Loading...
11/13/1990 - Minutes PROCINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as Committee of the Whole, on Tuesday, November 13, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Nancy Pace Tom Godfrey Don Hale The following Council Member was absent: Wayne Horrocks Council Chair Hardman presided at and conducted the meeting. Councilmember Hardman called Jerry Stanger was interviewed the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. prior to his appointment on the Salt Lake Arts Council. He said he BOARD APPOINTMENT INTERVIEWS had worked for an advertising agency as an accounting executive. Ann Berman was interviewed He said prior to that time he prior to her appointment to the worked as a volunteer for the Salt Lake Arts Council. She said March of Dimes. He said he had her background came from literary been a volunteer for the Salt Lake art. She said she loved books and Arts Council. came from a family of musicians. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Ms. Berman said she liked to create and by working in the Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive library and with the public, she Director for the Council, said had gained a broad perspective of Councilmember Horrocks was home things. Councilmember Hale asked with walking pneumonia and would Ms. Berman about the Sierra Club. be back to work soon. She said it was the oldest and largest conservation organization She said Item E-1 was the and was started in the early ordinance on professional 1900' s. She first had contact with services. She said Larry Failner the club as a young girl. She said from the Finance Department, was early experiences with this Club present if the Council had any gave her an interest in the questions. Councilmember Godfrey outdoors. asked why the ordinance had been referred to the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hale asked Ms. Ms. Gust-Jenson said any item Berman about "Celebration of the which was not urgent was referred Books. " She said it was a program to the Consent Agenda. sponsored by the library and it included four separate programs Councilmember Pace said on dealing with books; paper making, Page 2, 3.28.060B there were no book binding, the writers, and sentences just asteriks. Mr. editors and publishers. Failner said the paragraphs indicated by the asteriks were items pertinent to the main 90-344 410 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 paragraph. He said under the old meet. She said one item cancelled ordinance the City required the on the original Committee of the Public Works Director and the Whole agenda was a briefing Director of Community and Economic Councilmember Whitehead had Development or a designee sit in requested relating to Westpointe on every selection committee for Park. She said Councilmember professional services. He said Whitehead would be out of town so this was not practical so it had this item had been moved to been changed so the department December 6th. Councilmember Kirk head or designee who was asked why the issue on the labor responsible for the professional protocol had been delayed. Ms. services would sit on the Gust-Jenson said after it had been committee. He said then it would reviewed with the Attorney' s be subject to review by the office, Roger Cutler, City appropriate procurement official. Attorney had some questions so it would be delayed. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Items F-1 & F-2 would be pulled. She said Ms. Gust-Jenson said the they were ordinances the Council Fortune Magazine luncheon was had adopted with changes. She said tomorrow. She said if any of the the changes had been made and the Council Members wanted to go the way the Council ' s motions read, Council Office would call in the the ordinances had been adopted. morning to make reservations. She said Item G-1 was on beer She said on the last Council and liquor consumption fees. She calendar the RDA meeting was said Lee King, Community and deleted for November 26th because Economic Development, was present the meeting on November 15th was to answer any questions. Ms. Gust- to replace it. She said the RDA Jenson said several phone calls meeting was again scheduled for had been received and most of them Monday, November 26th. were favorable. She said Mr. King had letters of support from two She said former Councilmember associations and verbal support Sydney Fonnesbeck was home from expressed from the other the hospital. She said the associations. She said the Council Office was going to send a department mailed out about 600 fruit basket. She said it would be notices. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the $4.00 a person and would be sent tavern owners, the private clubs, in the morning. and the restaurant association had been very supportive from the The meeting adjourned at 5:20 beginning, but they had not given p.m. written support. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Thursday at 4:00 p.m. the Council would meet as the RDA and at 5:00 p.m. there would be an official RDA meeting to pass a motion relating to bonds. She said then an official Council Meeting would be held to approve the bond. She said after the Regular Council Meeting the Committee of the Whole would 90-345 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, November 13, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Nancy Pace Tom Godfrey Don Hale The following Council Member was absent: Wayne Horrocks Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Beverly Jones, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at and Councilmember Kirk conducted the meeting. #1. There was no invocation Salt Lake City to support this given. project and let the soldiers know we care. Councilmember Godfrey #2. The Council led the said maybe the City could do a Pledge of Allegiance. joint resolution and use the Mayor's Office to publicize it in #3. Councilmember Godfrey Salt Lake City. moved and Councilmember Hale seconded to approve the minutes of Mayor Depaulis said in the the Salt Lake City Council for the past campaigns like "Mothers regular meeting held Tuesday, Against Drunk Driving, " had a November 6, 1990, which motion local sponsor and the sponsor carried, all members present voted provided the ribbons. He said then aye. they came to the City for a (M 90-1) proclamation designating a certain time frame for support of the COMMENTS campaign. He said the City then sent the proclamation to the Mrs. Mailer, who resides in media. He said the sponsor got a Morton Meadows, said since the radio station to do on-the-air holidays were approaching she public service announcements would like the help of the Mayor promoting the campaign and where to see if a small yellow ribbon the people could get ribbons. could be put on cars in honor of the soldiers in Saudi Arabia. Mayor DePaulis said the City Councilmember Hardman asked Ms. would do a proclamation for Ms. Mailer who she had contacted. She Maller if she would be willing to said she had a list of everyone do the rest. He said if a sponsor she had contacted. could not be found, the City would still send the proclamation out to Councilmember Pace asked Ms. the press. Mailer what she was asking for. Ms. Mailer said she just wanted Ann Burnett, Representative someone to help her get started for Tree Utah, said she wanted to with this project. Councilmember alert the City to a major tree Whitehead said Ms. Maller wanted planting ceremony. She said it was 90-346 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 Saturday, November 17, at 9:00 UNFINISHED BUSINESS a.m. and they would be meeting at the Midway Town Hall. She said it Items No. ' s 1 and 2 were was to rejuvenate the 2, 970 acres pulled. that burned in Wasatch Mountain State Park in August. She said the NEW BUSINESS fire burned a major portion of watershed area which affected #1. RE: Consider approving an portions of Salt Lake County, Salt ordinance amending certain Lake City, Utah, and Wasatch sections of Chapter 28 of Title 3 Counties. dealing with contracting for professional services. She said this was a volunteer effort to augment the Federal, ACTION: Without objection State, and local efforts to try Councilmember Kirk referred the and prevent flooding, minimize ordinance to the Consent Agenda, soil erosion, and protect Deer which motion carried, all members Creek Reservoir. She said they had present voted aye. received wide-spread county (0 90-48) support along the Wasatch Front from high schools, the PUBLIC HEARINGS universities, etc. She wanted to extend an invitation to the Salt #1. A public hearing at 6:20 Lake City Council to join in this p.m. to receive public comment and effort. consider adopting an ordinance amending beer and liquor CONSENT AGENDA consumption fees. ACTION: Councilmember Hale ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Pace seconded to approve the Consent seconded to close the public Agenda, which motion carried, all hearing, which motion carried, all members present voted aye. members present voted aye. #1. RE: Approving the Councilmember Godfrey moved appointment of Ann Berman to the and Councilmember Hale seconded to Salt Lake Arts Council. adopt Ordinance 89 of 1990, which (I 90-16) motion carried, all members present voted aye, except #2. RE: Approving the Councilmember Pace who voted nay. appointment of Jerry Stanger to the Salt Lake Arts Council. DISCUSSION: Bob Bridge, (I 90-16) Licensing Department, said earlier this year the business licensing #3. RE: Approving the department determined there was a appointment of Perrin Love to the fee discrepancy between private Salt Lake Arts Council. clubs and similar operations such (I 90-16) as taverns and restaurants serving beer and alcoholic beverages. He #4. RE: Approving the said for over twenty years the appointment of Lynn M. Hilton to private clubs had paid $300 fees the Urban Forestry Board. while the taverns and restaurants (I 90-15) had been subject to ongoing changes in regulatory fees in the 90-347 111 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 city. He said a fee assessment Association representing the notice was sent out to all private private clubs, the License club owners last May. He said Beverage Association, representing these fee schedules were similar the taverns, and the Utah to that which had applied to Restaurant Association. Mr. Bridge restaurants and Class C taverns. said the meetings with these associations and officers was to Mr. Bridge said the private brief them on the results of the clubs, in response to the study and to receive their input assessment notice, said they and recommendations. Mr. Bridge wanted the Licensing Department to said they had disseminated a copy explain the fee schedule. He said of the fee schedule and a notice the clubs felt they did not have of this meeting to approximately an adequate opportunity to respond 600 different licensed to the notice for fee assessment. establishments. He said the taverns expected the City to have equity with the He said the Class C tavern private clubs in terms of fees. He license fee had been reduced for a said the City agreed to hold the new entrant into the City from license assessment in abeyance $1, 800 to $550. He said they until a study for the fees for on- consolidated the fees for premise beer and liquor amusement devices and all other consumption was conducted. categories including billiards and pool tables, card room tables, He said the City established public dance, and live musical an evaluation committee comprised entertainment into one fee of $35. of the following City departments; He said they also consolidated the the Police, Fire, Building and food, beverage, and cigarette Housing, Zoning, Finance, vending machine fee to a $10 fee. Information Management Services, These were previously $16. He said the Attorney' s Office, and these fees covered all applicable Business Licensing. He said the regulatory costs for these items. objectives for this task force Mr. Bridge said in addition to study were to evaluate the this, there was a per chair fee regulatory costs and expenses for which had been changed to a per each participating department and occupancy fee. He said the per to determine a fee schedule which chair fee had previously been reflected the actual cost of $5.00 for each chair in an regulating this industry. He said establishment that had on premise they wanted an ordinance that food and beverage service. He said could be applied to all they had reduced this to a $2.00 businesses. He said they wanted a per occupant fee to cover all of fee schedule that would be fair the general and administrative and equitable to all participants. expenses not included in the regulatory items. He said this He said the City was change went along with the 1988 confident this had been study done by the Finance and accomplished. He said after the Treasurer' s Department in which fee study was completed, a draft they recommended this fee be of the proposed fee schedule was reduced to $2.00. He said this copied, and sent to the various conformed more closely to the City associations and industry ordinance with respect to a per representatives. He said they met occupant fee rather than a per with the Utah Hospitality chair fee. He said other areas 90-348 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 addressed were outdoor seating and Howard Jones, Veterans of banquet facilities which were not Foreign Wars (VFW) , said his Club used in the daily operation of the was in a different class because business. He said a fee schedule they were a community service had been reduced to a 50Q per organization. He said they were occupant fee for these items. not in the bar business. He said they were in the business to He said they recommended support the post home and the passage of this proposed community service organizations. regulatory fee schedule as a fair He said he had been associated and equitable fee assessment for with the VFW for ten years and was the on-premise beer and liquor familiar with the community consumption industry. services the VFW was involved with; the Voice of Democracy, Ron Morgan, President of the College Scholarship Program for Utah Restaurant Association, said High School students, bicycle within the City limits they safety program for elementary represented approximately 350 school children, Child restaurants. He said they had Identification program for reviewed this issue very carefully preschoolers, Sub for Santa, etc. with the Business Licensing He said they also provided free Department. He said for a number Thanksgiving dinners to the of years the restaurants had paid indigent and disadvantaged people. a much higher fee than many others. He said the proposed He said all the extra ordinance would be fair to all of receipts from the bar operation go the businesses. He said the City to a relief fund used for the would not be losing money or benefit of distressed veterans. subsidizing the industry business Mr. Jones said they should not be licenses. He said the restaurants in the same class as private for- would pay their share. profit businesses. He said there should be a separate classifi- Peggy Rose, private club cation for service organizations owner, said she had been a tavern and the new license fees were owner for several years and had punitive and could tax the service just gone private. She was organization out of business. He concerned the new ordinance would said these license fees had a require her to pay the "new" fees potential of increasing their again because she had changed to a licensing cost 1000%. private club. Mr. Bridge said if she was approved for private club Councilmember Godfrey asked status she would pay the new fee what category the VFW Club was in. schedule. Mr. Jones said it was classified "Class B private club. " Councilmember Pace said she Councilmember Whitehead asked what thought Ms. Rose' s question was fees had changed. He said it whether she would pay the "new" looked like the fees had come fee or the "renewal" fee. Mr. down. Councilmember Whitehead Bridge said the renewal was coming asked Mr. Jones what they had been up in November, so if the new paying. Mr. Jones said they had ordinance was in effect at this been paying a $300 regulatory fee. time, the assessment would be from Councilmember Godfrey said the new the new ordinance. proposed ordinance would make them pay $400 as opposed to $300. 90-349 PROCEE NGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 Mr. Jones said there was a Councilmember Godfrey asked Mr. whole list of fees they would have Jones what their new fee would be. to pay; liquor consumption, Mr. Jones said the worst case beer/liquor dispensing points, would be $3, 180. Councilmember seasonal beer, wholesale beer, Godfrey asked Mr. Bridge if this amusement devices, billiards, was a realistic figure. dancing, food, beverage, and cigarette vending. Councilmember Councilmember Hardman asked Godfrey said some of the things if Mr. Bridge thought the $3000 Mr. Jones had talked about such as amount was an exorbitant amount amusement devices went from $50 to for the VFW Club. Mr. Bridge said $35 each. He said billiards went the Club had figured live musical from $50 to $35 each. entertainment at $1820. Mr. Bridge said there was a once a year Councilmember Godfrey asked charge of $35 for live musical Mr. Jones to tell the Council entertainment. which of the fees would affect the VFW Club. Mr. Jones said Class B Councilmember Pace said most Private Club would go to $400, of the other businesses had gross liquor consumption, $125, sales which far exceed that of the beer/liquor dispensing points, VFW Club. Councilmember Hardman $50. Councilmember Godfrey said said there was the question of all of these items had dropped in whether not-for-profit organ- price. Mr. Jones said any drop in izations should be exempt or not. fees would raise the cost of the He asked Mr. Bridge if this was club because these things had included in the discussion when never applied before. the new schedule was discussed. Mr. Bridge said it was in the City Mr. Bridge said private clubs ordinance that the nonprofit or with the nonprofit status that had charitable organizations that had an internal revenue status of 501 the proper internal revenue C 3 designation had previously designation did not pay a revenue been exempt from the basic license fee and the per employee business revenue license of $70 fee, but they did pay regulatory and a per employee fee of $6 per fees. employee. He said they paid a traditional $300 fee only. Mr. Fred Diana, previous Bridge said the whole purpose of executive director of Utah License this study was to assess the Beverage Association for the actual cost of regulating the taverns throughout the State of City' s regulatory fees. He said Utah, said the tavern owners had this was the actual cost of the not realized the private clubs did City to regulate this particular not pay any fees. He said he type of business. attended a number of meetings discussing this ordinance. He said private clubs would Throughout the entire discussion, still be exempt from the business we emphasized to the Mayor's revenue license and the per Office, the Business Licensing employee charge. He said they were Department, and the City subject to the other sources for Attorney' s Office that his regulatory license fees. association agreed with and liked Councilmember Godfrey said the services which were provided. previously these organizations had He said the Business Licensing just paid a flat fee of $300. Department looked into every one 90-350 PROCEE NGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 of Utah License Beverage Councilmember Whitehead asked Association's problems and took how much money went back into the into consideration their community in one year. Mr. Meeker recommendations. He said the said last year the Club made ordinance in front of the Council $28,000 profit and $27, 600 went was a fair and equitable statement back into the community. Mr. as to the Business Licensing Meeker said they still had to pay function that should be imposed for the Board of Health and the upon the private clubs, taverns, food inspectors to come in. restaurants, etc. He recommended the Council adopt the ordinance. Holly Bannerman, said her club leased vending machines. Mr. Mr. VanCommen, tavern owner, Bridge said if her club did not said he already paid the State a receive a profit from the vending $750 liquor license fee that beer machines, then the vending machine bars had not paid in the past on owners paid the regulatory fee. top of the City license. He said She asked if the vending machine the increase took his license from profits were shared did the $300 to $1200 a year. company who leased the vending Councilmember Godfrey asked Mr. machines and also her club pay the VanCommen what he had been paying regulatory fees. Mr. Bridge said Salt Lake City. Mr. VanCommen said if the Club was there for the he had been paying a fee of $300 convenience of the customers and per year for a Class B private was not taking a profit from the club license. Councilmember vending machines, then the club Godfrey said this was a fee to did not pay a fee. He said the regulate the business and in many City ordinance presently required instances the charges had dropped all vending machine companies to because the City was over charging provide the City with an inventory people to regulate the businesses. and a list of all the machines and Mr. VanCommen said he had to pay their placement. He said the City the Board of Health to come in and then issued a sticker so the inspect his premises. He said this inspectors know the machines are was also a separate fee. actually under the fee schedule and regulatory agreement with Salt Steve Meeker, member of Lake City. Veteran of Foreign Wars, said the veterans service organization and Ms. Bannerman asked if some of the other service pinball machines were amusement organizations had not been devices. Mr. Bridge said they considered by the restaurant were. He said to be fair the City association. He said every summer was trying to assess similar fees at Derks Field, an American Legion for similar use; no matter how the Baseball tournament was held. He facility was designated. said this did not cost the State anything. He said the American Councilmember Hale said it Legion spent $50,000 to $60,000 to seemed the Licensing Department hold this event. He asked the City had changed the $5.00 per chair to consider a special condition charge to $2.00 per occupant. He for service organizations. said Licensing had a formula they used according to the square He said the VFW was a true footage rather than per chair. He nonprofit Club because the money asked if there was a 10' X 10' was sent back out to the community restaurant and there were 50 and the indigent. 90-351 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT• UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 chairs in it, how would it compare and 25% greater than the per chair with the new formula that was used count. per square foot. Mr. Bridge said in the meetings with the industry Councilmember Hale asked how and association officials they had many community service clubs were agreed that the measurements of involved in this regulatory fee the facilities the City would not ordinance. Mr. Bridge said there include any kitchen areas, service were approximately six within the areas behind the bars, restrooms, Salt Lake City limits. Mr. Bridge hallways, and office space. He said there were sixteen different said these would all be figured licensing agencies in the valley with the employee charge. and each city corporation and the County all license separately. He Mr. Bridge said there was a said at least five or six of these different factor applied to dining were charging different fees other and drinking areas; square footage than the $300 fee Salt Lake City divided by 15. The factor for a charged to private Clubs. He said dance floor was square footage many of them were charging divided by 7. He said they took additional licensing fees as well individual booths at 24 inches per as regulatory fees and this was person and individual seats and one of the other reasons for stools one per person. He said assessing similar fees for similar this was how occupancy was uses. measured. He said Building and Housing did a thirty business Councilmember Whitehead asked survey and found that seating if anyone was interested in doing runs about 80% of occupancy. He something different for the six said this would be about one fifth community services groups. more in occupancy than they would Councilmember Godfrey said the have been previously paying for problem had always been with chairs in their facility. regulation. He said the City should be in a position to charge Councilmember Hale said under what it costs to regulate the old ordinance if you had a something. restaurant with twenty chairs you would pay $100. He said under the He said he did not think the new ordinance if you had a City could be in a position to be restaurant with twenty chairs you subsidizing service organizations. would only pay $40. He said this Councilmember Pace said she had a was a substantial reduction. Mr. difficult time because this was an Bridge said they would probably entirely different category and pay $50. Councilmember Hale said the Council was talking hard by square footage it would costs. She said they would be actually come to more than $2.00 underwriting someone else's per chair. Mr. Bridge said it charity. She said it meant the would be slightly more. He said City would get less in the way of the City had received the first return benefits from them in the batch of inspections from the Fire community because the City took Department and some of those were the money up front. less than the per chair count and (0 90-46) some were more. He said the initial survey done by Building and Housing showed the per occupancy fee to be between 20% 90-352 410 PROCEEI3INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. (LA. COUNCIL HAIR '4 4 ITO, A eT -E -D R JP 90-353 lr� OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7600 AGENDA POSTED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1990 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING DATE: Tuesday, November 13, 1990 TIME: 6:30, or immediately following the Official Council Meeting PLACE: City Council Conference Room City & County Building, Room 325 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 1 ) The Council will receive a briefing from the Council Staff regarding Draft Labor Protocol and Labor Policies, which have been developed as a result of the Council 's summer retreat discussion on this topic . cc : Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Mike Zuhl , Emilie Charles, Roger Cutler, Kathryn Marshall , Department Heads, Press, SLACC SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER ROOM 315 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, November 13, 1990 6:00 p.m. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 p.m. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451 South State. 1 . Report of the Executive Director. 2. The Council will interview Ann Berman prior to consideration of her appointment to the Salt Lake Arts Council . 3. The Council will interview Jerry Stanger prior to consideration of his appointment to the Salt Lake Arts Council . B. OPENING CEREMONIES: 1. Invocation. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the minutes. C. COMMENTS: 1 . Questions to the Mayor from the City Council . 2. Citizen Comments to the Council . D. CONSENT: 1. Consider approving the appointment of Ann Berman to the Salt Lake Arts Council . ( I 90-16) Staff recommendation: Approve. 2. Consider approving the appointment of Jerry Stanger to the Salt Lake Arts Council . ( I 90-16) Staff recommendation: Approve. 3. Consider approving the appointment of Perrin Love to the Salt Lake Arts Council . ( I 90-16) Staff recommendation: Approve. 4. Consider approving the appointment of Lynn M. Hilton to the Urban Forestry Board. ( I 90-1c) Staff recommendation: Approve. E. NEW BUSINESS: 1 . Ordinance: Professional Services Consider approving an ordinance amending certain sections of Chapter 28 of Title 3 dealing with contracting for professional services. (0 90-48) Staff recommendation: Refer to consent. F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinance: Closing and Vacating Portions of South Temple Consider adopting an ordinance closing a portion of South Temple between 450 and 500 West and vacating a portion between 400 and 450 West pursuant to Petition No. 400-759-89. (0 90-18) ) qD l/3 Staff recommendation: Adopt. 2. Ordinance: Vacating Gordon Place Consider adopting an ordinance vacating Gordon Place between Main and State Streets pursuant to Petition No. 400-612-88, subject to certain conditions. (P 90-283) Staff recommendation: Adopt. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:20 p.m. 1 . Ordinance: Proposed Beer and Liquor Consumption Fees Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending beer and liquor consumption fees. (0 90-46) Staff recommendation: Adopt. H. ADJOURNMENT. ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA. DATED: November 9, 1990 i BY: _ 1111171_41A-a-C2IT RE R STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 9th day of November, 1990 I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, Room 415; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 315 C Y RECORDER Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of November, 1990. o ry Public residing in the St to of Utah r Notary Public I �' BEVERLYJONES ` '`��` \ i r t So.state St.:#415 My Comm' 4u,. •;- s' sail take city,utah e4111 II r My Commission Expires ,,N October 1, t93.. APPROVAL: EXECUT E DIRECTO MEMORANDUM DATE: NOVEMBER 9 , 1990 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANNE PINCKNEY RE: PROPOSED PROTOCOL AND POLICY STATEMENT ON LABOR RELATIONS A draft of the City Council Policy Statement on Labor Relations and the City Council Protocol Guidelines on Labor Relations was prepared as a result of your discussions at the Council ' s summer retreat . These two discussion drafts have been distributed to and discussed with represen atives of the Mayor ' s Office , Human Resources Department and the City Attorney ' s Office . Roger Cutler had several concerns which need to be addressed before these drafts can be reviewed by the Council . We will keep you informed as to our progress in reviewing these drafts with the City Attorney and will reschedule your discussion of them in a Committee of Whole meeting in the near future . cc : Mayor Palmer DePaulis , Emilie Charles , Roger Cutler , Frank Nakamura , Karen Suzuki-Hashimoto , Frank Fraser LINDA HAMILTON SAI2 ` Q l_r° A a* PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ®� MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 535-6426 October 31, 1990 Salt Lake City Council Attn: Mr. Allen Hardman Chairperson City & County Bldg. , Room 304 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 3.28.050, 3.28.060, 3.28.090 AND 3.28.100, PERTAINING TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. Dear Mr. Hardman: As we continue to refine the City centralized contracting process, the need for amendments to the above referenced sections of City Code has become apparent. The purpose of the proposed amendments to Sections 3.28.050 and 3.28.060 will be to enable departments to designate persons with applicable expertise to serve on selection committees and advisory review committees for selection of providers of professional services. At the present time, departments are mandatorily required to occupy the time of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Development Services, even though the professional services may not fall within their respective fields of expertise. The amendments provide for appropriate review of selection committee designees prior to solicitation of competitive sealed proposals by the appropriate procurement official. The amendment to Section 3.28.090 identifies specific exceptions to provisions of this chapter for certain professional services where the need for confiden- tiality or proven legal expertise are overriding factors in selecting the provider of professional consultation. The amendment to Section 3 .28.100 is a cosmetic change necessary to reflect the fact that the Mayor has the power to designate other City officers to award certain contracts. Mr. Allen Hardman October 31, 1990 Page Two The City Attorney has prepared a blue draft copy for ease of review by the City Council in each instance. If the Council is in agreement with the proposed amendments, the attorney has also attached a final copy which has been approved as to form and is ready for passage by the Council. If you have any questions related to these matters, we will be happy to provide further explanation upon request. Respectfully, Linda Hamilton Director of Finance LH/GLF/cb Attachments cc: Bruce Baird G. L. Failner Tom Jewkes Russ Pack Max Peterson lk - % , : „ ., , ti %, •,•, [ k F- urri ,. • , ,,, ii SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1990 (Amending Sections of Chapter 28 of Title 3 dealing with contracting for professional services ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 28 OF TITLE 3 DEALING WITH CONTRACTING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that certain sections of Chapter 28 of Title 3 dealing with the contracting for professional services need to be amended to clarify and make the contracting provisions more efficient; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 3 . 28 . 050 be amended to read as follows : 3.28. 050 Selection committee. * * * A. * * * B. * * * C. * * * D. The membership of the committee shall be submitted to the chief procurement officer for approval prior to solicitation of competitive sealed proposals, screening or interviews with prospective providers except when the solicitation is for architect, engineer or construction related planning services, in which case the membership of the committee shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. E. The chief procurement officer may appoint a staff member from the purchasing and property management division to the selection committee for professional services other than architect, engineer or construction related planning services, if the chief procurement officer deems such an appointment appropriate. The city engineer shall designate a member from the city engineering division to all selection committees for architect, engineer or construction related planning services . SECTION 2 . That Section 3 . 28 . 060 be amended to read as follows : 3.28.060 Advisory review committee. * * * A. * * * B. [The director of the department of public works and the director of development ccrviccc or their rccpcctivc de-signces; and] For architect, engineering or construction related planning services, the director of the department of public works and the director of development services or their respective designees . For all other professional services , two members chosen by the department head from outside the department with familiarity and experience in the professional service area outlined in the request for proposals . C. The membership of the committee shall be submitted to the chief procurement officer for approval prior to solicitation of competitive sealed proposals, screening or interviews with prospective providers except when the solicitation is for architect, engineer or construction related planning services, -2- in which case the membership of the committee shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. D. The chief procurement officer may appoint a staff member from the purchasing and property management division to the selection committee for professional services other than architect, engineer or construction related planning services, if the chief procurement officer deems such an appointment appropriate. The city engineer shall designate a member from the city engineering division to all selection committees for architect, engineer or construction related planning service. SECTION 3 . That Section 3.28 . 090 be amended to read as follows : 3.28.090 Exceptions to chapter provisions. * * * A. * * * B. * * * C. * * * D. Contractual obligations or applicable grant provisions, which preclude any or all of these procedures . [The mayor, with cause, may al3o waive any or all of thcac requirements for specific contracts . ] E. Contracts for expert witnesses, advisors or outside counsel for the city attorney' s office; F. Contracts for special investigatory or similar services for the police department where confidentiality is necessary if approved by the mayor upon recommendation from the chief procurement officer. -3- G. The mayor, with cause specified in writing, may also waive any or all of these requirements for specific contracts . SECTION 4 . That Section 3 . 28 . 100 be amended to read as follows : 3.28.100 Contract review and award. All awards for professional service contracts, including those involving fees under ten thousand dollars shall be made as designated by the mayor, upon recommendation of the responsible department head and after such contracts have been reviewed and approved, as to form, by the city engineer, or the chief procurement officer and city attorney, or his/her designee. However, no contract shall be valid or binding on the city until the applicable formalities provided in city ordinance and state law have been completed. SECTION 5 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -4- Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1990 . Published: . BRB:rc -5- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Amending Sections of Chapter 28 of Title 3 dealing with contracting for professional services ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 28 OF TITLE 3 DEALING WITH CONTRACTING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that certain sections of Chapter 28 of Title 3 dealing with the contracting for professional services need to be amended to clarify and make the contracting provisions more efficient; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 3 . 28 . 050 be amended to read as follows : 3.28.050 Selection committee. * * * A. * * * B. * * * C. * * * D. The membership of the committee shall be submitted to the chief procurement officer for approval prior to solicitation of competitive sealed proposals, screening or interviews with prospective providers except when the solicitation is for architect, engineer or construction related planning services , in which case the membership of the committee shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. E. The chief procurement officer may appoint a staff member from the purchasing and property management division to the selection committee for professional services other" than architect, engineer or construction related planning services, if the chief procurement officer deems such an appointment appropriate. The city engineer shall designate a member from the city engineering division to all selection committees for architect, engineer or construction related planning services . SECTION 2 . That Section 3 . 28 . 060 be amended to read as follows : 3.28 .060 Advisory review committee. * * * A. * * * B. For architect, engineering or construction related planning services, the director of the department of public works and the director of development services or their respective designees . For all other professional services, two members chosen by the department head from outside the department with familiarity and experience in the professional service area outlined in the request for proposals . C. The membership of the committee shall be submitted to the chief procurement officer for approval prior to solicitation of competitive sealed proposals, screening or interviews with prospective providers except when the solicitation is for architect, engineer or construction related planning services, in which case the membership of the committee shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. -2- D. The chief procurement officer may appoint a staff member from the purchasing and property management division to the selection committee for professional services other than architect, engineer or construction related planning services, if the chief procurement officer deems such an appointment appropriate. The city engineer shall designate a member from the city engineering division to all selection committees for architect, engineer or construction related planning service. SECTION 3 . That Section 3 . 28 . 090 be amended to read as follows : 3.28.090 Exceptions to chapter provisions. * * * A. * * * B. * * * C. * * * D. Contractual obligations or applicable grant provisions , which preclude any or all of these procedures . E. Contracts for expert witnesses, advisors or outside counsel for the city attorney' s office; F. Contracts for special investigatory or similar services for the police department where confidentiality is necessary if approved by the mayor upon recommendation from the chief procurement officer. G. The mayor, with cause specified in writing, may also waive any or all of these requirements for specific contracts . SECTION 4 . That Section 3 . 28 . 100 be amended to read as follows : -3- 3.28. 100 Contract review and award. All awards for professional service contracts , including those involving fees under ten thousand dollars shall be made as designated by the mayor, upon recommendation of the responsible department head and after such contracts have been reviewed and approved, as to form, by the city engineer, or the chief procurement officer and city attorney, or his/her designee. However, no contract shall be valid or binding on the city until the applicable formalities provided in city ordinance and state law have been completed. SECTION 5 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: -.. P. CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR -4- ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1990 . Published: . BRB:rc -5- ,1i SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE =` No. of 1990 (Closing a portion of South Temple between 450 and 500 West and vacating a portion between 400 and 450 West pursuant to Petition No. 400-759-89 ) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING A PORTION OF SOUTH TEMPLE BETWEEN 450 AND 500 WEST AND VACATING A PORTION BETWEEN 400 AND 450 WEST PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-759-89 . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City' s interest in the public street described below is not necessary for use by the public as a street and that closure and vacation of portions of said street will not be adverse to the general public ' s interest . NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . A portion of South Temple between 450 and 500 West is hereby closed and a portion between 400 and 450 West is hereby vacated. The street is the subject of Petition No . 400- 759-89 , and the parcels are more particularly described below. The street is declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public street. Title to the closed portion shall be deeded to the Union Pacific railroad or its designee in consideration of the gift of the Railroad Depot to the State of Utah. Said street is more particularly described as follows : VACATION: Beginning at a point located at the Northeast corner of Lot 8, Block 80, Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey; thence west 330 feet, thence north 132 feet more or less, thence east 330 feet, thence south 132 feet more or less to the point of beginning. CLOSURE: Beginning at a point located at the Northwest corner of Lot 5, Block 80, Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey; 71) thence north 132 feet more or less, thence east 330 feet, thence south 132 feet more or less, thence west 330 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 2 . RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS . The above closure and vacation are expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights- of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City' s water and sewer facilities, and all of them. Said closure and vacation are also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties . SECTION 3 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 17 day of ! . , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON -2- ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc -3- f SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Vacating Gordon Place between Main and State Streets pursuant to Petition No. 400-612-88, subject to certain conditions ) AN ORDINANCE VACATING GORDON PLACE BETWEEN MAIN AND STATE STREETS PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-612-88, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City' s interest in the public street and right-of-way described below is not necessary for use by the public a street and right-of-way and that vacation of said street and right-of-way will not be adverse to the general public' s interest. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Gordon Place, between Main and State Streets, which is the subject of Petition No. 400-612-88, and which is more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby is, vacated and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public street or right-of-way, SUBJECT TO certain conditions. Said street and right-of-way is more particularly described as follows: GORDON PLACE - RIGHT-OF-WAY DESCRIPTION BEGINNING AT A POINT SOUTH 90. 75 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 93, PLAT "A" , SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 36 . 22 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE /1Q-41d WEST LINE OF STATE STREET; THENCE SOUTH 12 . 00 FEET; THENCE WEST 168. 22 FEET, MORE OR LESS, �/7 THENCE NORTH 81°16 ' WEST 116. 85 FEET; THENCE / NORTH 2. 5 FEET; THENCE WEST 114. 5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16. 5 FEET; THENCE EAST 114. 5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1 .0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82°14 ' EAST 83. 26 FEET, MORE OR LESS; THENCE SOUTH 1 . 43 FEET, MORE OR LESS; THENCE SOUTH 76°09 ' EAST 53. 97 FEET; THENCE EAST 112 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 0. 15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SECTION 2. RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. The above vacation is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City' s water and sewer facilities, and all of them. SECTION 3. CONDITION. This ordinance shall not become effective until the petitioner grants to the City, in a form acceptable to the City, a perpetual easement for public pedestrian access through the property. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish this ordinance until the Mayor certifies that the condition in Section 3 above has been met. If the condition has not been met within one year from the -2- date of this ordinance the Mayor may extend the time for compliance an additional year. If the condition has not been met within any extension this ordinance shall be null and void and of no effect. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER ( SEAL) BILL NO. OF 1990. Published: BRB:rc -3- MIKE ZUHL SALT LAKE;GIT. Y1 GORPORATI,ON LEE KING INTERIM DIRECTOR • J DEPUTY DIRECTCR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council October 25, 1990 Re: Proposed Bccr and Liquor Consumption Fees Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on November 13, 1990 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss the proposed beer and liquor consumption fees. Availability of Funds: The proposed fee schedule will result in a $56,000 to $60,000 reduction in annual City revenue. The revenue projection has been estimated by the Permits and Licensing staff and has been coordinate with the Finance Department. Discussion and Background: The proposed fee changes will establish a fee schedule that includes the same basic fcc structure for all businesses involved in on-premise food, beer, and/or liquor consumption and will establish a reasonable relationship between the regulatory fees and the cost of regulating these businesses. After analyzing the cost of regulating theses businesses, we are proposing reductions in some of the current fees. The most significant proposal is to reduce the $5.00 per occupant fee to a $2.00 per occupant fcc for the first 500 occupants, and $1.00 for all occupants over 500, and to determine occupancy by fire code standards rather than by counting chairs. This proposal will assess all restaurants, taverns and private clubs the same per occupant fcc. The proposal also includes assessing outdoor dining/drinking areas at $.50 per occupant, and banquet rooms at $.50 per occupant with a $100 maximum fcc for each banquet room. Other changes include reducing the new Class "C" Bccr base regulatory fcc from $1800 to $550, and to increase the seasonal fcc from $60 to $100. I have attached a schedule comparing the proposed fees to the current fees for your information. The appropriate City Department have reviewed and approved the proposed new fcc schedule. The new fee schedule has been reviewed with the Utah Restaurant Association, the Utah Hospitality Association (representing private clubs) , and the Utah Licensed Beverage Association (representing the taverns) . Permits and Licensing Staff have met with the private club • owners and have received a letter from the association endorsement the new fee schedule. The Staff has also scheduled a meeting with the restaurant and tavern owners for November 1, 1990 to discuss the new fee schedule. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. :27: I - 'IX_ ICHAEL, B. Z interim Director Community & Economic Development ON-SITS IER/LIQOOR CONSUMPTION CURRENT REGULATORY FEL SCHEDULE Cla .)f License/Regulatory Category Fors; Sed Fees) Class "B" Beer Restaurant $ 240 New $ 240 New $ 240 Renew $ 150 Renew Class "C" Beer Tavern $1800 New $ 550 New $ 360 Renew $ 400 Renew Class "B" Private Club* $ 300 New * $ 550 New $ 300 Renew $ 400 Renew Class "E" Beer - Public Facility $ 240 New $ 325 New $ 240 Renew $ 300 Renew Liquor Consumption $ 90 New $ 155 New $ 90 Renew $ 125 Renew Beer/Liquor Dispensing Points $ 10 "A" $ 10 "A" $ 90 "B" $ 50 "B" $ 90 "C" $ 50 "C" Seasonal Beer $ 60 New $ 100 New Wholesale Beer $ 240 New No Change $ 240 Renew Amusement Devices $ 50 each $ 35 each Billiards and Pool Tables $ 50 each $ 35 each Card Room Tables $ 120 each $ 35 each Dance - Public $ 120 each $ 35 each Live Musical Entertainment $ 75 each $ 35 each Musical Device $ 20 each $ 20 each Food Vending Machine $ 16 each $ 10 each Beverage Vending Machine $ 16 each $ 10 each Cigarette Vending Machine $ 2 each $ 10 each Chairs/ (per occupant)** $ 5 per chair $ 2 per occupant** * Private Clubs have previously paid this $300 fee only. ** One dollar for each occupant over 500. ** Outdoor seating occupancy fee is proposed at $.50 per occupant. *.L Banquet Room occupancy fee is proposed at $.50 per occupant with a aximum assessment of $100 per banquet room. (The $.50 per occupant fee applies only to banquet rooms that are not part of the daily business operation) . (P) On-Site B/L BRENT B.WILDE SALT'LAKE'QV( CORPORATION ROBERT M. BRIDGE DIRECTOR BUSINESS LICENSE SUPERVISOR PERMITS AND LICENSING- COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION PERMITS & LICENSING SERVICES DIVISION Business Licensing 451 SOUTH STATE STREET OcLober 24, 1990 ROOM 215, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 Mr. Mike Zuhl TELEPHONE 535-7717 Interim Director Community & Economic Development Room 218 - City & County Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Transmittal of Revised Beer/Liquor Consumption Fees Dear Mike: Enclosed for submission to the City Council are copies of a staff report and proposed ordinance modifications pertaining to business licensing fees for businesses involved in on-premise beer/liquor consumption (existing and proposed occupancy fees apply to all restaurants whether or not they serve beer or liquor) . We believe that adoption of the proposed fee schedule will accomplish our objectives of establishing a fee schedule that includes the same basic fee structure for all businesses involved in on-premise food, beer, and/or liquor consumption, and will establish a reasonable relationship between the regulatory fees and the cost of regulating these businesses. The licensing staff has estimated that implementation of the proposed fee schedule will result in a $56,000 to $60,000 reduction in annual City revenue. The staff report and revenue projections have been coordinated with the Finance Department. The primary purpose for evaluating the applicable fee schedules was in response to a determination that private clubs should be paying regulatory fees similar to the regulatory fees being paid by restaurants and taverns. Private clubs have previously paid one annual $300 fee. The recommendations outlined in the staff report are the result of an extensive analysis of the cost of regulating these businesses. The Business Licensing staff has coordinated a review process that has involved the Police and Fire Departments, Building and Housing Services, the Finance Department, Informational Management, and the City Attorney's Office. After analyzing the cost of regulating these businesses, we are proposing reductions in some of the current fees. The most significant proposal is to reduce the $5.00 per occupant fee to a $2.00 per occupant fee for the first 500 occupants, and $1.00 for all occupants over 500, and to determine occupancy by fire code standards rather than by counting chairs. Previously, only restaurants and some taverns have paid the $5.00 per chair fee. In keeping with the definition of restaurant, the proposal is to assess all restaurants, taverns and private clubs the same per occupant fee. The proposal also includes assessing outdoor dining/drinking areas at $.50 per occupant, and banquet rooms at $.50 per occupant with a $100 maximum fee for each banquet room. Other significant proposals include reducing the new Class "C" Beer base regulatory fee from $1800 to $550, and to increase the seasonal beer fee from $60 to $100. With the adoption of this new fee schedule, private clubs will be subject to paying the applicable fees along with restaurants and taverns. We have coordinated the existing and proposed fee schedules with the Utah Restaurant Association, the Utah Hospitality Association (representing private clubs) , and the Utah Licensed Beverage Association (representing the taverns) . We have also met with the private club owners and received a letter from their association directors endorsing the proposed fee schedule subject to resolution of a few issues that we are currently pursuing. A copy of that letter is attached. We have also received verbal endorsements from the restaurant and. licensed beverage associations and have scheduled meetings with restaurant and tavern owners for November 1. We are optimistic that all three associations and the majority of business owners will support the proposed fee modifications, and that most of their questions will be answered prior to the City Council hearing. Respectfully, • Brent B. Wilde, Director Permits & Licensing Division BBW:dg - encl. 1741414 o Auteeeateca. -il EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 223 West 700 South,Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 Phone: (801)359-5005 Ells Cardwell DIRECTORS Bob Slingerland October 22, 1990 Clare Bowden Mark Stedman George Boutsis Al ForrresttCollins Mr. Brent B. Wilde - Director Permits and Licensing Division Gary Evans Room 215 City & County Bldg. Glen Wells Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Bill Carter Deanne Midgley Mike Whitley Dear Brent, John Oldroyd On behalf of the Utah Hospitality Association, we would like to thank you, Larry and Bob for your participation in our meeting last Monday. It is our opinion that all of the clubs present concur with the proposed regulatory fee schedule prepared by your office. However, it is also our opinion that the multi-purpose, banquet room and outdoor seating need to be defined and we will appreciate being informed as to your decision when you have determined your formula. Our main concern is that all of the areas in question be put on the same level field for private clubs, restaurants, beer taverns, hotels, and motels, and public facilities that have beer and/or liquor consumption licenses. In addition, the association is more in favor of the $2.00/chair rather than the square foot per occupant loan proposal. Thank you for the opportunity of being involved in these discussions and if we can be of further service please feel free to contact us. 71 ;-67‹.2:7/2 z902-44/c-; Robert Slingerland President • W. Cardwell Executive Director SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Modifying regulatory fees pertaining to restaurants, beer licenses, and private clubs ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 5 . 12. 050, 5 . 28 . 080, 5 . 34 . 260, 5 . 50 . 110, 5 . 54. 040, 5 . 70. 040, 5 . 70. 270, 5 . 80 . 040, 5 . 80 . 050, 5 . 80 . 060, 6 . 08 . 110, 6 . 16 . 030, 9 . 04. 030, 9 . 04 . 170, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO REGULATORY FEES FOR RESTAURANTS, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS E AND SEASONAL BEER LICENSES, CLASS B AND CLASS C PRIVATE CLUBS, AND RELATED LICENSES. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 5 . 12 . 050, Salt Lake City Code, relating to proprietor ' s license fee for automatic amusement devices be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows : 5. 12.050 Proprietor' s license fee. The license fee for each proprietor shall be thirty-five dollars for each automatic amusement device used or played or exhibited for use or play; provided, however, that no fee in excess of eighteen hundred dollars shall be charged for any one location. In the event any proprietor shall engage in business at more than one location, the maximum fee provided herein shall apply to each location. SECTION 2 . That Section 5 . 28 . 080, Salt Lake City Code, relating to fees for live entertainment at restaurants, taverns and private clubs be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.82.080 Live entertainment at restaurants, taverns and private clubs--Fees. A. * * * B. The license fee for allowing of live musical entertainment on the premises of a restaurant, tavern or private club shall be thirty-five dollars per year, or any part thereof . SECTION 3 . That Section 5 .34 . 260, Salt Lake City Code, relating to license fees for soft drink sales be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.34.260 Soft drink sales--Fee for license. A. * * * 1 . * * * 2 . For dispensing beverages in the original containers, from a vending machine, ten dollars per year, or any part thereof, for each machine located upon such premises; 3 . * * * B. * * * SECTION 4. That Section 5 . 50. 110, Salt Lake City Code, relating to fees for Class B and Class C private club licenses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.50.110 License--Fee schedule. Applications provided for in this chapter shall be accompanied by the fees hereinafter provided, which fees shall be deposited in the city treasury and returned to the applicant if the license is denied: -2- A. * * * B. For initial application and issuance of a Class B license, five hundred fifty dollars for the first year of operation or any part thereof, plus any other city licenses required under this code; C. For renewal of a Class B license, four hundred dollars per year, or any part thereof, plus any other city licenses required under this code; D. For initial application and issuance of a Class C license, five hundred fifty dollars for the first year of operation or any part thereof, plus any other city licenses required under this code; E. For renewal of a Class C license, four hundred dollars per year, or any part thereof, plus any other city licenses required under this code. SECTION 5. That Section 5 . 54.040, Salt Lake City Code, relating to restaurant license fees be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.54.040 Restaurant license--Fee. The license fee required for a restaurant shall be at the rate of two dollars per person for the first five hundred persons and one dollar per person over five hundred persons per year for a maximum number of persons that can be accommodated in accordance with the life/fire safety code as set out in the Salt Lake City Code, provided that the minimum fee shall be fifty dollars . For out-of-doors restaurant facilities and for rooms used for occasional banquets but not used for continuous dining, -3- • the fee shall be at the rate of fifty cents for each person per year for a maximum number of persons that can be accommodated in accordance with the life/fire safety code as set out in the Salt Lake City Code, provided that the maximum fee for a banquet room shall be one hundred dollars per year. SECTION 6. That Section 5. 70.040, Salt Lake City Code, relating to billiards or pool tables be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.70.040 Billiards and poolhalls--License--Fees. The license fee for conducting billiards or pool tables for the playing of billiards or pool shall be thirty-five dollars per year, or any part thereof, in advance, for each table. SECTION 7 . That Section 5 . 70. 270, Salt Lake City Code, relating to license fees for card and game tables be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.70.270 Cards and games--License--Fee. The license fee for conducting cardrooms and game rooms or tables for the playing of cards and games shall be thirty-five dollars for each table per year, or any part thereof. SECTION 8 . That Section 5 . 80.040, Salt Lake City Code, relating to fees for vending machines be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.80.040 Fee for each machine. The license fees for vending machines shall be ten dollars per machine; except that the fee for machines dispensing unpackaged candy, nuts and gum shall be two dollars per machine; -4- and except that the fees for the dispensing of beverages shall be governed by Section 5.34 .260 of this title, or its successor. SECTION 9 . That Section 5 . 80.050, Salt Lake City Code, relating to a list of numbers and locations of machines be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.80.050 Number and location of machines--List to license supervisor. Every operator before receiving a license as above provided shall furnish to the license supervisor a complete list and location of all vending machines then being operated by such operator. SECTION 10 . That Section 5. 80.060, Salt Lake City Code, relating to placement of stickers on machines be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.80.060 Stickers to be place on machines. The city license supervisor shall furnish serially numbered stickers for each licensed machine, and these stickers must be placed on and maintained on the machines during the licensed year. SECTION 11 . That Section 6 . 08. 110, Salt Lake City Code, relating to fees for Class B, Class C, Class E, and seasonal beer sales be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows : 6.08. 110 Fees. A. * * * 1 . * * * 2. For initial application and issuance of a Class B retail license, the fee is two hundred forty dollars for the first year of operation or any part thereof; -5- 3. For renewal of a Class B retail license, the fee is one hundred fifty dollars per year or any part thereof; 4 . For initial application and issuance of a Class C retail license, five hundred fifty dollars for the first year of operation or any part thereof; 5 . For renewal of a Class C retail license, four hundred dollars per year or any part thereof; 6 . For initial application and issuance of a Class E beer retail license, three hundred twenty-five dollars for the first year of operation or any part thereof; 7 . For renewal of a Class E beer retail license, three hundred dollars per year or any part thereof; 8 . For a seasonal license, one hundred dollars per month or any part thereof; 9 . For each additional dispensing point for beer at the same premises where an initial Class B or Class C retail license has been obtained, the fee shall be fifty dollars . SECTION 12 . That Section 6. 16.030, Salt Lake City Code, relating to license fees for liquor consumption be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6. 16.030 License--Fee. For initial application and issuance of a liquor consumption license the fee shall be one hundred fifty-five dollars for the first year of operation, or any part thereof. For renewal of a liquor consumption license, the fee shall be one hundred twenty- five dollars per year, or any part thereof. Said fees shall be -6- deposited in the city treasury if the license is granted and returned to the applicant if the license is denied. SECTION 13 . That Section 9 .04. 030, Salt Lake City Code, relating to license fees for public dance be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 9.04.030 License--Public dance--Fee. The license fee required for a public dance license shall be thirty-five dollars per year, or any part thereof. SECTION 14. That Section 9 . 04. 170, Salt Lake City Code, relating to dance license fees be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 9.04.170 Dance license fee. The license fee required for a restaurant, tavern or private club to enable dancing on such premises shall be thirty-five dollars per year, or any part thereof. SECTION 15 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -7- Frs> Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER ( SEAL) Bill No. OF 1990 . Published: LVS: rc • AFPi:01'I-,r,. A: , FORM Salt Lake .City '�'i_�n ''�- Offieo hate -2_ `//r' -8- October 24, 1990 BUSINESS LICENSING STAFF REPORT REGARDING THE REEVALUATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE kIES FDR BUSINESSES INVOLVED IN ON-PREMISE /LIQUCIR CONSUMPTION Il 3CTIO N: The purpose of this report is to analyze the present regulatory fee structure for businesses involved in on-premise beer and liquor consumption, to assess the current costs associated with regulating these businesses, and to outline a series of options and recommendations regarding business licensing fees for this business category (existing and proposed occupancy fees apply to all restaurants whether or not they serve beer or liquor) . Class "A" licenses for retail beer sales for off premise consumption, (grocery stores and convenience stores) , have been analyzed, but are not being evaluated as part of this study. In May of 1990, an administrative decision was made to assess private clubs regulatory fees consistent with the fees paid by other businesses that are involved with on-premise beer/liquor consumption. This administrative decision was based upon a legal opinion from the City Attorney's Office regarding the new Utah State Liquor Control Act and a related opinion that all businesses involved with beer/liquor consumption should be paying similar regulatory fees for a similar type of business operation. The administrative decision was also based upon the finding that other municipalities in the state are assessing private clubs business license fees that are in excess of $300 and generally consistent with the fees being assessed to similar types of businesses such as restaurants and taverns. Since the 1960's, Salt Lake City has assessed private clubs a flat $300 regulatory license fee. Private clubs, as nonprofit organizations, -have been exempt from the basic revenue license fee as well as fees for employees, number of chairs in the establishment, amusement devices, and other regulatory license fees. Private clubs have been limited to the $300 fee because of an old Utah State Supreme Court case from the 1960's and past interpretation of the Utah State liquor regulations which regulate private clubs. In May when the decision was made to assess private clubs on a basis similar to restaurants and taverns, a notice was sent to all private club owners requesting payment of regulatory fees based upon the same fee schedule as taverns and restaurants. These fees were to be paid by the first of June, which is the deadline for payment of all beer and liquor license fees that are assessed to the restaurants and taverns. Several private club owners responded to the proposed fee schedule they had received. They indicated that the assessment would raise their license costs substantially, and in some cases fees for the larger clubs would increase several hundred percent. ' Tavern owners responded by stating that they were not aware that private clubs had not been paying competitive fees, and several tavern owners indicated that they would refuse to pay the fees they had been assessed if the private clubs were not going to be placed on a "level playing field" by paying fees consistent with a Class "C" tavern operation. Therefore, we have held in abeyance the payment of the beer and liquor consumption fees in order to allow time for a thorough study of the entire business licensing fee structure affecting these businesses. This report will provide the information necessary for the City to adopt a fee structure that is • Page 2 ( 77� appropriate, fair, and equitable for all businesses involved in on-premise, beer and liquor consumption. ANALYSIS: There has been considerable criticism over the long list of regulatory fees that apply to restaurants and taverns, and perceived inconsistencies associated with the current fee schedule. One of the perceived inconsistencies is that restaurants and taverns that serve food (also licensed as a restaurant) pay a $5.00 per chair fee. Taverns that don't serve food are not assessed a per chair fee, and as previously indicated, private clubs have traditionally been exempt from most regulatory fees. Salt Lake City Business Licensing Ordinance No.5.54.010, paragraph "C", defines a restaurant as " Any place where food or drink is prepared, served, or offered for .sale, or sold for human motion on or off the premises". Ordinance No. 55.54.040, Restaurant License Fee, reads as follows: "The license fee required for a restaurant shall be at the rate of $5.00 for each person ppr year for a maximum miner of persons that can be accommodated in accordance with the life safety fire code, as set out in the Salt Lake City Code, and/or the City-COunty Health Department, whichever is more restrictive, provided that the minimum fee Should be $50." Past practice has deviated from the letter of these ordinances in at least three significant areas: (1) Rather than charging a $5.00 per occupant fee based upon fire safety codes, as indicated in the ordinance, the $5.00 assessment has been based upon the number of chairs or seats in the establishment; (2) Only restaurants and taverns that serve food have been assessed a $5.00 per chair fee. Taverns that do not serve food have not been assessed a $5.00 per chair fee; (3) Some taverns that serve.a minimal amount of food such as cold sandwiches, etc. , have been licensed as a mini-restaurant which has been interpreted as consisting of only ten seats. This inteLpretation has allowed a tavern with many more than ten seats to serve food with a $50.00 fee for ten restaurant seats, when in reality, the tavern consists of many more seats and there has been no attempt to limit the number of seats that may receive food service. In response to the issues outlined above, the City Business Licensing staff has coordinated an analysis of the current fee schedule for restaurants, taverns, and private clubs, with other City departments involved in the regulatory process to determine the actual cost of regulating these businesses. Table I summarizes the actual direct costs and expenses associated with the licensing approval process. Table II, (consisting of two pages) , outlines the current business licensing fee structure for businesses involved in on-premise, beer, and liquor consumption, and a proposed fee structure that is based on the direct cost of regulating these businesses. Table II includes existing annual revenues for each license category and revenues that are projected from the proposed fee schedule. The proposed fee structure outlined in Table II has been derived from an assessment of regulatory costs as outlined in Table I. It should be noted that since many restaurants and taverns haven't paid the liquor fees that were held in abeyance in June of 1990, the 1990 license assessment • Page 3 4 • ' records are the source of information for determining current revenue as outlined in Table II. When all of the revenues are collected, the actual revenue total may vary slightly from the amounts that each business is being assessed due to change in number of employees, etc. since the last annual assessment. The present regulatory costs as outlined in Tables I and II, reflect the actual cost of salaries devoted to approving and regulating these businesses. The costs identified reflect the average amount of time devoted to the process of licensing an average business and the cost per hour of employees involved in the approval process which includes inspections, police background checks, investigations, and field activities. These fees also reflect the proportionate costs incurred by Business Licensing, the City Attorney's office, and Information Management Services in receiving, reviewing, and processing business license applications. The fees outlined in the tables do not reflect the associated costs of materials, supplies, supervisory and secretarial support, enforcement of violations, automobiles and other administrative overhead. The regulatory cost assessment also does not reflect the cost of periodic follow-up inspections, special problem resolutions, prehearing conferences, stipulated approvals, etc. The staff considered attempting to quantify these additional costs. It is difficult, however, to analyze all of the administrative and support functions and to determine the actual costs per business without making numerous difficult assumptions and creating a complicated fee schedule that may not be equitable to all affected businesses. Also, while there is an obvious relationship between the size of the business and the cost of regulation, it is difficult to establish a quantifiable cost of regulation per occupant. In 1988, the City Finance Department analyzed regulatory fees and recoiiuuended that the $5.00 per chair restaurant fee be reduced to $2.00 per chair. In analyzing the current fee structure and regulatory costs, the licensing staff has determined that a $2.00 per chair fee is more in keeping with the current actual cost of regulating restaurants and taverns than the current $5.00 per chair assessment, and that the $2.00 per chair fee, as recommended in the 1988 Finance Department report on regulatory fees, reflects a fair and reasonable cost per chair. The staff has also analyzed the relationship between the number of chairs in the establishment and maximum occupancy as determined by the fire safety codes. Approximately thirty restaurants, taverns and private clubs were selected at random to determine the relationship between the number of chairs in the establishment and maximum occupancy (See Appendix II) . This analysis concluded that on an average, maximum occupancy exceeded the number of chairs by 25%. Therefore, a $2.00 per chair assessment equates to approximately $1.50 per occupant. In keeping with the current ordinance, a per occupant fee should be based upon occupant load as determined by fire codes, rather than a chair count. An occupant based fee is also a more equitable approach for the class of businesses analyzed in this report. Some businesses substantially increase the number of chairs during the holiday season. A per chair fee either penalizes these businesses for an occasional use, or fails to assess the additional chairs entirely. Therefore, the occupant approach will be easier for the City to administer and should prove to be a more consistent, equitable solution for businesses. Page 4 In analyzing the business licensing trends, the licensing staff believes that if all regulatory costs mentioned above, but not included in Table I were thoroughly quantified, the regulatory costs would support at least a two dollar per occupant fee as determined by the life safety/fire code . Since the 1988 fee study was completed, general administrative activities have increased significantly in many areas. The following are examples of the increasing work load associated with business regulation. Percent of 1988 1989 1990 Increase cases cases cases Business License Code Enforcement 925 2,147 2,663 +232% (thru Aug. '90) Business License Applications Approved 1,031 1,633 +58% License Revocation Hearings 35 53 +51.4% License Denial (Pre-hearing conference) -0- 35 New Business License Approvals by (Stipulated Agreement) -0- 46 New The significant increase in these activities, coupled with the lengthy list of less tangible costs outlined above, represent a substantial amount of regulatory activity that is not covered by the fee schedule in Table II. The proposed fee schedule also does not include provisions for inflation. Therefore, a $2.00 per occupant fee as deteLluined by the life safety/fire code should be considered as being appropriate. RECOMENCATION: The staff recommends that the City Council consider adopting the proposed fee schedule as outlined in Table III, that includes base fees for each type of establishment as determined by actual costs of inspections, processing applications, etc. , plus a $2.00 per occupant assessment that is intended to reflect a reasonable relationship to the other administrative costs as outlined above, as well as the relationship between the increasing size of the establishment and the increasing cost of regulation. The staff recommends, however, that the $2.00 per occupant fee be reduced to $1.00 for all occupants in excess of 500 occupants per establishment. This recommendation is based upon the fact that there are only a few establishments in Salt Lake that exceed 500 occupants, and the additional cost of regulating these larger establishments does not increase proportionately with the increasing number of occupants over 500. It is also recommended that seasonal outdoor dining/drinking areas be charged a reduced fee of $.50 per occupant and that banquet rooms that are not part of the daily dining/drinking operation be assessed $.50 per occupant with a maximum fee of $100 per banquet room. If adopted, the fee schedule, as recouuuended, should result in the following: (1) There will be a reasonable relationship between the proposed fee schedule and the cost of regulating these businesses; • Page 5 Ci\ Y (2) The proposed fee schedule includes the same basic fee structure for all businesses involved in on-premise food, beer and liquor consumption. This fee schedule will accomplish the objective of "leveling the playing field", so that all businesses conducting the same type and level of activity, will pay the same fees (similar use-similar fees) ; (3) The proposed fee schedule consolidates all of the fees for the various types of amusement devices and vending machines into one basic fee for each of these types of activities; (4) As indicated in Table II, Part "B" implementation of the proposed fee schedule with a $2.00 per occupant fee will result in a projected decrease in annual revenue of approximately $56,000 from last year's total revenue from these business categories. A $1.00 per occupant fee for occupants in excess of 500, may increase the deficit as much as an additional $4,000 to $5,000 dollars. The $56,000 to $60,000 reduction in annual revenue is based upon a total city-wide occupant projection of 75,000. Since total occupancy counts will not be known until the Fire Department completes the occupancy survey that is currently underway, and since private clubs have never paid regulatory fees before, the projected 75,000 city-wide occupancy total, and associated revenue projection, is an estimate based upon available information. * Since outdoor seating areas and banquet rooms at private clubs, some taverns, and possibly some restaurants, have not been assessed occupant fees in the past, it is difficult to determine the total new per occupant assessments for outdoor seating and banquet rooms and therefore, difficult to anticipate revenue implications of the proposed $.50 assessment for those areas. The increased number of areas being assessed should substantially offset the reduced per occupant fees but an accurate revenue projection is impossible. It should also be noted that any revenue deficit resulting from the proposed reduction in outdoor seating and banquet room occupant fees will likely be offset by the revenue that will be generated from fees for liquor consumption, dispensing points, and amusement devices in the private clubs that have not been assessed previously, and therefore, cannot be quantified at this time. Therefore, a $56,000 to $60,000 reduction in annual revenue should remain a reasonable projection. It should also be noted that the projected deficit is being offset by $124,000 additional Business License revenue that Business Licensing collected during the last fiscal yrnr in comparison to revenues collected the year before. This increase is attributed to more efficient business licensing enforcement and program administration such as the collection of late penalty fees and assessments received from businesses operating without licenses. Also, the recently adopted increase in the basic business license revenue fee from $60.00 to $70.00 will increase annual revenues an additional $90,000 to $100,000. Therefore, even with a projected deficit of $56,000 to $60,000 that will result from adopting the proposed fee schedule, Business Licensing revenues should continue to increase over preceding years. It must be clarified, however, that the revenues outlined above have been incorporated into the City budget and cannot be used to directly offset the projected deficit. * NOTE: See the foot note at the bottom of Table II, Part "B" for an explanation of the 75,000 total city-wide occupancy estimate Page 6 SUMMARY The proposed fee schedule will result in a substantial reduction in fees for restaurants and taverns that have been licensed as restaurants and paying the $5.00 per chair fee. There will also be a substantial reduction in fees for new taverns. (The basic class of license fee will be reduced from $1800 to $550) . Taverns that have not been licensed as restaurants will be subject to the $2.00 per occupant fee. However, this will be partially offset by a reduction in fees for amusement devices, dispensing points, and etc. Private clubs will see the most substantial fee increases. Rather than paying the traditional $300 per year regulatory fee, private clubs will be assessed the same fees as taverns and restaurants. As indicated previously, the decision to impose the same fees on private clubs, reflect a legal opinion regarding the new Utah State Liquor Control Act, and the analysis of private club assessments imposed by other municipalities in Utah. These fees are fair and consistent and competitive with fees charged by other major cities. OPTIONS: The City might also consider the following options that are listed in order of overall preference: (A) Rather than reducing the occupant fee to $1.00 for all occupants over 500, assess a $2.00 per occupant fee for all occupants in the business categories under study, regardless of their size. This option would increase City revenues by approximately $4,000 to $5,000 over the recommended fee schedule. However, as previously indicated, the staff does not believe that the cost of regulating larger businesses is in direct proportion to the cost per occupant for businesses that have less than a 500 person occupant load. (B) Reduce the per occupant fee to $1.00 per occupant for all businesses. This option would reduce City revenues by approximately $75,000 from the reconuuended fee schedule. This would result in an overall revenue reduction of approximately $130,000 in comparison to last year. The staff believes that the actual cost of regulating these businesses is substantially more than $1.00 per occupant. (C) Eliminate the per occupant fee schedule entirely, and substantially increase the basic business licensing fees. The basic licensing fees could be increased to maintain proportionate revenue levels without charging a per occupant fee. However, this approach would not make a distinction between the basic licensing fee for the small 25 or 30 occupant restaurant and the 1,000 occupant facility. Therefore, this approach is not equitable for the smaller establishments, and does not reflect the proportional costs of regulating the larger establishments. (D) Retain the $5.00 per occupant fee. As previously indicated, the staff does not believe that the cost of regulation warrants the $5.00 per occupant fee. As a regulatory fee, there must be a reasonable relationship between the cost of regulation and the fees being assessed. However, the City Council could amend the ordinance to Page 7 assess the $5.00 per occupant fee as a revenue fee rather than a regulatory fee. Revenue fees do not have to be justified on the basis of reflecting costs of regulation. As a revenue fee, however, nonprofit private clubs would be exempt, and the objective of having all of these businesses subject to the same fee schedule would not be accomplished. Also, there would be a legal issue as to whether a different revenue fee for these classes of businesses could be justified. (E) Adopt a business licensing fee schedule that is based upon gross receipts. The gross receipts approach of assessing business licensing fees appears to be the trend of the future. Cities that have adopted the gross receipts approach to business licensing fees merely assess each business a small percentage of its gross revenues. Representatives from cities such as Ogden City report that this approach has been very successful because it is easy to administer and it is a very fair and equitable system for businesses. Implementation of a gross receipts fee system would require detailed analysis and study to assure that City revenues are maintained in the transition. It is also a system that should not be implemented for a small segment of the City's businesses. A gross receipts based fee schedule should be adopted on a city wide basis for all businesses. Therefore, this approach will be the focus of future attention, and should be considered only as a longer range option unless the City Council cannot reach a consensus on one of the other options. /dg (P)BLSR.2 P 1 $ - -1 , ww ww ww ww w 01 r 01 to U1 0 CO N U1 0 w r1 0 0 rf�� 2p� In 0' to 0.1 co co in nt N l!1(•t •1 ri O CIf'1 N H HCt O C1 0UT N. to-to- V} In.U} VT V} N VT Cl)- VT CO O /> — 01 61 O • rt inO 10 Or1 r0 1 N 61 01 ^C^ •! N N N . U} N 1 }C) L ca o o 0 0 �J co co Q G 0t0 <0 n W .i (`1 M enW U} U} N U} 0 II g g g g g g m▪om 034 00 00 00 0 00 U 4-1 o 4-4 w 4-1 4-1 4-1 w w w w w 00 10 F) N O V r co 4'f N r1 O F) 0O 10v N CO r �1N FL L COy HN elel N N H rl H Hto V} U}U} V}U} U}U} U} VT U} U} 0 W 8.� �NQJ O q •.i O O O O O {�>� r orb r Or r Vl co V1• co Ut U> d . `. ^- W CO C C) V —.II N COCOko IAA) 0 0 r /� N U} V} U} W C▪Oo CO N V) to � o In VIn a.w a a a L 0 — (f▪ ���} t N 0 01 co10 co G C 0, cnp r v �n m CA CoI W co- V} V} GI v} v} el V} 0 el H JJ - � - OCS v - � we �FOo v ov ICr 0 t.-I • K-{{�� .-IK-1 H '11 K H 7 H �77 �� ,�,, mat Vat Vat WZ-1 Ox Q '£ 2 0 Q T 0 ±. ,,A^ LO (Yr ') Q) C 0 Oao \ 00 00 00 0 0to o 0O V. CO 'ACV N 10 Z0 N 0 0 I + + + + I + I CO w 00 00 00 O O 0 11 Ln o co to 0 O O OIO 0 9 a Ca o o cv 0 0000 0 0 in ill • O .o OJ. 0 CO C-- v (9 ,0 N !') W J�J H N (N01 CV Q C0) i V> co V> V> V> V}V)V>U> V> .1 h 8 W ° � Fr 5� L H0 co u tn co o q � r-i to M -§ O H r ri ri ww 1 1 000 LL o0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 000 00 I d. 0 M O qO• Ill Ill (U N O V>VIT N 0 N i+•� VY V> u}• V>(? u}U? UY V} Q• W U V> O immo M ,0 N w G G 00 00 00 00 0 � 0 V �"r: ww ww ww ww wo 4-1.i ac rn0 00 0 0 a 6O N rim LU LU 0 ��Cco O 00 N to L. C1 !'1 6to �1 0 Ch In cn LU N LU va N 0 h° (I}V> ill Cl V>V> C•1 CI O.(? N(./> V}r1 VT N V J 0 0 0o 0000 0 Co o 0 0 co N r' O CO t0 CV�'1 N 0 H 0 N M to N - r{ H �0 ('7 ri ri �0 r` ` V} U} U} U> V> V} UT V>U}U> U> Q i U. M 0 0 0 0 0 0 a "a ca r+�1 W 0 CV co 00 0 QOi (0 H 6N 0N in- .0-V} CV 0- co- V> V> V>ur V> V> 1 CO 0 ° o MOMo O � �� { ra i J r1 H 0 CO !l H�� 0 (A V M w 4.' Q yC A U > 41 i,4 H tr C U� a 11 i i OL Ci ii M 0 0 .. v F 1 OO toO OO NO /�\ G to01 t` vN Oht0 MN OMN in' OONO OOfD 1Or-rl t, paq {r � Q ; i0. ti• tR toI M + Q N 0 I W 4, & (A' SSNN�� ro O o O U1 O O O O= C! O t.o M W�� UUU VtrZ in- U• t? N t? (n. t[ a) a est 8 01 CD • H N M O O'-1 Q p 11 n y N O Let ..... r x w L. 2 8 O t!1 Li-, In if1 1n O O 0 0 Cl WL M M M M M ri H ri N VT tn. V? N UT (I .0 VT al, N CO W ) ° - > U 4-3 6'I A � ! 75 4"i � - RS $4-1 tr) N.A.,m'd 4-4 0 -.a ,-,a r:, q M A .. ?) a a y yr (A. M rJ Cl p, u CL Q 4 0 U 4.0 /L X 0� ((p0 ^0 0- a),o nMi S3 �O 01 tf) O en ,- ri NN ON b .44 W C: W..- G r ^ rl U Q. a>. ,� roWy � M 8 �, . N t? VT U 43 1 -8 -8 s'0 0.-"7 .s..-) a) '.2 -_) '• IMMO W O n 2s(Ar ri Lc)rko N in 1)W O,piB [ ((hh v • Q f� CAy f�S Q Q .i O rotiA u•tiUl C• C ./ r • a L O -,N 3ppa ;i C 7W .0, W �� ( • 11 VQI W F W J lime yJ7. 1.� r1 L 1 q 11 I. fr...) cl' w > A • SUMMARY OF TABLE II, Parts "A" & "B" Changes in revenue per proposed fee recommendations for existing businesses Class of BPPr/Liquor Consumption Licenses: Revenues Recommended Class of license Old Revenues New Revenues Change in Revenues (+ or -) Class 'B' Becr $ 33,840.00 $ 21,150.00 -$12,690.00 Class 'C' PP-Pr $ 25,200.00 $ 28,000.00 +$ 2,800.00 Class 'E' PPPr $ 1,920.00 $ 2,400.00 +$ 480.00 Class 'B' Private Club $ 17,100.00 $ 22,800.00 +$ 5,700.00 Liquor Consumption $ 16,650.00 $ 23,125.00 +$ 6,475.00 Seasonal Beer $ 600.00 $ 1,000.00 +$ 400.00 Wholesale Beer $ 720.00 $ 720.00 No change Dispensing Points $ 6,770.00 $ 5,450.00 $- 1,320.00 SUMMARY $102,800.00 $104,645.00 $+ 1,845.00 Revenues ' Description of Regulatory Licenses: Amusement Devirps $ 26,500.00 $ 18,550.00 -$ 7,950.00 Billiards & Pool $ 7,150.00 $ 5,005.00 -$ 2,145.00 Card Room Tables $ 1,080.00 $ 315.00 -$ 765.00 Dance - Public $ 3,360.00 • $ 980.00 -$ 2,380.00 Live Musical Entertainment $ 2,475.00 $ 1,155.00 -$ 1,320.00 Food Vending Machine $ 4,192.00 $ 2,620.00 -$ 1,572.00 PPverage Vending Mach. $ 35,200.00 $ 22,000.00 -$13,200.00 Cigarette Vending Machine $ 2,024.00 $ 10,120.00 +$ 8,096.00 Musical Device $ 2,180.00 $ 2,180.00 No change Chairs (occupant load capacity) $187,175.00 $150,000.00 -$37,175.00 Smeary: $271,336.00 $212,925.00 -$58,411.00 COMBINED SCARY $374,136.00 $317,570.00 -$56,566.00* *Projected change in annual revenues resulting from proposed beer/liquor consumption and regulatory fees combined. (Net revenue implication.) *See page five of the staff report for additional information regarding revenue TABLE III ON SITE BEER/LIQUOR CONSUMPTION CURRENT & PROPOSED REGULATORY FEE SCHEDULE Of License/Regulatory Category Existing i ng Fees (Pry Fees) Class "B" Beer Restaurant $ 240 New $ 240 New $ 240 Renew $ 150 Renew Class "C" W r Tavern $1800 New $ 550 New 360 Renew $ 400 Renew Class "B" Private Club* $ 300 New * $ 550 New $ 300 Renew $ 400 Renew Class "E" PPPr - Public Facility $ 240 New $ 325 New $ 240 Renew $ 300 Renew Liquor Consumption $ 90 New $ 155 New $ 90 Renew $ 125 Renew Beer/Liquor Dispensing Points $ 10 "A" $ 10 "A" $ 90 "B" $ 50 "B" $ 90 "C" $ 50 "C" Seasonal Bccr $ 60 New $ 100 New Wholesale Bccr $ 240 New No Change $ 240 Renew Amusement Devires $ 50 each $ 35 each Billiards and Pool Tables $ 50 each $ 35 each Card Room Tables $ 120 each $ 35 each Dance - Public $ 120 each $ 35 each Live Musical Entertainment $ 75 each $ 35 each Musical Device $ ' 20 each $ 20 each Food Vending Machine $ 16 each $ 10 each Beverage Vending Machine $ 16 each $ 10 each Cigarette Vending Machine $ 2 each $ 10 each Chairs/ (per occupant)** $ 5 per chair $ 2 per occupant** * Private Clubs have previously paid this $300 fee only. ** One dollar for each occupant over 500. ** Outdoor seating occupancy fee is proposed at $.50 per occupant. * Banquet Room occupancy fee is proposed at $.50 per occupant with a maximum assessment of $100 per banquet room. (The $.50 per occupant fee applies only to banquet rooms that are not part of the daily business operation) . (P) On-Site B/L i a.)r k! 0 i, 00 0 0 ok 1 uQp o Itil N`-' in N I N I in U fA O L. L. 0 ww i 0 0 0o I I I • in "� I N N N N E' 0 0 O ✓ ^ 0 N N N I Jl 0Ll 1 • 0 0 0Ul '0 N La CI I eft I 0IA 00 00 I 0 t0 N in 4f N rl w 9 w o o oap O 0. o otn 00 o N w V O N I000 0 N >I V co -V 0 O'C N in N 0000o in OIll Nld O = 4 0-1 CI to to N+ .i tll N\O NO N PY N r N N N a. N N N N N N N N N N U LL:1 •4 t ' 14 14 ILI N n 0 0 0I wN I o8 • J N V> I I NO NN I 0 • In I I ^' I NN NN I I a W V or N Q31 3 ..1 1 N C VI Q U R. 14 } 0 LI o L W 14 �-+ cy a� 00 0o 0o 0 0 0o 0o a 3 0'� 0 4-1'go `... �i{�•(� 0 0 ov2p to Ul N 0 0i, 00 Don o�N oo ry� �" U 4' ri N in N Nj1 N N rl N rl NW NN NN NN rl N f1 L t • VLC1i+ w o 0• o � � 4-1 0 ••:.�U O 0 00 w to 0 V•t .J:{a 0 0 0 IN o N N N Or MN 7ortN in In O 0 to mrmry r•t N(1<T to N N N N N Oin NN O0NN 00 0 00 rl tO CO N 0 0 on N ll N N 0 f� nr N.-1 N N OoN C U C Gl i, • U O W O w1TA U U 0 h > > r7 yqo 00 I 00 00 0 0 U Pt. tri in 0 I O r0•I NI N I ~ N ri ?, N I N NN I 1!N Uf t/N I ri 2 Cl. ..-1 . • A N . 'PA 8 0) 0 O O I 0 0 NN 0 0 oI N0 V 0 1� I 0- O� I 0 I I ,01 ,i N ON N U tN ' N I N 1 I ��•1, ' I I I I d Lii o 8 un o v> N 2 I N 1 I I N N N N S ! 12 a.4, 8.a) I a :1 I I I H I I a, 8 {q y N.,0/ O I 8 O LLB I NN In I tfi N VI- N� i ��pyN �yUy �N{ a I ,� I I I ' 8.'i I 8. I I ml I u a 1 1 I L S+ S+ .4 8..0 . I I I CJ I 1 I C) �ppp O• t� I Up, a '42 NE 1 I I I N N N I I 1 I u 8 I > N 'IJ rr- °S S 3 .8 � 8 � 8 • N0 o O p we 11 k q o 1 0 M ,` 11 0 N O N0 y 0 fd' If NO ('1 En t?U) N Irk 000 NN 000 NO3 p {/F >11 co i CC ,� [L1�,pp, y RI �yJ� ' 0 0 I I I 0 0 I I Q ,/� W W W N N I I I N In I I I ,Q IL ra{ ' 0 0) o0 ' " " o 0 I I ' Co 00 0 'Q Q •� N rOU)Z I� O I rl of O I I I ..iNNNZ NZ U% N NZ Z U IX Ow .a a 0 v O 'V romV1 U>, U U h > Q 7 O U U Appendix II CHAIRS AS A PERCENT OF OCCUPANCY LOAD SURVEY CLASS OF BUSINESS CHAIRS OCCUPANCY CHAIRS AS A PERCENT OF OCCUPANCY Cafeterias & Restaurants 3261 4061 80% Cafeterias, Restaurants, Class "C" 3711 4670 79.5% Cafeterias Restaurants, Class "C: Private Clubs 4699 6423 73.2%(75% rounded) Notes to Survey: According to the survey conducted by Building & Housing Services of 26 randomly selected businesses measured for occupant load, it was determined that occupancy is 25% greater than the per chair count of the same surveyed businesses. Included in the survey were the following business category types: (1) Cafeterias (2) Class "B" Restaurants (3) Class "C" Taverns (4) Private Club establishments, who, heretofore, have not paid a fee for chairs or occupancy, as it was not required. Included in the survey are measurements, for inside, outside, restaurant and dance floor areas. The method for calculating occupancy was based upon the following formulas in determining public occupancy load. (A) Dance floor area determined by square footage divided by 7. (B) Drinking/dining area determined by square footage divided by 15. (C) Booth space is determined at 24" (lineal inches) = 1 person *(THE PUBLIC OCCUPANCY LOAD FACTOR AS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LIFE/FIRE SAFETY CODE AS Si'E OUT IN THE SALT LEE CITY CODE.) (P) Chairs/%