The URL can be used to link to this page

06/07/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2011 The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, June 7, 2011, at 5 : 10 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Stan Penfold, Soren Simonsen, JT Martin (by phone) , Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love and Van Turner. Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Beth Elder, Library Director; Mike Beckstead, Library Associate Director of Finance and Operations; Jeanne Robison, Court Judge; Quin Card, Council Policy Analyst and Constituent Liaison; Curtis Preece, City Courts Administration; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; Mary Beth Thompson, Payroll Accounting; Cassie Fairbourn, Council Budget Analyst; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Debra Alexander, Human Resource Director; Margaret Plane, Senior City Attorney; David Everitt, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Bill Haight, Chief Information Officer; Frank Gray, Community and Economic Development Director; Lehua Weaver, Council Research and Policy Analyst; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; David Salazar, Compensation Program Administrator; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 09 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND 5:26: 00 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS. No report was held. See File M 11-5 for Announcements . #2 . 5:30: 01 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM JEFF NIERMEYER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, REGARDING THE PREPARATIONS AND FORECAST FOR SPRING RUNOFF CONDITIONS. This update was given during the Formal Council Meeting. #3 . 5 : 30 :20 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND CONFIRMING THE SALE OF $19, 000, 000 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES, SERIES 2011, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012. SALT LAKE CITY ISSUES TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES EACH YEAR TO ASSIST WITH CASH FLOW NEEDS FOR THE GENERAL FUND. PROPERTY TAXES, ONE 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2011 OF THE CITY' S MAJOR SOURCES OF REVENUE, ARE PRIMARILY RECEIVED IN DECEMBER. THE CITY NORMALLY BORROWS FUNDS TO COVER GENERAL FUND OPERATIONS IN THE MONTHS PRIOR TO RECEIVING PROPERTY TAXES. View Attachment This item was rescheduled to June 14th, 2011 . #4. 5:31: 10 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE LIBRARY OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . A PROJECTED INCREASE IN LIBRARY REVENUE INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MARMALADE BRANCH LIBRARY. View Attachment Russell Weeks, Beth Elder and Mike Beckstead briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Council Members were in favor of a judgment levy of $99, 000 . #5. 5 :44 : 12 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE JUSTICE COURT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . THE FUNCTIONS OF THE JUSTICE COURT INCLUDE ADJUDICATING SMALL CLAIMS, CRIMINAL AND NON-CRIMINAL CASES, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT CASES AND CASHIERING. View Attachment Quin Card, Curtis Preece and Jeanne Robison briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #6. 5:48:46 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING AN AUDIT OF THE CITY'S PARKING ENFORCEMENT FUNCTION AND REVENUES. (PARKING ENFORCEMENT IS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES' COMPLIANCE DIVISION. ) View Attachment Karen Halladay, Mary Beth Thompson, Cassie Fairbourn and Rick Graham briefed the Council from a power point presentation and the attached handouts . Councilmember Christensen said he had concerns with the audit . He said he felt the status quo was not justifiable. He said a budget number was needed and also some follow-up. Council Members were in favor of a Legislative Intent statement for the department to report back. #7 . 6 : 02 : 38 PM DISCUSS COMPENSATION OF CITY EMPLOYEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . View Attachment David Everitt, Karen Halladay, Deb Alexander, David Salazar and Margaret Plane briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #8. 8: 09 : 00 PM CONTINUE A DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL STAFF REGARDING UNRESOLVED ISSUES RELATING TO THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR SALT LAKE 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2011 CITY, UTAH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . View Attachment Bill Haight, Mary Beth Thompson, David Everitt, Frank Gray, Gordon Hoskins, Lehua Weaver and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Ms . Weaver said the proposed fee for riparian corridor was 25T per billing and would vary depending on residential versus commercial. She said residential properties would generate approximately $450, 000 . She said there was also a proposed 50T increase to the watershed fee. She said that was currently billed at $1 per bill and generated approximately $1 million for Public Utilities to pursue watershed land and water rights purchases . She said the proposal would generate $1 . 5 million total . A majority of Council Members were in favor of the proposals . Ms. Bruno said the next item was landlord/tenant initiative. Council Members wanted a base fee of $110 with a cost of $20 per door. Councilmember Love asked about a fee for nonparticipants . A majority of Council Members were in favor of $342 . Councilmember Love asked if Council Members objected to the higher fee program beginning on July 1, 2011. All Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Love said the next item was the Street Lighting Enterprise Fund. Ms. Bruno said a resolution came with the Mayor' s budget transmittal which established the enterprise fund to begin on January 1, 2012 . She asked if the Council wanted the resolution pulled so it could be considered separately. A majority of Council Members were in favor of pulling the resolution. Councilmember Love said the next item was parking ticket revenue. Ms . Bruno said in fiscal year 2010, actual revenue was $3 . 8 million which was less than the Mayor' s recommended budget. She said in 2009 it was $70, 000 more than the Mayor' s recommended budget . She said the actual in 2008 was approximately $3 . 1 million. Councilmember Love asked the Council if they were in favor of a recommendation $200, 000 . A majority of Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Love said the next item was business license fees . Councilmember Simonsen said he wanted to reduce the increase in business license fees to 10%. A majority of Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Love asked if the Council was comfortable with a legislative intent asking the Administration to come back with suggestions on how money could be increased for neighborhood business districts . Council Members were in favor. Ms . Bruno said the next items were Economic Impact of Local Business Investment and Economic Development Best Practices . Councilmember Love said she felt this was not the best use of money right now. She said this could be addressed in a budget amendment if needed. Mr. Gray said they were currently 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2011 building an economic impact model to get actual numbers from economic development for businesses . Councilmember Love asked if the Council wanted to wait until the model was completed. A majority of Council Members wanted to wait. Ms . Bruno said the next item was the Webmaster contract . She said IMS recognized a budget reduction for Fiscal Year 2012 by outsourcing management of the website. She said IMS felt $50, 000 was a good figure for a webmaster contract. Council Members wanted to leave $50, 000 in the budget. Ms . Bruno said the next item was a volunteer coordinator to coordinate volunteer activities City-wide. A majority of Council Members were in favor of a volunteer coordinator for $60, 000 . Ms. Bruno said the next item was money from Chevron reimbursing for existing staff time. A majority of the Council was in favor of appropriating the money. Ms. Bruno said the next sections were items already included in the Mayor' s recommended budget. She said Council had discussion on these items and asked for further information. A majority of Council Members wanted to leave $50, 000 in the budget for a special projects coordinator. Councilmember Love said the City did not need a community master plan. A majority of Council Members were not in favor of the planning effort. She said the Council would commit to work with UDOT on the transit corridor plan. 9. 6: 09 : 06 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE COUNCIL OFFICE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . View Attachment Cindy Gust-Jenson briefed the Council. Councilmember Love asked if the Council wanted to add a communications position to the budget . Council Members were in favor of adding a full-time position. Councilmember Love said the Council would have a chance to discuss office process and the travel policy. She said the communication budget could be included in that discussion. #10. RECEIVE A SECOND UPDATE REGARDING THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011, INTERIM STUDY ITEMS AND DISCUSS POSSIBLE LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS, ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL AT THE START OF EACH FISCAL YEAR, IDENTIFY THE COUNCIL' S POLICY DIRECTION FOR PROJECTS OF ITEMS RELATED TO THE BUDGET IN THE TERM AHEAD AND HOW THEY MIGHT BEST SERVE THE NEEDS OF SALT LAKE CITY RESIDENTS. View Attachment This item was not held. #11. 9:41:41 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET RELATING TO THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2011 (CIP) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVOLVE THE CONSTRUCTION, PURCHASE OR RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS, PARKS, STREETS OR OTHER PHYSICAL STRUCTURES. GENERALLY, PROJECTS HAVE A USEFUL LIFE OF FIVE OR MORE YEARS AND COST $50, 000 OR MORE. This item was moved to Tuesday, June 14 , 2011 . #12 . 5:09 : 05 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (b) ; b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4- 205 (1) (d) ; c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; e) FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78B-1-137, AND f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS DEPLOYMENT OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 52-4-205 (1) (f) . Councilmember Simonsen moved and Councilmember Penfold seconded to enter into Closed Session. A roll call vote was taken, which motion carried, with Council Members Christensen, Turner, Penfold, Garrott, Martin, Simonsen and Love voting aye. See File M 11-5 for sworn statement . The meeting adjourned at 9 :45 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR vclrYG>, i14 i TY RE O P� 11 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2011 This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held June 7, 2011 . bj 11 - 6 dCA, t,EftTO: :Mr �`A ixM r .... �.:�_. l" r 1 NED BY � �I� Ii0 �::�.��t�.: DANIEL A. MULE' "�" RALPH BECKE �, „ CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES �Ei ,gA AYOR // I TREASURER'S DIVISION �}n CITY C( l 1W6SMITTAL FLP,, t°1 i. E 11 MAY 2 7 2011 / SLC COUNCIL OFFI E Date Receiv y v David Everi t, Chie of Staff Date sent to Counci : 11 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 07, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer by Marina Scott, Deputy Treasurer SUBJECT: Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 2011 (the Tax Notes) STAFF CONTACT: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Discussion RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a discussion on June 7, 2011 and schedule the adoption of a resolution on June 14, 2011 authorizing the issuance of$19 million Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes for fiscal year 2012, giving authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of the Tax Notes, and confirming the sale of the Tax Notes. BUDGET IMPACT: Current estimates provided by the City's financial advisor indicate that the City should expect a coupon of about 2.0% with interest expense currently budgeted at $300,000. Once the actual coupon is known, the budgets for interest expense, and interest income if needed, will be adjusted accordingly. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Tax Notes are short-term borrowing instruments (debt) issued for one year or less in anticipation of future tax collections. The purpose of the borrowing is to provide financial assistance to the City's General Fund during its "cash-poor" period until the major portion of property taxes is received, usually in December. The exact amount to be budgeted for interest expense will not be known until the Notes are sold on the morning of June 22, 2011, at which time the actual coupon will be determined. To assure compliance with applicable federal and state regulations, sizing restrictions are adhered to when determining an allowable principal amount of Notes to be issued, and H:\Treas\DansDocs\Council Cover Letters\TRAN's 2011 Briefing.doc LOCATION:451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 • MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 145462, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4114.5462 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7946 FAX: 801-535-6082 WWW.SLCGOV.COM L�wceveeo wea Page 2 Aglow actual cash flows relative to spend down requirements are regularly monitored to avoid rebate. Sizing restrictions allow for a maximum amount of$21 million of Tax Notes to be issued. However, after a prudent analysis of the timing of expected receipts and disbursements included in the Mayor's Recommended Budget, I am recommending that $19 million of Tax Notes be issued. The attached documents are preliminary and subject to change. Attachment cc: Gina Chamness, Boyd Ferguson, Gordon Hoskins, Marina Scott. Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 05/26/1 1 CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES,SERIES 2011 1. Authority; Definitions. Pursuant to Resolution No. of 2011, adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City Council") on June 14, 2011 (the "Note Resolution"), the City Council has authorized the issuance of $19,000,000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 2011 (the "Notes"). This certificate is executed pursuant to and in accordance with the delegation of authority contained in the Note Resolution, as authorized by law. All terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings specified in the Note Resolution. 2. Interest Rate. The Notes shall be issued for the purpose specified in and in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of the Note Resolution. The Notes shall bear interest payable at maturity at the rate per annum of %. 3. Sale of the Notes. The City has received (_) bids responsive to its notice inviting bids to purchase the Notes. It has been found that the bid of of , (the "Purchaser"), conforms to the parameters, deadlines and procedures set for in the City's Notice of Sale and is the best bid received for the purchase of the Notes, resulting in the sale of the Notes at the lowest net effective interest cost, said bid (together with a list of bids received for the Notes) being attached in full as Exhibit A hereto. The Bonds shall be sold to the Purchaser at an aggregate price of $ (representing the par amount of the Notes, plus/less $ net original issue premium/discount and less $ Purchaser's discount). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hand on the day of , 2011. By [Mayor] By [Chair of the City Council] 3012416.01.02.doc 870375 3;RDB%mo Certificate of Determination Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 05/26/11 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, authorizing the issuance and sale of the $19,000,000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 2011, of Salt Lake City, Utah; providing for covenants to establish and maintain the excludability of interest on the Notes from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes; giving authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of the Notes, within the parameters set forth in this Note Resolution; and providing for related matters. WHEREAS, a report has been made by the City Treasurer of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), that it is necessary to raise the sum of $19,000,000 for the purpose of meeting the current and necessary expenses of the City and for any other purpose for which funds of the City may be legally expended during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011 (the "Fiscal Year") until the taxes and other revenues for the Fiscal Year are collected, and that the sum can be raised without incurring any indebtedness or liability in excess of seventy-five percent (75%) of the taxes and other revenues of the City received in the fiscal year ending June 30,2011,or in excess of ninety percent (90c%c) of the taxes and other revenues of the City estimated to be received in the Fiscal Year, or exceeding any limit of debt imposed by the Constitution or statutes of the State of Utah; WHEREAS, a notice inviting bids either (1) electronically via the PARITY electronic bid submission system ("PARITY ") or (2) facsimile transmission for the purchase of the City's $19,000,000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 2011 (the "Notes") will be advertised by publication of a Notice of Sale (the "Notice of Sale") electronically on PARITY1' as well as in The Bond Buyer,a newspaper published in New York.New York, and brought to the attention of potential purchasers of the Notes (the "Potential Purchasers"); WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City, it is in the best interests of the City that (a) the Designated Officers be authorized to approve the interest rate and other terms and provisions relating to the Notes and to execute the Certificate of Determination containing such terms and provisions, (b) the Designated Officers be authorized to accept the bid of the Potential Purchasers that results in the lowest net effective interest cost to the City and (c) the execution and delivery of the Final Official Statement in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Final Official Statement") be authorized; Now,Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, as follows: Section 1. In addition to the terms defined in the preambles hereto and unless the context shall otherwise require, as used in this Note Resolution the following terms shall have the following meanings: "Cede" means Cede & Co.. as nominee of DTC. 30I 1647.01.02.doc 3703753/RDB,mo Note Sale Resolution "Certificate of Determination" means the Certificate of Determination, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D, of the Designated Officers delivered pursuant to Section 2 of this Note Resolution, setting forth certain terms and provisions of the Notes. "City Council" means the City Council of the City, as the governing body of the City. "City Recorder" means the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder of the City. "City Treasurer" means the City Treasurer of the City or, in his absence or disability, the Deputy City Treasurer or such other official as shall be duly authorized to act in his stead. "Continuing Disclosure Undertaking" has the meaning assigned in Section 2(f) hereof. "Designated Officers" means (a) Ralph Becker,Mayor of the City,or, in the event of the absence or incapacity of Ralph Becker, David Everitt,the Mayor's Chief of Staff,or in the event of the absence or incapacity of both Ralph Becker and David Everitt, Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer and (b) Jill Remington Love, Chair of the City Council, or, in the event of the absence or incapacity of Jill Remington Love, Stan Penfold, Vice Chair of the City Council, or in the event of the absence or incapacity of both Jill Remington Love and Stan Penfold, [_ _, a member of the City Council][any member of the City Council with at least years of service on the City Council]. "DTC" means The Depository Trust Company,New York, New York, and its successors and assigns. "Exchange Notes" has the meaning assigned in Section 2(d) hereof. "Mayor" means the Mayor of the City, or in his absence or disability, such other official as shall be duly authorized to act in his stead. "Note Registrar" has the meaning assigned in Section 3(a) hereof. "Note Resolution" means this Resolution No. of 2011, adopted by the City Council on June 14, 201 1. "Owner" means any registered owner of the Notes, as shown in the registration books of the City kept by the Note Registrar. "Participants" has the meaning assigned in Section 3(f) hereof. "Paying Agent" has the meaning assigned in Section 3(a) hereof. "Representation Letter" means the City's Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations,dated May 30, 1995. 2 Note Sale Resolution Section 2. (a) The City shall issue the Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $19,000,000 for the purpose of meeting the current and necessary expenses of the City, including the costs of issuing the Notes, and for any other purpose for which funds of the City may be legally expended during. the Fiscal Year. The Notes shall be known as "Salt Lake City, Utah Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 2011," shall be dated the date of their initial issuance and delivery, shall bear interest (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) at the rate per annum determined by the Designated Officers pursuant to the provisions of Section 2(b) of this Note Resolution from their date until paid, payable at maturity, and shall mature on June 29, 2012. The Notes shall be issued in fully-registered form only, in the denomination of $100,000 or any whole multiple thereof. The Notes shall be numbered with the letter prefix "R-" and shall be numbered from one (1) consecutively upwards in order of issuance. The Notes shall not be subject to call and redemption prior to maturity. Upon maturity, both principal of and interest on the Notes shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America upon presentation and surrender thereof at the office of the Paying Agent in Salt Lake City, Utah. (b) There is hereby delegated to the Designated Officers, subject to the limitations contained herein, the power to determine and effectuate the following with respect to the Notes and the Designated Officers are hereby authorized to make such determinations and effectuations: (i) the interest rate of the Notes,provided, however, that the interest rate to be borne by the Notes shall not exceed percent ( %) per annum; (ii) the sale of the Notes to the Potential Purchaser pursuant to the bid submitted by the applicable Potential Purchaser, which bid results in the lowest net effective interest cost to the City; provided, however, that the discount from par of the Notes shall not exceed two percent (2.00%) (expressed as a percentage of the principal amount); and (iii) any other provisions deemed advisable by the Designated Officers not materially in conflict with the provisions of this Note Resolution. Immediately following the receipt of bids from the Potential Purchasers, the Designated Officers shall obtain such information as he or she deems necessary to make such determinations as provided above and consult with Daniel A. Mule and Dale M. Okerlund, the City's financial advisor, unless, in each case, such person is unavailable or incapacitated, in which case the Designated Officers are excused from consulting with such person. Thereupon, the Designated Officers shall make such determinations as provided above and shall execute the Certificate of Determination containing such terms and provisions of the Notes, which execution shall be conclusive evidence of the action or determination of the Designated Officers as to the matters stated therein. The provisions of the Certificate of Determination shall be deemed to be incorporated in Article II hereof. (c) The Notes shall be signed by the Mayor, countersigned by the City Treasurer and attested and countersigned by the City Recorder and shall have the official seal of the City -3- Note Sale Retiolution impressed thereon. The Mayor is hereby empowered and directed to siggn, the City Treasurer to countersign and the City Recorder to attest and countersign each of the Notes and to cause the official seal of the City to be impressed on each of the Notes. The acts of the Mayor, City Treasurer and City Recorder in so doing are and shall be the acts and deeds of the City. (d) The Notes shall then be delivered to the Note Registrar for manual authentication. Only such of the Notes as shall bear thereon a certificate of authentication,manually executed by the Note Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this Note Resolution, and such certificate of the Note Registrar shall be conclusive evidence that the Notes so authenticated have been duly authenticated and delivered under, and are entitled to the benefits of, this Note Resolution and that the Owners of the Notes are entitled to the benefits of this Note Resolution. The certificate of authentication of the Note Registrar on any Note shall be deemed to have been executed by it if such Note is signed by the Note Registrar and the date of registration and authentication of the Note is inserted in the place provided therefor on the certificate of authentication. (e) The Mayor, the City Treasurer and the City Recorder are authorized to sign, countersign, seal and attest from time to time, in the manner described above, Notes (the "Exchange Notes") to be issued and delivered for the purpose of effecting transfers and exchanges of Notes pursuant to Sections 3(b) and (c) hereof. At the time of the signing, countersigning, sealing and attestation of the Exchange Notes by the City, the payee and the principal amount shall be in blank. Upon any transfer or exchange of Notes pursuant to Sections 3(b) and (c) hereof, the Note Registrar shall cause to be inserted in appropriate Exchange Notes the appropriate payee and principal amount. The Note Registrar is hereby authorized and directed to hold the Exchange Notes, and to complete, authenticate and deliver the Exchange Notes, for the purpose of effecting transfers and exchanges of Notes;provided that any Exchange Notes authenticated and delivered by the Note Registrar shall bear the name of such payee as the Owner requesting an exchange or transfer shall designate; and provided further that, upon the delivery of any Exchange Notes by the Note Registrar, a like principal amount of Notes submitted for transfer or exchange shall be canceled. The signing,countersigning, sealing and attestation by the appropriate City officers and delivery to the Note Registrar of any Exchange Note shall constitute full and due authorization of such Note containing such payee and principal amount as the Note Registrar shall cause to be inserted, and the Note Registrar shall thereby be authorized to authenticate and deliver such Exchange Note in accordance with the provisions hereof. (f) In case any officer whose signature shall appear on any Note (including any Exchange Notes) shall cease to be such officer before the issuance or delivery of such Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until such issuance or delivery,respectively. (g) The Mayor is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver, and the City Recorder to seal,countersign and attest,the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Continuing Disclosure Undertaking") in substantially the same form as now before the City Council and attached hereto as Exhibit B, or with such changes therein as the Mayor on behalf of , the City shall approve, his execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of -4- Note Sale Resolution such changes. When the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking is executed and delivered on behalf of the City as herein provided, the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking will be binding on the City and the officers, employees and agents of the City, and the officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to do all such acts and things and to execute all such documents as may be necessary to carry out and comply with the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking as executed. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Note Resolution, the sole remedies for failure to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking shall be the ability of the beneficial owner of any Note to seek mandamus or specific performance by court order, to cause the City to comply with its obligations under the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking. (h) The City agrees to furnish all necessary documents and information required by note counsel with respect to the issuance,sale and delivery of the Notes. Section 3. (a) The City Treasurer is hereby appointed the paying agent and note registrar for the Notes (respectively,the "Paying Agent" and "Note Registrar"). (b) (i) Any Note may, in accordance with its terms,be transferred, upon the registration books kept by the Note Registrar pursuant to Section 3(d) hereof, by the Owner thereof, in person or by such Owner's duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of such Note for cancellation, accompanied by delivery of a written instrument of transfer in a form approved by the Note Registrar, duly executed. No transfer shall be effective until entered on the registration books kept by the Note Registrar. The City, the Note Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Note is registered in the registration books kept by the Note Registrar as the holder and absolute owner thereof for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal thereof and interest due thereon and for all other purposes whatsoever. (ii) Whenever any Note or Notes shall be surrendered for transfer, the Note Registrar shall authenticate and deliver a new fully-registered Note or Notes (which may be an Exchange Note or Notes pursuant to Section 2 hereof) of authorized denominations duly executed by the City, for a like aggregate principal amount. The Note Registrar shall require the payment by the Owner requesting such transfer of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer. (c) Notes may be exchanged at the office of the Note Registrar in Salt Lake City, Utah, for a like aggregate principal amount of fully-registered Notes (which may be an Exchange Note or Notes pursuant to Section 2 hereof). The Note Registrar shall require the payment by the Owner requesting such exchange of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such exchange. (d) This Note Resolution shall constitute a system of registration within the meaning and for all purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 7 of Title 15 of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Utah Code"). The Note Registrar shall keep or cause to be kept,at its office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Notes, which shall at all times be open to inspection by the City; and, upon presentation for such purpose. the Note -5- Note Sale Resolution Registrar shall, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, register or transfer or cause to be registered or transferred,on said books,Notes as herein provided. (e) The Note Registrar shall maintain a list of the names and addresses of the Owners of all Notes and, upon any transfer, shall add the name and address of the new Owner and eliminate the name and address of the transferor Owner. (f) The Notes shall be initially issued in the form of a single, certificated and fully- registered note. Except as provided in Section 3(h) hereof, all of the outstanding Notes shall be registered in the registration books kept by the Note Registrar in the name of Cede. With respect to Notes registered in the registration books kept by the Note Registrar in the name of Cede, the City,the Note Registrar and the Paying Agent shall have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealer,bank or other financial institution from time to time for which DTC holds Notes as securities depository (such broker dealers, banks or other financial institutions are hereinafter referred to collectively as "Participants") or to any person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the Notes. Without limiting the immediately preceding sentence, the City, the Note Registrar and the Paying Agent shall have no responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of DTC, Cede or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Notes, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other person, other than an Owner as shown in the registration books kept by the Note Registrar, of any notice with respect to the Notes, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any oft other person, other than an Owner as shown in the registration books kept by the Note Registrar, of any amount with respect to principal of or interest on the Notes. The City, the Note Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Note is registered in the registration books kept by the Note Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Note for the purpose of payment of principal and interest with respect to such Note, for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Note and for all other purposes whatsoever. The Paying Agent shall pay all principal of and interest on the Notes only to or upon the order of the respective Owners,as shown in the registration books kept by the Note Registrar, or their respective attorneys duly authorized in writing, as provided in Section 3(b) hereof, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to satisfy and discharge fully the City's obligations with respect to payment of principal of and interest on the Notes to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than an Owner, as shown in the registration books kept by the Note Registrar, shall receive a certificated Note evidencing the obligation of the City to make payments of principal and interest pursuant to this Note Resolution. Upon delivery by DTC to the City of written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede, the word "Cede" in this Note Resolution shall refer to such new nominee of DTC. Upon receipt of such a notice, the City shall promptly deliver a copy of the same to the Note Registrar and the Paying Agent. (g) The City's prior execution and delivery of the Representation Letter shall not in any way limit the provisions of Section 3(f) hereof or in any other way impose upon the City any obligation whatsoever with respect to Persons having interests in the Notes other than the Owners, as shown on the registration books kept by the Note Registrar. The City Treasurer, -6- Note Sale Resolution acting in his capacity as Paying Agent and Note Registrar hereunder is hereby authorized and directed to take all action necessary for all of DTC's operational arrangements pertaining to the Paying Agent and Note Registrar, respectively, in the Representation Letter to at all times be complied with. (h) In the event that (i) the City determines that DTC is unable or unwilling to discharge its responsibilities described herein and in the Representation Letter, (ii) DTC determines to discontinue providing its service as securities depository with respect to the Notes at any time as provided in the Representation Letter or (iii) the City determines that it is in the best interests of the beneficial owners of the Notes that they be able to obtain certificated Notes, the City shall notify DTC and direct DTC to notify the Participants of the availability through DTC of note certificates, and the Notes shall no longer be restricted to being registered in the registration books kept by the Note Registrar in the name of Cede. At that time, the City may determine that the Notes shall be registered in the name of and deposited with such other depository operating a universal book-entry system as may be acceptable to the City, or such depository's agent or designee, and if the City does not select such alternate universal book-entry system, then the Notes shall no longer be restricted to being registered in the registration books kept by the Note Registrar in the name of Cede, but may be registered in whatever name or names Owners transferring or exchanging Notes shall designate, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3(b) and (c) hereof. (i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Note Resolution to the contrary, so long as any Note is registered in the name of Cede, all payments with respect to principal of and interest on such Note and all notices with respect to such Note shall be made and given, respectively, in the manner provided in the Representation Letter. Section 4. The Notes shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit C, with such insertions, omissions, endorsements and variations as the as may be required (including, but not limited to, such changes as may be necessary if the Notes at any time are no longer held in book-entry form as permitted by Section 3(h) hereof). Section 5. All of the covenants, statements, representations, agreements and promises contained in the Notes and all recitals and representations in this Note Resolution shall be, and the same are hereby,adopted as the covenants, statements,agreements and promises of the City. Section 6. The proceeds derived from the sale of the Notes shall be deemed allocated to the general fund of the City as needed to alleviate anticipated deficits in that fund arising from the timing of collection of taxes and other revenues of the Fiscal Year for that fund and shall be used solely for the purpose of meeting the current and necessary expenses of the City, including the costs of issuing the Notes, and for any other purpose for which funds of the City may be legally expended during the Fiscal Year. The Owners of the Notes shall not be responsible for the application of the proceeds thereof by the City or any of its officers. Section 7. The full faith and credit of the City are pledged to the payment of the Notes. The City shall levy or cause to be levied for the Fiscal Year a tax, and there shall be levied and collected revenues other than taxes, that together shall be sufficient to pay the principal of and -7- Note Sale Resolution interest on the Notes as the same fall due. The Notes are issued in anticipation of the payment of such taxes and the collection of such revenues for the Fiscal Year. Section 8. There is hereby irrevocably appropriated from the first collection of taxes and other revenues for the Fiscal Year a sufficient fund to pay the principal of and interest on the Notes as the same shall fall due, and all expenses ih connection therewith and all collection and other charges incident thereto or connected therewith shall be paid by the City. Section 9. The bid of the Potential Purchaser that results in the lowest net effective interest cost, shall be and the same accepted in accordance with Section 2(b) of this Note Resolution. To evidence the acceptance of the Purchaser's bid, the City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Purchaser's bid form. (b) Under authority of the Local Government Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14 of the Utah Code,the Notes shall be issued by the City for the purpose set forth in Section 2 hereof. (c) The Final Official Statement of the City, in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement, as supplemented, attached hereto as Exhibit A, with such changes, omissions, insertions and revisions as the Mayor shall deem advisable, including the completion thereof with the information established at the time of the sale of the Notes by the Designated Officers and set forth in the Certificate of Determination, is hereby authorized, and the Mayor shall sign and deliver such Final Official Statement to the purchaser of the Notes for distribution to prospective purchasers of the Notes and other interested persons. (d) The Mayor, the Chief of Staff, the City Treasurer and the City Recorder are, and each of them is, hereby authorized to do or perform all such acts and to execute all such certificates, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to comply with the provisions of this Note Resolution and to carry out the transactions contemplated hereby; and the Mayor and the City Recorder are,and each of them is,hereby authorized and directed to sign, countersign, seal and deliver the Notes to the purchaser of the Notes, upon receipt of the purchase price therefor,as specified in the preambles hereto and as provided herein. Section 10. (a) The Mayor, the City Recorder, the Chief of Staff,the City Treasurer and other appropriate officials of the City are each hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificates and agreements as shall be necessary to establish that the Notes are not "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations promulgated or proposed thereunder, as the same presently exist, or may from time to time hereafter be amended, supplemented or revised, and to establish that interest on the Notes is not and will not become includible in gross income of the Owners thereof for federal income tax purposes. The City covenants and certifies to and for the benefit of the Owners from time to time of the Notes that (i) it will at all times comply with the provisions of any certificates or agreements made or entered into hereunder and (ii) no use will be made of the proceeds of the issue and sale of the Notes, or any funds or accounts of the City that may be deemed to be available proceeds of the Notes, pursuant to Section 148 of the Code and applicable regulations (proposed or promulgated), which use, if it had been reasonably . expected on the date of issuance of the Notes, would have caused the Notes to be classified as -8- Note Sale Resolution "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code. Pursuant to this covenant, the City obligates itself to comply throughout the term of the Notes with the requirements of Section 148 of the Code and the regulations proposed or promulgated thereunder. (b) The City further covenants and agrees to and for the benefit of the Owners from time to time of the Notes that the City (i) will not take any action that would cause interest on the Notes to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion from gross income of the Owners of the Notes as provided in Section 103 of the Code, (ii) will not omit to take or cause to be taken, in timely manner, any action, which omission would cause interest on the Notes to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion from gross income of the Owners of the Notes as provided in Section 103 of the Code, (iii) without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (A) will not take any action that would cause the Notes, or any Note, to be a "private activity bond" within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code or to fail to meet any applicable requirement of Section 149 of the Code and (B) will not omit to take or cause to be taken, in timely manner, any action, which omission would cause the Notes, or any Note, to be a "private activity bond" or to fail to meet any applicable requirement of Section 149 of the Code and (iv) acknowledges that, in the event of an examination by the Internal Revenue Service of the exemption from federal income taxation for interest paid on the Notes, under present rules, the City may be treated as a "taxpayer" in such examination and agrees that it will respond in a commercially reasonable manner to any inquiries from the Internal Revenue Service in connection with such an examination. The Mayor, the City Recorder, the Chief of Staff, the City Treasurer and other appropriate officials of the City are each hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificates, representations and agreements as shall be necessary to establish that the Notes are not and will not become "private activity bonds," that all applicable requirements of Section 149 of the Code are and will be met and that the covenants of the City contained in this Section 10 will be complied with. (c) The City hereby covenants to take or cause to be taken such actions as shall be necessary to comply with the arbitrage rebate requirement imposed by Section 148(f) of the Code to preserve and maintain the excludability of interest on the Notes from gross income of the Owners thereof for federal income tax purposes and shall take such actions as are appropriate under the tax certificate relating to the Notes delivered on the date of original issuance thereof. Section 11. All proceedings, resolutions and actions of the City and its officers, agents and representatives taken in connection with the sale and issuance of the Notes, including but not limited to the publication of the Notice of Sale in The Bond Buyer and the preparation and distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and an Official Notice of Sale, are hereby ratified,confirmed and approved. Section 12. All resolutions and orders or parts thereof in conflict with the provisions hereof are to the extent of such conflict hereby repealed. Section 13. This Note Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. -9- Note Sale Resolution EXHIBIT C [FORM OF NOTE] Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company, a New York corporation ("DTC"), to the City or its agent for registration of transfer, e.ychange, or payment, and any certificate issued is registered in the name of Cede & Co. or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC (and any payment is made to Cede & Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC). ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF UTAH SALT LAKE COUNTY SALT LAKE CITY TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE,SERIES 2011 No. R- $19,000,000 INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE DATED DATE CUSIP �o June 29,2012 ,2011 REGISTERED OWNER: PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: DOLLARS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), hereby acknowledges itself to be indebted and, for value received, hereby promises to pay to the registered owner identified above, or registered assigns, the principal amount identified above, upon presentation and surrender hereof, on the maturity date specified above, without option of redemption prior to maturity, and to pay to the registered owner identified above, or registered assigns, interest on such principal amount from the date of this Note (calculated on the basis of a 360-day year consisting. of twelve 30-day months) at the rate per annum specified above from the dated date identified above (the "Dated Date") until paid, payable at maturity. Principal of and interest on this Note shall be payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the City Treasurer's office located in Salt Lake City, Utah, as paying agent of the City, in any coin or currency of the United States of America that is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts at the time of payment. C-1 Note Sale Resolution 0- This Note is one of an issue of $19,000,000 of notes of like tenor and date, known as "Salt Lake City, Utah Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 2011- (the "Notes"), issued under and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Utah, including particularly the applicable provisions of the Local Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14, Title 11, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Utah Code"), the Utah Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 7, Title 15 of the Utah Code, and a resolution of the City adopted on June 14, 2011 (the "Note Resolution"). The City Treasurer is the note registrar and paying agent of the City with respect to the Notes. Said note registrar and paying agent, respectively, is referred to herein as the "Note Registrar" and the "Paying Agent." It is hereby covenanted, certified, recited and declared that this Note is issued in anticipation of the collection of taxes levied and other revenues for the current fiscal year of the City ending June 30, 2012 (the "Current Fiscal Year"), in evidence of money borrowed to meet the current and necessary expenses of the City, and for any other purpose for which funds of the City may be legally expended during the Current Fiscal Year, until payment of the taxes and other revenues for the Current Fiscal Year; that taxes have been levied and imposed and will be collected in the Current Fiscal Year on all taxable property within the City within the limit provided by law and, together with other budgeted revenues to be received during the current Fiscal Year, sufficient to pay principal of and interest on this Note as the same falls due and all budgeted expenses of the City for the Current Fiscal Year; and that a sufficient fund has been • appropriated for the payment of the principal of and interest on this Note as the same shall fall due. It is hereby further certified,recited and declared that the aggregate indebtedness incurred by the City for the Current Fiscal Year,including the Notes, is not in excess of either (i) seventy- five percent (75%) of the total of the taxes and other revenues levied and collected by or on behalf of the City in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2011, or (ii) ninety percent (90%) of the total of the taxes and other revenues levied and to be collected by or on behalf of the City in the Current Fiscal Year. This note is transferable, as provided in the Note Resolution, only upon the books of the City kept for that purpose at the office of the Note Registrar, in Salt Lake City, Utah, by the registered owner hereof in person or by such owner's attorney duly authorized in writing. Such transfer will be made upon surrender of this Note, together with a written instrument-of transfer satisfactory to the Note Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or such duly authorized attorney, and thereupon the City shall issue in the name of the transferee a new registered Note or Notes of authorized denominations of the same aggregate principal amount, series, designation, maturity and interest rate as the surrendered Note, all as provided in the Note Resolution and upon the payment of the charges therein prescribed. No transfer of this Note shall be effective until entered on the registration books kept by the Note Registrar. The City, the Note Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name this Note is registered on the registration books kept by the Note Registrar as the holder and absolute owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and ..,b C 2 Note Sale Resolution interest due hereon and for all other purposes whatsoever, and neither the City, nor the Note Registrar nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. The Notes are issuable solely in the form of fully-registered Notes without coupons in the denomination of$100,000 or any whole multiple of$100,000. It is hereby further certified, recited and declared that all acts, conditions and things essential to the validity of this Note exist, have happened and have been done, and that every requirement of law affecting the issue thereof has been duly complied with,and that this Note is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the State of Utah. The full faith, credit, resources and all taxable property within the limits of the City are hereby irrevocably pledged to the levy of taxes for the Current Fiscal Year in which this Note is issued and for the collection of and proper allocation of such taxes and other revenues provided for the Current Fiscal Year to the prompt payment of principal of and interest on this Note and the issue of which it is one,according to its terms. This Note shall not be valid until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by the Note Registrar. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has executed this Note by causing it to be signed by its Mayor, countersigned by its City Treasurer and attested and countersigned by its City Recorder, and has caused the official seal of the City to be impressed hereon, all as of the Dated Date. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH By Mayor COUNTERSIGN: By City Treasurer ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By City Recorder [SEAL] APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior City Attorney C-3 Note Sale Resolution [FORM OF'NOTE REGISTRAR'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION] This Note is one of the Notes described in the within-mentioned Note Resolution and is one of the Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes,Series 2011,of Salt Lake City, Utah. Salt Lake City Treasurer,as Note Registrar and Paying Agent Date of registration and authentication: ,2011. C-4 Note Sale Resolution [FORM OF ASSIGNMENT] The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of the within Note, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations. TEN COM — as tenants in common UNIF TRANS MIN ACT — TEN ENT — as tenants by the Custodian entireties (Cust) (Minor) JT TEN — as joint tenants with right under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act of of survivorship and not as tenants in common (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned hereby sells,assigns and transfers unto Insert Social Security or Other Identifying Number of Assignee (Please Print or Typewrite Name and Address of Assignee) the within Note of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to register the transfer of said Note on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature: SIGNATURE GUARANTEED: NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting the requirements of the Note Registrar, which requirements include membership or participation in STAMP or such other "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by the Note Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, all in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Note in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. C-5 Note Sale Resolution Chipman am!Cutlei LLP—Di.tft ut 05 19,1 1 1'1,:'::i.l`,II\ail<\ OI'FICIAI.SEA I I:111'NT 1) I'I'l) NEss Itist E—Issued in Book-Entry Only Form RATINGS: [Moody's"YIIG 1"] Sec"NOTE RATINGS" herein. Subject to compliance by the City with certain covenants, in the opinion of Chapman and Cutler LLP, .Vote Coiui.tcl, under present law, interest on the Notes (a) is excludable from gross income of the owners thereof for screenl income tax purposes, (b) is not included as an item of tax preference in computing the federal alternatrne ,inamon rax for individuals and corporations and (c) is not takers into account in computing adjusted current rrrruirr,c, t�Inch is used as an adjustment ui determining the federal alternative minimum tax for certain corporatiorr.c In the opinion of Note Counsel, tuider the existing laws of the State of Utah, us presently enacted and onatrued, interest on the ;Votes is exempt from taxes imposed by the Utah Individual Income Tar .her. See "T-4X EVExiI'TiOV" herein for a more complete discussion. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES SERIES 2011 O s ream. Date of Original Issuance and Delivery The S Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 201 1, dated the date of original issuance and delis err thereof(the "Notes"). are issuable by Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City") as tulle-registered notes and, when initially issued, will be in book-entry form only, registered in the name of Cede R Co.. as nominee for The Depositors Trust Company, New York,New York ("DTC"). DTC will act as securities depository for the Notes. Purchases of Notes will be made in book-entry form only, in denominations of $100,000 or any sshole multiple thereof. through brokers and dealers who are, or who act through, DTC participants. "THE NOTES — Book-Entry System-herein. Principal of and interest on the Notes are payable on June 29,2012. The City Treasurer of the City will act as Paving Agent(the "Paying Agent") and Note Registrar(the "Note Registrar"). The Notes are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The,Votes will be issued pursuant to applicable law in anticipation of the collection of taxes levied and set to be collected for the City's fiscal year ending June 30, 2012(the "Current Fiscal Year"). The full faith and credit of the City will be pledged to levy and collect sufficient taxes and other revenues for the Current Fiscal Year, and the Cit.) tt ill covenant to irrevocably appropriate fi'oni the first collection of such taxes and other revenues pertaining to the Current Fiscal Year an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Notes when due and all budgeted expenses of the City for the Current Fiscal Year. Principal Interest Due Amount Rate Yield CL'SIP June 29.2012 S elc a 795574 The Notes will be awarded pursuant to competitive bidding to be held via the PARITY11 electronic bid submission system on Wednesday,June 22,2011,as set forth in the Official Notice of Note Sale(dated the date _ _ of this Preliminary Official Statement). _ Lewis Young Robertson&Burningham,Inc.will act as Financial Advisor. This cover page contains certain information for quick reference only. It is not a summary of tints i.,,ue. Investors trust read the entire Official Statement to obtain information essential to the making of an mjormed nn esmient decision. - This Official Statement is dated ,2011,and the information contained herein speaks only as of that date. The anticipated date of delivery is Thursday.July 14,2011. 30ot,466 o; 0'_due—S703 5 3,RDBtmo SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES SERIES 2011 Salt Lake City City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 (801) 535-7946 CI'ry COUNCIL Renuneton Love Council Chair Stan ['enfold Council Vice Chair Carlton J.Christensen Council Member Luke Garrott Council Member JT Martin Council Member Soren D.Simonsen Council Member Van Blair Turner Council Member CI 1'Y ADMINISTRATION Ralph Becker Mayor Day id Everitt Chief of Staff Edwin P. Rutan,II City Attorney Christine Meeker City Recorder Daniel A. Mulct City Treasurer NOTE COUNSEL INDEPENDENT AUDITORS Chapman and Cutler LLP Hansen,Barnett& Maxwell.P.C. 201 South Main,Suite 2000 5 Triad Center,Suite 750 Salt Lake City. Utah 841 1 1 Salt Lake City,Utah 84180 (S0 l) 533-0066; (801) 533-9595 (Fax) (801) 532-2200; (801) 532-7944(Fax) FINANCIAL ADVISOR NOTE REGISTRAR AND PAYING AGENT Levv is Young Robertson& Burningham.Inc. Salt Lake City Treasurer 41 North Rio Grande City Treasurer's Office Suite 101 (For hand delivery or express courier delivery) Salt Lake Cit . Utah 84101 451 South State Street.Room 22S (801) 596-0700: (801) 596-2800 (Fax) Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • -OR- (For U.S.Postal Sers ice Delis cry) P.O. Box 145462 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-5462 (801) 535-7946: (801) 535-6082 (Fax) - i - No dealer, broker, salesperson or any other person has been authorized by Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), or the successful bidder(s) to give any information or to make any representations other than those contained in this Official Statement in connection with the offering contained herein, and, if given or made, such information or representations must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the successful bidder(s). This Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of, the Notes by any person in any jurisdiction in which it is unlawful for such person to make such offer, solicitation or sale. The information and expressions of opinion herein are subject to change without notice, and neither delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale made thereafter shall under any circumstances create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the City or in any other information contained herein since the date hereof. IN CONNECTION WITH THIS OFFERING, THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDERS) VIAY ENGAGE IN TRANSACTIONS THAT STABILIZE, MAINTAIN OR OTHERWISE AFFECT THE PRICE OF THE NOTES. SUCH TRANSACTIONS MAY INCLUDE OVERALLOTMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF NOTES,THE PURCHASE OF NOTES TO STABILIZE THEIR MARKET PRICE,THE PURCHASE OF NOTES TO COVER THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER'S(S') SHORT POSITIONS AND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BIDS. SUCI-i TRANSACTIONS,IF COMMENCED,MAY BE DISCONTINUED AT ANY TIME. omok THESE SECURITIES HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ANY STATE SECURITIES COMMISSION NOR HAS THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ANY STATE SECURITIES COMMISSION PASSED UPON THE ACCURACY OR ADEQUACY OF THIS OFFICIAL STATEMENT. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. - 11 - TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 The Notes The City 1 Security and Source of Payment I Authority and Purpose 1 Use of Proceeds No Redemption Registration, Denominations and Manner of Payment Tax-Exempt Status Conditions of Delivery, Anticipated Date,Manner and Place of Delivery 3 Limited Continuing Disclosure 3 Basic Documentation 3 Contact Persons 4 Public Sale/Electronic Bid 4 THE NOTES 4 General 4 Sources and Uses of Funds 5 Security and Sources of Payment 5 No Redemption 5 Registration and Transfer 5 Book-Entry System 6 Debt Service Requirements 8 SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 9 City Officials 9 City Administration 9 Employee Workforce and Retirement System; Postemployment Benefits 10 DEBT STRUCTURE OF SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 1 1 Outstanding Debt Issues 11 Debt Service Schedule of Outstanding General Obligation Bonds 12 Other Financial Considerations 12 Overlapping General Obligation Debt 13 Debt Ratios 13 General Obligation Legal Debt Limit and Additional Debt Incurring Capacity 14 No Defaulted Obligations 14 FIN ANCIAL INFORNIATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 1-1 Fund Structure; Accounting Basis 14 Financial Controls 15 Budget and Appropriation Process 15 Insurance Coverage 16 - iii - PAGE Investment Policy 16 Property Tax Matters 18 Tax Levy and Collection 19 Public Hearing on Certain Tax Increases 91 Sources of General Fund Revenues 1 Sales and Use Taxes Utility Franchise Taxes and Fees 93 Five-Year Financial Summaries 73 Historical City Tax Rates 28 Comparative Property Tax Rates Within Salt Lake County 78 Taxable and Fair Market Value of Property 99 Historical Summaries of Taxable Values of Property 30 Tax Collection Record 31 Some of the Largest Taxpayers in the City 31 Recent Developments 31 TAX EXEMPTION 32 Federal Income Taxation 32 Utah Income Taxation 34 LITIGATION 35 LIMITED CONTINUING DISCLOSURE 35 akitew APPROVAL OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 36 NOTE RATINGS 36 BOND RATINGS 36 FINANCIAL ADVISOR 37 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 37 MISCELLANEOUS 37 APPENDIX A — SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2010 A-1 APPENDIX B — FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING B-1 APPENDIX C - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION REGARDING THE CITY AND SALT LAKE COUNTY C-1 APPENDIX D — CASH FLOW SUMMARY D-1 APPENDIX E — PROPOSED FORM OF OPINION OF NOTE COUNSEL E-1 .� - iv - SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES SERIES 2011 INTRODUCTION This introduction is only a brief description of the Notes, as hereinafter defined, the security and source of payment for the Notes and certain information regarding Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"). The information contained herein is expressly qualified by reference to the entire Official Statement. Investors should make a full review of the entire Official Statement. See the following appendices that are attached hereto: '`APPENDIX A—SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2010;" "APPENDIX B— FOR\I OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING," "APPENDIX C—DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION REGARDING THE CITY AND SALT LAKE COUNTY," "APPENDIX D—CASH FLOW SUMMARY" and"APPENDIX E—PROPOSED FORM OF OPINION OF NOTE COUNSEL." THE NOTES This Official Statement, including the cover page, introduction and appendices, provides information in connection with the issuance and sale by the City of its S Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 2011,dated the date of original issuance and delivery thereof (the "Notes" or "Note"), initially issued in book-entry form only. THE CITY The City is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah (the "Stare") and is the capital of the State. The City is the most populous City in the State with an estimated 2010 population of approximately 186,440 residents. The City is governed by the City Council, which is comprised of seven members. For more information with respect to the City see "SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH" for additional information. SECURITY AND SOURCE OF PAYMENT The Notes will be issued in anticipation of the collection of taxes levied and general fund revenues to be collected for the City's fiscal year ending June 30, 2012 (the "Current Fiscal Year"). See "THE NOTES—Security and Sources of Payment." AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE The Notes are being issued pursuant to (i) the Local Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11 (the "Local Government Bonding Act") of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Utah Code"), (ii) Resolution No. of 2011 of the City adopted on June 14, 2011 (the "Resolution"), which provides for the issuance of the Notes, and (iii) other applicable provisions of law. Under Utah law, cities may issue tax and revenue anticipation notes in an amount not in excess of 90% of the estimated taxes and other revenues of the municipality for the current year, and. in the event that such notes are issued prior to the annual tax levy for the year in which such indebtedness is contracted, not in excess of 75% of the taxes and other revenues of the municipality for the preceding year. The Notes are to be issued in anticipation of the collection of taxes and other revenues for the Current Fiscal Year, for the purpose of payment of current and necessary expenses of the City, including costs of issuing the Notes, and for other purposes for which funds of the City may be legally expended. The City does not expect to issue additional tax and revenue anticipation notes for the Current Fiscal Year. USE OF PROCEEDS The proceeds of the Notes will be used for the purpose of payment of current and necessary expenses of the City including the costs of issuing the Notes and for other purposes for which funds of the City may be legally expended. See "THE NoTEs—Sources and Uses of Funds." No REDEMPTION The Notes are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. See "THE NoTEs—No Redemption." REGISTRATION,DENOMINATIONS AND MANNER OF PAYMENT The Notes are issuable only as fully-registered notes and, when initially issued, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"), which will act as securities depository of the Notes. Purchases of Notes will be made in book-entry form only, in the principal amount of $100,000 or any whole • multiple thereof, through brokers and dealers who are, or who act through, DTC participants. Beneficial owners of the Notes will not be entitled to receive physical delivery of note certificates so long as DTC or a successor securities depository acts as the securities depository with respect to the Notes. Principal of and interest on the Notes are payable on June 29, 2012. The City Treasurer of the City (the "City Treasurer") will act as Paying Agent (the "Paying Agent") to the registered owners of the Notes. So long as DTC is the registered owner, it will, in turn, remit such principal and interest to its participants, for subsequent disbursements to the beneficial owners of the Notes, as described in"THE NoTEs—Book-Entry System." - 7 - TAX-EXEMPT STATUS Subject to compliance by the City with certain covenants, in the opinion of Chapman and Cutler LLP, Note Counsel, under present law, interest on the Notes (a) is excludable from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes, (b) is not included as an item of tax preference in computing the federal alternative minimum tax for individuals and corporations, and (c) is not taken into account in computing adjusted current earnings, which is used as an adjustment in determining the federal alternative minimum tax for certain corporations. In the opinion of Note Counsel, under the existing laws of the State, as presently enacted and construed, interest on the Notes is exempt from taxes imposed by the Utah Individual Income Tax Act. See `TAX EXEMPTION" for a more complete discussion. CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY,ANTICIPATED DATE,MANNER AND PLACE OF DELIVERY The Notes are offered, subject to prior sale, when, as and if issued and received by the successful bidder(s), subject to the approval of legality of the Notes by Chapman and Cutler LLP, Note Counsel, and certain other conditions. Certain legal matters will be passed on for the City by the City Attorney. It is expected that the Notes, in book-entry form only, will be available for delivery through the facilities of DTC on or about Thursday,July 22, 2010. LIMITED CONTINUING DISCLOSURE As the Notes have a maturity of less than 18 months, the City is exempt from the provisions of Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule") adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the•"Commission") under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,requiring the delivery of annual financial information to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB"). However, pursuant to the Rule, the City will enter into a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") for the benefit of the beneficial owners of the Notes to provide notice of certain events to the MSRB pursuant to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(5) and (d)(3) of the Rule. See "LIMITED CONTINUING DISCLOSURE" herein and the proposed form of the Undertaking attached hereto as `'APPENDIX B—FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING." BASIC DOCUMENTATION The "basic documentation," which includes the Resolution, the closing documents and other documentation authorizing the issuance of the Notes and establishing the rights and responsibilities of the City and other parties to the transaction, may be obtained from the "contact persons" listed below. - 3 - CONTACT PERSONS As of the date of this Official Statement, the chief contact person for the City concerning the Notes is: Daniel A. Mule,City Treasurer 451 South State Street,Room 228 P.O. Box 145462 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5462 Telephone: (801) 535-6411; Fax: (801) 535-6082 E-Mail: daniel.mule@slcgov.com As of the date of this Official Statement, additional requests for information may be directed to Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Financial Advisor"): Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham,Inc. 41 North Rio Grande, Suite 101 Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 Telephone: (801) 596-0700; Fax: (801) 596-2800 E-Mail: dale@lewisyoung.com o PLBLIC SALE/ELECTRONIC BID The Notes were awarded pursuant to competitive bidding held via the PARITY® bid submission system on Wednesday,June 22, 2011,as set forth in the Official Notice of Note Sale (dated the date of the Preliminary Official Statement), to , of , at a"true interest rate" of %. THE NOTES GENERAL The Notes will be dated the date of original issuance and delivery thereof and will mature on June 29, 2012, as set forth on the cover page of this Official Statement. The Notes will bear interest from their date at the rate set forth on the cover page of this Official Statement. Principal of and interest on the Notes is payable on June 29, 2012. Interest on the Notes will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The City Treasurer is the Note Registrar for the Notes under the Resolution (the "Note Registrar"). The Notes will be issued as fully-registered notes, initially in book-entry form only. in the denomination of S 100,000 or any whole multiple thereof. -4 - SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS The sources and uses of funds in connection with the issuance of the Notes are estimated to be as follows: SOURCES: Par amount of Notes S Original issue premium"' TOTAL S USES: Project Account S Purchaser's discount Costs of issuance' TOTAL S (I) Net of original issue discount. (2) Includes Financial Advisor fees,legal fees,rating agency fee,printing and other miscellaneous costs or issuance. SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT The Notes will be issued pursuant to applicable law in anticipation of the collection of taxes levied and yet to be collected for the City's Current Fiscal Year. The full faith and credit of the City will be pledged to levy and collect sufficient taxes and other revenues for the Current Fiscal Year, and the City will covenant to irrevocably appropriate from the first collection of such taxes and other revenues pertaining to the Current Fiscal Year an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Notes when due and all budgeted expenses of the City for the Current Fiscal Year. No REDEMPTION The Notes are not subject to redemption prior to maturity. REGISTRATION AND TRANSFER In the event the book-entry system is discontinued, any Note may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred, upon the registration books kept by the Note Registrar, by the person in s\hose name it is registered, in person or by such owner's duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of such Note for cancellation, accompanied by delivery of a duly executed written instrument of transfer in a form approved by the Note Registrar. No transfer will be effective until entered on the registration books kept by the Note Registrar. Whenever any Note is - 5 - surrendered for transfer, the Note Registrar will authenticate and deliver a new fully-registered Note or Notes of authorized denominations duly executed by the City, for a like aggregate principal amount. Notes may be exchanged at the principal office of the Note Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of fully-registered Notes. For every such exchange or transfer of the Notes, the Note Registrar must make a charge sufficient to reimburse it for any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such exchange or transfer of the Notes. The City, the Note Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Note is registered in the registration books kept by the Note Registrar as the holder and absolute owner thereof for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal thereof and interest due thereon and for all other purposes whatsoever. BOOK-ENTRY SYSTEM DTC will act as securities depository for the Notes. The Notes will be issued as fully-registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC's partnership nominee) or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. One fully-registered Note certificate will be issued for each maturity of the Notes, each in the aggregate principal amount of such maturity,and will be deposited with DTC. DTC, the world's largest depository, is a limited-purpose trust company organized under the New York Banking Law, a "banking organization" within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a "clearing corporation" within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a "clearing agency" registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DTC holds and provides asset servicing for over 3.5 million issues of U.S. and non-U.S. equity issues, corporate and municipal debt issues, and money market instruments from over 100 countries that DTC's participants ("Direct Participants") deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the post- trade settlement among Direct Participants of sales and other securities transactions in deposited securities, through electronic computerized book-entry transfers and pledges between Direct Participants' accounts. This eliminates the need for physical movement of securities certificates. Direct Participants include both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other organizations. DTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation ("DTCC"). DTCC, in turn, is owned by a number of Direct Participants of DTC and Members of the National Securities Clearing Corporation, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation and Emerging Markets Clearing Corporation (NSCC, FICC, and EMCC, also subsidiaries of DTCC), as well as by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the American Stock Exchange LLC, and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, and clearing corporations that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly ("Indirect Participants"). DTC has Standard & Poor's highest rating: AAA. The - 6 - DTC rules applicable to its Direct and Indirect Participants are on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. More information about DTC can be found at www.dtcc.com and www.dtc.org. Purchases of the Notes under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive a credit for the Notes on DTC's records. The ownership interest of each actual purchaser of each Note ("Beneficial Owner") is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants' records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase. Beneficial Owners are, however, expected to receive written confirmations providing details of the transaction, as well as periodic statements of their holdings, from the Direct or Indirect Participant through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the transaction. Transfers of ownership interests in the Notes are to be accomplished by entries made on the books of Direct and Indirect Participants acting on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive certificates representing their ownership interests in the Notes, except in the event that use of the book-entry system for the Notes is discontinued. To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Notes deposited by Direct Participants with DTC are registered in the name of DTC's partnership nominee, Cede & Co., or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. The deposit of the Notes with DTC and their registration in the name of Cede & Co. or such other DTC nominee do not effect any change in beneficial ownership. DTC has no knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the Notes; DTC's records reflect only the identity of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such Notes are credited, which may or may not be the Beneficial Owners. The Direct and Indirect Participants will remain responsible for keeping account of their holdings on behalf of their customers. Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by Direct Participants to Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Beneficial Owners of the Notes may wish to take certain steps to augment transmission to them of notices of significant events with respect to the Notes, such as redemptions, tenders, defaults, and proposed amendments to the Note documents. For example, Beneficial Owners of the Notes may wish to ascertain that the nominee holding the Notes for their benefit has agreed to obtain and transmit notices to Beneficial Owners. In the alternative, Beneficial Owners may wish to provide their names and addresses to the Note Registrar and request that copies of notices be provided directly to them. Redemption notices shall be sent to DTC. If less than all of the Notes within an issue are being redeemed, DTC's practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct Participant in such issue to be redeemed. Neither DTC nor Cede & Co. (nor any other DTC nominee) will consent or vote with respect to the Notes unless authorized by a Direct Participant in accordance with DTC's procedures. Under its usual procedures, DTC mails an omnibus proxy to the City as soon as possible after the record date. The omnibus proxy assigns Cede & Co.'s consenting or voting - 7 - ygW&N rights to those Direct Participants to whose accounts the Notes are credited on the record date (identified in a listing attached to the omnibus proxy). As long as the book-entry system is in effect, redemption proceeds, principal and interest payments on the Notes will be made to Cede & Co., or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. DTC's practice is to credit Direct Participants' accounts upon DTC's receipt of funds and corresponding detailed information from the City or the Paying Agent, on payable date in accordance with their respective holdings shown on DTC's records. Payments by Direct and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is the case with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in "street name," and will be the responsibility of such Direct and Indirect Participant and not of DTC, the Paying Agent, or the City, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Payment of redemption proceeds, principal and interest payments to Cede & Co. (or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC) is the responsibility of the City or the Paying Agent, disbursement of such payments to Direct Participants will be the responsibility of DTC, and disbursement of such payments to Beneficial Owners will be the responsibility of Direct and Indirect Participants. DTC may discontinue providing its services as depository with respect to the Notes at any time by giving reasonable notice to the City or the Paying Agent. Under such circumstances, in the event that a successor securities depository is not obtained, the Note certificates are required to be printed and delivered. Amvoi The City may decide to discontinue use of the system of book-entry transfers through DTC (or a successor securities depository). In that event, the Note certificates will be printed and delivered to DTC. The information in this section concerning DTC and DTC's book-entry system has been obtained from sources that the City believes to be reliable, but the City takes no responsibility for the accuracy thereof. DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS The following table shows the debt service requirements for the Notes: FISCAL YEAR MATURITY PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL June 29, 2012 S $ S ,00,40 - 8 - SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH CITY OFFICIALS The City has a Council-Mayor form of government. The City Council consists of seven members, who are elected by voters within seven geographic districts of approximately equal population. The Mayor is elected at large by the voters of the City and is charged with the executive and administrative duties of the government. The seven-member, part-time City Council is charged with the responsibility of performing the legislative functions of the City. The City Council performs three primary functions: it passes laws for the City, adopts the City budget and provides administrative oversight by conducting management and operational audits of City departments. Term information concerning the Mayor and the members of the City Council is set forth below: YEARS IN EXPIRATION OF OFFICE DISTRICT PERSON SERVICE CURRENT TERM Mayor Ralph Becker 3 January 2012 Council Chair #5 Jill Remington Love 9 January 2014 Council Vice Chair #3 Stan Penfold 1 January 2014 Council Member #1 Carlton J. Christensen 13 January 2014 Council Member #2 Van Blair Turner 11 January 2012 Council Member #4 Luke Garrott 3 January 2012 Council Member #6 JT Martin 3 January 2012 Council Member #7 Soren D. Simonsen 5 January 2014 CITY ADMINISTRATION The offices of Chief of Staff, City Attorney, City Recorder and City Treasurer are appointive offices. David Everitt, Chief of Staff, was appointed to his position by Mayor Ralph Becker on January 7, 2008. He is an experienced educator and program manager, and he successfully managed Mayor Becker's 2007 mayoral race. David Everitt received his B.S. degree in Geology from the University of Washington and his Master's degree in Environment and Community from Antioch Seattle University. He co-founded an environmental consulting business ten years ago and has worked throughout the country for the last twelve years as an environmental educator and program supervisor. Edwin P. Rutan, II, City Attorney, was appointed to his position in November 2002. Rutan received his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School in 1974 and his Bachelor of Arts degree from Columbia University in 1970. Mr. Rutan is admitted to the Utah and New York Bars and has nearly thirty years of wide-ranging legal experience. Prior to being appointed City - 9 - eAllnrMyk, Attorney, he held a variety of positions at AT&T over eighteen years, most recently as a regional vice president for law and government affairs. Prior to that he was associated with the Debevoise & Plimpton law firm in New York City. Christine Meeker, City Recorder, was appointed by Mayor Ralph Becker August 12, 2008. Ms. Meeker has been employed with Salt Lake City since November 1980. Ms. Meeker completed the Municipal Clerks Institute conducted by Continuing Education and Community Services, Weber State University, Ogden in November of 1995 received her Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC) designation and in September of 2006 she completed the Master Municipal Clerk Certificate (MMC) offered through the University of Utah. Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer, was appointed to his position in June 1993. From April 1986 until his current appointment, Mr. Mule was Deputy Treasurer for the City; and from April 1980 until April 1986 he served as Senior Auditor of Reporting for the City. Mr. Mule holds an M.B.A. in Finance from the Boston College Graduate School of Management, and a B.S. degree in Business Administration from Villanova University. EMPLOYEE WORKFORCE AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM;POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Employee Workforce and Retirement System. The City currently employs approximately [2,650] full-time employees and approximately [490] hourly and part-time employees for a total employment of approximately [3,140] employees. The City participates in three cost-sharing multiple-employer public employee retirement systems and one multiple employer agent system which are defined benefit retirement plans covering public employees of the State and employees of participating local governmental entities. The systems are administered under the direction of the Utah State Retirement Board whose members are appointed by the Governor of Utah. See "APPENDIX A—SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2010 —Notes to Financial Statements —Note 6—Long-term obligations," "— Note 12 —Pension Plans" and"—Note 14—Deferred Compensation Plans." Postemployment Benefits. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board issued Statement 43, Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefit Plans Other Than Pension Plans, and Statement 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions, which became effective for the City for its fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. The City contracted with an actuarial firm to provide the City with its estimated postemployment benefits liability. Such actuarial firm determined that the City's accrued actuarial liability for its postemployment benefits was $85,850,000 at July 1, 2010. The other postemployment benefit ("OPEB") cost and annual required contribution for the year ended June 30, 2010 were $7,797,000 and $7,744,000,respectively. The City currently funds its OPEB costs on a pay-as-you-go basis and during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 contributed S2,661,000. For additional information regarding the City's postemployment benefits see "APPENDIX A— SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2010—Note 13—Other Postemployment Benefits." - 10 - DEBT STRUCTURE OF SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH For purposes of the information set forth under this section under the heading entitled "Outstanding Debt Issues" the Notes are considered issued and outstanding. OUTSTANDING DEBT ISSUES (AS OF JULY 1,201 I) [To be updated.] AMOUNT OF FINAL PRINCIPAL ORIGINAL ISSUE MATURITY DATE OUTSTANDING General Obligation Bonds: Series 1999(Library Bonds) $81,000,000 6/15/2019 S 240,000 Series 2001 Refunding(Refund Series 1991) 22,650,000 6/15/2011 2,790,000 Series 2002 Building and Refunding(Refund portion of Series 1999) 48,855,000 6/15/2019 47,120,000 Series 2004A(Hogle Zoo&Tracy Aviary) 11,300,000 6/15/2024 8,665,000 Series 2009A(Open Space) 800,000 12/15/20IS 750,000 Series 2009B(The Leonardo) 10,200,000 6/15/2029 9,830,000 Series 2010A(Public Safety Facilities)' ' 25,000,000 6/15/2030 25.000.000 Total S94,395,000 Redevelopment Agency Debt'=': Series 1990 Tax Increment(CAB) $24,268,008 3/1/2015 S 7,487,799 Series 22002A Tax Increment 16,190,000 3/1/2015 5,835,000 Total S13,322,799 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds: Series 2004 S30,955,000 2/1/2024 S24,545,000 Series 2005 11,075,000 2/1/2025 8,120,000 Series 2008 14,800,000 2/1/2024 13,365,000 Series 2009(Taxable) 6,300,000 2/1/2031 6.300.000 Total S52,330,000 Special Improvement District and Assessment Area Bonds: Series 2003 103009 $ 1,217,000 12/1/2012 $ 396,000 Series 2006 106024 472,000 2/1/2016 307,000 Series 2006 102004 294,000 6/1/2016 190,000 Series 2007 102112 316,000 12/1/2011 134,000 Series 2007 102113 76,000 12/1/2011 32,000 Series 2007 106018 376,000 6/1/2017 278,000 Series 2007 102109& 102129 129,000 6/1/2017 95,000 Series 2008A 102119 246,000 6/1/2013 153,000 Series 2009A 102136 380,000 6/1/2013 232,000 Series 2009B 103006 1263,000 9/1/2019 1,263,000 Series 2009C 102145& 102146 396,000 9/1/2019 396,001) Total $3,476,000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds: Series 2004 Refunding,(Adjustable Rate) $17,300,000 6/1/2015 S 7,485,000 Series 2005A Refunding 47,355,000 10/1/2020 40,320,000 Series 2007A 8,590,000 10/1/2026 7,460,000 Series 20091 36,240,000 10/1/2028 35,260.001) Total S90525,000 T.s and Revenue Anticipation Notes: Series 2011 S 6/29/2012 S 1 The Series 2010A Bonds maturing 2011 through 2016 are tax-exempt and the Series 2010A Bonds maturing g 2017 through 2030 are federally taxable—direct pay—Build America Bonds. \lihouch the Redevelopment Agency bonds are listed above,such bonds are issued by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City,a separate entity.and are not obligations of the City. - 11 - DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS(As of July 1, 2011) Fiscal Year Total Ending Total Total Debt June 30 Principal Interest Service 2012 S 9,865,000.00 $ 7,030,308.26 $ 16,895,308.26 2013 10,270,000.00 6,611,449.26 16,881,449 26 2014 10,680,000.00 6,169,880.76 16,849,880.76 2015 11,120,000.00 5,708,540.26 16,828,540.26 2016 11,565,000.00 5,241,890.26 16,806,890.26 2017 12,045,000.00 4,740,441.26 16,7 85,441.26 2018 12,535,000.00 4,217,744.26 16,752,744.26 2019 13,020,000.00 3,682,814.76 16,702,814.76 2020 6,910,000.00 3,130,572.50 10,040,572.50 2021 7,100,000.00 2,892,313.50 9,992,313.50 2022 7,320,000.00 2,643,187.50 9,963,187.50 2023 7,565,000.00 2,382,938.50 9,947,938.50 2024 7,820,000.00 2,112,249.00 9,932,249.00 2025 7,225,000.00 1,830,250.00 9,055,250.00 2026 7,455,000.00 1,577,503.00 9,032,503.00 2027 7,690,000.00 1,314,740.50 9,004,740.50 7028 7,935,000.00 1,042,044.76 8,977,044.76 2029 8,190,000.00 758,102.26 8,948,102.26 2030 7,710,000.00 462,436.00 8,172,436.00 2031 6,220,000.00 187,844.00 6.407.844.00 Total $180,240,000.00 $63,737,250.60 S243,977.250.60 OTHER FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS See `'APPENDIX A—SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2010 — Notes to the Financial Statements — Note 6-Long-Term Obligations." The City has approximately $[119.9] million of authorized, but unissued, general obligation bonds. The City may issue approximately $[115.3] million of general obligation bonds during the Current Fiscal Year. The City plans to issue the remaining amount of authorized and unissued general obligation bonds over the next few years. Within the upcoming Current Fiscal Year the City may issue up to S[32] million of its sales tax revenue bonds to fund certain infrastructure improvements. Within the next year,the City has no plans to issue additional assessment area bonds. - 12 - ON ERLAPPING GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT CITY'S ENTITY'S CITY'S 2009 TAXABLE PORTION OF CITY'S GENERAL PORTION OF TA\ING ENTITY" V-\I.UE`2 TAXABLE VALUE PERCENTAGE OBLIGATION DEBT G.O.Doti CCWGCD(3) S114,819,794,087 S18.561,437,358 16.2% S276,380,000 S Salt Lake City School District 18,559,396.226 18.559,396,226 100.0 119,931,722 Salt Like County 73,790,083,869 18,561,437,358 25.2 Total Overlapping General Obligation Debt S Total Overlapping General Obligation Debt S Total Direct General Obligation Bonded Indebtedness Total Direct and Overlapping.General Obligation Debt S I t The State's general obligation debt is not included in overlapping debt because the State currently lesies no property tax For payment of its general obligation bonds. (2) 2010 information is not available. Taxable Value used in this table excludes the taxable value used to determine uniform fees on tangible personal property. See'FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH — Property Tax Matters — Uniform Fees"and "FINANCIAL LNFOR\IATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH—Taxable and Fair Market Value of Property." (3) Central Utah Water Conservancy District("CUWVCD")encompasses all or a portion of ten State counties,including.among others,Salt Lake County. CL'WCD's outstanding general obligation bonds are limited ad valorem tax bonds. By law CUWCD may levy a tax rate of up to 000400 to pay for operation and maintenance expenses and any outstanding general obligation indebtedness. (Source: Property Tax Division,Utah State Tax Commission(as to Taxable Value).) DEBT RATIOS The following table sets forth the ratios of general obligation debt of the City and the taxing entities listed in the table above entitled "Overlapping General Obligation Debt" that is expected to be paid from taxes levied specifically for such debt (and not from other revenues) on the taxable value of property within Salt Lake City, the estimated fair market value of such property and the population of the City. The State's general obligation debt is not included in the debt ratios because the State currently levies no property tax for payment of general obligation debt. COMPARED COMPARED TO 2009 COMPARED To 2009 To 2009 ESTIMATED FAIR POPULATION TAXABLE MARKET ESTIMATE PER VALUE rt( VALUE(') CAPITA 13i Direct General Obligation Debt _ % Direct and Overlapping General Obligation Debt __% _ 9'c $ _ i 1 Based on 2009 Taxable Value of S .which value excludes. the taxable value used to determine uniform fees on tangible personal property. 2I Based on an estimated 2009 Fair Market Value of S24,719,876,456, which value excludes the taxable value used to determine uniform fees on tangible personal property. (3) Based on a 2009 population estimate of 181,698 persons. - 13 - See "FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH — Property Tax Matters — Uniform Fees" and "FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH — Taxable and Fair Market Value of Property." GENERAL OBLIGATION LEGAL DEBT LIMIT AND ADDITIONAL DEBT INCURRING CAPACITY The general obligation indebtedness of the City is limited by State law to 8% of taxable property in the City (4% for general purposes and an additional 49c for sewer, water and electric purposes*) as computed from the last equalized assessment rolls for State or County purposes prior to incurring the debt. The legal debt limit and additional debt incurring capacity of the City are based on the estimated fair market value for 2009 and are calculated as follows: Estimated 2009 Fair Market Value t" $25,584.251,71 1 LEGAL GENERAL WATER,SEWER, DEBT PURPOSES AND LIGHTING TOTAL MARGIN 4% 4% 8% General Obligation Debt Limit $1,023,370,068 $1,023,370,068 $2,e46,740,136 Less: Outstanding General Obligation Bonds ( ) ( ) Legal Debt Margin The full 89c may be used for water,sewer and electric purposes but if it is so used,then no general obligation bonds may be issued in excess of 8%for any purpose. (I) For debt incurring capacity only,in computing the fair market value of taxable property in the City,the fair market value of all tax equivalent property (which value includes the taxable value used to determine uniform fees on tangible personal property)has been included as a part of the fair market value of the taxable property in the City. NO DEFAULTED OBLIGATIONS The City has never failed to pay principal of and interest on its financial obligations when due. FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH FUND STRUCTURE; ACCOUNTING BASIS The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered to be a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund balance or net assets, revenues, and expenditures or expenses. The various funds are grouped by type in the basic financial statements. Revenues and expenditures are recognized using the modified accrual basis of accounting in all governmental funds. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become both measurable and available. "Measurable" means that amounts can be reasonably determined within the current period. "Available" means that amounts are collectible within the - 14 - current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. The City uses two months as a cutoff for meeting the available criterion. Property taxes are considered "measurable" when levied and available when collected and held by Salt Lake County Any amounts not available are recorded as deferred revenue. Franchise taxes are considered "measurable" when collected and held by the utility company, and are recognized as revenue at that time. Other revenues that are determined to be susceptible to accrual include grants-in-aid earned and other intergovernmental revenues, charges for services, interest, assessments, interfund service charges, and proceeds of the sale of property. Assessments are recorded as receivables when assessed; however, they are reported as deferred revenue until the "available" criterion has been met. Sales and use taxes collected by the state and remitted to the City within the "available" time period are recognized as revenue. Revenues collected in advance are deferred and recognized in the period to which they apply. In proprietary funds, revenues and expenses are recognized using the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they are earned and become measurable, and expenses are recognized in the period incurred. FINANCIAL CONTROLS The City utilizes a computerized financial accounting system which includes a system of budgetary controls. State law requires budgets to be controlled by individual departments, but the City also maintains computerized control by major categories within departments. These computerized controls are such that a requisition cannot be entered into the purchasing system unless the appropriated funds are available. The system checks for sufficient funds again, prior to the purchase order being issued, and again before the payment check is issued. Voucher payments are also controlled by the computer for sufficient appropriations. BUDGET AND APPROPRIATION PROCESS The budget and appropriation process of the City is governed by the Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Utah Cities, Title 10, Chapter 6 of the Utah Code (the "Fiscal Procedures Act"). Pursuant to the Fiscal Procedures Act, the budget officer of the City is required to prepare budgets for the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds and Capital Improvement Fund. These budgets are to provide a complete financial plan for the budget (ensuing fiscal) year. Each budget is required to specify, in tabular form,estimates of anticipated revenues and appropriations for expenditures. Under the Fiscal Procedures Act, the total of anticipated revenues must equal the total of appropriated expenditures. On or before the first regular meeting of the City Council in May of each year, the budget officer is required to submit to the City Council tentative budgets for all funds for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1. Various actual and estimated budget data are required to be set forth in the tentative budgets. The budget officer may revise the budget request submitted by the heads of City departments, but must file these submissions with the City Council together with the tentative budget. The budget officer is required to estimate in the tentative budget the revenue from nonproperty tax sources available for each fund and the revenue from general property taxes required by each fund. The tentative budget is then provisionally adopted by the City - 15 - Council, with any amendments or revisions that the City Council deems advisable prior to the public hearings on the tentative budget. After public notice and hearing, the tentative budget is adopted by the City Council, subject to further amendment or revisions by the City Council prior to adoption of the final budget. Prior to June 22nd of each year, the final budgets for all funds are adopted by the City Council. The Fiscal Procedures Act prohibits the City Council from making any appropriation in the final budget of any fund in excess of the estimated expendable revenue of such fund. The adopted final budget is subject to amendment by the City Council during the fiscal year. However, in order to increase the budget total of any fund, public notice and hearing must be provided. Intra- and inter-department transfers of appropriation balances are permitted upon compliance with the Fiscal Procedures Act. The amount set forth in the final budget as the total amount of estimated revenue from property taxes constitutes the basis for determining the property tax levy to be set by the City Council for the current tax year and succeeding fiscal year. INSURANCE COVERAGE [To be updated by the City.] The City is self-insured for general liability claims,except for liability incurred at the Salt Lake International Airport (the "Airport"). The Airport liability policy has a limit of $500 million with no deductible. The Governmental Immunity Fund (an internal service fund) has been established to pay liability claims other than those of the Airport, along with certain City Attorney expenses. The City has an all-risk property insurance policy that has a limit of $500 million with a $100,000 deductible. The policy includes (a) $100 million for the Salt Lake City International Airport and $50 million in earthquake coverage for all other locations, (b) $100 million in flood coverage for facilities that are located outside the standard report zone, and (c) boiler and machine coverage to policy limit with a $25,000 deductible. The City Treasurer is covered under a $10,000,000 bond with no deductible. The City also has (i) public employee dishonesty insurance (an employee blanket bond) with a $1 million limit per occurrence and a $50,000 deductible, (ii) a forgery or alteration policy with a $25,000 limit and a $500 deductible, and (iii) a theft, disappearance, and destruction policy with a limit of $25,000 and a $500 deductible. The City carries workers' compensation insurance of$40 million and a S1.5 million self-insured retention. The City is self-insured for property loss above the limits and below the deductibles. The operating departments of the General Fund or proprietary funds assume financial responsibility for risk retained by the City for property damage. Further, the City is self-insured for employee long-term disability, unemployment, and workers' compensation. The Risk Management Fund (an internal service fund) has been established to pay these claims along with health insurance premiums and certain administrative expenses. Unless otherwise renewed, all policies discussed above will expire on June 30, 2010. INVESTMENT POLICY [To be updated by the City.] City Policy. It is the policy of the City to invest public funds in accordance with the principles of sound treasury management and in compliance with State and local laws, regulations, and other policies governing the investment of public funds, specifically, according - 16 - to the terms and conditions of the State Money Management Act of 1974 and Rules of the State Money Management Council as currently amended (the "Money Management Act"), and the City's own written investment policy. The following investment objectives, in order of priority, are met when investing public funds: safety of principal, need for liquidity, and maximum yield on investments consistent with the first two objectives. The City may use investment advisers to conduct investment transactions on its behalf as permitted by the Money Management Act and local ordinance or policy. Investment advisers must be certified by the Director of the Utah State Division of Securities of the Department of Commerce (the "Director"). Broker/dealers and agents who desire to become certified dealers must be certified by the Director and meet the requirements of the Money Management Act. Only qualified depositories as certified by Utah's Commissioner of Financial Institutions are eligible to receive and hold deposits of public funds. The State Money Management Council issues a quarterly list of certified investment advisers,certified dealers,and qualified depositories authorized by State statute to conduct transactions with public treasurers. Transactions involving authorized deposits or investments of public funds may be conducted only through issuers of securities authorized by Section 51-7-11(3) of the Utah Code, qualified depositories included in the current State list, and certified dealers included in the current State list. The City Treasurer must take delivery of all investments purchased, including those purchased through a certified investment adviser. This may be accomplished by the City Treasurer taking physical delivery of the security or delivering the security to a bank or trust company designated by the City Treasurer for safekeeping. The City Treasurer may use a qualified depository bank for safekeeping securities or maintain an account with a money center bank for the purpose of settling investment transactions and safekeeping and collecting those investments. City policy provides that not more than 25% of total City funds or 25% of the qualified depository's allotment, whichever is less, can be invested in any one qualified depository. Not more than 20% of total City funds may be invested in any one certified out-of-state depository institution. However, there is no limitation placed on the amount invested with the Utah Public Treasurer's Investment Fund ("PTIF") and other money market mutual funds, provided that the overall standards of investments achieve the City's policy objectives. All funds pledged or otherwise dedicated to the payment of interest on and principal of bonds or notes issued by the City are invested in accordance with the terms and borrowing instruments applicable to such bonds or notes. City policy also provides that the remaining term to maturity of an investment may not exceed the period of availability of the funds invested. The investment of City funds cannot be of a speculative nature. The City's entire portfolio is currently in compliance with all of the provisions of the Money Management Act. The Utah Public Treasurers' Investment Fund. The PTIF is a local government investment fund, established in 1981, and managed by the State Treasurer. Currently, the City has approximately $500 million on deposit in the PTIF, representing a substantial portion of the City's funds. All investments in the PTIF must comply with the Money Management Act and rules of the State Money Management Council. The PTIF invests primarily in money market - 17 - securities. Securities in the PTIF include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, short-term corporate notes, obligations of the U.S. Treasury and securities of certain agencies of the federal government. By policy, the maximum weighted average adjusted life of the portfolio is not to exceed 90 days and the maximum final maturity of any security purchased by the PTIF is limited to five years. Safekeeping and audit controls for all investments owned by the PTIF must comply with the Money Management Act. All securities purchased are delivered versus payment to the custody of the State Treasurer or the State Treasurer's safekeeping bank, assuring a perfected interest in the securities. Securities owned by the PTIF are completely segregated from securities owned by the State. The State has no claim on assets owned by the PTIF except for any investment of State moneys in the PTIF. Deposits are not insured or otherwise guaranteed by the State. Investment activity of the State Treasurer in the management of the PTIF is reviewed monthly by the State Money Management Council and is audited by the State Auditor. The information in this section concerning the current status of the PTIF has been obtained from sources the City believes to be reliable, but the City takes no responsibility for the accuracy thereof. See "APPENDIX A— SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2010—Notes to the Financial Statements—Note 2 —Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments" below. PROPERTY TAX MATTERS The Property Tax Act, Title 59, Chapter 2 of the Utah Code (the "Property Tax Act") provides that all taxable property is required to be assessed and taxed at a uniform and equal rate on the basis of its "fair market value" as of January 1 of each year, unless otherwise provided by law. "Fair market value" is defined in the Property Tax Act as "the amount at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts." Pursuant to an exemption for residential property provided for under the Property Tax Act and Article XIII of the State Constitution, the "fair market value" of residential property is reduced by 45%. The residential exemption is limited to one acre of land per residential unit and to one primary residence per household, except that an owner of multiple residential properties may exempt his or her primary residence and each residential property that is the primary residence of a tenant. The Property Tax Act provides that the Utah State Tax Commission (the "State Tax Commission") shall assess certain types of property ("centrally-assessed property"), including (i) properties that operate as a unit across county lines that must be apportioned among more than one county or state, (ii) public utility (including railroad) properties, (iii) airline operating properties, (iv) geothermal resources and (v) mines, mining claims and appurtenant machinery, facilities and improvements. All other taxable property ("locally-assessed property") is required to be assessed by the county assessor of the county in which such locally-assessed property is located. Each county assessor must update property values annually based upon a systematic - 18 - review of current market data. Each county assessor must also complete a detailed review of property characteristics for each parcel of property at least once every five years. The Property Tax Act requires that the State Tax Commission conduct an annual investigation in each county to determine whether all property subject to taxation is on the assessment rolls and whether the property is being assessed at its "fair market value." The State Tax Commission and the county assessors utilize various valuation methods, as determined by statute, administrative regulation or accepted practice, to determine the "fair market value" of taxable property. Uniform Fees. An annual statewide uniform fee is levied on tangible personal property in lieu of the ad valorem tax. The uniform fee is based on the value of motor vehicles, watercraft, recreational vehicles, and all other tangible personal property required to be registered with the State. The current uniform fee is established at 1.5% of the fair market value of motor vehicles that weigh 12,001 pounds or more, watercraft, recreational vehicles and all other tangible personal property required to be registered with the State, excluding exempt property such as aircraft and property subject to a fixed age-based fee. The uniform fee for motor homes is 1.0%. The uniform fee for aerial applicators is 0.2% and the uniform fee for all other aircraft is 0.4%. Motor vehicles weighing 12,000 pounds or less are subject to an age- based fee that is due each time the vehicle is registered. The age-based fee is for passenger type vehicles and ranges from $5 to $150, depending on the age of the vehicle. Recreation vehicles (except motor homes), motorcycles, watercraft (except large watercraft), snowmobiles and certain small motor vehicles required to be registered with the State are subject to an aged-based fee that ranges from $10 to $700, depending on the age of the vehicle. The revenues collected from the various uniform fees are distributed by the county to the taxing entity in which the property is located in the same proportion in which revenue collected from ad valorem real property tax is distributed. Property Tax Valuation Agency Fund. The State Legislature authorizes a multicounty assessing and collecting levy of up to .0002 per dollar of taxable value of taxablc property, to fund a Property Tax Valuation Agency Fund (the "PTVAF"). The purpose of the multicounty assessing and collecting levy is to promote the accurate valuation of property, the establishment and maintenance of uniform assessment levels within and among counties, and the efficient administration of the property tax system, including the costs of assessment, collection and distribution of property taxes. Disbursement of money from the PTVAF to each county is based on statutory qualification and requirements. Additionally, each county must levy an additional property tax of at least .0003 per dollar of taxable value as a county assessing and collecting levy in order to receive funds from the PTVAF. If necessary, a county may levy an additional tax to fund (i) state mandated actions and (ii) reappraisal programs. TAX LEVY AND COLLECTION The State Tax Commission must assess all centrally-assessed property by May 1 of each year. County assessors must assess all locally-assessed property before May 22 of each year. The State Tax Commission apportions the value of centrally-assessed property to the various taxing entities within each county and reports such values to county auditors before June 8. The - 19 - governing body of each taxing entity must adopt a proposed tax rate or, if the tax rate is not more than the certified tax rate, a final tax rate, before June 22. County auditors must forward to the State Tax Commission a statement prepared by the legislative body of each taxing entity showing the amount and purpose of each levy. Upon determination by the State Tax Commission that the tax levies comply with applicable law and do not exceed maximum permitted rates, the State Tax Commission notifies county auditors to implement the levies. If the State Tax Commission determines that a tax levy established by a taxing entity exceeds the maximum levy permitted by law, the State Tax Commission must lower the levy to the maximum levy permitted by law, notify the taxing entity that the rate has been lowered and notify the county auditor (of the county in which the taxing entity is located) to implement the rate established by the State Tax Commission. On or before July 22 of each year, the county auditors must mail to all owners of real estate shown on their assessment rolls notice of, among other things, the value of the property, itemized tax information for all taxing entities and the date their respective county boards of equalization will meet to hear complaints. Taxpayers owning property assessed by a county assessor may file an application within statutorily defined time limits based on the nature of the contest with the appropriate county board of equalization for the purpose of contesting the assessed valuation of their property. The county board of equalization must render a decision on each appeal in the time frame prescribed by the Property Tax Act. Under certain circumstances, the county board of equalization must hold a hearing regarding the application, at which the taxpayer has the burden of proving that the property sustained a decrease in fair market value. Decisions of the county board of equalization may be appealed to the State Tax Commission, which must decide all appeals relating to real property by May 1 of the following year. Owners of centrally-assessed property, or any county with a showing of reasonable cause, may, on or before the later of June 1 or a day within 30 days of the date the notice of assessment is mailed by the State Tax Commission, apply to the State Tax Commission for a hearing to contest the assessment of centrally-assessed property. The State Tax Commission must render a written decision within 120 days after the hearing is completed and all post-hearing briefs are submitted. The county auditor makes a record of all changes, corrections and orders, and delivers before November 1 the corrected assessment rolls to the county treasurers. By November 1, each county treasurer furnishes to each taxpayer a notice containing the kind and value of the property assessed to the taxpayer, the street address of the property, where applicable, the amount of the tax levied on the property and the year the property is subject to a detailed review. Taxes are due November 30, or if November 30 falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the next business day. Each county treasurer is responsible for collecting all taxes levied on real property within that county. There are no prior claims to such taxes. As taxes are collected, each county treasurer must pay to the State and each taxing entity within the county its proportionate share of the taxes, on or before the tenth day of each month. Delinquent taxes are subject to a penalty of 2.5% of the amount of the delinquent taxes or $10, whichever is greater; provided that such penalty is reduced to the greater of 1% or $10 if all delinquent taxes and the penalty are paid before January 31. Unless the delinquent taxes and penalty are paid on or before January 31 of the following year, the amount of delinquent taxes and penalty bears interest at the federal funds rate target established by the Federal Open Markets Committee plus 6% from the January 1 following the delinquency date until paid; provided that such rate of interest will not �. - 20 - be less than 7% or more than 10%. If delinquent taxes have not been paid by March 15 followinLg the lapse of four years from the delinquency date, the affected county advertises and sells the property at a final tax sale held in May or June of the fifth year after assessment. The process described above changes if a county or other taxing entity proposes a tax rate in excess of the certified tax rate (as described under "Public Hearing on Certain Tax Increases" below). If such an increase is proposed, the taxing entity must adopt a proposed tax rate before June 22. In addition, the county auditor must include certain information in the notices to be mailed by July 22, as described in the second preceding paragraph, including information concerning the tax impact of the proposed increase on the property and the time and place of the public hearing described in "Public Hearing on Certain Tax Increases." In most cases, notice of the public hearing must also be advertised by publication. After the public hearing is held, the taxing entity may adopt a resolution levying a tax in excess of the certified tax rate. A resolution levying a tax in excess of the certified tax rate must be forwarded to the county auditor by August 17. The final tax notice is then mailed by November 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON CERTAIN TAX INCREASES Each taxing entity that proposes to levy a tax rate that exceeds the "certified tax rate" may do so, by resolution, only after holding a properly noticed public hearing. Generally, the certified tax rate is the rate necessary to generate the same property tax revenue that the taxing entity collected for the prior year, exclusive of collections from interest and penalties. For purposes of calculating the certified tax rate, county auditors are to use the taxable value of property on the assessment rolls, exclusive of new growth. New growth is any increase in taxable value of the taxing entity from the previous calendar year to the current year less the amount of increase to locally-assessed real property taxable values resulting from factoring, reappraisal, other adjustments, or changes in the method of apportioning taxable value. With certain exceptions, the certified tax rate for the minimum school levy, debt service voted on by the public, and certain state and county assessing and collecting levies are the actual levies imposed for such purposes and no hearing is required for these levies. On or before July 22 of the year in which such an increase is proposed, notice of the public hearing must be mailed to all property owners and, in most cases, must be advertised electronically and by publication. The notice of the hearing must state, among other things, the value of the property, the time and place of the public hearing, and the tax impact of the proposed increase. SOURCES OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES Set forth below are brief descriptions of the various sources of revenues available to the City's general fund. The percentage of total general fund revenues represented by each source is based on the City's audited June 30,2010 fiscal year period: General property taxes — Approximately 36% of general fund revenues are from general property taxes. - 21 - Sales, use and excise taxes — Approximately 24% of general fund revenues are from sales, use and excise taxes. Franchise taxes—Approximately 14% of general fund revenues are from franchise taxes. Licenses and Permits—Approximately 8% of general fund revenues are from licenses. Interftmd service charges — Approximately 5% of general fund revenues are from interfund service charges. Fines and forfeitures — Approximately 4% of general fund revenues are from fines and forfeitures. Intergovernmental — Approximately 3% of general fund revenues are from other governmental entities. Charges for Services— Approximately 2% of general fund revenues are from charges for services. Parking tickets—Approximately 2% of general fund revenues are from parking tickets. Parking meter— Approximately 1% of general fund revenues are from parking meters. Interest— Less than 1% of general fund revenues are from interest income. Contributions—Less than 1% of general fund revenues are from contributions. Miscellaneous—Less than 1% of general fund revenues are from miscellaneous revenues. SALES AND USE TAXES The Local Sales and Use Tax Act, Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2, Utah Code (the "Local Sales and Use Tax Act"), provides that each county, city and town in the State may levy a local sales and use tax of up to 1.00% on the purchase price of taxable goods and services. Sales tax is imposed on the amount paid or charged for sales of tangible personal property in the State and for services rendered in the State for the repair, renovation or installation of tangible personal property. Use tax is imposed on the amount paid or charged for the use, storage or other consumption of tangible personal property in the state, including services for the repair, renovation or installation of such tangible personal property. Sales and use taxes also apply to leases and rentals of tangible personal property if the tangible personal property is in the State, the lessee takes possession in the state or the tangible personal property is stored, used or otherwise consumed in the State. _ 9? _ In addition to the local sales and use tax levied by the City, the State levies a statewide sales and use tax (the "Statewide Tax") that is currently imposed at a rate of 4.70% of the purchase price of taxable goods and services, excluding unprepared food and food ingredients. Sales of unprepared food and food ingredients are taxed by the State at a rate of 1.75%. The State also levies a 2.00% tax on sales of natural gas,electricity and fuel oil for residential use. In addition to the sales and use taxes described above, counties and cities in the State are authorized to impose certain additional sales and use taxes for various purposes as authorized by State law. The maximum sales and use tax levied on taxable goods and services within the City's boundaries by the State, County and the City is 6.85% and is comprised of certain various sales taxes mentioned in the preceding sentence,the Statewide Tax and local sales and use taxes. Local sales and use taxes are collected by the Tax Commission and distributed on a monthly basis to each county, city and town. The distributions to the City are based on a formula, which provides that (a) 50% of each dollar of sales tax collections will be distributed on the basis of the population of the local government and (b) 50% of each dollar of sales tax collections will be distributed on the basis of the point of sale. UTILITY FRANCHISE TAXES AND FEES Under Utah law, counties and municipalities have the authority to impose a tax, license, fee, license fee, license tax or similar charge that, in the aggregate, may not exceed 6% of gross revenues of public utilities collected within the boundaries of the municipality (or, in the case of gas and electric service providers, not exceeding 6% of the "delivered value" of "taxable energy"). Utilities upon which these taxes and fees may be levied include telephone, natural gas, electric energy service companies, telecommunications companies and city public utilities. Utility franchise taxes and fees are collected by the utility and remitted on a monthly basis to the local government. Energy sales and use taxes are, in certain circumstances, remitted by the energy service provider to the State Tax Commission and then to the municipality. The City levies a combination of utility franchise fees and privilege taxes equal in the aggregate to 6% of gross receipts of utilities doing business within its boundaries, including PacifiCorp, Questar, and Qwest and the City's Public Utilities. The City also levies a 5% franchise tax on Comcast Financial Corporation charges. FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL SUMMARIES The summaries contained herein were extracted from the City's financial statements for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2006 through June 30, 2010. The summaries are unaudited. See also "APPENDIX A—SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2010." - 23 - ' SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,UTAH STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS —GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES (FISCAL YEARS ENDED TUNE 30) Unaudited 2010 2009 2008 2007 2(106 ASS iiTs. Current assets: Cash,and cash equivalents L'nrestricted $105,319,909 S 93,964,462 $ 99,596,352 S 97,526,118 S 91,726,937 Restricted 45,939,114 45,672,231 7,072,204 2,974.147 3,391.095 Receisables: Property.franchise and excise taxes 77,687,194 81,901,632 80,636,133 77 269,602 76,883,419 Assessments 4,575,746(1) 1,822,336(2) 2,626,041(3) 3,588,908(4) 1,511,457(5i Loans and other receivables 8,129,431 7,838,168 10,024,243(6) 10,017,681(7) 6,797,813(8) Due from other governments 1,627,591 1,712,059 1,166,274 1,707,670 2,850,086 Other,principally accrued interest 2,136,652 946,565 1,059,462 1,198,139 1,092,624 Prepaid Expenses - - - - 46,835 ln\entones 565,195 658,431 942,035 591,923 515,374 Internal balances 1.109,1 12 841,805 (34.090) 46,472 112,939 Total current assets 247.089,944 235,357.689 203,088,654 194,920.660 184 928,579 Noncurrent assets: Property and equipment,at cost: Land and water rights 180,351,914 179,036,321 175 224,789 172,323,058 169,070,674 Infrastructure 261,212,278 249,800,326 239.793,367 235,492,174 230,046,330 13uddings 203,592,425 202,981,542 198,800,307 199,842,791 197,654,596 Improvements other than buildings 39,186,339 35,491,186 30,773,120 28,884,422 26,456,777 Machinery and equipment 91,798,476 86,752,879 85,945,995 79,639,195 77,087.913 Construction in progress 49,776,493 20,417,543 14,100,072 15,966,226 16,343,572 A.:cumulated depreciation (219,003,647) (208,457,181) (199.490.880) (188.989,7722/ (179,064.91Si Net property and equipment 606,914,278 566,022,616 545,146.770 543,158,094 537,594,944 Bond issue costs 1252,393(9) 1225,745(10) 876,962(11) 862,493(12) 990.541(13) Land and buildings held for resale - - - Total noncurrent assets 608,741,946 567.248.361 546,023,732 544,020,587 538,585.485 Total assets S855.811.890 $802.606.050 $749.112.386 $718 941.247 S7)3 514.064 (I) Including$242,722 of delinquent assessments. (2) Including S242,722 of delinquent assessments. (3) Including 5140.984 of delinquent assessments. (4) Including S202,939 of delinquent assessments. (5) Including S275,361 of delinquent assessments. (6) Less allowance for doubtful accounts of$140,984. (7) Less allowance for doubtful accounts of$1,443,314. (8) Less allowance for doubtful accounts of$4,040,726. (9) Less accumulated amortization of$1,774,067. (10) Less accumulated amortization of$1,752,582. (I I) Less accumulated amortization of S 1,662,231. (12) Less accumulated amortization of S1,752,068. (13( Less accumulated amortization of S 1,424,800. (Source: Information is taken from the City's audited financial statements. This summary itself has not been audited.) (The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.) - 24 - SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,UTAH STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS —GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES (FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30) (continued) Unaudited 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 LIARII_Il IES. Current liabilities: Accounts payable S 17,171,008 S 8521,469 S 5,419.354 S 5,639,370 S 5,710,170 Accrued liabilities 10,613,504 10,239,231 10,201,390 9,941,357 13,612,799 Current portion of lone-term compensation liability 1.912,532 1,838,461 2,119,125 2,121,942 1,869,362 Current portion of estimated claims p,nable 3,156,487 3,261,403 2,125,380 2,892,081 Current portion of lon e-term debt: Payable from unrestricted assets 15,887,052 17,209,029 13.807,859 12 930,970 12,528,870 Special assessment debt with eovernmental commitment 596,000 434,000 349.000 349.000 311,000 Deferred revenue 65,984,055 67,705.511 66,089.635 64,054,850 62,554,507 Unearned revenue 3,923,673 218.599 218.599 218.599 - Other liabilities payable from restricted assets.. 360,769 2299,567 350,348 302.074 338,774 Cstrent deposits and advance rentals 521.559 1.120.473 1.706.758 1.612.229 1.381.78 3 Total current liabilities .... 120,126.639 1 10.847,743 102.387,448 1110,062 472 98.307.265 Noncurrent liabilities: Lon,,...!-term compensation liability 16,167,68-1 15,705,210 20,252.938 15991,475 14,156,047 Pollution remediatton liability 575.275 - - - Other post employment benefits 11,161,000 7,692,000 - - - Estimated claims payable 4,136,136 4,462,322 4,662,976 -1,491,766 - 13onds payable 175,350,750 160,635,419 126,117,660 128,763,303 139,122,296 Notes payable 2.627,867 1,909,982 3,691.996 2.542,078 2,931,865 Notes payable from restricted assets 464.607 430.393 393.133 1.129 228 1,043.569 Total noncurrent liabilities 210.483319 190,835.326 155.118.703 152.917.850 157.'_5 3,777 Total liabilities 330.609,958 301,683.069 257.506,151 252,980.322 255.561.042 NET ASSETS: Invested in capital assets,net of related debt 439,430.893 385,403,793 400.787.122 398.306.008 382.647,885 Restricted for: Capital projects 5,734,876 7,201.928 7,201.928 7.201,928 7,201,928 Debt,CIA ice ........... 636,061 23.633 2,753,670 1.370.067 528.366 Unrestricted 79.420,102 108 293,627 80.863,515 79.082.921 77.57-1.843 rota!net assets 525.221.932 500.922,981 491,606,235 485,960.924 467.95 3.022 Total liabilities and net assets 585_5 831 890 5802.606 050 5749 112.386 57.941,2.46 5221.514.064 Som(se: Information is taken from the City's audited financial statements. This summary itself has not been audited.) (The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.) - 25 - SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,UTAH BALANCE SHEET— GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS — GENERAL FUND (FISCAL YEARS ENDED TUNE 30) Unaudited ASSETS ND OTHER DEBITS 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Assets: Cash and cash equivalents $ 23,967,967 S 23,135,486 S 27.286,652 S 33,584,098 S 29.016,359 Receivables: Property.franchise and excise taxes 77,169,351 81,747,405 80,072,093 76,723,523 76,586,009 Other,principally accrued interest 1,749,000 469,434 565,127 673,173 519,164 Restricted Assets: Cash and cash equivalents 198.589 281,325 202.798 — — Total Assets and Other Debits S103.085.407 S105.6 1.650 $108])6.670 S110980.794 S106.121 512 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 2,683,627 $ 2,433,248 $ 2,208,039 $ 2,266,539 $ 1,533,685 Accrued liabilities 10,445,611 10,358,992 10,894,783 10,960,630 7,643,370 Current deposits and advance rentals 521,559 1,120,473 1,706,758 1,442,229 1,381,783 Deferred Revenue 63,141,643 67.462,190 65.179,942 63,751.014 63,983.151 Total liabilities 76,792,440 81.374,903 79,989,522 78.420,412 74,541,989 Fund Balances: Reserved for encumbrances 2,972,401 1,931,020 4,339,784 3,587,310 2,818.341 Reserved for restricted assets 198.589 281.325 202,798 — — Unreserved and undesignated 23,121,977 22.046.402 23,594,566 28.973,072 28.761,202 Total fund balance 26,292.967 24258,747 28.137.148 32,560,382 31,579,543 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $103.085.407 $105.633.650 $108,126.670 S110.980.794 S106,121.532 (Source: 'rhe City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the indicated years. The summary above has not been audited) (The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.) - 26 - SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,UTAH STATEMENT OF REVENUES.EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE — GENERAL FUND (FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30) Unaudited Revenues And Expenditures 2010 2009 2008 2007 21)06 Revenues: General property tax S 67,575,196 S 66,237,313 S 67,447,285 S 65,789,159 S 63,305,389 Sales.use and excise taxes 44,089,318 47,303,903 51 367,198 49,776,316 47,1 12.848 Franchise taxes 26,321,802 26,318,421 28,079,172 225,959.198 23.929,112 Licenses 8,076.923 7,861,188 7,326,445 6,577,602 5,778,560 Permits 6,708,832 9,826 201 8,426,311 6,968,884 7,293,312 Fines and forfeitures 6,700,748 6,541,816 5,640,355 5,996.072 6,256,430 Interest 1,189,706 2,309,596 3297,603 4,710,321 3,468,103 Intergovernmental 4,761,320 4,761,925 4,785,830 4,504,348 4,146,447 Interfund service charges 9,333,427 9,509,226 9,447,942 9,542,111 8,863,782 Parking meter collections 2,027,206 1,646,261 1,663.959 1,539,771 1,453,619 Parking tickets 3,808.670 3,969,193 3,102,615 2.908,621 3.135,240 Charges for services 3,926,353 4,294227 4,034,101 4,034.270 3.471.720 Contributions 16,342 19,750 1,5 37,882 ' 11,738 19.134 Miscellaneous 855,045 593,688 534,167 575,758 599,938 Total Revenues 185390,888 191,1.92,708 196,690.865 188.894,169 178.833 634 Expenditures: Cm Council 1,740,270 1,777,148 2,174,025 1,685.830 1,519,339 Mayor 1,770,292 1,910,635 1,768,023 1,616,798 1,557,688 City Attorney 4.237,824 4,662,167 4,310,171 3,942,728 3,285,362 .\Ianagement Services 11,307,473 11,819,338 11,009,323 10,338.SIS 9,571,631 Fire 31,507,737 33,033,125 32,586,766 30,465,825 29,154.366 Police 53,305,931 54,178,976 54,649,054 50,337,858 47,154,868 Community& Econ Dev. 12,787,152 14,012,246 12,392,791 9,154,961 7,985.677 Public Services 33 265,127 36,899,117 38,678,986 36,225,500 34,912,298 Nondepartmental 15,044,806 16.479,624 14,832,256 13.553,596 12.725,490 Total Expenditures 164.966,612 174,772 376 172,401,395 157321,914 147.866,719 Revenues Over Expenditures 20,424,276 16.420.332 24 289,470 31.572255 30,966.915 Other Financing Sources(Uses): Proceeds from sale of property 524,810 465,433 603,264 560,462 423,507 Transfers in 10,208,409 6,138,963 1,952,048 1,791,470 2,056,962 Transfers out (29.123275) (26,903,129) (31268,016) (32,943.348) (31.025.993) Total Other Financing.Sources(Uses) (18,390.056) (20.298,733) (28.712,704) (30.591,416) (28.545.524) Net Change in Fund Balances 2.034,220 (3,878,401) (4,423,234) 980,839 2,421391 Fund Balance Prior Year(July 1) 24258,747 28,137,148 32.560.382 31.579.543 29,158.152 Fund Balance Year End(June 30) S?_6_292.967 S24.258.747 S28.137.148 S32.560 382 S31 579 543 I S auce The Cit)'s Con:preitensise Annual Financial Report for the indicated years. This summary has not been audited.) l Dui mg fiscal sear 2008,the State transferred responsibility of maintaining tsvo State roads, 1300 East and North Temple.to Salt Lake City. :\s a :exult of the negotiations.the State contributed S1,504,149 to the City to help defray the costs of maintaining these ins roads for a period of nine. - 27 - HISTORICAL CITY TAX RATES TAX RATE. PURPOSE 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 General Purposes 0.003349 0.002869 0.002925 0.003 390 General Purposes Judgment - - - - Interest&Sinking Fund 0.000530 0.000430 0.000458 0.000537 Interest&Sinking Fund Judgment - - - 0.000013 Library 0.000760 0.000618 0.000657 0.000762 Library.Judgment - - - 0.000018 Judgment Recovery 0.000017 - - - Total Levy 0.004656 0.003917 0.004040 0.004720 COMPARATIVE PROPERTY TAX RATES WITHIN SALT LAKE COUNTY TAX RATE Tax Levying Entity 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Alta Town 0.001114 0.000980 0.000930 0.000885 0.001280 Blulidale City 0.001357 0.001247 0.001010 0.001160 0.001400 Cottonwood Heights City 0.002517 0.002399 0.002098 0.002220 0.002624 Draper City 0.001896 0.001818 0.001528 0.001616 0.001274 Herriman City 0.000376 0.000371 0.000296 0.000302 0.001882 Holladay(City of) 0.001720 0.001533 0.001312 0.001436 0.001659 .w- Midvale City 0.002669 0.002262 0.001938 0.001757 0.002118 Murray City 0.002163 0.002022 0.001767 0.001886 0.002203 Riverton City 0.000839 0.000816 0.000691 0.000237 0.000300 Salt Lake City 0.005428 0.004656 0.003917 0.004040 0.004720 Sandy City 0.001402 0.001356 0.001175 0.001252 0.001514 South Jordan City 0.002072 0.002028 0.001699 0.001708 0.001874 South Salt Lake City 0.002729 0.002665 0.002352 0.002465 0.002857 Taylorsville(City on 0.001739 0.001690 0.001514 0.001554 0.001858 West Jordan City 0.002128 0.002080 0.001810 0.001856 0.002259 West Valley City 0.003644 0.003604 0.003171 0.003194 0.00 3700 (Source: Property Tax Division,Utah State Tax Commission.) (The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.) - 28 - TAXABLE AND FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Excluding Fee-In-Lieu/Age Based Valuation TAXABLE %CHANGE OVER FAIR MARKET VALUE %CHANGE OVER YEAR VALUEW PRIOR YEAR ui PRIOR YEAR 2009 $18,561,437,358 (10.9)% $24,719,876,456 (10.5) c 2008 20,821,558,105 6.1 27,627,479,804 5.6 2007 19,624,987,661 17.1 26,160,479,197 17.8 2006 16,761,962,145 13.1 22,199,190,140 13.9 2005 14,824,077,709 3.2 19,486,749,590 - Including Fee-In-Lieu/Age Based Valuation TAXABLE %CHANGE OVER FAIR MARKET VALUE %CHANGE OVER YEAR VALUE tI) PRIOR YEAR (2) PRIOR YEAR 2009 $19,426,112,613 (11.2)% $25,584,251,711 (10.8)% 2008 21,865,658,839 5.7 28,671,850,538 5.3 2007 20,682,992,160 17.3 27,218,483,696 18.0 2006 17.627,966,896 12.7 23,065,194.891 13.6 2005 15,641.012,507 (2.5) 20,303,684.388 - i I Sources: Property Tax Division.Utah State Tax Commission. • ill Estimated fair market value has been calculated by dividing the taxable value of primary residential property by .55,which eliminates the 457c exemption on primary residential property granted under the Property Tax Act. See -FINANCIAL I\FOR\IATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH-Property Tax Matters." See "FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH — Historical Summaries of Taxable Values of Property." (The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.) - 29 - HISTORICAL SUMMARIES OF TAXABLE VALUES OF PROPERTY SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH HISTORICAL SUMMARIES OF TAXABLE VALUES OF PROPERTY TAX YEARS 2005 THROUGH 2009* 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 TAXABLE %OF VALUE T.V. TAXABLE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE TAXABLE VALLi. Si'!by State Tax Couunis.iion— Crntrulh Aesessed Total centrally assessed $ 1,603,444.833 8.3% S 2.076,836,331 $ 2.050.073 870 $ 1.888.464.689 $ 2.060.112.828 So by County assessor--Luca/1) ;1 ceased Real property: Primary residential 7,522.657,942 38.7 8,314,285.404 6,641,745,437 5,694,675 21)4 5,275,500,947 Secondary residential 183,319,370 0.9 197,308,550 157,620,810 170,922 960 99,756,690 Commercial and industrial 7,362.953,510 37.9 8,489,152,490 6.487,575,310 5,543,060,010 5,487,885,450 FAA 0 0.0 0 1,194,950 431,240 408,210 Unimproved Non-FAA-Vacant 1,144,060 0.0 7,396,660 0 0 0 Aericultural 72,180 0.0 83.650 57,330 54.220 46,590 Total real property 15,070.147,062 77.6 17.008.226.754 13,288,193.837 11,359,143.634 10.863.597 887 Personal property: Piim.iry mobile homes 3.956.511 0.0 4,063,339 3,755,446 4,145,984 4,658,860 Secondary mobile homes 4,260,559 0.0 3,268,840 1.874.153 2.204,036 2,749,493 Other business personal property 1,879 628.393 9.7 1.729.162.841 1,418 1)64 839 1,570.1 19.366 I.440.125.458 Total personal property. 1.887 845,463 9 7 1.736,495,020 1.423,694,43S 1.576,469 386 I.447.5 33.81 1 Fee in lieuiaee based property(I) 864.675,255 95 1,044.100,734 866,004,751 81h 934.798 1661.119.899 Total locally assessed 17,822,667.780 91.7 19,788,822.508 15.577.893,026 13,752.5-17,818 13975.251.597 Total taxable value $1.9.426.112.611 100.0% $21,865.658.819 $17.627.966.89_6 S15.641.012.507 S1L6.03.364425 Total taxable value(less fee in lieuiaee based property) $18561.437358 $70.821558.105 $16.761962.148 $14.824.077.709 514 371.244.526 • 2010 information is not available. I I I See-FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH — Property Tax Matters." (Source: Property Tax Division,Utah State Tax Commission.) (The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.) - 30 - TAX COLLECTION RECORD CITY TAX REVENUE COLLECTED FISCAL TOTAL TAX COLLECTED WITHIN THE COLLECTION IN TOTAL COLLECTIONS YEAR LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR OF THE LEVY'(' SUBSEQUENT TO DATE ENDED FISCAL YEAR AAIOUNT PERCENTAGE YEARS AMOUNT PERCENTAGE 1L NI-30 (S000) (S000) OF LEVY ($000) (S000) OF LEVY 2010 $69.542 $68,081 97.9q S iz, 568,081 97.9% 2009 66,355 65,221 98.4 519 65,740 991 2008 64,971 64.138 98.7 571 64,709 99.6 2007 64,647 63,880 98.8 674 64,554 99.9 21)06 64.017 62.019 96.9 1.658 63,677 99 5 (I) Payments are not considered delinquent until after November 30. (2) Information is not vet available from the County. SO.IE OF THE LARGEST TAXPAYERS IN THE CITY 2009 c.OF THE CITY'S TAXABLE 2009TA.XABLE TAXPAYER TYPE OF BUSINESS VALUE(I) VALUE P,tcifiCorp Electric Utility S 338.000,799 I.8% Sky West Airlines Air Transportation 204,668,637 I I Delta Airlines Air Transportation 168,705.720 0.9 Qwest Corporation Communications 153.360,606 0.8 LDS Church(Deseret Title.Etc.) Religious 136,564,975 0.7 Wasatch Plaza Holding_ Real Estate Holding 124,804,900 0.7 Inland Western Salt City Gateway Retail 120,748,800 0.6 Gateway Associates LTD Real Estate Holding. 83,619,100 0.5 Questar Gas Utility 80,733 299 0 4 Grand America Hotel Company Hospitality 77.728,400 0-5 TOTAL: S 1493 9 15.36 62%, r Total may not add due to rounding. (1 1 Taxable Value used in this table excludes all tax equivalent property associated with motor vehicles,watercraft,recreational vehicles,and all other tangible personal property required to be registered with the State. See"FINANCIAL INFOR\IATIOS REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH— Taxable and Fair Market Value of Property." (Source: Salt Lake City Corporation Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 30,2010.) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS In setting its budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 ("FY2010"), the City recognized that revenues would decline from the previous fiscal year. In order to address the anticipated decline in revenues and start the current fiscal year with a balanced budget the City instituted a 1.5% employee pay suspension; eliminated vacant General Fund positions; reduced the amount contributed by the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Program equal to approximately 7% of General Fund revenues; passed on all insurance premium increases to employees; and instituted other measures, all with virtually little or no impact to residents and the services the City provides to them. Since adopting its budget for FY2010, the City has seen - 31 - • an additional decrease in revenues of approximately $6 million. The decrease in revenues is due in large part to decreased sales tax revenues and decreased interest earnings due to lower interest rates. The City is statutorily required to have a balanced budget. To close this mid-year shortfall and balance the current fiscal year budget, the City reduced expenses mid-year and transferred some savings from its capital improvement program projects to the General Fund. The City continues to monitor incoming revenues and will take such additional action as is necessary in order to end the current fiscal year with a balanced budget. The City continues to be adversely impacted by the effects of the lingering recession. Based on current projections that reflect lower than anticipated sales tax revenues, permit fees and interest income, the City has just completed the budget process for the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1, 2010, attempting to close a potential gap between anticipated revenues and expenditures of up to $19 million or approximately 9% of the overall budget. In early May, the Mayor submitted a proposed balanced budget to the City Council,which eliminated 67 positions, including approximately 25 layoffs, restored the 1.5% amount of employee pay that had previously been suspended in FY2010, and required employees to increase their overall contribution to their health insurance premium by 5%. Other significant health insurance benefits changes were also made. The proposed budget also included approximately $5 million from additional revenue sources. The City Council, subject to a public hearing, has tentatively adopted a slightly modified version of the Mayor's budget for the Current Fiscal Year, but has not substantially altered any of the key components outlined above. See "FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH—Property Tax Matters" and "—Public Hearing on Certain Tax Increases" above.] TAX ExEM PTIoN FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION Federal tax law contains a number of requirements and restrictions which apply to the Notes, including investment restrictions, periodic payments of arbitrage profits to the United States, requirements regarding the proper use of note proceeds and any facilities financed therewith, and certain other matters. The City has covenanted to comply with all requirements that must be satisfied in order for the interest on the Notes to be excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Failure to comply with certain of such covenants could cause interest on the Notes to become includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes retroactively to the date of issuance of the Notes. Subject to the City's compliance with the above-referenced covenants, under present law, in the opinion of Note Counsel, interest on the Notes is (a) excludable from the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes, (b) not included as an item of tax preference in computing the federal alternative minimum tax for individuals and corporations and (c) not taken into account in computing "adjusted current earnings" as described below. - 32 - In rendering its opinion, Note Counsel will rely upon certifications of the City with respect to certain material facts within the City's knowledge. Note Counsel's opinion represents its legal judgment based upon its review of the law and the facts that it deems relevant to render such opinion and is not a guarantee of a result. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), includes provisions for an alternative minimum tax ("AMT") for corporations in addition to the corporate regular tax in certain cases. The AMT for a corporation, if any, depends upon the corporation's alternative minimum taxable income ("AMTI"), which is the corporation's taxable income with certain adjustments. One of the adjustment items used in computing the AMTI of a corporation (with certain exceptions) is an amount equal to 75% of the excess of such corporation's "adjusted current earnings" over an amount equal to its AMTI (before such adjustment item and the alternative tax net operating loss deduction). `Adjusted current earnings" would generally include all tax-exempt interest,but not interest on the Notes. Ownership of the Notes may result in collateral federal income tax consequences to certain taxpayers, including, without limitation, corporations subject to the branch profits tax, financial institutions, certain insurance companies, certain S corporations, individual recipients of Social Security or Railroad Retirement benefits and taxpayers who may be deemed to have incurred (or continued) indebtedness to purchase or carry tax-exempt obligations. Prospective purchasers of the Notes should consult their tax advisors as to applicability of any such collateral consequences. The issue price (the "Issue Price") for the Notes is the price at which a substantial amount of the Notes is first sold to the public. The Issue Price of the Notes may be different from the price set forth, or the price corresponding to the yield set forth, on the cover page hereof. Owners of the Notes who dispose of Notes prior to the stated maturity (whether by sale, redemption or otherwise), purchase Notes in the initial public offering, but at a price different from the Issue Price or purchase Notes subsequent to the initial public offering should consult their own tax advisors. If a Note is purchased at any time for a price that is less than the Note's stated redemption price at maturity, the purchaser will be treated as having purchased a Note with market discount subject to the market discount rules of the Code (unless a statutory de minimis rule applies). Accrued market discount is treated as taxable ordinary income and is recognized when a Note is disposed of (to the extent such accrued discount does not exceed gain realized) or, at the purchaser's election, as it accrues. The applicability of the market discount rules may adversely affect the liquidity or secondary market price of such Note. Purchasers should consult their own tax advisors regarding the potential implications of market discount with respect to the Notes. An investor may purchase a Note at a price in excess of its stated principal amount. Such excess is characterized for federal income tax purposes as "note premium" and must be amortized by an investor on a constant yield basis over the remaining term of the Note in a manner that takes into account potential call dates and call prices. An investor cannot deduct - 33 - AAPkw amortized note premium relating to a tax-exempt note. The amortized bond premium is treated as a reduction in the tax-exempt interest received. As note premium is amortized, it reduces the investor's basis in the Note. Investors who purchase a Note at a premium should consult their own tax advisors regarding the amortization of note premium and its effect on the Note's basis for purposes of computing gain or loss in connection with the sale, exchange, redemption or early retirement of the Note. There are or may be pending in the Congress of the United States legislative proposals, including some that carry retroactive effective dates, that, if enacted, could alter or amend the federal tax matters referred to above or adversely affect the market value of the Notes. It cannot be predicted whether or in what form any such proposal might be enacted or whether, if enacted, it would apply to notes issued prior to enactment. Prospective purchasers of the Notes should consult their own tax advisors regarding any pending or proposed federal tax legislation. Note Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any pending or proposed federal tax legislation. The Internal Revenue Service (the "Service") has an ongoing program of auditing tax-exempt obligations to determine whether, in the view of the Service, interest on such tax-exempt obligations is includable in the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes. It cannot be predicted whether or not the Service will commence an audit of the Notes. If an audit is commenced, under current procedures the Service may treat the City as a taxpayer and the Noteholders may have no right to participate in such procedure. The commencement.of an audit could adversely affect the market value and liquidity of the Notes until the audit is concluded,regardless of the ultimate outcome. Payments of interest on, and proceeds of the sale, redemption or maturity of, tax-exempt obligations, including the Notes, are in certain cases required to be reported to the Service. Additionally, backup withholding may apply to any such payments to any Note owner who fails to provide an accurate Form W-9 Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, or a substantially identical form, or to any Note owner who is notified by the Service of a failure to report any interest or dividends required to be shown on federal income tax returns. The reporting and backup withholding requirements do not affect the excludability of such interest from gross income for federal tax purposes. The Notes are treated as issued in 2010 or 2011 for purposes of Section 265(b)(7) of the Code relating to interest expense deductibility for financial institutions. The treatment of interest expense for financial institutions owning the Notes may be more favorable than the treatment provided to owners of notes issued before January 1, 2010, but may be less favorable than treatment provided to owners of bank qualified bonds. Financial institutions should consult their tax advisors concerning such treatment. UTAH INCOME TAXATION In the opinion of Note Counsel, under the existing laws of the State of Utah, as presently enacted and construed, interest on the Notes is exempt from taxes imposed by the Utah Individual Income Tax Act. Note Counsel expresses no opinion with respect to any other taxes imposed by the State or any political subdivision thereof. Ownership of the Notes may result in ,,,, - 34 - other state and local tax consequences to certain taxpayers. Note Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any such collateral consequences arising with respect to the Notes. Prospective purchasers of the Notes should consult their tax advisors regarding the applicability of any such state and local taxes. LITIGATION The City Attorney reports the following matters involving potential financial liability of the City: Lawsuits are periodically filed against the City and/or its employees, involving tort and civil rights matters. The City has a statutory obligation to defend and indemnify its officers and employees in relation to lawsuits arising from acts or failures to act of the officers or employees while in the scope and course of employment. For tort claims, the City maintains a governmental immunity fund. In the event the fund is not sufficient to pay any outstanding judgment or judgments, the City has the ability under State law to levy a limited ad valorem tax to pay such judgments. This tax levy is separate and apart from the other taxing powers of the City. The City also has contract claims, condemnation proceedings and environmental matters, none of which is expected to materially adversely affect the City's financial condition. A non-litigation certificate or opinion executed by the City Attorney, dated the date of closing, will be provided stating, among other things, that to the best of his knowledge, after due inquiry, no litigation in the State or federal court has been served on the City or is, to the best of his knowledge, threatened, challenging the creation, organization or existence of the City, or the titles of its officers to their respective offices,or seeking to restrain or enjoin the issuance, sale or delivery of the Notes, or for the purpose of restraining or enjoining the levy and collection of taxes or assessments by the City, or directly or indirectly contesting or affecting the proceedings or the authority by which the Notes are issued,the legality of the purpose for which the Notes are issued, or the validity of the Notes,or the issuance thereof. LIMITED CONTINUING DISCLOSURE As the Notes have a maturity less than 18 months, the City is exempt from the provisions of the Rule. However, pursuant to the Rule the City will enter into the Undertaking, in substantially the form attached hereto as APPENDIX B, for the benefit of the beneficial owners of the Notes to send certain information annually and to provide notice of certain events to the MMSRB pursuant to the requirements of Section (b)(5) of the Rule. A failure by the City to comply with the Undertaking will not constitute a default under the Resolution and beneficial owners of the Notes are limited to the remedies described in the Undertaking. A failure by the City to comply with the Undertaking must be reported in accordance with the Rule and must be considered by any broker, dealer or municipal securities - 35 - dealer before recommending the purchase or sale of the Notes in the secondary market. "" Consequently, such a failure may adversely affect the transferability and liquidity of the Notes and their market price. See "FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING" attached hereto as APPENDIX B for the information to be provided, the events which will be noticed on an occurrence basis and the other terms of the Undertaking, including termination, amendment and remedies. The City is in compliance with each continuing disclosure undertaking entered into pursuant to the Rule. APPROVAL OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS The authorization and issuance of the Notes are subject to the approval of Chapman and Cutler LLP, Note Counsel to the City. Certain legal matters will be passed upon for the City by the City Attorney and by Chapman and Cutler LLP, as the City's disclosure counsel. The approving opinion of Note Counsel will be delivered with the Notes in substantially the form set forth in APPENDIX C of this Official Statement and will be made available upon request from the contact persons as indicated under"INTRODUCTION—Contact Persons." The various legal opinions to be delivered concurrently with the delivery of the Notes express the professional judgment of the attorneys rendering the opinions as to the legal issues explicitly addressed therein. By rendering a legal opinion, the opinion giver does not become an insurer or guarantor of that expression of professional judgment, of the transaction opined upon, or of the future performance of parties to the transaction. Nor does the rendering of an opinion guarantee the outcome of any legal dispute that may arise out of the transaction. NOTE RATINGS The City's S Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 2011 are rated "[MIG 1]" by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. ("Moody's"). The City's $20,000 000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 2010 were rated "MIG 1" by Moody's. The Series 2010 Notes [will mature] [matured] on June 30,2011. BOND RATINGS As of the date of this Official Statement, the City's outstanding general obligation bonds are rated "AAA" and "Aaa" by Fitch,Inc.,and by Moody's Investors Service,Inc., respectively. Any explanation of the significance of the ratings may only be obtained from the rating service furnishing the same. There is no assurance that the ratings given will be maintained for any period of time or that the ratings will not be revised downward or withdrawn entirely by the rating agency if, in its judgment, circumstances so warrant. Any such downward revision or withdrawal of such rating may have an adverse effect on the market price of such outstanding obligations. - 36 - FINANCIAL ADVISOR The City has entered into an agreement with Lewis Young Robertson Sc. Burningham, Inc. (the "Financial Advisor"), whereunder the Financial Advisor provides financial recommendations and guidance to the City with respect to preparation for sale of the Notes, timim; of the sale, tax-exempt bond market conditions, costs of issuance and other factors related to the sale of the Notes. The Financial Advisor has read, participated in the preparation of and provided information in certain provisions of the Official Statement, but has not audited, authenticated or otherwise verified the information set forth in the Official Statement, or any other related information available to the City, with respect to accuracy and completeness of disclosure of such information, and the Financial Advisor makes no guaranty, warranty or other representation respecting accuracy and completeness of the Official Statement or any other matter related to the Official Statement. INDEPENDENT AUDITORS The basic financial statements of Salt Lake City Corporation as of and for the year ended June 30. 2010, included in APPENDIX A to this Official Statement, have been audited by Hansen, Barnett & Maxwell, P.C., independent auditors, as stated in their report appearing herein. MISCELLANEOUS All quotations contained herein from and summaries and explanations of the State Constitution, statutes, programs and laws of the State, court decisions and the Resolution, do not purport to be complete, and reference is made to the State Constitution, statutes, programs, laws, court decisions and the Resolution for full and complete statements of their respective provisions. Any statements in this Official Statement involving matters of opinion, whether or not expressly so stated, are intended as such and not as representation of fact. The appendices attached hereto are an integral part of this Official Statement and should be read in conjunction with the foregoing material. - 37 - APPENDIX C DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION REGARDING THE CITY AND SALT LAKE COUNTY POPULATION % INCREASE SALT %INCREASE %INCREASE THE FROM PRIOR LAKE FROM PRIOR THE FROM PRIOR YEAR CITY PERIOD COUNTY PERIOD STATE PERIOD 2010 Census 186,440 2.58% 1,029,655 14.61% 2,763,885 23.77% 2000 Census 181,743 13.63 898,387 23.75 2,233,169 29.62 1990 Census 159.936 (1.90) 725,956 17.27 1.722,850 17.92 1980 Census 163,034 (7.31) 619,066 34.99 1,461,037 37.93 1970 Census 175,885 (7.16) 458,607 19.73 1,059,273 18.94 1960 Census 189,454 - 383,035 - 890,627 - (Source: U.S.Census Bureau.) PROPERTY VALUE OF PRE-AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION IN THE CITY ADDITIONS, To i'Al. NEW ALTERATIONS AND REPAIRS CONSTR,'CTION Non- Non- %Chanee Number Residential residential Residential residential from Dwelling Value Value Value Value Value Prior Year Unas (S000) (S000) (S000) ($000) ($000) Period 2010 Ill $ 14,730.9 $104,795.6 $29,036 9 S137,507.9 $286,071.3 (22.4) 2009 262 124,939.6 80,912.1 46,348.2 77,628.1 329,828.0 (432) 2008 508 156,110.9 289,111.1 29,438.6 105,808.0 580,468.6 13.0 2007 659 80,379.7 196,520.8 41,776.5 194,835.7 513,512.7 16.2 2006 310 47,442.9 181,304.3 41,807.7 171,432.7 441,987.6 - i Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research,University of Utah.) SALES AND BUILDING IN SALT LAKE COUNTY SALES AND BUILDING 2009" 2008 2007 2006 2005 Gross Taxable Sales(S000s) 19,417 268 20,457,525 21,634,262 20,328,814 18,010,926 Permit Authorized Construction(S000) 1,545,119 1.656,131 2,153,638 2,075,492 2,073,618 Ne\\ Residential Building Permits 4,586 3,555 4,512 6.200 7,746 Residential Building Permits Value($000) 649,517 588,478 820,049 1,087,470 1,174.484 Ipi Preliminary 1,8nurce: Utah Dcp.;rtment of Workforce Services.) C-1 INCOME AND WAGES IN SALT LAKE COUNTY INCoNtE AND WAGES 2009'p) 2008 2007 2006 2005 Total Personal Income(SMillions) NA 38,730 37,888 35,532 32,326 Per Capita Income NA 38,026 37,797 36,055 33.671 Median Household Income Estimates NA 59,168 56,378 52,95] 48,398 A\,erase Monthly Nonfarm Wage 3,470 3,470 3,406 3,212 3,063 (p) Preliminary (Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.) BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY TAXABLE SALES AND LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX ALLOCATION — THE CITY [To be updated.] YEAR ENDED GROSS TAXABLE %CHANGE OVER NET LOCAL SALES TAX %CHANGE OVER JUNE 30 SALES PRIOR YEAR ALLOCATIONS PRIOR YEAR 2009 $ _._% $ _._% 2008 5,515,186.562 8.3 46,400,880 3.0 2007 5,090,395,126 11.7 45,066,434 8.6 2006 4,556,959,418 9 2 41,502,4 33 9.0 2005 4,174,740,826 5.7 38,078,950 - (Source: Utah State Tax Commission.) .08040, (The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.) ,0004, C-2 SEVERAL OF THE LARGEST EMPLOYERS IN SALT LAKE COUNTY The following is a list of some of the largest employers in Salt Lake County. APPROXIMATE NUMBER FIRM NAME OF EMPLOYEES University of Utah 15,000-19,999 Intermountain Health Care 10,000-14,999 Salt Lake County 5,000-9,999 State of Utah 5,000-6,999 Delta Airlines 3,000-3,999 L3 Communications Corp 3,000-3,999 Skywest Airlines Inc 2,000-2,999 Salt Lake Community College Foundation 2,000-2,999 Discover Products Inc 2,000-2,999 United Parcel Service 2,000-2,999 ARUP Laboratories, Inc. 2,000-2,999 U.S. Postal Service 2,000-2,999 Jetblue Airways Corporation 2,000-2,999 "Lions First National Bank 2,000-2,999 (Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services. As of December,2010.) (The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.) C-3 LABOR MARKET DATA OF SALT LAKE COUNTY " 2009 try 2008 2007 2006 2005 Labor Force 553,753 556,422 548,247 536,491 521,997 Employed 518,613 536,731 533,530 520,692 500,680 Unemployed 35,140 19,691 14,717 15,799 21,317 Rate 6.3% 3.5% 2.7% 2.9% 4.1% Nonfarm Jobs 573,449 602,924 601,224 579,780 555,055 %Change Prior Year -4.9% 0.3% 3.7% 4.5% 3.7% Minim!. 2,527 2,908 2,450 2,203 2,012 Construction 31,300 38,514 42.492 39,697 34,128 Manufacturing 50,360 55,323 55,775 53.385 51,138 TraderTransportation/Utilities 118,097 125,980 125,060 120,294 117,178 Information 16,545 17,214 18,468 18,423 17,963 Financial Activities 47,501 49,436 49,816 47,299 44,719 Professional/Business Services 89,632 96,990 96,685 93,999 87,412 Education/Health/Social Services 63,454 61,098 57,845 54,973 53,610 Leisure/Hospitality 46,847 48,521 47,911 46,135 44,683 Other Services 18,016 18,884 18,734 18,140 17,786 Government 89,136 88,059 85,988 85.232 84,426 Total Establishments 36,493 37,677 37,727 37,887 35,975 Total Wages (SBillions) 24,435.4 25,103.2 24,570.7 22,346.6 20,401.4 (p) Preliminary. (Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.) Alihulk RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT - ANNUAL AVERAGE YEAR SALT LAKE COUNTY THE STATE UNITED STATES 2010 7.4% 7.7% 9.6% 2009 6.8 7.1 9.3 2008 3.5 3.7 5.8 2007 2.7 2.8 4.6 2006 2.9 3.0 4.6 (Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services;U.S.Department of Labor.) (The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.) C-4 SALT LAKE CI'I 1'CORPORATION GENERA I,h(;NI)CAS11 FLOW StJM\I.\It') I'ci iod cove!el Jull I,2009'Mould'June 30,2010 July August Septrmhci Oetobei Novemhei l)eeeuthei .l,inu;ny Ichin:uy Mai eh April May .liner Total Beginning Balance 23.416,809 3(1,918,388 28,412,901 (1 11 4,441,014 48,399,563 41,032,547 42,026,109 41.820.334 40.207,436 45(160,074 23,416,809 Receipts: Property taxcs 771.935 992,399 677,565 607,731 12,686,656 42,673,387 269,014 725,150 1.387,997 5.351,474 1,201,891 1.619.477 68,964,676 Sales taxes 3,1 1(1,559 4,368.845 3,398,237 3,478,420 3,4 39,952 3,588,151 2,788,831 4,650,903 4,42(1,535 2.920,31 3 4,853,247 2.319.107 43,357,190 Franchise taxes 1,946,419 2,222,151 2,507,607 2,679.780 I,818,694 2,091,549 1,797,786 2,4(16,535 2.325,047 1,545,468 2,538,410 1,863.425 )5,742,870 Licenses and permits 2,2(14,910 (1 1,143,069 1,261,643 1,035,246 1,440,477 1,166,354 1,610,792 829,280 1.1(1(7,201 1,29(1,527 2.233.235 I5,)22,733 Federal grants II 0 0 O (1 0 (I 0 0 24)) 0 I) 240 State grants 1) 0 0 Il 0 484,836 O 0 O 0 3,000,000 I) 3,484,836 Other local sources 12,839 63,888 26,585 256,401 24 3,212 86.007 1 19,394 76,171 24(1,471 94,345 75,572 237,643 1,532.528 Inheres( 520,969 112,324 90,484 I14,393 78,566 93,562 108,027 83,029 98,010 77,755 86,793 429,457 1,893,369 Interest allocation (80,733) (75.974) (67,588) (65,333) (65,758) (56.692) (60,962) (23,368) (46,009) (40,635) (42,294) (42,4401 (667.775) Fines and forlettures 784,589 756,622 809,902 864,392 804,025 744,719 686,402 919,370 1,057,8 36 922.955 812,912 2,169,397 11,333.121 Parking meter collections 119.451 219,1(15 461,939 123,814 132,489 4,164 63,663 4(11,849 45,901 135,468 I 33,660 148,829 1.990,331 Charges for services 323,863 135,774 408,89I 29),3g3 397,853 260,969 27(1,533 400,657 421,807 1 1 1,259 212,332 629,682 3.866,001 Interfund reimbursements 95,995 647,534 1,61(1.122 90,733 69,000 1.5(11,589 422,775 1,079,722 1,182,504 608,308 1(11,944 1.923,202 9,333,427 Miscellaneous revenue 87,527 11(1.165 94,644 124,539 69,965 178,788 126,194 132,956 1(1(1,377 171,3(19 1(11,4(14 157.588 1,455,455 Inherlund Borrowing (1 (1 140,377 4,261,025 0 (1 (1 0 (1 (1 11 (1 4,401,401 Transfers-in 166,99(1 19,885 323,065 1,933,033 172,188 3,159,34(1 2(14,395 166,895 166,895 3.652,094 1(1,729 308,158 1(1.28 3,664 Note proceeds 19.000,000 0 0 0 0 (I (1 (1 (I 0 0 11 19,000.000 Total receipts 29,065.313 9,572,718 11,624,899 16,022,954 20,882,088 56,250,846 7,962,406 12,63(1,751 12,230,651 16,557,554 14,377,127 14.016,760 22I.194,067 Disbursements: Salaries and benefits 9,796,188 9,986,222 8,778,512 13,855,962 9,739,361 9,143.951 1(1,478,429 9,423,614 10,646,460 15,459,983 7,798,017 9,549,077 I24,656,376 Services and support 11,766,886 2,061,814 2,284,826 2,134,432 2,260,093 3,121,752 4,806,455 2,081,896 1,742,408 2,610,650 1,681,619 5,514,250 42,067,081 Capital outlay 660 30,169 7,944 32,560 40,219 26,594 44,538 19.922 47,558 99,819 44,853 338,226 733,062 'l'tansfers out O 0 28,966,518 0 0 0 0 111,757 0 0 0 45.000 29,123,275 Intel-fund Payback 0 0 0 0 4,401,401 0 O 0 0 0 0 1) 4.401,401 Note principal O 0 0 0 0 0 (I 0 0 0 (1 I9,000.000 19,000,000 Note interest (I 0 0 0 (1 0 (1 0 0 0 0 463,125 463,125 Total disbursements 21,563,734 12,078,205 40,037,800 16,022,954 16,441,074 12.292,297 15,329,422 11,637,189 12,436,426 18,170,452 9,524,489 34,910,278 220,444,320 Ending Balance 30,918,388 28,412,901 0 0 4,441,014 48,399,563 41,032,547 42,026,109 41,82(1,334 40,207,436 45,060,074 24,166,556 24,166,556 %, SALT I.AKI.CITY( (1111'(111,1TION (;l•:NlR.\I,FUND('ASI1 1.1.(1\V S111 11 l.\RN' Actuate Through 1\Iarcli 31 ,2111 1 Pet kid cu\cicil July I.2011)du June 30.21111 July August September Uctuhcl November Uccemher January Fehmaty Match April May lune 'Total Beginning Balance 24,166,556 32,367,635 36,491,915 9,826.671 1,832,641 10,529,873 46,700,169 44,876,184 45,662,449 45,585.959 45,852,080 45,428,1 3(1 24,166,556 Receipts: I4Ioperty taxes 604,665 915,693 374,033 549.3011 11,983,337 38,791,272 1,788,424 690.150 1.035,892 3,774.094 1,428,188 1.040.975 62,976.1(23 Sales taxes 3.144,377 4,424,56(1 3,240,961 3,520,768 3,695,1 14 3,792,259 2,829,767 5.64 3,54 3 4.100.61 2 3,109,870 3,9(19,742 2,616,202 44,027,775 Franchise taxes 2,086,312 2,225,464 2,546,769 2.69(1.553 2,053,939 1.963,059 1,871,748 2,343,3(17 2,537.640 2.455,598 2.710,356 2,269,055 27,753,799 Licenses and permits 1,241,631 611.991 1,048,029 1,121,597 1,371,724 1,451,608 1,447,178 1,337,261 1,127,686 1,257,199 1,379.267 2,497.078 15,892.248 Federal grants 0 0 (1 0 (1 0 I) 11 (1 0 11 0 0 Stale grants ll (I (1 0 (1 491,13 3 1,500,000 O (1 11 1.123,0 39 618,371 3,737,543 Other local sources 38,1(23 74.385 218,301 111,728 72.667 285,324 123,018 104,685 266,216 44.962 239.623 (42.516 1.661,448 Interest 3(17,756 72,248 91,135 69,0(11 64,392 73,914 98,886 78.713 93.814 78,670 64.484 106,987 1.200,000 Interest allocation (44,579) (43,615) (48,598) (52.483) (48,479) (89,097) (63,419) (39,747) (I00,369) (82,5 33) (7,081) (619,989) Pines and forfeitures 81(1.171 731,805 71(1,878 765,130 715.994 715,835 706,925 883,320 1,036,707 1.074,671 95(1,124 1,488,356 10,589,916 Parking meter collections 126,565 127,4(13 90,331 136,427 61,496 92,149 69,504 78,964 163,323 189,819 157,81(2 177,11(16 1,470,788 Charges for services 260,306 99,688 371,191 187.815 198,378 271,133 242,681 262,353 389,59(1 284,585 377,931 64 3,300 3,588,944) Interlund reimbursements 10,000 318,744 1.602,359 57,327 8(16,5(17 926,550 355,44(1 613,524 1,258,942 73(1.582 4(16.861 2,500,429 9,587,264 Miscellaneous revenue 1 15,8 3 1 153.571 145,548 1 16,56 3 80,246 85.688 96,881 144,476 316.457 402.053 397,146 395,779 2.450.238 Transfers-in 157.1(31 175,607 195,460 186.572 172.521 181,315 2.077.182 350,839 186,875 413.716 16,538 48,114 4,161,767 Note proceeds 20.000,000 11 (1 (1 0 0 O 0 0 Il (1 0 20.000.11110 Total receipts 28,858,1)89 9,887,544 1(1,586,397 9.461(298 21,227,836 49.121,239 I3,118,537 12,467,716 12.474.0(17 13,715,451) 13,078,568 14,477,087 208,472,769 Disbursements: Salaries and benefits 9,809,587 3,182,993 15,991,618 14,634,059 9,757,(189 10,438,509 1(1,374,(174 9,514,775 9,781,174 11,483,387 11,634,032 11,81 3,749 128,415,046 Services and support 1(1,717,2 36 2,483,428 2,823,23(1 2,727.880 2,759,299 2,349,623 4,286,113 2,042,253 2.276,428 1,65(1,462 1,627,9(14 6,316,1 19 42,059,975 Capital outlay 130,187 96,843 28,284 92.389 14,216 162,811 135,113 124,423 114,477 315,480 240,582 937,815 2,392,620 Transfers out (1 0 18,4(18,509 0 0 0 147,222 0 378,418 l) (I (1 18.934,149 Note principal O 0 0 0 0 0 (1 0 (1 0 It 20,000,000 20,000,000 Note Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 0 0 0 281.667 281,667 Total disbursements 20,657,010 5,763,264 37,251,641 17,454,328 12,530,6(14 12,950,943 14,942,522 11,681,451 12,55(1,497 13,449,329 13,502,518 39,349,350 212,083,457 Ending Balance 32,367,635 36,491,915 9,826,671 1,832,641 1(1.529,873 46.7(10,169 44,876,184 45,662,449 45,585,959 45,852,080 45,428,130 2(1,555,867 20,555,867 p -{ AX r .r'X X r y J Y X -I - T ?- i r . a C r Y r C. Y Y X J w Y T C T r^ C r fi- -C - Cf C- Cc Y - i Cc .i - - it d a Y - - - Y „ C CCc j r _ _ ^ - _C C =� .,=5 c--. J J v;-1 t'n JC x - r 0 r CC ri /_ _ Y fi - - R P Y r - -J R - x - so - r J n A r R R R - r Y Y - 1 R^^ - .. P R Y T 1 - - - R r A - ^ V r - R r r ^ C Y- T - Cc I CC - fi fi . -T T i y r r-- r r - r 2 I <D. R - - : 2. _ _ C-a a nv 2- C C C - - ' M TT rT Y r-r5 L A R r m c, ! FR ..-. » `�"I 4- p n M C 'n Y .. r _ - - - _ CC P M.Cc CC- r r"R ' r - rl- , C..,,',I - - rl Z 2. 7,1 - v _�^ "' , a r.,' r c rrn _ >i x- O 5 _ __ _x- a M T M1 j VS r CC a o _ _ a- - o '0r CC i r_ M Cc r r-r= - C-Y r -�n n a �r �n a r co r RI r. 1 .- - fi T , - fI - Q O r C''0 Cc w'J r C _Y-Y _._. _ P 7. Cc _ r.,O rn Cc.Cc Cc 0 co,E.r Cc ci M c�-- Y P C 2 o.n- ,r-x rco= r nC r %i - »C0 2 r X n c - - 2. C ii - fl — fl I — __ ——_ f=Z ,—`., ,,:.J=ZZ ' = z .-+ Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 05/27/1 1 APPENDIX B FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING CONTINUING DISCLOSURE INFORMATION UNDER PARAGRAPH (B)(5)OF RULE 15C2-12 [TO BE DATED CLOSING DATE] THIS CONTINUING DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING (the "Agreement") is executed and delivered by Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), in connection with the issuance of its $19,000,000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 2011 (the "Notes"). The Notes are being issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City on June 14, 2011 (the "Resolution"). In consideration of the issuance of the Notes by the City and the purchase of such Notes by the beneficial owners thereof,the City covenants and agrees as follows: Section 1. PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT. This Agreement is executed and delivered by the City as of the date set forth above, for the benefit of the beneficial owners of the Notes and in order to assist the Participating Underwriters in complying. with the requirements of the Rule. As the Notes have a stated maturity of 18 months or less, this Agreement is prepared in compliance with paragraph (d)(3) of the Rule. The City represents that it will be the only obligated person with respect to the Notes at the time the Notes are delivered to the Participating Underwriters and that no other person is expected to become so committed at any time after issuance of the Notes. Section 2. DEFINITIONS. The terms set forth below shall have the following_ meanings in this Agreement,unless the context clearly otherwise requires. "Commission" means the Securities and Exchange Commission. "Dissemination Agent" means any agent designated as such in writing by the City and which has filed with the City a written acceptance of such designation, and such agent's successors and assigns. "EMMA" means the MSRB through its Electronic Municipal Market Access system for municipal securities disclosure or through any other electronic format or system prescribed by the MSRB for purposes of the Rule. "Exchange Act" means the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. "MSRB" means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. B-1 "Participating Underwriter" means each broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer acting as an underwriter in the primary offering of the Notes. "Reportable Event" means the occurrence of any of the Events with respect to the Notes set forth in Exhibit I that is material,as materiality is interpreted under the Exchange Act. "Reportable Events Disclosure" means dissemination of a notice of a Reportable Event as set forth in Section 4. "Rule" means Rule 15c2-12 adopted by the Commission under the Exchange Act, as the same may be amended from time to time. "State" means the State of Utah. "Undertaking" means the obligations of the City pursuant to Section 4. Section 3. CUSIP NUMBER/FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT. The CUSIP Number of the Notes is . The final Official Statement relating to the Notes is dated 2011. The City will include the CUSIP Number in all disclosure described in Section 4 of this Agreement. Section 4. REPORTABLE EVENTS DISCLOSURE. Subject to Section 7 of this Agreement, the City hereby covenants that it will disseminate in a timely manner Reportable Events Disclosure to EMMA in such manner and format and accompanied by identifying information as is prescribed by the MSRB or the Commission at the time of delivery of such information. Section 5. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE OF THE CITY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. In the event of a failure of the City to comply with any provision of this Agreement, the beneficial owner of any Note may seek mandamus or specific performance by court order,to cause the City to comply with its obligations under this Agreement. A default under this Agreement shall not be deemed a default under the Resolution,and the sole remedy under this Agreement in the event of any failure of the City to comply with this Agreement shall be an action to compel performance. Section 6. AMENDMENTS; WAIVER. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agree- ment, the City, by resolution authorizing such amendment or waiver, may amend this Agreement,and any provision of this Agreement may be waived, if: (a) (i) the amendment or waiver is made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in legal requirements, including, without limitation, pursuant to a "no-action" letter issued by the Commission, a change in law, or a change in the identity, nature,or status of the City,or type of business conducted; or (ii) this Agreement, as amended, or the provision, as waived, would have complied with the requirements of the Rule at the time of the primary B-2 offering, after taking into account any amendments or interpretations of the Rule, as well as any change in circumstances; and (b) the amendment or waiver does not materially impair the interests of the beneficial owners of the Notes, as determined by parties unaffiliated with the City or any other obligated person (such as Bond Counsel). Section 7. TERMINATION OF UNDERTAKING. The Undertaking of the City shall be terminated hereunder if the City shall no longer have any legal liability for any obligation on or relating to repayment of the Notes under the Resolution. The City shall give notice to EMMA in a timely manner if this Section is applicable. Section 8. DISSEMINATION AGENT. The City may, from time to time, appoint or engage a Dissemination Agent to assist it in carrying out its obligations under this Agreement, and may discharge any such Dissemination Agent with or without appointing a successor Dissemination Agent. Section 9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to prevent the City from disseminating any other information, using the means of dissemination set forth in this Agreement or any other means of communication, or including any other information in any notice of occurrence of a Reportable Event, in addition to that which is required by this Agreement. If the City chooses to include any information from any document or notice of occurrence of a Reportable Event in addition to that which is specifically required by this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation under this Agreement to update such information or include it in any future disclosure or notice of occurrence of a Reportable Event. Section 10. BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement has been executed in order to assist the Participating Underwriters in complying with the Rule; however, this Agreement shall inure solely to the benefit of the City,the Dissemination Agent, if any,and the beneficial owners of the Notes,and shall create no rights in any other person or entity. Section I1. RECORDKEEPING. The City shall maintain records of all Reportable Events Disclosure, including the content of such disclosure, the names of the entities with whom such disclosure was filed and the date of filing such disclosure. Section 12. ASSIGNMENT. The City shall not transfer its obligations under the Resolution unless the transferee agrees to assume all obligations of the City under this Agreement or to execute an Undertaking under the Rule. Section 13. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State. (Signature page follows.) B-3 EXHIBIT I EVENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE NOTES FOR WHICH REPORTABLE EVENTS DISCLOSURE IS REQUIRED 1. Principal and interest payment delinquencies 2. Non-payment related defaults, if material 3. Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties 4. Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties 5. Substitution of credit or liquidity providers,or their failure to perform 6. Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 570 1-TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the security, or other material events affecting the tax status of the security 7. Modifications to the rights of security holders, if material 8. Bond calls, if material,and tender offers 9. Defeasances 10. Release,substitution or sale of property securing repayment of the securities, if material 11. Rating changes 12. Bankruptcy, insolvency,receivership or similar event of the Issuer* 13. The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the Issuer or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Issuer, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material 14. Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material * This event is considered to occur when any of the following occur: the appointment of a receiver,fiscal agent or similar officer for the Issuer in a proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or in any other proceeding under state or federal law in which a court or governmental authority has assumed jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the Issuer, or if such jurisdiction has been assumed by leaving the existing governing body and officials or officers in possession but subject to the supervision and orders of a court or governmental authority,or the entry of an order confirming a plan of reorganization,arrangement or liquidation by a court or governmental authority having supervision or jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the Issuer. B-5 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 1,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Library Budget Follow-up CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Beth Elder,Gina Chamness,Dan Mule,Helen Langan,Jennifer Bruno,Mike Beckstead,Gordon Hoskins,Kay Christensen,Karen Halladay This memorandum is a follow-up to the City Council discussion May 31 on a proposed tax increase pertaining to the planned construction and operation of the Glendale and Marmalade branch libraries.Salt Lake City Public Library System Librarian Beth Elder also has prepared a memo that is the first of three attachments to this memorandum.The libraries would be part of the Salt Lake City Public Library System.The System currently operates the Salt Lake City Main Library,and the Anderson- Foothill,Chapman,Corinne and Jack Sweet,Day-Riverside,and Sprague branch libraries. Under Utah law 9-7-401,a city's gomerniurpgg body rpay establish and maintain a public library.It annually may levy a tax not to exceed.001 of taxable value of taxable property in the city....If bonds are issued for purchasing a site,or constructing or.furnishing a building,then taxes sufficient for the payment of the bonds and any interest may be levied.Taxes levied and collected by a city under Utah Code 9-7- ' 401 shall..."constitute a fund to known at the city library fund." A municipality may use revenue in a city library fund only for public libraries within the municipality. At the end of the May 31 discussion,the City Council seemed inclined to consider what was termed Option C in memoranda prepared for the Council discussion.'Option C would in the 2011-2012 fiscal year increase property taxes for a house valued by Salt Lake County at$260,890 by$5.50.For a commercial property valued at$1 million the increase would be$38.30. The proposed increase would generate an estimated$645,000 to annual debt'service on bonds issued to build the Marmalade Branch Library.2 Under the current tax rate for the Salt Lake City Library Fund,a homeowner whose house is valued by Salt Lake County at$260,890 pays$113.50 tq support the Library System.The owner of a commercial property valued at$1 million pays$791. If the City Council adopts Option C,the owner of a house valued by Salt Lake County at$260,890 would pay a total of$119,and the owner of a commercial property valued at$1 million would pay a total of$829.30 in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. Option C defers until the 2012-2013 fiscal year another increase in property taxes for operating costs for the two branch libraries.Projected psopertyyiS�increases in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 would add $14.06 to a house valued by Salt Lake County,nt$'((J 0-bringing the total Library Fund property tax portion to$133.06. The projected increase in Fiscal Ycar 20,12-2013 would add$98 to a commercial property valued at$1 million—bringing the total Library Fund property tax portion to$927.30 in Fiscal Year 2012-2013. 1 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION At the May 31 City Council discussion a City Council Member asked Library System administrators how close a property tax increase would bring the Library Fund to the maximum rate allowed in Utah Code 9-7-401,and,if a decline in property values occurred,how far would those values fall before the Library Fund's maximum rate was reached?(It should be noted that Utah Code 9-7-401 in effect fixes the maximum property rate a municipalja-clopt for a library fund.However,rates below the maximum float depending on the total assessed value of,property within a city.When assessed values rise the rate drops.When assessed values drop the rate(asses.) The total assessed value of taxable property in Salt Lake City in the current fiscal year(Fiscal Year 2010-2011)is about$15.8 billion.Library System administrators have indicated that if the total assessed value for Salt Lake City stays the same,and if all tax rate increases were adopted for the Glendale and Marmalade branch libraries,the Library System still would have the capacity to raise about $1 million a year in property taxes to meet the System's needs in the future. System administrators estimate that total assessed values of property in Salt Lake City would have to decline by 6.4 percent from$15.8 billion after all tax rate increases for Marmalade Branch construction,and operating costs for the Glendale and Marmalade branches were adopted before the Library System would reach maximum taxing capacity. Another question posed involved a potential point where the project for the Marmalade Branch Library could stop,if adverse financial conditions warranted stopping.The City Council may wish to consider evaluating the total assessed value of taxable property in the city before issuing any bonds to build the branch. It should be noted that the City and the public Library System Board of Directors and administrators have worked toward building 910Iple and Marmalade branch libraries since 2009.In June 2009,the City Council adopted the follosging lotion: "Councilmember Love proposed a substitutemotion and Councilmember Garrott seconded to adopt Proposal 5:Increase revenue by$560,000 for current library operations,build one new library with a sales tax bond,fund planning for Glendale library and fund planning process for Marmalade library at a tax rate of.000057 with the addition of a legislative intent statement indicating the Council's intention to fund,plan and build the libraries."' r Please see attached documents.It should be noted that in those documents Option E projects an accumulation of$1.47 million to fund the materials collection for the Marmalade Branch Library.However,at the May 31 City Council discussion, Salt Lake City Public Library administrators said the actual accumulation of revenue for collection development was$2.295 under Option E. Salt Lake City Public Library System Operating and Capital Budget,Fiscal Year 2011-2012,Page 10. City Council Meeting Minutes,June 16,2009 410.44f, � 2 MEMORANDUM ® DATE: June 2, 2011 TO: City Council and Mayor Ralph Becker FROM: Beth Elder SUBJECT: Library Budget Follow-up In reviewing the questions posed by Councilman Christensen, we would note that in 2009 when the Glendale and Marmalade Libraries were proposed, the Library's tax rate was .000618. The increases required for the new branch construction and operating needs(a total rate increase of .00018)would have brought the rate up to .000798, providing for plenty of available room in the tax rate for needed increases. The unanticipated downturn in property tax values has absorbed some of the available room in the tax rate and we appreciate Councilman Christensen's concern. We are cautiously optimistic that with values rebounding from 2010 and new housing starts associated with the City Creek project and other downtown developments, the overall property tax value will be restored and continue to grow. Additionally, the Library is analyzing opportunities to use new technologies to streamline internal processes which could affect staffing needs for the new branches. As Councilman Christensen noted, the advent of electronic books will reduce materials handling substantially. Library Tax Rate Projections: FY 2011 Assesssed Property Tax Value $ 15,837,733,240 Option A Option C FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 Srrent Library Property Tax Rate 0.000791 0.000832 0.000884 0.000791 0.000832 Marmalade Construction lncr 0.000041 0.000041 Glendale Operating lncr 0.000052 0.000052 Marmalade Operating Incr 0.000052 0.000052 Library Property Tax Rate 0.000832 0.000884 0.000936 0.000832 0.000936 Property Tax Rate Headroom 0.000168 0.000116 0.000064 0.000168 0.000064 Property Tax Dollar Headroom 2,665,491 1,840,345 1,015,199 2,665,491 1,015,199 Max Decline in Assessed Value/Rate Cap .001 16.9% 11.7% 6.4% 16.9% 6.4% Historical Property Tax Values and Library Property Tax Rate and Revenue: Property Fiscal Assessed Value Library Library Year Property Value % Change Rate Revenue 2005 $12,294,607,305 .000887 $10,905,317 2006 $12,543,350,142 2.0% .000869 $10,905,317 2007 $14,485,331,586 15.5% .000762 $11,037,823 2008 $16,935,565,096 16.9% .000657 $11,126,666 2009 $18,003,184,897 6.3% .000618 $11,126,666 2010 $16,125,278,053 (10.4%) .000760 $12,254,900 2011 $15,837,733,240 ( 1.8%) .000791 $12,521,876 © Assessed Property Values would need to decline to approximately 2007 levels or 6.4%from FY2011 values before the Library would reach the maximum rate allowed. • A-4 PLEASE SEE A- 3 • FROM 5/31 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS — FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: June 7, 2011 BUDGET FOR: JUSTICE COURT STAFF REPORT BY: Quin Card, Lehua Weaver cc: David Everitt, Gina Chamness, Gordon Hoskins, Curtis Preece, Ramona Thomas, Kay Christensen The functions of the Justice Court include adjudicating small claims, criminal and non-criminal cases, domestic violence court cases; hearing officers; and cashiering functions. The budget is proposed to increase by 0.4% or $177,989. Staffing will stay at 46.0 FTEs in the Justice Court. JUSTICE COURT BUDGET Adopted Proposed Difference Percent 2010-11 2011-12 Change Justice Court (Cashiering,Criminal and Non-Criminal Adjudication,Small $4,374,684 $4,552,673 $177,989 4% Claims) POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE AND MAJOR BUDGET ISSUES Operating Budget Reduction ($-75,000) The Administration recommends a reduction of ($75,000) in the Justice Court operating budget. This amount will come from funds currently used for witness and juror fees, interpreters and security. The court states there has been a national trend of fewer jury trials, as is the case here, requiring less funding for jury, witness, security and interpreter fees. The court has also updated its interpreter policy to reduce the need to pay interpreters for jury cancellations. (This savings was suggested by a Court employee). Recording System (SB318) Senate Bill 318 mandates that all justice courts must have audio recording capability for all hearings, for all court rooms by July 1, 2012. The recording equipment must be digital and the court is required to retain all recordings for one year. Estimated cost for this equipment is approximately $90,000. This cost was not included in the court's FY2012 budget because they are actively seeking grants and other funds the State may make available to ease the burden of the unfunded mandate created by SB318. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide reports on what grants or funds become available to help pay for the system. 1 New Public Seating in Court Waiting Area($13,000) The Administration recommends a budget increase of$13,000 in one-time funding 11 to purchase new public seating for the Court waiting area.The Administration explains that many people now choose to stand because of the condition of the • furniture. In the past the Justice Court has received an annual amount of$2,400 for office equipment and furnishings. Given this one-time increase for waiting area furniture, the Council may wish to ask the Administration what other enhancements are planned or needed. Booting Expenses The Administration expects the Justice Court to see an increased cost of ($106,965)as a result of the City's new booting program.This amount is what the projected cost to the City will be for Paylock's services.Paylock charges the City ($147)per boot. It is expected that this cost will be offset by$156,965 in revenue from the program. The revenue collected for outstanding parking fines and associated fees is recorded in the Justice Court budget. The Council Office has received calls from some constituents who were surprised that the Hearing Officers did not have the authority to waive or reduce any portion of the booting charges. The Council may wish to ask whether the booting ordinance established a different appeal process than the Hearing Officers follow for other tickets and violations. The issues raised include: 1.Hearing Officers don't have the authority to reduce the ticket or fee amounts once the boot is put in place;2.Hearing Officers don't have the authority to reduce the booting fee. The current ordinance sets the policy tone that once the vehicle has 2 tickets that are at least 30 days past due, the City has already gone to significant expense to attempt to collect on the tickets and therefore a reduction is not appropriate. In terms of the reduction in the fee charged by the booting company, if the City were to reduce that fee, it would amount to a subsidy to the ticket recipient by the taxpayers, since the City is required to pay the outside contractor for the service. Specific situations raised with the Council Office include: a. Received tickets but forgot about the tickets, did not receive a written notice since the car was new when the tickets were received and the license plate was temporary. b. Received tickets but moved without leaving a forwarding address and consequently didn't receive a written notice. Does the Council wish to re-evaluate the policy established in adopting this ordinance? It is likely that changes would significantly impact the collection of outstanding fines and fees. 2 Parking Ticket Fine Reductions The Administration has forwarded a transmittal reporting on the audit of the City's Parking Enforcement functions. One of the items listed in the report cited that reductions to parking ticket fines by Hearing Officers are "a factor" in the reduction of parking ticket revenues. The report also indicates that the Justice Court may have re-evaluated some of the reduction protocols and the number of reductions issued had declined. The Council may wish to ask about the changes implemented, and the response to the Audit findings. Personal Service Changes ($133,024) The Administration recommends funding in the amount of$133,024 for personal services base to base changes ($15,370), pension changes ($17,065), insurance rate changes ($38,136) and salary changes ($62,453). Additional Information LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify legislative intents relating to the Justice Court. C 9 C 111 1 1 RECEIVED RALPH BECKER MAYOR S+ ',Fi�ii�i. MEMOS OFFICE OF THE MAYOR MAY 2 4 2011 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL9, Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: 6.3'?t I loll David veritt, C ief of Staff Date sent to Council: OS,?y IU4( TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 24,2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Parking Enforcement Audit STAFF CONTACT: Mary Beth Thompson(801)535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing—Information only BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In September 2010 the City Council and Administration created the parking taskforce. This taskforce was made up of individuals from various departments to draw upon their expertise and insights. The taskforce conducted an operational review to gain an understanding of the ticket process, evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiencies of the procedures,and to attempt to determine why the number of tickets issued has decreased yearly from 140,194 tickets in FY2006 to a projected 106,108 in FY2011. In addition,the review looked at reasons for ticket revenue decreases other than the number of tickets issued. Based on the operational review a number of recommendations emerged that may help ensure compliance with current parking o`r'dinances and lead to procedural improvements. A compilation of observances, complaints and issues regarding Salt Lake City parking ticket procedures has been structured into three categories;Human Resources, Justice Court and Parking Enforcement. - The Finance Department is forwarding the audit results to the Mayor's Office and City Council prior to receiving comments from the City divisions involved. The Finance Department will distribute the audit to Human Resources,Justice Court and Parking Enforcement for responses to the recommendations. Once responses have been received, the audit will be re-transmitted to the Mayor's Office and City Council. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.sicgov.com ,�.so Parking Enforcement April 2011 The Finance Department completed an operational review of the Parking Enforcement ticketing processes and procedures. The objectives of this review were to gain an understanding of ticket process, evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiencies of the procedur. .1" • o attempt to determine why the number of tickets issued has decreased • � 140,194 tickets in FY2006 to a projected 106,108 in FY2011. Condition The Parking Taskforce was created by the City • cil and Adminis u in September 2010. This taskforce was made up •- " dividu•:; from variou tments to draw upon their expertise and insights. Salt L. :te ity •rienced a sill.`• 'cant decrease in the number of tickets issued in fiscal ye., ' 0. 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr ' d Qtr 4 ` ;4 YTD FY2011 28,381 25,781 26,3 ., 106,448 FY2010 29,212 27,516 '8,.- .31,576 `' 116,946 ,,, FY2009 32,195 32,035 '" 48 ; ' f "s 129,333 FY2008 32,470 ' 4 3 i v 37 126,279 FY2007 32,079 3 31,1 ; 31,917 128,496 FY2006 36, • 33,0 35,3 35,503 140,194 The dec • : o 'cket- : .'ected) could not be easily attributed to any one cause. Othe es are also e ;en • so .• in not only the number of tickets written but als• total ticket ue. e cities have increased their enforcement efforts to insure co. .. ce.The ci incl de San Francisco,New York,Washington DC,Seattle and Chicago.. Based on the oper. 4 eview,however,a number of recommendations emerged that may help ensure co 'ance with current parking ordinances. A compilation of observances,comps.' is and issues regarding Salt Lake City has been broken down into 3 categories; Human Resources,Justice Court and Parking Enforcement. Human Resources It is the current practice of Human Resources (HR)to give out free parking passes to the Council and Recorders office to use when there is a late night meeting. Passes are also given to Interns working within the City and County Building(CCB),HR personnel '" who work at the Police Department or Airport who comes to the CCB Building on official business or for meetings and the in/out parking is full. Employees who come for new employee orientation are also given passes for parking around the CCB until their parking pass to park under the library arrives. When passes are given out it's for a two week period and some are for the entire fiscal year. In order to get a pass no documentation is necessary and the only passes that are being tracked are for (six)Non-Employee Board Members. The loss of the available parking spaces on the street for publi not only creating customer complaints but is also reducing the amount of tic . that can be given. The recommendations are: • To establish a tracking system for park r :,..asses 1,ven out by th• . • ement Office. Parking passes will need to be u ed ontain an ex• tion date related to the individuals business at the C 11 % should also in ude a limited area of where the pass is vali.. Beginning Jul parking passes issued with be numbered,contain an exp ` ;T I date and an . s here passes are valid. • All city Employees should be - 'dation pas _•k under the library until a parking pass can be obt.. d. . ld incl , `e those working at the Airport, Public Safety Building,ne . Justice Courts After a review of the r• •o • ormed by -aring Officers on the parking ticket amounts,it P -terrain, a = s do not explain the recent decline in parking g • s were re.ucing parking tickets on an average of 45% of the . al ticket a• s`c t pri• f e '• e when the current reduction pattern became evi. A) Ann ! •tal reduc. . for parking tickets have been as follows: 2. '.1,039,: 2011 .,',1' 01 2011 arch 31st $512,170 compared to 2010 To Date$492,756 B) When reviewing all tickets from July 2010 through December 2010,with the base fees at$15, $30,$55, the average reduction is 56%. Combined tickets with multiple violations had an average reduction of 38%. While,the parking ticket reductions allowed by Hearing Officers do not appear to be a significant factor in the recent parking ticket revenue decline,the reductions are a factor in general, and during the course of this review, the Justice Court was reminded of the Amok City ordinance regarding appeals on tickets (City Code 12.56.570).. In November 2010 .� the average number of reductions went from 93,306 to 88,199 (a 5% decrease)and down to 85,362 by the end of December making a total of 9% decrease in reductions. . Recommendations: • Consistent criteria for reducing tickets should be developed by the Justice Court. There are a variety of reasons and circumstances that could prompt the Hearing Officer to reduce tickets. However by establishing guide ' es it should take the guess work out of how,when and why reductions are t. ; •lace. The Justice Court should develop procedures to ensure they are •:: `reducing tickets below the base ticket for meter violations and other ticke : o At the time of receipt of the notice,p. 7 ; si . of the 4>„`, ect vehicle had been acquired pursuant to the wri => leas agreement • x:• ' ar written agreement; o The subject vehicle was mech. c .a ,0' cap. fi€ - of being mo from such location; o Any markings,signs o other indicia o • . g use regulation were not clearly visible or comp s • ible; o Such other mitigating c . } • es as may . .-lived by the city law department. • Jurors called to ` -. in the Jus. .a ourt w ,y s e given validations to park ' W - under the Lib ra an being r ued parking passes for on-street parking at meters s. ding '; ustice Co ' change was implemented beginning Ap 110.. • Justic• t man -n o-s 0 w reductions of parking tickets per in• . • • on thly bas . Parking • k r cement Parking E • ent curr v y operates on a beat schedule that is rotated on a weekly basis. If an E -went • :''cer is absent from his/her rotation,there is no order to who can take the oritism is often perceived by the Officers in this type of a situation. Upon mo -nd, a posting of the number of violations each officer enforced upon,is displayed . what Officers refer to as the"Wall of Shame". Reports and productivity can be easily perceived on an individual effort but there doesn't seem to be any correlation with the number of officers per month and the number of tickets they give. Nor can a single beat be reported on to show an accurate picture of how many tickets were given there at any one particular time due to a technology restraint. There is no consistency in the number of tickets,the beats,or rotations. There is a definite need for upgraded technology (which will be available with the new Pay Stations) as well as an in-depth review of the current beats. The beat evaluation should establish the effectiveness of the enforcement officer. Currently, the average number of tickets written per hour is 3.74;however the average per enforcer varies from 6.04 to 2.37. The national average of parking tickets written per hour is about 6 per hour in a 6.5 per work day, according to data obtained from one of the industry leaders in parking enforcement management. In FY2010 there was a total of 110,305 parking tickets reported with an average of 9,468 tickets per month and through a projected FY2011 the average is expected to go down to 8,707 tickets per month. PYTD 2010: Average Tickets Per Month 9,468 Per Month/Officer 541 (High 714/Low 368) Per Hour/Officer 3.98 (High 7.04/Low 2.22) FYTD 2011(Projected): Average Tickets Per Month 8,480 Per Month/Officer 551 (High 765/Low 341) Per Hour/Officer 3.20 (High 6.30/Low 2.09) *Boulder Colorado has a new directive to write an average of 900 tickets per month per officer.Which is equal to 45 tickets a day or one every 11 minutes.(www.dailycamera.com/ci15009955,05/03/2010) Voids have been consistent, at an average of 458 and 427 voids per month for 2010 and 2011 respectively. Various reasons why voids are created but a high number seem to be not reissued. Parking,Enforcement-Recommendations: • Establish standards for productivity per officer. • Require officers to enter a beat in the handheld device prior to working the beat. This will,require an upgraded handheld and this issue will be fixed in conjunction with the RFP for the new Parking Pay Stations. • Explanation of voids and why they weren't reissued. A supervisor should review these on a frequent basis and find commonalities in reasons that could lead to additional training for the officers. • The need for a Field Supervisory that can be on call for to go out on the field to be on the scene and fully understand the challenges and obstacles the officers face. • More training from high producers to the lower producers on all ticketing aspects (What to look for,Picture taking,tricks of the trade, etc) Aok While the taskforce believes that these recommendations will help ensure violations and city ordinances are properly cited,the taskforce felt that there was still not enough information to ascertain why the numbers of tickets being written were still consistently falling. Interviews were conducted with each Enforcement Officer to get their input on what they felt the areas of concern where,what issues they had and what,if anything was driving the substantial difference in the number of tickets each o 'cer wrote. The majority of the interviews were conducted in one day,wi ► erviews going on simultaneously. This was in an attempt to cut down on the . : •orturuty the interviewees had to share the questions with their fellow Findings: 1. Interviewees consistently expressed a of understandin: E i; e Enforcement Officers Field Supery 'ob du• . They felt as ne was available to discuss issues that arise su w if f • 9 'cer has a cl•- e call with an irate citizens, after being in a wreck an• g shaken up there was no one to talk to. Officers also exp : •d a desire for . E e, ernoon and weekend supervisor. Officers workin 1. • - •ays are ou = x, assigned beat by themselves with no one in th- ffice k in on em. This is a safety issue and Officers need someone ay. b `o co• E r 'F :•cate their whereabouts. Recommend. •ns:A{ - a. Cl. • '' oles the org. . - •n so everyone understands what each othe k . , alt- ob responsibilities to ensure the ory . of th- •° s are met. r`•. Chan: 'ob • •tion of the Field Supervisor to include the job task 4.r of going • ."'g to th- a on a regular basis and as part of their main . duties. Als• cre. g an additional Field Supervisor position it would s a in provi• ; additional oversight to the afternoon and weekend shifts. A ,.-rviso ould help to establish consistency and guidelines in ticke. 'ublic Services should evaluate whether an additional position to act .:'`a afternoon/weekend supervisor is necessary,or whether a shift in job assignments could accommodate this need. c. Implement a remedy where Officers' don't work a beat alone. Someone should be there working with them throughout their shift thus creating immediate help should a situation arise. 2. Currently,parking enforcement does not have a dedicated dispatcher. Rather, Officers rotate responsibility for dispatch on a weekly (?)basis. Lunch-time back-up for the officer assigned to act as dispatcher is provided by other parking enforcement officers. Interviewees expressed the difficulty they felt toward losing hours of work. Current practice consists of officers having to cross beats in order to cover the lunch shift for the dispatcher on duty. This often results in a minimum three hour block of time that an officer cannot be out enforcing. In addition, officers believe that an 8 hour shift makes it d'L `` ,,to efficiently enforce a beat. There has also been expressed confus on the flexibility of schedules (lunch,break and end times). It is perc ' d _ h the rules are different from one Officer to another as well as what si a:y'i s co .: er the time they actually are taking said breaks. If Officers .,.- ea ired to tak- ch at a certain time, it creates stress when they have • • 2 ed cars that they nee• •. ce. Often times leaving those cars so the 'c• r `,v e th s_ unch time. were also frequent complaints of favoritism on the ab + eav- their shifts early and in the scheduling of beats. Offic-_,s consistently fe t,•t the change in staffing patterns could improve efficie Recommendations: a. Hire a full . • ,.tcher. A �e°,E e dispa O'er,with field knowledge would be • eat • 't. This w•,'z, d cut down on the need to fill people in each w- e rot. 'in changes. Z v• current practice, this could be tried g without an a• " • • d b. ethe •ours". ld create greater efficiency in the parking nforce• s" 't hange would allow for the ability to enforce during •rime times the d usually be on their way back to the office to . out the je.: : and =t ready to end their day.The current schedule ends a' , and so ,•ractice is to leave their beats around 4:30pm often leaving their ed : , and enforceable violations. When the new shift begins, the tires m• the handhelds are all lost due to the technology of not being able to tr. er the marked tires as well as the two hours being up by the time the next Officer gets to them. c. Develop procedures for taking breaks and lunches with an eye toward improving morale among parking enforcement officers. d. Explore a rotation for event scheduling and open shifts. This will ensure that Officers are given a fair chance at prime shifts as well as overtime shifts, and may help improve morale in the division. e. Equip vehicles that are used by Enforcement Officers with GPS. This will ,, ensure that we can more efficiently directly associate the beats as well as the officers' location. f. Explore with the City Council the feasibility of expanding meters times of enforcement to 8:00pm or 9:00pm. This would allow for additional enforcement time. • 3. There is a lack of consistency in some of the procedu currently in place for marking tires. Currently, there are two ways Par ., • °, ement can mark tires to ensure compliance with parking time •s• ':,tions - ' st is chalking where they simply put a chalk mark on th- .. e .1 • then com k after two hours (defined by ordinance) to see if chicle •as moved. k :, . -asy process but causes problems in the r. + . •w an F ,'ght time bec.. r.a the chalk isn't easily visible. Another problem of ch. a at owards the end of a shift an officer would be required -• write down wh e vehicle is and the time it was chalked so that the next c a ld go and fin • vehicle. Most likely not having that vehicle enforceable, c time cons• The second way to mark tires is in the handheld devi • ,. y. a• o issue tickets. This allows for an easy list of Er, E-d cars,. C •y,how the markings are unique to each Officer's .• dhe arkings . i • expire ' tickets are not issued within 2/ hours and u 7i be tr. :'`erred from • = - '. dheld to another . Thus, markings are lost at the en. •a, -: -rs lunc .r shift change. Of note is that the steep dec .. , um• •ar'll s issued began about the same time that t-:. new han. - syst- as implemented. R. u , endations a. .blish a b, ;'`practice for marking vehicles. Don't allow for either c g or :., dheld option to marking the vehicle. Consistency in the proc '`d help to determine if the process is efficient and should be rethou 1Y t out. Consider a short term experiment to determine whether the move to the handheld devices has contributed to the decline in parking tickets. b. Explore whether software changes could allow for a longer period of time before the markings are lost and for transfer of markings between devices and Officers. c. Looking into better marking resources. Different chalk colors and or waterproof options if possible and available. d. Mark tires after 1:00pm. This will allow for the Officers to have sufficient time to go back and pick up their marks. 4. There is a lack of communication between Zoning/Engineering and the Enforcement Division. Consistency in the enforcing(or not enforcing) of parking ordinances are not clearly defined. There are several ar:, 1,:the City where parking ordinances apply but where enforcement is fS encouraged. Examples include the e area around Judge Memorial High •o F 3rd South businesses on Saturday. Discussion of areas of that could a orcea• u; so was emphasized several times. By updating th ce to mcl ese areas it would create additional enforcement o rtuniti• . Recommendations: a. Clarify and if necessa &;,:ate the proces procedure for determining a non-enforceable area. ' . •ven inclu dinance update as well,for these particular < 3� . . b. Consider ex•anding new ar f • . •ar C-tations areas and/or put up signs to : • e additio enforce• ant opportunities. Possible addi. areas .: <'ude: 2.) -way.`•t south betw- `" th and 6th West uar• Way >._s determine• ough k`.rough analysis that the numbers of pictures on eac tion do no' • in e validity of an issued ticket. Officers are required to take a.' imately f'o 5 pictures of the vehicles they ticket. This takes up a lot of time an th• • alysis has proven regardless of how many pictures are taken the amount o uctions is still at 45%. Recommendations: a. We suggest that in order to save time,officers should only take 1 to 2 GOOD pictures of each violation. Additional training on picture taking is also a suggestion as there are still a lot of Officers that struggle with that job task. 6. Officers expressed a need for positive reinforcement as well as recognition in their job performance. Current practice is to have a daily Line-up that is supposed to brief Officers on the issues that may have come up during the prior shift and various items the Officers need to be made aware of to efficiently work their shift for that day. The Lines Ups are often viewed as gripe session where Officers complained about each other or were negative feedback is received. It was also discovered that upon month end, a posting of I ber of violations each officer enforced upon,is displayed on an offici. ;-- etin board that they Officers refer to as the"Wall of Shame". The dy 4 , c:`° sty in the work group occurs due to the lack of management oversi: •t. ,e resp. = of the Officers, both high and low producers,were that th.;, a - - anageme ` ``., t felt there was little to no guidance. Officers also cons tly sta_-d that they fe •- •t ±ere was no room for advancement in their po u . . 'M ey fe: at any kind ) "ecognition would aid in increasing morale within the o .tion. dig,...•.:, Recommendations: ;r a. Establish Line Up guide i -ate a prod ork environment. Within these guidelines a ► , - shoul.. a established. This ,- should ensur- efficient time?;a . ► ; em . dissemination of informa b. Cons elimin , : what Ofh -rs call the"Wall of Shame." Instead of displa ',divi, , . numbers E_= creates conflict and hostility,create . I env =F f, -,,r, otes team work,i.e. team goal and c. Manage t sho { -• e disciplinary actions for those individuals falling bele a st 4., . d. . , '_eam build' x;. etreats or activities could be implemented in order to 'bly me _=work relationships and build trust. e. Fo o 'a career ladder would reward them for time spent on the job with a ':__; change and possible small step up in pay. Additional sugge" sons are that of a patch for years of service like the Police Officers earn. 7. Miscellaneous Findings a. Impounds usually take 1 to 2 hours from start to finish. The practice is for the Enforcement officer to stay with the vehicle until a tow truck arrives. oak Tow trucks on rotation should be required to be able to respond and be on site within a certain amount of time. By an Officer having to wait for the tow truck it makes it difficult to enforce other violations and therefore lowering the number of tickets an Officer can give. The Enforcement Division untilzes a State contract of tow companies which has companies located throughout Salt Lake City and adjoining counties. 5t=i. { Recommendation: Determine if an ordinance change is necessary _ ds to tow trucks. 8. There is a lack of proper vehicle equipment b for the Lr"F •rcement Officers to do their jobs efficiently. Altho there are enough ` les for each officer,the number of actual jeeps av ' with tit right side ste• t-,• '' heels is not sufficient. These Jeeps are needed for r ; so the Offi '-rs can give tickets opposite of traffic. The two additional ey have with the steering wheel on the left hand side ca a dangerous s 'on as the officers get in and out of the vehicle. Recommendation: a. As vehicl - .laced,e ' to the tw ehicles with left side steering whee H d rep 'them with ht side steering wheel Jeeps. $ �x =5ii SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS—FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: June 7,2011 BUDGET FOR: EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION-FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Halladay,Budget and Public Policy Analyst cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Jennifer Bruno,David Everitt,Debra Alexander,Jodi Langford,David Salazar,Gordon Hoskins,Gina Chamness,Ed Rutan,Margaret Plane,Brian Roberts There are many components of compensation that need to be considered when calculating the �~ budget for the City's personal services budgets. Payroll and Personnel cost components account for approximately sixty-eight(68)percent of the General Fund budget or roughly$132.0 million. Components include salaries/wages,health and other benefits,and pension costs. In addition, memorandum of understanding(MOU)agreements with different work groups must also be considered. MOU agreements for Fire,Police,and American Federation of State,County,and Municipal Employees(AFSCME)are currently being negotiated. Once negotiated,the Council may adopt ordinances to appropriate funds to implement MOU provisions. This staff report focuses on overall compensation plan changes for City employees and changes to the Annual Compensation Plan for Salt Lake City Corporation,which covers all City employees not covered by a memorandum of understanding(MOU). Compensation Plan Budget Issues 1. Pay Raise-The Administration recommends pay increases for FY 2012. According to the proposed change,the pay increase is intended,in part,to offset the increase in the employee's share of health insurance premium costs. The Administration is proposing that increases be effective on June 26,2011 for each employment group. (Note: Fire,Police,and AFSCME MOUs are currently under negotiation.) The recommended increases are listed below: • Police •No agreement has yet been reached with Local 75 for pay increases. •The Mayor's initial recommendation for pay increases for police officers was: 1. Those employees eligible for a step increase would receive a 4%pay increase on June 26,2011. 2. Those employees not eligible for a step increase would receive a 2.1% increase on June 26,2011. • Fire •A tentative agreement(subject to ratification by union membership)has been reached with Local 1645 for pay increases: 1. Those employees eligible for a step increase will receive an interim 3.25% pay increase on June 26,2011 and then be advanced to their next step on December 25,2011 (for a total increase of approximately 5.25%). 2. Those employees in longevity steps will receive a 2.1%increase to their pay rate and may advance a longevity step if they have previously reached or upon reaching an appropriate anniversary date. • AFSCME •A tentative agreement(subject to ratification by union membership)has been reached with Local 1004 for pay increases. 1 1. Those employees eligible for a step increase will move to their next step(an approximately 4-5%increase depending upon step)on June 26,2011 and then receive a 1%pay increase on December 25,2011. 2. Those employees already in the last step and all 300 series employees will receive a 3%increase to their pay rate on June 26,2011. • All Other Employees •3%adjustment to base salary or hourly rate. MOU negotiations with City work groups occur prior to and after the Mayor presents the Recommended Budget. Budget recommendations include adjustments to compensation for all City employees and work groups. Work groups have expressed frustration about the timing and nature of the MOU negotiations. Does the Council wish to express its intent to review the timing and approach outlined in the collective bargaining resolution and consider the issues recently raised in the collective bargaining office. ►The Administration has been briefing employee representatives and Council Members on the concept of shifting from a salary system that refers to"merits/steps and cost of living allowances(COLAS)"to one that focuses more on annual increases for employees at various levels. The Administration describes the benefits of that approach as being more advantageous to City employees,in that it is more equitable,competitive,flexible, realistic and consistent. Tentative agreements currently reached with AFSCME and Local 1645(Fire)include a written agreement(wage article)that Fiscal Year 2012 will be the last year in which the merit/step system is used to implement pay increases. Does the Council wish for an update from the Administration on recent Police,Fire, and AFSCME MOU negotiations? ►Currently,the Police and Fire union leadership are allowed time away from work to attend to union business. AFSCME leadership currently does not have a similar allowance to conduct their business. AFSCME has tentatively agreed to an MOU that contains five paid hours per week for the AFSCME President to conduct union business. AFSCME has tentatively agreed that this is for the next year only and the MOU will be reopened after one year on this issue. Does the Council wish to conduct a time study to explore"best practices" and determine the appropriate time allowance for Salt Lake City union leadership-Police,Fire,and AFSCME to be away from work? NOTE: The Administration provided the following information about 29 Utah municipalities(Salt Lake City is not included)that responded about their plans for fiscal year 2012 pay increases: ➢ Fifteen of the twenty-nine respondents are not planning an increase. ➢ Four of the respondents are proposing an increase of 1.6%or less. ➢ Seven of the respondents are proposing an increase between 1.7%and 2.6%. ➢ Two of the respondents are proposing an increase of more than 2.6%. ➢ One of the respondents indicated that potential increases are being considered. 2. Proposed Health Insurance Benefit Changes—The cost of health insurance coverage for city employees and their families has increased by 13%or$3.5 million. The Administration is proposing several changes to health insurance benefit plans. One of the recommendations is to increase employee's share of the premium from 15%to 20%. Since FY 2009,employee contributions have increased 5%each year in order to help the City pay for increases in premiums.There are other proposed changes to the City's health insurance benefits, including the addition of a High Deductible Health Plan(HDHP)with a Health Savings Account(HSA). For FY 2012,the Administration is recommending one network provider(WISE network)and twc health insurance plan options for employees(Summit Care Plan and Summit STAR,which is a High Deductible Health Plan(HDHP)with a Health Savings Account(HSA). Offering only one network provided through the Summit Care Plan will produce approximately$1 million in 2 savings associated with the City's health insurance costs,so the Administration is proposing only the Summit Care Plan for the 2011-12 fiscal year. Currently,ninety-four(94)percent of membership in the City's health insurance plan is with the Summit Plan. The remaining six percent of the membership currently participating in the Preferred or Advantage health plan options must choose one of the two plans offered to continue coverage for fiscal year 2012. Employees will need to finalize their decisions and complete their paperwork by June 10,2011. The Department of Human Resources is currently presenting the proposed plans to City employees. Plan Details-Some of the Summit Care Plan and HDHP with HSA details,current to proposed changes,are provided below. The Salt Lake City PEHP Enrollment Guide(See Attached) provides plan details,including medical benefit coverage,qualified medical and pharmacy expenses and a listing of preventive benefits covered at no cost provided services are received from a contracted provider. Current-Summit Proposed— Proposed—Summit Care Summit Care STAR HDHP/HSA Premium Split 85/15—City/Employee 80/20- 95/5-City/Employee City/Employee Deductible Contracted Provider- Contracted Provider- Contracted Provider- $250 per individual/$500 $500 per $1,500 per per family individual/$1,000 per individual/$3,000 per Non-Contracted Provider- family family $500 per Non-Contracted Non-Contracted individual/$1,000 per Provider-$1,000 per Provider—N/A family individual/$2,000 per family Out of Network Non-Contracted Provider Non-Contracted N/A Co-insurance —Plan pays 70%of Provider—Plan pays contracted amount, 80%of contracted insured pays 30%plus amount,insured pays remaining balance 20%plus remaining balance Out-of-State NHBC Group Multi-Plan Multi-Plan Coverage— Considered In 1-888-621-7900 1-800-922-4362 1-800-922-4362 Network Http://pehp.claimsmart.net www.multiplan.com www.multiplan.com HSA N/A N/A $750 Individual Contribution $1,500 Double/Family NOTE:Regular Part Time- $375 Individual/$750 Double/Family HSA Bank Fee N/A N/A $2.25/Month/Employee Member 3 • The following table presents the impact of the plan changes to the City's and employee's share of annual health insurance premiums. Proposed Health Insurance Premium Changes Current FY 10/11 Proposed FY 11/12 • #of #of Annual employees Annual Annual employees Annual City Employee Enrolled Annual Employee Enrolled Share City Share Health Saving 1/1/2011 Share Assumed Account Share 7/1/11 Contribution Preferred Care Single 40 3,710.72 2,271.36 n/a n/a n/a n/a Double 36 8,349.64 5,379.66 n/a n/a n/a n/a Family 30 11,132.42 6,816.42 n/a n/a n/a n/a Advantage Care Single 41 3,710.72 1,528.02 n/a n/a n/a n/a Double 15 8,349.64 4,636.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a Family 35 11,132.42 6,073.08 n/a n/a n/a n/a Summit Care (assumes 92%enrollment) Single 438 3,710.72 654.94 478 4,276.48 n/a 1,069.12 Double 541 8,349.64 1473.42 545 9,611.42 n/a 2,402.92 Family 1278 11,132.42 1,964.56 1236 12,803.18 n/a 3,207.10 Summit Star HDHP/HAS(assumes 8%enrollment) Single n/a n/a n/a 41 4,209.66 750.00 264.42 Double n/a n/a n/a 47 9,461.40 1503.00 592.28 Family n/a n/a n/a 107 12,629.24 1500.03 793.26 Total Plan Membership 2454 2454 Note: The above chart does include an additional amount to build the Reserve Account balance. The Administration recommends an additional five (5) percent premium increase ($1.6 million) be shared between the City and the employees. For FY 2012, employees will contribute twenty (20) percent and the City will contribute eighty (80) percent of the additional premium cost. The annual employee share is: $54.34 for single, $119.60 for double, and $163.02 for family. The annual City's share is $217.62 for single, $478.66 for double, and $652.60 for family.) 3. Pension Costs - City employees participate in the Utah State Retirement System pension plans. The FY 2012 budget is proposed to be increased by $200,000. ► The Council may wish to ask the Administration for additional information on the status of funding of pension obligations. • Proposed Changes to Compensation Plan-This plan covers all City employees not -overed by a memorandum of understanding(MOU). The proposed effective date of the ordinance changes would be June 26,2011. (The Proposed Compensation Plan follows this report.) EMPLOYEE WAGES,SALARIES&BENEFITS-SECTION II 4. Pay Raise-The Administration recommends that each employee covered under this plan receive a three(3)%base salary or hourly rate increase to be effective June 26,2011. According to the proposed change,the pay increase is intended,in part,to offset the increase in the employee's share of health insurance premium costs. 5. Eliminate Additional Personal Holiday-Last year,the Administration proposed to grant one additional personal holiday for each employee which had to be used during fiscal year 2011. This additional holiday was granted on a one-time basis. The Administration has not proposed a continuation of this additional holiday. (Employees will have one personal holiday in 2012.) EMPLOYEE OVERTIME AND OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES-SECTION III 6. Standby Pay-This item was changed to clarify this section of the plan. (Underlined text indicates new language only.) It reads as follows: "Standby Pay: Non-exempt employees will be paid Standby pay equal to two hours of the employee's base wage rate with Department Director approval and based upon the following guidelines: 1. Standby for Non-Sworn Employees: Non- exempt, non-sworn employees who have been released from normally scheduled work but have not been released from standby status and who return to their normal work site upon direction of an appropriate department head or designated representative prior to their next normal duty shift and without advanced notice or scheduling will be guaranteed a minimum of four(4)hours work or a minimum of four(4)hours straight-time pay." Additionally,language was added to exclude Airport Police from the Standby for Police Sergeants section. 7. Shift Differential/Allowance,not including Police Sergeants and Lieutenants-This item was changed to clarify this section of the plan. (Underlined text indicates new language only.) Changes read as follows: Eliminate Swing Shift and Night Shift. Add the following language: "Eligible Hours: For each hour worked between the hours of 6:00 p.m.and 6:00 a.m. the City will pay an eligible non-exempt employee a differential of$1.00 per hour." Additionally,language was added to exclude Airport Police from the Shift Differential for Police Sergeant and Lieutenant section. 8. Uniform Allowance-The Administration is proposing an increase to the uniform allowances for: • Airport Police supervisory employees-from$75 to$100-monthly. • Fire-Battalion Chiefs and Employees-from$475 to$600 per year or the amount received by Firefighter employees,whichever is greater. This allowance is for uniforms and related equipment which has been approved and on a list. HOLIDAY,VACATION&LEAVE ACCRUAL-SECTION IV 9. Vacation Leave-This item was changed to clarify this section of the plan. (Underlined text indicates new language only.) It reads as follows: "The City will pay Full-Time employees their regular salaries during vacation periods earned and taken in accordance with the following provisions. Regular Part-Time employees are entitled to receive 50%of the same vacation leave benefits as regular full-time employees. Except as provided for expressly in either city policy or 5 this plan, vacation leave hours are ineligible to be cashed out or used to exceed the total number of hours for which an employee is reqularlu compensated during a work week or a pau period. Except for Appointed emplouees, no employee shall be entitled to use any vacation unless the employee has successfully completed his or her initial probationary period. 10.Sick and Other Related Leave or Personal Leave-Retirement Benefit-Plan B#5-Termination Benefits-Months was changed to Pay Periods and 12 months was changed to 26 pay periods. The following change is also proposed: (Underlined text indicates new language only.)"Minimum use of personal leave,with supervisory approval, must be in no less than quarter-hour increments. 11.Insurance Premium Increase-See above. 12.Housekeeping Items • Appendix A-Effective Date changed to June 26,2011 from July 1,2010. • Appendix C-Elected Officials Salary Schedule-3%Salary Adjustment. • Appendix D-Utah State Retirement Contributions FY 2011-12-formatting changes have been made. This is a housekeeping change to reflect the practice of making sworn employees in the Police Department exempt from social security contributions. This correction brings the written documentation into line with current practice. 6 • il • FY 2 0 12 II ANNUAL COMPENSATION PLAN FOR SALT LAKE CITY -i,,,- CORPORATION • : 74: ‘ 7 :-',.`,',,,4411.3:A-----.0.s .1 .... .., , •,-, 4%tip.. ,ri.I si Igt,\ o , ..,,,i. ,... k"-A1t "L:f...- '''-•'''"--"z.‘z•' ,‘ v1/4 lf, ?L,.;,,,, 0.f - •ty,.i,-.4 ----i , - -...,* N l'Apy I ..." • .....,.. .. , •- •• 0 C Salt Lake City Corporation ANNUAL COMPENSATION PLAN FOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FY 2012 FY 2012 2 0 FY 2011 2012 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION �a.d Une wow: anglej Table of Contents EFFECTIVE DATE 5 EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THIS PLAN 5 AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR 5 APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS..».».» ..._ 5 SECTION I:DEFINTIONS._..» » »»._. »»» .....»»»..._..........._...»...»...._......... SUBSECTION I-DEFINITION OF TERMS 5 SECTION II:EMPLOYEE WAGES,SALARIES&BENEFITS--.....................»..»..»...». .»»„»...»..»...» 6 SUBSECTION I-COMPENSATION PROGRAM&SALARY SCHEDULES 6 A. Determination 6 B. Salary Schedules 6 C. Other Compensation 6 SUBSECTION II-EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 7 SUBSECTION ID-EMPLOYEE INSURANCE 7 SUBSECTION IV-WORKERS'COMPENSATION 7 SUBSECTION V-SOCIAL SECURITY ADOPTED,EXCEPTION FOR POLICE&FIRE 7 tie SUBSECTION VI-RETIREMENT 7 SUBSECTION VII-REGULAR PART-TIME EMPLOYEES 8 SECTION III:EMPLOYEE OVERTIME&OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES »....»..»..»..»....».......8 SUBSECTION I-OVERTIME COMPENSATION 8 SUBSECTION II-LONGEVITY PAY 9 SUBSECTION III-WAGE DIFFERENTIALS&ADDITIONAL PAY 9 SUBSECTION IV-EDUCATION AND TRAINING PAY 11 SUBSECTION V-OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES 12 SUBSECTION VI-SEVERANCE BENEFIT 13 SECTION IV:HOLIDAY,VACATION&LEAVE ACCRUAL ...»»»...»_ »». _...»»....».»..»....15 SUBSECTION I-HOLIDAYS _ 15 SECTION II-VACATION LEAVE 16 SECTION III-SICK AND OTHER RELATED LEAVE OR PERSONAL LEAVE 18 A. Plan"A" 18 1. Sick Leave 18 2. Hospitalization Leave 19 3. Dependent Leave 19 4. Career Incentive Leave,Plan"A." 20 5. Retirement Benefit,Plan"A." 20 B. Plan"B" 21 3 • SUBSECTION IV-BEREAVEMENT LEAVE 23 SUBSECTION V-MILITARY LEAVE 24 SUBSECTION VI-JURY LEAVE&COURT APPEARANCES 24 SUBSECTION VI-INJURY LEAVE(AIRPORT POLICE EMPLOYEES ONLY) 25 SUBSECTION VIII-ADDITIONAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE. 26 APPENDIX A-GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN(GEPP)._.___... .27 APPENDIX B-APPOINTED EMPLOYEES PAY LEVEL ASSIGNMENT 28 APPENDIX C-ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY SCHEDULE 29 APPENDIX D-UTAH STATE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS FY 2010-2011 30 APPENDIX E-REGULAR PART TIME EMPLOYEE SUMMARY SHEET 32 4 r I FO200111 201212 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR SALT LAKE CITY EFFECTIVE DATE I The provisions of this plan shall be effective commencing-July I,2010 June 26.2011. EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THIS PLAN This ordinance shall apply to all city employees not covered by a memorandum of understanding. AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR Employees covered by this compensation plan may be appointed,classified and advanced under rules and regulations promulgated by the Mayor,or the Civil Service Commission,if applicable,within budget limitations established by the City Council. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS All provisions in this compensation plan are subject to the appropriation of funds by the City Council. SECTION I:DEFINTIONS CSUBSECTION I-DEFINITION OF TERMS As used in this ordinance: I. "Appointed employees,"with the exception of Justice Court Judges who are covered under this plan,means employees who are"at-will"employees serving at the pleasure of the Mayor(or the City Council if they are employees of the Office of the City Council). 2. "Adult Designee"means any individual with whom an employee has a long-term, committed relationship of mutual caring and support.The adult designee must have resided in the same household with the eligible employee for at least the past 12 consecutive months,and must have common financial obligations with the employee. The adult designee and the employee must be jointly responsible for each other's welfare.Adult designees and adult designees'children are not covered by Family Medical Leave Act. 3. "Exempt"refers to any employee who is not subject to or eligible to receive compensation for overtime according to§213 of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 4. "FLSA"means the federal Fair Labor Standards Act,which governs and determines the lawful requirements associated with compensating covered employees for time worked over 40 hours in a work week. 5. "Non-Exempt"refers to an employee who is covered by and must be compensated for overtime in accordance with§213 of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 5 O 6. "Regular Part-Time"or"RPT"means employees who are regularly required to work twenty(20)or more but less than forty(40)hours a week. SECTION II: EMPLOYEE WAGES,SALARIES&BENEFITS SUBSECTION I-COMPENSATION PROGRAM&SALARY SCHEDULES The City's compensation system and program,in conjunction with this ordinanace,is intended to attract, motivate and retain qualified personnel necessary to effectively meet public service demands. A. Determination 1. The Mayor shall develop policies and guidelines for the administration of the pay plans. 2. To the degree that funds permit,employees shall be paid compensation that: a. Is commensurate with the skills and abilities required of the position; b. Achieves equal pay for equal work; c. Attains comparability and is competitive with the compensation paid by other public and/or private employers with whom the City compares and/or competes for personnel recruitment and retention. 3. When applicable,compensation surveys used to determine comparability shall include a cross section of comparable benchmark positions in organizations with whom the City competes for personnel recruitment and retention. a. Compensation surveys shall measure total compensation including salaries and wages,paid leave,group insurance plans,retirement,and all other benefits. b. The compensation plans may provide salary range widths that reflect the normal growth and productivity potential of employees within a job classification. B. Salary Schedules 1. All Employees shall be paid base wages or salaries according to the wage schedule attached as Appendix"A."Wages and salaries shall not be less than the established range minimum or higher than the range maximum,unless otherwise approved by the Mayor or Mayor's designee.Appointed Employees:The pay level assignment for Appointed Employees is attached as Appendix"B." 2. Elected Officials:Elected officials shall be paid annual compensation according to schedule attached as Appendix"C." C. Other Compensation The Mayor or the City Council may distribute appropriated monies to City employees as discretionary retention incentives or retirement contributions;or special lump sum 6 • 0 supplemental payments.Retention incentives or special lump sum payments are subject to the Mayor's or City Council's approval. I SUBSECTION II-EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 20442012 . . . wr�( aar not tttypt e- - - - k ,FonnelY tat Penes Or prlp: Badly 22 at eaeh-employee-and-a4the .The City will increase each employee's base salary or hourly rate by three percent(3%)beginning lune 26.2011.The proposed pay increast it Fa ntue but(Debut)Times New driven.in part,by the increase in health insurance premium costs,a portion of which will be home by Ranee,12 R employees.This pay increase represents the Administration's determination that employees should not 7arttas font(Debut)lbws New face decreases in salary,in many cases quite significant decreases,because of rising health care costs. mart,12 Pt The salary increaso described above will help to cover those costs. Fonaattea;Font:(Default)lbws New Roman,12 R Frermeek unesoeaw_amt. SUBSECTION Ill-EMPLOYEE INSURANCE The City will make available medical,dental,life,accidental death&dismemberment,long-term disability insurance and an employee assistance program(EAP)to all eligible employees and their eligible spouse,adult designee,dependents and dependents of adult designee pursuant to City policy. A. Group Insurance. The City's contribution towards any medical plan will be an amount equal to 83%80%of the total premium of the most economical medical plan.The City's contribution for RPT employees will be equal to 50%of the total premium paid for a regular, full-time employee. B. 501(c)(9)Post Employment Health Plan.The City will contribute$24.30 per biweekly pay period into each employee's Nationwide Post Employment Health Plan account.For any year in which there are 27 pay periods,no such contribution will be made on the 27th pay period. SUBSECTION IV-WORKERS'COMPENSATION The City will provide Workers'Compensation coverage to employees as required by law. SUBSECTION V-SOCIAL SECURITY ADOPTED,EXCEPTION FOR POLICE&FIRE All sworn employees in the Police and Fire departments are exempt from the provisions of the Federal Social Security System unless determined otherwise by the City or unless required by state or federal law. SUBSECTION VI-RETIREMENT 7 • A. Retirement Programs. The City hereby adopts the Utah State Retirement System for providing retirement pensions to employees covered by the plan. The City may permit or require the participation of employees in its retirement program(s)under terms and conditions established by the Mayor and consistent with state law. Such programs may include: 1. The Utah State Public Employees'(Contributory and Non-Contributory);Public Safety Retirement Systems;or,the Utah Firefighters Retirement System 2. Deferred Compensation Programs B. The 20-1-02011 2011 2012 fiscal year retirement contribution rates for employees covered by [Formatted:Indent:Left 0.56",Hanging: this paragraph are shown m Appendix "D." (o.u" SUBSECTION VII-REGULAR PART-TIME EMPLOYEES A.The City may pay Regular Part-Time employees a wage similar to classified full- time • Formatted:Indent:Left o.5",Hanykg: employees who perform the same work. 0.31" -B.Unless otherwise modified by the Mayor,Regular Part-Time employees are--- eligible to receive retirement and insurance benefits,wage differentials and other—allowances as Formatted Indent:Left os•,Hanging:(0.31" shown in the Table included as Appendix"E." C. There shall be no cost to Regular Part-time employee for Short-term Disability • (Formatted:Tab stops: 0.81",tart insurance.Short-term disability benefits will be prorated. SECTION III: EMPLOYEE OVERTIME&OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES CIO SUBSECTION I-OVERTIME COMPENSATION A. Overtime Compensation.The City will pay non-exempt employees overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.The City will pay for overtime hours at 1 %2 times the regular hourly rate or,at the employee's request and department director's ( approval,provide compensatory time off at a rate of 1 'A-hours for each overtime hour. Employees may accrue compensatory time up to a maximum as determined by the department director.The City may pay an employee for any or all accrued compensatory hours.The City will include all holiday leave hours when calculating overtime. B. Labor Costs—Declared Emergency—Overtime Compensation for FLSA Exempt Employees. The City may pay exempt employees(excluding Department heads/officials) ( overtime pay for any hours worked over forty(40)hours in a workweek at a rate of 1-'h 4 times their regular hourly rates of pay during periods of a declared emergency.The City shall only make such payment when all of the following conditions occur: 1. The Mayor or the City Council has issued a"Proclamation of Local Emergency;"and, 2. Exempt employees are required to work over forty(40)hours for one workweek during the Emergency period:and, 3. The Mayor or the City Council has approved the use of available funds to cover the overtime payments. 8 • CI The City shall distribute any overtime payments consistently with a pre-defined standard that treats all employees equitably.Hours worked under a declared Emergency must be paid hours and cannot be accrued as compensatory time. SUBSECTION II-LONGEVITY PAY . A. Eligibility.With exception of Appointed employees,the City will pay a monthly I rar..a.e index tet os,xryna: -longevity benefit to full-time employees based on the most recent date an l azs'•Tab Now ass••Lett*Not at aye' employee began full-time employment as follows: • 1) Employees who have completed six(6)consecutive years of employment with the City will receive S5040; 2) Employees who have completed ten(10)consecutive years of employment with the City will receive 575; 3) Employees who have completed sixteen(16)full years of employment with the City will receive S100;and, 4) Employees who have completed twenty(20)full years of employment with the City will receive S125. B. Pension Base Pay. Longevity pay will be included in base pay for purposes of pension contributions. C. Longevity While on an Unpaid Leave of Absence.Employees do not earn or receive longevity payments while on an unpaid leave of absence.When an employee returns from an approved unpaid leave of absence,longevity payments will resume. SUBSECTION III-WAGE DIFFERENTIALS&ADDITIONAL PAY Eligible employees receive certain wage differentials as follows: A. Call Back and Call Out Pay,Non-exempt employees will be paid Call Back or Call Out pay based upon Department Director approval and the following guidelines: I. Call Back Pay:Non-sworn,non-exempt employees who have been released from • 'rwnaaam moon:tee 1Aa•,Hanging: normally scheduled work and standby periods,and who are directed by--an 0.25-,Tab stops:ant at ow+tor* appropriate department head or designated representative to return to work—prior to 131• their next scheduled normal duty shift,will be paid for a minimum of three(3)hours straight-time pay and,in addition,will be guaranteed a minimum four(4) hours work at straight-time pay. 2. Call Out Pay for Police Sergeants(excluding Airoort Police(.Sergeants who have ►otnalea3 amaze tre i.os•,Wpm: been released from----their scheduled work shifts and have been directed by an axs,Tao stow a.M',ua+taunt aye•+ appropriate—division head or designated representative perform work without r.a'+131• at least 24 hours advance notice or scheduling,shall be compensated as follows: a. Sergeants who are directed to report to work shall receive a minimum of four (4)hours compensation at one and one-half times their hourly wage rate,or one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for actual hours worked, whichever is greater. 9 O • b. Sergeants who are assigned to day shift,and who are directed to perform work within eight(8)hours prior to the beginning of their regularly scheduled shift shall receive a minimum of four(4)hours compensation at one and one-half times their hourly wage rate,or one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for actual hours worked,whichever is greater. c. Sergeants who are assigned to the afternoon or graveyard shifts,and who are directed to perform work within eight(8)hours following the end of their regularly scheduled shift shall receive a minimum of four(4)hours compensation at one and one-half times their hourly wage rate,or one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for actual hours worked,whichever is greater. B. Standby Pay:Non-exempt employees will be paid Standby pay equal to two hours of the • Formatted:Indent:Left 0.44",Hanging: employee's base wage rate --with Department Director approval and based upon 0.31",Tab stops: 0.77,Left the following guidelines: 1. Standby for Non-Sworn Employees:Non-exempt,non-sworn---employees " Formatted:Indent:Left 1.06",Hanging: who have been released from normally scheduled work but have not been 0.44",Tab stops:Not at 1.31" released from standby status and who return to their normal work site upon—direction of an appropriate department head or designated representative —prior to their next normal duty shift and without advanced notice or —scheduling,sha11-will be paid-a-guaranteed a minimum of four(4)hours work or a minimum of four(4)hours at straight-time pay. a. Employees may be eligible for.(I)two hours of straight time pay for each 24 hour period of limited standby status;or(2)two hours straight time pay for each 12-hour period of limited standby status if they are Department of + � Airports or Public Utilities Department employees. b. Any employee on standby as a member of the Snow Fighter Corps shall not receive standby/on-call pay or shift differential when on standby or called back to fight snow. 2. Standby for Police Sergeants(excluding Airport Police): Police Sergeants Formatted:Indent:Left: 1.06",Hanging: directed by their- Division Commander or designee to keep themselves 0.44",Tab stops:Not at 1.31" J available for City service during otherwise off-duty hours shall be compensated one(1)hour of-straight time for each twenty-four(24)hours while on a designated Standby—status.This compensation shall be in addition to any callout pay or pay for time worked the employee may receive during the standby period. C. Extra-Duty Shifts for Police Sergeants."Extra-duty shifts"are defined as scheduled—or Formatted:Indent Left 0.5',Hanging: unscheduled hours worked other than the sergeant's normally scheduled work-shifts."Extra- 0.25' duty shifts"do not include extension or carry over of the sergeant's ---normally scheduled work shift. 1. In the event a Sergeant is required by the City to work extra-duty shifts,—time worked • Formatted:Indent Left 0.75",Hanging: during each shift will be paid at one and one-half times the-Sergeant's hourly wage rate. o.zs",Tab stops: 1.5",Left+Not at 0.78"+ 1.06" D. Shift Differential/Allowance,not including Police Sergeants&Lieutenants.—Non--exempt. Formatted:Indent:Left 0.5",Hanging: employees assigned to perform afternoon/swing or evening shift work are---eligible to 0.25",Tab stops:Not at 0.78'+ 1.06" receive a shift allowance. I0 0 I. The City will include all shift allowance when computing overtime. An employee who receives Snow Fighter Corps differential pay is not eligible to also receive a shift differential. 2. Rav Shift:No differential or allowance will be paid for working a regularly scheduled day shift. • roman**Lida.:Lett 1',No bullets m 2. Eligible Hours For each hour worked between the hours of 6:00 p.m.and 6:00 raataebq a.m..the City will pay an eligible non-exempt employee a differential of$1.00 per hour. rm.uta.k Indent Lett o.7r,No bullets or' • numbering - - e -in-a-regelar4y-seherliiied-shifiefe-hetween 'FOrMlbk NouMYee h e for.eattadt Indent Left 0.5.,Numbered I.a 1+Numbering Style:1,3,3,...+dart at 1+Alignment Lett+aped at.0.7r+ Tall alto:1'+Indent at:1' 4,3 _ - oheduled sl iffare between-the For..ta&linen:Left o.7r,Nobtlsa on-eligibleemployee a eif7erential-ef naeetig shi#F-f Il-tune-exempt ea.pkyczs may �Por.yo. Indent:Left Cr E. Shill Differential for Police Sergeant&Lieutenant(excluding Airport Police):The City will pay Police Sergeants&Lieutenants shift differentials according to the shift actually worked. Actual shift differential rates arc determined as follows: 1. Day Shift:No differential pay for hours worked during day shift,which begins at 0500 hours until 1159 hours. 2. Swing Shift:A differential of 2.5%in addition to the regular day rate shall be paid for swing shift,which begins at 1200 hours until 1859 hours. 3. Graveyard Shift:A differential of 5.0%in addition to the regular day rate shall be paid for graveyard shift,which begins at 1900 hours until 0459 hours. F. Acting/Working out of Classification. A department head may elect to grant additional compensation to an employee for work performed in an acting capacity or otherwise beyond the employee's regular job classification for any period lasting 20 or more working days. Compensation adjustments may be retroactive to the start date of the temporary job assignment.This pay shall be separate from regular earnings on each employee's wage statement. G. Snowftghter Pay.The City will pay employees designated by the department head,or designee,as members of the Snow Fighter Corps a pay differential equal to$200 per pay period for the snowfighter season not to exceed$2,000 during each fiscal year for work related to snow removal.This pay shall be separate from regular earnings on each employee's wage statement. SUBSECTION IV-EDUCATION AND TRAINING PAY A. Education Incentives. The Mayor may adopt programs to promote employee education and training,provided that all compensation incentives are authorized within appropriate budget limitations established by the City Council. I. Police Captains and Lieutenants are eligible for a$500 per year job-related training allowance. 2. Fire Department employees shall be eligible for incentive pay following completion of degree requirements at a fully accredited college or university and submission of evidence of his/her diploma to the Fire Chief or designee.The City will pay monthly allowances according to the educational degree held,as follows: Doctorate S100.00 Masters .. $75.00 Bachelors $50.00 Associate . $35.00 a. No employee shall be entitled to compensation for an educational degree which qualifies the employee for his/her position of employment;or for any degree which is not specifically related to the employee's actual employment duties. SUBSECTION V—OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES A. Meal Allowance. When approved by management,employees may receive meal allowances in the amount of$10.00 when an employee works two or more hours consecutive to their normally scheduled shift. Employees may also be eligible to receive$10.00 for each additional four hour consecutive period of work which is in addition to the normally scheduled work shift. 1. Fire Department employees shall be provided with adequate food and drink to maintain — Formatted:rat stops:Not at 0.78"+ P+ l safety and performance during emergencies or extraordinary circumstances. 1_43" B. Business Expenses. City policy shall govern the authorization of employee advancement orC:11 reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred while performing City business. Advance payment or reimbursement for expenses shall be approved only when the amounts are documented and within the budget limitations established by the City Council. C. Automobiles 1. The Mayor may authorize,subject to the conditions provided in City policy,an employee to utilize a City vehicle on a take-home basis,and may require an employee to reimburse the City for a portion of the take-home vehicle cost as provided in City ordinance. 2. Employees who are authorized to use privately-owned automobiles for official City business will be reimbursed for the operation expenses at the rate specified in City policy. 3. A car allowance may be paid to Department Directors,the RDA Director and up to three employees in the Mayor's Office at a rate not to exceed$400 per month as determined by the Mayor. A car allowance may be paid to the Council Executive Director at a rate not to exceed$400 per month as determined by the Council Chair. A car allowance may be paid to specific Appointed employees at a rate not to exceed$400 per month as recommended by the Mayor and approved by the Council. D. Uniform Allowance. The City will provide employees who are required to wear uniforms in the performance of their duties a monthly uniform allowance as follows: 1. Airport Police supervisory employees—$7-5:09100.00 2. Parking Enforcement Field Supervisor—$65.00 12 0 3. Non-sworn Police and Fire Department employees—$65.00 4. Watershed Management Division employees—$65.00 5. Fire:Battalion Chiefs will be provided uniforms and other job-related safety • equipment,as needed.Employees may select uniforms and related equipment from 1 an approved list.The total allowance provided shall be 84755600 per year,or the amount received by Firefighter employees,whichever is greater.Appointed employees shall be provided uniforms or uniform allowances to the extent stated in Fire Department policy. a. Dangerous or contaminated safety equipment shall be cleaned,repaired,or replaced by the Fire Department. 6. Police: Police Sergeants,Lieutenants and Captains in uniform assignments,as determined by their Division Commander,may purchase authorized uniform items up to S450.00 per fiscal year. a. The City will provide for the cleaning of uniforms as described in Police Department policy. b. Employees in plainclothes assignments,as determined by their Division Commander,are provided a clothing and cleaning allowance totaling S 39.00 Per PaY Period. • c. In addition to the regular uniform,clothing and cleaning allowances,covered employees are allowed one additional uniform consisting of a uniform pant, shirt,and tie.The cost of this additional uniform will be paid for by the Police Department. d. Uniforms or uniform allowances for Appointed Police employees will be provided to the extent stated in Police Department policy. E. Allowances for Certified Golf Teaching Professionals. The Mayor may,within budgeted appropriations and as business needs indicate,authorize golf lesson revenue sharing between the City and employees recognized as Certified Golf Teaching Professionals as defined in the Golf Division's Golf Lesson Revenue Policy.Payment to an employee for lesson revenue generated shall be reduced by:I)a ten(10%)percent administrative fee to be retained by the Golf Division,and 2)the employee's payroll tax withholding requirements in accordance with federal and state law. F. Other Allowances.The Mayor or the City Council may,within budgeted appropriations, authorize the payment of other allowances in extraordinary circumstances(as determined by the Mayor or the City Council). SUBSECTION VI-SEVERANCE BENEFIT Subject to availability of funds,any current Appointed employee who is not retained,not terminated for cause and who is separated from City employment involuntarily shall receive severance benefits based upon their respective appointment date. 13 0 A. Severance benefits shall be calculated using the employee's salary rate in effect on the employee's date of termination.Receipt of severance benefits is contingent upon execution of a release of all claims approved by the City Attorney's Office. 1. Current Appointed Employees Who Were Appointed Before January 1,1989 shall receive a severance benefit equal to one month's base salary for each year of • continuous City employment,calculated on a pro-rata basis,for a total benefit of up to a maximum of six months. 2. Current Appointed employees appointed on or after January 1,1989 and before January 1,2000 shall receive a severance benefit equal to one months'base salary for each continuous year of City employment before January I,2000.Severance shall be calculated on a pro-rata basis for a total benefit of up to a maximum of six months. 3. Current Department heads appointed on or after January 1,2000 shall receive a severance benefit equal to two months'base salary after one full year of continuous City employment;four months'base salary after two full years of continuous City employment;or,six months'base salary after three full years or more of continuous City employment. 4. Current Appointed employees who are not Department heads,and who were appointed on or after January 1.2000 shall receive a severance benefit equal to one week's base salary for each year of continuous City employment,calculated on a pro-rata basis,for a total benefit of up to a maximum of six weeks. B. Leave Payout:Appointed employees_with leave hour account balances under Plan A or Plan B shall,in addition to the severance benefit provided,receive a severance benefit equal to the"retirement benefit"value provided under the leave plan of which they are a participant(either Plan A or Plan B),if separation is involuntary and not for cause. C. Not Eligible for Benefit. An Appointed employee is ineligible to be paid severance benefits under the following circumstances: 1. An employee who,at the time of termination of employment,has been convicted, indicted,charged or is under active criminal investigation concerning a public offense involving a felony or moral turpitude. This provision shall not restrict the award of full severance benefits should such employee subsequently be found not guilty of such charge or if the charges are otherwise dismissed. 2. An employee who has been terminated or asked for a resignation by the Mayor or Department Director under bona fide charges of nonfeasance,misfeasance or malfeasance in office. 3. An employee who fails to execute a Release of All Claims approved by the City Attorney's Office,where required as stipulated above. 14 SECTION IV: HOLIDAY,VACATION&LEAVE ACCRUAL SUBSECTION I—HOLIDAYS Full-Time employees shall receive holidays and vacation as provided in this section. Employees do not earn or receive holiday and vacation benefits while on unpaid leave of absence. However,employees on an unpaid military leave of absence may be entitled to the restoration of such leave benefits,as required by federal laws,regulations and city ordinance. A. The following days shall be recognized and observed as holidays for employees covered by this plan. Full-Time and RPT employees will receive pay for unworked holidays equal to their regular rate of pay times the total number of hours which make a regularly scheduled shift. 1. New Year's Day,the first day of January. 2. Martin Luther King,Jr.Day,the third Monday of January. 3. President's Day,the third Monday in February. 4. Memorial Day,the last Monday of May. 5. Independence Day,the fourth day of July. 6. Pioneer Day,the twenty-fourth day of July. 7. Labor Day,the first Monday in September. 8. Columbus Day,the second Monday of October(only for eligible employees assigned to the Justice Court Division) 9. Veteran's Day,the eleventh day of November. 10. Thanksgiving Day,the fourth Thursday in November. 11. The Friday after Thanksgiving Day 12. Christmas Day,the twenty-fifth day of December. 13. One personal holiday,taken upon request of an employee and as approved by a supervisor. B. When any holiday listed above falls on a Sunday,the following business day shall be considered a holiday. When any holiday listed above falls on a Saturday,the preceding business day shall be considered a holiday. In addition to the above,any day may be designated as a holiday by proclamation of the Mayor and/or the City Council. C. No employee shall receive in excess of the equivalent of one work day or a regular scheduled shift as holiday pay for a single holiday.Employees must work or be on authorized paid leave their last scheduled working day before and the next working day following the holiday to qualify for holiday pay. D. Holiday Exception: Employees may observe the following holidays up to 50 days prior to the actual holiday,with prior management approval: 1)the Friday after Thanksgiving 15 • • Day(for all eligible employees except for those assigned to the Justice Court Division); or,2)Columbus Day(only for eligible employees assigned to the Justice Court Division). E. Police Sergeant,Lieutenant&Captain:Police Sergeants,Lieutenants and Captains who retire or separate from City employment for any reason shall be compensated for any holiday time accrued and unused during the preceding 12 months.Employees shall not be compensated for any unused holiday time accrued before the 12 months preceding the employee's retirement or separation. ISUBSECTION II-VACATION LEAVE The City will pay Full-Time employees their regular salaries during vacation periods earned and taken in accordance with the following provisions.Regular Part-Time employees are entitled to receive 50% of the same vacation leave benefits as regular MI-lime employees.Except as provided for expressly in either city policy or this plan,vacation leave hours are ineligible to be cashed out or used to exceed the total number of hours for which an employee is regularly compensated during a work week or a pay ep iod. Except for Appointed employees,no employee shall be entitled to use any vacation unless the employee has successfully completed his or her initial probationary period. A. Full-Time employees and Appointed employees(except for Department Directors&Fire Battalion Chiefs)shall accrue vacation leave based upon years of City Service as follows: Years Hours of Vacation Accrued of Per Biweekly City Service Pay Period 0 to end of year 3 3.08 4 to 3.69 7 to 4.62 10 to 12 5.54 13 to 15 6.15 16 to19 6.77 20 or more 7.69 B. For Department Directors,the Mayor's Chief of Staff,up to two additional senior positions in the Mayor's Office as specified by the Mayor,the Executive Director of the City Council,and the Director of the Redevelopment Agency,the following schedule shall apply: Years Hours of Vacation Accrued of Per Biweekly City Service Pay Period 16 CO 0 to end of year 14 6.15 15 or more 7.69 C. Fire Battalion Chiefs in the Operations Division of the Fire Department shall accrue vacation leave according to the following schedule: • Years Shifts of vacation per year of for Operations Fire City Service Employees 0toendofyear3 5 4 to 6 6 7 to 9 7.5 10 to 12 9 13to14 10 15 to 19 11 20 or more 12.5 D. For any plan year in which there are 27 pay periods,no vacation leave hours will be awarded on the 27th pay period. (lb- E. Years of City Service shall be based on the most recent date the person became a Full- Time salaried employee. F. Regular full-time and regular part time employees re-hired by Salt Lake City are eligible to receive up to three years of prior service credit for vacation and personal leave accrual. G. Full-Time and Appointed employees(except those listed in Paragraph B of this subsection)may accumulate vacations,according to the length of their full-time years of City Service up to the following maximum limits: Up to and including 9 years Up to 30 days/15 shifts/240 hours After 9 years Up to 35 days/17.5 shifts/280 hours After 14 years Up to 40 days!20 shifts/320 hours For purposes of this subsection,"days"means"8-hour"days and"shifts"means"24 hour"combat shifts. H. Department Directors and those included in Paragraph B of this subsection may accumulate up to 320 hours of vacation without regard to their years of employment with the City. I. Any vacation accrued beyond the allowable maximums will be deemed forfeited unless utilized prior to the end of each calendar year in which the hours are accrued. However, in the case of an employee's return from an unpaid military leave of absence,leave hours may be restored according to requirements under federal law and city ordinance. 17 • amiimm J. Vacation Payout at Termination:Employees shall be paid at their base hourly rate for any unused accrued vacation leave time following termination of employment,including retirement. K. Vacation Allowance: As a recruiting incentive,the Mayor or the City Council may provide a one-time allowance of up to 120 hours of vacation leave. IIBSECI'ION III-SICK AND OTHER RELATED LEAVE OR PERSONAL LEAVE Benefits in this section are for the purpose of continuing income to employees during absence due to illness,accident or personal reasons.Some of these absences may qualify under the Family and Medical Leave Act(FMLA).The City requires all employees using FMLA leave to exhaust their paid leave allotments for FMLA-qualifying events prior to taking unpaid FMLA leave.Employees are not eligible to earn or receive leave benefits while on an unpaid leave of absence.However,employees on an unpaid military leave of absence may be entitled to the restoration of such leave benefits,as provided by federal law and city ordinance. Employees hired on or after November 16,1997 shall receive personal leave benefits under Plan B.All other employees shall participate in the plan they participated in on November 15,1998.Employees who were hired before November 16,1997,shall participate in Plan B if they so elected during any City-established election period occurring after 1998. A. Plan"A" 1. Sick Leave a. Sick leave shall be provided for Full-Time employees under this Plan"A"as insurance against loss of income when an employee is unable to perform assigned duties because of illness or injury.The Mayor may establish rules governing the interfacing of sick leave and Workers'Compensation benefits and avoiding,to the extent allowable by law,duplicative payments. b. Each Full-Time employee shall accrue sick leave at a rate of 4.62 hours per pay period.For any plan year in which there are 27 pay periods,no sick leave hours will be awarded on the 27th pay period.Authorized and unused sick leave may be accumulated from year to year,subject to the limitations of this plan. c. Under this Plan"A,"Full-Time employees who have accumulated 240 hours of sick leave may choose to convert up to 64 hours of the sick leave earned and unused during any given year to vacation.Any sick leave used during the calendar year reduces the allowable conversion by an equal amount. d. Conversion at the maximum allowable hours will be made unless the employee elects otherwise.Any election by an employee for no conversion,or to convert less than the maximum allowable sick leave hours to vacation time,must be made by notifying his or her Personnel/Payroll Administrator,in writing,not later than the second payperiod of the new calendar year.Otherwise,the opportunity to waive conversion or elect conversion other than the maximum allowable amount shall be deemed waived for that calendar year. In no event shall sick leave days be converted from other than the current year's sick leave allocation. 18 r e. Any sick leave hours,properly converted to vacation benefits as above described, shall be taken prior to any other vacation hours to which the employee is entitled; provided,however,that in no event shall an employee be entitled to any pay or compensation upon an employee's separation for any sick leave converted to vacation.Any sick leave converted to vacation remaining unused at the date of separation shall be forfeited by the employee. f. Sick Leave Benefits Upon Layoff Employees who are subject to layoff because of lack of work or lack of funds will be paid at 100%of the hourly base wage rate on date of termination for each accumulated unused sick leave hour. 2. Hospitalization Leave a. Hospitalization leave shall be provided for Full-Time employees under this Plan "A,"in addition to sick leave authorized hereunder,as insurance against loss of income when employees are unable to perform assigned duties because of scheduled surgical procedures,urgent medical treatment,or hospital inpatient admission. b. Employees shall be entitled to 30 days of hospitalization leave each calendar year. Hospitalization leave shall not accumulate from year to year. Employees may not convert hospitalization leave to vacation or any other leave,nor may they convert hospitalization leave to any additional benefit at time of retirement. c. Employees who are unable to perform their duties during a shift due to preparations(such as fasting,rest,or ingestion of medicine),for a scheduled • surgical procedure,may report the absence from the affected shift as hospitalization leave,with the prior approval of their division head or supervisor. d. Employees who must receive urgent medical treatment at a hospital,emergency room,or acute care facility,and who are unable to perform their duties during a shift due to urgent medical treatment,may report the absence from the affected shift as hospitalization leave.The employee is responsible to report the receipt of urgent medical treatment to the employee's Division head or supervisor as soon as practical.For purposes of use of hospitalization leave,urgent medical treatment includes at-home care directed by a physician immediately after the urgent medical treatment and within the affected shift. e. Employees who are admitted as an inpatient to a hospital for medical treatment,so they are unable to perform their duties,may report the absence from duty while in the hospital as hospitalization leave. f. Medical treatment consisting exclusively or primarily of post-injury rehabilitation or therapy treatment,whether conducted in a hospital or other medical facility, shall not be counted as hospitalization leave. g. An employee requesting hospitalization leave under this section may be required to provide verification of treatment or care from a competent medical practitioner. 3. Dependent Leave a. Under Plan"A,"dependent leave may be requested by a Full-Time employee for the following reasons: I) Becoming a parent through birth or adoption of a child or children. tv 2) Placement of a foster child in the employee's home. 3) Due to the care of the employee's child,spouse,spouse's child,adult designee,adult designee's unmarried child under age 26,or parent with a serious health condition. b. Under Plan"A,"dependent leave may also be requested by a Full-Time employee to care for an employee's child,spouse,spouse's child,adult designee,adult designee's unmarried child under age 26,or a parent who is ill or injured but who does not have a serious health condition. c. The following provisions apply to the use of dependent leave by a Full-Time employee: 1) Dependent leave may be granted with pay on a straight time basis. 2) If an employee has available unused sick leave,sick leave may be used as dependent leave. 3) An employee is required to give notice of the need to take dependent leave, including the expected duration of leave,to to his or her supervisor as soon as possible. 4) Upon request of a supervisor,an employee will be required to provide a copy of a birth certificate or evidence of child placement for adoption,or a letter from the attending physician in the event of hospitalization,injury or illness of a child,spouse,spouse's child,adult designee,adult designee's child,or parent within five calendar days following a return from leave. 5) An employee's sick leave shall be reduced by the number of hours taken by an employee as dependent leave. 4. Career Incentive Leave,Plan"A." Full-Time employees,who have been in continuous Full-Time employment with the City for more than 20 years,and who have accumulated to their credit 1500 or more sick leave hours,may make a one-time election to convert up to 160 hours of sick leave into 80 hours of paid Career Incentive Leave. Career Incentive Leave must be taken prior to retirement. Sick leave hours converted to Career Incentive Leave will not be eligible for a cash payout upon termination or retirement even though the employee has unused Career Incentive Leave hours available. This leave can be used for any reason. Requests for Career Incentive Leave must be submitted in writing to the Department Director and be approved subject to the department's business needs(e.g.,work schedules and workloads). 5. Retirement Benefit,Plan"A." a. Persons who retire under the eligibility requirements of the Utah State Retirement System will be paid at their base hourly rate for 25%of their accumulated sick leave hours balance. b. In lieu of the above,Full-Time employees may elect to convert 50%of the sick leave hours provided under Plan A to pay for health insurance premiums.Any sick 20 leave hours converted to a dollar allowance are subject to state, federal and social security income tax withholding required by law. Upon an issuance of payment to an employee,the employee shall endorse the payment to the City,which is to be held in a non-interest bearing account from which the City will pay the insurance carrier until the account balance is exhausted.This provision shall not act to reinstate an employee with sick leave benefits which were in any respect lost,used, or forfeited prior to the effective date of this plan. B. Plan"B" 1. The benefit Plan Year of Plan`B"begins in each calendar year on the first day of the pay-period that includes November 15.Under this Plan`B,"paid personal leave shall be provided for employees as insurance against loss of income when an employee needs to be absent from work because of illness or injury,to care for a dependent,or for any other emergency or personal reason. Where the leave is not related to the employee's own illness or disability—or an event that qualifies under the FMLA—a personal leave request is subject to supervisory approval based on the operational requirements of the City and any policies regarding the use of such leave adopted by the department in which the employee works. 2. Each Full-Time employee under this Plan`B"shall be awarded personal leave hours based on the following schedule: Months of Consecutive Hours of • City Service Personal Leave Less than 6 40 Less than 24 60 24 or more 80 Employees hired during the plan year will be provided paid personal leave on a pro-rated basis. 3. Not later than October 31st in each calendar year,employees covered by Plan`B"may elect,by notifying their Personnel/Payroll Administrator in writing,to: a. Convert any unused personal leave hours available at the end of the first pay period of November to a lump sum payment equal to the following: For each converted hour,the employee shall be paid 50 percent of the employee's hourly base wage rate in effect on date of conversion. In no event shall total pay hereunder exceed 40 hours of pay(80 hours at 50%);or, b. Carryover to the next calendar year up to 80 unused personal leave hours;or, c. Convert a portion of unused personal leave hours,to a lump sum payment as provided in subparagraph(a),above,and carry over a portion as provided in subparagraph(b),above. 4. Maximum Accrual. A maximum of 80 hours of personal leave may be carried over to the next plan year. Any personal leave hours unused at the end of the plan year in excess of 80 shall be converted to a lump sum payment as provided in subparagraph 3(a)above. 21 5. Termination Benefits.At termination of employment for any reason,accumulated unused personal leave hours,minus any adjustment necessary after calculating the "prorated amount,"shall be paid to the employee at 50 percent of the hourly base wage rate on date of tennination for each unused hour.For purposes of this paragraph, "prorated amount"shall mean the amount of personal leave credited at the beginning of the plan year,multiplied by the ratio of the number of mend pay Periods worked in the plan year(rounded to the end of the month-guy period which includes the separation date)to 42-mentha26 Pay Periods. If the employee,at the time of separation,has used personal leave in excess of the prorated amount,the value of the excess amount shall be reimbursed to the City and may be deducted from the employee's paycheck. 6. Conditions on Use of Personal Leave include: a. Minimum use of personal leave3s-one-hour,with supervisory approval must be in no less than quarter-hour increments. b. Except in unforseen circumstances,such as emergencies or the employees' inability to work due to their illness or accident,or an unforseen FMLA-qualifying event,the employees must provide their supervisors with prior notice to allow time for the supervisors to make arrangements necessary to cover the employees'work. c. For leave due to unforseen circumstances,the employees must give their supervisors as much prior notice as possible. 7. Career Enhancement Leave.Plan"B."A Full-Time employee covered under this Plan "B"is eligible,after 15 years of full time service with the City,to be selected to receive up to two weeks of career enhancement leave.This one-time leave benefit could be used for formal training,informal course of study,job-related travel,internship,mentoring or other activity that could be of benefit to the City and the employee's career development. Selected employees shall receive their full regular salary during the leave.Request for this leave must be submitted in writing to the appropriate department head,stating the purpose of the request and how the leave is intended to benefit the City.The request must be approved by the department head and by the Human Resources Director(who will review the request for compliance with the guidelines outlined here). 8. Retirement/Lavoff(RL)Benefit.Plan"B" a. Full-Time employees currently covered under Plan"B"who were hired before November 16,1997,and who elected to be covered under Plan"B,"shall have a retirement/layoff(RL)account equal to sixty percent of their accumulated unused sick leave hours available on November 16,1997,minus any hours withdrawn from that account since it was established. b. Full-Time employees who were hired before November 16,1997 and who elected in 1998 to be covered under Plan"B,"shall have a retirement/layoff(RL)account equal to fifty percent of their accumulated unused sick leave hours available on November 14,1998,minus any hours withdrawn after the account is established. e—Full-Time employees who were hired before November 16,1997 and who elected in 2007 or later during any period designated by the City to be covered under Plan "B,"shall have a retirement/layoff(RL)account equal to forty percent of their accumulated unused sick leave hours available on the date that Plan B participation began,minus any hours withdrawn after the account is established. d. Payment of the RL Account. 0 I) All of the hours in the RL account shall be payable to an employee only upon retirement or as a result of layoff.Hours shall be paid according to the employee's base hourly rate of pay on date of retirement or layoff 2) In the case of retirement only,in lieu of the above,Full-Time employees may elect to convert the RL account payment as provided herein to pay for health insurance premiums.Such payment shall be subject to any state and federal income and social security tax withholding required by law.An employee's available RL account balance,computed by the hours therein times the base salary rate at the effective date of employment separation,determines the number of months of medical and surgical coverage that may be purchased. The purchase is made on a monthly basis,which shall be computed on a monthly basis of charges against the account balance. If insurance costs increase,the number of months of coverage will decrease. e. Hours may be withdrawn from the RL account for emergencies or to supplement Workers'Compensation benefits after personal leave hours are exhausted.RL account hours,when added to the employee's Workers'Compensation benefit, may not exceed the employee's regular net salary. 9. Short-Term Disability Insurance,Plan"B."Protection against loss of income when an employee is absent from work due to short-term disability shall be provided to Full-Time employees covered under Plan`B"through short-term disability insurance(SDI). There shall be no cost to the employee for SDI.SDI shall be administered in accordance with the terms determined by the City. As one of the conditions for receiving SDI,the �,.-- employee may be required to submit to a medical examination by a medical provider of the City's choosing. SUBSECTION IV-BEREAVEMENT LEAVE A. Time off with pay will be granted to an employee who suffers the loss of a current wife or husband;child,mother,father,brother,sister,current father-in-law,mother-in-law,son-in- law,daughter-in-law,brother-in-law,sister-in-law;grandparent;current step-grandfather, step-grandmother,grandchild,or current step grandchild,stepchild,stepmother,stepfather, stepbrother or stepsister,grandfather-in-law,grandmother-in-law;or,adult designee or adult designee's relative as if the adult designee were the employee's spouse.In the event of death in any of these instances,the employee will be paid his/her regular base pay for scheduled work time from the date of death through the day of the funeral or memorial service,not to exceed five(5)working days.The employee will be permitted one additional day of funeral leave on the day following the funeral or memorial service if all of the following apply:I)such service is held more than 150 miles distance from Salt Lake City; 2)the employee attends the service;and,3)the day following the service is a regular work shift. I. In the event of death of a first-line extended relative to the employee,employee's spouse or adult designee's relative as if the adult designee were the employee's spouse,not covered in paragraph A above(such as an uncle,aunt or cousin),the City will pay an employee for time off for one work shift to attend memorial services. 2. In the event of death of friends,an employee may be allowed to use vacation or personal leave for time off to attend the funeral or memorial service,as approved by an immediate supervisor. 23 4 3. In the event of death of any covered family member while an employee is on vacation leave,an employee's absence may be extended and authorized as bereavement leave. SUBSECTION V-MILITARY LEAVE A. Leave of absence for employees who enter uniformed service. An employee who enters the service of a uniformed services of the United States,including the United States Army, United States Navy,United States Marine Corps,United States Air Force,commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,United States Coast Guard, or the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service,shall be entitled to be absent from his or her duties and service from the City,without pay,as required by state and federal law. Leave shall be granted for no more than five cumulative years,consistent with the federal Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Act. B. Leave while on duty with the armed forces or Utah National Guard. An employee who is or who becomes a member of the reserves of the federal armed forces,including United States Army,United States Navy,United States Marine Corps,United States Air Force,and the United States Coast Guard,or any unit of the Utah National Guard,shall be allowed military leave for up to 11 working days per calendar year for time spent on active or reserve duty. Military leave may be in addition to vacation leave and need not be consecutive days of service.To be covered,an employee must provide documentation to the City demonstrating a duty requirement. SUBSECTION VI-JURY LEAVE&COURT APPEARANCES A. Jury Leave:An employee shall be released from duty with full pay when,in obedience to a subpoena or direction by proper authority,the employee is required to either serve on a jury or appear as a witness as part of their position for the federal government,state of Utah,or other political subdivision. 1. Employees are entitled to retain statutory juror's fees paid for jury service in the State and Federal Courts. 2. On any day that an employee is required to report for jury service and is thereafter excused from such service during his or her regular working hours from the City,he or she shall forthwith return to and carry on his or her regular City employment. Employees who fail to return to work after being excused from jury service for the day shall be subject to discipline. B. Court Appearances. A Police Sergeant is eligible to receive compensation as a witness subpoenaed by the City,the State of Utah,or the United States for a court or administrative proceeding appearance as follows: 1. Appearances in court or administrative proceeding made while on-duty will be compensated as normal hours worked. 2. In the event an appearance extends beyond the end of an employee's regularly scheduled shift,time will be counted as normal work time for the purpose of computing an employee's overtime compensation. 3. Appearances made while off-duty will be compensated as follows: 24 0 (a)The City will pay employees for two(2)hours of preparation time plus actual time spent in court or in an administrative hearing at I'/r times their regular hourly rate.Lunch periods granted are not considered compensable time.Compensation for additional preparation time for any subsequent appearance during the same day is allowed only when there is at least two(2)hours between the employee's release time from a prior court or administrative proceeding and the start of the other. (b)In the event the time spent in court or administrative proceeding extends into the beginning of the employee's regularly scheduled work shift,time spent in court or in administrative proceeding shall be deemed ended at the time such shift is scheduled to begin. 4. An employee is required to provide a copy of the subpoena,including the beginning time and time released from the court or administrative hearing with initials of the prosecuting or another court representative within seven (7)working days following the appearance. 5. Any employee failing to appear in compliance with the terms of a formal notice or subpoena may be subject to disciplinary action. SUBSECTION VII-INJURY LEAVE(AIRPORT POLICE EMPLOYEES ONLY) - The City has established rules governing the administration of an injury leave program for employees of the Operations Division of the Department of Airports who are required to carry firearms as part of their jobs,under the following qualifications and restrictions: A. The disability must have resulted from an injury arising out of the discharge of official duties and/or while exercising some form of necessary job related activity as determined by the City; B. The employee must be unable to return to work due to the injury as verified by a medical provider acceptable to the City; C. The leave benefit shall not exceed the value of the employee's net salary during the period of absence duc to the injury,less all amounts paid or credited to the employee as Workers'Compensation,Social Security,long-term disability or retirement benefits,or any form of governmental relief whatsoever; D. The value of benefits provided to employees under this injury leave program shall not exceed the total of 55,000 per employee per injury;unless approved in writing by the employee's Department Head after receiving an acceptable treatment plan and consulting with the City's Risk Manager; E. The City's Risk Manager shall be principally responsible for the review of injury leave claims provided that appeals from the decision of the City's Risk Manager may be reviewed by the Human Resource Director,who may make recommendations to the Mayor for final decisions; F. If an employee is eligible for Workers'Compensation as provided by law;and is not receiving injury leave pursuant to this provision,an employee may elect to use either accumulated sick leave or hours from the RL account,if applicable,and authorized 25 CO vacation time to supplement Workers'Compensation.The total value of leave hours or hours from an RL account combined with a Workers'Compensation benefit may not exceed an employee's regular net salary. SUBSECTION VIII-ADDITIONAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE Additional unpaid leaves of absence may be requested in writing and granted to an employee at the discretion of a Department Director. 26 e • APPENDIX A-SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN(GEPP) Effective July 1,201-0 June 26,2011 GRADE Min I MKT Max SEA)/TEMP $7.25 $35.00 10 $10.63 $13.28 $15.94 11 $11.16 $13.95 $16.74 12 $11.72 $14.64 $17.57 13 $12.30 $15.38 $18.45 14 $12.92 $16.14 $19.37 15 $13.56 $16.95 $20.34 16 $14.24 $17.80 $21.36 17 $14.95 $18.69 $22.43 18 $15.70 $19.62 $23.55 19 $16.48 $20.61 $24.73 20 $17.31 $21.64 $25.96 21 $17.47 $22.72 $27.96 22 $18.35 $23.85 $29.36 23 $19.26 $25.05 $30.83 24 $20.23 $26.30 $32.37 25 $21.24 $27.61 $33.99 26 $22.30 $28.99 $35.69 27 $23.41 $30.44 $37.47 28 $24.58 $31.97 $39.35 29 $25.81 $33.56 $41.31 30 $27.10 $35.24 $43.38 31 $28.46 $37.00 $45.55 32 $29.88 $38.85 $47.83 33 $31.38 $40.80 $50.22 34 $32.95 $42.84 $52.73 35 $34.59 $44.98 $55.36 36 $36.32 $47.23 $58.13 37 $38.14 $49.59 $61.04 38 $40.05 $52.07 $64.09 39 $42.05 $54.67 $67.30 40 $44.15 $57.41 $70.66 41 $46.36 $118.37 27 • APPENDIX B—APPOINTED EMPLOYEES PAY LEVEL ASSIGNMENT Effective July 1,2010 _ cva.et •W M...M.ra.M NM aide��-._-_ 7 �ica.am 1Y�o.. Nm.e.vam ........11.. m..m• * a.111....e a.. .a m..yab4...n pt.Mei.OY ill.man ee..M are.a koa aeow am.m.Po .�boo ado 11 pes.rr OM Rm..t.. der Maw a....eab..Ma m ..vv...e..... 5 .efl mac.. w.uynrr.wrn _ WP.vu.am p.1eYb+..l.w u..gPM.Fna..a .w.w.i...n.a,ec..r aaa.nu.seM. eAe.w .Cas....'5.�. "" t Or mow..W ,........,..,..or..�m,. r... o�:.`.. monomer.ame. oar* lemo,se position may be removed from or added a aed le Ibis Mppa Employe.Pay Plan without approval the Clay Cowell. On*u Gsde12 Grade II watt Ebcum uecor 01AmC Cn/ame CA d Sae Rlk SercwDpryD..n Mpon Erybsry Drove Pipe lamb. Pala NO CM bbnnmi DAcs MPcMnntonm Dm.. MED Di.b P.tic Sent Di." Co.nuW,Dndo Redeabon.e OierAv Ph PM Sena Moo•Yost Cry Cord hurry Dade DpryChNn./ RIM Om *Mel&.ClyNorm Cll'CwdOEE 0.t aim Gehl MNWpnse Dn. Cry Epee Cry Rawly Rtt Una DepyCesar Mpm OW..hm /Opal lbsbrom Piro P.IA HwnMM.. Sepal Frenagard Diwbr hove of amyloi Woken Teanmpl limb Odds Geis Wedem Dory Polo CM Nob heck.RDA PS.RYMnn Selo Dime CWI Aswan.Oho Rat PokyMllp Marto tbwe Mix Can Mb. &ata Mil Cry Con Dim Coal laodke ad babel W OO,Mode-Comm Do Mod Pate CM WO Dewar /wedPRRlM1M1t Oar Comm."F.rib DUMP/Db.,EsmDev Tap:MemEmma Cry Rm. Doorbell Tamp LWCaal Cry Tale Mk IIR*CMEryves NM 0 iNt.Ihrgo. i,mmvy W Rpm Di.. Hem Retuadede Wan Rolm Rl Melpeb Op*FHCM SahraE ly Drwaa /pal PYK;P.O. WY WO/FIel AIebY.r DR Cp&ielfy POWs lode. Gods Wade ll Wede2, Carol Fo Neon liebblars Cardd0.1.Wilon Meld To The lisp Mnbhal blt Me dlabbm AeebllCanmmta0n h Um COAX Saul&Mss MO.*.Mebla PakyAeNalb to Dia die Si, Seders T.CM pp Sere Coro ude ydomiiaAY Saap lbri 'MA Crypmmper R ta Can MoYMAMrp Mnn Wub,I PWeepyR Dbm-LIM Coxes*We NvamalStwori Cures Cabl Comb. • 28 • I APPENDIX C—ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY SCHEDULE • (ti,ntegrr Cubed 1 Bi-Weekly Rates I duly-1r3O40-June 26,2011 Mayor �59,390.19 ra..u.e:Centered , $4,521.90 ra..m.x Hot a�pape Council a4 904.38 • "r18 Cubed Membersra.rrs as Highlight • 29 CO r • • ....„----(Formatted:Font Bold Formatted:Fart:Boll TOTAL EMPLOYEE TOTAL UT! STATE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION EMPLOYER GRAND TOTAL. RE- Pu:`. Employee Contributory Re. "tent System 0 6.00% 0.36% 16.36% Pui:. Re 0 0 13.37% 13.37% Ruts Safety Non Contributory Re" ,ont Systom 0 36.31% 36.31% 36.31% Ply., ter Re ,ont Systom 16.18% 16.18% 0 16.18% No: clielative ----(Formatted:Font Bold Exompt Plan Dew. 'ment-Heads 0 0 18% 18% Act interim Dept.Roads 0 0 18% 18% May Chief of Staff 0 0 18% 18% Exe yes-in-the-Mayers Offi;- 0 18% 18% Executive Director,City Council 0 0 18% 18% Pulp Ret .ant Systom 6,00% 0.36% 7.66% 16.36% Put =mpioyee-Non- Co ttte. Retirement�",ystem 0 , 0 13.37% „37%APPE FormamIndent ad Left -0.38',Right: -OS' D-UTAH STATE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS FY 2011-2012 Formatted:Font:Bold Tier 1 Defined Benefit System System, Employee Contribution, Employer Contribution Total Formatted Table Public Employees l '/Formatted:Font: Contributory System 0 15.76% 15.76% Public Employeespub 1 \ FonnatFormatted:Font Noncontribtrto S stem 0 .77% 13.77% \ �FontVV ory Formatted:Font: Q 36.71% 36.71% Firefighters Retirement System 0 16.18% 16.18% Tier 1 Post Retired System Post Retired Employment After Post Retired Employment Before (Formatted Table 6/30/10-NO 401(k) 7/1/2010 Amortization of UAAL* Optional 401(k) Public Emniovees Contributory System 4.66% 11.10% 30 rri , Public Employees Noncontributory System 2_59'i 11.18% I Public Safety Noncontributory System 15.18% 21.53% Firefighters Retirement System 0 16.18% Tier 2 Defined Benefit Hybrid System Employer 401(k) Total Formatted Table Public Employees Noncontributory System 10.33% 2.41% 12.74% Public Safety Noncontributory System 25.82% 1.55% 27.37% Firefighters Retirement System 10.64% I_554 12.19% Tier 2 Defined Contribution Only Employer 401(k) Total LFFormattedTable Public Employees Noncontributory System 2.74% 10.00% 12.74%. Public Safety Noncontributory System 15.37°%o 12.00% 27.37% Firefighters Retirement System 0.19% 12.00% 12.19% Executive Non Legislative Position Employer Contribution (-Formatted Table Department Heads,Mayor's Chief of Public Employees Noncontributory Staff,Up to Two Additional Senior 18% System Executives in the Mayor's Office, Normal contribution into Retirement Executive Director for City Council System with difference into 401(k) Or If Exempt 18%into 401(k) Public Safety Noncontributory System Department Head Same as above (Formatted:Font:Not Bold Firefighters Retirement System ,Department Same as `?Formatted:Font:Not Bold He abov ad e Formatted:indent Lett o' 31 APPENDIX E-REGULAR PART TIME EMPLOYEE SUMMARY SHEET Benefit Rates&Accrual Regular Hours 20-39 Hours Standby/Call Back Yes Shift(Swing/Grave) 100%of Full-Time Employee(Non-Exempt Only) Meals Full Value Longevity 50%of Full Time Employee(Appointed employees excluded) 501c9 $24.30 Pension 100%of Required Contribution Uniform Allowance Full Applicable Value as defined In Comp Plan Tuition Reimbursement 50%of Full Time Employee Benefit Fitness Reimbursement 50%of Full lime Employee Benefit Holidays 100%of Scheduled Shift Personal Holidays 100%of Scheduled Shift Bereavement Leave 100%of Scheduled Shift as defined in Comp Plan Military 100%of Schedule Shift for 11 Working Days Jury 100%of Schedule Shift During Jury Duty Short Term Disability Full Value/Service Prorated Long Term Disability Full Value Prior Service Credit Up to Three Years for Vacation&Personal Leave(Plan B) RPT-Designation by Plan Benefits•Plan B Benefits-Plan A Accrued Vacation 50%of Full Time Employee' 50%of Full lime Employee' Vacation Limit 50%of Full Time Employee. 50%of Full Time Employee• Personal Leave 50%of Full Time Employee• N/A Sick N/A 2.31 Per Pay Period Sick to Vacation Conversion N/A Up to 64 Hours Hospital/Dependent Leave N/A Yes at 100%of Scheduled Shift •NOTE:Based on years of service as defined in Comp Plan 32 6„s �1 A RALPH BECKER [�1� t t RECFIVED MAYOR �L]�at MOWN n OFFICE OF THE MAYOR MAY 2 4 2011 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake r;pia; Mayor RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2011 Date Received: Ogf / oii David veritt, C ief of Staff LC COUNCIL OFFICE Date sent to Council: OS/z4 Iuxi TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 24, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Parking Enforcement Audit STAFF CONTACT: Mary Beth Thompson(801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing—Information only BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In September 2010 the City Council and Administration created the parking taskforce. This taskforce was made up of individuals from various departments to draw upon their expertise and insights. The taskforce conducted an operational review to gain an understanding of the ticket process, evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiencies of the procedures, and to attempt to determine why the number of tickets issued has decreased yearly from 140,194 tickets in FY2006 to a projected 106,108 in FY2011. In addition,the review looked at reasons for ticket revenue decreases other than the number of tickets issued. Based on the operational review a number of recommendations emerged that may help ensure compliance with current parking ordinances and lead to procedural improvements. A compilation of observances, complaints and issues regarding Salt Lake City parking ticket procedures has been structured into three categories; Human Resources, Justice Court and Parking Enforcement. - The Finance Department is forwarding the audit results to the Mayor's Office and City Council prior to receiving comments from the City divisions involved. The Finance Department will distribute the audit to Human Resources, Justice Court and Parking Enforcement for responses to the recommendations. Once responses have been received, the audit will be re-transmitted to the Mayor's Office and City Council. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com RECYCLED PAPER Parking Enforcement alatt April 2011 The Finance Department completed an operational review of the Parking Enforcement ticketing processes and procedures. The objectives of this review were to gain an understanding of the ticket process, evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiencies of the procedures, and to attempt to determine why the number of tickets issued has decreased from 140,194 tickets in FY2006 to a projected 106,108 in FY2011. Condition The Parking Taskforce was created by the City Council and Administration in September 2010. This taskforce was made up of individuals from various departments to draw upon their expertise and insights. Salt Lake City experienced a significant decrease in the number of tickets issued in fiscal year 2010. 1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr YTD FY2011 28,381 25,781 25,971 26,315 106,448 FY2010 29,212 27,516 28,642 31,576 116,946 FY2009 32,195 32,035 31,481 33,622 129,333 Amok FY2008 32,470 29,874 30,698 33,237 126,279 FY2007 32,079 32,528 31,972 31,917 128,496 FY2006 36,319 33,022 35,350 35,503 140,194 The decrease of 12,387 tickets (projected) could not be easily attributed to any one cause. Other cities are also experiencing a loss in not only the number of tickets written but also in their total ticket revenue. These cities have increased their enforcement efforts to insure compliance. The cities include San Francisco, New York, Washington DC, Seattle and Chicago. Based on the operational review, however, a number of recommendations emerged that may help ensure compliance with current parking ordinances. A compilation of observances, complaints and issues regarding Salt Lake City has been broken down into 3 categories; Human Resources,Justice Court and Parking Enforcement. Human Resources It is the current practice of Human Resources (HR) to give out free parking passes to the Council and Recorders office to use when there is a late night meeting. Passes are also given to Interns working within the City and County Building (CCB), HR personnel who work at the Police Department or Airport who comes to the CCB Building on official business or for meetings and the in/out parking is full. Employees who come for new employee orientation are also given passes for parking around the CCB until their parking pass to park under the library arrives. When passes are given out it's for a two week period and some are for the entire fiscal year. In order to get a pass no documentation is necessary and the only passes that are being tracked are for (six) Non-Employee Board Members. The loss of the available parking spaces on the street for public use is not only creating customer complaints but is also reducing the amount of tickets that can be given. The recommendations are: • To establish a tracking system for parking passes given out by the Enforcement Office. Parking passes will need to be numbered and contain an expiration date related to the individuals business at the CCB. They should also include a limited area of where the pass is valid. Beginning July 1, all parking passes issued with be numbered, contain an expiration date and an area where passes are valid. • All city Employees should be given a validation pass to park under the library until a parking pass can be obtained. This should include those working at the Airport, Public Safety Building, new hires and interns. Justice Courts After a review of the reductions performed by Hearing Officers on the parking ticket amounts, it was determined that the reductions do not explain the recent decline in parking revenue. Hearing Officers were reducing parking tickets on an average of 45% of the actual ticket amount prior to the time when the current reduction pattern became evident. A) Annual total reductions for parking tickets have been as follows: 2009 $1,039,871 2010 $1,008,101 2011 thru March 31st $512,170 compared to 2010 To Date $492,756 B) When reviewing all tickets from July 2010 through December 2010, with the base fees at$15, $30, $55, the average reduction is 56%. Combined tickets with multiple violations had an average reduction of 38%. While, the parking ticket reductions allowed by Hearing Officers do not appear to be a significant factor in the recent parking ticket revenue decline, the reductions are a factor in general, and during the course of this review, the Justice Court was reminded of the City ordinance regarding appeals on tickets (City Code 12.56.570).. In November 2010 the average number of reductions went from 93,306 to 88,199 ( a 5% decrease) and down to 85,362 by the end of December making a total of 9% decrease in reductions. . Recommendations: • Consistent criteria for reducing tickets should be developed by the Justice Court. There are a variety of reasons and circumstances that could prompt the Hearing Officer to reduce tickets. However by establishing guidelines it should take the guess work out of how, when and why reductions are taking place. The Justice Court should develop procedures to ensure they are not reducing tickets below the base ticket for meter violations and other tickets unless: o At the time of receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been acquired pursuant to the written lease agreement or similar written agreement; o The subject vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved from such location; o Any markings, signs or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible or comprehensible; o Such other mitigating circumstances as may be approved by the city law department. • Jurors called to jury duty in the Justice Court will be given validations to park under the Library, rather than being issued parking passes for on-street parking at meters surrounding the Justice Court This change was implemented beginning April 1, 2010. • Justice Court management should review reductions of parking tickets per individual officer on a monthly basis. Parking Enforcement Parking Enforcement currently operates on a beat schedule that is rotated on a weekly basis. If an Enforcement Officer is absent from his/her rotation, there is no order to who can take the shift. Favoritism is often perceived by the Officers in this type of a situation. Upon month end, a posting of the number of violations each officer enforced upon, is displayed on what Officers refer to as the "Wall of Shame". Reports and productivity can be easily perceived on an individual effort but there doesn't seem to be any correlation with the number of officers per month and the number of tickets they give. Nor can a single beat be reported on to show an accurate picture of how many tickets were given there at any one particular time due to a technology restraint. There is no consistency in the number of tickets, the beats, or rotations. There is a definite need for upgraded technology (which will be available with the new Pay Stations) as well as an in-depth review of the current beats. The beat evaluation should establish the effectiveness of the enforcement officer. Currently, the average number of tickets written per hour is 3.74; however the average per enforcer varies from 6.04 to 2.37. The national average of parking tickets written per hour is about 6 per hour in a 6.5 per work day, according to data obtained from one of the industry leaders in parking enforcement management. In FY2010 there was a total of 110,305 parking tickets reported with an average of 9,468 tickets per month and through a projected FY2011 the average is expected to go down to 8,707 tickets per month. PYTD 2010: Average Tickets Per Month 9,468 Per Month/Officer 541 (High 714/Low 368) Per Hour/Officer 3.98 (High 7.04/Low 2.22) FYTD 2011(Projected): Average Tickets Per Month 8,480 Per Month/Officer 551 (High 765/Low 341) Per Hour/Officer 3.20 (High 6.30/Low 2.09) *Boulder Colorado has a new directive to write an average of 900 tickets per month per officer.Which is equal to 45 tickets a day or one every 11 minutes.(www.dailycarnera.com/ci15009955,05/03/2010) Voids have been consistent, at an average of 458 and 427 voids per month for 2010 and 2011 respectively. Various reasons why voids are created but a high number seem to be not reissued. Parking Enforcement Recommendations: • Establish standards for productivity per officer. • Require officers to enter a beat in the handheld device prior to working the beat. This will require an upgraded handheld and this issue will be fixed in conjunction with the RFP for the new Parking Pay Stations. • Explanation of voids and why they weren't reissued. A supervisor should review these on a frequent basis and find commonalities in reasons that could lead to additional training for the officers. • The need for a Field Supervisory that can be on call for to go out on the field to be on the scene and fully understand the challenges and obstacles the officers face. • More training from high producers to the lower producers on all ticketing aspects (What to look for, Picture taking, tricks of the trade, etc) While the taskforce believes that these recommendations will help ensure violations and city ordinances are properly cited, the taskforce felt that there was still not enough information to ascertain why the numbers of tickets being written were still consistently falling. Interviews were conducted with each Enforcement Officer to get their input on what they felt the areas of concern where, what issues they had and what, if anything was driving the substantial difference in the number of tickets each officer wrote. The majority of the interviews were conducted in one day, with 3 interviews going on simultaneously. This was in an attempt to cut down on the opportunity the interviewees had to share the questions with their fellow officers. Findings: 1. Interviewees consistently expressed a lack of understanding of the Enforcement Officers Field Supervisors job duties. They felt as if no one was available to discuss issues that arise such as if an officer has a close call with an irate citizens, after being in a wreck and being shaken up there was no one to talk to. Officers also expressed a desire for an afternoon and weekend supervisor. Officers working on Sundays are out on the assigned beat by themselves with no one in the office to check in on them. This is a safety issue and Officers need someone available to communicate their whereabouts. 040' Recommendations: a. Clarify all roles within the organization so everyone understands what each other does. If necessary alter job responsibilities to ensure the supervisory needs of the officers are met. b. Change the job description of the Field Supervisor to include the job task of going out into the field on a regular basis and as part of their main duties. Also by creating an additional Field Supervisor position it would aid in providing additional oversight to the afternoon and weekend shifts. A supervisor could help to establish consistency and guidelines in ticketing. Public Services should evaluate whether an additional position to act as a afternoon/weekend supervisor is necessary, or whether a shift in job assignments could accommodate this need. c. Implement a remedy where Officers' don't work a beat alone. Someone should be there working with them throughout their shift thus creating immediate help should a situation arise. 2. Currently, parking enforcement does not have a dedicated dispatcher. Rather, Officers rotate responsibility for dispatch on a weekly (?) basis. Lunch-time back-up for the officer assigned to act as dispatcher is provided by other parking enforcement officers. Interviewees expressed the difficulty they felt toward losing hours of work. Current practice consists of officers having to cross beats in order to cover the lunch shift for the dispatcher on duty. This often results in a minimum three hour block of time that an officer cannot be out enforcing. In addition, officers believe that an 8 hour shift makes it difficult to efficiently enforce a beat. There has also been expressed confusion on the flexibility of schedules (lunch, break and end times). It is perceived that the rules are different from one Officer to another as well as what situations could alter the time they actually are taking said breaks. If Officers are required to take a lunch at a certain time, it creates stress when they have marked cars that they need to enforce. Often times leaving those cars so they can make their lunch time. There were also frequent complaints of favoritism on the ability to leave their shifts early and in the scheduling of beats. Officers consistently felt that the change in staffing patterns could improve efficiency. Recommendations: a. Hire a full time Dispatcher. A full time dispatcher, with field knowledge would be of great benefit. This would cut down on the need to fill people in each week as the rotation changes. Given current practice, this could be tried without an additional FTE and b. Explore whether 10 hour shifts would create greater efficiency in the parking enforcement unit. This change would allow for the ability to enforce during prime times when they would usually be on their way back to the office to clean out the jeeps and get ready to end their day. The current schedule ends at 5pm and so the practice is to leave their beats around 4:30pm often leaving their marked tires and enforceable violations. When the new shift begins, the tires marked in the handhelds are all lost due to the technology of not being able to transfer the marked tires as well as the two hours being up by the time the next Officer gets to them. c. Develop procedures for taking breaks and lunches with an eye toward improving morale among parking enforcement officers. d. Explore a rotation for event scheduling and open shifts. This will ensure that Officers are given a fair chance at prime shifts as well as overtime shifts, and may help improve morale in the division. e. Equip vehicles that are used by Enforcement Officers with GPS. This will ensure that we can more efficiently directly associate the beats as well as the officers' location. f. Explore with the City Council the feasibility of expanding meters times of enforcement to 8:00pm or 9:00pm. This would allow for additional enforcement time. 3. There is a lack of consistency in some of the procedures currently in place for marking tires. Currently, there are two ways Parking Enforcement can mark tires to ensure compliance with parking time restrictions. The first is chalking where they simply put a chalk mark on the tire and then come back after two hours (defined by ordinance) to see if the vehicle has moved. This is an easy process but causes problems in the rain or snow and night time because the chalk isn't easily visible. Another problem of chalking is that towards the end of a shift an officer would be required to write down where the vehicle is and the time it was chalked so that the next crew could go and find the vehicle. Most likely not having that vehicle enforceable, because of time constraints. The second way to mark tires is in the handheld devices, which are used to issue tickets. This allows , for an easy list of marked cars,. Currently, however, the markings are unique to each Officer's handheld. Markings also expire if tickets are not issued within 21/2 hours and cannot be transferred from one handheld to another . Thus, markings are lost at the end of each Officers lunch or shift change. Of note is that the steep decline in the number of parking tickets issued began about the same time that the new handheld system was implemented. Recommendations: a. Establish a best practice for marking vehicles. Don't allow for either chalking or handheld option to marking the vehicle. Consistency in the process could help to determine if the process is efficient and should be rethought out. Consider a short term experiment to determine whether the move to the handheld devices has contributed to the decline in parking tickets. b. Explore whether software changes could allow for a longer period of time before the markings are lost and for transfer of markings between devices and Officers. c. Looking into better marking resources. Different chalk colors and or waterproof options if possible and available. d. Mark tires after 1:00pm. This will allow for the Officers to have sufficient time to go back and pick up their marks. 4. There is a lack of communication between Zoning/Engineering and the Enforcement Division. Consistency in the enforcing (or not enforcing) of parking ordinances are not clearly defined. There are several areas in the City where parking ordinances apply but where enforcement is not encouraged. Examples include the e area around Judge Memorial High School and 3rd South businesses on Saturday. Discussion of areas of that could be enforceable also was emphasized several times. By updating the ordinance to include these areas it would create additional enforcement opportunities. Recommendations: a. Clarify and if necessary update the process and procedure for determining a non-enforceable area. This may even include an ordinance update as well, for these particular areas if necessary. b. Consider expanding new areas of parking limitations areas and/or put up signs to allow for the additional enforcement opportunities. Possible additional areas include: 2.) Gateway 1st south between 5th and 6th West 3.) Ken Garff Sales Area 4.) Guardsmen Way 5. It was determined through thorough analysis that the numbers of pictures on each citation do not aid in the validity of an issued ticket. Officers are required to take approximately 4 to 5 pictures of the vehicles they ticket. This takes up a lot of time and as the analysis has proven regardless of how many pictures are taken the amount of reductions is still at 45%. Recommendations: a. We suggest that in order to save time, officers should only take 1 to 2 GOOD pictures of each violation. Additional training on picture taking is also a suggestion as there are still a lot of Officers that struggle with that job task. , 6. Officers expressed a need for positive reinforcement as well as recognition in their job performance. Current practice is to have a daily Line-up that is supposed to brief Officers on the issues that may have come up during the prior shift and various items the Officers need to be made aware of to efficiently work their shift for that day. The Lines Ups are often viewed as gripe session where Officers complained about each other or were negative feedback is received. It was also discovered that upon month end, a posting of the number of violations each officer enforced upon, is displayed on an official bulletin board that they Officers refer to as the "Wall of Shame". The dysfunctionality in the work group occurs due to the lack of management oversight. The responses of the Officers, both high and low producers,were that they like management but felt there was little to no guidance. Officers also consistently stated that they felt that there was no room for advancement in their position. They felt that any kind of recognition would aid in increasing morale within the organization. Recommendations: a. Establish Line Up guidelines to create a productive work environment. Within these guidelines a time structure should be established. This should ensure efficient time management and dissemination of information. b. Consider eliminating what Officers call the "Wall of Shame." Instead of displaying individual numbers which creates conflict and hostility, create a team environment which promotes team work, i.e. team goal and awards. c. Management should create disciplinary actions for those individuals falling below the standard. d. Team building retreats or activities could be implemented in order to possibly mend work relationships and build trust. e. Formation of a career ladder would reward them for time spent on the job with a title change and possible small step up in pay. Additional suggestions are that of a patch for years of service like the Police Officers earn. 7. Miscellaneous Findings a. Impounds usually take 1 to 2 hours from start to finish. The practice is for the Enforcement officer to stay with the vehicle until a tow truck arrives. Tow trucks on rotation should be required to be able to respond and be on site within a certain amount of time. By an Officer having to wait for the tow truck it makes it difficult to enforce other violations and therefore lowering the number of tickets an Officer can give. The Enforcement Division untilzes a State contract of tow companies which has companies located throughout Salt Lake City and adjoining counties. Recommendation: Determine if an ordinance change is necessary in regards to tow trucks. 8. There is a lack of proper vehicle equipment available for the Enforcement Officers to do their jobs efficiently. Although there are enough vehicles for each officer, the number of actual jeeps available with the right side steering wheels is not sufficient. These Jeeps are needed for safety reasons so the Officers can give tickets opposite of traffic. The two additional cars they have with the steering wheel on the left hand side causes a dangerous situation as the officers get in and out of the vehicle. Recommendation: a. As vehicles are replaced, eliminate the two vehicles with left side steering wheels and replace them with right side steering wheel Jeeps. sf 7f RALPH BECKER � i 1 n\ RECEIVEDD MAYOR a�I(�� r�`r��'=�j_v/��ti � OFFICE OF THE MAYOR MAY 2 4 2011 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt L i Cit Mayor RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2011 Date Received: of?i'2011 David veritt, C ief of Staff LC COUNCIL OFFICE Date sent to Council: ps lig /7-6 I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 24, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Parking Enforcement Audit STAFF CONTACT: Mary Beth Thompson(801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing—Information only BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In September 2010 the City Council and Administration created the parking taskforce. This taskforce was made up of individuals from various departments to draw upon their expertise and insights. The taskforce conducted an operational review to gain an understanding of the ticket process, evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiencies of the procedures, and to attempt to determine why the number of tickets issued has decreased yearly from 140,194 tickets in FY2006 to a projected 106,108 in FY2011. In addition,the review looked at reasons for ticket revenue decreases other than the number of tickets issued. Based on the operational review a number of recommendations emerged that may help ensure compliance with current parking ordinances and lead to procedural improvements. A compilation of observances, complaints and issues regarding Salt Lake City parking ticket procedures has been structured into three categories; Human Resources, Justice Court and Parking Enforcement. - The Finance Department is forwarding the audit results to the Mayor's Office and City Council prior to receiving comments from the City divisions involved. The Finance Department will distribute the audit to Human Resources, Justice Court and Parking Enforcement for responses to the recommendations. Once responses have been received, the audit will be re-transmitted to the Mayor's Office and City Council. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com aE . Eo PAPEw Parking Enforcement April 2011 The Finance Department completed an operational review of the Parking Enforcement ticketing processes and procedures. The objectives of this review were to gain an understanding of the ticket process, evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiencies of the procedures, and to attempt to determine why the number of tickets issued has decreased from 140,194 tickets in FY2006 to a projected 106,108 in FY2011. Condition The Parking Taskforce was created by the City Council and Administration in September 2010. This taskforce was made up of individuals from various departments to draw upon their expertise and insights. Salt Lake City experienced a significant decrease in the number of tickets issued in fiscal year 2010. 1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr YTD FY2011 28,381 25,781 25,971 26,315 106,448 FY2010 29,212 27,516 28,642 31,576 116,946 FY2009 32,195 32,035 31,481 33,622 129,333 FY2008 32,470 29,874 30,698 33,237 126,279 FY2007 32,079 32,528 31,972 31,917 128,496 FY2006 36,319 33,022 35,350 35,503 140,194 The decrease of 12,387 tickets (projected) could not be easily attributed to any one cause. Other cities are also experiencing a loss in not only the number of tickets written but also in their total ticket revenue. These cities have increased their enforcement efforts to insure compliance. The cities include San Francisco, New York, Washington DC, Seattle and Chicago. Based on the operational review, however, a number of recommendations emerged that may help ensure compliance with current parking ordinances. A compilation of observances, complaints and issues regarding Salt Lake City has been broken down into 3 categories; Human Resources,Justice Court and Parking Enforcement. Human Resources It is the current practice of Human Resources (HR) to give out free parking passes to the Council and Recorders office to use when there is a late night meeting. Passes are also given to Interns working within the City and County Building (CCB), HR personnel who work at the Police Department or Airport who comes to the CCB Building on official business or for meetings and the in/out parking is full. Employees who come for new employee orientation are also given passes for parking around the CCB until their parking pass to park under the library arrives. When passes are given out it's for a two week period and some are for the entire fiscal year. In order to get a pass no documentation is necessary and the only passes that are being tracked are for (six) Non-Employee Board Members. The loss of the available parking spaces on the street for public use is not only creating customer complaints but is also reducing the amount of tickets that can be given. The recommendations are: • To establish a tracking system for parking passes given out by the Enforcement Office. Parking passes will need to be numbered and contain an expiration date related to the individuals business at the CCB. They should also include a limited area of where the pass is valid. Beginning July 1, all parking passes issued with be numbered, contain an expiration date and an area where passes are valid. • All city Employees should be given a validation pass to park under the library until a parking pass can be obtained. This should include those working at the Airport, Public Safety Building, new hires and interns. Justice Courts After a review of the reductions performed by Hearing Officers on the parking ticket amounts, it was determined that the reductions do not explain the recent decline in parking revenue. Hearing Officers were reducing parking tickets on an average of 45% of the actual ticket amount prior to the time when the current reduction pattern became evident. A) Annual total reductions for parking tickets have been as follows: 2009 $1,039,871 2010 $1,008,101 2011 thru March 31st $512,170 compared to 2010 To Date $492,756 B) When reviewing all tickets from July 2010 through December 2010, with the base fees at $15, $30, $55, the average reduction is 56%. Combined tickets with multiple violations had an average reduction of 38%. While, the parking ticket reductions allowed by Hearing Officers do not appear to be a significant factor in the recent parking ticket revenue decline, the reductions are a factor in general, and during the course of this review, the Justice Court was reminded of the City ordinance regarding appeals on tickets (City Code 12.56.570).. In November 2010 the average number of reductions went from 93,306 to 88,199 ( a 5% decrease) and down to 85,362 by the end of December making a total of 9% decrease in reductions. . Recommendations: • Consistent criteria for reducing tickets should be developed by the Justice Court. There are a variety of reasons and circumstances that could prompt the Hearing Officer to reduce tickets. However by establishing guidelines it should take the guess work out of how, when and why reductions are taking place. The Justice Court should develop procedures to ensure they are not reducing tickets below the base ticket for meter violations and other tickets unless: o At the time of receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been acquired pursuant to the written lease agreement or similar written agreement; o The subject vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved from such location; o Any markings, signs or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible or comprehensible; o Such other mitigating circumstances as may be approved by the city law department. • Jurors called to jury duty in the Justice Court will be given validations to park under the Library,rather than being issued parking passes for on-street parking at meters surrounding the Justice Court This change was implemented beginning April 1, 2010. • Justice Court management should review reductions of parking tickets per individual officer on a monthly basis. Parking Enforcement Parking Enforcement currently operates on a beat schedule that is rotated on a weekly basis. If an Enforcement Officer is absent from his/her rotation, there is no order to who can take the shift. Favoritism is often perceived by the Officers in this type of a situation. Upon month end, a posting of the number of violations each officer enforced upon, is displayed on what Officers refer to as the "Wall of Shame". Reports and productivity can be easily perceived on an individual effort but there doesn't seem to be any correlation with the number of officers per month and the number of tickets they give. Nor can a single beat be reported on to show an accurate picture of how many tickets were given there at any one particular time due to a technology restraint. There is no consistency in the number of tickets, the beats, or rotations. There is a definite need for upgraded technology (which will be available with the new Pay Stations) as well as an in-depth review of the current beats. The beat evaluation should establish the effectiveness of the enforcement officer. Currently, the average number of tickets written per hour is 3.74; however the average per enforcer varies from 6.04 to 2.37. The national average of parking tickets written per hour is about 6 per hour in a 6.5 per work day, according to data obtained from one of the industry leaders in parking enforcement management. In FY2010 there was a total of 110,305 parking tickets reported with an average of 9,468 tickets per month and through a projected FY2011 the average is expected to go down to 8,707 tickets per month. PYTD 2010: Average Tickets Per Month 9,468 Per Month/Officer 541 (High 714/Low 368) Per Hour/Officer 3.98 (High 7.04/Low 2.22) FYTD 2011(Projected): Average Tickets Per Month 8,480 Per Month/Officer 551 (High 765/Low 341) Per Hour/Officer 3.20 (High 6.30/Low 2.09) *Boulder Colorado has a new directive to write an average of 900 tickets per month per officer.Which is equal to 45 tickets a day or one every 11 minutes.(www.dailycamera.com/ci15009955,05/03/2010) Voids have been consistent, at an average of 458 and 427 voids per month for 2010 and 2011 respectively. Various reasons why voids are created but a high number seem to be not reissued. Parking Enforcement Recommendations: • Establish standards for productivity per officer. • Require officers to enter a beat in the handheld device prior to working the beat. This will require an upgraded handheld and this issue will be fixed in conjunction with the RFP for the new Parking Pay Stations. • Explanation of voids and why they weren't reissued. A supervisor should review these on a frequent basis and find commonalities in reasons that could lead to additional training for the officers. • The need for a Field Supervisory that can be on call for to go out on the field to be on the scene and fully understand the challenges and obstacles the officers face. • More training from high producers to the lower producers on all ticketing aspects (What to look for, Picture taking, tricks of the trade, etc) While the taskforce believes that these recommendations will help ensure violations and city ordinances are properly cited, the taskforce felt that there was still not enough information to ascertain why the numbers of tickets being written were still consistently falling. Interviews were conducted with each Enforcement Officer to get their input on what they felt the areas of concern where, what issues they had and what, if anything was driving the substantial difference in the number of tickets each officer wrote. The majority of the interviews were conducted in one day, with 3 interviews going on simultaneously. This was in an attempt to cut down on the opportunity the interviewees had to share the questions with their fellow officers. Findings: 1. Interviewees consistently expressed a lack of understanding of the Enforcement Officers Field Supervisors job duties. They felt as if no one was available to discuss issues that arise such as if an officer has a close call with an irate citizens, after being in a wreck and being shaken up there was no one to talk to. Officers also expressed a desire for an afternoon and weekend supervisor. Officers working on Sundays are out on the assigned beat by themselves with no one in the office to check in on them. This is a safety issue and Officers need someone available to communicate their whereabouts. Recommendations: a. Clarify all roles within the organization so everyone understands what each other does. If necessary alter job responsibilities to ensure the supervisory needs of the officers are met. b. Change the job description of the Field Supervisor to include the job task of going out into the field on a regular basis and as part of their main duties. Also by creating an additional Field Supervisor position it would aid in providing additional oversight to the afternoon and weekend shifts. A supervisor could help to establish consistency and guidelines in ticketing. Public Services should evaluate whether an additional position to act as a afternoon/weekend supervisor is necessary, or whether a shift in job assignments could accommodate this need. c. Implement a remedy where Officers' don't work a beat alone. Someone should be there working with them throughout their shift thus creating immediate help should a situation arise. 2. Currently, parking enforcement does not have a dedicated dispatcher. Rather, Officers rotate responsibility for dispatch on a weekly (?) basis. Lunch-time back-up for the officer assigned to act as dispatcher is provided by other parking enforcement officers. Interviewees expressed the difficulty they felt toward losing hours of work. Current practice consists of officers having to cross beats in order to cover the lunch shift for the dispatcher on duty. This often results in a minimum three hour block of time that an officer cannot be out enforcing. In addition, officers believe that an 8 hour shift makes it difficult to efficiently enforce a beat. There has also been expressed confusion on the flexibility of schedules (lunch, break and end times). It is perceived that the rules are different from one Officer to another as well as what situations could alter the time they actually are taking said breaks. If Officers are required to take a lunch at a certain time, it creates stress when they have marked cars that they need to enforce. Often times leaving those cars so they can make their lunch time. There were also frequent complaints of favoritism on the ability to leave their shifts early and in the scheduling of beats. Officers consistently felt that the change in staffing patterns could improve efficiency. Recommendations: a. Hire a full time Dispatcher. A full time dispatcher, with field knowledge would be of great benefit. This would cut down on the need to fill people in each week as the rotation changes. Given current practice, this could be tried without an additional FTE and b. Explore whether 10 hour shifts would create greater efficiency in the parking enforcement unit. This change would allow for the ability to enforce during prime times when they would usually be on their way back to the office to clean out the jeeps and get ready to end their day. The current schedule ends at 5pm and so the practice is to leave their beats around 4:30pm often leaving their marked tires and enforceable violations. When the new shift begins, the tires marked in the handhelds are all lost due to the technology of not being able to transfer the marked tires as well as the two hours being up by the time the next Officer gets to them. c. Develop procedures for taking breaks and lunches with an eye toward improving morale among parking enforcement officers. d. Explore a rotation for event scheduling and open shifts. This will ensure that Officers are given a fair chance at prime shifts as well as overtime shifts, and may help improve morale in the division. e. Equip vehicles that are used by Enforcement Officers with GPS. This will ensure that we can more efficiently directly associate the beats as well as the officers' location. f. Explore with the City Council the feasibility of expanding meters times of enforcement to 8:00pm or 9:00pm. This would allow for additional enforcement time. 3. There is a lack of consistency in some of the procedures currently in place for marking tires. Currently, there are two ways Parking Enforcement can mark tires to ensure compliance with parking time restrictions. The first is chalking where they simply put a chalk mark on the tire and then come back after two hours (defined by ordinance) to see if the vehicle has moved. This is an easy process but causes problems in the rain or snow and night time because the chalk isn't easily visible. Another problem of chalking is that towards the end of a shift an officer would be required to write down where the vehicle is and the time it was chalked so that the next crew could go and find the vehicle. Most likely not having that vehicle enforceable, because of time constraints. The second way to mark tires is in the handheld devices,which are used to issue tickets. This allows , for an easy list of marked cars,. Currently, however, the markings are unique to each Officer's handheld. Markings also expire if tickets are not issued within 21/2 hours and cannot be transferred from one handheld to another . Thus, markings are lost at the end of each Officers lunch or shift change. Of note is that the steep decline in the number of parking tickets issued began about the same time that the new handheld system was implemented. Recommendations: a. Establish a best practice for marking vehicles. Don't allow for either chalking or handheld option to marking the vehicle. Consistency in the process could help to determine if the process is efficient and should be rethought out. Consider a short term experiment to determine whether the move to the handheld devices has contributed to the decline in parking tickets. b. Explore whether software changes could allow for a longer period of time before the markings are lost and for transfer of markings between devices and Officers. c. Looking into better marking resources. Different chalk colors and or waterproof options if possible and available. d. Mark tires after 1:00pm. This will allow for the Officers to have sufficient time to go back and pick up their marks. 4. There is a lack of communication between Zoning/Engineering and the Enforcement Division. Consistency in the enforcing (or not enforcing) of parking ordinances are not clearly defined. There are several areas in the City where parking ordinances apply but where enforcement is not encouraged. Examples include the e area around Judge Memorial High School and 3rd South businesses on Saturday. Discussion of areas of that could be enforceable also was emphasized several times. By updating the ordinance to include these areas it would create additional enforcement opportunities. Recommendations: a. Clarify and if necessary update the process and procedure for determining a non-enforceable area. This may even include an ordinance update as well, for these particular areas if necessary. b. Consider expanding new areas of parking limitations areas and/or put up signs to allow for the additional enforcement opportunities. Possible additional areas include: 2.) Gateway 1st south between 5th and 6th West 3.) Ken Garff Sales Area 4.) Guardsmen Way 5. It was determined through thorough analysis that the numbers of pictures on each citation do not aid in the validity of an issued ticket. Officers are required to take approximately 4 to 5 pictures of the vehicles they ticket. This takes up a lot of time and as the analysis has proven regardless of how many pictures are taken the amount of reductions is still at 45%. Recommendations: a. We suggest that in order to save time, officers should only take 1 to 2 GOOD pictures of each violation. Additional training on picture taking is also a suggestion as there are still a lot of Officers that struggle with that job task. 6. Officers expressed a need for positive reinforcement as well as recognition in their job performance. Current practice is to have a daily Line-up that is supposed to brief Officers on the issues that may have come up during the prior shift and various items the Officers need to be made aware of to efficiently work their shift for that day. The Lines Ups are often viewed as gripe session where Officers complained about each other or were negative feedback is received. It was also discovered that upon month end, a posting of the number of violations each officer enforced upon, is displayed on an official bulletin board that they Officers refer to as the "Wall of Shame". The dysfunctionality in the work group occurs due to the lack of management oversight. The responses of the Officers, both high and low producers, were that they like management but felt there was little to no guidance. Officers also consistently stated that they felt that there was no room for advancement in their position. They felt that any kind of recognition would aid in increasing morale within the organization. Recommendations: a. Establish Line Up guidelines to create a productive work environment. Within these guidelines a time structure should be established. This should ensure efficient time management and dissemination of ""` information. b. Consider eliminating what Officers call the "Wall of Shame." Instead of displaying individual numbers which creates conflict and hostility, create a team environment which promotes team work, i.e. team goal and awards. c. Management should create disciplinary actions for those individuals falling below the standard. d. Team building retreats or activities could be implemented in order to possibly mend work relationships and build trust. e. Formation of a career ladder would reward them for time spent on the job with a title change and possible small step up in pay. Additional suggestions are that of a patch for years of service like the Police Officers earn. 7. Miscellaneous Findings a. Impounds usually take 1 to 2 hours from start to finish. The practice is for the Enforcement officer to stay with the vehicle until a tow truck arrives. Tow trucks on rotation should be required to be able to respond and be on site within a certain amount of time. By an Officer having to wait for the tow truck it makes it difficult to enforce other violations and therefore lowering the number of tickets an Officer can give. The Enforcement Division untilzes a State contract of tow companies which has companies located throughout Salt Lake City and adjoining counties. Recommendation: Determine if an ordinance change is necessary in regards to tow trucks. 8. There is a lack of proper vehicle equipment available for the Enforcement Officers to do their jobs efficiently. Although there are enough vehicles for each officer, the number of actual jeeps available with the right side steering wheels is not sufficient. These Jeeps are needed for safety reasons so the Officers can give tickets opposite of traffic. The two additional cars they have with the steering wheel on the left hand side causes a dangerous situation as the officers get in and out of the vehicle. Recommendation: a. As vehicles are replaced, eliminate the two vehicles with left side steering wheels and replace them with right side steering wheel Jeeps. A- 7 PLEASE SEE A- 7 FROM 5/31 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: June 7,2011 SUBJECT: UNRESOLVED&FOLLOW-UP BUDGET ISSUES(2011-12) FROM: Jennifer Bruno,Karen Halladay,Lehua Weaver,Russell Weeks,Cassandra Fairboum,Quin Card cc: David Everitt,Gordon Hoskins,Gina Chamness,Kay Christensen,Randy Hillier This report outlines a list of budget items that staff has tracked as currently"unresolved"or"pending." The Council may wish to consider taking a straw poll on some items.Depending on Council support for some of these items, the Council and staff will need to identify additional revenue sources or expenditure reductions to balance the budget. The Council's discussion could include review and a straw poll of the following items: 1. The attached spreadsheet with possible changes to the Mayor's Recommended Budget.The list of potential changes include items that:a)the Council has discussed and already indicated some support,b)that one or more Council Member(s)may have mentioned,but have not had a straw poll indication of support,c)a list of the key items in the Recommended Budget that the Council may wish to review, and d) a few items that the Administration has proposed as changes to the May 3m Recommended Budget. 2. The list of general policy items below. 3. Discussion of other balancing ideas that Council Members may wish to raise. A. Riparian Corridor &Watershed Fees: The Council posted the idea for these fees on the City's "Open City Hall"forum. The question was-"What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts?" Staff has summarized the comments provided (39 total comments as of Friday,June 3).(The full comments are attached to this report.) 56%of respondents are opposed to the fee,saying that they are already taxed too much.One says that Environmental benefits should be paid by all citizens not just the land owners. 8%say maybe,but they want a better accounting of when their fee money is used and what property it buys. 36%say yes to the fee.Some respondents say that they would prefer if the fee came from raised tariffs on water over use but are still willing to pay. ➢ Does the Council wish to take a straw poll to include these fees in the FY 2012 budget? B. Landlord/Tenant Initiative - Based on the Council's discussion on May 31,,, the attached Key Changes spreadsheet has been updated to reflect the budget impact of the Council's direction. Attached is also another list of options that one or more Council Member(s)have requested in terms of implementation date. In addition,the Council may wish to review the updated explanation and timeline that the Administration has prepared regarding the implementation of the program.This document (attached)provides further explanation about the Program as proposed in the Mayor's Recommended Budget,and provides more information regarding:1-and 2-unit licensing; addressing unit legalizations;and finalizing training,staffing,and notification. Last week,Council staff posted this issue on the City's"Open City Hall"forum with the question: What do you think is a fair fee structure for landlords to pay with the goal to encourage good management of rental dwellings in Salt Lake City?Staff has summarized the comments received (22 total comments as of Friday,June 3).(The full comments are attached to this report.) 54.5%are opposed to the fee.They want a better summary of what the program will do and how it will make landlords better.They say it is just another tax.Instead,fine them when necessary,like a traffic ticket or traffic school. 36.4%are in favor of the fee.Some want to know if the program applies to fraternities and sororities. Some want to know if landlords will be rewarded if they have well-kept properties with good tenants. 9.1%have not decided yet.Some want to know better how this will help neighborhoods be better kept. Also want to know what the fees will go toward. C. Library Fund-The Council will have a follow-up briefing on June 7th to discuss tax rate changes in the Library Fund that would allow for two new library branch locations. As of the May 31,, briefing,the majority of the Council tentatively supported"Option C,"which would increase the library property tax levy in the FY 2012 Fiscal Year to fund construction of the Marmalade Branch library(with a City Sales Tax bond),and increase the library property tax levy in FY 2013 to fund operations for both the Glendale Branch and Marmalade Branch. The Council may wish to confirm this understanding. Historically the Council has elected to adopt a judgment levy for the Library Fund,which is a one- year mechanism to allow the Library fund to recoup lost property tax revenue due to judgments. The Library's proposed budget for FY 2012 does not include a judgment levy request. The amount of a potential Library Fund judgment levy will not be known until the Council receives official 1111 property tax information from the County Auditor (Wednesday, June 8th at the earliest). The Council may wish to include a judgment levy for the Library Fund for FY 2012. D. Street Light Enterprise Fund-What is the appropriate time to create an enterprise fund for street lighting?The Administration proposes to have the fund operational by January. However,is that enough time for the City Council to review any study of policy and budget implications created by establishing the fund?Is it enough time for review and comment by the public? For the Council's information,the issue of"Updating the City's Golf Courses"was also placed on the Open City Hall Forum.41 comments have been received in response to the question: What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention?Staff has summarized the comments(52 total comments as of Friday,June 3).(The full comments are attached to this report.) Each subsection below expressed a desire to have a better accounting of where the funds go available to the public. 13.5%say sell and raise fees.It is a mixture of which should come first,selling the property or raising fees,but they aren't opposed to either. 9.6%say sell the courses,especially the least profitable ones.Use the revenue to better maintain remaining courses.Some think decreased locations will cause people to golf at other SLC courses so revenue would not decrease substantially. 28.8%say they would support a fee increase.Offer year passes and try using coupons to get increased business. 13.5%say maybe/no opinion.They either talked about better accounting before decisions were made, making sure golf funds went to golf courses or swapping land with Hogle Zoo for the Golf Course. 17.3%say they are against any type of fee increase or selling any courses.They all talked about making sure golf revenue goes to the golf courses.Some talked about not using money for public projects right now and putting that money toward golf Also gave suggestions on how to lower costs including: xeroscaping courses,watering at night,business-sponsored tournaments,advertizing on the course,and creating night-time revenue raising activities on courses. 5.8%say the City should not be involved in golf at all.Maybe sell the courses to private companies or lease them. 11.5%say get rid of courses but keep lands and make parks and gardens.Maybe an off-leash dog park. Good Landlord Implementation Timeline As submitted as part of the Mayor's Recommended Budget,we anticipate implementation of the Good Landlord Ordinance, passed by the City Council in December of 2009, beginning September 1, 2011. Following is a timeline outlining our plans to meet that implementation goal. If the Council wishes to allow more time to prepare for implementation and consider other policy questions,this timeline can be adjusted. 1 and 2 Unit Rentals—Begin licensing legal units September 1, 2011 • Implement self-certification process for 1 and 2 unit rentals beginning September 1, 2011. All landlords of 1 and 2 unit rentals would need to apply beginning on September 1. • Community and Economic Development (CED) believes that at least 70%of the 1 and 2 unit rentals in the City, which would now be required to be licensed, are either single family homes or legal duplexes. We hope to verify this assumption with census data prior to the Council meeting on Tuesday. We also acknowledge this may vary significantly in different parts of the City, but believe this to be a reasonable assumption for the City as a whole. • CED will initiate a petition to modify the current unit legalization process prior to September 1, 2011 for units that would currently not qualify under existing zoning ordinances. o Public outreach regarding potential changes in ordinance would start immediately. o Due to the need for a complete public process, our goal for Council adoption of an ordinance addressing these issues would be March 1, 2012. o We anticipate that this ordinance will also include a provision removing payment of a zone check fee that exists in current ordinance. Payment of this fee has not been assumed in FY 2011-12 budget assumptions for the Good Landlord program. • We anticipate that any changes to existing ordinance would include conditions, including life-safety considerations, requirements regarding existing housing code, and parking considerations. • All applicants for 1 and 2 unit business licenses that do not meet current zoning ordinances would be held in a "pending"file, pending the adoption of an ordinance that addresses the significant legalization issues. Currently adopted ordinance provides that applicants have six months after licensure to complete Good Landlord training and applicants whose applications are held would be informed of this provision. • Pending 1 and 2 unit licenses would be processed when ordinance implementation, targeted for March 1, 2012. 1 June 3,2011 Good Landlord Implementation Timeline • Given anticipated full implementation on March 1, 2012, we would not expect an adjustment in anticipated revenue in the FY 2011-12 associated with 1 and 2 unit rentals would be necessary. Since we do not currently license 1 and 2 units, revenue associated with the base fee and the per unit fee would be due at the time the ordinance becomes effective. Legal units would be licensed beginning September 1, and units that cannot currently be licensed would be due when the new ordinance becomes effective. • 3 Units and Above—Continue existing licensing of units, implement the Good Landlord fees beginning September 1,2011 • Because 3 units and above are currently licensed,we do not anticipate that all landlords would begin participating in this program on September 1; rather,they would begin participating as their renewals are due throughout the year. • We anticipate that licenses may be renewed in July and August 2011, and those landlords would not begin participating until the following year. • Like the 1 and 2 unit landlords, we anticipate that some applications would be held in a "pending"file, pending adoption of an ordinance that addresses the significant legalization issues. • We anticipate that legalization issues affecting 1s and 2s would also affect landlords with 3 or more units, including life safety considerations, parking considerations, and existing housing code issues. Other Significant Issues Training—Based on Council discussion, we do not anticipate City staff will provide training directly. Rather, we will provide landlords with a list of approved training. The City will not conduct an RFP process, but will provide potential trainers will a complete list of what we expect trainers to cover in any training. This will include requirements in statute and ordinance, as well as a section on tenant's rights and fair housing. City staff, including Business Licensing and Code Enforcement, will attend and certify training. By July 15, 2011, City staff will have provided outreach to potential trainers using existing mailing lists. At that time, City staff will meet with potential trainers to discuss requirements. This will include staff from HAND, Building Services, Code Enforcement, Police and Fire. Notification and Outreach Regarding Good Landlord Initiative Implementation—Salt Lake City Business Licensing staff will send a mass mailing postcard to all landlords currently in the Business License database informing them of the implementation timeline for the Good „, Landlord program. In addition,for landlords that have 3 or more units that are currently 2 June 3,2011 Good Landlord Implementation Timeline licensed, notification will be send with their business license renewal information. Since this is the vast majority of landlords in terms of numbers, outreach to this group will be straightforward. For landlords with 1 and 2 units that have not previously been licensed,there will be a large public outreach process beginning in early July. This will involve providing information in existing newsletters, involving Mayor's Office and Council Office Communications staff, news media and social media articles, etc. City staff plans to use information in various accessible databases, including property tax records and public utility records to identify and inform potential landlords of the new requirements. In addition, we anticipate a dedicated section of our website, as well as a link from the City's main page, will help answer questions and provide key information regarding the Good Landlord program. Business Licensing, with the assistance of HAND staff, will take the lead in coordinating this outreach. Private Housing Inspectors—City staff would find it difficult to ignore issues related to life- safety and other code/ordinance violations if they were to perform inspections on all properties that are single or two-family units. For this reason, self-inspection and certifications are recommended. We anticipate an increase in the number of complaint calls we receive from neighbors. City inspectors will assist in answering technical questions regarding life-safety and the existing housing ordinance over the phone to assist landlords as they self-certify for the Good Landlord program. In addition,the City will provide links to websites that list private, State licensed housing inspectors that may be able to provide on-site assistance. Lease Agreements—the Good Landlord ordinance, as adopted in December of 2009, provides guidance on key elements that need to be included in lease agreements. City staff will provide examples of these agreements, including possible addendums to existing leases, as well as guidance regarding lease terms that detail tenant rights, on the City website as well as in other formats. The City plans to provide this guidance in English and Spanish. HAND and Business Licensing will be responsible for providing this guidance. Providing information on Police visits to Landlords—City staff will develop written procedures to inform landlords of Police visits to their properties. Business Licensing will be responsible for working with Police and Building Services to develop these procedures, which will be in place by September 1. 3 June 3,2011 Good Landlord Implementation Timeline Role of City Divisions and New Staff Business Licensing—2 new staff positions: Lead Good Landlord Processor and Business License Processor. Business Licensing will be the primary conduit of information regarding the Good Landlord program. Business Licensing will be responsible for coordinating the software changes necessary to implement this program. In addition, Business licensing will have primary responsibility for searching databases to find landlords for 1 and 2 units. Business Licensing will coordinate with all other departments to ensure that the program complies with current ordinances and has written procedures in place prior to September 1 implementation. While the Mayor's Recommended Budget anticipated September 1 start dates for both positions,the Administration now believes that the lead Good Landlord Processor should start as soon as possible after July 1. We would propose an additional expense of$6,667 associated with that change. Planning—1 new staff: Permits Counter/Planner. Planning will be responsible for conducting public outreach related to potential changes in the legalization process. We continue to anticipate a September 1, 2011 start date for this position. Building Services—2 new staff: Code Enforcement Inspectors. Building Services will continue Amok to be responsible for conducting inspections on 3 or more units. They will also assist in answering technical questions regarding life-safety and the existing housing ordinance. These new positions will be responsible for inspecting 1 and 2 unit rentals on a complaint basis. We continue to anticipate a September 1, 2011 start date for this position. Housing and Neighborhood Development—no new staff. HAND will continue to be involved in the coordination of the new ordinance with City staff and the non-profit groups that are involved in tenant and fair housing rights. Progress to Date ✓ Preliminary checklist for self-certification is complete. ✓ Preliminary application for Good Landlord Program is complete. Aikow 4 June 3,2011 Mane.,ryes/(short) $ - $ (530,344) $ ,344) Mayor's Recommended Budget Amount Council's Tentative Changes Budget Amount for Adoption `. Item Description FTEs Budget FTEs Budget FTEs Budget F4 'VENUES :Changes:support indicated by Council straw polls _ , 1 Landlord/Tenant Program Implementation $ 1,804,631 $ (759,224) $ 1,045,407 8 Changes-other possible options raised by one or more Council Membersee 2 Parking Ticket revenues(MRB$265,816 reduction) 5 3,900,000 $ 265,816 $ 4,165,816 C Changes-Items Included In the Recommended budget that the Council may wish to discuss 3 Property Tax Revenues 4 Current Year Collection 5 49,526,771 ____5 Judgement Levy $ 576,000 610%increase In business license fees $ 416,667 _._...._...._...- ._._.__._._._.__.........._._._._._..__.._._.___.__.____ 7 Transfer from Governmental immunity Fund 5 400,000 8 Appropriation from Fund Balance-_-- $ 150,000 Subtotal of these items, $ 56,774,069 D New Items from the Administration 9 Appropriation from Fund Balance for NWD study$ $ 40,000 All other revenue items in the Budget: $ 137,723,407 E Total Revenues: MRB Total Revenues: $ 194,537,476 Changes: $ (493,408) New Totol: $ 194,044,068 Mayor's Recommended Budget Amount Council's Tentative Changes Budget for Adoption Item Description FTEs Budget FTEs Budget FTEs Budget EXPENSES A Changes-support indicated by Council straw polls 1 Landlord/Tenant Program-delay hiring 5.00 $ _-_ 291,704 300 $ (113,064) 200 $ _. 178640 2 Salary adjustments-pending labor negotiations $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Changes-other possible options raised by one or more Council Members _ 3 CEO-fund for Neighborhood Economic Development __4 CED-fund an economic Impact study of local business investment 5 CEO-fund a study of Economic Development best practices 6 CEO-fund long-range planning updates , 7 Non-Dept.Street UjhtingConsultant __ $ 50,000 8 Non-Dept.-Webmaster Contract(amount TBD,raised in staff report) 9 Volunteer Coordinator:550,000(confirm salary figure) 10 Appropriate$from Chevron reimbursements:$200,000 C Changes-Items Included In the Recommended budget that the Council may wish to discuss 11 CEO-Special Projects Coordinator in Transportation 1.00 $ 50,000 12 CEO-Planning,Urban Design Professions(split cost with RDA) 1.00 $ 35,548 13 CED-one-time funding Long Range Planning••See Below for Alt Proposal $ 250,000 14 Finance-RPT position for accounting records&storage 0.50 $ 20,833 151.Court-one-time funding for seating in waiting area $ 13,000 16 Police-E.Mgmnt-staff assistant 0.50 $ 21,900 17 Police-E.Mgmnt-Citywide Training&Exercise Coord. 1.00 5 40,000 18 Non-Dept.-Arts Council increase of$50,000 $ 550,000 19 Non-Dept.-Tracy Aviary decrease of$25,000 $ 400,000 20 Non-Dept Jordan R ver Commission $ 14,000 21 Non-Dept.-CIP transfer $ 13,473,817 22 Non-Dept.-Fleet Replacement transfer(decrease by$800,000) $ 3,200,000 23 Non-Dept.-Street Lighting Utilities $ 1,080,904 24 Non-Dept.-Transition Contingency $ 50,000 25 Non-Dept.-Webmaster Contract(amount TBD) $ 50,000 Subtotal of these hems: $ 19,591,736 D New Items from the Administration _ 26 New Adminlstrotlon Recommendation re:Long Range Planning$$ 27 Reduce Funding for Long Range Planning contracts $ (250,000) 28 Hire two full time planners-Master Pion focus 2.00 $ 180,000 29 Use remainder to fund outside consultants $ 62,536 30 CEO-Eliminate vacant Once Tech II -1.00 $ (44,536) -- 31 CEO-Restore Senior Secreto2 In Planning ........................__...._1.00........_._$ 52,000 .__-...._. 32 Non-Dept-Reopproprla[e Northwest Quadrant Study$$ $ 10,000 All other expense items in the Budget: $ 174,905,740 E Total Expenses: MOB Total Expenses: $ 194,537,476 Changes: $ 36,936 New Total: $ 194,574,412 Landlord Options/Budget Impacts Original Proposal Completely Removed Council Option A Council Option B Council Option C(May 31st Direction) FY 2012 FY 2012 Mayors Recommended Budget Mayor's Recommended Budget fillAs Presented Without Good landlord Program Difference New Budget Related to Option A Deference to MRB New Budget Related to Option 8 Difference to MRB New Budget Related to Option C Difference to MRB Revenue from sources other than Good tandiom Program 192,692,845 192,692,845 192,692,845 192,692,845 192,692,845 Seance Associated with goad LandlorgProunont _Geoid Landlord Participants,b and above 3tg,0S0 $ 119,0% $ 31,044 $ .....--_.395.811 $ 7,761 $ _395.g11 $ 7.761 _Good landlord Pa i lewdpanra,lsd L 58,333--_ __--- $ 48,000 $.. _-_ (10,333) $ 44000 $ (10,31 $ - $ _158_3331 _-_-Good dlord,new Mu Ma for Is and 2s 145,833 -__- - $ _ 165,000 $ _.. 19,167 $ -__ MAW $ 19,167 --$ $ (145.833) Non-Participants.3s and ohms _1295,371 - $ 665,896 $ 1639,410) $ 996,141 $ (296,53$) $ 998,811 $ _ (296,533) non-Pertic1Panrs,Is and 2s 199,871 - $ 171,603 $ 28,271 $ 171,900 7 $ - $ 499,871 change In Existing Revenue Associated with Good Landlord Program (282,830) $ (349,245)$ (66,415) $ (349,245)$ (66,415) $ (349,245) $ (66,415) Total Revenue 194,497A76 79000,245 (1.666.691) $ 193A13,1U $ (604,288) $ 194,122,852 $ (374,6241 $ 193,738,252 $ (759,224). New Expenses Associated with Good Landlord Program 291,704 - 245,864 $ LS_8MJ_ 290,681 $ (1,023) 178,640 $ (113,064) ____ __.--_______ Ex-sung Expenses Associated with Good landlord v afnm• 2,212,118 2,212,I16 2,212,118 $ (9) 2,212,1E $ (q 2,212 118 $ (0) All Other Expenses 191,993,654 191,993,654 191,993,654 $ 0 191,993,654 $ 0 191,993,654 $ 0 Total Weans 194,497,476 194,205,772 (291,704) 194,451,636 $ (45,840) 194,496,453 $ (1,023) 194,384,412 $ (113,064) Budget 6op,PY 101142 - (1,512,9271 (1,512,927) (633,449) (373,601) (646,160) New Program Starts Sep 1.This •Removes Implementation of the Option A-July l and January 1 Scenario-This includes: Option B-New$20 fee lull;Program Sept l for 3+;1s&2s on Jan 1. Option C(5/31 Direction):New$20 fee Jul 1;Program Sept!for 3+; includes: program&maintains status quo of REVENUES: REVENUES: is&2s next year.this indudes: •Per-unit fee for partid pants:$25 licensing&per-unit fee for 3+ •On July 1-raise per-unit fee to$20 for 3+units AND$110 base fee •Raising per-unit fee for participants to$20 for 3+units AND$110 base fee as of REVENUES: •Disproportionate fee for non- units •On Jan 1-implement the program for is&2s and 3+ huff 1 •Raising per-unit fee for participants to$20 for 3+units AND$110 participants:5342 •Removes expenses for staffing •Half the 3+units would re-license Jul-Dec and the other half Jan- •Establishing the disproportionate fee for non-participants(at$286)for 3+on base fee as of July 1 •Base fee for 3+unit landlords: •Removes revenue from the new June September 1 'Establishing the disproportionate fee for non-participants(at $110 tee structure •Establish the disproportionate fee at$286 per unit for non- 'Assumes that one-quarter of the 3+units would re-Ikense Jul-Aug and the $286)for 3+on September 1 'Base fee for 1&2 unit landlords: •Keepsfrom$110 baseother 3/4 Sep-June revenue particpants as ofJan 1 'Assumes that one-quarter of the 3+units would re-license Jul-Aug $50 fee for existing 3+landlords •Uses$110 for the base fee on 1&2 unit landlords rather than the 'Implement licensing/per-unit fees for Is&2s as of Jar t(use Jul-Dec to ramp and the other 3/4 Sep-June 0 •70%of the estimated 5,0001& ,Does not license or address 1&2 proposed$50 up) 'Delay licensing/per-unit fees for is&2s until neat fiscal year e Uses$110 for the base fee on 1&2 unit landlords rather than the proposed E 2 unit landlords would come fora unit landlords •Change the%of is&2s that would obtain licenses from 70%to 2012-13 50 • license are 60% 5 •Recognizes no licensing or per-unit fee revenues for Is and 2s •Changes the%of is&2s that would obtain licenses from 70%of the estimated 'Estimates that 80%particlpating 'Once the disproportionate participating feed established in January,keeps the 5,000 Changes to s the % 'Keeps the estimate of 80%participating and 20%not participating < and 20% not in the Program estimate of 80%partidpating and 20%not • in the program •Assumes that half of the 1-&2-unitproperties have distinct •Keeps the estimate o/BO%participating and 20%not participating in the program owners that would obtain a license(if 3,000 units go through the EXPENSES. 'Assumes that half of the 1-&2-unit properties have distinct owners that would process,that would equal 1,500 business licenses) obtain a license(if 3,000 units go through the process,that would equal 1,500 •Jul 1 start:one Business License staff person Jul 1 and Planner business licenses) position Jul 1(or sap) EXPENSES Includes: •Jan 1 start'.1 inspector •Starting one Business license staff person Jul 1 and one CEO EXPENSES: 'Delay any other positions until 2012-13 person Jul 1(or asap) •Jul 1 start:one Business license staff person Jul 1 and Planner posoon Jul 1(or 'Start other staffing for January 1 start asap( 'Sept 1 start:1 inspector,other license person STAND ALONE OPTIONS: Mayor's Recommended Budget Budget Impact New Budget Amount (Impact or each item if it were the only thing to change:) 1.Reduce participant per-unit fee from$25 to$2+ $ 446,375 $ (89,275) $ 357,100 2.charge 520 per unit Jul-Aug(rather than$15) $ 69,849 $ 15,855 $ 85,704 $ 1,495,245 $ (218,732) $ 1,276,513 3.Reduce non-particip.Per-unit fee from$342 ea$286 4.Delay 1s 62s to January 1 $ 404,038 $ (67,340) $ 336,698 5.Delay 1s 62s to 2012.13 $ 404,038 $ (404,038) $ - 0 Review Draft June 3,2011,3:00 pm Municipal Street Lighting Utility Enterprise Fund Study Proposed Scope of Work TASK I Community goals,lighting districts and service levels (rormntad:Font Bold 1. Forma representative group of street lighting utility users to gain understanding of the range of interests,desired levels of service,community values and goals.. 2. Conduct four subcommittee meetings,two PUAC meetings,two City Council meetings,and one • public input meeting. 3. Review of various service standards and understandings within the various service areas 4. Develop means of weighing lighting that benefits all vs.decorative upgrades or higher than standard lighting. 5. Develop recommendation for standards for new development. Task 2— Cost and Funding, (Formatted:Foot Bold 1. Review and assess the current condition of the street lighting infrastructure. 2. Recommend how a street lighting enterprise fund should be structured 3. Develop rate models that incorporates various approaches for billing the several property types throughout the City. 4. Develop strategies for incorporating special assessment areas and private lighting if appropriate. 5. Consider how to deal with existing special assessment areas and private lighting 6. Recommend energy efficiency improvement options.Also recommend how to incorporate efficiency savings into rate models. 7. Define the benefits of implementing a program to replace all the older,non-energy efficient lighting head throughout the City with energy efficient heads. 8. Prepare a budget to create a set-sustaining enterprise fund starting January 1,2012. 9. Prepare projected expenses and needed revenues for at least 3 service level scenarios. 10.Develop a transitional budget for the 2011—2012 Fiscal Year, 11.Develop a detailed capital and operating budget for the FY 2012-2013 12. Develop a 10 year budget FY 2012-2022 13.Develop a capital improvement and replacement strategy. 14.Create strategies for transferring differently evolved systems,private(residential initiatives),SID, various city lighting standards,into the enterprise fund. Task 3— Presentation of Study to PUAC,citizen groups and City Council I Formatted:Font Bold 1. The consultant will work closely with an appointed citizen group of approximately 20 members -- - meeting,with at least four meetings,during the review and decision process. 2. The consultant's services shall include the presentation of recommendations by November 24, 201110 the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Advisory Committee and by December 6, 2011 to the City Council. Task 4 final Report f Formatted:Font Bold Compile white papers,findings and recommendations,decision making tools,input from City personnel, PUAC,subcommittee,and public,rate analyses,into a final report. Review Draft June 3,2011,3:00 pm Task 1 Deliverables: a. Prepare a series of white papers documenting the analysis,presentation and recommendations of issues and policies raised during the study process. b. Present options for lighting service districts with recommendations c. Present options for lighting hardware efficiencies Task 2 Deliverables: (Formatted:Fat Bold ---� a. White papers on various study components b. Excel spreadsheets for detailed budgets and capital needs c. Rate models and options memorandum. Task 3 Deliverables: O 10 year CIP plan o Transitional budget O 10 year budget o Rate models o Service level and service district recommendations o Decision malting tools o Recommendations on lighting efficiencies o Public Meetings o Report o Proposed Ordinance o Comparable rates with local and national cities. Task 4 Deliverables: a. Draft of Final Report b. Final Report c. All spreadsheets for rate model d. Draft Ordinance Review Draft June 3,2011,3:00 pm Deliverables: Final report, Study of street lighting programs and funding options Reference Documents: SLC 2006 Street Lighting Master Plan, 2008 BBC Street Lighting Program and Funding Options Report, Arcview maps of existing infrastructure, Past years budgets Additional policies and information is found at http://www.slcgov.com/transportation/streetlightine/default.htm Proposed Utility Fee Increase for Additional Environmental Preservation What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts? Public comments as of June 3, 2011, 3:12 PM All Participants go o r',4 - a a - w r f . = y 4. 0 "NM -414.0. ., 0,00 4141, As with any public comment process,participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population,nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. Proposed Utility Fee Increase for Additional Environmental Preservation What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts? Introduction Salt Lake City Public Utility customers have been strong supporters of efforts to protect critical watershed lands.Would you support extending that effort to protect our urban streams? Ark Are Public comments as o1 June 3,2011,3:12 PM http'IMww.peakdemocracy com1591 Page 1 0111 Proposed Utility Fee Increase for Additional Environmental Preservation What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts? As of June 3, 2011, 3:12 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 139 Participants: 39 Hours of Public Comment: 2.0 Publlc comments es of June 3,2011,3:12 PM http:Ilaoma peakdemocracy.coml591 Page 2 0111 Proposed Utility Fee Increase for Additional Environmental Preservation What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts? •411,, All Participants Semi-anonymous in Midvale June 1,2011,10:04 AM I agree that watershed is important,I disagree in increasing taxes to resolve issues. Either find a way to make it fit in the budget and provide incentives for people to respect the watershed;or do nothing. Hidden fees,and tax increases are not an acceptable alternative for government to run to with every issue that comes up. Phil Mattingly in Salt Lake City May 30,2011, 1:36 PM I am opposed this this proposed ordinance. ANOTHER TAX? REALLY? This is only another HIDDEN TAX at a time when the city hasn't learned to live within its means like the public has to do. I am opposed for the following reasons: 1. Most of the'riparian'(love that word,it makes the ordinance sound important)land is located on Federal Land in the canyons and doesn't belong to the city. �. 2. You want to make me get a permit(another fee of course)to do any repair work on the stream that flows through my property...really? How have I managed to get by for over 100 years without your oversite? 2. It is a tax that will just get lost in the hundreds of other'fees/taxes'imposed on the public over the years with little accountability as to where the money went and how it was used,thus lacking responsibility for informing the public of what happens to the money. 3. Isn't this new tax brought to us by the same people that: a.Imposed a tax on old tires removed from your car,called it a"recycling fee". What happened to the millions that have been collected and what did you do with it as it relates to recycled tires? b.Separating the value of land under your property so they could generate more taxes,operating under the excuse that your house may go up and down in value but the land under it does not. c.Begrudgingly lowering the appraised value of our real estate to reflect the market devaluation while the tax on the property went up. d.Raising the cost of water and sewer fees a couple of years ago blaming the increase on the 'drought'the state was experiencing(so this year of excess water where is the cry to lower them?). e.Encouraging the public to create'water wise'lawns but the decrease in water consumption caused lower revenues to the city,so the same people had to raise our rates to make up for the decrease in water usage...nice move,we loved that one. f. Forcing everyone to take another garbage can to put lawn clippings in and charging them monthly for it even though there are no lawn clippings for almost 8 months of the year in SLC because of AMR, SNOW.Another nice increased tax reward to those who believed the lie of planting a'water wise'lawn Public comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM htlplMww.peekdemocracycorn/591 Page 3 of 11 Proposed Utility Fee Increase for Additional Environmental Preservation What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts? All Participants who now have very few clippings. g.Let's not forget one of the best...charge a fee for the police to protect you. Thanks to the legislature that HIDDEN TAX will be terminated at the end of this year. It was just a way to get more money which was really a tax increase but called a'fee'to make it sound better. h. An'entry fee'into Millcreek canyon you imposed which of course is just a tax on the public. So of the millions collected,what happened to the money. How much was lost in'overhead'costs to hire more employees and how much was spent on repairing the canyon? Can't wait until you have toll booths at all of the canyons. Think of all the'fees'you can collect. i.And now you also propose a"landlord"fee for every apartment in the city under the warped logic that it will help improve relationships between landlords and tenants and help reduce the'loud noise' and disruptive behavior done by tenants. Collecting more millions in this fee with stop the noise....really? And of course houses who do not have tenants but owners never create'noise'and other disruptions do they. Maybe you can fool the public into letting you charge a fee/tax on every residence using the same distorted logic in your attempt to get your hands on MORE MONEY. j. Should I go on or have I made my point? I suggest that the state pass a law that prohibits muncipalities from charging fees of any kind. They are all taxes and should be submitted as a tax each year in the budget. If you want to play the'fee game',how come you avoid any discussion of charging a per child'head fee'to each family for every kid they put in public education. That would releave the tax burden on those who have no children in school...but of course this topic is completely off limits. STOP THE CONSTANT TAX INCREASES YOU CALL"FEES". Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 30,2011, 9:19 AM I strongly support this increased fee.Paying an additional$0.75 a month is a small price to pay to invest in the future health of our riparian areas.Please,institute this fee so that we can protect and preserve the habitat we share with the non-human members of our community. John Wilkes in Salt Lake City May 28,2011,12:21 PM This proposal does not affect me,as I rent. However,were I a property owner,i would not be opposed to paying 75 cents more a month to help restore and preserve natural settings,especially our waters. I will say that I strongly believe that those individuals and corporations who are having the largest negative impact on the environment should exect to pay for environmental preservation/resoration efforts accordingly. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 28,2011, 9:04 AM The proposed tax is highly regressive and will hurt the poor much more than the rich. There seem to be many people who post here who are in favor of the tax,likely people who can afford to pay more taxes. These people should pay the tax if they choose,and if they want to raise more revenue,they Public comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM flc th.Auuc peakdemouacy.conV591 Page 0 of 11 Proposed Utility Fee Increase for Additional Environmental Preservation What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts? .-. All Participants can pay more,much more. The people who want more government services should pay and receive them. They should not,however,be able to make others who cannot afford the tax to pay it. Adam Holmes in Salt Lake City May 27,2011, 9:53 PM I support this fee as it will provide value to the community. The preservation of the watershed should be important to all citizens in the valley. I agree with one of the other comments that it should be a rate hike so that those who use the most water will pay the most. Ross Chambless in Salt Lake City May 27,2011, 3:43 PM I support this proposal for investing in our watersheds and riparian areas. The proposed fee is really not much. Although many folks might complain about these small fees,we in Utah actually pay some of the cheapest rates for water in the U.S. Along the Wasatch Front it seems that many people take our precious watersheds for granted.But the ecological health of these riparian areas directly effect our health and livelihoods in profound ways.There is much documented evidence for this.A healthier riparian ecosystem would help to reduce the discharged toxins we know are in our environment. Frankly,I view this small utility fee increase as a important investment in the long-term health of the community,my family,and myself. I also strongly support the City's efforts to encourage residents and businesses to consider the ,. impacts of impervious surfaces(ie large parking lots,roadways,concrete landscapes).When the melting snow,rain,or wasted sprinkler water washes downstream over our urban environment it contributes to much erosion,contamination from road oils and pollutants,or just wasted water.All of this adds up over time,and we will all eventually pay for it with our health! I think a billing unit system makes sense for this because it might encourage more residents and businesses to adopt xeroscaping or attractive infiltration gardens.Ultimately I think this benefits all of us. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 27,2011, 2:50 PM I think it is important to preserve watershed and water resources,especially as water usage is increasing.It makes sense for users to pay for this through utility fees.I support this budget proposal. morgan galbraith in Salt Lake City May 27,2011, 6:41 AM I do not support any increas in utility fees.If the city does care for the environment,and I know we all do,we should be more aware of the energy we waste.Maybe have a city wide tax break for those with solar or wind powered homes,not an increase in utilities.Thank you. Morgan Galbraith(homeowner) jeri fowles in Salt Lake City May 26,2011, 11:06 PM The proposed increases are very little per household per month and I think would benefit us all.As our population grows,the pressure on the natural environment around our city grows.I think anything we can do to keep our water and waterways healthy will benefit all of us. A"► Public comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM Mlp'.Ilaww.peakdenwaacy.com/591 Page Sail Proposed Utility Fee Increase for Additional Environmental Preservation What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts? All Participants Jeri Fowles Gale Dick in Salt Lake City May 26,2011, 7:15 PM Salt Lake City's programs,especially those for purchasing private land in the Wasatch Canyons,are worthy of our support. I will cheerfully pay higher utilities bills. The city's department of public utilities deserves the gratitude of every citizen of our valley. They have been protecting our watershed for more than a hundred years. Long may they thrive and remain victorious) Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 26,2011, 4:54 PM The more we pay for all utilities,the better.This will help us realize how valuable these resources are and ration them accordingly.I am in favor of this proposal. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 26,2011, 3:01 PM Fees are another term for taxes. It's time the Salt Lake City government live within its means like the rest of us have been having to do for years! Cut government staff,don't raise fees/taxes or do more with less! Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 26,2011, 1:48 PM I oppose these fees. They are small, but I(like many other commenters)feel the tax burden is increasing and think enough is enough. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 26,2011, 1:09 PM The entire premise of the statement posted on this site is absurd. The statement that this would not be an increase in"fees"is a lie. Shortly after this erroneous statement we read that the water"fees" will increase by.50 and the stormwater will increase by.25. Sorry,but did I miss something here? This is not an increase in fees but,it IS an increase in fees. The use of"fees"rather than"taxes"is a disservice to the"fee"and"tax"payers of Salt Lake City. To quote the phrase,"a rose by any other name..."a tax by any other name is still a tax,we as the tax payers cannot deduct fees where we can deduct taxes from our income taxes. So we are in reality paying more than the"fees". Please,call a tax a tax,because that is exactly what it is. In Utah a fee is just a tax but with the added burden of not being deductible. This is one more tax or fee(or whatever)that is being sold to the tax payers as being good for"(INSERT CAUSE HERE)". You can put the environment,children, safety,cyclists,whatever you want. It is still an added expense that few can afford in the current economic environment. I am retired,widowed and on fixed income with property taxes which increased at a rate in 2010 which was greater than the reduced value percentage of my property. Let me be clear,my property value decreased by about 10%and my taxes INCREASED by over 14%. I cannot afford to keep paying more and more taxes or fees or whatever you want to call them. If it waddles like a duck,looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's a DUCK. A tax increase is a tax Public comments as of June 3,2011.3'.12 PM b11p/NMne.peakdemocracy.coml591 Page 6 of 11 Proposed Utility Fee Increase for Additional Environmental Preservation What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts? All Participants increase. A fee increase is a fee increase. Mr.Mayor,with all due respect:Stop trying to sell the residents of Salt Lake City a false bill of goods! Not all of us are as stupid as you seem to think we are. We can see what you are doing to increase our costs to live in this city. I cannot afford to shop downtown and pay the parking fees so I take my money elsewhere. I am getting closer to the point where I cannot afford to live in this city yet,I cannot afford to move to another city. I cannot afford to sell my home at the current value. Residents of Salt Lake have seen their equity drop into the negatives;the price of food and fuel are rising;unemployment is,at best,flat;people are out of work and those who have jobs have not seen their wages rise to match inflation in over a decade. No matter how you label this fee,or what cause the money is for,this initiative is something that Salt Lake residents cannot afford at this time. Many of us struggle to put food on the table,keep the lights on or fuel our cars as we search for employment and this plan is going to make water,a necessity of life,more expensive at a time when some families are surviving on rice and beans,or having to get food from the food bank. This initiative,while noble,is not a good idea at this time. We,the residents of Salt Lake City and your constituents simply cannot afford any increases in taxes or fees,no matter how small. The bonds,taxes,fees,and surcharges are starving us,one nickle at a time. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 26,2011,12:01 PM — We are NOT in favor of this proposal. At a time when prices are going up at the gas pump and the grocery store,it is the wrong time to be raising fees for anything,even a small amount. It all adds up. One of us has lost a job and the other one has seen his income decline due to the bad economy. We have already been forced to pay for and house three different garbage cans on one small lot for the sake of"the environment." What about my personal environment--why does my small backyard have to be overwhelmed by three large ugly garbage bins?I think the Mayor should set up a website where those who are so concerned about the environment can donate their own money to protecting it and let the rest of us decide for ourselves how we spend what little is left of our income after we take care of our family's needs for food,shelter,transportation,education,and medical care. The Mayor needs to focus on making SLC a less expensive&safer place to live and do business,and quit thinking up new ways to nickel&dime us to death with protecting the environment. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 26,2011,10:38 AM I am not opposed to the fee.My enthusiasm would be greater if i knew that when the proceeds from the fees are used for the stated purpose(acquisition of watershed property)notification is somehow given to the people who have been levied the fee.Otherwise,it just seems like a fee increase. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 25,2011,11:13 PM We strongly support environmental preservation and would pay for it with fees Glen Elkins in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 9:44 PM I would support a$6.00 a year increase,but agree with some of the other comments that it seems owls these request are becoming more frequent,and do start to add up. Public wmmenls as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM http:/Awr`v.peakclemocracy.mmJ591 Page 7 of 11 Proposed Utility Fee Increase for Additional Environmental Preservation What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts? All Participants I oppose any further increase in fees(taxes). Richard Middleton in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 8:54 PM I strongly support the proposal to increase the existing fee so as to allow more land purchase. I know that many contributors to this discussion feel that they are being nickel and dimed to death by the mayor's various initiatives,and some of these(streetcars to Sugarhouse,or bikeways on 2nd south for example)do seem to be non-critical items that may be worthy but could be postponed until funds are not so tight. However there is a pressing need to acquire and protect land in our watersheds, especially in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons. Most people do not realize just how much private land remains in these canyons,because the issue is beneath everyone's radar until some development is proposed or actually implemented. Cautionary examples are the houses bordering Silver Lake,the massive stalled development at the mouth of Big Cottonwood,Snowbird's "Disneyland"proposal,the pressures to develop private lots in Albion Basin,and the possible tunnel linking Park City to the Cottonwoods. The time to acquire additional public land is now,before development pressures increase once the economy improves.People's need for free access to public lands for recreation(not in expensive resorts)will certainly increase in future,with rising population.I cannot believe that a fee of$0.50/month will have a perceptible impact on the vast majority of residents,but if people really feel that this is excessive,then one solution would be for Public Utilities simply to raise its tariffs on higher consumption(the tariffs at present are too low to encourage conservation or,probably,to cover long-run marginal costs)and then justify using a small part of the enhanced revenues for land purchase on the grounds that so doing maintains high raw water quality and avoids complex and expensive water treatment. As has already been pointed out,New York and other cities have done this,and are saving significant amounts of money as a result. Scott Morham in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 4:28 PM With the unemployment rate sky high,the economy in a shambles and the city taxing property at values that don't exist anymore,it's a GREAT idea to add more fees to the populace for"feel good" projects,don't you think?Forget about Goldman Sachs being a giant vampire squid sucking the life out of the little guy,we have the Salt Lake City government to do that for us!Why not fund every one of the Mayors pet projects?It's only$50 more here and then another$100 there and,oh,by the way a new bond for repatriating swampland(oh,did I forget another$250 to actually purchase the swampland)! Please save me from my government that has never found a tax it doesn't love and can't do without, can't exist exist without a continuing train of fee increases that will suck the life out of it's citizens(or should I say subjects of the crown).The definition of slavery is 100%taxation,so what does that make us when we pay 50%of our earnings in taxes to government? I oppose this fee increase! Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 2:30 PM Agree that watershed preservation is critical,but disagree with additional fees. Need to re-evaluate priorities and shift$to critical areas.Let's do away with the city funded entertainment events Public comments es of June 3,2011,3:12 PM hep:11www.peakdenwcracy com/591 Page 8 of 11 Proposed Utility Fee Increase for Additional Environmental Preservation What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts? All Participants throughout the year and shift that burden to the small minority of those attending. This would free up $s for basic services that benefit the general city population. Deborah Cartwright in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 2:27 PM Without regard to the purpose of the increase,I am opposed to ANY increase in fees,rates or otherwise.Fifty cents here and 1%there has gotten us to the staggering levels of taxation we currently endure.The city,county,state and nation must use to learn what they already have like the rest of us.It is galling to me that all these government agencies are still dreaming up new projects when the economy is in the tank.I think it is another example of job-justification.How about a study on the feasibility of downsizing government?There are too many departments,boards and committees.We are regulated,overseen and taxed to death.Enough! Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 1:57 PM This is a bad idea as WE ARE TAXED by the city for our water from the city,we are forced to pay for extra cans,and now a"feel good"tax is totally whacked.How about proposing a TAX REDUCTION and elimination of city tax on the water?How about firing the person that came up with this idea and saving more money? James Guilkey in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 1:36 PM I support increasing revenue to pursue these goals,however,it seems that it would be more fair if it 'we were done via a rate increase. This way,those who are using the most water are footing more of the bill for watershed acquisition relative to those who are frugal with their water use. Matthew Kirkegaard in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 12:57 PM I am all in favor of a fee to bolster efforts to protect the environment.Preserving watersheds is a method to protect clean water resources by allowing the natural environments to filter water,rather than having immense and expensive water processing plants do the work.Just ask New York City, whose massive upstream pristine land holdings in the Adirondack Mountains saved it billions of dollars by allowing the environment to naturally clean its water and remove silt,as opposed to building an enormous planned water processing plant.These efforts that Salt Lake is now looking into have held tried and true for other cities(New York,Bogota,Lima,etc.)and there is no reason they shouldn't work here.This fee protects open space,recreational opportunities,the natural environment and over the long run,the resources of Salt Lake City.We as a community can afford a small increase for such monumental gain,especially when the issue in question is water,a vital resource none of us can live without.Thank you Salt Lake City leaders,and Mayor Becker in particular,for having the courage to propose a necessary fee increase even in this time in America where raising any new revenue seems to be off the table.I applaud your efforts as a citizen,as you clearly know the value of conservation. Travis Jensen in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 12:13 PM I'm all for both proposals to increase the fees for environmental preservation.I'll gladly pay a few extra bucks each year. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 10:56 AM Public comments es of June 3.2011.3'.12 PM hflp//www.peaktlemocracy.com/591 Page 9 of 11 Proposed Utility Fee Increase for Additional Environmental Preservation What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts? All Participants NO MORE FEES!I already have a brown garbage can that I have no use for,and will NEVER use...and yet I am still FORCED to pay for this moronic can! ENOUGH ALREADY!! Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 10:20 AM The costs of owning property in Salt Lake City have gone up way too much lately.Environmental protections should be paid for by all citizens of Salt Lake rather than just those that own the property. As a property owner in Salt Lake City I've had to raise rents lately while my cash flow has gone down due to increase property taxes.This measure would just add insult to injury for all property owners. This is NOT the time to be spending money that the citizens don't have to give. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 10:04 AM This can be a win-win situation if the fees are only charged to those that use precious water supplies excessively.That way we can discourage excessive and unnecessary water usage and collect fees to improve our watershed.Thus,the fees should only apply to those using more than a specified amount of water per month. Ashley Eddington Hoopes in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 9:57 AM Yes. My family is willing to pay a fee to protect the environment. Our natural resources are worth preserving and just like public transportation,this is an important way to help lesson our impact on the earth. We also feel the economic pinch at this time,but feel that this is a priority and support the city's efforts. Semi-anonymous in Sandy May 25,2011, 9:56 AM While the fee is nominal,and the cause very worthwhile,I would like to know more about what the current efforts are,and how effective they have been along these lines prior to approving any new fees. Ben Mates in Salt Lake City May 25,2011, 9:56 AM I am in favor of the fee.It is a small amount to pay each month to enhance our relationship with the life-blood that flows through the landscape we inhabit. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 23,2011, 1:42 PM I oppose an increase in fees. There are many budgets that can be shaved to make this a win win but lets not burden the taxpayers anymore. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 23,2011, 9:33 AM The folks who respond to this query basically fall into two camps: Those of us who want the city government to adjust their size and scope to our lower tax base, establish priorities and stop increasing spending and taxing,AND Those who believe in the cause of the moment and want to force everyone else to pay for their cause. Many of the latter folks say they would not mind paying extra for the cause. Public comments as of June 3.2011,3:12 PM h11p//sm w.peakdemoc acy.coM591 Page 10 011 Proposed Utility Fee Increase for Additional Environmental Preservation What do you think about increasing utility fees to help pay for environmental preservation efforts? .� All Participants My suggestion is that the city put on an OPTIONAL surcharge,and guarantee that these funds will be used for the explicit purpose advertised(not evolving to the general fund). Then both sides can vote with their checkbook instead of their mouths. If you look at your water bill now,the water is basically free,but there are all kinds of government surcharges,special fees for the water suppliers,etc. The mayor must have a tin ear to be talking about raising taxes in these times. What is the mayor doing to reduce the cost of his government? C.Michael Foster in Salt Lake City May 22,2011, 8:15 AM I am in favor of the environmental preservation efforts.I am opposed to the fee or any additional taxes/fees.It's a matter of prioritizing current budgets.All projects are worthwhile,but there isn't money to fund them all.Take the proposed bike lane up the middle of 2nd South for example. Probably a good idea(as are most proposed bike lanes),but not as important as environmental preservation.The money for bike lanes could be put to much better use for things like these environmental preservation efforts.The same applies to funding studies for trolleys and cable cars- very cool,not very critical.Use that money for environmental preservation.I feel I'm drowning in little fees,bonds and taxes.All these little$3 increases add up.Enough! Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 21,2011, 1:55 PM Oppose additional fees and taxes at this time.Most people are struggling in this economic climate and the governmental burdens are becoming too high.I am in support of this policy but we need to find a way to fund it so that it does not increase the cost to the average citizen.Examples to consider might be:charge for emergency services to non-profits and apartment owners,set a policy to hire local consultants vs.higher priced out of state firms,lower the funding to various non-profits,establish a reasonalbe fee based schedule(possibly two tiered for services to non-profits that avoids double jeopardy,bike licensing fees,find a way to better harness no cost community based service from the many talented and sometimes retired professionals in the community,road tolls,etc. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City May 20,2011,12:55 PM NO-no fee increases and no tax increases of any kind for any reason. Now is not the time for it. Public comments as of June 3.2011,3:12 PM hllp:/iwww.peekclemoaacy.com/591 Page 11 of 11 Landlord Tenant Initiative Fees What do you think is a fair fee structure for landlords to pay with the goal to encourage good management of rental dwellings.in Salt Lake City? Public comments as of June 3, 2011, 3:12 PM All Participants Around Salt Lake City oto 4b ` \``\ 11�' °i+fir Vl-' 1;I r . •� . rat 41.♦ i fft'j(�i�1‘ ' t♦ • As with any public comment process,participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not 'ecessarily representative of the whole population,nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. Landlord Tenant Initiative Fees What do you think is a fair fee structure for landlords to pay with the goal to encourage good management of rental dwellings in Salt Lake City? Introduction The program will offer the tools to landlords to better manage their property and will likely reduce the number of problems or"nuisances"neighborhoods can experience with rental properties.What should its cost be to landlords? PUGic comments as of June 3.2011,3:12 PM http/Awewpaakdamarecycorn/707 Page 1 of 9 Landlord Tenant Initiative Fees What do you think is a fair fee structure for landlords to pay with the goal to encourage good management of rental dwellings in Salt Lake City? As of June 3, 2011, 3:12 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 125 Participants Around Salt Lake City: 22 Hours of Public Comment: 1.1 Public comments as o(June 3,2011,3'.12 PM mtp:llwww.peaktlemoaacycomll07 Page 2 of 9 Landlord Tenant Initiative Fees What do you think is a fair fee structure for landlords to pay with the goal to encourage good management of rental dwellings in Salt Lake City? All Participants Around Salt Lake City Semi-anonymous in District 5 June 1,2011, 1:15 PM We are NOT in favor of this increase in fees for landlords and are NOT in favor of requiring owners of 1 or 2 rental units to obtain a business license. The Mayor&City Council continue to try to increase the regulations&costs of owning property in SLC,making it more difficult for people earn a living here. It also undermines the availability of affordable rental housing for those who need it. This harms everyone in the city,as people move out to the suburbs and further diminish SLC's tax revenue and family population,which is the lifeblood of a vibrant community. Next thing we know,you will be proposing rent control! As can be seen in other Democrat-run cities in the country,this kind of taxation and regulation,however well-intentioned,ultimately contributes to urban decay. Let's stop imitating the liberal policies that have failed elsewhere and focus on what makes strong communities— entrepreneurship,family-friendly policies,and good crime control. By the way,we live in SLC but are not landlords. Semi-anonymous in District 3 May 31,2011, 6:36 PM This is nothing more than a tool for the city to encrease revenue!Stop coming up with ways to tax property owners because you can't balance a budgets!m What makes you think that collecting more money from property owners will help anyone.Our values have come down but out taxes have not!What would you do with the hundreds of thousands you would do with these funds?Create more govenrment jobs? Really is this the best you can come up with? Ashley Eddington Hoopes in District 6 May 31,2011, 11:05 AM What about a section of code that states that a landlord must provide contracted lawn services and exterior maintenance for his property or provide a lawn mower,gas for the mower and other basic handyman tools to allow the renter to keep up the property for a discount in the tenant's monthly rent? We want these renters to act like good homeowners,but what incentive do they have when they have to pay for the maintenance of a home that is not their own,out of their own pockets? This seems like a simpler way to remedy a large part of the problem. Gene Fitzgerald in District 3 May 31,2011,10:24 AM I have read the statements--90%from the poor landlords who complain about fees,taxes,and that they take care of their tenants--blah,blah,blah—If they don't make money from their properties get out—there is no requirement that they need to be landlords. I am tired of hearing about"money grabs"and all the rest--just a bunch of whiners who are not making as much money as they think they should and who want no regulation from anyone. I think this is a good program--however I have one major concern since I live in the fraternity/sorority area of the city--I would like to know if this program applies to fraternities and sororities or do those"institutions"get an exemption from this requirement? ..a Certainly if it can be shown that there is mismanagement(or lack of management altogether)they Public comments as of June 3,2011,312 PM http'./Mwvo.peakdemocrecyconu707 Page 3 of 9 Landlord Tenant Initiative Fees What do you think is a fair fee structure for landlords to pay with the goal to encourage good management of rental dwellings in Salt Lake City? All Participants Around Salt Lake City should certainly be required to pay in order to be licensed as rental dwellings. Joe Tibbs in District 1 May 31,2011, 9:48 AM After reading the proposal,I am not entirely confident that this program addresses the underlying issue of poor facility upkeep,and tenant management. Is the thought that the landlord tenant program will(for a fee)equip landlords with the skills and resources to manage their properties in a way that alleviates the blight on neighborhoods that poor upkeep of said properties provides? I do think that landlords should be held accountable for the upkeep,and maintenance of their properties,but I believe that this is already addressed through code enforcement. As a one unit landlord myself,I am not opposed to participating in the program as currently described, but I am concerned with additional fees and administrative tasks that would be required to participate. Whatever additional fees are assessed to landlords,will ultimately get passed onto tenants. One must ensure that this does not negatively affect the development of neighborhoods. I think there would be significant advantage in having a year long adoption period,with significant communication from the city prior to implementing this program. Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City May 31,2011, 1:09 AM I don't understand the proposal very well,but I am a very anti-sprawl person and even though I am liberal,I have come to understand that heightened regulation of housing could be a major inducer of outward migration from the central city. What I am getting to is that whatever is done should not have a negative impact on people's desire to live in dense environments or within the city's boundaries. I'd like to see as many people moving into apartment/condominium complexes near the CBD as possible! Glenn Sorensen in District 4 May 30,2011, 10:27 PM I own and live in a 12 unit apartment building that I keep in very good condition.I screen my tenants and take care of any problems that arise.I am opposed to any additional fees.If any are imposed, they will need to be passed on to the tenants by increasing the rent.This will make renting in SLC more expensive for tenants.The profit margin on apartment buildings is already very thin and there is significant competition with other rentals.The real estate taxes I pay already covers mine,and my tenants,fair share of city services.The current license fee should be more than sufficient to cover the cost of administering the license and the building inspections. There are some problem properties.Some landlords rent to drug dealers.With effort these are driven from neighboring buildings only to be replaced by a new drug dealing tenant.I see this as a problem with enforcement of the Section 8 criteria.Some rental single family homes have unkept yards.There is already an ordinance that addresses this.I feel the City has all the laws it needs to enforce the community standards.The cost to enforce these standards should be initially out of general revenue, then for repeat offenders the City could fine the landlord.If additional revenue is needed,the City should look to obtaining reimbursement from those not meeting community standards through fines, Pudic comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM hapJ/wwi.Peakdemoomcy.con✓707 Page 4 of 9 Landlord Tenant Initiative Fees What do you think is a fair fee structure for landlords to pay with the goal to encourage good /Ms management of rental dwellings in Salt Lake City? All Participants Around Salt Lake City like a traffic infraction ticket.I do not see why responsible landlords like me should have to raise my rents to pay for irresponsible landlords. I feel I already subsidize single family home ownership through government subsidized mortgages and mortgage interest tax advantages.Living in a single family home has a much larger environmental footprint than living in an apartment.If anything we should level the cost rather than adding even more tax to apartments. Daniel Lower in District 1 May 30,2011, 9:13 PM I would have a few questions- 1.Is this a'per year'licensing fee? Or a one-time payment? 2.Will there be additional benefits to the landlords who are taking proper measures to have good tenants(background checks,screening processes,etc?). 3.How will the Good Landlord Program be administered? 4.The higher fees for those not participating-how likely are these landlords to pay? Auk Fees can be collected,yes. However,if the police or city government are not providing services for that fee,but are merely getting more money into their budgets,how do the owners(and city residents) benefit? Scott Morham in District 5 May 30,2011, 5:02 PM Yet another money grab by the city,under this administration it seems endless.Let's make up a problem so that we can impose a fee on someone.I am not a landlord but have rented in the past 5 years.This ordinance has nothing to do with anything other than finding someone who the city thinks has pockets deep enough to loot.I am against this ordinanace. Semi-anonymous in District 5 May 30,2011, 12:01 PM Please update your summary to include more information on how these additional fees would improve the community. At first glance,it appears that the city bureaucracy is being grown,and fees are needed to support the growth. Unless there is some clear indication that our neighborhoods are going to be safer,quieter,and cleaner as result,this shouldn't be considered.For problem rentals that consume city resources(police call,etc),an ordinance allowing levying of fines(if not already in force) should be used rather than blanket licensing fees. I agree with other writers who have stated that forcing landlords to be trained is not likely to result in better landlords. Semi-anonymous in District 6 May 30,2011, 11:53 AM The premise 1 see here is that by raising costs to landlords we will see improved conditions in rental properties. That logic is completely backward. The only thing that increased costs will do is give A"+ further impetus for existing landlords to exit their business. As they dump their rental properties, w Public comments as of June 3.2011,312 PM M1tlpllwww.peakdemocraq.conJ70) Page 5 of 9 Landlord Tenant Initiative Fees What do you think is a fair fee structure for landlords to pay with the goal to encourage good management of rental dwellings in Salt Lake City? All Participants Around Salt Lake City property values decline further. The statement"nuisance rental properties"is particularly ridiculous. Rental properties are not nuisances,it is some of the people in them that are nuisances. Making rentals more expensive through taxation does nothing to get rid of the nuisance people or change their behavior. Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City May 30,2011, 11:27 AM As a former landlord of rental properties in two different cities that have this program,I can tell you it is a very bad idea.The idea behind it is flawed-that by attending some Mickey Mouse classes the landlord will now become a qualified policeman that can successfully police his tenants,and if he doesn't then the code enforcers will cite and fine him to make him do it.He will also be expected to threaten his tenants with eviction to keep them under control,and be expected to discriminate against certain classes of people,such as people with a record,and not rent to them,and even evict them if he finds they have a record after the fact. These are the so-called"tools"this program offers- threats of eviction and discrimination.Anyone that has had rentals knows that tenants are very hard to police,and that evictions can be expensive,nerve racking,and even dangerous.The job of policing should be left up to law enforcement, not landlords. The fees Salt Lake City is proposing are also very high,much higher than the two cities(West Valley City and South Salt Lake)that I have owned rentals in. In today's economic climate,landlords with one or two units have a very hard time making ends meet,in the past they usually broke even or even showed a loss,only expecting to profit when they sold their properties. With property values declining,it will be even harder to survive,and it will also be very difficult to raise rents to cover this new financial burden on the landlord. This program was such a headache that I sold my rental properties,and I would suggest anyone that considers one or two unit rentals should avoid cities that have this program,or sell them and get out. The headaches and expenses from the"good landlord"program are just not worth it,it doesn't really accomplish anything,its just a one time way to balance the budget,plain and simple.The funny thing about commenting here is that I read in a newspaper article recently that the city all ready expects to balance the budget on the income of this new program. So I really do wonder why the city is giving us the opportunity to make comments on it when its already a done deal. I suspect that in the long run it will most likely backfire and end up costing the city more with the added expense of hiring people to enforce new regulations,and possibly landlords giving up on"nursing"properties,and selling them off at lower prices,causing the values(and tax assessments)to fall even further. By the way,I live in the county now,just outside of Salt Lake City. Semi-anonymous in District 7 May 30,2011, 11:23 AM I've had lots of landlords in the past.The good ones cared about people.The bad ones didn't.I don't think making people pay to be landlords is going to make them care any more than they already do about the people who are their tenants.I think landlords should be fined when they don't provide good services and maybe those landlords need training,something similar to traffic school,to help them be Public commerOsas of June 3,2011.312 PM "tlpJ/5vw2 peakdemomacycom/l07 Page6 of9 Landlord Tenant Initiative Fees What do you think is a fair fee structure for landlords to pay with the goal to encourage good ^, management of rental dwellings in Salt Lake City? �.. All Participants Around Salt Lake City better landlords.After so many infractions,they should be forced out of the landlord business--sort of like taking their license away. Semi-anonymous in District 5 May 30,2011,10:37 AM No fee. This is a money-grab solution in search of a problem. I am a one unit owner. I love my tenant and my tenant loves me. Why do I need the supervision of a government agency? I want to take care of my property. I don't need someone taking a fee for no good and practical reason. The fee I pay(really my tenant will pay)will go to take care of other people's problems. People who are causing the problems should pay for the solution.Focus on problem property owners instead of passing the cost on to landlords who are good for no other reason than that it is the right thing to do. Aren't there things already in place to handle noise and other code violations? If the tenants are the cause of the noise,code and other nuisances,perhaps the city should consider licensing tenants rather than landlords.Landlords are not babysitters.Tenants are adults and should be held accountable. Nuisance tenants always will need a place to live. I don't want to rent to them,but they are going to live somewhere. Finally,of course,and unfortunately,this fee will be passed on to the tenant in the form of increased ,�• rent.Don't people have enough financial trouble in the world without adding another unnecessary programin the world? Deborah Cartwright in District 6 May 30,2011, 9:34 AM No more fees,licenses,inspectors,union employees,government!I am in the position of temporarily renting while I try to sell my home that otherwise sits empty due to the real estate slump.I don't feel that I should have to become a professional landlord because of the economy.Would it be better to have an empty home on a block?I wish the city would butt out.Everything that hits their radar appears to become another revenue generator.Please stop. Semi-anonymous in District 2 May 30,2011, 9:11 AM I can appreciate both sides of this argument presented so far.More taxes?Depends if it would actually change what you are oping for.This seems questionable and as some say uninforceable.On paper,it sounds good.An arbitration board makes sense.Also pay according to your footprint makes sense as well.People should be taxed according to the amount of goods and services provided to them.More children--pay per child as pointed out.I believe SLC does this with garbage collection but if not they should be charged per pound or container.It's progressive taxation.Good luck on this one. quinn mccallum-law in District 5 May 30,2011, 8:55 AM After reading the proposal and the already posted comments,I'm still digesting this. As a landlord of a triplex(that I also live in)I have been subject to a business license requirement and A"' inspections every three years and have not found it to be a problem.However,the opt-out price Public comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM h11p'//www.peakdemocracy conn707 Page 7 d 9 Landlord Tenant Initiative Fees What do you think is a fair fee structure for landlords to pay with the goal to encourage good management of rental dwellings in Salt Lake City? All Participants Around Salt Lake City seems exorbitantly high for someone like myself who keeps a property up well,so well as a matter of fact that the inspector said it was nice to come to properties like mine.I really have no idea how I could be costing the city an extra$1050 per year that I am not already paying through taxes and utilities.Especially since everything with 3 units or above is already regularly inspected on a three year cycle.I really don't think that the two-three hours he comes costs that much. I would love to see single family and duplex rental properties kept up better and think a system like this would be great.In my neighborhood the majority of rentals fit this 1-2 unit category.In fact everything residential on my block is a rental with 1 or 2 units except for mine,and it would nice to seem them held to the same standards as I am.Especially since all but one other owner are slumlords.I also have heard some horror stories of some old timer section 8 housing owners a few blocks over where tenants are afraid their toilets are going fall through the floor.I also feel that a business license is the a price of doing business and that is what rental properties are-business. So if the required business license requires inspections to be administered and repairs to be made than I am for that part or portion of the proposal.I think this could help us have a better salt lake and with more rental demand these days,quality housing. However: The rest of what is shown about the"Good Landlord Program"regarding what participation entails is unclear.I want to know more about it. I can't sign up for something without knowing the details so until then I have to say that overall I am opposed to this,even if it means the slumlords stay slumlords. Semi-anonymous in District 3 May 30,2011, 8:26 AM Less than$10 per month sounds like a deal if it is enforceable.The impacts on neighborhoods caused by rentals can be enormous,parking,traffic even garbage cans become large for many of us. These fees shouldn't all go into the general fund,some should be reserved for prosecution and enforcement.I personally think all income properties should have Street Trees. Phil Mattingly in District 6 May 30,2011, 8:23 AM I am strongly against the proposed ordinance. It is just another TAX imposed on the public to raise money and hire more union public employees. So you think you can convince the public that by landlords paying you a yearly fee it will stop"loud parties,frequent police calls,poorly kept yards,or other circumstances that create problems for neighbors and require City involvement or response time"as you claim as an excuse for the new TAX? You can use this same logic and apply it to any personal residence in the city. Why do you target 'landlords'? The reason is that you have this'tax the rich and give to the poor'mentality that prevails in the city and county elected officials that treats'bourgeois'landlords and'rich capitalists'that should pay extra while you ignore the risk and extra work that the landlords have done to provide living Public comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM tap:IMw,v.peakdemonacy.00m/707 Page 8 of 9 Landlord Tenant Initiative Fees What do you think is a fair fee structure for landlords to pay with the goal to encourage good management of rental dwellings in Salt Lake City? All Participants Around Salt Lake City spaces for the renters. This whole'fee/targeted tax'idea sounds like the'police protection fee/tax'imposed by the county and recently made illegal by the last state legislature. Now you want to target the landlords instead of every property owner and that is different from what the new law prohibits the city from doing? Who are you kidding? It must be your own liberal cabal that sits up nights trying to think of more ways to raise taxes from us. STOP THIS! Bill Shadrach in District 6 May 30,2011, 7:21 AM I like the idea that people who own more pay more!Here's what the council considers for rentals: "Proposed changes The base fee,as currently proposed,is$50.00 for one-and two-unit owners/ landlord and$100.00 for owners/landlords of properties with three or more units." This logical concept should be applied to our base property taxes based on number of people living in the home.As an example,people with a lot of children use many more school resources. Maybe a similar concept for property taxes would be: Proposed changes The base property tax,as currently proposed,is$xx.xx for families with up to 2 ..�- children under 18 years of age and 1.5 times$XX.XX for families with more than 2 children under 18 years. Semi-anonymous in District 4 May 30,2011, 7:19 AM If the City wants to collect fees from landlords to improve the quality and management of rental housing it should use the fees to establish a landlord-tenant arbitration board.This board could mediate between tenants and landlords and help enforce existing laws governing rental property. There is nothing in the law that I know of that exempts a landlord from ordinances and regulations governing sanitation,habitable condition,noise,repairs,nuisances,maintenance,and appearance applicable to all residential housing in the City.The big problem is that these rules and laws are not enforced and tenants have no recourse when dealing with a slumlord or a property owner that exploits them and milks rental property for profit.If money is collected it should be put toward enforcing existing laws,regulations,zoning,and ordinances not toward"educating"landlords.They can do that for themselves,if they care enough to be responsible business people. Stephen Hertz in District 6 May 30,2011, 6:12 AM I do not think there should be a fee. All government thinks about is fee this fee that. This is peoples choice to rent a property not government to add a fee which will not help get good renters. The renters already have a choice to call the housing people if there is a problem and same with neighbors can call the housing office and complain. Public comments as of June 3,2011,3'.12 PM bttp:l/www.peakdamocracy.comf/07 Page 9 of9 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? Public comments as of June 3, 2011, 3:12 PM All Participants Around Salt Lake City t 45.0 V ^ I i 111 :. 1{I � is—a .. it f. y. pit• Hey. i%t As with any public comment process,participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not lecessarily representative of the whole population,nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected .jfficials. Updating City Golf courses -, What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? Introduction The City is having increasing difficulty maintaining and improving the eight golf facilities(nine golf courses-Mountain Dell has two 18-hole golf courses)it owns and operates.Council could review funding options and act on those options in mid-June as part of the City Budget considerations for 2011-12. Amok Pudic comments es of June 3,2011,3:12 PM �ttp/Mww.Peaktlemoo acy com/11d Page 1 of 17 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees, or perhaps selling some golf property, to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed, where should it focus its attention? As of June 3, 2011, 3:12 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 562 Participants Around Salt Lake City: 52 Hours of Public Comment: 2.6 Public wmments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM hap JMww.peakdemocra,com/714 Page 2 of 17 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the tee, Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City gary ewers in District 7 June 3,2011,11:11 AM Past history says raising green fees doens't work-and as far as long term,selling courses in a down economy or bad weather season is bad for Golf as well.Long term-salt lake golf used to be profitable,in fact the city used surplus elsewhere in the budget.So knowing that golf can and is a profitable business,the key is getting younger players started(beginners)as well as more ladies. Offer better deals for this group.A permanent soution-selling courses-for a temporary probablem isn't a good solution.I started gold here in Salt Lake at age 3 golfed all the junior leagues and loved it. I am 41 and have found a love of this game that matches no other hobble.A commitee to find a solution may be a good option?things like social media,groupon,living social etc are all options.Lets not shrink to typical solutions keep working towards something more permanent.good luck Scott Morham in District 5 June 3,2011,11:08 AM I can see perhaps 1 or 2 municipal golf coures in SLC although I am not sure why the city is in a business that should rightfully be a private"for profit"enterprise.I do not see why taxpayers should subsidize golf.Let golfers subsidize golf.Sell all but one or two of the courses. Joe DeLuca jr outside Salt Lake City June 3,2011, 10:48 AM Increasing the fees are sometimes necessary.My wife and I play a variety of the courses and find most to be in good to fair condition base on the weather so far this year.I would suggest that maybe ".4. information on how to treat a course as a player would bring back value.I see many players abuse the "'` greens,not replace divots,drive carts too close or on the greens.Maybe a course that given would be helpful and then give players a discount for two rounds base on compleitng the course. Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City June 3,2011, 10:40 AM My suggestion would be to drop 1 or 2 golf courses. Use ALL of the profits to maintain the other ones. Also-raise golf fees by$5.00-everyone should be able to do that. Rose Park,Wing point would be my vote to sell the land. deb mcnees Ishtiaq Ferdous in District 5 June 3,2011,10:38 AM I love the fact that Salt Lake City has such resonable to low green fees.I play two 9 holes during weekdays and 18 holes on Saterday.I would not be oppose to increasing the green fees a little bit. But before we do that we should make sure we have persued all other options first.In my humble opinion follwoing thing should be considered before increasing the green fees 1.If the entry level courses like Nibley and forest Dale are not profitable and not self sustainable lets sell those and use the money to upgrade other courses. 2.Yearly passes should be more affordable and couse specific.I would gladly pay$300/$400 green fee only pass for either Bonneville,Glendale or Mountain Dale courses.But I would not pay$1000 yearly fees. 3.Revenues from thses courses should be spent on sustaining these courses and not devarted to Public comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM htlp:/Iwww,peakdemocracy com/714 Page 3 of 17 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City other city projects. 4.Streamline operation and staffs. Only increasing green fees will not fix the problem. Scot' Ninterowd outside Salt Lake City June 3,2011,10:28 AM I would play the city courses more if the Senior Rate was lowered to 60 years old and believe other seniors would follow. Seniors help take care of the course protecting it's resource. Protecting the resource equates to lower operating costs. I curt:intly play River Oaks 2-3 times a week due to the Senior Rate. Scott Winterowd Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City June 3,2011,10:26 AM I'm bothered by statements that revenues genetrated by golf are being diverted to other recreational activities in the city. While I support a broad range of outdoor activities for residents and visitors,I don't think it's right to increase green fees to"sustain"city golf courses if,in fact,the monies collected are sufficient. Nor do I think it's in the city's best interest to sell golf course land to developers to raise money for capital improvements. I agree with those who've commented that once the green spaces are lost,they're lost for good. I suspect there are many ways to increase play at the city's courses,thus increasing revenues for improvements,whether better restrooms at Mountain Dell or sprinklers at Bonneville. In short,I'm opposed to increased fees until it's evident that all revenues have been(years,decades) poured back into the courses'maintenance and operating budgets. Russ Fairless outside Salt Lake City June 3,2011, 10:13 AM I have been playing Salt Lake City golf courses 1-2 times per week for the last 24 years. I do so for several reasons. 1)They are an excellent value,great courses and affordable,especially when using the Frequent Player Discount. 2)They are well maintained. 3)They are close to home. As a retired person,raising the greens fees slightly(no more than 10%)would probably not alter the number of times I frequent SLC courses. However,raising them too much would cause me to consider looking for a cheeper venue. Also,I see in the overview where the city"subsidized"Rose Park with money to purchase the property on Redwood Road just south of the current driving range in order to facilitate the re- alignment and expansion of said driving range. However,what happened to the income from the sale of the property on hole#17 to the the school? As a non-resident of the city,I realize my opinion doesn't carry much weight. However,I have to Public comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM flttp://www.peakdemocracy.maN14 Page 4 of 17 • Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the ,06%, Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? -� All Participants Around Salt Lake City wonder why all these questions about$20 millon in capital improvments are coming up at a time of economic downturn which is a major cause in the revenue shortfall? This decreased revenue has recently been exacerbated the last two years by exceptionally cold and wet spring weather. I think under the circumstances,Salt Lake City should hold off on the capital improvments until the economic conditions improve. Some of the proposed projects have been on the books for many years. Why are they suddenly so critical at the worst of all possible times? Why wern't they critical when the economy was better and revenues were better? The city and state continue to grow and attract new people and businesses. I think the value of the local golf will play an important part in this process.I think the city should continue it's plans to sell excess property when and where it can and use this money only for the most urgent projects until the economic conditions improve. However,but be careful in defining what is urgent. Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City June 3,2011, 9:05 AM With out a question sell some of the golf courses.There is no need to have and operate this many golf courses. Golf is not on the up swing its going down,also you should Only keep the golf funds in golf.Your competetion has lowered there prices the city has not we don't play city courses any more because of what you demand for play plus the courses are not in good condition.Why play and pay ^1,. more for less.. .a,..+ There are many options charege a price for visitors,locals a price and seniors 60 and older another different price. who is your bread and butter customer? treat them well if your smart. This is a business not a need. TC Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City June 3,2011, 9:01 AM I'm not sure if the available land freed up to sell in individual building lot's would be enough to save money but the zoo might find donors to help as well.Holes 3,4,5,6,7,8,11,and 12 at Bonneville are pretty boring.Hogle Zoo is land locked and hilly very difficult for the Grandparents to go with us. Perhaps a land swap with Hogle Zoo putting nine holes on the zoo location along emigration creek moving across the road from 2 green then back across near the old 3 tee turning 8 into a longer par three(hole 12)and over to 13 tee to pick up the back nine. This would be a win for the zoo as well as a big improvement over the current front 9 a Bonneville. Semi-anonymous in District 5 June 3,2011, 8:32 AM Bonneville could start by redesigning areas such as the parking lot and driving range and correcting a couple of hole designs and selling those uninteresting golf parcels to developers who are wishing to relocate Hogle Zoo,Move the clubhouse to an area where it could share parking with the zoo and sell that parcel in addition Kent Miles in District 3 June 3,2011, 4:37 AM I have been playing Salt Lake City courses for nearly 50 years.During summer months I often play 9 holes 3-4 times a week and 18 holes on Saturday afternoons.The price of SLC golf makes this possible.My preferred courses are Wingpointe and Mt.Dell,though I also play at other SLC courses Public comments as of June 3.2011.3:12 PM httpiMwa.peakdsmooracycom//14 Page 5 of 17 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City from time to time. Before making any decisions on financing capital improvements,I would like to see a report on how SLC has used golf revenues over the past 10 to 15 years,and to see how much,if any,of greenfees generated revenue has been diverted into other programs.If there is a pattern of using SLC golf course revenues to underwrite other programs,I would like to see proposals for making SLC golf courses self-sustaining and for reserving all revenues generated by greenfees for golf only related expenditures. If this is done,then I would support modest increases in greenfees AS NEEDED to maintain a sustainable golf course management and improvement plan. SLC's golf courses are a valuable resource for the entire community,not just for those of us who golf. Many courses benefit from greenfees paid by county residents and visitors to the area.The courses certainly have an impact upon quality of life for city residents,as well as being a year round attraction for visitors. Selling golf course property for residential and commercial development is something I would discourage as being short-sighted. Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City June 2,2011,10:58 PM Golf in SLC is cheap relative to other parts of the country and I hope it stays that way.That said,I am open to modest increases to green fees in order to ensure a healthy future of golf in the city. I view the second option of selling a course as short sighted. I look at the sell of Golf City in Ogden as an example.Although the course was privately owned,the course was a city landmark. The course was sold and divided for residential development and the city lost a great recreation space and ensured the removal of golf from south Ogden City. In the place of Golf City now sits a few homes and a bunch of undeveloped lots. The point is,I am opposed to the sell of SLC courses and parks for that matter. Once our city stops protecting open green space it is gone forever. I do think other options need to be considered. SLC faces a lot of competition from other courses and recreational activities. There are things SLC needs to do to ensure golfers and other citizens want to play their rounds of golf at its courses. Promotions,clinics,advertising,course improvements,etc can be very effective. Especially when trying to overcome challenges brought about by inclement weather. Jeff Cole outside Salt Lake City June 2,2011,10:01 PM From the perspective of someone who plays golf regularly,I would prefer to see the city sell some of the golf property and keep fees the same.One of the things that makes golfing in Salt Lake a different experience than many other cities is the quality of courses combined with the relatively inexpensive greens fees.Because they are entry level courses,selling Rose Park and Nibley Park would be ideal. The quality of the course does not matter as much so selling these and using the excess operating funds to maintain courses such as Bonneville would be the best for the regular Salt Lake golfer.If a study group is formed,the group should focus its attention on those that actually play the courses. Polio comments as of June 3,2011,3'.12 PM http:IMvnxpeakdemocrecy.com/714 Page 6 oft] Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the ,. Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City The study group could be advertised in the pro shops throughout the area and the courses could even offer small greens fees discounts for those that participate in the study group. Heber Jacobsen in District 6 June 2,2011, 9:36 PM The City has persistently low-balled the maintenance on its courses. As a result the golf experience for users continues to degrade. Rather than put money back into the courses,the City has used golf revenues in other areas of the City parks Dept.budget. I have golfed City courses for over 50 years. It is terrible to see the condition of Bonneville,for example,now compared to what it used to be. Sadly I cannot endorse any plan that puts more revenue from golf in City coffers when that money will be diverted to other than golf-related areas. I would rather see the courses managed by an outside manager who would be committed to enhancing the golf course conditions. It would also be necessary to allow the manager to have a long-term contract to allow a long-range commitment to be made to improving the maintenance and general conditions of play on the courses. The City should focus its resources on what it does best. Running a golf operation is apparently not one of those areas. Semi-anonymous in District 2 June 2,2011, 9:25 PM �` Since I don't play golf I cannot really make an informed comment other than to say golf cources are green spaces and,they take a lot of water to keep them that way and this is a DESERT.i also know that many of the best golf courses are in Palm Springs,another desert.I would love to see some eco golf courses.They do exist.Again,not sure where.They are better than shopping malls and highways.Many people recreate on them. Kenneth Atkin in District 7 June 2,2011, 9:22 PM As an avid golfer who spends most of my rounds at city courses,I recognize both what we have in city golf and what is missing. However,after sitting through a presentation with Dave Terry about what he invisions for Bonneville,I feel that the City Council is not getting appropriate information about how to handle the problems. I also believe the agenda that Mr.Terry has with a few courses is inflating the cost of what truly needs to be done. For the record,I was fine with the land sale and changes at Rose Park. However,we have hidden gems in our golf courses that are not getting what they deserve. If some money were spent on those gems(specifically Wingpointe and Bonneville)the experience would be better and in my opinion even justify a raise in fees at those specific courses. However,at this time Bonneville is in dire need of some maintenance and yet until the city pays to put in an irrigation system the maintenance crew at Bonneville spends 70%of their maintenance budget on simply getting water to the course. With the weather this year,that may not be an issue. However, if in a normal year they didnt waste their time moving sprinklers,maybe the tee boxes could be fixed, the bunkers could get sand and trees could be taken care of before they fall and break or have to be ,ak. cut down. They could also water at night and stop wasting precious resources in the heat of the Public comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM hllp:/Arww.peakdemocracycorW714 Page 7 11] Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City summer. The bottom line is I urge and beg the City to recognize what a jewel has been built over the years and take a good hard look at what the real problems are and how to fix them without limiting the golf experience available to future generations. I dont think anyone would complain if some time were spent to create different tiers of city courses that cost appropriate amounts. But if courses are not maintained properly the City is likely to lose the avid golfer who actually spends more money at these courses than any other group of citizen. None of us want to see our favorite course charge more without a little thought of how to make the experience better. Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City June 2,2011, 4:59 PM Running a golf course is like a business. One needs to get the most from the available resources. I play the city courses 3 or 4 times a week and never make a reservation. Been doing that for years. There are so many unused tee times during the day,that if the city could fill them,it would solve their budget problems. The city killed the reasonable pass program many years ago and put into place one that is expensive and has little benefit. My suggestions would be to offer the annual pass at a price around$300 to $500 dollars. The lower end would be for youths for summer play during the week and 2 or 3 PM on weekends. Market and sell the passes and give passholder priority tee time bookings,say 2 or 3 days ahead of non pass holders and discounts on the range and pro-shop. Maybe even 10 or 15 percent discount at the grill. If you don't get the golfer on your property,you have no opportunity to get any of his money. You need to have the right incentive for people to buy the pass besides just play. The objective of selling more passes at lower rates is to create competition for tee times. Sell as many passes as possible so the pass holders are now competing for times. For the peak times this may create a random drawing to award the tee time,but more of the other times will be utilized. The golfer that goes out once or twice a month is not the big money for the golf course. The pass holder has made a committment to play the city courses over other valley courses. When he has a visitor,the pass holder will probably go to a city course. The pass holder is hoping to play enough golf on the pass so he breaks even or reduces his cost per round less than the going fee. On the other side,the city gets the upfront money and hopes he will not break even. Do a break even analysis on each course and compare total possible tee times and ones actually used. Look at the costs to run,maintain,and improve the course a see where the break even would be. This is the marketing challenge. When you can show that you have filled the unused tee times and you are still running a deficit,then look to raise fees. I have been told that senior pass holder in the past have taken all of the morning times during the week and have left none available for anyone else. No cash in the till and they spend little money at the course. My answer to that is to sell so many of the passes that the seniors are fighting for the times. If they want to play,they will get latter times. The one that comes out on this is the city. You have all that upfront money and the competition for times rest with the golfers. Public comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM bt¢p:l/vrvnx.PeakdamOOracy coiMl4 Page 8 off? • Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the Am% Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City June 2,2011, 4:34 PM I have been an avid golfer since the age of 6.I moved to Salt Lake City around 5 years ago from Michigan.There was a tremendous difference between the golf markets between the two areas.Salt Lake has one thing going when it comes to golf,and that's price.You get what your paying for here. The city courses are inexpensive,but you are not anticipating Pinehurst.I feel that paying more fees will deter people from getting out and playing their local course.The convenient locations,and price are the determining factor around here.If prices are raised,golfers will then start utilizing the more upscale courses such as Thanksgiving point. In regards to selling some golf property,I feel that this would be a better idea.There are a large number of courses within a small geographical area.I feel that with a focused effort strategic courses can stay alive to be the focus for easy and convenient golf in Salt Lake. Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City June 2,2011, 4:31 PM Public golf in Utah is probably the best value in the country,and so you would think that there is room to raise fees. However,the Salt Lake City owned courses face a lot of local competition,so it is very easy for golfers to shift where they play if SLC raises its fees,and the fees are already a bit above average. Since the amount of golf played is down,it is even easier for golfers to play other courses because tee times are plentiful. Thus,I suspect it makes the most sense for SLC to shut down and sell one of its golf operations. Joseph Rook outside Salt Lake City June 2,2011, 3:55 PM I sincerely doubt an increase in fees would offset the loss of revenue from those who choose to play elsewhere. I would agree with the statements of others that golf courses be accorded parity with other parks and recreation operations in terms of funding,particularly since the golf courses do provide a revenue source whereas other parks and recreation activities are pure cost centers. If it should become necessary to sell a course,the course being sold should be one which a proposed developer will pay a premium for the underlying real estate. If a study group is formed,it should focus on an analysis of golf revenues and expenses compared to other parks and recreation funding and making sure that golf courses are not singled out for exceptional treatment. I would add that if a study group is formed,it should include some members of the players of these courses to insure the"common man's"opinions are heard and considered. Kevin Higgins in District 3 June 2,2011, 3:52 PM Salt Lake City golf courses are a wonderful resource that add a lot of value to the quality of life here. ' ' Play is affordable,the facilities are reasonably well maintained,and the staff is welcoming and helpful. Public comments as of June 3.2011.3:12 PM http:llwww.peakclemocrary.com/714 Page 9 of 17 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City If there is pressure on the maintenance budget,then I would suggest a modest and gradual increase in fees,rather than selling off course property. Once the property is sold,it is gone for good,and when the proceeds of the sale are used up,the pressure on the maintenance budget will return. Moreover,there is no assurance that the proceeds from a sale would stay in the golf budget and not be diverted for another purpose. If a course is closed,that will result in more crowding and slower play at the remaining courses.if that happens,the solution to deal with increased crowds would be to raise fees anyway. It is better to address maintenance budget issues head on and raise the fees if that is what is needed to keep the courses in good repair. Also,for those residents who think the golf courses are something they would never use,I would suggest that one never knows. I lived in Salt Lake City 25 years before getting on a city course. Now I play on one every weekend that I can. Jim Adamson in District 4 June 2,2011, 3:51 PM Salt Lake City courses are near and dear to my heart I've been playing them for 48 years.I agree with one of the comments I read I think the income flow from each course should be compared to the cost to maintain that course.I don't think it's a good idea to raise fees everywhere and then use the income on one of the courses that did not generate it.I would raise fees where the demand is the highest.For example,a$10-15 increase at Mountain Dell would probably affect play less than doing the same increase at Rose Park.I would also support increases that maintain or increase the course's condition. Jeff Barnard in District 6 June 2,2011, 3:47 PM Salt Lake City has great public golf courses.I would seel a couple of courses and up grade the remaining locations.As a matter of fact I think Bonniville should be redesigned by Jack Nichlaus(or other amazing architect)and really upgrade to world class.Fewer courses,but better courses is my point. Dave Myers outside Salt Lake City June 2,2011, 3:36 PM First,I would question the assumption that golf courses should not be subsidized. SLC recently paid nearly$1 million for a consultant's study about whether to build a broadway style theater downtown. Where did that money come from and why can't similar amounts be spent on activities that affect more people? Also,why should tennis courts and parks and gardens be subsidized and not golf courses? That said,I don't object to a small increase in fees if and when necessary to keep courses open. Second,if,as some suggest,the City turns a course into open space or a park,it should only be on the basis that the park doesn't require a subsidy(if that's the basis for closing the course). Pulabc comments as of June 3.2011,3-12 PM htlp://www.peakdemocmcycomhOl4 Page 10 of 17 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City Third,SLC should get together with SL County and Murray and whoever else runs public golf courses in the valley and turn the management of all the courses over to a single entity(probably a private company)that can eliminate duplication and run all the courses more efficiently(such as a single place to schedule a tee time or consolidated course and equipment maintenance). Most golfers don't choose a course based on whether it is located in the City or the County,but rather if it's close or if they can get a tee time or if they like the course or if it's cheap. The new management company can raise fees on the courses with the highest demand and give discounts on the courses with the lowest demand. Profits from the best courses can be used to subsidize the low-use courses(instead of money going to or coming from general government revenue)and they can be improved to create demand. Eventually,if a low-use course is a drain on the others,shut it down. Blake Christensen in District 6 June 2,2011, 3:34 PM I would be in favor of a slight fee increase,but I struggle to see why the city would consider selling off any golf course property. Although the economy and weather have had a negative effect on golf course income,at least golf courses come close to breaking even. I would venture to guess that golf courses are one of the few pieces of the SLC parks and rec department that generate revenue and come close to breaking even. If selling land is necessary to raise cash,why not sell a city park(that doesn't generate a dime of revenue?) Why should the city invest millions of dollars on a soccer complex that will never generate revenue? Obviously all parks and rec facilities will not cover their own costs(that is why we are willing to cover these facilities'costs with tax dollars.) I just don't understand why the attitude is different with golf courses than other parks and rec facilities. Golf courses at least cover most of their costs in a down economy,and these courses actually generate positive revenue in a better economy! Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City June 2,2011, 3:28 PM I think the options should be evaluated and a cost/benefit analysis be completed. Some possible questions to consider: 1.What is the present short-fall,and how much would fees and revenues have to change to make up the difference? 2.Would raising fees actually diminish the amount of play because some%of people may not want to pay that&/or would reduce their play time as a result. 3.Can play&revenue be increased by better marketing,particularly to out-of-state visitors?We have great courses,seems we can get more people to play them with the right messages. 4.How would one-time sales of property affect the overall future operations budget,and with the loss of those courses,would the problem essentially remain for the others? 5.What have other cities done,and how do our mgt&fees compare? 6.What cost-reduction options exist,from cutting hours,to other operations innovations? 7.Where are the strongest revenues now,and can those be expanded? Public comments es of June 3.2011,3:12 PM http://wmv.peakdemocracy comf714 Page 11 of 17 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the I Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City Like the State Liquor store discussion,cutting profitable features is not probably the best way to achieve the goals. Cutting strong money losers might be if it does not strongly affect overall quality. In the end,I'd pay slightly higher fees if that was what was needed to keep our courses. Semi-anonymous in District 6 June 2,2011, 3:12 PM Don't increase fees more than the customary number per year. Sell properties or seek alternative funding. Alex lorg outside Salt Lake City June 2,2011, 3:10 PM I would encourage the city to think outside of the box on this issue,and perhaps consider how to sell individual passes per golf or driving range per course. The pass choices now are too expensive,but if I could pay$300.00 for an individual green fee's only pass to one course that is affordable and worth my money,or an odd hours pass I would be much more willing to consider getting or giving a pass- the$1,000+passes just don't do it. I don't know what the price is that would make it worth it,but I would hope that the city would be able to come up with other pass options and promote these passes. Make it easier to go golfing more,less expensive over all.The courses should not be run as a single corporation,but more like conglomerated companies,they need to keep their individuality and have the ability to promote and run their course to compete with all other courses in the area. Also what are you doing with local businesses that are in the area-food courts-advertisements- sponsorships of tournements. As far as I am concerned the courses and city does a pathetic job at incorporating the local community. I imagine that you will just raise fees because that is the easiest thing to do,if that is the case sell the damn courses at least we will have someone in there who is trying to make them profitable. Did the council ask the clerks and grounds keepers and pros their ideas?they are closest to the action they probably have some good ideas. One of the biggest problems is advertisement-a golf course is not an advertisement in itself! Joseph Doubek in District 7 June 2,2011, 1:55 PM Each golf course should be evaluated by comparing the income from golf fees to the cost of maintaining the facility. If subsidys are needed for one or more golf courses pick the one that needs the largest subsidy and raise its fees. If the higher fees reduce the number of golfers and the needed subsidy is larger,sell the property and see if the other courses get enough increased business to make them viable. If not,repeat the process until the remaining golf courses require little or no subsidys. Semi-anonymous in District 4 June 2,2011, 11:39 AM If golf courses are sold the fees will go up anyway-my position,raise fees. Tim Roberts in District 4 June 2,2011,11:26 AM I love our city courses.Please keep them open and affordable. Public comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM h11p:/twevcpeakdemooecycoml71,1 Page 12 of 17 • Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the ,.014,, Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? ..«` All Participants Around Salt Lake City I am not much of a golfer but my kids LOVE golf.They use the golf courses all the time and have taken many classes and clinics. This would not be possible in most cities. What a great way to spend a day as a youth. Salt Lake City is nationally recognized as one of the best cities for golfers because of the number of public city golf courses and because it is so affordable. Raise the fees first before selling off property. Once the property is sold there is no recourse but there may be a change in the economy. Semi-anonymous in District 3 June 2,2011,10:52 AM The amount of land maintained for golf should match the demand. The city should retain ownership of the land,but use it for less expensive and more popular uses. I am not a golfer,but I am a year round gardener. I have never understood the appeal of living next to a golf course,but I would love to live near a large community garden space with a greenhouses and perhaps other facilities that promote community self-reliance,such as space for livestock animals or a tool library. That seems to be what people need right now,that is re-skilling,reconnecting,and productive work. Ben Mates in District 7 June 2,2011, 9:49 AM I am not a golfer.Even if I were,I would have to question the sense of maintaining such a water- intensive sport in the middle of a desert.Since the cost of water is increasing,it only makes sense to shift the cost of that water to the ones who are using it. Auk Semi-anonymous in District 4 June 2,2011, 9:33 AM I am in strong support of maintaining the City owned Golf Courses as open space by increasing fees to cover the costs to maintain these areas.The fee should be reviewed and adjusted to potentially lower or increase the costs to allow for changes in the economic climate.Further,every possible efficiency should be implemented so that the cost to maintain the course is completed in the most cost effective manner.Having said that,it would be nice to have one course or a program that is primarily"free"so that those among us who have a lower income are not cut out of this City ammenity and so that our young people can learn to play this sport at a low cost. Possibly,the City could consider expanding the retail side of each property by allowing private shops to lease space,etc.to help underwrite the cost of the sport or a relationship with the Universties (Athletic/MBA programs could be utilized where the students run/teach/etc.for credit/internships thereby cutting the cost to the City yet giving practical experience to students.Are there ways for the City to harness grannts or donations to maintain this open space? If this land were to be used for other things,it should be turned into park/open space versus sold for development and housing density.This City is already too low on our open and green space within the City. Semi-anonymous in District 7 June 2,2011, 9:17 AM Golf is a declining pastime,the courses are losing money and are a tremendous waste of water.I don't know about the SLC courses,but most use a tremendous amount of chemicals and fertilizers to keep Au"k the grass green.These chemicals end up in the ground water.Why not convert at least one course to "" Public comments as of June 3,2011.3'.12 PM hbpJh+"w.peakdemomacycorn/714 Page 13 of 17 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City open space or a xeroscape park that the public at large can benefit from?Definitely agree with other posters that they should not be sold.This land should not leave the public domain. Alex Gonzales outside Salt Lake City June 2,2011, 9:15 AM Raising fees is the most logical answer.But it could be modeled after how some other cities do it.The highest fees during the peak of the season and at peak hours.Reduced fees during off hours and off season would encourage players to get out there and keep our courses used. Semi-anonymous in District 7 June 2,2011, 8:49 AM I am very impressed with the quality and diversity of the SLC golf courses. Bonneville,Mountain Dell and Wing Pointe are superb and challenging public courses. The several other courses all have their unique personality and market niche. All are easily accessible. To sell off any of them due to a short term financial shortfall would be a shame. I am in favor of increased fees to offset the shortfall. Our local golf fees are already quite low when compared to those outside of Utah,and maybe low compared to the surrounding area. I don't know, because my golfing needs are satisfied by City courses and an occasional round at Wasatch Mountain State Park. Concession prices could be bumped up a bit,but I am guessing that additional revenue would be relatively small. By the way,the employees of the City golf courses,in every department,are always very helpful and friendly. They also appear to be very diligent in their work. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion. Semi-anonymous in District 6 June 2,2011, 8:45 AM The Salt Lake Valley already has too many publicly owned golf courses. Several years ago,in the height of the economic bubble,there was a news story about how we have oversaturated the area with golf courses;some courses could go an entire weekend and only see a handful of tee times. This level of use is not enough to sustain the facilities. If a golf course is not bringing in enough money to break even for the year,the city should consider closing it and allowing it to return to"open space." Mayor Becker is proposing a hike in fees for water use and storm water at a time when many families are behind on the mortgage and trying to put food on the table. Instead of increasing fees for open space while trying to maintain costly and largely un- used golf courses the city should reduce their expenses by closing under performing courses and cancel plans to raise taxes on water. This plan would save the city money by reducing water consumption,reducing fuel and maintenance costs for maintenance vehicles and golf carts,and provide the public open space the city desires. The public would have new open-space to enjoy where once there was a paid-use golf course and there are still enough golf courses in the valley for golfers to enjoy. Carol Kramer outside Salt Lake City June 2,2011, 8:27 AM Public comma.as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM hbp:nvosov peakdemocracy com/I10 Page 10 of 17 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City I agree with many of the other posts on this question stating that the open space of the city golf courses should not be sold. In some of the areas where the city courses are located,it is the only open space remaining. In addition,the city courses offer an affordable way for people to begin golfing which I did on these courses as a young person. Without the public course option,the private courses are just too expensive for many families to afford. Maybe a few ideas the study group could look at would be to explore if there were other revenue-producing uses that the property could support during the off-seasons. Maybe other municipal courses around the country have done something like this as I'm sure they are in much the same boat. A small increase in the green fees seem reasonable too for Adults and Seniors. I would keep the under 17 fees the same. Do you offer a season pass? I see a 3-round punch pass offered for Jordan River but maybe offering a season pass would bring in some additional funds for people who want to pay once and play all season. And I think it might end up working like a gym membership where people buy it but don't use it as much as they think they will(know this from personal experience!). Or in a worst case scenario,maybe you suspend operations at one or more of the courses for a year or two until the economy gets a little better. You would still have maintenance costs but you would not have personnel costs for that time. Another wild idea is that golf courses are really huge lawns and gardens that are expertly maintained. Maybe there could be some kind of gardening classes that teach people how you do it— that could be a revenue producer. Or bird/wildlife watching? Or exercise classes held in the beautiful surroundings of the golf course? Or star-gazing at night? Since no one can golf at night maybe there are other night-time activities that could produce revenue. Good Luck! Thanks for all your efforts to keep these recreational opportunities available to everyone. Semi-anonymous in District 6 June 2,2011, 8:17 AM Our City's golf courses are a great asset and costs absolutely need to be figured into green fees. Surrounding courses are facing the same issues so migration of customers shouldn't be a long-term factor. I'm fine with paying higher green fees for a course in good shape and not over-crowded. It would be interesting,however,to see if the City would be capable of lowering the fees later on when costs dropped. Semi-anonymous in District 7 June 2,2011, 8:14 AM I completely agree with the comment from the person from Baltimore(I too used to live in the Washington area). Go with professional management for both maintenance and long term planning. In forming whatever"study group"you envision,please be sure there are representatives other than just city employees and consultants dependent upon city contracts. Semi-anonymous in District 3 June 2,2011, 7:37 AM I rarely play golf because it is already too expensive. If you want to lose my business altogether,go ahead and raise the fees. I think Salt Lake City residents should be given some specials to encourage them to play more. When I do play golf it's usually at Stonebridge or Eaglewood...not in ,..% SLC...because they do offer coupon deals and special rates for early/late play. If you want to increase Public comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM hflp:f/www.peakdemocrecycom//10 Page 15 of17 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the 'Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City revenue,increase the number of paid rounds,even discounted rounds. Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City June 2,2011, 7:15 AM The golf courses are valuable as open space and should be maintained.The increase in fees will not stop usage. Semi-anonymous in District 7 June 2,2011, 6:44 AM While spring weather has not been conducive for golfing,thus causing decreased revenues for City- owned courses,it would be an absolute shame to even consider selling any existing courses for development to raise revenues. Golfing is still one of the few affordable means of recreation available in Salt Lake City,and the 9 hole courses are especially popular with both old and young golfers alike. Other funding options need to be explored,such as the possibility of raising of fees,and I would also suggest that the revenue shortfalls are in great part due to the long,wet,cold spring that we have been experiencing. Bottom line,the open space and recreation offered by our City owned golf courses needs to be maintained at all costs—it also seems contrary to consider selling the existing courses to developers, especially with our current administration and its"pro-green"initiatives. Sugarhouse Resident Bob Brister in District 5 June 2,2011, 6:28 AM Convert golf courses into parks. Glen Elkins in District 5 June 1,2011, 10:28 PM It would be a shame to lose any of the city golf courses.If fee increases are required to keep them, then do it.Having said that,fee hikes could be counter productive.Some city amenities are worthy of support from general tax revenues;golf courses,in my opinion,fall in that category.To me,they are like parks...open green spaces offering outdoor recreation to everyone.They enhance our community. Semi-anonymous in District 6 June 1,2011, 7:57 PM OFF LEASH DOG AREAS ARE NON-EXISTENT IN SLC AFTER THE MAYOR'S RECENT RESTRICTION IN PARLEYS. PLEASE CONSIDER USING GOLF PROPERTY FOR OFF LEASH DOG AREAS. Calvin Bond in District 5 June 1,2011, 5:51 PM I think anything should be done to preserve the city-owned golf courses.I feel they are as important to a city as it's parks.No one would consider selling Liberty Park,would they? My hometown,Baltimore,MD,had the same problem about 20-25 years ago.The solution was for the City to retain ownership and a non-profit corporation,the Baltimore Municipal Golf Corporation,was PubI:c comments as of June 3.2011.3:12 PM httpIAvww.peakdem aacy coM/10 Page 16 of 17 Updating City Golf courses What do you think about paying more fees,or perhaps selling some golf property,to help sustain all the Salt Lake City owned golf courses?If a study group is formed,where should it focus its attention? All Participants Around Salt Lake City created to run the courses,raise funds for maintainence,etc.I believe it was the first such formed in the country.It's still going strong.They've done a wonderful job of maintaining those courses in a very urban environment(4 of the 5 are within city limits).If anyone's interested,here's a link to their webpage,www.classic5golf.com/.Or just websearch,Baltimore Municipal Golf Corp. Brian Peterson outside Salt Lake City June 1,2011, 4:29 PM I am a golfer and agree with the excerpt in the article that talks about golfers patronizing other local courses.I have to admit that I don't even play half of the SLC courses,but the few I do play I really like.Also,I do not live in SLC,rather a neighboring city in the Salt Lake valley.With that said,if I know the fee is more to golf on a SLC course,I'm definitely not going to travel the extra distance while wasting time and money just to play that course.Especially if I can play a county or private course for the same price it has been.So rather than get the revenue you would normally get from me,now you're pulling in nothing.But still paying out more in the cost to keep a course up and running.If the city elects to sell property or raise taxes,I have no control over that.But I do have control over which of your courses I choose to play.If your prices can't compete,your customers will go elsewhere. Sometimes you have to cut your losses,not always push that back on the customer. Suzanne Stensaas in District 7 June 1,2011, 2:23 PM I am not a golfer. I am a proponent of open space. Buying more open land is very expensive,witness .00+, the cost of the additional 2.5 acres for a driving range(approx$600,000). The space adjacent to golf courses could be used in the future for parks,soccer,pools,clubhouses,community center,etc.as our population increases. Thus,selling off property is NOT an option I would support.I don't know where you are going to get 22 million,certainly not by raising fees. Seniors could pay more as there are more of us and the boomers may not be as economically challenged right now as the regular adults. We want to encourage the youth and keep their fees low. Jokingly,I would raise the cart fees, and maybe people would walk more! However,that would not generate income.Perhaps we should raise taxes. We can't have more services and maintain our infrastructure without somebody paying. Public comments as of June 3,2011,3:12 PM hllp:lAww.peskdemovary mn✓714 Page 17 of 17 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 7,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director RE: Council Office Budget options—Fiscal Year 2012 This memo pertains to the Council Office's annual budget for Fiscal Year 2012. As a general point of reference the Council Office budget makes up approximately 1%of the general fund budget($2.1 million),as does the Mayor's Office Budget($2.42 million). The Council Office has 23.13 authorized 1N1hs,which includes 7 Council Member positions. Council Member positions are counted as 1'1 bs although the salary assumes a part-time commitment.The Council Office currently houses 17.13 traditional Full Time Equivalent positions. The Mayor's Office has 23 1•fhs proposed for the FY 2012 budget. Each year the Council establishes an operating office budget for the next year to be included in the final adopted budget. The budget is not usually analyzed or altered by the Administration,but rather is funded at the level directed by the City Council.Staff has provided the following for Council consideration. As a courtesy the Mayor traditionally advances funding within his budget to move the Council Office budget forward in the coming year including the salary/benefit and other changes recommended for other City Departments. Budget Change Description Required Option 1 $0 The Mayor's recommended budget includes year to year adjustments to account Mayor's Recommended for reclassifications,proposed salary increases,insurance/pension adjustments, Budget and Budget Amendments. Option 2 $0 The Council could consider adding a Regular Part Time(RPT)employee using Bring pan-time existing funds t to address public communication or other priorities identified by communications the Council. (estimated salary with benefits$56,637)Note: Funding flexibility is assistance in-house to available due to staff turnover which naturally results in experienced staff being expand Communication replaced with nem staff paid at entry-level. The flexibility is also due to the decision for Function(RPT) this current fiscal year to include $91,000 in general fund money to replace initially Maintenance of Councildiscussed CDBG funds This approach would still allow the Council to maintain Priority flexibility the flexibility that the Council has had in the past year to address specific policy priorities with seasonal assistance(redistricting,technology/website, consolidated fee schedule) Option 3 $37,000 The Council could consider adding a Full Time Communications position to the Bring part-time Council Office staffing document(estimated cost$93,514 to/ In order to communications add this position as well as maintain the flexibility that the Council has had in assistance in-house to the past year to address specific priorities with seasonal assistance(redistricting, expand Communication technology/website,consolidated fee schedule),Council Staff estimates that the Function(F t ti) Council would need to add$37,000 to the current proposed FY 2012 budget Maintenance of CouncilThis would allow the Council to have flexibility and address priorities with Priority flexibility seasonal assistance as they arise,as well as increase the level of communications/public information from the Council Office. 1 The Council may wish to discuss the proposed budget options and make any changes as desired. .� Points of information that are unique to the Council Office budget,and an additional item the Council may wish to consider funding is included at the end of this memo. Staff will include the budget as determined by the Council in the overall City budget for the upcoming budget adoption. The following chart is a summary of the proposed FY 2012 Council Office budget: Council Office Budget Summary Proposed FY 2012 Budget 'Salaries $ 1,300,052 Benefits 538,686 Subtotal Salaries&Benefits 1,838,738 Auditing/Legal(Includes$91,000 CDBG restoration) 197,216 I Materials&Supplies(office supplies,copy charges,periodicals,other) 16,300 ;Communications Telephone IMS Contract(actual charge-$14,223) 12,000 Telephone-all other(including cell phones,Internet,air cards,etc) 25,372 Computer/Office Equipment-Including lease expenses 14,200 Council Member Communication Budgets($3,700eachyear) 25,900 Meetings , Council Meeting Expenses 12,006 In-City Con entions/Workshops 6,000 '"1 Out of Town Traoel 15,000 Professional Memberships 600 Other 1,362 Capital Outlay/Equipment 2,000 Total Council Office Budget 2,166,694 Other Potential Discussion Points- A. Personnel Contingency-The Council may wish to evaluate adding a personnel contingency line item. This approach would not be necessary in a larger Department's budget,but could be very helpful in a budget the size of the City Council's. Minor changes relating to personnel can have significant budget impact. For example,the addition of family insurance coverage for a single employee could cause a fluctuation of$8,000 in the budget. One employee taking six week's Family Medical Leave at a time when their position needs to be filled by a temporary could add an expense of$5,000 or more. City Departments pick up their own costs for employees on disability and are also responsible to cover any unemployment costs,these are additional potential costs that can't be estimated in advance but for which some flexibility is usually desirable. Again,these costs are easier to absorb in a larger budget than in a smaller budget. • A personnel contingency line item could also better define the degree to which hourly professional staff can be retained to address Council Policy Priorities. Career development costs, including costs associated with employees who hold professional certifications(not currently budgeted) could be addressed in this manner. A personnel contingency line item could also serve to address any equity adjustments as authorized by the Council. 2 • It should be noted that there is at least some degree of flexibility built in to each of the budget options being presented for Council consideration. The degree of flexibility within the budget is influenced by employee turnover,actual vs.budgeted insurance costs,use of hourly employees to address Council priority projects or FMLA leave,Short Term Disability payments, actual vs.budgeted usage of other Council budget line items as well as other traditional budget factors. • If the Council wishes to be more certain about having the flexibility to address items noted in the paragraphs above,the Council may wish to consider appropriating a lump sum personnel contingency amount in the budget. The addition of anywhere from$10,000 to $40,000 could be justified to preserve flexibility. As an alternative,if significant unanticipated expenses occurred in a single year the Council could elect to reduce other expenditures or consider adding funds in a mid-year budget opening. B. Communication Budget-Communication budgets for each Council Member are tracked on a calendar year basis to tie in with terms of office. However,actual funding of this line item is based on a fiscal year(lily-June). Staff just wants to draw this to the attention of Council Members because this is another line item in which there can be significant fluctuation just depending upon circumstance. The potential exists that a Council Member could spend their full Communication budget before the end of the year in keeping with Council policy, in a year that they leave office, and that an in-coming Council Member would then need a new communications budget. To date this has not happened. The amount included annually in this budget is simply an estimate based on historical use. The communications budget accounting is further complicated by the policy that allows funds to be'carried over'for six months. If we had a year where all Council Members spent all authorized amounts,and we had a change in Council Members,we would need to come to the Council for further instruction or perhaps a budget opening. Staff does not see a need to increase this budget at this time,but raises it as an example of an element of the budget that is difficult to predict. In order to plan for all possible contingencies,this budget could be increased. C. Travel-Currently travel is based on the attached Council policy. Traditionally the Council has not budgeted the resources that would be necessary if all Council Members chose to take advantage of the opportunities allowed by policy. This has not posed a problem to date because the Council Office budget has been able to absorb actual travel costs based on savings from other line items within the budget and because not all Council Members have elected to travel to the functions authorized. If all Council Members did express interest in attending all authorized functions the savings from other line items would not be adequate to fund the travel and fulfill the policy. Council Chair Love has suggested that at some point in the near future the Council examine its policy in an effort to match the available resources with the policy and avoid any equity or budget issues in the future. In sum,currently,the travel item is another element of the budget that is difficult to estimate because it is based upon the availability and interests of the seven Council Members in office at a given time. It is further influenced by whether any Council Members serve on national committees and have an obligation to attend quarterly meetings. Within a fiscal year when a new Council Member comes in to office that person's interests and philosophy about attending out-of-town training could further impact the budget. For now the travel budget is not in urgent need of attention but staff raises it to be sure Council Members are aware that fluctuations in this area can have a dramatic impact on the Council's budget. 3 **MOTION SHEET BUDGET AMENDMENT#4** JUNE 7, 2011 The Council is holding a public hearing on the proposed budget Amendment on June 7th at 7pm. The Council may wish to consider adopting some budget amendment items and leaving others open for discussion at the June 14`h work session and formal meeting. MOTIONS: This motion adopts the whole budget amendment except for various items to be considered separately: ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2010- 2011 budget as proposed by the Administration, items A-1 through A-20, and Council Item I-1, with the following changes: • Adding a $10,000 allocation from Fund Balance for fireworks at Sugar House Park in July of 2011, to be combined with current funding, for a total allocation for the July 2011 event of $15,000. • Deferring items A-6 (900 South Corridor Trail&Bike lane), and A-11 (200 South Bicycle Lane Pilot Project) to be discussed and considered at a future meeting. LEGISLATIVE INTENTS: Based on the Council's work session discussion,following are some Legislative Intent Statement for your consideration. • It is the intent of the Council that the Administration return with recommended policy guidelines for how to spend the remaining funds from the one—time payment from the Landfill. A1O PLEASE SEE A- Il FROM 5/31 A As, \ 9 . _pe Z. NEWS RELEASE SUGAR HOUSE PARK FIREWORKS PROGRAM RECEIVES CITY AND PRIVATE SUPPORT FOR 2011 SHOW June XXXXXXXXXXXXX,2011 Media Contact:Dan Weist 801.535.7600 dan.weist@slcaov.com The Salt Lake City Council has formally approved its financial support for various July 4t"celebrations in the City this year,including one fireworks program that previously had been cancelled but is back on track to help honor our nation's Independence Day. On Tuesday,Salt Lake City Council Members voted to contribute a total of$15,000 to the Sugar House fireworks program. The City also is supporting fireworks programs planned for Jordan Park,the Gallivan Center and an event in Liberty Park on the 24th of July. The 2011 Sugar House Park fireworks program is an annual show which thrills thousands who flock to the centrally-located park.But a lack of funding had jeopardized the program from getting off the ground this year,noted Scott Workman,a volunteer organizer who announced last month the fireworks had been cancelled. But celebrating the holiday is likely to get much noisier this year in Sugar House,thanks to the generosity of the RC Willey Home Furnishings company,Salt Lake City leaders and others that have pledged donations to the celebration.The Utah-based RC Willey company,in cooperation with Salt Lake City and Sugar House Fireworks organizers,has donated funds to continue a night of holiday entertainment. Workman said RC Willey's contribution,at$25,000,helped reverse the decision to cancel the show."I'm overwhelmed.I went from a low to a high about the fireworks program.I'm so thankful for RC Willey stepping in to save a decades-old tradition,"said Workman. more Sugar House Park is part of City Council District Seven represented by Salt Lake City Council Member ..� Soren Simonsen."The Sugar House Fireworks have been a part of our community as long as many of us can remember.As government funding sources have dwindled,it is inspiring to see how important this event has become to the community,and the many businesses and residents who have stepped forward in large ways and small to keep the tradition going,"said Simonsen. The RC Willey company,with store locations throughout the Wasatch Front,said supporting the community is part of its mission. "We feel that helping ensure the tradition of the Sugar House fireworks continues is just a small way we can say thank you to our community and customers who have supported us for so many years,"said Scott Hymas,CEO of RC Willey. ### Parking Ticket Analysis City Council Work Session June 7, 2011 Parking Tickets Issued 140,000 -V --8% -2% -1% 79iD 120,000 ■ — —— -9% 100,000 ■ ■ II 80,000 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 60,000 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 40,000 ■ ■ ■ ■ 20,000 ■ ■ ■ Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Tickets Issued 138,733 128,291 126,170 125,333 116,946 106,448 A decrease of -23% in six years. Parking Enforcement Expenses $1,200,000 +60% +3% -2% -3% -2% $1,000,000 -- $800,000 " $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $- Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09* FY10 FY11 Expenses $654,465 $1,050,070 $1,079,034 $1,059,099 $1,022,744 $1,005,239 FTE 15 15 15 16 16 16 Seasonal 4.28 4.28 4.28 1 4.76 4.76 2.44 *Added one Senior Parking Enforcement Officer. 0 M 1111111 Parking Tic et Revenue +28% $4,000,000 -4% -796 $3,500,000 +7% $3,000,000 $2,500,000 ■ ■ ■ $2,000,000 ■ ■ ■ ■ $1,500,000 ■ ■ ■ ■ $1,000,000 ■ ■ ■ ■ $500,000 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ $- Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09* FY10** FY11 Revenues $3,135,372 $2,908,607 $3,102,615 $3,969,208 $3,820,844 $3,543,598 *Civil penalties increased and ticket fees increased 50%. ** Late fees increased. Parking Tickets Revenue Revenue Budgeted vs.Actual Revenue Collected $5,000,000 -S-Revenue Budget }Revenue Collected $4,500,000 $4,000,000 82% 81% $3,500,000 85% $3,000,000 86% r— 100% 86%* 85% $2,500,000 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Forecasted FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09** FY10 FY11 FY12 Budget $3,650,000 $3,440,000 $3,100,157 $4,831,495 $4,716,365 $4,165,816 $3,900,000 Collected $3,135,372 $2,908,607 $3,102,615 $3,969,208 $3,820,844 $3,543,598 $3,354,000* Tickets Issued 138,733 128,291 126,170 125,333 116,946 106,448 TBD * Forecast based on average of last six years. ** Civil • ialties increased and ticket fees incre;•?d 50%. Parking Enforcement City Council Overview June 7, 2011 Parking Taskforce • Created by City Council and The Administration in September 2010 • Departments Represented: • Department of the Mayor • City Council • Finance Department • Public Services — Compliance Justice Courts • • Operation Review Objective • An operational review was conducted of the Parking Enforcement ticketing processes and procedures. Objective: Gain an understanding of the ticket process, evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiencies of the procedures, and attempt to determine why the number of tickets has decreased from 140,194 tickets in FY2oo6 to a projected io6,1o8 in FY2o11. Summary Based on the operational review a number of recommendations have emerge that may help compliance. The audit has shown a decline in tickets since 2006. We believe that there are many contributing factors that could have an impact on the number of parking tickets. Some of the suggestions have already been implemented while other will take a bit longer to implement. The audit consisted of both data analysis and interviews conducted with Parking Enforcement Officers. A few of our findings as it pertains to the interviews conducted with the Parking Enforcement Officers were as follows: 1. Work Performance standard are not established. 2 The need for enhanced supervision of Parking Enforcement Officers. 3. The need for clearer policies as it pertains to the marking of tires. This audit showed that there can not be any one cause that is easily attributed to the decline in parking tickets, but that there are several changes that need to be implemented in order to create a productive workforce when in comes to the issuance and processing of all parking ickets. l •