PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, MAY 17, 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
John Swain presented the parks department Recovery Action Plan and requested that the Council approve the plan so it can be presented to HUD as a request for funding for improvements at City parks. Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items appearing on the agenda. The Council adjourned to the Council Chambers where they presented certificates of completion to new police officers who went on duty Monday, May 16, 1983.
The policy session adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, MAY 17, 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 Edward W. Parker conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Brian Jones.
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 the meeting held Tuesday, May 10, 1983, and for the special meeting held May 12, 1983, which notion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 83-1)
Special Recognition:
#1. Mayor Wilson presented a proclamation to Michael Ashton who served as Mayor-for-a-day on Wednesday, April 20, 1983. Mayor Wilson said that Michael had been a good “mayor”; he participated in meetings regarding pest control and drinking drivers, attended the grand opening of the renovated Nibley Park golf course, and also accompanied the Mayor on a neighborhood walk in the Jackson-Guadeloupe area. The Mayor also said that Michael was an exceptional young man with a great future ahead of him.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the proclamation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(G 83-15)
#2. Councilmember Parker presented a plaque to Bob Doidge for his work on the Sugarhouse Beautification Special Improvement District. Dr. Parker said that Mr. Doidge is the chairman of the Sugarhouse beautification committee which had worked over a year to bring the special improvement district to a successful conclusion; it was a hotly contested project. Dr. Parker said that he was grateful for the efforts that had been made towards the project and said that this improvement district will do a great deal for Sugarhouse and Salt Lake City.
Mr. Doidge expressed his sincere thanks and appreciation for the honor the Council gave him. He said that the real credit belongs to the many people who have given their time and effort to this project, which included City employees, the Mayor, the Council, and the Sugarhouse community. He thanked Dr. Parker for his guidance and support. He said that when the project is completed he hopes that all will be proud of the part which they played in this beautification.
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUThORI1Y
#1. RE: A resolution amending Resolution 32 of 1983 adopted by the Salt Lake City Council on April 28, 1983, relating to the Airport Revenue Bonds. Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Resolution 39 of 1983 amending Resolution 32 of 1983 adopted by the Salt Lake City Municipal Council on April 28, 1983, authorizing the advertisement for sale of $25,500,000 Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 1983, of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “Series 1983 Bonds”) to amend the official bid form, the official notice of bond sale and the preliminary official statement for said bonds in certain respects; changing the discount rate and basis for award for the sale of the Series 1983 Bonds and related matters; amending information relating to litigation matters; adding provisions pertaining to insurance for the Series 1983 Bonds; authorizing and ratifying certain acts taken and to be taken in connection with such natters; and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-11)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) Program and Recovery Action Plan.
DISCUSSION: The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) Program was established in 1978 to provide federal aid through the National Park Service to communities for the rehabilitation of recreation areas and facilities. Salt Lake City has received two grants under this program; one for $420,000 to rehabilitate Fairmont and Pioneer Parks, and another for $15,000 to prepare a Recovery Action Plan. During 1981 and 1982, Congress did not fund the UPARR Program, but on March 23, 1983, President Reagan enacted the “Jobs Bill” which provided $40 million from UPARR rehabilitation grants. According to National Park Service regulations, only cities with Recovery Action Plans approved by May 27, 1983 will be eligible for UPARR grants under the Jobs Bill.
The Salt Lake City Parks Department has prepared a Recovery Action Plan which meets National Park Service criteria. It must be adopted by the City Council as the official guide to recreation policy and action before final National Park Service approval can be given. The City has prepared a grant pre-application for $435,000 in UPARR funds to rehabilitate Rose Park Tot-Lot and Jordan Park. The required City match of $215,000 will come from projects budgeted in prior years.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to refer the UPARR and Recovery Action Plan to the consent agenda for May 24, 1983, which notion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 83-1l)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: A resolution relating to tax and revenue anticipation notes for 1983.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Resolution 40 of 1983 approving the form of a preliminary official statement and authorizing the mailing of letters of introduction and requests for proposals to potential purchasers in connection with the issuance of tax and revenue anticipation notes for 1983, which notion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-11)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: Public Utilities Advisory Board.
RECOMMENDATION: Appoint John S. Bonnet and reappoint Roger Boyer.
DISCUSSION: John S. Bonnet is recommended to fill the existing vacancy on the Public Utilities Advisory Board caused by the expiration of Clifford Ashton’s term. It is also recommended to reappoint Roger Boyer for another term since his term on the Board has expired.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve the appointment of John S. Bonnet and the reappointment of Roger Boyer to the Public Utilities Advisory Board, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 83-13)
#2. RE: Salt Lake Art Design Board.
RECOMMENDATION: Reappoint Virginia Frobes-Wetzel.
DISCUSSION: The term of Virginia Frobes-Wetzel on the Salt Lake Art Design Board recently expired. It is recommended that she be reappointed for another term. Her disclosure statement is on file in the recorder’s office.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to refer this reappointment to the consent agenda for May 24, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 82-22)
#3. RE: Contribution to Utahns Against Hunger.
RECOMMENDATION: Transfer $15,000 from the general fund contingency to the Mayor’s office for a one-time contribution to this organization.
DISCUSSION: The Mayor was recently contacted by representatives from Utahns Against Hunger regarding the severe impact they have felt in meeting the increased demand for food assistance in the Salt Lake community. The combination of high unemployment, and an increase in the transient population along with reductions in federal programs has resulted in a ten-fold increase in the demand for food assistance in the community. It is projected that the program will be running a deficit through September of 1983 of some $29,000 and that it will require some $15,000 to keep the program operative in Salt Lake City. Because of the hardships faced in the community, the Mayor felt it would be appropriate for the City to participate on a one-time basis to help meet this emergency need. Peter Holdorf, director of Utahns Against Hunger, said that their organization serves low-income people and there has been an enormous increase of people requesting help but the organization has faced diminishing resources; about 100 people a day have been asking for assistance. Mr. Holdorf said that in the past a great deal of funding was received from national religious organizations but over the last year these organizations have begun to decrease funding of hunger programs. Mr. Holdorf said that their organization has a staff of 10 with about four or five volunteers; the organization also has a full-time attorney who works with the legal aspects of people having difficulty on federal food programs. Utahns Against Hunger also has a large outreach campaign to help people in the Salt Lake area understand the kinds of programs which are available. An attempt has been made to alleviate the deficit by moving to a different location that will be donated.
Mr. Holdorf indicated that the shortfall was caused because some expected funds did not materialize and the greater workload made it necessary to retain workers that were going to be laid off. He concluded by saying that the organization is approaching local foundations for funds and that they were currently negotiating with United Way to join that organization. Mayor Wilson said that even though the City is facing budget problems he strongly recommended this small one-time contribution because there are people going hungry and this affects the entire community.
Councilmember Whitehead asked if this service would be duplicating what other agencies are doing. The Mayor said that there was a CD grant to the rescue mission, but it is not a duplication of this service. Councilmember Mabey indicated that this money would be used for salaries so the program could continue operating. Councilmember DePaulis said that this was a top-notch advocacy agency and mainly residents from Salt Lake City use the service.
Councilmember Shearer said that there was enough money in CD slippage to fund this request; Mayor Wilson said that he would have to check to make sure this project qualifies for CD slippage. Councilmember Shearer said that similar programs have been funded from CD and if possible would rather have that money used.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Resolution 42 of 1983 funding a one-time contribution of $15,000 from the CD program slippage for Utahns Against Hunger, which notion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 83-10)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: Interlocal license agreement for installation and maintenance of gauging stations.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the inter-local agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Recorder to sign on behalf of Salt Lake City.
DISCUSSION: Salt Lake County would like to continue to monitor the flows of the streams and major canals within Salt Lake County at locations originally utilized by the United States Geological Survey under a previous agreement with Salt Lake City Corporation. This agreement would permit Salt Lake County to continue the monitoring program already established.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to refer to the consent agenda for May 24, 1983, the resolution authorizing the interlocal agreement, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 83-171)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Construction contract award, Concrete Replacement Special Improvement District 40-R-5.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution granting approval for the Mayor to award a contract with Robert Williams Engineering for the construction of the Special Improvement District.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Fiscal Year 1982-83 general funds and property owner assessments (Special Improvement District).
DISCUSSION: Concrete Replacement District 40-R-5 is comprised of the downtown target area streets, St. Mary’s Way and various city non-contiguous streets. The project will consist of removal and reconstruction of deteriorated curb and gutter, sidewalk, driveways and recessed parking areas and construction of wheelchair ramps and drainage facilities. Robert Williams Engineering was the low bidder for the project; the bid was below the engineer’s estimate. Construction of improvements on 40-R-5 will begin in June, 1983, and the project will be completed by October, 1983.
The deteriorated concrete in all areas established in the Special Improvement District will be replaced during this construction season. Mr. Max Peterson, city engineer, said that bids were opened before the Council two weeks earlier and then referred to the engineering office for tabulation. The low bid is Robert Williams Engineering in the amount of $594,796.95. Councilmember Davis asked about the completion bond in the contract and if there was a designated length of time in which the work would be done.
Mr. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said that a performance and materialman’s bond are required. One guarantees labor and material payment and the second bond guarantees performance. Mr. Peterson said that the contract should be complete in about 120 days. Councilmember Davis asked if there would be a penalty if the contract was not completed within the designated time frame. Mr. Peterson said that there is a “liquidated damages” clause for not completing the project by the contract completion date; this is usually about $100 per day. Mr. Cutler said that these types of contracts are on a standard form but the specifications are tailored to the project. Mr. Peterson said that the intent of the contract is to start with St. Mary’s Way and the project is scheduled to begin in mid-June.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Resolution 41 of 1983 awarding the construction contract to Robert Williams Engineering for construction of improvements in Salt Lake City, Utah, Concrete Replacement Special Improvement District 40-R-5, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-4)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 232 of 1982 submitted by Monroe, Inc.
RE: Requesting that the city vacate all remaining streets and alleys of Folsom Addition lying east of Beck Street.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this request. Mr. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and reiterated that the petitioner was requesting the city to vacate all the streets and alleys in the Folsom Addition Subdivision which is east of Beck Street; the petitioner owns all the property which surrounds this land. Mr. Hafey said that this subdivision was recorded prior to 1889 but the improvements were never installed. All the reviewing departments recommended approval of the request and the planning commission gave a favorable recommendation to vacate the streets and alleys.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if any streets had ever been constructed. Mr. Hafey said that to his knowledge no streets were constructed; he checked an aerial photograph taken in 1951 and there was no indication of any streets. But it showed so much excavation by the sand and gravel industry that it is impossible to tell if any streets were ever constructed. Mr. Hafey said that the engineering and property management departments recommended closure of the streets so that the land could be sold at fair market value; the other departments recommended vacation of the land.
Mr. Hafey said that since this subdivision was recorded prior to 1889 and the streets were not installed, the attorney’s office felt that the City had no claim to ownership therefore the recommendation was that the land be vacated. Mr. Hafey said that this property consisted of about 5.5 acres and the appraised value was $190,500. Councilmember Fonnesbeck expressed concern that the City was giving away this much property without compensation. Councilmember DePaulis asked for mere explanation about the legal issue surrounding ownership of the property. Mr. Cutler said that it is not a question, from a legal point of view, as to whether or not the City owns the land and is giving it away without compensation. There is a case in point holding that the City does not own the land and by vacating the roadway the City is just vacating the right to use it for public purposes. The City does not own the fee so the land is not being given away without compensation. Councilmember Shearer referred to a letter dated April 25, 1983, from Paul Maughan, assistant city attorney, which says, “Due to the statutes in effect at the time this subdivision was recorded, it is doubtful that the city has any current ownership interest in these streets and alleys. The statutes, then in effect, required an acceptance of an offer to dedicate the streets by the City, by use or construction, within a reasonable time.” (This letter is on file in the city recorder’s office). Ms. Shearer said that the City did not build on or accept the land for street purposes and, therefore, the City lost it.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that long-time residents of the area have a question as to whether or not the streets were there. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that this could be part of a controversial area and asked if the future of the area was being jeopardized. Mr. Cutler said that some City staff members wanted to use this opportunity to work out an agreement with Monroc for improvements to be made on the land such as revegitation. However, there is no obligation on the City’s part to vacate; this would be a courtesy so that Monroe could use the property. If the City did not vacate, the petitioner would have to take the issue to court to acquire title.
Councilmember DePaulis referred to Mr. Maughan’s letter which indicated that the Council could vacate the remaining streets; he asked for explanation about the remaining streets. Mr. Hafey said that the Folsom subdivision actually extends west across Beck street but that area has already been vacated. Councilmember Whitehead said that this hillside is an eyesore for anyone traveling into the City from the west by Great Salt Lake. He was concerned how this would look in the future and felt that some pressure should be applied to improve this site.
H. Michael Keller, lawyer representing Monroc, reiterated that the City did not have title to the land and Monroe was only requesting that the City recognize this fact. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked about the future plans of this area. Stephen Smith, vice president of Monroe, said that he realized the aesthetics of the area were a concern. Mr. Smith said that the company has tried to be a good citizen of the City. Their resource is one which is important to the development of the City as well as providing considerable employment for many people.
Mr. Smith said that revegitation could not be done while actively operating a sand and gravel company. Mr. Smith indicated that it would be more beneficial to use the resources as opposed to leaving an area of land that lacks utility. Councilmember Whitehead said that the operation would be active for many, many years since there was still so much sand and gravel left. He asked Mr. Smith if he was saying that nothing could be done until the mining operation was finished. Mr. Smith agreed that the deposit was large and the operation would continue for many years. He said this area was unique because instead of being a pit it affects the side of a mountainside.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what happens to a gravel pit when the operation ends. Mr. Smith said that it is put to the highest and best use. He said that in one case reused properties will be used for housing purposes; on Beck Street the principal use would be industrial or commercial. Mr. Smith said that there comes a time when the real estate values rise to the point where it is not economical to continue working an area. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked how far east Monroe’s property extends. Mr. Smith said their eastern boundary was the forest service land east of their present property.
Councilmember Shearer asked if there was a possibility that Monroe would build on the flat part of the area and continue the mining. Mr. Smith said this was a possibility; at the present time almost all of the flat land is being utilized for the current operation. It is conceivable that some of the land would come into other utility within the next 10 or 15 years; presently some of the land is used for the manufacture of pre-cast concrete products and related items.
Councilmember DePaulis asked why Monroe wanted this area vacated. Mr. Smith said that it did not serve anybody’s best interest to have this old plat in place. He felt that the property could not be utilized as an industrial park or similar usage. Heroine Jex said that the neighborhood did not object to the vacation of the property but the neighborhood council was concerned that this company was getting something for nothing. She said that she checked a 1927 aerial view of this area and there was evidence that homes had been in the area. Ms. Jex said that there was once a mountain, that the City still owns, running through the middle of the property.
Ms. Jex said that the sand and gravel companies have lobbied the legislature for years and when a bill was introduced in the legislature so something could be done about this problem, the sand and gravel companies eliminated any kind of control. Ms. Jex also said that Jennings Phillips has indicated that these companies have usurped their rights and gone beyond the industrial zone allotted to them. She said that the City has been asked to verify this but an answer has never been received.
Ms. Jex said that there is a rumor that the companies are trying to get the forest land which has been declared surplus; this land is supposed to be in the preservation zone. Ms. Jex recommended that the streets not be vacated without compensation, the City should at least get some controls.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which notion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that this petition be referred to committee so that the Council could consider all the material and ask further questions. She did not want to delay a decision any longer than necessary but she wanted an opportunity to consider the new material. Councilmember DePaulis suggested that this item come back before the Council after the budget meetings have concluded. Mr. Smith requested that the Council hold a decision on this issue until after June 7 since he would be out of the City until that time.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer Petition 232 of 1982 to committee for further study and bring it back before the Council on June 14, 1983, which notion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-263)
Salt Lake City Budget Fiscal Year 1983-84.
RE: Receive comment on the tentative budget of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 1983-84 including the use of federal revenue sharing funds.
A public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the budget. Councilmember Parker said that no action would be taken at this meeting; this was only for the Council to receive public comments about the budget. Howard Stephenson, Utah taxpayers Association, said that the proposed budget contained two major tax increases. The first was a sales tax increase from the present 3/4% to 7/8%; this would provide the City with less than a quarter of a million dollars in new revenue due to the redistribution formula, however, there would be a $3 million impact on consumers.
Mr. Stephenson said that the second tax increase is a 32% increase in property tax revenues. If adopted this will be the largest one-year property tax increase in the history of Salt Lake City. Mr. Stephenson said that this tax increase would not fall equally on all taxpayers due to the passage of Proposition #1. He said that the major portion would be levied on businesses; there would be a 54% property tax increase on the City’s portion of the property tax bill for an average Salt Lake City business. Mr. Stephenson said that the school district has proposed to keep their levies the same.
Mr. Stephenson said that when valuations were increased as a result of the old reappraisal program, taxing units were required to reduce levies so they would receive no more than a 6% increase in property tax revenues. The reappraisal program was replaced by the property tax factoring program but the 6% levy limitation law is no longer effective. Mr. Stephenson said that they feel that the spirit of the law should still apply. Taxing units should not reap windfalls from assessment increases.
Mr. Stephenson said that the proposed sales and property tax increases, when combined with the doubling and even tripling of unemployment compensation taxes and new lease hold assessments, will certainly make it more difficult for the many Salt Lake City businesses who are now barely staying open. Mr. Stephenson said that they recognized the challenge that the Council is facing and he offered the following recommendations. First, concerning the sales tax, he asked that the Council be aware that some neighboring cities may not adopt the sales tax increase; if they do not adopt it then retailers in Salt Lake City may be hurt because shoppers would go to the neighboring communities. Secondly, regarding fund balances, he asked that the Council deny the property tax increase as a means to increase the fund balance; fund balances should result from prudent fiscal management and not tax increases.
Regarding the 16% increase in health and dental premiums, Mr. Stephenson urged the Council to avoid increasing health and dental costs at this time; many private employers are having to cut back on health insurance costs. Concerning the 6% bonus, $2.1 million, he said that it would be unusual for employees to get a lump sum at the beginning of the year before property taxes have been collected. Mr. Stephenson said that City employees should feel fortunate to have a job and fortunate that no one is being laid off. Also no one is being asked to take a reduction in pay which is common in the private sector.
Councilmember DePaulis felt that some people were left with the impression that the City is responsible for the entire impact of the property tax. Mr. Stephenson said that the City collects about 1/5 or 20% of the overall property tax burden and it is that portion that is proposed to increase 54% for businesses and about 15% for homes. Councilmember DePaulis asked what the increase would be on businesses if the Council did not approve the proposed tax mill levy. Mr. Stephenson said that it would be 34% of the 1/5.
Mayor Wilson asked if the Taxpayers Association had any suggestions as to how the City would fund emergencies, such as landslides and flooding, since they recommended that fund balance not be increased through property taxes. Mr. Stephenson said that they felt the present fund balance along with the 1/2 million dollars for emergency spending which is contained in the budget should be able to handle these problems; if not the City should cut in other areas.
Clinton Mott, co-chairman of the Hansen Hollow Park committee, asked that the $240,000 for the Hansen Hollow Park be kept in the 1983-84 budget; this item is in the 1982-83 budget and was committed by the City for the purchase of 25 acres of land held by the State of Utah for inclusion in Hansen Hollow Nature and Historic Park. The residents of the Canyon Rim area know that city finances are tight at this time but the area wanted to see this commitment honored.
Mr. Mott said that the recommendation has been to put the $240,000 in the general fund. It was Mr. Mott’s opinion that not using this money for Hansen Hollow was a violation of the City’s obligation. The additional parcels which this money was going to purchase are necessary so that work can commence on the park. Mr. Mott said that these funds were also necessary so that matching funds could be obtained which would benefit the City by cutting the total purchase price of the parcels in half. This would also permit other non-city contributions to be received. Mr. Mott said that if the full amount could not be included in the budget perhaps a sufficient down payment could be included which would be satisfactory to the state. Councilmember Davis said that she was concerned about funding this area because the access to it is from 33rd South, which is not in the City. She suggested postponing this project until next year since the budget is lean this year; she opposed any additional funds to this project until some of the Salt Lake City parks are built and improved. She suggested to Mr. Mott that he consider the annexation of the Hansen Hollow area into the City.
Councilmember Formesbeck said that whether the area was annexed or not it should be saved. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that in Council committee meetings various options have been discussed about this park. Several Council Members had expressed the feeling that the property should be preserved. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that most of the money slated for Hansen Hollow instead would be used for capital improvements, some of which are prior commitments and are very important at this time. She reiterated that many Council Members are concerned about the Hansen Hollow area and want to make sure that the land is not lost.
Councilmember Whitehead suggested that perhaps this project could be a joint venture between the state and City. Bob Hoyle, a member of AFSCME, said that he was angry about the budget because it was breaking the union contracts and freezing wages. Mr. Hoyle said that the employees needed the raises to keep up with inflation; the budget should not be balanced at the expense of the employees. Udell Hill addressed the Council about a proposed mini park at Montgomery and Stewart Streets. He said that he did not object to the park but he objected to the after-hours use of the park. He said that he owns property next to that area and he was afraid that trash would be left on his property.
He also said that he would not sell his property for the park. If a park is built, Mr. Hill suggested that regulatory signs be placed in the area controlling the speed of the traffic, that appropriate fences be erected, and that shrubbery be kept trimmed so that when the area is patrolled by police they can see into the park. He requested that the Council consider the hazards that might be created by the construction of a park in this area. Councilmember Shearer said that this park was on the initial list for funding from the parks department but this park is not on the Mayor’s recommended list for funding. She also said that this was a point of controversy from the citizens committee examining the budget felt the area was too small to provide even a tot-lot.
Gordon Ottley, representing AFSCME Local 1004, said that the employees in his union live by their contract. In return for insurances of wage increases the union agreed to work with the City on issues like sick leave use; sick leave has been reduced by almost 50% and productivity has been increased and maintained. Mr. Ottley said that the employees should be rewarded. He indicated that employees wonder how far down they are on the priority ladder. Mr. Ottley felt that although disregarding the contracts is not illegal it is dishonorable especially when the union has worked hard to uphold their end of the bargain. He suggested that the Council look at capital improvements; he did not understand why the City should continue to grow so fast under these “austere” times.
Mr. Ottley also suggested that the Council closely consider executive traveling expenses, membership expenses and take-home car allowances. Mr. Ottley felt that a nominal sanitation and spring clean-up fee should be implemented. Mr. Ottley felt that the Council should do everything in their power to honor the agreement which was signed two years ago. The general membership has not taken a vote about this issue but if they vote not to support the Council’s position both the union and the City would be facing trouble. The sentiment may be that the employees are expendable but they are not; the only true expendable people in the City are the politicians.
If the employees decide to work with the City in these “austere” times it will not be in the spirit of employee concessions but rather in the spirit that the administration owes a debt and an obligation to these workers. Mr. Ottley concluded by saying that whatever the Council’s decision was it would affect the employees dramatically. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Ottley what his interpretation was of the “if funds are available” clause in the contract. He said that he understood what the clause was saying but his question was where the City’s priorities lie.
Rawlins Young, chairman of the Sugarhouse community council, addressed the issue of Hansen Hollow. He said the project originated in 1980 and it keeps getting postponed. Mr. Young expressed his concern about delayed growth and maintenance in the capital improvement area which might cost more in the future. Kevin Aoki, City employee representing several co-workers, said that the employees were not the enemy of the Council. He hoped that the generalizations made about “bad” public employees would not be made by the Council since there are diligent people who work hard and do a good job.
Mr. Aoki realized that the Council has a responsibility to the taxpayer but each time a decision is made the employees are affected, not only financially but attitudinally. Within his group Mr. Aoki said that they had decided to support Mayor Wilson but they would be sacrificing potential income and also retirement. He urged the Council to remember when they make their decision there is not only a responsibility to the taxpayer but also to the employees and when this decision is made he hoped that the Council would show that there were no other alternatives. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if he would prefer a one-time 6% “bonus” which would not affect base salary or a 3-4% increase in the base salary. Mr. Aoki said that he would prefer an increase in the base pay because it would also affect the retirement. Charlie Quick, president of 1645, said that he felt one of the big problems was the attitude in which the contract had been abridged. The unions were only informed the night before the budget was presented that the contracts would not be honored; this left very little room for discussion and much less room for input. Mr. Quick said that according to pension legislation that was passed, the pension contributions have decreased for the City and increased for the firefighters. He said that it was the position of the firefighters that they were the only group which would receive a salary reduction; the salary for every rank and file firefigther and employee working under civil service would cost Salt Lake City 2% less next year.
Mr. Quick felt that the employees of Salt Lake City would be happy with a 25% increase on their base salary this year; the firefighters will receive a 2% decrease. Mr. Quick said that it appeared that Mayor Wilson had begun on the first steps of eliminating collective bargaining. Mr. Quick said that the firefighters are prepared to lay their lives on the line for their friends, the citizens of Salt Lake, and buildings in the City. Councilmember Whitehead said that, in what he has read, it appeared that the City paid a higher percentage in retirement for the members of other unions than was paid for the firefighters. He asked Mayor Wilson the reason for this.
Mayor Wilson said that the retirement funds were done on a state-wide basis and each group of employees have different actuarial effects; based on that, a distribution of state surplus will have a varying effect and that is why the percentages differ. Mayor Wilson also said that there were different kinds of contributions to the state fund; each fund is separate and has a different way of accounting. Councilmember Whitehead asked if it cost less for the City to have a firefighter in the retirement program than a police officer.
Mr. Haines said that when parody between fire and police was discussed by the Council, it was determined that parody would relate to the issue of salaries and related economic benefits. There was no discussion at that time on the issue of participation in retirement nor on the issue of the level of benefit that each retirement program was to provide to each unit; those were left principally up to the police and fire units to handle separately; contribution rates by each group have differed up or down.
Mr. Haines said that in this case there was an 8% reduction legislated in the amount of the retirement contribution to the employer; there was also a reduction rate applied to both the public safety fund and the general employee fund of differing percentages - both less than the 8% reduction. &it in every case the legislated amount, excepting the general employee retirement fund, was to go to the employer’s contribution. Mr. Haines said that at the same time that legislation was passed both the police and firefighters statewide lobbied legislation through that increased their benefits. Those efforts were made by each group and they were willing to pay for the amount of contribution required. The issue at this point needs to be one of tying the level of contribution into the amount of benefit received and one group may make greater demands than another group. Mr. Haines reiterated that the issue focused in on the benefit received and the cost to provide the benefit; there is no question that the 8% reduction is not a reduction in salary to the employee and it is not a reduction in retirement benefit to that employee. There is no salary reduction although the budget will reflect a reduction because the City’s requirement is less.
The Mayor reiterated that there was no salary reduction and the amount was held constant, there is no benefit reduction. Mr. Quick said that the total contribution, both employee and employer contributions, is about 24% for police officers and 23% for firefighters. The contribution that was paid this year was about 18% for police and 16% for firefighters. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked how the comparison equated on the benefit end of the question. Mr. Quick said that the benefits were identical in both plans. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why the City input was different.
Mr. Quick said it was because of favorable usage by the firefighters; because the firefighters’ pension is more actuarially sound, because less firefighters have been retiring, because firefighters generally live a shorter period of time, the program can be actuarially reduced. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that it was done by formula and not discrimination; Mr. Quick said that was correct.
Mr. Haines said that the firefighters demand a higher usage of the plan than the police officers; the actuaries have determined that the benefit cost for a firefighter to go through the system and retire is greater than a police officer. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked again why the City was paying less for firefighters and asked that the figures be presented to the Council so they could study them. Mr. Haines said that this information was given to the Council last week.
Councilmember Mabey said that the Council saw the figures but asked for a report back and copies of the figures. Councilmember Davis asked about the firefighters’ work week which she understood to be 56 hours in a nine-day week. Mr. Quick said that the working schedule is based on a nine-day cycle; if the number of hours per year required to be worked by a firefighter are divided by 52 it works out to be 56 hours per week. He said that they work 10, 24-hour shifts for a total of approximately 240 hours per month.
Councilmember DePaulis said that the Council was sincerely trying to seek information to do the best job possible on the budget. The Council has always tried to be extremely fair both with the taxpayers and City employees. Mr. DePaulis said that the Council was in the process of considering the Mayor’s proposed budget and they may decide on other alternatives. He said that any information would aid the Council in trying to decide the best course of action. Mr. Quick said that he would be available any time to answer questions and he reiterated that the Council has worked diligently to be fair and equitable on all situations on both sides. The firefighters felt that by bringing their problem to the Council a fair decision would be made. Beatrice Marchant, Central City community council, said that a project on Grace Court was not included in this years’ budget. She said that the neighborhood council has been working on this project for two years. She felt that it would be costly to the City in the future to keep delaying the project. She said there was a situation in that area that needed correcting it is not a new project; the street is built up so high that whenever there is water on the street it runs down into the homes in this area.
Ms. Marchant said that it was important that this project be done this year. Councilmember Parker said that the Council was empathetic with this need and although Grace Court probably needs the work done badly there are other comparable streets in the City the need work done too; there just is not the money available to do everything. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that this project was put under the jobs work plan and she wondered if that ended the project. Mayor Wilson said that the recommendation was that the project be delayed one more year. Councilmember Shearer said that the project would again have to be prioritized.
Councilmember Mabey said that as he understood the situation that as the projects were submitted they would be prioritized; if the project is not done one year it remains on the prioritized list where it was before. The Mayor said that the project still had to be appropriated. Councilmember Shearer said that there were a number of projects that were recommended by the community development advisory committee for funding this year that were not funded; these projects were presumably on the top of a priority list last year and that list was not necessarily followed.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that the Council discuss the job works bill in the near future so that questions can be answered. Mayor Wilson said that the job works bill was not accounted for in the original recommendation. After a meeting regarding the bill the Mayor said he realized this was a legitimate idea so he had to reconsider capital improvement projects that could be delayed. Unfortunately Grace Court and 1300 South were chosen to be delayed. The Mayor said that one option was to fund Grace Court and 1300 South 100% and turn down the jobs bill.
Councilmember Shearer said that in order to use the entire $250,000 jobs bill money the City would have to employ 62.5 people working every single day making the maximum $80 per week. Mayor Wilson said that if this money was just used for construction projects then skilled laborers would be hired instead of the structurally unemployed; the intent was that at least some of the money be spent on the structurally unemployed. Ruth Robbins, open-space chairman for the Sugarhouse community council, addressed the Council on the capital improvements program. She reiterated that the Hansen Hollow project was not being funded and there was a risk of losing the matching funds from the state. She also said that the merchants in Sugarhouse have been given money to improve the area, which the community council supports, but 80% or more of the merchants do not live in Sugarhouse or even in the City. Ms. Robbins said that she wanted CDBG money to benefit the residents. The area is getting some money but other vital projects, including parks, are not recommended for funding.
Councilmember Parker said that the projects she was referring to were not in the budget for 1983-84 but they are on the list for future years. Arlan Wolf, president of the Utah Alliance of Police Officers Local 470, said that the police officers are faced with an increased retirement deduction which would mean $l00-$l50 less in take-home pay. He felt that the City could not request the employees to continue functioning at a high level of proficiency with decreased personnel and pay. Mr. Wolf urged the Council to consider the wage packages before them and not abandon the City’s best asset which is its employees.
Spencer Felt, a citizen of Salt Lake City, said that he was upset about the mill levy increase. He said that in expenditures from the 1981-82 year through the tentative 83-84 budget there has been a 45% increase. He opposed the flagrant increase in expenditures on government levels. Mr. Felt said that they were not getting the services at a reasonable cost. Councilmember Parker said that the Council has to decide whether it is mere injurious to the City to increase taxes or to decrease the ability of the City to run itself.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked for explanation as to how the City was increasing expenses 45%. Councilmember Shearer said that the 45% figure is derived by comparing total budget to total budget. Mayor Wilson said that the capital improvements at the airport and other big projects had to be considered. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the council has spent the last three years avoiding a property tax increase and taxes have not been raised except by a very small amount in order to add two libraries to the system. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that when the state has raised taxes the money has not been turned back by the City but as a City everything has been done for the last three years to make sure the taxes were not raised.
Ms. Fonnesbeck said that $1 million had been cut from the collection of garbage, a number of positions have been cut, and only modest salary increases have been given. Mr. Felt said that above the valuation increase a 2.36 mill increase was being proposed. Mayor Wilson said to balance the budget .89 mills was needed and the same level of services from last year would be provided. But in considering the potential flooding, sliding hillsides, and depleted reserve fund a 1.47 additional increase was requested. The Mayor said that this was a one-time type of taxation and if the calamities this spring do not occur the increase of 1.47 mills could be reduced. The Mayor reiterated that the Council has not increased property taxes in the last three years. Councilmember Mabey said that all of the one-time money has been spent and the emergency fund is low and to say that a tax increase this year would be decreased next year would be a fallacy. Mr. Mabey felt that the Council was considering something that would impact the public from now on. Mr. Felt asked that the administration consider items very carefully and try to increase the efficiency, without decreasing salaries, like private enterprise has had to do to stay competitive.
Mayor Wilson said that he would compare Salt Lake City with any major corporation in the valley or state, in the last three years, in performance and efficiency. The Mayor said that the City has worked hard to improve efficiency. Russ Neilan said that he could sympathize with the employees but could not agree with the 6% bonus if it had to be made by increasing taxes. Mr. Neilan wondered how many employees would support increased taxes for raises if they lived in Salt Lake City. Mr. Neilan said that the employee unions should consider that many residents living in Salt Lake are on fixed incomes.
Frank Haley, 1620 Yalecrest Avenue, said that he works for a major airline. Mr. Haley said that rather than be faced with unemployment the members of the company took a 10% pay cut and decided to forego any pay increases for the next year. He sympathized with the City employees but as a taxpayer he has faced increases in his cost of living but has had a cut in wages. Mr. Haley said that as a taxpayer he hoped that the Council would do their best to keep expenses down. Mayor Wilson said that the 6% one-time payment to the employees was critical; it did not represent an increase in the base wage. He agreed that many people have given up a lot of things but that amount represents half of what was agreed to in the contracts.
The Mayor said that in some cases where there have been increased benefits on pension plans there will be a reduction in take-home benefits. He felt that this one-time payment was top priority. Councilmember Davis expressed her concern about the small businesses and how they would be impacted by an increased property tax. She asked what effect a tax increase would have on the small businesses.
Mayor Wilson said that obviously any tax increase did not help the snail businesses. But all of the public, through the legitamized tax portfolio that is given to the City by the state legislature, must participate in the cost of the City. Mayor Wilson said that in his proposed budget he has tried to spread the costs equally among the employees and the citizens. Mayor Wilson said that 1/8 of one cent on sales tax is a political problem that must be faced. To balance the budget the Mayor said that he was only asking for a .89 mill increase which is not a lot. The most money is being asked for emergencies; everyone has to contribute to these problems. The Council can reject the 1.47 increase but the Mayor cautioned against doing this because the City would be left with a depleted emergency reserve fund which could have serious effects in the future. The Mayor said that in this particular instance there was not another tax as fair as the property tax to spread these costs among everyone. Councilmember Davis said that this year businesses were reassessed and they will have to pay many additional funds. She said that next year they would not have to pay these additional expenses. Councilmember DePaulis said that he was concerned about the businesses too but realized that the City had to deliver services to them. They look to the City to provide fire, police, water, and sewer. Mr. DePaulis felt that the senior citizens on fixed incomes were bearing more burden than anyone. Even if the Council did not raise the mill levy businesses would still get a 34% increase and the Ccity would still have to provide the services.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(B 83-2)
Local Option Sales Tax.
RE: An ordinance relating to local option sales and use taxes; providing for the levy and collection of sales and use taxes at a rate of seven-eighths of one percent (7/8%).
A public hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. to consider this issue. Mayor Wilson said that this issue must be passed by June 1 in order to comply with the state tax commission provisions. Councilmember Parker asked what the consequences would be if this was not decided by June 1. Mayor Wilson said that the Council would have to wait three months for the next quarter of the tax commission in order to take action. Councilmember Shearer asked if the Council would vote on this issue every quarter because in the legislation it talked about notification every quarter.
Mr. Haines said that once the ordinance has been adopted it is valid until it is rescinded. Mr. Haines said that the ordinance has to be forwarded to the tax commission at least 30 days prior to the initiation of the next quarter; once the ordinance is adopted they would get a copy and be notified that the ordinance would continue in force until rescinded. Mr. Haines said that the tax commission agreed with this procedure. Councilmember Whitehead felt that if the Council did not approve this the consequences would be harder to deal with if the legislature decided to take money away from the City. Mr. Whitehead said that even though he hated to raise sales tax he felt Salt Lake City and the citizens would be the potential losers.
Udell Hill addressed the Council for clarification on this issue. Councilmember Shearer said that sharing taxes among cities was declared unconstitutional but recently Proposition #1 was passed which allows for sharing of taxes among communities and counties. Mayor Wilson said that reapportionment changed the political structure a great deal and in 1980 it gave more votes to rural and suburban interests.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to refer this item to the May 24, 1983 Council agenda for a vote, which notion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-17)
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.