OCR Text |
Show SALT LAKE CITY RESIDENTS URGED TO VOTE AGAINST Salt Lake City Commissioner. Jennings Phillips, Jr. in an address delivered to the Kiwanis Club staled that What we Salt Lake City citiens are being asked to do under a scheme to consolidate Salt Lake City and County to trade a solvent, governments successfully operating, progressive city government that has endured more than half a century for an untried. untested plan of government whose operations could very well result in an increase in your taxes and a decrease in the efficiency of your services. dont mean to boast, but 1 think we have a pretty good government in Salt Lake City. We opeiate under a strict state law that us from prohibits incurring deficits. We owe no debt except for bonds which you, yourselves, have voted for capital improvements. Our own city bonds are rated Triple A highest rating ble. We are and have been for is 1 oh-tai- many years, a na government remarkably free of corruption and I atrribute that fine record to the fact that we have five men running the show instead of one. as Mr. (irundfossens plan provides. (Maybe one man could be bribed but not five.) Just a few weeks ago. our Commission was able to balance the city budget and at the same time give City Employees a 1(X. cost of living increase to which they were entitiled. And w'e did this without raising your taxes. In fact, your City Commission has not raised your property taxes in 20 The levy has remained years. constant at 24! mills since 1955. Show me any other city government in this country that has managed as well in these inflationary times. Your taxes have provided a water system that excels that of any city of comparable size in the nation. We have a beautiful park system, six outstanding municipal well golf courses, top-flig- police equipped ht, and fire departments and if you dont mind my bragging a bit. an investment program that outside experts have said is a model for cities all over the United States. And yet. you are being asked to abandon your city government and turn it over -- lock, stock and barrel to the control of those who live outside the city. They propose that the city and county be divided into 15 communites of approximately 30.000 inhabitants each. Each Community would hac a council and each council would have a chairman. The 15 chairmen would comprise the powerful County Council to set policy, levy taxes, decide who gets what and who pays for it. Salt Lake City with six community councils would have 6 votes on the County Council where as people living outside would have 9 votes. So if this plan succeeded in passing next March. vou would no longer be in control of your municipal affairs. Outsiders would take over, people with little or no interest in Salt Lake City, except perhaps asa source of taxes which inevitably would have to be levied on us to improve their own unimproved areas Now dont expect you to take my unsupported word for what I have said in opposition to this soheine. When 1 was invited to speak here. 1 called Jack Olson. 1 TO: ALL SALT LAKE Secretary of the Utah lax payers Association, to ask him his opinion on the idea. 1 knew he had done some research on it and because Jack is probably the most knowledgeable individual in the state when it comes to municipal government and municipal taxes. thought his opinion would be helpful. Well, Jack sent me a nine-pag- e dissertation on the subject. is This what he said in part. The people will be buying a pig in the poke if they vote for this charter as it now stands. I make this charge because the charter is full of unknown and lurking dangers. Solutions to big problems have been sidestepped for political reasons. Decisions have been left to be made by future politicians. Let me give you examples. The plan does not solve the double taxation problem; it just sweeps it under the rug. The charter does not tell any taxpayers what his tax burden will be alter consolidation. There is no way to determine future levels of service. Equalization of the property tax burden is authorized but no formula is given. No one knows who will be hurt or helped by this feature. The framers of the charter say publicly that the plan will not save any money. I believe this to be true. What they are not telling us is that it will cost us a lot more money piles more. It will cost Salt Lake City taxpayers more and it will cost county taxpayers more. It will cost everyone more. 1 have to agree with Jack. Take a look at w hat the plan would do. It would blanket in all present city and county district employees and guarantee them to be on the payroll for at least one year. Nothing is said as to the fate of these people after the year has passed. They w ould be under control of the Mayor a -- with the potenparty politician a of tial political boss becoming who could make Mayor Dick Daley of Chicago look like a piker. Since payrolls consume more than 50 percent of the city and county payrolls, savings would have to be made by eliminating jobs. Who among us is naive enough to expect a politician to cut payrolls, especially when some of the party faithful are involved? Also blanketed into the new government would be all of the eight currently elected county officials. If you were really trying to streamline government, wouldnt vou abolish those jobs, particularly since many of their functions would be duplicated by other officials to be appointed by the Executive In a meeting held February 19. 1975. the boa id of directors of the Ut & 1 so-call- ed CITY EMPLOYEES Sv:vto.. - 'r,v, j i- "ifHHTH11 who I a IT- - - nt MNIIN6IT?" I I i X' ltit7 -- 11 I r. 'JT..-- ; UWfKSTAMU uui cm mji w V' (' , SOUM.XX written. Unanimous Vote Recreation Board Metro Plan Nixes mvrra y eagle SALT LAKE. In a unaniThis is a huge step mous action by a quorum of its backward," said the board's membership, the board of the statement. It added that it has Salt Lake County Recreation considerable evidence that in on has record gone the overwhelming trend in Dept. has opposition to the Metro Gov- recent years nation-wid- e ernment proposal. been to combine parks and Only Wayne Evans, repre- recreation services. sentative of the Salt Lake City Equally opposed, the stateschool district, was absent ment said, was the possibility from the Thursday meeting at spelled out in the Metro which the action was taken. proposal that the board itself Joining in opposing the could possibly be dissolved governmental merger after a years time. It noted were Gordon Evans, Granite that the board, when founded district; Clayton Fairboume, in 1947, was a Jordan district; Briant String-ha- body and it has continued to Murray district and function in that manner over County Commissioner Wil- the years. liam E. Dunn. After reviewing the report The existence of this board and recommendations made has resulted in huge savings to by the County Government the taxpaying public, the statement reiterated, due to Study Commission, the recreation board is confident future the fact that by having Board recreation programs enjoyed of Education members servby thousands and thousands of ing in a dual role as recreation Salt Lake valley residents will board members, the school be more costly if the proposal doors have been open and is approved by the voters," available to the countys said the boards official state- multitude of recreational proment. grams." It cited as a principal reason The board went on to say for opposing die measure the that in of the if, in fact, it were half" splitting dissolved," . . . this excellent department, with park responsibilities being placed under a spirit of cooptation which has existed for the past 30 years Department of Public Works between the schools and the and recreation programs under a Department of county will certainly be adHuman Resources. versely affected." city-coun- ty non-politic-al m, A series of legal problems including the possible loss of Salt Lake consolidation is approved pose Citys water rights if city-coun- ty 1 others. . ' conclusion, let me remind that opera te government not systems. Licet good men to public office and they can make any system work. I hat is the key to good government. As Jack Olson says, this is a charter. You can't change a word of it. You take it or leave it .. . .it' take-it-or-leave- -it 4th! TAKE MY WORD THAT V'-- ' V.- - VnT ly:,Y men for better or worse. My advice to vou today is to leave it. Vote AGAINS'I" consolidation March A - . yo u 1. REASON Cost of Consolidating Two Governments. Although everyone would like to see equal taxes and services for even person living in the Salt Lake Valley, the proposed charter is just too vague. The Committee who prepared this charter failed to study what the actual cost would be. The employee's association feels the cost would be rwlvlniine. REASON U2. Bonding. problem of bonding is one ol the most basic problems facing the new government. It consolidated only Salt Lake Countv would have the bonding capacity. I he REASON It. Structure of the New Government. Under the proposed plan there would be a 15 person council who would meet at least twice a month to vote on 1 his com government policy. mittee could possibly turn into a bickering bunch of part-tim- e politicians City-Coun- ty REASON 4. This System Has Never Been Tried. The governments structure outlined in this charter has never been tried anywhere in the United States. There have been similar types tried in other areas, but this specific structure has never been tested. We cannot see the rationale behind the thinking ol those who proposed this new government. Why should we abandon a smooth working City government for something that no one knows will work or not? MERGER POSES LEGAL PROBLEMS serious questions. Roger Cutler, city attorney, today raised those questions in an opinion to the city commission. That opinion suggests consolidation could open a pandora's box of legal problems. Cutler's first concern is that state legislation prohibits the city from selling or trading its water rights directly or indirectly. If this is done, with the water going to a new government, the state school fund could inherit those rights. Cutler added. Ihe cavalier treatment of water rights in the consolidation plan is Mayor. incredible. the attorney said. Another puzzling question The planners attempt to solve problems with one paragraph. for which I have yet to receive a He indicated there will be numerous legal questions about water satisfactory answer is why only that could ultimately result in the destruction of the Central Utah Salt ake City was chosen to merge Conservancv District. with the county. Why did the "ID UKtTOAAAKf IT planners choose to leave out the THAT pCI?F6CrLY CLEAR cities of Murray. Midvale, Sandy. you DONT South Salt Lake and several understand it; just In Salt Lake City Employees Association voted unanimously not to support the Charter of Consolidation for Salt I .ake City & Salt Lake County. We feel that the reasons stated below are ample ev idence that at this time we eannot and will not accept the charter as - v "HESAiPTNEYW 5c?in6 10 fill tne pest of the DETAILS lATER f rv: r Mf ' X j A j?TV . . V tr - REASON (15. of Salt ljike City. One thing that bothers us the most is why this charter is only Salt Lake going to City into the unincorporated Salt Lake County? Why did they leave out Mm ray. Midvale. Sandy. South Salt Lake and others? REASON Jobs for One 6. Blankets Year. pioposed plan states that every employees job would be blanketed lor one year. What it does not tcil you is what happens alter that one year is up. The conclusion let me state that these were only the major reasons lor us not to accept the charter. I he w(iole idea of giving up our fine government, lock, stock and barrel, and dive into an untested structure is something we will not accept. In ... Yours truly. John Wheat. Jr. Finance II PEA 1 )i rector-Cit- y |