PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesheck presided at and conducted the meeting.
CONSENT AND POLICY
Report of the Executive Director.
Motion to go into Executive Session to discuss matters relating to Personnel.
The Council adjourned at 5:55 p.m. to begin the Council meeting in room 301.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1982, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at this meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance.
From City Council:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, January 19, 1982, as anended, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Shearer and Councilmember Davis, who were absent when the vote was taken.
M 82-2
OTHER CITY BUSINESS
FROM CITY ATTORNEY
RE: Proposed amendment to City Ordinances adopting an employment staffing document for Salt Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider the attached proposed ordinance and employment staffing document for adoption.
DISCUSSION: During a recent City Council meeting, the Council and administration agreed that the City’s employment staffing document should be officially adopted by ordinance. The staff document has now been prepared by the Personnel Department. The necessary ordinance and staffing document are enclosed for consideration by the Council.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to amend the City Ordinances by adopting Ordinance 7 of 1982, adopting an employment staffing document for Salt Lake City, which motion carried all members voting aye.
0 82-2
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond for IML Freight, Inc., a Utah Corporation in the amount of $1,127,590.33 to finance the acquisition of fleet equipment.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the proposed bond resolution.
DISCUSSION: Copies of a proposed bond resolution for IML Freight, Inc., be adopted by the City Council at its regular meeting scheduled for January 26, 1982. A copy of the proposed bond resolution as well as copies of the basic underlying documents have been sent to Roger Cutler for his review.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt the Enactment Resolution, Resolution 17 of 1982, for IML Freight, Inc., a Utah Corporation in the amount of $1,127,590.33 for the acquisition of fleet equipment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Q 82-10
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PLANNING
RE: Consider and adopt a resolution governing the administration of Community Development Block Grant carry-over funds.
RECOMMENDATION: For Salt Lake City to adopt a budget for yearly Community Development Block Grant entitlement expenditures that will be a continuing appropriation until the budget is amended or the appropriation is fully expended. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the Council did not have a resolution before them to adopt the governing of the administration of Community Development Block Grant carry-over funds. She opened the floor to discussion of the item. Councilmember Shearer asked for an explanation of the policy so that the Council would know what the implications will be when considering Community Development funds next month. Albert Haines explained that the document was in draft form and stated he wanted to solicit input and comments from the Council. The proposed policy represents the direction the City would take in terms of how to manage the issue. He further stated that Jim McGuire had worked on the development of the policy and asked Mr. McGuire to address the Council.
Jim McGuire stated that the policy that had been presented relates to the amendment to the budget because it sets up a Community Development Block Grant operating fund. The CDBG revenues were budgeted in the 1981-82 budget as it now stands in two areas; the General fund and the Capital Projects fund. The proposal is to pull the CDBG revenues out of the General fund and establish a Community Development Block Grant Operating fund, leaving the balance of the revenues in the Capital Projects fund. The policy also outlines what type of authority the Mayor has over CDBG Funds. The policy has been drafted to be consistent with and slightly more restrictive than the grant agreement the Mayor signs with HUD.
The Mayor signs the agreement with HUD and he is held responsible for administering the funds pursuant to the regulations; therefore he is given the full authority which HUD grants in the agreement. It allows the Mayor to change project budgets within a fund without consulting the Council, except in the event there is a new project for which he is proposing to set up a budget. In the event there is a new project, he would have to receive the Council’s approval for that budget. It gives him full authority within the CDBG and within the Capital Projects fund to move budgets between projects to enable him to execute the projects pursuant to the grant agreement.
Councilmember Shearer asked if they would be presented a list of Capital Improvement Projects and Community Development Special Fund (formerly General Fund) Projects for eighth-year funding; those projects, and only those projects would have money expended without coming back to the Council. Mr. McGuire replied that those projects plus projects that had been approved in previous years could have money expended without approval from the Council. No new projects would be added; slippage funds and contingency funds could be allocated to existing projects, without Council approval, but could not be allocated to new projects.
Councilmember Mabey asked if any slippage funds could go into any of the projects. He asked if the Mayor would be allowed to re-appropriate any of the funds that come back through slippage, to which Mr. McGuire replied yes, unless it was to a new project. There is a HUD regulation that states they cannot allocate more than 10% above contingency funds to projects that were not included in the application. The Mayor is bound by that regulation and would be required to seek an amendment from HUD that would require Council approval. Councilmember Shearer asked if the Council would receive timely reports on the projects that are funded, to which Mr. McGuire replied they could be made available through the FICS System. Councilmember Shearer stated that the Council’s audit of the CD funds shows a large amount of funds not expended. Doug Carlson replied that HUD had given them approval to spend 110% of the entitled amount; that goal has been exceeded. There are a lot of uncompleted projects from the fourth-year monies, most of the funds are obligated under contract and are in the process of being expended.
Councilmember Davis stated that she was concerned about the appropriation in the fifth-year funding of $94,000 for Liberty Park Circulation. She further stated that by Legislative Intent no money was to be funded for that project. Mr. Carlson replied that no money was expended for that project. He stated that in January of the seventh-year, the Council passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to submit an application to HUD which included the Liberty Park Circulation for $150,000. While the staff was in the process of preparing the application, the City received their entitled amount for the seventh-year projects which was $225,000 less than anticipated.
Staff had to then go back and cut projects or make reductions in projects to meet the entitled amount. Liberty Park Circulation was one of the projects cut. The budget was reduced from $150,000 to $65,000. The Mayor and John Gust, Parks Department, agreed to replace money into that project if slippage funds became available. Approximately $94,000 from Faultline Gardens, a fifth-year project, was made available and Liberty Park Circulation Supplemental was created. Faultline Gardens project will be completed as planned, the under-run from the project was put into Liberty Park Circulation.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the Council had been promised that any under-run funds would be earmarked to fund another project. Mr. Carlson stated that the property purchase for Faultline Gardens was less than anticipated and they had $94,000 left over. The City has not sold the property for Faultline Gardens, and there is still an opportunity for extra money. Councilmember Shearer stated that those monies should go into the Liberty Park Circulation. Councilmember Davis stated that with the exception of new projects, unless each item is tracked from the year it started, and the cost of each item is appropriated for each year, the Council has no control over the expenditure of the funds.
Mr. Carlson stated that he felt the Mayor and his staff needed the flexibility to adjust project budgets due to overruns, bids higher than expected, etc. The staff should be able to look at the availability of funds and be able to request a budget amendment for a particular project. Councilmember Whitehead stated that if a project costs more than originally planned the Council may decide it was too expensive and should not be implemented. Mr. Carlson stated that there may become a point where it is not feasible to go on, however the average project may cost $150,000; several budget adjustments are made through the life of that project. Budget adjustments of $10,000 to $25,000 are common on construction projects because the project may be proposed in one budget year, but after going through the CD planning process, approval and design process the project suffers from inflation, and other problems. Councilmember Fonnesbeck recommended this item be placed on the agenda for the Council’s Committee meeting for consideration by the Council of the Whole.
T 82-9
PUBLIC HEARING
Re-Opening of Budget for FY l981-82.
A public hearing was held before the City Council to discuss the re-opening of the Budget for Fiscal Year 1981-82 and consider and adopt a resolution amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1981-82. Albert Haines explained that the Council had received a packet incorporating a series of proposed amendments to the Fiscal Year 1981-82 budget, including a resolution and identification of CDBG carry-over projects that are recommended for incorporation into the budget. Mr. McGuire provided amended documents to the Council Members regarding the Public Utilities and Public Works Departments.
Mr. McGuire explained the amendments to the documents stating that in the Public Utilities Department the amount of the amendment in the Water Utility fund has been increased by $373,118; an amount of CDBG carry-over that was left out of the amount indicated in the documents that were distributed with Council packets. He further stated that in the Sewer Utility fund there is an increase in the amount indicated in the original documents by $1,659,200; these are also carry-over funds. Mr. McGuire stated that the total funds for the Public Utilities Department are $7,142,413 above the amount already appropriated in the 1981-82 budget.
He further stated that an amendment to the Public Works Department was a change in the budget for a re-appropriation of funds for traffic signals. It has been increased from $90,000 to $161,000. The $71,000 was reduced from matching funds from the State. The amount the City will receive from the State is $49,000; $71,000 of the original $120,000 is a re-appropriation of existing project funds. The total change to the entire document is an addition of $2,032,318 in the Public Utilities Department. The change in the Public Works Department is an equal increase and decrease in the source of funds.
Councilmember Shearer asked if the monies were from CD funds, to which Mr. McGuire replied that the $373,118 in Water Utilities are CD funds; the amount in Sewer Utility is not from CDBG, but is carry-over funds that were not spent last year and need to be re-appropriated for this year. Councilmember Shearer asked if these funds were left out of the budget. Mr. McGuire replied that they were not a part of the 1981- 82 appropriation. Councilmember Shearer asked if the rest of the CDBG carry-over funds would be added to various department budgets, to which Mr. McGuire answered that they would be applied to different projects being administered by various departments. He further stated that the CDBG Operating fund is proposed to be established on a project basis and that departmental designation of project budgets is provided for informational purposes only. Councilmember Shearer then asked if the $35,000 for the Fire Department would be identified in the adjustments, to which Mr. McGuire answered yes. Mr. McGuire further explained that the Budget Office has separated items that are not CDBG carry-over, they have been termed as “pure amendment”. Their office has separated the two, in order to better understand those items on the amendment summary rather than the CDBG carry-over.
Councilmember Shearer asked if the CDBG Operating fund would be established by Executive order. Mr. McGuire replied that if the Council approves as part of this amendment the establishment of the CDBG operating fund, it will become part of the financial reporting system; if the amendment is not approved the funds will be carried- over in the general fund where they currently exist. Councilmember Shearer asked if it would be funded at the rate of $4.1 million, to which Mr. McGuire replied that was the addition; there is already $2.7 million of CD funds in the general fund that was appropriated in the 1981-82 budget.
Councilmember Mabey asked if the carry-over would be reflected in the budget in its own column, to which Mr. McGuire stated that it would reflected in the CDBG Operational fund. Councilmember Shearer asked if the budget was to be increased by $4 million, to which Mr. McGuire replied that it was not new money, but money that has been carried over from prior year CDBG that is available to the City for expenditure and not currently a part of the budget. Rodger Neve addressed the Council and stated that the reason they developed this proposal was because the expenditures from all the prior year projects appear in the 1981-82 budgeted expenditure at year end.
Previously that has caused a situation where expenditures have always exceeded appropriations. He stated they had proposed pulling all the items and placing them into a fund where all the expenditures can he shown in the 1981-82 year so that revenues and expenditures will be equal, and can be audited and reported through the FICS System. Councilmember Parker asked if the CETA program had been eliminated. Mr. McGuire stated that this budget year it was felt the CETA program would be drastically cut. There was approximately $765,000 in the Personnel Department budget for CETA revenue and expenditures. Shortly thereafter, CETA was eliminated as a program.
We had $70,059 which is the total of the departmental expenditures that we received revenue on and expended prior to CETA funds being cut. We have been informed that we will not receive CETA funds, therefore we are proposing to amend the budget by the difference between the amount that was budgeted and the amount received. Councilmember Davis stated she was not familiar with an item under the Golf Course fund; the approved budget was $1.4 million the proposed non CDBG changes are $310,700. Mr. McGuire explained that under the Parks Department there is a proposal to increase the appropriation in the Capital Projects fund by $40,000. This will increase the appropriation in the Golf Course fund by $310,771; $191,900 is to allow acquisition of an additional 95 golf carts, and $142,000 to allow for construction of Nibley Park Club House. Those two add up to more that $310,771, the difference is $23,129 budgeted as retained earnings in the golf course fund that will he expended as part of this amendment. Councilmember Davis asked if CDBG funds were being expended for the golf courses, to which Mr. McGuire stated that non CDBG funds were to be expended.
Councilmember Davis asked about the purchase of golf carts. Lance Bateman replied that the original discussion on the purchase of golf carts was that the golf fund would ask for an interfund loan from the general fund. A decision was made to fund the purchase from the cash portion of the retained earnings. It was not presented to the Council for a budget amendment to increase the appropriation to buy the golf carts because the Council had approved the purchase. There was $142,000 appropriated for Nibley Park Club House; the decision to expand for the club house was postponed and since the Council had already appropriated funds, they were used to purchase golf carts.
Councilmember Davis stated she was concerned because it appears that the executive branch of the City can transfer funds without legislative consent. Mr. Bateman stated that Utah State Law allows the executive branch to move monies between line items within a department and a fund. He further stated that there is still cash in the retained earnings to build the Club House and purchase additional golf carts. Mr. Bateman stated they did not have an approved appropriation; appropriations cannot be carried-over for enterprise funds. Mr. Haines stated that they were not asking for the money, but for the authority.
Councilmember Davis stated she was concerned about the estimates on the bids being different from the actual amount. Mr. Haines stated that when the budget is prepared, it is based upon estimates, and when you estimate, actual costs are usually either higher or lower. The estimate was $142,000, if that is a high estimate and the bid is less than the amount appropriated the balance becomes a cash item. Councilmember Shearer asked about the transfer of funds for the Athletic Park. She stated there was a contingency fund of $50,000 to be matched.
Mr. McGuire stated we do not have the matching funds, therefore the project was cancelled. It was his understanding the Council’s intent was to use the money in another area if matching funds were not received. Councilmember Shearer then asked if the $50,000 was from the general fund, to which Mr. McGuire stated it was not; the money is in the Capital Improvement fund. Councilmember Shearer further stated that she was disappointed to see the Athletic Park project cancelled, and said that according to the budget documents the funds were going to 4th Avenue and “U” Street and Tanner Park. John Gust, Parks Department, stated that when the project for Athletic Park was cancelled they anticipated the monies being applied to Memory Grove to help with the drainage problems there. Approximately $80,000 taken from the cemetery several years ago would go to 4th Avenue and “U” Street and Tanner Park. Mr. McGuire clarified the concept of the Capital Projects fund as presented to the Council. He stated that there were certain identified Capital needs that were not met in the 1981-82 appropriation, there were also identified certain funds which were available to satisfy those needs. The budget did not specify where the money was to be placed; the money was put into a pool and balanced against expenditure needs.
Councilmember Shearer asked if the arbitrary decision is that the park at 4th Avenue and “U” Street and Tanner Park are a higher priority than the Athletic Park. Mayor Wilson responded that if the Athletic Park were a high priority, the Council would not have burdened it with a matching figure. He further stated that the money would still be there if the project were not subject to matching funds. Councilmember Shearer moved to table the discussion until after the public hearing. He further stated that he had no problem with the Council deferring a decision on the general fund. Mr. Haines stated that there were some time constraints on the two enterprise funds; the Airport and Public Utilities. Councilmember Shearer withdrew her motion to table the discussion.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent from the vote.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the amendment to the budget for the Airport and the Water Utility and the Sewer Utility funds, which motion carried all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent from the vote.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to continue the discussion on the re-opening of the Budget for FY 1981-82 to February 2, 1982, which motion carried all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck, who voted nay, and Councilmember DePaulis who was absent from the vote.
B 82-2
Proposed increase in golf fees for City courses.
A public hearing was held before the City Council to discuss a proposed increase in golf fees for City courses and an ordinance relating thereto. John Gust, Parks Department, addressed the Council stating that the Golf Advisory Board has prepared a Capital Improvements list and a fee schedule for the Council's review. He introduced Norma Carr, Chairman of the Golf Advisory Board, who addressed the Council and explained that the documents that the Council received included a letter of recommendation and a booklet describing proposed Capital Improvements. She further stated the Board has taken steps to revamp the management of the courses themselves and the allocation of the money for that management. The Board has purchased carts and made extensive changes regarding who receives revenues from the driving ranges and golf carts, etc. All of these changes were implemented to bring revenue for the improvement of the courses and to hopefully keep expenses down. Before a decision was made to increase passes, a list of five-year Capital Improvements was prepared.
Based on the list of Improvements, the Board recommended a proposal that is before the Council to increase the fees on weekdays to $3 for 9-holes and $6 for 18-holes. She further explained that on the weekends and holidays the fee would be $3.50 for 9-holes and $7 for 18-holes. The senior citizens $1 fee at Nibley and Forsest Dale would be changed to $2; this would be for a one day period rather than every day of the week. Senior Citizen passes would increase to $112.50 and a regular pass would increase to $200. Ms. Carr stated that Salt Lake County was also increasing their fees. She stated that their senior citizen passes would increase to $125 and their regular pass would increase to $250.
Councilmember Davis asked if the Parks Department would give a report on the total amount of money these increases would generate. John Gust, Parks Department, stated that the increase on the 18-hole fee in the 1981-82 budget will increase $14,127. For the budget year 1982-83 the projections are $35,734. He further stated by increasing the senior citizen pass in this budget year from January 1st to June 30th will increase the budget by $24,500; most of the passes will be sold during this time of year. The increase for weekend play during January 1st to June 30th would increase by $27,000 and all of next year would be $65,000. The total increase this year would is estimated at $65,627 and $125,234 for the next year.
Councilmember Whitehead asked if the purpose of the increase in fees was to fund the Capital Improvement Projects, to which Mr. Gust answered yes; the Parks Department is submitting from other resources i.e., carts and ranges, approximately $250,000 that may be applied to Capital Improvements over the five-year period of time. Councilmember Mabey asked if the increase in fees may diminish the total number of individuals playing. Mr. Gust stated that he felt the number of players will remain about the same, because courses in surrounding areas charge more for their passes.
Couricilmember Davis stated that the total of the proposed Capital Improvements is $2 million. She asked if the list is prioritized in any way. Mr. Gust replied that items that affect play or bring in revenue are the most important improvements. Councilmember Parker asked if the Club Houses at Nibley Park and Forest Dale are scheduled for renovation in the near future. Mr. Gust replied that the bids were back and the contractor is ready to proceed on Nibley Park within the next 30 days. He further stated that renovation of the Forest Dale Club House is under discussion at the present time. The following citizens made comments concerning the increase in fees for golf courses: Garth Poulsen, John Campbell, Easton Fox, Elbert Reese, A. E. Anderson, George Sandbourne, Eddy Proctor and Douglas Thompson. They expressed concern with the increase in fees because they felt the courses were in excellent shape and complimented the course management. They felt the increase in fees would adversely affect the senior citizens living on a fixed income. They also expressed a concern that the Golf Advisory Board would eventually eliminate the senior citizen pass.
They further stated that in almost every other program throughout the area senior citizens are given a price break; they felt that the increase in golf fees was disproportionately raised for senior citizens. They also stated they felt senior citizens take better care of the golf courses and are more courteous to other golfers. They stated that they felt senior citizens would no longer play on days when they do not receive a discount because the overall price increase would not allow them to pay the regular fee for those days. They suggested that the Council set the fee for a senior citizens pass at $100.
Jerry Linke, Golf Advisory Board, addressed the Council and stated that a great deal of thought went into their recommendation to increase fees. He stated that the golf courses have to pay for themselves; they receive no monies from the general fund for necessary improvements. He stated the Hogle Zoo issue is identical to the golf courses. The golf courses are self supporting. They have to have the money to finance and maintain themselves. If the senior citizen fee was increased to $112.50, it would average out to $.92 a round to play five days a week. He concluded by stating that the Golf Advisory Board has made many changes in the management of the courses that will help the courses pay for themselves.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent from the vote.
John Gust, Parks Department, stated that in the County they are only allowed to play five-days a week for the fee of $125. The fee for the pass that allows play on weekends and holidays is $250. Councilmember Mabey asked if a special concession can be made to the senior citizen on the use of golf carts, to which Mr. Gust replied that the carts receive wear and tear. He stated that that was an item the Golf Advisory Board could look into. Councilmember Shearer asked how long it took to accumulate the $310,000 taken from retained earnings this year for budget adjustments.
Mr. Gust replied that a lot of the money had been in the golf fund for years. Mr. Poulsen asked if the $310,000 was accumulated over a few years would it be possible for the staff to pace the purchase of capital equipment such as golf carts and other improvements so that the fund does not have to be depleted. Mr. Gust replied that the City has never owned the golf carts. The Golf Pro’s have always owned the carts or they were rented. The Golf Advisory Board changed the contracts of all the Pro’s so they are no longer City employees; they are concessionaires. Part of the proposal included the Parks Department taking over the driving ranges and the golf carts. When that was done they had to make two purchases of golf carts for two courses because the contracts with the Pro’s expired last year. From now on we will dispose of and replace carts on a gradual basis, but the initial two purchases were necessary this year. He further stated that that is where a lot of revenue is generated.
Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Gust if the County would agree to change their fee. Mr. Gust replied that he spoke to the County about reducing the fees and they stated that they would not. Councilmember Davis asked if the Mayor made a recommendation on the fee increase, to which Mr. Gust stated that he concurred with the recommendation of the Golf Advisory Board. Councilmember Parker stated that he felt the increase in fees would discourage use of the courses by the senior citizens and that he would be willing to pay an increased fee if the senior citizen passes were discounted. Mr. Gust stated that he felt the senior citizens were receiving a good break.
Councilmember Mabey asked what the difficulties in collecting monies from the County residents would be if we lowered the senior citizen fees to $100. Mr. Gust replied that he felt to start discriminating against other counties may alienate a lot of people; he stated he would advise the Council against charging one fee for County residents and another for City residents. It could affect the other Parks Department programs that attract people from other counties.
Councilmember Parker moved to accept the recommendation of the Golf Advisory Board including the five-year Capital Improvements Plan with the exception that the increase in the senior citizens pass be modified from $112.50 to $100; there was no second to this motion.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to accept the recommendation of the Golf Advisory Board with the exception that the increase in the senior citizens pass be modified from $112.50 to $100, which motion failed.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to accept the recommendation of the Golf Advisory Board as outlined in their letter dated January 22, 1982 and adopt Ordinance 8 of 1982, with the amendment of section 2 to read “this ordinance will take effect upon publication”, which motion carried all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent from the vote.
O 82-3
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.