Loading...
10/05/1989 - Minutes MS1 — Mi tes of the Meeting of the Committee of the Whole October 5, 1959 5:cu: to ;,:tail p.m. City Council Conference Room 325 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake Cit.V UT 84111 In Attendance: Florence Bittner, District One; Wayne Horrocks , District Two; Alan Hardman, District Fair; Tom Godfrey , District Five; Roselyn Kirk , District. Six ; W.M. "Willie" Stolcr, District '_,even, Cindy Gu5t-Jenson , Executive Director, Mike Zuhl , Chief of Staff; and other City and Council Staff members. . Chairman Staler called the meetirie; Sce order, A motion was unanimously passed for Council to hold an Executive Se.',sion. The committee reconvened ;:at 5: 15 p,m. as Council to approve vetting the date of October 12 at 5:00 p.m. for a Rodent Opening. The approval was passed and Corenci 1 adjourned 5:2? p.m. and continued with the agenda as The Committee of the Whole. AGENDA ITEM #I/STATUS OF THE SUNNYSIDE RECREATION CENTER Policy and Budget Manager Scott Bond and Council Budget Analyst Len King presented a summary of the funding options for the `tinny si de Recreation Center in keeping with the Council s dec i c on to match privately and publicly raised monies at. a 1 :`' ratio to complete this project. The additional fund- pl rrj9-'d by The Steiner Corporation and Eccles Foundation increased the City contribution by $133 ,000. They suggested that Council also consider placinej a deadline and cei 1 i nn amount for matching there funds. Mr. Bond sue,gested the.. p,7s i bi 1 i t:y of bonding to get the project started , and holding other options for two months to determine what additional monies or options might be available. At that time, changes in the method of funding could be made. Lee King explained the different: options for funding. Option one would he for bonding. The total cost to the' City would be $143,000, ( $113,000 plus interest ) on a $1 . 4 million bond, with scenarios for 5-7-10 years . The ten year option would go to $163 ,000. He indicated t.hi -i is the most. expensive of the options in the long term, but al o has the least short-term impact on the current Capital Improvement Program. Option two was to use the CII' General Fund contingency which leaves too little a reserve in that fund, he said. ioWrlc 1 lmemher Hardman questioned Mr. Fin!) about the dollar amounts noted in the recommendation, and what the Mayor 's original recommendation for the CIP ccntinucr-icy had been. Mr, King replied that the Mayor's recommendation Was for a contingency of $129,8R5. Reducing this by ¶113,000 lr'(t little or no margin for r'rretr. Count i imr-'mbr'r Staler asked how many projects had fallen under budget. .3ne Reno explained that a 5-10%, contingency was built into almost every project, in roost t , the cont.i nnc try eventually used. Option Three would have the most impact on existing projects. This option would require that further reductions be made on the Fire Station #10 project, further delaying its completion, and could odd to the total cost of the project with the possibility of rising costs. Councilmember Kirk commented that she had heard concerns from Firefighters about the station construction delays conflicting with the widening of Foothill Drive next year and the potential problems this would create in responding to colls. Councilmember B tt.ner offered her support, to use the 1,50,000 budgeted for Riverside Park to help fund this project since the property exchanges necessary for Riverside had not taken place, She asked that. Council agree to allocate monies for the north Redwood Park project next year, a greater priority. Council Budget Analyst Lee King suggested that. the "cleanest" approach, with the least impact on existing or planned projects and contingency funds would be through bonding. However, this is the most expensive in terms of total cost. Councilmemher Bittner inquired as to the total cost to the city . Scott Bond advised that it was $883 ,000, including engineering fees . She expresed concern that. the City would be setting a precedent with this policy, when the golf courses were funded diffeiently . Councilmember Kirk commented that. the Council had at one time considered a total recreation fee package. Councilmember Godfrey stated that the City recreation facilities were never intended to be enterprise funds, that they should be made available to the public . Councilmember Stoler agreed the policy could come into question by the public . Councilmember Kirk stated that by combining the $50,000 hudgeted for Riverside part, with $12 ,000 identified from previous slippage and reducing Fire Station #10 by t51 ,000 would make the project work . She is however , concerned about the long term viability of the Fire Station project and the 1:ity's ability to continue the project this budget year. Gaylord Smith offered that as project manager for Fire Station #10, he was confident that he could complete the design phase and initial site work this budget year even if the project budget was reduced by $51 ,000. He' further stated that the bulk of the work would take place next. construction season, The Council approved the project based on the above by a 6-0 straw poll , Additionally they approved a doll.)r cap of or additional $100,000 from the City to match private donation and a deadline of December 1 1989, AGENDA ITEM #2/PARTIES AND GATHERINGS ORDINANCE Major Peck from the Police Department presented a summary of this proposed ordinance pertaining to a for' assessment when police are asked to respond to such calls because of citizen complaints more than one time in a twenty four hour period. Councilmember Stoler inquired how the ordinance would address a renter/landlord situation when the occupants refused to cooperate, Councilmember Godfrey asked for clarification on the ordinance and how it pertained to the disturbing the peace ordinance. He '. .."- t0,i inure specific criteria be attached to the ordinance, and that this be conveyed to Conncil . He also a,.4e0 for ntorniabor about the cost per officer and sugueated there be a maximum fee. Councilmember Kirk inquired if this ordinance had been challenged in other states her it is in force. Major Pecl,' advi and that this ordinance has held up under leual terms. Councilmembr Hardman asked for clarification on traternities. „would it be the host of the party responsible? He felt, there s'hould be an appeal procoss, with a step-up scale for fees after a certain period of time , such as with the parking ticket ordinance. CounclImember Pittner requested that the possibility of a nuisance ordinance be' considered in conjunction with this one. The Council aureed that its staff would work with the Administration to answer these questions. AGENDA ITEM #3/BUSINESS LICENSE FEE EXEMPTION Bob Bridge, Business License Supervisor, explained the proposed chanuec to the criteria for business license fee exemption, and pointed out the lenuthy process the department follows to pro(es,: these reqnests. The' proposed .han9es are patterned after those used successfully by surrounding Jurisdictions. The changes include reducing the gross inles requirements from $25,000 to $10 ,000 and requiring sales and/or tax -',t,atements for the previous year. AGENDA ITEM #4/CDBG FUND CARRYOVER Mr. King briefed the Council on CDBG Administrative Carryover funds from previous years. Slippage has been handled differently in the past where administrative monies have never come lindor rmv,ew by th Mayor or Council . Continuing this may not be the most efficient use of these funds . He pointed out that the Administration's report identified the project by year Whore the funds came from, how carryover funds were previously used and the proposed use for this year. He ;.11so pointed out that there was additional information for the Council to considor and that was a 15th year COLSO leuislative intent. In the 15th year CDBG budoet process , Council appropriatJA $00,000 for the Community Development Corp (CDC ) . ( DAC and the Mayor recommended fnndino at. $150,000. The Council then passed a legislative intent r.,tating that any slippage from prior year CC/BC; projeets which become available during 1989-90 should be „Ipplied to CDC , CoHncilmember Hardman stated that he v the one who originally proposed decreasing the CDC funding from $150,000 to 1. -10,000 and that, he was comfortable with now fully funding the CDC by using the administrative carryover funds far thin pgrpose , (ouncilmember Stnler suggested :hat the Cooncil wait. until staff had completed their briefing on the Rape Cric-pi Center funding request becausc it 15 possible to combine the two actions . The disciisOon moved on to the finding of the Rap': Crisis Center so that the" ,' Items could be considered toc-p..ther, Lee King briefed the Council on the reasons for the rcquest,.1 for additional funds form the Salt. Lake Rape Crisis Center , Ac part of the 14th yPar CD8G process , SLRCC requested $68,000 from the City. Of thi ', amount., 1.25,000 was for building rehabilitation and $43 ,000 for mortgage payments. CDAr: recommended funding at. $40,000 and the Mayor recommended that their request be partially funded at $25,000. The Council approved $25,000 in 14th year CDBG funds, The' Cogncil also passed a legislative intent, that as 14th year CMG slippage becomes available , $43 ,000 was to be allocated to SLRCC, Mr . King reviewed ., even possible options for the Cogncil '-; consideration, The most viable being option one, with $35,945 in 13th year operating slippage being applied to SiLRCC , The remaining $8,000 could come from any one of the ources identified in the' options. After discussion , Councilmember Staler proposed that the CORO administrative carryover funds and the SLRCC funding requests he used in the following manner, $49,000 go to fund salaries in Capital Planning, $15,000 'for administrative contingency , $71 ,649 for Community Development Corp. , ','Ind 1., ,000 'for 8alt Lake Rape Crisis , totalling 1143,649 in Administrative carryover . He further recommended that T35,945 from 13th year COBG slippago be applied toward the Pape Crisis Center, The Council unanimously approved this proposal in a straw poll and directed staff to prepare' the i fces.;:ary NapriworL iUtic=d:.,_____/ W.M. 'WP LIE" STnLER (.:OUNIAL CHAIR Attostd by: KATRY AkSHALL CITY RI )RDER i 1111 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ROOM 325 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Thursday, October5, 1989 5:00 p.m. A. CONSENT: 1. Budget._Opening Set date to hold a public hearing on October 12th at 5:00 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding appropriating funds for the parking facility for the Employment Security Building. (B 89-5) Staff recommendation: Set date. B. ADJOURNMENT.. 1111 ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA. • • DATED: BY: CITY RECORDER STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 3rd day of October, 1989, 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 343. CITY RECORDER Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of October, 1989. 411/ Notary Public residing in the State of Utah My Commission expires: APPROVAL: EXECUTI DIREC R • • "_- I A/- - • 5A42 ABwiegawasyf DEPARTMENT:OF FINANCE ,71 1 451 SOUTH STATE STREET„ROOK4 228 LINDA HAMILTON PALMER DEPAULIS SALT-LAKE'CITY, UTAH 84111 • DIRECTOR OF FINANCE MAYOR 80035-7676 October 3, 1989 TO: W. M. "Willie" Staler Chairman, Salt Lake City Council RE: SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - OCTOBER 12, 1989 411/ BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 3 I request that the City Council set a date for a Budget Amendment Public Hearing during their October 5 meeting. I request that the hearing to amend the Fiscal Year 1989-90 Budget be set for October 12, 1989. The primary purpose of the amendment will be to appropriate funds for construction of a parking facility associated with the new Employment Security Building on Block 53. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Linda Hamilton Director of Finance • GRANT OPERATING FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1989-90 • Amended Budget 10/12/89 Budget 1989-90 Amendments 1989-90 Resources State Grant $63,772 $ - $63,772 UDAG Grant Repayments 423,719 - 423,719 Utah Transit Authority 5,000 - 5,000 Redevelopment Agency of SLC 15,000 - 15,000 Federal Grant 221,000 - 221,000 STT UDAG Settlement account - 2,500,000 2,500.000 Salt Lake County - 109,500 109.500 Prior year grant balances 647,442 - 647,442 Total Resources $1,375,933 $2,609,500 $3,985,433 Uses Emergency Medical Services $63,772 $ - 563.772 UDAG Revolving Loan Program 423,719 - 423,719 Downtown Parking Study 20,000 - 20,000 1989-90 Renter Rehab. Program 221,000 - 221,000 1988-89 Renter Rehab. Program 295,000 - 295,000 1987-88 Renter Rehab. Program 165,223 - 165,223 McKinney Shelter Project 62,000 - 62,000 Urban Homestead Program 125,000 - 125,000 Homeless Mentally Ill Study 219 - 219 Employment Security Parking - 2,500,000 2,500,000 New Women's Shelter - 109,500 109,500 Total Uses $1,375,933 $2,609,500 $3,985,433 • • CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1989-90 • Amended Budget Carryover 10/12/89 Budget 1989-90 Budget Amendments 1988-89 Resources Transfer from General Fund $4,980,000 $ - $ - $4,980,000 CDBG 1,607,150 - - 1,607,150 Salt Lake County 1,089,635 - - 1,089,635 Class 'C' Road Fund 1,250,000 - - 1,250,000 Redevelopment Agency of SLC 1,681,000 - - 1,681,000 Bond Proceeds 1,850,000 - - 1,850,000 Property Owners 2,435,000 - - 2,435,000 Charges for Services 203,500 - - 203,500 State of Utah 4,256 - - 4,256 Private danations - - - 5,500 5,500 Carryover Funds 12,122,923 18,000 - 12,140,923 Total Resources $27,223,464 $18,000 5,500 $27,246,964 Projects Street Improvements: Sidewalk SID 210,000 - - 210,000 Local Street SID 990,000 - - 990,000 400 South to 500 South 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 California Avenue 1,250,000 - - 1,250,000 Central Bus. Dist. Beaut 1,620,000 - - 1,620,000 Traffic Safety Management 60,000 - - 60,000 Street Light Replacement 135,000 - - 135,000 100% Sidewalk Replacement 200,000 - - 200,000 Argyle/Edmonds 85,000 - - 85,000 Euclid 60,000 - - 60,000 500 South-700/900 East 480,000 - - 480,000 III -Median Island Design25,000 - 25,000 Central City' 5,000 5,000 East Central 58,000 58,000 Sugarhouse 35,000 - - 35,000 Future Street Redesign 15,000 - - 15,000 400 West Streets 40,000 - - 40,000 Main Street Curb & Gutter 20,000 - - 20,000 Total Street Improvements 6,288,000 - 0 6,288,000 Drainage Improvements: State Street 401,000 - - 401,000 Main Street 424,000 - - 424,000 South Temple-'M'/'O' Streets 250,000 - - 250,000 500 West-250/530 North 9,000 - - 9,000 Total Drainage Improvements 1,084,000 - 0 1,084,000 Parks and Public Facilities: Canterbury Apartments 60,000 - - 60,000 City and County Building 3,366,500 - - 3,366,500 Miscellaneous Facilities Repair 150,000 - - 150,000 Earthquake Hazard Imp 100,000 - - 100,000 Sunnyside Recreation Center 1,850,000 - - 1,850,000 Tracy Aviary 150,000 - - 150,000 Fire Station #10 Construction 305,000 - - 305,000 Park Facilities Fund 143,500 - - 143,500 Jordan Park Irrigation/Walk 95,000 - - 95,000 Athletic Park-Phase II 50,000 - - 50,000 Poplar Grove Park Irrigation 73,000 - - 73,000 Farimont Pk. Improve. Design 10,000 - - 10,000 Urban Forestry Planting 50,000 - - 50,000 Marmalade Hill Center Rehab. 47,000 - - 47,000 Glendale Youth Center Design 25,000 - - 25,000 City/County Landfill 450,000 - - 450,000 Art Barn - - 5,500 5,500 Total Parks and Pub. Fac. 6,925,000 - 5,500 6,930,500 • % for Art 16,400 - - 16,400 Contingency 782,885 - - 782,885 Slippage 4,256 - - 4,256 Carryover Projects 12,122,923 18,000 - 12,140,923 Total Projects $27,223,464 $18,000 $5,500 $27,246,964 • DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital 'Planning and Programming DIRECTOR CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUH STATE STREET, SUITE 404 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7902 September 28, 1989 TO: Steve Fawcett Budget Manager RE: OCTOBER 12, 1989 BUDGET REVISION Recommendation: That you review, verify and approve the following adjustments to the appropriate funds: • FY 1989-90 Current Recommended Project Budget Budget Change Source Parking Facility -0- $2,500,000 $2,500,000 STT UDAG Fund Account (New Project) FY 1989-90 Grants New Women' s -0- $109 ,500 $109,500 SL County Shelter/County (New Project) FY 1989-90 CIP Art Barn Res. -0- $5,500 $5,500 Private Pvt.Cont. Contribution PRIOR YEAR CIP/GF 700 No. $6,752 $24,752 $18,000 UDOT Redwood Rd. (83-88056 ) • 1989-90 STT UDAG Account Discussion: The funding the City received from the STT UDAG Settlement has been deposited in a Grants Fund but has not been • budgeted. The City is currently negotiating a contract with both the State and the Block 53 Developer's to allow the city to construct a Parking Facility to support the new State Office Building. The funds are now being budgeted in order to allow the City to enter into a contract obligating the money. FY 1989-90 Grants We are asking this budget to be appropriated in order to receive the County's contribution to the new Women's Shelter project. FY 1989-90 CIP The city has received $5,500 in private donations, from the Salt Lake City Art's Council to offset cost overruns in the rehabilitation of the Art Barn. We request this money be recognized by the CDBG/CIP fund to allow expenditure for the Art Barn project. PRIOR YEAR CIP/GF FY 1988-89 The City has received an allocation from UDOT in the amount of • $18,000 for the Redwood Road-Safer Sidewalk project. This budget revision will recognize these additional funds, allowing their expenditure. Sincerely, Rosemary Davis Director 7j( JR/Sh cc: Mayor Palmer DePaulis Mike Zuhl Emily Charles Linda Hamilton Scott Bond Steven Allred Larry Failner Frank Nakamura Bruce Baird Elwin Heilman Joel Harrison Nancy Boskoff Joe Reno File • • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. OF 1989 (Amending the Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 36 OF 1989 ADOPTING THE BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1989 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1990 . PREAMBLE On June 13, 1989 , the Salt Lake City Council (the "City Council" ) adopted the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget was approved by • the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Director of Finance, acting as the City' s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on October 12, 1989 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the budget and ordered notice thereof be published as required by law. Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said budget was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said budget was held on October 12, • 1989 in accordance with said notice at which hearing all • interested parties for and against the budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council . All conditions precedent to amend said budget have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah as adopted by Salt Lake City Ordinance 36 of 1989 . SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments . The budget amendments attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt • Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1 , 1989 and ending June 30, 1990, in accordance with requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6 , Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3 . Certification to Utah State Auditor. The Director of the City' s Finance Department, acting as the City' s Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4 . Filing of Copies of the Budget Amendments . The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder, which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5 . Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take • effect on its first publication. -2- • Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Approved by the Mayor this day of , 1989 . • MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER FMN:cc (SEAL) Bill No. of 1989 APPROVED AS TO FORM Published Salt Lake city Att s Ottfo* Data / 3 - � • -3- • eity @Magian OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET. SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 535-7600 Agenda Posted: October 4, 1989 5:00 P.M. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING DATE: October 5, 1989 TIME: 5:00 p.m. • PLACE: City Council Conference Room City & County Building, Room 325 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah The City Council will discuss the status of the Sunnyside Recreation Center. The City Council will discuss issues relating to parties, gatherings and events. The City Council will discuss issues relating to portions of business license fees being exempt. The City Council will discuss carryover CDBG funds. The City Council will discuss issues relating to additional CDBG funding for the Rape Crisis Center. The City Council will consider going into executive session in accordance with State law 52-4-5A to discuss issues related to professional competence of staff. • • . ;, ••-v SAMfraJ0,111111124RVONE OFFICE OF;THE.;CITY=COUNCIL SUITE 300,:CITY HALL - ... 324.SOUTH STATE STREET' SALI�LAKE:CtTY.,UTAH.84111- October 3, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members FROM: Lee King RE: Sunnyside Recreation Funding Options Scott Bond has provided you with an update to the Sunnyside/Steiner • Aquatics Center Project. In arriving at a recommendation for the City's matching funds, several options were reviewed by Finance and Council Staff. I have listed these options for your consideration in determining where you may wish to appropriate the money from. Depending on which option you choose, will determine the type of legislative action required. Based on your informal decision on Thursday, Scott and I will prepare the necessary paperwork. The first option is to finance the City's matching funds. If you will recall, the City was going to finance the Salt Lake Recreation Center, Inc. , and the School Board's contribution upfront. They would then repay the City an agreed upon amount to include the cost of issuing the bond and interest payments. This option has the least impact on existing CIP projects but is the most costly in terms of total funding required by the City. Finance is estimating that an additional $30,000 - $50,000 in interest payments would be required depending on the life of the bond. These estimates were made using a 5-7-10 year scenario with the $30,000 as the additional cost at 5 years. The second option would be to appropriate the funds from the current CIP General Fund contingency. After you appropriate $620,000 from the contingency that was earmarked for the project, there would be a balance of $129,885. This is a very small amount when compared to $4,980,000 in General Funds projects. However, the impact of this option is mitigated somewhat by the fact that some, but not all, of the individual projects have a contingency amount built into the estimated cost. This option is the most risky in terms 4111 of impact on existing projects. In the third option you could further reduce Fire Station #10 by another • $113,000 or delay another CIP project. If you reduced Fire Station #10 this would leave only $192,000 in the project. Public Works would probably not be able to complete the design phase and initial site work next spring further delaying the projected completion date. Additionally, this option would only add to the amount needed to be appropriated to the project next budget year. Fourth, you could request. the Administration to review all ongoing CIP projects from previous years to determine if there is enough slippage to fund this project. This may take some time and may delay the projected start date beyond this construction season. Also, it is unlikely that the full amount could be funded this way. Lastly, you could combine options two and four. However, the same drawbacks exist for this option as it did for the other two. After an initial review, Capital Planning was able to identify only $12,000 in General Fund slippage that is immediately available. It may be possible to come up with more funds later when more projects are completed. Under this option the majority of the funds would come from the current CIP contingency. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That you authorize construction to begin by approving the revision to the General Fund CIP and authorizing the transfer of $620,000 into the Steiner Aquatics Center Project, and that you approve an additional City donation of $113,000 to be obtained by financing the required amount. As an additional topic of discussion, you may wish to consider how long • you want to leave the offer of matching funds on the table. When first discussed, the Council informally agreed to match additional private donations in the amount of $1 for every $2 raised. No dollar cap or time limit was placed on this offer. As you can imagine, your options for future matches are somewhat limited and become even more so after the City completes the financing package in December. • o- - • STEINER AQUATICS CENTER Report to the City Council Thursday, October 5, 1989 The Steiner Corporation recently stepped forward with an offer of $200,000 of additional funding for the Steiner Aquatics Center provided that construction begin immediately. This City Council discussed this project during the September 7, committee of the whole meeting. The decision was to place the project on hold until additional funding could be raised. The Council also agreed to provide an additional dollar of City funding for each additional two dollars raised privately. An updated budget for this project is shown on page 3. Since the September 7 Council meeting, $340,000 of additional funding has been raised. Once the funding is in place, the budget can be balanced through minor reductions to the base construction bid. Adjustments in the scope of the project produce a balanced budget which will allow the project to proceed. In order to do so, the Council must make available the $113,000 of matching funds agreed to last month. Matching Funds The Administration recommends that the additional funding be secured through the long-term financing package that the City is putting together for the School • District and private donors. This recommendation offers considerable flexibility. The financing package will not be issued until December. The City could consider other funding options between now and December and if a better option becomes available, it could be substituted for long-term financing before the financing package is finalized. The Administration will be prepared to recommend financing or another alternative by December 1, 1989 The Long-term financing option also allows the City to address the issue of future matching funds. The Citizen's Group has expressed its intent to seek further funding for enhancements to the center that are not contemplated in the base bid. They have expressed an interest in further matching funds from the City. The Council could use the long-term financing option as a way to have the funds available for a match by a December 1 deadline. The Council should indicate to the Citizen's group if it is willing to continue the commitment to match private donations and perhaps set a ceiling. Steps To Proceed Once the above decisions are made, the project will proceed with the following steps: 1. The Council passes a motion that puts the money in place. 2. The construction contract is finalized and signed. • 3. The agreements with the School District and Citizen's Group are finalized and signed. • 4. The financing package is assembled. 5. The portion of State Land affecting Phase I is acquired. 6. The Voluntary Assessment District is established. 7. A management plan is finalized. 8. A groundbreaking ceremony is held. NOTE: The month delay in starting construction will likely result in delaying the opening until July 1, 1990. • • -2- • STEINER AQUATICS CENTER • Projected Budget Projected Current Budget Subsequent Projected as of 9/7/89 Changes Budget Funding Sources City Contribution $700,000 $113,000 1 $813,000 Engineering Fees 70,000 0 70,000 School District Contribution 700,000 0 700,000 Steiner Corporation 600,000 200,000 800,000 Eccles Foundation 105,000 17,000 2 122,000 Other Private Donations 0 10,000 10,000 total $2,175,000 $340,000 $2,515,000 • Project Costs Construction $2,156,000 <$34,000> 3 $2,122,000 Construction Contingency at 5% 108,000 <2,000> 106,000 City Engineering Fees 70,000 0 70,000 Design Fees 152,000 0 152,000 •- Acquisition of State Land 25,000 0 25,000 Building Permit 9,000 0 9,000 Survey, Masonry Insp., Geotech Rpt. 16,000 0 16,000 Connection Fees 15,000 0 15,000 total $2,551 ,000 <$36,000> $2,515,000 • -3- • NOTES TO PROJECTED BUDGET 1. The City agreed to match $1 for every $2 raised subsequent to September 7, 1989. This match equates to 1/3 of the total additional funds raised. One-third of $340,000 is $113,000. The Administration's recommendation for this additional funding can be found on page 1. 2. The Eccles foundation agrees to pay 5% of the total project cost. Five percent of $340,000 is $17,000. 3. The $34,000 reduction includes a combination of cuts and enhancements which have been agreed upon by the School District, the Citizen's Group, and City Engineering. • 111 -4- • OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET. SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 535-7600 MEMORANDUM To: City Council Date: September 29, 1989 From: Cam Caldwell Subject: Party Ordinance The Police Department has proposed that the City adopt an ordinance which enables the City Treasurer to assess a bill against a property owner or resident whose party results in multiple police responses within a 24 hour period. The purpose of the ordinance is explained in Police Chabries' letter to the Mayor, and is basically to enable the City to deter revellers at parties with a financial incentive that is meaningfully punitive. The basic ordinance allows the Police to go to a party and tell the host that they will be assessed for a "special security assignment" with appropriate fees if the Police have to come back to the party site. I reviewed the ordinance carefully with Greg Hawkins of the City Attorney's Office. The Council may wish to carefully review the "Services fee" definition in Section 11 . 12.010 to determine whether it is comfortable with the breadth of the language. You may wish to consider striking the phrase "regardless of fault" from the definition. From a practical standpoint the issue of fault would affect the fee assessed by the City, as well as the amount finally determined by the Court. Overall, the proposed ordinance has the positive benefit of being a well conceived deterrent to a substantial problem facing the City. According to the Police Administration, there are approximately thirty party calls per weekend during the summer and fifteen per weekend during the winter months, or nearly 1 ,000 calls per year on weekends alone. Two cars or more are always sent as part of Police Department response procedure. The department notes that about 50% of all party calls require a second response by the department. • -1- 4 � 0 III SALT r0a OrNYCC�Ceg . 1I;O1 P©., U ©ENAT11t1 NT TELEPHONE(801)799-3000 315 EAST 200 SOUTH MIKE CHABRIES FAX(801)7993557 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 CHIEF OF POLICE August 17 , 1989 Honorable Palmer DePaulis Mayor Salt Lake City & County Bldg. 451 South 200 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis : For many years , especially in the summer months, private parties have posed a special [problem for the Police Department. Initial responses to loud , active parties require several Illofficers to respond for safety and other reasons. Upon arrival, we are many times confronted by boisterous party-goers who are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. We offer little incentive for them to comply with the laws. Our jails are full and a misdemeanor citation does little to motivate an intoxicated party-goer in the presence of peers at the apex of their evening. Upon our departure, little time passes before we find ourselves receiving additional complaints from neighbors and sending two, three or more officers to the same location to repeat the exercise. The frustration of our officers is exceeded only by helpless neighbors . Clearly, we waste our time and resources repeating this scenario night after night. This letter introduces a draft of a proposed City Ordinance which, if enacted, will create a serious financial incentive for those receiving first warnings, to comply with the law. The ordinance requires that our officers issue a written warning to a responsible person. If the police have to respond to the same location within 24 hours, police serviced costs are levied against the responsible person. The Chief then notifies the City Treasurer of the incident, specifying costs , and appropriate billings are generated. Mayor DePaulis August 17, 1989 111 Page 2 We feel this ordinance will be an effective tool in reducing manpower demands on the Police Department. In concurrence with the City Attorney's office, we therefore recommend the ordinance be passed as written. S'ncer ly, 7, ICHAEL P. CHABRIES Chief of Police MPC/OJP/nw cc: Admin. File DRAFT 111 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Parties, gatherings or events) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11, THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, 1988, BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 12, RELATING TO PARTIES, GATHERINGS OR EVENTS, AS FOLLOWS: Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding a new Chapter 12, relating to Parties, gatherings or events, as follows: Chapter 11.12 PARTIES, GATHERINGS OR EVENTS 110 Sections: 11.12.010 Definitions. 11.12.020 Initial Police Responses to Parties. 11.12.030 Subsequent Police Responses to Parties, Gatherings or Events; Liability. 11.12.040 Cost; Collection. 11.12.010 Definitions. The following words, phrases and terms as used in this chapter shall have the meaning as indicated below: A. "Party, gathering or event" shall mean three or more people who have assembled or are assembling for a social activity where alcoholic beverages have been or are being consumed, or substances regulated by the Utah Controlled Substances Act are used by any person at the party, or where the noise from the party disturbs the public peace. B. "Host" shall mean the person who owns, or as a tenant leases, rents or otherwise resides at the location or occupies in any capacity, whether for personal or business purposes, the property where the party, gathering or event takes place; and/or the person in charge of the premises; and/or the person who organized the event; and/or the person who gave permission to hold the party on the premises. If the party is hosted by an organization, either incorporated or unincorporated, the term "host" shall include the officers of the organization. In the event the "host" is a minor under eighteen years of age the term "host" shall include the parent or parents or legal guardian of the minor. 411 C. "Services fee" shall mean the cost to the City of any special security assignment and shall include, but is not limited to, salaries of police officers while responding to or remaining at the party, gathering or event; the pro rata cost of equipment; the cost of repairing City equipment and property damaged while responding to the gathering; the cost of any medical treatment or disability, sick leave or other related costs of police officers injured while responding to the party or gathering, regardless of fault; costs of collection and the cost of reasonable attorney's fees. D. "Special security assignment" shall mean the assignment of police officers, services and equipment during a second or subsequent response to the party, gathering or event after the distribution of a written notice to the host or -2- • , _ • r-' person(s) who are identified as being in charge of the party in absence of the host, that a fee may be imposed for costs incurred by the City for any subsequent police response. 11.12.020 Initial Police Responses to Parties, Gatherings or Events. When any police officer responds to any party, gathering or event in response to allegations that activities or noise may be in violation of the law, and the officer in good faith finds there is probable cause to believe there is a threat to the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare, the police officer shall issue a written notice to the host or person(s) - identified as being in charge. The notice shall inform the host 411 or person( s) identified as being in charge that a subsequent response to that same location or address, within a twenty four hour period, shall be deemed a special security assignment and that the host(s ) may be liable for the services fee as defined in this chapter. 11.12.030 Subsequent Police Responses to Parties, Gatherings or Events; Liability. If after a written notice is issued pursuant to section 11. 12.020, a subsequent police response to the same location or - address, within a 24 hour period, such response shall be deemed a special security assignment. The host or person(s) identified as being in charge who were warned shall be jointly and sever- ally liable for the services fee, as defined in this chapter. 110 -3- f. 4Y 411 The amount of such fee shall be a debt owed to the City by the host(s) and/or person( s) warned. In no event shall the fee be more than One Thousand Dollars. The City reserves the right to seek reimbursement for actual costs, exceeding One Thousand Dollars through other legal theories, remedies or procedures. The subsequent response may also result in the arrest and/or citation of violators of the state penal code or other regulations, ordinances or laws, but this provision shall not be construed to preclude appropriate action, including arrests or whatever on the first visit by the police to the gathering. 11,12,040 Cost; Collection. • The chief of police shall notify the city treasurer in writing of the performance of a special security assignment, of the name and address of the responsible person(s) , the date and time of the incident, services performed, costs thereof and such other information as may be required. The city treasurer shall thereafter cause appropriate billings to be made. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. . CHAIRPERSON II! -4- ' a • ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER • (SEAL) Bill No. of 1989 . Published: GRH:rc 411 -5- /I ' 411 • • ill , . sli CRAIG E. PETERSON t , o ti irpt m�`�`J D A BONE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TO: Salt Lake City Council TELEPHONE535-7777 September 15, 1989 Re: Business License Fee Exemption Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on October 10, 1989 at 6:50 p.m. to discuss a proposed amendment to Section 5.04.070, Salt Lake City Code relating to the exemption from the payment of a portion of business license fees. Availability of Funds: Not applicable 1111 Discussion and Background: The present ordinance allows for an exemption of $25.00 for a business whose gross sales of good and services for the preceding calendar year were less than $20,000. The procedure we currently use is very cumbersome and time consuming sometimes requiring a 9 step process for the $25.00 exemption. We have contacted other licensing entities and have found that Salt Lake County and West Valley City are using $10,000 in gross sales for exemption and the County requires their applicants to produce a federal income tax return and/or state sales tax return for those years relevant to the exemption request. This requirement has reduced 75% of the request for an exemption refund. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: _D Vt (_ ICHAEL B. Z Acting Director Community and Economic Development . , ,_ -0 r. SAI ' I.�. 1,, GIT T GORPO ' ° IO ,, t ALLEN C. JOHNSON. AICP ROBERT M. BRIDGE BUSINESS LICENSE SUPERVISOR PLANNING DIRECTOR BRENT 6. WILDE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION SUPERVISOR PERMITS AND Business Licensing ZONING SERVICES 451 SOUTH STATE STREET - ROOM 215, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7717 MEMORANDUM To: Mike Zuhl Acting Director Community & Economic Develo//pent / From: Allen Johnson, AICP Director - Planning DiviiiiYn\� Date: September 11, 1989 1 Ji ill \,____--' Subject: BUSINESS LICENSE FEE E ENIPTION We are requesting an amendment to Ordinance Subsection "B" of Section 5.04.070, Salt Lake City Code relating to the exemption from the payment of a portion of business license fees. The present ordinance allows for an exemption of $25 for a business whose gross sales of goods and services for the preceding calendar year were less than $20,000. The procedure we are following at present is very cumbersome, time consuming, and inefficient, in that it requires us to go through the following process scenario: (1) We get a call requesting an affidavit for exemption. (2) We mail out the exemption affidavit (3) We receive the affidavit in return mail (if not properly notarized, we return affidavit to applicant) . (4) We type a "Request for Exemption" ($25 refund) in triplicate. (5) Business License Supervisor reviews and signs request authorizing refund. . (6) Original signed request sent to finance department for typing and issuance of a refund check. Page -2- Memo to: Mike Zuhl September 11, 1989 (7) Other copies of exemption request are filed in business license file and a control journal. (8) We answer many phone calls from the exemption applicants asking where their refund checks are and when they were sent. (9) This phone call initiates another search of records and contact with the finance department for a status update. To say the least, this is a very expensive and time consuming process. The treasurer's department personnel estimated it costs approximately $40 in time and effort to give a $25 refund. We have contacted other licensing entities for input into this problem and have found that both Salt Lake County and West Valley City are using $10,000 in gross sales for exemption and the County requires their applicants for exemption to produce a federal income tax return and/or state sales tax return for those years relevant to the exemption request. Their Business License Supervisor, Nate Brown, informs us that this requirement reduced 75% of the requests for an exemption refund. 1110 We are, therefore, requesting the adoption of the amended ordinance to reduce cost, increase efficiency, and come into conformity with other political subdivisions. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Business Licence Fee Exemptions) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION B OF SECTION 5.04.070, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM THE PAYMENT OF A PORTION OF BUSINESS LICENSE FEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That subsection B of section 5. 04. 070, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: B. Exceptions, Maximum Fee and New Businesses. The foregoing notwithstanding, any such person taxed in subsection A above: 1. May receive an exemption of twenty-five dollars, annually, upon submitting an affidavit that the gross sales of goods and/or services for the preceding calendar year were less than [twenty]ten thousand dollars at such place of business[;-] . The license supervisor may, in addition to the affidavit, require an applicant claiming such an exemption to produce for inspection federal income tax returns and/or state sales tax returns for those years that are relevant to the exemption request; 2. *** 3. *** SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its first publication. '.• Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor ' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR • ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. OF 1989 . Published: • LVS:rc -2- S SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Business Licence Fee Exemptions ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION B OF SECTION 5. 04.070, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM THE PAYMENT OF A PORTION OF BUSINESS LICENSE FEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That subsection B of section 5.04.070, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: B. Exceptions, Maximum Fee and New Businesses. The foregoing notwithstanding, any such person taxed in subsection A • above: 1 . May receive an exemption of twenty-five dollars, annually, upon submitting an affidavit that the gross sales of goods and/or services for the preceding calendar year were less than ten thousand dollars at such place of business. The license supervisor may, in addition to the affidavit, require an applicant claiming such an exemption to produce for inspection federal income tax returns and/or state sales tax returns for those years that are relevant to the exemption request; 2. *** 3 . *** SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its first • publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR 111 ATTEST: CITY RECORDER ( SEAL ) Bill No. OF 1989 . Published: LVS: rc -2- • PALM ER DEPAUUS SIS r=. WIT lle' MAYOR - - OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 535-7704 October 3, 1989 W.M. "Willie" Stoler 2501 Fillmore Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Dear Councilman Stoler: • This briefing memo is in response to several inquiries about the carry-over CDBG admin funding proposed at the September 19, 1989 Council meeting. As you are aware, all CDBG funding from prior years was carried over with the exception of administrative dollars . These funds are to be discussed at the October 5th Committee of the Whole meeting. This memo gives an explanation of the administrative dollars, their current use, historical use, and proposed future use. OVERVIEW The CDBG program provides funds to address the needs of communities and economic development within those communities . Part of the CDBG entitlement grant the city receives each year is dedicated to "administering" the grant. HUD allows up to 20% of each grant to be used for administration with includes such categories as: 1 . Application for funding 2. Citizen Participation 3. Contract/Attorney support 4 . Financing/Accounting 5. Auditing/Monitoring 6 . Reporting • Salt Lake City continues to allocate funds to administration at much less than the 20% allowed by regulation. In past years this percentage has been roughly half or 10% of the grant. This can be considered an efficient use of the funding in view of the ceiling of 20% the city is allowed to use. Additionally, all • administration amounts are approved by the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) on an annual basis and they are also reviewed annually by HUD and the city's independent financial auditors. The funds do not technically require citizen participation nor do they have to meet national objectives specified for individual projects in the program but can be used for any category of administration allowed by federal regulations. Historically, the administrative agencies that have received these dollars are: Capital Planning & -Programming, Community Affairs, Finance, Attorneys and the Planning Division. In each year funded, the applicable division recognized their CDBG funding as general fund revenue and treated it as such. In certain years, funds were not expended and thus leftover. Those funds were approved for admin purposes and, therefore, left intact for their original purpose. A breakdown of the money is listed below for your information: 14th/FY 1988-89 Environmental Assessments $ 838.53 13th/FY 1987-88 Community Affairs $ 1,563 .30 • Capital Planning $ 12,821 .58 12th/FY 1986-87 Attorney $ 27,644 .88 Capital Planning $ 873 .44 llth/FY 1985-86 Housing Attorney $ 24,857 .31 Capital Planning $ 42,309 .96 Constituent Relations $ 6,864 . 68 Finance $ 19,199 .85 10th/FY 1984-85 Finance $ 3,937 .39 9th/FY 1983-84 Capital Planning $ 116 .58 Finance Supplies $ 3,460 .36 TOTAL $143,649.33 Past use of these fund have included: Training for minority contractors and women owned businesses. Travel to Washington, D.C. to secure 108 Loans, • Secretary's Discretionary Funds, and travel to Washington D.C. to settle STT. Grants and financial monitoring specialist for one year. • Contract person for CIP Policy, CDBG Policy, CDBG Three Year Plan. Computer equipment and office supplies. In addition, the funds have been combined with other CDBG Program dollars to fund: Salt Lake City Tomorrow - Project 2000 First Step Recovery House Calvary Towers land writedown HDC - Ben Albert acquisition Hartland infrastructure CURRENT USE (obligated for 89-90 budget year) include: Portions of 4 salaries in CPPD $ 49,000 This $49,000 was identified during the regular budget process as increased staff time that could be charged to CDBG and it was, therefore, reduced from our general fund budget. Currently a portion off 4 salaries are being charged to this account. Loss of this $49,000 would result in a reduction of force. • PROPOSED USE We recommend $15,000 be put in an administrative contingency to cover additional costs related to the CDBG program that were not anticipated at the beginning of the fiscal year. We further recommend the remaining $79,649 . 33 be declared slippage and added to the 16th year pot to be allocated during the regular process for specific programs. This action would bring the administrative funding and its use of "slippage" into line with the regular program. In addition, more projects could be funded with these leftover resources. Sin rely, 4414,?/t_14.4 te(RA-et Palmer DePaulis Mayor RD/ks • I w , 3 ., S � r d emir iaiq OFFICE-;OF, THE, CITY=COUNCIL SUITE 300, CITY-HALL - 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ye t ',SALT,.LAKE:CITY,UTAH 84111'._ October 3, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members FROM: Lee King • RE: CDBG Administrative Carryover Funds Capital Planning & Programming has two types of funds that fall within the category of CDBG, administrative carryover funds and program funds. It is important to understand this as there are two sets of rules as to their usage. Program funds are appropriated by the Council for specific projects during the budget process. HUD guidelines state that significant changes to the scope of a project requires community input.. The City, with HUD"s concurrence, has used a benchmark of 20 percent in determining when a project can be changed administratively or if legislative action is required. If a project change is less than 20%, the Mayor administratively approves/disapproves the change. If over 20%, CDAC reviews the request and provides Capital Planning and the Mayor with a recommendation. The Mayor then forwards the request and his recommendation to the Council for legislative act ion. Administrative funds are reviewed by CDAC during the budget process with user departments required to justify their requests. For the last two years at least, the Council has not reviewed the administrative requirements in any detail. Historically, unexpended administrative funds have been carried over for use by the individual departments. No further review or justification has been required prior to now. In putting together their general fund budgets, user departments assumed that the carryover funds would automatically be made available for their use. The attached report from Capital Planning reviews the past uses of these funds and the current plan for their use in this budget year. Under these procedures, carryover funds are not subject to any • legislative review and departments are pretty much free to use the funds as they see fit as long as they generally meet the HUD criteria for administrative uses. Although this procedure may be within acceptable guidelines, it may not be the most efficient use of the funds and leaves the Council out of its traditional legislative role. In the attached report, $143,649 of administrative carryover funds and their sources have been identified by Capital Planning. They have also listed the proposed uses of these funds, $49,000 of which is salaries and benefits. These funds were identified during the general fund budget review of Community & Economic Development and listed as a source of revenue for the department. $15,000 has been requested for administrative use, leaving $79,649. Capital Planning recommends that this amount be put into slippage and programmed with the 16th Year CDBG Program. As part of the FY 1989-90 budget ( 15th Year CDBG Program) Council passed a legislative intent stating that it was your intent that any slippage from prior year CDBG projects which becomes available during 1989-90 be applied towards the Community Development Corporation. CDAC and the Mayor's original recommendation was to fund CDC at $150,000. The Council appropriated $80,000 for the project with the intent to fund the remainder from slippage identified this year. Now that administrative carryover funds have been identified as slippage you could take all or part of the $79,649 to satisfy this legislative intent. By combining the $80,000 already appropriated with the $79,649 slippage, the original budget. of $150,000 for the Community Development. • Corporation would be met. Another option would be to accept Capital Planning's recommendation and program the slippage as part of the 16th Year CDBG Program. It would then go through the regular process, including CDAC review. In summary, Council action could include: A. Appropriate the entire $94, 649 to slippage to be reviewed by CDAC in accordance with the official review process. OR B. Approve $15,000 for administrative contingency and appropriate $79,649 to slippage to be reviewed by CDAC in accordance with the official review process. OR C. Appropriate either amount, or another amount, to the CDC in accordance with your legislative intent. OR D. Direct the staff to give you more information on other areas of interest to you. ***Note: The options for funding the Rape Crisis Center are addressed in another memo. We believe an adequate number of choices exist in that arena, but you may want to make your straw poll very tentative on this issue until you have the benefit of that full discussion. • • 111 ; • • • S . . 4C ITY G D:°�P.0 aCNI OFFICE .OF,THE--CITY;:COUNCIL ;:SUITE 300.:CITY HALL . 324 SOUTH.STATE STREET' SALT.LAKE-CITy,.-UTAH.841 fi =- 535=7600 October 3, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members FROM: Lee King RE: Funding Alternatives for the Rape Crisis Center As some of you are aware, the Salt Lake Rape Crisis Center, SLRCC, has • requested additional funding for its operations. In October 1987, the SLRCC applied for $68,000 of 14th Year CDBG funding. Of this amount, $25,000 was S for building rehabilitation and $43,000 was to be used to help pay off the mortgage on the their building. CDAC recommended funding at $40,000 and the Mayor recommended that their request be partially funded at $25,000. The City Council approved $25,000 in 14th Year ( 1988-89) CDBG funds for the SLRCC. The Council also passed a legislative intent that as 14th Year Community Development Block Grant slippage funds become available, $43,000 was to be allocated to the Rape Crisis Center. The dynamics of budget process and the public hearing lead SLRCC to assume that in time, their original request of $68,000 would be fully funded. It was not until early this spring, after Capital Planning informed .the Director of SLRCC that their actual allocation for FY 1988-89 was $25,000, did they determine that they had a funding shortfall. The attached letter from the Executive Director of the Rape Crisis Center outlines the center's funding requirements at this time. In response to their realest for funding, CDAC and the Mayor are recommending that SLRCC apply for the funding they need from the 16th Year CDBG allocation. This process begins October 1. Final Council action would be in May 1990 as part of the FY 1990-91 budget. Under this process, funding would not be available until July 1, 1990. For discussion purposes I have prepared 7 options for your consideration. 410 OPTION 1: Prior Year Slippage • In preparing for. the 15th Year CDBG Budget, Capital Planning closed out most of the remaining projects from 6th - 12th Year and rolled over the slippage for new projects this budget year ( 15th Year). There are several ongoing projects that remain open at this time t.hat. you may wish to consider as possible funding alternatives. Land Write Down: $145, 386 This is a 12th Year account t.hat is under review. As it was explained to me, there are two possible uses. The first is for land write downs by RDA. The second is for a transitional housing project. in District 1. Both Joe Reno and Mike Chitwood consider the account open and the funds not available as slippage. 7t.h Year Jefferson Park $6,285 This is a detention basin park. Parks & Recreation is still planning to use the funds to install soccer goals and plant. trees. 8th Year Memory Grove $2,800 These funds are sitting in the project to take care of small emergencies until such • time as the future use of Memory Grove is resolved. 13th Year Operating Slippage $35,945 These funds are not earmarked for any particular project. It may be possible to establish a 13th Year Project and move these funds into it for the Rape Crisis Center. OPTION 2: Use prior year contingencies. 6th-lath Year Contingencies from these years were rolled over into the 15th Year Budget and are no longer available. 12th Year Operating Contingency $34,730 Available for use at Mayor or Council discretion. There is still $275,000 worth of open projects in this year. 4111 • 13th Year CIP Contingency $38, 212 Although available, there are still ongoing projects totaling $414,000 that could possibly require additional funding. Use of these funds would require a public hearing and formal Council action to move funds from the CIP to CDBG Operating funds. 14th Year Operating Contingency $20,084 Although available, all the 14th Year projects are still ongoing and may require additional funding. OPTION 3: Use current. 15th Year Contingency This would reduce the current year contingency from $139,250 to $96,250. A reduction of this magnitude may place a current project in jeopardy later on during the life of the project. History indicates that 85% of original contingency funds are used by June 30t.h of the first, year. The remaining 15% may or may not be used for another project or rolled over as slippage. OPTION 4: Follow the specific wording of the intent language and use 14th Year Slippage. • There is no iron clad guarantee that slippage will occur in the near future. History for CDBG/CIP projects is that slippage is not available for 2-3 years. Funding under this option would be uncertain at best. OPTION 5: Re-apply on October 1, 1989 for 16th Year CDBG; This would require the Rape Crisis Center to go back through the entire process. There is no g.uarant.ee that they would receive the necessary community/Administration/Council support to receive funds. Although it is unlikely that. the Council would abandon them, and the Administration has indicated a willingness to work with them, this appears to be a major concern to the Board of Directors of the Rape Crisis Center. OPTION 6: Reduce the scope of a current project , 14th or 15th Year and transfer the funds to the Rape Crisis Center. The political fallout from taking funds from a previously approved project without going back and considering community input would be tremendous. The Mayor might consider a veto at this point.. Council members may object to projects in their districts being reduced or eliminated. OPTION 7: Use Administrative Carryover In their report on the use of CDBG administrative carryover funds, Capital Planning has identified $143,649 in carryover funds that are available • for use. They have specifically requested use of $103,000 of this amount, leaving $40,649 that they are recommending be placed in slippage and programmed with the 16th year CDBG program. • r • In considering the Rape Crisis Center's request for additional funding, • you will also need to take into account a legislative intent passed by the Council on June 13, 1989 which states, "It is the intent of the City Council that any slippage from prior year CDBG projects which becomes available during 1989-90 be applied towards the Community Development Corporation and that. Capital Planning report at least semiannually on the availability of slippage. " Of course Council legislative intent statements are simply intent statements of the Council at the time, and are not binding. Presumably, the slippage identified in options 1-6 above and the CDBG administrative carryover funds discussed under separate cover, would be applied to CDC first, with any remaining funds available for other uses. SUMMARY It the Council wishes to adhere to it's 1989 legislative intent, the best course of action appears t.o be to use the administrative carryover funds to satisfy the 15th Year Legislative intent and fund the Community Development Corporation. If Council wishes t.o leave itself more options and await further development of the CDC, the Administrative carryover funds could be moved to a slippage account. You could then either recommend t.o the Rape Crisis Center that they apply on October 1, 1989 for 16th Year Funds or establish a 13th Year CDBG Project for the Rape Crisis Center and move 13th Year operating slippage ($35,945) into the project. The balance of the $43,000 needed to fund the SLRCC could come from 12th Year Contingency ($34,730). This would a • leave a balance of $26,675 in 12th Year Contingency. If Council supports the concept of funding the remainder of the original request, this appears t.o be the best option. If you choose not to fund the request at this time, the Rape Crisis Center still has the opportunity to request additional funds next. year. CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson Enclosure "We lu`t- °ras�� � 1-6"CIthOUC(h 1Se b a nd Al ,i' s1 ., )..., rno ; �� { l� '' 7 .1 y�U �� ice{ Yluv�' � s 0 1 r 199,J Co(3 TN- nand delluerei �5 COctabz`- S. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Ar Da11 L.:11C LI�y �.V U11V11 211 City and County Bldg. SLC, Utah 84111 Re: SLRCC's CDBG Allocation Dear Council Chair Stoller: As you are aware, rapes and other sexual assaults are rapidly growing violent crimes which traumatize many Salt lake City residents. Salt Lake Rape Crisis Center's 15.4% increase in demand for service over the last year reflects this growth. Of the victims treated by, 49.2% were sexually assaulted in Salt Lake City. SLRCC and Salt take City have a long history of successfully joining efforts to combat crime plus healing the emotional wounds • of crime victims. In relaying the impact of a delay in a portion ($43,000.00) of SLRCC's monies, there are two important factors. First a delay in funding will force a cut in services. Because additional monies have not been applied on the mortgage, the monthly payments have remained high. The difference in the payment equals 3/4 of a full time crisis counselor position in the Agency. Over ones years period of time 884 hours of crisis intervention to raped and sexually assaulted victims and 676 hours of community education/training and intra-agency coordination will not be provided within our community. Since SLRCC's annual operating budget is $150,000.00 and the building project budget totals $237,000.00, the $43,000.00 allocation is a large amount which is important to the successful completion of the building project and providing victim services. Second, the total $68,000.00 CDBG allocation became incorporated into both agency and building budgets. The delay of the funding • has caused SLRCC serious credibility problems with our mortgage holder. In accordance with our building budget plan and in reliance on your allocation, letters were sent to our current mortgage holder outlining the building payoff schedule with subsequent • Rape Crisis Center 2035 South 1300 East ILake City, Utah 84105 467-RAPE • Page Two Council Chair Stoler SLRCC's CDBG Allocation reductions in monthly mortgage payments. We are obligated to make a- balloon payment under the terms of our promissory note. The availability of funds being questioned has thrown us into a disadvantageous negotiating posture. We cannot procede without the premised funds in place. These problems will become more difficult to solve as more time elapses. Agency representatives have met with both Council and Administrative Staff to be apprised of the process and current developments. One suggested alternative is reapplying through the 16th year CDBG allocation process. Our Board of Director would consider this option last without knowing the success of the outcome. However, we acknowledge the difficulties in the political process and the • awkward timing. We were unaware that the Administrative Staff is currently changing the procedures which would result in CDBG slippage fund requests not being considered mid-year and that all slippage from previous years will be consolidated into the next years CDBG Budget. Again, we did not know of these possible changes. SLRCC is appreciative of your awareness and sensitivity to the issue of violent crimes. Your recognition of the Agency's valuable role in • providing these necessary services is acknowledged. Pursuing • options to alleviate this problem in the most expeditious manner will assist Salt Lake Rape Crisis Center in completing its' building project and getting on with treating traumatized victims and educating our community. Resioectfuliy Yours, Christine Watters Director • CW:LMC:ls • r Al 21112 Ont • PALMER DEPAt1 LI5 1A MAYOR • �����►rIr ':.OFFICE OF• THE 'MAYOR ` :• CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 306 •SALT.LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 September 29, 1989 W. M. "Willie" Stoler Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Councilman Staler: • As you know, I recommended and the City Council approved $25,000 to the Rape Crisis Center as part of the 14th year CDBG funding available July 1, 1988. These funds were to be used for building renovations in conjunction with an additional $44,000 in CD monies coming from Salt Lake County. In addition, the Council adopted a legislative intent stating "that as 14th year CDBG slippage funds became available, $43,000 be allocated to the Rape Crisis Center. Since slippage funds only become available after funded projects are closed out, it takes some time for slippage to accrue. Contingency funds, which are a part of the CDBG line item budget breakdown, are allocated annually to insure that cost overruns on approved projects can be covered. We do not turn contingency funds into slippage until the projects they are allocated to are completed. The City's CDBG policy states that adjustments of up to 20 percent of the project's original budget may be approved administratively by the Mayor after review of recommendations given by the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) and Capital Planning and Programming (CPP). Budget adjustments over 20 percent require review by CDAC and CPP and review by the Mayor's office with a recommendation to the City Council . The Council can then act on the item and adopt a budget amendment at its regular Council meeting. Since an additional $43,000 for the Rape Crisis Center exceeds a 20 percent adjustment the latter process would need to be followed. • To avoid further delay by waiting until 14th year slippage is available as the Council intent states , I am recommending that Rape Crisis Center apply for the funding they need from the 16th year CDBG allocation consistent with other slippage requests. 'Councilman Willy Stoler Page 2 September 29, 1989 • Another issue of concern is the Center wantingto the use funding unding allocated to them to apply to their existing building mortgage. HUD has advised us that only principal can be paid with CDBG funds and interest costs are not an eligible expense. Costs already paid are also prohibited from being reimbursed. I hope this information is helpful to you in your decision related to the Rape Crisis Center. Both City and HUD policies and procedures are to be followed when planning or implementing CDBG projects. Since these guidelines are voluminous, they are available for your thorough review in the Capital Planning and Programming office. I would be happy to have a Capital Planning staff member meet with you or Council staff. If you would like any supplemental information , please don't hesitate to call . Sincerely, kj,„,, et-<.• L, Mayor PD/EC:jf • cc: Mike Zuhl Emilie Charles Rosemary Davis Joe Reno Stephanie Laker Christine Natters •