PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1982, AT 5:30 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 at and Councilmember Palmer DePaulis conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Report of the Executive Director.
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, MAY 25, 1982, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson and Roger F. Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember Palmer DePaulis conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Ted Fields.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, May 18, 1982, and for the meeting held Thursday, May 13, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 82-2)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
RE: Resolution of Appreciation to Harold Erickson who has been an employee with Salt Lake City since 1968 and is now retiring.
Councilmember DePaulis presented the resolution.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt this Resolution of Appreciation, Resolution 51 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(R 82-13)
CITY COUNCIL
RE: Recognition of snowfighters at the Salt Lake City International Airport.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that the American Association of Airport Executives presented Salt Lake City’s Airport crew with 2nd place in the National Airport Snowfighters Competition, behind Indianapolis which had an exceptionally difficult winter. Councilmember DePaulis read from the plaque recognizing the outstanding snow removal service during the winter of 1981-82; Tom Troske and Bob Kuhn, leaders of the "A” and “B” snow teams, accepted this plaque.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the presentation of this plaque, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(G 82-18)
CITY RECORDER
RE: Proposed redistricting of City Council boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposed changes in boundaries as they have been realigned in accordance with County voting district changes using 1980 Census data.
DISCUSSION: It is recommended that Salt Lake County voting districts 2016 and 2074 be included in Council District 1 and that voting district 2064 be included in Council District 3. Other variations in boundaries reflect little or no population variations and follow voting district boundaries.
Councilmember Mabey asked if district 1010 was still going to be divided. Councilmember Davis stated yes, the reason being to compensate for future expansion in the west part of Salt Lake City. Councilmember Fonnesbeck indicated that she had wanted a district in her area divided because it was an issue which the neighborhood felt strongly about. Councilmember Shearer indicated that she was concerned with how the division of 1010 would affect the school board; Councilmember Davis said there would be no problem for the school board.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 48 of 1982, regarding the designation of boundaries for Salt Lake City Council Districts and Salt Lake City School Precincts, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who voted nay.
(R 82-12)
FINANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond application: Six States Distributors.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider the approval of an inducement resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond for Six States Distributing in the amount of $750,000. The following conditions have been met: 1. That the City Attorney approve the resolution as to form. 2. That the application meet all necessary financial requirements of the city. 3. That Six States Distributing pay the established non-refundable fee for processing.
DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to construct a combination warehouse and office facility at approximately 1700 South between 2nd and 3rd West.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 52 of 1982, an inducement resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond for Six States Distributing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-21)
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond application: James D. Easton, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider the approval of an inducement resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond for James D. Easton, Inc. in the amount of $2,000,000. The following conditions have been met: 1. That the City Attorney approve the resolution as to form. 2. That the application meet all necessary financial requirements of the city. 3. That James D. Easton, Inc. pay the established non-refundable fee for processing.
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 Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 53 of 1982, an inducement resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond for James D. Easton, Inc., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-23)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: Appointments to the Central Business Improvement District Advisory Board.
DISCUSSION: The Mayor recommends that the following individuals be appointed to this Board: Jess Agraz, Kent Money, Stewart Hanson, Jr., Richard Schubach, Fred Wheeler, Phyllis Steorts, Clinton P. Mott, Ronald Carnago, and Fred S. Ball. Leigh von der Esch indicated to the Council that the financial statements have not yet been received from Kent Money and Richard Schubach.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the appointments of Jess Agraz, Stewart Hanson, Fred Wheeler, Phyllis Steorts, Clinton P. Mott, Ronald Carnago, and Fred S. Ball, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 82-8
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Budgets for Fiscal Year 1982-83
RE: Proposed budgets for Fiscal Year 1982-83 including proposed ordinance increasing City Cemetery fees, proposed ordinance increasing city park reservation fees, proposed ordinance increasing parking meter rates, proposed ordinance increasing business license fees, proposed ordinance increasing excavation fees and budget for Federal Revenue Sharing Funds.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the proposed budgets for FY 1982-83. The first item discussed was the proposed closure of Fire Station No. 15. Albert Haines addressed the Council and stated that the Mayor’s budget as submitted provides for the development and eventual construction of a fire station in the western half of the city. Mr. Haines then introduced Louis Brown, Deputy Fire Chief, who addressed the Council on behalf of the Fire Department Administration.
He stated that fire protection has to be provided to all of Salt Lake City and not just specific areas; the budget is limited so the Chief and his administration have suggested that Fire Station No. 15 be closed and the resources moved to the west side of the city. Mr. Brown stated that this closure would not seriously impact the surrounding University area; there are four stations within a two-mile response to the University of Utah campus.
Mr. Brown displayed a map of Salt Lake City indicating the location of Fire Station No. 15 and the surrounding fire stations (Fire Station No. 4 at 222 NI,’ Street, Fire Station No. 5 between 10th and 11th East on 900 South, and Fire Station No. 10 at 1111 South 2100 East). By using colored disks representing a 1 1/4 mile radius and placing them on the fire station locations, Mr. Brown showed that the closure of Fire Station No. 15 would impact the University campus only, specifically upper campus. Mr. Brown further stated that the Centennial Park area on the west side is not covered very well; Fire Station No. 14 (1560 Industrial Road) is five miles from the last building in that district. If a five-mile radius is drawn from Fire Station No. 15, nine fire stations are encompassed.
Mr. Brown reiterated that the fire department does not want to cut service for Salt Lake but rather distribute resources to get the best service. Mr. Brown further stated that with No. 15 closed, the coverage provided by the remaining three fire stations is more than a standard ISO (Insurance Services Organization) coverage.
A packet was distributed to the Council outlining data on the closure of Fire Station No. 15; Mr. Brown briefly outlined the contents of this packet (this information is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). Mr. Brown stated that the fire department is aware of the dangers at the University, such as chemicals and laboratory tests; but there are also exotic processes conducted at the buildings in the west-side area. Mr. Brown referred to a chart indicating the number of fire runs by the various stations in the last six months. He stated that Fire Station No. 15 had a high number of responses but this is because the campus provides better warning systems than most areas in town; most of the buildings have automatic detection systems which detect incipient fires or the warnings result as a malfunction. Out of the 110 responses made by Fire Station No. 15 only three were actual fires.
Mr. Brown referred to a PTI study (Public Technologies Inc.) which is used as a tool in the Fire Station Location Study; the data shows that the PTI study is accurate within 7.5%. The study indicated that of the 434 fire zones in Salt Lake City, Fire Station No. 15 responds first to nine of these zones; Mr. Brown pointed out that there is a three-minute difference in response time to the University Medical Center from Fire Station Nos. 15 and 10 because the Medical Center is upper campus. However, the surrounding fire stations respond to the lower campus of the University as quickly as Fire Station No. 15.
Councilmember Davis asked about the response time to the University Park Building. Mr. Brown stated that the University has changed the traffic pattern on campus and fire engines now have to enter the building from the front instead of the back. Representative Olene Walker stated that the University indicated the fire trucks could get access to the rear of the Park Building; Mr. Brown stated that the computer study would not show that access as a road, it is an alley. Mr. Brown stated that it is difficult to calculate routes of travel at the University. The Mayor asked if the Park Building would get substandard protection, based on normal local and national standards of protection, if No. 15 is closed. Mr. Brown responded by stating that the PTI Study indicates that No. 15 station is not even third into the Park Building when using the front door; No. 10 is first, then No. 4, last is No. 5. This is considered adequate protection. The Mayor then asked what the affect would be on surrounding neighborhoods by closing No. 15. Mr. Brown stated that Fire Station No. 15 is primarily a University station and not a residential station; No. 15 does respond the residential fires but it is the second company not the first.
Councilmember Davis asked which station would fight the fires on Donner Way if No. 15 is closed. Mr. Brown stated that Fire Stations No. 10, 13, and 5; No. 5 would provide a ladder truck. Mr. Brown then addressed the question about changing locations of ladder trucks to provide adequate coverage. He stated that the first step is to close No. 15 and relocate that truck to No. 14 station. The next step in the future is to add another bay to No. 10 station to accommodate truck service, this would cover the Donner Way area and the University would have adequate truck coverage (this would be a 100 foot ladder).
The third part of the process is to build another fire station by Derk’s Field; Fire Station Nos. 12 and 9 would be closed and the truck from No. 6 would be moved to the new station. The fourth step, which still needs further research, would be to move the truck from Fire Station No. 1 to No. 2. If these plans are implemented there would be double truck coverage only in the downtown high-rise area and in some of the industrial area. Councilmember Mabey asked how many buildings exceed seven stories in the surrounding University area; Mr. Brown stated that approximately 10 or 15 buildings.
Mr. Brown stated that the resources need to be put where they will serve the whole city. He further stated that he was given information indicating that if Salt Lake’s ISO rating changes from a Class 3 to a Class 5 then the insurance premiums for the companies at the International Center will double. The fire department is trying to maintain the rating by distributing the resources. Mr. Brown stated that the insurance companies indicate that residential rates would probably not be affected; Councilmember DePaulis stated that the rates would go up minimally but it would not be the same impact as to the downtown or industrial buildings.
Councilmember Parker asked about the relationship between the computer study and reality; could it take longer for the fire personnel to reach the fire than what the study indicates. Mr. Brown reiterated that the error rate is generally 7.5% which is not significant. The response time to a fire is only a small part of the process; other areas include the detection of the fire, time needed to process the call, time needed for firefighters to get ready to respond, and a major part is the setup time. Councilmember Mabey asked if the study took into consideration peak periods of traffic, inclement weather, etc. Mr. Brown stated that these variables are taken into consideration. Mayor Wilson asked Mr. Brown to explain about the reporting procedure which the fire department alarm panel goes through with the University security alarm panel. Mr. Brown stated that most of the fire alarms from campus come via the alarm system. Those calls that come from their alarm systems go to a panel in the security area of campus which indicates from which building the alarm is coming; there are basically three categories, 1) campus, 2) the Medical Center, and 3) the president’s home. When the alarm comes to the fire station panel this breakdown is not given. The dispatchers start the dispatch process and the companies start toward the University; the University then calls the department with the exact location.
Fire Station No. 15 cannot respond until this call has been received because they would have to make a decision as to whether they turn right or left out of the fire station; sometimes the outlying company has the advantage because they are moving ahead of the time of the call from University security. Richard Caning, State Senator District 3, addressed the Council. He stated that he was in the House of Representatives, member of the Higher Education Appropriations Committee, when the issue of building Fire Station No. 15 was first discussed; he stated that he was involved in the lobbying, placement, and enactment of the fire station.
Mr. Carling then outlined the background as to why this issue was brought before the legislature. Raymond Hickson, University Vice President at that time, met with several representatives and indicated that Salt Lake City had approached the University of Utah in an effort to establish a new fire station which would be to the benefit of both Salt Lake City and the University of Utah. Salt Lake City, at that time, was planning to close the 13th East fire station. The University turned the City down saying that they did not think they should donate the land; Salt Lake City indicated that there was an extreme fire danger at the University of Utah and there needed to be a new fire station at the University of Utah which would also be of benefit to the surrounding environs around the University.
It was agreed that there was an extreme danger and an extreme need, in 1972, for the fire station to be established. Mr. Carling stated that the University presented a statement to the legislature, January 1973, indicating that the University supports the city’s request and recommendation that a fire station be located on campus as the fire marshal had determined that the present facilities on 13th East could no longer service the needs of the expanding campus in terms of lives and buildings.
Realizing the great investment that the state has in the University, an obligation was felt to support this request and the University was willing to donate land recognizing that this would not be a University fire station but a community fire station which is located on the campus. It was emphasized that this was a city request supported by the University. Mr. Carling continued by stating that as a result of this statement, Mr. Hickson, Salt Lake City, and the Salt Lake City Commission heavily lobbied the legislators asking them to give all their support. The only way this could be done, because of constitutional problems, was to make sure that this was established to protect buildings at the University of Utah. Mr. Carling re-emphasized that at this time Salt Lake City indicated that there was an urgent need, there was an expansion of the campus and the fire station was needed; it was a fight to get legislative intent to give $475,000 to build a fire station at the University of Utah to be used for the University and the surrounding area and money was also appropriated to purchase two trucks. The state made the commitment to purchase to two trucks, to equip and build the fire station because of the need expressed in 1972.
Mr. Carling stated that he tries to support Salt Lake City and will continue to support the city but he needs to make sure that the facts given are true and accurate. In 1972 Salt Lake City pressured the legislature for this fire station and since that time there has been a lot of new development, it would seem that rather than the need decreasing the need has increased. Mr. Carling quoted from a letter written by President Gardner indicating that 10 years ago Fire Station No. 15 was thought to be essential and now the city advises that the closure of 15 will not reduce the adequacy of the fire protection available to the University in spite of the closure of the station on 13th East, the growth of the campus and research park.
Mr. Carling stated that either the legislature was misled in 1972 or the need is there today and even greater. Councilmember Whitehead quoted from a letter written by Walter P. Gnemi, University Vice President, indicating the since there are two other fire stations located only a short distance from the campus and both respond to campus fire alarms, the University would not object to closing the campus fire station. Mayor Wilson stated that the city has no obligation to defend relative economic safety trade-offs of 10 years ago.
Though the city has an obligation to insure the University and surrounding neighborhoods of reasonable and safe fire protection, the city does not sustain an obligation to extend what has become a luxurious service when discussed in the atmosphere and needs of the city in the 1980’s. The Mayor stated that he is suggesting that the mix or spread of available limited resources is much different now in 1980 than it was in early 1970. While the city could afford the extra service in the 1970’s that option is not now available at current tax rates.
Recognizing that the University may wish to participate in maintaining a higher level than standard city service the city has continually offered to President Gardner and his staff the option of continuing the operation of Fire Station No. 15 as a first response station with professional management provided by the city, which would be a smaller station. This option would provide a high standard of service but would allow professional firefighters to be shifted to the more needy areas of the city; this option has been rejected by the University. The factors that affected the decision in 1972 cannot be equated with the 1980’s. The city will guarantee the University the complete, full standard of reasonable and prudent protection that has always been given; the surrounding neighborhoods are fundamentally not affected by this decision. To continue to extend a “super” standard effort at the University and let another part of the city have less than standard service would be a travesty.
In response to a question by Councilmember Mabey, Mr. Carling stated that all the stations currently in the area were in existence at the time Fire Station No. 15 was proposed. The discussion at that time was that it was imperative that there be another station to replace the station on 13th East. The location for Fire Station No. 15 was based upon its proximity to the University Medical Center and the other upper campus high-risk areas. Mr. Carling stated that it would appear that if Fire Station No. 15 is closed the situation would be worse than it was in 1972 when the 13th East station was functioning.
When construction of Fire Station No. 15 was being debated people said that this fire station was being given to Salt Lake City; the legislature responded that Salt Lake would benefit but this was a University purpose. Mr. Caning indicated that Salt Lake City recently received title to the second fire engine, the first engine was given to Salt Lake City in 1976. Allen Tibbals, a lawyer, addressed the Council and stated that he is a resident of an area which will be seriously affected by the Council’s decision.
Mr. Tibbals referred to the State Building Board’s comment regarding the issue of Fire Station No. 15 stating that a new fire station on the University campus was requested by the Salt Lake City fire department for protection of University facilities; the two fire stations on 1300 East and Foothill Boulevard were too small and far away to adequately protect the facilities. Mr. Tibbals continued by stating that the University has greatly expanded. He further commented that no allowance was made for the conditions encountered by the fire engines; the trucks have to labor up the hills in the area.
Mr. Tibbals stated that Fire Station No. 15 does indeed respond to the residential areas. Mr. Tibbals stated that the Foothill station does not have ladder facilities and in 1973 it was deemed not worth trying to install ladder facilities because of the lack of accessibility the fire station has to the majority of places that need fire service. Mr. Tibbals stated that the International area is primarily industrial and there are very few lives in that area; the area is adequately protected by the trucks that are able to travel on flat roads. Mr. Tibbals presented a petition to be kept on file.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that the International Center is a very growing area which needs a fire station; there are many people out in that area every day. Mr. Tibbals stated that there may be additional fire protection needed but it should not be obtained at the expense of an area that needs protection. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the decision as to whether the station remains open is an administrative decision. Mayor Wilson stated that there is an appropriation in the budget for Fire Station No. 15 and if the Council approves that then the fire station stays open and if it is not approved then it is transferred; the Council is very much involved in this process. Councilmember Shearer stated that the Council does not have the power to appropriate to a program; money is appropriated to a department and the department funds are allocated by the Mayor.
Mayor Wilson stated that the Council appropriates programmatic line items. Councilmember Shearer stated that the Fiscal Procedures Act allows money to be spent within a department without the approval of the Council. Roger Cutler stated that the Fiscal Procedures Act allows money between line items to he transferred without approval of the Council; it does not allow money to be transferred between departments without approval of the Council. However, under Martindale v. Anderson and also under the statement of the Fiscal Procedures Act, the Council has the power to earmark money to be used only for a specific purpose and they have done that on several occasions.
It would be entirely possible for the Council to say that the money would be appropriated for a line item and that would be binding on the Mayor. Councilmember Shearer stated that this is traditionally done only in capital improvement projects but not programs. Mr. Cutler stated that the question is whether the Council has the power to require that an appropriation be used for a specific purpose and that purpose alone; the answer to that question is “yes”.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the Council could specify what the money will be used for but the Mayor has the right to refuse the money; he cannot necessarily take the money and spend it any other way but he is not obligated to keep the station open either. The Mayor stated that he was willing to make the final decision and be accountable for that decision; however the Mayor stated that the Council had to make a decision on this issue too. The Mayor stated that if the Council wants him to make a final decision then he will.
Teri Becker, representing Arlington Hills on the Greater Avenues Community Council, addressed the Council and stated that as resident she is deeply concerned about the potential closure of Fire Station No. 15. There were five fires on her Street last summer and the women in the neighborhood extinguished one fire while the pumper truck from “I” Street took 20 minutes to get up the hill. The closure of Fire Station No. 15 not only affects the University of Utah but has a direct impact on the safety surrounding homes.
She stated that she was concerned for her family and neighbors and she was also concerned for the children and staff at the Children’s Center, the families at Fort Douglas, and the patients, faculty, and staff on the University campus and Research Park. Ms. Becker presented petitions with approximately 1500 signatures opposing the closure. She urged the Council to carefully examine other ways to save money rather than reduce their fire protection. Deputy Chief Brown addressed a question raised by Mayor Wilson by stating that basically No. 15 is on the fringe of the area and the station responds first into upper campus; there are very few homes where No. 15 would be the first station to respond. It is felt that the residential area is not impacted. Mr. Brown agreed with the Mayor’s response that the economic conditions are very different today than they were in 1972; the city cannot afford the same sort of fire protection for the whole city that there was in 1972 on campus.
Olene Walker, representing District 1 in the Legislature, addressed the Council and stated that she has talked with people at various fire stations about protection. She stated that Fire Station No. 4 can only accommodate a limited amount of equipment; it presently has a 1974 pumper and a 1968 jeep. The question becomes how adequate is this protection as a back-up for the University; she stated that she was told it is very little support for most of the buildings at the University campus. Ms. Walker stated that she considered the reasons for closing Fire Station No. 15 and she was told it would be closed because of budget concerns but also the equipment, technology, and philosophy have changed.
Ms. Walker stated that the closure of Fire Station No. 15 means the remodeling of No. 10; the “I” Street facility is to be closed and a new station built. This is not a saving of taxpayer dollars; Fire Station No. 15 is already in place. Ms. Walker wanted to know if consideration has been given to expanding the airport station to serve the Industrial Center. She further stated that by closing No. 15 the University Hospital is being left vulnerable along with an area in the Avenues. Ms. Walker urged the Council to solve the administrative problems rather than closing the station.
She stated that protection has to be provided to the industrial areas but first priority needs to be given to the residential areas and areas of prime need. Evan Baker, past Fire Chief of the Salt Lake City Fire Department, addressed the Council and stated that he was concerned about this proposal and what it would do the citizens and the level of fire protection. Mr. Baker stated that he felt when the station was manned in 1976 the Mayor thought the station was very necessary. The Mayor stated that the decision made in 1976 was made with different economic parameters and a different need in terms of assigning limited resources to a city-wide problem.
Mr. Baker continued by challenging the statement that fire protection is not being taken down to an unacceptable level. He stated that he did not know how many people understood that Fire Station No. 8 is not an operating fire station with engine response. Mr. Baker stated that he felt the fire protection in that area had been reduced; he further stated that he did not agree that a “super” level of service was being provided to that area. Even with No. 15 station open the actual response time of the engine companies to certain key areas (Canyon Crest apartments, Arlington Area) does not meet the standard advocated in the PTI study; the standard was determined to be three minutes. There is also a great need for ladder truck protection in this area. Mr. Baker reiterated the hazardous processes being conducted at the University. If Fire Station No. 15 closed, response times to the Medical Center and Federal Heights area would double and the ladder truck response would quadruple; this service is needed the most for the multi-story buildings and especially the high-life hazard buildings such as the hospitals and the condominiums.
Mr. Baker stated that President Gardner raised a pertinent point stating that if Fire Station No. 15 was needed when it was built then it is needed today since the whole area has expanded and continues to grow. The station was centrally located high on the bench in order to cover an extensive portion of the city. Salt Lake City must continue to provide adequate fire protection for the area including the University; Mr. Baker stated for the record that he protested the closure of Fire Station No. 15 for the aforementioned reasons.
Mayor Wilson mentioned a letter that Mr. Baker had written to Walt Gnemi, University Vice President, in 1979. This letter recommended the closure of Fire Station No. 15; frustration was expressed at the closure of certain University streets and Mr. Baker went on record supporting the closure of this station. Mr. Baker stated that at that time it was the intention to get the attention of the University and try to get them to assume a larger portion of the share of their funds.
Emanuel Floor, President of the Salt Lake International Center, addressed the Council and stated that it is a very unpleasant situation when facilities have to be traded. The Salt Lake International Center, which has 4,000 employees, 65 firms, and 3 million square feet of space, has no desire whatsoever to have the city close fire stations; this request has never been made. But, the International Center has no desire to have inadequate service; presently the service is not adequate and would be considered marginal. Certain of the rating services have indicated to firms within the Center that they will face substantial increases in fire insurance rates, along with the Centennial Park area, if the response time and coverage is not improved.
Mr. Floor stated that the west side of the city did not want anyone’s service to be curtailed or limited. The city has to decide philosophically at what level of service fire protection will be provided to all of the residents and all of the property for which the city is responsible. In the Mayor’s recommendation the decision is to close Fire Station No. 15 so responsibility, machinery and manpower can be shifted to other locations rather than raise taxes or cut another program. The Council and the public have to decide if revenues will be increase so that all sections of the city can be provided with the service they want, or will service have to be adjusted so that all areas get adequate service. Mr. Floor stated that the International Center is part of Salt Lake City Corporation and based on the tax rolls of last year there is $11,348,380 of assessed valuation at the Center. The University of Utah, which is a very important part of the community, has no assessed valuation; there is no contribution made by its buildings. The International Center has installed their own streets, sewer, water, and street lights, and the Center maintains all the common areas so the city does not provide any of these services. At the University, for example the Research Park, the city installs the streets, the curbs, gutters, and lights. This is a matter of economics and equity; the west side must have better protection.
Nyles Cornia, Salt Lake City Firefighter for 36 years, addressed the Council and stated that he works at Fire Station No. 15. Mr. Cornia reiterated that Fire Station No. 15 responds to the surrounding residential Avenues area, he specifically referred to the area where Mayor Wilson lives. Chief Brown addressed this issue by again stating that the PTI study indicates that the response to that area would be 5.4 minutes from No. 15 and 5.6 minutes from No. 4.
Mr. Cornia stated that firefighters from No. 15 ran a test of the response times, without red lights and sirens, and found No. 15 responded faster than what the PTI study showed. He further stated that this is a question of public life safety not just dollars and cents. Mr. Cornia stated that the University has 10,000 people working there everyday; with the students and the population in the hospitals and the research centers, there is a small city of 35,000 people. This is a high density area of human life; not just buildings. Mr. Cornia stated that this fire station should not and must not be closed; he stated that more stations should be built and if this requires a tax increase then perhaps money should be cut back from some other program.
The question of the PTI study and response times was brought up again and Mr. Brown addressed this issue by stating that the initial response times were done by human calculations with the data received from Public Technologies Inc. Mr. Brown stated that when this went on line he went to various fire stations, gave them stop watches, and asked them to time themselves from when they leave the station to when they arrive at the scene; they were then requested to record these times. These stations were not told what they were trying to time against so that they wouldn’t alter their data.
Mr. Brown reiterated that PTI recognizes a 7.5% error; there was not any error that great which showed up in the system. Not all defense zones were checked because there were not runs to all of them in that period of time but the data has been confirmed in those areas where the response times were checked.
Mr. Cornia stated that the new engine was taken from Station No. 15 and replaced with other equipment so the response time has increased. He stated that if Station No. 15 is closed, 24 firefighters will be placed in other stations and the same amount of money is going to be paid in wages; the only savings from closing the station would be in lights and heat, the maintenance is done by the firefighters. Councilmember Mabey complimented the fire department for doing a fine job. The next budget item discussed was the innkeepers license tax. Larry Ewing, President of the Salt Lake Valley Hotel/Motel Association, addressed the Council and stated that the hotel community is concerned about the revenue building plan which will impose a discriminating tax on the industry. In 1981, the hotel/motel industry brought $600,000 to Salt Lake City in the way of local option tax plus property taxes.
Mr. Ewing stated that the industry was paying their fair share in taxes and any additional tax would be a burden which would force the industry to price itself out of the market place. The proposed 2-3% increase would have to be recouped by about a 10% room-rate increase. The industry would have to look at saving in other cost areas and first would be a reduction in the labor force. In 1980 the industry paid $28,000,000 in employee salaries; for the first three quarters of 1981 $22,000,000 has been paid. There are almost 4,000 employees; these are hourly employees not administration or management (these figures were provided by Job Service).
Mr. Ewing stated that before a decision is made the Council should consider Civil Case No. 3893, Consolidated Coal Company v. Emery County which is similar to this proposed tax in that it was directed toward one industry. Mike Fletcher, President of the Salt Lake Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau and a corporate officer of Pearson Enterprises, addressed the Council. Mr. Fletcher stated that Pearson Enterprises strongly opposes the innkeepers tax. Pearson Enterprises employs 1200 people, many who are unskilled, lower educationally disadvantaged, and mostly minorities and women.
Out of Pearson Enterprises’ three major properties one has a minority and female ratio of 81%, another 72%, and the last is 67%. Of these employees, approximately 85% live in Salt Lake City (this was verified off the employment rolls). If this tax is enacted, the company would have to do several things to react to the lost revenues caused by this tax. First, cut the payroll by laying off employees; these people are unskilled and would find it almost impossible to find other employment forcing them onto to the welfare rolls. Second, there would be a loss of tax base due to the lost revenue of the hotels. If this is enacted, Pearson Enterprises would pay over $300,000 in additional taxes.
Mr. Fletcher stated that this is a gross receipts tax; Mr. Ewing stated that this tax would be handled as another bill. Roger Cutler stated that there is no prohibition against the hotels and motels adding this onto the customers hotel bill. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if savings had been calculated as a result of the lowering of the franchise tax. Mr. Fletcher stated this had not been done but a commission was taken on long distance calls and at the end of the year this can no longer be done. Ken Knight, Little America, addressed the Council. Mr. Knight stated that it is the practice in the industry to prepare a bill for the guests showing room and tax as one total; this additional tax would be included in the total number. Most customers are not concerned with the detail but with the total amount. Mr. Knight stated that most phone costs are passed through to the guests. Mr. Knight addressed two items mentioned in the impact study. First, there is a statement that the tax will be passed on directly to the consumer.
Mr. Knight stated that this was not an entirely elastic market; the industry is in a very tight, competitive position and the industry does not want the guests to feel overcharged. Second, part of the justification for imposing the tax was because of the extra costs imposed by hotels on police and fire services; but the hotel and motel properties also have a substantially larger tax assessment than the residential areas. However, most of the hotels maintain their own security force as well as requiring city police service. Imposing an additional tax on a viable industry, which is bringing substantial revenue into the city, may not be equitable.
Marie Nelson, co-owner of the Salt Palace Travel Lodge, addressed that Council and asked them to consider this problem in terms of the small motel owner. Ms. Nelson stated that she thought it was unfair to impose a 3% tax on rooms. Paying the tax will be like a bill; there is no guarantee that the motel owner can add the 3% to the room rate since it is hard to get last year’s rate. If the price was raised by 3%, then it will be too high to compete with other motels in outlying districts; consideration is given to lowering the total price but then net revenues are lower. The higher tax will reduce occupancy and the lower rate will lower the net income.
Rene Myer, President of Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort, addressed the Council and stated that many of the hotels provide skiers to the local resorts. Skiing is a competitive business and even though Salt Lake has great aspects, Colorado still attracts more skiers. Because of this, Salt Lake has to be overly competitive to attract out-of-state visitors. Tourism is a great industry for any community because it provides a lot of revenue. Mr. Myer urged the Council to consider other ways to balance the budget either by cutting expenses or burdening, proportionately, all aspects and all entities.
Tom Brown, Deputy Director of the Salt Lake Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, addressed the Council. Mr. Brown distributed copies of a statement from the Convention and Visitors Bureau and briefly paraphrased its contents (this is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). He stated that the members of the Convention and Visitors Bureau are opposed to the imposition of a tax primarily because this would levy an unfair burden on a very small segment of the hotel community. In 1981, Salt Lake was not competitive as far as room rates in bidding on eight major conventions; because of this, 21,000 delegates were lost. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked about the tax imposed by the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Mr. Fletcher stated that the current tax is an investment because it goes back into the community to promote the industry. Mr. Brown stated that a convention executive considers a number of factors. The number one factor is cost of rooms, another consideration is what the exhibit facility will cost. In the last five years there was only one major hotel which opened in Salt Lake; during the same period of time, in the Central Business District, there were at least 12 major office buildings also requiring public services. Mr. Brown stated that investors contemplating coming into the area will take a hard look at this tax.
Phil Keene, Director of the Utah Travel Council, addressed the Council and stated that he wanted to see more research on the impacts, both positive and negative, on the promotional spectrum. He stated that it was possible this tax would have a counter productive influence on the promotion of the area. He further stated that Salt Lake is in a vulnerable, competitive position in terms of ability to attract conventions; Salt Lake is still a relative unknown in the national and international meeting market place. Other areas are offering use of exhibit halls at no charge simply to attract those meetings.
This additional 3% would put Salt Lake City among the most expensive cities. The 3% promotional tax is needed since Salt Lake City is competing in the international market place. Councilmember Shearer stated that there was a concern that the legislature would not change the way sales and transient room taxes are allocated to Salt Lake City. She further stated that other cities receive 2-4% and Salt Lake gets 3/4 of 1%. Gary Hansen, Government Affairs Director for the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council and stated that the board voted to strongly oppose this tax proposal.
Mr. Hansen referred to a telegram sent to the Council Members by the Ski Association which stated that guests stay voluntarily in Salt Lake and by increasing taxes on Salt Lake rooms people are encouraged to stay elsewhere; there are many other options in Utah not to mention options in other states. Mr. Hansen stated that the concern was with the image and reputation of Salt Lake. He further stated that word-of-mouth advertising, which can result from an unpleasant experience, can cause a city image serious damage.
Mayor Wilson clarified that the proposed innkeepers tax is not his recommendation at this time, it could be in the future; however, it was prepared at the request of certain members of the Council. Jack Olson, Utah Tax Payers Association, addressed the Council about the whole budget; he stated that he thinks the Council has done an outstanding job. Mr. Olson distributed copies of Salt Lake City Expenditure Trends 1960-1983 (a copy is on file in the Office of the City Recorder).
Mr. Olson briefly outlined the information. He stated that the General Budget is increasing about 5%, which is reasonable; the total spending has increased 17%. Mr. Olson stated that this was a reasonable budget and he did not see any waste or extravagance. He then shared a comparison of per capita costs between major Utah cities; he stated that these figures were not meant to draw any conclusions, the figures are from the 1981-82 budgets. Ogden spends $274; Orem, $210; Provo, $173; Sandy, $195; West Valley $156; and Salt Lake City, $430. Mr. Olson stated that the Council knows the economic conditions as they exist. Mr. Olson stated that in past years he has supported the city in tax increases but he feels this year is not a good time to look at tax increases. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Olson how he felt about the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee, since he was on the committee. Mr. Olson stated that he felt good about the recommendations.
Mr. Olson stated that personally he would rather see an increase in property tax than the proposed innkeepers tax; a certain portion can be deducted from federal income tax; plus there are built in mechanisms for relief on property tax. Councilmember Shearer pointed out that the per capita tax in Salt Lake is double any other city. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Olson how he felt about the user fees; he stated that he felt good about it and people who use those services which are identifiable ought to pay for them directly. Mr. Olson stated that he knew the Council would do a good job and have a recommendation that is fair to everyone. The next budget issue addressed was the proposed ordinance increasing excavation fees.
Richard Mollinet, Mountain Fuel Supply Company, addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed increase in excavation fees. He stated that the fees impact the utility; at one time the fees were insignificant, prior to July of 1980 the fees were about $2,500 per year. The impact of the new fees will increase the cost to approximately $100,000 per year just for permit fees; that is with the reduced level of activity brought about by the decrease in building. He stated that he understood the fees are primarily to support the inspection of excavations.
Generally the problems that municipalities have with excavators are primarily due to the small independents and not to the major utility companies with their large, permanent staffs. Mountain Fuel Supply has had a good working relationship with Salt Lake City and whenever there has been a problem the response has been prompt and the city has generally been satisfied. Mountain Fuel tries to repair cuts in the roads to satisfy the standards imposed in the excavation ordinance. In the past, Mountain Fuel has tried to coordinate with Salt Lake City so that roads are not cut after a road has been paved.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if private contractors are hired for jobs. Mr. Mollinet said that generally a private contractor is hired. Mr. DePaulis stated that a frequent complaint received from citizens is that they talk to the contractor about a problem and he refers them to Mountain Fuel and Mountain Fuel refers complaints to the contractor. Mr. Mollinet stated that when he has dealt with these complaints the citizen is referred to the construction department of Mountain Fuel and also referred to that company; however, Mountain Fuel tries to follow through to make sure the company resolves the problem. Mr. Mollinet continued by stating that the cost of the excavation fees ought to be related to the costs of enforcing the ordinance; it is felt that the costs are much less with Mountain Fuel. Mr. Mollinet referred to a proposed summer/winter differential and stated that there was little or no justification for that differential. There is also a fee for inserts and since companies are charged a fee for a cut on each end of an insert, the insert goes underground in an existing pipe so there is no digging, it is not understood why there is an insert fee.
Mr. Mollinet stated that there is a provision in the ordinance for a small reduction in the fee for multiple utility excavation; it is felt that the inspection fees are substantially reduced. Mr. Mollinet concluded by stating that the utility cannot continue to absorb these increased taxes and in order to recover the cost, either the rates are increased through the whole system or the increase is passed on to the municipality imposing the tax. Floyd Jensen, Mountain Bell Telephone, addressed the Council and endorsed the comments made by Mr. Mollinet.
He stated that the issuance of permits and the inspection of work does require administrative time and expense on the part of the city and Mountain Bell is willing to bear their fair share; however, they are not willing to bear an amount in excess of their fair share. The principal concern is the proposed increases appear to be designed not solely to reimburse the city for administrative expenses but rather to generate revenues. Mr. Jensen gave examples of how the proposed fee schedule will impact Mountain Bell.
For a small 4 x 5 foot cut the fee will change from $50 to $80; for a 500 foot excavation to lay cable the fee will change from $50 to 150; for a 450 foot excavation to place conduit the fee will change from $50 to $700; finally on a major conduit excavation the fee will change from $50 to $12,000. Mr. Jensen urged the Council to make sure that whatever fee schedule is imposed for excavation is reasonably related to the actual costs that are incurred in issuing the permits and doing the inspections.
Gordon Ottley, AFSCME Local 1004, addressed the Council. He stated that the Operations and Maintenance unit has been reduced from over 900 employees to below 600 employees (30% reduction); most of the cutbacks have been from the Parks and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. In the Parks Department a 29% increase has been shown in the workload coupled with a 29% decrease in the work force; that is with a minor curtailment of services in the Parks Department because of the productivity. Mr. Ottley stated that he wanted the Council to know the long-term ramifications of laying off, for example, the over-lay crew. The service will be cut in half which means the road services will be curtailed accordingly; this time and from here on out the public will notice. Mr. Ottley stated that it will be more expensive to catch up than to keep up. Mayor Wilson stated that he has appreciated AFSCME working with the city and there have been increases in productivity. Because of significant cutbacks in the paving program, next year the city will have to consider using CDBG funds to pick up the slack. Instead of giving out as much money to public oriented groups, the money will have to be used for in-house city services.
Bernice Cook addressed the Council and stated that she has been talking with older people and various groups and they object to the proposed fee increase for park use and the proposed increase in parking meters. Many people would not object to $.l0 but $.15 is too high. Councilmember Parker stated that he felt the parking meter rate increase is alright but 30 minutes is not long enough. Jim Talebreza stated that 1/2 hour meters have been requested by the Central Business District merchants.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to continue to June 1, 1982, the public hearing to discuss the proposed budgets for Fiscal Year 1982-83, the proposed fee increase and other increase, and the Revenue Sharing; also continue to June 1, 1982, the public hearing to discuss amendments to the budget for Fiscal Year 1981-82, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(B 82-4) (O 82-35, O 82-33, O 82-34, O 82-32, O 82-36, O 82-29)
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.