanding of Council’s rules and their application as a body has contributed to some of the chaos we have experienced this year.
Council Chair Turner added that one of the reasons he is getting those calls is because people sit here, or hear by word of mouth who’s in favor of charging them more. Some of us don’t want to charge them more, so we’re the ones who get the calls rather than those who want to charge them more. They don’t feel there is any point in calling them.
Council Member Fitts asked Council Chair Turner how many people he thinks have called him and voiced that opinion. Council Chair Turner said about 120 to 130. That’s not a big sample in the whole City, but it’s significant enough for him to pay attention to it.
Council Member Rutter added that he represents the whole City and he hasn’t talked with one citizen in the City that is against paying a fair fee for garbage service when you, in essence, get a free recycle can and a weekly garbage can. They think it is a positive movement for our City. He does not agree with Council Chair Turner’s statistic of 125 people.
There was more discussion among the Council Members.
Council Member Fitts pointed out that if we pursue the course of action that has been suggested, we no longer have garbage service for the City. Council Member Brusch said she wants that in writing and Council Chair Turner said we don’t know that.
Council Member Weaver said in his estimation we have legal counsel here for a purpose. Counsel has expressed a real concern about back-tracking at this point because of what it could do to 1) the image of the City, and 2) with a potential legal suit from Ace. The City committed. If we want to pursue the brinkmanship here to make some kind of point and risk damaging the reputation of the City and look at the possibility of stirring up an antagonistic relationship with our garbage removal service, that’s fine. But I’m saying that’s foolish.
Council Member Rutter noted that at the last meeting Council Chair Turner made the compromise at $3, which we all felt was fair. We voted on it. You (Council Chair Turner) made the proposal but you didn’t vote on it. (More discussion about the language of the proposal) The $3 fee passed with a four to three vote. We sent it to the Mayor and the Mayor has given a written contract because we told him to do it by majority rule. We’ve got business of the City to go forward with and we have to do it in a prudent manner. Other Councils in years past have put this City in jeopardy. Property taxes were not approved at a proper time. There were other things that were not done by other Councils.
Council Member Siwik said we have two choices. The first choice is call Ace in the morning. Depending on that dialog, the other could be, is recycling important enough to us that we will include it in our garbage fee out of General Funds.
Council Member Weaver said the options are just that. We send a very confusing message to Ace by sending City staff to them and say we didn’t really mean it. We want to reconsider and start from scratch. At that point Ace basically says the deal is off. If you told us to go forward with that deadline in mind, and we did, and Ace moved forward in good faith, the moment we say we’re rethinking it, they can say the deadline’s up, too late, the offer is over. Then we say do we want to look at it with an increased rate for a recycle program, or are we going to have the City swallow the entire fee for a recycle can out of some other budget?
Council Member Siwik added (do that) “for six months.” What would it cost for us to do the recycling program for the rest of this budget year?
Council Chair Turner interjected that the economy is in serious trouble. It’s going to take years to get out of this. He is not sure Ace will say that it’s all off. They’re looking for customers and we’re a good customer. He thinks that at least needs to be considered. He does not know if it will make a difference.
Council Member Weaver pointed out that Ace was very specific about a deadline. They think they have an answer. If we come back with a different answer, they’ll say the deal is off. They will sell off the cans they have. If we come back in a month or six months and say we want to try this again, they’ll say that’s great but it’s at an entirely different rate.
Council Member Rutter has told citizens that we are paying $225,000 (it is $217,000). When they find out that $217,000 is going for garbage collection and they could take that $217,000, if they were charged a reasonable fee for garbage collection, and use that $217,000 to improve some other total benefit to the City, he has not heard one single citizen say, “NO. I WANT FREE GARBAGE COLLECTION.” Everyone has said why don’t we get together and do something positive with that $217,000 that would benefit, for instance, some of these houses that are being torn down – buy the property and give somebody the incentive to buy and improve a lot a build a home and keep them in our City. There are lots of ways to spend that $217,000 that would benefit the aggregate of the City.
Council Chair Turner said we need to prioritize our “needs” over our “wants”, balance our budget and provide the things the citizens need.
More discussion that went nowhere.
Council Member Siwik said we need to recognize that this isn’t going to go anywhere tonight. There are four of us who have said we don’t want to send it back to staff with any changes. It is still in front of us the way it is. The only choice is to put it on Unfinished Council Business one more time, with some dialog from Ace. We can’t make a decision until we know the dialog that will come between Mr. Carlson or Mr. Kershaw and Ace.
Council Member Siwik moved that the Council place this matter on Unfinished Council Business for two weeks.
Council Member Weaver asked Council Member Goddard what has changed. Council Member Goddard answered, “The phone calls I’ve gotten.” (The remainder of her response was not understandable.)
Council Member Rutter asked Council Member Goddard why people are calling her and Council Chair Turner when they weren’t here at the meeting. How do they know what happened?” Council Member Goddard responded, “I have no idea.”
Council Member Siwik said that he, too, has had the phone calls.
Council Member Fitts said in his opinion one of the things that is extremely important to what Mr. Carlson is saying is that the City would try to break that contract so quickly. Is it not worth pursuing the idea you had to see what it would cost us to provide that for the next six months?
Council Member Siwik added that if we went forth for six months providing free recycling, it does some good because it gives a feel from the community, it changes some of the mindset. We can always bring this back for budget next year. Council Member Siwik asked if the City is locked into a five-year contract with a five-year extension.
David Carlson responded that the City has a contract for five years, with the City’s option to renew it for four years. The contract in it had different options because we hadn’t yet decided what level of service the contractor was going to provide. We had to have a new contract when the old contract expired July 1. The new contract was executed on July 1 and it left open different options that all of the waste haulers had bid. We had asked them to bid in alternatives. The contract reflected the bid documents and we asked Ace to give us a window of time within which we could elect which option we were going to take. The deadline was September 30. That’s why we brought it up at the last meeting when we told you that we needed to have direction from the Council as to which option they wanted us to elect. That was clearly and candidly explained at the meeting. Based upon that vote at the last Council meeting, we notified Ace that we wanted to elect the option where they would provide recycling service to the entire City. Based upon that representation, Ace has already ordered the containers and they are on their way from the manufacturer. Even if we back out at this point, we’re going to be paying some damages to Ace, who relied upon our representation to them and went ahead and ordered those containers for us.
Council Member Siwik asked Mr. Kershaw for an estimate of the cost for the
period
Council Member Weaver pointed out we would effectively be locked into five years of recycling with the City footing the bill.
Council Member Rutter asked Council Members Turner and Goddard if the calls they received were “we do not want recycling,” or “I do not want a $3 fee.” Council Member Goddard answered, “Both.” Council Chair Turner said it was more the fee than recycling.
Council Member Siwik asked Council Member Fitts what he thought about the six-month option. From the audience Mr. Kershaw said that he doesn’t think we have a six-month option. He said the contract is for five years.
Council Member Fitts asked Council Member Siwik if he is suggesting we cover it for six months and after the six months we institute a fee. Council Member Siwik responded that at the end of six months, with the 2009/2010 budget we have the ability to start from scratch. Council Member Fitts asked if that means the City is going to come up with $120,000 on top of the $217,000 we already supply for garbage.
Council Member Siwik said it’s either that or cancel the contract. Those are the choices. So we either cancel the contract now or go into it for six months with the let’s see what next year’s budget looks like. Those are the choices.
Council Member Weaver said it troubles him that the majority of the leadership in this Council cannot raise their vision above trash. Council Member Siwik noted that he thinks everyone agrees that recycling is important. Now what we’re saying is that it may be so important to us that the City is willing to pick up the bill to get it moving.
Council Member Rutter answered that Council Member Siwik is saying that, not the City. The City took guidance from the Council on a majority vote and the Council gave the City authorization to make a contract. They made a contract.
Council Member Siwik said the choices we have are cancel the contract or go forward and foot the bill or??? Council Member Rutter said the City was going ahead with a $3 fee and giving citizens two garbage cans. That’s what we gave direction to the City to go ahead and do. And they did it. We have the obligation to finish this tonight.
Council Member Fitts suggested that if it is the Council’s option to break this contract, that it should be Council Chair Turner that makes that call as the Council Chair.
Council Member Weaver noted there are two things he finds troubling. He has voiced the first that as a group we can’t seem to raise our sights above trash. The other thing is that we’ve kicked this trash all around. He was under the impression at the last Council meeting that the Council reached an agreeable compromise of $3 (suggested by Council Chair Turner). If we’re at an impasse after having what we assumed was a series of give and take to make sure that those who were most susceptible to harm were taken out of harm’s way by having a fee waiver, he thought we had a compromise. If we renege on that, are we going to jerk Ace around?
There was more conversation and discussion among the Council that did not lead anywhere.
David Carlson remarked that we still don’t have a final document to vote on. As far as staff is concerned, we’re trying to do what the Council is directing us to do. It’s like trying to keep up with a Chinese ping-pong match. In the law there are always two questions you have to answer: legally what can you do; morally what should you do? A lot of the business this City gets done is because you have people who have worked hard to earn a reputation dealing with the people they work with. They have a lot of contacts. All of that is a benefit to the City. Can we somehow get out of the commitment we’ve made? We probably can. What is the cost? That’s what the Council has to decide. Mr. Carlson added that it damages the City’s reputation and it damages his reputation personally because he likes to honor his word. He likes to think that his word is his bond. When he makes a deal with somebody, he has a lot riding on it that people can count on that and they can go ahead and order canisters and I’m not going to pull a fast one on them. Staff will do what the Council directs us to do, but it’s getting very confusing. Don’t put the blame on staff for all this indecision. You need to realize there are consequences.
There was more discussion and suggestions about what to.
Council Member Rutter moved to ratify what was approved by the vote taken at the last Council meeting of $3 fee for the two cans (garbage and recycling), with the option not to take the recycle can, and a $3 fee for the second garbage can (if desired), and other fees as set forth in the Consolidated Fee Schedule and bring it back under Unfinished Council Business at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting.
MOTION: Michael Rutter
SECOND: Casey Fitts
David Carlson advised that this would just be giving staff direction. There is nothing final that is being voted on at this meeting. This would just tell staff what the Council wants staff to do.
Council Member Weaver pointed out there is an agreement with Ace now that we have two cans, a household waste can and a recycle can. David Carlson advised that the cans are on their way and will be assembled at the Public Works building. Council Member Weaver said there is the question of funding. If we follow through with Ace and say we want the can, this is not a six-month deal. That recycle can is either in the deal or out of the deal for five years, with an option of four more years. We sent a message once to say order the cans and they have been ordered.
Council Chair Turner said we need to know if those cans are actually on the truck on their way to us or if the vendor is just telling Ace that’s what’s happening. Council Member Siwik said there’s no harm in just having the phone call and making the decision.
Council Member Weaver wants to make sure that five-year window is understood. The other point of clarification that needs to be made is the offer for the price on those waste cans. If we draw out or delay, they have every right to say they are not offering us that deal any more. The deadline has passed.
David Carlson said he thinks if we back out of the option we’ve selected, Ace would have every right to change the price.
Council Member Siwik said at least call Ace and let them know there were four votes against it and ask what will that do to us. Feel it out. Council Member Weaver said that by simply raising the issue (making the phone call) and hedging, Ace is going to ask what we’re doing.
David Carlson said the City needs clear direction. The last thing he wants to do is talk with Ace and tell them to forget everything we’ve already told them because the Council changed its mind and then come back in two weeks and they’ve changed its mind again. His advice is to bring the ordinance back in final form and bring the Fee Schedule back to the next meeting and then take a final vote on it. We have not yet decided on a final date when the service will start with Ace. We have some billing issues yet. Ace has called us and said they can start November 1 because the cans are on their way.
Mr. Kershaw said staff needs to know at this point if we’re going to kill city-wide recycling, whether we have to incur a fine or penalty, or is the direction saying let the cans come and the Council will figure out how to pay for it from now until…..
Council Member Siwik asked Mr. Carlson if he could bring an ordinance back to the Council in two weeks with a lot of blanks to be filled in, as far as the fee, the billing cycle – things that we can fill in or cross out that night, vote on it and finalize it. Council Member Weaver said that in terms of damage to the reputation of the City and to the professionalism of City staff, the dagger is in half way. Council Member Rutter suggested calling a Special Council Meeting tomorrow night and find out what happened.
David Carlson explained that staff could do the fee schedule, fill in the blank – if you come to a decision on what the billing cycle is going to be, what, if any, fees there are going to be. The other option is that staff could bring back two ordinances in final form to vote on. One would have the city-wide recycling in it, one would not. Council Member Siwik said that in the one with City-wide recycling there should be a fee schedule that would say “X” or “zero”. Mr. Carlson said staff could check with the contractor and see how hard they are going to fight us to honor the agreement.
There was more discussion on what could be done.
Council Member Rutter retracted the motion he made which is before the Council for a vote.
Council Member Siwik moved to place the matter of an amendment to Chapter 72 of Title13 of the Municipal Code creating a special permit process, establishing a city-wide waste recycling program and providing for the imposition of fees for household waste and recyclable waste collection service on Unfinished Council Business at the next Regular Council Meeting to be held October 22.
Council Member Siwik would like to add to the motion to ask City Attorney David Carlson to bring to that meeting three ordinances – one with garbage, but without City recycling, one with garbage and City recycling with a fee, and one with City garbage and recycling without a fee.
Council Chair Turner asked for a further amendment to the motion by adding that the City Attorney or Mr. Kershaw willcontact Ace Disposal tomorrow so we will know where the City stands.
Council Member Siwik instructed Mr. Kershaw to find out how far along the process is, and in a friendly way find out where we would be if we canceled recycling (don’t say we’re going to) and to find out where the cans are.
Council Member Siwik restated his motion – he moved that there be three ordinances in proposal form: 1) no recycling program, 2) waste service program with a $3 fee to the citizens for the service of two cans, with $3 for an additional can, with the corrections made before to use the discontinued service procedures from the Water Department and taking the Health and Human Services poverty definition, and making the corrections in the verbiage mentioned earlier, and to direct Mr. Kershaw or staff to contact Ace Disposal to find out where we are.
MOTION: Shane Siwik
SECOND: LeRoy Turner
Roll
Call Vote:
Brusch Aye
Fitts Nay
Goddard Aye
Rutter Nay
Siwik Aye
Turner Aye
Weaver Nay
Council Member Weaver asked for a point of personal privilege. If voting on something because it’s the only thing to do is how we operate, we’re in a world of hurt.
Council Member Siwik said we can’t solve this issue tonight.
Council Member Weaver said that’s not true. The way to solve it is to honor what was taken last week – to honor the commitment that was already made to Ace, rather than back-peddling and mealy-mouthing them in some delicate conversation tomorrow and saying to the citizens, it may not be popular for everyone; $36 in the course of a year in difficult times could theoretically make a difference in someone’s budget, but if it did they would be exempted. If this Council had the will, we could resolve the matter this evening. It seems there is a fundamental impasse on the part of insistence on personal Council Members. It’s the reversal that’s caused it.
Council Member Goddard said she would redo her vote if it would make Council Member Weaver happy. Council Member Weaver said he realizes she is in an awkward position. It’s not a comfortable position but she has placed herself there. Council Member Goddard said she is sick of being brow beaten and asked if she could change her vote.
There was discussion about voting on this issue again at this meeting. Council Member Siwik asked if there is a way we can make this a “final” vote tonight. City Attorney David Carlson said the Council could wait for him while he makes changes to the document in his office.
Council Member Siwik moved that the Ccouncil take a ten-minute break while Mr. Carlson prepares the necessary changes in the ordinance.
MOTION: Shane Siwik
SECOND: John Weaver
Voice
Vote:
Brusch Aye
Fitts Aye
Goddard Aye
Rutter Aye
Siwik Aye
Turner Aye
Weaver Aye
The Council took a break
beginning at
The Council reconvened in
Regular City Council Meeting at
Mayor Gray commented that he had been chastised during the break by a Council Member for not expressing his feelings on this issue and the Council Member feels that he should. Mayor Gray said the Council’s decisions, the legislative part of our separation of powers, is a Council issue and a Council decision so he tries to stay out of a lot of these donnybrooks. In this issue it’s probably time for him to stand up an give the Council his perception of what we need to do. For years and years the City has paid for garbage. The citizens have not had to pay for it; it has been free. The reality is that they’re all paying taxes; that’s where the General Fund comes from. All of our monies come from taxes and fees, so citizens are paying for it already. We need to make a decision on this thing. It is his personal opinion that we need to start charging for garbage. The City is gradually sinking into a financial burden simply because we’re giving away services that should be charged for. You can go to any city, look at what they charge for fees, what they charge for garbage, etc. We shouldn’t be any different. We can’t continue to pay for these types of issues without some form of income. There’s got to be a revenue source that pays for this. Revenues come from the citizens, one way or another. He has a strong feeling about this, similar to what Council Member Rutter emphasized in some of his comments. We can continue to pay for garbage fees and continue in the direction we’re going. We’re not moving forward; we’re not progressing. We need to start working on some of these fees and charges to the public so that they pay for the services. We can then use some of that money in the General Fund for issues to help us progress and beautify the City, to help us make some of the changes that we made two or three years ago. That was part of the purpose for the tax increase. Nobody liked it or wanted it. There wasn’t one Council Person who wanted it, but it was something that we had to do. It’s something that had to be done. That’s his feelings about some of these fees and services that we’re giving away right now. We need to rethink these things. The economy is not getting better. It is hard on the citizens but you build into this policy or ordinance ways that we can waive some of those for the citizens that can’t deal with it. He thinks we need to quit bickering back and forth over pennies. He sees this as though we’re stepping over dollars to pick up pennies. We have got to start rethinking this and think into the future where we’re going with these things. He personally doesn’t want to be charged any more than he absolutely has to, just like any other citizen. But we have to look out for what is best for the majority of this City. There are a lot of people who are going to be upset about any kind of a fee – it doesn’t matter what it is. As the leaders of the City we have to look at what’s best for the entire City – not just the citizens, but where the City is going. Are we going to sit back forever and fight over a $3 fee? We need to bite the bullet, make some decisions and move on. He reminded the Council that this is his personal opinion. He’s not here to point fingers but suggested the Council needs to get their stuff together. Let’s move on. We’ve been on the garbage issue for too long. We need to make a decision, accept the consequences and move on.
The Mayor said he is disturbed
by the Council’s request that City staff contact Ace and possibly break a
contract that we’ve entered into as a City.
The Mayor noted that his signature and reputation are on that document. I received that direction from you as a
Council – maybe not all of you, but the majority voted for it. The majority told us to do that. We did that to save money for the City. His feeling is that the Council should stand
by their guns. This is
City Attorney Carlson explained that what he did was roll back the clock two Council meetings, with some exceptions. He clarified the definition of a residential dwelling to make it consistent with the other definition. He realized he didn’t need to do anything about which agency to look to in order to determine the poverty guidelines. He struck out paragraph (e) which discussed how we currently do the recycling service (13.72.200). Nine pages into the document Mr. Carlson inserted new paragraphs (h), (i), (j), (k) and (l) to bring the same termination procedures that exist for the City’s water service over to the garbage. So if the City were to ever terminate garbage to someone, we would follow the same procedures that we follow when we terminate water service.
If the Council were to adopt this ordinance tonight, the household waste service that is now provided to all residents who qualify would include both the household waste and recycling service. It adds some fees that haven’t been there before. The ordinance doesn’t set any fees. It says the fees will be established in the Consolidated Fee Schedule. The resolution amends the Consolidated Fee Schedule to create the new fees. The new fees are: a new can delivery charge and a non-owner-occupied fee. The policy decision reflected there is that for rental dwellings, we would make them pay for the whole year of household waste service at the time they renew their business license. The owner-occupied special permit fee (to cover the cost of coming out and doing an inspection) is that if somebody has a property that doesn’t qualify, based on our definition, there’s a special permit process we created where you can have somebody come out and inspect your property.
There are some objective criteria in there about whether or not we would make a special exception, so it’s not at the whim of the inspector who comes out. People who are already receiving service now, even though they basically do not qualify for service based on the City’s definition, will not be charged a fee to come out and assess their property for a special permit. The second household waste container fee is not a new fee, but it has been left blank. Currently it’s $3.
There are two categories of people who can get a waiver from having to pay the garbage fee – over 60 years old and living below the poverty guideline and disabled, based on Social Security. There was more discussion about fee waivers and whether or not to make changes/additions.
Council Member Weaver moved that the Council approve the ordinance as it is written.
MOTION: John Weaver
SECOND: Casey Fitts
Roll
Call Vote:
Brusch Nay
Fitts Aye
Goddard Aye
Rutter Aye
Siwik Nay
Turner Nay
Weaver Aye
(a) A RESOLUITON OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SALT
moved to approve the resolution as it is written with the addition of the blank spaces on the second household waste container (a) owner-occupied residential dwelling – that the fee remain at $3 and (b) rental residential dwelling per unit annually, that it remain at $3.
MOTION: John Weaver
SECOND: Casey Fitts
Roll
Call Vote:
Brusch Nay
Fitts Aye
Goddard Aye
Rutter Aye
Siwik Nay
Turner Nay
Weaver Aye
2. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL THAT
APPLICATION BE MADE TO THE STATE OF UTAH TO ESTABLISH A RECYCLING MARKET
DEVELOPMENT ZONE IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OF THE CITY. Larry
Gardner advised that we talked about the recycling application the State of
In response to Council Member Siwik’s question, Mr. Gardner said this is not a land use issue because land use is government zoning ordinance. If the zoning ordinance, which our Light industrial zone does, then this is just another incentive for that business to locate in our City.
Council Chair Turner moved that the Council approve the resolution that application be made to the State of Utah to establish a Recycling Market Development Zone in the Light Industrial District of the City.
MOTION: LeRoy Turner
SECOND: John Weaver
Roll
Call Vote:
Brusch Aye
Fitts Aye
Goddard Aye
Rutter Aye
Siwik Aye
Turner Aye
Weaver Aye
NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL REGULATING
PICKETING OF A PRIVATE RESIDENCE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONED DISTRICTS BY CREATING A
NEW CHAPTER 12.54 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE
2. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MAKING
CERTAIN CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 74 OF TITLE 13 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
SALT LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RULES THAT REGULATE HOW THE CITY DEALS WITH
UTILITY CUSTOMERS.
3. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MAKING CLARIFYING
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 5 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING BUSINESS LICENSE REGULATING
4. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAK CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
VARIOUS TITLES ANED CHAPTERS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
City Attorney David Carlson advised that none of the four items on New Council Business is time sensitive.
Council Member Fitts moved to move all of items 1, 2, 3 and 4 of New Council Business to Unfinished Council Business at the new regularly scheduled Council Meeting on October 22.
MOTION: Casey Fitts
SECOND: Shane Siwik
Voice
Vote:
Brusch Aye
Fitts Aye
Goddard Aye
Rutter Aye
Siwik Aye
Turner Aye
Weaver Aye
Council Member Weaver moved to adjourn.
MOTION John Weaver
SECOND: Casey Fitts
Voice
Vote:
Brusch Aye
Fitts Aye
Goddard Aye
Rutter Aye
Siwik Aye
Turner Aye
Weaver Aye
Council Meeting adjourned at
____________________________________
LeRoy Turner, Council Chair
__________________________________
Craig D. Burton, City Recorder