Loading...
09/07/1989 - Minutes Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes Page 1 September 7, .1989 5:00 - 7: 15 p. m. Committee of the Whole Meeting City Council Conference Room City and County Building 451 South State Street, Room 325 Salt. Lake City, UT 84111 Those Present: Florence Bittner, District 1; Wayne Horrocks, District. 2; Sydney Fonnesheck, District. 3; Alan Hardman, District 4; Roselyn Kirk, District 6; W.M. Willie Stoler, District. 7 and Chair; Cindy Gust.-Jenson, Executive Director; Emilie Charles, Mayor's Executive Assistant; and other City and Council Staff members. AGENDA ITEM #1 Scott Bond of the Finance Department presented. a report t.o the Council on the Steiner Aquatics Center. The report reviews the progress made to address the four issues Council identified as needing clarification prior to granting their final approval for the project. Included in the report were recommendations of strategies to be considered by Council. Council held a. discussion regarding the options and problems. Councilmember Kirk inquired of Lee King the approximate dollar amount needed if Council were t.o consider matching funds. Mr. King reported the amount would be $125, 000. Councilmember Horrocks asked. what the timeline might be if a delay in the project. were considered. Kim Young suggested to the end of the calendar year and then re-bid. There was discussion about asking the school board to share in the costs since they will also utilize and benefit from the facility. Councilmember Hardman encouraged the group to make a request. of the School Board. Councilmember Bit.t.ner commented that the project was never meant. to be a city facility. She indicated she had been concerned about the group requesting the City t.o contribute more funds. She indicated she considers $770,000 to be a generous contribution. Councilmember Kirk indicated that. the City has made a generous contribution, but. much of the funding has come from private sector and citizen commitment needs t.o be acknowledged and honored. Councilmember Stoler indicated other projects could be delayed in favor of this one, but agreed that there is only a limited amount of money to go a round. Committee of. the Whole Meeting Minutes Page 2 The Council took a Straw Poll. Four members favored matching funds raised by the citizens group-- $1 for every $2 raised for the project.. Council Member Kirk indicated she prefers matching dollar for dollar, but would join the other members in supporting the 1 to 2 match. Council Member Bittner opposed matching. All members present supported delaying the project.. Kim Young suggested a possibility of state cooperation with the conveyance of the land. AIRPORT GROUND TRANSPORTATION Council Budget. Analyst. Cam Caldwell reviewed his memo t.o Council regarding the budget amendment. for Airport Ground transportation. Airport. Director Louis Miller presented logistical information on the post rotation system and the Operations Division manpower schedule. He suggested the possibility of reducing post rotation and utilizing the experienced veterans as training officers. Mr. Miller reported the transportation operators voiced unanimous support. for the proposal. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested the need for mult.iling.ral signing at the airport. to include Spanish and French. She also suggested that. the airport should not be charging for the luggage carts. Discussion of this led to considering an option of charging a refundable deposit., guaranteeing the return of the cart and yet still providing the service for free. Mr. Miller will look further at this, but indicated other airports in the U.S. charge for carts. In a straw poll, the Council expressed support for the budget request. to fund ground transportation enhancements. STRAW POLL ON INTERNAL AUDITS The Council reviewed a list of potential staff audits and took straw polls. Following are the results: PRIORITY AUDITS Golf Course Revenues (six votes) City Investment Portfolio (five votes, Sydney-no personal need, but OK) Neighborhood Trash Pickup and Recycling Options (six votes) One Stop Permits (three votes/Sydney-not priority) Personnel Reclassifications (Sydney-not. priority) Contracting Policy Airport Concessions Contracts (three votes) Others Community Development Block Grants-Council elected not t.o do at this time, hut asked staff t.o get back t.o them with further information and then Council could determine if they are interested in further detail. Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes Page 3 Police Youth Bureau - No need to do now Human Resource Management. Training - No Property Management. and Fixed Assets Inventory - No Refuse Collection program - No Crime Prevention Program - No, can't measure benefit. Police Auxiliary Program - No Police Traffic Bureau - No Street Repair and. Replacement - Will be done by administration Fleet Management. - Will he added to the scope of outside audits Recreation Program Operations - Audit premature at. this time Monitoring cost of health insurance by dernograph i c groups - Put in scope of audit.. Review of Flying Squads Option - Two members were interested, but the group decided to wait until a new chief is in place to bring this issue up. REPORT ON SALT PALACE Counci]member Bittner reported that she has been attending the meetings of the committee that has been established to look at funding possibilities for the Salt. Palace Convention Center and fine Arts Facilities. She indicated the move of the Jazz to the new arena will cause a significant revenue reduction. She said there has been discussion of numerous funding options including use of the room tax, continued contributions from the City for the Fine Arts facilities, and assistance from the Redevelopment Agency. Counci lmember Stoler said a legislator had indicated that there is a possibility of the Legislature increasing the room tax for this purpose. The meeting was concluded and adjourned. jhn/9-8-89 Signed by: - e X W.M. "Willie" Stoler, Cor.snc i l Chair Attested b at y shall, City Recorder OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 Agenda Posted: September 6, 1989 5:00 P.M. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING DATE: September 7, 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. - n,,117J 1, koz The City Council will discuss Budget Amendment No. 2 regarding Airport Ground Transportation. -�-- .}� m�c�}t��{'L �, p( C,vu�,,r.�.� )'{�I�et.-, C`���n The City Council will discuss finalization of staff audit priorities. — /ti ic.Qs-aK Council Member Florence Bittner will brief the Council on discussions regarding the expansion and renovation of the Salt Palace:- STEINER AQUATICS CENTER Report to the City Council Thursday, September 7, 1989 During budget hearings in June, the City Council identified four important issues that must be addressed prior to their granting final approval for the Steiner Aquatics Center Project. The first issue was the additional private funding needed to meet the total project costs. Second, firmer cost estimates were needed. Third, options needed to be explored on acquiring the adjacent parcel of state land. And fourth, contractual agreements needed to be drafted between the City, the School District and private donors. The following is a report on the progress made with each of these four issues. The Budget The issue of private funding and project costs can be combined into one issue which is the project budget. Unfortunately, the news on both is bad. Private fundraising efforts have fallen short of original expectations and project costs are higher than originally anticipated. The table on page 5 outlining the projected budget shows that the current projected shortfall is $376,000. During the past week, solutions to this shortfall have been vigorously explored. The following is a discus- sion of potential solutions. Private Fundraising Efforts at raising additional private funds were successful in bringing the total to the original commitment of $700,000. However, the citizens' group has not reached the target of $900,000. When this project was discussed with the Council in June, $600,000 had been raised. A total of $105,000 has been pledged since June with the Steiner Corporation pledging an additional $100,000 of that amount. The Eccles foundation, which originally pledged $100,000, committed to fund 5 percent of the total project cost. At current funding levels, their commitment is $105,000 with a commitment to donate an additional $5,000 of every additional $100,000 raised beyond the current $2,100,000 funding level. The table on page 5 illustrates all funding sources. Final fundraising efforts have suffered somewhat from the uncertainty of what the final costs would be. This necessitated that some fundraising efforts be delayed until the construction bids were opened, which did not happen until Wednesday, August 30. The citizens' group has redoubled its efforts at raising the money nec- essary to eradicate the shortfall. Project Costs The apparent low bid for construction was $2,156,000. Nonconstruction costs of the project brought the total cost to $2,575,000. Cost projections have risen steadily since design work began in early April. A potential shortfall of $200,000 was identified in June. However, the bids on the project were closely clustered which indicate that the bid price reasonably estimates the costs. In anticipation of costs that were higher than the original estimates, several important but optional elements of the facility were bid as alternates. Page 6 outlines the alternates and the bid price as given by the apparent low bidder. The idea behind bidding alternates was to identify specific areas of savings should there not be sufficient funds. Unfortunately the current level of funding is insufficient to fund even the base bid. Therefore, City Engineering met with the apparent low bidder to discuss alter- natives for further reducing the project's cost. Page 7 outlines the results of this meeting. While savings of up to $275,000 could be realized, the options are not appealing in terms of operating costs and overall aesthetic presentation of the building. Furthermore, City Engineering and the architect would recommend that some not even be considered. Additional savings of up to $330,000 could be real- ized by delaying construction of the outdoor pool. Other options were considered for reducing the expenditure budget. Only two had any appeal. The first was to have the City buy the materials for the building in order to save the cost of sales tax. The City has done this before and the savings could be $40,000 to $60,000. The second is to exchange current City property for the State land. This option will be discussed further in a later section. Budget Recommendation We recommend cuts to the project budget be implemented which reduce the appar- ent shortfall from $376,000 to $250,000. These cuts would include the sales tax savings, and reductions in the construction costs which would have some impact on the scope and visual appeal of the center. The remaining shortfall could be elimi- nated by one of the following alternatives (these are presented in the order that the administration feels is most viable). 1 . Delay the project until private funds are raised. We feel that this is the best option given that the original commitments have all been raised. About $200,000 of the cost increase was known only three months ago and the remaining shortfall was apparent only a week ago. Additional time to make up the shortfall is warranted. The citizens' group is willing to face the challenge and have the money raised for a spring starting date. The risk with this option is that the project might lose some critical inertia. Furthermore, the project looses the revenue-rich summer season which would bolster operating cash flows. -2- • 2. Build the indoor pool immediately and delay the outdoor pool. This option is riskier than the first. The hope would be that the Citizen's group could raise the money necessary to start the outdoor pool in the spring. However, should they not, projections show that the City could face an $85,000 negative swing in annual net revenue. This fact makes the outdoor pool an economic necessity. The administration does not recom- mend approval of this option unless the Council is willing to pay for the outdoor pool should the citizens' group be unable to raise the money privately. However, starting now would preserve the inertia that the project currently enjoys. 3. Offer to match further donations with City funds. This option offers further inducement for private funding and could be tried in conjunc- tion with option two above. The City could fund the match through the debt financing currently being assembled for the School District and private donations or supplemental funding sources could be identified. 4. Identify City funding sufficient to start immediately. This option does not recognize the community effort that brought the project to this point. Although it does avoid the risks of delaying the project, the adminis- tration deems the earlier discussed options as being more viable. 5. Make further cuts from the base recommendation. Both the administration and the citizens' group feel that this option would result in a substandard project that nobody would be happy with. Furthermore, some of the cuts that would be necessary would increase operating costs to the point that the City would be better off spending its money on capital costs. 6. Withdraw funding and disapprove the project. Although this is certainly an option, the administration feels that too much community effort and City resources have gone into the project and that we are too close to look for the lifeboats just yet. Acquisition of State Land The site donated by the Bureau of Land Management is partially fronted by a triangular portion of State land owned by the University of Utah. The City ap- proached the University which was willing to make the land available to the City at no cost. However, the land is under the jurisdiction of the State Land Board which is under legal obligation to obtain fair market value for the property. We have worked with the State exploring numerous options and conclude that the City should obtain the portion of land that affects phase I of the project. The entire parcel of State land is 1.78 acres. The portion affecting phase I is 0.435 acres. The estimated market value of this portion is $15,000 to $20,000. We can obtain a right of entry to develop this parcel at an annual cost of $1600. We -3- have also applied to exchange/purchase the property within the next five years. If we purchase the parcel before the first year right of entry expires, a pro rata portion of the unused right of entry fee will be applied to the purchase price. The City's next step is to obtain an appraisal of the property. The City could also exchange property for the parcel of State land if a suitable piece were identified. The City could also choose to exchange property in lieu of adding the purchase price to the project budget. Alternatively, the City should purchase the property. Land Recommendation Acquire the 0.435 acre parcel that fronts phase I of the project by obtaining the right of entry, obtaining an appraisal and negotiating a suitable trade. A trade is recommended in lieu of adding the purchase price to the overall project cost. Contractual Agreements The City Attorney's Office has prepared draft contractual agreements which specify the terms of the partnership between the City, the School District and the private donor. The contracts are currently being reviewed by the other signees. A copy of the interlocal agreement with the School District will be transmitted sepa- rately for your review. Once the interlocal agreement has been finalized, the Council will be asked to approve a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign these agreements. The contract with the private donors will be specifically with the nonprofit corpo- ration formed by the citizens' group to serve as custodian for those funds. It speci- fies the terms of the long-term financing and is necessary for seeking long-term financing. The Council should be aware that the contracts are not a secured debt instrument. The City is relying on the good faith and pledge of the donors to fulfill their debt obligation. -4- STEINER AQUATICS CENTER Projected Budget Funding Sources City Contribution $700,000 Engineering Fees 70,000 School District Contribution 700,000 Steiner Corporation 600,000 Eccles Foundation 105,000 total $2,175,000 Project Costs * Construction (Apparent Low Bid) $2,156,000 Construction Contingency at 5% 108,000 City Engineering Fees 70,000 Design Fees 152,000 Acquisition of State Land 25,000 Building Permit 9,000 Survey, Masonry Inspection, Geotech Report 16,000 Connection Fees 15,000 total $2,575,000 Projected Shortfall $376,000 * This is the base bid only and does not include the seven alternates. For a complete listing of the alternates see page 6. -5- Potential Additions - to the base bid 1 . Front Corridor and Spa $133,767 Adding this alternate would extend the corridor containing the front desk and offices along entire western face of the indoor pool. It would result in additional offics space, a spa, a concession area, and a vending area. This addition would enhance operating revenue. 2. Diving Pool $137,241 The diving pool is an amenity that would enhance the marketability of the outdoor pool as well as its utility for competitions. If this alternate is not funded, the plumbing would be stubbed to the site and the area would be planted in lawn. The base bid includes diving in the indoor pool. 3. Co-Ray-Vac Heating System $16,317 This system would provide radiant heating around exterior walls which enhances the building's comfort. It is a supplement to the primary system. 4. Solar Cover for Outdoor Pool $36,223 This cover is for the outdoor pool. It serves to protect against heat loss, evaporation loss and unnecessary dirt and debris all of which result greater ease of operation and maintenance. 5. Misc. Pool Equipment $19,890 This alternate includes equipment that would be used to conduct swim meets. It includes stanchions and lines, starting platforms, racing lanes, and a pace clock. The base bid includes the anchors necessary to install all of the above. 6. Heat Recovery System $36,799 The heat recovery system is an air to air heat exchanger that allows the ventilation system to recapture much of the heat that would normally be lost when ventilated from the building. This system would make the building more energy efficient and thus reduce operating costs. The estimated pay back period is five years. 7. Play Field $23,020 Selection of this alternate would add a fenced area of lawn about the size of a football field to the east side of the outdoor pool. The added lawn would enhance the attractiveness of the site and accommodate sun bathers. —6— Examples of Potential Reductions to the base bid 1 . Eliminate Acoustical Panels $29,000 2. Downgrade on Ceramic Tile $10,000 3. Eliminate Deck and Wall Tile $34,000 4. Reduce Tile in Locker Rooms $30,000 5. Eliminate Flagpole $2,800 6. Reduce Concrete (Outside Deck & Sidewalks) $10,000 7. Eliminate Sprinkling System on Slopes $9,000 8. Regular Chain Link Instead of Vinyl Clad $6,000 9. Eliminate Some Windows up to $28,401 10. Delay Outdoor Pool $275,000 11 . Excavation Changes up to $46,000 -7- 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: August 28, 1989 From: Cam Caldwell Subject: Ground Transportation Starter Service at Airport The Airport has developed a plan to improve the starter service at the Airport. Council had expressed interest in this service at the time that. the Ground Transportation Ordinance had been approved earlier this year. The Airports Director was requested by the Council to conduct a study of the ground transportation service and prepare a report. That report has been reviewed by the Airport Board and the Administration has approved a proposal for a budget opening to implement the plan which has been developed. The plan calls for hiring five new FTE positions to function as supervisory staff overseeing the starters at the two terminals. According to the Airports Director, these staff will actually be Operations Officers. Operations Officers are the Airport's sworn police officers. Mr. Miller indicates that the Operations Officers will rotate through the Ground Transportation area as part of a two hour shift rotation. The proposed budget impact is an increase in personnel costs by $138,550. The Airport Authority is requesting only 70% of that total as new funds because the new personnel will begin after 30% of the fiscal year is completed. The full funding of $138, 550 in FY 89-90 dollars will be requested in subsequent years. The plan also proposes that a "call-up" system be developed to provide better communication between the current ground transportation "remote staging" or parking area and the starter desk. This call-up system is used to notify cabs or limousines to come to the terminal areas to meet a specific passenger and to take that passenger to the desired location. According to the Airports Director, the star.t.er supervisors will be uniformed Operations Officers or Airport. police. They will rotate through the Ground Transportation station as a beat assignment. The Operations Officers rotate their beat every two hours. Other assignments are traffic control, runway inspection, security inspection, and similar police related assignments. An issue which has not been addressed in the Airport staff report is the information which is provided for the traveling public regarding the availability of ground transportation information. New television screen monitors have been installed at the two ground transportation stations and in the baggage pickup area. They provide the public with complete information about their ground travel options. In addition, a new ground transportation pamphlet is being developed. The Airport staff report also does not address the interest which some members of Council expressed in increasing the number of skycaps to help incoming and outgoing passengers with luggage, particularly during the ski season. According to the Airports Director, this service is solely a responsibility of the airline carriers. The Airports Director is currently negotiating this issue with the airlines in an effort to improve this service. POST ROTATION As further explanation, the division operates on a post rotation system. During a standard eight hour shift, the officers will change their work assignments on an hourly basis as indicated below. Each post is numbered and the officer assumes that numbered position during the one hour period. It is envisioned that the officers will all rotate through a ground transportation post. The post rotation system, including the ground transportation post, is described below. Post 1: T.U. #1 and #2 Screening Points South Delivery Lot Permit Parking Lot Terminal Drive up to Perimeter Gate 1A Post 2: Ground Transportation Booth - T.U. #1 Post 3: Ground Transportation Booth - T.U. #2 Post 4: Terminal Drive from Perimeter Gate 1A to end of Restricted Lots West of T.U. #2 Post 5: T.U. #1 , including A and B Concourses and B/C Connector. Back up for T.U. #1 Screening Incidents. Post 6: T.U. #2, including C and D Concourses and D/C Connector. Back up for T.U. #2 screening incidents. Post 7: Airport West Side Air Carrier Ramps South Support Area Runway 34L/16R and Taxiways West of Runway 32/14 North of 2100 North Post 8: Airport East Side Runway 34R/16L Runway 32/14 and all Taxiways East of 32/14 South of North Temple AIRPORT OPERATIONS DIVISION MANPOWER SCHEDULE Figure 1 Unencumbered Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday AOM AOS A00 AOM AOS A00 AOM AOS A00 AOM AOS A00 AOM AOS A00 AOM AOS A00 AOM AOS A00 0600-1400 A Shift 1 1 9 2 1 9 2 2 8 3 2 7 3 2 7 2 2 8 1 2 8 1400-2200 B Shift 1 2 8 1 2 9 2 3 7 2 3 7 1 3 7 1 2 8 1 2 7 2200-0600 C Sh i f t 0 1 4 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 4 Figure 2 Actual (Normal) Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday AOM AOS A00 AOM AOSA00 AOM AOS A00 AOM AOS A00 AOM AOS A00 AOM AOS A00 AOM AOS A00 0600-1400 A Shift 1 1 6 2 1 6 1 1 6 2 2 5 1 2 5 1 1 6 1 1 6 1400-2200 B Shift 1 1 6 1 2 6 2 1 6 2 2 5 1 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 6 2200-0600 C Shift 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 Figure 1 represents a recap of the attached Operations Division schedule. It shows by shift and position the total number of individuals available for service at any given time. Figure 2 indicates the actual shift coverage which is customarily available after reductions for holiday, vacation, sick leave, training, and any other authorized leave. Both of these figures include the additional staff requested to provide ground transportation supervisory services. AIRPORT OPERATIONS MANAGER I Sun I Mon 1 Tue I Wed I Thu I Fri { Sat 1. Manager I A I A I A I A I A I 0 I 0 2. Manager I 0 I 0 I B I A I A { A I A 3. Manager I B I B ( B 1 B I 0 I 0 I 0 I 4. Manager I 0 I 0 ( 0 1 B I B I B I B I AIRPORT OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR 5. Supervisor 0 I 0 J A I A I A I A 6. Supervisor ,6*. A 1 B I B B I 0 1 0 7. Supervisor A I A I A I A I 0 I 0 I 8. Supervisor I 0 1 0 I B I B I B I B I B I 9. Supervisor I C I C 1 C I C I C I 0 I 0 10. Supervisor I B 1 B 1 0 I 0 I F I A I A I 11. Supervisor (K-9) I 0 1 0 1 K9 I K9 I K9 I C I C I GROUND TRANSPORTATION 12. Manager I 0 ALAIA i WO 13. Supervisor I 0 I OBBBB { B 14. Officer A L A = A V_ A_ J_ A 0 0 15. Officer 1 A I A [ A_ 1 0 OIAIA 16. Officer j B I B I B 1 0 1 0 E A A 17. Officer B I B I 0 1 0 1 BIB I B "J AIRPORT OPERATIONS OFFICER I I I I I I 18. Officer I 01A1Aillik A I A 1 0 19. Officer I A I A I A I A I 0 I 0 I A I 20. Officer I 0 1 0 I A I A I A I A I A I 21. Officer I A 1 A I A I A I A I 0 I 0 I 22. Officer I A 1 0 I 0 I A I A I A I A I 23. Officer I A 1 A I A 1 0 I 0 I A 1 A I 24. Officer I A I A I 0 1 0 I A 1 A 1 A I 25. Officer I A I A I A 1 A I 0 I 0 I A I 26. Officer I B I B I 0 1 0 I B I B I B I. 27. Officer I B I B 1 0 1 0 I B 1 B I B 28. Officer I B B B I, p. $ B 0 I 0 I 29. Officer I 0 I B I B I B I B I B I 0 I 30. Officer I 0 1 0 I B 1 B I B I B I B I 31. Officer I B 1 B I B 1 B I B I 0 I 0 I 32. Officer I B I B I B I B I 0 1 0 I B I 33. Officer I B 1 B I B 1 0 I 0 1 B I B I 34. Officer I OICIBIB I A I A I 0 I 35. Officer I OICICIB I B I B I 0 I 36. Officer 1 C I 0 1 0 I C I C I C 1 C I 37. Officer I C I C I C I C I C I 0 I 0 I 38. Officer I C I 0 I 0 I C I C I C I C I 39. Officer 1 0 I 0 I C I C I C I C 1 C I 40. Officer I C I C I C I 0 I 0 1 C I C I 41. Officer I A I A I K9 I K9 I K9 I 0 1 0 I 42. Officer 1 0 J 0 J K9 ,1 K9 J K9 ( B I B I 43. Officer I OICICICIC I C 1 0 I OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 September 5, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CINDY GUST-JEP60N N N RE: COUNCIL PRIORITIES FOR STAFF AUDITS Cam has summarized the vote tally on the interest Council Members have in subject areas for Council staff audit / information gathering projects, and we are now requesting that you finalize your priorities during your September 7 Committee of the Whole meeting. You'll recall that after the budget we provided you with lists of ideas and asked about your interest in those topics and/or other areas. You may wish to take the following action at your Committee of the Whole meeting: 1. Determine if there are other items Council Members are interested in considering for internal audits. 2. Take a straw poll on each of these to determine the level of support for each. After you have finalized your priorities, staff will prepare an audit schedule/plan which outlines the general scope and estimates how long the projects will take. We will provide a copy of this to you and request that you let us know if you have problems, questions, concerns, etc. We anticipate that we should be able to get at least six or eight of these projects done, depending upon which ones you select. Please let me or Cam know if you have questions. OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 MEMORANDUM To: Cindy Gust-Jenson Date: August 15, 1989 From: Cam Caldwell Subject: Internal Audit Priorities I have completed surveying the Council about their priorities for staff internal audits. The following are the top priorities in order of preference. Not included is the consolidated dispatch audit which will be conducted by an outside firm. Six Votes 1) Golf Course Revenues - What is the extent of utilization or full play? Can we increase revenues in creative ways? How can the revenue process be improved? Five Votes 2) City Investment Portfolio - What is our Return on Investment? Four Votes 3) Neighborhood Trash Pickup - Can we do this more efficiently or for less cost? Three Votes 4) Community Development Block Grant projects - Are monies spent effectively? 5) Review a random sample of personnel reclassifications to ensure that the reclassifications are handled in a systematic manner. Two Votes 6) Police Youth Bureau - How effective is this unit? 7) Human Resource Management Training - What is the quality of current training? What are the needs? What is the real cost? What are the benefits? -1- 8) Review the City's one-stop permit process 9) Review CDBG policies and procedures to ensure they meet. the City's needs. 10) Property Management and Fixed Assets Inventory - What is the status and what is planned? 11) Refuse Collection Program - What is the total cost? What is the break even rate? One Vote 12) Crime Prevention Program - What is the goal? How cost/beneficial is it? 13) Police Auxiliary Program - Is this working? 14) Police Traffic Bureau - How effective is this unit? 15) Street Repair & Replacement - What is the most cost effective plan? 16) Fleet Management - What is the long term fleet need? Are our costs comparable with the private sector 17) Recreation Program Operations - What is the goal? 18) Review contracting procedures in Engineering 19) Airport Concessions Contracts - How are they bid? What are the conditions? 20) Review the City's ability to monitor the cost of health insurance by demographic groups, with the goal of identifying incentives to help control health care costs. 21) Review of Flying Squads Option - What are the pros and cons? -2- r , Salt Palace Implementation Meeting August 7, 1989 Salt Lake Ccnventian & Visi fors Bureau Conference Roan Present: Olene S. Walker Excused: Doug Bischoff Co nissioner Bart Barker Afton Bradshaw Florence Bittner Kenneth Y. Knight Michael Chitwood Leo Mom ott Truman F. Clawson R. Thayne Robson Richard E. Davis William G. Gibbs Jackie Nicholl Stan Parrish Robin Riggs John W. Rosenthal Cbnmissica er Tom Shimizu Cannissioner D. Michael Stewart Mike Zuhl The meeting was called to order by Olene Walker at 7:40 a.m., who weleaned those present. Mrs. Walker outlined discussion to date regarding the need for approximately $45 million in funding for Salt Palace expansion and renovation. She introduced Robin Riggs, who is drafting legislation for state contributions through the Legislature. Mr. Riggs reviewed the three funding mechanisms discussed by the committee to date. To raise needed funding, the primary proposal is for Salt Lake County extension of bonding for $15 million, Salt Lake City using sane RDA monies for $15 million, and asking the state for $15 million of the revenue surplus fund. Additionally, the state would be asked to create a statewide tourism revenue stream through imposition of a restaurant tax. All Salt Lake County monies generated through that tax would be dedicated to the Salt Palace. Mr. Riggs clarified state funds availability, noting Utah's Constitution prohibits revenue sharing with counties and cities, which would not permit any state grants. In order to qualify for direct funds fran state imposed taxes, a "state purpose" must be identified. Same arrangement may also qualify if the state has shared policy making authority over the Salt Palace. The needs are two-fold: (1) raise approximately $45 million for renovation and expansion of the Salt Palace; and (2) create a permanent revenue stream for future operation, maintenance and improvements. Salt Lake C'bunty's possible refinancing of current bonds to generate additional money for Salt Palace construction has been considered in the past. The County would have to refinance all three current bands: (1) Salt Palace/Fine Arts; (2) the County Govemnent Complex; and (3) County flood control. Bonding counsel would have to determine whether bonds for unrelated purposes can be refinanced to create funds for this specific purpose. In addition, monies generated would not be fran new bonds, but rather from the refinancing which frees a one year payment on existing bonds. The County needs to determine what is the amount of that one year payment, and whether or not it amounts to $15 million. In 1991 the flood control boil will be paid off, which frees $7 million annually. { Salt Palace Implementation Team Minutes/August 7, 1989 Page 2. The specific amount of on-going operational costs needs to be determined. The present County subsidy now ranges from $1 million to $1.5 million, with the arena producing about $1 million profit. When the arena closes, that will increase the subsidy amount. A larger facility would also require more operating monies. In addition, there is debt servicing on existing Salt Palace bonds. Present revenue stream to the Salt Palace is one-third of the transient roan taxes, plus the County's substantial subsidy. The Salt Palace is now classified by the County as an 'enterprise center', and should be managed on a self-sufficient 11ARis, but requires an adequate revenue stream. Commissioner Stewart suggested any management structure for the Salt Palace be created in a privatized structure, with a contractor responsible to elected officials, through a contract requiring ring specific performance, such as that of the convention bureau or county mental health. The Fine Arts facilities (Symphony Hall, Capitol Theatre, Salt Lake Arts Center) could be included in that contract, since these facilities are presently maintained by Salt Palace staff. If a revenue stream were created to fund on-going operations, maintenance and improvements, the present County subsidy could revert to other uses. The state receives the major direct benefits, i.e., taxes. Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County receive many indirect benefits, i.e., jobs, retail sales, etc. Existing transient roan taxes generate approximately $3 million annually. One-third of that -- approximately $1 million per year -- is used to amortize Salt Palace bonds. With expanded Salt Palace facilities, it is likely hotel development will increase, which will generate more iuun tax revenue. That one-third share of roan tax revenues should continue to be csignated to Salt Palace operations after payment of the bonds. A 1% restaurant tax, which would not apply to point of sale (so it is not a grocery tax), would generate $1,970,000 annually, and approximately $3.3 million statewide. Members discussed the proposal to create a special taxing district encompassing the 6 block area from West Temple to 300 West, and South Temple to 200 South. However, that area does not contain enough businesses to generate the necessary revenue stream. The City may be willing to consider dedicating its 1% .Luau tax to Salt Palace and arena development. It was suggested an appropriate representative of the School Board be invited to attend these meetings and participate in funding discussions. The Science Center is not included in this funding proposal. It was assumed that it would be funded by revenue boards and revenue generated by the IMAX center. Regarding the window of opportunity to obtain a one-time contribution from the state's current surplus, the light rail system will also be a principal consideration for that money, since federal restrictions require its commencement within the next two years to obtain federal funding. It will be in direct competition with any Salt Palace request, as will funding requests for the Winter Olympic Genes. However, the convention center is the only ane of the three which generates additional on-going revenue. It may be desirable to review our proposal with both of these groups prior to presenting it to the Legislature. Salt Palace Implementation Team Minutes/August 7, 1989 Page 3. Regarding governance of the facility, it is of paramount importance that accountability be to an elected governmental entity. Operation of the former Salt Palace Board was, and the current UrA authority is, exempt from such accountability, while various governmental entities are still held accountable to the public. The city, county and state should not contribute the money without being involved in making the decisions. The model that works is the city/county land fill operation, structured as an inter-local agreement, with a board including representatives from both entities, where the county has management responsibility, and the city has engineering and design responsibility. One of the governmental entities of the inter-local agreement could be designated to have management authority over the contractor, and administer and monitor the contract, with the cooperative board providing final approval on appropriate matters. If possible, the contractor organization should be a non-profit organization to avoid private enrichment from the contract. Funds for the contract -- the revenue stream created for ern-going operation, maintenance and improvements -- would be paid to the inter-local governing board, and distributed by it under contract guidelines. For the next meeting, it would be helpful to have figures on: (1) current subsidy costs; (2) the amount needed to provide a totally independent revenue stream for renovation and expansion; (3) continuing convention bureau marketing costs; and (4) the amount required for the arts subsidy. These figures should be separated into those ]gown and estimates on those unknown. Figures should also be broken dawn with and without debt service, with operations numbers separate. The next meeting will be held on Monday, August 21, 1989, in the Bureau's conference roan at 7:30 a.m. The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 a.m. Budget Summary Salt Palace Expenditures 1985 — 1989 (projected) 12 1983 Refunding Sables oparoeng Capes Bond 1985 1986 1987 Actual Actual Actual Salaries $1,906,662 $2,171,418 $2,204,291 w Operating 2,244,819 2,215,787 2,178,217 Capital 533,228 348,916 360,233 Bond 3,362,900 3,410,400 3,155,150 a Total $8,047,609 $8,146,521 $7,897,891 1988 1989 s` 5 Actual Budgeted a Salaries $2,336,877 $3,421,591 Operating 2,863,442 3,160,784 Capital 430,375 599,070• Bond 3,133,900 3,134,650 Total $8,764,594 $10,316,095 s .. *Approved Capital Source:Administrative Services' Q. _ _ _- - _ ____ ___ __ _ _. Administration Section and Salt Lake County Auditor. Ras 1888 1997 1988 1989 taste SLCw8y Adele SW fiscal Seel Convention and Visitors Bureau Marketing Costs YEAR 1987 $ 1,724,526 1988 1,952,867 1989* 2,075,987 1990* 2,179,787 1991* 2,288,776 1992* 2,403,215 1993* 2,523,376 1994* 2,649,544 1995* 2,782,022 1996* 2,921,123 1997* 3,067,179 1998* 3,220,538 1999* 3,381,565 * Projected assuming 5% growth rate. Source: Convention and Visitors I3ureau Salt Palace Annual Subsidies Paid by Salt Lake County Year Actual Subsidy 1985 $ 975,000 1986 577,036 1987 146,080 1988 898,259 1989 1,450,000 (projected) Sources: Salt Lake County Auditor, Salt Palace Salt Lake County Debt Commitments Total Annual Bond Payments 1983 through 2000 1983 Refunding Bond, Flood, Government Center, Little Dell 1983 Government 27 Refunding Bond Flood Center Little Dell 1983 Refunding Government Bond Center Little Dell Flood 1983 1984 $3,216,850 * $ 1,154,860 24 1985 3,362,900 6,548,500 $2,039,898 1986 3,410,400 6,600,990 6,325,046 $ 1,000,000 21_,.. 1987 3,155,150 6,711,640 5,998,670 8,225,915 1988 3,133,900 6,861,380 6,120,354 4,262,508 1989 3,134,650 7,009,640 6,243,350 3,579,479 is-.... 1990 3,153,400 7,172,550 6,367,771 1,697,552 1991 3,132,600 6,494,549 1,546,666 0 1992 3,148,500 6,625,193 1,511,400 1993 3,146,800 6,755,168 1,354,844 ,e_... 1994 3,126,800 6,891,769 630,634 a `o o - 1995 3,137,800 7,030,933 622,998 1996 7,167,266 619,186 2_ i 1997 4,845,769 619,234 1998 618,189 1999 615,914 2000 612,133 6 *Note: Debt Service for Maturities(Salt Palace Expansion and Arts Center)in 1983 through 1986 were rolled over into 3 a Refunding. �y �q� Source:Salt Lake County Auditor Salt Lake County Debt Commitments Salt Palace, Arts Center, Salt Palace Expansion Total Bond Payments 1978 through 1995 xao uip,nd Sae?aide ins Rat undnp Sat Palace erte center Expansion Bonds Original Salt Palace 1983 r»14-1 isK -E= Minn, Salt Palace Arts Center Expansion Refunding Bond 3500 _ 1978 $1,461,700 S 408,900 1979 1,422,700 407,725 ell Il 1980 1,433,700 431,550 riiiii 77ripi771N .. 1981 1,391,850 479,200 S 1,321,580 �I;P,IR 1i:1;'•'•3• 1982 1,874,500 1,321,580 pitilii ii'i' ''7T177OIEl'r 1983 1,879,000* 1,321,580 US: 07 iiiriiiiii 1984 $3,216,850 ii ellii1 ii1i 11i1•.'.1 1i41. 1985 3,362,900 '•4 2sool r i 1 1986 3,410,400 � ..... 1987 3,155,150 1988 3,133,900 1989 3,134,650 « i:iti :: ili 1990 3,153,400 MAP*...N*: 1991 3,132,600 vrAtirmo 1992 3,148,500 tsoo- Ve 1993 3,146,800 12 4 � 68 0 1 0�' e 99 iN�70iiiN ' I iiiHRO UiiliiiidiiiiiNIMMii 11iN El iiiiiiiiiliiiiiing ifliiiiiiinuieiiiiiiririi 1995 3,137,800 C**4 i001ii1i11'ii iiiiiiii 1iii n ii giii _ iiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii *Note: Debt Service for Maturities in 0 is:.L::.7Y'a:•:::':iiii�ii�.^:' t :'::'^' 1983 through 1986 were rolled over into rC.V 1�...Z>,�b.Y.n.u�. g a Refunding. �,�.)� ii7111tininirinlininii11i/inililliiiii M .44 IIIIIIIiiii:IuIi19ii11ii11i11111tiiituiu,.ai :I�IBIYYIYIY:f11 YIYi11YY1'i !211 111�I,I„IIl1IJf11111III1�1t uIQ uII�IRIII#HI a l Yin IIIIYY:�IIYYYYIYYIflh11 II UY IIIUlll EIIIY Source:Salt Lake County.Auditor