The URL can be used to link to this page

06/01/2006 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Also In Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Rocky Fluhart, Management Services Department Chief Administrative Officer; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Orion Goff, Building Official; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Kay Christensen, Budget Analyst; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Sylvia Jones, Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Charles Querry, Fire Chief; Dennis McKone, Fire Department Administrative Assistant/Media Relations; Scott Freitag, Fire Department Program Manager/Media Relations; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; Lisa McCarver, Revenue Analyst/Auditor 799; Patrick Thronson, Mayor' s Communications Director; Kevin Bergstrom, Public Services Deputy Director; Joel Paterson, Senior Planner, Preservation and Urban Design; Jerry Burton, Police Department Administrative Services Manager; Scott Atkinson, Assistant Administrative Bureau Police Chief; Chris Burbank, Police Chief; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst; Daniel Mule, Treasurer; Jamey Knighton, Human Resource Director; Lamont Nelson, Fleet Division Manager; Parviz Rokhva, Street and Sanitation Director/Technical Planner; David Terry, Golf Manager; Shane Carlson, Avenues/Capital Hill Housing Compatibility Committee; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 38 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5:38:32PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE REGARDING COMPATIBLE INFILL HOUSING ZONING REGULATIONS IN THE AVENUES AND CAPITOL HILL AREAS . View Attachments Joel Paterson and Alexander Ikefuna briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler said the temporary ordinance expired June 13, 2006 and a public hearing was scheduled June 6, 2006 . Discussion was held on when the ordinances would take effect. Mr. Paterson said the ordinances were currently set up to take effect on the date of first publication. Ms . Gust-Jenson said the language could 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 2006 be changed so the ordinances would take effect upon adoption and signature . Councilmember Jergensen asked if the effective date could actually be changed. Ms . Gust-Jenson said that was her understanding but she would double check with the Attorney' s Office . Mr. Ikefuna said the Administration was preparing an executive summary of the proposal which contained recommendations to help alleviate some of the problems . Councilmember Jergensen asked when the information would be available to the subcommittee . Mr. Ikefuna said sometime next week. Councilmember Buhler said in addition to the summary, the Council wanted a written explanation of how requests were handled under the current regulations/ordinances . Mr. Ikefuna said he would try to provide the information to the Council before Tuesday. #2 . 6:03:05 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE GOLF FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 . View Attachments Jennifer Bruno, David Terry, Rick Graham and Kevin Bergstrom briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Saxton said the policy which allowed golf professionals to retain revenue generated through lessons needed to be reviewed. Discussion was held on the Jordan River course. Council Members were concerned about the annual $100, 000 loss and wanted the Administration to review the issue and make recommendations . Councilmember Love requested a briefing/update on the marketing plan. A straw poll was taken on increasing ninehole green fees . All Council Members were in favor except Councilmember Buhler. A straw poll was taken on changes to season passes . All Council Members were in favor. A straw poll was taken on staffing changes . The majority of the Council was opposed. Councilmember Love said members who opposed the changes needed to make recommendations to balance the budget. #3 . 7:23:30 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE POLICY ON TAKE-HOME VEHICLES . View Attachments Chris Burbank, Charles Querry, Lamont Nelson, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, and Lehua Weaver briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Discussion was held on a policy which gave the police chief the ability to waive the 35-mile rule contained in the ordinance. 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 2006 Councilmember Buhler said he understood ordinances overrode polices and asked if the department would revise the policy to avoid confusion. Chief Burbank said the department had already planned to make that change . A straw poll was taken on continuing the policy that police/fire employees with take-home vehicles (marked or un-marked) would not be charged anything if they lived within the City limits . The majority of the Council was in favor. A straw poll was taken on allowing police/fire employees to use take-home vehicles for incidental personal use while commuting outside the City. The majority of the Council was in favor. A straw poll was taken on mileage calculation. The majority of the Council was in favor of using actual miles determined by a mapping program or driving the route . A straw poll was taken on using I-80 and Redwood Road as the measuring point. The majority of the Council was in favor. Discussion was held on a method to determine cost-per-mile charges and the appropriate distance a take-home vehicle would be allowed from the City. Ms . Gust-Jenson said staff needed direction concerning the Council' s policy to promote fast emergency response by encouraging employees to live in or close to the City. She said she felt that policy was the core issue which needed to be decided. Councilmember Buhler said using $85, 000 as a target, he wanted staff to run numbers using both a graduated rate and a flat rate. Ms . Weaver said she would prepare the information. Discussion was held on allowing horse patrols in Pioneer Park. A straw poll was taken. The majority of the Council opposed advancing the issue . #4 . 9:46:10PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING AND DISCUSS THE VARIOUS BONDING PROPOSALS IN THE MAYOR' S PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) BUDGET. View Attachments Jennifer Bruno, Steve Fawcett, Dan Mule, LuAnn Clark and Rick Graham briefed the Council with the attached handouts . A straw poll was taken on fleet facility funding (approximately $21 million) with the understanding the City would not be reimbursed for land previously purchased through the bond. All Council Members were in favor. 06 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 2006 A straw poll was taken on the Grant Tower proposal . The majority of the Council was in favor of only bonding (if necessary) the portion being paid by the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and taking the rest from fund balance. Councilmember Christensen said if the RDA was successful in obtaining a federal loan, bonding would not be needed. A straw poll was taken on day-lighting City Creek at Folsom Street Corridor and 900 South rail line right-of-way improvements . The majority of the Council was in favor of only funding the required amount (approximately $300, 000) . Mr. Graham said the $300, 000 did not include a public master plan process or final improvement design. Ms . Clark said the Council had previously allocated $497, 000 to design/rehabilitate the exiting fleet facility. She said if the Council was in favor, the fleet facility motion needed to include language which would allow the Administration to use the $497, 000 toward designing the new facility. Councilmember Buhler asked staff to follow-up on the suggestion. #5 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 AND THE PENDING BUDGET OPENING. No discussion was held. #6 . 10:11:05 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § § 52-4-204 AND 52-4-205 (1) (b) . Councilmember Simonsen moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to enter into Executive Session, which motion carried, all members voted aye . See file M 06-2 for Sworn Statement and tape. #7 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS . No discussion was held. The meeting adjourned at 10 : 28 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 06 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 2006 This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held June 1, 2006 . sc 06 - 5 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Posted: May 31, 2006 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING ADDENDUM 5:00 p.m., Some Council Members may dine together in Room 125 at the City & County Building. (The room is open to the public.) DATE: June 1,2006 TIME: 5:30 p.m. PLACE: City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 326 Salt Lake City,Utah AGENDA ITEMS 1. The Council will receive an update regarding Compatible Infill Housing zoning regulations in the Avenues and Capitol Hill areas. 2. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing regarding the Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Golf Fund for Fiscal Year 2006-07. 3. The Council will receive a briefing regarding the Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Policy on Take-Home Vehicles. 4. (Tentative)The Council will receive a briefing and discuss the various bonding proposals in the Mayor's proposed Capital Improvement Plan budget. 5. The Council will receive a briefing regarding unresolved budget issues for the Fiscal Year 2006-07 and the pending budget opening. 6. The Council will consider a motion to enter into Executive Session, in keeping with Utah Code,to discuss labor negotiations,pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 (1)(b). 7. Report of the Executive Director, including review of Council information items and announcements. Access agendas at http://www.slcgov.com/council/agendas/default.htm. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance of council meetings. We make every effort to honor these requests, and they should be made as early as possible. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. The City and County Building is an accessible facility. For questions or additional information,please contact the ADA Coordinator at 535-7971, or TDD 535-6021. Assistive listening devices are available on Channel I; upon four hours advance notice. Please allow 72 hours advance notice for sign language interpreters; large type and#2 Braille agendas. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City& County Building through the east entrance. Accessible route is located on the east side of the building. In accordance with State Statute, City Ordinance and Council Policy, one or more Council Members may be connected via speakerphone. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 8O 1-535-760❑ FAX: 801-535-76E 1 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/COUNCIL EMAIL: COUNCIL.COMMENTS@SLCGOV.COM SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF MEMORANDUM DATE: May 2,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-06-08—City Council initiated request to develop compatible infill overlay standards for properties within the Greater Avenues, Capitol Hill and Wasatch Hollows Community Council areas AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the Zoning Ordinance text and map amendment will affect Council District 3 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Depailinent,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Joel Paterson,Planning Programs Supervisor NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing A full Council staff report and comprehensive analysis was not prepared for this item due to the limited time available for scheduling Council consideration and action prior to the June 13, 2006 expiration date of the temporary zoning regulations established in December 2005. ATTACHMENTS: For Council Members convenience,these items are brought forward from the Mayor's proposal and the Administration's transmittal: 1. Proposed Zoning District map 2. Comparison of citywide infill regulations,Planning staff proposal and Greater Avenues proposal (pg. 2—April 12,2006 Planning Commission draft minutes) 3. Comparison of Planning Commission Recommendation and Community Councils' Recommendation (pg. 2—April 25,2006 letter from Mayor Anderson to the Council) 4. Community Council response to Planning staff proposed modifications(Planning staff report— Attachment 4—Community Council letters—letter from Shane Carlson, Greater Avenues Community Council Housing Compatibility Committee Spokesperson) 5. Summary-Greater Avenues Community Council Proposed Overlay for the SR-1 Zoning District, March 6,2006 (Planning staff report—Attachment 6—Greater Avenues Community Council Background Report) 6. Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils recommended modifications for the SR-1 District base zoning standards (pg. 2-3 Planning staff report) 1 KEY ELEMENTS: A. Three ordinances have been prepared for Council consideration. 1.Rezoning properties in the Avenues and Capitol Hill areas. 2. Zoning Ordinance text amendments recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. Zoning Ordinance text changes recommended by Mayor Anderson. The two ordinances dealing with Zoning Ordinance text changes differ in details relating to accessory structures. Please see the summaries below for additional information. 1. Rezoning properties generally located in the Avenues and Capitol Hill areas from Special Development Pattern Residential District(SR-1)to the proposed Special Development Pattern Residential District(SR-1A). Please see Attachment 1 for details. 2. Planning Commission recommendation to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of defining design criteria for the proposed Special Development Pattern Residential District(SR-1A) consistent with the Planning staff recommendation. The Administration's transmittal notes: a. Although the Community Councils and staff agreed on most of the proposed standards, there was some disagreement on the standards relating to accessory,structures. b. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report provide the following information relating to this issue: Accessory Buildings and Structures in Yards:Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions in Yards", of this Title (see below). • Maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed six hundred (600)square feet. • Primary Accessory Building—One Accessory building may have up to the following dimensions: i. A footprint of up to fifty percent(50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of ' six hundred square feet(600 s.f.). Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, an accessory structure shall be allowed a footprint of four hundred and eighty square feet(480 s.f), subject to compliance with 21A.40.050.B.1 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Staff Comment: The Planning Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that this provision be modified to be more consistent with the maximum footprint standards created by Ordinance 90 of 2005 which limit the size of a garage based on the footprint of the primary structure on the lot. Staff recommended the Planning Commission support a maximum footprint of six hundred square feet(600 sf.)which is consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC)standard for administrative approvals of garages. A larger garage must be reviewed by the HLC. The Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils are opposed to these modifications. It is their opinion that a 480 square foot garage (20'X 24) is large enough to accommodate two cars and will have a lesser impact on the neighborhood. They are not opposed to garages larger than 480 square feet when the larger size is supported by the development pattern on the block face and considered through the routine and uncontested special exception process. 2 ii. Roof Peak/Ridge Height of up to 1 4 fifteen feet(15') above the existing grade. iii. Aflat roofed height limit of n'M4 ten feet(10')above the existing grade. iv. An exterior wall height of nin 9')ten feet(10') above the existing grade. (a) Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may increase by one halffoot(0.5') for each one foot(1) difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and the downhill faces of the building. Staff Comment: The Planning Staff recommended the Planning Commission support the changes to the accessory building height and exterior wall heights as noted above. In other single family and two-family residential zoning districts, the height for an accessory structure is limited to seventeen feet(17) to the ridge(15 feet to the mid point in Yalecrest) and twelve feet(12)for flat roof structures. Because of the smaller lots and typical garages found in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities, the proposal recommends a further reduction in accessory building height and the introduction of a maximum wall height. Staff is of the opinion, with input from the Permits and Licensing Division, that a typical seven foot(7)garage door would be difficult to accommodate with a nine foot(9) high flat roof structure because of the space needs for roofjoists and garage door hardware. For this reason, Staff recommended the Planning Commission support the maximum building height for fat roof accessory structures and the maximum wall height be increased to ten feet(10). To compensate for these changes, Staff also recommended that the maximum height for a pitched roof on an accessory structure be increased to fifteen feet (15). The Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils are opposed to these modifications and their response to the Staff proposal is included in the Exhibit 5b (Planning Commission Staff Report,Attachment 4). 3. Mayor Anderson's recommendation to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of defining design criteria for the proposed Special Development Pattern Residential District(SR-1A) consistent with the recommendations of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils. a. The Administration's transmittal indicates that on April 13, 2006, Mayor Anderson met with representatives from the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils to discuss the proposed amendments. Mayor Anderson agreed to support the citizen's proposed standards,for accessory structures instead of the Planning Commission recommendation. A letter from Mayor Anderson with his recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. b. Mayor Anderson's letter dated April 26, 2006 notes: • After receiving a briefing by City staff and meeting with representatives of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils to discuss the regulations proposed by them, 1 have concluded that the regulations proposed by the community councils relating to accessory structures are appropriate and should be adopted in order to ensure compatible infill development in these unique historic neighborhoods of the City. • These recommendations are workable and will better achieve the goals of the new ordinance. • After consultation with Orion Goff, Building Official, it appears that, contrary to earlier information, the mechanics of the automatic (garage) door and required joists for a flat roof can be accommodated within the nine foot maximum wall height(for accessory structures). • In addition, the tiered review process for approval of proposals that do not conform to these regulations will allow deviation from the standards, where appropriate, while ensuring compatible development. 3 • Please see Attachment 3—Mayor Anderson's letter dated April 26, 2006 for additional details B. This petition was initiated as a result of Council action in December 2005 establishing temporary compatible residential infill development standards in Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Council areas for properties zoned SR-1 and in the Wasatch Hollow Community Council area. The Administration's transmittal notes: 1. Because the temporary zoning standards will expire on June 13,2006,the communities affected by the temporary zoning standards were given a deadline of March 6,2006,to submit a proposal to the Planning Division. The deadline provided the necessary lead time to have the proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission and considered by the City Council prior to the expiration of the temporary zoning standards. 2. The Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils submitted a joint proposal that is the subject of this petition. 3. The Wasatch Hollow Community Council is still developing a proposal which may be considered at a later date but will not be completed prior to the expiration of the temporary zoning standards. The Wasatch Hollow area will be subject to the city-wide ordinance following the expiration of the special regulations. 4. This petition requests to amend the Zoning Ordinance by creating an SR-1A Zoning District,a subcategory of the existing SR-1 District; and amend the Zoning Maps by replacing the existing SR- 1 designation in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities with the new SR-lA District as shown below. C. The purpose of the Special Development Pattern Residential District SR-1 is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards,lot sizes and bulk characteristics. The SR-1 District is divided into two sub-areas (SR-1 and SR-1A)for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of the Zoning Ordinance,the SR-1 and SR-1A are jointly referred to as the SR-1 District because all other standards are the same. D. The proposed standards address building and exterior wall height,front and side yard setback,yard,bulk and height for accessory structures. The standards do not regulate demolition of homes. The proposed standards would apply to new construction and remodels. Exceptions to the standards would be allowed through the Routine and Uncontested Special Exception,Administrative Hearing or Board of Adjustment tiered processes. The standards are intended to allow for flexibility of design while providing compatibility with existing development patterns. E. The report submitted by the Greater Avenues Community Council provides a detailed description of the process,methods and public input steps taken by representatives of their Housing Compatibility Committee in order to develop the proposal submitted to the City. They indicate that the proposal would establish a new set of fair and flexible zoning rules specific for the area that will allow for a large range of diverse development patterns and still provide a measure of predictability for everyone in the community. Please see Attachment 5 Summary- Greater Avenues Community Council Proposed Overlay for the SR-1 Zoning District,March 6,2006 for details. The report notes the following information. 1. The Housing Compatibility Committee made a complete inventory of all 2,394 single and dual family homes in the SR-1 zoning district recording whether the home 1)was a 1, 11/4, or 2 story home,2)had an attached garage, and 3)had a pitched or flat roof. 2. Using maps of the SR-1 area,HCC members also estimated the number of properties in the SR-1 area that did not conform to the minimum lot width and minimum lot square footage requirements of the base SR-1 zoning regulations. 4 3. 1,084 of the 2,394 homes(45.3%)were classified as single story, 676 (28.2%)were classified as 1.5 stories, and 634(26.5%)were classified as 2 stories or taller. 4. Results of the inventory clearly indicate the existence of entire block faces comprised of one story homes spread throughout the SR-1 district. It was estimated that the tallest homes on these block faces would be 16 to 18 feet in height. A sample of the vulnerable block faces was submitted to the City Planning Office for survey. Survey result to confirm the building heights are still pending at this time. 5. The inventory maps of flat roofed buildings (85—3.5%)and homes with garages as part of the front façade (one-car 186-7.8%;two-car 155-6.5%)reveled that these structures are uncommon in the SR- 1 areas and a significant number are concentrated north of 11t Avenue. 6. It was estimated that 360 (15%) of the 2,394 residential SR-1 properties met the SR-1 minimum width and lot size requirements. Stated another way,2.034(85%)of the properties do not meet the minimum lot size requirements upon which the other SR-1 dimensional limits such as height and side setbacks are based. F. The public process included: 1. Discussions at the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils for several months with formal votes by both Community Councils in March 2006. 2. Written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to affected property owners. G. On April 12,2006,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve the zoning text and map amendments recommended by Planning staff. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. As previously noted,two alternative ordinances have been prepared for Council consideration based on differing recommendations from the Planning Commission and the Mayor. The two ordinances provide different zoning standards relating to accessory structures. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration potential upsides and downsides of each proposal. B. Portions of the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Council areas proposed to be rezoned to the SR-IA zoning classification are located within existing overlay districts. The Administration's transmittal notes: 1. Effect on Overlay Zoning Districts: Portions of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities include overlay zones, such as the H Historic Preservation Overlay,the CHPA Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay and the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay(Secondary Recharge Area). All future developments must comply with these regulations where applicable. 2. Conflict with the Capitol Hill Protective Overlay Zoning District: Portions of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities are located within the Capitol Hill Protective Overlay Zoning District(CHPA). The purpose of this overlay zone is to protect the view of the State Capitol Building by prohibiting exceptions to exceed the maximum height requirements of the base zoning district. If the Compatible Residential Infill Development standards for the proposed SR-IA are adopted,the height of residential structures in this overlay zone would be limited to twenty-three feet (23') (or the average building height on the block face)without the ability to use the special exception process to modify the building height based on the development pattern established on the block face. 5 3. The Planning Division is currently processing Petition 400-02-41 to amend the Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay Zone to implement the policies of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. The Planning Staff is proposing to address the issue to allow additional height in this overlay zone, not to exceed thirty-five feet(35'),where it is found that exceeding the twenty-three feet(23')height maximum is consistent with the SR-1A zoning standards and/or the Historic Preservation Overlay District Standards. C. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration in further detail: 1. Issues that have been expressed to several Council Members from property owners, community council representatives and representatives from the development and architectural/design groups regarding the current staff plan review,Routine and Uncontested Special Exception,Administrative Hearing or Board of Adjustment tiered processes. o Council Members Buhler,Jergensen and Love recently met with Administrative staff to discuss the issues. o Council Member Simonsen met with representatives from Renovation Design to discuss their issues. o The Community Development Department has indicated that staff is in the process of identifying steps that may be taken to address the issues that have been raised. 2. Compatibility between the proposed zoning standards and other applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance such as changes to the Non-Conforming use/Non-Complying Structure regulations (recently adopted by the Council)and additional modifications requested by the Council. BUDGET RELATED FACTS The Administration's transmittal notes that adoption of the proposed zoning standards, in conjunction with the existing Compatible Residential infill Development standards and processes,may increase the workload for the Planning Division because of the number of residential new construction and addition projects that would require review as routine and uncontested matters or special exceptions by the Zoning Administrator,Administrative Public Hearing Officer or Board of Adjustment; cases reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission; and subdivision requests considered by the Administrative Public Hearing Officer or Planning Commission. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Avenues and Capitol Hill Masters Plans are the adopted land-use policy documents that guide new development in the area. The Administration's transmittal notes the following relating to the Plans. 1. Avenues Community Master Plan: includes a goal that encourages private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Capitol Hill Master Plan: includes a goal that encourages development of appropriate housing through renovation of existing structures and construction of compatible residential infill development and redevelopment. B. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including quality design,public and neighborhood participation and interaction,transit-oriented development, encouraging mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement,zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. 6 C. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city, ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly, convenient, and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive, friendly, safe environments and creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses. D. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. E. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed zoning amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • June 21,2005 Council Legislative Action requesting review of City ordinances relating to infill housing • July 12,2005 Ordinance adopted creating the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District • December 13,2005 Ordinances adopted establishing: o Citywide compatible residential infill development standards in single- family and two-family zoning districts o Temporary compatible residential infill development standards in Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Council areas for properties zoned SR-1 and in the Wasatch Hollows Community Council area • March 1,2006 Greater Avenues Community Council meeting—vote to support proposed zoning standards proposed by the Housing Compatibility Committee • March 15, 2006 Capitol Hill Community Council meeting—vote to support zoning standards proposed by the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee • April 6,2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office • April 12,2006 Planning Commission hearing • April 21,2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office • April 25,2006 Transmittal received in City Council Office • April 26,2006 Letter and alternative ordinance received from Mayor Anderson cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Melanie Reif,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ikefuna,Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Kevin LoPiccolo, Joel Paterson, Orion Goff, Larry Butcher, Jan Aramaki, Jennifer Bruno,Marge Harvey, Sylvia Jones, Lehua Weaver,Annette Daley,Barry Esham, Gwen Springmeyer 7 File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Rezoning and Zoning Text Amendment, Avenues/Capitol Hill(Compatible Residential Infill) Special Development Pattern Residential District(SR- 1A),properties generally located in the Avenues and Capitol Hill areas 8 ATTACHMENT 1 1 Lvt, -.,, Fi IIId illIfilifilll , I I 'j � ■IIIIIOMlllil� [JOB 1 Ii `!A 4•]---7\ IlIllllllull II Run]ie. i p1111U111011Uiii1 IJJ I I I� �II�IIIIilllllllllllll, f111111.= 'e. bie. 0, -, , ,- I 001 [ --7.-- I )o . ,tip`' •Z, Fes_ il W L c i � 'Ad 11 "z l� —2 E ,:,. a iir,-- t Mom 111■1111111 1 E T ge a nn lil'��1=1■ L-t• 1 -Sr _ O - 1.1W An 1 1 vim :111M 1ud111i11r ;1 11I1: ri ii alt. t _ � . C710 -ZJI 7`[ }. n1 ime ■111111j- NMI W ,A I g M dw z map CO Q I — _---H- - L. o _ 7!Il�■� i pi.1111 to �:.; ■ ill r-fr W _ G C Mors / • 4 .-_ 0mm ___44,_ • I =.mann' Lu At re., .y � �I < C kl =1 �Illl �/ t i �✓' - r - `�Y a' So1■lull \ -"'---- th%--4---/I-rigla Ill 1111 IIII Iii '\ ,, , /� IM �� Ili" II .- - -- / - 2 i i 11 Neil- 7---- f 7 II ill r 1 L\ lir I 1 --1'/ / ...\ c -\\ :V..??,;---_maNleI____\,-) / ill if 111 III \_b' 4-urint '-' i Il li il IF > /-7- --'-7-- 1 III is • c >„ 4:411VI _I I1rL::. 11 o ¢ _ w��iV i s � O ME I� ■ IC E II -/ ' \'•' 1111111111111111111 11111111R% — I g 25 c - IIIII II= O /11 I/ 1111 11 III III MI El 111 ISM N � l' � E 111� • 11 I „1 °' nitR = _TAT. ail Mill III a---f-T-: .--i-',-E Eff_ii v_--\-: - .- III III girl Illisil 1111 II - 1 - - . K?::,-,_ milimmili A II .0., IF- II III l'il iii El N— o-' 1---,..\\ IIIRauI___ ,7 ,_,IR ;,ry IIII. n Mil M II I-, ;III --~ z,_-,_.---- i ,-i, is Ell iiii_n Re RI ft r'-'. wr- ' -- , M 'ffl 11- II- a i M nr F L k yis _a -_ 1 ICI 1 AV w 4rrFF'�, n I. 3 ATTACHMENT 2 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 12, 2006 Greater Avenues Topic Citywide Staff Proposal Proposal* (If (Ordinance 90) _ different than Staff) Building Height 28' 23' or the average height of the block face. Flat Roof Height/Maximum 20' 16' Exterior Wall Height To determine the To determine the average average setback on setback on the blockf de1f, the block face If three or more paresis are three or more located on the; la :;face, parcels are located Front Yard Setback (The greatestand smallest on the block face. setbackstiiay only be-,,, (The greatest and eliminated;:if more than fou(;;_ smallest setbacks parcels'are located on the `` would be eliminated block face.) from the.calculation.) 1.0'-(Eliminate the language to permit Corner Side Yard 10' over-the-counter inline additions in the side yard.) Interior Side Yard 4'on one side and 10'on the other. To determine the size of the struatuire by using the standard that the accessory Accessory Structures - `' ,structure can'be up to 50%of Footprint Size 7O .quare feet 480 square feet the size of the home with a maximum of 600 square feet and`a'minimum of 480 square `T. feet.""' Accessory - 'tires— - Maximu , (i ' gsig # 17 15' 14' a(g to the ndgej Aob s ry Structures 10'(A provision is being Flat Roolght/Maximum 12' considered to adjust the 9' Exterior Wall Height height requirements for sloping lots.) ATTACHMENT 3 COMPARISON-PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION/COMMUNITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION MAYOR ANDERSON'S LETTER.DATED APRIL 26,2006 fipror- Regulation Planning Community Commission Councils' Recommendation recommendation Height of Accessory 15 feet 14 feet Structures with Pitched Roof Height of Flat Roof to feet 9 feet Accessory Structures for over the counter permit Wall Height of io feet 9 feet accessory Structure for over the counter permit Maximum footprint 5o% of the building 48o square feet for of accessory footprint of the accessory structure structure for over principal structure up plus an additional zzo the counter permit. to a maximum of 600 square feet for a square feet secondary accessory • structure ATTACHMENT 4 `!FA Greater Avenues Community Council f 1180 lst Avenue,Salt Lake City,UT 84103 "' " Stephen F. Mecham,Chair Phone: 801 359-4165 ithki �� Shane Carlson,Housing Committee, Spokesperson Phone: 801 596-3939 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Dear Commission Members, Council Members and City Planners: First,we would like to express our appreciation of the efforts of the Planning Office,the City Council and the Planning Commission on the recently adopted Infill Ordinance and tiered permit process. Over the last • twelve months a significant amount of work and careful thought has gone into addressing what was rapidly becoming a serious problem with incompatible infill,a problem that threatened our sense of community and goodwill among neighbors. We are especially appreciative of the Planning Office and their efforts to implement the new tiered permitting process. We feel strongly that the success of this tiered process is essential to ensuring predictability for communities while allowing for responsible growth and accommodation in situations that are often quite challenging. • The Greater Avenues Community Council's Housing Committee has been working on the proposed SR-1 overlay for about ten months. We have made significant efforts to describe and document the character of the Avenues SR-1 area. One of the tools we used in drafting the proposed overlay was a thorough inventory of all residential properties in the SR-1 area. Not only did this inventory provide us with a clear appreciation of the housing stock in the SRC I area,it also illuminated some of the unique challenges faced • by those residing in our community. Out of 2396 residential properties,an estimated 2075(85%)are non- conforming to the present minimum SR-I standards for the minimum lot width of 50 feet or the minimum lot size of 5000 square feet. For those Avenues SR-1 properties south of 1e Avenue,the figure is closer to 90%non-conforming. Every element of our proposed overlay was carefully crafted to deal with the very real and significant problems recently experienced in our area. We were pleased with the Planning Office's decision to recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council approve most of our proposed overlay. The Planning Office has recommended a few minor modifications to the calculation of front and side setbacks. We support these recommended modifications and.appreciate their importance. However,we cannot support,nor do we entirely understand,the Planning Office's recommended modifications to our proposal regarding the counter permit limits for accessory buildings. Primary Building Peak and Wall Height We are pleased with the Planning Office's decision to recommend our proposal's counter permit limits for primary building peak height(23 feet)and sidewall height(16 feet;Section D.Paragraphs 1,2 and 3). We fully appreciate the necessity of a smoothly functioning tiered permit process in order for these counter permit limits to be practical as the development pattern in the SR-1 area is quite diverse. We appreciate the Planning Office's efforts to implement the new tiered process as well as their openness to input from the community. Combined with significant efforts to implement the tiered process,these counter permit limits will provide a measure of predictability for our more vulnerable block faces while allowing reasonable expansion and growth throughout the area. Front Setbacks The Planning Office has recommended that when using the proposed modifications for calculation of front- setback(average calculated dropping the smallest and largest setbacks),the minimum number of properties on the block-face should be increased from three to four(Section E,Paragraph 1). We appreciate the utility of modifying the minimum number of buildings on a"block face"before eliminating the closest and furthest buildings from the calculation of the"block face"average,as the proposed minimum of three properties would leave only one property to be used in the modified calculation. We do not anticipate that increasing this number from the proposed three to the recommended four buildings would pose a problem. We support this recommendation. Corner Lot Side Setbacks The proposed SR-i overlay requested the elimination of an in-line side setback exception for street side setback for corner lots(Section E,Paragraph 2). The Planning Office has recommended no modifications to the proposal. We appreciate their support of the proposed modified side setback limit for corner lots. Interior Lot Side Setbacks The Planning Office has recommended several minor modifications to the formula proposed by our Housing Committee to help address the challenge of the very narrow and deep lots that exist in a significant majority of the SR-1 area(Section E,Paragraph 3). We appreciate the reasoning behind the Planning Office's recommended modifications and we do not anticipate that these modifications will negatively impact the goal of the proposed formula for calculating modified minimum interior side setbacks. We would also like to express our support of the Planning Office's recommendation to apply the proposed minimum ten foot separation between the proposed construction and the adjacent property's primary building only when the rules for a reduced side setback are applied and only to the side of the project where the reduced side setback(less than 10 feet)is applied. The recommended modification would retain the original intent of our proposal,helping property owners and permit applicants address the challenges of their very narrow lots,while addressing the fire code and public safety issues allowing access to the sides and rear of each property. Accessory Building Recommendations The City Planning Office has recommended counter permit limits for accessory buildings that are higher than what was proposed by the Avenues Housing Committee for the SR-I area(Section E, Paragraph 5). The Committee has several concerns regarding the recommendation to adopt higher limits. First,as stated above,the SR-1 area is characterized by lots that are very narrow and at times much smaller than the 5000 square foot minimum for new lots in the SR-1 area. In some areas,the standard lot width is 27.5 feet..The most common lot width is approximately forty one feet. On lots with homes that are often only inches apart,every additional foot of wall and peak height brings a much greater likelihood that a structure will negatively impact an adjacent property owner. While out of scale primary structures have been the source of the most egregious incompatible infill,accessory structures have been a very common source of conflict between adjacent property owners. While we appreciate that the Planning Office has recommended a counter permit limit of 600 square feet that is consistent with limits recognized by the Historic Landmarks Commission,we feel that in areas such as the middle Avenues(approximately 5th to l0a'Avenues)where very narrow lots are combined with views of the city and the Oquirrh Mountains,a counter permit limit of 480 square feet is a much more defensible standard. The proposed 480 square foot limit for a primary accessory building would provide all property owners with the opportunity for a two car garage that could housereven the largest passenger vehicles along with some room for tools and storage. Our original proposal to allow an additional 120 square feet of secondary accessory building with lower wall and peak height limits(eight and ten feet respectively)would ensure that all property owners would have the opportunity for additional storage or work space. Our Housing Committee also has significant questions about the recommendation to limit accessory structure square footage to 50%of the primary building's foot print. Not all of the largest primary buildings have been built on the largest lots or in the most sensitive locations. We feel strongly that allowing those properties with the largest homes to build larger garages without further consideration of lot size(beyond the 40%lot coverage limit)or building placement will result in situations where properties that already have a significant impact on adjacent property owners will be allowed to have an even greater impact with a larger accessory structure. Conversely,properties with small primary structures(less than 1200 square feet)that are less likely to have impacted adjacent properties may be unfairly limited to lower accessory structure limits, These recommended limits would be implemented without regard to the size of a lot or the placement of the buildings. We feel that allowing everyone 600 square feet of accessory structure but requiring that those seeking a counter permit build in a manner less likely to impact their neighbors(480 square feet for primary accessory structure,remaining accessory structure built under lower limits)is a more equitable solution to an often challenging situation. We also feel that the higher counter permit limits for accessory buildings that have been recommended are not in keeping with the spirit of the tiered permit process which was adopted to allow for relatively easy exceptions to somewhat stricter counter permit limits. Like the other elements of the proposed overlay,the originally proposed accessory building limits were designed to provide predictability for the most vulnerable areas while allowing the quick approval of well designed projects. We feel these limits are appropriate,especially when viewed alongside the lesser requirements for granting a"Routine and Uncontested"permit for accessory buildings exceeding the counter permit limits. "Routine and Uncontested"applications may be granted based upon the approval of all adjacent property owners but unlike,special exceptions for primary buildings,the administrator handling the request need convene a public hearing where concerns expressed by parties not residing next to the proposed project must be considered. This lower standard for accessory structures exceeding counter permit limits is appropriate. We also feel that the lower standard makes our proposed accessory building limits preferable to the Planning Office's recommendation. Finally,we have questions about the Planning Office's recommendation that minimum structural requirements for a flat roofed garage require a ten foot roof in order to accommodate a seven foot door. We have consulted a contractor and architect who suggested the following design in order to allow a nine foot flat roofed garage with a seven foot door. Rather than spanning the entire width of the building (somewhere between twenty and twenty-four feet)with a 14 inch TJI ceiling joist,an alternative design would incorporate a beam at the mid-point of the garage parallel with the side of the garage with the garage door. The beam,at ten to twelve feet from the wall with the door,would be set back far enough to accommodate the door and garage door hardware/opener. The beam would be supported at its mid-point with a vertical column. The addition of the beam would allow much smaller ceiling joists,approximately 10 inches for a 12 foot span. Nearly all garage door manufacturers have low profile door hardware available at no extra charge. Low profile hardware would allow the door to be mounted with approximately six inches of overhead space. Allowing for six inches of slope on a 24 foot wide garage,six inches for door hardware and ten inch joists,a seven foot door could be accommodated within the proposed nine foot flat roofed counter permit limit. On a related note,we see no reason to recommend that the wall height for pitched roof accessory buildings be increased to match that of Planning Office's recommended ten feet for flat-roofed buildings. Given the potential of wall height to impact sunlight on adjacent properties,we are asking that the Planning Commission recommend the originally proposed counter permit limits of nine feet for both wall height and flat roofed buildings. In conclusion,we would like to emphasize our appreciation of the Planning Office,the City Council and the Planning Commission and all of the hard work that has gone into dealing with the difficult issue of compatible infill. We are very pleased with the efforts initiated by the City Council to address this issue and to make it a priority,the creativity and hard work of the City Planning Office to design and implement a unique and promising tiered permit process,and the Planning Commission for their careful consideration of these matters. We would also like to recognize the City Council's support for community specific zoning where appropriate and the efforts of the Planning Office to support the overlay process at the community level. Planning staff have often made themselves available to our Housing Committee and provided guidance on several important issues. The Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee has also made a significant effort to address the key issues of concern in our area. We feel that our direct experience of the challenges posed by the close proximity of the homes and the narrow lots that characterize the area,as well as our experience with sensitive and successful projects has provided our residents with a unique and intimate knowledge of the issues as well as the potential for creative solutions for most property owners. We are asking that you please take this intimate knowledge of the community into account as you weigh the Planning Office recommendations along side the proposed overlay. We would also ask that you take into consideration the strong support of our community for the proposed overlay as it was originally written, specifically in regard to accessory structures. And while the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee cannot support the recommendations of the Planning Office with regard to counter permit limits for accessory buildings,we strongly support all other modifications to our proposed overlay as recommended by the Planning Office. Sincerely, Shane Carlson Greater Avenues Community Council Housing Compatibility Committee,Spokesperson ATTACHMENT 5 Greater Avenues Community Council Proposed Overlay for the SR-1 Zoning District March 6th, 2006 CIE Greater Avenues Community Council 1180 ls`Avenue, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Stephen F. Mecham,Chair Phone: 801 359-4165 . {�'11 . I=1 -^rr�4l Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Council Members and City Planners: The Greater Avenues Community Council(GACC) is pleased to submit for your review the enclosed SR-1 Overlay overwhelmingly approved by the GACC March 1, 2006. As you know, in July 2005 GACC established the Housing Compatibility Committee to develop the enclosed Overlay. In its March 1, 2006 meeting, GACC also voted to allow representatives of the Housing Compatibility Committee to work with Planning and Zoning if any changes are needed to facilitate City Council approval of the Overlay. During the past seven months,the Housing Compatibility Committee has sought public input and has worked diligently to develop the Overlay to preserve and protect the unique characteristics of SR-1 properties in the eclectic Avenues area. The GACC believes the draft Overlay establishes a new set of fair and flexible zoning rules specific for the Avenues District SR-1 area that will allow for a large range of diverse development patterns and still provide a measure of predictability for everyone in the community. We urge you to approve the Overlay as it is proposed. We look forward to working with you in enacting and implementing the Overlay. You may call me at 359-4165 with any questions. Housing Compatibility Committee spokesperson Shane Carlson may be reached at 596-3939 and Committee Chair Lon Richardson may be reached at 364-4529. Sincerely, Stephen F. Mecham, 2006 Chair Greater Avenues Community Council Summary • Over the summer of 2005, the Avenues experienced a number of controversial • construction projects,involving both primary structures and accessory buildings. At the same time, the City Council was addressing a similar problem in several neighborhoods throughout Salt Lake City. In July, 2005,the City Council approved the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay. In August, the Greater Avenues Community Council formed its Housing Compatibility Committee(HCC)to investigate and address the specific housing issues in the Avenues. The HCC identified the SR-1 district as the area most impacted by recent incompatible infill. Characteristics of the SR-1 area contributing to the problem included a high percentage of deep and narrow lots, a high percentage of lots not conforming to the minimum width and square foot requirements of the SR-1 code, the liberal nature of the SR-1 code, and the rapidly rising property values in the SR-1 area. The HCC attempted to develop a single set of dimensional restrictions that would provide predictability for.the residents of the more vulnerable SR-1 areas while still allowing flexibility where taller building heights are the existing development pattern. The HCC struggled to come up with a reasonable set of standards under the previously existing system.where projects exceeding dimensional limits were sent directly to the Board of Adjustment. As an alternative,the HCC proposed a tiered permit system where projects exceeding the dimensional limits for a counter permit but that were consistent with the character of the neighboring buildings were approved in an expedited manner. At that same time, the City Planning Office proposed its own tiered permit system. The HCC development of an SR-1 overlay was put on hold while the City considered a city- . wide compatible infill ordinance. After that ordinance was adopted, along with temporary restrictions for the Avenues SR-1 area,the HCC resumed work on an SR-1 overlay. The efforts of the HCC were focused on conducting a comprehensive inventory of all SR- 1 residential properties in the Avenues,a thorough review of the existing SR-1 ordinance, and the Avenues Master Plan,as well as soliciting input from a wide range of avenues residents, architects,contractors,and real estate brokers. The HCC concluded that in order to provide predictability,the proposed overlay needed to perpetuate the temporary height restrictions originally proposed by the City Planning Office, that allowances needed to be made for the narrow non-conforming-lots,and that the trend towards large multiuse accessory structures needed to be balanced against the often disproportionate impact these structure had on adjacent properties. • • • • • Issue Origin Over the summer of 2005, several new construction projects were started in the Avenues that concerned a large number of Community members. These projects consisted of primary structure remodels and new garages. Several of these projects became the subjects of articles in the local papers on "Monster Homes" and incompatible in-fill (see Appendix A). At the same time that Avenues community members were recognizing the early stages of an incompatible infill problem in their area, the Salt Lake City Council was beginning to address the same problem city wide. Specifically, in July,2005 the City Council approved the Yalecrest Compatible In-fill Overlay "to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood." Also at that time,the City Council was considering a 6- month moratorium on new projects to allow time for communities to.develop neighborhood specific guidelines to protect against incompatible in-fill in the more vulnerable city neighborhoods (Ordinance 44 of 2005). That moratorium was approved and then rescinded a week later as some Council members were concerned that a city- wide moratorium was too broad a measure to address problems not experienced in all neighborhoods. It was also at this time that the Greater Avenues Community Council(GACC) organized the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee(HCC). The HCC was charged with the. task of studying the problem of incompatible infill to determine which significant factors were driving the "Monster House"and"Monster Garage"phenomena both locally and nationally,as well as which areas of the Avenues were experiencing the greatest impact. Process At the August GACC meeting, Yalecrest Overlay Committee members David and Lisette Gibson were invited to discuss their efforts to develop and gain approval for the Yalecrest Overlay. It was also at that meeting that the formation of the HCC was announced and input from all members of the Avenues community was solicited (see Appendix B). The charge of the HCC was to find community consensus regarding structural regulations • which give clear standards and allow us to preserve the value of our community. The HCC began meeting weekly. At the HCC meetings,it quickly became apparent that several factors were contributing to the incompatible infill problem. First,nearly all of the most controversial projects. • were occurring in the SR-1 zoning district. Second,a large number of projects involved residents new to the Avenues neighborhood who were.moving to the area in response to high fuel prices and'increasingly lengthy commutes from distant areas within the Salt Lake Valley,.Many of these new arrivals stated that they were simply trying to replace their smaller homes and garages with something similar to what they had left behind on their much larger lots in the suburbs. And finally, many controversial projects involved the construction of new garages as well as modifications to primary structures., • • 2 Over the course of several HCC meetings in August and September,2005, committee members attempted to identify subsections of the SR-1 district that would be benefit from a new,set of zoning regulations. Several conclusions were drawn from those discussions. First,while there are some broad patterns of development within the SR-1 district that appear to have evolved over time(bungalows between 6th and 11` Avenues, Victorians on 2nd and 3`d Avenues),there are no clear lines of demarcation between these areas, homes of all types can be found throughout the SR-1 area(large Victorians on many block corners as high as 1 l`h Avenue). Coinciding with the difficulty the HCC encountered in defining any significant homogenous areas in the SR-1 district,the committee experienced difficulty coming up with any one set of dimensional counter permit limits(such as building height)that would provide some degree of predictability and protection for areas predominantly comprised of 16 foot tall bungalows while allowing taller remodels and additions in areas where taller two and three story Victorians were predominant. It quickly became apparent to the members of the HCC that the single most consistent and challenging characteristic of the Avenues would be the very diverse nature of the community with mansions and cottages,historic and non-historic areas,families and single adult professionals, couples just starting their lives together and widows and widowers. It was a huge challenge to come up with a single solution to fit each very different situation. Out of this challenge grew the idea of a three tier permit process as a way to protect the most vulnerable blocks while allowing an easier permit.process for compatible building in areas of larger houses. However,because of the added complexity of a tiered permit process,HCC members'were unsure if the City would support such a significant change to the permit process. . • Apparently,the City Planning Office was thinking along the same lines as they were developing a proposal which was presented to the City Council on September 20,2006. At that time,the Planning Staff presented the outline of a process to develop compatible residential infill zoning standards that was a.combination:of reduced measurement standards and a new three tier building permit process. The City Council requested that the Administration return to the Council with a completed recommendation using the tiered process that could be passed by December,2005. • Because of the similarities between the process under consideration by the City Planning • Office and the tiered process being considered by the HCC,the HCC members shifted their attention to the Citywide Compatible Infill Ordinance(eventually known as Ordinance 91 of 2005). Efforts to develop an Avenues.SR-1 Overlay were put on hold until the City completed their new ordinance with the idea that after the ordinance was voted upon,HCC members would evaluate what had been passedcitywide and develop a an appropriate proposal for the SR-1 area if needed. During October and November, 2005, numerous briefings and public hearings took place before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The HCC members were at every 3 • meeting,either writing letters or talking individually to commission and Council members and formally speaking to the new proposals (see Appendix C). The HCC continued to meet by-weekly to find ways to support the Planning Department with the proposed zoning changes and coordinate the HCC member's efforts. On December 13,2005, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the city-wide Compatible . Residential Infill Development Zoning Ordinance amendments (Ordinance 90 of 2005) -.and Temporary Zoning Standards (Ordinance 91 of 2005). The purpose of the Temporary Zoning Standards was to allow the GACC to submit a proposal for neighborhood based zoning standards regulating compatibility of residential construction . within the SR-1 Zoning District. The temporary zoning standards were to be in effect for 6'months and are expected to expire mid-July,2006. • On December 28,2005 Joel Paterson met with,members of the HCC to review the essential elements of an overlay proposal to be submitted by a community council. Specifically, Joel requested that the GACC application for an SR-1 overlay include the. following: 1.Documentation and research of area for infill • . . 2. Describe the characteristics of the area 3. Proposed goals The HCC members have worked closely with Joel Paterson and his staff as they began the process of creating the Avenues Overlay just as Yalecrest Community Council did. . Throughout January and February,2006,the HCC met weekly. HCC members made a complete inventory of all 2394 single and dual family homes in the SR-1 zoning district recording whether the home(1) was a 1, 11,or 2 story home, (2) had an attached garage, and(3)had a pitched or flat roof(see Appendix D). Using maps of the SR-1 area, HCC members also estimated the number of properties in the SR-1 area that did not conform to the minimum lot width and minimum lot square footage requirements of the base SR-1 zoning regulations. The HCC also reviewed zoning ordinances throughout the city both before and after December 13,2005,consulted the Avenues Master Plan and met with City Council members, Planning Department officials, architects,realtors,contractors and area residents. . In addition,HCC members made every effort to communicate the work and findings of - the committee to the entire Avenues community.(see Appendix B). In December and early January, with the help of the GACC webmaster,Dave Jonsson and HCC member Lester Apki,a comprehensive web-page was launched detailing,agendas, minutes, proposed overlay elements,area maps and links to outside resources (see Appendix E). 4 • • Finally, several articles written by HCC members were published in the monthly GACC newsletters and time was allotted during GACC meetings for monthly progress reports and presentations by the HCC (see Appendix B). The broader Avenues community was repeatedly-invited to participate in the HCC meetings, share their ideas with committee members and to get involved in any way they could. Anyone who provided an e-mail address was added to the internal HCC e-mail list(AvenuesHCC@ Comcast.net). Residents without access to e-mail were kept up to date with phone calls and paper copies of communications and works in progress. • In February 2006, the front page article in the GACC newsletter shared more information about the new zoning ordinances, specifically the City's new three-tiered permit approach. Results of the HCC inventory were presented to the GACC community meeting on February 1s`'2006. A large color-coded map was used to depict the estimated number of stories in each residential property. Several minutes were devoted to • providing definitions such as block face, development pattern, set-back, roof line, lot coverage, infill, overlay,and over-the-counter. The March 2006 GACC newsletter provided an overview of the work and goals of the HCC and included a table on page 3 summarizing the proposed Avenues SR-I Overlay. At the GACC monthly meeting on March lst, 2006, the completed Avenues SR-1 Overlay proposal was presented in detail. After the presentation and answering all questions from attendees, a vote was taken:48 to 5 in favor of the Proposal. • . Methods As discussed earlier, the expectation of the City Planning Office was that the HCC would provide documentation and research describing the characteristics of the area being considered for the proposed overlay. To this end,the primary efforts of the HCC were a, comprehensive inventory of all residential properties in the SR-1 district(see Appendix D), an estimate of the number of residential properties that conformed to the minimum lot • width and minimum lot square footage requirements of the SR-1 zone, and identification • of vulnerable block faces within the SR-1 area which the City would then survey to obtain maximum building heights for a given block(See Appendix F). In addition, the HCC conducted a thorough review of the current SR-1 zoning ordinance, including the recently adopted citywide Compatible Infill Ordinance and the Temporary Infill Ordinance-applied to the SR-1 areas of the Avenues and Capitol Hill neighborhoods and the R-1-5000 and R-1-7000 areas of the Wasatch Hollow district. A walking inventory was conducted by Avenues residents which classified conforming use dwellings in the SR-1 zone by number of stories,the presence or absence of an attached garage on the front facade and whether or not the structure had a flat roof(see coding sheet—appendix D). Over sixty pictures of homes in the SR-1 area were • • reviewed as part of a trainingsessionthose HCCe s., o for members conductingthe Inventory. Number of stories was used as a rough estimate of building height. Classification of stories was based upon the following criteria: • 1,0 Stories (Do not and could not live within the roof) • 1.5 Stories (Could build within roof, 2nd story knee walls less than 4 feet) • 2.0 Stories(Two stories or 2nd story knee walls taller than 4 feet) Homes were classified based upon their appearance from the front façade as seen from the street. Where homes were located on a slope and the possibility of an additional story • . such as a walkout basement was not readily apparent,the slope was noted. A flat roofed structure was classified as anything less than a 3/12,pitch based upon a diagram the person doing the inventory could compare to a building's roof pitch(see Appendix D for the inventory coding sheet). Three color coded maps were produced from the SR-1 inventory,one for number of stories, one for flat roofed buildings and one for garages as part of the front primary building's façade. • In summary, 1084 of the 2394 homes(45.3%)were classified as single story, 676 .(28.2%)were classified as 1.5 stories, and 634(26.5%)were classified as 2 stories or taller. • Results of the inventory clearly indicate the existence of entire block faces comprised of one story homes spread throughout the SR-1 district(see Inventory Height map— Appendix D). It was estimated that the tallest homes on these block faces would be 16 to .18 feet in height. A sample of these vulnerable block faces was submitted to the City Planning Office for Survey(see Survey Map—Appendix F). Survey results to confirm these building heights are still pending at this time. • • • " - v?v: 4 i ,, tir2 :>ii t _ r 't r` 4. N. a.'i <'f is ^r'.1 'r ', �r,r.i ; 16 r s :' t v + fix i s i.' y1,Y I- iy+ 1 s x' + -�4 1 vpy t' qtl .i,t(:r��llr'� } ' fr , Yr�J... tv ;� ' 44t„ 5 1 ( rr u,t f lit �t; 0�` r � r it ;- r; rt �)5 + ,� rr � r A typical block face of one story buildings(East side of K between 7` and 8 Avenues) The inventory maps of flat roofed buildings (85—3.5%) and homes with garages as part of the front façade(one-car 186 - 7.8%;two-car 155- 6.5%)revealed that these structures are uncommon in the SR-1 area and a significant number are concentrated north of 11th Avenue. HCC members also estimated the number of residential lots that did not conform to the fifty foot minimum lot width requirement or the minimum 5000 square foot lot size requirement of the SR-1 district. Using City zoning maps and creating a template to estimate lot width and size(based upon the 330 feet X 330 feet block size that is predominant in the SR-I area and that the typical lot size of 1/width of one quarter of the block results in a property that is 41 feet 3 inches in width),it was estimated that 360 (15%)of the 2394 residential SR-1 properties met the SR-1 minimum width and lot size requirements. Stated another way,2034 properties (85%)do not meet the minimum lot size requirements upon which the other SR-1 dimensional limits such as height and side setbacks are based. Review of Existing Zoning Regulations In addition to the inventories and surveys, the HCC conducted a thorough review of the SR-1 zoning ordinance that was recently modified by the City Council (21A.24.080 SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District) as well as the temporary restrictions put in place for this area by the City Council (Ordinance 91 of 2005). 7 One very important addition to the permitting process was the tiered nature of the newly adopted Infill Ordinance. As mentioned earlier in this document,the HCC was considering a similarly tiered process to address the wide variety of development'in the SR-1 district. Evaluation of the existing zoning regulations Was done with the expectation that the Administrative Public Hearing process would be significantly easier to navigate for appropriate projects than the Board of Adjustment had been as the previous next step for projects exceeding the.counter permit limits. • Also, in consultation with the Planning Office officials, the HCC's intent is to propose a set of dimensional limits for the SR-1 area that will not change if city wide modifications to dimensional limits are adopted. The HCC will follow the direction of the City Planning Office as to whether this is best accomplished via a comprehensive SR-1 overlay or the creation of a special Avenues/Capitol Hill SR-1 zoning district. Modifications to Current SR-1 Zoning Ordinance(see Appendix G) No modifications to section"B: Uses"based upon table 21A.24.190 for the SR-1 zoning district of the City Code are proposed. No modifications to section "C. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width"are proposed. In reviewing section"D.Maximum Building Height"the HCC took several items into • consideration. In October,2005,when the City Planning Office first proposed new citywide zoning changes, the recommended citywide SR-1 and R-1 district restriction on building height was 23 feet at the peak. According to testimony of Planning Office -officials at that time,23 feet was the height restriction they estimated would be necessary • to provide predictability and protection to the areas within the city most vulnerable to significant impact of incompatibly larger remodels and new construction. The Planning office at that time estimated that a height restriction of 16 feet for flat roofed buildings and exterior walls was also required to protect these same areas. The HCC feels strongly that if combined with the tiered permitting process to allow taller projects where appropriate,the 23 feet building height limits and the 16 foot exterior wall and flat roofed building height limits are essential to protect and preserve the character of the vulnerable SR-1 areas. After reviewing section"E. Yard Requirements,"the HCC has proposed several minor modifications to better address the large percentage of non-conforming lots in the SR-1 area. - In section"E:.1, Front Yard,"the HCC was concerned about the potential impact of several blocks where buildings originally designed as commercial properties,but now used as residential properties, could impact the calculation of front yard setback. The zoning ordinance as recently modified calculates the required front yard setback as the average on the block face. Commercial properties were often built with no front setback, flush with.the front property line. On blocks where commercial buildings have been converted to residential use, such properties could significantly impact the calculation Of . • • the average,allowing new construction with a much smaller front setback than the other residential properties on a block. There are also several block faces in the SR-1 area where some homes were built with a significantly larger front setback, which would result in a new project being required to have a larger front setback than the other homes on a block. To minimize the impact of these atypical situations, the HCC has proposed that where there are three or more SR-1 principal buildings with front yards on a block face, the average shall be calculated excluding the one property with the smallest front setback and excluding the one property with the largest front yard setbacks. In item 2 of section E, "Corner Side Yard" setbacks; the HCC has proposed that the language allowing inline front setback exceptions for existing buildings be stricken. Because of the history of.abuse in this area of inline side setback exceptions,HCC members felt that these exceptions would best be granted on a case by case basis with the overview of the Administrative Public Hearing Officer. The HCC has proposed a modification to item 3 of section E,"Interior Side Yard" setbacks to address the large number of very narrow non-conforming lots within the SR-1 district. Often, these lots are as narrow as thirty feet(30')in width. The proposed modification is as follows: • b. Other Uses: ii. Interior Lots: Four feet(4')on one side and ten feet(10')on the other. a. Where the width of a lot is 46' 8" or narrower,total minimum side setbacks shall • be equal to 30%of the lot width with one side being_four feet(4') and the other side being 30% of the lot width minus four feet. b. Where a lot is 26' 8" or narrower,required side setbacks shall be a minimum of four feet(4') and four feet(4'). • c. In no case where required side setbacks are less than four feet(4') and ten feet (10')shall the addition,remodel or new•construction be closer than ten feet]10') to a primary structure on an adjacent property_ • This language is proposed as a change to the first tier or"counter permit"limits for all additions and new construction. This modification was developed in an attempt to deal proactively with a situation that would otherwise present a frequent challenge to property owners given the non-confoniiing nature of a majority of the lots in the SR-1 area. No modifications to section"E. Yard Requirements; 4. Rear Yard"were proposed. As mentioned above, garages have recently been the subject of many controversial projects. Like many of the other issues unique to the SR-1 area,the problem is exacerbated by the number of very narrow non-conforming properties. In addition,the • • • SR-1 area is characterized by views of the Wasatch Mountains, the Salt Lake Valley and the Oquirrh Mountains from many properties. The HCC considered the trend towards much larger garages and the many uses for which accessory buildings are often built. The.HCC has proposed a set of restrictions that gives priority to those accessory buildings used to house up to two automobiles. At the same time, the HCC did not want to prohibit construction of additional space to be used for • storage, a gazebo, a green house,or a small personal workspace. Given the often small narrow lots, the HCC has proposed a counter permit limit of 600 feet lot coverage for all accessory buildings. In addition, the HCC has proposed that 480 square feet of accessory building may have a maximum building height of fourteen feet(14')with a maximum wall height of nine feet(9'). Additional accessory building space up to the total 600 square foot limit may have a peak height up to ten feet(10') with an eight foot(8')wall height limit. No modifications are proposed by the HCC to the remaining SR-1 sections; "F. • Maximum Building Coverage," "G.Maximum Lot Size,"or"H. Standards for Attached Garages." Modifications to the SR-1 zoning ordinance to disallow the creation of garages attached to the front facade and the creation of new flat roofed buildings were considered. Given the challenges posed by often narrow lots and the overall limits on flat roofed building height(sixteen feet),it was determined that additional restrictions would be unnecessary at this time. • A complete summary of the proposed modifications to the SR-1 zoning ordinance is provided in Appendix G. The summary in Appendix H was created as a modification to the SR-1 text as it existed on March 1,2006. Additions are depicted by underlined text. Deletions are depicted using etn ke a x through te ' A chart of the proposed SR-1 modifications and the historic SR-1 ordinance is also provided in Appendix.G The HCC has provided renderings of model structures/examples meeting the counter permit requirements of the proposed ordinance. These examples depict a.ground floor and within the roof addition to a 1300 Square foot home on a.15 acre lot(41.25 feet by 165 feet), a depiction of the proposed modification to the minimum side setback required for interior lots, and a sketch of the proposed size and height limits for accessory buildings (see Appendix H). As a tool to more clearly depict the proposed limits, the HCC is presently working with an AIA certified Architect to produce drawings with the proposed dimensional limits • applied to example structures. These cl.rawings.should be available tot the Planning Office by March 1561,2006. . • • 10 The draft proposal in Appendix H was written and submitted to the full Community • Council for a vote on March 1, 2006. Copies of the chart in Appendix H were also provided to all council attendees. Conclusion In recommending that counter permits be restricted to buildings and additions with a maximum peak height of 23 feet, the HCC is not only adopting the height restrictions recommended as necessary to protect the city's most vulnerable properties by the Planning Office•in their original proposal, the HCC has arrived at a conclusion similar to the recommendations of the most recent Avenues Master Plan Update(July, 1987)but which were never adopted; "Many of the incompatibility problems created by new construction in residential areas are associated with excessive building height; new dwellings that tower over adjacent homes,second level or rear additions that overwhelm the original structure. A recently adopted ordinance will reduce heightpotential in areas encompassed by the `F-1'Foothill Development Overlay Zone."The Master Plan goes on.the comment that"If these limitations prove to be successful in accomplishing their intended purposes in the""F-1 areas, similar height.restrictions may be considered for other R-1 and R-2 areas in the Avenues Community." The Avenues has a substantial history as a community rather than just a neighborhood, with a shared vision of neighborhood interaction;historic preservation and architectural • quality. Previous down-zoning has established that single family dwellings were the community standard. Mother-in-law and basement apartments are generally acceptable, along with some duplexes.-Large monolithic structures,whether apartment blocks or large homes have been discouraged. The Avenues was mainly developed as a close-to-center residential area where mass transit use was high. Such remains the case today, with three bus routes serving the Avenues Community and many properties within an easy walk of city center. The historic development pattern for the SR-1 district has been a preponderance of smaller homes on long narrow lots. While social factors,particularly the strong sense of neighborhood,'had previously been sufficient to limit anti-social building practices,the escalating value of"close-in residential property in combination with a weak SR-1 zoning ordinance and a large .number of nonconforming lots have contributed to a pattern of abusive building practices. A final thought on Increased Zoning Enforcement borrowed from the Avenues Master Plan. "Effective zoning enforcement is essential to maintaining desirable neighborhoods. More restrictive requirements such as reducing height limits and increasing the minimum duplex lot area actually increase temptation for additions and duplex conversions without permits. The city must therefore increase its commitment to enforcement of zoning and building codes in the suggested more restrictive requirements are to be effective." 11 Zoning regulations are important,but only effective if administered consistently and in a reasonable amount of time. Members of the HCC are committed to the successful implementation of the proposed ordinance and.to that end will do everything possible to assist and work with the city in implementing the tier permit system and the proposed SR-1 Overlay. • • • • 12 ATTACHMENT 6 Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils recommended modifications for the SR-1 District base zoning standards 1. Maximum Building Height: Retain the standards included in the temporary zoning standards adopted as Ordinance 91 of 2005. (citywide compatible residential infill zoning standards) • Maximum building height: o Pitched roof: twenty-three feet(23')to the ridge or the average height along the block face o Flat roof height and wall height along an interior side yard: sixteen feet(16') 2. Front Yard Setback: Retain the averaging provision adopted by Ordinance 90 of 2005 (citywide compatible residential infill zoning standards)with a minor modification to allow the average setback calculation to exclude the properties with the smallest and largest setbacks on the block face. 3. Corner Side Yard: Retain existing standard of ten feet(10') and delete language allowing for in-line additions. 4. Interior Side Yard: Retain existing standard of four feet(4') and ten feet(10')with added provisions to reduce the required setback based on the width of the lot. • Lots narrower than forty-seven feet(47') are required to provide a combined side yard setback of thirty percent (30%) of the lot width. One of the required side yard setbacks must maintain a minimum setback of four feet(4'); with the other side yard being 30% of the lot width minus four feet. • Lots less than twenty-seven feet (27')wide must provide a minimum of four feet on both sides. • When the minimum side yard setback is reduced, a ten foot(10') separation between the subject house and the house on the adjacent lot must be retained along the interior side yard which has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet(10'). 5. Accessory Buildings and Structures • Maximum Building Coverage: 600 square feet a Maximum footprint of primary accessory structure: 480 square feet • Maximum height of pitched roof: 14 feet • Maximum height of flat roof: 9 feet • Maximum wall height: 9 feet including a provision to compensate for changes in grade due to sloping topography on the lot. • Secondary Accessory Building: o Maximum height for pitched roof: ten feet(10') o Maximum height for flat roof: eight feet (8') o Maximum wall height: eight feet(8') • The proposed text amendments apply only to the base zoning standards and do not recommend any changes to the tiered review process adopted by the City Council as part of Ordinance 90 of 2005 (citywide compatible residential infill zoning standards)which allows for modification of base zoning standards through the routine and uncontested matter and special exception processes. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS—FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: June 1, 2006 '' SUBJECT: GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno, Budget 86 Policy Analyst CC: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, Greg Davis, Steve Fawcett, DJ Baxter Follow-Up Information The City Council held a briefing regarding the proposed budget for the Golf Enterprise fund on May 18th. At that briefing, some of the major proposed changes to the budget were addressed, including staffing changes, greens fees, and the proposed implementation of a season pass program. The following summarizes the Administration's responses to issues raised by Council Members and Council Staffs further inquiries into these changes. ■ Staffing Changes - The Administration has communicated to Council Staff that if all proposed staffing changes are not implemented, the Golf Enterprise Fund could run the risk of having a negative cash flow and would have to borrow from the general fund. As a reminder the total amount of savings realized through the staffing changes (net of the staffing additions), is $130,712. If no positions are added, the net "savings" by eliminating the positions is $206,972. For a reminder of the exact savings and costs attributed to each of the staffing changes, see attachments B, C, & D. The Administration has communicated that if changes in personal services costs are not implemented, capital expenditures would continue to be put off, at the cost of course quality. The Administration has also indicated that certain capital expenditures would help Salt Lake City's golf courses be in better competition with other courses in the valley (for example - on-course restrooms). The Administration has given Council Staff a breakdown of valley-wide course full time staffing (see paperwork attached). Currently, Salt Lake City's golf system is on the high end for staffing courses with full time employees. The proposed staffing changes would bring the City's courses more in-line with the valley-wide courses of 1.1 FIE per course for maintenance. ■ Greens Fees - The Administration believes that the proposed increase in greens fees is necessary to help offset costs, but is not so high that it will drive golfers to other courses in the valley. The. Council may wish to discuss with the Administration, an idea from Council Staff - implementing a yearly, fixed escalator to the greens fees prices (similar to impact fees), so that golfers can expect small incremental changes each year. Every year the National Golf Foundation does a survey of average green fees costs around the Country. The Administration could pick a handful of comparable municipal systems and track the yearly percentage change. This percentage change could be incorporated into the ordinance, with a "ceiling" that would not allow greens fees to exceed the average greens fees in the valley. ■ Season Pass Program - The Administration believes that it has overcome the problems seen with the previous season pass program by proposing a completely different structure of passes. The Administration has communicated that the program is a crucial part of the overall marketing strategy for Salt Lake City courses. o The proposed program will for the most part be annual passes, good for 12 months from purchase date. Previously the administrative side of the season pass program was challenging due to the spring "rush" to purchase. o The proposed program is priced significantly higher, but still within range to compete with valley-wide courses for golfers. The pricing is higher or lower depending on frequency of play and number of courses. This varied pricing and course structure is aimed at minimizing system-wide course wear and tear due to the program. o The Administration has put a placeholder of $40,000 in revenue per year from the Junior Season Pass program, and $200,000 per year for the Adult Season Pass program, from FY 2008-2012 (see attachment E). These revenue projections are based on conservative estimates of usage and will be adjusted depending on the success of the program. The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on May 18, 2006. It is provided again for your reference. 2 GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND PROPOSED BUDGET � ;18 � 1[° A 's 4'r ° Revenue & other sources =, A Green fees $ 4 798,629 , • $ 113 607 2.4% Cart rental 1,885,224' 97,624 -5.2% Retail sales 701 043�, m ,J 30 057 4.3% Marketing-Related Revenue k 50,000 - Tar:et Drivin_ ran_e fees 329 965 13 965 -4.2% Concessions 153 248 8 198 -5.3% Other Golf Fees 66 324 g 4 926 7.4% Advertisin: fees 58 840 18,840 -32.0% Interest income 33 219 I 1 781 5.4% Miscellaneous Leases/Rental 26,763 � 2,400 9.0% Revenue Season sasses 19,904 --_ � ��'� � 164,896 828.5% Other 7,260 7�� ,160 -98.6% A..ro.riation of reserves 11 618� V 196 114 1688.0% Total revenue & other sources $ 8,092,037 z '`! $ 417,994 5.2% Ex a enses & other uses O.eratin: &Maintenance Personal Services $ 3,653,018 `- t $ 156 484 4.3% Materials and Su. 'lies 1,131,327 3 136,523 12.1% Other(Charges/Services/Fees, 2,207,982 53,153 2.4% Admin Service Fee, PILOT, Intradepartmental Chgs, Water, Fuel Utilities � �.:� mow. Ca.ital outla 120,800 ? 97 700 80.9% Debt Related �- F Debt/Interest Char:es 978,911 25,867 -2.6% Total ex i enses & other uses $ 8,092,038 ffi $ 417,993 5.2% The City has provided golf facilities for over 80 years. The City owns and operates eight golf facilities. The main policies that guide the division are to offer an accessible, reasonably priced, recreational opportunity to all sections of the golfmg public and to preserve open spaces in an urban setting. Golf participants pay fees that underwrite the cost of providing these services. The Council traditionally sets golf fees at a level necessary to ensure the long-term financial stability of the Golf Fund while maintaining the golf program's competitiveness within the market. The budget for fiscal year 2006-07 is proposed to increase by $417,993 or 5.2% over fiscal year 2006-07, for a total expense budget of $8,510,031. Of this, $953,044 is dedicated to debt and interest charges. KEY ELEMENTS 3 A. Shift in Personal Services from Full-time positions to Part-time positions -The Administration is proposing a shift in the hourly/seasonal staffing balance in an effort to reduce costs and align staffing more closely with operations. The proposal includes 1 permanent elimination of an office tech, and the shift of 14 full-time positions to seasonal positions. (4 Pro Shop Starters shift to seasonal, 1 Pro Shop Starter moved to Assistant Pro position, 10 Groundskeepers shift to seasonal). Currently these positions are 100 Series employees and receive full benefits and health insurance. o In April of 2005 the Council was presented with a plan to make these employees a separate "class" of full-time, salaried employee, to eliminate the "comp time" issue (see below for review of this issue). The Council briefly discussed the issue and asked the Administration to provide further information, specifically how other City's pay and manage budgets for their programs. During this time, the Administration decided to step back on the issue, and re-evaluate the situation once the new Golf Manager was hired. After re-evaluation, the Administration believes that this current proposal would increase operational efficiency. o According to the Mayor's proposed budget this would save approximately $364,624 annually in salaries/wages and benefits. The initial year of savings would likely be lower, as the major shift would occur mid-fiscal year, and one-time payouts for comp time would be necessary. See Attachments B, C & D for a breakdown of all staffing changes and their net costs and savings. The total savings for all of the staffing changes proposed (including the addition of positions, and paying the shifted employees at a higher rate than normal seasonal employees), is $130,712 in FY 2007 and $347,021 in FY 2008. o These employees have voiced concern about health care benefits and the likelihood that the quality of maintenance at the golf courses would decline. They have communicated to staff that it would be hard to keep the knowledge and skill level constant from year to year if the employees were only seasonal. o There are currently 3 facilities with more than one non-superintendent full-time groundskeeper - Bonneville, Mountain Dell, and Rose Park (all with 2). Mountain Dell and Rose Park both have in essence two facilities in one (Rose Park with the Jordan River Par 3). B. Other Elimination of Positions -The Administration is proposing eliminating 1.64 part-time "Marshalls." Marshalls primarily patrol the pace of play to ensure a positive playing experience for every player on the course. The current staffing level does not adequately serve this purpose for all 9 City courses. The Administration is proposing shifting this responsibility to volunteers. The Council may wish to clarify that the Administration has had sufficient interest in volunteering to ensure that these positions would be filled. C. Additional Positions -The Administration is proposing adding the following positions: o Golf Professional - 1.0 FTE -This golf professional would be at Forest Dale and Nibley Park. This would allow each 18 hole facility to have one PGA professional per facility. The Administration has communicated to Council Staff that Golf Professionals are beneficial to the City golf system and 4 necessary in order to fulfill what is needed in marketing and player development roles. o Assistant Golf Professional - 1.0 FTE-This assistant golf professional would be supplementing operations at Mountain Dell. Mountain Dell currently has 1 Golf Professional and 1 Assistant Golf Professional, but because of the volume of play at the two 18-hole facilities, an additional assistant golf professional is needed. This employee would also serve to help the Westside golf courses that are still open in the winter months, when Mountain Dell is typically closed. This employee would likely be hired from the group of Golf Starters that are shifting from full-time to seasonal. o Driving Range coverage - 0.56 FTE-This would provide additional "rangers" at Nibley and Mountain Dell to assist in maintenance and operations of the driving ranges. D. Reclassification of positions -The Administration is proposing reclassifying 8.0 FTE Assistant Superintendents from series 119 employees to series 307 employees, and 3.0 FTE Golf Course Maintenance Workers from 118 employees to series 306 employees. This would have no immediate budget impact, however each yearly step increase would likely be higher than their current yearly increases, as they would follow the rest of the City in terms of salary increases. E. Revenue -Attachment E shows a yearly breakdown of revenues and expenditures, as well as a forecast of potential revenues and expenditures, should the proposed budget be approved. Revenues are budgeted to increase 5.1% ($403,000) this coming fiscal year, and increase by 3.5% in the following fiscal year. F. Green Fees -The Administration is proposing to increase three of the green fees for the 9-hole courses. These changes would be effective January 1, 2007. Forest Dale's green fee will increase from $11 to $12 for 9 holes, to bring it in line with fees at Glendale and Rose Park. The fees for 9 holes at Bonneville and Mountain Dell will increase from $13.50 to $15.00, to bring it in line to Old Mill Golf Course (owned by Salt Lake County). The Administration has communicated that this is the primary competition for these two courses. The Council may wish to clarify how increasing the fees at these two courses will affect their competitive position. The following tables detail the proposed green fees (changes are in boldface). Greens Fees-Weekdays excluding Holidays Course Regular Senior Junior 9-holes 18-holes 9-holes 18-holes 9-holes 18-holes Bonneville $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 12.00 $ 21.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00 Forest Dale $ 12.00 n.a. $ 10.00 n.a. $ 7.00 n.a. Jordan River Par-3 $ 6.00 n.a. $ 5.00 n.a. $ 5.00 n.a. Glendale $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 10.00 $ 20.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00 Mountain Dell Lake $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 12.00 $ 21.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00 Mountain Dell Canyon $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 12.00 $ 21.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00 Nibley Park $ 10.00 n.a. $ 8.00 n.a. $ 7.00 n.a. Rose Park $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 10.00 $ 20.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00 Wingpointe $ 13.50 $ 27.00 $ 10.50 $ 21.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00 5 Greens Fees-Weekends and defined Holidays Course Regular Senior Junior 9-holes 18-holes 9-holes 18-holes 9-holes 18-holes Bonneville $ 15.00 $ 27..00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 Forest Dale $ 12.00 n.a. $ 12.00 n.a. $ 12.00 n.a. Jordan River Par-3 $ 6.00 n.a. $ 6.00 n.a. $ 6.00 n.a. Glendale $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 12.00 $ 24.00 Mountain Dell Lake $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 Mountain Dell Canyon $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 Nibley Park $ 10.00 n.a. $ 10.00 n.a. $ 10.00 n.a. Rose Park $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 12.00 $ 24.00 Wingpointe $ 13.50 $ 27.00 $ 13.50 $ 27.00 $ 13.50 $ 27.00 Note: Defined holidays include Memorial Day, Independence Day, Pioneer Day, and Labor Day. G. Season Pass Program - Previously, the Administration had been phasing out season passes. There were concerns regarding abuse of the peak times and number of golf rounds played. The proposed season pass program is priced and restricted to help address these concerns, while at the same time encouraging the people who regularly play golf at Salt Lake City courses, to continue to do so. Attached is a table detailing the different season pass plans and their various restrictions (See Attachment A). o Revenues were calculated using a conservative estimate of the utilization of these plans, given that most will not be "useful" to the average golfer this calendar year. The Administration estimates that usage will dramatically increase once a golfer can purchase the plan before the start of the golf season. o The Council may wish to consider giving the Administration direction with regard to the proposed Season Pass program, particularly the Junior Season Pass program (as many junior season passes are summer specific). If the Council is supportive of the program, and intends to eventually adopt at least part of the ordinance, the Division can start preparing advertising and marketing materials to implement the program immediately if the ordinance is adopted. This would increase the benefit for golfers, particularly for junior golfers, who would like to utilize the program this summer. H. Resident discounts - Council staff has inquired with the Administration as to the justification for or arguments against discount pricing for City residents. The Administration has communicated that very few jurisdictions offer this type of service, usually because they are already subsidizing golf courses so heavily that they need every effort to recoup costs. Park City offers this discount pricing. However, their costs are most likely recouped with the large tourist base, and higher prices for non-resident play. St. George has recently ended their residential discount program, specifically because it was not financially beneficial to the courses. 6 I. Capital Outlay-The Administration is proposing to increase the capital outlay budget by $97,700, or 81%, to recover from the FY 2006 budget, where capital outlay was reduced by 71%. Additional monies will be available in fiscal year 2008/2009, as debt service payments for the Golf bonds will expire. J. Water-The budget for water has decreased by$32,033, or -3% in the proposed budget. The Council may wish to inquire if this is due to irrigation/conservation effectiveness, or other factors. POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE 1. Golf Employee Compensation Plan - On April 7, 2005, the Council was presented with a substitute compensation plan for Golf Employees, that would build in more "salaried" employees, thereby increasing budgeting predictability by reducing overtime. This proposal was put on hold through last year's budget process, and further on hold until after the new Golf Division Manager was hired and could weigh in with their opinions and recommendations. The Council may wish to revisit this issue, as it presents continual issues during the budgeting process (with respect to comp time accrual and payout over the season). If any Council Members would like additional information about this previous proposal, please contact Council Staff. 2. Rounds - Locally, the increase in golf courses has been greater than the increase in population to play the courses. Salt Lake City's golf rounds for calendar year 2005 of 459,708 represents a decrease of 3.7% over 2004 (an improvement over the 9% decrease seen between 2003 and 2004). The number of courses in the greater Salt Lake region continues to present an issue in terms of rounds played. Over the past few years supply has exceeded demand. It is likely that this trend will continue. 3. Marketing Plan -The Golf Division has drafted a new strategic plan with over 200 initiatives relating to marketing, promotion, customer service, and player development. The Administration is currently finalizing this plan (requested through the Council's legislative intent - see below) and will share it with the Council once it is complete. It has been shared in draft form with the Golf Advisory Board, which will submit their written comments to the Council in time for the budget briefing. The Administration's legislative intent response had indicated that this information would be shared as a part of the budget. While the season pass program is part of the proposed budget, the context of the marketing and business plan has not yet been finalized and transmitted to the Council. 4. Capital Improvements - Investment in capital improvements has been steadily declining as the Golf Division has been faced with mounting costs. 5. Audit- The Audit subcommittee has in the past discussed the potential of initiating a Golf audit, and has reviewed a preliminary scope of inquiry. The Council may wish to discuss this further, and decide whether or not to recommend an audit be performed. LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS A. In the Fiscal Year 2005-06 budget process, the Council adopted the following legislative intent statement with regard to the Golf Course Fund: • "It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration explore the option of providing junior golf passes during off-peak hours for City golf courses." (Intent #A1, response discussed as part of Mayor's proposed budget) • Administration's Response: The Golf Division is currently finishing a business plan which includes various initiatives (including a pass program) designed to increase participation by junior golfers. This pass program will be presented as part of the FY 2006-07 Mayor's Recommended budget. B. During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify legislative intents relating to the Golf Division of the Public Services Department. SIX YEAR BUSINESS PLAN The following has been identified as specific and likely future changes to budget and/or staffing of the Golf Division, as outlined in the Six Year Business Plan (Note: The Department's Six Year Business Plan was written in fiscal year 2004): o Fees are scheduled to increase by 5% in FY 2007-08, in order to keep pace with projected growth in expenses, relatively flat demand, and over- supplied market. o Personal services expenses are projected to increase an average of 4% per year over the next six years. o Water expenses are expected to increase as City water rates increase (9% in FY 2005). o Other expenses are anticipated to increase 2.5% annually. o Retirement of debt service obligation in FY 2008 will free up $694,000 per year for other large capital improvement projects. 8 L in 0\ p p m so 0 0 -j ' ct •'E v :ate � � Lrr � � „ .. in in o if) (3. o m En- En- xx a) a) a G a) G › 0 0 0 o �. oOcis cC > wO wO wO O z zz � zv.0 v � `, 0 OOCC c � a c G t Gc �G G ,Ti o ° ° d Ts -cs o do 0 o o 0Z Z °° = W o Go O p .�2 a) Oen G [ _ ^R dG 1. :0d o 0 u v .- ,.0 ro . .5 E F" E. d E ada, o 0e. N .a) 0G g O g 0 G N 0 0 N a) a) cn Cn �n y cn y S iS m M M a M a .. M e-I '. d ." >, D, m �, u) ›, u) >, a+ G c�i) D, +, G ea as ( c N N. G ct 'd G p OD'd o N d E7, Fr cn cn cr.) F" cn F" >, G G ›, ›, >+ G = g = >, s~ 3 G >, 3 G a) a) a) aJ oa, co - aJ o a v G �' -0 m .fl ( ,fl G z z -4, � z z x Cl.;' z � z a) U o .0 - �C ai G G ro ›, o CCU o Cl) U o � o o -° a3 - '00 al • °0 a3 ai z a ai Z a et o , na, - -- e rz ( G - . -'4 2t .• x o - O a, a 0 v ° _ 0 v v v v U ° ao 0 ovo C7 C7U C7 C7U a cu. Q ci i a a °� + i a. 70 . 5 cz 45 m as a, .5 , o 'o lz) o �, ]I v a, G mG cq o ° ° M 0 ° ° , o i. �oU wa. aa •4a. PI. = a, a. wQ wP. w2 N v UI 0 enG 0) o G o m -a-) 0 'I" o 0, i rn 4. 0 0 C. Ii h 'rJ r�'i Ln u) O O N a G G O enG th c, N O O OO au , to 5 C cn ro v ] '0 > RI G 0 0 0 ea c d d % H w R cn v 0. cn �, ro ro m 49 d w a, w U N c Cl) bn ccn Cam. .Ts v a) To el W P.4 et .0 as rd Po = w= H 0 a, kJ Q N (a Cl) ro a P O ° ° o RI 0 0 C) z . w6 � W AQ . PUBLIC GOLF COURSE FULL-TIME STAFFING PLAN (Does Not Include Employees In Mec"-.anic Positions) FACILITY MAINTENANCE PRO SHOP SALT LAKE COUNTY Meadowbrook(18 holes) 2.5 3 Mick Riley(18 holes) 2.5 3 Mountain View(18 holes) 2.5 3 Old Mill(18 holes) 2.5 3 Riverbend(18 holes) 2.5 3 South Mountain (18 holes) 2.5 3 Note:Second Asst. Superintendents at all courses spend half their time as mechanics. WEST VALLEY CITY Westridge(18 holes) 2.5 2 Stonebridge(27 holes) 2.5 3 Note: Westridge and Stonebridge are currently sharing one Superintendent. STATE OF UTAH Soldier Hollow(36 holes) 3 2 Wasatch Mountain(36 holes) 3 2 DAVIS COUNTY Davis Park(18 holes) 2 2 Valley View(18 holes) 2 3 NORTH SALT LAKE Eaglewood(18 holes) 3 2 BOUNTIFUL Bountiful Ridge(18 holes) 2 2 MURRAY Murray Parkway(18 holes) 4 3 SANDY River Oaks(18 holes) 2 2 SALT LAKE CITY Current / Proposed Current / Proposed Forest Dale(9 holes) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Nibley Park(9 holes) 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Bonneville(18 holes) 4 3** 2.5 2 Glendale(18 holes) 4 2 2.5 2 Wingpointe(18 holes) 4 2 3 2 Rose Park/Jordan River Par 3 (27 holes) 5 3** 3 2 Mountain Dell(36 holes) 6 4** 3 3 27 17 17 14 Currently, Forest Dale and Nibley share one Superintendent Bonneville and Forest Dale share one Head Professional. Glendale and.Nibley share one Head Professional Under this proposal, Forest Dale and Nibley will share a Superintendent and a Head Professional. **Locations for IrrigationiMaintenance Technicians Y SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT C. BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: May 18, 2006 SUBJECT: GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno, Budget & Policy Analyst CC: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, Greg Davis, Steve Fawcett, DJ Baxter GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND PROPOSED BUDGET Revenue & other sources __- Green fees $ 4,798,629'� , m $ 113 607 2.4% Cart rental 1,885,224 97,624 -5.2% Retail sales 701,043 £- T 30,057 4.3% Marketing-Related Revenue "" t 50,000 - Tar:et ., a - _C f Drivin_ ran:e fees 329,965 13,965 -4.2% Concessions 153,248 8,198 -5.3% Other Golf Fees 66,324 _ il, 4,926 7.4% Advertisin: fees 58,840 - . J 18,840 -32.0% Interest income 33 219 'Itie-C:' ,, ,,,,,,,y 1,781 5.4% Miscellaneous Leases/Rental 26,763 - 2,400 9.0% Revenue 4 Season .asses 19,904 /.a 164,896 828.5% Other 7,260 , ; 7,160 -98.6% A..ro.riation of reserves 11,618 196 114 1688.0% Total revenue & other sources $ 8,092,037 $ 417,994 5.2% Ex'enses & other uses _— - O.eratin: &Maintenance Personal Services $ 3 653,018 3 $ 156 484 4.3% Materials and Sup plies 1,131,327 . . 1 136,523 12.1% Other(Charges/Services/Fees, 2,207,982 53,153 2.4% Admin Service Fee, PILOT, Intradepartmental Chgs, Water, Fuel Utilities Ca.ital outla 120,800 ,� , , 97,700 80.9% Debt Related ,; Debt/Interest Char es 978,911 _ 25,867 -2.6% C Total ex•enses & other uses $ 8,092,038 `w $ 417,993 5.2% The City has provided golf facilities for over 80 years. The City owns and operates eight golf facilities. The main policies that guide the division are to offer an accessible, reasonably priced, recreational opportunity to all sections of the golfing public and to preserve open spaces in an urban setting. Golf participants pay fees that underwrite the cost of providing these services. The Council traditionally sets golf fees at a level necessary to ensure the long-term financial stability of the Golf Fund while maintaining the golf program's competitiveness within the market. The budget for fiscal year 2006-07 is proposed to increase by $417,993 or 5.2% over fiscal year 2006-07, for a total expense budget of $8,510,031. Of this, $953,044 is dedicated to debt and interest charges. KEY ELEMENTS A. Shift in Personal Services from Full-time positions to Part-time positions -The Administration is proposing a shift in the hourly/seasonal staffing balance in an effort to reduce costs and align staffing more closely with operations. The proposal includes 1 permanent elimination of an office tech, and the shift of 14 full-time positions to seasonal positions. (4 Pro Shop Starters shift to seasonal, 1 Pro Shop Starter moved to Assistant Pro position, 10 Groundskeepers shift to seasonal). Currently these positions are 100 Series employees and receive full benefits and health insurance. o In April of 2005 the Council was presented with a plan to make these employees a separate "class" of full-time, salaried employee, to eliminate the "comp time" issue (see below for review of this issue). The Council briefly discussed the issue and asked the Administration to provide further information, specifically how other City's pay and manage budgets for their programs. During this time, the Administration decided to step back on the issue, and re-evaluate the situation once the new Golf Manager was hired. After re-evaluation, the Administration believes that this current proposal would increase operational efficiency. o According to the Mayor's proposed budget this would save approximately $364,624 annually in salaries/wages and benefits. The initial year of savings would likely be lower, as the major shift would occur mid-fiscal year, and one-time payouts for comp time would be necessary. See Attachments B 8a C for a breakdown of all staffing changes and their net costs and savings. The total savings for all of the staffing changes proposed (including the addition of positions, and paying the shifted employees at a higher rate than normal seasonal employees), is $130,712 in FY 2007 and $347,021 in FY 2008. o These employees have voiced concern about health care benefits and the likelihood that the quality of maintenance at the golf courses would decline. They have communicated to staff that it would be hard to keep the knowledge and skill level constant from year to year if the employees were only seasonal. o There are currently 3 facilities with more than one non-superintendent full-time groundskeeper - Bonneville, Mountain Dell, and Rose Park (all with 2). Mountain Dell and Rose Park both have in essence two facilities in one (Rose Park with the Jordan River Par 3). 2 B. Other Elimination of Positions -The Administration is proposing eliminating 1.64 part-time "Marshalls." Marshalls primarily patrol the pace of play to ensure a positive playing experience for every player on the course. The current staffing level does not adequately serve this purpose for all 9 City courses. The Administration is proposing shifting this responsibility to volunteers. The Council may wish to clarify that the Administration has had sufficient interest in volunteering to ensure that these positions would be filled. C. Additional Positions -The Administration is proposing adding the following positions: o Golf Professional - 1.0 FTE-This golf professional would be at Forest Dale and Nibley Park. This would allow each 18 hole facility to have one PGA professional per facility. The Administration has communicated to Council Staff that Golf Professionals are beneficial to the City golf system and necessary in order to fulfill what is needed in marketing and player development roles. o Assistant Golf Professional - 1.0 FTE-This assistant golf professional would be supplementing operations at Mountain Dell. Mountain Dell currently has 1 Golf Professional and 1 Assistant Golf Professional, but because of the volume of play at the two 18-hole facilities, an additional assistant golf professional is needed. This employee would also serve to help the Westside golf courses that are still open in the winter months, when Mountain Dell is typically closed. This employee would likely be hired from the group of Golf Starters that are shifting from full-time to seasonal. o Driving Range coverage - 0.56 FTE-This would provide additional "rangers" at Nibley and Mountain Dell to assist in maintenance and operations of the driving ranges. D. Reclassification of positions -The Administration is proposing reclassifying 8.0 FTE Assistant Superintendents from series 119 employees to series 307 employees, and 3.0 FTE Golf Course Maintenance Workers from 118 employees to series 306 employees. This would have no immediate budget impact, however each yearly step increase would likely be higher than their current yearly increases, as they would follow the rest of the City in terms of salary increases. E. Revenue -Attachment D shows a yearly breakdown of revenues and expenditures, as well as a forecast of potential revenues and expenditures, should the proposed budget be approved. Revenues are budgeted to increase 5.1% ($403,000) this coming fiscal year, and increase by 3.5% in the following fiscal year. F. Green Fees -The Administration is proposing to increase three of the green fees for the 9-hole courses. These changes would be effective January 1, 2007. Forest Dale's green fee will increase from $11 to $12 for 9 holes, to bring it in line with fees at Glendale and Rose Park. The fees for 9 holes at Bonneville and Mountain Dell will increase from $13.50 to $15.00, to bring it in line to Old Mill Golf Course (owned by Salt Lake County). The Administration has communicated that this is the primary competition for these two courses. The Council may wish to clarify how increasing the fees at these two courses will affect their competitive position. The following tables detail the proposed green fees (changes are in boldface). 3 Greens Fees-Weekdays excluding Holidays Course Regular Senior Junior 9-holes 18-holes 9-holes 18-holes 9-holes 18-holes Bonneville $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 12.00 $ 21.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00 Forest Dale $ 12.00 n.a. $ 10.00 n.a. $ 7.00 n.a. Jordan River Par-3 $ 6.00 n.a. $ 5.00 n.a. $ 5.00 n.a. Glendale $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 10.00 $ 20.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00 Mountain Dell Lake $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 12.00 $ 21.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00 Mountain Dell Canyon $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 12.00 $ 21.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00 Nibley Park $ 10.00 n.a. $ 8.00 n.a. $ 7.00 n.a. Rose Park $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 10.00 $ 20.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00 Wingpointe $ 13.50 $ 27.00 $ 10.50 $ 21.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00 Greens Fees-Weekends and defined Holidays Course Regular Senior Junior 9-holes 18-holes 9-holes 18-holes 9-holes 18-holes Bonneville $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 Forest Dale $ 12.00 n.a. $ 12.00 n.a. $ 12.00 n.a. Jordan River Par-3 $ 6.00 n.a. $ 6.00 n.a. $ 6.00 n.a. Glendale $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 12.00 $ 24.00 Mountain Dell Lake $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 Mountain Dell Canyon $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 Nibley Park $ 10.00 n.a. $ 10.00 n.a. $ 10.00 n.a. Rose Park $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 12.00 $ 24.00 Wingpointe $ 13.50 $ 27.00 $ 13.50 $ 27.00 $ 13.50 $ 27.00 Note: Defined holidays include Memorial Day, Independence Day, Pioneer Day, and Labor Day. G. Season Pass Program - Previously, the Administration had been phasing out season passes. There were concerns regarding abuse of the peak times and number of golf rounds played. The proposed season pass program is priced and restricted to help address these concerns, while at the same time encouraging the people who regularly play golf at Salt Lake City courses, to continue to do so. Attached is a table detailing the different season pass plans and their various restrictions (See Attachment A). o Revenues were calculated using a conservative estimate of the utilization of these plans, given that most will not be "useful" to the average golfer this calendar year. The Administration estimates that usage will dramatically increase once a golfer can purchase the plan before the start of the golf season. o The Council may wish to consider giving the Administration direction with regard to the proposed Season Pass program, particularly the Junior Season Pass program (as many junior season passes are summer specific). If the Council is supportive of the program, and intends to eventually 4 I adopt at least part of the ordinance, the Division can start preparing advertising and marketing materials to implement the program immediately if the ordinance is adopted. This would increase the benefit for golfers, particularly for junior golfers, who would like to utilize the program this summer. H. Resident discounts - Council staff has inquired with the Administration as to the justification for or arguments against discount pricing for City residents. The Administration has communicated that very few jurisdictions offer this type of service, usually because they are already subsidizing golf courses so heavily that they need every effort to recoup costs. Park City offers this discount pricing. However, their costs are most likely recouped with the large tourist base, and higher prices for non-resident play. St. George has recently ended their residential discount program, specifically because it was not financially beneficial to the courses. I. Capital Outlay-The Administration is proposing to increase the capital outlay budget by $97,700, or 81%, to recover from the FY 2006 budget, where capital outlay was reduced by 71%. Additional monies will be available in fiscal year 2008/2009, as debt service payments for the Golf bonds will expire. J. Water-The budget for water has decreased by $32,033, or -3% in the proposed budget. The Council may wish to inquire if this is due to irrigation/conservation effectiveness, or other factors. POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE 1. Golf Employee Compensation Plan - On April 7, 2005, the Council was presented with a substitute compensation plan for Golf Employees, that would build in more "salaried" employees, thereby increasing budgeting predictability by reducing overtime. This proposal was put on hold through last year's budget process, and further on hold until after the new Golf Division Manager was hired and could weigh in with their opinions and recommendations. The Council may wish to revisit this issue, as it presents continual issues during the budgeting process (with respect to comp time accrual and payout over the season). If any Council Members would like additional information about this previous proposal, please contact Council Staff. 2. Rounds - Locally, the increase in golf courses has been greater than the increase in population to play the courses. Salt Lake City's golf rounds for calendar year 2005 of 459,708 represents a decrease of 3.7% over 2004 (an improvement over the 9% decrease seen between 2003 and 2004). The number of courses in the greater Salt Lake region continues to present an issue in terms of rounds played. Over the past few years supply has exceeded demand. It is likely that this trend will continue. 3. Marketing Plan -The Golf Division has drafted a new strategic plan with over 200 initiatives relating to marketing, promotion, customer service, and player development. The Administration is currently finalizing this plan (requested through the Council's legislative intent - see below) and will share it with the Council once it is complete. It has been shared in draft form with the Golf Advisory Board, which will submit their written comments to the Council in time for the budget briefing. The Administration's legislative intent response had indicated that this information would be shared as a part of the budget. While 5 the season pass program is part of the proposed budget, the context of the marketing and business plan has not yet been finalized and transmitted to the Council. 4. Capital Improvements - Investment in capital improvements has been steadily declining as the Golf Division has been faced with mounting costs. 5. Audit- The Audit subcommittee has in the past discussed the potential of initiating a Golf audit, and has reviewed a preliminary scope of inquiry. The Council may wish to discuss this further, and decide whether or not to recommend an audit be performed. LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS A. In the Fiscal Year 2005-06 budget process, the Council adopted the following legislative intent statement with regard to the Golf Course Fund: • "It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration explore the option of providing junior golf passes during off-peak hours for City golf courses." (Intent #A1, response discussed as part of Mayor's proposed budget) • Administration's Response: The Golf Division is currently finishing a business plan which includes various initiatives (including a pass program) designed to increase participation by junior golfers. This pass program will be presented as part of the FY 2006-07 Mayor's Recommended budget. ,. B. During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify legislative intents relating to the Golf Division of the Public Services Department. SIX YEAR BUSINESS PLAN The following has been identified as specific and likely future changes to budget and/or staffing of the Golf Division, as outlined in the Six Year Business Plan (Note: The Department's Six Year Business Plan was written in fiscal year 2004): o Fees are scheduled to increase by 5% in FY 2007-08, in order to keep pace with projected growth in expenses, relatively flat demand, and over- supplied market. o Personal services expenses are projected to increase an average of 4% per year over the next six years. o Water expenses are expected to increase as City water rates increase (9% in FY 2005). o Other expenses are anticipated to increase 2.5% annually. o Retirement of debt service obligation in FY 2008 will free up $694,000 per year for other large capital improvement projects. 6 U) It) 0 0 I ., .� in in O in N Q m Eft E9- ER m m YY., ,0. ;.- 0 a 0 '� Cr) ii ›, `- 0 w0 O 0 00 O 0 •TS -0 2Z .$ Z flZ nZ x x o o CZg � Z (Cg = ro alg = al O O 4 4 .71 00 r0 00 'S p < 'd .� O 00 0 v u 'G, 'C: �, a 'ZI o v0 ,-4 - O 0 O 0i O g, t-I '� O �f. e-1 '0 cu '0 '0 v) v'et et et 03 M M M y "C1 M v '0 3 w w m › › ag a. g d 4 , cn , .l8 , cn ›,H f) >,H E—, E� c� ca cd A ¢ ¢ G es 0 x � x 0x 0x cu CA a a v v 0 a > a C o v v 4.1 g zet � v Z z z �, .o v v P-. s: ,, P~ ) � z a a a a .0 -0 g 0 as v a G vU U CS d a :cl o as nU 0 U o o o o : n Q TS TS 0 -S ai Q a a; Q ai ai �f .a; ai a5' �f .P; v Q > 3 Q ft Q (� o C� Q CO3 h a a v Sir �,, o . 0.0 O o fU OQ ° -4 ° �U w0 = P. P. m ,4P, wP w wP PI, Ev co 0 14 0 CD O o 0 o `140 0l V 0 0 a Vn CA -0 r7' LA CA 0 0 to sue. 0 0 " O tn 0 Cn N ' iCU 0 is .I , G Ga o G v d ea C ,n et a -o > d 0 Q 4 - et o anect d (I) w a a w �, P. PC C, ht C, H et a, ,. I.a, a a' - a., CI 0 .0 .0 .0 0 Cp o _ CD 0 00 0000 To"CC N `- VD L 0 o c- .�_i U N (0 In to t` U cc) co co h. a) C OM a) C N t/1 O a) - 0 U 0 0 0 oCD 13 C >0 (0 C C 65 a) a) E N ) > U) N Y o C_ a) O U O - w L 0 "� C_ ++ 9- w LL a) C io E E C 0 _C (D .0 (0 'o "o 2 U a) C C 0 In' Q U — () to u_ E E (o c Q (U'9 .q C C c ' o 0 c c ° ° '� o o E w •w O 0 � �. � • :c :N - • a) a) O a) N co a) U to O CD C C O U) C cn co Q, a N to o o N o 0 W a) 3 3 U U to 6 U U !o a) a) a) a) o o a) U o 7 c z zf: faa CCCL N. 9 O O O (DC) O O O O O O O O O O O O 0) "i' (V o) et O "'t CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CC) (O CD tp CD CO p N- CO N- N Ni CO CO N M O O r- N O O O O M O M t)0 6 N N M O M l(') CD 9 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) N- N a) N O N ID CD CD CD CD O O O O CD O O O 0 M G'1 O to O N- 10 N V' c- r- O e- O e- to .- N CO CO .„_. O (Ni N O a, (n eP N N) 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N- CD (D O O e. c) 0 c) 0 co 0) c) c) O O O coO O O c) O c) co 0 0 0 pco) r- (o N V' O O O N ,- N oO 4 '— O 6 N O it; N CV (NI O 6) c- 'p c- (p Cp co N N N N (O 6) M M — 0) CO NY to 7- e 0 CD 0 c- CD CD CD CD c- c- N e r- •- 6 (O CD CO CO (.000 M M M M N N t- LC) r- r- N- (0 7 ( C (6 i U C L a) a) a) a C C 0) C O L () a)73 a)~ U L 6D N cu CO L C 0 I' U O = co Co a) C O a) ... = O O e- C C (/) C m ` T. C 0 — .` O L L (33 (a C N C c0 Q C a) -p Q Q ` U cfj � 7) Ca _ N U cC o U) g cti U (-) Ya 2 � .� u) — C C -a Q Q U C U_ U a) (0 to oo CO 1'6 U (� a C +C. .c U O C C a) L aC) O N i U O o = (o C C C U LL co N L O — (0 N O C 7 N U U E o c2 n Q Cl- U a •� � U co � L (n aai � H a a) .° Q)cncn = oo ,a � _ 22OU) U) oYccUa' V o w N Y ow i_ c U U v (0Ln v N c c coLL (,_ h- N tC — c o L n c c (v , a) E U a) -'-E. c D CO D ,a 3 H f- {, c� (a L co D o c (a cu u- o F- ., E E ca o 0 0 0 — 'C Q U 2a. 2UU :c—o u) IU) 0 v � n. a UO L- " 0 to Oa_ C7w = u_ a 0 0 0 0 0 c) 0 to 0 o 0- 0 (n 0 0 j— j— j— I- 0 (0 0 0 0 0 < < < O 0 O 0 w w Q 0 0 a. a a. a_ 0 0 0 0 N co a) 0 C_ , (a aJ C 7 0 Z .-. >. 0 v o ,_p M z > s 4, 0 U ..o I— aU+ z 4., a) c N M L r I L to a) a) a) pi y0, C O C n3 C O C m O O M _ a) (U �p v) O a) f0 Cr O 0 O N j 4 U -p 5' N _ ° v 0 Q < -ii > Q � I- - NOlf1000 U) 000071- OONOIO ( N000000 Q ,--) .--1 .--i O ri ,-i ' O CO CO pi pi pi 01 N If) LOON CO N C) O .-i 66 If1 O. - `.,1 to 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0000 0 0 00000 F ,--i Lc; ,-i ,-i O 00 M M CO I. N If) -.-. ,..1 .. .-., M a) ch a) O U W i) c -0 a) o_ O a) O^-. Dom 10 l0 L Z O C +J• (0 ^ ^ M M a) Q �0 Q V 0 O r� OM o o X U — � _ E :u• _ 0 U 2O 2OCD W a) To ,- ,1 c J c c- c ' 0 m '0 01 a) ,--) ,i J U O C Q m .--) r-1 `. . LO V 7 UL O _C a) a) 2 L >L a) ,w W O ~ I C (A c aN.+ C c 'L S > "0 CZZw va) 00• r_ I aa 'J4_' = O LDI L a) U C L L c O . (0 0 t O �- F- _O w ai O nab,v a) (n (n p 4" IC ' L ° min a) v v) 0 � � � N Q > C 0_ C v a) a) v) 0 U U c � C7FJ,, a a) L �- L � w v „ QQC7C7 v i+ Z U W E - -2 O O LO o -p -p m m c 4 m Z C v a� cn C7 c a s c c cn cn cn v) LL U ,,,_ a.., ' w, to O O r0 re re ro O Q U .�1 D 4- O (r) 'L O (U LO OL a) aU) ( QU) a) UOU < OUZOUcecearYce N N [t 70 00 N N O s= NO u) r i .-i O L (0 N M CO LO O Q) . 1 N M N (r) ._. ... .. V n N• N N O O C .-1 O) OIf) M .-1ONM N CO W CO N O M Lf) '-1 1- N I I ' O O m O ,-1 CO NMN , N m In N M *-I N N CO `' ._i vN M • .-, .-., OO) d- M MM 1 O *--1 U) rN-I m O ('") O M Lf) r1 OO N I I I N O C N V CONMNO4 O N O M .--I N N .--1 M V) 1n N ,-•1 N �, Lf) Lf) L!) I ) O M CO i l I I O i t I ' N O 4. A M k0 N O (0 Q. N __ __ _ }O} IONNOO ,1• COO) O) LL O Ln M .-1 O l0 Lf) l0 z V\N O M Il) ,--I CO N ' I I O) O — 0 ,-- OONMNd' d' a N N M .--I N N W N f- .--I ,1 N U .. .. .� a a Z a) ,--I O O O) N E O M OMLf) N .-1 M .- N N Cr) I- O N N tO 7r ,-a a., N .-I N CO I) i- ,--1 N a t0 M N 0 t E BOO Ul O� N I- If) .-1 1p r,i .--i k.O O) CO N MN N N LL (1) Cr) (0 L a) > O -a U .-..� W +O-, C -0 a) t0 t.O '- Q O N O—".—O O (0 Z O z N N N M M a) Z O u) a) a) 0 0 >. Q m 4-3 O L C (B > M M 2O 2O t _ >, ( aC O O O O OGOa0 a) J C d C 03 a) ' O n a O) O) ri ,--1 L Q m , +� - (0 .�.� i i C� Z lL O c a) °� a) cp 2 C C L L 0 ++ WOF- ' E `� c c •� •c -0 f Z W aaccn L •- O O L I LL • a) a) O O N U CO L L O f •(O (O a a) aim in v me -a v a a Ln W v cn Ln U U a cn crn v) E0 UW CF- OQO � � 1n Q 1Zp �L v a) V) U at r a E L U 4_ ,_. w V) O O LL O LL L — v) •> — LOODUUUU Q J o O U L O (0 L L W (i) a) a a) I.- WO UOLD < OUZOO CLCZLYCL to W t7 000000000000 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 000 0 0 '0 000000000000 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 000 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O 4 O c o o o o O 0000 O 000 O 0 o - N- 000 a) N -000 (000 O N 0)00051- M OOOO cM ON- M 00 r N N N V (O LO M U) n LU N V 0 0) CO 0) (D (D N 0000 N- 0) .- h 0) CO l"' '0 LL •'- 0) CO N- .-- N r- N •- N M N M N M N (NU) M c0 N M .-- N V• O CD o L O V' .— N 00 0) D7 N o a N Zo 000000000 00 0 ° 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 000 0 0 000000000 00 0 4 000000 0 0000 0 000 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 4o .c0000 0 0000 0 000 0 0 , (D O N O O (D O O O O M O N N N -CI 0 N- O 0 0 0 O (O M 1-(0 N 0) N O V (O (U N (n N- LU V 0 N N N- O O 0) P 0000 N N� Xt N O 0).O} O O M n A- N ' N N - .-• M N M M N M M U M .- 00 M M 0) Nl Q1 'ct — N t` 0) CO a A- 000000000 00 0 . O • 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 000 O 0 a 000000000 00 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 000 0 0 0 o 0000 0 O O 0 ' 0 0 ' O 40 .00000 0 0000 0 000 0 0 ✓ _ (O O (O N O) N O O O 66 tt co- LU 00 O) L W O O O 0 O V-)n O) LU V- O} O 00 M n M' N LU N N V• O O O V' M O M '7 0000 V• O cM ct N M N O 0) M A- N n M_ N M LO '- N O ao N N_ O) i V- to A- 0) M ,N O 0 a 000000000 00 o ea o 6 P o • 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 000 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 000000 0 0000 0 000 0 O D a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' CD CD ' CD (� 40 .00000 0 0000 0 000 0 0 u o (0 of ao U)0o a_o O O(t) do- 0) - a_i(0 ao V- (C) O O O o LU 0) a-)n (D •a)} N M N r N O N N- V• O O N- N CO U) O (n 0 0) CO N- 1` N ti 00 M O N V' M N M N W U) 1` N LO 0) O )-Ow v — 00 r) -N N. 00 00 - a 00000000 00 0 'P 000000 0 CDLO N- N N ONN O CD- 00000000 OO O 000000 0 00) 4 V' V' O V• V' O O 0 00000000 ' ' OO ' O 4000000 0 ON- NO 0 000 O_ 0 r N OO N- V' O O 66 0) .- 1- M (D N- O 0) O M 0) c. ' 0) M V' _O •O} N r N M V• N Nn N- 'TO O V' Q1 (D V' V' (O Q) O (c) 0 CO 0) O V' N t0 O M N O N N M_ N (D U) V' (O O V' V' - 00 V• .- N 1� v 00 00 v 0 (fl (» (» 0 0 0 0 0 M 00 00 00) 0 o N_ N_ (D01� N_ O (O0) V• N O N O O CCD CD CD CD O tO OM 0 0 0 0) CDN (p M CD OD O0) V' V• M 0) M M O O �, 0) o o A- o ,- O 01 ' ' A- N- O N 4 N N- 00 .- O V• CO (O N- N (O_ N- N O N- O 0 0, WI., NMco- LO O 0 V• O CO-O N N 0 N- N- N- O CO- CO M O) N- N0N (f) U) o aO N ((00 (h M N O M M .M- O 00 M (O NO )O M (O 0) I0 N- 0 O 0 (D M �, M 0) .-- N 0) N M 0) N O N .-- N M (O N CO 00 M C.- 4I s- 00 M 1'- '- N- 00 0- .-- a) di ffl (H 0000 00 N O 00 M (O V• O 0 N V• N- M M O M M 0 O 'p 0000 %t 00 M UMM N- (0 )0 V' V' V M' M '- W O o co. co 0000N ' ' ' ' ' ' ' V• _, A- ' 00 V' M (O ti O10N V C) V' .- (0 O O („) O O O (O M MN7� 07 O NZ(17 N (O M O V' 0) M D7 a) Q) O) M C�, 0 0 M 00 LO N CO I,-0) O V• (0 0 O M V• O (O 0 (D 0) O (0 N- V.-_00 N 0) 0) (0 N 0 O O 1- N- LL r M CO r a 69 CO Xt N O O N ' O 0 M (0 V• W M (0 0 N_ N V' _N. N O U) Or0 M (MO (OD U ' ' N cv N • (OD '- - .~- 0 O (D NCO ,- ti 0 M M V O O to N- V' (O O t0 N� N V- O 4. 'V N O O) N O N N- O N (O a0 (D M N (D M N M V } i0 M CO 0 ,- .- U) M M 000 ,- N 0 ,- Mr- 0 M 00 (O V' (0 'O (O 1-- (0M0 0) N- V• N M LOOM CO (D Q I': M '- .- CO A- N- N Nfl 69 E9 (D O NN o E _-N cn N 0 T O o 0 _U U) > • O (a a) • (a a, N0oN mT .E 0 0 .co O p)' CO (a "7 000 O (I) - 0 N N N a L a- Q•• - N iz:69 � L'' L^ u) C N 0 .O 0 m rfl , 0 0 0 m EL w o 0•o W O (/) C C C O c i W 0 0 ) O C U LL 0 '0 C U N L C C C O C 0 O �.• ) 0 0 0 N N 3 C U N N c •Vl C m 0 a O N N 0 j to u) 0 t6 fn C uu)) 0 _ m U) c G > 0 c cNa (0a (tea .O " N C 0) H C n - c a p o a� _ 0 0 0 U `) O 0 W (n a) ' 0 Z a o `� a. L� to c c c Q N ,(� m a) x N •a `- f0 co N p Q • 0 a) u) o . . . 3 3 ` c C U) CO -W c Too aa) a O O Co m c) of CO o ai a0i a°�i a0i °) m c0i o a a�i L .� v rn 0 m 0 a) O u) o rnwwwww c x � m ocn = V o ctca) m .00oo000 � W ( 0 U) - @ p � m c 3 � Nz u, V a) C c U o) C u) a) 0 0 0 O o o > O c U) o w o 2V a) a) :a O 0 C 0 C Q Y 0 a) a) •j ` c 0 Y (a 0) (a a) a (a •+c m °) C a a O m (A cn m j Q O m 0 c o ._ o o (n a a a a a a co (a '- a O m a .n ° a� a) x V H - .o > C� C70 0 E E E E E E o Qaa SOON` o O 0Uoo @ O Nr _ cc) a) a (na` N) I- xO I-- Z U I° m `° �o " W Z � � Z C NL- Thomas E. Wright 1076 Bonneville Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 (801) 652-5700 mobile May 15, 2006 Re: Golf Enterprise Advisory Board positions to key issues in 2007 budget Attention: Salt Lake City Council As the elected committee chairman of the Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Advisory Board, I write to you concerning key issues relevant to the 2007 budget. Since David Terry was hired as the director of the SLC Golf Division, I have witnessed Mr. Terry's passion and dedication to making golf at SLC golf courses affordable, enjoyable and competitive. In the budget you will find 8 key changes that I wish to address. First, the budget proposes a reduction of 16 full-time positions including 10 in maintenance, 5 in pro shops and 1 in administration. The reduction in full-time positions is intended to mirror the seasonality of golf in Salt Lake City. By reducing the number of full-time positions the fixed human resource cost will be reduced dramatically and the service won't suffer since a detailed plan is in place to utilize the remaining and sufficient full-time employees to cover the human resource needs during the traditional off-season. Simply put, SLC cannot afford to pay the current number of full-time people a year's work for a performing a consistently seasonal job. Second, because golf is SLC has trended more to an excess of supply rather than demand, it is important that every golf course has a resident head professional to cater to the variety of clientele that each course produces. The shared head professional position for Nibley/Forest Dale with Bonneville and Glendale needs to be adjusted. By adding one professional to oversee the two adjacent 9 hole courses of Nibley and Forest Dale the city can then appoint a permanent head professional at both Bonneville and Glendale. In the latest issue of"Fairways Magazine" (the official magazine of the Utah Golf Association), there is a feature article on Devin Dehlin, Head Professional at SL County's South Mountain Golf Course. The article stresses the importance of having a full-time PGA professional at local golf courses and what the relationship between a pro and the amateur players should be. To compete in this market, SLC golf courses must have a full-time and dedicated PGA Professional onsite and in tune with the players. Third, the 2007 budget introduces a new adult season pass program. There is a huge difference between the proposed adult season pass program and the season pass program that the city moved away from in previous years. In the proposed program, the season pass program is tiered to ensure that the city's premier golf courses are not losing full- priced paid rounds during their peak times and so that there is four prices of season passes that meet the needs of the diversity of SLC residents. Season pass implementation has been one of my key initiatives for two reasons. First, the city has lost the loyal and avid players who previously only played courses where they could use their pass. Instead, these people have opted to play the different courses around the valley and we have lost their business and the business of the regular-paying friends that they used to bring. Second, the city's profit and loss statements show fixed and variable costs but only have variable and seasonal revenue to offset those expenses. By adding the adult season pass program the city adds a fixed income to the profit and loss statement that will prove to be incremental revenue instead of just discounting the current revenue. May I also note that the new adult season pass program specifically states, "Purchase price and program availability subject to change annually." This will allow the SLC golf courses to ensure that the season pass program is profitable and mutually beneficial. Fourth, in addition to the adult season pass program a junior season pass program is proposed in the 2007 budget. Like the adult pass, the junior pass is tiered and subject to change annually. But, the junior pass may be the cornerstone of the golf division's plan to get budget deficits back. Without introducing junior golfers to the game and allowing them to feel comfortable with SLC golf facilities and personnel, the future of the game of golf is in jeopardy. As a junior golfer, my parents purchased a pass for me to play every year. My birthday present was always the pass that allowed me to develop my game and cultivate the attributes of discipline, honor and integrity. It's time to get the juniors back out on the course. I wonder, if it were possible to do a study, what the return on investment would be though the intangible benefits of learning the game of golf in your youth? I imagine it would be huge. Fifth, a$1.00 green fee increase at Forest Dale and a$1.50 green fee increase on 9-hole rounds at Bonneville and Mountain Dell as of January 1, 2007 are proposed in the budget. To be able to maintain and operate an 18-hole facility like Bonneville and Mountain Dell you need more people playing 18-holes and paying the associated fee. The golf courses cannot afford the costs of an 18-hole course on the fees of a 9-hole round. By encouraging people to play 18-holes at Bonneville and Mountain Dell the city can increase the number of rounds played thereby keeping the cost affordable to all citizens in Salt Lake City. By only increasing the fee for 9-hole rounds, the city can recover some of the opportunity cost while not punishing the 18-hole players. Sixth, the viability of the Jordan River Par 3 course needs to be addressed immediately. Currently, there are major budget deficits at this facility that are eroding the golf division's ability to provide affordable, non-subsidized golf at the other long-standing facilities. The budget deficit at Jordan River is significant enough to conclude that at this time, it is not viable and not something that SLC should continue to fund. Seventh, as was previously stated, golf is oversupplied in the Salt Lake valley. This increase :n competition has created a competitive advantage for the competitors of SLC golf courses in one key area—facilities. I play in at least 20 corporate golf outings every year and I haven't played one on a SLC golf course in the past 6 years. The county's newer and more up-to-date facilities are really hurting SLC golf courses. Mountain Dell with its scenic majesty and cool canyon location should be the home to consistent corporate events, but because it cannot accommodate luncheons for enough people it is passed over for inferior golf courses and the inferior locations of South Mountain, Old Mill and Stone Bridge. And, along with those losing those paid corporate event rounds on weekdays when our courses are not full are loses on concessions, merchandise and repeat round sales that the city competes for. There must be a focus in the next decade on improving the facilities at SLC golf courses as well as adopting an aggressive equipment acquisition program to keep SLC golf courses competitive. Currently, the facilities are inadequate to compete. Finally, the Golf Division Strategic Plan drafted by Mr. Terry, with the help and input of many, is an innovative and passionate stance on making the golf experience at SLC golf courses affordable and enjoyable. I encourage every member to read it. The strong emphasis on customer service, dress codes for employees and player development programs are certain to improve the competitive position of the golf courses. By addressing the personnel issues that are draining the budget, the golf division has shown its commitment to continuing to be self-sufficient and in-touch with its financial status. Changing the structure of employees is never popular, but in any business it is absolutely necessary. By adopting the 2007 budget, the golf courses will be positioned as self-sufficient services to the taxpayers of SLC. The commitment to making the facility improvements and to change the culture of the golf division won't be easy. But, in the face of an ever- changing industry that is fiercely competitive, the changes are necessary and essential to the success of SLC golf courses. I want you to know that I support the 2007 budget as it is presented. Sincerely, Thomas E. Wright () N N N N N CO 0 0 T T m T T -n cn G O O O O O d 0 0 -� -G -� { 0. CO A CO N ,.2.t.. 0 C N N N N N N -< = > C) n C) d ® W 011 C. O O O O 0 O r n (O fD (D (D (D W D 01 CO A W N 0 m a a o. a a o ° m o O m d c d d C m D m -< -< -< -< '� -4 o 'T1 fJ m m 0 0 0 CO G 7 .{ C rn o < n m 1- , Z 'Q CO � O tl1 • -I -nn CO CO CO V CO O 2 m O CO V CO CO CO CO O O o A 0 03 C. O O aD o V O (O 7 (r j p) A' V O CO -Co) W N 0) < O — ID CD - 3 D) co 0 W N V N O > < coN OW) N co V CO O) CT 0 CO O (O W co o rtn Co o Oz c 3- C O Z o W co O 0, COA co 7 .�i Do LOAD r m A W (D'n :: Cl O W 0 A 0) (O L, W 0 O C CO CO O3. 2 W N CO (Nn V 7 A ch —I TO N A < .1 C) Ol �O 0) 0) V V Cr) N 0011 V (VT CO Co, CO Q DO W V 0) V Ut O O) 7 N in ut -co O -+ 0 ID ((A O A W A A 0A, saj O O 00 0 A co 0, A co O m A CO CDC CO a O 3 3 co m 3 O. 0 C4 v f u, ( (n 0) rn rn `" (V1 A W N• V CVO Q t�0 OD A N O O A OD co N V W V N 0 DO N O (0)) (VD j OV v d co CO W o W O N (D 0 CO CO O, 7; co co 4, co F N Q) 0 C o .7i oo W V 0) 0) OD V V 7 o A A co Ot co co0 D) W Co CA V (D < .D,i o -.IW c., co V .V. CO -CO eo A ut - A CD O V -+ N N N .� N a, co O co F O OD O A On COO W CD 0 DI 7 _Z n N Q co co co co co 0, x- W OOO 54 0, N 2), m ' OD CO V 0) CO 73 A V N O C) W O (O W N O Q) C o V W O V CO O V "'au, D) V co 0C) CO ((CD V `G (Nj co O C) co V O) W A w 0 0, T 41 W O A 'A 0 CD co V O O OD V) pO b Ot O V A O A V DD 13 N O c, V V CO V O A 7 (D TO A W N A coV V O A CD O 2 N V OD A 7 W A L 0 a _ _ CD r O N 0) u O (p A CO (O 0 O N O O(D A A A (1) O, 0) 0 c0 V A 01 CO 1 co 0 A . O Co Co n, Co , co O1 O CON) 0) A 0 D m I _ r • I MEMORANDUM TO: David Buhler, SLC Councilman 200e FROM: Fred Diana DATE: June 1,2006 SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Golf Fund I have taken the opportunity to review the information you provided with two other individuals: a United States Golf Association Executive Committee member and a University of Utah professor in Sports Management. We have compared notes and discussed the information in great detail. I hope that you will find our opinions and suggestions positive and proactive when reviewing the upcoming 2006-07 budget hearings. As a prelude to suggested questions for Golf Fund Administrators,it is imperative to state a premise that we hope you would embrace that drives all of our concerns and questions: GOLF COURSES AND THEIR PROPER OPERATION ADD TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SALT LAKE CITY Think for a moment what our city would look like without beautiful parks,tennis courts, recreation centers, swimming pools,multipurpose centers, gathering places and other recreational outlets. We would all be less without these support mechanisms. If we can extricate ourselves from the"Enterprise Fund"mentality,the positive and probing questions can be asked and answered in a spirit of free exchange with a positive outcome almost guaranteed. The following questions represent inquiries that should start to solve festering problems that have,far too long,inhibited the full potential for golf courses to add more value to our city. QUESTION 1. WHAT IS THE MISSION STATEMENT FOR THE GOLF FUND? If the Mission Statement does not embrace the idea that SLC Government is committed to providing an excellent golf experience at the lowest possible cost to the greatest number of people, we sink back into the"Enterprise Fund"mentality and concentrate on profit& loss statements vs. the overall contribution to the community. We should keep in mind how the golf courses are similar to and different from other public recreational facilities. How do golf courses enhance property values and taxes? Do they provide much needed green space in our city? Do we charge for tennis courts, baseball fields,picnic facilities in parks, etc.? How are these facilities budgeted for? QUESTION 2. You quote Jim Collins from his book"Good to Great"....They first got the right people on the bus,the wrong people off the bus,and the right people in the right seats..... DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THE RIGHT LEADERSHIP POSITIONS? If the answer is no, how will this be remedied? We would recommend that every leadership position in the Golf Fund be re-applied for and advertise them regionally. Talent should match responsibility. QUESTION 3. WOULD MORE INCENTIVE BE PROVIDED TO HAVE HEAD PROFESSIONALS AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS VS. SALARIED EMPLOYEES? QUESTION 4. WHY ARE 9-HOLE REGULAR AND SENIOR RATES INCREASED AT BONNEVILLE,MOUNTAIN DELL AND FOREST DALE AND NOT AT ALL OTHER COURSES? Bonneville Men's Club plays on Wednesday afternoon. It is primarily 9 hole players. This Men's Club accounts for approximately$17,000 in merchandise purchases for the Golf Fund. Why would they be penalized? QUESTION 5. WHAT FORMULA OR CALCULATIONS WERE USED TO DETERMINE SEASON PASS RATES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED? QUESTION 6. SHOULD THE CITY CONSIDER CLOSING 2 GOLF COURSES IN ORDER TO PERFORM MUCH NEEDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND MAXIMIZE PLAY AT THE REMAINING COURSES? QUESTION 7. HOW MUCH HAS THE GOLF FUND PAID-FROM IT'S START TO NOW FOR THE COMPUTER RESERVATION SYSTEM? WHAT IS THE YEARLY LEASE? DOES THE COUNTY USE SUCH A SYSTEM? QUESTION 8. HOW MANY CORPORATE TOURNAMENTS DO THE GOLF COURSES HOST? IS THIS NUMBER INCREASING OR DECREASING? WHY? QUESTION 9. COULD IRRIGATION WATER FOR WINGPOINTE,GLENDALE AND ROSE PARK BE PROVIDED THROUGH THE CENTRAL VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT VS.USING CULINARY WATER? SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: 'June 1, 2006 BUDGET FOR: Amendments to the City's Take-Home Vehicle Policy STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Chief Burbank, Chief Querry, Scott Atkinson, Jerry Burton, Rick Graham, Lamont Nelson, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter, Gary Mumford, Sylvia Jones, Lehua Weaver, Jennifer Bruno The Administration is proposing to make changes to the practice and procedure regarding City take-home vehicles. The City's take-home vehicle program is governed by City Code, and changes would be made in the form of an ordinance amendment. The need to review the existing ordinance and practice arose from questions about the cost of the program, primarily due to concerns about fuel, maintenance, and replacement costs for the vehicles. Currently, the cars are used for City business while the employees are at work or on-duty, for commuting, and within the County for unrestricted personal use. Changes would affect approximately 413 employees in the Police Department (not counting vacant positions), 21 in the Fire Department and up to 12 total employees in Public Services and Community Development. Council staff has outlined the current ordinance and the Administration's proposal. In addition, staff has noted information from a proposal unofficially shared with Council staff by a representative of the Police Union. Council staff has also provided options, building upon the current program, Administrative proposal, union outline, and comments received. The policy concepts the staff uses as a foundation are: • The take-home car program provides significant value for City taxpayers due to enhance emergency response opportunities, efficient deployment of City personnel, and visibility of marked police cars within Salt Lake City. • The take-home car program is not designed as a benefit to employees; it is therefore not a negotiable item in terms of union contracts. • It is advantageous to City taxpayers to- have marked police cars in City neighborhoods. • Salt Lake City has long sought to encourage and provide incentives for police officers to live within the City. • It is in the City's interest to maximize the life of the cars as assets purchased by the taxpayers; it is the responsibility of and within the authority of the City Administration to manage auto mileage and vehicle use, including establishing guidelines and / or a cap on use. • All City employees are responsible to fund their own transportation to and from w their employment. The City provides a transit pass for each employee in order to encourage the use of mass transit. One could argue that the City charges the Page 1 employees with take-home vehicles a portion of their commuting costs, rather than the full cost, due to the benefit the program provides to taxpayers. ■ The value of the take-home vehicle program for the City taxpayers is in direct proportion to the degree to which officers and others with take-home vehicles live within the City, or very close to the City. The value of the program to City residents diminishes as the distance increases. The greatest benefit to the take-home vehicle program to City neighborhoods is the presence of marked police vehicles in the neighborhoods. KEY ELEMENTS: The Council may wish to discuss the major policy premises for the take-home vehicle program. As established in previous Council discussions, current City ordinance, department policy documents, and in the transmittal by the Administration, the principal policy goal of the take-home vehicle program has been to provide City residents the maximum benefit for their tax dollars. Residents receive the greatest benefit through timely emergency response by law enforcement personnel in the event of a widespread emergency, and having the additional vehicles present and circulating throughout the City. This policy has been achieved by developing take-home vehicle program criteria, adopted by ordinance, such as commuting distance limits and terms of personal use. As a matter of policy, the Council has never viewed the take-home car as a benefit of City employment. As noted, the program is designed to benefit City taxpayers. The Administration's proposal includes the following parts: a. Distance between the City and the employee's residence. Current: The ordinance states, "Under no circumstances shall a city-owned vehicle be authorized for take-home use for an employee who resides farther than thirty five (35) miles from the corporate limits of Salt Lake City, regardless of the department in which the employee is employed." Proposed: 1) Use one central location within the City from which to measure the distance to an employee's home. According to the transmittal, the Administration proposes using the City & County building as the point from which to measure. 2) Shorten the allowable distance from 35 miles to 25 miles. (The Administration used "Mapquest" driving directions to measure these distances.) 3) Allow current employees who exceed the 25-mile limit a 5-year grandfathering period. The Administration has included this in the ordinance amendment. Council's Options: i. Adopt the Administration's recommendation of 25 miles from the City and County Building, or amend the ordinance to establish a new location(s) from which to measure, or leave the measurement point as the City limits. Council staff has received an alternate proposal to make Page 2 the central measurement point the geographic center of the City- at Redwood Road and I-80. ii. Adopt the Administration's recommendation of 25 miles as the maximum allowable distance from the measuring point to the employee's residence, or leave the maximum as 35-miles. iii. Adopt the Administration's recommendation to establish the grandfathering period for employees who exceed any new measurement methods; elect to grandfather only those employees who meet a specific interpretation of the ordinance and live within 35 road miles of the City limits, or do not address the grandfathering issue in City ordinance. Not addressing grandfathering would eliminate use of City vehicles for employees who live a greater distance than is allowed by the ordinance ultimately adopted by the Council. iv. The Council may also wish to consider establishing by ordinance whether the measurement method should be driving distance or 'as the crow flies'. Matters at Issue: a) Currently, there is a discrepancy between the City Ordinance and department policy manuals. The ordinance states, "Under no circumstances shall a city-owned vehicle be authorized for take-home use for an employee who resides farther than thirty five (35) miles from the corporate limits of Salt Lake City, regardless of the department in which the employee is employed." (emphasis added) The Police Manual, states in section D33-02-00.00 A-2-b, "Employees who reside in locations beyond the 35 miles limit and who have received approval through a special agreement between the employee and the Chief of Police, may have take-home use of the police vehicle; however, they must meet any requirements concerning use and security of the vehicle."And A-3 reads, "Any employee who chooses to change the location of their residence to anywhere outside the established 35 mile limit will forfeit participation in the Take Home Car program unless a special agreement is entered into between the employee and the Chief as provided in subparagraph 2 above." (emphasis added) The Council may wish to ask the Attorney's Office for advice on whether this special agreement is allowed under the ordinance or whether there is additional ordinance language that could clarify this intention. b) The Council may wish to ask whether the City & County Building is the most central point within the City, or whether there are some other alternatives. Alternatives could include: 1) continuing to use City limits, 2) using the employee's reporting office (more work to administrate), 3) choosing a geographical center of the City from which to measure - Redwood Road and I-80 has been suggested, or 4) the center of the population base. Issues have been raised about whether employees are all departing from their shift from the downtown area. Also, questions have been raised about whether an emergency that employees would need to respond to would be downtown or anywhere throughout the City. C Page 3 Farthest Distance Comparisons Distance from I-80 / Approx. C&C Redwood City Residence Building Road Limit Tooele 36.24 33.24 24.80 Grantsville 37.47 34.47 26.03 Pleasant Grove 35.32 36.76 32.61 Lindon 36.57 38.01 33.85 Orem 38.46 39.90 35.74 Ogden 38.05 37.81. 33.07 Wanship 39.75 43.43 35.17 Kamas 41.68 45.37 37.10 Francis 42.28 45.96 37.70 Oakley 44.46 48.14 39.88 (Using shortest distance on Mapquest) c) According to information provided by the Administration, using the proposed change of the City & County building as a measurement location and using "Mapquest" to estimate driving distances, there are: (i) 79 employees between 25 and 35 miles of the City and County building, and (ii) 21 additional employees beyond the 35-mile limit (between 36 and 45 miles) of the City and County building. d) Administrative staffs in the Police Department, Management Services and Public Services are all involved with various aspects of the program- from collection of vehicle forms, payroll, vehicle maintenance, etc. To update information, confirm employee residences and distance from the City measuring point, and other related issues. For example, in the past there has been discussion about where the City limit is on different routes out of the City, but confusion about who should enforce the issue. The Council may wish to ask who would manage these aspects of the program in order to comply with the ordinance. e) The method of measuring distance from a city location to employee residences has caused some disagreement. One could use an internet- based mapping program or other software to identify reasonably accurate driving miles, or, as the Police Department has been doing, one could set up a map with radius boundaries of the 5, 10, 15, plus miles from the City's measuring point. Due to differing opinions on the matter, the Council may wish to consider establishing the measurement method by ordinance. f) As established in the ordinance and reiterated in the Administration's transmittal, a primary purpose for the take-home car program is to provide sworn officers and law enforcement personnel the ability to immediately and quickly respond to emergency situations. In fact, the City Ordinance outlines four criteria, one of which must be met, for an Page 4 employee to be eligible for the take-home program. Two of the four criteria address either the need to respond to emergency call-back situations or "The nature of the employee's work requires immediate response to emergency situations, regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or emergency equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's personal vehicle." The policy paper provided by the Administration states, "Anything further than 25 miles would result in a response time that would not be a benefit to the city for first response capabilities." The Council may wish to weigh their decisions with regard to measuring method and distances in comparison to the goal of prompt emergency response. g) The Council may wish to consider the length of the grandfathering period. For employees deemed ineligible based on new measurement methods, the changes to the program may cause unintended hardships. The Administration proposes a 5-year grandfathering period to allow the employee to make any alternate arrangements. h) Approximately half of the take-home vehicles are not marked to identify City ownership or department. The Council may wish to consider whether unmarked vehicles may be treated differently, because their value to the residents (of having more police cars throughout the City) is diminished. b. Personal Use. (Secondary employment use is addressed in Section `c'below.) Current: For sworn officers and law enforcement personnel, the ordinance states, "off-duty use of the vehicle is unrestricted while within the Salt Lake county boundaries." Proposed: The Administration suggests that all personal use of the take- home vehicles be prohibited. (Use for secondary employment is addressed below in Section `c'.) Council's Options: i. Adopt the Administration's recommendation to eliminate personal use, or amend the ordinance to restrict personal use of take-home vehicles based on a) city limits, b) number of maximum miles allowed (difficult to monitor and establish an amount), or c) maintain the status quo by continuing to allow unrestricted use within Salt Lake County, or the Council could consider eliminating personal use. ii. Amend the ordinance to clarify whether the personal use of vehicles is allowed only for those employees living within Salt Lake City / County boundaries, or for any officer while within Salt Lake City / County. Matters at Issue: a) The current policy allows unrestricted use within Salt Lake County, because of the benefit of increased presence of marked police cars and resulting safety perceptions and accessibility of police officers. b) Although there are benefits to the public for officers being allowed to use vehicles for personal use, there are some situations under which this Page 5 might significantly increase the number of miles put on a vehicle, even for officers living within the City limits. For example, according to the policy paper provided by the Administration, "46 police vehicles exceeded 20,000 [total] miles in one year. 17 police vehicles exceeded 25,000 [total] miles in a year. Many of these high-mileage vehicles belong to employees who live within city limits and took advantage of the `unrestricted off- duty use."' According to the Administration, for vehicles that are assigned and used on a regular basis, the average number of miles per vehicle per year is 16,000. However, as a maximum number of allowable miles, various numbers have been suggested. The Council may wish to ask whether the Administration would suggest a viable number. c) The Council may wish to ask whether a maximum number of miles per car would be feasible to monitor and enforce. d) Some vehicles are used by officers on regular patrol cycles, and some are used by employees who do not drive as frequently. e) The vehicles are on a 5-year replacement cycle. According to the Administration, in order to maximize resale value, the cars should have less than 100,000 miles at the end of the 5-year period (20,000 per year). While mileage is more heavily weighed, the condition of the car is also a factor in the resale value, and overall reports indicate that the cars are better taken care of when assigned to a specific employee. c. Secondary Employment. Current: Sworn officers and law enforcement officers are allowed to use vehicles to drive to and from secondary employment. Proposed: According to the policy paper, the Administration recommends that the secondary employer should reimburse "the City directly for the full cost of the vehicle while traveling to, from, and during secondary employment." According to the proposed ordinance, use of a city vehicle would be prohibited unless a reimbursement method is established for the secondary employer to reimburse the City. Council's Options: i. Adopt the Administration's recommendation to allow use of take-home vehicles for secondary employment only if the employer reimburses Salt Lake City for all costs related to the employment, or amend the ordinance to identify other terms of allowable use for secondary employment. ii. Specify in the ordinance what method of reimbursement will be applied to secondary employers. (It is not proposed to clarify the reimbursement terms in the ordinance. However, the Council may wish to do so.) Page 6 Matters at Issue: a) According to the policy paper, the costs to be reimbursed would include any costs incurred during secondary employment- including driving the car and use of the car during employment duties. For example, at the Delta Center, the officers will use their cars when conducting traffic control following large events, or various employers that allow officers to take persons who have been arrested to jail during secondary employment hours. b) It could be considered a benefit to the City that these secondary employers are paying for these services, because on-duty officers may otherwise be called to fulfill the function. c) The Council may wish to ask if the Administration has a method to propose to collect all related vehicle costs from secondary employers and how this would be administered. d) According to information provided by the Administration if secondary employers were to pay$1.00 per hour worked per officer, this would yield approximately$100,000. However, the Council may wish to consider that this possible reimbursement schedule will cover less of the costs for employees who live farther away from the City. e) Generally, officers will find secondary employment in a security related field, and the presence of a police car is beneficial. d. Amount of employee reimbursement to the City. Current: The reimbursement schedule is not adopted by ordinance, rather the ordinance refers to the "written fee schedule adopted by the mayor or mayor's designee. Such fee schedule shall include a policy favoring those employees who live within the city. The fee required shall be no greater than the total actual costs incurred by the city for such voluntary use, including depreciation and capital costs." (The official "City Policy" section related to the take-home vehicle reimbursement schedule is outdated. The information provided here was otherwise provided by the Administration.) As outlined in the "Reimbursement Schedule" below, reimbursement rates vary based upon distance from the City limits. Proposed: The review committee evaluated several scenarios and is recommending a reimbursement schedule based on recovering 50% of the cost for the employees commuting in city owned vehicles (estimated at $740,000). These proposed reimbursement rates would apply to every employee with a take-home vehicle, regardless of resident city. The Administration further proposes that these rates would be adjusted annually. C Page 7 Reimbursement Schedule Bi-weekly rates (ea. Pay period) Admin. Police Assoc. Current , Proposal Proposal Measurement Point: City Limits Cit Bld: I-80/Rdwd Police/Fire w/in City $ - n/a* $ 8.00 Others w/in City 6.92 n/a* 8.00 Within 5 miles 25.38 $ 9.25 23.50 Within 10 miles 27.69 18.50 25.50 Within 15 miles 30.00 27.75 27.50 Within 20 miles 32.31 37.00 29.50 Within 25 miles 34.62 46.25 31.50 Within 30 miles 34.62 55.50 33.50 Within 35 miles 34.62 64.75 35.50 Estimated Annual $ 295,181 $375,000 $ 290,422 Revenue: *Please Note: n/a indicates that in the Administration's Proposal, charges would apply to all employees based on their distance from the City&County Building, and so distinguishing whether they are within City boundaries has no bearing on the reimbursement rate. Secondary Note: All three versions assume roughly 445 employees participating. Council's Options: i. Currently the specific reimbursement fees are not adopted by ordinance. The Council could consider including the fee schedule in the ordinance rather than by City policy. ii. The Council could specify whether the employees (or specifically officers) living within the City should pay any amount, or whether, as proposed, they should pay a reduced rate. Matters at Issue: Budget Impact Admin. Police Assoc. Current Proposal Proposal Estimated Cost* $ 740,000 $ 740,000 $ 740,000 Reimbursement $ 295,181 $ 375,000 $ 290,422 Personal Use Elimination $ 150,000 Secondary Employment unknown $ 100,000 reimbursement General Fund subsidy $ 444,819 $ 215,000 $ 349,578 *Please Note: the estimated cost is based solely on the commuting miles information available. It does not account for the cost of miles driven inzi, relation to personal use, secondary employment or on-duty use. Page 8 • a) Historically, the fees for employees living within the City have been either significantly reduced or eliminated, because of the intention to encourage employees to live closer in order to be able to respond quickly to emergency events, and for additional police visibility throughout the City and in neighborhoods. The Council may wish to consider whether this policy is still a priority, and whether charging the City residents supports this previous policy. Perhaps the Council may wish to consider a fee schedule that charges City residents no fee or a lesser amount and more steeply increases the fee for employees who live farther away. This could be easily calculated to generate a revenue target once the Council identifies the distance limits and location from which to measure. b) The $740,000 cost for the program is calculated by estimating the number of commuting miles for each car in the program, averaging the number of shifts per employee, and using a "Cost per Mile" calculation taking into account fuel, maintenance, repair, insurance and claims. It is difficult to estimate the number of miles attributable to personal use, secondary employment, or on-duty use. c) The $150,000 savings from eliminating personal use in the Administration's proposal is estimated based on a 10 percent reduction of the total miles put on the vehicles. i) If personal use were restricted, and the change resulted in a 20 percent reduction in total miles, the savings would be $314,800. ii) And for a 40 percent reduction, the savings would be $629,600. C Page 9 • JUN 0 1 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Salt Lake City Council FROM: Mayor Ross C. Anderson ,? DATE: May 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Information for your deliberations regarding the proposed revisions to the City's take-home vehicle ordinance As you conclude your deliberations on the proposed revisions to the take- home car ordinance, I urge you to consider the following points: 1. The Administration is proposing a change in the ordinance (1) to cut the enormous cost of the take-home car program to the taxpayers of Salt Lake City, (2) to provide greater equity among City employees, and (3) to encourage practices that will conserve fuel and cut down on pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal would change the distance an employee can live from the City and still take home a City-owned vehicle to 25 miles from the City and County Building. This limitation would be phased in over 5 years for those who currently live from 25 to 35 miles from the City. It would also prohibit personal use of the vehicle, except for secondary employment if the employer reimburses the City. 2. Today, 446 vehicles are taken home by City employees, 413 by police, 21 by Fire Department personnel and 12 from other departments. Currently, Police Department take-home vehicles accumulate an astounding total of 14,380 round trip miles per day commuting to and from home. Of the 413 police take-home cars, only 104 are driven by officers who live within the City limits. Total take-home car expense for all employees is $736,162 per year. Of that total, $295,181 is reimbursed to the City by the employees. The remaining $440,981 is covered by City taxpayers through the General Fund. 3. Representatives from the Police Department and the Fire Department have been consulted about the proposed changes over the last several weeks as the recommendations have been developed. f 4. The take-home program was started primarily because of the substantial benefit to Salt Lake City taxpayers from having patrol cars on the road or parked at residences or businesses. The potential crime deterrent benefit is obvious for the 104 cars driven by officers who live in neighborhoods all around the City. However, there is no benefit to Salt Lake City taxpayers, and the cost to the taxpayers is far less defensible, when the vehicles are driven outside City limits. One must ask if it is fair for Salt Lake City taxpayers to pay to have police cars commute every day to and from Grantsville, Wanship or Roy, with little or no benefit to Salt Lake City. 5. Another reason for providing take-home cars is to enable the driver to respond quickly in an emergency and to have on hand all necessary equipment. Obviously, this benefit diminishes in direct proportion to the distance the employee must drive to respond. If it takes 45 minutes for an officer to drive from a far-away home, that cannot be credibly considered an "emergency response." 6. The City has made an extraordinary effort to conserve valuable resources and reduce pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in every aspect of municipal operations. Major strides have been made in that regard, yet the current take home car policy rewards those who drive the greatest distance, use the most fuel, and pollute the most. The City's policy on take-home cars should be consistent with the goal of minimizing our negative impacts on the environment and compensating employees in the most equitable manner. The current take-home car policy works in the reverse, actually providing a greater benefit for every additional mile traveled. 7. The Council should also consider the matter of insurance on take-home cars when the car is driven off-duty for commuting purposes. In an accident involving a City owned vehicle under such circumstances, the City would cover the first $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident for bodily injury and $15,000 for property damage (the statutory minimums listed in Utah Code Annotated 31A-22-304), plus, in addition, a minimum of$200,000 per accident added by City ordinance (Salt Lake City Code 2.54.030 C2). This Code Section states, "The mayor shall, by written policy, set forth liability coverage to such employees, which coverage shall be not less than two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) per incident, shall cover bodily injury, death and property damage." If, for example, a City employee were responsible for an accident which resulted in serious, life altering injury to five people and serious property damage, the City would pay $265,000. would pay $265,000. Under the terms of the City Code, the Mayor could, by policy, increase that coverage to whatever limit he or she might choose. This places the City in the position of facing very significant liability claims because we offer take-home cars to one-sixth of our employees. It is also obvious that the more off-duty miles driven, the greater the likelihood serious accidents will occur. 8. I urge the Council to make a decision without delay on the take-home car issue. The City is currently negotiating the police contract. Take-home cars are not subject to contract negotiation and are not considered a benefit. It is important that the contract negotiation process and the decision on take- home cars are clearly separate and distinct issues and that will be easier to accomplish if the take-home care decision is made quickly. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS — FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: ' June 1, 2006 BUDGET FOR: Proposed staff option for take-home vehicle program STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Chief Burbank, Chief Querry, Scott Atkinson, Jerry Burton, Rick Graham, Lamont Nelson, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter, Gary Mumford, Sylvia Jones, Lehua Weaver, Jennifer Bruno Consistent with policy statements identified in the Council staff report, below is a potential staff option. POTENTIAL STAFF OPTION: a. Distance to Employee's Residence: ■ shorten distance to 30 miles calculated with a generally accepted internet mapping programs) using the most direct route • measure from an established central location—based on Council preference (from the City& County building, geographic center, population center, other). b. Personal Use: Semi-unrestricted personal use within the City for police employees (sworn officers) living within the City. Flagrant abuses of the personal use allowance could be monitored by Police Department administration. As a general rule, cars could be limited to 18,000 total miles per year (tracked at routine maintenance visits by Fleet personnel) with violations resulting in disciplinary action by Police Administration. c. Secondary Employment: reimbursement of$1.00 per hour per officer. This could yield approximately $100,000 in addition to the estimated annual revenue identified in the Reimbursement Schedule below. d. Employee Reimbursement schedule: staff has prepared two alternatives. Neither alternative charges for employees living within the City, and both escalate reimbursements rates for those living farther away. (The first three columns, `current' `Admin proposal'and `Police Assoc. proposal'were provided on page 8 of the staff report.) Page I Reimbursement Schedule Bi-weekly rates (ea. Payperiod) Admin. Police Assoc. Proposal Proposal from C&C from I- ' Alternative A Alternative B Current Bldg 80/Redwood from C&C Bldg from C&C bldg Police/Fire w/in City $ - $" 8.00 $ - $ - Others w/in City 6.92 8.00 5.00 6.25 Within 5 miles 25.38 $ 9.25 23.50 5.00 6.25 Within 10 miles 27.69 18.50 25.50 11.20 13.00 Within 15 miles 30.00 27.75 27.50 18.75 20.25 Within 20 miles 32.31 37.00 29.50 27.40 28.00 Within 25 miles 34.62 46.25 31.50 37.50 36.25 Within 30 miles 34.62 55.50 33.50 48.60 45.00 Within 35 miles 34.62 64.75 35.50 61.25 56.00 Within 40 miles 37.50 74.80 68.00 Within 45 miles 39.50 90.00 81.00 Estimated Annual Revenue: $ 295,181 $ 375,000 $ 290,422 $ 322,105 315,218 Staff generated `Alternative A' and `Alternative B'using an escalating amount per mile of distance from the employee's residence to the measuring point. By way of comparison, the current reimbursement schedule decreases in cost per mile as the distance increases ($5.08 per mile within 5 miles incrementally decreasing to $0.99 per mile within 35 miles) the Administration's proposal uses a constant cost per mile across the board ($1.85 per mile regardless of distance) the Police Association proposal also uses a decreasing scale ($4.70 per mile within 5 miles incrementally decreasing to $0.88 per mile within 45 miles) Reimbursement Schedule Per Mile Charge Police Assoc. Admin. Proposal Alter A Alter B Proposal from I- per mile per mile Current from C&C Bldg 80/Redwood charge charge Police/Fire w/in City $ - $ 8.00 Others w/in City 6.92 8.00 Within 5 miles 5.08 $ 1.85 4.70 $ 1.00 $ 1.25 Within 10 miles 2.77 1.85 2.55 1.12 1.30 Within 15 miles 2.00 1.85 1.83 1.25 1.35 Within 20 miles 1.62 1.85 1.48 1.37 1.40 Within 25 miles 1.38 1.85 1.26 1.50 1.45 Within 30 miles 1.15 1.85 1.12 1.62 1.50 . Within 35 miles 0.99 1.85 1.01 1.75 1.60 Within 40 miles 0.94 1.87 1.70 - i, Within 45 miles 0.88 2.00 1.80 Page 2 • e. The Council may wish to consider phasing in new rates over a two-year period rather than all in one amendment. f. The Council may wish to consider how these rates could be routinely re- . evaluated to take into account rising fuel rates and other costs. g. Retain language "Under no circumstances shall a city-owned vehicle be authorized for take-home use for an employee who resides farther than thirty five (35) miles. . ." and request that the Administration enforce this restriction and update related policy documents for compliance. h. Allow four years (rather than the proposed five) for the grand-fathering period of those current employees living farther than 30 miles from the City & County Building. i. The Council may wish to consider eliminating all take-home vehicles that exceed the current ordinance. j. Clarify that the Chief of Police and Fire Chief have take-home vehicles in lieu of the $400 per month auto allowance provided to City Department Directors and are not subject to driving restrictions and reimbursements required by this ordinance. Page 3 * . • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS— FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: June 1, 2006 BUDGET FOR: Proposal for Mounted Police Patrol STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Chief Burbank, Jerry Burton, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter Council Member Saxton has proposed to the Council and Police Administration a pilot program to place mounted horse patrols in Pioneer Park, to be shared with Liberty Park on a to-be-determined schedule. The following is a proposed budget for this program: Mounted Patrol-Council Member Saxton's Information Proposed 5-month test Budget Trial Budget 5 months Assumptions Revenue e6 other sources - 6 horses / 6 officers Donations -toward officers time $ 50,000 Donations - toward equipment, support $ 7,500 needs Total revenue 8s other sources $ 57,500 Operating Expenses Patrol - Personal Services (Salaries, $ 75,833 - $35/hour, 10-hour shifts, Wages &Benefits) - 2-officers/day, 5-days per week One-time Initial Officer Training- $ - accreditation Ongoing Training- Personal Services $ 2,100 - 2 hours per horse once per month Feed &Care (feed, shoes, hauling, stable, $ 10,181 - $10 per day per horse for etc.) feed - $65 for shoes 6.5 times / year Equipment for horse -training (one- $ 6,600 time), tack Professional Services (VET) $ 500 - $200 annually per horse Uniform / Clothing $ 4,980 Liability $ - - City self-insured -replacement of officer- owned equipment if damaged -vet bills for horse if injured, -replacement of horse if damaged Total Operating Expenses $ 100,195 Page 1 KEY ELEMENTS: According to Council Member Saxton's proposal, • The program would be initiated on a pilot or test basis for two-years with regular evaluation of the program's success. • The program would begin as soon as possible and no later than July 1, 2006 and be conducted through October. • The intent for the program is to bring more visitors to the Park by making it safer, more attractive, and more enjoyable through: o Enhanced presence of police officers in the park, o Value of using horses as an attraction and a novelty to bring more visitors to the park. • Officers would be scheduled on an over-time basis, and the hourly rates used in calculations reflect an over-time rate. • Six horses and six officers would participate in the program. Details of the Costs: All of the costs listed in the budget chart above are calculated for a five-month period (probable time for the remainder of the year), except for the upfront costs including horse and officer equipment. $75,833 in Patrol Personal Services - assumes 2 officers per 10 hour shift, 5-days per week using the Police Department's standard overtime rate of$35/hour. $2,100 in Ongoing Training Personal Services - assumes 2 hours per horse (6 horses) per month using the standard over-time rate of$35/hour for the officers time to conduct the training. $10,181 in Feed & Care - assumes $10 per day per horse for feed, and $65 for horseshoes on average 6.5 per year. $6,600 in Horse Equipment-training equipment for the horse, tack, etc. $500 in Vet services - assumes an average of$200 per horse in annual veterinarian needs. $4,980 in Officer Equipment-uniform, clothing, boots, helmet, etc. Police Department Response Council Member Saxton consulted with the Police Department Administration for feedback on the feasibility of this pilot program. Attached is a memo from the Police Department on their research and findings. Included in the memo are: • Cost estimates for one-time training, ongoing training, patrol/operations, feed & care costs, officer and horse equipment and needs. (Please note, the costs in the Police memo are annualized and not a direct comparison to a 5-month budget proposal.) Page 2 w • Conclusions regarding use of mounted horse units in other cities. • Conclusions regarding the optimum use of Salt Lake City resources. For your reference, a comparison of 5-month costs between Council Member Saxton's estimates and estimates provided by the Police Department is on page 4,, MATTERS AT ISSUE: One item raised during discussions with the Police Chief included the need for accredited training for officers prior to beginning a mounted horse patrol program. Based on information from other cities, officers go through either a 5-week or 10-week training course. The cost for this type of upfront training was not included in the original budget. Council Member Saxton has asked staff to check with the Ogden City Police Department about their training practices. That request for information has been made, but a response was not available before completion of the staff report. C Page 3 v • — q0 , , O 0 00 .N•i 0 to O N . � N 00 RI w It) CO 1f) -__I [� V O N 0 pip .-f .41 Q .ce 91 +}3 ff3 to ie &4 if3 f!3 fa tf3 in. tf} ".�.„.;."'g a, .a :t i� ,� : •:: 'J.m. .. r �:;;� „' 1•...�_;•,:w;ir £ 'to k " r " o� eu.�'''. ;R:„':,ti l y Jan;-i`'..- ''',:`,< •:i e`: `?d :,?.,>s�<.:', a` 7 o <•'''Y` •,[3' ' '+ c' ze>v'.1,-,-, gy ",Ssr: ,0's'' „£, '°g5: %e<:,fi'r't`<•:w , ;,., • „»':2',q, "-�zx:' ^ ,m �"•.nw 4" •t:•' z'e; d o bs:< x�y £��;=,,y, �7!'•ty ° fie r,p i= � is'^YS': si;‹, ..: ''��0`:y,may` '�:. ° �:a:•�,, . �,-:�3r, :;�=�.. f�}•," „ s ,'?4',-,';k„PWxl.,t4vt1"l:-.:i''.'4T.P.4 Y1'14:i4s1v:g:9„:A10,111l.0t,0";:4091,,,",..4:';4`k,,t.::: m tea:. ,4 -� ,: °+•. ?71 (A '" ' h E,y ,z cnzv,'g, •. 44 ffi " rif4 ° • r-fit a R: ' :v= 44.0 ��'""� te� n� �:z�`:. .•gi �: >�,. .. � \ a.s '�'':F: -we°".«. ' # '"�.�. �a< .ix,.. %fir, �z- �,',: `:�. ktlli',i;„c,.:,,,„l v...,..,.f..,....,..:.4:ifetr„::v2:. i,..2, :, ,t c0 .;,.. ?`•r.c'.i .die y. . '"�C :"� ,;,?« �r.:�l � ..... `«, a` p4.� i „ �o, ri 04 C q y w b w O *� 0. 6. v v. 'd 0 p, m q q °' o44 v , I rqp � o ,o d fi co a .. ao o - 0 o o 0 �+, N w to a~i o v) q b N q HUt cn U � ono o o�R N NfR f f I fd p f0 . .i E. El .-i 0 O 00 o ., o 0 C M f 00 CO 0 0 0o f N N 4) y O U) N 00 .i . tQ U) C) ..-I .4-4 b .d O l: N (N O u5 wu O o wI F ER I I ilTi tf3 VI -CA -EatItiltott U 0�0 "q+w o o c° G a) bA 0 4 tV, w r. N o b o ►M c 0 'v 5 V v w a N ° H o 0 0 G C fir, o U coN J ° o Np o o " aw w� . ., avbbA d waW W H O . O O I sari LAK AIM Salt Lake City Police Department �'O�ICE Memorandum To: Council Member Nancy Saxton Date: 30 May 2006 Re: Mounted Horse Patrol Review From: Chief Chris Burbank Issues • Verify the financial commitment to fund a productive and successful mounted horse patrol. • Review the time commitment to train and certify mounted horse patrol officers. • Determine a selection process and training program for horses. • Considerations of the continuing time commitment for in-service training. • Equipment needs to properly out-fit a mounted horse patrol unit. • Salt Lake City Corporation "Use Contracts" for privately owned horses defining compensation, veterinarian and transporting fees. Summary The proceeding paper outlines research and input from various law enforcement agencies that have established mounted horse patrol units across the country. These agencies provided information concerning officer training, horse selection and training, equipment requirements, and other related costs and needs of a mounted horse patrol unit. Officer Training Most law enforcement agencies require officers to attend a ten-week (400 hour) certifying training course: One agency required officers to attend a five-week certifying training course (200 hours).2 To obtain this training, there would be a cost to either bring a certified instructor here to Salt Lake City (one instructor quoted $500.00 per week plus expenses) or the cost of sending our officers out of state, with all related travel expenses for officers and horses. Houston Police Department, Metropolitan Police Department Washington, DC, United States Park Service 2 Los Angeles Police Department There are currently six Salt Lake City Police officers interested in the mounted horse patrol unit. In an attempt to affix a cost for certifying officers, the Department has used the average new hire officer rate of $43.00 per hour for calculating the time loss of replacing these officers for either the ten or five week course. Ten-Week Course 6 Officers 400 hours $43.00/hour $ 103,200.00 Five-Week Course 6 officers 200 hours $43.00/hour $ 51,600.00 To maintain the training of both the horse and rider, most departments conduct weekly in-service training. This is held one day each week when the unit works on various aspects of mounted horse patrol and tactics. This could be done by allowing officers to train every other week for a ten-hour shift. The cost for this in-service training would be calculated at the rate of$43.00/hour as previously listed. Annual Training 6 officers 20 hrs/month $43.00/hour $ 67,080.00 Horse Selection Processes Selecting a horse that is compatible for police work in an urban environment is extremely critical. These horses are tasked with doing things that are very unnatural to their basic instincts. For this reason, horse selection and training is vital for a successful and safe mounted horse unit. Houston Police Department evaluates their horses for a 30 — 60 day period, assessing the horse to ensure it is compatible for police service. They also screen their horses with a full veterinarian evaluation to make sure the horse is physically capable for the strenuous conditions of this work. Once a horse has passed these tests, it is continuously evaluated and for liability reasons, a diary/history is maintained of the training accomplishments and failures. Metropolitan Police Department Washington, DC has a 90-day evaluation period for their horses. Concerning horse selection, Los Angeles Police Department states one out of each 100 horses reviewed is selected to be a member of LAPD's mounted horse patrol unit. Operational Funds To determine the operational costs of deploying mounted horse units, the Department is using the average overtime rate of$35.00 per hour. If two mounted units were deployed Saturday and Sunday for a ten-hour shift, the following indicates the costs for one year: 2 Annual Operational Funds 2 units Saturday 10 hours $35.00/hour $ 36,400.00 2 units Sunday 10 hours $35.00/hour $ 36,400.00 Total $ 72,800.00 Note - On average, there is a time span of 90 minutes at the beginning and end of each shift necessary to care for the horse and equipment needs. A ten-hour shift would net seven hours of horse patrol time. Salt Lake City "Use Contracts" for Horses Salt Lake City requires a "use contract" on all privately owned animals, which includes K-9 dogs and presumably horses. These contracts specifically list the responsibilities and financial requirements for both the City and the owner. In the case of K-9 service dogs, the Police Department compensates the handlers 20 hours per month off-duty for the care of the dogs. The City also pays for food and veterinarian care. The City would most likely compensate horse owners in the same manner: Annual "Use Contracts" Costs 6 officers 20 hours/month $35.00/hour $ 50,400.00 6 horses 150.00 for shoeing every six weeks $ 1,275.00 Horses would have to trailered to and from their work assignments. This would involve the use of two vehicles, the truck and trailer, for which the owner would have to be reimbursed is as follows: .445 per mile (2) vehicles Sat. & Sun. $ 1,851.20 Note - For calculation purposes the average round trip is estimated at 10 miles. Officer and Horse Equipment Needs Officers and horses need specific equipment for mounted horse patrol, i.e. boots, pants, helmets, saddles, etc. Most agencies contacted indicate the annual costs are approximately $2,000.00 to properly outfit an officer and approximately $1,000.00 to outfit the horse. 6 officers $2,000.00 $ 12,000.00 6 horses $1,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Total $ 18,000.00 3 Summary of Financial Requirements Officer Training $ 103,200.00 In-Service Training 67,080.00 Operational Funds 72,800.00 "Use Contracts" for Horses 53,526.20 Equipment Needs 18,000.00 Total $ 314,606.20 Conclusion Many of the agencies contacted about mounted horse patrols state the mounted horse patrol units are a great resource for crowd control and special events. They are however, demanding in resources, staffing and budget commitments. Chiefs across the country have stated they are not an effective patrol method. Given the current staffing levels and budget constraints of the Salt Lake City Police Department, the Department can use the available resources to better serve the citizens of Salt Lake City in a more efficient manner. Chief Chris Burbank 4 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS — FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: June 1, 2006 BUDGET FOR: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno, Policy Analyst cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Louis Zunguze, Luann Clark, Sherrie Collins, Steve Fawcett PROPOSED BOND ISSUES IN THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR CIP The Mayor is recommending a new sales tax bond issue that would have three project components,for a total of$36,380,000: 1. Fleet Facility - ($24.3 million) construct a new fleet facility on land previously purchased and for which the bond will reimburse the cost of the land. (note: $3.1 million of this $24.3 million total, is to reimburse the surplus land account. If the Council decided not to reimburse this account, and decrease the total bond amount, or dedicate this $3.1 million towards one of the other projects in the bond, there would be approximately $X left in the surplus land account). Staff note - this cost estimate has been revised. The new facility is expected to cost approximately $24.7 million. 2. Grant Tower - ($7.07 million) complete the Grant Tower project (The RDA will contribute payments to the City for their share of the debt service). 3. Daylighting City Creek @ Folsom Street Corridor and 900 South Rail line right-of- way improvements - ($5.05 million) development/daylighting of the Folsom Street/City Creek Parkway, landscaping along the 900 South track line when it is abandoned by UTA A. Debt Service - The total FY 2007 debt service payment would be approximately $1 million, of which the RDA would pay $330,000 (their share of the Grant Tower funding). However, this does not represent the total annual debt service payment as it would technically be a "partial year" by the time the bond was issued. The debt service payment for the remainder of the 20 year loan is anticipated to be an average of$2.77 million per year (see table below for breakdown). C 1 • Debt Service Total (average) Interest Paid Fleet Facility $ 24,255,000 $ 1,850,000 $ 12,855,130 Grant Tower $ 7,070,000 $ 540,000 $ 3,748,835 Park Trail Project $ 5,055,000 $ 387,000 $ 2,681,653 Total $ 36,380,000 $ 2,777,000 $ 19,285,618 note:this does not factor the RDA's contribution to debt service payments,which would likely be$330,000 but for only 15 years,rather than the full 20 life year of the bond (the district expires then). B. Amount Available for other projects - The following chart breaks down the amount of money available for other, non-debt projects, under the Mayor's proposed budget. If the Council were to bond for all three proposed projects, next fiscal year there would be $3.8 million available for "other projects" compared to the $5.14 available this year (a $1.34 million difference - assuming CIP was funded at the same $21.5 million level). $25,000,000 $20,000,000 ; 1i � [ IE6 11111 i 1,41.1 0`'' o Other Projects 3E (€{E7 � •Other Debt(scheduled) $15,000,000 \� 0 Daylighting City Creek/Park Trail Bond (proposed) ■Grant Tower Bond (proposed) $10,000,000 „" B Fleet Facility Bond (proposed) •General Obligation Bond Debt $5,000,000 $0 FY 2007 FY 2008 C. 10 Year Plan - All of these projects are contemplated in the 10 Year Plan. Daylighting City Creek is the only one that is not contemplated to be paid for with debt service. 2 The plan slates this project for FY 2010 ($1 million from general fund, and $4 million from"other sources"). 1. The proposed bond would shift yearly money away from parks, streets, and transportation projects toward the "debt service" category. However, the 10 Year Plan does contemplate some shift in this manner for bonding for the Fleet Facility and Grant-tower related projects - in the amount of $29.6 million (a $6.8 million difference). 2. The Park Trail project (Daylighting City Creek), is planned for in the 10 Year Plan, but with a funding source of $1 million from the general fund, and $4 million from"other sources," not necessarily identified as bonding. This could potentially offset the 10 year 7.95% funding"balance." D. Cost reduction options for City Creek 900 South/Folsom Ave Park Projects - The Administration has given council staff the following breakdown of project components for both 900 South and Folsom Avenue (see attachment 1). At a minimum, in order for this land trade with Union Pacific to be "bondable," the land needs to be improved for public use (i.e. soil erosion seeding). This is estimated to cost$200,000 for 900 South and $100,000 for the Folsom Trailway. The Council could elect to fund any of the project components for 900 South and Folsom in any combination (though they are grouped into the Administration's recommended Phase I and Phase II for each). Currently the bond proposal would pay for Phases I and II for the Folsom corridor, and only the basic landscaping for the 900 South corridor (listed as "Basic Native Erosion Control Seeding" on the breakdown). Council Staff has prepared the following chart showing options of funding various phases for the Folsom and 900 South Corridors: C 3 City Creek Park Options Debt Service Payment Debt Service savings from proposed Payments(Council budget(Council Staff Cost Staff Estimate) Estimate) Option 1-Proposed 900 South-Basic Landscaping Only $ 200,000 Folsom Corridor-Full Development (Phases I&II) $ 5,012,500 Total $ 5,212,500 $ 387,000 $ - Option 2 900 South-Basic Landscaping Only $ 200,000 Folsom Corridor-Basic Landscaping Only (no stream development) $ 100,000 Total $ 300,000 $ 23,000 $ 364,000 Option 3 900 South-Basic Landscaping Only $ 200,000 Folsom Corridor-Phase I Only $ 2,512,500 Total $ 2,712,500 $ 208,000 $ 179,000 Option 4 900 South-Phase 1 Only $ 1,887,500 Folsom Corridor-Phase 1 Only $ 2,512,500 Total $ 4,400,000 $ 337,000 $ 50,000 Option 2 would present the greatest savings in terms of bonding costs, and includes the 1.1 minimum landscaping required for the bond. However, this option does not include stream or trail development. Option 3 includes the very minimum landscaping for 900 South, and includes stream opening and trailway development for Folsom Corridor (though not the full, Phase II park development). Option 4 includes trailway development for both. It is important to note that security lighting costs are included in Phase II of both projects ($1 million for 900 South, $500,000 for Folsom), not Phase I. E. Cost reduction options for the Fleet Facility - there are a variety of cost "offsets" that could be used in order to reduce the total amount needed to be bonded for to pay for the new Fleet Facility. If the Council is interested they may wish to ask the Administration to investigate these options further. 1. The total amount includes $3.215 million to pay back the surplus land account. The Council could choose not to pay this amount back, thereby reducing the total bond. 2. The estimated value of the current Fleet Facility site is between $3 and $5 million, and would cost approximately $1.8 million to demolish and environmentally mitigate the site. In the best case, the net revenue from selling the site would be $3.2 million, which could also offset the total amount needed to be bonded for. 4 • A complication with this strategy would be the timing. This money would not be available until the following fiscal year. A possibility could be that the Council could "balloon payment options" into the debt service schedule for that year - thereby reducing the debt service payments for the years remaining on the bond - or the Council could use the proceeds from the sale of the land to thake the debt service payment for that particular year, instead of using the general fund for that particular year. 3. Currently fleet vehicles and the Police motorcycles are stored at a warehouse at the international center. The Administration has indicated that there is sufficient room at the new Fleet Facility to house these vehicles. If that is the case, the warehouse at the international center could be sold. Property management has estimated the value at $3 million. The Council would run into a similar problem with timing described in item #2 above, but could handle the situation in the same fashion. ➢ The current cost estimate for the Fleet Facility is $24.7 million. If all of the above cost reduction items are undertaken, the net "cost" could be reduced by almost $10 million, to $15.3 million. This would leave yearly bond payments at around $1.1 million (with around $300,000 of that amount to be paid for by the Refuse and Fleet funds). C The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on May 18, 2006. It is provided again for your reference. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET RECOMMENDATION The Mayor presented his budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 on Tuesday, May 2. The following staff report details the proposed Capital Improvement Budget. The Administration recommends funding CIP from the general fund in the amount of $21,452,138, a $1.9 million increase over last year's CIP funding allocation (9% increase). Of this, approximately $8.9 million is general obligation bond debt (dedicated property taxes). Therefore, a total of $12,502,682, or 7.11% of general fund revenue, is proposed for Capital projects. Of this amount, $7,306,425 million is allocated for debt service projects (including the new debt service proposal for the Fleet Facility and other projects, discussed later), leaving a remaining balance of$5,136,257 for other projects. The recently-adopted CIP 10 Year Plan indicates that in order for the capital projects to be fully funded over the 10 year cycle of the plan, an average of 7.95% of general fund revenues should be dedicated to capital projects. In order to reach the 7.95% number, the Council would have to increase CIP funding by $1,473,924 over the Mayor's 5 recommended budget. The CIP 10 Year Plan acknowledges that 7.95% of general fund balance will not be sufficient to fund all projects in every year, but rather - over the 10 year period, if 7.95% is consistently dedicated every year, this will eventually cover all of the projects. In the past, the Council had a stated policy of dedicating a minimum of 9% of general fund revenues for Capital projects. In Fiscal Year 2007, the plan identifies $10.5 million in non-debt service projects, well over the current funding proposal of $5.14 million. The following are specific projects the administration has identified as "major projects" to fund in FY 2006-2007: o A General Obligation bond approved by the voters for The Leonardo and purchase of open space land (recognized property tax increase) (staff note: any additional funding to the Leonardo has not been incorporated into the CIP 10 Year Plan. This could affect the 10 year "balancing" of the plan at 7.95%), o The Mayor is also recommending a new sales tax bond issue: o A Sales Tax bond of$36,380,000: 4. Fleet Facility - construct a new fleet facility on land previously purchased and for which the bond will reimburse the cost of the land. 5. Grant Tower - complete the Grant Tower project (The RDA will contribute payments to the City for their share of the debt service). 6. Daylighting City Creek @ Folsom Street Corridor and 900 South Rail line right-of- way improvements - development/daylighting of the Folsom Street/City Creek Parkway, landscaping along the 900 South track line when it is abandoned by UTA ➢ All of these projects are contemplated in the 10 Year Plan. Daylighting City Creek is the only one that is not contemplated to be paid for with debt service. The plan slates this project for FY 2010 ($1 million from general fund, and $4 million from "other sources"). The total FY 2007 debt service payment would be approximately $1 million, of which the RDA would pay $330,000 (their share of the Grant Tower funding). However, this does not represent the total annual debt service payment as it would technically be a "partial year" by the time the bond was issued. The debt service payment for the remainder of the 20 year loan is anticipated to be an average of$2.77 million per year. 6 Debt Service Total (average) Interest Paid Fleet Facility $ 24,255,000 $ 1,850,000 $ 12,855,130 Grant Tower $ 7,070,000 $ 540,000 $ 3,748,835 Park Trail Project $ 5,055,000 $ 387,000 $ 2,681,653 Total $ 36,380,000 $ 2,777,000 $ 19,285,618 note: this does not factor the RDA's contribution to debt service payments,which would likely be$330,000 but for only 15 years,rather than the full 20 life year of the bond(the district expires then). ➢ The proposed bond would shift yearly money away from parks, streets, and transportation projects toward the "debt service" category. However, the 10 Year Plan does contemplate some shift in this manner for bonding for the Fleet Facility and Grant-tower related projects - in the amount of $29.6 million (a $6.8 million difference). ➢ The Park Trail project (Daylighting City Creek), is planned for in the 10 Year Plan, but with a funding source of $1 million from the general fund, and $4 million from "other sources," not necessarily identified as bonding. This could potentially offset the 10 year 7.95% funding"balance." ➢ The following chart breaks down the amount of money available for other, non-debt projects, under the Mayor's proposed budget. If the Council were to bond for all three proposed projects, next fiscal year there would be $3.8 million available for "other projects" compared to the $5.14 available this year (a $1.34 million difference- assuming CIP was funded at the same$21.5 million level). C 7 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 Other Projects .;,' I\ E Other Debt(scheduled) $15,000,000 Grant Tower Bond (proposed) $10,000,000 ®Fleet Facility Bond (proposed) •General Obligation Bond Debt $5,000,000 $0 1111111 FY 2007 FY 2008 AIL o The Mayor is recommending $500,000 towards Liberty Park renovations (Concessions and Children's Garden Landscaping), and $400,000 for Stage 1, Phase II of Pioneer Park Renovations (Stage 1, Phase II total cost is estimated at $1.9 million. The Administration indicates they would seek outside funding sources for the balance. They have applied for a $900,000 federal grant, but have not indicated other funding sources that would be likely). Further details regarding these park improvements will be provided in the Council's briefing session. o In addition to the 7.11% of general fund revenue slated for CIP projects, the Mayor is proposing using a total of $3.5 million from fund balance for Land Acquisition and to help expand the Leonardo facility at Library Square. This use of fund balance for this project is not contemplated in the CIP 10 Year Plan. The Council may wish to weigh this project with the various other uses for one-time money (police vehicles, equipment expenses, Grant Tower, etc). Twenty-two (22) non debt-related projects have been recommended for funding from general fund CIP by the Administration, for a total of $5,136,257. The following chart shows a breakdown of funding totals, by type of project, and compares the various recommendations to what is called for in the 10 Year Plan: 8 • Non-Debt Service CIP Projects Amount CIP Board Mayor's Requested Recommendation Recommendation CIP 10 Year Plan Streets $4,379,284 $3,035,000 $2,715,000 $3,644,750 Transportation $1,853,750 $985,000 $985,000 $2,205,000 Parks $5,792,285 $1,100,557 $1,436,257 $3,708,285 Public Facilities $0 $0 $0 $930,000 Total $12,025,319 $5,120,557 $5,136,257 $10,488,035 Attached is a complete log of all CIP project applications for the Council's discussion on Thursday May 5th. KEY ELEMENTS The following are key points in relation to the FY 2007 CIP Applications and funding rankings: A. Of the 38 CIP funding applications, 4 projects are not specifically listed in the CIP 10 year plan. • #9 Pioneer Park could fall into the "to be determined" line item in the more general Parks category "Park Facilities Reconstruction" in the 10 Year Plan. However, this is not a specifically listed project. • Three of these four project requests were submitted by constituents (#15 750 North 2200 West Street Improvements, #19 800 South 1100 East Barrier Beautification, and #38 Yale/Herbert Safety Project), for a total of $213,750. The CIP 10 Year Plan incorporates $250,000 each year for to-be-determined "Community Projects." B. Though the 10 Year Plan calls for various Public Facilities improvements in Fiscal Year 2007, there were no applications made for Public Facilities improvements in the FY 2007 CIP. The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration if there are plans to handle these following improvements elsewhere in the general fund. The following is a list of projects that are included in FY 2007 in the 10 Year Plan, but did not receive funding requests for this upcoming fiscal year: • $350,000 - Plaza 349 - replace/install fire suppression system (Public Facilities) • $330,000 - City & County Building - replace carpet throughout building (Public Facilities) (staff note: this is one year of a two-year funding plan) • $250,000 - City Sr County Building - exterior stone strengthener/upkeep (Public Facilities) • $250,000 - Acquisition of Open Space for future development(Parks) 9 C. The following are projects that are scheduled in the 10 Year Plan that were requested but not funded (the total amount unfunded for projects otherwise planned for FY 2007 in the 10 Year Plan is approximately $2.6 million): • $580,000 - #22 - Rotary Glen Park Improvements (Parks) • $60,000 - #23 - 4th, 8th, 9th Avenue Stairway Analysis (Parks) • $315,000 - #24 - Jordan River Trail Safety Lighting, State Ag Building to Redwood Road (Parks) (Staff note: The CIP 10 Year Plan anticipates that this would be a project funded in FY 2012, and would be partially offset by CDBG funds) • $50,000 - #25 - Residential concrete street rehab, 1700 to 1900 East, 900 & 1300 South (Streets) • $200,000- #26 -Sprinkler Irrigation Central System Interface (Parks) • $100,000 - #27 - Memory Grove Trails Improvements, East Side to A Street & 9th Ave (Parks) • $50,000- #28 -Jordan Park Power Pedestals, 900 West 1000 South (Parks) • $50,000 - #29 -Traffic Camera Installation, 5 traffic signals (Transportation) • $400,000 - #30 - Lindsey Garden Park Tennis Court (Parks) (Staff note: The CIP 10 Year Plan does not anticipate funding this project until FY 2009) • $568,000- #31 - East Capitol Street Reconstruction (Streets) • $275,000 - #32 - Arterial Lighting, Redwood Road - North Temple to 2100 South (Transportation) • $260,000 - #33 - Arterial Lighting, 700 East, S. Temple to 700 South . (Transportation) • $65,000 - #34 - Arterial Lighting, California Ave - 900 West to Redwood Rd (Transportation) • $50,000 - #35 - McClelland Trail Corridor Master Plan -Jordan River Canal at 900 South to 2700 South (Parks) (Staff Note: These are matching funds to be met by Public Utilities) • $600,000 - #36 - Fairmont Park Tennis Courts (Parks) (Staff note: The CIP 10 Year Plan does not anticipate funding this project until FY 2012) D. The Mayor's recommended budget includes $400,000 in funding for Pioneer Park in order to complete renovations beyond Phase I, which the Council has already funded. The Administration has previously indicated to the Council that they are seeking $900,000 in federal funds. The addition of these amounts would not be sufficient to cover the total project costs of Phase II of the Pioneer Park renovations. Renovations to the park that would emphasize the historic origins (Heritage Gardens, Historic Walkway, Bell Tower) are not scheduled until Phase III. Aside from the S400,000 in requested funds, there are $3.2 million in proposed renovations that remain to be funded. All three phases are part of "Stage 1," the stage that has been vetted by the community stakeholders. Stages 2 and 3, the water wall and skating rink, are not considered an official part of the community-approved Pioneer Park Master Plan. The following is a breakdown of these last two phases, and the i0 specific components of each phase, (the attached design document shows these proposed changes in greater detail): a. Stage 1, Phase II -$1.85 million total cost • Great Lawn • Concession Area/Stage/Reconfigured Restrooms • Tables and Chairs • Circulation path around great lawn b. Stage 1, Phase III -$1.75 million total cost • Themed Playground (possibly historic themed) • Historic Bell Tower • Heritage Gardens • Historic Walkway • Volleyball Courts E. The Mayor's recommended budget includes $500,000 to construct concessions and a children s garden in Liberty Park. The followings lists the remaining projects "left" in Liberty Park renovations, according to the CIP 10 Year Plan ($3.25 million, including FY 2007): • $750,000 -Children s Playground Renovation(FY 2009) • $1,000,000 - Greenhouse reconstruction & Jordan Greenhouse demolition (FY 2011) (staff note: this will consolidate greenhouse operations at Liberty Park). • $1,000,000 - Maintenance Building &Yard Reconstruction (FY 2012) F. Attached, please find. the Mayor's recommendations for CIP funding, the list of projects scheduled in FY 2007 in the CIP 10 Year Plan, as well as the master plan for Pioneer Park, including cost breakdown. Staff will have the CIP 10 Year Plan for reference at the briefing, and it is available upon request. POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE A. The Council may wish to revisit the City and County building re-carpeting project. It is listed in the 10 Year Plan for FY 2007, but was not a funding request this year. However, due to the possible reconfiguration of space for the proposed one-stop counter, it could make financial sense to do at least one quadrant of carpet for the building in the same year as this proposal, so as not to duplicate efforts. The estimated cost for one quadrant of the City and County building is $116,925. B. The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration, the status of the escalating costs of construction materials, and the increased difficulty in obtaining construction bids. C. The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration what the specific debt service payments would be for the proposed sales tax bond issue, component project by project. The Council may also wish to clarify with the Administration what exactly will be constructed along the Folsom Ave and 900 South Rail lines. D. The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration what components of Phase II will be funded with the $400,000 request, and what, if any, outside sources will be sought to pay for the remaining$3.2 million in proposed renovations. E. The Council may wish to resume their discussion of whether to pay for the remaining Grant Tower costs with one-time fund balance, or through bonding (note: The Council may wish to consider that some bonding through the City would have to be arranged so that the RDA can pay their portion of the costs through more favorable interest rates). CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET PROCESS The Capital Improvement Program is a multiyear planning program that uses two main planning documents: a 10 Year Capital Improvement Plan, and each fiscal year's capital budget. The Council recently adopted a revised 10 Year Capital Improvement Plan, on January 17, 2006, after a lengthy process to identify the most critical and realistic projects that need to be funded over the next decade. It should be noted that the overall amount to of transfer from general fund in order to pay for this 10 Year Plan over the decade, is 7.95%. Note: 7.95% is the number to be allocated to balance over the 10 year period. If 7.95% of general fund revenue is allocated, there will be some years that will have a surplus and some years that have a deficit. Following the Mayor's presentation of his recommended budget on Tuesday May 4th, the Council received a schedule of the proposed capital projects for fiscal year 2006-07 with ranking information from the CIP Board, Administrative Staff and the Mayor. The schedule identifies all of the projects that were submitted for funding with the Mayor's recommendations and the priority rankings of the Citizens Advisory Board and Administrative staff. The City Council makes the final determination of projects to be funded. Council staff will project the schedule on the screen during the work session to facilitate discussion and funding decisions. The Administration accepts applications for capital projects from citizens and City departments each year for consideration for recommendation by the Mayor to the Council for funding. All applications are reviewed by the CIP Citizens Board and a team of City staffers from each department who specialize in capital projects. Copies of each project application can be made if Council Members desire. During the past two years, the Council has appropriated funds for debt service and time sensitive projects during the annual budget process and waited until later in the summer to make other appropriations. The Council may wish to determine whether it wants to pursue this same coarse of action or whether the Council wishes to appropriate the entire amount of CIP funding during the annual budget process. COUNCIL POLICIES REGARDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 12 • On April 6, 1999 the City Council adopted a resolution entitled "Council Policies Regarding Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement Program." This resolution specifically stated the Council's intentions that the Administration regard the • resolution as the Council's policy objectives for the City's General Fund CIP Program. In December 1999 the Council adopted a resolution entitled "Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management Policies" which set forth the capital and debt-management `' policies that were intended to guide the City in addressing the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of the City. In December 1999, the Council also adopted an ordinance (which was amended in May 2000, and again in 2006 - see section on impact fees below) establishing impact fees on new development within the City. Revenue from these fees are dedicated to fund those capital projects which are directly attributable to growth. Some of the Council's capital improvement program policies are highlighted as follows: • Establish a formal multi-year capital program • Link the 10-year needs list and the annual capital budget • Identify the extent and cost of deferred maintenance • Utilize condition information to select and prioritize capital projects • Focus attention on the long-term implications of capital decisions • Identify full life cycle project costs • Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts C • Give priority to capital improvement projects that reduce current City maintenance requirements. • Continue taking advantage of one-time opportunities to supplement base budget CIP (i.e. one-time revenues, particularly from the sale of real property). • Maintain a capital improvement prioritization process that allows citizen and community input. • Provide ongoing funding to address capital improvement needs of the City. (Council's policy is that at least 9% of on-going General Fund revenue be allocated to the CIP Fund. Class C, federal funds, impact fees, and one-time monies are all in addition to the 9%. For fiscal year 2004-05, the Mayor proposed a one-time reduction to approximately 7%.) > It should be noted however, that in October 2005, the Council made the decision to revise the 20 Year Inventory of Capital Needs and evaluate spending expectations as compared with recent budget realities. In January 2006, the Council adopted a fiscally constrained 10 Year Capital Facilities Plan, in which each department was asked to identify the most crucial and realistic projects, in order to arrive at a plan that was more likely to be executed to completion. > The consultants hired to form the plan noted that in order to fully pay for the fiscally constrained 10 Year list of projects, the Council would need an average of 7.95% of the general fund per year allocation to CIP (see note on page 2). 13 "SPECIAL" ITEMS WITHIN THE CIP BUDGET Impact Fees Impact fees are a financing tool that enables the City to address some of the infrastructure necessitated by new growth without further deferring current infrastructure needs. Impact fees cannot be assessed to address issues of d?ferred capital infrastructure. Revenue collected from impact fees must be expended or encumbered within six years after receipt, unless the Council identifies, in writing, an extraordinary and compelling reason to hold the impact fees longer. Under such circumstances, the Council must establish an absolute date by which the impact fees will be expended. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether some of the CIP applications qualify for partial funding from impact fees. An independent consultant conducted an analysis of impact fees in Salt Lake City and made recommendations regarding updating the City's impact fees to reflect the now- current, fiscally constrained 10 Year Capital Facilities Plan. The Council adopted this revised schedule of fees to reflect the current list of projects. Additionally, the ordinance was amended (at the recommendation of the consultants) to include a yearly inflationary adjustment to cover steadily-increasing construction costs (the standard identified is the Engineering News Record yearly construction cost index). 14 • Attachment 1 900 S.Trailway from 700 West to Redwood Road—(10 blocks) Phase One Phase Two • Environmental Study $ 10,000 • Environmental Mitigation Work Not Determined • 2 Street Crossings(signalized)@$100K each $ 200,000 • Trailway Development ,' $1,000,000 • Security Lighting $1,000,000 • Landscape and Irrigation(L&I) $3,300,000 • Basic Native Erosion Control Seeding(in lieu of L&I) $ 200,000 • Benches,Drinking Fountains,&Bike Racks $ 100,000 • Peace Garden Expansion—South Side Parcel of Property Grading and Drainage $ 200,000 Sprinkler Irrigation System $ 200,000 Landscape Planting and Trees $ 200,000 • 900 South Jordan River Park Expansion—N. Side Parcel Grading and Drainage $ 100,000 Sprinkler Irrigation System $ 200,000 Landscape Planting and Trees $ 200,000 • Phase One Project Gusetimate $1,510,000 • Design and Administrative Costs(25%) $ 377,500 Total Phase One Only Guestimate $1,887,500 Phase Two Project Guestimate $5,400,000 • Design and Administrative Costs(25%) $1,350,000 Total Phase Two Only Guestimate $6,750,000 Total Project Guestimate(900 South Site) $8,637,500 Folsom Trailway from I-15 to Jordan River—(5 blocks) • Environmental Study $ 10,000 • Environmental Mitigation Work Not Determined • 3 Street Crossings(1@ 900 W Signalized) $ 100,000 • Trailway Development $ 500,000 • Stream Opening and Development $1,250,000 • Security Lighting $ 500,000 • Landscape and Irrigation(L&I) Grading and Drainage $ 500,000 Sprinkler Irrigation System $ 500,000 Landscape Planting and Trees $ 500,000 • Basic Native Erosion Control Seeding(in lieu of L&I) $ 100,000 • Benches,Drinking Fountains,&Bike Racks $ 50,000 Phase One Project Guestimate $2,010,000 • Design and Administrative Costs(25%) $ 502,500 Total Phase One Only Guestimate $2,512,500 Phase Two Project Guestimate $2,000,000 • Design and Administrative Costs(25%) $ 500,000 Total Phase Two Only Guestimate $2,500,000 Total Project Guestimate(Folsom Site) $5,012,500 C