PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1983, 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 M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on the agenda. Cheryl Cook, city treasurer, briefed the Council on Tax Anticipation Notes. She said that the City was able to obtain a favorable interest rate for the notes which would be a flowing rate of 62.5% of Treasury Note rates. She said that the resolution approving Tax Anticipation Notes would be on the Council’s agenda on June 14, 1983. Ms. Cook distributed a memorandum explaining the City’s cash flow status during the flood emergency. She stated that the flood did not change the bids received on tax anticipation notes. She also said that funds from the sale of tax anticipation notes will not be available until after July, 1983.
Paul Barber, Mayor’s office, briefed the Council on a resolution requested by Utah Power and Light supporting UP & L’s bid for hydroelectric power. Mr. Barber explained that power from hydroelectric plants was less expensive than power from coal-fired plants. UP & L is able to bid for hydroelectric power because of a change in the law dealing with non-municipal power cities. Mr. Barber stated that power could be as much as 25% less expensive for the residential consumer if UP & L is successful in this bid. The less expensive power will result in a $607,000 reduction in franchise tax revenues, but the loss of franchise tax revenues will not take place until 1995.
Milt Hokansen, special representative for Utah Power and Light, said that the net savings from the less expensive power would be passed along to residential customers, not to UP & L stockholders. He also said that all cities served by UP & L would be affected, but that municipal power cities like Murray would not be affected. Councilmember Shearer asked why UP & L was discriminating against its business customers. John Bohling, UP & L Salt Lake Division Manager, said that the dams were built with tax dollars and that UP & L felt a direct pass-through was the most fair way to allocate the savings. Ms. Shearer asked the chance of success in the bid. Mr. Bohling indicated that he felt UP & L had a 50/50 chance of succeeding with the bid.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1983, 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 Wilson, Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, and Roger Cutler, city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and Councilmember Ronald Whitehead conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Donald Goodheart.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, May 24, 1983, and to approve the minutes of the emergency meeting held Thursday, May 26, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 83-1)
Special Recognition:
#1. Council Chairman Grant Mabey presented a resolution of appreciation commending Salt Lake City administrative department heads and employees for dedication shown during the flooding situation. The resolution thanked the county, the state, and the federal government for their cooperation and assistance during this crisis and also congratulated the news media for their thorough coverage of the flood and for their service in soliciting volunteer help.
The resolution further commended businesses for providing equipment, manpower, materials, food and drink and other donations to aid in the flood efforts. Finally the resolution thanked the many religious and civic organizations and private citizens from Salt Lake City, other cities, counties and states that responded to the call for assistance. This resolution is on file in the Office of the City Recorder.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Resolution 53 of 1983 expressing appreciation to the many people involved in the flood effort, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 83-1)
#2. Council Chairman Grant Mabey presented a resolution of appreciation to Mayor Ted L. Wilson for his efforts during the flood. The Council also presented the Mayor with a token of their appreciation to serve as a reminder of his valiant leadership during The Flood of 1983. Mayor Wilson thanked the Council for their support and hard work during this flood situation.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Resolution 54 of 1983 expressing appreciation to Mayor Ted L. Wilson, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 82-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-41, 1983 submitted by Highland Golf & Equipment.
RE: A request that the property located at 507 South Redwood Road be rezoned from its present Residential “R-6” classification to a Commercial “C-1” classification.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing to discuss this petition.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The petitioner is required to pay a $50 advertising fee.
DISCUSSION: The planning commission at their meeting on April 28 held a hearing on this petition. A portion of the minutes dealing with that hearing and a staff report are attached to the petition. In the opinion of the planning commission it is impossible to develop this property in conjunction with the residential properties to the east because of the school and workshop for the blind that was developed by the State of Utah. Therefore, the most logical use for the property would be commercial.
It is the recommendation of the planning commission that at the public hearing the Council considers rezoning the property covered in the petition from “R-6” to “C-l” and also that the adjoining property on the corner, which is now zoned Business B-3, be rezoned to a “C-1” classification.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for July 12, 1983 at 6:15 p.m. to discuss Petition 400-41 of 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-312)
Petition 400-43 of 1983 submitted by Sven Nilsson.
RE: A request that the property located at 650 Victory Road be rezoned from Residential “R-5A” to a Residential “R-5” classification.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing to discuss this petition.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The petitioner has paid the $50 advertising fee.
DISCUSSION: The planning commission held a hearing on this matter at their meeting on April 28. Attached to the petition is a copy of the staff report and the minutes of the planning commission covering the hearing. Mr. Nilsson desires to construct an apartment house on this property containing approximately 150 units. The plan as presented would not meet the “R-5” standards in regard to yard areas. At the planning commission hearing the neighborhood residents expressed considerable concern over the density, the traffic and the height of the buildings which would be allowed under an “R-5” zone.
It is the recommendation of the planning commission that the petition be denied on the basis that the existing “R-5A” zoning is in keeping with the Capitol Hill master plan, that the existing “R-5A” zoning is compatible with the existing density in the area, that it provides property usage for the property and it does not deny the petitioner the right to use his property, that the higher densities and heights allowed in an “R-5” zone would be improper from both neighborhood and traffic considerations.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for July 12, 1983 at 6:45 p.m. to discuss Petition 400-43 of 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-314
Petition 400-45, 1983 submitted by Linda Tracy and Bob Lowe.
RE: A request that property located between 9th North and 17th North and between Redwood Road and I-215, which is now zoned Residential “R-6”, be rezoned to a Residential “R-2A” classification.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing to discuss this petition.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The petitioner is required to pay a $50 advertising fee.
DISCUSSION: This matter has been reviewed by the planning commission at a hearing held on April 28. A copy of a portion of the minutes dealing with this petition and the staff report are attached to the petition. The planning commission recommends that at the public hearing the Council consider the rezoning of all that property now zoned Residential “R-6” located between 9th North and 17th North and between Redwood Road and I-215 to a Residential “R-2A” classification. This classification will allow for the development of this area as proposed in the master plan which has been previously approved for this section of the City and will be in keeping with the existing developments to the south and with the existing “R-2” zoning facing Redwood Road.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for July 12, 1983 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition 400-45 of 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-313)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
#1. RE: Handicap parking ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider amending Section 160-A of the traffic code relating to parking for the handicapped.
DISCUSSION: The City previously recommended an amendment of the handicap parking ordinance to accommodate the needs of handicapped citizens and assist in enforcement efforts against those who illegally park in areas designated for handicapped persons. After adopting the ordinance, Dr. Smith of Utah Independent Living Center, Inc. expressed concern that being limited to the time designated on the meter was inadequate. The City’s concern was that short-term meters, i.e. 12-minute areas in front of the post office, or other limited areas not be used for long periods of time by anyone, including handicapped persons.
Discussion of this issue with the interested parties has brought about an agreement on the proposed ordinance amendment. This ordinance change, in substance, permits handicapped persons to park for two hours at all meters or other parking areas designated for parking for a time in excess of 30 minutes. It is felt this is a reasonable compromise and meets the needs of handicapped citizens and those basic concerns of the City.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 29 of 1983, amending subsection (1) of Section 160-A of the traffic code of Salt Lake City, Utah, relating to parking for the handicapped, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-58)
#2. RE: Resolution declaring an emergency, amending budgets, authorizing expenditures, incurring deficits, and other matters relating to flooding in Salt Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ratify their action taken on Thursday, June 2, 1983, regarding the Emergency Declaration and Expenditure Resolution, Resolution 52 of 1983.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to ratify action taken by the City Council on Thursday, June 2, 1983, adopting the Emergency Declaration and Expenditure Resolution, Resolution 52 of 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 83-12)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Section 24-4-4 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to meeting schedules of the City Council.
DISCUSSION: This proposed ordinance amends Ordinance 22 of 1983. A clause has been added to the schedules of Council policy meetings and regular Council meetings indicating that it is anticipated that meetings will not be scheduled on the third, fourth or fifth Tuesdays of June, August and December.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 30 of 1983, amending Section 24-4-4 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to meeting schedules of the City Council, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-15)
#2. RE: A resolution amending Resolution 80 of 1982 by extending the deadline for waiver of fee for filing alley vacation petitions.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 55 of 1983 amending Resolution 80 of 1982 by extending the deadline for waiver of fee for filing alley vacation petitions, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 82-18)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Capitol Hill Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution which provides for the formal adoption of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: This plan was funded through Salt Lake City’s Community Development Block Grant program.
DISCUSSION: This plan was prepared by the consulting firm of Williams, Platzek and Mocine. Several public meetings were held during the planning process to obtain comments on the plan. The planning staff will continue to meet with area residents and Capitol Hill Community Council representatives regarding specific projects as they are implemented. This document will be an official amendment and revisions to the 1967 Master Plan as it relates to the Capitol Hill Community area to promote orderly long-range development for this area.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 56 of 1983 adopting the Capitol Hills Community Plan amending the 1967 Master Plan of Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 83-14)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Update of compensation plan of Salt Lake City employees.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amending the compensation plan as submitted.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Funds have been budgeted in the 1983-84 budget.
DISCUSSION: The compensation plan update contains primarily minor changes in wording in two sections. It is proposed to change the titles only of several executives and delete two positions from the executive pay plan. The only major change is a request to place the city treasurer on the executive pay plan. As this is a statutory office a public hearing is required. Albert Haines said that the administration had no other recommendations from those that were presented at the Council public hearing on May 24, 1983. Mr. Haines suggested that this item be deferred to June 14, 1983 to continue the public hearing. Councilmember Whitehead referred the employee compensation plan to the June 14, 1983 Council agenda for public hearing; referred without objection.
(O 83-19)
#2. RE: An ordinance amending Section 25-1-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as last amended by Bill 52 of 1982, relating to the adoption of an employment staffing document for Salt Lake City. Albert Haines recommended approval of this document with one addition. He said that the City is currently negotiating with the county about contracting animal control services. Negotiations are still continuing and an agreement has not yet been reached or formalized. Mr. Haines recommended that the positions for animal control in the current document be added back into the proposed document until an agreement with the county has been finalized.
Mr. Haines thought that negotiations might take another month and said that his biggest concern was with service and service-level commitments which he wanted to ensure. Mr. Haines outlined the positions to be added back into the staffing document: clerk III – 1 animal shelter caretaker – 1 senior animal control officer – 1 animal shelter supervisor – 1 animal control officer – 5 animal shelter officer – 1 Officer Holland from Salt Lake City animal control addressed the issue of services. He indicated that Salt Lake City animal shelter is the only facility of its kind open on Saturdays and the county was suggesting to close the office on that day. He also said that the people working in the Salt Lake City shelter have more combined experience in animal control than the county and suggested that the City be in control of the operation instead of the county.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to include the 10 animal control positions back into the staffing document and adopt Ordinance 31 of 1983, amending Section 25-1-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as last amended by Ordinance 52 of 1982, relating to the adoption of an employment staffing document for Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-18)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: Ordinances relating to fireworks.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt ordinance changes to allow for safer use of fireworks and sales of said fireworks.
DISCUSSION: There is a need to have some control and coordination in the sale of fireworks both to control safety as well as the discriminate sale of fireworks. With control, there will be better protection for the citizens of Salt Lake City and better control of emergencies. The following ordinances are proposed to amend the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended: 1 - An ordinance amending Chapter 24, Title 51, by adding a new Subsection 51-24-1(75) thereto, relating to seasonal sales of fireworks. 2 - An ordinance amending Chapter 21, Title 51, by adding a new Subsection 51-21-2(l)(c) thereto, relating to seasonal sales of fireworks. 3 - An ordinance amending Chapter 16, Title 5, by adding a new Subsection 5-16-2(5) thereto, relating to permit requirements. 4 - An ordinance amending Title 20 by adding a new Chapter 38 thereto, relating to fireworks sellers and fireworks displays. 5 - An ordinance amending Chapter 16, Title 5, by adding a new Section 9 thereto, relating to bond required. Councilmember Whitehead referred the proposed ordinances to the Council consent agenda for June 14, 1983; referred without objection.
(O 83-20) through (O 83-24)
#2. RE: Interlocal agreement with Riverton City to allow for dispatch services to Riverton City.
RECOMMENDATION: that the City Council adopt a resolution to allow Salt Lake City Fire Department to enter into an agreement with Riverton City to provide dispatch services to Riverton City.
DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Fire Department is presently dispatching emergency calls for Riverton City, and it is a mutually agreeable service. This is an update of an original contract. Councilmember Whitehead referred the interlocal agreement with Riverton to the Council consent agenda for June 14, 1983; referred without objection.
(C 82-13)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing Utah Power and Light Company, through its franchise granted by Salt Lake City, the Mayor and any other authorized representatives of the City, to engage in all activities necessary and convenient for the acquisition of low-cost federal hydroelectric power for distribution to the residents of the City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the resolution.
DISCUSSION: The proposed resolution supports Utah Power & Light in their attempt to obtain low-cost, hydroelectric power from the Colorado River storage project. Many years ago, before Glen Canyon Dam and Flaming Gorge Dam were completed, the electricity which would be generated by these facilities was sold to municipally-owned electric utilities. This power is considerably cheaper than power from coal-fired power plants. Utah Power & Light, and other investor-owned utilities were excluded from obtaining this power by the Western Area Power Administration. Non-public power cities such as Salt Lake City were prohibited from purchasing this power and reselling it to an investor-owned utility.
The net effect of this policy has been significantly higher electrical bills in cities served by privately-owned utilities. The contracts allocating this power will expire in the next few years. Utah Power & Light is attempting to change the allocation criteria. They have asked for a resolution of support from Salt Lake City. If they are successful in challenging this ruling, it will mean lower light bills for Salt Lake City residents. It will also mean a decrease in the money collected from the utility franchise tax.
To some extent the loss in taxes will be offset by lower power bills for the City. Regardless of the potential loss of tax revenue, that loss is not a valid reason for Salt Lake City to oppose lower utility bills for the taxpayers. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said that a change in the resolution has been discussed with Utah Power & Light and they agree with the change. Under the paragraph beginning with “NOW, THEREFORE...” the words ... authorizes and directs...” appear in the second line of that paragraph. The words “and directs” should be deleted so that the line reads ‘... the City Council hereby authorizes Utah Power & Light...”
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Resolution 57 of 1983, as amended, regarding the acquisition by Utah Power & Light of low-cost federal hydroelectric power, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 83-11)
PARKS DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: Proposed fees for use of lighted ball diamonds, ordinance amendment to Section 27-9-6.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Section 27-9-6 of the Salt Lake City code.
DISCUSSION: In a recent survey it was noted that the present fee charged for the use of a lighted ball diamond was not covering the electrical expenses incurred to light the diamond for one evening. The recommendation would enable the parks department to break even on this expense. Following are reasons for the request: 1. The present $15 an evening per diamond fee was established several years ago. 2. Because of yearly electrical rate increases, the fee no longer meets the increased costs. 3. Light bulbs must also be replaced annually at each lighted ball-field making the cost for lighting go even higher.
Councilmember Parker asked how the fee was apportioned when more than one group uses the ball diamond during a night. Councilmember Davis said that the ball diamonds are reserved on a nightly basis by one organization or group. Councilmember Whitehead said that the ordinance proposed raising the fee from $15 to $23.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Ordinance 32 of 1983, amending Section 27-9-6 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to softball diamond use fees, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-16)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Budget Amendment Fiscal Year 1982-83.
RE: Request for budget opening to consider the following items:
1. An appropriation of $70,000 be established for the property owners’ contributions in concrete replacement project 40-R-3. The City’s share was previously budgeted. 2. The appropriation for the Salt Lake Memorial Day Classic be increased by $15,000. This race is becoming a national event. Entrance fees have been increased to provide an additional $10,000, and a private contribution of $5,000 has been obtained. 3. An additional $20,000 of UDOT Safer Sidewalk funds is available. This amendment will increase this project to $70,000. 4. Project bids for Fire Station #8 were higher than expected. It is requested that this additional $55,000 be funded by revenues received from the sale of fire stations. 5. In the original 1982-83 budget, $46,500 of capital project surplus was budgeted to be used in the special assessment sidewalk, curb and gutter program. However, a transfer-out was not approved in the capital projects fund. It is requested that this transfer be approved. 6. Several capital improvement programs should be reduced or closed because funds from the sale of real property are not available. These projects will be included in future years’ capital improvement budgets. 7. In 1982 there was a paint fire in the traffic paint storage room. The total expended to restore this facility and to protect against future fires was $47,232. We are recommending that this extraordinary cost be covered by the non-departmental contingency funds. It is also requested that the budget be opened in order to correct some prior-year problems in the capital projects fund. This opening is necessary in order to improve the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
The 1982 CAFR was criticized by the Utah State Auditor’s Office for not comparing capital projects to budget. Since individual projects may require more than one year to complete, a comparison of budget to actual is appropriate only on a project basis. We are planning to report capital projects in a format similar to the Salt Lake City School District.
This amendment is necessary because in prior years some outside revenues were not appropriated. In those years the controller’s office allowed these funds to be spent as long as cash was available. Also allowed in prior years was the transfer of funds from a completed project with a surplus to a project that was expected to have an overrun. The current procedure does not allow spending without an appropriation.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. to consider this issue. Mr. Lance Bateman, city controller, presented the information outlined above. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Resolution 58 of 1983, amending budgets of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1982 and ending June 30, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(B 82-4)
Library Budget.
RE: The Fiscal Year 1983-1984 budget for the Salt Lake City Library.
A public hearing was held at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this issue. Councilmember Whitehead said that there was no mill levy increase in this budget. Councilmember Shearer said that this budget has been reviewed with the library board and has been on public display. She said that all of her questions had been answered. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt the Library Budget for Fiscal Year 1983-1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(B 83-4)
SALT LAKE CITY BUDGET 1983-1984
#1. RE: A resolution adopting budgets of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1983 and ending June 30, 1984. Mr. Haines said there were adjustments to the budget as submitted by the Mayor. A provision has been made for leasing costs for public works/engineering that was left out of the original budget and a revision has been made to the projection on the interest income based on the mill levy previously submitted. Gordon Hoskins, finance department, said that a net effect of $80,000 increase has been included which is the difference between the interest income and the interest expense.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if the provision for engineering was because of rent. Mr. Haines said that the office was being relocated. Mayor Wilson addressed amendments which had been made to the budget. He said that the 1.47 mill levy increase had been changed to 2.75 mills. This was done because it is not known at this point the cost of the flood and there needs to be adequate reserves in the reserve fund in order to provide matching money to state and federal portions and anything not approve by FEMA or the state for matching.
The Mayor also said that money needs to be added to the fund balance (disaster/emergency fund). He was concerned about the cash balance being relatively low and perhaps affecting the City’s bond rating. The Mayor said that he was hopeful the state legislature would give local governments some leeway beyond the current deadline for setting mill levies. He has recommended to the Governor that the legislature be charged to deal with this issue. The Mayor indicated that he was reluctant in recommending the 2.75 mill increase because he was aware of the state of the taxpayers. But a disaster costs money and there needs to be reserves in order to fight the flood.
The Mayor said that he was requesting the operating budget to be increased by .95 mills from the original recommendation of .89. Included in this is a change in the salary recommendation for City employees. Originally a 6% one-time, across-the-board payment to the employees which would not raise base salaries. Mayor Wilson said that it was important to consider the broader picture. The employees of the City are the difference between successfully keeping the water from flooding buildings and various neighborhoods. The employees could not have accomplished this without the volunteers but these employees have been asked to work long, hard hours for weeks. Some of the employees have been compensated for their overtime but many have not gained overtime including supervisors on the 300-level pay series. The Mayor felt that the employees deserve better than the one-time 6% payment. He recommended that the mill levy be increased 6/100’s of a mill to give the employees a 5% cost-of-living adjustment. He said that he realized this was controversial and knew that the fiscal situation was tight but felt that most people in the City would realize the importance of employee morale and continued hard work. The Mayor felt that this small increase was worth the faith and trust to be gained from the employees along with their continued extra effort. Councilmember DePaulis said that the Council knows that the employees have been courageous and have given extra effort to combat this flooding situation. He commended the Mayor for being a good manager and leader and realized that the City would need the continued support from the employees.
Mr. DePaulis said this has been a very difficult decision because from the Council’s perspective they have looked at the City-wide impact that a tax increase would have on the citizens and businesses. Mr. DePaulis felt that the Council needed to make a decision that would be affordable and as fair as possible to the entire City. He suggested that at this time the City could afford to give a 3% cost-of-living increase to the employees with the 2% deferred to a later time when the fiscal situation improves. He also suggested that the flood-related fund be a separate fund so the taxpayers would know exactly how much of the money was appropriated for the flood.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked the difference in cost to the City between giving the 5% and giving 3% with 2% deferred to a later time. Councilmember DePaulis said that the 5% total package would cost approximately the same as the 6% one-time payment which is about $2.1 million; the 3% would cost about $1,207,000 and the 2%, given January 1, would be about $400,000 with the total being about $1.6 million. Mr. Haines said that the budget could not be balanced without a tax increase and at least a one-half mill increase would be needed to fund the cost-of-living increase suggested by Councilmember DePaulis. Mr. Haines asked if the Council was recommending a 3% mill levy increase. Mr. DePaulis indicated that was correct.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the 2% would be budgeted. Councilmember DePaulis said that if the 2% is considered at another time it would have to be taken from the budget that is approved with a 3% mill levy increase. Mayor Wilson felt that if the Council did not budget the 2% for cost-of-living increases they should indicate that they are approving a 3% increase. If the Council is considering giving the 2% then it needs to be funded because budgeting in January will be difficult and money probably would not be found in the budget otherwise.
Councilmember Whitehead felt that with federal and state reimbursements for the flood the City emergency fund would be over the maximum level. He suggested that the 2% should be funded but the mill levy reduced and the money taken out of the budget. Mr. Haines indicated that a 3% mill levy increase would not balance the budget unless money is appropriated out of the contingency fund. He was concerned that taking money from fund balance to put into contingency would be a mistake because the fund balance would be too low. Councilmember Whitehead suggested that part of the 2.75 mill increase, which has been suggested for the emergency fund, should be put into the emergency fund with the remainder allocated to the contingency fund. Mr. Whitehead was concerned that the revenue generated by the 2.75 increase would be in the emergency fund which then could not be used to construct structures to alleviate future flooding. Councilmember Davis expressed concern that the county, City and state would all increase taxes which would burden the taxpayers. Mr. Haines said that if fund balance is not budgeted and then restricted then the bond rating will be jeopardized; the entire amount should not be put into a contingency account.
Councilmember Mabey asked how much revenue would be gained from the 2.75 mill levy increase. Mr. Haines said that the 2.75 increase would generate almost $2.5 million. Mayor Wilson referred back to the cost-of-living increase and asked if the 2% increase in January would be funded. Councilmember DePaulis’ opinion was that the City could not afford to give a 5% cost-of-living increase in July and felt that the guaranteed 2% raise in January was a matter for discussion. Councilmember Parker expressed concern about how a 3.70 mill levy increase (2.75 plus .95) would affect the residents and businesses. Mr. Haines said that the total 3.70 increase would cost approximately $42.75 per year on a $75,000 home; including the mill increase from the county the cost would be $57 per year. Of that total the .95 for salary increases would be $11 per year.
Mayor Wilson indicated that the .95 would give the employees approximately half of what had been negotiated and agreed to in labor contracts and felt that the increase was small; he reiterated the importance of maintaining a spirited work force. He also said that the disaster is expensive and at this time the funding situation is not known. The City may receive a lot of support from the state and federal government and perhaps the 2.75 increase can be decreased next year. He felt that the salary increase and the emergency fund should be discussed separately. Councilmember DePaulis was concerned about the impact that the 3.70 mill levy increase would have on the businesses. LaVone Liddle-Gamonal addressed the Council on behalf of the Salt Lake Association of Community Councils (SLACC). She said that the 35 members of the SLACC board were polled concerning the proposed 3.7 mill increase.
More than half of the board supported the increase and there were only two completely negative votes. Some of the opinions expressed included the idea of salary increases for those who have worked hardest on the flood. Several members requested that funds be earmarked for the clean-up and repair and to prepare for a future disaster. Ms. Liddle-Gamonal said that concern was expressed regarding the effect this substantial increase would have upon the low-income individuals, those who have been affected by the high unemployment and those on fixed incomes. But with these indications of concern, the board reluctantly endorsed the proposed 3.7 mill tax. On behalf of SLACC Ms. Liddle-Gamonal thanked the City for their hard work during this disaster. Boyd Blackner, chairman of the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce, presented two resolutions from the Chamber of Commerce relating to the flood and reserve funding and relating to the operational budget recommendations. In these resolutions the Chamber of Commerce recommends to the City Council to establish, for one year, not on a continuing basis, a 2.75 mill levy to pay for flood costs and to build the reserve account and supports the Mayor’s recommendation that the Salt Lake City Council approve a .95 mill levy increase to balance the City budget and provide a 5% cost-of-living adjustment across the board for City employees. These resolutions are on file in the recorder’s office.
Izzy Wagner thanked the City employees for their hard work in controlling the flood waters and protecting downtown property. He said that the employees of public works, water, police and fire departments deserve more than thanks. For at least the next year they will be involved in clean-up and repair work. As a taxpayer, businessman and property owner, Mr. Wagner said that he was in favor of increasing the mill levy in order to replenish the emergency fund and include a raise for the rank and file workers. However, the increased mill levy should not be in effect for more than two years if possible; if there are excess funds they should be invested in interest bearing notes, in this case the mill levy could be reduced to its present level or below.
David Bernolfo, president of Bamberger Investment and Exploration Co., said that the flooding disaster will be with the City for many months and said that it was the City employees working hard to contain the damage. He felt that giving a raise to the employees at the end of the disaster would be an error. He indicated that the employees should be given a 5% increase during the disaster because they have earned it and it would provide needed motivation for the employees.
Jack Olsen, Utah Taxpayers Association, addressed the effect that the proposed 3.7 mill increase would have on business together with their assessment increase. This would mean a 65% increase on any business, commercial or industrial taxpayer within Salt Lake City. He felt that the 2.75 mill increase was fair and was an equal sacrifice between City employees and taxpayers. The Utah Taxpayers Association supports both the 3% salary increase and the 2.75 mill tax increase for one year.
Ruth Robbins addressed the Council about salary increases. It was her opinion that flat-rate increases should be given rather than increases based on a percentage of an employee’s salary. She felt that this would be more fair to employees in the lower pay classes. Terry Schroeder, a volunteer working on the flood effort, commended the City employees that she has worked with for the very long hours which they have worked. She indicated her support for the tax increase in order to increase the disaster fund. Ms. Schroeder said that she had been working with a group of volunteers on State Street for eight days and this group works from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. She said that the volunteers have had a difficult time getting sand and sandbags because apparently some of the City departments have returned to eight-hour shifts. She was also concerned about the possibility of the volunteers contracting typhus because they have been working in the polluted water.
Mayor Wilson said that Dr. Harry Gibbons of the health department has indicated that there has not appeared to be much typhus or tetnus at this point. Gordon Ottley, representing AFSCME Local 1004, thanked the Chamber of Commerce and other groups who have supported the cost-of-living increase. Mr. Ottley said that the employees in his union have worked hard to increase production as was agreed to in collective bargaining and there have been major productivity increases over the last two years. Mr. Ottley indicated that salary increases agreed to in the labor contracts included merit increases as well as cost of living.
In response to the flood Mr. Ottley said that almost his entire unit has been working 12-hour shifts and have been working hard. From the start of the flood the employees have shown their loyalty to the City and an appropriate salary increase will show the Council’s appreciation and support of the employees. Mr. Ottley said that a 3% wage increase in his unit averages about $30 per month before taxes and a 2% increase in January would be almost unnoticeable which would be viewed as an insult. Mr. Ottley indicated that by using the flood as the reason not to give salary increases it appears that the employees are paying for the flood when they are the people working hard to contain it. In conclusion Mr. Ottley said that he appreciated the Council’s concern and realized that this was not an easy decision. Councilmember DePaulis reiterated his difficulty in supporting a 5% increase because of the total effect to the budget and taxpayers. He said that the total dedication of the employees was priceless in this flood emergency but he had to consider the total perspective of the City and felt that his suggestion was fair to everyone considering the economic circumstances of the City. Councilmember Whitehead said that when the Mayor originally suggested a one-time 6% payment to employees very few Council Members supported the recommendation.
But now because of the flood the issue of a 5% cost-of-living increase has become emotional and more difficult to decide. Mr. Whitehead said that he did not want the Council to be viewed as adversaries to the employees and reiterated that they have to consider the taxpayers as well as the employees. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Ottley to explain what he felt was meant by the clause “if funds are available” which is in the contracts. Mr. Ottley indicated that the meaning is obvious but the issue is the priority which is given to the employees because in any given year the funds are available.
Hermoine Jex addressed the flood portion of the tax increase. She said that everyone knew they would be taxed because of this disaster and she thought that recommendations ought to be included so that the best decisions would be made in regards to the redesign and restoration of damaged areas. She indicated that her community council wanted to be involved in the decision-making process. Ms. Jex also suggested that stronger site ordinances ought to be adopted. Bernice Cook, Peoples’ Freeway, thanked the Mayor, the Council, City workers, and the volunteers for their help with the flood. She said that her house was three blocks from 13th South and her property may have suffered serious damage if these people had not worked so hard against the flood.
Ms. Cook reiterated that everyone knew they would have to be taxed in order to pay for the flood but felt that this situation would not be paid for in one year. She said that even though the City employees have worked hard during the flood she did not want to see taxes raised in order to increase salaries. She supported Councilmember DePaulis’ plan and said that everyone needs to make sacrifices. William Lovelace, South Central council, agreed with the need to raise the mill levy to pay for the flood. He felt that voluntary contributions could be requested in order to help alleviate the cost.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred to the cost-of-living increase for the employees and said that if the 2% is not budgeted then no indication should be given that a 2% increase will be given. She did not think that the money would appear in the budget in order to pay for the raise. She said that she supported the 5% increase but as a compromise she suggested giving a 4% increase in July. Mayor Wilson appreciated Councilmember Fonnesbeck’s suggestion but still felt that the employees needed the 5% cost-of-living increase. Councilmember Davis asked Mayor Wilson if he had considered other funds or perhaps the postponement of capital improvements in order to find additional money. Mayor Wilson felt that the budget had been trimmed as much as possible and did not think the operational side of the budget could yield any more money.
Councilmember Shearer asked how the 2% increase in January would be budgeted. Councilmember Whitehead said that there would either need to be an increase in the mill levy or a potential reduction in the contingency fund. He suggested that perhaps there could be a compromise between the mill levy, contingency fund, and emergency fund. Councilmember DePaulis said that approximately $400,000 would be needed to fund the 2% increase and said that base salaries would increase by 5% but because of the delay in giving the 2% the cost to the City would be 4%. Mr. Haines said that next year base salaries would reflect a 5% increase because 2% would be deferred. He said that the difference between the Mayor’s recommendation and Councilmember DePaulis’ recommendation is $400,000. Councilmember Davis asked how this would affect the increase in the mill levy. Councilmember Shearer said the savings would be about .5 mills. Councilmember DePaulis felt that the employees could be assured a 5% increase with 3% in July and 2% in January. This would cost the City about $1.6 million which would be a reduction from the cost of giving the entire 5% in July. Councilmember Shearer felt that a funding mechanism for the salary increase needed to be decided upon before the mill levy is adopted. Councilmember Whitehead indicated that if money was used from fund balance for the 2% portion of the salary increase then that fund should not be affected because by January FEMA should have already reimbursed some of the City expenses.
Mr. Haines addressed the fund balance. He said they were projecting a $1.1 million fund balance as of the end of this year and were also estimating that the total flood expenses would be approximately $5 million which leaves a deficit fund balance of $3.9 million as of June 30, 1983. Assuming that the Council adopts the 2.75 mill increase for fund balance that would generate $2.5 million dollars which makes a net fund balance deficit (carry over fund balance) of $1.4 million. Also assuming that FEMA and the state reimburse the City $3.9 million for flood expenditures then the fund balance would be $2.5 million. $1.1 million fund balance projected - 5.0 flood expenses - 3.9 deficit as of June 30, 1983 + 2.5 2.75 mill increase - 1.4 deficit (carry over fund balance) + 3.9 possible reimbursement from FEMA and state 2.5 fund balance.
Mr. Haines said that if the Council puts 2.75 mills into contingency or takes a portion to be used for pay raises, then there will be a net deficit fund balance carry over because contingency is an expenditure appropriation. Fund balance is more restrictive and can only be used as the result of certain kinds of acts which apply under the statute. Mr. Haines said that if the Council did not fund the fund balance, create excess funds that cannot be appropriated, the year will end with a deficit. Councilmember Shearer asked if fund balance was available to the administration for spending during the emergency for flood related expenditures. Mr. Haines said that administration could deficit spend whether the money was in contingency or fund balance. Roger Cutler said that the Council could direct the City to stop deficit spending.
Mr. Haines felt that the 2.75 increase is a minimal amount to express fiscal responsibility and maintain a general fund that is acceptable to not only rating agencies but also the City and the community. Councilmember Whitehead suggested a 3.0 mill levy increase with the remainder for salary increases to be taken from the revenue generated for the emergency fund which would be the difference between the 2.75 and 3.0.
Councilmember Mabey said it would be about $175,000 from the emergency fund revenue. Councilmember Shearer expressed concern about the possibility of falling revenues and guaranteeing the 2% increase in January. Councilmember Mabey asked the total amount needed in order to accomplish the 3% raise in July and the 2% raise in January. Mr. Haines said that about $1.750 million was needed. A 3.2 mill levy increase would incorporate the 2.75 mill levy increase for the emergency fund and the 3%/2% salary increase. Mr. Haines said that the difference between the 3%/2% salary proposal and the Mayor’s recommendation is $400,000, less than 1% of the salary budget. The Mayor felt that the difference of $400,000 would mean the difference between support and insult as far as employees’ perceptions are concerned. Councilmember Mabey hoped that the employees would not feel insulted and said that there were some people who were barely surviving. Councilmember Whitehead said there were many people without jobs too.
Councilmember Shearer said that the county was increasing salaries 2.5% and the state was not increasing salaries. She said this year was difficult before the flood. Ms. Shearer was concerned that the Council was considering increasing expenditures at the time when revenues may be dropping. She felt that the compromise being discussed was more generous than what she was anticipating and was concerned that fund balance would have to be used to pay the salaries. Mayor Wilson reiterated that the employees are the people who will have to bear the brunt of the flood.
Councilmember Shearer indicated that the City has tried to honor the labor contracts even though the economic trend in the country has been poor. Last year when most people were not getting raises the City employees did get raises. She felt that it was irresponsible, when the City has fiscal responsibilities beyond its control, to be incurring other kinds of expenses that can be controlled. The Mayor reiterated that he felt the increase would be minimal, $11 per year on an average home, to fund his recommended increase. He felt this increase was worthwhile since the City could rely on the employees to keep thousands of dollars in damage from occurring.
Councilmember Parker said that people in business would be impacted much harder than home owners. Councilmember Davis said that a business worth $100,000 would be charged an additional $170. Councilmember Shearer said that she was not happy with the situation but felt that the increase had been limited. Councilmember Fonnesbeck indicated her displeasure but wanted a unanimous vote on this issue.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to approve a 3% cost-of-living increase effective July 1, 1983 and a 2% cost-of-living increase effective January 1, 1984, and to approve a 3.0 mill levy increase, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Resolution 59 of 1983, as amended, adopting budgets of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1983 and ending June 30, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to direct the City Attorney to amend the city employee compensation plan to reflect the 3% cost-of-living increase effective July 1, 1983 and the 2% cost-of-living increase effective January 1, 1984, said document to be returned June 14, 1983 for Council adoption, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(B 83-3)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
#1. Mr. Bart Lower said that he appreciated the Council and their hard work.
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.