03/27/2002 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2002
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Wednesday, March
27, 2002, at 4:30 p.m. in Room 326, Council Committee Room, City County Building, 451
South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy
Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, and Dale Lambert.
Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ross C.
"Rocky" Anderson; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor;
Mary Guy-Sell, Community and Economic Development/Olympics; Russell Weeks, Council
Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Sylvia Jones,
Council Constituent Liaison; Nancy Tessman, Library Director; Everett Joyce,
Environmental Planning and Urban Design/Ordinances Planner; Lehua Weaver, Council Staff
Assistant; Parviz Rokhva, Public Services Technical Planner - CIP/Olympics; Rocky
Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; D.J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Stephen
Goldsmith, Planning Director; Dan Mule' , City Treasurer; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long
Range Planner; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; and Beverly Jones,
Deputy City Recorder.
Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 4:37 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM
#1. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE LIBRARY BLOCK. View Attachment
Nancy Tessman, Russell Weeks, and D.J. Baxter briefed the Council from the
attached handouts.
Ms. Tessman referred to a handout called Library Square Phasing Diagrams. She
explained the four different construction phases. She said if part of Phase II could
be funded and completed, then work would not be replicated. She said an additional
$500,000 would be needed to begin the public process.
Mr. Weeks reviewed nine options for the Council' s consideration. See attached
handout.
Councilmember Buhler asked if a Library Block Master Plan was needed because a
Central City Master Plan would be considered this summer. Cindy Gust-Jenson said the
City did not have an ordinance which would require a master plan for the block. She
said it was a policy decision made by the Council.
Councilmember Jergensen asked when the Central City Master Plan would be
completed. Mr. Weeks said the plan would be forwarded to the Council in July.
Councilmember Jergensen asked how the Central City Master Plan addressed housing in
the neighborhood. Stephen Goldsmith said the plan called for a corridor which would
create housing between 300 and 700 East. He said there was a transit oriented
development corridor from 300 to 600 South.
Councilmember Saxton said she felt the Council should consider open space on the
eastside of the block. She said she wanted to proceed with Phase I only. She said
there had been no public discussion on open space.
Councilmember Buhler asked if any Council Members were not in favor of the
development of the east part of the Library Block as open space. All Council Members
02 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27 , 2002
were in favor of open space.
Councilmember Buhler asked what the Administration's plans were to finance the
development of the block. He asked about operation, maintenance and programming once
the block was completed. Mr. Baxter said they wanted direction and guidance from the
Council about how to proceed. He said some direction would help with fundraising
efforts and would enable the Administration to bring the Council a concrete proposal
as part of the budget update for the year.
Councilmember Christensen asked where the $500,000 would come from if extra bond
interest did not exist. Rocky Fluhart said when the Council adopted the Fiscal Year
2002-2003 budget, they left over $5 million of one-time money which had not yet been
appropriated.
Councilmember Buhler asked if all Council Members agreed that whatever was
decided tonight would be incorporated into a resolution and adopted on Tuesday, April
2, 2002. All Council Members were in favor.
Councilmember Buhler asked if all Council Members wanted to put this issue on
the April 2nd agenda and hold a public hearing. All Council Members were in favor.
Councilmember Jergensen said he wanted to modify Option No. 2. He said he wanted
to spend the $1.1 million to move the dirt in a manner consistent with eventual open
space use. He said he also wanted to suggest the allocation of $500,000 to move
forward with the public process. Councilmember Buhler said procedurally, the Council
would approve the spending of up to $500, 000 and ask the Administration to come back
to the Council with a funding source.
Councilmember Turner said he wanted to consider Phase I and II together to
expedite the process. Councilmember Buhler said that was an option.
Councilmember Jergensen said he wanted staff to come back with a proposal for
the $2.2 million needed for Phase II. Councilmember Buhler said he wanted funding
sources identified for Phases III and IV. He said one obvious source was money the
City would receive from the State for the City's investment in Olympic facilities. He
said that should be approximately $5 to $6 million. He said the downside was the City
might not receive the money until May 2003. He said he would be comfortable with doing
Phase I plus part of Phase II. He said they could wait until money was received before
proceeding any further.
Councilmember Saxton said anything past Phase I would lock the City into the
design currently before the Council. She said she wanted to discuss the Library Block
design because she wanted to see a more reasonable design. She said she wanted
something useable until the public process had been completed.
Council Members Christensen and Saxton supported Option No. 2.
Councilmember Lambert said he supported Phase I with $1.1 million because the
Council kept their options open. He said decisions needed to be made. He said a
public process needed to be outlined so there was a timeline from which to work.
A straw poll was taken on the following issues:
1. ) Whether the City Council supported the concept of open space for the remaining
eastern four acres. The $1.1 million contained in the general obligation bonds
previously issued for the Library would be approved and authorized to move earth in a
manner consistent with an eventual open space use.
02 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2002
2. ) Consider future appropriations with the expectation that the Administration would
come back during the regular budget process or at some later time with a specific
funding proposal including proposed revenue sources for:
Design
Development
Operations and Maintenance
Programming
Long-term maintenance plans for any significant or specialized features
3. ) That the Administration provide additional information on revenue sources of a
proposed $500,000 identified as necessary to proceed with a more detailed schematic
plan of phased designs in the study titled, Library Square, by Civitas Inc. and specific
information about how the $500,000 would be spent.
4. ) That the Administration provide two options for public and City Council
consideration - one based on the final phase of design in the Library Square study and
the other based on a more modest, less formal design than the final design phase in
the Library Square study.
5. ) That the Administration provide information on the inclusion of an element
commemorating the 2002 Winter Olympics within the open space.
6. ) That the Administration outline a public process by which the public could
evaluate the two options and provide comment about the options to the Administration
and the City Council.
7. ) That the City Council not consider issuing more bonds beyond the $84 million in
general obligation bonds authorized by Salt Lake City voters for the Main Library
project.
8. ) That the Administration provide specific information on:
Proposed revenue sources for all four phases of open-space development depicted in the
Library Square study.
Long-term maintenance and operating costs of minimally developed open space and fully
developed open space.
Proposed revenue sources for operating and maintenance costs.
All Council Members were in favor.
Mr. Weeks asked if the $500, 000 was included in the motion. Councilmember Buhler
said the amount was included, but it needed to be identified as to where it would come
from and how it would be spent.
The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
bj
02 - 3
March 2002
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND SUPPORTED DEBT
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Balance Annual Debt ;. G ;:
.Purpose
Comments
6/30/02 Service Ge Ye.jt ail Fund'::
FY02-03 :...... .....................:........<
.. •'..; .'_.. ....:„,„ General Fund debt service
General Obligation- ::� :..:..::.........:.....
City/County Building "'»"""" does not include $567,590
restoration $21,085,000 $2,987,320 '` 41
9rl } due from the County.
,,:;; Final payment-June 2011.
MBA-Baseball stadium, ....... ....... General Fund debt service
Circuit Court Parking,
Parks, Fire Stations, $20,035,000 $3,304,860 $2986f}'' does not include amounts
°''>..':::>...... ... from Golf Fund or from RDA.
Forest Dale Clubhouse, '>=s>' '» > '>' Final payment-Oct 2014
Streets ....................................... p ym
Motor Fuel-California ...................... Final payment in FY02-03
$1,425,000 $1,501,950 :: .> . interest of$76,950
Ave, 400 West, etc. .. >:.,::::<; including .
..... :::::::::::` Debt service does not
MBA- Plaza 349 office ..... "'..................... include amounts from Golf
building, refinancing of $12,550,000 $474,120 r t?
Golf Course bonds .. ;..........................................:>. enterprise fund.
..:...
•
Final payment-Oct 2019
::t;: «._<; ;;;:'> Debt service is interest only
".,•, since principal is not due
MBA-Ice Sheet, Fire ''` "'` > until Oct 2008. General
Training, Gateway $24,935,000 $1,373,820 '$6°l'3`10 Fund debt service does not
infrastructure
"" include funding from RDA.
- Final payment-Oct 2019
Debt service in FY02-03 of
$6,816,088 has not been
General Obligation bonds $72,275,000 S6,816,090 included since a separate
- Library block • tax was authorized by
voters.
Final payment-June 2019
Motor Fuel-Gateway
$4,215,000 $726,070 ?$7207(] Final payment- Feb 2009
infrastructure
Debt service amount is for
MBA-Justice Court ::.. FY04 since FY03 is to be
Building, Police Precinct $11,855,000 $807,170 $07 1'7 3 paid primarily from
Station capitalized interest.
Final payment- Feb 2017
Total $168,375,000 $17,991,400 :$8935;2.10
Percent of CIP budget appropriated for 62%
debt service
Percent of General Fund revenue 5 % .
Constituent Comments regarding the Library Block
Constituent Name Comment District Date received
Douglas Palmer - More open space Property Owner, 3/27/2002
_ -Cultural gathering places for community County resident
with Family&friends
Mary Lee Peters -Open Space THREE 3/26/2002
Mel Fullmer -Olympic Legacy Park, place for the County 3/21/2002
Olympic cauldron
Salt Lake Arts Academy -Academy to be housed on Library n/a 3/25/2002
Square, shared space with Global Artways-
showing how community&schools can
work together
Gerard Tully -"Civic anchor to downtown" FIVE 3/26/2002
- Not housing on the block
Block 18 - Landscaping to emphasize Olympic FOUR 3/25/2002
memorabilia, native/drough tolerant foliage
-Open space for community use
Monica Whalen -Open/green space,which is lacking in FOUR 3/22/2002
the City-Gallivan has towering buildings
closing in the area
Central City Community Council -Council voted that the Library Block FOUR 3/28/2002
Ana Archuleta (Chair) should include both low-income housing
and open space
Buba Roth -Which organizations are allowed to be n/a 3/11/2002
Utah Peace Institute housed on the Library Block?
Grace Sperry - Not low-income housing SEVEN 3/26/2002
-open/green space
Ray Pugsley, Scott Kisling, Justin -open/green space SEVEN 3/27/2002
Jones, Alic Edvalson, Kevan - housing needed downtown, but open
Adams, Lynne Olson (Sugar House space will aid in attracting potential
Community Council) residents
Kevin Hammond - Place Olympic cauldron on the block West Valley 3/22/2002
"Copies of the comments received by the Council office are available. 3/27/2002
E/
•
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 22,2002
TO: City Council Members •
FROM: Russell Weeks,Cindy Gust-Jenson,Janice Jardine,Michael Sears
RE: Library Block Discussion
CC: Rocky Fluhart,D.J.Baxter,Nancy Tessman,Margaret Hunt,
Stephen Goldsmith,Joel Paterson
This memorandum is intended to address a number of issues raised by City Council
Members at the February 28 briefing on the future of the four eastern acres of what is known as
the Library Block.
The bulk of the information for the City Council's consideration is contained in seven
attachments to the memorandum.The attachments are:
1. A tentative timeline for City Council action on issues involving the eastern part of the
block.
2. Options the City Council may wish to consider at its March 27 discussion.
3. The Administration's response to questions the City Council raised at the February 28
meeting.It should be noted that the Administration's responses are in italics. In some
cases,the responses are followed by information from City Council staff.The staff
information is in bold and is preceded by"Council staff'in italics.
4. A written memo provided by the Library System and its consultant, Civitas,that
addresses phasing of the eastern portion of the block,and pros and cons of phasing.
5. Diagrams of potential phasing provided by Civitas.
6. A copy of City Council housing policies.
7. A Capital Improvements Program review.
Also by way of review,Council staff has incorporated the following sections of its
February 26 memorandum addressing Civitas' study titled Library Square.
LIBRARY SQUARE KEY POINTS
The study appears to recommend:
• That"further development of the east side of Library Square should proceed into the next
level of detailed design."(Page 19.)
• That development of the east side of the block as open space will cost between$5 million
and$5.5 million. The study notes that$1.2 million currently is available for the project
and that$3.8 million to$4.2 million remains to be raised. (Page 19.)
1
That a small-area plan may be needed as an"intermediate step"to make potential zoning changes
in the area around the block"appropriate and effective."The area contemplated for the small-area plan
would be bordered by State Street,700 East Street,200 South Street and 600 South Street.(Pages 19
and 20.)
LIBRARY SQUARE OBSERVATIONS
The study noted that the new main library under construction"will serve as a... year-
round civic gathering place with an active public plaza and a strong relationship to the historic
City&County Building."(Page 3.)
The study also noted that the block's eastern four acres constitute an"unresolved piece"
of the block's future development.Developing the eastern four acres as open space would help
create a"common ground"that would benefit the entire city and the neighborhood surrounding it.
(Pages 3,4,5.)
According to the study:
"Salt Lake needs a permanent,generously sized place for year-round large and small
gatherings.Unlike a neighborhood park,Library Square's cultural,educational and open space uses
will appeal to a broad range of residents,valley-wide. ...
The central neighborhoods on the east side of downtown Salt Lake are
dramatically under-built.Vast areas of open land and surface parking characterize the
area,with an ever-diminishing supply of decent,affordable housing.Current zoning and
land values encourage the razing of homes for low-rise offices,which further diminish
land values while consuming large areas to meet parking demand."(Page 4.)
The study acknowledges that City government is nearing completion of the Central City
Master Plan and is working on transit-oriented zoning to apply to the light rail line on the 400
South corridor. (Page 19.)However,it suggests that the City may want to undertake a
"multifaceted,neighborhood plan"for a smaller area around the Library Block. The plan would
include an overlay zone that would contain"policies,tools,and incentives that would guide
future neighborhood development."(Page 11.)
DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
There appear to remain two main issues involving the future development of the eastern
four acres of the Library Block:
• Would making the eastern four acres into open space in itself promote the development
of housing around its periphery?
• How would Salt Lake City pay to develop open space on the eastern four acres?
By way of background,development of the eastern four acres of the block was not included in the
$84 million bond passed by voters in November 1998.One reason for not including money in the bond
for development of the eastern four acres was the proposed master plan for the block recommended for
adoption by the Planning Commission in June 1998 foresaw full development of the block in 10 to 20
years.The bond election was based on that master plan.
The$84 million included:
• $52.7 million—design,construction and furnishing of new main library.
2
• $1.95 million—expansion of the Sprague and Anderson-Foothill branch libraries.
• $12.2 million—construction of an underground parking garage.
•• $2.5 million—demolition of Metropolitan Hall of Justice,court buildings and
underground parking garage.
• $2.2 million—construction of plaza area on western side of the block.
• $2 million—replacement of boiler serving the City&County Building and new
and existing main libraries.
• $6.8 million—design fees and contingencies.
• $3 million—underwriters charges,bond issuance costs and other items.
About$1.2 million of the$84 million was allocated to return the eastern four acres of the
block to usable space after the Metropolitan Hall of Justice was demolished.
HOUSING ISSUES
Discussion of housing issues involving the Library Block first arose in 2000 when the
Administration and the new library's architect moved away from viewing the eastern four acres
as a site for mixed uses including housing.A new master plan to make the eastern four blocks
open space was presented to the Planning Commission on August 17,2000,and received a
favorable recommendation.
A key point of the new plan was that attractive open space would encourage housing
development around the periphery of the block.However,some members of the City Council saw
the use of open space as a net loss of 121 housing units because at one point the new library's
architect had designed a series of garden apartments on the eastern four acres as a possible use for
the site.
A December 6,2001,memorandum from the Mayor to the City Council included a
discussion of zoning around the Library Block. (Please see Attachment No. 2.)The document and
a March 2,2001,City Council staff memorandum contain the following information about zoning
in the area around the block.
Downtown-1 Central Business District:"Although the D-1 District allows multi-family
housing,there is no limit on the development of non-residential structures,nor are there
provisions to force a mix of uses."
CC Corridor Commercial: "The Administration intends to replace the CC District
along 400 South with a new Transit Corridor District that will allow greater building heights, ...
encourage mixed-use development and restrict certain auto-intensive uses such as drive through
operations."
R-MU Residential Mixed Use District: "The R MU zoning in the East Downtown
planning area has not been overly successful in attracting mixed-use residential projects that take
advantage of the additional building height. Even though the R-MU District allows 75 to 125 foot
mixed-use buildings,the provision to allow up to three stories of non-residential uses has proven
to be a disincentive for developers to provide housing. Developers are able to generate a
sufficient return on their investment solely from the commercial use of the property."
RO Residential/Office District:The RO District encourages the preservation of exiting
residential development by requiring a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet for new
3
commercial construction.However,this district does not force new development to include a
residential component.If a developer can assemble 20,000 square feet or more of property,the
RO District allows enough commercial density to provide a sufficient investment return without
adding a residential component."
D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District:The D-3 District includes language
that strongly encourages the mix of commercial and office uses with residential dwellings,but
there is not an absolute requirement to force the mix of uses.Because of the number of multiple
story warehouses and the mixed-use controls contained in the D-3 regulations,a number of
mixed-use projects exist.
Earlier presentations by the Administration to the City Council also included three other
options to encourage housing around the Library Block.
• Rezone the block faces on 300 East and 500 East streets to a high-density residential
district such as RMF-75 High Density Multi-family Residential District.The
Administration noted that all existing commercial development in the rezoned area would
become non-conforming uses.
• Create a hybrid similar to a Residential Mixed Use District that would require
commercial development to include a housing component.
• Create a"civic overlay"along block faces surrounding the Library Block that would
require a residential component in all new development.The overlay would extend to a
depth of 300 feet from the block face.The overlay also would contain a process similar to
one used by the Historic Landmark Commission in which a developer of a solely
commercial project would have to prove that a significant economic hardship would
result if a residential component were included in the development.
FINANCIAL ISSUES
An Administration transmittal in 2001 suggest three options for funding development of
the eastern four acres of the Library Block:
• A fund raising campaign could generate a significant amount of finding for needed
improvements on the Library Block.
• The City could generate money through a bond election.
• A special improvement district could be created to generate money.This process would
generate funds by assessing property owners within the SID over a 5 to 10 year period.
However,the City would need to demonstrate that the improvements generate a direct
benefit for the property owners within the SID.The most common use of special
improvement districts is for street improvements.
However,the City Council may have several options for developing the Library Block's
eastern four acres. Some of the options may be contingent on other events. Other options may
have to be explored more fully. All options probably will have to be weighed against other
priorities or issues involving the City.
4
n
Options include:
1.. Using some of the estimated$6.45 million in potential revenue generated by the
2002 Winter Olympics.The City Council placed$5.8 million of the potential
revenue into fund balance for the 2002-2003 fiscal year.The council also
discussed allocating at least a portion of the money to developing the eastern four
acres.However,the sum remains an estimate contingent upon how the Winter
Olympics fared.
2. Another potential Olympics related revenue source might be the return of Salt
Lake City's share of sales tax revenue diverted to help build Olympics facilities.
State Law 63A-7-113 titled Disbursement of the Olympic Special Revenue Fund
mandates that Salt Lake City should receive its share of sales tax diverted to help
build Olympic facilities no later than May 5,2003.The City also would receive
interest on the diverted money. Off-the-cuff estimates generally place the amount
Salt Lake City should receive at about$5 million.However,the diversion may be
contingent upon the success of the Olympics and the Legislature's willingness
not to change the law.
3. There may be another method of bonding for developing the eastern four acres
besides seeking another general obligation bond.The City might issue bonds
under the Municipal Building Authority.That would have to be researched.
4. The RDA Board of Directors also might appropriate funds in budgets between
2002 and 2008.It also might issue bonds.However,the bonds would have to be
paid off by the 2008 expiration date of the CBD Project Area,according to RDA
staff.
5. It might be possible to use some of the interest earnings on the bond to help
develop the eastern four acres.However,there are two caveats. The first is that it
is City Council staff's understanding that the bulk of the interest earnings from
the bond is earmarked to pay for the construction of the new main library.The
second is,according to a telephone voice mail to Council staff in December,the
counsel for the bond issue said that using interest earnings to develop a formal
green space is a gray area that might require legal research.
6. Another possible method of generating money to develop the area is a special
improvement district in which the Salt Lake City Library System pays the
assessment as the adjoining property owner.That method has not been
researched,and neither the Library Board of Trustees nor the library
administration has been approached about the possibility.
5
' Attachment No. 1
Library Block
Tentative Time Line
Relating to actions of the City Council
March 22, 2002
General Information:
•
Consultants have provided information on `incremental phasing' of
construction.
Evaluation of bond market and interest rates is continual to help
ensure proper timing on issuance of remaining $3 million in bonds.
It is likely that the steps for that process will come before the
Council in late summer or early fall.
There are some issues that will come to the Council in the coming
months that relate to the area that surrounds the Library Block.
They are not included in this schedule because they are related
indirectly, rather than directly. These include:
1. Transit Oriented Zoning (recommended to be applied
along 400 South and in other areas of the City).
2. Walkable Communities (recommended to be applied
along 400 South and in other areas of the City).
3. Housing Overlay (recommended to be applied to the
area between State Street and 700 East and 300
South to 600 South.)
4. Single Room Occupancy zoning (recommended to be
applied to the downtown, transit corridor, gateway,
RMU, RO, RMF-75 zoning classifications and the area
between South Temple to 900 South and 500 West to
300 East).
5. Overland Development rezoning (recommend to be
applied to properties between 300 and 400 South and
500 and 600 East; relates to the potential development
of about 300 housing units in this area).
Council Actions directly associated with Library Block and
estimated time lines:
1
March 27 — Council discussion on east side of Library Block.
• March 27 — Information may be available from State on when
the City's portion of the Olympic re-payment will be available.
The repayment from the State Olympic Special Revenue Fund
is approximately $5 million. Utah Code Section 63A-7-113 sets
the latest date that Salt Lake City can be paid back at May 5,
2003.
• April 1 — Library contractor begins moving dirt.
• April 2 — Possible Council resolution on Library Block east side
(if support is expressed for this approach on March 27).
• May, 2002 — On-going revenue projections for the City and
Library available.
• May, 2002 -- Capital Improvement Budget provided (possibly
available as early as April for review). The below list is
speculation on the part of Council staff; it does not represent a
request from the Administration.
o Consider appropriating additional $3 million and additional
interest income to conclude Library construction.
o Appropriate additional debt service.
o Consider appropriating funding for design & build
components of east side of Library Block. (Possibly
including an estimated amount for funds raised by the
Administration and Library)
• Consider costs of operation and maintenance as
they relate to the proposed design and use of the
block, although the block won't be fully functioning
until at least 2003.
• Consider costs of programming the block, although
the block won't be fully functioning until at least
2003.
•
■ Recognize that the use of the block will evolve over
time and operations, maintenance and
programming needs will change.
• May, 2002 — General Fund Budget
o Budget Opening for biennial budget for the City re: 2002-
2003.
o Adopt annual budget for the Library.
o Adopt tax rate adequate to service Library debt.
o Review amount appropriated for maintenance of east side
of Library Block in original biennial budget and update as
necessary.
•
• July, 2002 — Central City Master Plan is forwarded to City
Council by Administration.
• August, 2002 — Council is briefed on Central City Master Plan.
• August/ September — Council holds hearing and formally
considers Central City Master Plan.
• August/ September— Council is briefed on Library Block
Master Plan. (This is available now in our office. To date the
Council has indicated that it should be scheduled following the
presentation of the Central City Master Plan.)
• August / September — Bond issuance process may take place,
depending upon market conditions. Council votes are a
necessary part of process.
• September — Council holds hearing and formally considers
Library Block Master Plan.
3
September — October— Council is briefed on proposal to
change zoning on Library Block to allow for retail uses
associated with Library.
• September— October— Council is briefed on proposed Keysor
Place street closure on the Library block (approximately 445
South).
• September— October— Council holds hearing and formally
considers proposed Keysor Place street closure (approximately
445 South).
• October— November— Council holds hearing and formally
considers zoning request re: retail uses.
• January, 2003 — Library opens
• May 2003 — General Fund Budget for 2003-2004; 2004-2005
presented
o Council considers funding level for programming on east
side of block as part of budget process.
o Council considers funding level for operations and
maintenance on east side of block as part of budget
process.
4
. 1
• Attachment No. 2
Library Block
Potential Options
Relating to actions of the City Council
March 22, 2002
Possible options include but are not limited to:
1. Consider updating (confirming or opposing) the previous
Council's straw poll which expressed support of open space for
the east side of the Library Block.
2. Consider being more specific, and indicating whether the
Council supports: Moving ahead in spending the $1.1 million to
move the dirt in a manner consistent with an eventual open
space use (not necessarily the specific open space use as
outlined in the Civitas report) with the understanding that the
Administration will come back during the regular budget
process or at some later time with a proposal regarding funding
for:
a. Design
b. Development
c. Operations and Maintenance
d. Programming
e. Long-term maintenance plans for any
significant or specialized features (fountains,
etc.)
3. Moving ahead in spending the $1.1 million to move the dirt in a
manner consistent with an eventual open space use
(Consistent with the specific open space use as outlined in the
Civitas report), with the understanding that the Administration
will come back during the regular budget process or at some
later time with a proposal regarding funding for:
a. Design
b. Development
c. Operations and Maintenance
d. Programming
e. Long-term maintenance plans for any
significant or specializ d features(fountains,
etc.)
4. Moving ahead in spending the$1.1 million to move the dirt in a
manner consistent with an eventual temporary parking lot use.
5. Moving ahead in spending the$1.1 million to move the dirt in a
manner that is consistent with an eventual open space use, but
in a manner that also does not preclude other design or use
decisions.
6. Spending as little as possible of the$1.1 million to move the dirt
in a manner that allows the project to be'buttoned up'in an
orderly manner, possibly including grass. Placing the issue on
hold until the master plans and budget issues are fully
addressed.
7. Moving ahead in spending the$1.1 million to move the dirt in a
manner that would be consistent with an eventual housing use
on the block.
8. Consider whether the Council would be willing to formalize their
informal decision in a resolution that could be considered on
April 2.
9. Consider whether the Council would like to add other specific
parameters to any informal or formal action it takes. Examples
mentioned by Council Members include:
• An indication that the Council will not consider
bonding as part of the funding of this project.
• An indication that the Council will not appropriate
general fund monies to start the actual construction
until all estimated contributions and funding sources
are formally secured.
. .
■ An indication that the Council would prefer that a
legacy endowment fund be s t up to provid for
maintenance costs associated with special features,
such as fountains.
The Council could also discuss whether Members would be willing to
consider appropriating additional design funds in the next budget
opening to move ahead with one of the approaches outlined above.
The Council may not want to make commitments on funding beyond
the current $1.1 million prior to seeing the full budget proposal for
2002-2003, the final report on the Olympic budget, and the final
budget opening for the current fiscal year.
Note: As noted in the time line, the Council has previously decided to
schedule consideration of the Library Block Master Plan following
consideration of the Central City Master Plan. The consideration of
both plans would include public hearings. Depending upon how far
the Council elects to go with the above alternatives, the master plan
hearings could be held after some of the construction is completed.
Attachment No. 3
Administration Response to City Council Ouestions: Library Block
From: D.J.Baxter
Date: March 15, 2002
Below are the questions submitted to the Administration by the City Council pertaining
to the Library Block,accompanied by the Administration's responses in italics.Please note that at
the request of the Council staff,we have not included the full text of information already
submitted to the City Council,but rather have referred to the document in which the information
was originally submitted. Please direct any questions to D.J. Baxter or Nancy Tessman.
1. What is the vacancy rate for housing,particularly multi-family housing,in Salt
Lake City?
The current vacancy rate for multi family housing in Salt Lake County is 7.1%. The multi-
family rate for Salt Lake City is 6.9%.
•
2. Are there other locations in the downtown area where 121 units of housing can be
built?
Please see December 6, 2001 Memo,pp. 11-12, "B. Current Housing Projects in the Works
Near the Library,"and pp. 13-14, "E. City-owned/controlled Land"
Council Staff According to the pages cited in the Administration's December 6,2001
memorandum,the Planning Division currently is working with several developers
interested in the East Downtown area.The memorandum continues:
One of these developers is exploring a mixed-use,mixed-income
development two blocks north of Library Square.The Planning Division
has been working closely with the developer's principals and architect on
creating a mix of housing types and commercial uses that will complement
the city's goals in the East Downtown. These include:
• A mix of housing types,including rental units,condominiums,town homes
and live/work spaces;
• A mix of commercial uses,including office and retail space; and
• Amenities for other downtown residents and workers,including restaurants
and entertainment establishments.
The Planning Division understands that the developer will close on
the property the week of December 3,2001,and hopes to announce a
ground-breaking after the Olympics.The project's plans include 250
residential units,with both small-and medium-sized commercial units on
the street level Plans also include live/work units both on the street level
and within other areas of the project.
The highest profile project under study by the Planning Division is
a 500-unit development on the block bounded by 300 South and 400 South
and 500 East and 600 East.This transit-oriented development has been
presented to the neighborhood community council on several occasions,and
the council's observations and concerns have been incorporated into the
current planning process.The developer's new architect has met with the
1
Planning Division to discuss citywide housing goals,open space
opportunities for residents,and density issues. ...the developer's local
architects have considerable knowledge of and experience with city housing
programs.
•
A third developer has been working with the Planning Division and
HAND to secure a site in the downtown area near a transit line for a 200-
unit apartment complex.The Administration has been working to isolate
some appropriate sites east of Library Square large enough to meet the
developer's needs.To date,parcel assembly has not been possible,but the
developer is aware of the resources the city can offer once a site is secured.
A fourth site,a small in-fill opportunity,is being pursued on the
block immediately south of Library Square.This site would accommodate
only six to eight units,but was acquired by the developer specifically
because of its location near Library Square.Sale of the parcel closed last
week,and the Planning Division has arranged a meeting with the developer
to discuss the site's attractiveness for housing development. ...
Just as the City's ownership of the library block affords us a great
deal of control over its destiny,we recommend that the City seek to foster
housing around the library by acquiring land and using that ownership to
encourage the type of housing development desired by the City.For
example,a parcel recently sold immediately south of the library block on
500 South.The.25-acre parcel is currently zoned D-3,and was listed for
$250,000,or about$23 per square foot.When we identify available parcels
in the future,we will recommend that the City Council consider
appropriating funds to purchase the land,so we can start marketing it for
housing.
3. Is there a precedent for the City-- not the RDA--to buy property for housing?
The City has purchased property for housing in past. Some examples include the 36-unit
Huntsman project at 322 South 300 East, the 80-unit Lowell project at 756 South 200 East,
and the 65-unit Hamilton project at 764 South 800 East. We usually partner with a non-profit
agency to develop the housing rather than acting as the developer ourselves.
4. What is the City policy addressing affordable housing?Does affordable housing
mean subsidized housing?
Salt Lake City's affordable housing policy is articulated in the Salt Lake City Community
Housing Plan. Because of the high cost of land in the downtown area, some levels of
affordable housing will always require subsidies. Nevertheless, some private developers have
successfully created mid-range housing projects in the downtown area,priced at$135,000-
$185,000 per unit, without subsidy. A good example is Stanford Court, at 900 East and 400
South, developed by Proterra, Inc.
Council Staff: Administration staff provided the following additional information relating
to affordable housing:
• The term affordable housing covers a wide spectrum of housing from subsidized
housing to market rate. Generally,affordable housing is described as housing that
costs no more than 30 percent of a family's gross monthly income for rent and
utilities. Usually, affordable housing programs target low or very low-income
individuals and families. City housing funds may be used for affordable housing
2
that meets the needs of a family whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the
median family income for the area.
• The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board ordinance defines affordable housing for
rental and home-ownership housing.
o Affordable rental housing is based on a rent payment that does not exceed
• 30 percent of the annual income of a family whose income equals 60 percent
or less of the area median income for Salt Lake City.
o Affordable home-ownership housing is based on an annual mortgage
payment that does not exceed(30)percent of the annual income of a family
whose income equals eighty(80)percent or less of the area median income
for Salt Lake City. (The Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD)determines area median income.)
• The Federal Housing and Urban Development Dept. (HUD) regulations provide the
following definitions:
o Extremely low-income family-family whose income does not exceed 30 percent
of the median family income for the area.
o. Low-income family-family whose income does not exceed 50 percent of the
median family income for the area.
o Middle-income family-family whose income is between 80 and 90 percent of the
median family income for the area.
o Moderate-income family- family whose income does not exceed 80 percent of
the median family income for the area.
The City Council may wish to note the attachment that relates to the Council's housing
policies. The attachment contains adopted policies that address affordable housing.
5. What is the appropriate amount of open space for Salt Lake City? (Do not include
the foothills as open space.)
To date, Salt Lake City has not made a commitment to a specific amount of open space for the
City. Nevertheless, national standards are established by the National Recreation and Parks
Association. They recommend that a city of our size have 1.25-2.5 acres per thousand
residents in neighborhood parks (5-15 acres, such as City Creek Park,Dilworth Park,
Pioneer Park), 3-8 acres per thousand residents in community parks(15-100 acres, such as
Lindsay Gardens, Westpoint Park, and Fairmont Park), and 5-8 acres per thousand residents
in regional parks(over 100 acres in size, such as Liberty and Sugarhouse Parks). While we
frequently refer to these standards, Salt Lake City has never adopted or implemented them in
the City.
The table below is based on a population figure of 30,150. The population represents the
area bounded by South Temple and 1300 South between State Street and 1300 East and was
taken from the 2000 Census.
Park Category Recommended Recommended Existing Deficit
Standard (Acres) (Acres) (Acres)
SLC Parks Master
Plan (Acres/1,000 pop.)
Regional Parks 5/1,000 151 105 46
Community 3/1,000 90 0 90
Neighborhood 1.25/1,000 38 6 32
279 111 168
3
Council Staff: The area listed above contains approximately 1,500 acres (150 city •
blocks X 10 acres each(minus roadways). The recommended open space park acreage is
18.6%of the total area.Existing acreage is 7.4%,which leaves a deficit of 11.2% of total
space. The deficit area of 168 acres is roughly 17 city blocks.Liberty Park is
approximately 80 acres or 8 city blocks.The City would have to install two parks the
size of Liberty Park into the study area to have the recommended park acreage in the
SLC Parks Master Plan.
The cost to maintain the 111 acres of park open space that the city currently owns in
the South Temple to 1300 South and State Street to 1300 East study area is estimated to
be$2,081,250($75,000 per 4 acres of park open space). The city would need to budget
an additional$3,150,000 annually to support the recommended park open space
acreage.
6. What would be the cost of operating and maintaining open space if open space were
built on the Library Block's eastern four acres?
Based on the assumption that the entire 4 acres will be left as open park space with
traditional landscape and program features such as grass, trees, some gardens and shrubs,
parking, irrigation system, lights,picnic tables, garbage cans and a playground, the
estimated cost would be$75,000 annually.
Based on the assumption of a full build-out of the open space (equivalent to the Civitas'
design), including stages and multi-level plazas with year-round programming, the estimated
maximum maintenance support costs are$465,000. This figure includes maintenance support
for full programming. It is difficult to isolate the costs for maintaining the facility without
programming because the purpose of the facility is to support programming. The annual
maintenance costs for the Gallivan Plaza are$517,000. The ice rink is an additional
$103,000.
7. Was the 200 East light rail station built to accommodate housing on the Library
Block?
No. The primary considerations in determining the location of the Library Trax station were
station spacing along the line, and proximity of existing and future businesses and
institutional uses, such as the City&County Building and the Library. Proximity to housing
was not a consideration.
Council Staff: It should be noted that Section 3.5 on Page 3-19 of the Wasatch Front
Region Council's Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Airport to University
West-East Corridor Light Rail Transit Improvement Project contains the following
statement:
Real estate and economic trends,whatever they may be,are also
affected by public policy and planning.Where these conflict,decisions have
to be made—to change policy and planning direction,or not—depending on
the desired community outcome.Generally,to support LRT,ridership
needs to be at sufficient levels,and adequate ridership usually requires
high-density development nearby(within one-quarter mile).Consequently,
to increase the potential for a successful LRT system,its stations should be
located to serve high-density areas or in areas where planning policy will
support the development of high-density areas.
4
Earlier in the Impact Statement—Section 3.2.5—the document noted that residential
neighborhoods north and south of 400 South Street are among the most densely
populated in the City and that City policies and zoning designate the area as a high-
density urban neighborhood. The section goes on to say, "There is less potential for
secondary development and redevelopment in this area.There is always the potential
for changes in use and intensification of use,but it is likely to occur on a small scale and
to follow established patterns."
8. What is the use of open space in Pioneer Park,Gallivan Center, and Liberty Park?
Pioneer: The park is open every day to public use.It has a playground, one tennis court, a
basketball court and two volleyball courts. It has a restroom facility that is winterized and
open year round. It has several picnic tables. The playground, tennis court and basketball
court is used regularly(daily). The volleyball court receives little use. During the months of
July through October the Farmers Market operates on every Saturday. During the months of
May through December, a few public events are held. They are either sponsored by the City
or by the public. They include open-air concerts, community picnics and the City sponsored
Remembrance Tree program. On average, about 3 to 5 events are held excluding the
Farmers Market.
Gallivan. On average, Gallivan will hold 250 events annually. Of that number 15 to 25 are
classified as large special events such as music festivals, The Bluegrass Festival, Sr. Patrick's
Day Festival, Brewer's Fest, Slavic Festival, and First Night. These are usually multiple day
events held over weekends, and in most cases, entry fees are charged. They are held year
round.
During May through October, on every Wednesday and Thursday night, concerts are held at
the plaza. These are free events and are music events. They cater mostly to the young adult,
middle age population. Also, during this same summer period, daily lunchtime activities are
scheduled Monday through Friday. These activities are free and involve a variety of
entertainment.
During the months ofJune through August, movies are presented every Monday night. This is
a free event.
On a year-round basis, the plaza can be rented for private events such as weddings, concerts,
corporate meetings and socials, dances and promotional events. The general public may not
participate in these events. Rental fees are charged to the users.
During the months of November through March, the ice skating rink is open to public use and
private rentals.
Liberty Park: During a typical year, Liberty Park will be used for approximately 45 events.
Some are sponsored by the City, such as the 24th ofJuly Celebration, the Salt Lake Classic
Race, the Classic Volleyball Tournament and Fireworks. Other events, such as the Native
American Celebration, tennis tournaments, bicycle races, concerts,public festivals,
corporate outings, athletic tournaments, running races, walks and Tracy Aviary are
sponsored by private and non-profit groups. Occasionally, if the private event reflects the
mission of the City, the City will co-sponsor these events.
Liberty Park is the most heavily used park in the City. As a regional park, and because of its
diverse mix of park amenities, it draws people from throughout the valley on a daily basis.
5
From an event standpoint,Liberty Park is overused. Other regional parks in the city, such
as Sugarhouse Park, do not permit many public events. As a consequence,Liberty Park is
typically the only park site available for large public events. The park is often crowded, —
particularly on weekends. The new and improved running track around the perimeter of the
park, and the improvements made to the roadway, including the bicycle and skating lane, are
heavily used. Now, with the addition of the Rotary Playground, the park stands to increase
its visitor use to a greater level.
9. What are the phasing options Civitas planned to propose at the Council's February
28 meeting?
Material to be provided by Civitas.
10. What are the pros and cons to each of the options?
Material to be provided by Civitas.
11. What are steps the construction contractor could take that would move in the
direction of building open space but not preclude other options for the four acres if
an option besides open space is selected?
Material to be provided by Civitas.
12. Besides the April 1 date mentioned at the February 28 meeting for the contractor to
start moving dirt,are there other deadlines driving the project?
The Administration and the Library would like to be able to complete the east side of the
block by Spring 2003, shortly after the new library opens. This necessitates a prompt decision
on the direction of the project, to begin final design and fundraising efforts.
13. Are there internal deadlines within the Administration that must be met?If so,what
are they?
Only those discussed in the answer to question#12, above.
Council Staff Before the Administration can make expenditures on the east side of the
Library Block in excess of funding contained in the Library General Obligation Bond,
the Council will need to make a capital budget appropriation in the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) fund. The Administration can make funding
recommendations during a budget opening or during the biennial budget adoption
process. Since the coming fiscal year is the second year of the City's biennial budget the
Council will not be adopting a full biennial budget, only making necessary changes to
the second fiscal year. The Administration will be proposing changes to the fiscal year
2002-2003 budget during May. May is also the last month that the Council will make
adjustments to the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget.If the Administration wants additional
funds allocated to the Library Block project in time for a spring 2003 construction
completion date it will be necessary for them to make an appropriation request during
the upcoming fiscal year 2002-2003 budget opening.
The Council may wish to note the attachment that relates to the Capital Improvement
Program and the process that the City follows when making capital expenditures. The
attachment contains a summary of the CIP process with timeline, general funding
guidelines for capital projects, City Code relating to the CIP Citizen Board and their
duties, current CIP budget and 5 year CIP budget.
6
The Council may also wish to note that the Administration will be issuing the remaining
$3,000,000 in voter approved General Obligation bonds for the Library project in the
coming months. The Council will need to approve the expenditure budget for the
additional$3,000,000 and may wish to confirm that the approximately$8,000,000 in
interest earned on the project has an expenditure appropriation.
14. Has Civitas or anyone else produced a final design or schematic designs for the
eastern four acres?
Material to be provided by Civitas.
15. Does Civitas plan to do any more research on programming the eastern four acres
such as determining what public amenities should be installed on the block?
Material to be provided by Civitas.
16. What consideration has been given to the programming of events on the block?
Current programming plans will target markets that will not compete with our current
Gallivan event program.Instead, the City should focus on a much broader community market
including families, and older age residents. The Library site will be larger than Gallivan so it
will accommodate a greater variety of events that require larger spaces for staging the event
or larger spaces for the spectators. These events could be theater performances, the ballet,
symphony and other orchestras, dance festivals and other art productions. This site would
also be programmed with local art and cultural events such as the Utah Arts Festival,
Salt Lake City International Jazz Festival and youth programs. The ability to tie and connect
two public spaces together like Library Square and Washington Square,present a once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity to create and provide public events in a setting that can not be duplicated
anywhere else. The park should also be programmed with local community activities such as
fairs,picnics, and parties. The site should also be used as an extension of the Library's
programming and the Science Center programming.
17. Who would program events?
Currently, the City's Community Events Program within the Public Services Department is
being considered to program the park.
18. If the City ultimately programs events on the block,what would be the cost to the
city to provide programming and planning?
Based on a Gallivan model, less some built in "economy of scale"savings because some costs
may be shared, the minimum and maximum costs for programming and maintenance support
are:
Minimum Cost Maximum Cost
Program administration $80,000 $400,000
and event programming
Maintenance support $100,000* $465,000
* Includes the$75,000 already budgeted for open space maintenance.
The above referenced costs are estimates at best. They represent gross cost estimates and do
not include any revenue offset. They are based, in part, on what is spent at the Gallivan
7
Center to operate its current event program. The minimum cost for programming and
maintenance reflects the assumption that Library Square will be a large open space with
limited physical structure and infrastructure to maintain. Events will be held on a regular —
basis, but they would be small and large events similar to what are programmed at
Liberty Park, and that only require temporary structures and facilities. The maximum cost
• for programming and maintenance result because the Square may have facilities, building
structures and infrastructure permanently on site that can support"high end"event
production such as theater, opera, dance and other stage type productions. Again, something
in the line of what is found at Gallivan in its stage building, rental building and ice rink
Until a final design is approved it is difficult to reliably calculate the cost of annual
programming and maintenance.
8
Attachment 4
MEMO
DATE: 3/20/02
TO: Members of the Salt Lake City Council
Mayor Rocky Anderson
CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Russell Weeks, D.J. Baxter, Stephen Goldsmith, And
Mary Guy-Sell
FROM: Nancy Tessman, Library Director(524-8250) 1\ •
RE: LIBRARY SQUARE PROJECT
We have attached copies of the information requested from the Library consultants on
future options for the development of the east side of the Library block.
These attachments include:
Total cost breakdown to accomplish block plan as conceptually designed in the
recent Civitas report.
Plans and costs divided into phases as requested.
Memorandum from Civitas outlining pros and cons of phased approaches.
If any additional information would be helpful prior to your meeting scheduled for March
27,please let us know.
Thank you.
•
VALENTINER CRANE BRUNJES ONYON
March 20,2002 1 •
ARCHITECTURE
Nancy Tessman
Salt Lake City Library
PARTNERS
209 East 500 South
Niels E.Valentiner,AIA
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Steve H.Crane,MA
RE: Library Block East Park Peter R.Brunjes.AlA
Sean Onyon,AIA
Dear Nancy: Brent R.Tippets,AIA
Boyd McAllister,MA
As per your request, I have met with Ken and Mark Johnson and have discussed the phasing Jolene P.Reif,SDA
options for the east block park. Ken has put together some costs regarding the phases. We Jeanne Jackson,AIA
believe the most logical phasing would be four phases. Ken has estimated the cost of each phase
based on a schematic layout that we have discussed with Mark and Jamie. The phases and costs SENIOR ASSOCIATES
are as follows:
Carl R.Fullmer,MA,CSI
Derek T.Payne,AIA
Phase I Rough grade the entire area east of the crescent wall, plant sod and
install irrigation. The north/east corner of the site will slope up to the
retail area and includes foam fill in some areas. The existing walks at the ASSOCIATES
perimeter remain. Estimated cost$1,200,000.00. Greg Adamson,AAIA
Rebekah J.Barton,ICBA
Phase II This phase would complete the shaping of the amphitheater at the RoLynne W.Christensen,SMPS
northeast corner of the block. It will include additional topsoil and Vern Latham,AAIA
additional irrigation. Phase II will include all infrastructure:new walks;the Dan A.Nelson,AAIA
bridge/walkway at the south;and landscape concrete walls. All NE fees Alan Turner,AAIA
will be included in the Phase II costs. Estimated cost$2,200,000.00.
Phase III Phase III includes all landscape plant materials for the entire are east of
the Crescent Wall-bushes,trees and decorative landscaping elements,
etc. Estimated cost$1,100,000.00
Phase IV The final phase would be the installation of the band shell structure.
Estimated cost$1,000,000.00
Thank you for the review of this material. I've included concept drawings,to show you the phases
graphically. Also included is a copy of Construction Control Corporation's estimated costs. The
final cost of$5.5 million includes costs due to doing the work in phases. If you need any further
information please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
VCBO Architect e
teve Crane, FAIA 524 South 600 East
Enclosure Salt Lake City,Utah 84102
T 801.575.8800
F 80 I.531.9850
L:\99442\Letters\99442083
www.vcboarchitecture.com
PROJECT NAME LIBRARY SQUARE
ARCHITECT CIVITAS
STAGE OF DESIGN CONCEPTUAL
PROJECT SUMMARY
PHASE I $1,198,340
PHASE II $2,191,895
PHASE III $1,115,468
PHASE IV $1,025,625
TOTAL LIBRARY SQUARE $5,531,328
PAGE 1
• PROJECT NAME LIBRARY SQUARE
PHASE I
ARCHITECT CIVITAS
OSTAGE OF DESIGN CONCEPTUAL
s�J
EARTHWORK&GRADING 165120 SF $0.25 $41,280
IMPORTED FILL 20163 CY $10.42 $210,098
PLACE STOCKPILED DIRT 10000 CY $4.75 $47,500
STRUCTURAL FOAM 225200 CF $1.25 $281,500
STORM DRAINAGE 165120 SF $0.30 $49,536
CONCRETE PAVING 3600 SF $3.20 $11,520
CURB CUT 1 SUM $3,500.00 $3,500
TOPSOIL-MINIMAL 2400 CY $17.50 $42,000
IRRIGATION 165120 SF $0.37 $61,094
HYDROSEEDING 165120 SF $0.09 $14,861
SUBTOTAL $762,890
GENERAL CONDITIONS 15% $114,433
OVERHEAD&PROFIT 10% $76,289
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 10% $76,289
TOTAL -PHASE I $1,029,901
DESIGN FEES -PHASE I ONLY $50,000
PROJECT MANAGEMENT FEES 1.5% $15,449
OWNER'S CONTINGENCY 10% $102,990
TOTAL- PHASE I $1,198,340
PAGE 1
• PROJECT NAME LIBRARY SQUARE
PHASE II
ARCHITECT CIVITAS
TAGE OF DESIGN CONCEPTUAL
EARTHWORK
REMOVE CURB &GUTTER 1140 SF $2.10 $2,394
REMOVE SIDEWALK 5700 SF $0.65 $3,705
REMOVE TOPSOIL&STOCKPILE 165120 SF $0.10 $16,512
EARTHWORK& GRADING 165120 SF $0.25 $41,280
IMPORTED FILL 10500 CY $10.42 $109,410
STORM DRAINAGE REWORK 165120 SF $0.24 $39,629
SUBTOTAL EARTHWORK $212,930
SITE CONCRETE
CURB&GUTTER 1140 LF $12.50 $14,250
CONCRETE SIDEWALKS & EXTERIOR CONCRETE 25262 SF $2.75 $69,471
CUSTOM CONCRETE SIDEWALKS 3555 SF $6.22 $22,112
• CUSTOM CURB WALLS 4032 SF $18.54 $74,753
RETAINING WALLS- 12" 14836 SF $13.42 $199,099
RETAINING WALL FOOTING 415 CY $195.00. $80,925
CONCRETE PLANTERS- 16' DIA., FULL 5 EA $1,500.00 $7,500
CONCRETE PLANTERS-20' DIA., HALF 10 EA $1,250.00 $12,500
CONCRETE STAIRS 450 LFN $17.50 $7,875
SUBTOTAL SITE CONCRETE $488,485
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
BRIDGE 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000
PUBLIC RESTROOMS 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000
SITE AMENITIES & FURNITURE-MINIMAL 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000
SITE LIGHTING& ELECTRICAL 1 LS $150,000.00 $150;000
SUBTOTAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS $385,000
LANDSCAPING
- STEEL GUARDRAIL 662 LF $80.00 $52,960
PAGE 1
•
:. ..... ... ..........:...:.R,1}TROCOORP:OIATIO ..i:::::::1F.`,.:::•.;i`igi�:.:::`:':a''.:•:..Y.'Y401201rrhhlllM::
PROJECT NAME LIBRARY SQUARE
PHASE II
ARCHITECT CIVITAS
TAGE OF DESIGN CONCEPTUAL
r
SOD 124568 SF $0.28 $34,879
HYDROSEED 30000 SF $0.11 $3,300
SPREAD EXISTING TOPSOIL 165120 SF $0.10 $16,512
TOPSOIL- IMPORT& SPREAD 1200 CY $17.50 $21,000
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS-SALVAGED 154568 SF $0.36 $55,644
SUBTOTAL LANDSCAPING $184,296
SUBTOTAL $1,270,710
GENERAL CONDITIONS 8% $101,657
OVERHEAD& PROFIT 7% $88,950
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 15% $190,607
SUBTOTAL-PHASE II $1,651,923
0 ARCHITECTS FEES(INCLUDES DESIGN FOR ENTIRE PROJECT) $350,000
PROJECTS MANAGER'S FEE 1.5% $24,779
OWNER'S CONTINGENCY 10% $165,192
TOTAL-PHASE II $2,191,895
PAGE 2
. `:a`::..;nisi:,:::,?::.: ..i.+�►. ..:�]�,•l..;.fit,pn! s'�:,:' �i...is::.,�:�i,�:+s: is•:;'.�,}.._:•_ :..'..,. ,;�'y�, t1i�'�:.a:�::`'}'��:}y.,:,� �' `:.:::,. .�,...}.i�:•'1as;,'T_2t�",!`Ciz;iT::}zr:Y `.r'•' '.; '.}.�•' `,r�;:
ROJSC::e$TI ATE:.::. •,.:CON: TROCU NJOONTROLrs,1 ORPQ OT�i,'t:"44.. _..... .. : : 2 0Z.:'
PROJECT NAME LIBRARY SQUARE
PHASE III
ARCHITECT CIVITAS
TAGS OF DESIGN CONCEPTUAL
LANDSCAPING
STONE PAVERS 24360 SF $16.50 $401,940
TREES- LARGE 42 EA $485.00 $20,370
TREES- MEDIUM 33 EA $265.00 $8,745
TREES-SMALL 22 EA $125.00 $2,750
TREE GRATES 97 EA $750.00 $72,750
TOP SOIL 1200 CY $17.50 $21,000
PLANTINGS ALLOWANCE 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000
SUBTOTAL LANDSCAPING $607,555
SITE IMPROVEMENTS& FURNITURE 1 SUM $75,000.00 $75,000
• SUBTOTAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS & FURNITURE $75,000
SUBTOTAL $682,555
GENERAL CONDITIONS 15% $102,383
OVERHEAD& PROFIT 10% $68,256
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 15% $102,383
SUBTOTAL-PHASE III $955,577
ARCHITECTS FEES $50,000
PROJECT MANAGEMENT FEES 1.5% $14,334
OWNER'S CONTINGENCY 10% $95,558
TOTAL- PHASE III $1,115,468
PAGE 1
J.r. STIM..TE:::r.:C......T.........\i......ONO ...: 1 :: 0:fV•Xi!rRA#.:;.1rV:.;,;:,.r:..,...:E,.,,:+::::.MO�'�(.�0'2z:
- PROJECT NAME LIBRARY SQUARE
PHASE IV
ARCHITECT CIVITAS
•TAGE OF DESIGN CONCEPTUAL
BANDSHELL 1 ALLOW $700,000.00 $700,000
SUBTOTAL $700,000
GENERAL CONDITIONS 15% $105,000
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10% $70,000
DESIGN CONTINGENCY (INCLUDED ABOVE)
SUBTOTAL-PHASE III $875,000
ARCHITECTS FEES $50,000
PROJECT MANAGEMENT FEES 1.5% $13,125
OWNER'S CONTINGENCY 10% $87,500
• TOTAL-PHASE IV $1,025,625
PAGE 1
MEMORANDUM CIVITAS
To: Nancy Tessman
From: JamieMaslyn >Urban Designers
>Planners
Date: 20 March,2002 >Landscape Architects
cc: Isaac Franco,Steve Crane,Ken Amendt
Subject: Phasing Pros and Cons
Phase One Pros
• Gain usable open space with a finished appearance immediately for neighborhood,events and for general
park purposes
• Flat lawn is flexible for events-tents,temporary bandshell,etc.Sloping lawn is a usable sitting surface for
music events.
• An indicator of the city's commitment to reinvestment in the neighborhood
• Efficient utilization of$1.2 million library bond money
• Allows a temporary solution so that a design development process can occur to include the input of the
neighborhood in a final masterplan.
• Allows a temporary solution so that funding can be found to ovoid a phasing scheme.
Phase One Cons
• A short-term solution could lead to losing long term vision of the open space.
• Phase One does not offer much benefit to neighborhood. It represents and demonstrates a temporary
solution,not a long-term investment.Neighborhood momentum could be lost.
• If the site is completely unfinished(i.e.if the phase one diagram is not implemented and the site remains
dirt) than this site could further the neighborhood's frustration with the city's lack of investment in this
neighborhood.
Phase Two through Final Phases Pros
• Allows for incremental investment by the city as their budget allows PRINCIPALS
Eric Anderson
Phase Two through Final Phases Cons Richard C. Farley
• Incremental phasing incurs costs of approximately$300,000 in long-term management and real costs such as Mark Johnson
demolition,salvage,and modification of previous phases. Eric P. Mott
• While phase two provides a built skeleton structure for the vision,it offers no amenities to the site,and looks Todd Mead
unfinished. Ann Mullins
• Risks in losing long term vision of phase three and four as timeline extends.
I200 Bannock Street
Denver, Colorado 80204
Recommended Strategy Tel 303 S 7 I.0 0 5 3
Fax 303 825.0438
www.civitasinc.com
C,\WINDOWSUEMP\pinsingl9ma r02.doc
Our recommendation is that this open space is implemented with a long term vision as described in the Library C IV ITAS
Square Report. The risks of losing this vision are high in multiple phasing strategies,and projects can stall or lose
momentum.Also,there is a risk that a phasing scenario would not adequately demonstrate a strong commitment
by the city in the reinvestment in the neighborhood surrounding Library Square.
We recommend that Phase One,as shown in the diagram,be implemented as a temporary solution.The next,and
final phase,would construct the masterplan of the entire site.Also,this phase of work should coordinate with the
city to implement other neighborhood revitalization strategies as recommended in the Library Block Report.
CIWINDOWSITEMPIphasirgl9mar02da 2
La
..... .-.,..,:.!, ..,.....,. ,.,
a) • ..--
E ==..:_--..,...-• -_, . ----
_c :,.i .—..
o ''-, ,_.....
as
.:,....- .„.,„..,
.c.,„..:
(10 >:
---.--s'
...,..--,....
----=r-,
. . ..:
. .....
r.,.
..,:
,... . :. ,..„....,
, ,...
,......._,......t
......... ..„,..,._
..,•.,
'•,,i r'
ba
(110 --•If
hal i
i RUM ,
•
'1- •I
3 -•,,
,'•'...'•-:: _::,.: - 3r- N• .'". 41
... .-- ,
, ..., .
Al' ,a,„.
4,-- 1.--7':.4-.,.,".-ii ,'4: '!2: ---: ••
. --'.,•:•'141114i14**;S?•‘ 1-.' "IA
,I 1 :;, :::•,,ift,.._`IiR li .
7fr9nigi i 1 .....
•s,,‘ 'Z_Et.EM ' ' ' '.
!..,....: .
. i
(-- -
re- • ,
•
1 . .
.I
•
- -,__ \c,.-=-1--,---,..__,•
t_ff.2. .-:=,
Pir ---i-+
, . 1 4,y
ii 1-,_ '1 -
_. --rEi 7,i
T --(1.--"- --1„...:-: . ;,'
•
.1 • :0
. .- 4 ,- 7i.-: .•
•
•
•
.. • \ Phase One
fi .° • •
• , $ 1.2 million
• _• = Four months construction
i ;�� I Fill construction hole overall
1 ; ; : - , •• (-5, • South quadrant to be graded
_ C:),0 • - / flat.
.'i !( i.)�J �.• _ ti�� • - Dill 'qiirr' I
_ • / . -.'_ i r- - -> North quadrant to be graded
1° • with slope to accommodate
' , • • retail space roof.
•0-2 , Nik. ° • ..,_,J . ' '
Fire lane to be concrete.
Entire site to be seeded and
irrigated.
i.---`• .'_ ',7- :,
. .
,,,),_, ;_,:,,„
. . •
-� Library are
r- . . ....___.__.______
. )
- • - • Phase Two
� - : 1 ' . °°. . ,....\
( — \ '•-- $ 2.2 million
Eight months design and
- - - — - - - - - - _- - - - - _ . . •�? construction
-
1 Air
= Build `Skeleton"of project:
4. ° - 1��ui all site walls, sidewalks,-- _ dewalks, stairs,
{/I{ - • \ • . • ;. •
Y - ` ;;;; :; iai
to create
ns.
._ • • - - Salvage irrigation, reuse on
i new planting areas.
r
Sod/ seed overall.
1_ l �.
g.,. i-- „ . ' ...m.I.7- '. .. ,
i
`li „ ,
Library .. (slam
- �Q 1
/i or-0r�At' V-��TjTR «• . oak itot • �r -yra,,
c !i �_:i n ci ,
)010441,
' 4.440 -- .: ---
•,-..,--7-07.,s,
: s• -' - , • I l,lee !,
.4,-- " . •
•
�7. . Ci4 4 N 4.) � AO Phase Three
�'0 " . . O . ' 4. 741014
$ 1.1 million
. . . . 0
° • 'Q' O'� z Three months construction
\ + • • �! °. Z Complete all garden areas
a) 11 C3 _• , � — i,_,D • - • _ �� A ' and add trees.
i '' � \: . nit
. -. 0
-- Provide stone paving in
q ; �' ; \ ;, — . . . Theater Plaza and fire lane.
=, •
Add furnishings
r .
4 •
r jr
C.:�: it a.: . .
_A.-H. R
I
IN •::- o
C.)
=
(1) ••=;(,)
17„ Cr) C
Cia
0
0 a)
..0
NW k3
11 C C -0
-- •0 C CZ
lim ca = 0 co
Z C E E
.1:3
1 um -o
, ,-
u— ua- cr) <
FA
...ft
eft.
• • 14611 , a „ .
driiirlop-miqpizipilliAlp.=
i cip. wer,...... ,
az-faroi .: • - .. ..- • •
i It* io.fry •
, 411)\ ..... 4,,' . 4 °pr. •
f 41407) , .
.
1 i lillt \li •"1 r • ' _. ,
.
. .
• .
I \Nowarir'‘)i
/ ". - .
f Ilk* / ,, . . .
.... : ...„-
4-,....- ,)
I
••....•
1 00.407. :1 ' N.-';"-
a i Oi
/
-.-.% "
/
Ilem.„70. .
• ...._
4 4 0 1
° • • • :I 1.
I4,1 . , I •.'7.. . ",............
•,..<
"N.
. ... .• %
• i 1
.... ...-
.... ..•
-i!.. ° • _. •. " ' . -
, _....i..._. „, ..10
•
Ili\ . 0 . •,,
(* 11% :::.:. . : . . . % •
c els" • • • . •
% 0 0
• • •
°_...---*--
( , 1 ,, '.%, ‘.: : • , •
•, , . , „
. 46 •
. 6,..,...wt,, , ..i,:. ..,... . • . .. .
I . 4 I 51413)\111 . - • •• •.----".
, ,- • .
v grAlic...iik,
A VW.11P-Aq4k .•: . .. . '.:
4.111111111.11111111
I . - Orrilt144 . : • W %=:4
)
'N.-.4..
Attachment No.6
City Council Housing Policy
The Council's Land Use Policies include the following statements relating to housing:
CONVERTING HOMES TO BUSINESSES
The Salt Lake City Council supports avoiding conversion of homes to business use. This policy
is a corollary to the policy of maintaining the residential population base of the City. "If it looks
like a house, it is a house."
In zoning cases involving structures that were originally built as single-family homes, the Council
has operated under the assumption that property, which was built as residential, should be zoned
residential.
MAINTAINING A RESIDENTIAL BASE
The Council supports using its zoning power to maintain the residential population base within
the City, and to encourage population expansion.
HOUSING POLICY
At the December 14, 1999 Council meeting, the Council adopted the following Housing
Policy Statements. The statements serve as the basis for the citywide Community Housing Plan
adopted in April 2000.
Affordable and Transitional Housing
The City Council supports:
a. Salt Lake City residents having access to housing that does not consume more than 30
percent of their gross income.
b. The analysis of the impacts of fees and current zoning on affordable housing.
c. The type of business growth that is compatible with affordable housing needs in the City.
d. Development of programs to meet the housing needs of all individuals employed by and
working or living within Salt Lake City.
e. Policies and programs that encourage home ownership without jeopardizing an adequate
supply of affordable rental housing.
f. The dispersal of affordable and transitional housing Citywide and valley-wide. In
particular,the Council supports the establishment of smaller transitional housing
programs, with a minimum of one four-plex per Council District.
g. The citywide development of single room occupancy housing(SROs).
h. The City providing examples of how affordable housing can be built, offering incentives
for innovative projects that developers may not initially be willing to undertake and
serving as a facilitator/partner to maximize housing opportunities.
Citywide Cross Section of Housing
The City Council supports:
a. A citywide variety of residential housing units, including affordable housing.
b. Accommodating different types and intensities of residential development.
1
Design
The City Council encourages:
a. Architectural designs compatible with neighborhoods that:
• Make good use of and incorporate open space, even minimal amounts.
• Interface well with public spaces.
• Address parking needs in the least obtrusive manner possible.
• Are creative, aesthetically pleasing and provide attractive public spaces, such as
designated "commons" areas, community centers, child care, resident gathering
places, resident gardens, etc.
Transit Development and Design
The City Council supports:
a. Coordinated, comprehensive land use and transportation master planning. Specifically,
the Council supports transit-oriented development as well as adequate, reliable public
transportation in order to allow residents to easily access their employment and
residences.
b. A pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment throughout the City.
c. Housing densities and mixed uses that support use of alternative and public
transportation, depending on the characteristics of each area.
d. Appropriate housing densities in areas where public transit and local services are
conveniently available or can be provided and are accessible on foot.
e. Reinvestment in existing urban and inner suburban areas.
f. A rebirth of compact, transit and pedestrian oriented developments that conserve water
and energy resources, enhance air quality and help restore community vitality.
g. Transit-oriented development with an affordable housing component.
Mixed Uses
The City Council supports:
a. Mixed use and mixed income concepts and projects that achieve vibrant, safe, integrated,
walkable neighborhoods through a diverse mix of uses and incomes in areas with
established transportation, utilities and related public services that:
• Include neighborhood interaction in the design process.
• Incorporate affordable housing whenever possible.
• Incorporate an assortment of residential, commercial, and professional office uses.
• Include a variety of housing types, mixed-income levels, live-work developments,
etc.
Housing Stock Preservation, Rehabilitation and Replacement
The City Council advocates:
a. Policies and programs that preserve or replace the City's housing stock including, the
requirement of, at a minimum, a unit-for-unit replacement or a monetary contribution by
developers to the City's Housing Trust Fund in lieu of replacement.
b. The City promoting housing safety and quality through adequately funding by fees the
City's apartment inspection program and programs that assist home and apartment
owners in rehabilitating and maintaining housing units.
2
Zoning
On a citywide basis,the City Council endorses:
a. Policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business
opportunities within the City to ensure the continued existence of a population base and
business base. While the Council supports mixed-use development, it also recognizes
that there are some zones that are not conducive to residential development. As such, the
Council will discourage any housing development in industrial-type zones.
b. Co-housing developments.
c. A zoning designation to permit transitional housing on a small-scale basis.
d. Higher densities in affordable and mixed income housing developments if the developer
incorporates features to minimize intrusion such as buffer landscaping, usable open
space, on-site amenities, support services, underground vehicle parking, etc.
e. Accessory housing units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit
impacts and protect neighborhood character.
f. Small scale, low density, scattered site location, 100%low-income residential
developments based on quality design, good management, and an established
neighborhood social support structure.
g. Neighborhood anchor areas or commercial uses that are necessary to the function of
residential neighborhoods or are compatible with residential activity.
Expedited Permit Process
The City Council endorses:
a. Reducing the negative affects of building codes and regulations on affordable housing.
b. Streamlining the review and permit processes for developments that offer innovative
design options and has a positive impact on neighborhoods.
Funding Mechanisms
The City Council supports:
a. Increasing the housing stock via public-nonprofit and/or for profit partnerships.
b. Establishing a public document that outlines annual sources and uses of funds for housing
and housing programs.
c. Maximizing public reviews and input relating to use of City housing monies.
3
Attachment No. 7
Capital Improvement Program Review - Council comments provided at calendar year
2001 Council Retreat(staff notes)
❖ There is a difference between Capital Improvement and Maintenance
❖ Administrative support of infrastructure maintenance reduces Capital
Improvement funding requests
❖ 9% of General Fund is to be allocated to CIP Pay-as-you-Go, excluding Debt
Service(confirmation of 1999 resolution)
❖ The Council should effectively balance between new capital expenditure
opportunities and maintenance of existing infrastructure
❖ The Administration should convert MBA debt to GO bonds when lower interest
rates will allow for a cost savings.
Summary of CIP Program
• Salt Lake City has addressed Capital Needs in the City through policy adoption,
program planning and dedication of resources.
• The City Council funded a complete review/best practices consultant study of
the City Capital Improvement Program. Recommendations within that program
have resulted in policy adoption relating to debt and capital replacement.
• Capital Improvement Program Biennial Budget, 5 Year Plan, 20 Year Plan—
Senior Budget Analyst (formerly Capital Budget Administrator) monitors the
funding, planning, prioritizing and reporting of all aspects of the CIP.
Analysis of the Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program has identified the following
components:
Debt Service
1. Review City's bonded indebtedness and determine how to put more money into
projects with less debt service.
2. Establish and maintain a funding plan that does not exceed the City's debt
capacity or create excessive tax burdens.
3. Maintain a strong bond rating in order to have access to capital with favorable
rates.
Measures of Success
• Balance Sheet
• Reduction of Debt — Increase of equity in assets
• Bond Rating
• Benchmark cost savings
1
Pay-as-you-Go Funding
1. Allocate at least 9% of General Fund revenue to CIP
2. Commit a dedicated portion of the City's resources to CIP
Measures of Success
• Percentage of revenue going to CIP
Infrastructure Maintenance
1. Establish and firmly maintain a capital needs inventory that accounts for current
unmet needs; deferred repair/replacement and future needs.
2. Design and fund a future maintenance model to ensure that new projects have
annual maintenance funds to extend the useful life of the project.
3. Increase commitment to financing capital improvement, there must be an estimate
of maintenance on a year-to-year basis.
Measures of Success
• Maintenance funds as a percent of capital replacement funds.
• Annual report; number of projects funded; number of projects completed.
• Deferred capital improvement amount continues to decrease and does not
increase with new investments.
Planning and Prioritization
1. Develop master plans with prioritized projects.
2. Educational awareness and inclusion of all segments of the population within the
decision-making process.
3. Design a capital project evaluation and priority setting system to improve
objectivity and effectiveness in the planning process.
4. Prioritize infrastructure repair/replacement.
Measures of Success
• Reduction in infrastructure backlog
• Improvements funded vs. needs inventory
• Projects identified for funding compared to projects funded.
• Increase in participation by all segments of the population
• Number of master plan projects
• Comments and feedback from public
• How improvements increase usage and affect business
Additional Fund Sources
1. Consider public-private partnerships to reduce operational costs. Savings
earmarked for CIP.
2. Apply for federal/state/foundation funding opportunities
Measures of Success
• Monitor increase in grant funding
• Improvements funded vs. needs
2
a
lik . . ,,,:
I If! Z I gI
IT
14 h1I1 #' t
IN
y i `.tIIA
a.
(p
11
11 ofei
Z : 0 0
111 m
m a ls
z J iii -!JIiii _ -- iItll- 1
III •
1111 s
v III --i'l) i
_ Sig
�
• K- VOf 1
IVI, 1 IT
iliHili i IP
• va.wa An wa,n.-wv q"as wru'auu 1.aauos s.cr,d &,ui26a •Ind •I!1 au."+cd +w +n uw,3
i i i i ill it i all i i i IA M. ia
II. OPTIONS FOR FINANCING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
1. Cash (Pay-As-You-Go)
2. General Obligation (Property Taxes)
3. Revenue (user fees) including tax-increment
4. Special Assessment (limited tax assessment)
5. Sale/Lease-back (annual appropriation)
6. Lease Revenue via Municipal Building Authority (annual appropriation or
"Moral Obligation" debt) (non-debt debt)
7. Other
Amid Am NA Mei 1111 NA IR IL lb
•
III. FUNDING CRITERIA MATRIX
(Addressing Salt Lake City's Capital Improvement Needs,p.16-17)
Cash (Pay —As-You-Go) Debt (Bonding
• The Project costs under $1.0 million; • The project costs over $1.0 million, and
• The project addresses needs that every • The project will confer benefits on the public
generation of tax/rate payers will face, for at least the period of debt repayment,
e.g., sidewalk or water/line replacement, and/or
and /or
• The project will increase future revenues more
• The project promises to lower than it will increase annual debt service
maintenance costs, and expenses and/or
• There are sufficient PAYG revenues to • The cost of delay (construction inflation,
finance the project negative service level consequences, etc.) is
greater than the cost of borrowing, and/or
• An emergency exists that cannot be addressed
from pay-as-you-go sources.
RESOLUTION NO. 19 OF 1999
COUNCIL POLICIES REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY'S
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, In March 1998 the Futures Commission recommended that existing
public sector infrastructure be maintained and expanded, and that the City publish and
distribute a prioritized list of capital improvement projects in order to allow citizens a
chance to properly plan for disruptions and offer public comment; and
WHEREAS, during its review of the proposed Fiscal Year 1998-99 budget for the
City's Capital Improvement Program Fund, the City Council expressed its concern that
the City's General Fund Capital Improvement Program was not adequately addressing
the deferred maintenance needs of City-owned facilities including streets, parks and
public buildings; and
WHEREAS, during this time the City Council also expressed its concern
regarding the adequacy of the City's ability to address the future infrastructure needs of
the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council expressed a hesitancy to consider new major capital
items until the full extent of the City's deferred General Fund capital "backlog" could
be determined; and
WHEREAS, the City Council expressed its intent that the annual budget for the
Capital Improvement Program Fund be increased over current levels, and that the
Fund's budget not be decreased in order to balance the City's annual operating budget.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Program Citizen Board
strongly indicated their concerns regarding the City's ability to fund needed
infrastructure, and
WHEREAS, the City Council therefore retained the services of Citygate Associates
to verify the existing assessment of Salt Lake City's deferred and future General Fund
capital needs, to determine the total estimated cost of these needs and identify
progranuning and funding options as well as best practices of comparable communities
in order to assist the City as it develops a long-range financing plan to address its
General Fund capital needs; and
WHEREAS, Citygate Associates presented its Analysis of Salt Lake City's General
Fund Capital Improvement Program: Final Report dated February 16, 1999 (attached hereto
as Exhibit "A") in February 1999 which included twenty-five recommendations for the
Council to consider in order to improve the City's process for and ability to address the
deferred, current and future capital needs of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this Final Report and agrees that the
City should implement the recommendations therein in order to comprehensively plan
to meet the future infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
That it is the intent of the Salt Lake City Council that the Final Report presented
by Citygate Associates, including all recommendations included therein, be
adopted by the Council via this resolution as a guiding policy document, and
recommends that the Administration regard this document as the Council's
policy objectives for the City's General Fund Capital Improvement Fund.
Specifically, it is the intention of the City Council that the Administration adopt
the recommendations included in the Final Report and that they be implemented
by the Administration according to the timeline attached hereto as Exhibit"B".
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this sixth day of April, 1999.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
APPROVED AS TO
FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
g�a �$jgY}� r �g
�4&Pei 3 $��� s � � t f
2.33.010 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter the following words shall have the meaning as given in this section:
A. "Board" means the capital improvement program citizen board created under this chapter.
B. "City" means and refers to Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the state of Utah.
C. "Council" means the Salt Lake city council.
D. "Mayor" means the duly elected or appointed and qualified mayor of the city.
E. "Member" means a person appointed by the mayor who is duly qualified and acting as a
member of the board.
F. "Person" means an individual. (Ord. 9-96 § 1 (part), 1996)
2.33.020 Board created.
There is created the board,which body shall consist of not less than nine members nor more than eleven members
who reside in the city. (Ord. 9-96 § 1 (part), 1996)
2.33.030 Purpose.
The purpose of the board is to provide citizens with an ample opportunity to participate, in an advisory role,in the
city's planning and assessment of its capital improvement program.Although board members serve in an advisory
role only,their involvement is necessary in obtaining the opinions of persons who live and/or work in various
neighborhoods to aid the city in identifying the needs within those areas and the projects to be completed as part of
the city's capital improvement program. (Ord. 9-96 § 1 (part), 1996)
2.33.040 Appointment.
A. All appointments of board members shall be made by the mayor, with the advice and consent
of the city council. In making initial appointments, the mayor shall designate three members
to serve one year, four members to serve two years, and four members to serve three years.
Thereafter, all appointments shall be made for a three-year term. Each member's term of
office shall expire on the applicable first Monday in June. Each member shall perform service
on a voluntary basis without compensation and on such basis shall be immune from liability
with respect to any decision or action taken during the course of these services, as provided
by Utah Code Annotated, Section 63-3-1, et seq. (1953) as amended, or successor sections.
Vacancies occurring in the membership of the board shall be filled by appointment by the
mayor with the advice and consent of the council for the unexpired term:
B. Of the appointments to be made by the mayor, one member shall be appointed from each
council district, with the remaining members being persons who represent business or
commercial interests of the city. (Ord. 9-96 § 1 (part), 1996)
2.33.050 Removal from office.
Any member may be removed from office by the mayor prior to the normal expiration of the term for which such
member was appointed. (Ord. 9-96 § 1 (part), 1996)
2.33.060 Members' ethics.
Members shall be subject to and bound by the provisions of the city's conflict of interest ordinance,Chapter 2.44 of
this code.Any violations of the provisions of said act shall be grounds for removal from office. (Ord.9-96 § 1
(part), 1996)
2.33.070 Eligibility for membership.
A person,to be eligible to be appointed as a member of the board,shall meet the following prerequisites:
A. Be at least eighteen years of age;
B. Be a resident of the city. (Ord. 9-96 § 1 (part), 1996)
2.33.080 Meetings.
The board shall convene regular meetings to be held at least monthly throughout the year.The board shall hold its
meetings in compliance with the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Special meetings may be ordered by a
majority of the board,the chairperson or the mayor.The order for a special meeting must be signed by a member
calling such meeting and,unless waived in writing,each member not joining in the order for such special meeting
must be given not less than three hours'notice. Such notice shall be served personally or left at the member's
residence or business office. Meetings shall be held at such public place as may be designated by the board. Six
members of the board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The board shall cause a written
record of its proceedings to be available for public inspection in the office of the city recorder. The board shall
record the yea and nay votes of the board members on any action taken by it. The board shall adopt a system of
rules and procedure under which its meetings are to be held.The board may suspend the rules of procedure by
unanimous vote of the members of the board who are present at the meeting. The board shall not suspend the rules
of procedure beyond the duration of the meeting at which the suspension of rules occurs. (Ord. 9-96 § 1 (part),
1996)
2.33.090 Election of officers.
Each year the board,at its first regular meeting after the first Monday in August,shall select one of its members as
chairperson and another of its members as vice-chairperson,who shall assume the duties of the chairperson during
the absence or disability of the chairperson. (Ord. 9-96 § 1 (part), 1996)
2.33.100 Subcommittees.
The board may designate such subcommittees or committees as it desires to study,consider and make
recommendations on matters which are presented to the board. (Ord. 9-96 § 1 (part), 1996)
2.33.110 Responsibilities.
The board shall have the following responsibilities:
A. To serve solely in an advisory role on decisions relating to the city's capital improvement
program;
B. To coordinate with the capital planning and programming division of the city on review and
evaluation of current strategic planning, goals, and policies of the capital improvement
program;
C. To review all eligible annual and slippage or contingency project proposals submitted by
various individuals, neighborhood groups, community organizations and city departments,
and make recommendations to the mayor on such request for funds;
D. To discuss program and project monitoring information prepared by the city to ensure that
the projects are implemented as planned;
E. To assure that capital improvement program goals are consistent with the strategic plans and
goals of the city;
F. To evaluate the overall effectiveness of the capital improvement program activities;
G. To be responsible for establishing and maintaining communications with the Salt Lake City
community councils. (Ord. 9-96 § 1 (part), 1996)
2.33.120 Attorney.
Any legal advice or assistance desired shall be obtained only from the office of the city attorney. (Ord. 9-96 § 1
(part), 1996)
2.33.130 Board actions shall not bind the mayor or city council.
The recommendations of the board shall not be deemed to bind the mayor and the city council in their
determinations.Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to be a delegation of the mayor's and the city council's
responsibility and authority regarding the capital improvement program. (Ord.9-96 § 1 (part), 1996)
General Fund/CDBG Fund/Other Grant Fund Projects FY 2002-2003
Project Name 2002-2003 Operating Budget
Project Description Budget Impact
Annual Ongoing CIP Allocation from General Fund
1 1992-93 CIP Bond Debt Tenth-year debt service payment on a twenty-two-year commitment for a bond
Service used to complete various capital improvements throughout the City. $ 5,004,872 Negligible
2 City&County Building Twelfth-year debt service payment on a twenty-year commitment for a bond used
Debt Service to rehabilitate and refurbish the City&County Building. $ 2,428,496 Negligible
3 Library GO Bond Debt Fourth year debt service on Library/MHJ Block Renovation.
Service $ 6,817,883 Negligible
4 Justice Court Bldg Bond First year debt service on the Justice Court Buildin
Debt Service g $ 150,693 Negligible
5 Impact Fee Projects Construct various Police, Fire, Park, Road capital improvement projects identified
in the !impact fee analysis, Capital Facilities Plan. $ 750,000 Negligible
6 Public Safety Radio Radios and dispatch equipment for the Police and Fire Departments.
Communications pp $ 541,000 Negligible
ADA Ramps/Corner Construct various ADA pedestrian ramps and related repairs to corners, including
Repairs sidewalk, curb, and gutter. $ 350,000 Negligible
Install traffic calming devices such as bulb-outs, speed humps, raised crosswalks,
8 Traffic Calming traffic circles and medians on streets where these types of devices are approved $ 250,000 Negligible
and deemed appropriate.
9 Sugarhouse Business Construct new shopand storage facility.
District Storage Shop g Y $ 100,000 Negligible
10 New Street Lighting Install additional lighting where needed throughout the City.
Installation g g g Y $ 50,000 Negligible
11 Traffic Signal Upgrade Remove existing traffic signal equipment, and upgrade the intersection with mast
arm poles, new signal heads, improved loop detection, and left turn phasing. $ 550,000 Negligible
12 Pedestrian/Bike Path Develop, design and construct pedestrian and bike paths, routes and facilities
Development throughout the City. $ 50,000 Negligible
2002-2003 Operating Budget
Project Name Project Description Budget Impact
13 Local Street Reconstruction of deteriorated local streets to include replacement of street
Reconstruction pavement, defective sidewalk, curb and gutter, and to improve drainage.
$ 2,872,123 Negligible
Continuation of Phase II of reconstruction of perimeter road including curbing,
14 Libert Park striping and signage. Install new concrete bike path and other concrete walks in
y the park. Replace existing storm drain system, sanitary sewer system, and water $ 2,170,000 Negligible
service system in park.
Playground Safety&
ADA Compliance Install new playground equipment that meets ADA standards. Provide resilient
15 Popperton Park(1350 surfacing to make the playground equipment accessible to all, and add seating $ 100,000 Negligible
East 11th Ave.) (benches)and other appropriate furnishings.
16 Percent for Art Provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings, sculptures, $ 60,000 Negligible
fountains and other works of art. 1% of project cost is allocated for art projects.
17 Contingency The amount set aside to cover unanticipated cost overruns on funded projects. $ 200,000 Negligible
Subtotal--General1. " , ` 3,`°
, ,r,<- . a.a ,
s lily �,. e • - ;tea R9 ,� z 'a
;
Fund : s ,_ `: a... ;� ��; °` $
22>445067
>
Class C Projects
1 900 South (Main to 900 Reconstruct existing deteriorated street to include removal and replacement of
$ 1,390,000 Negligible
West) pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, traffic control features.
2 900 East&900 South Construct the next reconfigured intersection at 900 East and 900 South $ 300,000 Negligible
3 2100 South 900 West Reconstruct 2100 South 900 West and Redwood Road. $ 460,000 Negligible
and Redwood Road
4 700 South Bridge Replace the Bridge at 700 South at the Jordan River. $ 100,000 Negligible
Replace at Jordan River
Streets Overlay Provide asphalt overlay and microsurface seal treatment to street pavements.
Streets will be selected by the Pavement Management System section in
5 ($1,500,000 ongoing consultation with the Streets Division and will be based on pavement condition $ 1,500,000 Negligible
yearly) and need.
Subtotal--Class C ' 4 t 'rWX -' "'I t. , nw.,,,
Projects f r w y n 4.'1-' ;;-- ,r $ 3,750,000
,
1
Project Name 2002-2003 Operating Budget
Project Description Budget Impact
Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)
CDBG project funding is approved by the Federal Govenrnment on an annual
1 CDBG Project Funding basis. It is expected that the City will receive at least as much funding as in the $ 1,311,454 Negligible
prior year.
Subtotal--CDBG q4,,i, ''A°As`
Other Funding Sources
1 City&County Building Tenth year debt service payment on bond used to rehabilitate and refurbish the $ 569,225 Negligible
Debt Service City and County Building. This portion is paid from Salt Lake County funds.
Subtotal--OtherM Rw � aa � , ' a�,°;,�,,',,
',V, Funds =_ � r�� ,��, o,,z ,,'i"k� � �� ° $ 569,225
TOTAL GENERAL/CDBG/OTHER FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS $ 28,075,746
Enterprise Funds FY 2002-2003
Project Name Airport Fund Project Description 2002-2003 Operating Budget
Budget Impact
1 Traveler Information Install a new traveler information system to provide ground transportation $ 125,000 None
Monitors information, weather information, and possibly hotel accommodation information.
2 Cellular Call Box Replace 22 cellular call boxes with hard-wired phones. Underground conduit and
Replacement wire will be installed at each emergency telephone location. $ 149,000 Negligible
Runway 16/34R Storm Install 7,200 linear feet of reinforced concrete pipe on the west side of Runway
3 Drain Improvements 16L-34R. This will replace the old storm drain line. New drop inlet boxes will be $ 1,797,400 Negligible
Phase II installed, and regrading will be done to improve the surface drainage.
Surface condition Upgrade the SCAN system to SCAN web 2.0 software. All outdated RPUs and
4 analyzer(SCAN) $ 85,000 None
Upgrade
hardware will be replaced with the newest hardware.
Project Name 2002-2003 Operating Budget
Airport Fund Project Description Budget Impact
Boiler Room Emergency Rewire the emergency power service in the boiler room to the spare generator.
5 Power Upgrade Also, include installation of new automatic transfer switch and certification of the $ 250,000 None
condition of the emergency generator given to the Airport by the FAA.
6 Airport II Hangar Construct a new row of T-hangars east and adjacent to the existing hangar facility
Development Phase II at Airport II. $ 1,436,200 Minimal
7 TVA Hangar Construct new T-hangars to support future general aviation. This will provide
Development Phase II aircraft storage facilities south of the future FBO apron and building. $ 647,200 Minimal
8 East Apron Second Phase of the apron rehabilitation project to improve the common use
Rehabilitation Phase II apron areas. Will cover commercial leased apron areas. $ 2,432,300 None
9 NBAR Resurface Consists of an asphalt overlay the full width of the North Bound Access Road
(NBAR) and the exit ramp. $ 293,100 None
10 Terminal Access Loop Consists of an asphalt overlay the full width of the Terminal Access Loop Return
TALR Resurface $ 102,900 None
(TALR) (TALR) road and a minor amount of concrete to improve the drainage and safety.
11 TVA Precision Approach This project includes the installation of a precision approach instrument system, a
Systems MALSR and necessary electrical vault modifications. $ 1,426,000 Minimal
Emergency Access Improve existing perimeter roads that need additional fill and pavement. Access
12 Road Improvements roads to existing navigational aid sites will also be improved. These roads require $ 1,109,800 Minimal
Phase II paint markings and proper delineation to meet engineering standards.
13 Water Main Loop Construct a new water main that will tie into the existing water main near the
Extension 2200 North Southwest Reservation Center. $ 389,200 Minimal
14 Taxiway P Extension Extension to the west will tie Runway 14/32 with Taxiway M. Taxiway N will be
abandoned and will be repaired at the old Taxiway M and N intersection. $ 2,565,300 Minimal
15 Emergency Power to Isolate each of the jetway movement motors and connect them with the existing
Jetways emergency power system. $ 225,000 Minimal
16 Airport II R/W 16/34 Repair, seal and overlay the full length of Runway 16/34 Runway. Runway
Overlay shoulders will also be stabilized in areas where required. $ 1,247,600 None
17 Taxiway H
Reconstruction Phase III Reconstruct 1,062 feet of Taxiway H between Taxiways H5 and H7. $ 1,083,100 None
I
2002-2003 Operating Budget
Project Name Airport Fund Project Description Budget Impact
18 Lighting Control and Replace all outdated light fixtures located throughout the Airport. These fixtures $ 800,000 Minimal
Fixture Improvements require high maintenance and have excessive power consumption.
19 Airport-Wide Fire Alarm Upgrading of selected outdated local fire alarm panels and the networking of the
System Integration , panels. This system will report to the Control Room through the building $ 350,000 None
automation system.
20 SLCIA Land Acquisition Acquire privately owned property located on the corner of 200 West and 2200 $ 250,000 None
North streets on a voluntary basis.
East Side Oil/Water Construct a new automated oil/water separator between the National Guard
21 Separator properties and the City Draining. The new separator will be located just west of $ 378,400 Negligible
2200 West street where the existing oil/water separator equipment is now located.
22 Taxiway Q Centerline Furnish and install centerline taxiway lights at 50-foot intervals along Taxiway Q. $ 906,000 None
Lights
23 Snow Equipment Construct an 18,900 square foot building to store snow removal equipment. $ 1,654,200 Minimal
Storage Building
Ice Control Chemical Construction of new storage tanks to store liquid anti-icing chemical material.
24 Storage Facility Four 25,000 gallon storage tanks are required to replace the outdated and $ 212,200 Minimal
undersized tanks.
25 Runway De-Ice Access Construct an access road to connect the north support area with Taxiways G and $ 373,400 Negligible
Road H.
26 Program Manager Manage, direct and control the design and construction of new development. $ 2,850,000 None
27 Master Architect Design Projects that will be under construction in 2001-2002, and provide ongoing $ 16,400,000 None
design for new development projects.
28 Owner Controlled Provide program that usually results in insurance savings on large construction $ 2,995,000 None
Insurance Program programs
29 Program Support Advertising for construction, legal services, auditing. $ 470,000 None
West Apron Paving $7,000,000 funded from grants. Demolish existing pavement, provide sub-base
30 Phase 3 grading, place concrete pavement, construct asphalt shoulders, and provide $ 8,244,000 $300,000
airfield electrical and drainage.
31 Retail Consultant This project is to develop a concession plan for the new facilities. $ 250,000 None
2002-2003 Operating Budget
Project Name Airport Fund Project Description Budget Impact
This project consists of installing major trunk and distribution lines for utilities that
are needed for the terminal development program. Utilities will be installed to
32 Site Utilities Phase I support both landside and airside facilities. A major utility corridor will be $ 5,440,000 None
, established to consolidate all utilities in controlled access areas and to minimize
costs.
This project is the first of several phases to develop a new hydrant fuel system to
Hydrant Fueling System support the terminal development program. Project will extend the main fuel
33 Phase I distribution line to serve the west halves of the north and south concourses. The $ 4,477,000 None
project consists of installing a new fuel distribution line complete with cathodic
protection, valves, and system testing.
�am,�
Subtotal-Airport Fund ;,tern y �>' ' ' $ 61,414,300
Project Name Golf Fund Project Description 2002-2003 Operating Budget
Budget Impact
Replacement for overaged equipment, irrigation system upgrades, car path
1 Capital Purchases improvements, grounds improvements, facility improvements, and improvements $ 758,600 Negligible
other than building.
Operating lease (Forest Dale Clubhouse renovation, Wingpointe golf course,
2 Debt Service for Capital additional 18 holes at Mountain Dell golf course, and Glendale golf course $ 1,051,068 Negligible
irrigation system), and equipment lease/purchase.
3 Contingency The amount set aside to cover unanticipated cost overruns on funded projects $ 121,866 Negligible
and unbudgeted capital emergencies.
Subtotal--Golf Fund r � VYS $ 1,931,534
Project Name Water Utility Fund Project Description 2002-2003 Operating Budget
Budget Impact
1 Water Rights and Water stock
Supply purchases.
$ 30,000 Negligible
2 Maintenance and Repair Asphalt the shop yard.
Sho s $ 374,750 Negligible
3 Treatment Plants Big Cottonwood and Parley's drying beds. $ 235,000 Negligible
4 Pumping Plants Upgrade pumpstation to feed Ensign Reservoir. $ 540,000 Negligible
5 Culverts, Flumes, and Irrigation improvements, part of continuous upgrade.
Bridges g p pg $ 120,000 Negligible
6 Deep Pump Wells Costruct new pump well at Mick Riley golf course. $ 425,000 Negligible
7 Distribution Reservoirs Upgrade to butterfly valve at Fort Douglas Reservoir. $ 8,000 Negligible
8 Distribution Mains and Fire hydrant replacements, new mainline valves, regulator replacements, donated $ 8,805,840 Negligible
Hydrants and various lines, waterline replacements.
9 Water Service Step up the replacement programs for large meters, service lines, small meters $ 3,100,000 Negligible
Connections and new service connections.
Subtotal--Water Utility E; ' ;A w"'--; .�,� Z ", °t"' $ 13,638,590
Fund 14� ,' A.t ,, ,
Project Name Sewer Utility Fund Project Description 2002-2003 Operating Budget
Budget Impact
Shops, Storehouses,
1 West building roofing. $ 12,000 Negligible
and Other Buildings
2 Lift Stations Upgrade and replace three lift stations. $ 400,000 Negligible
3 Treatment Plant ' Seismic upgrades, secondary treatment expansion, trickling filter media changes, Increase per year of
Improvements clarifier upgrades, power cogen equipment and other equipment improvements. $ 4,060,000 $30,000 to$40,000 O&M
4 Collection Lines Various collection lines, emergencies, design costs for future projects, $ 5,898,700 Negligible
miscellaneous public service projects.
5 Landscaping Additional blacktop and repainting of the reclamation plant. $ 105,000 Negligible
`% Subtotal- R „fi j,Y,, A0,1 -w° �� :wC,a
-Sewer Fund ba .> „ : wtt;,;..: .',,,., $ 10,475,700
Project Name Storm Water Utility Fund Project Description 2002-2003 Operating Budget
Budget Impact
1 Stormwater Lift Stations Lift Station at 500 East Liberty Park. $ 100,000 Negligible
2 Storm Drain Lines To construct storm drain lines and boxes at various locations throughout the City. $ 7,851,200 Negligible
Subtotal--Storm Water "
,°:,°,,,t if, , , .1-,,,, ,, ,,,,
.;•., , „,��.°,,
= ao '£ -, , ,', d:, t ,t�,m »te , ,H-,....,� , ' :e,;,� $ 7,951,200 ,
�� Utility Fund , ,hF,, ! , _ .„ r t t ,, 41; -� ; ° . 5
_°
°.-`"TOTAL ENTERPRISE PROJECTS $ 95,411,324
` TOTAL ALL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
$ 123,487,070
I
I
Salt Lake City
Capital Improvement Program Biennial Budget and Out year Projections
Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Fiscal Year 2005-06
General/CDBG/Other Fund CIP Proposed Expenditures Adopted Adopted Projected Projected Projected
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
1 Debt Service MBA Series'93A ' ",., «. , .,,«a 4 t\ , ';: :s " t N 1 ,.` 9#1,1 _ 7. E t 7 +x 78
General Fund Contribution $1,985,259 $3,007,674 $2,941,153 $2,790,712 $2,791,378
2 Debt Service MBA Series'99A(Plaza 34 «rb`. .^, 4-„T M°;'"R `I t bw:'s i; t :
General Fund Contribution $474,120 $474,120 $474,120 $474,120 $474,120
3 Debt Service MBA Series'99B(Ice Slii'tr .r, .'�,,'" F 3 E n „ Lt °. ,, P ` ° + t ' :; , t .if3
RDA Funding $1,037,703 $1,037,703 $1,037,703 $1,037,703 $1,037,703
4 Debt Service MBA Series'99B-(Gateway,Park PPaject) ,,,4, Vt` , , =S m kili :- t t
RDA Funding $274,810 $274,810 $274,810 $274,810 $274,810
5 Debt Service MBA Series'99B'Tire Training), - ,za �� ' '° ,.s A spy -'' ''''"4�
General Fund Contribution $61,308 $61,308 $61,308 $61,308 $61,308
6 Debt Service MFET Series 93A ,w ��� M�yyyy 1 g 9 '
General Fund Contribution $671,060 $731,850 $0 $0 $0
Class"C"Road Funds $731,260 $730,645 $733,285
7 Debt Service MFET Series 99A ' ' : .' x s.sp, ,ft<r..�:,.,$:: # i„ $ 0 ; ;";`` _-$21; 20 fi » <2' t .Y
General Fund Contribution $680,810 $729,920 $729,920 $729,920 $729,920
8 Debt Service City&County Building(GO Series 1991,Building Rehab.)' )," :PA.m' '-,x S` O z e ' _.,,_, $3 l83;9 ,` ` i, , 3;: 50
General Fund Contribution $2,421,526 $2,428,496 $2,579,827 $2,590,710 $2,573,669
GOV/PVT Funding $567,591 $569,225 $604,126 $606,680 $602,682
9 Additional Bonding Debt Service-(GO Series:1999 Library) „ " w;>"` ` �"'e 2 - '>: : [x° ,e 6, 1 6 3
. 5'�� im„F�. �,.�� L� s�«�#�'..�.'��`:.........«:E �� ,,., �ry�V}��' �7i,. N x4 L �,.�4 � '� ; V.rr��. .�J
General Fund Contribution $6,639,633 $6,817,883 $6,795,483 $6,777,232 $6,762,483
10 Debt Service MBA Series 01(Justice Court Building) ' �` � x �� '; ` 00 , °,'£, 00
.....`�z5•eh _^m ,:�W�,"ir» _.«...Y���«:..�.� ������'.<�:.��'ci�.'�..""' r3'. .��hy..., k.�Sa� .. "*W; N-,�Y9'. ' ��,�u,11
General Fund Contribution $150,693 $361,400 $365,100 $358,800
11 Debt Service MBA Series 01.(South:cvest Police Preciziet) At&: ,:i' ftr"�"" :� i1, 1 'a
General Fund Contribution $434,160 $431,260 $433,060
12 Contingency ''',; , '''I-V - „Il ,t i' ,,._. ._ti . �s- . . . ? 60,t t.4IF s .a s'r ,s 1 i
General Fund Contribution $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
CDBG Funding $42,954 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000
13 Percent for Art ' e. »_ 4, :. a" *;1 t .>: t a `. SPIITI, `. z..._ a,,
General Fund Contribution $60,000 $60,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000
CDBG Funding $6,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
14 Public Safety Radio Communications • . "r'"C". : ' -..4 4i:",;'5,.� �=" yq't a . , a ,,i t di= $632, t t , � as
General Fund Contribution $541,000 $541,000 $632,500
Capital Improvement Program Biennial Budget and Out year Projections
General/CDBG/Other Fund CLP Proposed Expenditures Adopted Adopted Projected Projected Projected
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
15 Proposed Debt on Capital`'PrOj ebt. ($'e ':Ptdiu";has a-D Erg du# aim#' s;:. z { `m^'' A '.; r ;:.,,,",°'t cig,�..r. ,.��J�h�`i4ftUldr��.;a� ��`,",,:•;�3u� ., .,w,,� ° < r � 5 a ...�.F»�.. �., �'?�� $�.w,aw:+�� ��. �1 v�'°'''y�-.�l°r �Y �.°`".,r,�.`�'Mf»a� � ��a�.' a
General Fund Contribution $775,160 1
16 Libe Park r'•'.., $ ,588,218 $3 858,973
Y ,. 4 f s` r"'.iiat e t k.,a :j ».s'.,= ";:'.11l ' tgaT i1„P `a1d4 3: `fdilll
General Fund Contribution $2,520 000 1 11 1 1 1 111
° $1 700 000 $1,000,000
17 Local Street Reconstruction City`c ice. ,. .4 "' Y,xy:4,!' a tq� ` 11 6 E a t e .i r pq
�� a� .� ��, e,�cer���x..a�.._,:>.a.. x..��....'�ak ���:.,.� -�^';� 1'1 1 B"- �k".� „ra � _ 'W�� l l i 1s
General Fund Contribution $1,000,000 $2,872,123 ; 111 111 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Class"C"Road Funds $1,910,000 $1,850,000 $4,600,000 $11,075,532
Federal Highway Funds $2,500,000
CDBG Funding $30,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000
SID Funding $700,000
18 Streets Overlay :> r; aN , , �,.• ,�: F; 7 t, :rW �- . . .:
„�;s�_. a,, �' � �:a �°� �.a�$� 1 i #l l e � aSF a lk�l£l�f ,��'k,:���i;.�11.i l 1 r>�+���1�� a l"k1�3 @ �,t��i�$y'14s1 00
Class"C"Road Funds z �! `�.��`� '` � srr � � ���, � � 4, .,:
$1,500,000 $1,500,000 11111 11111 $1,500,000
19 Concrete Street Rehabilitation z°'g ,,a� 7;,r.. : .r'.. ..7,e��1-4a, ,,<£, l l l r x �t 2 _ 0 EFREEEtv,.. :
=m: ,, , .��aw � �,->..a��i�amak"' ° �°l ��., 4 axil�g a,4l00Q
Class"C"Road Funds $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
20 Arterial/Collector - .., 4,,• ✓+":- t a xn;a�, 5N i. -, .;� .. .<.,�° ,�,°
Street Reconstruction �.� � „�� � ff � �,,, l � � � � ll ��
Class,�C��Road Funds ,..T:rt� ,, � .��� � -,3�' aw� � , °�w � <<:��'�. -�,�� , � ��s„$0
$5,175,000
21 Traffic Signal Upgrade Citywide _ . � = ''' � � � v . �� '
A 'a °• ,4250;00•0 t., % �'A*`=�50;Ut}q
General Fund Contribution $550,000 $250,000
$250,000 $250,00022 Pedestrian/Bike Path
Development ;'"" 0 s a
General Fund Contribution $400,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
23 ADA Sidewalk/Ramps/Corner Repairs and Installation __''' ,, 0 :' a. , $ i" i i . l l l l 1 l t t Co :1 l l l t
General Fund Contribution $945,241 $350,000 $350,000 $500,000 $100,000
CDBG Funding $482,500 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
SID Funding $740,000 $400,000 $400,000 •,•11 111
24 Playground Safety&ADA Complienee 9Traisitida Plan City Vide' '',? 7 , Q u, �r l c1 c� , �,. � a l
.„,-: " ,mo;o09, F •�"�. o
General Fund Contribution
$150,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
CDBG Funding $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
25 Building Refurbishment and Construction '0'- O; �-e
General Fund Contribution � $0
$375,000 $60,000
26 Bridge Rehabilitation •, L L 1 r , �� g
Class,�C„Road Funds d .. . , � � � a, �� a t� �'+ �d� s„�,���.,v,� ���. �l�Il�'ie;; ,1
$100,000 $80,0001111MMIIMI
27 Street Lighting Upgrade Citywide,'„': ` y e"'-', ,a „ u , „fi•, „ ;.=Fs«. '',°`s r l 9 l is• .> .,� s
g 8 Pg ty�' , rw, :�.x�. ,�-��. „ �;...� u...�� _ .' ldA .� r �,#t,�l 1� °g. °�i1��l`�». . . ; $10
General Fund Contribution $300,000 $300,000
Capital Improvement Program Biennial Budget and Out year Projections
General/CDBG/Other Fund CIP Proposed Expenditures Adopted Adopted Projected Projected Projected
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
28 Jordan River Parkway Trail,Develapmen/mprovemeii`ts;'City WSd A°=.`� " ,. ,, ' `Y. °p ` � [.: a
1 ,; MA 2: €t °4 .t
General Fund Contribution $380,550 $100,000 $100,000
CDBG Funding $100,000
Dept of Natural Resources Grant $100,000
29 Street I Median Rehabilitation a '',. i � `::�E1 ° ._' ° r 1, ! � 3`9€ �. } t I t ''
General Fundy -
Contribution $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
30 Rail Crossing Removal/Upgrade '-:, :7" =s " ° ,.`4'u". 111 r '' s��t u 1 , w t : a
General Fund Contribution $350,000
31 Island/greenbelt alt.Landscape Imp.'/Urban'Forett ` = ;i'''„,,'" ,~N •,',a t 'L 1 t t ,q...•$, , '"
CDBG Funding $20,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
32 Traffic Calming(Citywide) "',,t`',' <.`'' �•“,.� '°x"� 4 ,; ,, �
��� •��a'�" �� � .��,a ,.. .,.. , - �� _.,� �.* n �,�t�l t t$ :,�. 9�= �"$���$�t c: 72 �tM
General Fund Contribution $500,00000 000
$250,000 $5 $500,000
33 Streetlight Pole Replacement r € ,.;' 41. j: '" r ,�'gll O S p acement'{Cztyvuide) .,\,.�, ?i' �"+w �� �."�� �xi�;�a � a �...,��3.;,��,� ,��t t t�a y,��' jai,#'�.i illi �t t 11
General Fund Contribution 111111=11111 $100,000 $100,000 $50,000
34 Irrigation Automation,Parks i g ?:,"
gC t�''V�zdt*, x�lea. �i'ae� ,Se �»�9•.,>.'»` ��..» � 4 �g{� fl s 3 $a'`+�' is�t� ',tee ,g„ � i'���*nae
�'; �'�i.P� � �� � �.�. A�e �, � � �w�,� I�t 1 1! �� a�� ,t�.9�9 f! ; i t i t
General Fund Contribution $325,000 $100,000 $100,000 $50,000
CDBG Funding $165,000
35 Transportation System Management MARE', " � ''.�'�'$ "6,'.'t�t gef:ak-i.„,; , - �.�,_�.,w"._., n; , �a . .7'a tY0 i : ,5,,i! Ai, 7 $1t 5 t t
General Fund Contribution $100,000 $100,000 $150,000
36 Sports Field Improveinents.City Wide. . ,°;� ,ir- ,is,:;"''' t> , a : ,�, � ,„ it,a t , t M , , i;i 1 t
General Fund Contribution $80,000 $80,000 $80,000
37 Park Expansion Develo meat o ' i iri' :C i d�Pro •:r+!; >`o";'°��, ,1.,, e t t o- " sea �aa « + ' >
P P �: ��?� l�rh`'.y,° �,,� _ •�a������ ���A..,, ����'.;`„ i+„!q � : ,°� .��;�t t t i i t�00
General Fund Contribution $150,000 A $150,000 $50,000
CDBG Funding $365,000 $350,000 $250,000
38 New Traffic Signal " " *age,; E. f;M ' '.R: b =� t .: .: ... $250,000
e S gn l InsWiatidii: .,,';'' -;, ., 0-. . i.;t t „. t t t t ea 't t
. wry; __ �"�«: �.. � � ��� -.��� , . ,� � ,� .� l t t t
General Fund Contribution
$280,0001111 $125,000 $125,000
$125,000
39 Parks Restroom Improvements City Wide ' 'a"%` ,'?:=s �'`� �,°,; �` y �' �`< }I 0 :7 • bt
General Fund Contribution $125,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
CDBG Funding $275,000 $275,000 $275,000
40 Tennis Court Improvements City Wide - ,z_ ;, r r litg t �,. t �. 4.b OCR l `� 1'; . 7
x� r�s,mcm ; ,a ���s�. ., a��. . � mmu?s� ��f `� . ,S w�; to 00
General Fund Contribution $100,000 $100,000
CDBG Funding $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
41 SecurityLighting(Parks)CityWide•' ,';a,t:.w�a:.- . . •; ,,.41'« "s,. ;�,*,,,�r;.g'' -� r �7 ... a + *»• ;
� g > � �e� �,. �� �ail .' � �� �_w. z t t�t t ,�,' �� t „� 0ltb
General Fund Contribution ���"� �� � � ������ � �'��a,�kx�������� t`a,a �� �� ��
$50,000 $50,000 $50,000
CDBG Funding $100,000 $100,0001 $100,000
Capital Improvement Program Biennial Budget and Out year Projections
General/CDBG/Other Fund CIP Proposed Expenditures Adopted Adopted Projected Projected Projected
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
42 Parks Re constructIon City Wide ,.,uA= ,,,x-< '' ;',,*.1,1,,e•''`'":410>�=.`?a'`.'':^i��:'- 0," t s>� � 4 � �•:.� w t t
�ya S
General Fund Contribution $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
CDBG Funding $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
43 Parks Picnic Pavilion ImprovementsCity Wide, , .9ro' 0 • " ',
''"x'�j„ ;fit" ��",.' kz" .-�vKs�a„x.,� $7,,,,$.04 ,I 52 14 v f t 1
General Fund Contribution $100,000 $125,000 $125,000
CDBG Funding
Funds to applyfor Available $75 000 $75 000 $75,000
44 Matching Grants(P4ks s, ' _ ' ' - :.� � a .
E.a ���'l�WidE_ ��„ i;� �� a'� � a,,A.� N a•?,� as"s�.� ` 9 p�� „ t���' �� g�`�i:^� �y�� w #t t
General Fund Contribution
Wide � ° $25,000 $25 000 $25,000
45 Acquisition of Open Space�far Futureievelops?itY Cit ' m� Sr e �� �° �;�� �f�v°� � °_ ,� �( � � t AFQ Yr t General Fund Contribution
$100,000
46 New Street Light Installation^(City w. id,..ey .5-,_w"'"-Aar""', •D,x 0- . r,.. ,,..7,,° f 7;' &•.,,,:. alm .,...., �._r�4.::,v3� 1;114.:(1ESZZ,:i-,x:Y.f.21;dif:4-6illikkfieVla
General Fund Contribution $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
47 Planting Additional Trees,(Parks)Ci i t'''-z3 ' ' 4 ° 1 fix. 50 9'C ,-47):
General Fund Contribution
48 Amenities R $50,000 $50,000
eplaCement/Upgrade(Be:TeltesT i»?Clhl'kjn 'InaI tarns etc) I%4 fi'`;'"t ;, '',14', „. , , Y `» WOO i,' di6 A
�,�'a.�,..w»a.���,�x.._•a.T�....„� �� e �., �� a gin; ft
General Fund Contribution
$20,000 $25,000 $25,000
49 Parking/Hard Surface Repairs(Parks')City Wide ^ ^, 'Age'. ,3 '.§ `- ;; ,(mg i r,s'''' �''' 4
General Fund Contribution $30,000
50 Interior P ° $30 000 $30,000
arkarailsSignage`City Wide a ?-e' " '° � J a rm m
General Fund �''E� �;,�� �-� _'3 �.w;,:' ,�,?a,�•...� ...e',._:�.,�.����,'� �E�i F(�,, ``sue . �9',n� ,°"�,�''"�u�� �t
Contribution $10,000 $10,000
51 Yet to be Allocated to a Specific Project°,(Impact Fee 1 i g ''"'' _ $10,000
t ib�) :__ „ .�,r'F',`�• ">�r '"ib� �$ � �._.� � .. �.�s ^a!�.� ._z�°.� t 9�# �� �s ��Y S,0{}9
General Fund Contribution(from Impact Fees) $750,000 $750,000 $550,000 $500,000 $500,000
52 Streetsoape,,Upgrade 900 East 9QOOSouth7,wy, $., • ,A+ ,,;; ,„ a a 'i^ ,,, ,.ii )):,., ..w ,.L ...°.�wY...: y � & ��x...., 'a ;
General Fund Contribution $70,000
Class"C"Road Funds $300,000
53 Pedestrian Safety Devices ;,; `"'" o:ofi ;,«,� 'tos la,tvo^
General Fund Contribution $150,000
54 Parley's Nature and'Historie'Paik2-- `£W.. '1*--;, ,,,,,,4' ; 14,001-ii- i'; 1, ma t, „,, r rx .z
General Fund Contribution ° "'p t
$70,000
Dept of Natural Resources Grant t� $70,000
55 Su arbouse Business District Stor%g hbp „ , ,, i ; °;>' ?•', • s° ,:,. L
g >� �.,a�,.,. ,'�y„q:,R• .. �;a� .. M �. ���� �� . . .,N�rw�:�'rR �t��r:i.wS,i�� m. ,.,„.:„re .�r
General Fund Contribution $100,000
56 CDBG Outyear Project Funding , ,' ;h.%i ,'' ^,� a ;'>°;° , k'i i:, •� k,.� � ...... .,A._.. : L�z� � �>a °� . 130
'
CDBG Funding $1,311,454
"-,e'' ,,'.' -,r^ t$lerrinventOrOftapitAi ied ' :^� a via' x.` F�6ii, �.,^>' r te'' ;::::7 ,'. _ iii4 ":71;:7 x ia. 3 f
Capital Improvement Program Biennial Budget and Out year Projections
CIP Business Plan Proposed Debt Service Adopted Adopted Projected Projected Projected
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
Proposed CIP Debt Schedule
1 Southwest Police Precinct Building and Justice Court Building $11,855,000
2 Remaining Library Bond Authorization $3,000,000
3 Fire Training and Support Facility $8,700,000
4 Fleet Maintenance Facility $24,300,000
5 Police Precinct-Southeast Area $9,150,000
1: �=Total 'roposef CIgDebt Schedule�`Projec s :",..'�'`s"''$u ugl 4 d :'''' �, 6',yQii,o �,, 24', _ S:' ° # i�li$_,
`" : ;.aura .r����� �. ��'`� ,+x c��
Tota*,Proposed ProjectBond moth &:IssuCosts i k' ,; r 1T9 4� � e. P ,z �r*r:;. i �i E's i'�0 t
Anticipated"Yearly' Service o �Addi o a C De' ;an 'i- .�. . �, �^ � 5
�l 4,� 5 ""�>� y `�� 8«t� a1.sa r ,�y$ ! S c � �s i as
A1tt1Ci at� �. b .x�r � �a.^�. s»' �<
p ti. e t Sei on`>Addition:.CU .7ebt ss Tc s i rr� s ,� i �r
Anticipated Y ly Debt,Se ice ;Additional, ebb Iss % ,j :" � ��`
Antiei ate "i'e�;� �7e�if8e�r- sy� 1 _� � �: �, ��� � �� ,����. f�r ,p`
p dY_ ieeeon Addition IP DebtJ ce a , r -w+ rn , a i: .� u 01
Total Ptti ased,CTP'Debt.Se V Ci' ,;T ;.,,$ a - ��1 '''' ':', a , 98
P its �� ° �. , 3,860 6 , , .i, ,,,,- 98
CIP Business Plan General Fund Project Summary Adopted Adopted Projected Projected Projected
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
Revenue Source
General Fund Contribution $21,350,507 $22,445,067 $20,929,549 $21,167,299 $21,446,929
Class"C"Road Funds $2,010,000 $3,750,000 $7,111,260 $18,681,177 $2,433,285
Federal Highway Funds $0 $0 $0 $2,500,000 $0
CDBG Funding $1,311,454 $1,311,454 $2,325,500 $2,225,500 $2,225,500
SID Funding $740,000 $0 $1,100,000 $400,000 $400,000
RDA Funding $1,312,513 $1,312,513 $1,312,513 $1,312,513 $1,312,513
GOV/PVT Funding $737,591 $569,225 $604,126 $606,680 $602,682
IOTA��°��~�°' L p ROJECTED'REVN
'8
Proposed CIP Projects l $27,462,065 $29,388,259 $33,382,948 $46,893,168 $28,420,908 8
TOTAL C) �NVENTORY OF cAPTTAVI w'' c & t..-.w..F,. . � ,� �� , '7a,, 71)..8:
,
Capital Improvement Program Biennial Budget and Out year Projections
Enterprise Fund CIP Proposed Expenditures Adopted Adopted Projected Projected Projected
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
Airport Development Program
Note-This 5 year plan is based on the April 1999 Schematic'Design."'1e ire gra na scope a& A '"ter ' `4- E X s " ; . $ c A . f''
I Apron Paving,Drainage&Lighting $9,481,000 $8,244,000 $8,600,000 $8,600,000
2 Master Architect $15,520,000 $16,400,000
3 Program Management $2,550,000 $2,850,000
4 Owner Control Insurance Program(OCIP) $3,132,000 $2,995,000
5 Program Support $470,000 $470,000
6 Surface Parking $5,395,000
7 Site Utilities $5,440,000 $1,898,000
8 North Concourse $48,458,000 $53,458,000 $16,393,000
9 Terminal Access Roadway $3,000,000 $9,000,000
10 South Concourse,West Side $3,424,000
11 Retail Consultant $150,000 $150,000
12 Hydrant Fuel Distribution $4,477,000 $3,493,000
13 Parking Structure/GTC $28,000,000 $7,000,000
14 Baggage Handling System $383,000 $383,000
15 Passenger Boarding Bridges $5,088,000 $5,088,000
16 Pre-Conditioned Air System $1,266,000 $1,265,000
17 400 Hertz Power System $629,000 $628,000
18 Automated People Mover Tunnel Structure $9,990,000
Subtotal Development Program < �n$50, IV' ��A 000`, ; .'1 y�,w1"
Airport Other Projects � �'' '' . ,� ,, � �+ ,� �������; ... ,��23�' �U00:
19 Waste Glycol Processing $700,000
20 Constant current Regulators(CCR)and Circuit Modification $249,700
21 Runway Guard Light Upgrade-Phase II $479,500
22 Land Acquisition $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
23 Economic Development Reserve $2,000,000
24 Continental Reservation Center Upgrade $1,400,000
25 Capital Improvement Program Committee Reserve $1,500,000
26 Tooele Airport Projects $4,276,400 $2,073,200 $6,499,909 $731,993
27 Terminal 1 Facility Upgrades and Expansion $2,037,900
28 Airfield Drainage Improvements $2,302,700 $1,797,400 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
29 Restroom Upgrades $651,500
30 Security Improvement Projects $1,200,000
31 R/W 16L Pavement End Reconstruction $1,542,500
32 Apron Lighting Improvements $231,500
Capital Improvement Program Biennial Budget and Out year Projections
Enterprise Fund CIP Proposed Expenditures Adopted Adopted Projected Projected Projected
Airport Other Projects FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
33 Bus Plaza South of TU 1 $223,700
34 Parking Expansion and Lighting Upgrades $598,000
35 North Cargo Expansion $4,552,200 $862,538 $898,932
36 Airport II Projects $1,006,300 $2,683,800 $500,000 $162,950
37 Terminal Roadway Capacity Improvement $1,323,600 .
38 Traveler Information Monitors $125,000
39 Cellular Call Box Replacement $149,000
40 Surface Condition Analyzer(SCAN)Upgrade $85,000
41 Boiler Room Emergency Power Upgrade $250,000
42 East Apron Rehabilitation Phase Ii $2,432,300
43 NBAR Resurface $293,100
45 Terminal Access Loop(TALR)Resurface $102,900
46 Emergency Access Road Improvements $1,109,800 $1,057,000
47 Water Main Loop Extension-2200 North $389,200
48 Taxiway Extensions and Reconstructions $808,100 $3,748,400 $250,000 $23,325,850
49 Emergency Power to Jetways $225,000
50 Lighting Control&Fixture Improvements $800,000
51 Airport Wide Fire Alarm System Integration $350,000
52 East Side Oil/Water Separator $378,400
53 Taxiway Q Centerline Lights $906,000
54 Snow Equipment Storage Building $1,654,200
55 Ice Control Chemical Storage Facility $212,200
56 Runway De-ice Access Road $373,400
57 R/W End Safety Area Upgrade Phase II(R/W 34R) _ $1,603,024
58 Maintenance Facility Expansion $3,084,000
59 Greenhouse Extension $154,000
60 Parking Structure Lighting Automation $120,000
61 R/W 16L/34R Pavement Overlay $8,000,000
62 Construct Runway End Deicing/Holding Apron $5,000,000 $5,000,000
63 Master Plan Update/EA for R/W 16L $3,000,000
64 South Cargo Pavement Rehabilitation $687,590
65 Emergency Power for Parking Toll Booth&Gates $250,000
66 Clocks&Paging Phones at each FIDS Cabinet $100,000
67 Hotel Development Site Prep.&Utilities $2,152,000
Subtotal Ongoing Capital Improvement Program $27,333,600 $20,388,300 $16,380,471 $23,233,465 $28,325,850
..�,,TotatAi oitOW rise•F'an + FF,3,. _>.,. , . -.,n;.,, S U
Capital Improvement Program Biennial Budget and Out year Projections
(Enterprise Fund CIP Proposed Expenditures I Adopted Adopted Projected Projected Projected
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
Golf Enterprise Fund
1 Capital $371,300 $758,600 $600,000 $675,000 $775,000
2 Debt Service For Capital $1,235,847 $1,051,068 $1,188,485 $1,186,964 $1,188,518
3 Contingency $123,664 $121,866 $116,470 $116,946 $113,946
Total GolfEnte"rprise°Fund _ d $""7• M `'l .^ .F, a., `k* $ 6°4
Water Utility Enterprise Fund
1 Treatment Plants $236,000 $235,000 $2,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000
2 Distribution Mains and Hydrants $4,207,910 $8,805,840 $3,221,600 $2,550,000 $1,462,800
3 Water Service Connections $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $2,700,000 $1,850,000 $2,700,000
4 Land Purchases $2,200,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
5 Water Rights and Supply $30,000 $30,000, $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
6 Culverts.Flumes,and Bridges $185,000 $120,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
7 Distribution Reservoirs $250,000 $8,000 $100,000
8 Deep Pump Wells $698,000 $425,000
9 Maintenance and Repair Shops $344,000 $374,750 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
10 Storage Reservoirs
11 Pumping Plants $65,000 $540,000
12 Landscaping $7,000
u
„i�� otial1Vattr',tlll iitei `0 tarot .
0 T -•a ts0
Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund
I Shops,Storehouses,and other Buildings $188,000 $12,000
2 Lift Stations $675,000 $400,000 $300,000 $450,000 $300,000
-
3 Treatment Plant Improvements $11,485,000 $4,060,000 $3,350,000 $8,850,000 $6,911,500
4 Collection Lines $6,071,000 $5,898,700 $4,119,500 $2,100,000 $1,697,967
5 Landscaping 2$15,000 $105,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
, , w . .1',0 al4Sewe!Utility Fntei` se'Fanit ` : o"$4 r le
� �� },= ' �.� �.<.nab �- ... , u
Enterprise Fund CIP Proposed Expenditures Adopted Adopted I Projected Projected Projected
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
Stormwater Utility Enterprise Fund
1 Stormwater Lift Stations $765,000 $100,000
2 Storm Drain Lines $3,013,700 $7,851,200 $4,730,000 $5,265,000 $5,000,000
3 Detention Basins $400,000
Total Stortwater Utility Fntetpiri ilaad rtAr 4 ;'7.. , ;S $q 606 W4..4 a^"'`i�$S; Qt11it)0
Capital Improvement Program Biennial Budget and Out-year Projections
Intermodal Hub Enterprise Fund
1 Tracks Relocation,Interim Amtrak Facilities&Property Acquisition $7,039,420 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total lntermddatil b Enter ripe Fand: ,SW010 p�(�
Rl i,� •e.x. :°"' Tl aa�sav� .,+Rll'
Grand'Total All CW Eater risC;1rtiiid t 1``1'1 T'