PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1982, AT 5:00 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 PALMER DEPAULIS EDWARD W. PARKER.
Albert Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Vice Chairman Ronald Whitehead presided at and Councilmember Alice Shearer conducted this meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance.
SALT LAKE CITY BUDGET: 1982-83
RE: A resolution adopting budgets of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1982 and ending June 30, 1983; a resolution determining the rate of tax levy and levying taxes upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City, Utah, made taxable by law, for the year 1982. Albert Haines addressed the Council and reviewed the identification of the mill levies and provided an explanation about the change in the Library’s levy and also collectable rates. He stated that a letter was sent to the Council after the assessed valuation established by the county was known. Subsequent to that letter, it had been determined that the county included in that assessed valuation the Research Park.
Rather than reduce the assessed valuation numbers received from the county by the amount identified as Research Park, the city elected to reduce the collectable rate from 92% to 90.9%. The reason for this is because the mill levy equivalency has already been budgeted in a miscellaneous revenues account in the General Fund in the 82-83 budget. Based on the collection rate and the assessed valuation with the Research Park revenue accounted for separately, the mill levies are as follows: General Fund: 15.79; Library Fund: 3.39.
The difference in the Library Fund is 4/100’s of a mill higher than the information the Council previously received; the General Fund mill levy is the same as last year. Councilmember Shearer asked why the General Fund mill levy had not been altered and the Library Fund had, since the percent of collection expected has been reduced. Mr. Haines stated that when the Library budget was submitted, the original calculation was in error. The same formula and assumptions have been applied to both property-tax budgets. A packet, prefaced by a cover letter from Mr. Haines, was distributed to the Council containing a resolution adopting budgets of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1982 and ending June 30, 1983; appropriate schedules summarizing the adopted budgets; and a resolution determining the rate of tax levy and levying taxes upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City, Utah, for the year 1982 (a copy of this information is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder). Mr. Haines stated that his cover letter identified the changes made by the Council on June 8, 1982. The recommended budget changes from $174,800,049 to $173,267,549. The remaining $75,000 reduction is due to re-categorization of the Research Park assessment from appropriation of fund balance in the Capital Projects Fund to a direct revenue to the General Fund.
Councilmember Davis asked about the total from Research Park revenue. Jim McGuire stated that it was $395,000. Mr. Haines stated that this amount was prior year mill levy equivalencies plus 1982-83 projection of $75,000. Councilmember Shearer stated that the city was getting $395,000 equivalent money this year, which had nothing to do with prior years. Mr. Haines stated that the formula to get $395,000 is based on the same formula prior year mill levy equivalencies plus 1982-83; the $75,000 is identified as 15.79 mills against the total assessed valuation of the Research Park for 1982-83. That is why the collection rate has been reduced in the formula for determining the property taxes under the county’s assessed valuation.
Mr. Haines stated that it was recommended that the Council adopt the resolutions. Jim McGuire addressed the Council to give details as to the calculations used in determining the two mill levies. He stated that $75,000 of revenue was included directly to the General Fund, as a separate category apart from property taxes, as Research Park assessment. In identifying this separately as a tax received from Research Park, there were two alternatives in terms of calculating the mill levy. Either the assessed valuation figure could have been changed or the collection could have been adjusted; either choice gives the same effect.
It was decided to adjust the percent collection calculation; it went from 92% to 90.9% in order to adjust for a decreased amount of revenue. Rather than changing the assessed valuation figures established by the county, which the city does not have authority to do, the percentage calculation was changed since the city has authority to do this. Councilmember Shearer asked if the in lieu of taxes at Research Park is based on only the city mill levy or is it based on county-wide mill levy.
Mr. McGuire stated that it is based on the entire county-wide mill levy and the full amount has been budgeted if the city were to collect the county-wide mill levy, but in the General Fund only that portion relating to the city mill levy has been budgeted. The rest of it is in the Capital Projects Fund so that if the county collects the taxes from Research Park and gives the city their mill levy equivalent of that, the General Fund will meet the projection and the Capital Projects Fund will not receive any revenue from Research Park and, therefore, will make no expenditures at Research Park. Mr. Haines referred the Council’s attention to the Capital Projects Fund Budget Summary and stated that this page was inadvertently not corrected. He then identified those changes (this information is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder). Councilmember Shearer stated that there were several projects which were to be funded from the Transfer In from General Fund (Mr. Haines indicated that the balance is zero), and she asked what was done with those projects. Rodger Neve indicated that the Transfer In from General Fund is under the Special Assessment Fund; he stated that there is one project being funded, the sidewalk replacement project.
Councilmember Shearer stated that two projects were removed by the Council from the Capital Improvements Fund; one for $450,000 and one for $112,500. Mr. Neve stated that those projects were to be funded with surplus funds; the equivalent, $562,500, that was in the General Fund was applied to other projects. Mr. McGuire stated that the Transfer Out in the General Fund on the expenditure side has been reduced by the $562,500; likewise, the Transfer In, in combination of the Special Assessment Fund and the Capital Projects Fund, has been reduced by $562,500. Councilmember Davis had a question about $46,500 listed as Proceeds from Sale of Surplus Property in the Special Assessment Fund. Mr. McGuire indicated that this amount needed to be listed as Prior Year Surplus funds.
Councilmember Shearer stated that she was concerned about the order in which projects would be funded; she was concerned that several projects would not be funded until property is sold because all of the money from the General Fund has been allocated to curbs and gutters. Mr. Haines stated that the Council did not specify which projects would be funded from the General Fund; it was only indicated that the same priority level should be maintained. The projects were not funded in order as listed because it was easier to identify the largest amount of money for the largest project, the sidewalk replacement program. There are currently surplus property funds available to fund the projects; the priority is not being changed.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 61 of 1982, adopting budgets of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1982 and ending June 30, 1983, as corrected, which motion carried, all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who voted nay.
The next item discussed was the resolution determining the rate of tax levy and levying taxes upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City. Councilmember Shearer stated that the rate is 19.18 mills; 15.79 mills for the General Fund and 3.39 mills for the Library. Councilmember Davis stated that she was opposed to the General Fund mill levy because she opposed the Innkeeper Tax; however, she was in favor of the mill levy for the Library. Ms. Davis asked if each could be voted on separately. Mr. Cutler stated that if the items are voted on separately then two resolutions would have to be drafted.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to divide the resolution and vote separately on the mill levy for the General Fund and the mill levy for the Library, which motion failed, all members present voting nay, except Council Members Shearer and Davis who voted aye and Councilmember Mabey who abstained from voting.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 60 of 1982, determining the rate of tax levy and levying taxes upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City, Utah, made taxable by law, for the year 1982, which motion carried, all members present voting aye, except Council Members Shearer and Davis who voted nay.
(B 82-6, R 82-14, B 82-5)
The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.