PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 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 M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items on their agenda. Documents relating to alternatives for the budget prepared by Councilmembers were distributed.
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, JUNE 8, 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 lONE 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 and Councilmember Alice Shearer conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Bob Schrank.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, June 1, 1982, and for the meeting held May 27, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 82-2)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond assumption: SYSCO Corporation.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve a resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond assumption by SYSCO from SHIRE WAREHOUSE ASSOCIATES subject to the City Attorney’s approval of the resolution.
DISCUSSION: The bonds were originally issued by Salt Lake City and purchased by First Security Bank of Utah for the purpose of allowing Shire, a limited partnership, to acquire and expand an industrial warehouse located at 1880 West 1700 South. Shire wishes to sell the project to SYSCO Corporation under their approved inducement resolution. First Security Bank as bondholder and trustee, is willing to approve this assumption by SYSCO. Council approved SYSCO to issue Industrial Revenue Bonds on November 10, 1981.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 57 of 1982, for an Industrial Revenue Bond assumption by SYSCO Corporation, subject to the City Attorney’s approval, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-24)
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond application: James D. Easton, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider the approval of a resolution for the sale of Salt Lake City, Utah Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,000,000 for James D. Easton.
DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to construct an additional 70,000 square feet of warehousing and light manufacturing to be attached to an existing facility located at 5040 West Harold Gatty Drive at the Salt Lake International Center.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 58 of 1982, authorizing the issuance of Salt Lake City, Utah Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1982, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,000,000 for James D. Easton, Inc., subject to the City Attorney’s approval, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-23)
SALT LAKE CITY BUDGET: 1982-83
RE: Proposed budgets for Fiscal Year 1982-83 including proposed ordinances amending business license fees, amending excavation and obstruction fees, amending City Cemetery fees, amending park fees, and amending parking meter rates. Also an ordinance relating to the adoption of an employee compensation plan, a resolution of intent establishing a policy governing service fees and charges to enterprise funds, an ordinance relating to motor vehicle use, a resolution adopting budgets of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 1982-83, a resolution determining the rate of tax levy and levying taxes upon all real and personal property, an ordinance relating to an employment staffing document, and an ordinance relating to innkeeper license tax. Included is the budget for the Salt Lake City Library. Each individual budget item was discussed as follows. All budget items are on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder.
Ordinance: License Fees Levied.
An ordinance amending Section 20-3-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to License Fees Levied.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 35 of 1982, amending Section 20-3-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to License Fees Levied, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Ordinance: Excavation and Obstruction.
An ordinance amending Chapter 5 of Title 41 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Excavation and Obstruction by amending Sections 6, 7, 9, 13 and adding new sections 25 and 26.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 36 of 1982, as amended, amending Chapter 5 of Title 41 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Excavation and Obstruction by amending Sections 6, 7, 9, 13 and adding new Sections 25 and 26, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Ordinance: Sale of Grave Sites
An ordinance amending Sections 6-2-2 and 6-3-9 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Sale of Grave Sites and amending Chapter 2 of Title 6 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding thereto a new section 6-2-13.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 37 of 1982, amending Sections 6-2-2 and 6-3-9 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Sale of Grave Sites and amending Chapter 2 of Title 6 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah 1965, by adding thereto a new section 6-2-13, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Ordinance: Picnic Facilities Reservation Fee.
An ordinance amending Section 27-9-5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Picnic Facilities Reservation Fee.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 38 of 1982, amending Section 27-9-5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Picnic Facilities Reservation Fee, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Ordinance: City Employment Staffing Document
An ordinance amending Section 25-1-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to the adoption of an Employment Staffing Document for Salt Lake City.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer to the Committee of the Whole an ordinance amending Section 25-1-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to the adoption of an Employment Staffing Document for Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Shearer indicated that this would probably be placed on the Council agenda for June 15, 1982.
Ordinance: City Employee Compensation Plan.
An ordinance amending Section 25-1-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to City Employee Salaries and Benefits.
Councilmember Shearer referred to the Committee of the Whole an ordinance amending Section 25-1-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating City Employee Salaries and Benefits; referred without objection and to be placed on the Council agenda for June 15, 1982.
Resolution: Establishing a Policy Governing Service Fees and Charges to Enterprise Funds.
A resolution expressing legislative intention to charge enterprises owned and operated by the city for their proportionate share of municipal service costs. Councilmember Shearer stated that in the audit charges levied against enterprise funds by the city have to be justified; this resolution will define the scope in which the city can levy charges for those services.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 59 of 1982, expressing legislative intention to charge enterprises owned and operated by the city for their proportionate share of municipal service costs, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
An ordinance repealing Section 33-3-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Motor Vehicle Use.
Councilmember Shearer referred to the Committee of the Whole the ordinance repealing Section 33-3-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Motor Vehicle Use; referred without objection and to be placed on the Council agenda for June 15, 1982.
Resolution: Adopting Budgets of Salt Lake City, Utah.
A resolution adopting budgets of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1982 and ending June 30, 1983. Councilmember Davis referred the Council’s attention to Proposal C which was presented at the Council’s 5:00 p.m. Policy Session; she stated that most of the proposal had been discussed in previous meetings (Proposal C is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder). Ms. Davis indicated that Proposal C would substitute the 1% Innkeeper Tax, which would generate $550,000, with a 2% reduction in all Operating and Maintenance and Charges and Services budgets except Public Utilities, Airport, Development Services, Golf Course, and Wave Pool. She stated that the city would realize a cost saving of $495,800, within $50,000 of what would be realized by the 1% Innkeeper Tax.
Councilmember Davis referred the Council’s attention to a ledger sheet attached to Proposal C outlining the 2% reduction. She stated that this would present to the general public the aim of the Council to reduce city government; a 2% cut in services could be realized without any danger of services being cut. Ms. Davis further stated that she felt the department heads realize the financial crisis of the city and they would do their best to reduce their budgets by this percentage. She stated that this proposal is being presented because she felt strongly that the Innkeeper Tax is discriminatory toward a specific industry. Ms. Davis stated that the Council has only had the Innkeeper Tax proposal for two weeks and seemed to be in too big a hurry to pass this ordinance; the most equitable would be the 2% reduction.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that the 2% reduction had only been presented at the last minute and the Council has not had time to study the impact that this reduction would make. Mr. Whitehead stated that this should have been discussed weeks earlier. Councilmember Davis stated that she has talked with several department heads and it was indicated that a 2% reduction was not too much. This alternative was presented to see if city government could be cut; everything talked about so far has been to add on. This cut would not touch departments’ personnel budgets.
Mayor Wilson stated that the general idea of a percentage cut without delving into the specifics would be dangerous for the city. At the end of the budget process, there was not a department head that indicated they had 2% left to cut; the specifics were considered in the budget process including the cost of energy and energy costs have again started to raise. This proposed cut has come late in the process and should have been dealt with in a specific manner over the period of time the budget has been considered. The Mayor further stated that the departments worked hard on the budgets and there is not that kind of leeway in them this year. Councilmember Parker stated that he could see the need to find extra funds to be reduced from the budget but would it be fair to the city to thrust a 2% reduction on the city at the last minute. Albert Haines indicated that the administration only received a copy of Proposal C a few minutes before the meeting and stated that none of the departments, including the Budget Office, have had an opportunity to review the figures and identify what the cut could mean in service level reductions.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that a reduction seems to be in opposition - to the past general policy of the Council; for the last three years, the Council has attempted to take the time to study the issues and make recommended changes based on policy and not have a policy of just cutting a certain percentage. She stated that she trusted that the appropriate cuts had already been made by the department heads.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to amend the tentative budget presented by the Mayor with Proposal C, which motion failed, all members voting nay, except Council Members Mabey, Shearer and Davis who voted aye.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that his proposal was to amend the budget with Proposal A (this is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder). This proposal includes the 1% Innkeeper Tax and changes the total to be transferred from the General Fund to the Capital Improvements Program from $816,000, which the Mayor recommended, to $253,500.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that he wanted to amend Proposal A by moving the $85,000, savings realized from the freeze on executive salary increases, to the contingency fund; this goes along with the intent proposing to wait until the Williams Study is finished until the money is re-appropriated. In discussions on this item, it was felt to be appropriate that the Council take no position at the present time as to the allocation of this amount and look at it from a contingency standpoint by resolution after the study has been made.
Councilmember Shearer stated that she was surprised to learn that only 28 employees were involved in the Williams Study. There was a question as to the number of employees on the executive level pay plan; Jim McGuire stated that there are 52-54 positions budgeted for 1982-83 in the executive pay plan; 45.98 of the positions are charged to the general fund. Councilmember Davis stated that the Williams Study only involves 28 employees and asked if those employees not involved in the study would get a raise or would all executive level positions have to wait until the Williams Study is complete. Albert Haines stated that this salary study affects 28 positions city wide, it includes all funds with the exception of the Airport. Administration is looking at identifying a better distinction between an executive and non-executive employee. The $85,000 identifies a funding level for all executive employees (a 4% increase by the city assuming the employees’ share of retirement for all executives). Councilmember Davis asked if the $85,000 is put in contingency would the employees not involved in the study still get the 4% increase July 1. Mr. Haines stated he understood that the issue of a retirement pickup may be determined by the executive and the issue of appropriation rests with the Council. Roger Cutler stated that the question is whether, if the Council does not fund the money, there is an executive prerogative, if a savings can be found, to effectuate this if the compensation plan is adopted or it is within the scope of the executive authority. This would depend on the specificity with which the budget is adopted; first if the Council bars the money from being used for this purpose, and a policy decision, second, in the adoption of legislative intents indicates to the Mayor that the money should not be used for this purpose.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that if the money is in contingency it can be taken out anytime, the contingency just places the money under Council control. Councilmember Shearer stated that the 45 positions represent $2.2 million in the budget which averages out to about $45,000 apiece as executives. The Mayor stated that the reason the city has done so well in fighting the cost problem, reducing around 200 position, and getting a basic budget as small as it is this year is because of these executives; the Council has fundamentally supported the salaries for these people.
The $85,000 is a small amount considering that the salaries will be frozen, and if the Council wants to keep these people with the city the Mayor suggested that the $85,000 be kept in the budget; Councilmember DePaulis’ proposal is an acceptable compromise which allows final judgments to be made after the study. The Mayor further stated he understood that all executive salaries will be frozen and adjusted after the study. Councilmember Whitehead stated that he agreed with the Mayor that the city has good department heads and with the study currently being conducted the adjustments should be made after the study.
The Mayor stated that when the department heads were told that a recommendation would not be given to the Council for increased salaries, they accepted this as an act of leadership and have not complained. But it was felt that the $85,000 was a small amount that would help. Chief Willoughby, Chief of Police, asked what assurance there is that money will be available if the study indicates that the executives should get more money. Councilmember Fonnesbeck indicated that is the reason the money will be put in contingency. But Chief Willoughby stated that the $85,000 may not cover what the study will show the increases should be; Councilmember DePaulis stated that a resolution would indicate the amount needed.
Chief Willoughby stated that he was speaking for the four executives in his department and they were entitled to an increase. In the last three years the executives have not been given over a 5% increase. The Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer and department head ought to have some form of latitude to create the incentive for these people to do a better job; the junior executives need to get paid for saving tax dollars for the city. Councilmember DePaulis stated that the Council does not intend to deprive the executive function of any legitimate increase they should have for incentive; however if the money is in the contingency fund it can be moved at a later date. Chief Pederson, Fire Chief, stated that the majors in the police department and deputies in the fire department are not part of the classification study. As of July 1, there will be a 4% pay difference between the deputies and the employees they supervise; as of November 1 there will be less than a 1% difference. Some consideration should be given to those people not being considered in the study.
Councilmember Shearer stated that she opposed the amendment to the proposal because she wanted Proposal A to remain as it is. She stated a “yes” vote would move the $85,000 from a decrease in the budget to the contingency fund; a “no” vote would leave this as a decrease in the budget.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to amend Proposal A by moving the $85,000, savings realized from the freeze on executive salary increases, to the contingency fund instead of reducing the budget by this amount, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Shearer who voted nay. Councilmember DePaulis stated that the other amendment he wanted to make to Proposal A was to reduce the $250,000 reduction (reduction from Contingency Budget) to $54,130.
Councilmember Shearer stated that if this proposal passes it would require either a 1% Innkeeper Tax or a raise in the property tax; if the proposal does not pass there could be a reduction in the property tax with the Innkeeper Tax remaining or the Innkeeper tax could be reduced and the property tax left as is. She further stated that a “yes” vote will increase the expenditure in the General Fund $195,870; a “no” vote will leave the reduction of $250,000.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to amend Proposal A by reducing the $250,000 reduction (reduction from Contingency Budget) to $54,130, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Mabey, Davis, and Shearer who voted nay.
The Mayor addressed the issue of capital budget stating that he was not proud of his recommendation to cut capital improvements; this was fundamentally a zero tax-raising recommendation. Because of the elimination of certain capital improvements, the Council’s budget would mean a net difference of about $700,000 from what was recommended; Councilmember Shearer stated that a $700,000 reduction in overall city spending is recommended by this budget. The Mayor stated his point was that it would be better not to cut taxes because this money would be better served in the fundamental capital improvements that are needed. Councilmember DePaulis stated that he felt his proposal was the fairest way to account for the shift which was proposed in the Mayor’s budget. Mr. DePaulis stated he was proposing that instead of the residential property owners experiencing a mill levy increase to account for the shift (reduction) they will receive in the franchise collection, this will be absorbed by cuts in the city budget; the taxpayers would be getting a tax reduction but in the form of the franchise reduction.
Councilmember Mabey stated that the budget has been balanced the last three years with public works money; several roads have been lost because of poor maintenance. In the future this maintenance is going to cost the taxpayers money. Councilmember DePaulis stated that if the contingency fund is available then it is appropriate to address this situation from the contingency by Council resolution. Councilmember Mabey stated that he hoped the Council would be supportive of using CDBG monies for capital improvements.
Mike Fletcher, President of the Salt Lake Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, addressed the Council regarding the proposed Innkeeper Tax. He stated that tourism is the city’s largest single industry producing more revenue for the city and business community than any other single industry. Tourism as an entity is Salt Lake City’s largest employer and specifically employs entry-level, non-educated, individuals who might otherwise be on welfare rolls. This ordinance imposes a disproportionate tax on a single industry; there are constitutional provisions, both state and federal, that require equality of taxation.
Mr. Fletcher further stated that based on legal council’s advice, the industry and individual hotel and motel operators are prepared to take this issue to court should it pass. Precedent has been set in three similar court cases for this type of disproportionate taxation. Mr. Fletcher stated that in the public hearing held May 25, 1982, all testimony regarding the Innkeeper Tax was in opposition; subsequently both the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News published editorials in opposition to the tax, there has not been one letter to the editor favoring the tax. Mr. Fletcher asked how the Council could be in favor of a tax that has no visible public support and no support from the business community and a variety of associations.
Mr. Fletcher urged the Council to let the lodging industry to do what they do best without burdening them further. Councilmember DePaulis stated that he felt this was an honest impact for the tourists to absorb when they visit Salt Lake City. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that Jack Olson, Utah Taxpayers Association, indicated that to raise property taxes at this time would be disastrous; it was also pointed out that property tax in Salt Lake City is higher than property tax in other cities. The Council is threatened by the fact that the legislature is going to remove money from the city’s sales tax. If Salt Lake City is to survive, ways must be found to broaden the base. Mr. Fletcher stated that Mr. Olson also indicated that he would support a property tax increase over the Innkeeper Tax. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she has heard from several of her constituents and they have indicated that they would rather not have an increase in property tax. Councilmember Davis recalled that Fred Ball, Chamber of Commerce, stated in a letter that he was opposed to this tax and would prefer it on the business license fees.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Proposal A as amended, as an amendment to the tentative budget proposed by the Mayor; also the totals will reflect the two changes to Proposal A, the changes being $85,000 to contingency and $195,870 to contingency bringing the total reduction to $1,200,000, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Mabey and Davis who voted nay. Councilmember Davis explained that she felt the Innkeeper Tax was discriminatory.
Brian Harris, Utah Public Employees Association, addressed the Council stating that UPEA is the only union in negotiation with the city. The move to freeze the merit increases in the clerical and technical unit is a direct impact on those employees. Last year, UPEA opted for the merit increases rather than the three-step pay plan. If the merits are frozen it will be the feeling of the clerical and technical employees that the Council is breaking a faith that they felt they had with the city in that merits would be funded. Five percent is being offered now but employees would not get their merit, which amounts to 5%, so in effect this amounts to no increase for over 75% of the people in this unit.
Mr. Harris stated that it costs approximately $122,000 to fund the increases and it is best to fund this so the faith of the employees is not lost; otherwise there will be a morale problem as well as a productivity problem. If the Council cannot do this, Mr. Harris suggested that they direct the departments to fund the merit increases out of their budgets; he stated that he had talked with some of the administrators and they felt this was a possibility. The city’s greatest asset is its employees. Charlie Quick, Local 1645, asked if the proposal excluded longevity pay increases for employees. Councilmember Shearer stated that as of July 1, this proposal eliminates longevity as a program for people becoming eligible.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt the tentative budget as amended by Proposal A, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Mabey and Davis who voted nay. Councilmember Shearer stated that without objection the budget would be amended to include a $10,000 energy grant and delete $330,000 of special assessments income.
Salt Lake City Library Budget
The next item discussed was the Salt Lake City Library budget (this information is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder). Councilmember Davis asked when the Avenues or East Bench libraries would be in operation if Proposal B is approved. Dennis Day, Library Director, stated that they would be in operation by approximately the end of the summer assuming both the operating budget and capital budget were approved. Mr. Day outlined Proposals C, B, and A. Budget C will permit the Library to operate at its present level; present level being defined as maintaining the Library with staff reductions realized last year, there will be some salary increases. Budget C would increase by 1/4 mill. Budget B creates the possibility for one portabranch to be installed and operated; that would be about 1/3 mill increase.
In addition, the capital is required for this. Budget A permits the Library to operate two new branch libraries, one on the East Bench and one in the Avenues; this would require an additional $1,000,000 to be raised, possibly some of the money could be raised through donations. There would be approximately a 1/2 mill increase. Mr. Day stated that the location of the porta-structure has not been determined in the event that Budget B is approved.
Councilmember Shearer stated that in Budget C there is $177,925 put into a special fund designated as the new-library-branch fund; she asked if this comes out of the 3.25 mills. Mr. Day stated that this was partially correct; the revenue side of that particular budget was including the concept of $90,000 from some other source. The $177,000 would then be set aside and earmarked for a branch facility. In regards to Budget B, Councilmember Davis asked when the employees of the porta-library would be put on payroll. Mr. Day stated that they would not be on payroll until the library opened. Ms. Davis further asked what would happen to the money designated for their salaries from July 1 until the library opens.
Mr. Day stated that it would fall within excess funds for the year at the end of the year as unexpended money. However, Mr. Day further stated that he was willing to earmark that money towards the additional cost of the porta-library. Councilmember Shearer stated that she was concerned about the $177,000 in Proposal C which was to be put into the new-library-branch fund; she stated that if the city is seriously considering closing public buildings as fire stations, then the city cannot afford to be building more buildings. Ms. Shearer stated that she was a great fan of the library and thought that they operated a conservative and well-run operation but she stated at this time she is opposed to their expansion into capital buildings. Mr. Day stated that the $177,000 figure was misleading because only about $52,000 of the $177,000 is coming out of this year’s money. The $177,000 is predicated upon a $90,000 appropriation from the city.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to accept Proposal C of the Library Budget but eliminate the new-library-branch fund and delete $52,000 from the total budget, which motion failed, all members voting nay except Councilmember Shearer who voted aye.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to accept Proposal B of the Library Budget but those funds specified for management and operation of a future porta-branch be encumbered until the time they are so needed, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Shearer who voted nay.
City Council Legislative Intents
#1: It is the intent of the City Council to reduce personnel services costs in each department by 10%. To this end, it is the intent of the City Council that a performance audit be completed on the cost of personnel services budget in each department with a recommendation as to how savings may be realized.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Intent #1, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
#2: It is the intent of the City Council that an early retirement proposal be submitted to the City Council by November, 1982 with a recommendation as to whether or not this would be a viable means of reducing personnel costs to the city.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Intent #2, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Mabey who abstained from voting.
#3: It is the intent of the City Council that no Executive Level salary increases be given until the study by Williams Associates on comparable salary data for executive level positions is completed and reported to the City Council. The report should include a breakdown of components of any and all salary increases or decreases recommended for executives. Councilmember Whitehead stated that he had no problem with having the departments fund the increases of those employees not involved in this study. Councilmember Shearer stated that voting in favor of this intent would freeze the increases and a vote against would leave the decision up to administration.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Intent #3, which motion motion failed, all members voting nay, except Councilmember Parker who voted aye.
#4: Municipal Affairs Budget/Sugarhouse Park. It is the intent of the City Council that the city again contribute $75,000 to Sugarhouse Park. It is the finding of the City Council that the city also has contributed the cost of the water to maintain Sugarhouse Park. It is the intent of the City Council that the city continue to contribute the cost of the water for Sugarhouse Park as long as it is economically feasible to do so. However, it is the intent of the City Council that city staff develop an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County Sheriff‘s Office for assistance at Tanner Park in lieu of the county participating 50% in payment of the Sugarhouse Park water supply charges.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Intent #4, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
#5: Municipal Affairs Budget/Utah League of Cities & Towns. It is the intent of the City Council that the city’s contribution to the Utah League of Cities and Towns remain at the amount funded for the 1981-82 budget year, of $37,500. The City Council believes that an increase in the city’s contribution cannot be justified because of the in lieu of services Salt Lake City provides to the League.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Intent #5, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
#6: Police and Fire. In approving the Personnel Management budgets for the police and fire departments, the Salt Lake City Council believes and intends that a voluntary, adequate physical fitness program, coupled with mandatory annual physical readiness examinations, is the best physical fitness policy. The Executive Branch is requested to submit to the Council a report on the physical fitness program for public safety personnel and a program for reducing disability leaves and disability retirement.
Leigh von der Esch stated that there needed to be an amendment to the Intent to indicate that the program would be funded out of existing funds; this is not asking for a program to be created that will require funding. Councilmember Davis suggested there be a date as to when this should be accomplished; it was agreed that January 1, 1983 be the deadline.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Intent #6, with the amendment that this intent shall be funded from current revenues and accomplished by January 1, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Whitehead who voted nay.
#7: Mayor/Crime Prevention. In the City Council priorities and policies for 1982-83 submitted to Rodger Neve and Albert Haines on November 16, 1981, the following was noted as a policy of the Council: The Council is concerned that with elimination of LEAA grant and the reduction of other federal grants, educational and crime prevention programs will have to be funded through the General Fund. It is the Council’s concern that programs funded by federal grants do not revert to general funding when current grants expire. To this end, the City Council requests the Police Department to examine the possibility of a volunteer program to train residents in ways to protect themselves and their property. The City Council is concerned that the Crime Prevention Program and Training Services Program overlap and that according to their program descriptions there is duplication of efforts to train citizens in crime prevention. It is the intent of the City Council that a performance audit be completed on these two programs to determine where savings can be realized and consolidation can occur, and that the audit be submitted to the Council by February 1, 1983, prior to consideration of the budget for 1983-84. Currently, CDBG is funding the Crime Prevention Program budget of $114,654. It is further the intent of the Council that a corresponding reduction be made in the Training Services program and that further savings be realized by the use of neighborhood volunteers wherever possible. Councilmember DePaulis mentioned that the possibility of looking at this as an audit item had been considered.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Intent #7, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken and Councilmember Mabey who abstained from voting.
#8: Mayor/Community Services. In funding the Community Services program of $51,938 and the Neighborhood Support Services program of $129,025, it is the intent of the City Council that criteria be developed to determine what printing requests will be approved and printed at the expense of this program. The Council intends that unnecessary duplication and printing costs be eliminated. It is further the intent of the Council that criteria be established to determine when meetings should be scheduled to resolve citizen complaints and the staffing level at such meetings. It is the Council’s concern that unnecessary meetings are being held which are taking valuable staff time and are unfavorably impacting all city departments as well as the Citizen Participation Department itself.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Intent #8, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#9: Attorney/Legal Advice & Support. In approving the $201,406 budget for Legal Advice and Support, which includes an approximate 11% reduction in spending over last year, it is the Council’s intent that there be no reduction in service in terms of the priority and policy set by the Council and identified to Rodger Neve, Director OBMP, and Albert Haines, CAO, on November 16, 1981 (i.e., timeliness of ordinance drafting services, legal opinions, contractual agreements, and other legal services). It is further the intent of the Council that the turn-around time on ordinance requests be reduced by 50%. Also, in both the 1980-81 and 1981-82 budget years, the Council has expressed a concern about the increasing backlog of land use issues which require legal resolution.
The Council has also requested previously that more than one attorney be trained in land use issues. There has been no evidence that would indicate a second attorney has been trained in land use issues and is available on a regular basis to the Council and the Planning Commission, and attending board and commission meetings (i.e., Housing Advisory and Appeals Board, Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, etc.). It is therefore, the intent of the Council in accepting this budget recommendation that no decrease in legal advice and support be experienced, but rather, that legal advice and support be increased in the area of land use issues.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Intent #9, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#10: City Attorney/Civil Litigation. It is the intent of the City Council that in funding the requested budget for the Civil Litigation program of the City Attorney’s Office, that the City Attorney file the Public Service Commission suit, and that a status report on the suit be presented to the Council no later than August 1, 1982.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Intent #10, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#11: Development Services. It is the intent of the City Council that a performance audit be performed for Development Services by January 15, 1983, indicating where productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness have been increased for all programs due to the recent reorganization of the department, and also the cost benefit of the reorganization.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Intent #11, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#12: Development Services/Zoning Compliance and Housing Preservation. By approving the decreases in the Housing Preservation and Zoning Compliance programs, it is the Council’s understanding and intent that 100% of reported zoning and code violations be investigated and resolved. It is further the Council’s intent that litigation be viewed as a last resort for code and zoning enforcement.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Intent #12, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#13: Development Services/Continuing Services. In approving the $286,638 budget for this program it is the intent of the City Council that the 49% reduction in this budget be realized in contractual services, etc., and that staff support services to the Planning Commission and other land use, zoning and housing commissions not be reduced. Councilmember Davis stated that the Council was asking for an audit of Development Services and asked if a decision about the reduction should be made after the audit. Councilmember Shearer stated that the reduction has already been made; the 49% reduction is in the budget. The direction of the intent is to make sure that the staffing of the Planning Commission remain intact. This did not reduce any people, it was a reduction of the consultants’ fees.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Intent #13, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#14: Finance & Administrative Services/Finance & Administrative Management. It is the intent of the City Council that the position of Director of Finance & Administrative Services not be authorized for Fiscal Year 1982-83.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Intent #14, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Whitehead who voted nay and Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#15: Finance & Administrative Services/Personnel Services. It is the intent of the City Council that the Council receive a report from the Personnel Officer by September 1, 1982 justifying the 55% increase in the cost per training program in staff time, from $240 to $373.61, and explaining the increase in personnel actions from 46,428 to 67,028 (44%), and also report to the Council as to why personnel services does not provide the services for the fire department and police department in order to realize a savings in personnel management costs in these departments.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Intent #15, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#16: Finance & Administrative Services/Facility Services-Animal Control. In approving the Facility Services budget, it is the intent of the city Council that a review be conducted of the entire operation of Animal Control enforcement activities including recommendations for improving enforcement. It is the intent of the City Council that a performance audit be completed by September 1, 1982 recommending a change in operations that will result in at least a 50% increase in efficiency and productivity. Included in the performance audit should be a proposal for contracting services to increase compliance with Sec. 100-1-6 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Intent #16, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#17: Fire/Emergency Response-Inspection. In funding Fire Emergency Response at the base budget amount of $3,356,046 and the Fire Inspection program at the base budget amount of $1,930,553, it is the intent of the City Council that the level of inspections be maintained at proposed levels.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Intent #17, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#18: Fire/Fire Station #15. It is the finding of the Salt Lake City Council that Fire Station #15 affords unique protection to the University and the surrounding neighborhood due to its capacity to house equipment that cannot presently be accommodated at Stations #4 and #10. The City Council recommends to the Mayor that Station #15 continue in operation at least until such time as comparable facilities are provided. Councilmember Davis asked what was meant by “comparable facilities”; she was concerned that it might mean if comparable facilities are built on the west side then Fire Station No. 15 will be closed. Councilmember Shearer stated that the comparable facilities would have to be in that area.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Intent #18, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#19: Parks/Wave Pool. It is the Council’s intent that in lieu of forgiving the $450,000 Wave Pool construction loan debt, the interest on the loan be waived for the 1982-83 year. It is further the intent of the Council that a report be made to the Council by November 1, 1982 on future capital project recommendations that would further increase the profitability of the Wave Pool operations with a breakdown of estimated costs and anticipated revenues. It is further the intent of the Council that an analysis be made on the overall management of the Wave Pool by November 1, 1982.
Included in the management analysis should be recommendations on improving profitability through increased efficiency of operation. It is also the intent of the Council that if the Wave Pool is not operating at a significant profit at the end of September 1982 that the Council receive a proposal by January 1, 1983 to contract with private enterprise to operate the pool for the 1983- 84 fiscal year. Councilmember Parker asked what was meant by “significant”. Councilmember Davis stated that no money had been applied towards the loan debt, only the interest has been paid. This intent would waive the interest for one year to see if a profit can be made.
Councilmember Whitehead indicated that he still had a question about what is “significant profit”. Councilmember Mabey stated that other swimming pools are subsidized constantly and the Wave Pool was constructed in an effort to have a pool on the west side; some of the increases seem to be defeating the purpose to provide this facility for those people. It appears that if this pool is operated by private enterprise then only the elite will be able to afford using the pool. Councilmember Shearer stated that the intent is only asking for a report at the end of the season. Councilmember Davis stated that after the report is received then the Council can take action; she suggested deleting the last paragraph. Councilmember Mabey stated that if money is being lost then the recent increase has defeated the purpose. This facility was built so it could be used by the people in that area, as well as everyone else who wants to use the facility. Councilmember Shearer expressed concern about deleting the last paragraph because if the Council has the report November 1 and a possible request for proposal is initiated at the time, the proposal would not be received in time for the season to open. Ms. Shearer stated that the Council could still set the rates if the pool was under a contract.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to amend Intent #19 by deleting the last paragraph, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Shearer and Parker who voted nay and Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Intent #19 as amended, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#20: Parks/Recreational Activities. It is the intent of the Council that the parks department continue to acquire sponsors for recreational activities and that the percentage of total parks department recreational activities sponsored by private enterprise be increased by 15%. Councilmember Davis asked how the Council was going to know that this was being met. Councilmember Shearer stated that the department measures by the participation and the Council is informed every year.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Intent #20, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#21: Police/Traffic Safety. It is the intent of the City Council that 76 guarded school crossing locations be provided from the base budget amount. Councilmember Mabey stated that there were two areas he was concerned about and he wanted to see the map. Councilmember Shearer stated that the Council has been assured that 76 is the current number. She further stated that if it is not accurate then it can be amended by the Council.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Intent #21, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#22: Police. It is the intent of the City Council, as indicated to Rodger Neve and Albert Haines on November 16, 1981, that all public safety ordinances be enforced. If the police department feels a public safety ordinance is not enforceable, the Council requests that the department refer it to the City Attorney’s Office for recommendations pertaining to amendment or repeal. If not, it is the Council’s intent that all public safety ordinances will be enforced.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Intent #22, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#23: Police/Training Services. In the City Council priorities and policies for 1982-83 submitted to Rodger Neve and Albert Haines on November 16, 1981, the following was noted as a policy of the Council: The Council is concerned that with elimination of LEAA grant and the reduction of other federal grants, educational and crime prevention programs will have to be funded through the General Fund. It is the Council’s concern that programs funded by federal grants do not revert to general funding when current grants expire. To this end, the City Council requests the Police Department to examine the possibility of a volunteer program to train residents in ways to protect themselves and their property.
The City Council is concerned that the Crime Prevention Program and Training Services Program overlap and that according to their program descriptions there is duplication of efforts to train citizens in crime prevention. It is the intent of the City Council that a performance audit be completed on these two programs to determine where savings can be realized and consolidation can occur, and that the audit be submitted to the Council by February 1, 1983, prior to consideration of the budget for 1983-84. Currently, CDBG is funding the Crime Prevention Program budget of $114,654. It is further the intent of the Council that a corresponding reduction be made in the Training Services program and that further savings be realized by the use of neighborhood volunteers wherever possible.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Intent #23, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#24: Public Works/Transportation-Street Lighting. In the past, the city has paid the power costs for street lighting during the often lengthy time that districts received lighting without assessment to the property owners. It is the intent of the Council that revenue loss to all taxpayers be stopped through better management of the street lighting assessment program. In approving the $2,503,156 budget for the Street Lighting Program, the City Council intends that by January 31, 1983 the Mayor will submit to the City Council a report on the street lighting assessment procedures and a program that will facilitate the timeliness of street lighting assessment.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Intent #24, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#25: Public Works/Traffic Signals. It is the intent of the City Council that after the 1982-83 year no further funding be given for synchronization of traffic signals. It is the Council’s understanding that the synchronized and computerized system will be completed in the 1982-83 fiscal year. It is the intent of the Council that Service Level Alternative I be funded, with the understanding that this will delay the computerized system one month (Jim Talebreza indicated in his report to the Council in April that the system is expected to be in place early in 1983).
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Intent #25 with the deletion of the second paragraph, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#26: Public Works/Sidewalk Replacement Program. In approving the 1982-83 Budget for the Sidewalk Replacement program with the addition of $300,000 to the program the City Council intends the following: 1. The funds are to be used for the intended purpose of sidewalk replacement, and not to fund salaries. 2. That $50,000 of the budget be earmarked for sidewalk replacement on the East Bench. 3. A quarterly report will be submitted to the City Council reflecting the following: a) work accomplished to date; b) requests outstanding; c) budget remaining.
It is further the intent of the City Council that the $300,000 increase to this budget be used and reflected in the accomplishment of the approximately 65,000 lineal feet of sidewalk to be replaced as noted in the workload and that the percentage of requests completed be increased from 50% to 70%. Councilmember Shearer indicated that numbers 1 and 2 should be deleted stating that there would not be a program without the salary money.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Intent #26 with the deletion of numbers 1 and 2, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#27: Public Works. It is the intent of the City Council that the Public Works Department repair St. Mary’s Way in Salt Lake City, and that the project be completed prior to November 1, 1982. Funding for this project is to come from City Contingency Funds. Jim Talebreza stated that the Council will be notified about the extent of repair needed after the study is done.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Intent #27, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
#28: It is the intent of the City Council that Council Members and/or designee(s) will be provided access to documentation acquired by OBMP in the preparation of the budget for 1982-83. Mr. Haines stated that some of the working information is privileged; all the official documents are available for inspection. He further stated that information has not been withheld upon request and requests to meet with members have not be denied. Councilmember DePaulis stated that he felt this was an administrative problem rather than a budget intent. Councilmember Davis stated that she felt this was ambiguous.
Councilmember Shearer moved to adopt Intent #28; motion died for lack of a second.
#29: It is the intent of the City Council that no less than two appraisals be received on all surplus real property for sale. It is further the intent of the City Council that notice of sale be published in at least one daily newspaper for at least the seven consecutive days immediately preceding receipt of public bid. This intent shall apply to all sale of real property funding for the Capital Improvement budget for 1982-83.
Councilmember Davis stated that several weeks ago in a Council meeting it was indicated that a sign should be posted on property and she suggested that a clause to that effect be included. Councilmember Whitehead asked about impact to cost by having two appraisals. Councilmember Davis stated that it would depend upon the property. The Mayor stated that this could be a significant cost; he further stated that a second appraisal is always done if there is a disagreement with the property owner but normally it is acceptable to have one appraisal if the amount is not being contested. Councilmember Shearer stated that she thought the cost could be recouped if the city did a good advertising job and accepted the highest bids and none under the highest appraisal.
Councilmember Davis stated that the following sentence should be included after the word bid” (before the last sentence), “and that a ‘For Sale’ sign be posted on said property.” The Mayor stated that it seemed this intent would be more appropriate in a city ordinance. Councilmember Shearer stated that at the time the surplus property ordinance was written the Council was advised that this was not applicable to all situations. On pieces of property where the city will receive income, it is important to have them widely advertised and highest bids received. Councilmember Davis stated that she thought having two appraisals would be a safeguard. The Mayor stated that this is a costly procedure and the appraisals probably would not be that different.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Intent #29 with the sentence “and that a “For Sale” sign be posted on said property” included after the word “bid” (before the last sentence), which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Parker who voted nay and Council Members Fonnesbeck and DePaulis who were absent when the vote was taken.
#30: It is the intent of the City Council that alternate sources be considered for funding the request for $112,500 to eliminate the gas leakage at the Metropolitan Hall of Justice. It is the intent of the City Council that the city approach the county for their participation in this project and that the administration come back to the Council with alternate funding sources. Council Members Mabey and Whitehead felt that this could be funded with Redevelopment money. Councilmember Shearer stated that this was not a firm figure.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Intent #30, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Whitehead and Mabey who abstained from voting and Council Members Fonnesbeck and DePaulis who were absent when the vote was taken.
Resolution: Determining the Rate of Tax Levy. 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. Councilmember Shearer deferred action on this resolution until Thursday, June 10, 1982; deferred without objection.
Ordinance: Parking Meter Rates An ordinance amending Section 153 of the Traffic Code of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Parking Meter Rates. Councilmember Parker thought there ought to be an assortment of half-hour and full-hour meters.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 39 of 1982, amending Section 153 of the Traffic Code of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Parking Meter Rates, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Fonnesbeck and DePaulis who were absent when the vote was taken.
Ordinance: Innkeeper License Tax. An ordinance amending Chapter 3 of Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding a new section 15 relating to Innkeeper License Tax.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 40 of 1982, amending Chapter 3 of Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding a new section 15 relating to Innkeeper License Tax, with the amendment that the tax be 1%, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Mabey and Davis who voted nay and Council Members Fonnesbeck and DePaulis who were absent when the vote was taken.
(B 82-4), R 82-14, O 82-37, O 82-3E, O 82-35, B 82-5, O 82-34, O 82-33, O 82-32 O 82-31, O 82-30, O 82-29, B 82-6)
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.