11/06/1990 - Minutes 411
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1990
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of
the Whole on Tuesday, November 6, 1990, at 4:00 p.m. in Room 325, City
Council Office, City and County Building, 451 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present:
Alan Hardman Ronald Whitehead Tom Godfrey
Don Hale Roselyn Kirk Nancy Pace
The following Council Member was absent:
Wayne Horrocks
Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director, Doc Kivett, Chief
Deputy Recorder, Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy, and Misty Jo Zemp, Deputy
Recorder, were present.
Councilmember Hardman presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to $9,000,000.. He said he felt it
order at 4:05 p.m. was a good assumption for planning
purposes. He said the first
AGENDA ITEMS column was cash needs. The best
case scenario included the
#1 RE: The Council will Redevelopment Agency excess but
consider entering into Executive excluded Fine Arts subsidies.
Session in accordance with Utah
Code Section 52-4-5(1)(b) to Mr. Hunt said it was the
discuss with City Attorney Roger excess coverage that cut
Cutler potential litigation. revenues, minus the (1 ) debt
service obligation on the Jazz
This item was pulled from the Arena, (2) the debt service
agenda. obligation on the conventions
facility bonds, and (3) the school
#2 RE: continued discussion district payment of $390,000 left
on Funding Options for Salt Palace over in excess. He said he had
Renovation identified that amount in a
previous meeting. He said he had
Buzz Hunt, City Treasurer, indicated in the first column what
gave a presentation on the Salt the City would owe on debt
Palace renovation funding. He services.
gave the Council a handout (see
attached) on funding and what it The remainders in the first
would cost to renovate the Salt column were cash needs. The gap
Palace. Mr. Hunt presented the between the revenues would
Council with the assumption the identify cash available to the
city had to bond for or contribute City versus what it would cost to
$6,000,000. He said the bond for $6,000,000. He said it
Redevelopment Agency contributed would be a twenty year scenario.
90-14
411
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1990
He said it minimized the amount of
the gap per year. Councilmember Pace asked if
that was how much it would exceed
Mr. Hunt said option six and what would the city do with
discussed in the November 1, 1990, the money.
meeting removed the $276,000. In
deductions, which showed the total Mr. Hunt said this decision
amount without any deductions. would be left up to the Council.
He said if they decided to impose
Mr. Hunt said the deductions .5% tax fee on food and beverage ,
for the food and beverage tax were it would be money available for
comparable to the innkeepers tax, whatever use the Council wanted.
a deduction for the revenue fees
per employee fee, and a per room Councilmember Hardman said in
charge. He said in order to be the first year if the city imposed
comparable for restaurants, the .5%, issued the bonds, and met
council might allow deductions for debt obligations, the excess would
revenue fees and employee fees. be $879,000.
The restaurant business did not
have a per room charge fee, they Mr. Hunt said he did not have
had a per capacity charge. a number on administrative costs
right now. He had assumed it
Councilmember Hardman said if would be around $90,000 per year.
we collect 1% of whatever the He said the city would do a
figure was and subtract whatever billing and collections process
fees they pay to the city, the for 1000 accounts on a quarterly
city could have a net amount. The basis. He said it coincided with
same principle would apply to the the same quarterly recording
restaurants. requirements of sales tax and
there would be some data
Councilmember Hale asked if processing costs. He said the
it applied to hotels. verification of filling out the
form correctly had to be done
Mr. Hunt said the third manually, although there were some
column stated . 5$ of a food and ways the city could computerize
beverage tax without reducing part of the process. Mr. Hunt
those deductions. He said the said the lock box could be used to
deductions in the first year would receive the cash. He said there
be around $276,000, but he had not would need to be some type of
subtracted it. The fourth column enforcement for spot audits.
related to option six and was the
amount by which the tax would Councilmember Pace asked if
exceed cash needs. by adding the $879,000, then
subtracting the administrative
Councilmember Hardman asked costs, would the rest of the funds
if by the end of twenty years the be used for fine art purposes.
city would have $1,800,000 to the
good. Councilmember Hardman asked
Mr. Hunt said on an annual if the third column was the gross
basis in the year 2015 the city revenues from 50 of 1% without
would have a $1, 800,000 that year. taking the deductions or adminis-
He said these were annual totals.
90-15
410
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1990
trative costs. He asked if the look at alternat ways of
fourth column had the deductions structuring the remainder of their
taken out. revenue. Roger Cutler, City
Attorney gave a presentation on
Mr. Hunt said the fourth the legal aspects of the funding.
column was the gross revenue minus He said there were three issues:
the cash needed to pay the gap (1) does the city have the
left on the bond. The fifth enabling power, (2) does the city
column was what it would cost the assessment meet the licensing
city to administer the new tax, classification argument and was it
and the sixth column was the net a reasonable class, and(3) was the
revenue left after all costs. tax discriminatory, and did it
violate fundamental principles of
Mr. Hunt said none of the equity.
columns had any deductions. He
said the figures presented earlier Mr. Cutler commented on the
had the deductions taken out. He first issue. He said the general
said the deductions would be the rule was cities did not have
figures in column six minus the power to tax except that power
$276,000 for the first year. granted by the legislature. He
said the courts would review the
Mr. Hunt said the definition taxing authority narrowly. They
of the industry used by the state would use every presumption and
tax would have an effect on the resolve any conflict in favor of
figures which the city may or may the tax payer if there was any
not want to adopt. He said it doubt or ambiguity about whether
included businesses whose primary the city had the authority to tax.
area was preparation or sale of
prepared foods and beverages. He said the authority to tax
This definition did not include 7- was in the first handout in Title
11 's or grocery store deli 's. 10. He said the second paragraph
They may be categorized in the of Section 10.1.203 stated that
food and beverage tax because the governing body of municipality
they may have a different license may raise revenue by levying and
for their restaurant. collecting a license fee or tax on
Councilmember Kirk said when any business within the limits of
discussions were held with the the municipality and they regulate
restaurant people they had a that business by ordinance. He
representative from the Mariott said the city could tax any busi-
Hotel who said he understood ness within the city to raise
hotels would be included. revenue. He said the city had
received judicial approval. The
Mr. Hunt said hotels had to city could compute the license tax
have a different license for their based on gross receipts. He said
food operation. He said the the difference between income tax,
degree to which the Redevelopment sales tax and gross receipt tax,
Agency could participate was more was sales tax is imposed on the
than $9,000,000. He said once the transaction.
Jazz Arena issue was solved the
city would have a better idea of He said income tax was based
the uncertainties. The city could on determining adjusted gross
90-16
410
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1990
income. If it was a sales tax or fee based on a percentage. He
an income tax the city did not said the city could assess all
have additional authority. The businesses based on gross re-
city did not have any authority to ceipts. In paragraph 3 it stated
issue an income tax, but they all license fees shall be uniform
could issue a sales tax. He said in respect to the class upon which
the city could not increase an they were imposed.
additional sales tax. Mr Cutler
said the city's sole authority Councilmember Whitehead asked
would be to raise revenue from if McDonalds and the Mariott were
businesses by issuing a business in the same class. Mr. Cutler
tax. He said tax was presumed to said the principles of
be valid and constitutional. The classification must be uniform in
challenger had to prove the city the class to tax people. There
had abused that power. could be a lot of reasons why the
city wanted to tax people
Mr. Cutler said the city differently to have a balanced tax
traffic flow, benefits of having system. Mr. Cutler said page
police and fire, and with all the twenty-one in the briefing booklet
amenities the city provided could listed the standard on how the
be charged to businesses as courts would review power.
benefits received. He said a fair
tax would be based on the He said if the city was
percentage of the business in our careful on how it defined
jurisdiction. The measure of the restaurants, private clubs, and
benefit was a fair method of taverns those kind of businesses
computing the tax. Mr. Cutler could be put into recreational
said the city had to convince the discretionary income of purchase
courts they were not taxing income category.
or the transaction. He said
hotels were structured so the City Mr. Cutler said they were
taxed 1% of the gross receipts talking about fast food places and
from transient room sales. sit down restaurants, but did not
include 7-11 which had a food bar
Councilmember Pace asked if and Albertson's which had a salad
the tax would be added on at the bar.
time of the sale and paid by the Councilmember Hale said he
customer. could not understand how the city
could tax the business but not tax
Mr. Cutler said the city was the commodity. He said he could
not allowed to do that. If res- not understand how the city could
taurants wanted to pass this collect the tax if it put .5% on
chargeon to cystiners, it would be the gross receipts and those gross
their privilege. Councilmember receipts were all from the
Whitehead asked if a restaurant commodity.
added in the percentage, could
they actually put in a higher Mr. Cutler said he needed to
percentage for collected sales know how much money the city
tax. Mr. Cutler said whatever a needed to raise.
restaurant charged for their
product, the city figured their
90-17
410 410
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1990
Councilmember Hale said he high threshold of being
resisted the idea of creating a unreasonable. Councilmember
new tax on a new industry because Whitehead felt if the City
it seemed it opened a door that mentioned the hotel issue it would
needed other funds. If the city open other doors and propose real
took .5% soon it would be up to 6% problems. He felt it should be
or 7% like the sales tax. It the city's best proposal and if it
would never be eliminated when the was not agreed to then the city
, $6,000,000 was paid back, the city would look at other options.
would need it for something else. Councilmember Hardman said he
He asked if there was any restric- felt the city should remain silent
tion for increased room tax. on the hotel issue at this point.
Mr. Cutler said the city Councilmember Hale said he
received only 1% plus a share of thought the hotels should be in-
the sales tax. He said there was cluded because they had restau-
no question the tax was not an rants. He said he was not in
income tax. favor of creating a new tax. He
said the number one beneficiary of
Councilmember Whitehead asked the Salt Palace Complex would be
if there was a difference when the hotels in the city. He said
submitting licensing between the second beneficiary would be
McDonalds, Hardee's, and other the restaurant industry.
restaurants.
Councilmember Hardman took a
Cindy Gust-Jensen, Executive poll on the new tax of .5%, all
Director of the City Council, said members present were in favor
the definition of a restaurant was except Councilmember Hale who
a building in which a variety of voted against it.
hot food was served on the
premises and where more than 60% #3. Salt Palace/Fine Arts
of the gross volume was derived Funding Needs.
from sale of food. Mr. Cutler
said that eliminated the fast food Anthony Rampton, Salt Palace
places. Fine Arts Board, gave a proposal
on local taxation. He said Salt
Mr. Cutler said there was a Lake City was different only in
difference between regulatory and magnitude. Many of the smaller
revenue taxes. A regulatory fee communities in the state had to
assessed a charge to regulate the rely on revenue dollars being
business. The cost of the produced by the recreational,
regulation had to roughly equate tourist, convention and cultural
the tax of the assessment for the facilities. He said the city
regulation. If it was a revenue needed to continue to move in this
measure there was no limitations direction. He said the city
except it could not be needed to tax the transactions on
confiscatory. Unless there was a a restaurant level.
cap by the legislature, the city
had the right to raise any revenue Mr. Rampton said the city
which was fair and equitable as needed to ask the Utah State
long as it did not cross over a legislature to pass an act
90-18
410
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1990
authorizing the imposition of a Councilmember Godfrey said
local option sales tax on res- the Arts Board was established to
taurants, food, and beverages. He figure out a way to come up with
said the municipality could use a the funding so they would not be
certain level of the proceeds for coming back to the Council. He
the construction, operation, and said they had taken some steps to
maintenance of cultural tourism fund the Arts. He said it would
and recreation and convention be in the city's interest to fund
centers within the municipali- it for a while longer, but he
ties. He said this would give the wanted to see the county make a
city authority to do what it commitment. Councilmember
wanted. He said it would give Hardman said there would always be
other communities throughout the excess funds. He said they would
state with the same problem the be criticized if they diverted
same option. The city would not them to general fund.
pass any kind of across the board
sales tax, but it would identify a #4 RE: Council will receive
source of funds inevitably a briefing from the Department of
intertwined with that need. the Community and Economic Devel-
opment regarding the proposed
Councilmember Pace asked if Liquor License Fee Structure.
the city presented this to the
legislature would there be support Brent Wilde, Director of
throughout the city. Permits and Licensing, said the
original liquor control act went
Mr. Rampton said the city back to the 1960's. It had a $300
would need to ask the legislature limit on local licensing fees for
to give additional power to do private clubs and the fee still
whatever it needed. The city remained for private clubs regard-
would not have additional adminis- less of the size. Some municipal-
trative fees. It was a reasonable ities interpret the fee to look at
way to solve a problem. The city consumption only. Other
could use that contribution to municipalities such as Salt Lake
subsidize the Fine Arts. City, had used this as a
comprehensive limit and had $300
Mr. Rampton said this was a as a set fee for private clubs
different situation they were since that time. The new Utah
faced with; having to collect the State Liquor Control Act provided
tax locally and then distribute it a form for new discussions
He said every community could regarding the issues.
impose a tax they wanted within
their own municipality. It had to Mr. Wilde said the licensing
be spent for a particular purpose staff and city attorneys staff
and could only be imposed on a became acquainted with the new
particular related industry. Utah State Liquor Control Act. He
Councilmember Godfrey said we said they determined private clubs
should continue to fund the fine should be paying fees to some of
arts with the understanding that the city businesses, restaurants,
the funding would decrease over a and taverns. The definition
number of years. between a business was not clear.
He said some of the taverns were
90-19
410
a
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1990
becoming private clubs and the private clubs, License Beverage
private clubs reconsidered and Association representing the tav-
realized they should become a erns, and the Restaurant Associa-
restaurant. So the division tion representing the restaurants.
between those types of businesses He said they had met with all
was not as clear as it used to be. three associations and attended a
He said the licensing staff meeting arranged by the private
determined the private clubs club association. He said a
should pay a fee. There was a meeting was held with the res-
substantial departure from the old taurant establishments to discuss
concern that it had a $300 any concerns or questions they
statuary limit. had. Staff also scheduled a
meeting with the tavern owners to
The licensing staff sent a discuss the fees. He said he had
letter to private clubs, restau- received a letter of endorsement
rants, and taverns to remove the from the private club owners.
fee schedule. It was a substan-
tial increase in the fees which Bob Bridge, Licensing Super-
had been paid in the past. visor, presented a proposal to the
Response from private clubs said City Council. He said they were
that there was not adequate notice involved in a study regarding city
of the issue. When the taverns liquor fees. He said all of the
became aware the private clubs had inspecting and regulating
not been paying comparable fees, departments provided information
their response was that they about what it would cost for
insisted on equity. If the city inspection. Staff compiled what
did not bring them into a it would cost to do a particular
comfortable fee schedule, they licensed business. The attorneys
were not going to pay the fees had told us regularity fees had to
this year. bear some reasonable resemblance
to the cost involved. He said he
He said they decided to do a felt the proposal was a fair and
reevaluation by establishing an equitable cost of doing the
evaluation committee which regulatory license. During the
consisted of the Police Depart- same time we had a fee charge to
ment, Fire Department, Building try and consolidate some of the
and Housing, Planning and Zoning, regulatory fees. There were
Finance Department, IMS, Attor- different fees for dance halls,
neys, and Business License. The live entertainment, music devices,
objectives were to evaluate the pool tables, and card tables etc,
regulatory costs and to arrive at which in our attempt to
a fee schedule that reflected a consolidate these fees, were found
regulatory cost which was fair to come fairly close to resem-
and appropriate. bling the same cost and expenses
of $35.00.
Mr. Wilde said staff had put
together a proposal in the process Mr. Bridge said he went to
of coordinating with the groups. the associations with the idea of
He said there were three what it would cost to run an
associations; the Utah Hospital- average business.
ity Association representing the
90-20
411
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1990
He said staff had proposed
the changes to the council in an
attempt to consolidate the fees. A
simplified approach reduced those
fees and fee structure for vending
machines, cigarette machines, and
food and beverage machines in the
establishments to $10.00. He said
they required a list of basic
inventory to be submitted and a
sticker the city had to submit for
control purposes.
He said regarding the issue
of the seating in these
establishments. He said there
was a charge of $5.00 per chair.
We proposed changing this to a per
occupant fee instead of per chair
fee which would be based on the
square footage. The per occupant
fee would be $2.00. Outdoor
seating would have a fee of 500
because they were only seasonal.
and were used on occasion.
Banquet facilities which were not
used in daily operations, would
have a 500 fee. This would be a
revenue short fall of $55,000 to
$60,000.
Brent Wilde said single event
licenses were used a lot for non-
profit organizations and should
have a fee less than the
regulatory costs.
The meeting adjourned at 6:06
p.m.
41,14tAtA—
COUNCI CHAIR
Y RE R ER
90-21
4110
MEMORANDUM
T0: Cindy Gust-Jenson cc: Linda Hamilton
Emilie Charles
FROM: Buzz Hunt
DATE: November 7, 1990
SUBJECT: Revised Salt Palace Funding Option
Just to follow-up on last night's discussion, I have revised the funding
option on which the Council seems to be focusing, and have provided those
preliminary numbers on the attached spreadsheet. I hope this presentation is
a little easier to follow.
Once again, Column 2 is the "excess" RDA "haircut" increment left-over
after paying debt service on both the Jazz Arena bonds and the Salt Palace
bonds, and after paying the annual $390,000 payment to the School District.
Column 3 is the annual debt service requirement (principal and interest) on
the assumed $6 million bond issue over 20 years. Column 4 is our annual cash
need for new tax revenue assuming that we go ahead and take the excess RDA
increment (i.e. , Column 4 is equal to Column 3 minus Column 2).
Column 5 is the amount of annual revenue generated by a 0.50% Food &
Beverage Industry licensing fee. It assumes that the Council allows licensing
fee deductions (comparable to Innkeeper's Tax) which are subtracted out of the
totals beginning with $276,000 in 1992. In other words, Column 5 is a "net"
figure which has already been reduced for the assumed deductions.
Column 6 is the assumed administrative costs which I am in the process of
refining. Finally, Column 7 is the amount of net revenue remaining 7 after
meeting our cash needs and covering administrative costs (i.e., Column 7 is
/..-s` equal to Column 5 minus both Columns 4 and 6) .
Cindy Gust-Jensen - 2 - November 7, 1990
Again, let me stress that all of these figures are subject to revision as
they are based on several uncertainties the most important of which are (1)
how we define the Food & Beverage Industry (what we include or exclude), and
(2) the extent to which the RDA can contribute to the project (which won't be
fully }maven for quite sane time) .
BH/kh
Attachment
- Possible impacts to available RDA tax increment due to
legislative resolution of Supreme Court ruling on Amax case.
E. Current RDA Underwriter, Smith Barney, has generated three scenarios
on alternative levels of RDA participation:
-- Case 1: Bond issue generating $10,629,000 in constriction
funds, assumes:
a) Coverage rate at 1.25
b) School Board subordinates $390,000 annual payment
c) No impact resulting flan Amax decision
d) Issue date of June 1, 1992
e) Current interest rates on AAA insured issue
-- Case 2: Bond issue generating $9,020,000 in construction
funds, assumes:
a) Coverage rate at 1.30
b) Same as Case 1
c) Amax decision results in $50,000/year loss in
revenue
d) Same as Case 1
e) Same as Case 1
-- Case 3: Bond issue generating $3,806,000 in construction
funds, assumes:
a) Coverage rate at 1.40
b) School Board does not agree to subordinate
payment -
c) Amax decision results in $100,000/year loss
d) *Same as Case 1
e) Same as Case 1
F. Likely scenario for RDA participation? Probably Case 2 above.
- Salt Lake City Corporation participation will probably
therefore be $6,000,000 with some chance of it being higher -
but probably in the $6,000,000 to $9,000,000 range.
II. Methods of Financing
A. RDA issues tax increment bonds for $9 million using the remaining
ng
so-called "haircut" revenues (Statutory Allocation Reduction
Revenues, SARR, created by 1989 legislation - same revenue stream
being used for the Jazz Arena Series 1990 Bonds).
B. Salt Lake City Corporation has four options:
1. Piggy-back County bond issue.
-: -- - This may be frost expensive option
. � �y
Discussion Cutline
oil
Fu di g Alternatives
far
Salt Palace Renovatim Project
•
I. Scenarios on the Level of Need for City Participation
A. Total project costs originally estimated at $60,000,000, and assumed
to be paid for by the following participation:
•
- State, 25% = $15,000,000
- County, 25% = $15,000,000
- City, 25% =. $15,000,000
- Private Sector (through new taxes?), 25% = $15,000,000
B. City participation is assumed to be shared by Redevelopment Agency
and Salt Lake City Corporation
C. The actual level of need for Salt Lake City Corporation
participation depends on several uncertainties and contingencies
related to the full extent of RDA participation, and whether
construction costa exceed the original (and now dated) cost
estimate.
D. Extent to which RDA can participate depends on several
•
uncertainties:
- Timing of when funds actually become needed
- School Board subordination of annual $390,000 "hold harmless"
payment storming from 1989 legislative changes to Utah
Neighborhood Develolt Act (the RDA Act).
- "Coverage ratio" (fraction derived by dividing available
dedicated revenue by annual debt service) required for bond
insurance.
- Interest rates obtained on Series 1990 Jazz Arena Bonds and
subsequent RDA bond issue (Series 1992?) for Salt Palace
•
renovation.
i -
!1t
•
•
'i .:t ! 1 •
miff 111M
DEPARTMENT•OF•FINANCE
VERL ”BUZZ" HUNT Treasurer • • - PALMER DEPAULIS
TREASURER CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING - MAYOR
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228 LINDA HAMILTON
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
(801) 535-7946 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
October 30, 1990
Councilman Alan Hardman, Chair
Salt Lake City Council
City and County Building, Roam 304
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
SUBJECT: Salt Palace Renovation Funding
'v•
'• Dear. Alan:
In anticipation of our Thursday evening discussion on funding
alternatives for the City's participation in the Salt Palace renovation
project, I have prepared the enclosed "Discussion Outline."
After looking into the 'many canplex issues related to this project, I
thought it might be easier to. present briefing materials in an outline foam,
and to verbally expand with details and background information on Thursday.
The enclosed materials include a small sample of revenue calculations
mainly for illustration purposes. However, I can easily generate Fdri tional
calculations during Thursday's meeting should the Council so desire.
If, in the meantime, you or other Council members have any questions on
the enclosed materials, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Buz t
BH/kh
Enclosure
cc: Linda Hamilton
Emilie Charles
r 2. City issues Ebnicipal Building Authority (MBA) lease revenue
bonds using a leasehold interest in the Salt Palace as security
. to collateralize the bonds.
This would require negotiation of City leasehold
interest in Salt Palace.
3. City issues MBA bonds, but uses proceeds to fund CIP projects
over a three year period. This allows the City to divert the
general fund transfer (usually going to the CIP) from the CIP
to the Salt Palace project.
4. City uses option 3 above, but instead of "directly"
participating in the Salt Palace project, City "loans" $6
million to the RDA to allad RDA to fully prt cipate in project
at $15 million level. The RDA repays Salt Lake City
Corporation the entire $6 million through excess coverage
revenues on the Series 1990 and 1992 bonds (excess after School
Board payment is made) .
- In the long run, this is the least cost method of
financing.
C. Scenarios on annual cash needs depend on whether the bond issue is
insured and whether bonds are issued over 10 year or 20 year period
(or any other period of time).
t D. Attached are eight possible scenarios for the City's $6,000,000 to
$9,000,000 level of participation. (See "Attachment 1.")
- Assuming the City needs $6,000,000, annual debt service (or
City cash needs) are as follows:
* $1,125,000 for 10 year bond issue, or
* $740,000 for 20 year bond issue
III. Alternative Revenue Sources
A. Excess (or rxnaining) coverage is equal to the remaining SARR
"haircut" funds after debt service on both Series 1990 (Jazz Arena)
and Series 1992 (Salt Palace) Bonds, and after School Board annual
payment of $390,000. -
- For Smith Barney Case 2 (most likely) scenario, excess coverage
is contained on attached chart under far right column labelled
"Final Increment Remaining" (See "Attachment 2").
- Funds available average $440,000 per year through 1998 and -
increase thereafter.
B. New tax on Food & Beverage Industry (similar to Innkeeper's Tax)
,` Current annual taxable sales of F & B Industry within City is
G*; $186,000,000, with 5-year average annual growth rate of 8%
•
- Tax base for F & B tax will depend on legal definition of
industry (i.e., what do we include/exclude?).
•
- Tax revenues wiil also depend on whether deductions are allowed
for other city licensing fees (e.g., Innkeeper's tax allows
deduction for revenue license fee and per roam licensing fee).
- assuming tax hale of $186,000,000 in gross receipts, F & B Tax
is computed to generate the following revenues.
Tax Rate Annual Revenues
0.25% $465,000 (less deductions)
0.50% 930,000 (less deductions)
• 1.00% 1,860,000 (less deductions)
C. Increase in existing Innkeeper's Tax
- Current annual taxable sales of hotels/motels within City is
$123,000,000 with 5-year average annual growth rate of 6%
- City Innkeeper's tax currently set at 1% of gross receipts on
roan rental revenue only, other hotel/motel sales are excluded.
- Five year history of Innkeeper's tax is as follows:
FY 90-91 $811,100 (estimated)
FY 89-90 729,693
FY 88-89 699,504
FY 87-88 665,424
FY 86-87 613,443
- Innkeeper's tax is imposed through City licensing ordinance and
allows for deduction of revenue license fee and per roam
licensing charge, currently amounting to $83,700 in deductions
Per Year
•
•
- Current "imputed" tax base is assumed to be $90,000,000, thus
• increasing the rate is calculated to generate the following:
Tax Rate Increase Annual Revenues
0.25% $225,000
0.50% 450,000
1.00% 900,000
D. Special Improvement District approach
- Boundaries would be downtown area and would be more inclusive
of all businesses and properties that benefit fran Salt Palace
functions.
L
r-
- Assesbueent based on taxable value of properties and is imposed
on property owners.
- Such an SID would compete with proposed "Downtown Alliance"
district.
- State statute would need to be amended to include convention .
facilities as eligible expenditures/activities for SIDs.
- Creation process requires extensive hearings and property
owners notices and could result in property owners protesting
out or voting the district down.
- Assumed property values and tax rate calculation:
* Market value of properties within SID = $900,000,000
• * Less 20% reduction (may change ) = -180,000,000
* Taxable values within SID = 720,000,000
* Tax rate necessary to generate
$740,000/year = 0.001028
* Tax is equivalent to $82.22 per $100,000 of market value
E. Special Local Option Sales Tax (e.g. 1% "Resort" tax on sales)
- Current City-wide "direct" taxable sales is $2,308,270,000 per
year, with 5-year coverage annual growth rate of 3.2%.
- Tax would be similar to special "resort" tax currently imposed
in certain resort camiu ities (e.g. Park City).1
- Assuming tax base of $2.3 billion in annual sales, revenues are
calculated as .follows:
Tax Rate Annual Revenues
0.01% $230,000
0.05% $1,150,000
0.25% $5,750,000
- Tax could be imposed on County-wide basis in exchange for no
City participation beyond that achievable through the RDA.
- This option would require special legislation to enable the
City to impose.
F. General Property Tax hike on all City property
- Tax rate necessary to generate 740,000 annual revenue is
0.000134.
- Tax on $80,000 bone would equal $6.43 per year.
•
•
�!t G. Any ccanbination of the above options:
._s
- ale: .
#1 RDA excess coverage $440,000
42 0.25% F & B Tax • 465,000
#3 0.50% Innkeeper's Tax (increase) 450,000
Total Revenue: $1,355,000
H. Other important considerations
- 'Need to generate additional revenue to continue the annual Fine
Arts subsidy of $335,000 per year (assuming the City continues
to subsidize) .
- There will likely be added administrative costs associated with
the imposition of new taxes.
€9
ATTACHMENT 1
SALT LA
LEASE R WE ONDS, 1991
% 1,1 4
AAA (INSURED) Al/ A+
$9 MILLION NEW MONEY $6 MILLION NEW MONEY $9 MILLION NEW MONEY $6 MILLION NEW MONEY
Is iikaP-55T
FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT. . FINAL MAT. FINAL MAT.
2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011
1992 $755,165 $811,183 $503,650 $540,693 $760,705 $813,660 $507,275 $542,335
1993 1,690,165 1,111,183 1,128,650• 740,693 1,685,705 1,103,660 1,122,275 737,335
1994 1,690,325 1,106,983 1,128,650 737,893 1,685,580 1,104,810 1,122,300 734,660
1995 1,690,650 .1,111,508 1,125,425 739,243 1,685,570 1,104,350 1,124,070 736,130
1996 1,690,690 1,109,068 1,128,895 739,393 1,685,220 1,107,240 1,122,170 736,390
1997 1,689,980 1,109,948 1,128,310 738,313 1,684,060 1,108,100 1,126,510 735,410
1998 1,688,040 1,108,768 1,128,570 740,973 1,686,605 1,106,880 1,126,310 738,160
1999 1,689,375 1,110,478 1,124,230 736,998 1,682,005 1,103,530 1,121,460 739,260
2000 1,693,125 1,109,678 1,125,180 741,698 1,685,090 1,108,000 1,121,850 738,670
2001 1,688,400 1,111,308 1,125,600 739,333 1,684,610 1,104,520 1,126,650 736,350
2002 1,109,948 740,213 1,108,385 737,260
2003 1,110,528 738,933 1,103,795 735,990
2004 1,107,898 740,635 1,106,330 737,680
2005 1,107,018 739,925 1,105,205 736,930
2006 1,107,475 741,773 1,105,375 738,710
2007 1,108,850 740,773 1,106,415 737,610
2008 1,111,100 737,148 1,108,275
0
2009 1,108,435 740,623 1,105 163 736,775
740 700 0
20101 1,111,240 1,107,460 736,640
1,108,280 737,060 1,103,925 737,745
TOTAL D/S $15,965,915 $21,890,870 $10,647,160 $14,593,005 $15,925,150 $21,825,078 $10,620,870 $14,548,890
PRESENT VALUE
D/S AT 7.25% $10,847,732 $11,238,609 $7,235,050 $7,490,865 $10,822,978 $11,205,820 $7,217,004 $7,468,980
"ATTACIIMt.. 2" "' •
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY _
TAX ALLOCATION BONDS - , Nr
CASE II m
m COVERAGE CALCULATIONS FOR SERIES 1990&1992 LL,
m .
cc
--Loss---. Plus
a.
Tax Increment Amax Increment Debt Service Debt Service Payment to Reserve Anal Increment .110
Year` Available` Reduction Available 1990 Issue 1992 Issue Sch.Distr. Earnings Coverage Remaining"' If)
i 1992 $1,926,000 $50,000 $1,876,000 $804,505 $189,543 $390,000 $188,876 1.887 $680,828 iin
n
L" 1993 2,139,000 50,000 2,089,000 804,505 801,800 390,000 188,876 1.301 281,571 0o
1994 2,735,000 50,000 2,685,000 1,104,740 958,918 390,000 188,876 1.301 420,218
0 1995 2,766,000. . 50,000. . 2,716,000 1,128,615 960,320 390,000 • 188,876 1.300 425.941 `r
i 1996 2,766,000 50,000 2.716,000 1.125,068 960,553 390,000 188,876 1.302 429.256
1997 2,766,000 50,000 2,716,000 1,129,515 • 954,748 390,000 188,876 1.303 _ 430,613
1998 2,766,000 50.000 2,716,000 1,126,745 957,713 390,000 188,876 1.303 430,418
1999 3,319,000 50,000 3,269.000 1.551,740 959,088 390,000 188,876 1.302 557,048
2000 3.314,000 50,000 3,264,000 1,548,020 958,833 390,000 188,876 1.302 556,023
2001 3,314,000 50,000 3,264,000 1.548,850 956,908 390,000 188,878 1.303 557,118
g • 2002 3,314,000 50,000 3,264,000 1,548.849 958,098 390,000 188.876 • 1.302 555,930 •
• 2003 3,314,000 50,000 3,264,000 1,547,830 962,101 390,000 188,876 . , 1.300 552,945 • .
• 2004 4,419,000 . 50,000 4,369,000 2,398,721 958,975 390,000 188,876 1.301 810,180
2005 4,419,000 50,000 4,369,000 2,398,340 958,690 390,000 188,876 1.301 810,846
', 2006 4,419,000 50.000 4,369.000 2,400,000 956,040 390,000 188,876 1.302 . 811,836
M 2007 4,419.000 50.000 4.369,000 2,400.000 960,250 390,000 188,876 1.300 807.626
2008 4,419,000 50,000 4,369.000 2,400,000 956,215 390,000 188,876 1.302 811.661
2009 11,047,000 50,000 10,997,000 7,500,000 954,259 390,000 188,876 1.301 2,341.617 •
2010 11.047,000 50,000 10,997,000 7,500,000 958,814 390,000 188.876 1.300 2,337.062
' 2011 11,047.000 50,000 10,997,000 7,500,000 954,660 390,000 188,876 1.301 2,341.216
2 2012 11,047,000 50,000 10,997,000 7,500,000 956,598 390,000 188.876 1.300 2,339.278
2013 11,047.000 50,000 10,997,000 7,500.000 959,024 390,000 188,876 1.300 2,336,852 -ill
2014 11,047,000 • 50,000 10,997,000 7,500,000 956.736 390,000 188,876 1.300 2,339,140
2015 11,047,000 50,000 10,997.000 7,500,000 954,730 390,000 188,876 1.301 2,341,146 '"
m
• Cr)
• Represents the Calendar:icier.
"The Tax Increment Available Includes$390,000 subordinated payment to the School District. cn
• a
Source Katz Hollis Caren&Associates,Inc.
"•The Final Increment reflacis the gross dollar amount remaining after debt service o
coverage of 1.30x on both issues.
Funding Options for City Participation -
in Salt Palace Renovation Project
Estimated City Cash City Cash City Cash City Cash
'Excess' Debt Debt Debt Debt INev Tax) (Nov Tax) (hew Tax) (Hen Tax)
Increment Service Service Service Service Needs Heeds Needs Heeds
Calandar Coverage $6 Million 16 Million Si Million $9 Million $6 Million 16 Million 19 Million $9 Million
Tear Renaining 10-Yr Issue 20-Yr Issue 10-Yr Issue 20-Yr Issue 10-Yr Issue 20-Yr Issue 10-Yr Issue 20-Yr Issue
1992 491,952 507,275 542,335 760,705 813,660 15,323 50,383 268,753 321,708
1993 281,571 1,122,275 731.335 1,685,705 1,1003,660 840,704 455,764 1,404,134 822,089
1994 420,218 1,122,300 734,660 1,685,580 1,104,810 702,082 314,442 1,265,362 654,592
1995 425,941 1,124,070 736,130 1,685,570 1,104,350 698,129 310,189 1,259,629 678,409
1996 429,256 1,122,170 736,390 1,685,220 1,107,240 692,914 307,134 1,255,964 677,984
1997 430,613 1,126,510 735,410 1,684,060 1,108,100 495,897 304,797 1,253,447 677,487 •
1998 430,418 1,126,310 738,160 1,686,605 1,106,880 625,892 307,742 1,256,187 676,462
1999 557,048 1,121,460 739,260 1,682,005 1,103,530 564,412 182,212 1,124,957 546,482
2000 556,023 1,121,850 738,670 1,685,090 1,108,000 565,827 182,647 1,129,067 551,977
2001 557,118 1,126,650 736,350 1,684,610 1,104,520 569,532 179,232 1,127,492 547,402
2002 555,930 737,260 1,108,385 ill.330 552,455
2003 552,945 735,990 1,103,795 183,045 550,850
2004 810,180 737,680 1,106,330 -72,500 296,150
2005 810,846 736,930 1,105,205 -73.916 294,359
2006 811,836 738,710 1,105,375 -73,126 293,539
2007 807,626 737,610 1,106,415 -70,016 298,789
2008 811,661 738,850 1,108,275 -72,811 296,614
2009 2,341,617 736,775 1,105,163 -1,604,842 -1,236,454
2010 2,337,062 736,640 1,107,460 -1,600,422 -1,229,602
2011 2,341,216 737,745 1,103,925 -1,603,471 -1,237,291
2012 2,339,278
2013 2,336,852
2014 2,339,140
2015 2,3411146
Totals: 26,117,493 10,620,870 14,548,890 15,925,150 21,825,078 6,040,712 -2,212,187 11,344,992 5,064,001
1st 10 Yrs 4,580,158
1st 20 Yrs 16,761,077
F68 Tax Base Assumed Innkeeper's
186,000,000 Growth lax Base
1,03 $90,000,000 -
'Het'
* 'Net' 'Het' 'Net' 'Net' * • 'Net' 'Het' 'Net' 'Net' Increase In *
4 Neu Tax Nen Tax New Tar. Hen Tar. Food ..1 Rev, * Increase Increase Increase Increase Innkeeper's 4
* Food & Rev. Food 6 Rev, Food 6 Be,', Food 6 Bev. Industry a Innkeeper's Innkeeper's Innkeeper's Innkeeper's Industry *
a Calendar N Nate of 8 Rate of 8 Rate of N Rate of License Fee a Calendar Tax 8 Rate tax 8 Rate Tax 8 Rate Tax 8 Rate License Fee a
a Year 0.25X 0,50X 0,751 1,00X Deduction a Year 0,25X 0,50X 0.751 1.001 Deduction a
a 1992 188,714 653.114 1,118,714 1,583,114 276,286 a 1992 222,489 447,485 672,481 897,487 2,511 *
a 1993 194,375 673,325 1,152.275 1,631,225 284,575 a 1993 229,164 460,914 692,664 924,414 2,59.6 *
* 1994 200,207 613,525 1,186,844 1,680,162 293.112 a 1994 236,039 474.141 713,444 952,146 2,664 a
a 1995 206,213 714,331 1,222,449 1,730,567 301,905 a 1195 243,120 488,983 734,847 980,710 2.744 4
a 1996 212,399 735,761 1,259,122 1,782,484 310,962 a 1996 250,413 503,653 756,892 1,010,132 2,826 a
* 1997 218,771 757,834 1,296,896 1,835,959 320,291 a 1997 257,926 518,762 771,599 1,040,438 2,111 a
a 1998 225,334 780,569 1,335,803 1,891,037 329,900 a 1998 265,6664 524,225 802,987 1,071,649 2.998 4
a 1999 232,094 803,986 1,375,877 1,947,768 331,797 a 1999 273.•633 550,355 827,077 1,103.798 3,088 a
a 2000 239,057 828,105 1,417,153 2,066,202 349,991 a 2000 281,842 566,866 851,889 1,136,912 3.181 a
4 2001 246,229 852,948 1,459,668 2,066,388 360,491 a 2001 290,298 583,872 877,446 1,171,020 3,276 *
N 2002 253,618 878,537 1,503,458 2,128,375 371,305 a 2002 299,007 601.388 903.769 1,206,150 3.375 a _
a 2003 261,224 904,813 1,548,562 2,192,231 382,444 a 2003 301.977 619,421 930,882 1,242,335 3,476 a
a 2004 269,061 932,040 1,595,019 2,257,997 293,518 a 2004 317,216 638,012 158,809 1,279,605 3,580 a
a 2005 277,133 960,001 1,642,869 2,325,737 405,735 a 2005 326,733 657,153 987,573 1,317,993 3,687 a
a 2006 285,447 988,801 1,692,155 2,395,510 417,907 e 2006 338,535 676,867 1,017,200 1.357,533 3,798 a
a 2007 294,010 1,018,465 1,742,920 2,467,375 430,445 a 2007 346,631 697,172 1,047,716 1,398,259 3,912 a
a 2008 302,831 1,049,019 1,795,208 2,541,396 443.358 1 2008 257,030 718,088 1,079,147 1,440,206 4,029 a
a 2009 311,915 1,080,490 1,849,064 2,617,638 456,659 a 2009 367,740 139,631 1,111,522 1,483,413 4.150 a
a 2010 321,273 1,112,904 1,904,536 2,696,162 470,358 a 2010 378,772 761,820 1,144,868 1,527,915 4,275 a
a 2011 330,911 1,146.291 1,961,872 2,777,052 484,461 * 2011 390,136 784,675 1,179,214 1,573,752 4,403 a
a 2012 340,838 1,180,680 2,020,522 2,860,364 499,003 a 2012 401,840 808,215 1,214,590 1,620,965 4,525 a 4111
a 2013 351,064 1,216,101 2,081,138 2,946,175 513,973 a 2013 413,895 832,461 1,251,028 1,667,594 4,671 *
a 2014 361,596 1,252,584 2,143,572 2,024,560 529,293 a 2014 426,312 857,435 1,298.558 1,719,682 4,811 a
* 2015 372,443 1,290,161 2,207,879 3,125,597 545,274 a 2015 429,101 883,158 1,327,215 1,771,272 4,956 *
* Totals: 6,496,757 22,505,066 38,513,374 54,521,683 9,511,552 a Totals: 7,651,511 15,405,467 23,151,423 30,897,378 86,445 *
a 1st 10 Yrs 2,163.395 7,494,098 12,824,802 18,155,506 a 1st 10 Yrs 2,550,587 5,129,960 7,,709,332 10,228,706 28,786 a
a 1st 20 Yrs 5,070,816 17,565,540 30,060,264 42,554,988 a 1st 20 Yrs 5,978.363 12,0024,197 1.8,070,031 24,115,866 67,472 a
-3-
$335,000
Cash Needs Cash Needs Option One: Option Too: OptionThree: Option Four:
Worst Best Sun of Sun of Sun of Sun of
Case Case 0,50X 0.501 0.751 0.25%
Scenario Scenario Food 6 Bev, Food 6 Bev,. Food t Bev. Food 6 Bev.
Plus Finn Plus Option One Plus Option Two Plus Option Three Plus Option Four
•
Calendar Fine Arts Fine Arts Fine Arts 0.50X Cover 0.25% Cover 0.001 Lover 0.751 Cover
Year Subsidy Subsidy Subsidy Innkeeper's Worst Case? Innkeeper's Worst Case? Innkeeper's Worst Case? Innkeeper's Worst Case?
1992 335,000 656,708 385,383 1,101,203 444,495 876,203 219,495 1,118,714 462,006 861,203 204,495
1993 345,050 1,167,139 800,814 1,134,23? -32,900 902,469 -264,650 1,152,275 -14,864 887,039 -260.100
1994 355'402 1,039,114 669,844 1,168,266 128,273 929,564 -115,430 1,186,844 146,650 913,650 -126,343
1995 366,064 1,044.473 676,253 1,203,314 156,842 957,451 -87,022 1,222,449 177,976 941,060 -103,413
1196 377,045 1,055,029 684,179 1,239,414 184,384 986,174 -68.855 1,259,122 204,093 969,292 -85.738
1997 388.357 1,065,044 693,154 1,276,596 210,752 1,015,759 -50,084 1,296,896 231,052 998,370 -67,474
1998 400,008 1,076,470 707,750 1,314,894 238,424 1,046,222 -30.237 1,335,803 259,334 1,028.321 -48048
1999 412,008 958,490 594,220 1,354,341 395,851 1,077,619 119.129 1.375,877 417.387 1,059,171 100,681
2000 424,368 976,345 607,015 1,394,971 418,626 1.109,948 133,603 1,417,153 440,808 1,090.946 114,601
2001 437,091 984,501 616,331 1,436,820 452,319 1,143,246 156,745 1,459,668 475,167 1,123,675 139,174
2002 450,212 1,002,667 631,542 1,479,925 477,258 1,177,544 174,877 1,503,458 500,791 1,157,385 154,718
2003 463,718 1,014,568 64.6,763 1,524,322 509,754 1,212,870 198,302 1,548,562 533,993 1,192,106 177,538
2004 477,630 773,780 405,130 1,570,052 796,272 1,249,256 475,476 1,595,019 821,239 1,227,870 454,090
2005 491,959 786,318 418,043 1,617,154 830,836 1,286,734 500,416 1,642,869 856,551 1,264,706 478,388
2006 506,718 800,257 433,592 1,665,668 865,412 1,325,336 525,079 1,692,155 891,812 1,302,647 502,390
2007 521,919 820,708 451,903 1,715,638 894,930 1,365,096 544,368 1,742,923 922,212 1,341,726 521,018
2006 537,577 834,191 464,766 1,767,108 932,217 1,406,049 571,858 1,795,208 961,017 1,381,978 547,787
2009 553,704 -682,750 -1,051,136 1,820,121 2,502,871 1,448'230 2,130,980 1,849,064 2,531,614 1,423,437 2,10.,167
2010 570,315 -659,287 -1,030,107 1,974,724 2,534,011 1,491,677 2,150,964 1.904,536 2,543,823 1,466,140 2,125,427
2011 587,425 -649,866 -1,016,046 1,930,966 2,580,833 1,536,427 2,186,294 1,961,672 2,611,538 1,510,125 2,159,191
2012 605,047 605,047 605,047 1,988,895 1,383,848 1,582,520 9/7,473 2,020,522 1,415,475 1,555,428 950,381
2013 623,199 623,199 623,199 2,048,562 1,425,363 1,629,996 1,006,797 2,081,138 1,457,939 1,602,091 978,893
2014 641,895 641,895 641,895 2,110,019 1,468,124 1,678,816 1,037,0001 2,143,572 1,501,677 1,650,154 1,008,259
2015 661,151 661,151 661,151 2,173,319 1,512,168 1,729,262 1,0068.111 2.207,879 1,546,727 1,699,659 1,038,507
Totals: 11,532,868 16,596,8669 9,320,681 37,910,532 21,313,664 30,164,576 13,567,708 38,513,374 21,916,506 29.648,179 13,051,311
1st 10 Yrs 3,840,400 10,024,992 6,434,942 12,624,058 2,599,067 10,044,685 19.694 12,824,802 2,799,811 9,872,727 -152,264
1st 20 Yrs 9,001,575 14,065,576 6,789,288 29,589,737 15,524,161 23,542,903 9,476,326 30,060,264 15,194.688 23,140,84? 9.075.271
-y-
Option Five: Option Six: Option 7: Option 8:
Sun of Sun of Sun of Sun of
0.00% * 0.50% 0.25X 0,00%
Food 8 Bev. * Food 6 Bev. Food t Bev. Food 6 Bev.
Plus Option Five * Plus Option Six Plus Option 7 Plus Option 8
1.00X Cover * Calendar 0.00X Cover 0.25% Cover 0.75X Cover _
Innkeeper's Worst Case? * Year Innkeeper's Best Case? Innkeeper's Best Case? Innkeeper's Best Case?
897,489 240,781 * 1992 653,714 268,331 411,203 25,820 672,489 287,106
924,414 -242,725 * 1993 673,325 -127,489 423,539 -377,275 692,664 -108,150
952,146 -87,847 * 1994 693,525 23.682 426,245 -233,598 713,444 43,600
980,710 -63,762 * 1995 714,331 38,078 449,333 -226,920 734,847 58,594
1,010,132 -44.898 a 1996 735,761 51,581 462,813 -221,367 756,892 72,713
1,040,436 -25,408 * 1997 757,834 64,680 476,697 -216,457 779,599 86,445
1,071,649 -4,821 * 1998 780,569 72,819 490,998 -216,752 802,937 95,238
1,103,798 145,309 * 1999 803,986 209,766 505,728 -88,492 827,077 232,857
1,136,912 160,567 * 2000 828,105 221,040 520,900 -86,115 851,189 244,874
1,171,020 186,519 * 2001 852,948 236,617 536,527 -79,804 877,446 261,115
1,206,150 203,483 * 2002 878,537 246,995 552,622 -78,920 903,769 272,227
1,242,335 227,766 * 2003 904,893 258,130 569,201 -77,562 930,882 284,119
1,279,605 505,825 * 2004 932,040 526,910 556,277 181,147 958,809 553,679
1,317,993 531,675 a 2005 960,001 541,958 6003,865 185,823 987,573 569,530
1,357,533 557,276 * 2006 988,801 555,210 621,981 188,390 1,017,200 583,608
1,398,259 577,551 * 2007 1,018,465 566,562 640,641 188,738 1,047,716 595,813
1,440,206 606,016 * 2008 1,049,019 584,253 659,860 195,094 1,079,147 614,382
1,483,413 2,166,163 * 2009 1,080,490 2,131,628 679,656 1,730,794 1,111,522 2,162,660
1,527,915 2,181.202 * 2010 1,112,904 2,143,011 700,046 1,730,153 1,144,868 2,174,974
1,573,752 2,223,619 * 2011 1,146,291 2,162,339 721,047 1,737,093 1,179,214 2,195,260
1,620,965 1,015,918 * 2012 1,180,680 575,633 742,678 137,631 1,214,590 609,543
1,669,594 1,046,395 * 2013 1,216,101 592,902 764,959 141,7.60 1,251,028 627,829
1,719,682 1,077,787 * 2014 1,252,584 610,689 787,907 146,013 1,288,558 646,664
1,771,272 1,110,121 * 2015 1,290,161 629,010 811,545 150,393 1,327,215 666,064
30,897,378 14,300,510 * Totals: 22,505,066 13,184,385 14,156,268 4,835,587 23,151,423 13,830,742
10,288,706 263,714 * 1st 10 Yrs 7,494,098 1,059,157 4,713,982 -1,720,960 7,709,333 1,274,391
24,115,866 10,050,289 1 1st 20 Yrs 17,565,540 10,776,152 11,049,179 4,259,79'J 16,0i0,031 11,280,643
October 30, 1990
Councilman Alan Hardman, Chair
Salt Lake City Council
City and County Building, Room 304
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ,
SUBJECT: Salt Palace Renovation Funding
Dear Alan:
In anticipation of our Thursday evening discussion on funding
alternatives for the City's participation in the Salt Palace renovation
project, I have prepared the enclosed "Discussion Outline."
After looking into the many complex issues related to this project, I
thought it might be easier to present briefing materials in an outline form,
and to verbally expand with details and background information on Thursday.
The enclosed materials include a small sample of revenue calculations
mainly for illustration purposes. However, I can easily generate additional
calculations during Thursday's meeting should the Council so desire.
If, in the meantime, you or other Council members have any questions on
the enclosed materials, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Buzz Hunt
BH/kh
Enclosure
cc: Linda Hamilton
Emilie Charles