11/01/1990 - Minutes PROCJ!!"DINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI`1T, UTAH
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Committee of the
Whole on Thursday, November 1, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City
Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present:
Wayne Horrocks Nancy Pace Alan Hardman
Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Don Hale
The following Councilmembers were absent:
Ron Whitehead
Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Director, Kathryn Marshall, City
Recorder, S. R. Kivett, Chief Deputy Recorder, and Chris Meeker, Chief
Deputy City Recorder were present.
Councilmember Hardman conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to the scenarios the range has been
order at 5:07 p.m. as high as $11,000,000 and as low
of about $4,000,000. He said he
AGENDA ITEMS feels the range is in the
$6,000,000-$9,000,000 area. He
#1. RE: Receive a briefing said he also feels that unless
regarding options for funding the there is a negative impact from
City's portion of the salt palace the AMAX case the RDA would bond
expansion. for $9 million. He said that
would leave $6,000,000 the city
Mr. Buzz Hunt, City Treasur- would have to bond for their share
er, handed out scenarios he would of the capital improvement. He
be referring to during his presen- said there was also the uncertain-
tation. He said the funding ty of timing which would determine
situation was confusing because the amount of the bonding. He
of the uncertainties surrounding said, as an example, if the bond-
the project. He said there were ing took place in 1993 the amount
uncertainties not only with the of money the RDA could contribute
project but with the city's would go up and the amount the
$15,000,000 participation. He city would have to contribute
said the concept is that the RDA would go down. He also said the
will participate to the full amount the RDA could bond for
extent it can, using the so called would depend on the school boards
hair cut revenue. He said this continued support of their
was a roll back revenue which the $390,000 hold harmless payment.
city is giving back to the RDA to He said this could be a potential
help them support the Jazz arena problem area.
and the Salt Palace renovation.
He said that even though with that Councilmember Pace asked Mr.
revenue stream there are some Hunt if he would explain briefly
uncertainties as to how much the the hold harmless payment.
RDA can bond for. He said the
bonding range is wide, in some of
i' 90-1
PROCEEDINI,OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LAOCITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
Mr. Hunt said legislation was than they paid. He said the
passed in 1989 to provide the RDA agreement has already been negoti-
with this revenue stream. He said ated. He said what the Council
there was a scheduled roll back of was asking them to do now was to
taxable value which was to go back subordinate the payment. He said
on the tax roll. He said the this meant the school board was to
first level of that roll back, take a second lien position on
which was 20%, has been reached. that revenue stream. He said the
He said 20% amounted to approxi- bond holders on the bond issue
mately $350,000 which was returned would have a first priority posi-
to the city. He said that it also tion on that revenue stream. He
provided approximately $390,000 said that the revenue stream was
to the school board. not at risk. He said there would
have to be a lot of adverse eco-
Councilmember Pace asked if nomic circumstances in order for
this amount was arena specific. the revenue steam to dwindle to
the point where the $390,000 was
Mr. Hunt said the money was not ever available. He also said
not specifically related to the he felt the revenue would be
arena. He said it was just relat- easily sufficient to meet the
ed to the revenue stream that was $390,000 per year payment, with an
created by the roll back. He said additional $400,000 that can be
the school board has been enjoying used in the overall funding
this revenue stream since 1989. scheme.
He said the school board was
objecting to the legislation and Mr. Hunt said another factor
the RDA must find some mechanism in the funding is what is called a
to hold them harmless or in other coverage ratio. He said this is
words make them whole. He said the amount of revenue coming in.
the RDA has done this by negotiat- He said the city must demonstrate
ing an agreement where the RDA that this revenue is sufficient to
pays the school board $390,000 pay the annual debt service. He
from money received from the said when bonding documents were
haircut revenue, the school dis- prepared the bond covenants would
trict will then be held harmless. require a revenue coverage ratio
of about $1, 250,000. He said the
Councilmember Godfrey said he city will probably have to have a
thought the money was a one time higher coverage ratio than the
hold harmless situation. $1, 250,000. He said the city is
trying to structure this issue to
Mr. Hunt said the city would maximize the amount of bond that
hold them harmless for the roll can be issued given the odd timing
back which was the 20% figure. He of the revenue stream. He said
said it would be an ongoing annual the revenue stream grows over time
payment, for as long as the RDA but does not grow at an even or
claims that revenue stream. constant rate. He said because
of this we are having to structure
Councilmember Kirk asked if this bond issue with some zero
at some point the school board coupon bonds. He said to make the
would get back more money than issue marketable we have to get
they paid out. bond insurance. He said the
uncertainty was the extent in
Mr. Hunt said at some point which the insurance company may
they would be getting back more demand a higher coverage ratio.
90-2
PROCEEDIN OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LACITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
He said the amount they may demand $14,000,000 for a 20 year pay
is a matter of negotiation. He back.
said he thinks the insurance
company will be satisfied with Mr. Hunt said that those fig-
$1,300,000 ratio. ures were correct and added that
the figures were computed at
Councilmember Horrocks asked special interest rates. He re-
if there was an educated guess as ferred the council to attachment
to what the UDAG decision would 1, the two far right columns, of
be. the outline. He said according to
these figures the city would not
Mr. Hunt said it would be insure the loan but would go with
impossible to estimate as no one a straight rating. He said the
knows what the legislative solu- two alternatives would then be a
tion will be in resolving the AMAX 10 or 20 year term, and the total
decision. payment to borrow $6 million is
$10, 600,000 over a 10 year period
Councilmember Hardman said at a 7. 5% interest rate.
that the council would have to
make their decision based upon the Mr. Hunt said the second
$6,000, 000 participation figure. method was to issue bonds through
the municipal building authority.
Mr. Hunt said for planning He said the problem with this
purposes the decision would have method was that the city did not
to be made based upon the $6 have any security to put up for
million figure. He said there may collateral for the bonds. He said
be an outside chance the figure if the city were to issue bonds
could be higher or lower. He also through the municipal building
said it depended on the amount authority, it would have to secure
bonded by RDA. lease hold interest or ownership
in the salt palace to be able to
Mr. Hunt said the city had provide collateral. He said this
four options to determine the type option was not very appealing. He
of financing. He discussed those said if necessary the city could
items in section II of the at- bond through the municipal build-
tached handout. He said the first ing authority and then use the
was to piggy back the county bond bond proceeds to fund our CIP
issue. He said the county has (Capital Improvement Program) . He
cash flow problems with existing said that every year we transfer
and outstanding bonds which are from the general fund out of
not going to be paid off until property tax revenue $5, 000,000 to
1994. He said the county was our CIP fund. He said $2, 800,000
thinking they may have to capital- of that amount was used for the
ize three years worth of interest, repayment of City County Building
and they may have to refinance for general obligation bonds. He said
25 years. These two items would we still have $2, 200,000 every
make it more expensive for city. year that we fund for ongoing CIP
projects. He said the city could
Councilmember Hales asked if fund 3 years of CIP projects
the pay back figures were correct through the municipal building
for borrowing $6,000,000 to cover authority revenue bond proceeds
the city' s participation. He said and instead of transferring that
the 'pay back would be $12,000,000 money to the CIP the city could
for a ten year pay back and transfer the money into a Salt
90-3
PROCEEDIN1POF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LAOCITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
Palace project fund, and then provided they use it for certain
capitalize that at $6,000,000. He projects. He said those projects
said that money would be used as are basically the JAZZ arena and
our contribution for the salt the convention center. He said if
palace. He said the city could they do not use the money for that
then use the project it financed purpose then they do not get the
in the CIP fund as the collateral money, it goes back to the juris-
for the bond. diction.
Councilmember Pace asked why Councilmember Hardman asked
the city needed to go through the if there was anyway we could play
extra steps. with the $6,000,000 figure.
Mr. Hunt said unless you do a Mr. Hunt said it would depend
general obligation issue you have on the timing of the bond issue.
to have something that you are He said the RDA had a specific
putting up as collateral to use as date to bond by. He said the city
security unless it is a revenue must borrow whatever amount the
bond. He said that is why it is RDA cannot come up with by that
so difficult to issue bonds for specified date.
the Salt Palace as we have no
ownership interest in it. Councilmember Pace asked what
the reality really was of the four
Mr. Hunt said option four is participants providing $15,000,000
the best option. He said using each. She said this figure was
this scenario the city would bond based on old estimates and old
funds for $6,000,000 and use those construction costs. She said she
for CIP projects. He said the felt the $15,000,000 would not be
city would then divert the general enough.
fund transfer to the to salt
palace but instead of it directly Mr. Hunt said the total
funding the salt palace, the city project was for $60,000, 000. He
would loan it to the RDA. He said said that amount was to be divided
the RDA would then be a full equally and shared by the state,
participant in the amount of $15 the county, the city, and the
million. He said the RDA would private sector.
then sign a loan agreement with
the city which is subordinated and Councilmember Hardman asked
the RDA would pay the city back. Ms. Olene Walker, Salt Palace
He said this way the city is made Renovation Committee, to speak
whole for the $6 million contribu- about the various commitments from
tion. He said this is the least the private sector.
costly alternative. He said we
would actually get our $6,000, 000 Ms. Walker said the private sec-
back through this method. tors contribution would come
primarily from the hotel room tax.
Councilmember Pace said it She said the county would reissue
would be less costly to us but it the bonds in 1994 to cover the new
would be money that the RDA would expansion.
not really have.
Councilmember Hardman said
Mr. Hunt said that the way that the project originally start-
the 1989 legislation read was that ed out as a $35,000,000 project
the , RDA would get the haircut divided in thirds. He said the
90-4
PROCEEDIN1POF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LAOCITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
project amount was raised to counts consisted of approximately
$60,000,000. 40 separate accounts. He said the
proposed food and beverage tax
Ms. Walker said it was hard would consist of thousands of
to come up with exact figures accounts. He said there would be
before you have drawings or an administrative burden upon
records. She said the County has imposing the tax. He said the
had two professional groups look revenue received would depend on
at the project and both have given how the industry was defined. He
the cost figure of approximately said the zoning definition stated
$60 million. She said there is no that food and beverage is prepared
convention center in the country foods and beverages which are
that makes money and all must be either consumed on premises or
subsidized. She said the county taken off premises. He said he
has had no funds to cover the was unsure if this definition
annual losses. She said the applied to the deli at Albertsons
proposed auto tax would help cover or 7-11 hot dogs. He said the
those losses incurred by the Salt definition required a legal opin-
Palace. ion as what is included or exclud-
ed. Mr. Hunt referred to the hand
Mr. Hunt outlined some of the out and said that he had projected
alternative revenue sources listed what the various percentage rates
in item III of the handout. He collected would generate.
said Item A had already been
covered. He said the second item Councilmember Hardman asked
was a proposed new tax on the food if the listed figures were before
and beverage industry. He said or after deduction of the adminis-
this tax would be similar to the trative costs.
inn keepers tax which is imposed
through the licensing ordinance. Mr. Hunt said the figures
He said the tax would be a gross listed were before administrative
receipts tax. He said the current cost were deducted. He said the
annual taxable sales of the food city allowed hotel owners to
and beverage industry within Salt deduct part of their licensing
Lake City is $186, 000,000 and has fees. He said to make the food
experienced a five year annual and beverage tax comparable to the
growth rate of 8% per. innkeepers tax the city would have
to allow them to make deductions
Councilmember Pace said the on their revenue license fee. He
gross receipt tax would be paid by said this would include a deduc-
the vendors. She asked how it tion for the number of employees
would be collected, if it would a and a deduction based on their
separate item in the bill or would seating capacity. He said the
it be a hidden item in the cost. deductions would amount to approx-
imately $276, 000 per year, plus
Mr. Hunt said it would proba- whatever the administrative costs
bly be collected the same as the would come to.
inn keepers tax, where it is added
to the individual bills and item- Mr. Hunt said the third
ized. option would be to increase the
existing innkeepers tax. He said
Mr. Hunt outlined the inn the benefit to this proposal was
keeper tax collection procedures. there would hardly be any addi-
He said that the inn keeper ac- tional administrative expense. He
90-5
PROCEEDINOOF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LA CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
said there was an argument that generates approximately $2,000,000
the total tax of 10. 5% was high annually through this tax. He
enough and if raised may have an said the taxable sales in Salt
adverse competitive impact on the Lake City is over $2.3 billion per
hotel motel industry. year. He said a very small tax
rate of 0. 25% would generate
Councilmember Hardman asked $5, 750,000 annually.
if the figures listed in the
handout included the deductions. Mr. Hunt said the last option
was to impose a general property
Mr. Hunt said the five year tax hike. He said the rate would
history did include the deduc- be .000134. He said this rate
tions. He said the hotel industry would generate approximately
in Salt Lake City has grown at an $740,000 of annual revenue. He
average annual rate of 6% over the said these figures were based upon
past five years. He reviewed the an $80,000 home and would cost the
annual revenues generated if tax payer an additional $6.43 per
various percentage rates were year per household.
imposed.
Mr. Hunt discussed the hand-
Mr. Hunt said the fourth out which gave the amounts col-
option would be to create a Spe- lectable utilizing the various
cial Improvement District (SID) in options covered. He said the
the downtown area. He said the option which allowed the most
SID would make an assessment based desirable cash flow was the
upon taxable value of downtown $6,000,000, 20 year issue. He
businesses. He said the problem said the only taxes the city can
with this option was that the SID impose without state legislation,
would compete with the current would be the Food and Beverage tax
proposal with the downtown alli- or the Innkeeper' s Tax. He said
ance. He said state statute would the figures outlined were based on
have to be amended because conven- a conservative growth rate of 3%.
tion facilities are not an eligi-
ble activity for creation of an Mr. Hunt gave an overview of
improvement district. He said page three of the handout (at-
the creation process required tached) . He said when the RDA
extensive public hearings and begins to claim the haircut reve-
after the expense of advertising, nue the city will loose $335,000
property owners could protest out annually. He said the city has
or could vote the district down. been using this money to subsidize
He outlined the tax rate calcula- the fine arts. He outlined a
tion and the estimated revenue worst and best case scenario using
received if the SID were created. the handout. He said based upon
the figures presented his recom-
Mr. Hunt said the fifth mendation was to use option six of
option was the creation of a the handout.
special local option sales tax.
He said this tax was successful in Councilmember Hardman asked
resort areas and was imposed as a for a straw poll to obtain a
resort tax. He said Park City, general consensus of the Council
Brian Head and other resort areas on the various options presented.
have imposed a special 1% local 1. On the matter of the
option sales tax on all sales of $6,000,000 funding,
$1,0OQ or less. He said Park City scenario 2, page 2: All
members present agreed.
90-6
PROCEEDINOOF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LA CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
sions and he is unable to answer
2. On the method of any funding questions other than
financing the money where the money is being spent.
utilizing Option #4: All
members present agreed. Councilmember Godfrey asked
Mr. Rampton if the Salt Pal-
3. On the length of finance ace/Fine Arts Board was aware that
to use 10 years versus 20 the three entities which were each
years: All members providing $335,000 were only obli-
present agreed. gated to do so for a three year
time frame that was up this year?
At this time a discussion He also asked if the board was
between the council members took planning to come back to those
place concerning the funding of three entities and ask for a
the Fine Arts Subsidy. There was continuation of the money for an
no decision reached and it was additional length of time.
decided to wait until the briefing
by Anthony Rampton, Salt Pal- Mr. Rampton said he did not
ace/Fine Arts, before a final know if that decision had been
decision was reached. made. He said he thought it was
one of several possibilities being
#2. RE: Hold a discussion explored. He said he would like
with the city's representatives to to see the problem solved without
the Salt Palace/Fine Arts Board. requiring the funding to come from
the city, county and state sepa-
Mr. Anthony Rampton, of the rately. He said he would like to
Salt Palace/Fine Arts Board, isolate a stream of revenue that
briefed the council. He said you would take care of the problem as
cannot affect one form of revenue one fund. He said that the
without affecting another form of $335,000 from the three entities
revenue. He said the committee over the next 5 years would not
was looking for a long term solu- meet a $1,000,000 deficit using
tion to the problem of subsidy. 1990 dollars. He said the board
He said the money received by the was trying to update the facili-
fine arts council goes into the ties, work with tenant organiza-
fine arts budget and is used for tions, and increase revenues by
operations and maintenance of the freeing up stage time for travel-
facilities. He said it does not ing shows. He said the board was
go into capital improvements. He doing its best to increase the
said with the expansion of the revenues and thereby decrease the
salt palace, operations and main- need for subsidy.
tenance costs would rise and there
would be a need for increased Mr. Rampton said the total
subsidy. budget was substantially more than
$1,000, 000. He said that prior to
Councilmember Pace asked if three years ago the subsidy re-
any of the money received was used ceived was between $900,000 and
to produce shows or events. $1, 200, 000 each year and was
provided entirely by the county.
Mr. Rampton said no money was He said three years ago the county
used to produce shos or events. decided to drop the subsidy and
He said the board was still work- that was when the other entities
ing ,,on a number of scenarios but decided to assist.
t190have not reached any deci-
h
i 90-7
PROCEEDINIPOF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LANCITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
Councilmember Hardman said whether it needs amendments and
that Tuesday night the Council refinements, and if it is accept-
will take up the source of funds able to them. He said he feels
issue, the Salt Palace subsidy quite confident that the budget
issue and any conditions which will be accepted in its present
should be attached to the cities form. He introduced Mr. Gordon
commitment if any. Crabtree, Director Of Finance
State of Utah, staff support to
Councilmember Hardman said the Sports Authority Board, and
the council would meet at 4:00 PM Mr. Brad Barber, who was respon-
on Tuesday November 6, 1990 to sible for formulating the original
continue this discussion. budgets in 1984.
At this time Councilmembers Mr. Peterson said he would like to
discussed who would attend a stress that the budget is not set
meeting with the restaurant owners in concrete. He said it will
to discuss the food/beverage tax. continue to be reviewed and updat-
The meeting was scheduled for ed as new, better, and clearer
Friday, November 9, 1990 at 4:00 projections are received. He said
p.m. It was decided that the budget presented will not be
Councilmembers Hardman, Kirk and the same budget being used after
Hales would attend. Salt Lake City is awarded the
games because of all the changes.
#3. RE: Receive a briefing He said it is a marketing document
from the Salt Lake Olympic Bid and it is not ready for adoption
Committee. by the Council or the Sports
Authority.
Mr. Craig Peterson, Chairman
Salt Lake Olympic Bid Committee, Mr. Peterson said that as the
said he would be discussing the review of the budget was taking
bid presented to the IOC ( Interna- place it was noticed that there
tional Olympic Committee) on were some possibilities for reve-
November 1, 1990. He said the nue enhancement. He said the
principal goal was to demonstrate revenues could increase from $451
to the IOC that Salt Lake City was million to $749, 000,000. He said
willing and able to host the that the committee is clearly
games. He said another part of aware that their first obligation
the goal was to provide marketing is to the taxpayers of the state
strategy, determine the financial of Utah. He said the committee
situation of the games, and how wants to do a budget whereby the
to make the games most financially $56 million that has been fronted
solvent. He said this was being to bring the Olympics to Utah will
done through a committee which has be repaid. He said that because
been reviewing the preliminary the revenue projections have
budget being prepared for the increased this allows programs to
(USOC) United States Olympic be added which will enhance the
Committee bid. He said many Olympics. He said if the revenues
meetings have taken place with the do not materialize it was the
IOC and USOC to refine the budget committees intent to meet the
for an acceptable presentation to budget without further obligation
the IOC. He said the IOC is from anyone, particularly the tax
reviewing Salt Lakes budget and payer. He said he believes the
will respond on November 13, 1990 present budget as proposed can be
whether the budget is viable, cut to meet the revenues. He said
90-8
PROCEEDIN1POF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LACITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
the committee will know most of future and are subject to change.
the revenues six years prior to He said that when the old budget
the games so that any adjustment was put together, the committee
can be made. did not have any figures from the
IOC. He said what he wanted to
Councilmember Godfrey said he discuss with the council were
thought the sports authority was those items which have increased
only responsible for the dramatically since the USOC bid
$56,000,000. was submitted. He said there
would be no increase in local
Mr. Peterson said the Sports taxes. He also said the federal
Authority' s primary objective is government will allocate
to insure the $56,000,000 is $30,000,000 in Department of
protected. He said one way they Defense security subsidies. He
insure the money is protected is said this was a traditional his-
to review the Olympic budget. torical way the Federal Government
helps with all Olympic games and
Councilmember Godfrey asked large sporting events. He said
who was responsible for the other the money would be provided for
parts of the budget. all the materials, supplies and
equipment to provide the security
Mr. Peterson said this budget for the Olympic games. The money
is formulated by the group commit- will be provided without any
tee. He said the executive com- additional cost to Utah.
mittee approves the budget before
it is submitted to the IOC. Mr. Barber said the majority
of the revenue received would be
Councilmember Hardman asked spent in the Sporting ven-
what entities had to approve the ues/upgrading portion of the
budget. expenditures section of the hand-
out. He said another important
Mr. Peterson said that the increase in expenditures would be
budget was a planning document and in the area of the Legacy endow-
would change dramatically. He ment fund. He said the endowment
said the Council was not going to fund was to provide for long range
approve the budget for the games. maintenance and operation of the
He said they were approving a facilities built for the Olympics.
marketing strategy that will be He said there would also be a
presented to the IOC. He said the percentage of the surplus which
ultimate approval of the budget would be returned to the endowment
will come from the IOC. He said fund. He said the administration
the approval comes when the IOC expenditure increase of $45 mil-
gives Salt Lake City the word that lion was a little misleading in
it can distribute the budget to the sense that the committee had
members of the IOC. done some reclassification. He
said the handout showed a decrease
Mr. Brad Barber spoke on the in publicity/promotion and compe-
increases of revenue and expendi- tition management/operations. He
tures and referred to figures in said the decreases in these areas
the handouts. He said that al- had been placed in the administra-
though a lot of time and research tion budget which showed an in-
has been spent on putting the crease.
bud t together they are still
es,` tes and projections for the
90-9
PROCEEDING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LACITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
He said if revenues do not Councilmember Godfrey asked
materialize as they are estimated, for clarification of the item on
expenditures can be cut back the bottom of the handout relating
accordingly. He said there is to "Surplus for Amateur Sports" he
room in each category to reduce asked where the $39 million was
expenditures if need be. He said going.
the figures would be known well in
advance so that adjustment can be Mr. Barber said the money is
made to insure a balanced budget. distributed based upon a formula.
He said part of it goes to the
Mr. Gordon Crabtree said the IOC, part of it goes to the USOC,
role of the State Division of part of it goes back to the na-
Finance was to be staff to the tional governing body for Olympic
State Sports Authority Board and winter sports to be used in vari-
to provide oversight and an inde- ous programs here in Utah. He
pendent review of what is going on said the rest goes into the legacy
with the Olympics. He said he has fund and other amateur sports
looked in detail at past budgets programs in Utah. He said there
from various Olympic cities and is a requirement in the IOC char-
has made comparisons with them ter that all of the surplus must
all. He said he feels comfortable be used to support amateur sports.
that the numbers presented are a He said 70% of the money would
probable scenario for Utah in stay in Utah, the rest goes to the
hosting the Olympic games. He IOC and USOC.
said he was confident that the
numbers will change as more data Councilmember Godfrey asked
is gathered. He said he was if the Legacy endowment fund
comfortable that the games can be stayed in Utah.
hosted within the budget plan.
Mr. Barber confirmed that the
Councilmember Godfrey asked endowment fund did stay in Utah.
for a clarification on the line He said none of this money as
item titled "Media Rights (Utah presented on the proposed budget
Share) . He said he was assuming was needed to make the bid for the
that the rest of the $532,000,000 Olympics. He said the costs did
is going to the IOC. not begin until the start of the
games and the revenues are in
Mr. Barber said the money place and an organizing committee
would be going to both the IOC and is set up. He said the figures
the USOC. He said the USOC re- presented did not include any of
ceives approximately 10%, the IOC the money to make the bid. He
receives the remaining 90%. said it may be a year after the
award of the games before there is
Councilmember Godfrey asked any revenue coming in and there-
if the share the IOC was getting fore, no expenditures may take
was under broadcasting technology. place until that time.
Mr. Crabtree said that about Mayor DePaulis asked Mr.
$30,000,000 of the broadcasting Peterson about the $56,000,000
expenditure would be going to the which the tax payers approved for
USOC. He said this represented the use of training facilities.
their share of sponsorship and He said there has been a lot of
4.w Y� oney. confusion about that number being
melted into this bid process for
90-10
PROCEEDINIPOF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LACITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
the hosting of the Olympic games tion about keeping the $56,000,000
themselves. He said he realized figure separate from the rest of
the numbers have to be put in for the budget numbers was a good
accounting and the revenue source idea. He said all the money was
purposes. He asked Mr. Peterson lumped into one figure on this
if there were some way to insure budget because the committee was
that the $56 million was always reporting money from many sectors.
recognizable and that this amount He said the reason it was lumped
never gets lost in the overall together was to show the IOC there
budget numbers. He said the tax is a commitment of tax dollars for
amount should never increase and the Olympics. He said it was
should never be confused with potentially confusing to the
Olympic money that comes in as public to show it this way. He
revenue. He also asked if the said he felt there was a way it
additional amount in the Sporting could be shown so that confusion
Venues line item in the USOC bid does not occur when the informa-
of $68,000,000 covered the speed tion was distributed to the gener-
skating oval. al public and he would be willing
to do that.
Mr. Peterson said the
$68,000,000 was not included in At this time the Olympic Bid
the USOC bid. Committee departed to give a
special briefing to the news
Councilmember Hardman asked media. After the briefing they
who would control the budget in returned to the Council to contin-
its final form. ue discussion.
Mr. Peterson said an organiz- Mr. Peterson said he was
ing committee would be appointed responding to a letter
until the games are awarded. Upon Councilmember Hardman had written
Salt Lake City obtaining the him outlining a need for a closer
Olympic award a new committee relationship between the City
would be appointed to run the Council and the Olympic Bid Com-
games. mittee. He said he would also be
responding as to what would be
Councilmember Hales asked going on in Birmingham, England.
what would happen to the $56
million if the City is not awarded Ms. Jill Remington, Mayors
the Olympic bid. Staff said the Mayors staff was
going to meet on a weekly basis
Mr. Peterson said the and asked if a member of the
$56,000,000 is going for the Council Staff could attend those
actual bid. He said it would buy meetings also.
concrete and mortar to build
facilities that would be used by Councilmember Hardman said
Utah' s population as well as the Council wanted to be involved
training facilities for the United in a significant way with the
States. He said there was no Olympic effort.
public monies being spent on the
bid process itself. He said there Mr. Peterson said the commit-
would be no loss to the city. tee was going to be working to-
wards scheduling meetings better
14r. Barber said that in and informing the Council of IOC
r �ps)e to Mayor DePaulis' ques- visitors schedule. He said in the
90-11
PROCEEDING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LACITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
weekly meetings the council staff process and the concept of the
would be able to obtain visitor plan. He said it would take about
schedules and pass them on to the five years to fully implement the
councimembers. program. He said the basic con-
cept of the plan was to involve
Mayor DePaulis discussed with the community and make them a part
the council the accepted protocol of solving problems instead of
to observe and how to lobby the just reporting problems. He said
IOC members while in Birmingham, he had made commitments for this
England. fiscal year but he did not intend
to ask the Council for any addi-
Councilmember Hardman asked tional funding for any of the
Mr. Peterson to provide the coun- projects that will be accomplished
cil with copies of the IOC member during the first fiscal year of
biographical book. the plan. He said he did not know
what the budget requirements would
Mr. Peterson made a point to be for the remaining four years of
say there was a great possibility the implementation phase but felt
that some or all members of the there would not be a significant
council may not be able to be increase in the police budget
admitted to the IOC presentation because of this plan.
because of the number of people
attending and the lack of seating Councilmember Hardman re-
ferred to page 34, top paragraph
of the hand out. He said there
Mr. Phil Erickson and Ms. was a forecast for an additional
Jill Remington outlined the itin- 72 - 110 officers below the rank
erary and cost of air fare to of sergeant during the next five
Birmingham, England. years if current trends continued.
He asked if those figures were
Councilmember Hardman asked because of the community oriented
Ms. Cindy Gust-Jenson to prepare a policing plan?
memo outlining the amount of out
of pocket expenses each Chief Chabries said the
Councilmember will have to pro- figures were projected whether the
vide. plan was in force or not. He said
if current trends continue the
#4. RE: Receive a briefing department will need that many
from the Salt Lake City Police additional officers. He said if
Department regarding policy is- we continue to staff the depart-
sues. ment based upon the number of
officers versus the number of
Police Chief Michael Chabries calls received, and looking at the
handed out the policy statement response time per call, the de-
and the action plan. He referred partment will need that many new
to the annual police report which officers in the next five years.
he said had been previously dis- He said hopefully the community
tributed. He said for two and a oriented policing program would
half years he has been planning reduce those numbers.
the community oriented policing
program. He said the time has now Councilmember Kirk asked if
coy .• begin implementation of the department screened new offic-
t - r- ..ram. He said the policy ers to determine who had problem
sollAg ,t identified both the solving skills.
90-12
PROCEEDING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LA CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
message that the council wanted
Chief Chabries said this the department to augment the
would become part of the recruit- force with reserve officers. He
ment practices. He said it will said he hoped to implement the
also become part of the depart- program by July 1, 1990.
ments promotional exams and evalu-
ations, and it will be ingrained Councilmember Hales asked
not only in the new officers but Chief Chabries if he would provide
also those officers currently in the council with an update on gang
the system. activities. He said things seemed
to be running much more smoothly.
Councilmember Hardman asked
if there was a policy in effect to Chief Chabries said a Federal
make exceptions and hire people Grant has been received to acti-
who have already been through the vate a gang unit. He said the
post training ahead of those who department now has a total of 10
have not. officers in the gang unit, which
also involves other jurisdictions.
Chief Chabries said all He said he thought a lot of good
hiring was done through the civil was being done but there was still
service process. He said the a lot of gang activities.
Civil Service Commission provides
the hiring rosters. He said there Ms. Cindy Gust-Jenson dis-
is currently no provisions to go cussed additions and changes to
outside the traditional hiring the Councils meeting calendar.
process. He said everyone who
applies takes a test and everyone The meeting adjourned at 9:23
is treated equally. p.m.
Chief Chabries gave a short
briefing on the reserve officer
program. He said he believes the
program will work but it needs i y R rde
time and the patience of all
concerned for it to work. He said
the union must be a partner and
not an adversary or it will defeat Cd4fr%,
the purpose of the reserve pro- Council Chair
gram.
Councilmember Hardman asked
what the major threat was concern-
ing the reserve program.
Chief Chabries said the major
threat was job security. He said
the union had expressed concern
that the council would take away
full time staff positions if the
reserve program worked well. He
said another comment was the
Council had not given the full
number of officers requested. He
said the union felt this was a
90-13
P
t
�Y.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
VERL "BUZZ" HUNT Treasurer PALM ER DEPAULIS
TREASURER CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING - MAYOR
451 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 228 LINDA HAMILTON
SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111
(801) 535-7946 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
October 30, 1990
Councilman Alan Hardman, Chair
Salt Lake City Council
City and County Building, Roan 304
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
SUBJECT: Salt Palace Renovation Funding
Dear Alan:
In anticipation of our Thursday evening discussion on funding
alternatives for the City's participation in the Salt Palace renovation
project, I have prepared the enclosed "Discussion Outline."
After looking into the many complex issues related to this project, I
thought it might be easier to, present briefing materials in an outline form,
and to verbally expand with details and background information on Thursday.
The enclosed materials include a small sample of revenue calculations
mainly for illustration purposes. However, I can easily generate additional
calculations during Thursday's meeting should the Council so desire.
If, in the meantime, you or other Council members have any questions on
the enclosed materials, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Buz H t
BH/kh
Enclosure
cc: Linda Hamilton
Emilie Charles
I
41 t Discussion Outline
ne
on
Funding .Alternatives
for
Salt Palace Renovation Project
I. Scenarios on the level of Need far City Participation
A. Total project costs originally estimated at $60,000,000, and assumed
to be paid for by the following participation:
- State, 25% = $15,000,000
- County, 25% = $15,000,000
- City, 25% = $15,000,000
- Private Sector (through new taxes?), 25% = $15,000,000
B. City participation is assumed to be shared by Redevelopment Agency
and Salt Lake City Corporation
C. The actual level of need for Salt Lake City Corporation
participation depends on several uncertainties and contingencies
related to the full extent of RDA participation, and whether
construction costs excced the original (and now dated) cost
estimate.
D. Extent to which RDA can participate depends on several
uncertainties:
- Timing of when funds actually became needed
- School Board subordination of anneal $390,000 "hold harmless"
payment stemming f om 1989 legislative changes to Utah
Neighborhood Development Act (the RDA Act) .
- "Coverage ratio" (fraction derived by dividing available
dedicated revenue by annual debt service) required for bond
insurance.
- Interest rates obtained on Series 1990 Jazz Arena Bonds and
subsequent RDA bond issue (Series 1992?) for Salt Palace
renovation.
- Possible impacts to available RDA tax increment due to
legislative resolution of Supreme Court ruling on Amax case.
E. Current RDA Underwriter, Smith Barney, has generated three scenarios
on alternative levels of RDA participation:
-- Case 1: Bond issue generating $10,629,000 in construction
funds, assumes:
a) Coverage rate at 1.25
b) School Board subordinates $390,000 annual payment
c) No impact resulting fitxu Amax decision
d) Issue date of June 1, 1992
e) Current interest rates on AAA insured issue
-- Case 2: Bond issue generating $9,020,000 in construction
funds, assures:
a) Coverage rate at 1.30
b) Same as Case 1
c) Amax decision results in $50,000/year loss in
revenue
d) Same as Case 1
e) Same as Case 1
-- Case 3: Bond issue generating $3,806,000 in construction
funds, assumes:
a) Coverage rate at 1.40
b) School Board does not agree to subordinate
payment -
c) Amax decision results in $100,000/y . r loss
d) 'Same as Case 1
e) Same as Case 1
F. Likely scenario for RDA participation? Probably Case 2 above.
- Salt Lake City Corporation participation will probably
therefore be $6,000,000 with some chance of it being higher -
but probably in the $6,000,000 to $9,000,000 range.
II. Methods of Financing
A. RDA issues tax increment bonds for $9 million using the remaining
so-called "haircut" revenues (Statutory Allocation Reduction
Revenues, SARR, created by 1989 legislation - same revenue stream
being used for the Jazz Arena Series 1990 Bonds).
B. Salt Lake City Corporation has four options:
1. Piggy-back County bond issue.
- This maybe most expensive option
2. City issues Municipl Building Authority (MBA) lease revenue
bonds using a leasehold interest in the Salt Palace as security
to collateralize the bonds.
- This would require negotiation of City leasehold
interest in Salt Palace.
3. City issues MBA bonds, but uses proceeds to fund CIP projects
over a three year period. This allows the City to divert the
general fund transfer (usually going to the CIP) from the CIP
to the Salt Palace project.
4. City uses option 3 above, but instead of "directly"
participating in the Salt Palace project, City "loans" $6
million to the RDA to allow RDA to fully participate in project
at $15 million level. The RDA repays Salt Lake City
Corporation the entire $6 million through excess coverage
revenues on the Series 1990 and 1992 bonds (excess after School
Board payment is made).
- In the long run, this is the least cost method of
financing.
C. Scenarios on annual cash needs depend on whether the bond issue is
insured and whether bonds are issued over 10 year or 20 year period
(or any other period of time) .
D. Attached are eight possible scenarios for the City's $6,000,000 to
$9,000,000 level of participation. (See "Attachment 1.")
- Assuming the City needs $6,000,000, annual debt service (or
City cash needs) are as follows:
* $1,125,000 for 10 year bond issue, or
* $740,000 for 20 year bond issue
III. Alternative Revenue Sources
A. Excess (or mining) coverage is equal to the remaining SARR
"haircut" funds after debt service on both Series 1990 (Jazz Arena)
and Series 1992 (Salt Palace) Bonds, and after School Board annual
payment of $390,000.
- For Smith Barney Case 2 (mast likely) scenario, excess coverage
is contained on attached chart under far right column labelled
"Final Increment Remaining" (See "Attachment 2").
- Funds available average $440,000 per year through 1998 and
increase thereafter.
B. New tax on Food & Beverage Industry (similar to Innkeeper's Tax)
- Current annual taxable sales of F & B Industry within City is
$186,000,000, with 5-year average annual growth rate of 8%
- Tax base for F & B tax will depend on legal definition of
industry (i.e. , what do we include/exclude?).
- Tax revenues will also depend on whether deductions are allowed
for other city licensing fees (e.g., Innkeeper's tax allows
deduction for revenue license fee and per roam licensing fee) .
- Assuming tax base of $186,000,000 in gross receipts, F & B Tax
is computed to generate the following revenues.
Tax Rate Annual Revenues
0.25% $465,000 (less deductions)
0.50% 930,000 (less deductions)
1.00% 1,860,000 (less deductions)
C. Increase in existing Innkeeper's Tax
- Current annual taxable sales of hotels/motels within City is
$123,000,000 with 5-year average annual growth rate of 6%
- City Innkeeper's tax currently set at 1% of gross receipts on
roan rental revenue only, other hotel/motel sales are excluded.
- Five year history of Innkeeper's tax is as follows:
FY 90-91 $811,100 (estimated)
FY 89-90 729,693
FY 88-89 699,504
FY 87-88 665,424
FY 86-87 613,443
- Innkeeper's tax is imposed through City licensing ordinance and
allows for deduction of revenue license fee and per room
licensing charge, currently amounting to $83,700 in deductions
per year-
- Current "imputed" tax base is assumed to be $90,000,000, thus
increasing the rate is calculated to generate the following:
Tax Rate Increase Anneal Revenues
0.25% $225,000
0.50% 450,000
1.00% 900,000
D. Special Improvement District approach
- Boundaries would be downtown area and would be more inclusive
of all businesses and properties that benefit from Salt Palace
functions.
•
- Assessment based on taxable value of properties and is imposed
on property owners.
- Such an SID would compete with proposed "Downtown Alliance"
district.
- State statute would need to be amended to include convention -
facilities as eligible expenditures/activities for SIDs.
•
- Creation process requires extensive herrings and property
owners notices and could result in property owners protesting
out or voting the district dam.
- Assumed property values and tax rate calculation:
* Market value of properties within SID = $900,000,000
* Less 20% reduction (may change ) = -180,000,000
* Taxable values within SID = 720,000,000
* Tax rate necessary to generate
$740,000/year = 0.001028
* Tax is equivalent to $82.22 per $100,000 of market value
E. Special Local Option Sales Tax (e.g. 1% "Resort" tax on sales)
- Current City-wide "direct" taxable sales is $2,308,270,000 per
year, with 5-year coverage anneal growth rate of 3.2%.
- Tax would be similar to special "resort" tax currently imposed
in certain resort communities (e.g. Park City) .1
- Assuming tax base of $2.3 billion in anneal sales, revenues are
calculated as ,follows:
Tax Rate Annual Revenues
0.01% $230,000
0.05% $1,150,000
0.25% $5,750,000
- Tax could be imposed on County-wide basis in exchange for no
City participation beyond that achievable through the RDA.
- This option would require special legislation to enable the
City to impose.
F. General Property Tax hike on all City property
- Tax rate necessary to generate 740,000 annual revenue is
0.000134.
- Tax on $80,000 home would equal $6.43 per year.
!" ' G. Any combination of the above options:
Example:
#1 RDA excess coverage $440,000
#2 0.25% F & B Tax 465,000
#3 0.50% Innkeeper's Tax (increase) 450,000
Total Revenue: $1,355,000
H. Other important considerations
- 'Need to generate additional revenue to continue the annual Fine
Arts subsidy of $335,000 per year (assuming the City continues
to subsidize) .
There will likely be added administrative costs associated with
the imposition of new taxes.
0
"ATTACHMENT 1"
' SALT LAKE CITY
LEASE REVENUE BONDS, 1991
AAA (INSURED) Al/ A+
$9 MILLION NEW MONEY $6 MILLION NEW MONEY $9 MILLION NEW MONEY $6 MILLION NEW MONEY
7s iiki T
FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT.
2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011
1992 $755,165 $811,183 $503,650 $540,693 $760,705 $813,660 $507,275 $542,335
1993 1,690,165 1,111,183 1,128,650- 740,693 1,685,705 1,103,660 1,122,275 737,335
1994 1,690,325 1,106,983 1,128,650. 737,893 1,685,580 1,104,810 1,122,300 734,660
1995 1,690,650 1,111,508 1,125,425 739,243 1,685,570 1,104,350 1,124,070 736,130
1996 1,690,690 1,109,068 1,128,895 739,393 1,685,220 1,107,240 1,122,170 736,390
1997 1 ,689,980 1,109,948 1,128,310 738,313 1,684,060 1,108,100 1,126,510 735,410
1998 1,688,040 1,108,768 1,128,570 740,973 1,686,605 1,106,880 1,126,310 738,160
1999 1,689,375 1,110,478 1,124,230 736,998 1,682,005 1,103,530 1,121,460 739,260
2000 1,693,125 1,109,678 1,125,180 741,698 1,685,090 1,108,000 1,121,850 738,670
2001 1,688,400 1,111,308 1,125,600 739,333 1,684,610 1,104,520 1,126,650 736,350
2002 1,109,948 740,213 1,108,385 737;260
2003 1,110,528 738,933 1,103,795 735,990
2004 1,107,898 740,635 1,106,330 737,680
2005 1,107,018 739,925 1,105,205 736,930
2006 1,107,475 741,773 1,105,375 738,710
2007 1,108,850 740,773 1,106,415 737,610
2008 1,111,100 737,148 1,108,275
738,850
2009 1,108,435 740,623 1,105,163 736,775
2010 1,111,240 740,700 1,107,460 736,640
2011 1,108,280 737,060 1,103,925 737,745
ry TOTAL D/S $15,965,915 $21,890,870 $10,647,160 $14,593,005 $15,925,150 $21,825,078 $10,620,870 $14,548,890
PRESENT VALUE
D/S AT 7.25% $10,847,732 $11,238,609 $7,235,050 $7,490,865 $10,822,978 $11,205,820 $7,217,004 $7,468,980
f-4,:
"ATTACFIML', 2" •
• -
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY
' TAX ALLOCATION BONDS • . .
m
CASE II m
COVERAGE CALCULATIONS FOR SERIES 1990&1992 (I,
w
' --Less-. Plus n.
1. N Tax Increment Amax Increment Debt Service Debt Service Payment to Reserve Final Increment - in
Year* Available` Reduction Available 1990 Issue 1992 Issue Sch.Distr. Earnings Coverage Remaining"'
0
1992 $1,926,000 $50,000 $1,876,000 $804,505 $189,543 $390,000 $188,876 1.887 $680,828 in
r`- 1993 2,139,000 50,000 2,089,000 804,505 801,800 390,000 188,876 1.301 281,571 m
'', 2 1994 2,735,000 50,000 2,685,000 1,104,740 958,918 390,000 188,876 1.301 420,218 in
1995 2,766,000. . 50,000 . 2,716,000 1,128,615 960,320 390,000 • 188,876 1.300 425,941
D.
1996 2,766,000 50,000 2,716,000 1,125,068 960,553 390,000 188,876 1.302 429,256
I
). 1997 2,766,000 50,000 2,716,000 1,129,515 - 954,748 390,000 188,876 1.303 _ 430,613
04 1998 2,766,000 50,000 2,716,000 1,126,745 957,713 390,000 188,876 1.303 430,418
SS 1999 3,319,000 50,000 3,269,000 1,551,740 959,088 390,000 188,876 1.302 557,048
i 2000 3,314,000 50,000 3,264,000 1,548,020 958,833 390,000 188,876 1.302 556,023
2001 3,314,000 50,000 3,264,000 1,548,850 956,908 390,000 188,876 1.303 557,118
2002 3,314,000 50,000 3,264,000 1,548,849 958,098 390,000 188,876 1.302 555,930 •
• 2003 3,314,000 50,000 3,264,000 1,547,830 962,101 390,000 188,876 . 1.300 552,945 .
2004 4,419,000 . 50,000 4,369,000 2,398,721 958,975 390,000 188,876 1.301 810,180
2005 4,419,000 50,000 4,369,000 2,398,340 958,690 390,000 188,876 1.301 810,846
T ^, 2006 4,419,000 50,000 4,369,000 2,400,000 956,040 390,000 188,876 1.302 . 811,836
M 2007 4,419,000 50,000 4,369,000 2,400,000 960,250 390,000 188,876 1.300 807,626
4+ 2008 4,419,000 50,000 4,369,000 2,400,000 956,215 390,000 188,876 1.302 811,661
2009 11,047,000 50,000 10,997,000 7,500,000 954,259 390,000 188,876 1.301 2,341,617 '
m 2010 11,047,000 50,000 10,997,000 7,500,000 958,814 390,000 188,876 1.300 2,337,062
2011 11,047,000 50,000 10,997,000 7,500,000 954,660 390,000 188,876 1.301 2,341,216
2012 11,047,000 50,000 10,997,000 7,500,000 956,598 390,000 188,876 1.300 2,339,278
2013 11,047,000 50,000 10,997,000 7,500,000 959,024 390,000 188,876 1.300 2,336,852 aii.N
2014 11,047,000 50,000 10,997,000 7,500,000 956,736 390,000 188,876 1.300 2,339,140
2015 11,047,000 50,000 10,997,000 7,500,000 954,730 390,000 188,876 1.301 2,341,146 % '"
m
. in
* Represents the calendar year.
"The Tax Increment Available includes$390,000 subordinated payment to the School District. a
c. Source Katz Hollis Caren&Associates,Inc.
""The Final Increment reflects the gross dollar amount remaining after debt service o
li coverage of 1.30x on both Issues.
a -
'
u
Funding Options for City Participation
in Salt Palace Renovation Project
'
Estimated
'Excess' Debt Debt 0»b� Debt City Cash City Cash City Cash City Cash
u � (Hew Tax) (New Tax) (New Tax) (Hew Tax)
increment Service Service Service Service Needs Needs Needs Heeds '
Calandor Coverage $6 Million $6 Million $Y Mi} |ion $Y Million $6 Million $6 Million $Y Million $Y Million
Year Remaining 10-Yr issue 20'Yr issue 10'Yr Issue 20'Yr Issue 10'Yr Issue 20-Yr Issue 10-Yr Issue 20-Yr issue
1Y92 491?952 507/275 542,335 760,705 813/660 15/323 50,383 268J53 321,708
1993 281,571 1/122/275 737/335 1/685^705 1,1030660 84OJO4 455J64 1,404/134 822�O8Y
19Y4 420,218 1,122,30O 734,660 1/685`58O 1,104,810 702?082 314,442 1,265,362 684/592
1995 425/941 1J24,O7O 736/130 1/685`570 1,104,350 6Y8J%9 31;/09 1,25Y,629 678�40Y
1996 429?256 1,122/170 736/390 1/685`220 1,107/240 592,914 307,134 1/255,964 6/7/Y84
1997 430,613 1,126/510 735/410 1/634�060 1,108,100 695/89/ JO4J97 1/253/447 677�487
1998 430,418 1/126,310 738/160 1,686`615 1/106/880 6Y5/892 3O7J42 1/256,187 676/462
1999 557,048 1/121/460 739/260 1/682`005 1J03/53O 564/412 182/212 1 124 Y57 546�482
2000 556,023 1/121,850 730,670 1,685�VYO 1'108/000 565/827 182/647 1�129/O67 551/977
2001 557,118 1,126,650 736/350 1/684�610 1`1O4/52O �6Y/532 �7Y�232 1�12//4Y2 547�4O2
2002 555 Y3O 737 26O � ` � �
� � 1,1O8,3G5 181,33O 552 455
2003 552;945 735/YY� 1,103/795 183,045 55O/�85O
2004 910,180 737/680 1/106/33C -72j500 296'150
2005 810?846 736,930 1/105^205 -73�416 294359
2006 811/836 738,70 1/1O5�375 -73/126 2Y3/539
2007 807/626 737/610 1JO6'415 '70/016 2Y8�78Y
2008 811,661 738,850 1?08'275 '72/811 2Y6/614
2009 2,341,617 736J75 1,105163 '1/604,842 '1 236�454
2010 2/337/062 736,640 1,107 ;60 -1,600,422 -1�229/6O2
� / ' � /
2011 2,341,216 737/745 1 1O3 925 1 6O3 471 � /
2012 2?339?2/8 '1�237/2Y1
2013 2/336/852
2014 2.33Y,140
2015 2/341,146
Totals: 26/117/493 10/620,870 14/548/890 15/925!150 21!825/078 6/0401712 '2 212 187 11 344 YY2 5,064,001
1st 10 Yrs 41580/158 / � / �
1st 20 Yrs 16J61!077
-.2 -
FIB Tax Base Assved Innkeeper'a
166,000,000 Growth 73 x Bg se
1,03 $90,000,000
'Net'
* 'Net 'Het' 'Oat' 'Sal * 'Net' 'Net' 'Het' 'Het' Increase In *.
4 Ney Tax Hey Tax Hey Tax Na' Tat Feof 8 Bev, A Increase Increase Increase Increase Innkeeper's *
* Food I Bev, Food 6 Rev. Fond 6 Be', Food 6 Bev, industry * Innkeepers Innkeeper's InnIeeper's Innkeeper's Industry *
* Calendar @ Rate of 0 Rate of 8 Rate of C Fats gi License Fee * Lalr,dat Ta? 0 Rate Tax 3 Rate Tax i3 Rate Tex 3 Rate License Fee * '
* fear 0,257, 0,503 0,752 1,003 Deductign * Ott" 0,25% 0,500 0,757. 1,005. Deduction *
* 192 188,714 653,714 1,118,714 1,583,214 226,286 * 1902 222,424 447,185 622,489 897,489 2,511
* 1993 194075 673,325 1,152,275 1,631,225 264..525 ( 1973 229,164 460,914 692,664 424,414 2,586 *
* 1994 200,207 643,521 1,186,644 1,660,162 283,112 * 1694 236,039 424,741 713,444 952,146 2,664 *
* 1995 206,213 714,331 1,222,449 1,7130,567 801,605 * 1995 243,120 166,963 234,847 980,710 2,744 *
* 1996 212,399 725,761 1,255,122 1,782,484 310,962 ( 1946 250,413 502.652 756,892 1,010,132
* 1997 216,771 757,624 1,200,100 1,635,459 220,291 a 1997 257,926 518,762 779,599 1,040,426 2,911 *
* 1996 225,234 780,56? 1,325,803 1,691,037 229,900 * 1998 2656.64 534325 802,987 1,071,649 2,958
* 1940 222,091 603,966 1,375,877 1,942)768 .229,777 ( 19?5 273.633 550,255 827,077 1,103,758 3,088 *
* 2000 239,057 828,105 1,417,152 2006,202 346991 * 2000 281.843 566,866 851,889 1,126,912 6,181 *
4 2001 246,229 852,946 1,459,668 2066336 360,451 e 2001 290,243 533,672 ,277,446 1,171,020 3,276 *
A 2022 253,616 828,537 1,508,15.8 2,12.3,278 8:1,305 * 2002 259,002 601,288 903,765 1,206,153 3,275 *
a 2003 261,224 964,892 1,548,562 2,192,231 212,444 * 2003 307,427 615,425 930,882 1,242,335 3,476 4
2004 269,061 932,040 1,595,019 2,252,992 393,818 * 2004 317,216 6768,012 958,809 1,229,605 2,580 *
* 2005 277,133 '160,001 1,642,869 2,325,767 105,725, * 2005 326,732 657,153 ?87,572 1,317,992. 2,687 *
a 2006 285,447 988,301 1,692,155 2,625,510 417,507 * 2006 336,525 676867 1,017,200 1852522 3,798 *
294,010 1,013,445 1,742,920 2,467,375 430,445 * 2007 3/6,631 652,173 1,047,716 1,396,254 3,912 *
* 2006 202,831 1,049,019 1,795,206 2,541,396 446,358 A 2008 257,030 216,063 1,079,147 1,440,206 4,029 *
• 2009 311,915 1,080,490 1,849,064 2,617,638 456,659 * 2009 267,740 239,631 1,111,522 1,463,413 4,150 *
* 2010 321,272 1,112,904 1,804,526 2,696,167 120,358 * 2010 878,7236 761,820 1,144,666 1,522,915 4,275 *
2011 330,911 1,146,291 1,961,672 2,77705? 4a4. A9 -,,,,i1 350,166 784,675 1,179,214 1,573,752 4,103 a
• 2012 340,838 1,180,680 2,020,522 2,360,364 499,002 * 2012 401,840 808,215 1,214,590 1,620,965 4,535 *
* 2013 351,064 1,216,101 2,081,138 24'46175 512,972 g 2018 412,295 662,461 1,651,028 1.,6614 4,671 *
2014 361,596 1,252,584 2,143,572 2,021,560 529,293 A 2014 426,612 857,435 1,2488,558 1,719,682 4,811 *
* 2015 372,443 1,290,161 2,207,829' 3,125,537 545,274 4 2015 134,101 683,158 1,327,215 1,771,272 4,956 *
* Totels 6,496,757 22,505,066 28,513,374 54521,662 5)511,552 ( Totals: 7,659,511 15,405,467 23,151,423 30097,376 6,6,445 *
* ist 10 Or 2,163,395 7,494,048 12,324,602 18,155,506 * 1st 10 its 2,550,582 5,129,960 7,269,333 10,233,706
* 1st 20 IN 5,070,316 17,565,540 20,060,264 42,554,468 A ;. A. 20 YE 5,978,263 12,624,197 18,020,031 24,115,866 67,472 *
^ - 3 -
.- '
~/
^
Cash Needs Cash Needs Option 8ne: option ?vu: OptionIhrem Option Four:
Worst Best Sun of Sun of Sun of Sun of
Case Case 050% 0^50% 0,75Z 025%
Scenario Scenario Pond & Bev, Food & Den Pu6d & Bev, Food & 8ev^ '
Plus Plus Plus Option One Plus Option Two Plus Option Three Plus Option Four
Calnndar Fine Arts Fine Arts Fine Arts 050% Cover 1.25Z Cover O^00% Cover 0175% cover '
Year Subsidy Subsidy Subsidy lnnkeypar's Worst Case? innkeeper"a Qnrst Case? innkeeper's Worst Case? Innkeeper's Worst Case?
1992 335,800 656J08 385?383 1,101/H3 444/495 876,203 219,05 1/118J14 462,006 861/203 204,495
1991 345?056 1/167,129 800/814 1,134,239 -32/Y0 Y02,489 Q64/80 1?152/275 -14/864 087/039 -280J00
1994 355/402 1,03Y?Y94 60/844 1,168/266 128,273 929,564 -119,430 1Q6,844 146,850 913,650 '126,343
1995 366/064 1,044/473 676,253 1/203,314 15a,842 957,451 '87/022 1?222,449 177/976 941/060 -103/413
1996 377,045 1,055/02Y 684,179 1,239/414 1G4/384 986?174 -68,855 1,259,122 204/093 969/292 '85?738
1997 388j357 1/065,844 693,154 1,276/596 210J52 1/815,759 '50,O84 1,296/896 231/052 998,370 -67/474
1Y98 400/008 1,076/470 707J50 1?314?894 238/424 1,046,232 '3U?237 1,335/803 259/334 1,028/321 -48.148
1999 412?008 958,00 594/220 1,354,341 395/851 1?077/619 119/12Y 1,375,877 417/287 1/059?171 10O/681
2000 424,368 976,345 607,015 1/394?971 418/626 1/109,94G 133?603 1?417,153 440,808 1/090/946 114/601
2001 437,099 984/501 616,331 1?436,820 452/319 1,143,246 158J45 1,45Q668 475,167 1/1230675 139,174
2002 450,212 1,002,667 631,542 1,479#25 4/7,258 1,177,544 174,877 1?503,458 500,791 1?157/385 154J18
2003 463,719 1,014,568 646,763 1J24/322 509/754 1/212,870 190?302 1,548,562 533,993 1J92/106 177/538
2004 47//63O 773,780 405/130 1,570/052 796,272 1,249?256 475/476 1,595/019 821,239 1/227,87O 454/090
2005 491/959 786,318 4180043 1/617/154 830,836 1/286J34 500/416 1,642,869 856/551 1/264J06 478,388
2006 506J18 8OO/257 433,592 1/665,668 865,412 1/325,336 525,079 1/02,155 8Y1?899 1,302,647 502,390
2007 521,919 820/708 451,903 1J15/638 894/930 1^365/096 544?388 1J42/920 922,212 1,341,726 521,018
2008 537/577 834/191 464J66 1?767/108 932,Y17 1�406/049 5/1,858 1,795 2O8 Y61 O17 1 381 /Y78 547�787
2009 553JO4 -682J5O -1,051,138 1,820,121 2,5O2/871 1�446,230 2,130/Y80 1/849�O64 2/521�814 1�423�437 2,106,187
2010 570,315 '659,20/ -1jO30/07 1,874,724 2/534/011 1`491,677 2�l5O1f64 1y9O4/536 2,563�823 1/466�14O 2�125�427
2011 58/?425 -649?866 -1/016/046 1,930/966 2,580,833 1`536,427 2/186/294 1/961/672 2/611�538 \�51V�125 2/15Y/Y91
2O12 605,047 605,047 605,047 1,988/895 1,383,848 1582,520 9/7,473 2,O2O`522 1,415/475 1�555�428 �95O�3�1
2013 623,19Y 623JYY 623?199 2j048?562 1/425,363 1`62Y,996 1/OO6J97 2,O81`138 1/457/Y3f l�6O2�OY1 Y78/8�3
2014 641,895 641,895 641/895 2,110/019 1/468,1Z4 1678,8Y6 1,037/001 2,14J`572 1,5O1�677 1/65O�154 1,000,259
2015 661J51 661J51 661,151 2/172/319 \,5\2J68 Q729,262 1`O68/111 2�207`87Y 1J46�72/ 1/6Y9/65Y 1�V38/5z7
� ' ' , / � / "
Totals; 11,532/868 16,596/869 Y!320?681 37!910/532 21,313/664 30,164p576 13/5671708 38/5131374 21!Y16 5V6 29 648 1/Y 13,051,311
1st 10 Yrs 3,840/400 10!024,992 6,434/942 12?624,058 2?599,067 10,044/685 19/694 12,824,802 2,799,011 9�872/727 152264
1st 20 Yrs 9!001,575 14,O65J/6 6J8Y/388 29J89J37 15,524!161 22/542!903 9,478!326 30,060!264 15'�YY4,�68O 22//14O,/347 Y?-O75;/27!
• .
Opt167, Five; OptiDri S.;; di71-1011 7 nation
Sum of Sir ni Sum of Sum of
* 0,50% 0,257, OM%
Food & Bev, Food & Bev, Food & Bey, Food &
Plus Option Five 4 Plus Option 219 Plus Option 7 Flue Option $
1,002 Cover e taiandar 0,000 Sever 9,25 lover 0,750 Cover
Innkeeper's Worst Case? * Year innkeeper's Best Case? Inr4seper's Best Case? Innkeeper's Best Case?
897,489 240,761 * 1972 653,714 268,231 411,203 25,820 S72,489 287,106
724,414 -242.725 * 1973 673,225 -127,487 423,539 -377,275 692,664 -108.150
752,146 -87,847 e 1974 673,525 23,682 436,245 -233,593 713,444 43,600
980,710 -63,762 * 1995 714,331 38,071 447,223 -226,920 724,847 58,504
1,010,132 -44,898 * 1996 335,761 51,521 462,112 -221,367 756,892 72,713
1,040,436 -25,408 * 1997 757,834 64,680 476,677 -216,457 779,577 86,445
1,071,649 -4021 * 1999 760,569 72,819 490,778 -216,752 802,787 75,238
1,102,778 145,309 * 1990 803,966 20S,766 505,728 -86.4912 327,077 232.657
1,136.712 160,567 * 2000 826.105 221,090 520,700 -66,115 851,669 244,874
1,171,020 166,519 * 2001 852.948 236,617 526,527 -79,804 677,446 261,115
1.206,150 202,463 * 2002 878,527 246,795 552,622 -78,7'20 903,7e9 272,227
1.242,335 227,766 * 2002 701,892 258,130 569,201 -77,562 720,882 264,119
1,279,605 505,825 * 2004 732,040 526,910 586,277 181,147 958,607 553.679
1,317,973 531,675 * 2005 760,001 541,758 603,865 165,622 967,573 567,530
1,357,533 557,276 * 2006 968,801 555,210 621.781 188,390 1,017,200 583,606
1,298,259 577,551 * 2007 1,018,465 566,582 640,641 168,738 1,047,716 595,813
1,440,206 606,016 * 2008 1,049,019 584,252 659,860 195,094 1,079,147 614,382
1,482,412 2,166,162 * 2009 1,080,490 2,131,626 679,656 1.720,794 1,111,522 2,162.660
1'527,915 2 * 2010 1:112904 2,142,011 700,046 1,720,152 1,144,868 2,174,974
1,573752 2,223,619 * 2011 1,146,291 2,162,338 721,047 1,727,073 1,179,214 2,195,260
1,620,965 1,015,918 * 2012 1,180,680 575,633 742,678 137,631 1,214,590 609,542
1,669,574 1,046,395 * 2013 1,216,101 592,902 764,757 141,760 1,251,028 627,829
1,719,682 1,077.787 * 2014 1,252,584 610,667 787,907 146,013 1,288,553 646,664
1,771,272 1,110,121 * 2015 1,270,161 629,010 811,545 150,392 1,327,215- 666,064
30,877,278 14,300,510 * Totals: 22.505,066 13,184,362 14,156.268 4,835,507 23,151,423 12,830,742
10,288,706 263,714 * let 10 Yrs 7,494,076 1,059,157 4,712,782 -1,720,960 7,709,332 1,274,391
24,115,866 10,050,287 * 1st 20 Yrs 17,565,548 10,776,152 11,047,179 4,2519,770 18'070,031 11,260,643
. f
Salt Lake City Council
Financial Review of a Utah Olympics
November 1990
Bid Book Budget Comparisons
(in millions, 1990 U.S. dollars)
IOC Bid USOC Bid Change
Revenues
Admission tickets $ 58.0 $ 40.0 $ 18.0
Media rights (Utah share) 319.0 210.0 109.0
Corporate sponsorships and licensing 237.0 75.0 162.0
Government 86.0 66.0 20.0
Other 49.0 60.0 (11.0)
Total Revenues $749.0 $451.0 $298.0
Expenditures
Administration $ 77.0 $ 32.0 $ 45.0
Arts/Culture 12.0 10.0 2.0
Broadcasting/Technology/Media hsg. 131.0 40.0 91.0
Contingency 12.0 20.0 (8.0)
Competition Mgt/Operations 12.0 20.0 (8.0)
Contribution IOC Museum 1.0 0.0 1.0
Housing/Food service 23.0 35.0 (12.0)
Publicity/Promotion 9.0 18.0 (9.0)
Sporting venues/Upgrading
Venues 163.0 68.0 95.0
Infrastructure 42.0 16.0 26.0
Sales Tax Repayment 56.0 56.0 0.0
Protocol/Ceremonies 28.0 16.0 12.0
Transportation 30.0 16.0 14.0
Security 50.0 40.0 10.0
Insurance 9.0 8.0 1.0
Medical 5.0 6.0 (1.0)
Legacy(endowment) Fund 50.0 0.0 50.0
Total Expenditures $710.0 $401.0 $309.0
Surplus for amateur sports $ 39.0 $ 50.0 $ (11.0)
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Financial Review of a Utah Olympics
November 1990
Bid Book Budget Comparisons
1) ADMISSION TICKETS - The $18 million increase in projected
ticket revenue is the result of several factors.
First, upon review of more current estimated attendance
information, the number of tickets to be sold has increased
19% from 1. 18 to 1.41 million tickets. The most significant
increases in tickets sales came from increasing the number of
hockey sessions (from 16 to 42) , as well as an increase in
the average attendance at Alpine events (from 6, 666 to
19, 142) . The increase in the projected number of tickets sold
accounts for $8 million of the total $18 million increase in
projected ticket revenue.
Second, we have added a $5 transportation surcharge for each
ticket sold to pay for the transportation of spectators to and
from venues. This surcharge was consistent with what Calgary
did and is much lower than the $20 charge Calgary added to the
tickets for Nakiska (Alpine) and Canmore (cross country and
biathlon) events. The $5 surcharge added $7 million to
projected ticket revenue.
The remaining $3 million increase is the result of increasing
the average ticket price by $2 (from $34 to $36) .•
2) MEDIA REVENUE - The $109 million increase in projected media
revenue is the result of two major factors.
First, the projected gross U.S. television contract has
increased from $360 to $468 million upon recommendation of
IOC consultants. Salt Lake City's share of the increase is
$65 million.
Second, the IOC increased the host city's share of gross media
revenues from 50% to 60%. This additional 10% of gross media
revenues will increase Salt Lake City's projected net revenue
$44 million above the USOC Bid Book projection.
3) SPONSORSHIPS/LICENSING - The $162 million increase in
projected sponsorship/licensing revenue is the result of
several factors.
In the IOC Bid Book projections, $59 million has been added
to account for Salt Lake City's share of TOP (The Olympic
Program) revenue. This is the IOC's international marketing
program.
2
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Financial Review of a Utah Olympics
November 1990
Bid Book Budget Comparisons (cont. )
Projected local sponsorships, which by definition includes
national and local sponsors, has been increased $95 million
(from $15 M to $110 M) upon recommendation of the USOC. The
original $15 million estimate was too low. Albertville,
France has used an aggressive campaign to raise over $135
million from local sponsors.
Also, projected suppliers and licensing revenue has been
increased $8 million (from $60 M to $68 M) upon recommendation
of the USOC.
4) GOVERNMENT - The $20 million increase (from $66 M to $86 M)
in projected government contributions is the net result of two
factors.
First, $10 million in local government contributions shown in
the USOC Bid Book has been omitted from the IOC Bid Book.
Local government sponsorship is already included in the sales
tax revenue.
Second, a federal government's in-kind contribution for
security, estimated at $30 million, has been added in the IOC
Bid Book revenue projections. No Federal support was included
in the USOC bid budget. (The corresponding in-kind
expenditure is included in the security expenditures. )
5) OTHER - The $11 million decrease in other revenue is the
result of a $15 million reduction in projected net coin
revenue ($30 million gross reduction) . This was partially
offset by a net increase in recoveries (sale of equip, etc.
after the games) , interest, and donations totaling a $4
million increase. The decrease in projected coin revenue is
prudent given the selection of Atlanta as host of the 1996
Summer Games and their intent to issue coins as well as the
intent of the IOC to market centennial coins. This could
result in some overlap in the three coin programs for the IOC,
Atlanta and Salt Lake City, reducing the revenue potential for
Salt Lake City.
6) ADMINISTRATION - The $45 million increase in projected
administration expenses is the result of more detailed
research, particularly of the Calgary Olympics. Calgary is
very similar to Salt Lake City geographically,
demographically, and economically and so we feel it is the
best model to use.
3
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Financial Review of a Utah Olympics
November 1990
Bid Book Budget Comparisons (cont. )
7) BROADCASTING/TECHNOLOGY - The $91 million increase in
projected broadcasting/technology expenses is the result of
additional research and analysis by two consultants in Los
Angeles from Ernst and Young who are familiar with this area.
The two consultants were responsible for technology and
telecommunications for the L.A. Olympics. They have also been
involved in other current Olympics. Also included in the
increase are the payments to the USOC for its share of media
and marketing revenues.
8) COMPETITION MANAGEMENT/OPERATIONS - The $8 million decrease
is the result of shifting capital items in the USOC budget to
venue facilities in the IOC budget.
9) CONTRIBUTION TO IOC MUSEUM - The addition of $1 million for
the IOC Museum was added to the IOC Bid Book budget to reflect
Utah's international commitment to the Olympics.
10) HOUSING/FOOD SERVICES - The $12 million decrease in projected
housing and food service costs resulted from more detailed
research and consultation with Calgary and L.A. Olympic
officials and contacts in the accommodation and food service
industry. The IOC Bid Book projection is more in line with
projected food/housing costs at other Winter Games.
11) PUBLICITY/PROMOTION - The $9 million decrease in projected
publicity/promotion expenses is the result of more detailed
study, particularly of the Calgary Olympics. The original
USOC Bid Book projection came from a 1985 feasibility study,
while the IOC Bid Book projection come from reviewing
Calgary's 1988 actual expenditures and the budgets of other
Winter Games.
12) VENUE CONSTRUCTION - The cost of new venue construction has
increased by $95 million. This will be explained more after
further refinements are made in this area. The USOC Bid Book
projections were based upon a 1985 feasibility study, while
the IOC Bid Book projections are based upon our evaluation of
other Olympic budgets and our latest projections for
facilities now underway. In addition, we have added
facilities based on commitments made to the USOC (i.e. cover
the speed skating oval) and a desire to have long term
training facilities. The following paragraphs further explain
the difference in the bid proposals:
4
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Financial Review of a Utah Olympics
November 1990
Bid Book Budget Comparisons (cont. )
The projected cost of the Olympic Park has been increased $38
million (from $27 M to $65 M) . The increase is due to our
desire to have a better training facility for athletes and a
better destination facility for tourists. We feel that in
order for Salt Lake City to attract world class events and
promote training at its facilities, international quality
facilities are needed. This will help ensure the future use
of the facilities.
The projected cost of the speedskating oval has been increased
$22 million (from $10 M to $32 M) . This is the result of a
commitment made to the USOC to cover the oval.
The projected cost of the cross country/biathlon venue has
been increased $12 million, (from $8 M to $20 M) . The
increase is the result of our review of Calgary and our
expectation that some bridging will be required which
increases the costs significantly.
Three practice ice sheets with a projected cost of $11 million
have been added to the IOC Bid Book budget, as well as $5
million for the Olympic Torch. Other increases in cost
projections for venues not already discussed total another $7
million.
13) INFRASTRUCTURE - The $26 million increase in infrastructure
costs resulted from the addition of some projects and higher
anticipated costs for renovations. Several issues need to be
resolve before more specific costs can be identified.
It is anticipated the $42 million infrastructure budget will
be needed for athlete housing, the media center, the Olympic
Center, and other miscellaneous items.
14) PROTOCOL/CEREMONIES - The $12 million increase in projected
protocol/ceremonies expenses is largely the result of adding
new items to the budget. This includes $1.1 million for
language services, $1 million for an IOC recommended youth
program, $2 .8 million for volunteers, and $5.1 million for the
torch relay. The ceremonies budget was also increased $2
million.
15) TRANSPORTATION - The $14 million increase in projected
transportation costs is the result of adding capital costs of
$10 million to construct interchanges, parking lots, bus
shelters, temporary facilities, and to computerize traffic
5
•
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Financial Review of a Utah Olympics
November 1990
Bid Book Budget Comparisons (cont. )
signals. Another $2 million was added to pay for athletes
airfare.
16) SECURITY - The $10 million increase in security costs is the
result of adding a $10 million contingency for unexpected
costs in this area. It is felt that security must not be
compromised in any way.
17) LEGACY FUND - The $50 million increase in the contribution to
the legacy fund (facilities endowment) results from
recategorizing this item from being designated as part of the
surplus to its own expenditure category.
The USOC Bid Book projections anticipated that 40% of the
surplus would be used for the endowment fund. The IOC Bid
Book projections allocate $50 million for the endowment fund
as a regular budgeted expense, plus 20% of any surplus may
also be distributed to the endowment fund.
This change resolved two problems under the USOC Bid Book
scenario. First, because the surplus must be shared with the
IOC, USOC, NGBs, and other sports organizations, only 40% of
any surplus can be earmarked for an endowment fund. Thus,
the surplus needed to generate a sufficient endowment fund to
operate our facilities under the USOC Bid Book scenario was
$150 to $200 million, which was very unlikely. Second, if
little or no surplus was generated from the Olympics, under
the USOC Bid Book scenario, money for an endowment fund would
not be available. The IOC Bid Book scenario earmarks $50
million for the endowment fund before any distribution of the
projected surplus.
6
Salt Lake City Council
Preliminary Financial Review of a Utah Olympics
November 1990
Summary Budget
1990 U.S. dollars
Revenues
Admission tickets $ 58,000,000
Media rights (Utah share) 319,000,000
Corporate sponsorships and licensing 237,000,000
Government 86,000,000
Other 49,000.000
Total Revenues $749,000,000
Expenditures
Administration $ 77,000,000
Arts/Culture 12,000,000
Broadcasting/Technology/Media housing 131,000,000
Contingency 12,000,000
Competition Mgt/Operations 12,000,000
Contribution IOC Museum 1,000,000
Housing/Food services 23,000,000
Publicity/Promotion 9,000,000
Sporting venues/Upgrading
Venues 163,000,000
Infrastructure 42,000,000
Sales Tax Repayment 56,000,000
Protocol/Ceremonies 28,000,000
Transportation 30,000,000
Security 50,000,000
Insurance 9,000,000
Medical 5,000,000
Legacy(endowment) Fund 50,000.000
Total Expenditures $710 000 000
Surplus for amateur sports $ 39,000,000
facilities. These monies can be used by a host city to
enhance facilities and athletic programs for and after
the Games, as the Los Angeles Olympic Committee did for
the 1984 Summer Olympic Games.
When the first budget was produced, Salt Lake' s
revenues were estimated conservatively at approximately
$450 million. With the rapidly evolving interest by
corporate sponsors and broadcast entities, and based on
the bidding for the next two Winter Games, the figures
have risen dramatically even during the past year.
"Even if the projected revenues are less than the
of the $750 million, Salt Lake can host a superb Olympic
Games based on the original $450 million budget, " noted
Salt Lake Olympic Committee Chairman Tom Welch.
Winter sports training facilities will be
constructed and maintained through the $56 million
approved by the citizens of Utah in a 1989 referendum.
These facilities will be used before, during and after
the Games to further sports training and competitions in
the United States. This money is completely separate
from the privately funded campaign to host the Olympics
and from any money used if the Games are awarded to Salt
Lake City. When Olympic revenues are generated, these
funds will be the first returned to the state of Utah.
A host for the 1998 Olympic Winter Games will be
chosen by the IOC in Birmingham, England, in June 1991 .
# # #
, San t.ak City Bid Committee
for th Olympic Winter Games
420 East South Temple, Suite 340
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 USA
Telephone (801)322-1998
Facsimile (801)364-7644 The World is Welcome Here'
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Robin Wagge
November 1, 1990 W: 322-1998; H:355-0522
SALT LAKE' S OLYMPIC INCOME PROJECTIONS INCREASE:
car` TV RIGHTS, CORPORATE SPONSORSHIPS ENHANCE REVENUES
Salt Lake City, UT, America' s Winter Choice,
November 1, 1990 . . .Favorably revised projections of
corporate sponsorships and sales of media rights have
enabled the Salt Lake City Bid Committee for the Olympic
Winter Games to increase significantly the estimate of
revenues received if Salt Lake is chosen to host the 1998
Winter Games .
According to a budget delivered to International
Olympic Committee headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland
and released at a Salt Lake City Council meeting
November 1, the estimated revenues for Salt Lake City
•
will be $749 million. The additional, revenue-driven
funds will allow Salt Lake to enhance facilities and to
expand the development of sports programs for
recreational as well as competitive athletes.
In compliance with IOC rulings, surplus revenues are
turned over to the following bodies: the International
Olympic Committee; the host country' s National Olympic
Committee, such as the United States Olympic Committee;
and to national sports federations. The funds are
dedicated to th developm nt of sports and training
Community Policing
Community Policing is based on a
philosophy which recognizes the
interdependence and shared
responsibility of the police and
community in making Salt Lake City a
safer, more liveable city. It is a method of
policing which encourages a partnership
that identifies community safety issues,
determines resources, and applies
innovative strategies designed to create
and sustain healthy , vital
neighborhoods. Community Policing will
coordinate with efforts being made by
private, nonprofit, and public agencies to
bring a comprehensive approach to Salt
Lake City's problems of crime and
disorder. Community Policing reflects
the values of: Community participation,
problem solving, officer involvement in
decision making, police accountability,
and deployment of police personnel at a
level closer to the neighborhood.
Eleven Most Frequently Asked Questions about
Community Policing
1. How is Community Policing different from what the police
are doing now?
* Your police will still respond quickly to emergencies.
* Officers will spend more time working with citizens to prevent and solve
crime and disorder problems.
* Officers will make better use of crime data and share this information
with the community to solve problems more effectively. Hot spots will be
attended to quickly.
* Officers will play more of linking-pin role between citizens and the
services of other public agencies.
* Officers will spend more time helping neighborhoods and business
districts in organizing to prevent and solve crime and disorder problems.
2. What will Community Policing mean for a Salt Lake City
neighborhood?
* Community Policing is aimed at enhancing the safety and livability of
our neighborhoods and business centers.
* Salt Lake City neighborhoods will work in partnership with the police
department to identify problems, to develop strategies to prevent and
solve them, and to implement them. Neighborhoods will be more in
control of their destiny while being supported by the police department.
* Neighborhoods will know their police officers better and see them more
as partners, facilitator, and supporters in their efforts to solve
neighborhood problems.
* Salt Lake City's citizens will be asked to take on more responsibility for
their neighborhoods. They will be helped in this by the police
department.
* Neighborhoods, because of their partnership with the police department,
will have an advocate to gain assistance from other service providers.
3. Will response times increase under Community Policing?
* Under our current policing mode, response times are, unfortunately,
increasing. This is a major reason for moving toward Community
Policing.
* Community Policing is not designed to increase response times for
emergency calls. Over time, it may even be possible to reduce response
times for emergency calls.
* Depending on the desires of the community while working in partnership
the police department, changed priorities may increase response times
for some nonemergency calls.
* By bringing the resources of the community and public agencies to bear
on problems of crime and disorder, some types of problems may no
longer require a police response.Another agency or neighborhood group
may be better suited to dealing with the problem.
* Community Policing, over time, may reduce calls for service by
addressing the root causes of those calls. Solving problems before they
become calls for service is a fundamental goal of Community Policing.
4. What will the Salt Lake City Police Department stop doing
under Community Policing?
* The answer to this question depends on what the community, while
working with the police department, determines it wants its police
department to do.
* At the neighborhood level, the police department will use Community
Policing concepts to work with residents, businesses, churches, and
other organizations to set priorities for police activities aimed at solving
crime and disorder problems.
* Community Policing will initially attempt to reduce the time officers
spend chasing nonemergency calls, so that more time can be spent
solving problems that lead to emergency calls.
* Over time, Community Policing should reduce the time officers
responding to emergency calls. As hot spots and other problems are
solved, emergency calls may be reduced.
* Community Policing aims at applying the right resource to the right
problem. The police department may well stop doing certain things as
more suitable solutions are applied. Nuisance problems are a good
example:The police department may link citizens with the proper agency
but not provide the service itself. In a financially tight time, the police
cannot be all things to all people.
* As they are helped by the police department and become stronger, the
neighborhoods may be the best resource to deal with the problem.
5. What are you going to be asking Salt Lake City's citizens to
do?
* Neighborhood residents and business owners will be asked to join the
police department in an even stronger partnership against crime and
disorder. We are asking for a commitment.
* Citizens will be asked to become more active in their neighborhoods and
business associations. Alone, they may feel weak and afraid; together,
they can be strong and confident. We are asking for their participation.
* The police department will be reaching out at the officer-citizen level for
better communication, greater trust, and increased mutual assistance in
those activities that each neighborhood desires. We are asking that we
become partners.
* Citizens will be asked to take more responsibility for solving those
problems that they can solve. The 911 number should not be the first
resort in a nonemergency. The police department cannot possibly solve
every neighborhood problem. We are asking you to take the risk of
saying, 'This is our neighborhood and we don't do that here."
* Salt Lake City's residents will be asked to become more aware and active
politically. Budgets and programs are responses to public demands. We
are asking you to speak up for what you want.
6. Where will the police department get the officers to do
Community Policing?
* The police department is working smarter and getting more from existing
resources.
* We expect to reduce calls for service by linking nonemergency callers
with more appropriate service providers. This will free officer time for
better response to emergency calls and for Community Policing work.
* The problem-solving aspects of Community Policing will, over time, free
officers for increasingly more Community Policing work.
* The community involvement aspect of Community Policing will put more
people on the crime and disorder problems we face, providing more
people power to solve these problems.
* As our economy grows and our citizens see what Community Policing
can do, they may want to spend more for police services.
7. Why don't we build more jails?
* Salt Lake County is building a new minimum-holding facility, and the
State of Utah opened new prison facilities. These facilities will definitely
help us do a better job as a police agency.
* If we do not address the root causes of crime and disorder, there will
never be enough jail space. -
* Jail beds are incredibly expensive to build and maintain.
* Community Policing is a very cost-effective way to deal with problems of
crime and disorder when compared to traditional policing, jails, and
prisons. It gets at the root causes of problems, so they do not continue
to plague us.
* By strengthening and supporting strong neighborhoods, Community
Policing can help immunize neighborhoods against crime and disorder,
thus eliminating the need for increased jail space.
8. How can Community Policing help reduce crime if the rest
of the criminal justice system doesn't change?
* The rest of the criminal justice system is changing. Community Policing
is part of this general movement.
* Community Policing gets us closer to the root causes of crime and
disorder and targets our efforts better. Early identification of problems
effectively reduces the load on the system and allows it to focus on the
hard-core, criminal element.
1 * By reinforcing the community, Community Policing puts tremendous
pressures on those who contemplate crime. Strong neighborhoods are
the best defense against crime and disorder, not increased growth in the
criminal justice system.
* Community Policing supports efforts that put more citizen power into the
criminal justice system.
* Using a Community Policing approach, the police department can be an
advocate for appropriate changes in our criminal justice system.
9. How will Community Policing affect the workloads of other
public agencies?
* By directing a broad array of resources at problems of crime and
disorder, Community Policing could increase the workloads of some
agencies. Compared with the cost of police officers, prosecutors,judges,
and jail space, using the services of other agencies might produce a total
cost savings.
* The community aspect of Community Policing brings in new resources.
A well-organized business district, for example, may need fewer services
from other public agencies.
* Over the long term, if problems are solved and stay solved, demand for
all kinds of public services should be reduced.
* Other public agencies are not standing still. Many are getting additional
resources, and most are working smarter.Their capacities are not fixed.
* Community Policing should solve problems quicker by bringing combined
resources to bear. This may reduce total workloads for some agencies.
10. How do police department members feel about Community
Policing?
* Most police department members realize that though they work hard,
what they are doing now is not working well; therefore, they are open to
positive change. Officers want to do a better job for Salt Lake City's
citizens. They are willing to give Community Policing an honest try, if it
has the resources it needs to be successful.
* There is some justifiable skepticism because similar-sounding ideas have
not always worked here and in other cities. This skepticism will help
keep our feet on the ground as the community and the police department
fashion Salt Lake City's version of Community Policing.
* Police department members have always had a commitment to make Salt
Lake City safe and to provide the best possible police service. They are
providing their professional expertise in the Community Policing
planning process.
* Many police department members are enthusiastic about Community
Policing and its implication for the future of the police department and
Salt Lake City. -
* Since many police department members also are Salt Lake City
residents, they will gain from making Community Policing work.
11. How will Community Policing be implemented?
* The police department is currently working under tight deadlines to get
Community Policing out into the community to prevent and solve
problems of crime and disorder. Salt Lake City's version of Community
Policing has been defined and designed to begin on July 1, 1991 and will
be fully implemented by June 30, 1996. The planning process will be
ongoing during this period. In addition, the police department will have
a demonstration project underway by April 1, 1992.
* The process of planning and implementing Community Policing will be
coordinated by the police department, working through a variety of
working groups and task teams.The police department's units will work
closely with community, business, nonprofit, governmental, social
service, and other organizations to ensure that Community Policing is a
partnership between community and police.
* The demonstration project will allow the police department to build on
its already strong experience of community partnerships to create a
model for transforming its entire operation into a Community Policing
mode.
* A basic assumption in the police department's effort is that Community
Policing, by solving problems that generate large call volumes, will allow
increased resources to be freed from chasing calls. These resources can
then further the growth and development of Community Policing. This
assumption will be tested in the demonstration project.
* The police department is now involved in many activities that can be
categorized as Community Policing. Since more of these activities will
take place as the Community Policing approach is more fully understood
and accepted, the transition to a full-scale Community Policing effort
may be smoother than some people expect. In addition, the existence of
a strong and well-established Crime Prevention Unit and Neighborhood
Council gives Salt Lake City an additional head start on other cities,
many of which are either poorly organized or have no organization at the
neighborhood level.