The URL can be used to link to this page

05/10/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, at 5 :41 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Jill Remington Love, JT Martin, Stan Penfold, Luke Garrott and Soren Simonsen. Also In Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ralph Becker; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; David Everitt, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Chris Burbank, Police Chief; Neil Lindberg, Council Legal Director; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Jodi Langford, Employee Benefits Administrator; Debra Alexander, Human Resource Director; Gina Chamness, Budget Director; Mary Beth Thompson, Payroll/Accounting; Margaret Plane, Senior City Attorney; Brian Roberts, Senior City Attorney; Karl Lieb, Deputy Fire Chief; D.J. Baxter, Redevelopment Agency Executive Director; Justin Belliveau, Redevelopment Agency Deputy Director; Edward Butterfield, Redevelopment Agency Project Coordinator; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 :41 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 5:41:05PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachments See File M 11-5 for announcements . #2 . (TENTATIVE) RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE SALT LAKE CITY STREETCAR PROJECT. View Attachments Item not held. #3 . 5:44:14PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND TO TANNACH PROPERTIES, LLC FOR THE STATE STREET PLAZA APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 237-255 SOUTH STATE STREET. View Attachments LuAnn Clark briefed the Council with the attached handouts . A majority of the Council was in favor of advancing the proposal . 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 #4 . 5:47:30PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE REVENUE OUTLOOK FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 BUDGET. View Attachments Mary Beth Thompson and Gina Chamness briefed the Council with a PowerPoint Presentation and the attached handouts . Ms . Thompson said the parking ticket audit/review had been done and when the write-up was finished, it would be presented to the Administration and Council . #5. 7:38:20PM RECEIVE AN OVERVIEW FROM COUNCIL STAFF REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011- 2012 . (ITEMS H1-H19) View Attachments Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Christensen said he felt the Council needed legislative oversight on proposed General Fund "Set Aside for Capital Asset Management (CAM) projects" . He said he also wanted analysis/feedback regarding retirement liability based on new State requirements . Discussion was held on addressing the CIP process . Councilmember Simonsen requested an overview of major capital facility projects anticipated by the Administration along with recommended priorities . Councilmember Love said she agreed. #6. 6:08:02PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . View Attachments Chief Burbank and Karen Halladay briefed the Council with the attached handouts. Councilmember Christensen said there were areas of City parks/pathways which were difficult to police and asked Chief Burbank to explore ways to address the concern including enhanced bike patrol, security cameras and utilizing non-sworn personnel . Discussion was held on applying for additional Cops Office grants. A majority of the Council was in favor. #7 . 7:12:33 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY'S HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS. CURRENT AND FUTURE PLANS FOR ADDRESSING THE FINANCING OF THE CITY'S HEALTH CARE PLAN AND RISING HEALTH COSTS WILL BE DISCUSSED DURING THE BRIEFING. View Attachments Jodi Langford and Debra Alexander briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Discussion was held on the rising cost of health care verses increased number of claims. Ms . Langford said she was 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 working the insurance provider to prepare specific data which would be presented to the Council next week. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON A PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN ENTERPRISE FUND TO PAY FOR STREET LIGHTING AND THE PROPOSAL' S EFFECT ON THE CITY'S STREET LIGHTING PROGRAM. THE PROPOSAL IS A COMPONENT OF THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011- 2012 . View Attachments Item not held. #9. 7:54:58PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (b) ; b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (d) ; c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; AND e) FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78B-1-137 . Councilmember Simonsen moved and Councilmember Garrott seconded to enter into Closed Session. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Christensen, Turner, Penfold, Love, Garrott, Martin and Simonsen voted aye. See file M 11-2 for Sworn Statement and recording. Note: In order to address items on the formal agenda which were inadvertently overlooked, the Council needed to reconsider the motion to enter into Closed Session. Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Martin seconded to reconsider the motion to enter into Closed Session. A roll call 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 vote was taken. Council Members Christensen, Turner, Penfold, Love, Garrott, Martin and Simonsen voted aye. Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Martin seconded to not enter into Closed Session. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Christensen, Turner, Penfold, Love, Garrott, Martin and Simonsen voted aye. 7:57:46 PM Councilmember Simonsen moved and Councilmember Garrott seconded to enter into Closed Session. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Christensen, Turner, Penfold, Love, Garrott, Martin and Simonsen voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 9 : 20 p.m. \j,(1 -1 4.41 COUNCIL CHA R 01,1• , µ. TY RECO BRAT This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held May 10, 2011. sc 11 - 4 SAE!o CORKYVie' JIOJ1 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Salt Lake City Council City& County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah AGENDA Tuesday,May 10, 2011 3:30 p.m.Work Session or immediately following the 2:00 p.m.Redevelopment Agency Meeting (public is invited) PLEASE NOTE: Limited Formal Session following 3:30 Work Session.A general public comment period will not be held this evening. This is the Council's monthly scheduled briefing night. However,housekeeping action items are included. A. WORK SESSION: Approximately 3:30 p.m. City& County Building,451 South State St., Room 326. (Agenda items scheduled during the Council's formal meeting may be discussed during the work session. Items from the following list that Council is unable to complete in the work session from approximately 3:30 p.m.—6:30 p.m.may be addressed in a work session setting following the consent agenda.) 1. Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. 2. (TENTATIVE)The Council will receive an update from the Administration regarding the Salt Lake City Streetcar Project. 3. The Council will receive a briefing regarding a resolution authorizing a loan from Salt Lake City's Housing Trust Fund to Tannach Properties,LLC for the State Street Plaza Apartment Project located at 237—255 South State Street. 4. (TENTATIVE) The Council will receive an update from the Administration regarding the revenue outlook for the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget. 5. The Council will receive an overview from Council Staff regarding the recommended budget for Salt Lake City,Utah for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. (Items H1-H19) CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 14-5476 TELEPHONE: B01.535-7600 FAX: B01-535.7651 WWW.SLCGOV.COM'COUNCIL EMAIL: COLINCIL.COMMENTS@ELCGOV.COM �1 aecvcEo vnPea Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,May 10,2011 oset 6. The Council will receive a briefmg regarding the Mayor's recommended budget for the Police Department for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. 7. The Council will receive an update from the Administration regarding Salt Lake City's Health Insurance Benefits. Current and future plans for addressing the financing of the City's Health Care Plan and rising health costs will be discussed during the briefing. 8. The Council will receive a briefing regarding the Mayor's recommended budget proposal to establish an enterprise fund to pay for street lighting and the proposal's effect on the City's street lighting program. 9. (TENTATIVE) The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session, in keeping with Utah Code § 52-4-204, for any of the following purposes: a)A strategy session to discuss collective bargaining,pursuant to Utah Code § 52-4-205 (1)(b); b)A strategy session to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property(including any form of water right or water shares)when public discussion of the transaction would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration or prevent the City from completing the transaction on the best possible terms,pursuant to Utah Code § 52- 4-205(1)(d); c)A strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation,pursuant to Utah Code § 52-4-205(1)(c); d)A strategy session to discuss the sale of real property(including any form of water right or water shares)if(1)public discussion of the transaction would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration or prevent the City from completing thew. transaction on the best possible terms, (2)the City previously gave notice that the property would be offered for sale,and(3)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the City approves the sale; e)For attorney-client matters that are privileged,pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137; and f)A strategy session to discuss deployment of security personnel, devices or systems pursuant to Utah Code Section 52-4-205(1)(f). 2 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,May 10,2011 FORMAL MEETING Limited action items will immediately follow 3:30 p.m.work session in Room 326 B. OPENING CEREMONY: (None) C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (None) D. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: (None) E. COMMENTS: (None) F. NEW BUSINESS: (None) G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1.Resolution: Adopt the Tentative Budgets of Salt Lake City,including the Tentative Budget of the Library Fund, for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Consider a resolution adopting the tentative budgets of Salt Lake City,Utah, including the tentative budget of the Library Fund, for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. (B 11-1) Staff Recommendation: Adopt. H. CONSENT: 1. Confirm Date: Ordinances: Adopt the City Budget,excluding the budget for the Library Fund which is separately adopted, and the Employment Staffmg Document of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Confuni the date of May 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance adopting the final budget and related ordinances, excluding the budget for the Library Fund,which is separately adopted, and the employment staffing document for Salt Lake City,Utah for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. (Note: The Council will hold a combined Public Hearing on items H1-H19 on May 17,2011, which will address all issues associated with the 2011-2012 Budget,including the Library Fund.) (B 11-1) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 3 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,May 10,2011 0004, 2. Confirm Date: Ordinance: Adopt the Library Fund of Salt Lake City,Utah for Fiscal Year 2011- 2012 Confirm the date of May 17,2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding an ordinance adopting the budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City,Utah for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. (B 11-2) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 3. Confirm Date: Ordinance: Adopt the Rate of Tax Levy,including the levy for the Library Fund, upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City,made taxable by law for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Confirm the date of May 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. to accept public comment regarding an ordinance adopting the rate of tax levy, including the levy for the Library Fund,upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City,made taxable by law for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. (B 11-1) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 4. Confirm Date: Ordinance: Adopt the Rate of Tax Levy to be credited to the Library fund for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Confum the date of May 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. to accept public comment regarding an ordinance adopting the Rate of Tax Levy to be credited to the Library fund for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. (B 11-2) Amok Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 5. Ordinance: Confirm Date: Approve Compensation Plan for all Non-Represented Employees of Salt Lake City Confirm the date of May 17,2011 at 7:00 p.m. to accept public comment regarding an ordinance approving a compensation plan for all non-represented employees of Salt Lake City. (O 11-10) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 6. Ordinance: Confirm Date: Approve Memorandum of Understanding,between Salt Lake City Corporation and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, representing eligible employees pursuant to the Collective Bargaining and Employee Representation Joint Resolution dated March 22,2011 Confirm the date of May 17,2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding an ordinance approving Memorandum of Understanding, between Salt Lake City Corporation and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,representing eligible employees pursuant to the Collective Bargaining and Employee Representation Joint Resolution dated March 22, 2011, which shall become effective on proper ratification and signature. (O 11-11) Staff Recommendation: Confum date. 4 ' Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,May 10,2011 7. Ordinance: Confirm Date:Appropriating Necessary Funds to Implement the Provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding,Between Salt Lake City Corporation and Local 1040 (AFSCME) Confirm the date of May 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2011-2012,the provisions of the memorandum of understanding dated on or about ,2011 between Salt Lake City Corporation and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), representing eligible employees pursuant to the collective bargaining and employee representation joint resolution dated March 22, 2011. (0 11-12) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 8. Ordinance: Confirm Date: Appropriating necessary funds to implement the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding,between Salt Lake City Corporation and local 1645 of the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF)representing the"400 Series"Firefighters and Fire Captains in the Salt Lake City Fire Department Confirm the date of May 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. to accept public comment regarding an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement,for Fiscal Year 2011-2012,the provisions of the memorandum of understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and Local 1645 of the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF),representing the"400 Series"Firefighters and Fire Captains, dated on or about June 15, 2009. (0 09-18) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 9. Ordinance: Confirm Date: appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2011- 2012,the provisions of the memorandum of understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Salt Lake Police Association, Local 75 (SLPA),representing the"500 Series City Employees" Confum the date of May 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2011-2012,the provisions of the memorandum of understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Salt Lake Police Association, Local 75 (SLPA),representing the"500 Series City Employees"dated on or about June 18, 2010. (0 09-19) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 10. Ordinance: Confirm Date: Amend Appendix A of Chapter 18.98 and Section 18.98.060.E of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to Impact Fees Confirm the date of May 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. to accept public comment regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A of Chapter 18.98 and Section 18.98.060.E of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to Impact Fees. (0 07-17) Staff Recommendation: Confuui date. 5 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,May 10,2011 11. Ordinance: Confirm Date: Adopting Disproportionate Fee Study relating to the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program Confirm the date of May 17,2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding an ordinance adopting Disproportionate Fee Study relating to the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program as provided in Ordinance No. 74 of 2009. (0 09-39) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 12. Ordinance: Confirm Date: Repealing Section 5.04.160,Salt Lake City Code, "Innkeeper Tax," and enacting a new Section 5.04.160, "Municipality Transient Room Tax" Confirm the date of May 17,2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding an ordinance repealing Section 5.04.160 Salt Lake City Code,"Innkeeper License Tax," and enacting a new section 5.04.160"Municipality Transient Room Tax,"to conform with state law. (0 09-34) Staff Recommendation: Confute date. 13. Resolution: Confirm Date: Authorizing Salt Lake City Administration to proceed with the creation of a Street Lighting Enterprise Fund Confirm the date of May 17,2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding a resolution authorizing Salt Lake City administration to proceed with the Creation of a Street Lighting Enterprise Fund. (R 11-6) Amok Staff Recommendation: Confiiut date. vei,e0 14. Ordinance: Confirm Date: Amending Section 17.81.200 and 17.81.500(A), Salt Lake City Code, relating to stormwater rates and appeal of charges Confirm the date of May 17,2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding an ordinance amending Section 17.81.200 and 17.81.500 (A),Salt Lake City Code,relating to stormwater rates and appeal of charges. (Item H-19) (0 09-24) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 15. Ordinance: Confirm Date: Amending Sections 17.16.670 and 17.16.680 and repealing Table 17.16.670,of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to water rates Confirm the date of May 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding an ordinance amending Sections 17.16.670 and 17.16.680 and repealing Table 17.16.670, of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to water rates. (Item H-19) (O 11-13) Staff Recommendation: Confiii in date. 6 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,May 10,2011 16. Ordinance: Confirm Date: Amending Sections 5.14.020,Salt Lake City Code,revising business license fees for rental dwellings Confirm the date of May 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding an ordinance amending Sections 5.14.020,Salt Lake City Code,providing for a base license fee of$50 for rental dwelling buildings containing two or fewer units. (Item H-19) (0 09-39) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 17. Ordinance: Confirm Date: Fire Suppression and Monitoring Equipment Inspection Fees Confirm the date of May 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding an ordinance enacting 18.44.030, of the Salt Lake City Code, and amending 18.32.035, of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to Fire Suppression and Monitoring Equipment Inspection Fees. (Item H-19) (0 10-4) Staff Recommendation: Confuui date. 18. Ordinance: Confirm Date: Amending Section 5.04.070. 5.90.010 and 5.90.020, Salt Lake City Code, revising business license fees and certain fee categories Confum the date of May 17,2011 at 7:00 p.m. to accept public comment regarding an ordinance amending Section 5.04.070. 5.90.010 and 5.90.020 Salt Lake City Code, increasing the base license fee, increasing regulatory and disproportionate license fees, and renaming and consolidating certain classes and subclasses of businesses. (Item H-19) (O 11-14) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 7 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,May 10, 2011 19. Ordinance: Confirm Date: Amending fee related ordinances A4.40, Confirm the date of May 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding the following fee-related ordinance amendments: (these ordinances will later be part of the Consolidated Fee Schedule, Item H-20) • Amending Section 12.56.170 of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the parking meter rates. (0 05-14) • Amending Section 12.56.210 of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the parking meter fees. (O 11-15) • Amending Section 17.81.200 and 17.81.500(A),Salt Lake City Code,relating to stormwater rates and appeal of charges. (0 09-24) • Amending Sections 17.16.670 and 17.16.680 and repealing Table 17.16.670, of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to water rates. (0 11-13) • Amending Sections 5.14.020,Salt Lake City Code,providing for a base license fee of$50 for rental dwelling buildings containing two or fewer units. (0 09-39) • Enacting 18.44.030, of the Salt Lake City Code,and amending 18.32.035,of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to Fire Suppression and Monitoring Equipment Inspection Fees. (0 10-4) • Amending Section 5.04.070. 5.90.010 and 5.90.020 Salt Lake City Code, increasing the base license fee, increasing regulatory and disproportionate license fees, and renaming and consolidating certain classes and subclasses of businesses. (0 11-14) (O 11-9) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. 20. Set Date: Ordinance: Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule Set the date of June 7,2011 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment regarding an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule as may be needed to reflect fee changes approved as part of the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 City budget. At its May 3, 2011 meeting,the Council formally initiated a process to adopt ordinances creating the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule. Instead of having City fees listed in numerous places in the City code,the Consolidated Fee Schedule will compile them in a single document organized by department and function. If the Council adopts the Consolidated Fee Schedule, it will need to be amended to show fee changes that may be approved as part of the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 City budget. (O 11-9) Staff Recommendation: Confirm date. oak Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,May 10,2011 I. ADJOURNMENT: Dated: May 5, 2011 By: Dt f,04v City Record r STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On or before 5:00 p.m. on May 5,2011,I also personally(1)posted a copy of the foregoing on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and(2)provided a copy of the foregoing to The Salt Lake Tribune or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent. P ° �f City RQ41 I1 jl. Subsc ..ed.. d swo111 to .efore e t 5a'day of May, 2011. 4fil L .�=:;.. SCOTT C. CRANDALL A-� "i, �� NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF UTAH �l� . ,, 4 451 SO.STATE STREET,RM 415 iotary Publi esta ft t le State of Utah °s. SALT LAKE cm,UT e4111 My Comm.Exp.06/27/2011 Approval: l.� E xecutiv irector Access agendas at http://www.slcgov.com/council/agendas/default.htm.People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance of council meetings. We make every effort to honor these requests,and they should be made as early as possible. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. The City and County Building is an accessible facility. For questions or additional information,please contact the City Council Office at 535-7600, or TDD 535-6021.Assistive listening devices are available on Channel I; upon four hours advance notice. Please allow 72 hours advance notice for sign language interpreters; large type and#2 Braille agendas. *Final action may be taken and/or adopted concerning any item on this agenda. After 5:00 p.m.,please enter the City&County Building through the east entrance. Accessible route is located on the east side of the building. In accordance with State Statute, City Ordinance and Council Policy, one or more Council Members may be connected via speakerphone. 9 ��=t1lCIVtl) e SLC COUNCIL OFFICE PJCEI \L ' R = RALPH BECKER REDEVELOPMENT AGGENCYCY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF SALT LAKE CITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MAR 182011 Salt Lake City Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 0 3 I 1 /-Z-0 l Davi veritt, C ief of Staff Date Sent to City Council: As I '2 I ( 7,0 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 17, 2 11 Jill Love, Chair FROM: D.J. Baxter Redevelopment Agency Director SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Streetcar Projects Update STAFF CONTACT: D.J. Baxter, at 801-535-7735 or dj.baxter@slcgov.com ACTION REQUIRED: None-briefing only. DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing. BUDGET IMPACT: To be determined. Minimum $4,500,000 DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: This will be a verbal update by the Administration regarding the Downtown and Sugar House streetcar projects. Additional detail will be provided in the presentation(copy attached) regarding next steps and funding needs for the Sugar House streetcar project. The project partners-Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, and Utah Transit Authority-are meeting regularly to resolve outstanding issues on the project, negotiate an Interlocal Agreement, and prepare the project for construction. The project will require significant matching funds from both cities, both for construction and for ongoing operating costs, which UTA is currently unable to cover with its existing revenues. It is also important to note that the funding contemplated thus far, including the federal TIGER II award of$26 million, will cover only the streetcar line itself. The two cities are preparing to launch a public visioning process to identify any improvements needed in the entirety of the corridor to facilitate the PRATT trail and other public activity, and to provide an amenity that will help to stimulate private investment along the corridor. The cities and UTA will need to develop a separate budget for the construction and maintenance of these improvements. 451 SOUTH STATE, ROOM 418 SCANNED TO. PO Box 14551 B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 SCANNED BY: ( '"y�/,�) t-A-`-(5-' TELEPHONE: 801-535-7240 FAX: 801-535-7245 a WWW.SLCRDA.COM DATE. I I 12,0ti L21 . 3/17/2011 • A4. Yc.� ` � r" so � � sW ff SALT LAKE CITY STATE OF STREETCARS March 2011 6z- f . .,,-- -ram =t i r; < 5,-.i, .- ,h STREETCARS then... tCI it ;, ,7•,, Tx t.ttf' tICT ? St ii56 c' t t +_i_' ` a iJ t CL-±: t� r i t � ICt 1171 leI 1ul I I 1 a � .r t t w� 4 t� t 111 r i li er h i t ✓f k ry t! �Tr I II� "`"':. icc.t , rp.s0 fi lid �.t =.Oitq tt 1 1 m ii 1'1 �� t ! ■ Iits 16;41iLF,mii,;:.;iliui14i1t ni n u_ aJ i. fl�LMp* i r ,Ilfi 1 3/17/2011 a - r 41 * .{ ri r1411r/� 4eP74� n: STREETCARS now... __- .�vM�. ..._ •s art f *_ • ,01004 Vnµ.rt GUIDING PRINCIPLES • Advancing City goals for livable,sustainable community • Advance City land use goals • Catalyze increased development in multiple neighborhoods • Expandability of initial routes to Citywide system • Building transit ridership to support multi- modal goals • Complementary system to light rail and commuter rail • Provide circulation and distribution 2 3/17/2011 • - °'"� : ,,i " `F ' 6. 'v ,& "PM( F'" ,. J f ✓;4.44 ,j�a Lrr �7 ar'Ad;i!� //�i�iaN l rit<2fi�' Fi/ wb c S �;; a ` q f SOUTH DAVIS STREETCAR SOUTH DAVIS STREETCAR f. *Salt Lake City to Centerville - •Planning process lead by UTA •Salt Lake City participated through the process— _ ei ,� alignment is planned for 40o West connecting to the Intermodal Hub •Alternatives Analysis complete in 2008 *Draft State Environmental Impact Statement s ` * completed in zoio *Community sentiments are mixed *Timeline is unknown;not a"fast-track"project L s t Q 1 is :� 3 3/17/2011 •.'sk%. k g"'�' �iTE� st'f ..��oo✓ r klnY (j//PV-%gc7 DOWNTOWN STREETCAR . woo sa. Ntyq 3 A_ Awolikk DOWNTOWN STREETCAR context • Study area includes Soo East to 600 , West,and from North Temple to g° " w s goo South • Initial feasibility study began with Planning Division recommendations for routing and expanded analysis . • Goals for redevelopment and livability in the downtown area ' ZA,. a .�w. . Pr,x,.a *40 4 3/17/2011 �& z �, � _ r - fi, :ass` = �.,d � '�G 4 i�fh °�'i,,r�, ,^a� �.n,ii i .,-,i"f.g /'�,69,v),-*'SYj�/il�"bx DOWNTOWN STREETCAR process • City Streetcar Committee guided the feasibility study,with UTA participation. • Extensive outreach and discussion with the following groups: • University of Utah • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints • Granary District Business Owners • Downtown Alliance • Salt Lake City Planning Commission • Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board • Community Councils • Study Area Stakeholders-Focus Groups • Wasatch Front Regional Council • Transportation Agencies(UDOT,UTA) • RDA Advisory Committee interim and final presentations • RDA Board interim and final presentations DOWNTOWN STREETCAR alignments considered : x.....p,. �%mn w•Y..,. L 5 3/17/2011 e ' 9 a ,,r�"jS �.k '� /s ' �i'' tlYW, �P.+a , W5f,I/b' i b4 '. v k sgs t '7r '5w M r.yw�t„k$u >�'��.w'ia /Y' f ' "- r DOWNTOWN STREETCAR financial analysis i " fails,.' :.; pi)dliA'ikatended;, Beginningaf 'sy4arA"ARw :,heck i 0atist A.Capltai Costs: $ • 49,1 $ '49.1 $ 76.8 $ 76.6 • Completed as part of the feasibility study and 9.Ma0lmum1.0CaIAesourees: $ 225 5 44.6 $ 7s.0 $ 106.8 AssessnrentOistiict at25c_ents_ $ 17 $__ 2.5 $ 5.8 $ 7.3 considers an initial set of T1F20%ofExisting $ 0.4 $ 0.4"$ 3L8 $ 31.8 T1FIncrease at 30%of avail alai $, 9.9,$ 26.0 $ 13.3 $ 33.7 alignment options Higher Public Parking Revenues'" $ - $ - $ 9.1 $ 114 • Monetize City/RDA Redevelopment Sites $ 10.5 $ 15.8 $ 15.0 $ 22.5 Considers all possible rr a�a a1>sx�a r.....,., y.ts =>a „_:t� : " financing options ___ , • Lead to the decision to . ._ -. .._, pursue federal funding Be_innin_of IZE"TL 5UFBIuW 10 I Assessment District at 2.5 cents $ 5.4 $ 7.2 $ 5.7 $ 7.2_ THE 20%of Dusting $ 31.5 $ 315 $ 3L8 $ 31.8 TlF increase at 30%ofavaileble• $ 14.6 $ 38.0 S 13.2 $ 33.4 Higher Public Parking Revenues'. $.. 9.1 $ 114 $ 9.1 $ 11.4 Monetize City/RDA Redevelopment Sites $ 9.0 $ 13.5 $ 15.0 $ 22.5 a SO%in Granary Line area nc asean All nubile spaces n Otn t DOWNTOWN STREETCAR zoning analysis Recommendations: • Re-zoning from CG to a more urban zone • Use North Temple form-based approach • Raise height limits • Remove minimum lot sizes • No setbacks;require build-to lines • Prohibit drive-through facilities • Enhance design requirements • Require ground-floor uses on more streets • Create mid-block streets • Implement parking maximums • Eliminate required parking minimums • Prohibit new surface parking lots in the core area • Provide bonuses or other incentives for redevelopment of existing surface parking lots 6 3/17/2011 ,th •. � .n - ��3 , +r `�� , � � Inn r .. , Y! .� 3. K liJ�q? c�' � ,.¢ kc Tn2�i/,(• Ak,, DOWNTOWN STREETCAR near term recommendation • Serve established areas of downtown to create immediate ridership 4 , 4� ` • Serve Depot District to catalyze _4 redevelopment n • Plan for extension into Granary District • Re-evaluate and verify during AA • Range of cost 44—6o M U« • DOWNTOWN STREETCAR longer term recommendation • Extend to the Granary District on 400 West { • Connection to goo South TRAX • Use signalized intersections at 500 , ar,1 and 600 South • Re-evaluate and verify during AA • Range of cost 15—30 M k 7 3/17/2011 �� fi t , �� .0476 5. 6 - s o-n 7. DOWNTOWN STREETCAR timeline and next steps `e..< o�e< eJ"a�C\e\ �•��eat S�oJ I S Qo N a`Se pePS 1 FaS�p�;`tI �ePse��e P\tie��aviz\ � •��S,06 ye. `ocsSt�`�‘�`o� P 2008 2009 2010 2011 Critical issues to be resolved: • Alternatives Analysis—management of grant • Interface with bicycle community • Continue to involve stakeholders • Work together with DFCM to further efforts on near-term alignments near the Rio Grande building .:,�-., rr am, -. p fk ,�vJ r ..: g., a� „�' STREETCARS SALT LAKE CITY STREETCAR in the future...... s t •� u[G4N• 8 3/17/2011 ,- Gam . , . 1 t` 4 aq �77�:r t ti''P � �/m ;i zwN wss ' ��% jbI� y'‘ .r /. `�'^' � t sisJ 4�,® £ � " 'M1Y f1 ry4 r Lk ,fi i �,y �s ' STREETCARS in the future...... . � r ° � 4 Y s z" I�� •. "� � a y °•W7 ^� rf E ,_ 1- > OF; +, ^,',` w' '� aw.J'y� yMMyi Ad 11.• f J �7■ ,.,,..,, .., 4,06010., � ' ,.. .—/ -'."'' -w SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR 41 4. 9 3/17/2011 -��` �� r r��,lfi'.�� {4A1WI,i1W5l3iilEETCM 1I �} r ,rhyk�, 44y r " i ,fn .,a /;' {ConnKtlee.teRyosilTwedtSyswnl SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR context •2 miles long,connection between TRAX Light Rail and Sugar House Business District ands, a !� neighborhood I *Capital cost of$55 M,located in an existing rail �« right-of-way,owned by UTA •Estimated 3000 daily riders in 2012(1500 new to . .. system)and all with direct connection to over 130 miles of existing and planned rail transit • r 06110 — ..-..b. . , SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR description •Single track initially,with enough space to double track as demand grows and capacity is needed •For the short term,three Siemens S70 vehicles will be used �*•. to serve the line in single-carp a�— configuration. *Slow speeds throughout the corridor;this is a neighborhood transit service 10 3/17/2011 4 s , w4 r ` "' r x 6 s J4?d > elf Ry a 2 004 6 r�)✓/IN';Y 't / SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR development ,w t^a ' �� ;try ; Q�ppwM 9Y.N ,,._ �'; }s# .ems ixs k a;,,.1,,, � �`, 1 Tat*.it a_ ._ r 4.q a 3 s,x� N `&` ''',7 rat 1laix +f'^_ _ f�s�ske,. c�s .z!"+xr: ..a�.., �+r$:�.. •'sa . x— , 0" r � - �kw ..r 1 d•`. ,- c# u a �T_'.fie % -,, rk ..., a ,, x',IX, AO .. -.. ...AV E 5. �ft " ,f7 s a�. 1,-1 r g ,•, ,map.,..., .tom k z' .41,s4" "&'...-....,�° r.:7�6 0 v .. a -Y• t SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR public concern fir,,-• Noise and vibration impacts • Crime in Fairmont Park n • Secondary impacts such as on street ' kHil parking p • Bus routing(many comments �4,44 �. unrelated to streetcar) €�7 , • Why not bus? 11 3/17/2011 SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR timeline and next steps t��espoa\�5`5 a\�ea5�b�t6 oo�ote�t aete J1`<I Jc`\o" P�t wop �o l.oeo`s. pep<e `o�F oes�9`o�st� 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Critical issues to be resolved: 'Vision for the corridor 'Operating costs 'Capital funding gap of$6.2 M •Final design for the corridor, including street crossings,trail,public spaces •Interlocal Agreement:SLC,South Salt Lake, UTA Ask • Vision for the Corridor — Process similar to North Temple • Community Workshops • Individual Stakeholder Interviews • Professional Outreach to ULI, APA, AIA, ASLA • Land Use & Urban Design Analysis & Recommendation • Zoning Recommendation — Study Entire Corridor — share process and cost with South Salt Lake City Amok 12 3/17/2011 • Annual Operating Costs: Total Operating/Maintenance Cost: $1,500,000 Potential Sources of Funds Farebox Revenue $375,000 Salt Lake City $375,000 South Salt Lake $375,000 UTA $375,000 • Annual Operating Costs, p. 2 Vehicle Lease from UTA $800,000 Potential Sources Salt Lake City $400,000 South Salt Lake $400,000 Total Annual Funds Needed City Share O&M $375,000 City Share Vehicle Lease $400,000 Total Annual City Funds Needed $775,000 13 3/17/2011 Ark, p� t"si � a iz ,�l ;W • Capital Costs (Streetcar Line Guideway and Track Elements $5,400 0Only)00 Stations $1,140,000 Sitework $12,320,000 Systems $8,900,000 Right-of-way $700,000 Professional Services $2,720,000 $6,000,000 Total CashUnallocated Needed:Contingency $37,180,000 W ( $6,300,000 3 VehiclesRightof (ownedayowned by UTA)byUTA) $12,000,000 Total Project Budget: $55,480,000 Ala Now. • "� �r • Capital Costs (Corridor Improv ) — Design and Cost to be determinedements by Community Visioning Process 011. 14 3/17/2011 a sIOW z• ti41 Y q -! l ¢l Ill+' y1'Lfi!f`/� p/¢ • Sources and Funding Gap: USDOT TIGER II Grant $26,000,000 Salt Lake City-Cash Commitment $2,500,000 South Salt Lake-Cash Commitment $2,500,000 UTA Vehicles $12,000,000 UTA Rail Corridor $6,300,000 Total Sources: $49,300,000 Streetcar Gap to be covered: $6,180,000 Y • Responsibility for Gap: Gap to be covered: $6,180,000 Salt Lake City $2,060,000 South Salt Lake $2,060,000 UTA $2,060,000 15 3/17/2011 yE 4 P: y Z 7 ;44 fen'} / y� s�Jm 8 nw � a • Salt Lake City Gap & Options: Streetcar Only SLC Previous Commitment $2,500,000 Current Gap-SLC Share $2,060,000 TOTAL SLC Cash Needed: $4,560,000 SLC Options: RDA Funds on-hand $700,000 -minus cost of Alt Analysis/Vision -$500,000 RDA Funds Available 200,000 RDA Future Funds @$250,000/year 1,000,000 Possible Assessment District 1,000,000 Sales Tax Bonds 2,360,000 Total SLC Funds: 4,560,000 Gap: 0 Ammow Amok 16 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: May 5,2011 SUBJECT: Tannach Properties,LLC,request for a Redevelopment Agency Housing Trust Fund loan to assist in construction and renovation of the State Street Plaza Apartments located at 237-255 South State Street AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Council District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Housing and Neighborhood AND CONTACT PERSON: Development Division LuAnn Clark,Director Steven Akerlow,Housing Development Programs Specialist COUNCIL PROCESS: The Council will hold a briefing on this issue at the May 10'" Work Session. If the Council is comfortable moving forward,the resolution can be scheduled for action at the next Council meeting, May 17t. If the Council adopts the resolution,the Mayor will be authorized to sign the loan documents on behalf of the City. KEY ELEMENTS: A. A resolution has been prepared for Council consideration authorizing the Mayor to sign loan agreement documents for a loan to Tannach Properties,LLC from the City Redevelopment Agency Housing Trust Fund in the amount of$750,000. The loan would provide financial assistance for construction and renovation of the State Street Plaza Apartments located at 237-255 South State Street. The loan terms include: 1. A 1%interest rate for the first 5 years,or when Tannach Properties,LLC, has achieved a 1.28 debt coverage ratio for the property,whichever comes first,then an increase in the interest rate to 2%for the years remaining(no less than 25 years);and 2. Limiting any deferral payments to 2 years or when the applicant receives a certificate of occupancy for the apartments,whichever is shorter. B. Key points from the Administration's transmittal notes: 1. The original loan request from the developer was for$750,000 at 1%interest for 30 years with a 2 year payment deferral to allow the applicant to secure leases and complete the project.The Mayor modified the loan terms as noted in item A above.Additional details are provided in the Administration's transmittal. 2. The applicant does not currently own the project property,but is in negotiations with the City Redevelopment Agency to finalize a purchase agreement. 3. According to the applicant's market study,affordable unit absorption should not be a problem. This study does not include the City Creek apartment housing that will be coming onto the market during the next year and a half. 1 4. Market rate absorption has the potential to be a problem considering the City Creek housing units coming on line in 2011-12. 5. Since the original request and approval by the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board and the Mayor, Tannach Properties has made the following changes: a. The mix of units has been adjusted to include 136 affordable units and 44 market rate units for a total of 180 units. This is an increase of 27 total units. b. Improving the debt coverage ratio in the first three years. • The first year shows the most improvement from 1.14 to 1.17. • The improved debt coverage ratio is because the Olene Walker funding has become a cash flow note and not a hard loan. c. Adjustments to the project have been made to meet additional requirements from the project's major financial partners,and some minor changes may still be made. 6. The improved debt coverage ratio,the increase in the overall number of units,and not requesting any additional funding from the Redevelopment Agency Housing Trust Fund adds to the financial strength of this project. 7. Proposed Project: a. This loan will facilitate construction of 180 apartment units that includes 136 affordable units and 44 market rate units. Please see unit type and number listed below. b. One parking stall will be set aside for each apartment unit. c. Rent structure for the apartments includes: AMI Targets #of Units Unit Type Rents 35% 10 Studio $428 45% 10 3 Bed/2 Bath $819 50% 30 1 Bed/1 Bath $656 60% 24 1 Bed/1 Bath $787 60% 35 2 Bed/2 Bath $944 60% 20 3 Bed/2 Bath $1092 60% 7 4 Bed/2 Bath $1,218 Market Rate 26 2 Bed/2 Bath $1,150 Market Rate 18 3 Bed/2 Bath $1,500 Total - 180(136 affordable units) C. The City currently has$3,716,000 in the Housing Trust Fund and$1,314,259 in the Redevelopment Agency Housing Trust Fund. Funding this project from the Redevelopment Agency Housing Trust Fund would leave a fund balance of$564,259. D. Total interest paid for the proposed loan amount of$750,000 will range between$200,000 and$300,000 depending on when they reach their 1.28 debt coverage ratio. E. Total construction costs are estimated at approximately$25,146,611.Funding from the City will be leveraged with funds from Stratford Capital(equity),Freddie Mac(1"mortgage),the State's Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund,developer equity and other state and historic tax credits. F. The applicant has noted that all funding has been secured for the project with the exception of the City Redevelopment Agency Housing Trust Fund loan.Funding sources and uses include: 1. COSTS PER UNIT: $122,314 Average Residential Cost/Unit $5,515 City Contribution 2. SOURCES OF FUNDS-Permanent Financij: 2 Equity—Stratford Capital 5,808,737 1st Mortgage—Freddie Mac 17,235,000 2°d Mortgage—Salt Lake City 750,000 Other Secured Debts—Olene Walker 250,000 Unsecured Debt—Logue Foundation 250,000 FMAC Deposit 201,350 State Historic 50,000 Solar Tax Credits 306,000 RMP Rebates 132,666 Deferred Developer Fee 162,858 TOTAL $25,146,611 • 3. USES OF FUNDS Land/Building Acquisition Costs 1,165,075 Rehabilitation/Construction Costs 16,290,680 A/E,Permit and Other Fees 758,500 Overhead/Insurance/Taxes 80,000 Construction Interest/Bond 2,620,000 Financing and Legal Fees 1,352,642 Lease up Reserve 100,000 Developer contingency 660,000 Project Management/Developer Fee 2,119,714 TOTAL $25,146,611 G. The Administration's paperwork notes the applicant intends to construct the project to meet the LEED `silver'certification level. (This is consistent with City requirements.) 1. Salt Lake City Code,Chapter 18.95-Use of LEED Standards(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)in City Funded Construction,requires that all construction built with City funds meet a LEED Certified level at a minimum. 2. The purpose of Chapter 18.95 is to promote development consistent with sound environmental practices by requiring that applicable building projects constructed with city construction funds obtain,at a minimum:a)"silver"for city owned and operated buildings,or b)"certified"for private building projects that receive city funds.These designations shall be from the U.S.Green Building Council "USGBC". H. On February 17,2011,the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board voted to recommend approval of a loan request in the amount of$750,000 with conditions relating to deferral payments and interest. (Please see item A in this staff report,the Administration's transmittal and draft resolution for details.) I. On March 1,2011,Mayor Becker reviewed the request and recommended approval of the loan consistent with the recommendation from the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The property is currently zoned Central Business District D l. The purpose of the Central Business District Dl zoning classification is to foster an environment consistent with the area's function as the business, retail and cultural center of the community and the region.Inherent in this purpose is the need for careful review of proposed development in order to achieve established objectives for urban design,pedestrian amenities and land use control,particularly in relation to retail commercial uses. 3 B. The Administration's staff evaluation notes that the project"meets the new housing policies that were being reviewed by the City Council. New policies have been transmitted to the Council." The Council typically does not consider draft plans that have not been formally considered in evaluating projects.(The new housing policies were transmitted to the Council in 2010.) • Additional citywide Master Plan and Policy considerations are provided below. C. The Downtown Plan,adopted February 1995,expresses the goal of establishing Downtown as a well- planned,desirable and diverse activity center serving the needs of a sizable 24-hour population. The Plan encourages the creation of a mix of diverse land uses that will serve and attract a variety of users,ensuring an active and productive Downtown at different times of the day and night. D. The City's adopted Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including quality design,architectural designs compatible with neighborhoods,public and neighborhood participation and interaction,accommodating different types and intensities of residential developments, transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-income and mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement,zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities. Relevant policy statements include: 1. 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. Development of programs to meet the housing needs of all individuals employed by and working or living within Salt Lake City. c. Policies and programs that encourage home ownership without jeopardizing an adequate supply of affordable rental housing. .la. d. The dispersal of affordable and transitional housing Citywide and valley-wide. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 4 E. The Central Community Master provides the following policies and goals relating to residential land uses, historic preservation and urban design. 1. Residential Land Use Goals a. Encourage the creation and maintenance of a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population. b. Ensure preservation of low-density residential neighborhoods. c. Ensure that new development is compatible with existing neighborhoods in terms of scale, character,and density. d. Encourage a variety of housing types for higher-density multi-family housing in appropriate areas such as East Downtown,the Central Business District,the Gateway area,and near downtown light rail stations to satisfy housing demand. e. Discourage any compromise to the livability,charm,and safety of the neighborhoods or to the sense of a healthy community. 2. Historic Preservation Goals a. Preserve the community's architectural heritage,historically significant sites and historic neighborhoods. b. Ensure that development is compatible with the existing architectural character and scale of surrounding properties in historic districts. 3. Urban Design Goals a. Make the Central Community more attractive and livable by applying the best urban design practices. b. Implement visual and aesthetic standards for urban design that enhance the Central Community. c. Design public facilities that enhance the character of the community and encourage coordination, linkage,and balance between land uses. d. Encourage property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. F. The Central Community Plan notes that the Community Council has expressed continuing interest in the following concepts: 1. Ensure that public housing facilities are well maintained. 2. Strongly discourage the loss of existing public housing when funding incentives cease. 3. Support maintenance of affordable housing and preservation of federally funded housing after expiration of subsidies such as Section 8 project-based developments. 4. Prevent demolition of low density structures in higher density zoning classifications through renovation or conversion of existing of multi-dwelling housing structures. 5. Encourage additions and new residential construction that is compatible with existing architecture, scale,neighborhood character and adjacent land uses. 6. Promote construction of a variety of housing options that are compatible with the character of the neighborhoods of the Central Community. G. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,friendly,safe environments. 5 H. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. Policy concepts include: 1. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the city. 2. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability. 3. Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character. 4. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. 5. Treat building height,scale and character as significant features of a district's image. 6. Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to district character,neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed housing loan request. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's paperwork for details. • February 17,2011 Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board meeting • March 1,2011 Mayor's review and recommendation • March 12 2010 Transmittal received in Council office • May 3,2011 Updated information received from the Administration cc: David Everitt,Bianca Shreeve,Karen Hale,Art Raymond,Poonam Kumar,Holly Hilton,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace, Laura Kirwan,Frank Gray,Mary De La Mare-Schafer,LuAnn Clark,Steven Akerlow,Sandra Marler,Jennifer Bruno,City Council Liaisons,Mayors Liaisons File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, Housing Trust Fund loan,Tannach Properties LLC,State Street Plaza Apartments,237-255 S.State Street 6 SCANNED TO: RECF". SCANNED BY: Gr S' "` AI ' @� I��_.1�N�7 DATE: �(l2� FRANK B. GRAY �5p�� S�,R� RALPH BECKER DIRECTOR SLC 0015Ne t F 6�MMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR tra�L.V4 1�.JJ�L.77Lt.�� OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR RECEIVED ( DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. APR 2 9 2011 DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor rigs Date Received: David Britt, Chief of Staff Date Sent to City Council: OS/0 g /20 I/ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 28, 2011 JT Martin, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, Communi & Economic Development Departmen irector SUBJECT: Updated information for Tannach Properties LLC, requesting a Housing Trust Fund loan for the State Street Plaza apartment project to be located at 237-255 S. State Street, consisting of 180 rental units, 136 of which are targeted toward households at 60% of area median income or lower. STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, Housing &Neighborhood Development Director, at 535-6136 or luann.clark@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Updated Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Tannach Properties LLC, has updated their request for funding from the Redevelopment Agency Housing Trust Fund and has made the following changes: • Changed the mix of the units to include 136 affordable units and 44 market rate units for a total of 180 units. This is an increase of 27 total units. • Improves the debt coverage ratio in the first three years. The first year shows the most improvement from 1.14 to 1.17. • The improved debt coverage ratio is mostly because Olene Walker has become a cash flow note and not a hard loan as previously shown. • Adjustments to the project have been made to meet additional requirements from the projects major financial partners. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED `,: nccvceo nwncw The new changes to the project has improved the debt coverage ratio, increases the overall number of units, and the developer has not requested any additional funding from the Housing Trust Fund, which adds to the financial strength of this project. As with all tax credit/bond financed projects there will be some adjustments required by the major financial partners in the project. Because the changes have improved the projects financial package, the loan was not taken back to the Housing Trust Fund. However, the administration wanted to provide the City Council with the most current financial information. An updated resolution and staff report are attached. .gym. ,034*o, RE: State Street Plaza Page 2 of 2 N..x. _ _ «war-^"",py►..M"If+,..,ar�-a _.w r=s.�e:.a:.A=. RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND TO TANNACH PROPERTIES, LLC FOR THE STATE STREET PLAZA APARTMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) has a Housing Trust Fund to encourage affordable and special needs housing development within the City; and WHEREAS, Tannach Properties, LLC, has applied to the City for a loan from the City's Housing Trust Fund in order to construct the State Street Plaza Apartment Project to be located at 237-255 South State Street in Salt Lake City that will consist of 180 apartment units, 136 of which are affordable rental housing units for residents at 60% of the City's area median income or lower. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. Does hereby approve Salt Lake City to enter into a loan agreement withTannach Properties, LLC, from Salt Lake City's Housing Trust Fund in the amount of$750,000 at 1% simple interest per annum for the first five years, or when the Tannach Properties LLC has achieved a 1.28 debt coverage ratio for the property, whichever comes first, and then raised to 2% over the years remaining (no less than 25). Any deferral in payments be limited to two years, or the applicant receiving a certificate of occupancy for the project, whichever is the shorter. 2. Tannach Properties, LLC, will use the loan funds to construct the State Street Plaza Apartment project at 237-255 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. Ralph Becker, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, following approval of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute the requisite loan agreement documents on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIR ATTEST: APPRO ED AS TO RM SALT IT A ORNEY'S OFFICE BY: DAT . CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER EVALUATION SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND Name of Organization: Tannach Properties LLC Name of Project: State Street Plaza Location of Project: 237-255 South State Street Project Description: AMI Targets # of Units Unit Type Rents 35% 10 Studio $428 45% 10 3 Bed/2 Bath $819 50% 30 1 Bed/1 Bath $656 60% 24 1 Bed/1 Bath $787 60% 35 2 Bed/2 Bath $944 60% 20 3 Bed/2 Bath $1092 60% 7 4 Bed/2 Bath $1,218 Market Rate 26 2 Bed/2 Bath $1,150 Market Rate 18 3 Bed/2 Bath $1,500 Total 180 (136 Affordable Units) Amount and terms requested: $750,000 Cash Flow Note-30 Years-1% Interest with escalation after a few years. Is the entire project eligible for Housing Trust Fund money? No Are the funds leveraged with non-government dollars? Yes SOURCES OF FUNDS - Permanent Financing: Equity—Stratford Capital 5,808,737 1st Mortgage—Freddie Mac 17,235,000 2nd Mortgage—Salt Lake City 750,000 Other Secured Debts—Olene Walker 250,000 Unsecured Debt—Logue Foundation 250,000 FMAC Deposit 201,350 State Historic 50,000 Solar Tax Credits 306,000 RMP Rebates 132,666 Deferred Developer Fee 162,858 TOTAL $ 25,146,611 USES OF FUNDS Land/Building Acquisition Costs 1,165,075 Rehabilitation/Construction Costs 16,290,680 A/E, Permit and Other Fees 758,500 Overhead/Insurance/Taxes 80,000 Construction Interest/Bond 2,620,000 Financing and Legal Fees 1,352,642 Lease up Reserve 100,000 Developer contingency 660,000 Project Management/Developer Fee 2,119,714 TOTAL $25,146,611 1 Amok Costs per unit: $122,314 Average Residential Cost/Unit $5,515 City Contribution Does the requesting agency have sufficient cash flow to repay the loan? Yes Does the project have demonstrated community support? Yes. Does the requesting agency have a track record of owning, operating and maintaining this type of housing project? Yes. Does the project meet the requirements of LEED Standards in City Funded Construction (Chapter 18.95 adopted in 2006)? Project has been designed to meet the LEED Certification level of Silver. Housing Policies and Preferred Housing Criteria for City-funded Projects Amok This project meets the following new housing policies that were being reviewed by the City Council. New policies have been transmitted by council. 2 Project Strengths: Project meets the city's Master Plan for the area providing state of the art, high quality housing to low and very-low income families. Project to be built LEED standard of silver. Applicant has a solid history of developing, building, and managing these types of projects. Applicant is current on all loans issued by the city. Project is a mixed income, transit oriented, affordable housing project in the heart of downtown SLC. According to the market study, affordable absorption should not be a problem. This study does not include any City Creek apartment housing. Cash flow is strong. High level of repayment. Project Weaknesses: The initial interest rate is very low. Applicant does not currently own the property. Market rate absorption is a potential problem due to City Creek coming on line in 2011-2012. Board Options Approve the request as presented. Approve the request for: Would recommend a two year deferral on payment and interest based upon the Debt Coverage Ratio of 1.28. Would also recommend a 1-2% interest rate for 30 years. Deny the request. Redevelopment Agency Housing Trust Fund: RDAHTF--$1,314,259 3 .„ . ... ,..,.., ,, ,... - ...,..,. -. .„. .,„. ,. - - ,-- ,. .,,.„, „*.:"''';','',•:%!."',..;;‘,..';.''i „'• ,..., ,, - Revenues for.,..„ ,..,...., . _. .. . ..„ .. F Y 2 0 1 1 -2 0 1 2 •, .,, , „..,,. „, ... . .., , . .,. , . ... ....„..•.,„VI,. ..,', 0 0 ... ..,, 1 1 Real Property Tax (Current) 52,000,000 51,000,000 r. 50,000,000 ". 1 aka49,000,000 MI" 48,000,000 47,000,000 ... 46,000,000 — ��Budget 45,000,000 44,000,000 43,000,000 — 42,000,000 41,000,000 40,000,000 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 • A projected Judgments levy in the amount of $ 576,000. • There are no proposed Property Tax Increases. 0 Sales Tax 10.00% 5.00% - - rn 0.00% - Ammo mimmom FY2007 FY200: FY2009 FY2 AsimmasimilmAllnavaTMEI —Change in Actuals 2 -5.00% - m -10.00% - -15.00% Fiscal Year • The percentage change from FY2009 actuals to FY2010 actuals was - 4.52% and the change from actual for FY2010 to projected FY2011 is 2.19%. • Sales tax actuals are seeing an increase due to improving economic conditions. hidi Sales Tax Detail ■ Sales Tax budgeted for FY 2012 is projected at $1 ,889,553 This amount is comprised of $300,000 for City Creek that is scheduled to open March 2012. LThe remaining $1 ,589,533 is a 4% increase based on the increases that have been seen in FY 2011 and projections from the State of Utah. U hllMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIII, Franchise Tax 29,000,000 - u. 28,500,000 3 28,000,000 - , .. 27,500,000 - 1 27,000,000 _ Win; 26,500,000 --- - 26,000,000 25,500,000 ..s...Budget 25,000,000 Aduals 24,500,000 24,000,000 - 23,500,000 23,000,000 -- — 22,500,000 22,000,000 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 J is In FY2012 the increase is due to a purposed increase in rates for Rocky Mountain Power given to the Public Utilities Commission. The requested increase was 13.7%, but Salt Lake City has only a 5% increase in the budget. r V Parking Tickets Tickets Issued Parking Ticket Revenue 130000 5,000,000 - 125000 -- -- - 4,500,000 - --- i, Budget 120,000 4,000,000 — --ter- Actual 115,000 3,500,000 � •' Issued 110,000 3,000,000 105,000 2,500,000 100,000 2,000,000 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 • Parking ticket revenue is down due to a decrease in parking tickets issued. ) t_) ( .) Business Licensing ■ Since the previous comparison several communities have added disproportionate fees to their fee structure. ■ Most of the communities which have added disproportionate fees charge them on top of any regulatory fees already in place. ■ The overall average of Business License fees in surrounding communities is 9.75% higher than the fees charged by Salt Lake City. ■ Salt Lake City's Business License fees continue to be lower than the City's cost of services as determined by the cost analysis completed in 2004. ■ Salt Lake City Business Licensing has sent Notices Out to all Business pertaining to the increase in fees. • I hollamm. Good Landlord Program Benchmark for Rental Dwellin• License Fees Salt Lake City Ogden West Valley South Salt Lake Clearfield Midvale Base Fee-per business $ 100.00 $ 83.00 $ 110.00 $ - Regulatory Fee- per business $ 73.00 $ 50.00 $ - Base Fee-for 1 and 2 units $ 50.00 Non Participating- Single Family $ 342.00 $ 156.00 $ 94.00 $ 119.00 $ 190.00 $ 190.00 Non Participating- 2 units $ 342.00 $ 156.00 $ 94.00 $ 119.00 $ 190.00 $ 190.00 Non Participating- 3 or more units $ 342.00 $ 156.00 $ 94.00 $ 119.00 $ 190.00 $ 190.00 Non Participating- Owner occupied $ 342.00 $ 156.00 $ 94.00 $ 119.00 $ 190.00 $ 190.00 Good Landlord Member-Single Family $ 25.00 $ 13.00 $ 20.00 $ 24.00 $ 30.00 $ 27.00 Good Landlord Member-2 units $ 25.00 $ 13.00 $ 20.00 $ 24.00 $ 30.00 $ 27.00 Good Landlord Member-3+units $ 25.00 $ 13.00 $ 20.00 $ 24.00 $ 30.00 $ 27.00 Good Landlord Member-Owner occupied $ 25.00 $ 13.00 $ 20.00 $ 24.00 $ 30.00 $ 27.00 Good Landlord Program • The first assumption that was used is that 80% of the total number of owners/landlords with rental units would actually comply with Good Landlord requirements. This assumption is based on a benchmark survey compiled with Good Landlord statistics gathered from other cities across the Wasatch Front. • It was further determined that the amount for those participating in the Good Landlord Program would be calculated using only the minimally necessary personnel for obtaining a Business License. That would include Zoning for the initial inspection as well as time provided by Business Licensing. For those owners/landlords not participating,the remainder of the disproportionate cost would be divided among them. This resulted in the following per unit fees: 80% In compliance with Good Landlord $25.00 20% NOT in compliance with the Program $342.00 CO 0 V Fire Suppression Systems L Fire Suppression System are being collected at a rate of $95.00/hour after the inspection has been completed. ■ Fire Suppression System inspections will be collected at the time the same time as the plan review fees. ■ This is a convenience to the customer in order for them to get time inspections as well as their Certificate of Occupancies in a more efficient, timely manner. ■ In order to complete the collections on the front end a new cost analysis had to be completed to create permanent fees associated with the work being completed. • V WNW 11111111111111111111111. y Parking Meter Rates Benchmark Fine For Expired v I)n nIos ii hourly Dieter Fine For Expired Dieter(neit Iuhorhoutl Years of Meter er Price Outskirts Dleler(l'ih1 eommerci:�l districts) Increases Boise,lD 185,787 8am-6pm $1 ti:i,. +c '•, u Chandler,AZ 176,581 aIIIIIIIIIMIIII Cheyenne,WY 56,160 - c 44s 4 it car;-;a :7._ r. ::44u':n ,,ca:7rxxsersy." 1 +x . i A `°r. i k`"r.; ,u-*'r r a"�?`•';. �. <;t ate' .k 'ryt ,,..', c:.t '�a`,��- t', -,-` a:.--lOpm :,- _ •ew.� .. �sl • !C Denver,CO 592,052 8am-lOprn 4,500 Si Eugene,OR 137,896 7am 6pm 1,875 $0 75 $I 50 $16 aR-� w wi' i..4%;;:. - 2008 Laredo,TX 176,576 . , wri- .... •, <=`. " . . ,.. ..- w . ,,;-a, .r...: t3a.vi4, r *,4- g'. , ,.•14 ke.:f+:' "9� ' k r r ye 'k Las Vegas,NV 568,327 's f'�.�ar.+ta� ��:sa<�.w+J. .. � ��: Los Angeles,CA 3,694,820 Till 8pm $3 to$4 $1NINOMIM ' Oklahoma City,OK 560,333 8am-6pm 1500 Downtown $1 •}x ; K = 4;1'. Ontario,CA 158,007 - ,� `+ N 1992 and 2009 Phoenix,AZ 1,512,986 Sam-8pm 2,600 $1.50 : Portland,OR 573,865 8am-7pm 13,000 $1.60 - 2009 Pr0vidence,RI 171,909 8am-6pm 1,100 $1.00 ,f'.1.LL; ;4 `7f ��Fb Reno,NV 180,480 gam-6pm 1,200 $1.50 , . , , t9E Rp -c . :- Salt Lake City,UT (Prior Jan 2012) 181,743 2,100 $1 00 SI 00 Salt Lake City,UT (After Jan.2012) 181,743 2,100 $1.50 $1 50 San Bemadino,CA 185.401 Can't Charge 1992,2003,2005 San Francisco,CA 815,358 7am-6pm 25,600 $3.50$2 to$3.50 $ 65.00 $ 55.00 and 2009 Seattle,WA 563,374 8am-6pm 9,234 $4 0051.50 to$2 Spokane,WA 195,629 8am-7pm ._.. ..._..,. 2,800 $1.50 1.2 2007 Tacoma,WA 193,556 8am-7pm 2,900 Tempe,AZ 158,625 till 6pm 517 $1.50 r g.r 1 ■ Ammo Parking Meter Rates ■ The implementation of new parking meters . • The structure of the new parking meter program . ■ Rates have not been increased since FY2005 . hammimw, Outstanding Balances FY2010 FY2011 Difference % Change 30 to 60 Days $331,269 $285,707 ($45,561) -13.75% 60 Days -6 Months $686,681 $526,271 6 Months - 2 Years $2,406,460 $2,089,882 ($316,578) -13.16% 2—7 Years $2,552,498 $2,585,633 $33,134 1.30% Total $5,976,907 $5,487,493 ($489,414) -8.19% • The Collections Unit has been instrumental in decreasing the civil receivable balance between 6 months and 2 years by 13. 16% . As a result of their efforts SLC has reduced the overall civil receivable balance by a total of 8. 19% . O 0 Collection Efforts • $780, 715 in Parking Tickets • $ 11 ,285 in Other Civil Violations • $47, 000 in 3rd Party Subrogation • $66,496 in Business Licensing • $ 186,242 in Misdemeanor Citations(OSDC) • Salt Lake City Collections to begin collection of traffic citations as of June 2011 . o O SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS — FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: May 10, 2011 SUBJECT: OVERVIEW OF MAJOR BUDGET ISSUES MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET STAFF REPORT: Jennifer Bruno, Karen Halladay Lehua Weaver, Russell Weeks, Quin Card, Cassandra Fairbourne cc: David Everitt, Gordon Hoskins, Gina Chamness, Kay Christensen, Randy Hillier On May 3, 2011, Mayor Becker presented his recommended budget for fiscal year 2011- 12. Council staff has prepared this overview and will provide a more detailed analysis of proposed department budgets prior to each briefing. A synopsis of the proposed city- wide budget is on the last page of this overview. Relevant Policy Attachments: • Council Priorities - Staff has included in Appendix F, the Council's policy goals identified at the 2011 retreat, for Council consideration as the budget process moves forward. • Council Policy Statements on Budget - Staff has also included in Appendix G, adopted Council policy statements on budget. • The Administration's responses to Council Legislative intents from FY 2011 will be provided at a future date. Key Elements of the Mayor's FY 2011 Budget Recommendation 1. General Fund revenue - The proposed budget contains $192,974,276 of on-going general fund revenue and $1,523,200 of one-time sources for a total revenue budget of $194,497,476. (See Appendix A for a more detailed summary of general fund revenue, including a pie chart by source of revenue.) a) This represents a $5.7 million increase (3%) from the FY 2011 budget. This is the first time the general fund budget has been proposed to increase since the FY 2009 budget. b) The majority of the revenue increase is due to projected increases in Sales Tax ($1.9 million, or 4.8% increase), Building Permits ($1 million increase, 19.2%), and Interest Income ($300,000 increase, 62.5%). All three of these categories have been decreasing over the last two fiscal years. • The Administration is expecting building permit revenue to increase as commercial construction activity has shown increases in the last few months. • The Administration is projecting interest income to increase because the City is now working with an investment advisor to increase earnings beyond rates available in the State Treasurer's pool. • Over the course of FY 2010, Sales Tax has been slowly increasing. The City may finish FY 2010 with a 2.3% increase in Sales Tax revenue. © • The Administration is anticipating that certain portions of City Creek Center and a new grocery store downtown will generate approximately $300,000 in additional sales tax revenue in the fourth quarter of FY 2012. Note: this does not necessarily take into account "shifting" of sales tax revenue from one area of the City to another. /� • The Council may wish to note that despite the modest increase, total J proposed Sales Tax revenue for FY 2012 ($41 million)is still lower than the FY 2010 adopted budgeted Sales Tax Revenue($44 million). • The Council may wish to discuss whether it is prudent to budget for future growth in Sales Tax that may not materialize. Despite lukewarm national economic indicators, the City has seen three very positive months of sales tax growth. Growth ranged from 5-10% for the period of retail sales collected between December and February (data reported February-April). If that trend continues, projecting a 4.8% growth in sales tax may be warranted. c) Of the projected general fund revenue,$2.2 million results from new or increased fees. See Appendix B for a detailed comparison of revenue growth due to inflation vs. fee increases. Staff has provided this analysis because in the past the Council has voiced concern that year-by-year fee increases alone would not generate sustaining revenue to cover natural increases in City expenses. d) Property taxes-The Administration is not proposing any increase in the amount of property taxes, with the exception of a judgment levy. A judgment-levy is a state-authorized mechanism that allows municipalities to raise funds for one year in order to offset "judgments" (reductions in property tax revenue) from the previous year. Considering a judgment levy requires the City to hold a truth-in- taxation hearing. Note: Staff will provide more detailed information on the truth- in-taxation process as the budget briefings continue. • The Administration is proposing a judgment levy in the amount of 4 $576,000, although to date the City has received notice of judgments totaling$483,000. The City cannot adopt a judgment levy worth more than judgments received. • The judgment levy in FY 2011 adopted by the Council was$1,035,361. • The City will receive the final judgment levy amount from the County on or before June 8th. • Although the Administration is not proposing a property tax increase, for informational purposes, staff has included this chart of what the property tax impact would be for a variety of general property tax increase scenarios. (Note:this is a staff estimate and for discussion purposes only) Estimation of Property Tax Increase Impact by Property Type Annual Increase City Property Tax $1 Million Increase $250,000 House Commercial Property $1,000,000 $8.53 $62.00 $5,000,000 $42.64 $310.10 $10,000,000 $85.26 $620.10 e) Fee Increases-The Administration is proposing various fee increases. • Consolidated Fee Schedule Proiect- Council Staff is finalizing this project that will significantly streamline this process in the future,and reduce the need for voluminous paper ordinances to be sent to the Council. The 0 Council will first consider adopting the Consolidated Fee Schedule (May 17th hearing), which will move fees from hundreds of places in the City 2 Code into one location. The Council can then consider amending the consolidated schedule to include the proposed fee increases, as a part of the decision-making process for the rest of the FY 2012 budget. • Parking Meter Fee - increase from $1.00 per hour to $1.50 per hour. The Administration notes that this rate has not been increased since 2005, and further notes that the Finance Division conducted a benchmarking study of Cities of similar size and layout to justify this cost. Note: Council staff has requested a copy of this study. The Administration also notes that some of this increase could be used to help offset the cost of installing a new parking meter system in the future (although currently the revenue is budgeted to overall general fund purposes). • Parking Meter bagging - increase fees for bagging parking meters by 10% (from $25 per day to $27.50 per day). • Business license fees - 10% increase to the base business license fee and a 10°A increase to all disproportionate fees. The Administration has conducted a study on all business license fees and disproportionate fees to legally justify each fee. The study shows that even with the proposed increase in fees, business license fees do not fully cover the costs of the City for providing the given service. • Good landlord program - there are various fee increases and proposed payments out for participation in this program. See item 8.a. (page 9) for further detail on this program. • Fire Sprinkler Installations - increased fee for inspection of Fire Sprinkler installations, fee collected at time of plan review. f) One-time Revenue - The Administration's proposed budget includes some use of one-time revenue, including transfers from enterprise funds. The Council may wish to consider the policy implications of balancing the FY 2012 budget with one- time revenue from special purpose funds as opposed to general fund balance. Source of one-time Amount Notes general fund revenue Public Safety Building $ 400,000 This is considered one-time revenue due to the unique Permit Fee Revenue nature of the project. If there are delays in the design of the project beyond FY 2012, this revenue will not materialise. Appropriation of Fund $ 150,000 The Administration is proposing to use this to help Balance balance the budget. This is significantly less than the approximately $800,000 that was appropriated in FY 2011 to help balance the budget. For more information on fund balance status, see item #3 below. Risk Management Fund $ 400,000 The current balance of the Risk fund is $1,407,007 Transfer _—..-- — ---- — --- Governmental Immunity $ 400,000 The current balance of the Governmental Immunity Fund Transfer Fund is $2,748,261. Previous GF Transfers - $325,000 transferred in FY 2011; $500k transferred in FY 2010 Transfer from Trust and $ 150,000 These funds are recommended to be used in the CIP Donations fund for Memory budget to pay for the East Capitol Blvd. Streetscape and Grove Improvements Memory Grove Overlook Improvements Project (CIP Log#34). Rebates from Energy $ 23,200 Rebates for various completed energy-saving projects Companies city-wide Total $ 1,523,200 3 2. General Fund expenditures - Corresponding to the increase in revenues, the proposed budget contains expenditures of$194,497,476, which is a 3% increase p ($5.7 million) from FY 2011, compared to a 6.5% decrease the year before. This is the first proposed increase to general fund expenses since the FY 2009 budget. (See Appendix C for a summary of proposed general fund expenditures,and Appendix E for a summary of proposed expenditures City-wide.) a) As shown in Appendix C,the Mayor's Recommended Budget includes small increases for most general fund departments,with the exception of a small decrease in Non-Departmental. Increases range from 3% for the Police Department to 21.1% for the Human Resources Department. Note: this increase is largely due to shots made in the budget amendment to have all Payroll Administrators from various departments report to the Human Resources Director. b) The proposed budget includes just over$1 million of expenditures that the Administration considers one-time needs, that are paid for with one-time revenues. The remaining one-time revenues (approximately $470,000 million)are used in order to balance the general fund budget. c) The Council has expressed concern in the past that one-time revenues should not be used to pay for needs that are truly on-going in nature. However,through the recent downturn in the economy,the City has relied on these one-time sources to pay for ongoing needs. The proposed budget contains less of this "structural deficit" than in recent years (in FY 2011, the structural deficit was approximately$1 million). d) Because CIP projects are more"one-time"in nature, these funds are used in the Mayor's recommended budget to increase the "transfer to CIP" line item to the 7%level. See Appendix D for a summary of one-time general fund revenues and expenditures. 3. Fund Balance -The expenditures budget proposes to use$150,000 of general fund balance to balance the FY 2012 budget. a) Based on current fund balance levels, and assuming the use of the proposed $150,000 to balance the FY 2012 budget, the City will be have approximately$21.7 million in general fund balance,or 11.3%of ongoing revenue. This is lower than the percentage level last year,in part because of usage of Fund Balance during FY 2011 budget amendments,but also in part because overall general fund revenues have increased, making the same amount of fund balance a smaller percentage. b) In the past,the Council has had a policy of maintaining a fund balance of at least equal to 10%of on-going general fund revenue. In FY 2012, 10%of proposed general fund revenue would be $19.3 million.Therefore the City has approximately$2.4 million in excess of the 10%threshold. c) The Council has adhered to this policy based on the advice of the City's bond counsel,who indicates that rating agencies may lower the City's AAA bond rating should this fund balance drop below 10%. A stronger bond rating allows the City to borrow money for needed projects at a lower interest rate. d) In conjunction with the FY 2008 budget,the Council adopted the following legislative intent relating to fund balance: It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration identify a process to restore fund balance to 15%of general fund revenue as reserves for unforeseen events or emergencies,and establish 15%of fund balance as a target for the minimum amount allowable(rather than the previous 10%). 4 4. Health Insurance Changes/Increases - The overall increase in the cost of providing health insurance benefits to City employees, retirees and their families ® is $3,545,000, an increase of 13%. For FY 2012, the Administration is recommending changes to the City's health insurance plan. In an effort to minimize the impact of increasing health care costs, the Summit Care Plan is proposed to be the only network of providers offered to employees. (Currently, 94% of the membership participates in the Summit Plan.) Offering only one network provided through the Summit Care Plan will produce approximately $1 million in savings associated with the City's health insurance costs. a) The Administration is proposing that employees pay 20% of the premium, 5% more than in FY 2011 for the traditional insurance plan. The City began this shift in FY 2009, when it asked employees to contribute 5% of the total premium costs. b) Additionally, the City is offering a High Deductible Health Plan/Health Saving Account (HDHP/HSA) program to employees. If an employee chooses to participate in the HDHP/HSA, the premium split is 95%/5% with a HSA contribution from the City of $750 single or $1,500 for double/family coverage. High Deductible Plans are becoming an increasingly popular option for companies who are struggling with increasing premiums and benefit reductions. The Administration has planned a series of workshops so that City employees can make an informed choice about this option as they go forward. c) Additionally, over the last several years, the City has run a non cash reserve deficit with PEHP. This reserve is an estimate of funds to have on hand for health insurance claims that are expected to be submitted by employee's healthcare providers. The Administration is proposing an additional 5% premium increase in order to build an adequate reserve balance over the next couple of years. The City will assume 80% of FY 2012 cost, or $1,280,000 while the employee assumes 20% of the FY 2012 4 cost, or $320,000. This translates to a $54.34 annual increase for an individual, a $119.20 increase for double coverage, and $163.02 for those opting for family coverage. d) The chart below details the current and proposed premiums that will be paid by employees in the different plans (chart includes the additional 5% premium). 5 Proposed Health Insurance Premium Changes Current FY 10/11 Proposed FY 11/12 Annual % Annual HSA Annual Proposed % Annual City Annual City Employee assumed Contribution Employee Employee enrolled Share Share Share enrolled (City) Share Increase Preferred Care Single 2% $ 3,711 $ 2,271 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/o Double 1% $ 8,350 $ 5,380 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Family 1% $ 11,132 $ 6,816 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Advantage Care Single 2% $ 3,711 $ 1,528 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Double 1% $ 8,350 $ 4,636 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Family 1% $ 11,132 $ 6,073 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Summit Care (assumes 92%enrollment) Single 18% $ 3,711 $ 655 19% $ 4,276 n/a $ 1,069 $ 414 Double 22% $ 8,350 $ 1,473 22% $ 9,611 n/a $ 2,403 $ 930 Family 52% $ 11,132 $ 1,965 50% $ 12,803 n/a $ 3,207 $ 1,243 Summit Star HDHP/HAS (assumes 8%enrollment) Single n/a n/a n/a 2% $ 4,210 $ 750 $ 264 $ 264 Double n/a n/a n/a 2% $ 9,461 $ 1,500 $ 592 $ 592 Family n/a n/a n/a 4% $ 12,629 $ 1,500 $ 793 $ 793 S. In FY 2010,State of Utah employees paid 5%of premiums,County employees paid 20%of premiums,Davis County employees paid 10%of premiums(no deductible),and Murray City employees paid 15%of premiums. Staff will follow up on this topic to see if more current data is available. ➢ Council staff has previously received information from the Administration on health insurance premium splits in other governmental entities. The Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits 2008 Annual Survey for this region indicated that the average percentage of premium paid by State and Local Government employees was 12%for single coverage and 18-22%for family coverage. Staff will follow up on this topic to see if more current data is available. 5. Compensation-The Administration is recommending modest pay increases this year(see range in chart below), in part to address take-home pay reductions that employees would likely see as a result of health insurance cost increases. Increases for bargaining units(Police,Fire,AFSCME)are proposed and will not be finalized until labor negotiations have concluded. The total increase in the City budget as a result of these increases is$2.74 million. Employee Group Proposed Increase Police- employees who would have received a step increase under old pay plan 4% employees who would not have received a step increase under old pay plan 2.1% Fire- employees who would have received a step increase under old pay plan 4% employees who would not have received a step increase under old pay plan 2.1% AFSCME- employees who would have received a step increase under old pay plan 4% employees who would not have received a step increase under old pay plan 3% All other employees 3% 6 imonemmemor • 6. Position changes and Eliminations -The following chart details FTE changes by department, including proposed reorganizations and transfers. In total the Q general fund has been increased by 10.4 FTEs. No positions slated for elimination are filled. FY 2012 FTE Changes by General Fund Department FY 2012 Proposed Budget Transfers Transfers Adopted FY Amendment between to/from Other New Department 2011 FTEs Positions Departments Funds/Grants Reductions Positions Total Change Attorney 54.00 54.00 0.00 CED 190.00 1.80 -6.00 -1.00 5.00 189.80 (0.20) Council 23.13 23.13 0.00 Finance 46.70 2.50 49.20 2.50 Fire 358.00 -1.00 -0.50 356.50 (1.50) Human Resources 16.16 5.00 0.10 21.26 5.10 Justice Court 46.00 46.00 0.00 Mayor 22.00 1.00 ' 23.00 1.00 Police 585.50 -1.00 0.50 -2.00 2.00 585.00 (0.50) Public Services 225.08 2.00 1.00 1.00 229.08 4.00 Non-Depa rtmenta I 0.00 0.00 Total 1,566.57 5.00 -4.90 -3.00 10.50 1,576.97 10.40 The following chart details the proposed FTE changes in greater detail: FY 2011-12 Proposed Position Changes Proposed Position Additions Budget Impact FTEs CED Transportation-- Special Projects Coordinator 50,000 1.00 CED Planning--Urban Design professional 71,096 1.00 CED Good Landlord--HAZE inspectors 123,187 2.00 CED Good Landlord--Permits Counter/Planner 59,737 1.00 Finance RPT position for accounting records and storage 20,833 0.50 Finance Good Landlord--Business Licensing Supervisor 58,333 1.00 Finance Good Landlord--Business Licensing Processor 50,447 1.00 Police Grant position-school resource officer 21,306 1.00 Police EM--CitywideTrainingandExerciseCoordinator 40,000 1.00 Public Services Gallivan--RDA requested increase of services(RDA revenue offset) - 1.00 Proposed Position Reductions CED Transfer Ground Transportation to Airport (399,910) -6.00 CED Eliminate a Senior Secretary Position within Planning(soon to be vacant) (52,500) -1.00 Fire Transfer 50%of Paramedic Coordinator to MMRS (45,450) -0.50 Police Reassign Police Captain to internal non-sworn position (95,570) -1.00 Police Elimination of 1 Captain position to reflect new organizational structure (122,070) -1.00 Proposed Transfers Public Services Admin--Move Safety Coordinator to the General Fund 74,577 1.00 Positions or changes approved in FY 2011 Budget Amendments CED BA#2,FTE Adjustment Economic Development Director - -0.20 CED Streetcar Manager--BA#3 1.00 CD Civil Enforcement Secretary--BA#3 1.00 Fire Transfer 1 postion to HR-PPA BA#2 Fy 2011 Initiative#a6 (71,052) -1.00 BA#2,InitiativeA-6 Transfer Payroll Admins from Airport,Utilities,Fire, HR Police and Public Services 324,708 5.00 Police Transfer one position toHR-Payroll Admins BA#2Fy2011 Initiative#A6 (70,224) -1.00 Public Services Transfer one position to HR-Payroll Admins BA#2 FY 2011 Initiative#A6 (59,948) -1.00 Public Services New position-Accountant BA#3 69,632 1.00 Public Services New position-Special Projects BA#3 99,750 1.00 Public Services New position-Operations Manager BA#3 148,528 1.00 CMayor New Position BA#2-Communication and Content Manager 62,460 1.00 7 7. Transfer to CIP - The Administration is proposing to continue the 7% contribution to CIP. The total amount proposed to be transferred to CIP is $13,473,847 (6.98%). In FY 2011, 6.8% was transferred to CIP (although the amount was$140,000 less because the overall general fund revenue was lower). Of the amount recommended to be transferred for FY 2012, it should be noted that$3,757,013 is pledged for Sales-Tax debt-service related expenses(GO Bonds are now handled separately, see below). This leaves$9.7 million available for the Council to allocate to"pay as you go"projects (compared to$6.6 million available for projects in FY 2011,which given the Mayor's funding priorities,would pay for 25 out of 65 CIP applications. In addition,there are$2.4 million in Class C funds available, and$2.3 million in Impact Fee funds available (the Administration has identified specific projects eligible for these funds). Staff has attached the full CIP/Class C/Impact Fee Log for the Council's Information. a) End of the City and County Building Debt Service - the reason why there is$9.7 million available for pay-as-you-go projects,compared to$6.6 million available last year, is because the debt service on the City and County Building restoration has ended. Last year the debt service payment on that project was$2.4 million. In the CIP 10 Year Plan adopted in 2006, those funds were counted on to "catch up" on regular projects that could not be completed in the first few years of the plan. The Administration has submitted the revised CIP 10 Year Plan for council consideration. Staff has included the new CIP 10 Year Plan as an attachment to this report. The Council may wish to consider a process for adopting this plan, and whether or not it should be adopted before the CIP projects are funded for FY 2012. This year the Administration is proposing to dedicate this now-ended debt service to the Major O Infrastructure Projects Set Aside(see item C below). b) General Fund "Set Aside" for maintenance - The Administration is proposing to set aside a certain percentage every year to cover needed basic public facilities improvements. In FY 2012 the Mayor is recommending the City set aside $490,000 (5% of non-debt service CIP allocation) for this purpose. c) General Fund "Set Aside" for Major Projects - The Administration is proposing to set aside funds each year to accumulate funds for future Capital Asset Management (CAM) projects. CAM projects are defined as major infrastructure projects with an expense of$5 million or more,with a useful life of 5 years or more. In FY 2012 the Administration is proposing to set aside $2.7 million in funds for this purpose, although no specific project is identified. The Council may wish to make the spending of these funds contingent upon final Council approval of how those funds are used, as there are many competing needs that have been discussed. The Council may also wish to have a policy discussion about setting aside funds for major projects in the future when current capital repair/replacement needs are not met. d) Change in GO Debt Service Accounting-Last year the City changed how GO Bond Revenue and Debt Service is accounted for. Instead of using the General Fund as a"pass through" as in recent years (where GO Debt is shown as both General Fund Revenue and expense), it will instead be allocated directly to the Debt Service Fund (a legally-separate fund from the General Fund), which will handle the payment of each debt. The Council may wish to continue the practice of reviewing these GO Bond projects(and amounts)in conjunction with the overall CIP budget. 8 e) CIP Recommendations - The Mayor and the CDCIP Board have reviewed all funding applications and made recommendations. The full list of CIP O applications and Mayor's recommendations are attached to this staff report (legal sized paper). The Council will receive an in depth briefing regarding the CIP funding applications at the beginning of June. In the past the Council has agreed to fund time-sensitive project at this point. However, recently some Council Members have voiced concern that this ties the hands of the Council later on in the funding allocation process, as some funds have already been spent. The Council may wish to discuss allocating funds for all CIP projects in June, or waiting to discuss all CIP projects later in the year. The Council may also wish to consider how to process the review and adoption of the CIP 10 Year Plan. Council Staff process suggestion - The Council could choose to review and adopt the 10 Year Plan in July and August, and review and adopt the FY 2012 CIP allocations in August and September. f) Not including Debt Service, Class C, or Impact Fees, the City received 65 applications for CIP projects totaling almost $18.5 million. Of this, 30 projects totaling $9.7 million were able to be funded (the first 30 projects in the attached CIP log), including the proposed "set aside" projects. g) Class C Funds - The Mayor and CDCIP Board used a more traditional approach for allocation of Class C funds than was used in FY 2010, by keeping them in a separate category from the rest of the CIP Projects. The Council may wish to consider allocating these funds to some of the Class C eligible projects in the overall CIP list, or discussing both lists concurrently. h) Items not yet included in the CIP that will likely be included next year or in FY 2013, are Sales Tax Bonds for the North Temple Viaduct ($16.3 million - (1 $1.1 million debt per year - for which there may be offsetting revenue from the newly-created CDA). Sales tax bond debt service has been estimated for the North Temple Boulevard, although the Council has not yet issued these bonds. i) The previously-adopted CIP 10 Year Plan had anticipated the allocation of $14.2 million for "pay as you go" projects in FY 2011. Council staff has not yet had the opportunity to review the new CIP 10 Year plan. j) If the Council wished to achieve 7.95% of general fund revenue, an additional $1.9 million would need to be added. If the Council wished to achieve the previous goal of 9% of general fund revenue, an additional $3.9 million would need to be added. 8. Other Budget Proposal Key Elements/Items of Interest - a) Good Landlord Program -The Mayor's Recommended Budget includes the final steps to implement the "Good Landlord Program" for Landlords of rental units within Salt Lake City. What is commonly referred to as the "Good Landlord Program" was adopted by the City Council in December of 2009 as the "Landlord / Tenant Initiative," a Program to incentivize good management of multi-unit rental dwellings. For owners / landlords who elect not to participate in the Program, a higher disproportionate fee will be assessed for business licenses. In order to determine the amount of the fee, the Administration has conducted a cost analysis and calculated the true cost of providing additional services and responses for issues with rental cpy properties in the City. The proposed budget includes new staff positions in the Community & Economic Development Department and the Finance Department: two zoning enforcement inspectors, a planner at the permits counter, a business license processor, and a supervisor for the program. 9 The proposed total revenue increase is$1,804,631 and increased expenses for staffing total$291,704. (The difference between revenue and expenses covers the cost of additional City services that are currently being provided but could be avoided with greater oversight by the property owner.) b) Street Lighting - The recommended budget contains $1,080,904 in non- departmental expenditures for "Street Lighting Utilities.". If the recommended budget is adopted, the allocation would be used to pay for street light replacement,repairs,and electrical power costs between July 1 and January 1, 2012. After January 1,money remaining in the allocation would be used as a loan to a new street light enterprise fund. The recommended budget also contains a $50,000 one-time allocation for outside consultants to assist the Administration in determining the best means to implement the establishment of a Street Lighting Enterprise Fund. Because of the policy significance of this issue, the Chair has scheduled a separate briefing on this topic for the Council's May 10th work session. c) Public Safety-The Administration is not proposing any staffing reductions in Fire, or in sworn officers in the Police Department. However, the Council may wish to note that due to commitments made to receive the SAFER grant (Fire Dept) and COPS Grant (Police), the City will have to begin filling in general fund dollars once those grants run out next year ($576,000 annually for fire and about$700,000 annually for police). d) Refuse Fund - The Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Refuse Fund includes no major program changes for fiscal year 2011-12 while the Administration issues two RFPs for sorting services and collection service. O The budget for collection services does not include a proposed rate increase to Salt Lake City residents, but no rate increase results in a draw on the Fund's cash reserves by nearly $320,000. This may be the subject of further Council discussion, as it is an issue raised by the Council throughout the past year. In addition to the anticipated benefit increases, the proposed budget also includes shifting some staff positions from seasonal to regular part-time or full-time positions in an effort to increase efficiency on collections and Neighborhood Clean-up functions.As a follow- up to the Council's May 3rd briefing on the Refuse Fund budget,a briefing will be scheduled later during May to review rate increase projections,rate structure, and related policies. At that time, the Council may wish to consider funding a rate study for the Refuse collection program.In addition to these issues, the proposed 2011-12 budget also includes the continuation of a Waste Stream Audit. The audit will generate analysis to guide the City's future efforts on education to increase the diversion rate. From the Environmental 8s Energy Fund, the Administration proposes continuation of tree purchases, alternative energy purchases, environmental initiatives,and outreach efforts. e) Salt Lake County Legislative Compromise for Haz-mat Delivery - Throughout the 2011 legislative session the City and County worked on negotiations to resolve the revenue stream for the provision of haz-mat services by the County. Currently the County is funding some of these services with the County general fund (supported by city taxpayers),while the City is also providing these services. The conclusion resulted in the County agreeing to reimburse the City for approximately $350,000. The Council may wish to note this payment will only come after an interlocal 10 agreement is signed between the City and County agreeing to a given formula. The Administration indicates that this interlocal agreement is O forthcoming. The proposed budget anticipates that the payment will be received in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of FY 2012. 9. Expenses on the Horizon not addressed in the proposed budget - Staff has identified potential expenses on the horizon not addressed in the proposed budget. Staff acknowledges that it may not be possible to budget for these expenses in the current fiscal year due to economic conditions, however the Council may wish to keep these items in mind in the coming years. a) Retirement Liability - Each year the City budgets a small amount of the actual liability that exists if all employees eligible to retire were to do so. In the past this amount was estimated at $13 million. In FY 2009 the Council budgeted $1 million in the Non-Departmental budget for this purpose, but this was reduced to $500,000 in FY 2011, and is proposed to be reduced further in FY 2012, to $250,000. If funds are not sufficient in this non- departmental account, historically general fund departments have paid for this liability out of their own budgets. The lower budget amount increases the likelihood that individual Departments will need to leave positions vacant in order to cover costs of retirements in the corning fiscal year (for example, Budget Amendment #4 includes a request from IMS to add $55,000 to address this issue). b) CIP projects on the horizon, not funded in the FY 2012 budget - i. 900 South Trail corridor - Public utilities is moving forward with plans to upgrade the conduit along the abandoned 900 South Rail corridor. The Council funded $100,000 to fund a master-planning effort in FY 2011 to plan for a trail/park system in what is now City right-of-way. The Administration apparently plans to pave a temporary trail along the corridor. The Council may wish to ask whether the Community has expressed support for this approach. The Council may also wish to request an update on the planning effort so that funds for the overall reconstruction of the corridor can be adequately budgeted. ii. Large-scale projects for Economic Development- The City is currently finalising plans for a number of large-scale projects, such as the Sugar House Streetcar and the Utah Performing Arts Center, that may need general fund support in order to construct. No funds are identified in the FY 2012 budget for these purposes. iii. Liberty Precinct & Evidence Storage - The Mayor's proposed budget does not include funding for the necessary Police Evidence Storage and Crime Lab (which is not included in the scope of the Public Safety Building Bond), or the East-Side Liberty Precinct Station. However, it does include them as items 79 & 80 on the CIP Log. In the notes of the CIP Log, the Administration mentions that these projects could be funded with a possible bond (it does not state whether this would be Sales Tax or General Obligation). The Evidence Storage (possibly built in conjunction with the Valley Police Alliance) would be approximately $7million, and the Liberty Police Precinct would be approximately $16 million. Sales Tax Debt CO Service on a $23 million bond (4.5% interest, 20 years) would be approximately $1.8 million per year. 11 iv. City&County Building Exterior Stone Replacement-In FY 2008,City Staff submitted an application for $1.45 million to prevent further .. deterioration of the stone exterior of the City and County Building. ..� Neither the Mayor nor the Council ranked the project high enough at the time to secure funding. At some point the City will have to address this need in order to protect the City's investment. This item was not a CIP request for FY 2011,nor is it funded elsewhere in the Mayor's recommended budget. 3 3 12 Appendix A GENERAL FUND REVENUE O The table below compares the Fiscal Year 2009-10 adopted revenue budget and FY 2010-11 proposed revenue budget. PROPOSED GENERAL FUND REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 Fiscal Year Proposed Difference Percent 2010-11 2011-12 Change Property taxes—certified rate $ 54,003,556 $ 55,496,771 $ 1,493,215 2.8% New Growth $ 1,145,861 Property tax judgment levy $ 1,035,361 $ 576,000 $ (459,361) -44.4% Property taxes -vehicle,delinquent,RDA(note: $ 6,191,854 $ 5,914,500 $ (277,354) -4.5% decrease is due to shift in SB 245 accounting) Sales and use taxes $ 39,593,122 $ 41,482,655 $ 1,889,533 4.8% Energy tax $ 3,900,000 $ 3,900,000 $ - 0.0% Franchise taxes $ 27,953,800 $ 28,434,888 $ 481,088 1.7% Payment in lieu of taxes $ 927,879 $ 925,889 $ (1,990) -0.2% Business/Regulatory licenses (including parking tax& $ 9,226,180 $ 11,292,077 $ 2,065,897 22.4% ground transportation fees) Building permits $ 5,614,418 $ 6,694,981 $ 1,080,563 19.2% Fines and forfeitures $ 10,551,316 $ 10,788,815 $ 237,499 2.3% Intergovernmental revenue $ 5,441,103 $ 5,426,994 $ (14,109) -0.3% Charges for services $ 3,756,784 $ 4,118,852 $ 362,068 9.6% Parking meter revenue $ 1,599,000 $ 1,651,000 $ 52,000 3.3% Interest income $ 480,000 $ 780,000 $ 300,000 62.5% Reimbursements from other City funds $ 9,575,233 $ 9,907,993 $ 332,760 3.5% Miscellaneous revenue $ 2,019,136 $ 3,020,911 $ 1,001,775 49.6% Interfund transfers $ 2,489,331 $ 2,562,220 $ 72,889 2.9% Fund balance&one-time revenue/transfers in $ 3,245,386 $ 1,523,200 $ (1,722,186) -53.1% Total General Fund Revenue $ 188,749,320 $ 194,497,746 $ 5,748,426 3.0% Proposed General Fund Revenue by Source Fiscal year 2011-12 Charges for Services Intergovernmental Interfund transfer:and Parking Meter Revenue 2% Revenue Miscellaneous 1% 3% 1% Interest income One-time Revenue and 0% Use of Fund Balance 1% Fines and forfeitures 6% Reimbursements from other City funds 5% Property Taxes 32% Licenses and Permits 9% Sales and Use Taxes Franchise Taxes 23% 15% 13 Appendix B CHANGES IN GENERAL FUND REVENUE The following chart separates proposed changes in FY 2011 revenue by natural growth(or decline) vs.proposed increase in taxes/fees. Mayor's Proposed Revenue Budget CHANGES New Growth/Inflation compared to Increases in Taxes or Fees General Fund FY 2012 Relating to Relating to Growth/Inflation/ Increases in Economy City Taxes and/or Fees Taxes Property taxes—Judgement Levy - (459,361) Property taxes-elimination of fly-over tax rei mburs ement to W. 70,000 Valley City Sales taxes 1,889,533 Franchise taxes 481,088 Payment in lieu of taxation from enterprise funds (1,990) Licenses and Permits Regulatory Licenses-general 10%increase in Business License Fees 416,667 new revenue from Good Landlord Program(GLP) 1,941,628 GLP-revenue generated by fees for single and double rental units 145,833 business license reduction from participation GLP (282,830) Airport&Public Facility parking tax 100,000 Ground transportation revenue-moving to airport (255,401) Building Permits 925,582 Fee increase-fire s upres s i on system inspection 154,981 One-time Building Permit Revenue-Public Safety Building 400,000 Intergovernmental Other _ 14,109 Charges and Fees for Services County/City Legislative Compromise-Hazmat delivery 350,000 Cemetery fees (8,240) Public safety fees 19,500 Street and public improvement fees (4,500) Youth and recreation fees(a ctua I revenue may be greater) 30,506 Rental and concession fees 24,802 Parking meters Parking meter revenue (213,000) Meter rates 250,000 Meter Bagging rates 15,000 Fines and forfeitures 296,350 Parking Tickets-General (265,816) Booting Revenue 156,965 Interest Income 300,000 Administrative fees—charges to other funds Air portfi re reimbursement _ 118,413 Labor/Utilities Reimbursement 239,347 RDA Attorney Reimbursement (25,000) Miscellaneous Revenue Sundry and Other 77,590 RDA Streetcar and UD Professional Funding 106,250 Leonardo Utilities Reimbursement 323,000 Gallivan RDA Increase 168,286 Build-America Bonds(BABS)Subsidy 326,379 Interfund Transfers _ One-time interfund transfers (2,845,386) E-911 72,889 Total $ 2,871,256 $ 2,181,918 14 Appendix C GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES The following table summarizes proposed expenditure budgets by Department for the General Fund, proposed to total $194,497,476 in FY 2012. PROPOSED GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 Adopted Proposed Difference Percent 2010-11 2011-12 - Change Attomey's Office $5,077,678' $5,270,825 $193,147 3.8% Community & Economic 16,126,588 16,735,531 $608,943 3.8% Development Finance 4,232,840 4,626,948 $394,108 9.3% Fire 33,462,538 34,879,031 $1,416,493 4.2% Human Resouces 1,514,281 1,834,026 $319,745 21.1% Justice Court 4,374,684 4,552,673 $177,989 4.1% Police 55,169,063 56,841,187 $1,672,124 3.0% Public Services 30,155,362 31,510,010 $1,354,648 4.5% Office of the Mayor 2,277,700. 2,422,441 $144,741 6.4% City Council Office 1,957,492 2,166,694 $209,202 10.7% Non-Departmental 34,401,092 33,658,109 ($742,984) -2.2% Total General Fund $188,749,319 $194,497,476 $5,748,157 3.0% Expenditures Proposed General Fund Expenditures, by Department Fiscal year 2011-12 Attorney's Office Non-Departmental 3% Community & 17% Economic Development 9% City Council Office 1% Finance 3% Office of the Mayor 1% Fire 18% Public Services 16% • Human Resouces 1% • Justice Court 2% Police 29% The Police Department Budget is the largest department in the General Fund (at 29%)followed by the Fire Department (18%)and Public Services (16%). Community and Economic Development represents 9%of the total expenditure budget. This ratio has stayed relatively constant over the last few years. 15 Appendix D PROPOSED ONE-TIME GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES The proposed FY 2012 budget includes several items that the Administration considers as one-time expenditures, these will be paid for with one-time revenues, as detailed below. As is shown below, there are more one-time revenues than there are one-time expenses. Because CIP projects are considered "one-time" in nature from a policy basis, the balance of the "excess" one-time revenues could be considered accounted for in that line item (this would not be additional revenue to the line item— rather, one-time revenue counted within the existing appropriation). Comparison of One-Time Revenue vs.One-Time Expenses One time Revenue Appropriation from Fund Balance 150,000 Public Safety Building-Permit Revenue 400,000 Transfer from Risk Fund—Health Insurance 300,000 Transfer from Risk Fund—Risk Management 100,000 Transfer from Governmental Immunity 400,000 Transfer from the Donations Fund—Memory Grove upgrades 150,000 Energy Company rebates 23,200 Total 1,523,200 One time Expenses Fire-equip new apparatus 60,000 Fire-Fire Station alerting system 50,000 Justice Courts-New Public Seating in Court waiting area 13,000 Non-Departmental-Potential Transition Contingency 50,000 Non-Departmental-Municipal Elections 310,000 Non-Departmental-Streetlighting Project Consultant 50,000 Non-Deptartmental-IMS-GF cost of Citwide Tmekeeping Syr 75,000 Non-Deptartmental-IMS—Completion of VoIP Rollout 75,000 Non-Deptartmental- IMS-Fiber to the Premise 120,000 Planning—Annual Long-Range Planning 250,000 Total 1,053,000 Difference 470,200 16 Appendix E SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED CITYWIDE BUDGET - All Funds MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURE BUDGETS Adopted Proposed Difference Percent 2010-11 2010-11 Change General Fund Attomey's Office $5,077,678 $5,270,825 $193,147 3.8% Community & Economic Development $16,126,588 $16,735,531 $608,943 3.8% Finance $4,232,840 $4,626,948, $394,108 9.3% Fire $33,462,538 $34,879,031 $1,416,493 4.2% Human Resouces $1,514,281 $1,834,026 $319,745 21.1% Justice Court $4,374,684 $4,552,673 $177,989 4.1% Police $55,169,063 $56,841,187 $1,672,124 3.0% Public Services $30,155,362 $31,510,010 $1,354,648 4.5% Office of the Mayor $2,277,700 $2,422,441 $144,741 6.4% City Council Office $1,957,492 $2,166,694 $209,202. 10.7% Non-Departmental $34,401,092 $33,658,109 ($742,984) -2.2% Total General Fund 188,749,319 194,497,476 $5,748,157 3.0% Enterprise Funds Department of Airports 266,552,187 266,186,487 355,;' C; -0.1% Water 66,025,826 69,080,633 $3,054,807 4.6% Sewer 41,533,189 50,067,200 $8,534,011 20.5% Stormwater 10,466,117 18,714,284 $8,248,167 78.8% Refuse Collection 18,612,980 15,289,955 ($3,323,02 -17.9% Golf 8,429,345 8,843,771 $414,426 4.9% Intermodal Hub 0 0 $0 Total Enterprise Funds 411,619,644 428,182,330 $16,562,686 4.0% Internal Service Funds Insurance & Risk Management 39,706,554 43,866,570 $4,160,016 10.5% Fleet Management 18,012,378 17,068,497 ($943,881) -5.2% Information Management Services 8,626,334 8,716,843 $90,509 1.0% Governmental Immunity 1,245,000 1,320,000 $75,000 6.0% Total Internal Service Funds 67,590,266 70,971,910 $3,381,644 5.0% Capital Improvement Program 22,673,394 19,478,022 ($3,195,372) -14.1% Debt Service Funds Debt Service-CIP* 29,135,531 28,484,685 ($650,846) -2.2% Debt Service-SID* 741,363 1,769,757 $1,028,394 138.7% Total Debt Service Funds 29,876,894 30,254,442 $377,548 1.3% Special Revenue Funds Community Development (CDBG) 4,391,247 2,731,232 ($1,660,015) -37.8% Grants Operating (ESG, HOME, HOPWA) 6,958,931 6,700,000 ($258,931) -3.7% Street Lighting* 1,806,785 1,809,373 $2,588 0.1% Emergency 911* 2,379,021 2,524,801 $145,780 6.1% Housing Loan Fund* 12,411,656 9,877,616 ($2,534,040) -20.4% Downtown Economic Development * 897,386 897,386 $0 0.0% Demolition & Weed Abatement* 26,500 0 ($26,500) -100.0% Donation Fund* 100,000 200,000 $100,000' 100.0% Total Special Revenue Funds 28,971,526 24,740,408 ($4,231,118) -14.6% TOTAL $749,481,043 $768,124,588 $18,643,545 2.49% *Individual budget briefings are not generally scheduled for the proposed budgets marked with an asterisk. The Council may wish to indicate if a briefing is desired this year-Alternately, Council Members may ask staff for more information. 17 Appendix F Goals/Priorities Identified at 2011 Council Retreats Process of Public Engagement -Council communication efforts -Channel 17 interviews -mailing lists/listsery -Weekly council meeting reports -Website Neighborhood/Quality of Life -Small Neighborhood Business -New Libraries -Street lighting Zones -Conditional Use text amendments -Resident/Neighborhood Donations -Parley's Historic Nature Park -Pan-handling -Historic Preservation Plan -Demolition Ordinance Budget&Capital Planning -10 Year CEP Plan -Public Safety Building -Council Oversight -Impact Fee Study -Open Space Policy -Internal Controls -North Temple -Emergency preparation -Streamlining/Efficiency -Regional Sports Complex -City Benefits Plan/Health Insurance Walkability&Transportation -Street Cars/Trolleys -Sidewalk snow removal(complete) -Concrete/Sidewalk audit -Bicycle&Transportation Projects -Electric Vehicles -Traffic Calming/Pedestrian Safety -Ground Transportation 18 Appendix G Statements on Budget from Council Policy Manual A.25 GENERAL BUDGET POLICY a. When possible, Capital Improvement Projects are not delayed nor eliminated in order to balance the budget. The Council also avoids using one time revenues to balance the budget. A.26 CAPITAL AND DEBT MANAGEMENT On December 14, 1999,the Council adopted a resolution relating to capital and debt management policies. The resolution states: THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City: Capital Policies 1.The Council intends to define a capital project as follows: "Capital improvements involve the construction,purchase or renovation of buildings,parks,streets or other physical structures.A capital improvement must have a useful life of five or more years.A capital project must also have a cost of$50,000 or more unless its significant functionality can be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project. A capital improvement is not a recurring capital outlay item(such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine)or a maintenance expense(such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches).Acquisition of equipment is not a capital project unless it is an integral part of the cost of a capital project." 2.The Council requests that the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the Five-Year Capital Plan and be submitted to the City Council for tentative approval no later than March 1 of each fiscal year. 3.The Council requests that the Administration prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts which correspond to the capital program period as well as an analysis of the City's financial condition and capacity to finance future capital projects,and present this information to the Council with the presentation of each biennial budget. 4.The Council intends that no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. 5.The Council requests that the Administration submit an updated proposed five-year capital improvement plan to the Council along with the Mayor's Recommended Budget. 6.The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. 7.The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects which preserve and protect the health and safety of the community • are mandated by the state and/or federal government • provide for the renovation of existing facilities,resulting in a preservation of the community's prior investment, • result in decreased operating costs or other significant cost savings,or • improve the environmental quality of the City and its neighborhoods. 8.The Council intends to give fair consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies,establish a public/private partnership,or secure grant funding,all other considerations being equal. 9.The Council intends to follow a guideline of approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following the project's design wherever possible. 19 10.The Council intends that all capital projects be evaluated and prioritized by the CIP Citizen Advisory Board. A 11.The Council does not intend to fund any project that has not been included in the Five-Year Capital Plan for at least O one year prior to proposed funding,unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified. 12.The Council requests that any change order to any capital improvement project which equals or exceeds twenty percent of the approved project budget be brought to the Council for review in a formal budget amendment. 13.The Council requests that the Administration submit a budget amendment request to the Council no later than September 1 each year identifying those Capital Improvement Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains.It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and placed in the CIP Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year,at which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's General Fund ongoing allocation. Debt Management Policies I.The Council intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are included in the City's 5-Year Capital Program and 20-Year Capital Inventory of Needs,or in order to take advantage of opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. 2.The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity,and how each proposal meets the Council's debt policies,prior to proposing any projects for debt financing.This analysis should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios. 3.The Council requests that,when borrowing is recommended by the Administration,the source of funds to cover the debt service requirements be identified. 4.The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the effect of any proposed bond issue on the City's ability to finance future projects of equal or higher priority. 5.The Council requests that the Administration analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and coordinate this analysis with the budget development process. 6.The Council requests that the Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed,including an indication of requirements or circumstances that the Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue. 7.The Council does not intend to issue debt that would cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the municipal bond rating industry. 8.The Council does not intend to issue debt if such debt will damage the City's current AAA general obligation bond rating or cause the City's lease revenue bond ratings to fall below current ratings. 9.The Council requests that the Administration fully disclose and the Council intends to consider the impact of all debt that has a net negative fiscal impact on the City's operating budget. 10.The Council requests that the Administration structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the issue unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or if the useful life of the financed project(s)suggests a different maturity schedule. O 20 SCANNED TO: tv,04/ SCANNED BY: RECEIVED (►,`�7 ,�(�, ��TT��,,�rr DATE: 5/3�t� FRANK B. GRAY 0 5 J(}f t '+ '�+ mot\ ��,�� RALPH�BE�CCKER DIRECTOR t•yi- 101_EPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY S. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RE (1]}^`��{] yq� OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR �Y/ MARY DE LA MAREEtI CIL OFFICE DEPUTY DIRECTOR MAY 0 3 2011 ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: 3 I( David eritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ens h3 �.4(I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 28, 2011 Jill Remington-Love FROM: Frank Gray, CED irector SUBJECT: 10-Year Fiscally Constraine e Facilities Plan STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, Director Housing and Neighborhood Development (801)535-6136, luann.clark@slcgov.com Mike Akerlow, Deputy Director Housing and Neighborhood Development (801) 535-7966, mike.akerlow@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the Salt Lake City Council consider adopting a new 10-year fiscally constrained impact fee facilities plan and adopt an ordinance establishing impact fees. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City has hired Anne Westcott of Galena Consulting to update the 10-year fiscally constrained impact fee facilities plan and the-impact fee program. The City will need to adopt thel0=year plan before we can adopt an update to the City's impact fee program. The attached 10-Year facilities plan has been reviewed and approved by the Mayor and is included in this transmittal to the City Council as part of the budget process. Impact fees have been updated based on the assumptions made in the fiscally-constrained facilities plan. Based on these assumptions a first draft of the Impact Fee Study is also attached and included in the transmittal to the City Council as part of the budget process. Anne Wescott will be available with Administrative staff to present these materials and support documents at the City Council's convenience. L 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4114-5486 TELEPHONE: 1301-535-623❑ FAX: B01.535-6005 W W W.SLCDO V.COM/CED ®wcvc[o nwcrt ALE A ONSULTING To: LuAnn Clark and Michael Akerlow, Salt Lake City HAND From: Anne Wescott, Galena Consulting Date: May 3,2011 Re: 10-Year Fiscally Constrained Capital Facilities Plan The City will need to adopt a fiscally constrained 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)' which identifies all available revenues and other General Fund commitments to the CFP Fund before adopting any update to the City's impact fee program. To begin to develop the 10- Year CFP,each department went through an extensive process to identify future capital needs, including projects necessary to serve growth, upgrades to current capital facilities,and projects necessary to maintain the City's current capital assets. In order to address all of the City's capital needs,particularly those related to the maintenance of current assets,the 10-Year CFP would total almost$415 million,at least$300 million of which would need to be funded by General Fund revenues. The Departments constrained their CFPs to a 10-year total of$242 million by prioritizing projects based on factors including alignment with Mayoral direction, community input,public safety,ability to serve new growth, availability of other funding sources including CDBG and Class C funds,etc. Approximately$150 million of this amount would need to be funded by the General Fund. At 7%of eligible General Fund revenues,the General Fund contribution to the CFP Fund averages$15.3 million per year,or$153 million over the 10-year period. This amount is adequate to address the General Fund portion of the $242 million CFP. However, General Fund debt service,which has been around$4 million per year,will be increasing to approximately$11.8 million in the latter half of the 10-year plan. Approximately$5.3 million of this increase is related to the transfer of the SARR obligation from the RDA to the General • ' formerly referred to as a Capital Facilities Plan or CIP 1 Fund. The other$2.5 million is a placeholder for new debt service to fund some portion of major Capital Asset Project priorities including the SugarHouse and Downtown streetcars, Utah Performing Arts Center, Salt Lake City Public Market,and Central Plant Upgrade/Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation Project. After debt service then,only$59 million in General Fund revenues are available to fund ten year's worth of capital projects for police,fire,parks,streets,transportation, and facilities. Fortunately, several other sources of revenues can augment available General Fund revenues, although with some restrictions for use. Within this 10-Year period,we have anticipated the appropriation of$92 million in additional revenue sources as follows: • $24 million in Class C funding(a$4 million reduction from historical levels); • $11 million in CDBG funding for capital projects in eligible areas(a$2 million reduction from historical levels; • $2.1 million in remaining Open Space bond revenues; • $31.3 million in impact fee-eligible revenues(pursuant to Council review and adoption); • $1.9 in remaining bond revenues from the Fleet Facility for improvements at the City and County Building; • $1.5 million in revenues already appropriated for capital projects in FY11,including the 1300 South Viaduct local match($200,000);200 South Bike Lane Project ($620,000 pending Budget Amendment#1 approval); and the Surplus Canal Shared Use Pathway($700,000 pending Budget Amendment#4 approval); • $9.3 million in Federal Highway Administration funding for the 1300 South Viaduct;and • $11 million estimated from the sale of the existing Public Safety and Police Evidence facilities. Even with the addition of these revenue assumptions into our model,the City only has the capacity to fund$151 million of$242 million of priority General Fund capital projects. Therefore,we have had to eliminate another$92 million from the departmental CFPs. Deep cuts have been made to the CFP across the departments,mostly in repairs and improvements to current assets, as these projects are the only ones with no other potential funding sources. These cuts will most likely have a long term impact on the condition of these assets and future costs to replace. Some large capital priorities of the administration had to be cut as well in order to obtain a fiscally balanced CFP. • Page 2 Funding reductions,project re-scheduling,and/or project elimination included: • Fire—The Fire Training Center,a priority of the Fire Department and Administration for some time,was cut as its construction depends almost solely on General Fund revenue sources. Fire Station#14 was left in the CFP,but moved back a few years. In order to fund the project,however,it had to be assumed that$5 million from the sale of the existing Public Safety Building will earmarked for the construction of Fire Station#3 in FY14-15. Police -No cuts were made to the Police Department's CFP as they only have one project on their list—the Crime Lab and Evidence Facility. In order to fund this project,however, it had to be assumed that$6 million from the sale of the existing Public Safety Building would be earmarked for this facility. Parks—With very few revenue sources other than General Fund contribution,the Parks CFP was reduced significantly. Approximately$30 million was cut from the Parks CFP, by aggressively reducing the scope and amount of improvements in existing parks by 50%. In addition,an initiative to increase the number of miles of open space trails was eliminated. While a comprehensive list of specific prioritized projects and locations has 4 k been developed,we did not schedule these projects specifically in time. Instead,an average funding amount was allocated to each fiscal year, with the assumption that the specific projects would be identified during the budget process based on needs at that time. Streets—Much of the Streets CFP is funded by sources other than the General Fund, including Class C,CDBG,and Federal grants. However,over$13 million and 50%of General Fund projects were cut from the Streets CFP, including: a 77%decrease in funding for ADA Accessibility Ramps;a 70%reduction in sidewalk replacement and rehabilitation; a 30%reduction in street pavement overlay and preservation; a 40%decrease in local street reconstruction; a 20%reduction in major rehabilitation and reconstruction;and an 80% reduction in bridge rehabilitation. Transportation—Over$20 million was cut from the Transportation CFP,including a 50% reduction in traffic signal replacement; a 33%reduction in pedestrian safety device installation;a 50%reduction in new bike lane installations; and a 50%reduction in the scope of the 1300 East Traffic Safety project. Furthermore, all additional TCC cameras • • Page 3 were eliminated,all General Fund revenue for streetlight replacement after FY11-12 was eliminated,the Parley's and City Creek Shared Use Pathways were eliminated,and the Jordan River Trail crossing at 100 South project was eliminated. Facilities—The inventory of capital needs for existing City facilities is valued at over$30 million. In order to ensure that there is some dedicated stream of General Fund revenue available for repairs and improvements to existing City facilities, $390,000 per year was earmarked for Facilities. In FY 11-12,an additional$1.9 million is identified for improvements to the City and County Building from bond revenues from the Fleet Facility project. In FY13 through FY16,an additional $610,000 in discretionary funding is identified for ongoing facilities projects for a total of$1 million annually. This decreases to $500,000 annually in FY17 through FY21. The Facilities Division's CFP includes a list of projects by facility. This list has not been constrained to meet the funding level—it is assumed that each year a list of projects within the funding level will be presented and approved. Next Steps The attached 10-Year CFP has been reviewed and approved by the Mayor for transmittal to the Council as part of the budget process. Our process was focused on developing a balanced 10-Year Plan according to available revenues and Administration directive. Each of these reductions is likely to result in some degree of negative impact to the City, its residents and businesses. We anticipate a number of policy issues will need to be discussed prior to a final CFP approval. Impact fees have been updated based on the assumptions made in the fiscally-constrained CFP. Council revisions to the CFP will not likely make a significant impact to the impact fee calculations,as the revisions are most likely going to be focused on General Fund and other revenue source projects. Therefore, also attached is the first draft of the Impact Fee Study for Administration review and transmittal to the City Council as part of the budget process. I am available to present these materials and support any discussions at the Council's convenience. • Page 4 S.I Sake City-Sources and Uses Capital Impnvement Plan 2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained (SOURCES F91112 F11211 FY13-14 FY14-15 Fv1 FT16-17 FT13-IS FY15.19 FY19.30 Fv30-31 10 Seer totals) On.Golng General Fund Co .-3% S 3 f 2 f 14.135.2139 5 14.559,317 f 18..7 S 0 $ 15..,320 f 10366,551 S 10670250 3 17364,696 f 153.742.970 Ongein9 General Fund Revenues f 13,323e47 5 13,723,562 5 14.135269 5 14,569,327 3 14.995.107 1 15.445,300 $ 15,909,370 1 15,386,651 5 16.070250 5 17.304.508 5 152.742.970 Impatl Fees(including 0107079960 Mem.) f 5.065.853 5 8329,683 f 5,142653 5 2616860 $ 976,950 5 1,059750 S 2.089,750 S 4,705.350 5 2.072.350 5 1794.350 30.752100 Open Spam Bad Fund Balance f 750,000 5 750,000 $ Clan C CIP Funds 5 2600000 S 2,400,000 $ 2.400.000 f 2.400.000 S 2,400.000 S 2.400.000 f 2400,003 5 2,400,000 S 2.400.000 1 2.400,900 14,000,000 GPM CIP Funds f 1100000 f 1800,000 f 1.100.000 f 1.100.000 f 1100,000 5 1100,000 5 1100,000 5 1,100,000 f 1,100.000 5 1,100,000 11,000.000 Meat Bad Revenue 5 1,900.000 1 00,000 StreetsMad Matchikn IP 0v in C ecwunl E ,000 5 - S - E - f S - S f E - 5 -1Mad. 1 Budget Amendment H,TnnporlW pro pels opels f 1,250250,000 $ - E f - 5 f - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - ;150000 Federal Grant-FMYA 1 9,320,000 f - 5 - 5 - 5 5 5 - 5 - 5 f 9,020,000 Sale of Puck SaHryrEMence Propry f 6000,000 f 5000,000 Total Oanl Fund Revenues f 35.309,530 f 22,301,345 f 19.325152 f 23.674,5T1 1 194 452 70.057 S 20.915,740 f 21.499,120 f 24,59;001 5 22. ,600 f 33816,945 11po 00,a' 9n 0 !USES 1 5101-11. M12-13 FY13-16 FY1415 M1616 FY16-IT FY12715 F51419 FY11819 FY30.31 10 yew 1AN9l Debt Service Sales Tax Bonds 1 3,757,013 5 4,161.054 f 4,401.174 S 2,930.705 S 5564,511 $ 9.354031 f 9.342,669 f 9,333.578 S 9.332.520 f 9.337,671 3 55.815865 CAM Bond Issuance-estImateNgamadder f 2...000 5 2.500.000 f 2.500.000 5 2,5130.000 S 2.500.000 5 2.500.000 5 2500,000 f 2,500,000 f 2,500,000 f 2,5500,000 S 23,000,000 Ongoing Debt Service f 13,252013 S 6,851654 5 6.901174 5 5.4..705 f 9.354.511 5 11,854,071 5 11 042.569 5 11815575 5 11 032.520 5 11,037.671 3 93,015855 Captel P.M Pro - St 00000 - - 6,050,000 S • 11,400,000 - 80,000 1 and Open Space 4.455,810 4.930.620 4,005830 4,205630 4,155,830 4.230820 20 E Streets 15,575,350 5.505,650 6 4 5.5 ,603 4.503250 662,150 76,500 S 4 Transpor 3,270000 0900000 5530,000 370,003 530.000 330,000 530,Transports.un 370,000 530,000 13,520,000 Fewer-arpprp 000 5 Fa..•duseeanr0 t900, 60, 515. 010. 110.000 610.030 110,000 110000 1 110,000 110, CMInpect Fes Update - 44,660 - 158,600 Parts forts 130,000 00.000 100.000 100,000 100,000 f 00,000 00,000 1,000,000 Mower 150,000 100.000 000 f Ongoing General Fund Expenditures S 37.080.970 15051/220 23.369974 15,179,620 11,39P01,020 10515870 11247,770 16.972,120 5 9349,120 9.401,5201 160459,391 P0(roeo cam e and lseuanee Pryerl4-in pda8y0mbr (3254 cbxe..e pecel..-.Genere)rand 7Omon ormese pgec(s behove) Segall-louse Streetur ;Rah Perlom7rp An Center 6e0 lake City Pub0c Markel Sell lake My CamantIon Hotel Downtown Streetcar Genet F5n1 Uppad.Ydr0pen CM CUGenea5n Regional Span Camp.-Phase 2 Prgeda ss110 mree)nenoNg pm Gerere,m4 PerUn9 Pal MG. Pm)ern 0glrnd uOl0rrnwn20 sources evade001 Jordan Alver T.and 100 South Rellroed Crossing Parleys(PRAM)Shared Ilea Pe911.0 Surplus Canal Sherad W P81may Total General Fund Cedtal Expendlturts i 5 J0 5 S 11.718074 f 5 4a f 21,610,313 f 1 3 1 3 9 f ,603,696 f 11.161,640 5 11,2]9391 f 344,1T5,0/0 difference 5 1,971,547 5 560.171 5 (892.995)5 4,064,352 5 (1.162.474)f (1454.2011 S (1,591.319)5 (4.213.697)5 1268,960 f 1419657 5 (0) 5 Salt Lake City-All Departments Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained DIP VBkn FV11-12 FY12-10 FT1114 Fola-15 FY15.16 FY1617 FY17-19 FY1619 Fy19-20 PVM21 10 year total Fire $ 12.400.000 $ 1.250.000 E - $ 5.100.000 E - S - 5 6,050.000 E - E - S 12,400,000 Police E 9,140,000 E 80,000 E 9,000,000 E - S - E - E - E - E - E - E 9,O8O000 Parks and Open Space $ 44,156200 $ 4455.620 S 4,950,610 S 4.905.620 S 4,205,620 S 4,155.620 E 4,230,620 S 5,355.620 E 4,155620 S 4,155,620 E 3,655,620 $ 44.156.200 Streets $ 81,360,000 S 15,575,350 E 5,780,600 S 5,505,850 $ 5,184,000 $ 5.560,800 $ 4.595.250 S 4,862,150 $ 5,576,500 $ 4.163.500 S 4.556,000 S 61,360,000 Transportation $ 12620,000 S 3,270,000 S 3,130.000 S 2,990,003 S 530,000 S 370,000 S 530.000 E 370,000 E 530,000 S 370,000 E 530,000 E 12,620,000 Facilities E 9,198,504 E 2,290,000 S 1,000.000 $ 908.504 S 1,000.800 S 1,000.000 S 1.800000 S 500.000 S 500,000 S 500,000 $ 500.000 E 9,198,504 GIP/Impact Fee Update E 44,600 E - S - $ - $ - S 44,600 $ - S - E - S - S - b 44,600 Percent for Art S 1,000.000 $ 100,000 S 101,000 E 100,000 E 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 S 100,000 E 100,000 $ 100,020 S 1,000,000 Overtsns S 600,000 S 60,000 $ 60,000 S 60,000 E 60,000 E 60,000 E 60,000 E 60,000 $ 60,000 E 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 600,000 Sub-Total S 150.519,304 S 27,080,970 $ 15,051,220 $ 23,359,974 $ 16,179,620 $ 11,291,020 S 10,515,870 $ 11,247,770 S 16.972,120 S 9,349,120 $ 9,401,620 E 150,459,304 Major Capital Items TBD E - $ 150,519,004 S 27,080,970 S 15,051,210 S 22,169,974 S 16,179,610 5 11,191,020 $ 10,513,870 5 11,247,770 S 16,972,120 $ 9,149,120 $ 9,401,620 $ 150,459,304 •Page 6 i.' / • 0 Salt Lake City -All Departments Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained CIP Impact Fee Other Funding Funding Sources•Detail Value Eligible Sources General Fund Class C CDBG Impact Fees FHWA Other Total 7% Fire $ 12,400,000 $ 4,737,000 $ 7,663,000 $ 2,663,000 $ - $ - $ 4,737,000 $ - $ 5,000,000 $ 12,400,000 Police $ 9,140,000 $ 2,285,000 $ 6,795,000 $ 795,000 $ - $ - $ 2,285,000 $ - $ 6,000,000 $ 9,060,000 Parks and Open Space $ 44,156,200 $ 7,693,500 $ 36,462,700 $ 29,062,700 $ - $ 5,300,000 $ 7,693,500 $ - $ 2,100,000 $ 44,156,200 Streets $ 61,360,000 $ 13,680,000 $ 47,680,000 $ 9,560,000 $ 24,000,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 13,680,000 $ 9,320,000 $ 200,000 $ 61,360,000 Transportation $ 12,620,000 $ 2,322,000 $ 10,298,000 $ 9,048,000 $ - $ - $ 2,322,000 $ - $ 1,250,000 $ 12,620,000 Facilities $ 9,198,504 $ - $ 9,198,504 $ 7,298,504 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,900,000 $ 9,198,504 CIP/Impact Fee Update $ 44,600 $ 44,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 44.600 $ - $ - $ 44,600 Percent for Art $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 Overruns $ 600,000 $ - $ 600,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 Sub-Total $ 150,519,304 $ 30,762,100 $ 119,697,204 $ 58,927,204 $ 24,000,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 30,762,100 $ 9,320,000 $ 16,450,000 $ 150,459,304 Major Capital Items TBD - 8 150,519,304 $ 30,762,100 $ 119,697,204 $ 58,927,204 $ 24,000,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 30,762,100 $ 9,320,000 $ 16,450,000 $ 150,459,304 General Fund Class C CDBG Impact Fees FHWA Other Total available after debt service $ 58,927,204 $ 24,000,000 $ 11,000,000 $30,762,100 $ 9,320,000 $ 16,450,000 $ 150,459,304 difference $ (0) $ - .$ - $ - $ - $ - $ (0) This does not account for funding for the Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation Project,2 Streetcars,Parking Meter Upgrade, Utah Performing Arts Center,Salt Lake Public Market,Salt Lake Convention Hotel,or Utah Theater/Building Renovation which are currently estimated at over$120M. These projects are likely to be funded with bonds,grants,or other sources • Page 7 Salt Lake City Fire Department Capital Improvement Plan,2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained Square Land Estimated Portion Impact Fee Other Type of Capital Facility Feet Acreage Cost Attributable Eligible Funding to Growth Sources Facilities 2012 Fire Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Land Acquisition $ 1,200,000 33% $ 396,000 $ 804,000 2015 Fire Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Construction 15,000 1.00 $ 5,100,000 33% $ 1,683,000 $ 3.417,000 2019 Fire Station#14 15,000 5.00 5 5,100,000 33% $ 1,683,000 $ 3,417,000 Apparatus 2019 Truck for Fire Station#14 to serve Southwest growth $ 950,000 100% $ 950,000 $ - Total Infrastructure $ 12,350,000 S 4,712,000 $ 7,538.000 Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 S - Standards of Cover Study $ 50,000 50% $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ 2,396,845 $ 2,396,845 Grand Total . - - $ 10,014,305 $ 2.351,305 $ 7,663,000 Notes: Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 3/31/11 •Page 8 0 0 Salt Lake City Police Department Capital Improvement Plan,2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained Square Acreage Estimated Portion Impact Fee Other Funding Type of Capital Facility Feet Cost Attributable Eligible Sources to Growth Facilities 2014 Police Evidence and Crime Lab Facility 100,000 2.00 $ 9,000,000 25% $2,250.000 $ 6.750,000 Total Infrastructure $ 9,000,000 $2.250,000 $ 6,750,000 Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 $ - CSI Lab/Evidence Facility Study $ 140,000 25% $ 35.000 $ 105,000 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance Grand Total $ 9,151,150 $2,296,150 $ 6,855,000 •Page 9 0 § 1111 1111 4e! | ' i . / �.- - - ) \ . @ \ \ } \\� , . II! R 55 . . . Rom. ! . I § § EF "� F \. 5 ( i § § ��. _ , 2 § %, aA-E. ( § § § R . .,IAF ! F| k | § § § § 1 k \ \ \ ( / \ ( - . _ ! t §. ! � � § ! § | . (. §. � i § § 1 ! | 1 ! . ! § 5 § . § § ! 1 | ; \ [ R. § ) / g ; ; 1 - PI 5 5 | / § S h ; \ � ) ( ) � ) -R' 1 § ( g R } ! , ! \| |� ! | ! § §� � \| � ` \ ! : jh J! ` f § II . j |' \| §_ iii , t/§| . I } o j ! | §) I§! | I | I ;11; I 1111 Salt Lake City Streets/Transportation Divisions Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained Estimated Type of Capital Facility Cost FY11-12 -FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 10 year total Roadway Projects 1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation $ 10,000,000 $ 9,720,000 $ 280,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000,000 500/700 South-2800 West to 5600 West $ 14,760000 $ 3,510,000 $ 3,160,000 $ 2,810,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 2,880,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,760,000 ADA Accessibility Ramps $ 1,300,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 1,300,000 Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Sawcutting $ 700,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 700,000 Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement $ 1,300,000 $ 130.000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 1,300,000 Indiana Avenue/900 South from Redwood to 3600 West $ 3,640,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,650,000 $ 1,990,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,640,000 Gladiola Street-1650 South to 2100 South $ 4,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,900,000 $ 1,100,000 $ - $ 4,000,000 4400 West from 700 South to 850 South $ 1,600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 Street Pavement Overlay and Preservation $ 7,000,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 7,000,000 Local Street Reconstruction $ 6,500,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 5 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 6,500,000 Major Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of City Streets $ 8,360,000 $ 445,350 $ 440,600 $ 795,850 $ 884,000 $ 780,800 $ 1,045,250 $ 972,150 $ 776,500 $ 1,163,500 $ 1,056,000 $ 8,360,000 Concrete Street Rehabilitation $ 2,000,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 2,000,000 Bridge Rehabilitation $ 200,000 $ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 $ 200,000 Percent for Art $ 500,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 5 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 500,000 Cost Overruns $ 300,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 300,000 S 62,160,000 $ 15,655,350 $ 5,860,600 $ 5,585,850 $ 5,264,000 $ 5,640,800 $ 4,675,250 $ 4.942,150 $ 5,656,500 $ 4,243,500 $ 4,636,000 $ 62,160,000 Transportation Projects Replacement Traffic Signals $ 2,400,000 $ 160,000 $ 320,000 $ 160,000 $ 320,000 $ 160,000 $ 320,000 $ 160,000 $ 320,000 $ 160,000 $ 320,000 $ 2,400,000 Pedestrian Safety Devices $ 250,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 250,000 New Bike Lane Installations $ 250,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25600 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 250,000 Bike Lanes-200 South $ 6,520,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,520,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,520,000 900 South Rail Corridor $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ - 5 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 700,000 New Traffic Signals $ 1,600,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 1,600,000 1300 East Traffic Safety-Phase 2 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 Street Lighting Replacement $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 12,420,000 $ 3,270,000 $ 3,030,000 $ 2,890,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 S 370.000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 12,420,000 Total nfiastructuie.__. . .._ .... $74,$80,000. .W. ..6. .. 518,925,35.9 $8,8.Q_0,600,,,.....-.�,-._ _..._.55,794,000__._-_,019 96f- 1E$,205,250-.__..$012,{50__ $6,186,500 _S4;g,f.1„iI�_..13tAG,0K."„';SWY100 Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,150 Transportation Master Plan $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 Minus Impact Fee Balance $ 6,529,700 $ 3,510,000 $ 3,019,700 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,529,700 Grand Total . ... .. S68,261,450 $1$ 15,580:- $5,970,900. .,$8,575850 .".ij5,7 d01377,1441,15978 7;5 7C"'3g.W.67.'' E;,9tl "'3. '015;60h .i '1_R,"f d6d"*'';,.361';,0fig8 • Page 11 Salt .cm Streets/Transportation 01.soon Capital trnprovernent Plea 20124021•Fiscally Constrained ID Tear Totals Eatimated Portion Impact Fee Ohm Funding .Or Cava m Fe6y cam erne. new. 9 6wres Class Coe Impp'xtM m PBu Omer Tea/ e`ee.m T% 166.80 wne Palen. F Roadwey Projects. CMS 500/5 0 6anm-00 weer co6600 weer e.t]. 3173 ytn e.et] se]m000 14,0,000 ]m,aoo .11e1e98 Ren19e t,wo,oao - a ro - 700000 700 - - 7000000 Detenorsted R...srp.ce..m 0% t�oo,000 00 West 5,040,000 aemp00 912.000 686,000 ]5e 902,000 1,600.000 Street Pavernenl Overlay 7,000.003 Local o s street Rewanp vresemuon ],Stp Meier Rebel/Mallon end Rx0nstr0cecn of Oily Streets Concrete - 0,00.000 0200 teenseaet Reeiudneuon z.000 x.vonwbn vropc/s 09.100.000 13,880,000 eeee0,000 B,B00.000 9w,0m.000 s,00o,000 18060,000 6]00.000 x0,0oo e0,te0000 Regecemxt Trent Signals - Pedestrian Safety 00Nce. New Troll.Signal. 100% 1300 Lest Tn.Safety• - steer L4trare aepecememn.u9 ggg go, 0% - 12,e20.000 9.]0?000 10.116.00 s 8,798,.i i s ],]03,000 50 S1u0000 s12A20,800 TmalIn1.8mdore - ' - ST.,560,000 15.902,000 56,596,006 S 18,758,000 S 94,000,000 s 5,306,000-S 10.050.000 $ s.snci00 S 1,530,000'.3- 1a,560,000 Nue Cost of Foe-Related Research TrensvoNtan6leeter Men S 200.000 10% S 20,000 S 180000 1 180.. S 20.000 i 200. Oran TaN ". '.". '" 3t6Z61.400 i 9,ee1,430 $ 50T11e.000 S 10,906,000 S 11000,000 S 6.000,033 S 16,013.150 S 1.320.000 S 1,321e00 S 31121,10 Impact Fee Imvect Fax 3r 5119vtltlratlec9f6ID,,_3vI •Page 12 11111 • Salt Lake City Facilities Division This list does not reflect the amount to funding available each year.Instead,it prioritizes projects for application edtNn each funding year.See Sources and Uses. Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2021 Priority Bulling Project Estimated Project FY11-12 FY12-13 Fy13-14 FY14-15 FY1S-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 �.. _.__. .._..�...... .__ _. Cost_....,:. 1 Pioneer Precinct HVAC System end Lighting Energy Conservation $493,790 $493,790 2 Justice Courts HVAC System Upgrade and Energy Conservation $377,100 $377,100 3 CBD-Area 4 Downtown Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project-Design,Engineering and Development. 5135,586 $135,586 4 Central Plant Centeral Plant Heating,cooling system and structural study $233,783 $233,783 5 Westslde Senior Center Building Shell Retrofit Inducting roofing,siding and gutters. $110,093 5110,093 B SBD Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project-Design,Engineering $291 928 E291,926 and Development. 7 Spring Mobile Field Energy efficiency project replacing HVAC,Controls,and Lighting systems $663,518 $663,518 8 6th South Properties Replace single pane windowwtth Thermal double pane Windows $80,119 $60,119 9 City 8 County Bullring Fan Cod Unit Replacement lst Floor South Half $170,292 $170,292 Admin Req City 8 County Bulling Washington Square Event Power,which provides In ground distributed connection points to elmlrate the need E499 996 $499 996 for portable generators on the East side of the Square. Admin Req CIty&County Building Fifth Floor Renovation to office space $884,301 $884,301 10 City8Couny Bulling Exterior Painting and Repair work at all wood window Names, $190,000 $190,000 11 CItyBCouny BullingCity 8 County Bulling,Stone Repairs,this is needed work to restore damage or broken Kyune sand stone and E200,000 $200,000 stone sculptures.Consulting work pending for final scope of restorative and protective work 12 City 8 County Bldg City 8 County Building,Stone Upkeep including testing,deaning,stone hardner and water proofing $1,400,000 $1,400,000 13 CBD-Area 4 Downtown Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project-Construction Work $800,000 $800,000 14 Fire Station 5 end 2 Replace single-pane vindowwith Thermal double pane Windows 573,200 573,200 15 Fire Stations 1,4,6,7 Upgrade Fire station with full DOC controls end intergated system Interfaces 900,000 900,000 18 City 8 County Building Design and Construction of New Base Isolator System S1,000,000 $1,000,000 17 Fire Stations 9,10,13, Upgrade Fire station with full DDC controls end intergated system interfaces 900,000 900,000 18 Flre Stations Replace heating and AJr-conditioning add DDC controls to systems S244,200 $244,200 1 4,6,7.9,10,13, 19 6th South Properties Replace heating and Air-conditioning add DDC controls to systems to remaining properties. $80,500 $80,500 20 Sugarhouse Business Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project-Design,Engineering $286,888 E268,886 Dist and Development. 21 Sugamouees Business Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project-Construction Work 51,200,000 51,200,000 22 City 8 County Bulling Fan Coil Unit Replacement 3rd Floor South Half $194,820 $194,620 23 City 8 County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 3rd Floor North Half $182,456 8182,456 24 City 6 County Bulling Fan Coll Unit Replacement let Floor North Half 5137,178 $137,176 25 City&County Bulling Fen Coil Unit Replacement 4th Floor North Half $170,292 $170,282 26 City 8 County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 2nd Floor North Half $158,129 $158,129 27 City&County Bulling Fan Coil Unit Replacement 2nd Floor South Half $137,176 $137,176 28 City&County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 4th Floor South Half $170,292 $170,292 29 City&County Building Fan Coll Unit Replacement 5th Floor $206,784 S208,784 30 City 8 County Building 3rd 8 5111 Floor Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement $748,907 $748,907 31 City&County Bulling 2nd Floor,Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement $561,681 S561,681 32 City 8 County Building 4th Floor Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement $748,907 $748,907 33 Fire Station ,S,and Parking Lot Repairs and Replacements $338,192 5338,192 WSC 34 East Side Senior Center ESSC-Re-roofing of Senior Center $109,800 $109,800 35 City&County Bulling let Floor Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement $748,907 $748,907 36 Library Parking Structure Waterproofing of Concrete Structure Joint/Expansion Joint Repairs $305.000 $305,000 37 Plaza 349 Plaza 349-Parking Structure Repairs and Resurface $281,682 $281,682 38 Spring Mobile Field Spring Mobile Feld Concourse'B'Level Waterproofing Project $368,915 $368,915 39 Spring Mobile Field Spring Mobile Field-Bulling Steel and Root-deck Painting Project $1,079,783 E1,079,763 • Page 13 City BaRees Division Facelifts Plan 2011.2021 BrIerity BW ea Pmrd Es.*Prond FY11.12 pa,>13 re13.14 Fe14.15 F.15.16 FY1617 FYt1.,ti F719tg FV19.20 Frgg„ Cate Pry,caaN B.Wa R BiNrnw .:an.. ,a. Ing�.nN.h..Mm :��g e1 'Barnacled Vaasa R.wend. rmTh blepane pnn,.. 3». 12 Gen.Plant r rep.onee and controls upgrade 43 Snener tan W.reaammnt and contr.upgrade mouse Replace Mn as cease hem sea Bareaetmrereem MC Pare.to arnan9 ss, rwar room. R. Pioneer Pr tip gtggeog „ggegg n coy and canny Elea Replace IA.wr.naceen on each now Chaim House En*Pain.° a R.paewor 451 . Rep* 50 �c cm.", a Mr .. .a Rw+.an $100.000 2300.000 51 cm,Cwrry5Wmp Gomm..F '7.41.1555w 3250.0C0rna.mo • .flea wow.M RR.d...Caopre we.and dhr flow ma.nnw 5250.000uso,000 a V.nm Upgrade and Peednet.Samry Srnm.ud,n F,r.ox.mw,rreswr.dm Varian54 SWWm Upgrade and R.0o vn<and caned System 3250.000 BBulldogstpow and Rapi 5 d..Rode and lndaMn ame.mm $253.003 3, various BuWm wow sad Rw.e Car.anew and Mar,.w coon,. 5250.. 57 v.nm upgrade end Repo We.,.and 04.0m NPer.m.enrnrwfeaeto cold and n.a S250,000 S250,000 VenomSe Venom NA.. Adana...one and found.")Neu. t.] 5250.000 92 SW.. Papace and u.vecexwxpoo5ng e w GO m Bn2rpa Repo and Is.*CBOSPA Pavan aM Irrigation.system 2250,WO el Various S.M. Redo and upon,.Generators and Ful Systems Various Bulldogs Repaint Este.of 6JNw ueeng such ration 3250..000 Various63 Baking. ttpow and Repo fife salary system such as Firs odamoh,Flre suppression 64 Varian RW4,ps Upgrade and Rapp RV.and Cwd Syatmm 55 Venom BOW. tpoade mod Repo Rods and insulation and .Vry flea Wow am Papa.Canon are tin and odor now Pan.. Vadoin Widnes woww Replace NindeewWp®ngm Near emdena'an.,.In coed ra lad 1250,030 a um BWepAddress When. Repine•won.water pr.ofec.vatems M VariousGO BV 5250.000 TO Mew BW,.p Reda.a.auon.CB45BD Paden and Irrigation entmm II Mon B W M1p Repo era upon,.Generators end Ford Syseme 72 Onion BW,.p S250.0003250.o>D 23 We*Su.. U{pw W Repw Life Seery 005tem such asFire P.on,Firesrppnss.n so.000 v,a.000 etas BWMps upgrade and Repine Emy094,p:are Or.990hs 5250.030 le adm BnY,.p Upgrade and Rape Rw w 2 nistion as gewro 76 abuBW,.p woww Rapp V.53M an..and du bac 03venno 17 ado5Y2Jnga Upp*ant R.pw Vgado.e aMpaengm Npr.meeny rn..wce N cm and lad 5250.000 Variousle WWI, Mama aleyslwal and ken..Nam Handed 5250.030 $250.000 79 Varian OW.. Rapio end uWMs.Ma prodWMau 93 91m5Wlp Rss0osseapra,.CB0500 P.m and inylmmom VvicusBuildnos Rpo xauppe,.Mratmaad Fw 9pmm u Vol.BIM. Repaint E,Mnord ElW,.Q.r.wlgSWo.Bmri S250.000 5750,OCa Total 3346.35,521 11020.50e ,15e1200 ,1593,506 ,latsago 21)17250 21223.I00 I4.]l5MO S 500.000 52.5m.0m 32511000 •Page 14 ( , V Salt Lake City Capital Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Study Draft Report May 2, 2011 Prepared by: Anne Wescott Galena Consulting ONSULTING • Section I. Introduction This report regarding updated impact fees for Salt Lake City is organized into the following sections: • An overview of the report's background and objectives; • A definition of impact fees and a discussion of their appropriate use; • An overview of land use and demographics; • A description of the City's 10-Year Fiscally Constrained Capital Facilities Plan (CFP); • A step-by-step calculation of impact fees; • A list of implementation recommendations;and • A brief summary of conclusions. Anti Background and Objectives Salt Lake City hired Galena Consulting to complete an update of the City's police,fire,parks, and roadway impact fees. The scope of work included an analysis of current conditions,service areas,levels of service,and capital infrastructure;an analysis of current and future land uses and growth projections;the development of an updated,fiscally-constrained capital facilities plan (CFP);a calculation of impact fees required to finance capital facilities necessitated by growth to continue the current levels of service;and recommendations on the implementation and administration of proposed fees. This document presents impact fees based on the City's demographic data and infrastructure costs;calculates the City's monetary participation;and outlines specific fee implementation recommendations.Credits can be granted on a case-by-case basis;these credits are assessed when each individual building permit is pulled. Definition of Impact Fees Impact fees are one-time assessments established by local governments to assist with the provision of Capital Improvements necessitated by new growth and development.Impact fees are governed by principles established in Title 11,Chapter 36,Utah Code,known as the Impact Fee Act,which specifically gives local political subdivision the authority to levy impact fees.The The Utah Impact Fee Act requires the development of a Capital Facilities Plan(CFP).This reference is AM% interchangeable with what the City refers to as a Capital Improvement Plan(CFP). .� 2 DRAFT REPORT Mow Utah Code defines an impact fee as"... a payment of money imposed upon new development activity as a condition of development approval to mitigate the impact of the new development on public facilities."2 "Development activity"means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, and change in use of a building or structure,or any changes in the use of land that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. "Development approval"means any written authorization from a local political subdivision that authorizes the commencement of development activity. "Public facilities"means only the following capital facilities that have a life expectancy of 10 or more years and are owned or operated on behalf of a local political subdivision or private entity: water rights and water supply,treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; storm water,drainage, and flood control facilities; municipal power facilities; roadway facilities; parks,recreation,open space and trails;and public safety facilities. "Roadway facilities"means streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted subdivision plat,roadway plan, or general plan of a political subdivision,together with all necessary appurtenances. "Roadway facilities" also includes associated facilities to federal or state roadways only when the associated facilities: (i)are necessitated by the new development; and(ii)are not funded by the state or federal government. "Public safety facility"means a building constructed or leased to house police, fire,or other public safety entities; or a fire suppression vehicle costing in excess of$500,000. Utah fee restrictions and requirements. The Impact Fee Act places numerous restrictions on the calculation and use of impact fees,all of which help ensure that local governments adopt impact fees that are consistent with federal law. Some of those restrictions include: • Impact fees must estimate the proportionate share of the costs of impacts on system facilities that are reasonably related to new development activity;3 • Impact fees may not include costs for qualifying public facilities that will raise the level of service for the facilities above the level of service that is supported by existing residents4; • Impact fees may not cure deficiencies in a public facility serving existing development;5 2 See Section 11-36-102,Utah Code. 3 See Sections 11-36-201 (5),Utah Code. As explained further in this study,proportionality is the foundation of a defensible impact fee.To meet substantive due process requirements,an impact fee must provide a rational relationship (or nexus)between the impact fee assessed against new development and the actual need for additional capital facilities.An impact fee must substantially advance legitimate local government interests.This relationship must be of "rough proportionality."Adequate consideration of the factors outlined in Section 67-8207(2)ensure that rough proportionality is reached.See Banbury Development Corp. v.South Jordan,631 P.2d 899(1981);Dollan v. City of Tigard,512 U.S.374(1994). 4 See Section 11-36-201 (6)(b)(4),Utah Code • 5 See Section 11-36-202(5),Utah Code 3 DRAFT REPORT • Impact fees must be incurred or encumbered within 6 years from the date they are collected.Fees may be held in certain circumstances beyond the 6-year time limit if the governmental entity can identify an extraordinary and compelling reason;6 • The City must consider all revenue sources,including impact fees and the anticipated dedication of system facilities,to finance the impacts on system facilities;and • Impact fees cannot contain any cost for operation and maintenance of public facilities;8 In addition,the Impact Fee Act requires the following: • The City must prepare and adopt a Capital Facilities Plan to determine the public facilities required to serve new development;9 • The City provide a schedule of impact fees for each type of development based on identified service areas;1° • Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts;I I and • The City must file an annual report identifying all impact fees collected and revenues expended.t° How should fees be calculated?State law requires the City to implement the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)methodology to calculate impact fees.The City can implement fees of any amount not to exceed the fees as calculated by the CFP approach.This methodology requires the City to describe its service areas,forecast the land uses,densities and population that are expected to occur in those service areas over the 10-year CFP time horizon,and identify the capital facilities that will be needed to serve the forecasted growth at the planned levels of service,assuming the planned levels of service do not exceed the current levels of service. Only those items identified as growth-related on the CFP are eligible to be funded by impact fees. Once the essential capital planning has taken place,impact fees can be calculated.The Impact Fee Act places many restrictions on the way impact fees are calculated and spent,particularly via the principal that local governments cannot charge new development more than a"proportionate share"of the cost of public facilities to serve that new growth.The proportionate share concept is designed to ensure that impact fees are calculated by measuring the needs created for capital 6 See Section 11-36-201(6)(bx1),Utah Code. T See Section 11-36-201(3),Utah Code. 8 See Section 11-36-201(6)(bX2),Utah Code. 9 See Section 11-36-201(2xa),Utah Code. 1°See Section 11-36-202(2Xa),Utah Code. 11 See Section 11-36-301,Utah Code. 12 See Section 11-36-301,Utah Code. '`a/) 4 DRAFT REPORT • facilities by development being charged the impact fee;do not exceed the cost of such facilities; and are"earmarked"to fund growth-related capital facilities to benefit those that pay the impact fees. Impact fees should take into account the following: • Any appropriate credit,offset or contribution of money,dedication of land,or construction of system facilities; • Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in the form of user fees and debt service payments; • That portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by the City to growth- related system facilities;and • All other available sources of funding such system facilities. Through data analysis and interviews with the City,Galena Consulting identified the share of each capital facility needed to serve growth.The total projected capital facilities needed to serve growth were then allocated to new residential and non-residential development with the resulting amounts divided by the appropriate growth projections from 2012 to 2021.Among the advantages of the CFP approach is its establishment of a spending plan to give developers and new residents more certainty about the use of the particular impact fee revenues. Other fee calculation considerations.The basic CFP methodology used in the fee calculations is presented above.However, implementing this methodology requires a number of decisions. The considerations accounted for in the fee calculations include the following: • Allocation of costs is made using a service unit which is a standard measure of consumption,use,generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit."The service units chosen by the study team for every fee calculation in this study are linked directly to residential dwelling units and non-residential square feet. • A second consideration involves refinement of cost allocations to different land uses. In this analysis,the study team has chosen to use the highest level of detail supportable by available data.As a result, in this study all impact fees are allocated among residential and non-residential development,with the exception of streets impact fees. Streets fees are allocated to specific land uses according to trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)manual.These land uses include single and multi-family residential;and retail,office,and industrial land uses. Current Assets and Capital Improvement Plans The CFP approach estimates future capital facility investments required to serve growth over a fixed period of time. The impact fee study team has used a 10-year time period. • 5 DRAFT REPORT The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include contract construction prices; the costs of acquiring land, improvements, materials and fixtures;the cost for planning, surveying and engineering fees for service provided for and directly related to the construction of system improvements; and debt service on obligations issued to finance the costs of system improvements.13 Fire suppression vehicles with a value over$500,000 are also eligible.14 The total cost of facilities over the 10 years is referred to as the"CFP Value"throughout this report. The cost of this impact fee study is also impact fee eligible for all impact fee categories. Each fee category was charged its pro-rated percentage of the cost of the impact fee study. The forward-looking 10-Year CFP includes some facilities that are only partially necessitated by growth(e.g., facility expansion partially due to upgrade and partially in order to add capacity for service provision). The study team met with the City to determine a defensible metric for including a portion of these facilities in the impact fee calculations. A general methodology used to determine this metric is discussed below. In some cases, a more specific metric was used to identify the growth-related portion of such facilities. In these cases, notations were made in the applicable section. Fee Calculation In accordance with the CFP approach described above, we calculated impact fees by answering the following seven questions: 1. Who is currently served by the City Police, Fire, Parks,and Streets/ Transportation Departments? This includes the number of residential units and non-residential square feet. 2. What is the current level of service provided by the City? Since an important purpose of impact fees is to fund the capital facility necessary to maintain the current service level, it is necessary to know the levels of service it is currently providing to the community. 3. What current assets allow the City to provide this level of service? This provides a current inventory of assets used by the City, such as facilities, land and equipment (where eligible). In addition, each asset's replacement value was calculated and summed to determine the total value of the Departments' current assets. 4. What is the current investment per residential household and non-residential square foot? In other words, how much have current residential and non-residential land uses"paid into"the total value of current departmental assets? 5. What future growth is expected in the City?How many new residential households and non-residential square feet will the City serve over the CFP period? How many more people will be demanding a continuation of the current level of service enjoyed by City residents? 13 See Section 11-36-202(1)(c). 14 See Section 11-36-102(14). 6 DRAFT REPORT T6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? For example,how many new parks or fire stations will be needed by the City within the next ten years to maintain the current service level? 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new infrastructure? We calculated an apportionment of new infrastructure costs to future residential and nonresidential land-uses for the City. Then,using this distribution,the impact fees were determined. Addressing these seven questions,in order,provides the most effective and logical way to calculate impact fees for the City.In addition,these seven steps satisfy and follow the regulations set forth earlier in this section. Not all capital costs are associated with growth. Some capital costs are for repair and replacement 1 of aging facilities(e.g.,standard periodic investment in existing facilities such as roofing or HVAC repairs).These costs are not impact fee eligible. Some capital costs are for betterment of facilities,or implementation of new services(e.g.,an upgraded training facility).These costs are generally not entirely impact fee eligible. Some costs are for expansion of facilities to accommodate new development at the current level of service(e.g.,acquisition and construction of a fire station to serve new growth).These costs are impact fee eligible. Because there are different reasons why the City invests in capital projects,the study team conducted an analysis on all projects listed in each CFP: 1 C • Growth.To determine if a project is solely related to growth,we ask"Is this project designed to maintain the current level of service as growth occurs?"and"Would the City still need this capital project if it weren't growing at all?"Growth projects are only necessary to maintain the City's current level of service as growth occurs.It is thus appropriate to include 100 percent of their cost in the impact fee calculations. An example of a purely growth related project would be additional park acreage to continue the current ratio of acreage to population. • Repair&Replacement.We ask,"Is this project related only to fixing existing infrastructure?"and"Would the City still need it if it weren't growing at all?" Repair and replacement projects have nothing to do with growth. It is thus not appropriate to include any of their cost in the impact fee calculations. One example of this type of project would be a playground replacement. • Upgrade.We ask,"Would this project improve the City's current level of service?" and"Would the City still do it even if it weren't growing at all?"Upgrade projects have nothing to do with growth. It is thus not appropriate to include any of their cost in the impact fee calculations. One example of this type of project would be the parking pay station major capital asset project. • Mixed. Some capital projects are partially necessitated by growth,but also include an element of repair,replacement and/or upgrade. In this instance,a cost amount IIIbetween 0 and 100 percent should be included in the fee calculations.Although the 7 DRAFT REPORT project might be an upgrade of or replacement to an existing facility, its scope will create capacity necessary to serve projected growth. A specific example of this within this study is the new Evidence/Crime Lab facility. While this project can be considered an upgrade to the current facility, which is not generally impact fee eligible, part of the purpose of the new facility is to add space to process and house additional evidence associated with growth. It should be understood that growth is expected to pay only the portion of the cost of capital facilities that are growth-related. The City will need to plan to fund the pro rata share of partially growth-related capital facilities with revenue sources other than impact fees within the time frame that impact fees must be spent. These values will be calculated and discussed in Section VII of this report. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following for their cooperation in the development of this report: • LuAnn Clark and Michael Akerlow, Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, for service as the project managers and City liaisons. • Deputy Chief Tim Doubt, Sergeant Scott Teerlink, Deputy Chief Brian Dale,Battalion Chief Robert McMicken,John Vuyk, Rick Graham,Emy Maloutas, Lee Bollwinkel, Dell Cook,John Naser, Lynn Jarman,Tim Harpst, Kevin Young, Dan Bergenthal,Alden Breinholt, Paul Nielson, Marilyn Lewis, Gina Chamness, Randy Hillier, Sherrie Collins, Dan Mule and Marina Scott for their significant attention to the development of the updated Capital Facilities Plan. ,om.. 8 DRAFT REPORT Now -asiallir © Section II. Land Uses City services are measured in terms of number of population served,physical structures to be protected,and trips generated. Knowing how much the population,residential households and non-residential square feet are projected to increase assists city staff in determining how many and what type of new capital facilities will be needed within the planning period. As noted in Section I,it is necessary to allocate capital facility plan(CFP)costs to residential and non-residential development when calculating impact fees.The study team performed this allocation based on the number of new households,non-residential square footage,and new trips projected to be added over the ten-year period. The following Exhibit II-1 presents the current and future population projections for the Salt Lake City. Exhibit II-1. Current and Future Population for Salt Lake City 2010-2020 20t0 2020 Net Increase. Percent Incssese Population 186,440 195,263 8,823 5% C Source:2010 U.S.Census,the Wasatch Front Regional Council Transportation Plan 2011-2040,and the 2009 American Community Survey. Salt Lake City currently serves 186,440 persons.By 2020,the population is projected to increase by 8,823 persons to 195,263 persons,a 5%increase. The City must plan for the necessary capital facilities to serve these additional residents. In order to apportion the costs of the capital facilities necessitated by growth over the ten-year planning period,it is necessary to determine the number of new units of development among residential and non-residential development,and then convert both land uses to square feet.The following Exhibit II-2 presents the current and future number of residential households and non- residential square feet,and their distribution as a total of all new development. 111) 9 DRAFT REPORT Exhibit 11-2. Land Use Distribution,Salt Lake City,Utah,2010-2020 Units or Square Feet Net Increase Net Increase In Percent of 2010 2020 in Units Square Feet Total Growth Residential(inun'Its) 80,362 84,165 3,803 5,667,781 59% S,rgle-Parity 42.270 53% 44271 2,000 9,704,717 Mu4i-Fanily 22,092 4796 39.094 1803 1963,064 Nonresidential(in square feet) 82,909,311 86,832,873 3,923.562 41% Total 9,591,343 100% N°tn Number of raidmdel will sees based on 2005.2009 Ammcen Commw,ty Survey dale end U.S.Ceous bowag r3iaraotedsncs chit 8om 197I3009 Non-raidennal square footage of 1031 square fen per residential wit was°Named by CB Richard Ellis Real Estate 2010 Year-End Repon. Salt Lake City currently has 80,362 residential units. 53%of these(42,270)are single-family, while 47%(38,092)are multi-family. There are currently 82,909,311 square feet of non- residential square footage(office,retail,and industrial).Based on square foot conversion, residential development represents 59%of current land use,while non-residential development represents 41%. Growth projections provided by the Wasatch Front Regional Council indicate Salt Lake City is expected to grow by approximately 3,803 residential units by 2020. 2,000 of these are anticipated to be single-family units,while 1,803 are anticipated to me multi-family units. An additional 3,923,562 square feet of non-residential square footage is expected to be added by 2020. Demographic and land-use projections are some of the most variable and potentially debatable components of an impact fee study,and in all likelihood the projections used in our study will not prove to be 100 percent correct.As each CFP is tied to the City's land use growth,the CFP and resulting fees can be revised based on actual growth as it occurs. 10 DRAFT REPORT Section III. Fire Impact Fees 4 In this section,we calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Fire Department following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report. 1. Who is currently served by the Salt Lake City Fire Department? As outlined in Section II,the Salt Lake City Fire Department currently serves 186,440 residents in 80,362 residential units,and 82,909,311 square feet of non-residential square footage(office, retail, industrial and institutional). 2. What is the current level of service provided by the Salt Lake City Fire Department? Salt Lake City's Fire Department currently provides a level of service of an average response time of 4 minutes 28 seconds. 3. What current assets allow the Salt Lake City Fire Department to provide this level of service? The following Exhibit III-1 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Fire © Department. • 11 DRAFT REPORT Exhibit III-I. 4 Current Assets—Salt Lake City Fire Department Square Replacement Amount to • Type of Capital Facility Address Feet Value Include in Fee Comparison Facilities New Public Safety Complex 21,947 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 Existing Public Safety Building 315 East 200 South 18,200 $ 5,487,200 $5,487,200 Fire Station#1 211 South 500 East 15,855 $ 4,756,500 $4,756,500 Fire Station#2 270 West 300 North 7,685 $ 2,305,500 $2,305,500 Fire Station#3 1085 East Simpson 9,450 $ 2,835,000 $2,835,000 Fire Station#4 830 East 11th Avenue 8,019 $ 2,405,700 $2,405,700 Fire Station#5 1023 East 900 South 8,400 $ 2,520,000 $2,520,000 Fire Station#6 948 West 800 South 7,326 $ 2,197,800 $2,197,800 Fire Station#7 273 North 1000 West 8,019 $ 2,405,700 $2,405,700 Fire Station#8 15 West 1300 South 10,000 $ 3,000,000 $3,000,000 Fire Station#9 5822 West Amelia Earhart Drive 11,010 $ 3,303,000 $3,303,000 Fire Station#10 785 Arapeen Drive 9,765 $ 2,929,500 $2,929,500 Fire Station#11 581 North 2360 West 9,000 $ 2,813,281 $2,813,281 Fire Station#12 1085 North 4030 West 9,000 $ 2,700,000 $2,700,000 Fire Station#13 2360 East Parleys Way 6,480 $ 1,944,000 $1,944,000 Fire Station#14 1560 South Industrial Road 4,800 $ 1,440,000 $1,440,000 Fire Station#15-land only $ - $0 Fire Training Tower 1600 South Industrial Road 16,950 $ 5,085,000 $5,085,000 Fleet Facility 16,961 $ 3,937,500 $3,937,500 Land for Fire Training Center $ 650,000 $650,000 198,868 Apparatus 25 Engines $12,500,000 $12,500,000 5 Ladder Trucks $ 4,250,000 $4,250,000 Total Infrastructure $94,465,881 $94,465,681 Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study Update $ 11,150 $11,150 Plus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ 2,396,845 $2,396,845 Grand Total $86,873,676 $96,873,108- Source:Salt Lake City Fire Department and Impact Fee Study Team. Notes: Replacement cost assumption is$300 per square foot. All cost assumptions based on replacement cost in 2011 dollars. Impact Fee fund balance as of 3/31/11. As shown above,the Salt Lake City Fire Department currently owns approximately $96.9 million of capital assets. These assets are used to provide the Department's current level of service of an average response time of 4 minutes 28 seconds. 4. What is the current investment per unit? By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Fire Department by the number of current households and non-residential square feet whose owners have invested in these assets,we can determine that the Department has invested$712 per existing residential unit and$0.48 per non-residential square foot. We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar; this represents a"check" to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure. 5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Fire Department? As shown in Exhibit II-1,the resident population of the Salt Lake City is projected to increase by 8,823 people over the ten-year planning period. As indicated in Exhibit II-2,this equates to approximately 3,803 new residential units and 3,923,562 new square feet of non-residential square footage. 12 DRAFT REPORT 6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? The Salt Lake City Fire Department has developed a Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years. Because City residents approved a bond to construct a$125 million Public Safety Building which will be completed in 2013, no future capacity for additional growth-related administrative staff is required. However, the Fire Department must relocate and expand Fire Station#13 in order to continue providing the current service level to projected growth. In addition, it must construct and outfit Fire Station#14 to accommodate the service needs of projected growth. The following Exhibit I1I-2 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Fire Department plans to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service. Exhibit III-2. Salt Lake City Fire Department Capital Facilities Plan—2012-2021 Square Land Estimated Portion Impact Fee Other Type of Capital Facility Feet Acreage Cost Attributable Eligible Fundng to GrovAh Sources # Facilities 2012 Fire Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Land Acquisition $ 1,200,000 33% $ 396,000 $ 804,000 2015 Fire Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Construction 15,000 1.00 $ 5,100,000 33% $ 1,683,000 $ 3,417,000 2019 Fire Station#14 15,000 5,00 $ 5,100,000 33% $ 1,683,000 $ 3,417,000 Apparatus 2019 Truck for Foe Station#14 to serve Southwest growth $ 950,000 100% $ 950,000 $ - Total Infrastructure $ 12,350,000 $ 4,712,000 $ 7,638,000 Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 S - Standards of Cover Study $ 50,000 50% S 25,000 $ 25,000 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ 2,396,845 $ 2,396,845 Grand Total $ 10,014,305 $ 2,351,305 $ 7,663,000 Source:Salt Lake City Fire Department and Impact Fee Study Team. Notes: Replacement cost assumption is$300 per square foot. All cost assumptions based on replacement cost in 2011 dollars. The Standards of Cover study will assist the Department in determining the location of future stations. Fund balance as of 3/31/11. As shown above,the Salt Lake City Fire Department plans to invest approximately$10 million in capital facilities over the next ten years, $2.4 million of which is impact fee eligible. The impact fee eligible portion includes a proportional share of the cost to plan for and construct the relocated Fire Station#3 and the new Fire Station#14, and to provide Fire Station#14 with a fire suppression vehicle. The remaining$7.7 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities? The following Exhibit 1II-3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibits II-1 and 1I-2, and the impact fee eligible costs from Exhibit III-2 to calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Fire • Department. 13 DRAFT REPORT If the cost of the infrastructure necessary to continue the level of service currently enjoyed by City residents to an additional 8,823 new residents(growth-related CFP cost of$2.4 million's), was divided by the number of households and non-residential square footage correlated to the new residents(3,803 households and 3.9 million square feet),every new household and non- residential square foot's proportional share of the CFP cost would be as follows: Exhibit III-3. Salt Lake Ci Fire motto to Include in Impact Fees' ty Facilities and Fee-Related Research(apportioned to all growth) $ 1,401.305 Department Impact Fee Fee Supression Vehicle(appononed to nonmesdential growth only) S 950,000 Calculation Percent of Future Growth Residential 59% tore. Nonresidential 41% (I)From Exhibit 19-2. Amount Attributable to Future land Use (2)From Exhibit 11-2 Residential $ 828,069 Nonresidential S 1523,236 Source. Future Growth by Lend Use' Salt lake City Fire Department and Impact Fee Residential(housing units) 3,603 Study Team. Nonresidential(square feet) 3,923,562 Calculated Impact Fee Residential(housing units) S 218 Nonresidential(square feet) S 0.39 The amount per household is less than the current$712 investment per household and$0.48 investment per non-residential square foot we calculated based on Exhibit III-I of this report. This confirms that new growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system. The Department cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above.The Department may assess fees lower than these amounts,but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Department used other revenues to make up the difference. A comparison of current investment,current impact fees and 2011 calculated fire impact fees is as follows: Residential Unit Current Investment per Unit $712 Current Fire Impact Fee $485 Draft Fire Impact Fee-2011 $218 Non-Residential Square Foot Current Investment per Square Foot $0.48 Current Fire Impact Fee $0.32 Draft Fire Impact Fee-2011 $0.39 l'The impact fee-eligible costs associated with Fire Station#3,Fire Station#14,the impact fee study,and standards of cover study are allocated to residential and non-residential growth according to their relative percentage of total growth based on total square footage. itrrrb The fire suppression vehicle is allocated to non-residential development as it is this development in the southwest area of the City that will require a specialized vehicle to address rescue and hazmat activities associated primarily with non-residential uses. 14 DRAFT REPORT © Section IV. Police Impact Fees In this section,we calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Police Department following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report. 1. Who is currently served by the Salt Lake City Police Department? As outlined in Section II,the Salt Lake City Police Department currently serves 186,440 residents in 80,362 residential units,and 82,909,311 square feet of non-residential square footage(office, retail,industrial and institutional). 2. What is the current level of service provided by the Salt Lake City Police Department? Salt Lake City's Police Department currently provides a level of service of 2.35 sworn officers per every 1,000 residents. 3. What current assets allow the Salt Lake City Police Department to provide this level of service? These officers are currently housed in 202,604 square feet of physical space 16. The following • Exhibit IV-1 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Police Department. Exhibit IV-1. Current Assets—Salt Lake City Police Department Sgwre Land Replacement Equity Amount to Type of Capital Fadlity Feet Acreage Value limes Percentage equals Include In Fee Comparison Facilities New Public Safely Building 146,160 3.49$100,000,000 100% $ 100,000,000 Existing Public Safely Building 72,800 2.18 $ 21,948,800 100% $ 21,9413,800 Pioneer Police Precinct 27,183 3.76 $ 5,624,600 100% $ 5,624,600 Motor Shed/Evidence Warehouse 12,300 0.38 $ 1,864,000 100% $ 1,864.000 Fleet Facility 18,861 $ 3E/37,500 100% $ 3,937,500 Total Infrestructure 275,404 9.81.$133.374,900 $133,374,900 Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study Update $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 Plus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ - 100% $ - Greed Tat $.183,380.050 $ 133,380,080 Source:Salt Lake City Police Department and Impact Fee Study Team. Notes:Replacement cost assumptions were$300 per square foot for the Public Safety Building,$200 per square foot for the Pioneer Police Precinct,$100 per square foot for the Motor Shed/Evidence Warehouse,and$232 per square foot for the Fleet Facility.All cost assumptions based on replacement cost in 201 I dollars. 16 For the sake of a forward-looking CFP,current square footage includes the new Public Safety Building,not the current facility. 15 DRAFT REPORT As shown above,the Salt Lake City Police Department currently owns approximately$133.4 million of capital assets. These assets are used to provide the Department's current level of service of 2.35 sworn officers per 1,000 population. 4. What is the current investment per unit? By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Police Department by the number of current households and non-residential square feet whose owners have invested in these assets,we can determine that the Department has invested$981 per existing residential unit and$0.66 per non-residential square foot. We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar;this represents a"check" to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure. S. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Police Department? As shown in Exhibit II-1,the resident population of the Salt Lake City is projected to increase by 8,823 people over the ten-year planning period. As indicated in Exhibit II-2,this equates to approximately 3,803 new residential units and 3,923,562 new square feet of non-residential square footage. 6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? The Salt Lake City Police Department has developed a Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years. Because City residents approved a bond to construct a$125 million Public Safety Building which will be completed in 2013,no future capacity for additional growth-related officers is needed. However, the Police Department must replace its current Police Evidence and Crime Lab in order to provide its desired level of service. This facility will be larger than the existing facility that is being replaced in order to provide capacity for processing and housing evidence associated with the projected growth in population. The following Exhibit IV-2 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Police Department plans to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service. Exhibit IV-2. Salt Lake City Police Department Capital Facilities Plan—2012-2021 ryrac�wrfwy 1swap,mime {++ o333,133X M t1F . Riles 2014 Police Evidence and Come Lab FadlOy 100,000 2.00 $9,000,000 25% $2,250,000 $ 0,750,000 FYm Gel of pb#e%Yd Ileera0 impact Fee Oeldy S 11,150 100% $ 11,150 S - CBILabIEMdroFedflyOWdy $ 140,000 25% S 35,000 $ 105,000 anus Mind he Flnd Ialrne S - S - , i - _�.. _ -. _.- T _— PANt- Source:Salt Lake City Police Department and Impact Fee Study Team y 4 16 DRAFT REPORT As shown above,the Salt Lake City Police Department plans to invest approximately$9.2 million in capital facilities over the next ten years, $2.3 million of which is impact fee eligible. The impact fee eligible portion includes a proportional share of the police evidence and crime lab facility,and a facility study prior to the construction of this facility. The remaining$6.9 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels,and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities? The following Exhibit IV-3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibits II-1 and II-2,and the impact fee eligible costs from Exhibit IV-2 to calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Police Department. If the cost of the infrastructure necessary to continue the level of service currently enjoyed by City residents to an additional 8,823 new residents(growth-related CFP cost of$2.3 million),was divided by the number of households and non-residential square footage correlated to the new residents(3,803 households and 3.9 million square feet),every new household and non- residential square foot's proportional share of the CFP cost would be as follows: Exhibit IV-3. Salt Lake City Police Amount to Include in Impact Fees' $ 2,296,150 © Department Impact Fee Calculation Percent of Future Growth Residential 59% Nonresidential 41% Note: Amount Attributable to Future Land Use (I)From Exhibit lV-2. Residential $ 1,356,856 (2)From Exhibit n-2. Nonresidential $ 939,294 Source: Future Growth by Land Use' Salt Lake City Police Department and Impact Residential(housing units) 3,803 Fee study Team. Nonresidential(square feet) 3,923,562 Calculated Impact Fee Residential(housing units) $ 357 Nonresidential(square feet) $ 0.24 The amount per household is less than the current$981 investment per household and$0.66 investment per non-residential square foot we calculated based on Exhibit IV-I of this report. This confirms that new growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system. The Department cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above.The Department may assess fees lower than these amounts,but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Department used other revenues to make up the difference. • 17 DRAFT REPORT A comparison of current investment,current impact fees and 2011 calculated police impact fees • is as follows: Residential Unit Current Investment per Unit $981 Current Police Impact Fee $452 Draft Police Impact Fee-2011 $357 Non-Residential Square Foot Current Investment per Square Foot $0.66 Current Police Impact Fee $0.30 Draft Police Impact Fee-2011 $0.24 0 18 DRAFT REPORT C Section V. Parks Impact Fees In this section, we calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report. 1. Who is currently served by the Salt Lake City Parks Division? As outlined in Section II,the Salt Lake City Parks Division currently serves 186,440 residents in 80,362 residential units. Parks impact fees are not assessed on non-residential development. 2. What is the current level of service provided by the Salt Lake City Parks Division? Salt Lake City's Parks Division currently provides a level of service of 5.05 acres of developed park land and trails and 6.15 acres of open space per every 1,000 residents. Total level of service is 11.2 acres per 1,000 population. 3. What current assets allow the Salt Lake City Parks Division to provide this level of service? The following Exhibit V-1 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Parks Division. Exhibit V-1. Current Assets—Salt Lake City Parks Division Land Replacement Equity Amount to Type of Capital Facility Acreage/ Value times Percentage equals Include in Fee Miles Comparison Regional Parks 375.00 $ 112,500,000 100% $ 112,500,000 Community Parks 263.60 $ 79,080,000 100% $ 79,080,000 Neighborhood Parks 236.20 $ 70,860,000 100% $ 70,860,000 Special Use Parks 33.05 $ 9,915,000 100% $ 9,915,000 Community Gardens 2.25 $ 337,396 100% $ 337,396 Mini Parks 18.18 $ 2,726,908 100% $ 2,726,908 Greenbelt/Shared Use Pathways 32 miles $ 33,390,000 100% $ 33,390,000 Open Space/Trails 1,147.48 $ 11,474,751 100% $ 11,474,751 Total Infrastructure 2,075.75 $ 320,284,055 $ 320,284,055 Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study Update $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 Plus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ 1,040,221 100% $ 1,040,221 Grand Total $ 321,335,426 $ 321,335,426 Source:Salt Lake City Parks Division and Impact Fee Study Team. Notes: Replacement cost assumptions range from$10,000 to$300,000 per acre;based on current value. • 19 DRAFT REPORT i . As shown above,the Salt Lake City Parks Division currently owns approximately$321.3 million of capital assets. These assets are used to provide the Division's current level of service of 5.05 acres of developed park land and trails and 6.15 acres of open space per every 1,000 residents. 4. What is the current investment per unit? By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Parks Division by the number of current households whose owners have invested in these assets,we can determine that the Division has invested$3,999 per existing residential unit. We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar;this represents a "check"to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure. 5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Parks Division? As shown in Exhibit II-1,the resident population of the Salt Lake City is projected to increase by 8,823 people over the ten-year planning period. As indicated in Exhibit II-2,this equates to approximately 3,803 new residential units. 6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? The Salt Lake City Parks Division has developed a Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years. The following Exhibit V-2 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Parks Division plans to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service: 20 DRAFT REPORT • Exhibit V-2. Salt Lake City Parks Division Capital Facilities Plan-2012-2021 A0110.1kttAa w.attllaa•r ar1... t.kat.nlaplpa.ra.ealr.mau emittMl*byw. 0111 I 40Q® 100. 5 4040. t MM..=O .l. �nq O. ltlal ..n. - lb e l I 310D.000 w I ! 3100.003 1151111.101.1.11.11105.115.1 1r.0.1.1)Ci.Itl.tCUr M1ImY t,O an I 40000 t 310/.03, Cq CPUY I IOWOro tw I 120503 rna .atrpt.r•ep..apgak..ek.nr..a..wew. I 9.0It200 I t9,® I 31,565da Iww..W whPM 55..4[d.str..OP. do.pew 01>.5.paa.,n0k.r. ip rk.nieYa.npae.n.r Ctr•r t 30mM 0. I - I 350OA00 I.e.la41 I KO. Olt I - 3 MOW I a0000 y[aaeu a t.Tn3 r_ma. 111•50•51511.1•*10155!flank .Pan.elp 1a P..IIt.a.Yp.. ®,® ..r.wntta.rr..l.rw. r1�n ..0150104.10111ti ,O eeaw t.nrl.ewa.�a tlant..n n. I Ye.® Oa I I.rm 1 7120 anal tap.t.n ran I l.0C IYw t 1,04039 I - ,�9}3._. _.. .. ._. #;AM1}._ _. _ I_'.uw A_ 1MMO. Source:Salt Lake City Parks Division and Impact Fee Study Team. As shown above,the Salt Lake City Parks Division plans to invest approximately$45.0 million in capital facilities over the next ten years,$6.7 million of which is impact fee eligible. The ® remaining$38.4 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels,and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. To continue the current level of service of 11.2 acres per 1,000,the Division will need to add 98.88 acres of growth-related parks and open space acreage. These acres will be acquired and developed according to the speed and geographic pattern of anticipated growth. The City desires to further increase the level of service for open space. As this is an upgrade or improvement to the current level of service,it cannot be financed with impact fees. Instead,the Division intends to allocate the remaining balance from the Open Space bond($2.1 million)to achieve this goal. To continue the current level of service for trails and pathways,which are measured in miles instead of acres,the City intends to construct two shared use pathways—the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal,and the City Creek Trail. Only a small portion of these projects(10%)is impact fee eligible. This percentage is tied to the historical increase in multi-modal trip generation(i.e.,bike traffic)on greenbelts and shared use pathways.The other 90%of the projects will need to be funded with sources other than impact fees. The Division intends to expend approximately$29 million over the next ten years to make improvements to existing City parks and facilities. A very small percentage($421,000 or 1%)of these improvements relate to adding capacity to existing amenities to support anticipated growth. The remainder of the costs for these improvements must come from sources other than impact fees. C 21 DRAFT REPORT Improvements to the City's Cemeteries,allocations to the Percent for Art program,cost overruns for repair and replacement projects,and the Parks Recovery Plan are not impact fee eligible. A small percentage(5%)of the Parks,Open Space,and Trails Master Plan,the Jordan River Parkway Master Plan,and the Foothills Recreation and Management Plan is impact fee eligible, as these studies will facilitate capital facilities planning. 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities? The following Exhibit V-3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibits II-1 and II-2,and the impact fee eligible costs from Exhibit V-2 to calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Parks Division. If the cost of the infrastructure necessary to continue the level of service currently enjoyed by City residents to an additional 8,823 new residents(growth-related CFP cost of$6.7 million),was divided by the number of households correlated to the new residents(3,803 households),every new household's proportional share of the CFP cost would be as follows: Exhibit V-3. Salt Lake City Parks Divialoa Amount to Include in Impact Fees' 6 6,664,429 Impact Fee Calculatkla Percent of Future Growth Residential 100% Note: Amount Attnbutable to Future Land Use (I)From Exhibit v-2. Residential 3 6,664,429 (2)From Exhibit 1I-2. Future Growth by Lend Us& soc,r, Residential(housing units) 3,803 Sall lake City Park,Division and Impact Fee Study Learn. Calculated Impact Fee Residential(housing units) 8 1,752 The amount per household is less than the current$3,999 investment per household we calculated based on Exhibit V-I of this report. This confirms that new growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system. The Division cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above.The Division may assess fees lower than these amounts,but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Division used other revenues to make up the difference. A comparison of current investment,current impact fees and 2011 calculated parks and recreation impact fees is as follows: Residential Unit Current Investment per Unit $3,999 Current Parks and Recreation Impact Fee $ 681 Draft Parks and Recreation Impact Fee-2011 $1,752 22 DRAFT REPORT Section VI. Roadway(Streets and Transportation)Impact Fees In this section,we calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report. 1. Who is currently served by the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions? As outlined in Section II,the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions currently serve 186,440 residents in 80,362 residential units,and 82,909,311 square feet of non-residential square footage(office,retail,industrial and institutional). Unlike police,fire,and parks fee calculations in which fees are calculated for residential units and nonresidential square feet,roadway fees are calculated for residential and nonresidential land uses based on street and facility usages generated by each land use type.Exhibit VI-1 below shows the specific allocation of existing and projected square feet for Salt Lake City by land use type over the next ten years. Exhibit VI-1. Salt Lake City Growth Projections by Square Feet and Land Use—2012-2021 LIM Swore Feet Meti!arpse y+ P40$11140l • lls� 2010 2020 Square feet , totai,OreMle Residential 119,766,645 125,434,426 5,667,781 59% Single-Fam6y 78,284,870 81,989,587 3,704,717 39% Multi-Family 41,481,775 43,444,839 1,963,064 20% Nonresidential 82,909,311 86,832,873 3,923,562 41% Retail 5,019,924 5,255,860 235,936 3% Office 15,050,719 15,758,103 707,384 7% Industrial 62,838,868 65,818,909 2,980,241 31% Total 202,675,956 212,267,299 9,591,343 100% Source.Salt Lake City and Impact Fee Study Team. Based on this distribution,we calculate trip generation based on figures from the Institute of Transportation Engineers'Trip Generation Manual.The trip generation figures estimate the number of p.m.peak hour trips generated by particular land uses.Peak hour trips are appropriate for this calculation because street infrastructure is sized according to the expected peak.Since peak hour trips will be used to distribute infrastructure costs,peak hour estimates should be employed. Exhibit VI-2 below presents trip generation rates for land uses in Salt Lake City. 23 DRAFT REPORT Exhibit VI-2. Trip Generation Rates by Land Use Trip Generation Category Land Use Category Relative Weighting' Notes (I)Reflects weekday traffic generation Single Family Units 1.0 patterns,weekday p.m.peak hour trip rate formula. Multi Family Units 0.7 (2)Reflects average of office,commercial, retail and industrial land uses,weekday p.m. peak hour trip rate formula. 1,000 retail square feet 5.0 Source. International Transportation Engineering Trip 1,000 office square feet 1.3 Generation Manual. 1,000 industrial square feet 0.9 2. What is the current level of service provided by the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Division? Salt Lake City's Streets and Transportation Divisions currently provide an average level of service of"C"within the City roadway network." 3. What current assets allow the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Division to provide this level of service? The following Exhibit VI-1 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions". "Level-of-Service C describes at or near free-flow operations.Ability to maneuver through lanes is noticeably restricted and lane changes require more driver awareness.Minimum vehicle spacing is about 22011(67m)or I 1 car lengths.At LOS C most experienced drivers are comfortable,roads remain safely below but efficiently close to capacity,and posted speed is maintained.Minor incidents may still have no affect but localized service will have noticeable affects and traffic delays will form behind the incident.This is the targeted LOS for some urban and most rural highways. 18 As vehicles and equipment are not eligible to be purchased with impact fees,these capital items arc not included in the above capital facilities inventory. 24 DRAFT REPORT QInhibit N1-3. Current Assets—Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions Mount to Replacement Equity Include in Fee Type of Capital Facility Value times % equals Comparison Roadway. 1,843 lane miles of roadway $ 1,105,800,003 100% $ 1,105,600,000 Bridget 23 bndges $ 23,000,000 100% $ 23,000,000 Curb and Gutter 4.750.000 lineal feet of curb end gutter $ 199,500,000 100% $ 199,500,000 Sld.welk. 20.000.000 sf of sidewalk $ 200,000,000 100% $ 200,000,000 12,000 accessible ramps $ 45,600,000 100% $ 45,600,000 Drive Approaches 7,680,000 sf of concrete drive approaches $ 99.840,000 100% $ 99,840,000 Bike F.dlltles 83 linear miles of bike lanes Ind.in roadway cost 100% $ - Trrlic Blgnele 200 Traffic Signals $ 32.000.000 100% $ 32.000.000 Crosswalk Lights 31 flashing crosswalk lights E 1,860,000 100% $ 1,860,000 79 flashing school crosswalk lights $ 1,975,000 100% $ 1,975,000 Driest Fesdb.ck agns 44 driver feedback signs $ 352,000 100% $ 352,000 Fedlt$ee Streets Facility $ 9.250,000 100% $ 9,250,000 Fleet Facility E 2.520,000 100% $ 2,520,000 Salt Storage $ 1.017.405 100% $ 1,017,405 ® Total Inhesbuciure = _ .., - = - $1,722,714,405 St,722,7t4,405 Plus Cost of Fee-Reieted Mamma Impact Fee Study Update E11,150 100% E 11,150 Plus knpaet Fes Fund Baines 56,529.700 100% 5 6,529,700 Grand Total $_ ti."Afailgtd Solace.Salt lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions and Impact Fee Study Team. As shown above,the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions currently own approximately$1.7 billion of capital assets. These assets are used to provide the Divisions' current level of service of"C." 4. What is the current investment per unit? By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions by the number of current households and non-residential square feet whose owners have invested in these assets,we can determine that the Divisions have invested $10,161 per existing single-family residential unit;$7,113 per existing multi-family residential unit;$50.81 per existing square foot of retail development;$13.21 per existing square foot of office development;and$9.15 per existing square foot of industrial development.We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar;this represents a"check"to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure. • 25 DRAFT REPORT 5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions? As shown in Exhibit II-1,the resident population of the Salt Lake City is projected to increase by 8,823 people over the ten-year planning period. As indicated in Exhibit II-2,this equates to approximately 3,803 new residential units and 3,923,562 new square feet of non-residential square footage. 6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? The Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions have developed a Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years. The following Exhibit VI-4 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions plan to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service: Exhibit VI-4. Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions Capital Facilities Plan—2012-2021 Estimated Portion Impact Fee Other Funding Type of Capital Facility Cost times Attributable equals Eligible Sources to Growth Roadway Projects CO 1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation $ 10,000,000 0% 5 - $ 10,000,000 500/700 South-2800 West to 5600 West $ 14,760,000 57% 5 8413,200 $ 6,346,800 ADA Accessibility Ramps $ 1,300,000 0% S - $ 1,300,000 Sidewalk RehabilttatioolSawcutting $ 700,000 0% $ - $ 700,000 Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement $ 1,300,000 0% S - 5 1,300,000 Indiana Avenue/900 South from Redwood to 3600 West $ 3,640,000 57% S 2.074,800 S 1,565,200 Gladiola Street-1650 South to 2100 South $ 4,000,000 57% $ 2,280,000 $ 1,720,000 4400 West from 700 South to 850 South S 1,600.000 57% $ 912,000 $ 688,000 Street Pavement Overlay and Preservation $ 7,000,000 0% 5 - S 7,000,000 Local Street Reconstruction $ 6,500,000 0% $ - $ 6,500,000 Major Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of City Streets S 8,360,000 0% $ - $ 8,360,000 Concrete Street Rehabilitation $ 2,000,000 0% $ - 5 2,000,000 Bridge Rehabilitation $ 200,000 0% $ - $ 200,000 Percent for Art $ 500,000 0% $ - $ 500.000 Cost Overruns 5 300,000 0% $ - S 300,000 $ 62,160,000 5 13,680,000 5 48,480,000 Transportation Projects Replacement Traffic Signals 5 2,400,000 0% $ - $ 2,400,000 Pedestrian Safety Devices S 250,000 10% S 25,000 $ 225,000 New Bike Lane Installations $ 250,000 10% $ 25,000 $ 225,000 Bike Lanes-200 South 5 6,520,000 10% $ 652.000 5 5,868,000 900 South Rail Corridor $ 700,000 0% $ - S 700,000 New Traffic Signals $ 1,600,000 100% 5 1,600,000 g - 1300 East Traffic Safety-Phase 2 5 500,000 0% $ - $ 500,000 Street Lighting Replacement 5 200,000 0% $ - S 200,000 $ 12,420,000 $ 2,302,000 5 10,118,000 Total Infrastructure '_ _ _ a f, 7 S74s80;0011 — _--• -, $ 15,982,000 $ 58,598,000 Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 $ - Transportation Master Plan $ 200,000 10% $ 20,000 $ 180.000 Minus Impact Fee Balance $ 6,529,700 100% $ 6,529,700 g Grand Total $.88,281,158_ -_, _ _ _ - $ 9,413,450 $ 58,778,000 Source:Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions and Impact Fee Study Team. 26 DRAFT REPORT • As shown above,the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions plan to invest approximately$68.3 million in capital facilities over the next ten years,$9.5 million of which is impact fee eligible. The remaining$58.8 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels,and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. The only major roadway projects that are impact fee eligible are four projects within the Westside Industrial Area—500/700 South from 2800 West to 5600 West;Indiana Avenue/900 South from Redwood to 3600 West;Gladiola from 1650 South to 2100 South;and 4400 West from 700 South to 850 South. 57%of each of these projects is impact fee eligible,as this is the percent of each project related to the widening and expansion of each roadway for projected growth. The remainder of these projects costs must be funded from sources other than impact fees. 100%of new traffic signals are impact fee eligible,as these facilities would not be installed were it not for growth-related congestion at various intersections. The growth-related portion of facilities such as pedestrian safety devices and bike lane installations are impact fee eligible as well. Of the$9.5 million in impact fee eligible projects,$1.4 million is associated with growth-related demand citywide from residential uses,while$8.1 million represents growth-related demand citywide from non-residential uses. These assumptions are based on the distribution of square footage,with the exception of the proportionate share of the costs of the four Westside roadway projects. These four projects primarily benefit non-residential uses by providing infrastructure to connect products,employees,and freight to other parts of the City. As such,Exhibits VI-6 and • VI-7 identify how these costs can be most appropriately recovered through separate residential and non-residential roadway impact fees. 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities? As noted above,the calculation of roadway impact fees is based on the projected number of trips each land-use type will generate in the next ten years. Using the current land use by square foot within Salt Lake City found in Exhibit VI-1,and the trip generation figures from Exhibit VI-2, total current trips can be distributed to each land use. Exhibit VI-5 below displays the projected trip generation distribution. Ezhibit VI-5. Salt Lake City Distribution by Weighted Trip Generation—2010-2020 Current Weighted Trip New Weighted Trip Land We Development Generation Factors Percent Development Generation Factors Percent Single Family Units)1.0) 42,270 42,270 25% 2,000 2,000 25% Multi Family Units C0.7) 38,092 26,664 16% 1,603 1,262 16% Retail Square Feet)'5.0/1,000 sf) 5,019,924 25,100 15% 235,896 1,179 15% Office Square Feet Cl.3/1,000 sQ 15,050,719 19.566 11% 707,184 919 11% Industrial Square Feet C0.9/1 000 sf) 62,868,338 56,592 33% 2,950,812 2,656 33% Thal 170,182 8,017 100% Source:Salt Lake City and Impact Fee Study Team. 27 DRAFT REPORT As shown above,the number of daily trips in Salt Lake City is expected to increase by 4 approximately 8,017 trips by 2021.25%of those trips will be for single-family residential uses; 16%will be for multi-family residential uses;15%will be for retail uses;11%will be for office uses;and 33%will be for industrial uses. Exhibits VI-6 and VI-7 below use the distribution of the CFP by weighted trip generation figures from Exhibit VI-5 and the growth-related CFP from Exhibit VI-4 to calculate roadway impact fees for the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions. Exhibit VI-6 relates to the portion of the CFP that represents the trip demand generated by new residential development citywide. Exhibit VI-6. Salt Lake City Residential Amount to Include in Impact Fees' $1,376,559 Roadway Fee Calculation Percent of Future Trips Residential Note: Single Family 65% (I)From Exhibit VN,59%of tranaomuon Multi Family 35% goJaa. (2)Flom Exhibit 11-2. Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential sOWCG Single Family $ 899,781 Impm,Fa Study Teem. Multi Family $ 476,778 Future Land Uses' Residential(total dwelling units) Single Family 2,000 Multi Family 1,803 Calculated Impact Fee Residential(per dwelling unit) Single Family $ 450 Multi Family $ 264 The amount per household is less than the current$10,161 per single family residential unit and $7,113 per multi-family residential unit investment per household we calculated based on Exhibit VI-3 of this report. This confirms that new residential growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system. 0 28 DRAFT REPORT • Exhibit VI-7 relates to the portion of the CFP that represents the trip demand generated by new non-residential development citywide. Exhibit VI-7. Salt Lake City Non- Amount to Include in Impact Fees' $8,106,892 Residential Roadway Fee Percent of Future Trips Calculation Nonresidential Retail 8% Note Office 18% (1)From Exhibit vba;I00%of roadway Industrial 74% projects in W estside Indumid Area,plus 41%of ell teansponerion projects.created 100%of Allocated Value by Land Use Category impact fce rand belmce. Nonresidential (z)Fmm Exhibit n-1 Retail $ 685,671 Office $ 1,461,601 sou Impact Fee Study Teruo Industrial $ 5,976,276 Future Land Uses' Nonresidential(in square feet) Retail 235,936 Office 707,384 Industrial 2,980,241 Calculated Impact Fee Non-Residential(per square foot) Retail $ 2.91 Office $ 2.07 Industrial $ 2.01 OThe amount per square foot is less than the current$50.81 per square foot investment for retail development,$13.21 per square foot investment for office development,and$9.15 per square foot investment for industrial development we calculated based on Exhibit VI-I of this report. This confirms that new non-residential growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system. The Divisions cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above.The Divisions may assess fees lower than these amounts,but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Division used other revenues to make up the difference. A comparison of current investment,current impact fees and 2011 calculated roadways impact fees is as follows: Residential Unit Current Investment per Single Family Unit $10,161 Current Investment per Multi Family Unit $7,113 Current Roadways Impact Fee no fee is currently in effect Draft Residential Roadways Impact Fee-2011 $ 450 • Draft Residential Roadways Impact Fee-2011 $ 264 29 DRAFT REPORT Non-Residential Square Foot Current Retail Investment per Square Foot $50.81 Current Office Investment per Square Foot $13.21 Current Industrial Investment per Square Foot $9.15 Current Retail Roadway Fee per Square Foot $8.62 Current Office Roadway Fee per Square Foot $4.20 Current Industrial Roadway Fee Square Foot $2.00 Draft Retail Roadways Impact Fee-2011 $2.91 Draft Office Roadways Impact Fee-2011 $2.07 Draft Industrial Roadways Impact Fee-2011 $2.01 The significant decrease in non-residential impact fee is related to the changing nature of the Streets and Transportation Division's growth-related capital facilities plans. As the City addresses future congestion created by growth,it has few options to widen or extend existing roads. Instead,it must consider the incremental modal shift by residents and commuters from vehicles to bikes,and create capacity for these alternative transportation forms as well. These capacity-creating capital facilities benefit all land uses,residential and non-residential alike. Therefore,the City has determined it is appropriate to spread the cost of these facility improvements among all land uses. Residential uses will be assessed a modest fee to recover their proportional share of the growth-related portion of the capital facilities plan,and non-residential roadway fees will be reduces as the total cost is spread over more users. 30 DRAFT REPORT CO Section VII. Summary The following Exhibit VII-I summarizes the Fire,Police,Parks and Roadways Impact Fees for the Salt Lake City. Exhibit WI-I. Fln Salt Lake City Impact Fee Residential(per dwelling unit) $ 218 Summary Nonresidential(per square foot) $ 0.39 Pollee Residential(per dwelling unit) $ 357 Nonresidential(per square foot) $ 0.24 Perks Residential(total dwelling units) $ 1,752 Nonresidential(per square foot) $ - Roadways Residential(per dwelling unit) Single Family $ 450 Multi Family $ 264 Commercial(per square foot) Retail $ 2.91 Office $ 2.07 Industrial $ 2.01 • TOTAL FEES(Including surcharge)Residential(per dwelling unit) Single Family $ 2,777 Multi Family $ 2,591 Commercial(per square foot) Retail $ 3.53 Office $ 2.69 Industrial $ 2.63 The current impact fees being assessed by Salt Lake City to new development are identified in Exhibit VII-2 below: Exhibit VII-2. Currant Fess Salt Lake City Current Residential(per dwelling unit) Impact Fee Summary Single Family $ 1,618 Multi Family $ 1,618 Commercial(per square foot) Retail $ 8.62 Office $ 4.20 Industrial $ 2.00 I 31 DRAFT REPORT City Participation O Not all of the capital facilities listed in the CFPs are 100 percent growth-related. Many projects are not growth related at all,and a few projects are only partially growth-related. The City would assume the responsibility of paying for the non-growth portions of these capital facilities. These payments would come from other sources of revenue such as general funds,state revenue- sharing,federal grants,user fees,bond proceeds,etc. To arrive at this participation amount,the expected impact fee revenue and any shared facility amount needs to be subtracted from the total CFP value.Exhibit VII-3 divides the City's participation amount into two categories: • Required—the non-growth portion of partially impact fee eligible projects. This amount must be funded in order to maintain the integrity of the impact fee program. • Discretionary—strictly non-growth related facilities. The City is not under any obligation to fund these capital facilities within a certain timeframe(although this could result in a decrease in the level of service over time). Exhibit VII-3. Salt Lake City CFP Required Discretionary Total Participation Summary,2011- 2021 Fire $ 7,663,000 $0 $ 7,663,000 Police $ 6,855,000 $0 $ 6,855,000 sowee SJrL,S,c and Impact Fa Smdy Teem Parks $4,967,500 $31,495,200 $ 36,462,700 Roadways $16,818,000 $ 41,960,000 $ 58,778,000 Total $21,785,500 $ 73,455,200 $ 95,240,700 The total amount the City would be required to contribute over 10 years,should the City adopt impact fees at the calculated amount,will be approximately$21.8 million.The remaining$73.5 million will be necessary for the City to fund in order to complete the 10-Year CFP,but can be considered discretionary. Implementation Recommendations As City Council evaluates whether or not to adopt the Capital Facilities Plans and impact fees presented in this report,we also offer the following information for your consideration.Please note that this information will be included in the amended impact fee enabling ordinance. Specialized assessments.If permit applicants are concerned they would be paying more than their fair share of future infrastructure purchases,the applicant can request an individualized assessment to ensure they will only be paying their proportional share.The applicant would be required to prepare and pay for all costs related to such an assessment. Donations.If the City receives donations for capital facilities listed on the CFP,they must account for the donation in one of two ways.If the donation is for a non-or partially growth-related O 32 DRAFT REPORT • facility,the donation can contribute to the City's General Fund participation along with more traditional forms,such as revenue transfers from the General Fund.If,however,the donation is for a growth-related project in the CFP,the donor's impact fees should be reduced dollar for dollar. This means that the City will either credit the donor or reimburse the donor for that portion of the impact fee. Credit/reimbursement.If a developer constructs or contributes all or part of a growth-related project that would otherwise be financed with impact fees,that developer must receive a credit against the fees owed for this category.This prevents"double dipping"by the City. The presumption would be that builders/developers owe the entirety of the impact fee amount until they make the City aware of the construction or contribution.If credit or reimbursement is due,the governmental entity must enter into an agreement with the fee payer that specifies the amount of the credit or the amount,time and form of reimbursement. Impact fee accounting.The City should maintain Impact Fee Funds separate and apart from the General Fund.All current and future impact fee revenue should be immediately deposited into this account and withdrawn only to pay for growth-related capital facilities of the same category. General Funds should be reserved solely for the receipt of tax revenues,grants,user fees and associated interest earnings,and ongoing operational expenses including the repair and replacement of existing capital facilities not related to growth. Spending policy.The City should establish and adhere to a policy governing their expenditure of • monies from the Impact Fee Fund.The Fund should be prohibited from paying for any operational expenses and the repair and replacement or upgrade of existing infrastructure not necessitated by growth.In cases when growth-related capital facilities are constructed,impact fees are an allowable revenue source as long as only new growth is served.In cases when new capital facilities are expected to partially replace existing capacity and to partially serve new growth,cost sharing between the General Fund or other sources of revenue Impact Fee Fund should be allowed on a pro rata basis. Update procedures.The fees calculated in this study can be updated as the City monitors the future development patterns.Fees can be updated on an annual basis using an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. • 33 DRAFT REPORT Fiscal Year 11-12 CIP Pro'ects Fiscal Year2011-2012 .a FY 2011-2012 CDCIP Board Mayor's Identifier&Plan m °. Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History coo g Request; Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes Debt Service , I Debt 1 Sales Tax-Series 2005A(Projects:Purchase of Plaza 349,Pioneer $979,999 $979,999 $979,990 None ebtPrecinct,i e Cn Ice Arena,and issued Tower,Parks n) " . - Debt Service payment for sales tax bonds issued to refund the remaining MBA series 1999A,1999B,&2001 Bonds. Bonds mature 10/1/2020. Debt 2 SalesbtTax-Series nt o(Projects:bos da Tower,TRAX Extension) $403,295 $403,295 $403,295- None Debt Service payment for bonds issued for TRAX Extension&Grant Tower Im. .v•u•. :.,. is. - U1/ s . Debt 3 Sales Tax-Series 2009A(Projects: Public Services Maintenance Facilities, $2,154,962 $2,154,962 $2,154,962 None Barnes Bank Acquisition) Debt Service payment for bonds issued to finance all or a portion of the acquisition,construction,improvement&remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility,a building for use as City offices or other capital improvements within the City. Bonds mature 10/1/2008 Debt 4 Sales Tax-Series 2011A(ESTIMATE)Project:North Temple Boulevard) $218,766 $218,766 $218,766 None Debt Service payment for bonds issued for construction improvements of the North Temple Boulevard and viaduct. Bonds mature? . Debt Service Total .- $3,757,022 $3,757,022 $3,757,013--- Fiscal Year 11-12 General Frntd Set Asides " 'capital Asset Capital Asset Management(CAM)Set Aside $2,700,000 $2,700,000 None ,,anagement(CAM) To set aside savings to fund future CAM Projects. CAM Projects are defined as major infrastructure projects with an expense of$5,000,000 or more,require other funding sources including bonds,grants,private&public funding,and typically have a useful life of over 5 years. Public Facilities Public Facilities Maintenance Set Aside $390,000 $390,000 $490,000 None I An annual moupt of &set asidet to coverf needed public facilities ■ improvements,upgrades&maintenance of city owned buildings. The$490,000 reflects 6.78%of the general fund amount allocated for projects. - Public Facilities Set Aside .. $390,000 $390,000 $3,190,000--- 1 isca 'ear I - I .0 ' I - I I :oar. rayors Identifier&Plan o Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History m g Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes /fiscal tear 11-12 General Fund Pat'as)'on Go 1 Transportation 5 Pedestrian Safety Devices-Citywide 1 1 550,000 $50,000 $50,000 None Bicycle&Pedestrian To provide for installation of pedestrian activated flashing LED warning signs at 02-07 $280,000 No additional Master Plan,10 Year various uncontrolled crosswalk location within the City. Funding should provide 07-08 $ 50,000 increase CIP Plan FY06-16, for approximately 6 to 7 signs at midblock crosswalks."Funding history 08-09 $ 75,000 All Districts includes allocations for over 8 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 09-10 $ 75,000 10-11 $110,000 Total 5590,000* 2 Streets 2 ADA Ramps/Corner Repairs-Citywide 2 2 5400,000 $400,000 $300,000 None ADA Ramp Transition To construct various ADA pedestrian ramps&related repairs to corners& 00-05 $2,085,241 No additional Plan,10 Year CIP Plan walkways including sidewalk,curb,gutter&corner drainage improvements. 05-06 $ 400,000 increase FY06-16,All Districts Design$27,400. Construction inspection&admin$29,600. Locations to be 06-07 $ 433,418 determined by City's ADA Ramp Transition Plan&citywide inventory of ramp 07-08 $ 400,000 construction need location,citizen requests with high priority requests from 08-09 $ 225,000 individuals with disabilities&in coordination with other CIP projects involving 09-10 $ 300,000 pedestrian access route improvements. *Funding history includes allocations 10-11 $ 351,193 over a 10 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. Total $4,194,852* 3 Transportation 1 Traffic Signal Upgrades-1100 E./100 So.;1100 E./1300 So.;West 3 3 $960,000 $640,000 $480,000 Minimal Temole/1700 So.:500 E.I2700 So.:200 E./800 So.:500 E./1300 So. Transportation Plan, To remove&replace six(6)existing traffic signals with equipment that includes 00-05 $2,470,000 $360 annual Mayor 10 Year CIP Plan FY06- steel poles,span wire,signal heads&traffic signal loops,mast arm poles,new 06-07 $ 450,000 increase recommended 16,Districts 4,5&7 signal heads,pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers,improved vehicle 07-08 $ 500,000 funding for 3 detection,&left turn phasing as needed. Design$96,000. Engineering fees 08-09 $ 640,000 signals $96,000. Construction inspection&admin$24,000. *Funding history includes 09-10 $ 560,000 allocations over 9 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 10/11 $ 320,000 Total $4,940,000* ( 4 Open Space/Trails 1 Open Space Signage-Citywide 5 4 5312,093 $312,093 $312,093 None Citywide-All Districts To design,purchase&install signage that includes way-finding,interpretive,use No additional &boundary,restoration&trail markers at H-Rock,Wasatch Hollow,Hidden increase Hollow,Parley's Historic Nature Park,Ensign Peak,Bonneville Shoreline Trail, Jordan River Parkway&Miller Park. Design$100,000. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. _ 2 -Isca 'ear I - I 7 ' I - I I :oar. 'ayors Identifier&Plan n m Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History m 2 Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes 5 Streets 3 Sidewalk Rehabilitation:Concrete Sawing&Slab Jacking-Citywide 6 5 $300,000 $300,000 $200,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To provide sidewalk rehabilitation&reduction of tripping hazards through 03-05 $350,000 No additional FY06-16 concrete sawing,grinding or slab jacking. The concrete sawing/grinding 05-06 $400,000 increase All Districts process eliminates displacement of up to one&one-half inch. Slab Jacking can 06-07 $150,000 be used in locations where excessive slope will not be created through raising 07-08 $200,000 the concrete elevation. All processes provide a significant cost savings over 08-09 $175,000 removal&replacement. Design$20,600. Construction inspection&admin 09-10 $200,000 $22,100. *Funding history includes allocations over an 8 year period. Supports 10-11 $200,000 r`ifi/e c„clninnl,irt,pfkiej- ClG7C nnn• 6 Streets 1 500/700 South Street Reconstruction,Phase 3-3670 West to 4230 West r 7 6 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To construct Phase 3 of street improvements to include pavement restoration to Prior Yrs $4,699,484* No additional See Class"C"#1 FY06-16,District 2 approx.4,500 lineal feet of street pavement,center turn lane,bike lanes on both increase and Impact Fees sides of the roadway,curb,gutter,drainage&water line improvements& #1 upgrades to traffic flow characteristics. Water&storm drain improvements will be coordinated with Public Utilities. Total project cost is estimated at$4,136,000 which includes prior year allocations of general&Class"C"funding.$1,186,000 of project cost is improvements to be made by Public Utilities.FY 2012 project funding includes this GF request of$300,000;$650,000 of Class"C";& $2,000,000 of Impact Fees. Design previously funded. Construction, inspection&admin$254,000. 'Class"C"&Impact Fee allocations only. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 7 Public Facilities 11 Washington Square Event&Square Electrical-451 So.State Street 8 7 $499,966 $499,966 $400,000 None District 4 To provide electrical power to Washington Square grounds to support annual No additional events held in the square. Currently generators are used. The electrical increase improvements include transformers,conduit wire&ground level connection boxes to support the power distribution. Design$53,493. Engineering fees _ 1 $7,069. Construction,inspection&admin$19,105. Support City's sustainability 8 Open Space/Trails 5 Jordan River Parkway Trail Repaving 9 8 $295,020 $295,020 $295,020 None Districts 1,2 To repave and/or seal approximately 9,834 linear feet of cracked or deteriorated No additional asphalt surfacing of Jordan River Parkway Trail. Supports City's sustainability increase efforts. 9 Streets 7 Paver Crosswalk Reconstruction-400 South State Street&200 East 10 9 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To remove&replace the deteriorated&settled cross walk pavers with colored, No additional District 4 stamped concrete. Construction,inspection&admin$12,300. Supports City's increase sustainability efforts. 3 isca 'ear I - r a ' I - I I - :oar. rayors Identifier&Plan m °. Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History ta g Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes 10 Transportation 4 Lighting Wire Replacements-Citywide 11 10 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 None All Districts To replace underground street lighting wiring in areas where wires have been 09-10 $70,000 No additional stolen. Street lighting wiring is no longer installed in conduit in remote areas&is increase instead directly buried in the ground at a depth of 2 feet to prevent theft. Supports City's sustainability efforts. _ _ 11 Parks 2 10th East Senior Center Plant Replacement&Irrigation Drip System 12 11 $11,920 $11,920 $11,920 None Addition -1000 East 250 South Parks Recovery Action To design&replace the existing sprinkler irrigation system within the north No additional Plan,District 4 property line planting bed with new watering system emitters at each shrub&to increase replace missing dead plants. Design$940.Construction inspection&admin fees$640. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 12 Streets 9 Residential Concrete Street Rehabilitation-Princeton Ave.,1700 East to 13 12 5486,800 $486,800 $486,800 None 1800 East 10 Year CIP Plan To provide street improvements to include concrete pavement replacement or No additional District 6 rehabilitation of existing deteriorated concrete street,drive approaches,curb& increase gutter&sidewalk&ADA accessibility ramps. Design$33,400. Construction, inspection&admin$35,900. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 13 Streets 4 Local Street Reconstruction FY 11/12 14 13 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 - None Pavement Management To reconstruct or rehabilitate deteriorated local streets to include replacement of 01-05 $5,872,123 No additional Plan,10 Year CIP Plan street pavement,sidewalk,curb,gutter&drainage improvements. Proposed 05-06 $1,500,000 increase FY06-16,Districts 2&7 Streets include Ashton Ave.,from 1100 East to Highland Drive;Crandall Ave., 06-07 $1,000,000 from 1100 East to Richmond Street;Zenith Ave.,from 1100 East to Richmond 07-08 $1,000,000 Street&800 East to 900 East;Simpson Ave.,from 700 East to 900 East; 08-09 $1,000,000 Goshen Street,from Indiana Ave.to 700 South;Hudson Circle,from Zenith 09-10 $ 536,925 Ave.to South Cul-de-sac end. Design$100,000 for FY2012/2013. 10/11 $1,000,000 Construction inspection&admin$222,000.'Funding history includes Total $11,919,048` allocations over 10 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 1. 14 Transportation 7 Electronic Driver Feedback Signs-Citywide 15 14 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 None All Districts To purchase&install 14 double sided solar,electronic driver feedback signs No additional providing 1 sign per Council District. Location within Council Districts to be increase determined. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 15 Streets 11 Sidewalk Installation-1700 East,South of 1-80 Overpass 16 15 $31,300 $31,300 $31,300 None Submitted by Constituent To design improvements to include removal&replacement of approximately 200 Design District 7 linear ft of asphalt path with concrete sidewalk,curb&gutter on west side of 1700 East,South of the 1-80 overpass. Design&contract bidding$2,600. Construction inspection&admin$2,900. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 4 -isca 'ear r - r .a ' r - I I ' =oar. 'ayors Identifier&Plan E °., Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History in M Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes 16 Parks 14 Tracy Aviary Sidewalks&Tree Pruning-589 East 1300 South 17 16 $71,400 $71,400 $71,400 None District 5 To replace deteriorated sidewalks that have tripping hazards,prune existing No additional trees within the Aviary,&repair associated landscape impacted by sidewalk increase construction. Design$7,000. Construction inspection&admin$4,400. 17 Parks 9 Tennis Court Resurfacing -Pioneer,Reservoir&Sunnyside Parks 18 17 $63,400 $63,400 $63,400 None Parks Recovery Action To design&construct upgrades to existing tennis courts at Pioneer, Reservoir No additional Plan,10 Year CIP Plan &Sunnyside Parks. Upgrades include repairing cracks,resurfacing courts,new increase FY08-09, net posts&line striping. Courts include one at Pioneer,300 W.350 So.;two at Districts 3&4 Reservoir,1300 E.So.Temple;&two at Sunnyside,840 So.1600 E. Existing fencing will remain in service for these facilities. Design$5,000. Construction inspection&admin fees$3,400. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 18 Parks 5 Jordan River Trail Security Lighting Wire Replacement-Jordan River Trail, 19 18 557,060 $57,060 $57,060 None 500 North to 1000 North District 2 To replace wire along the Jordan River Trail where the existing lighting wire has Prior Yrs $259,600 No additional been stolen. The project will include below grade placement of the pull boxes increase for the conduit&wire junctions&capped with a concrete slab in order to make the wire non accessible to vandals. Design$4,500. Construction inspection& administration$3,060. _ 19 Parks 4 Faultline Gardens Park Security Lighting Improvements-1050 East 400 20 19 $45,650 $45,650 $45,650 None South Parks Recovery Action To design&replace existing light fixtures&poles within the park. The existing No additional Plan,District 4 wire,power&controls will be reconnected to the new poles&fixtures reducing increase costs of power&maintenance. Design$3,600. Construction inspection& admin fees$2,450. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 7- Public Facilities 1 Pioneer Precinct HVAC Asset Renewal-1040 West 700 South 21 20 5493,790 $493,790 $493,790 None :Capital Asset Renewal To replace existing inadequate HVAC system to include air handling units, No additional Plan, District 1 boilers,controls,&motors to improve thermal comfort&livability resulting in increase energy efficiencies of approximately 15%to 20%on rooftop units&the boiler thermal efficiency rating can be increased from 80%to 98%efficiency. Design $51,170. Engineering fees$8,406. Construction,inspection&admin$32,164. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 21 Parks 1 Herman Franks Park ADA Playground Improvements-700 East 1300 South 22 21 5116,200 $116,200 $116,200 None Parks Inventory of ADA To design&construct ADA accessibility improvements to existing facilities to 10-11 511,890 No additional Needs,Parks Recovery include playground re-surfacing,ramps,limited playground modifications& increase Action PIan,10 Year CIP upgrades,&associated landscape&irrigation system upgrades as required by Plan,District 5 construction impacts. Design$9,000. Engineering fees$2,100. Construction inspection&admin fees$6,100. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 5 rsca 'ear r - r '2 ' r - r to ' roar. rayors • Identifier&Plan °, Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History ea a Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes 22 Public Facilities 4 Central Plant Upgrade-251 East 500 South(Parking Garage) 23 22 $233,783 $233,783 $233,783 None Capital Asset Renewal To hire a consultant to identify&design upgrades to the City's central plant that No additional Plan District 4 provides electrical power to Library Square,Washington Square&the future increase Public Safety Building complex. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 23 Open Space/Trails 2 Parleys Historic Nature Park Trail&Stream Restoration-Approx 2700 East 28 23 $150,223 $150,223 None 2700 South District 7 To provide trail&stream restoration improvements to include both temporary No additional wire&permanent split/rail fencing,decomposed granite trail surface,stream increase bank grading,bank stabilization&vegetation of native plants along stream. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 24 Open Space/Tralls 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space Pathway Project-1650 East 1700 South 29 24 $111,530 $111,530 None District 6 To provide improvements to 4,130 linear feet of path that includes closure&re- No additional vegetation of non-use social trails,bridge construction,community art project, increase grading&crushed rock surfacing of path. Supports City's sustainability efforts. _ 25 Transportation 10 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Update 32 25 $150,000 $100,000 None Bicycle&Pedestrian To update the City's 2004 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan,using a consultant to Plan Master Plan, 10 Year provide primary staffing,writing,public outreach&support.The Plan will CIP Plan FY06-16, include recommendations for the city's use of the latest innovative designs for All Districts both bicycle&pedestrian infrastructure&a flexible 5-year plan that incorporates both infrastructure&non-infrastructure projects in a logical sequence. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 26 Transportation 3 Bicycle Boulevards Pilot Project-600 East,South Temple to 2700 South 35 26 $450,000 $450,000 None District 4,5&7 To design&construct a bicycle boulevard which consists of medians,bicycle 01-03 $100,000 No additional crossing pockets,LED warning signs,optimization of conventional traffic signals 03-04 $ 50,000 increase for bicycle use,pavement markings&way finding signs. This project will include 05-06 $ 50,000 the installation of three HAWK signals on 600 East at 800 So.,900 So,&1300 06-07 $ 50,000 / 1 So. The 1300 So.HAWK signal was awarded funding during FY 10/11 CIP 07-08 $ 50,000 k- Process&is currently being designed. Funding for the 600 So.600 East signal 08-09 $500,000 is in the current CIP Process. Engineering fees$43,000. 'Funding history Total $800,000' includes bicycle development allocations over 7 year period. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 6 -isca 'ear I - I . ' t - I I • :oar. rayors o Identifier&Plan n. Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History m n Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes 27 Parks 7 Rotary Glen Park-2770 East 840 South 36 27 $325,000 $25,000 None Rotary Glen Master To design&construct improvements to include removing&replacing existing Prior yrs $285,000 No additional Plan,10 Year CIP Plan restroom&pavilion,replace failed sewer line under parking lot to support 05-06 $ 95,000 increase FY08-09,District 6 restroom,new drinking fountain,&burial of power lines. Parking lot,associated Total $380,000 landscaping&sprinkler irrigation system will be replaced at the area of construction. Design$25,000. Engineering fees$5,000. Construction inspection&admin fees$20,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 28 Parks 11 East Capitol Boulevard Streetscape&Memory Grove Overlook 37 28 $383,000 $299,078 None Improvements-East Capitol Blvd.300 North to 500 North. 10 Year CIP Plan, To provide additional funding for design&construction of improvements to 08-09 50,000 No additional $150,000 of the District 3 include new curb&bulbouts on east side of East Capitol Blvd,sidewalk, increase 5299,078 are one crosswalks,landscaping&irrigation associated with the east side of the street& time funds Memory Grove Park,Memory Grove park Overlook&Historical Interpretation donated to area. Area is heavy used as an exercise route. Design$28,400. Engineering Memory Grove Fees$5,300. Construction,inspection&admin$22,700. Supports City's Park and must be sustainability efforts. used for Memory Grove Park 29 Percent for Art. Percent for Art-Citywide 24 29 $80,000 $100,000 $100,000 None To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement,railings,sculptures& $670* No additional other works of art. 'Funding history indicates all funds received over 8 year increase period. 30 Contingency Contingency 25 30 $81,618 $82,587 None Amount set aside to fund unexpected project cost over-runs. •ansportation 6 Street Light Conversion to Energy Efficient Bulbs-Citywide 4 31 $150,000 $150,000 None All Districts To purchase,install&replace the existing metal halide lamps,with new energy No additional efficient lamps in existing decorative street light poles that would include 148 increase lamps on 400 So.,between 200 E.&1300 E.;&103 lamps on 900 So.,between 900 W.&500 E.This project would reduce the electric power&maintenance budget by approximately$14,000 annually. Supports City's sustainability efforts 7 isca 'ear I - I .p ' I - I I - ;oar. 'ayors Identifier&Plan m >, Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operatingli Information Project Description Funding History m i Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes 32 Open Space/Trails 6 Open Space Property Purchase-1560 E.Atkin Ave 26 32 $270,000 None Submitted by To provide partial funding for purchase of.86 acre lot at 1560 E Atkin Ave.for No additional Constituent,District 7 future park. Imperial Neighborhood Park Association has received$17,000 from increase private donations&fund raising. The association proposes to request remaining funding needed from the City's Open Space Land Division.Supports City's sustainability efforts. 33 Parks 12 City Cemetery Master Plan,Phase II-200 North&"N"Street 27 33 $349,900 None District 3 To complete the City Cemetery Master Plan. Phase I of plan has been 07-08 $75,000 Plan completed&provided an analysis of roads,curbs,utilities&inventory of unused areas of cemetery. Phase II of Plan will include comprehensive study of buildings,office/residence,emergency management plan,cemetery operations, financial based projection based on current prices&budgets for proposed/required improvements&proposal of possible new facility layout scenarios including new inventory items to improve cemetery performance. Plan 318,100. Engineering fees$31,800. Not applicable to City's sustainability 34 Transportation 8 Traffic Signal Installation-Callfomia Ave.,3400&3800 West 30 34 $400,000 None District 2 To design&construct 2 new traffic lights on California Ave.,at 3400 West& No additional 3800 West. Based on completed traffic condition studies,these intersections increase warrant installation of signals. These signals will significantly improve safety at these intersections which have a high percentage of large truck traffic,heavy turning movements&growing traffic volumes. Design$52,000. Engineering fees$52,000. Construction inspection&admin.$12,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 35 Streets 8 Indiana Ave./900 South Rehabilitation Design-Redwood Rd.to 3600 West 31 35 $300,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan District To design for future construction street improvements to include pavement No additional See Impact Fees 2 restoration,curb&gutter,drainage improvements&upgrades to traffic flow increase #2 characteristics, Total design cost is$600,000. An additional$300,000 Is being requested from Impact Fees. Design$600,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 36 Transportation 11 SLC Wayfinding Sign Update&Restoration 33 36 $150,000 None Transportation Plan To repair,repaint&update the SLC wayfinding signs installed in 2001. Many of No additional Districts 3,4,6&7 the signs have been damaged due to weather,vehicle collisions,vandalism, increase corrosion&age. Areas include Central Business District,the Sugar House Business District&the University of Utah. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 8 -isca 'ear I - I .2 • I - I I • :oar. r ayors O Identifier&Plan o Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History m E Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes 34 Open Space/Trails 4 Ensign Peak Trail Realignment 34 37 $40,000 None District 3 To design,close&construct trail realignment including re-vegetation of native No additional plants. Supports City's sustainability efforts. increase 38 Streets 10 800 West Street&Island Rehabilitation Design-800 West,600 South to 38 38 $40,000 None 900 South 10 Year CIP Plan To design for future construction street&median island improvements for Design District 2 deteriorated public right of way. Design includes street pavement replacement or rehabilitation,drive approaches,curb&gutter,sidewalk repairs,ADA accessibility ramps&median island improvements. Design$40,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. . 39 Public Facilities 9 600 South Properties Window Replacement-248 East 600 South 39 39 $60,119 None District 4 To replace the existing single paned,plate glass windows with energy efficient No additional double paned. Supports City's sustainability efforts. increase 40 Public Facilities 7 Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation&Asset 40 40 $291,928 None Renewal Project Design-2100 So.,1000 E.to 1300 E.;Highland Dr., Westminster&Ashton Capital Asset Renewal To design for future replacement of deteriorating galvanized pipe located Design Plan,District 7 beneath concrete&pavers with new PVC main irrigation service line,electronic valves,backflow devices,irrigation lines to trees,bubblers in tree planters, irrigation management system,failure&low flow alarms,low voltage controls, landscape lighting,auto-drain valves,replace deteriorated concrete with stamped concrete or pavers,install new sidewalk,curb,gutter as necessary remove&replace parking strip trees that are less than 3 feet from curb. Design $253.275. Enaineerina fees$38.653. Suouorts City's sustainability efforts. a` 'arks 6 Tennis Court Reconstruction-Fairmont Park 900 East Simpson Ave. 41 41 $969,200 Minimal iairmont Park Master To replace five(5)existing tennis courts with four(4)new post tension courts& 08-09 $50,000 $800 per year Plan,District 7 two(2)youth program courts,new fencing,net posts,landscaping&irrigation system,sidewalk along north side of courts,benches&drinking fountain. Design complete. Engineering fees$18,400.Construction inspection&admin fees$70,400. Supports City's sustainability efforts. _ 42 Public Facilities 6 Plaza 349 Solar Window Film-349 South 200 East 42 42 $151,382 None District 4 To provide solar control window film to reduce UV&heat penetration,repair No additional rubber window gaskets,weather strip&re-seal windows. The solar window film increase chosen is 3M Scotch tint&will reduce solar heat gain by 58%,comfort heat loss in winter by 10%,UV infiltration by 99%. Design$14,550. Engineering fees $2,243. Construction inspection&admin$7,275. Supports City's sustainability efforts 9 • isca 'ear I - r ,2 r - I I ' soar. rayors Identifier&Plan o °. Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History m 2 Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes 43 Public Facilities 3 Irrigation Water Conservation&Asset Renewal Project Design-100 So. 43 43 $135,568 None Main St.&part of West Temple,100 So.Regent to Main St.,300 So.Main St.to Exchanae Place.4th So.Main to Cactus St.North Side Capital Asset Renewal To provide design of 4 locations for future replacement of deteriorating Design Plan District 4 galvanized pipe located beneath concrete&pavers with new PVC main irrigation service line,electronic valves,backflow devices,irrigation lines to trees,bubblers in tree planters,irrigation management system,failure&low flow alarms,low voltage controls,landscape lighting,auto-drain valves&replace deteriorated concrete with stamped concrete or pavers. Design$118,679. Engineering fees$16,889. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 44 Public Facilities 14 Liberty Police Precinct&Fire Station#3 44 44 $15,000,000 None Possible Bond District 7 Costs associated with the purchase of additional property adjacent to the current No additional fire station#3 from Deseret Industries.The existing fire station#3 would be increase demolished,a new building constructed to house the fire station,police patrol precinct&community rooms. This application was submitted by the Police/Fire Departments as a place holder within the CIP. Application requests 45 Public Facilities 2 Justice Courts HVAC Energy Conservation Upgrades-333 South 200 East 45 45 $377,100 None Capital Asset Renewal To modify existing inadequate HVAC system to improve thermal comfort& No additional Plan District 4 livability resulting in an estimated 13%annual electrical&25%annual natural increase gas savings. Design$40,041. Engineering fees$5,291. Construction, inspection&admin$17,160. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 46 Public Facilities 8 Spring Mobile Park Energy Conservation&HVAC Renewal-1365 South 46 46 $663,518 None West Temple District 5 To provide HVAC upgrades to Spring Mobile Park building to include installation No additional of a water side economizer,new chiller,control system access&lighting retrofit. increase Design$68,758. Engineering fees$11,296.Construction inspection&admin $43,220. Supports City's sustainability efforts. �. 47 Parks 15 Tennis Court Reconstruction-5th Avenue&"C"Street 47 47 $597,800 None Parks Recovery Action To design,remove&reconstruct existing tennis courts. Two new courts will be No additional Plan,10 Year CIP Plan built to meet new tennis standards&sizes as possible. Reconstruction includes increase FY08-09,District 3 new concrete retaining walls,associated landscape&irrigation impacted by construction,surfacing,net posts&line striping. Design$58,500. Engineering fees$8,300. Construction inspection&admin fees$36,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. - 10 'isca 'ear r - r .o • r - r I - :oar. 'ayors • Identifier&Plan m a, Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating information Project Description Funding History co° 2 Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes 48 Public Facilities 5 Sunday Anderson Westside Senior Center Building Shell Renovation-868 48 48 $110,093 None West 900 South Capital Asset Renewal To provide exterior building improvements to include replacing roof shingles with No additional Plan District 4 forty year architectural grade shingles,replace rain gutters,soffit,fascia,& increase existing siding with 12"surface interlocking steel siding. Design$11,551. Engineering Fees$1,644. Construction,inspection&admin$4,443. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 49 Public Facilities 13 Salt Lake City Police Crime Lab&Evidence Storage Facility 49 49 59,000,000 None Possible Bond All Districts Costs associated with the purchase and/or construction of a new Police crime No additional lab&evidence storage facility. Property&site to be determined. This increase application was submitted by the Police Department as a place holder within the CIP. Application requests$9,000,000. 50 Parks 17 Tennis Court Resurfacing-Oak Hills 2425 East 1216 South 50 50 $76,080 None 10 Year CIP Plan FY08- To design&construct upgrades to four existing tennis courts at the Oak Hills No additional 09,District 6 Tennis facility the remaining six courts will received new paint&stripping. increase Upgrades to four existing courts include repairing cracks,resurfacing courts, new net posts&line striping. Existing fencing will remain in service for these facilities. Design$6,000. Construction inspection&admin fees$4,080. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 51 Transportation 9 Wakara Way&Arapeen Drive Roundabout 51 51 $350,000 None Transportation Master To design&construct a roundabout on Wakara Way&Arapeen Drive in No additional Plan, District 6 Research Park. Traffic conditions warrant the installation of traffic control increase measures at this intersection which can accommodate a roundabout as opposed to a traffic signal which has ongoing maintenance&operation costs. Design$35,000. Engineering fees$35,000. Construction inspection&admin, $10,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 52 Transportation 12 1300 East Traffic Calming Bulb Out-1300 East,400 South 52 52 520,000 None Submitted by Constituent To reconstruct the northwest curb at the intersection of 1300 East 400 south Design Districts 4 with improvements to include bulb out&landscaping providing a traffic calming device. Construction includes removing&replacing existing curb with bulb out, water wise landscaping or public art. Transportation indicates that bulb outs can cost as much as$20,000. More importantly,the section of 1300 East between 500 South&South Temple is in need of reconstruction. Federal funding has been requested for the reconstruction. If approved,a formal design review will be conducted that could change the width of the street,add bicycle lanes,etc, If a bulbout is built now,it may need to be removed when the street is rebuilt due to being located in the wrong location. _ 11 isca 'ear t - I V • I - I I ' =oar. r ayors Identifier&Plan o Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating 10 Information Project Description Funding History m 5 Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes 53 Parks 13 Oak Hills Tennis Court Lighting-2425 East 1216 South 53 53 $140,200 None 10 Year CIP Plan FY08- To design&provide court lighting to the six bottom tennis courts providing No additional 09,District 6 extended play during the spring&fall. Improvements include new light poles& increase fixtures per the latest court lighting system standards.All conduits from those placed under the newly renovated courts will be installed&all wire systems will be provided&connected to the existing power meter. Design$15,000. Construction inspection&admin fees$10,200. Concessionaire had donated $50,000 for this project. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 54 Streets 14 East Liberty Park Community Organization(ELPCO)Alley Improvement 54 54 $40,000 None Study Submitted by Constituent To provide funding for a study&preliminary design of rehabilitation needs& Design District 5 upgrades of the public way alleys between 900 South to 1300 South,from 700 East to 1100 East. Design$40,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 55 Parks 16 Lindsey Garden Parking Lot Resurfacing-7th Avenue&"N"Street 55 55 $109,950 None Parks Recovery Action To remove&replace old deteriorated asphalt pavement&broken sections of No additional Plan,Districts 3 the concrete curb wall,with new surfacing,associated base gravel,&new curb increase wall where needed. Design$7,600. Engineering Fees$1,750. Construction, inspection&admin$5,200. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 56 Parks 8 Tennis Court Reconstruction-Lindsey Gardens Park,7th Avenue&"N" 56 56 $597,800 None Street Parks Recovery Action To design,demolish&reconstruct existing tennis courts. Two new courts will be No additional Plan,10 Year CIP Plan built to meet new tennis standards. Reconstruction includes new concrete increase FY08-09,District 3 retaining walls to provide the level foot print required,associated landscape& irrigation,court surfacing,net posts,line striping&fencing. Design$58,500. �- Engineering fees$8,300. Construction inspection&admin fees$36,000. 1 Supports City's sustainability efforts. 12 isca 'ear i - r V ' r - I r - :Oar. rayors . Identifier&Plan rs a. Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History m 2 Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes 57 Parks 10 Baseball Park Concessions Stand Improvements-Citywide 57 57 $374,250 None Parks Recovery Action To design&construct mandated Board of Health Improvements to the City No additional Plan,Districts 1,2,&6 concessions stands at Sunnyside Park,1600 East 800 So.,Poplar Gove Park, increase 1190 West 800 so.,&Riverside Park,711 North 1400 West baseball fields. Improvements include grease traps,three compartment sinks,floor drains attached to sewer,sealed walls,ceiling&floors,hand washing sinks,exhaust vents,mounted fire extinguishers,exit doors that open outward with correct hardware&self closing screens& upgrades to electrical services appropriate to equipment in building. Each site may need all or part of these improvements. Design$26,250. Construction inspection&admin fees$18,000. Supports City's euetainahility rffnrtc 58 Transportation 2 Traffic Signal Installation-600 South 600 East 58 58 $160,000 None Transportation Master To design&construct a new traffic signal where none currently exists on 600 01-02 $280,000 No additional Plan,10 Year CIP Plan, South 600 East. Traffic studies which findings include increased traffic,accident 04-05 $150,000 increase FY06-16 District 4 history,&changing traffic conditions indicate that a new light is warranted at this 06-07 $150,000 intersection. This project would benefit&be done in coordination with the 600 Total $580,000* E.Bike Boulevard project. Design$21,000.Engineering fees$21,000. Construction,inspection&admin fees$5,000. Supports City's sustainability 59 Public Facilities 10 City&County,1st Floor South,HeatinglCooling Wall Unit Replacement- 59 59 $170,292 None 451 So.State Street District 4 To replace the existing fan coil wall units on the 1st floor,South side of the City No additional &County Building. Design$16,664. Engineering fees$2,371. Construction increase inspection&admin$10,255. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 60 Streets 5 1300 East/Richmond Street Rehabilitation-1300 E./Richmond,from 1-80 to 60 60 $1,379,000 None 3300 South ,0 Year CIP Plan To construct street rehabilitation to include removal of open graded asphalt No additional District 7 surface course(OGSC)&replace with asphalt overlay,curb&gutter repairs, increase ADA accessibility ramps&sidewalk repairs. This project will also include pedestrian traffic safety measures programmed for this section of 1300 East by the City's Transportation Division,including pedestrian sign enhancements at Elgin&Zenith Ayes.,&restriping of the roadway to accommodate bicycle lanes. This street was transferred to the City from UDOT in 2007. Design$67,300. Construction inspection&admin$86,900. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 61 Public Facilities 12 City&County,Fifth Floor North Side,Remodel-451 So.State Street 61 61 $884,301 None District 4 To provide partial funding needed to finish the unimproved space on the 5th No additional floor,north side,to be used as office space for a projected 44 employees. increase Construction funding$884,301. 62 Parks 3 Foothill Blvd.Islands Landscape-Foothill Blvd.,900 to 1100 South 62 62 $107,780 None 13 Isca 'ear r - I -o ' r - I I - ;oar. rayors 16 Identifier 8 Plan o °. Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History m Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes Parks Recovery Action To design&replace the existing sprinkler irrigation system within the islands No additional Plan,District 6 with new deep root watering system emitters at each existing tree,add weed increase barrier fabric&mulch. Design$8,500. Construction inspection&admin fees $5,780. Supports City's sustainability efforts. 63 Streets 6 900 South Street Rehabilitation-900 South,1100 East to 1300 East 63 63 6406,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To construct street rehabilitation to include pavement restoration,curb&gutter 08-09 S100,000 No additional Districts 4&5 repair as needed,drainage improvements&ADA accessibility improvements. increase Construction inspection&admin$27,000. Supports Citys sustainability efforts. 64 Streets 12 Princeton Ave Concrete Street Replacement-Princeton Ave.,1700 East to 64 64 $486,800 None Duplicate of S#9 1800 East Submitted by Constituent To remove&replace concrete street pavement on Princeton Ave.(1155 South), No additional District 6 between 1700 East to 1800 East. This application submitted by constituent is a increase duplication of Engineering's#9 application above. 65 Streets 13 900 South Road Construction-900 So.,2700 West to 3200 West 65 65 $300,000 None Duplicate of S#8 Submitted by Constituent To construct street improvements to include pavement restoration,curb&gutter, No additional District 2 drainage improvements&upgrades to traffic flow characteristics. This increase application submitted by constituent is a duplicate of Engineering's#8 application above. Total General Fund 11-12 CIP $18,510,396 66,000,000 $9,716,834 Total General Fund and Debt Service Projects $13,473,847 14 isca 'ear i - i . ' t - t r • :oar. ayors Identifier&Plan ra °, Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History 03 Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes Fiscal)'ear 11-12 Class "C"Projects 1 Class"C"1 500/700 South Street Reconstruction,Phase 3-3670 West to 4230 West 1 1 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To construct Phase 3 of street improvements to include pavement restoration to Prior Yrs $4,699,484* No additional See general fund, FY06-16,District 2 approx.4,500 lineal feet of street pavement,center turn lane,bike lanes on both increase project#6(S#1) sides of the roadway,curb,gutter,drainage&water line improvements& and Impact Fees upgrades to traffic flow characteristics. Water&storm drain improvements will #1 be coordinated with Public Utilities. Total project cost is estimated at$4,136,000 which includes prior year allocations of general&Class"C"funding.$1,186,000 of project cost is improvements to be made by Public Utilities.FY 2012 project funding includes this GF request of$300,000;$650,000 of Class"C";& $2,000,000 of Impact Fees. Design previously funded. Construction, inspection&admin$254,000. *Class"C"&Impact Fee allocations only. 2 Class"C"2 1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation-1300 South,500 to 700 West 2 2 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To provide partial match of the required$680,000 needed to obtain an 10-11 $ 200,000 No additional FY06-16,District 2 estimated$10,000,000 Surface Transportation Program grant(STP). The STP increase funding for the viaduct rehabilitation has been approved by UDOT&FHWA& requires a 7%local match. The$680,000 of local match is being requested over a 4 year period. $200,000 was allocated during the FY 10-11 CIP Process &additional match funding will be requested in FY's 2012&2013. The viaduct needs essential repairs&rehabilitation as identified in the condition assessment &rehabilitation study,including structural&seismic needs. These funds will be banked until the renuired match fundinn ran he met 3 Class"C"3 Street Pavement Overlay&Preservation FY11/12-Citywide 3 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan FY06- To provide asphalt overlay to street pavements as selected by Pavement 01-07 $9,000,000 No additional 16,Districts 2&7 Management System&based on condition&need. Other improvements 07-08 $1,500,000 increase I include ADA pedestrian ramps,sidewalk,curb,gutter repair&design funding for 08-09 $1,500,000 12/13 overlay project. Design$100,000 Construction inspection&admin fees 09-10 $1,400,000 $59,700. *Funding history includes all Class"C"allocations over 11 year period. 10-11 $1,310,000 Supports City's sustainability efforts. Total $14,710,000* 4 Class"C"4 Concrete Streets Rehabilitation FY11/12-Citywide 4 4 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan FY07- To provide construction rehabilitation to deteriorated concrete streets Citywide. 00-02 $390,000 No additional 08,District 2 Improvements to include slab replacement,grinding,resurfacing&joint repair. 06-08 $400,000 increase Priorities include various area within 900 West,900 South to 2100 South as 08-09 $200,000 funding permits. Design$16,500. Construction inspection&admin$18,800. 09-10 $190,000 *Funding history includes Class"C"allocations over 6 year period. Supports Total $200,000 City's sustainability efforts. $1,380,000* 15 Isca 'ear r - r -o ' I - r I ' :oar 'ayors Identifier&Plan s, Funding Proposed Proposed Council Operating Information Project Description Funding History • m Request Amount Amount Allocations Budget Impact Notes 5 Class"C"5 500 East Rehabilitation,Phase I-1300 to 1700 South 5 5 $388,000 $388,000 $350,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan FY07 To provide major rehabilitation to include street pavement restoration,removal& 08-09 $100,000 No additional 08 replacement of defective sidewalk,curb&gutter,ADA pedestrian ramps& 10/11 $850,000 increase Districts 5,7 upgrades to traffic signals. Project will coordinate installation of major storm Total $950,000 drain lines with Public Utilities. Design$100,000-funded 08-09. Construction, inspection admin$30,400. Supports City's sustainability efforts. - 6 Class"C"6 500 East Rehabilitation,Phase II-1700 South to 2100 South 6 $262,000 $262,000 $0 None 10 Year CIP Plan FY07 To provide major rehabilitation to include street pavement restoration,removal&08-09 $100,000 No additional The City expects 08, replacement of defective sidewalk,curb&gutter,ADA pedestrian ramps& 10/11 $850,000 increase to receives$2.4 of Districts 5,7 upgrades to traffic signals. Project will coordinate installation of major storm Total $950,000 FY 11-12 Class drain lines with Public Utilities. Design$100,000-funded 08-09.Additional "C"funds,not. funds will be required in subsequent years,These funds will be banked for $2.7. Engineering future construction use. Supports City's sustainability efforts. withdrew this a....e.-','" Class"C"Fund Total $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,400,000 Fiscal fear 11-12 Impact lee Projects 1 Impact Fee 1 500/700 South Street Reconstruction,Phase 3-3670 West to 4230 West 1 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To construct Phase 3 of street improvements to include pavement restoration to Prior Yrs $4,699,484` No additional See general fund, District 2 approx.4,500 lineal feet of street pavement,center turn lane,bike lanes on both increase project#6(S#1) sides of the roadway,curb,gutter,drainage&water line improvements& and Class"C"#1 upgrades to traffic flow characteristics. Water&storm drain improvements will be coordinated with Public Utilities. Total project cost is estimated at$4,136,000 which includes prior year allocations of general&Class"C"funding.$1,186,000 of project cost is improvements to be made by Public Utilities.FY 2012 project funding includes this GF request of$300,000;$650,000 of Class"C";& $2,000,000 of Impact Fees. Design previously funded. Construction, ) inspection&admin$254,000.`Class"C"&Impact Fee allocations only. Sunnnrtc Citvc aictainahility affnrts 2 Impact Fees 2 Indiana Ave/900 South Rehabilitation Design-Redwood Rd.to 3600 West 2 2 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 None 10 Year CIP Plan To design for future construction street improvements to include pavement No additional See general fund District 2 restoration,curb&gutter,drainage improvements&upgrades to traffic flow increase project#35(S#8) characteristics, Total design cost is$600,000. An additional$300,000 is being requested from the general fund CIP. Design$600,000. Supports City's sustainability efforts. _ - Impact Fee Fund Total $2,300,000 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 Total FY 11/12 CIP $23,510,396 $11,000,000 $21,363,847 16 TO VIEW INDIVIDUAL ORDINANCES SEE H1 - H19 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: May 10,2011 BUDGET FOR: POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Holladay,Budget and Public Policy Analyst cc: Chief Chris Burbank,Walter Dobrowolski,Krista Dunn,David Everitt,Gina Chattiness,Kay Christensen,Cindy Gust-Jenson,Jennifer Bruno,Lehua Weaver, Quin Card During Fiscal Year(FY)2010,the Police Department reorganized the department into eight bureaus- Facilities Development,Administration,Communications and Records,Fusion,Investigations,Management Services,Patrol,and Special Operations. Effective May 1,2011,the Police Department will have one patrol division. In the past,there had been two precincts-Liberty and Pioneer. According to the Administration, advantages of having one patrol division include: 1)effective and efficient deployment of staffing resources and equipment,2)consistent communication with staff,and 3)a broad citywide precinct approach rather than area specific focus. The Police Department is funded by the General Fund,but also benefits from various federal and state grants. In Fiscal Year 20102,federal and state grants awarded and budgeted amounted to approximately$6.0 million. The Mayor's Recommended Budget proposes$56,841,187 of ongoing funding for the Police Department. This s a 3%increase over the prior year. For FY 2012,the Police Department's expenditure budget represents 3.22%of the General Fund budget. In FY 2011 the Police Department budget was 29.54%of the total General Fund budget. Personal services costs,salaries,wages,and benefits,represent 90.4%of the Police Department's operating budget. According to statistics provided by the SLCPD,Salt Lake City realized a 25-year low in Part 1 Crime.Calls for service in 2010 were 223,831.This is 5,116 fewer calls for service than calendar year 2009.The SLCPD Part 1 Crime report provides details about the types of crimes committed in Salt Lake City.Part 1 crimes require FBI tracking and include the following: 1)Violent crimes-homicide/murder,forcible rape,robbery,and aggravated assaults and 2)Property crimes-burglary,larceny/theft,motor vehicle theft,and arson.Salt Lake City saw a decrease in both violent crime and property crime from calendar year 2009 to 2010.In addition to Part 1 crimes,the police department provides services related to:drugs and alcohol,internet safety,traffic enforcement,public order,and vice issues. KEY ISSUES • As indicated in the Mayor's Recommended Budget,staffing changes have occurred within the department. However,the net staffing changes resulted in a reduction of 0.5 FTEs. • The Department applied for and received a Community Oriented Policing Services(COPS)federal grant. This grant provides funding for eleven(11)officers. The COPS grant,which provides funding for ten positions over four years,will expire in FY 2013. Grant funds for one additional officer will expire in FY 2011. • The Salt Lake City Police Department has several initiatives to help prevent,detect,investigate,and resolve criminal activity. One initiative currently under development is a program called HOST (Homeless Outreach Service Team),which is working to address panhandling. The program goal is to change people's behavior by providing a more appropriate and effective way for them to help to the city's homeless population. As part of the HOST program,police officers who respond to reports of aggressive panhandlers will now contact homeless service providers for assistance,rather than just 1 taking offenders to jail or issuing them a citation. Details of other programs can be found later in this report. • The Police Department is currently involved in an effort with the Valley Police Alliance to address the need for a combined Evidence/Crime Lab facility. This facility would serve multiple police agencies in the valley to realize increased storage,technology and efficiency needs at a reduced cost to all participants. SLCPD is tasked with a needs assessment that is not currently funded. The department is seeking funding either through grants or impact fees. The needs assessment can proceed once funding is secured. The department's desire is to move into this proposed facility prior to or concurrent with the move into the new Public Safety Building. 2 Proposed Budget 2011-12-The following is a summary of the proposed budget for fiscal year • 2011-12. Salt Lake City Police Department • Proposed Budgets FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Adopted Proposed Percent Division Functions Budget Budget Difference Change Additional Information Office of the Police Chief $ 458,724 $ 460,690 $ 1,966 0.43% Osersee the Public Safety Facilities Development Building $ 291,949 $ 204,133 $ (87,816) -30.08% Public Relations,Admin Payroll position transferred to Services,General Serces, HR;fuel cost adjustment; and Emergency Management fleet maintenance reduction Administration Serdces 4,583,602 4,557,880 (25,722) -0.56%adjustment. Internal Affairs,Recruiting,and Management Services InSeruceTraining. 2,848,255 2,040,318 (807,937) -28.37% Dispatch,E-911,Technical Communication and Records SerrAces,and Records. 6,281,552 6,578,258 296,706 4.72% Narc and Vice,Homeland Security,Crime Analysis, Community Intelligence,Bikes, Park&COP,and Volunteer Fusion Coordination. 6,047,635 6,709,173 661,538 10.94% Domestic Violence,Financial Crimes,Homicide, Robbery/Assault,Sex Crimes/Special Victims,Victim Adwcates,Task Force • Participation,and School Investigations Resources. 7,147,762 7,468,871 321,109 4.49% Motors,Accident Investigation, Special Operations K-9,Gang/SWAT. 7,752,897 7,982,820 229,923 2.97% Pagers eliminated;2 captain positions eliminated(one reassigned to internal non- Liberty and Pioneer Precincts sworn position);delay hiring; have been combined into one grant funded officer mosed to citywide patrol-effective May GF;salades for retiree Citywide Patrol 1,2011. 19,756,687 20,503,519 746,832 3.78%replacements reduced. CERT funding;staff assistant funding;citywide training and exercise coordination; CERT, Citywide Training and reclass of Comm Emergency Operations Exercise Coordination - 335,525 335,525 #DIV/0! Preparedness Coordinator Total $ 55,169,063 $ 56,841,187 $ 1,672,124 3.03% 3 Proposed Staffing 2011-12 - The following is the current allocation of authorized full-time equivalent positions and the proposed allocation including the additional positions. Salt Lake City Police Department Full-Time Equivalent Positions Division Functions FY 2010-11 Adopted FY 2011-12 Proposed Sworn Civilian Sworn Civilian Office of the Police Chief 1 2 2 2 Deputy Chief and staff assigned to oversee the Public Safety Facilities Development Bureau Building 2 0 4 0 Administrative 89 118.5 103 118 Public Relations,Admin Services, General Services,and Emergency Administration Bureau Management Services 10 9.5 14 10 Internal Affairs,Recruiting,and In- Management Services Bureau Service Training. 25 2 21 2 Communication and Records Dispatch,E-911,Technical Bureau Services,and Records. 1 100 2 100 Narcotics and Vice enforcement, Homeland Security,Salt Lake Information Center(SLIC), Community Intelligence,Bikes, Park&COP,and Volunteer Fusion Bureau Coordination. 53 7 66 6 Investigative 120 33 136 36 Domestic Violence,Financial Crimes,Homicide, Robbery/Assault,Sex Crimes/Special Victims,Victim Advocates,Task Force Participation,Crime Lab, Investigations Bureau Evidence,and School Resource. 47 32 62 35 Motors,Accident Investigation,K- Special Operations Bureau 9,Gang/SWAT. 73 1 74 1 Patrol/Operations 215 5 182 2 24-hour Patrol for East Side, Property Crimes Investigative Followup. 24-hour Patrol for West Side,Downtown Bike Patrol,and Property Crimes Investigative Patrol Bureau Follow-up. 215 5 182 2 Total Police Department Staffing 427 158.5 427 158 4 BUDGET ITEMS AND POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE The following are general explanations of budget changes in fiscal year 2011-12. Some of the proposed expenditure changes,increases and decreases,to the budget are highlighted below. The'P"symbol indicates questions that Council may wish to address or request additional follow-up information. EXPENDITURES Staffing Changes Chart- The chart presented below is a summary of the staffing changes affecting the SLCPD. Additional information regarding Staffing and other Personnel Costs follows the Staffing Summary Table. Personal Services Changes FTE Amount Additional Information Base to Base Adjustments $33,498 These changes include pay increases or decreases,reclassifications,career ladder adjustments,and benefit changes that happen in the first part of the current fiscal year. Pension Changes $417,616 Currently the City is paying 36.31%of base salary for pensions of sworn police officers.The percentage is increasing to 36.71%. Note: Employees hired after July 1,2011 will participate in another benefit program. The benefit rate will be 27.37%of the base salary. The amount reflects an increase in the cost of the City's participation in the Utah State Retirement System. Insurance Rate Changes $700,880 For FY 2012,the Administration is recommending additional changes to the City's health Insurance plan. In an effort to minimize the impact of increasing health care costs,the Summit Care Plan is the only network of providers being offered to employees. (Currently,94%of the membership participates in the Summit Plan.)Additionally,the City is offering a high deductible health savings plan(HDHP/HSA)program to employees.The Administration is proposing that employees pay 20%of the premium,5%more than in FY 2011 for the traditional insurance plan. If the employee chooses to participate in the HDHP/HSA,the premium split is 95%/5%with a HSA contribution of$750 single or$1,500 for double/family coverage. The Police Department's share of the insurance increase is$700,880. Salary Adjustments $953,568 The Administration is recommending a pay Increase for all City employees. Depending on the employee pay plan,employees in the Police Department may receive either a 2.1%or 4% increase in pay.This amount reflects the increase in compensation for the department. Salary Savings—Retirements $(120,000) During the Spring of 2011,the Police Department offered retirement incentives.This amount represents the salary savings from hiring replacements at a lower salary. Adjustment to 90%-Evidence -$37,193 The Citizens Compensation Advisory Board(CCAB)identified several positions with the City Tech II and Paralegal whose salaries were markedly below market rates. They recommended that these positions be adjusted. .aclassification—Community $7,000 The Administration is proposing that the Community Preparedness Coordinator,Emergency Preparedness Coordinator—From Management Division,position be reclassified to more accurately reflect the position's duties 23 to 25 and res.•nsibilities. Transfer—Department payroll (1) ($70,224) In Budget Amendment#2,several departmental payroll positions,Including one from the Police position to Human Resources Department,were transferred to the Human Resources Department. Department Reassignment—Captain to Crime (1) ($95,570) The Administration is recommending that a captain within the Police Department be reassigned Lab Manager to manage the crime lab.This is currently a civilian position. I.The Council may wish to ask the department if they plan to make this a sworn position in the future. Reduction—Captain(Vacant) (1) ($122,070) Vacant position—eliminated by the department. According to paperwork submitted by the Administration,the elimination of this position reflects the new organizational structure. Addition—School Resource 1 $21,306 This School Resource Officer,serving Highland High School,had been funded by a FY 2008 Officer—Previously Grant Funded COPS Universal Hiring grant As a condition of the grant,the City agreed to fund a portion of the position for three years.The cost of the position Is currently shared between the Police Department at 25%and the Salt Lake City School District at 75%.This amount is the City's share of FY 2012 cost for the School Resource Officer. Addition—Emergency .50 $21,900 The Administration is recommending that a position previously funded by a grant be funded at Management—Staff Assistant— 50%with General Fund dollars. Previously Grant Funded The Council may wish to ask the department about Emergency Management grant opportunities. Addition—Emergency 1 $40,000 The Administration is proposing to hire a Citywide Training and Exercise Coordinator for the Management—Citywide Training Emergency Management Division at a salary of$80,000. The Administration proposed that and Exercise Coordinator one half of the salary be paid with General Funds and the other half be paid by Enterprise Funds. I.The Council may wish to ask the department for more detail about how Enterprise Funds would benefit from this position,and also how the salary cost would be allocated to the I Ente'rise Funds. T�n'rJ,�. _r l,.^-J_!.✓sue .�Y ZEY,E'i.: 5i t.. -A4, • - Time Savings—Delay hiring $(200,000) The Administration Is proposing that the next recruit class not be hired until the Fall of 2011 ec ruti Class 5 Staffing Related Items 1. Increase - $1,625,097 - Staffing Changes and Personal Services Costs (See above chart for detailed information.) - The Administration and Police Department have proposed changes that they feel will have minimal effect on the delivery of direct police services. The overall net increase to Personal Services is a result of the proposed changes to personal services costs, including increases in compensation, health insurance and benefits,and pension plans. Additional staffing change details and questions the Council may wish to consider are included in the above Staffing Changes Chart. 2. Staffing Levels-Although there are staffing and organizational changes as per the above charts,the budget proposed by the Administration decreases the SLCPD's FTEs by 0.5 civilian positions. The Police Department currently has 427 sworn officer positions and 158 civilian employees in their General Fund budget. In addition,there are 13 non- seasonal and 1.5 seasonal grant funded positions within the Police Department. Eleven (11)of the non-seasonal positions are funded by the COPS Universal Hiring grant-Hiring Recovery Program(10)grants and one(1)for the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Agency. 3. Staffing Changes-FTEs > Addition-2.5 FTE o School Resource Officer-1 FTE-Previously Funded by FY 2008 COPS Grant- Cost of position is shared with Salt Lake City School District. The current arrangement is for the City to pay twenty-five percent(25%)of the cost. o Staff Assistant for Emergency Management-0.5 FTE-A portion of this position was funded by a grant. o Citywide Training and Exercise Coordinator-1.0 FTE-The Administration is proposing this position be shared 50/50 with fifty percent coming from the General Fund and fifty percent coming from Enterprise Funds. > Elimination-(1.0 FTE) o Captain- 1.0 FTE-According to the Administration,the elimination of this position reflects the current organizational structure. > Reassignment-(1.0 FTE) o Captain-1.0 FTE-The Administration proposes this reassignment of a captain to manage the Crime Lab,which is currently a non-sworn position. > Transfer of Position-(1 FTE)- o The department's payroll position was transferred to Human Resources during the 2nd Budget Amendment. o Various transfers/assignments occurred within the department's various bureaus. Salary adjustments did not occur as a result of these changes. 4. Overtime Costs-According to the Police Department, overtime is not intended to meet staffing in basic patrol on a regular basis. The annual General Fund overtime budget (including Court Time)for fiscal year 2011-12 is approximately$1,502,500. This includes $400,000 in special event overtime. When overtime occurs for the department, attrition and vacancy savings fund the overtime costs. Police Department leadership continues to refine a monthly reporting and review process to proactively manage the operating budget and overtime usage. 5. Hiring and Training-During the past year,the SLCPD has had Council approval,but not funding to"over hire"ten police officers. According to the department,this has been 6 a successful approach to managing department personnel needs,which occur due to retirement and officers on military leave. However,the actual hiring of recruits is based on current or imminent vacancies. According to the Administration,retirements have slowed-there are currently 6 vacancies in the Police Department. The funding for the over hire is provided from attrition and vacancy savings within the department. The current planned hiring for the Fall of 2011 is expected to be 12 to 14 officers. The last hiring period was October of 2010. It is possible that by the time the class is trained there will be more vacancies than can be filled by the class. • The SLCPD Academy provides training for the department's recruits. The training consists of classroom work for 20 to 22 weeks and field work with a fully-trained partner for 14 weeks. Once accepted into the Academy,officers in training are issued all necessary equipment and uniform items at an estimated cost of$4,600 per recruit. Vehicles are issued at the end of the training period. According to the department,the SLCPD has been successful in retaining its officers. In the event of a separation of employment with the SLCPD,all items,except for boots,are returned to the department. Non-Staffing Related Items Revenues No changes have been proposed to Police Department revenue budgets. Expenditures 1. Increase-$25,000-CERT Funding-The Administration is proposing to increase CERT funding to replace federal funding no longer available. 2. Decrease-$9,000-Eliminate Pagers-The Administration proposes the elimination of all pagers in the Department. 3. Decrease-$330,000-Fleet Fuel and Maintenance Efficiencies-The fleet fuel budget for FY 2012 is proposed to be$1,114,774,an increase of$174,774 from FY 2011. The department also expects to save$143,747 in Fleet maintenance and repair costs. Although various fuel conservation efforts are being implemented as resources and technologies permit,according to the Administration most of the fleet fuel reduction is not a result of these conservation efforts. The following list includes,but is not limited to their joint initiatives: • Recent vehicles purchased employ Active Fuel Management technology. • The SLCPD continues to incorporate Hybrid vehicles where use and cost savings/benefits allow. • Smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles are replacing larger vehicles. • A study of issues related to fuel use and engine idling is being conducted. According to the Chief of Police,an idling policy has been implemented. • Active monitoring of fuel usage and mileage comparatives are used to formulate enhanced policies of conservation. • Off-duty use of department cars has been limited. • The SLCPD uses an Automatic Vehicle Locator system to identify and send the department car closest to the call. 7 • The SLCPD has taken a proactive role in examining fleet size in an effort to reduce the number of vehicles in the Fleet. ADDITIONAL ISSUES THE COUNCIL MAY WISH TO CONSIDER 0-The Police Department identified a need for an evidence storage facility and Liberty Precinct at the time the Public Safety Building bond initiative was initially proposed. The Public Safety Building bond initiative that passed did not include these facilities. The Police Department is currently involved in an effort with the Valley Police Alliance to address the need for a combined Evidence/Crime Lab facility. This facility would serve multiple police agencies in the valley to realize increased storage,technology and efficiency needs at a reduced cost to all participants. SLCPD is tasked with a needs assessment that is not currently funded. The department is seeking funding either through grants or impact fees. The needs assessment can proceed once funding is secured. The department's desire is to move into this proposed facility prior to or concurrent with the move into the new Public Safety Building. ►Council Staff has requested information from the Police Department regarding delaying the planned hire and training of a recruit class and technology best practices for Public Safety needs. The information can be provided to the Council as it becomes available. 8 • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The following table provides some of the SLCPD programs and community activities: Initiative Description Additional Information Social Media The SLCPD continues to expand According to information provided by the Police its use of social media,including Department,they have surpassed 100 arrests of those Twitter,MySpace,Facebook, posted as most wanted on the Department's website. and YouTube. Volunteer Programs: Programs that channel citizen •Neighborhood Watch:In 2010,200+active groups, •Neighborhood Watch volunteer efforts with the each with 5 to 40+members,or more than 2,500 citizen •Mobile Neighborhood Watch SLCPD. volunteers. •Explorers •Mobile Neighborhood Watch: In 2010,80 Mobile Neighborhood Watch members contributed 4,327 hours www.slcmobilewatch.com of service,including patrols,officer assists,DUI saturations and training;patrol checks,and the issuing of handicapped parking tickets. •Explorers:Explorers introduces youth from the ages of 14 to 20 to law enforcement It gives them hands-on experience with different aspects of a career in the profession.During their time in the program,Explorers are taught important and positive life skills like being honest,dependable,and productive members of society.Explorers meet every Tuesday.There are currently 40 active members enrolled. Utah Pharmaceutical Drug The goal of this program is to Convened in January 2009,UPDCP is a public-private Crime Project(UPDCP) reduce exploitation of multi-disciplinary partnership utilizing over 20 local, prescription drugs by: 1) state and federal experts in the fields of prevention,law reducing availability for abuse, enforcement,medical,judicial,social services, 2)increasing awareness of risk, legislation,prosecution,substance abuse treatment and including harmful effects and health. legal sanctions,and 3) UPDCP conducted 9 site-visits throughout Utah, decreasing tolerance of non- medical related use. provided 12 trainings/booths to over 1,500 attendees, and partnered with Drug Enforcement Administration to participate in the National Prescription Drug Take Back Day in 2010 8a 2011. Conducted the"Pharmaceutical Drug Crime Training for Investigators and Prosecutors'in Layton,Utah for 30 attendees. Will continue to provide training statewide. Conducted a study,"A Retrospective Study to Identify Systemic Trends in Utah Pharmaceutical Drug Crime". Assisted in passing laws and policy to decrease harm caused by the misuse and abuse of pharmaceutical drugs. Participated in the Utah Pharmaceutical Drug Crime Task Force at Drug Enforcement Administration. Crime Prevention/Detection Outreach program for police Downtown Security Directors Association—created by for Business officers to meet with business SLCPD volunteer coordinator to discuss security owners to discuss crime issues problems in Downtown SLC. The group meets monthly. as they relate to businesses. Salt Lake Valley Violent Gang Salt Lake City,along with the Participating agencies include SLCPD,FBI,ATF,DEA, Task Force FBI and 11 other local agencies, WVCPD,Midvale PD,Sandy PD,WJPD,UHP,Summit work cooperatively to enhance County SO,UDC,Draper PD,and SJPD. gang enforcement in the City and throughout the Valley. While focusing on suppression and investigations,the SLCPD is the host agency. This task force continues to participate with community program eliminates SLCPD's partners and resource providers on prevention and participation in the Metro Gang intervention. Task Force and focuses 9 RECEIVED APR 0 7 2011 DEBRA ALEXANDER ;..w,\ 1 Mie Olt MEMO SLC CO MtF FK�C DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE MAYOR �(�C SCANNED TO: VC( CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL SCANNED BY: I. DATE: q .6. ( 1 a Date Received: 0 i � I I'U I4 Day'e veritt, • 'et-of Staff Date sent to Council: 0 LI/07 h-1I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 6, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair V...),,A,c....--_- FROM: Debra Alexander, Director D I @ I D T EE Human Resource Department APR - 6 2011 SUBJECT: Health Plan Update By WaCii(if&L G . STAFF CONTACT: Debra Alexander, HR Director (801) 535-6604 IIIJodi Langford, Human Resource Program Manager (801) 535-6610 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefmg RECOMMENDATION: This presentation is for informational purposes BUDGET IMPACT: To be determined BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This briefing is intended to provide City Council members information and an update of the status of the City's medical plan. This will include medical plan history (including premiums versus claims). Historical reserve balance, premium increases, and benefit changes. We will also discuss the medical plan reserve status as of 12/31/2010. Included is a comparison of Salt Lake City's employee premiums to the average annual premium for workers of State/Local Government. PUBLIC PROCESS: Not applicable. 0 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 1 1 5, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4114-5464 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 145464, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5464 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7900 FAX: 801-535-661 4 /T Medical Plan History Salt Lake City 12 Month Rolling Experience and Revenue PMPM Based on PEHP Actuarial Data i � I LargeClaims 5300 IPRN CIE ims(Excluding Large Claims) s2so MPAdmin&Access Fees �— — -- —Premium -- — - ----- - ----- - silo — — =--- i 5100 - -------------- Sso — — -- -- — -- ---- — — — SO JuI-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-04 81l-05 Jul-06 Jul-07 Jul-08 hd-09 Jul-10 • Beginning in FY 2001,PEHP and the City adjusted benefits and increased premiums in an effort to insure premiums exceed claims and that the deficit is resolved. • Until the middle of FY 2010 a continuing dramatic increase in the number of large and catastrophic claims,have outpaced monies paid in premiums by the City. • Rising health care costs,as well as increased utilization,contributed to this trend. CO Medical Plan Reserve History and Plan Changes Contingency Financial Premium Reserve Benefit Plan Changes Statement Increases (millions) 6/30/2001 -$0.54 32% Changed pharmacy and office visit 6/30/2002 $1.95 11% No plan changes 6/30/2003 $3.12 2% Introduced new medical plan (IHC Advantage Care) & Healthy Utah (wellness) 6/30/2004 $1.79 9.3% Increased ER co-pay, new$150 inpatient Hosp. increased inpatient co-insurance Increased office visit co-pay, ER co-pay, inpatient co-insurance, 6/30/2005 $1.41 7.4% changed pharmacy co-pay from flat dollar to percentage (Pref&Adv), City paid 100%premium for employees with single coverage Implemented deductible, increased max out of pocket 6/30/2006 $1.16 3.75% City paid 100%premium for employees covered under Summit Care • Increased max out of pocket, increased co-insurance anesthesia and surgeon, 6/30/2007 $1.34 10% changed pharmacy co-pay from flat dollar to percentage (Summit)City paid 100%premium for employees covered under Summit Care Increased max out of pocket, changed out of network office visit, increase max 6/30/2008 $2.62 14% out of pocket, increased co-insurance on Pref only,changed the pharmacy minimum& maximum,City stopped mandatory medical plan enrollment with a premium split of 95/5 Increased deductible, max out of pocket and office visit co-pay,covered 6/30/2009 -$4.95 4.6% prevention benefits at 100%before deductible,changed to 3 tier office visit co-pay,City shifted premium split to 90/10 Increased max out of pocket, increased ER 6/30/2010 -$4.07 9% City shifted premium split to 85/15 Medical Plan Contingency Reserve Status The City's medical plan deficit is not a cash deficit,it is a contingency reserve deficit that includes 1. Cash in the City's account held by PEHP to pay claims 2. Administrative costs 3. An actuarial assumption based on claims history to account for claims that have been incurred but not submitted and paid As of 6/30/10 our contingency reserve deficit balance was negative 54,074,077,this included a cash balance of 5104,040 and an estimated 54,178,117 for incurred but not reported claims and administrative expenses. As of 12/31/10 our contingency reserve deficit balance was negative$2,139,199,this included a cash balance of $630,300 and an estimated$2,769,499for incurred but not reported claims and administrative expenses. There will be a three year deficit reduction plan where the City and employees will contribute additional premiums over the next three years or until the deficit reserve is in a healthy position. 0 • 0 O O n Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits 2010 Below,the Kaiser Family Foundation 2010 Health Benefits Report(Exhibit 1.4)shows the average annual premium for workers of State/Local Government with single coverage is$5,852 and$14,684;the annual premium for workers of Salt Lake City with single coverage is$4,366 and$13,097 $16,000 - - - - i $14,000 t— $12,000 $10,000 — — $8,000 Kaiser Report —Pa—Salt Lake City $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 5,2011 Ili. TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing: Salt Lake City Street Lighting Program and Funding CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, David Everitt, Gina Chamness, Frank Gray,Tim Harpst, Gordon Hoskins,Jeff Niermeyer,Jennifer Bruno,Mike Barry, Karen Halladay,Jan Aramaki,Quin Card,Cassandra Fairbourn, Lehua Weaver This memorandum pertains to two items: A proposal in Mayor Ralph Becker's recommended budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 to establish an enterprise fund by January 1, 2012,to maintain Salt Lake City's street light system and an update on the status of the street light system by the Community and Economic Development Department. The department's update contains reasons for the Administration's proposal to move toward an enterprise fund to maintain the street light system. OPTIONS This item is a briefing that requires no immediate City Council action. KEY POINTS o The recommended budget contains$1,080,904 in non-departmental expenditures for "Street Lighting Utilities."' Non-departmental expenditures are a function of the General Fund which is supported by property taxes, sales taxes, franchise taxes and other revenue sources. If the recommended budget is adopted,the allocation would be used to pay for street light replacement, repairs, and electrical power costs between July 1 and January 1, 2012. After January 1,money remaining in the allocation would be used as a loan to a new street light enterprise fund—if the enterprise fund is established and functioning by then.2 The recommended budget also contains a$50,000 one-time allocation for"outside consultants to assist the Administration in determining the best means to implement the establishment of a Street Lighting Enterprise Fund."3 o If the enterprise fund is established, a fee would be charged to residents,businesses, and a variety of other organizations and agencies that benefit from street lighting. The concept is similar to public utility fees for water and sewer. Salt Lake City's general fund would no longer support repairing or replacing street lights or paying for the electricity necessary to light them. The switch to an enterprise fund also would broaden the number of people,properties, agencies and organizations who would pay for the benefit of street lights, according to the Administration. o A 2008 study of street lighting in Salt Lake City estimated there were 17,178 street lights or decorative lights in the city.4 Of that number: 1 • • 11,741 were owned by the City(here after referred to as 100 percent City program). • 2,588 lights were paid for by property owners who wanted additional lighting or decorative lights and were willing to be assessed for 100 percent of the cost of installing lights,replacing them,and 75 percent of the operation and maintenance of the lights(hereafter referred to as the SAA program). • Another 2,849 decorative street lights were spread through 70 areas in the City under a program where property owners privately arranged to have lights installed on streets,and individuals where the lights were located agreed to pay electrical costs(hereafter referred to as private lighting).The City helped private lighting projects by providing one-time matching funds to pay obtaining and installing lights.' o Money the City allocated in the general fund paid for the 11,741 lights owned by the City (100 percent City program)and 25 percent of operating and maintenance costs of lighting in 42 assessment districts citywide under the SAA program.According to the Administration,the City's"street lighting program has not been funded for capital replacement,and the current fiscal year budget is$400,000 lower than needed to light and maintain all existing lights."6 It should be noted the quoted comment appears to be about the 100 percent City program and the City's 25 percent share of the SAA program. The recommended budget acknowledges,as an accounting responsibility,about$1.8 million in funds for street lighting districts.'(SAA program). ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION o The City Council identified addressing street lighting issues as one of its top priorities for calendar 2011.8 o Would the proposed enterprise fund further City Council objectives in addressing street lighting issues? o Would a street lighting enterprise fund address operating,maintenance and electrical power costs for lights in special assessment areas and lights installed and paid by private owners? o The Administration may,wish to clarify whether there is a capital replacement component to street lighting districts under the SAA program. o If the City not longer uses special assessment areas as a way to pay for the installation, maintenance,and repair of street lights,what happens to the areas paying a special assessment? o What happens to neighborhoods where home-owners have paid for decorative street lighting if the city adopts a plan to pay for all street lighting? o Is there any person,property owner,business,organization or agency,including state institutions, that would be exempt from paying into a street light enterprise fund? o What would happen if a street light enterprise fund is not established by January 1,2012,or in the 2011-2012 fiscal year? 2 o How does the Administration foresee the enterprise fund as accelerating its sustainability objectives? o Are there any federal grants or funds remaining from previous federal grants to augment either the general fund or a new enterprise fund for street lighting? o How does the Administration intend to provide the public with information about the proposed street light enterprise fund? o It might be noted that the BBC Research&Consulting study observed,"Another significant issue with private lighting is the inequity of lower-and middle-income neighborhoods not finding it financially feasible to take advantage of the 50 percent match the City offers."9 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In his budget message May 3,Mayor Ralph Becker described implementing the street lighting enterprise fund as one of"a handful of new,proven programs that more fairly distribute costs and lay a ... foundation"for future City finances.He described the enterprise fund as a way to accelerate sustainability goals and"allow for a speedier transition to cost-saving practices while protecting the safety of our residents and spreading the burden of payment more equally among all property owners." The Administration is seeking City Council support to create the proposed enterprise fund and a study that would be conducted after the 2011-2012 fiscal year starts July 1.The Administration would return to the City Council with more specific information after a rate study and public involvement process is completed.10 Under the proposal in the recommended budget,the$1,080,904 in non-departmental expenditures would be used to pay for the City's current street lighting program between July 1 and January 1, 2012. A third, $360,000, was projected to be available after January 1 to lend to the new enterprise fund.The other$720,602 would be used to increase street lighting maintenance service between July 1 and January 1, 2012. If the service does not accelerate as planned,there may be more money available to lend to the enterprise fund. The enterprise fund, if created, would be managed by the Public Utilities Department. It might be noted that another$124,506 is contained in the recommended budget's non-departmental category under the line item Street Lighting Fund." The money was transferred from the Community& Economic Development Department budget to the non-departmental category when the City Council adopted Budget Amendment No. 2 on November 16, 2010. The reason given for the transfer was to make it easier to track street lighting costs.12 It should be noted that the BBC Research&Consulting Study said in January 2008 that,"Annually, the General Fund expends at least$1.4 million in operations and maintenance(street light repair, fixture maintenance and power)for all of the non-SID(SAA program) street lights and the City's share of the SID(SAA program) street lights."t3 As one can see from the attached page of the recommended budget,that level of general fund allocation did not occur in the current fiscal year and is not anticipated in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.14 In its transmittal letter,the Administration noted the following points from the 2008 BBC Research and Consulting Study: • Salt Lake City's street lighting program is consistent with state and regional best practices. 3 • Residents and businesses desire increased lighting in residential areas even though current lighting levels meet industry-wide standards. • There is confusion over multiple lighting programs,particularly special assessment and private lighting options for decorative lighting. • Street lighting has inconsistent and insufficient funding. • There is no long-term plan for funding capital replacement. • There are significant disadvantages and city funding inequities with private lighting systems. • Street lighting SID's(assessment districts)are becoming cost prohibitive.15 or 'Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Mayor's Recommended Budget Book,E-60(Attached) 2 Ibid.Page B-24. 'Ibid.Page B-9. 4 Study of Street Lighting Program and Funding Options,January 14,2008,BBC Research&Consulting.Page 7. P 5 Ibid.Page 7. 6 Administration transmittal letter,March 18,2011,Page I. 7 Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Mayor's Recommended Budget Book,E-59.(Attached) 8 Street Lighting Priority:Initial Discussion,March 1,2011.(Attached) Ili 9 Study of Street Lighting Program and Funding Options,January 14,2008,BBC Research&Consulting.Page 7. 1°E-mail,Gina Chamness,May 4.2011. "Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Mayor's Recommended Budget Book,E-59.(Attached) "Budget Amendment No.2 FY 2011 Initiative No.D-4.Street Lighting Budget Consolidation. "Study of Street Lighting Program and Funding Options,January 14,2008,BBC Research&Consulting. Page 8. 14 Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Mayor's Recommended Budget Book,E-60 "Administration transmittal letter,March 18,2011,Page 2. 4 III STREET LIGHTING PRIORITY: INITIAL DISCUSSION MARCH 1,2011 At its retreat the City Council identified street lighting as one of the priorities it would address in 2011. Council staff has approached the priority as one that includes short-term and long-term issues. The items below are the first attempt to develop a way to determine how best to understand specific issues. GOALS The City Council wants to look at street lighting in a holistic way, including street lighting policy. OBJECTIVES Determine the specifics of a holistic view of street lighting. SHORT-TERM i. Should short-term funding solution to replace unrepaired lights be separated from City Council policy discussion? 1. How many street lights are either out or unrepaired? 2. What is the cost to replace them? 3. Is the cost the cost of a street light bulb plus other repairs? It should be noted that the Transportation Division has a list of about 75 unrepaired street lights that were reported by people to the division. The division estimates roughly that there may be 400 to 600 lights that need some kind of repair ranging from replacing bulbs to more costly repair such as ballasts, lenses and wiring. The division estimates that repairing 400 would cost about $50,000, and repairing 600 would cost about $75,000. The best potential source to pay for repairing street lights this fiscal year could be fund balance. For the coming fiscal year the Council could consider adding to a Capital Improvements Project allocation request, or request that the Mayor address funding repairs in his recommended budget for the next fiscal year. 1 LONG-TERM i. Revisit issues explored by the 2008 report Study of Street Lighting Program and Funding Options. 1. There is a desire for increased lighting in residential areas. 2. There is confusion over multiple lighting programs. 3. The"Continuous Lighting Program"is incomplete. 4. Street lighting has inconsistent and insufficient funding. 5. There is no long-term plan for funding capital replacement 6. There are significant disadvantages and City funding inequities with private lighting systems. 7. Street lighting special improvement districts are becoming cost prohibitive. 8. Should Salt Lake City's street lighting program remain consistent with state and regional best practices, or are there other avenues to explore? 9. Do goals for preventing crime and curbing light pollution conflict? ii. Explore other issues oak 1. How much power do street lights consume? 2. What ways can electrical power, but not lighting can be reduced? a. Has the City explored street lighting innovations? b. Should innovation be tied to any long-term capital replacement program? 3. Can it be quantified how much money can be saved by paying less for energy from upgrades or improvements to street lights? 4. What is the point where replacing street lights with energy efficient lights breaks even and then starts resulting in energy cost savings to the City? 5. Can one replace single street lights with energy efficient lights? ACTION STEPS a. Meet with Administration to determine the status of its approach to street lighting. 2 • i. What did the Administration plan to recommend as a conclusion to the 2008 street light study? ii. What maps are available to help short-term and long-term discussions? 1. All street lights 2. Street lights that need repair b. Research the following questions: i. What might be a uniform way of funding all street lights? ii. Should the City differentiate between street lights and neighborhood- amenity decorative lights? iii. What is the City's core service level? (Intersection and mid-block or more?) iv. To what degree has the City reached its core service level? v. Is all the money available in a federal energy grant spent? vi. Can the money from it or surplus from other funds be spent on street light improvements or maintenance? vii. Are any Energy Service Company(ESCO) funds awarded the City remaining? viii. How would the City develop a system where people could pay to replace unrepaired street lights? ix. If the City no longer uses special assessment areas as a way to pay for the installation,maintenance and repair of street lights, what happens to the areas paying a special assessment? x. What happens to neighborhoods where home-owners have paid for decorative street lighting if the City adopts a plan to pay for all street lighting? xi. How do decorative street lights affect perceptions of neighborhood vitality? xii. Do decorative street lights affect property values? xiii. How do street lights and decorative lights fall within the idea of"complete streets" for all modes of traffic? 3 ...-- ' SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ice, ,.' Y,. -r*s f-. . -� -rw r. FY 2011-12 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET BOOK ti . a. r,;;ir NON—DEPARTMENTAL FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2009-10 Adopted Recommended Non-Departmental Actual Budget Budget Explanation of Changes Street Liahtina Utilities 1,522,264 1,075,000 1.080,904 Annual Financial Audit 118,620 260,100 260,100 Bondina/Note/Other Expense 35.652 35,000 35.000 Interest Expense 463,126 420,000 300.000 Ground Transportation GF Expense - - 150,000 Potential Transition Contingency - - 50,000 Streetlighting Consultant - - 50,000 Sub-Total Other Gov't Transactions 2.139,662 1.790.100 1,926.004 Total Government Transactions 41,383.978 31.530,323 30.815,497 Special Revenue Fund Accounting CDBG Operatina Funds 5,080,506 4,391.247 2,731.232 Downtown SID/CBID&Other 846,696 897.386 897.386 Donation Fund 232,662 100,000 200,000 E911 Fund 2,392.489 2,379.021 2.524,801 Housina Loans and Trust 5.965,906 12,411.656 9,877.616 Miscellaneous Grants 10.951.531 6,958.931 6,700.000 Other Special Revenue 551.307 26.500 - Street Liahtina Districts 588.474 1.806,785 1,809.373 Total Special Revenue Fund Accounting 26.609.571 28,971.526 24.740,408 Debt Service Funds Debt Service Funds 20.408,688 29,135,531 28,484,685 Special Improvement Districts Funds 552,542 741,363 1.769,757 Total Debt Service Funds 20,961.230 29.876,894 30,254.442 Capital Projects Fund 69.063,550 23.301.787 19.478.022 Intermodal Hub Fund 140,490 - - Total Non-Departmental 161,006,933 116,551,299 108,130,981 FUND SOURCES General Fund 44,232.092 34.401.092 33.658.109 Curb/Gutter Special Assess Fund(SID Debt) 552,542 741,363 1,769,757 Street Liahtina Special Assessment Fund 588.474 1,806,785 1,809,373 Miscellaneous Special Service District Fund 846.696 897.386 897,386 Emeraencv 911 Dispatch Fund 2,392.489 2,379,021 2,524,801 CDBG Operatina Fund 5.080.506 4,391.247 2,731,232 Misc Grants Operatina Funds 10,951.531 6.958.931 6,700.000 Salt Lake City Donation Fund 232.662 100.000 200,000 Other Special Revenue Funds 551,307 26.500 - Housina Funds 5,965,906 12,411.656 9,877,616 Debt Service Fund 20,408.688 29,135.531 28,484,685 Intermodal Hub Fund 140,490 - - Capital Projects Fund 69.063.550 23,301.787 19.478,022 Total Non-Departmental 161,006,933 116,551,299 108,130,981 E-60 ?).. f'• SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION a*,,. ,-r% i'r_ a; a` =7-1 FY 2011-12 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET BOOK Imo::l . . i. s a t '' ".4''::,y NON-DEPARTMENTAL FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2009-10 Adopted Recommended Non-Departmental Actual Budget Budget Explanation of Changes Municipal Contribution/Civic Support Civic Opportunities Account/Eve 15.000 15,000 - Special Events Fund 60,000 150,000 150,000 Community Emergency Winter Housina 74.530 75.030 78.782 Dignitary Gifts/Receptions 18,058 15,000 15.000 Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 1,500 1,500 1,500 Legal Defenders 849,176 831,071 853,234 National League of Cities and Towns 11,535 11,535 11,535 Sales Taxes Rebate 168,133 150,000 177.000 Sister Cities 10.009 10,000 10.000 Salt Lake City Arts Council 336,000 450,000 500,000 Salt Lake Council of Governments 23.190 21,746 21,746 SL Area Chamber of Commerce 50.000 50,000 50.000 SL Valley Conference of Mayors - 225 225 Sugar House Park Authority 205.184 190.184 192,440 Tracy Aviary 450,000 425.000 400,000 Housing Authority Transitional Housing 60.129 70.000 59,000 US Conference of Mayors 12,242 12,609 12,242 Utah Economic Development Corp. 108,000 108,000 108,000 Utah League of Cities and Towns 117,869 117,869 117,908 Northwest Ouadrant Study - 82,000 - Gang Prevention 70,000 70,000 70,000 North Temple/Grand Boulevard 140,559 - - TRAX 2nd South Station 67,000 - - Jordan River Implementation - 14,000 14.000 Total Municipal Contributions and Civic 2,848,114 2,870,769 2,842,612 Support Governmental Transactions Transfers: Capital Improvements Projects Fund 23,502,749 13.341.578 13.473.847 Fleet Replacement Fund 4,370,381 4.000,000 3.200,000 IFAS Account IMS Transfer 111,756 117,221 170.505 Ins&Risk Momt Fund/Bus Pass Program 48.926 - - Street Lighting Fund 117,963 124,506 124,506 Sub-Total Transfers 28,151,775 17,583,305 16,968,858 Information Management Services Fund 5,474.148 5.370,876 5.844.511 Insurance and Risk Management Fund 2.225,186 2,246,468 2,140.561 Energy for the Future Fund 218,670 - - Sub-Total Interfund Chas 7.918.004 7.617.344 7.985,072 Other Programs: Animal Services Contract 1,229.968 1,241.836 1,226.563 No More Homeless Pets 20.000 20.000 20.000 Municipal Elections 215.355 - 310.000 Geographic Information System 31.913 30,000 35.000 Governmental Immunity Fund 900,000 900,000 900.000 Non CDBG Mailings 6,000 6,000 6.000 Payroll Automation - 15,000 - Retirement Payouts 378,222 500.000 250,000 Tuition aid program 82,311 85.000 85.000 Utah legislative/local lobby 20.000 25,000 25,000 FY 11 Pension Contribution 16,695 425,000 - SL Solutions 43,600 52,000 - Local First Utah 20.000 15.000 15.000 Neighborhood Node 75.000 - - Weiaand Homeless Shelter 80.000 60,000 60,000 Washington D. C.Consultant 55.473 60.000 65.000 Music Licensing Fees - 7,000 7,000 Sorenson Center w/County - 880,878 881,000 Legislative Support - 20,000 20,000 Demographer Contract - 30,000 30,000 Estimated Unemployment Costs - 166,860 - Sub-Total Other Proarams 3,174.537 4.539,574 3.935,563 E-59 -JP SCAN!NED t11 or I I F -'SCANNL✓ ( FRANK B. 1�_ Q� j � ,',� � ,�\p�]�I�]�j��`� DATE: �f'Z. GRAY c 1 \ ' '�t�J�� I .� , � RALPH BECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN��'`�jj''''''11MAYOR Rpp��V` OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR � � TJJ AY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFE'�il,• ..; 4.T— \i/ DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT FARRINGTON, :IR. MAR i e.;!) Mf1•R 2 1 2011 DEPUTY DIREC CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ��C COUNCIL uIFF�C� � Salt Lake City I'�,-1avo1' I Date Received: 03 f 21 I IA I David Ev 'tt, Chief of Staff /'zrnl Date Sent to City Council: 0 3/uLy TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 18, 2011 Jill Remington-Love, Chair f FROM: Frank Gray, Community&Economic Development Department D ector RE: Briefing on the status and a study of the Street Lighting Program and Funding STAFF CONTACT: Tim Harpst, Transportation Director, at 801-535-6630 or tim.harpst@slcgov.com Mike Barry, Transportation Engineer, at 801-535-7147 michael.barry@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive a briefing on the street lighting program including funding and energy efficiency issues DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing BUDGET IMPACT: The street lighting program has not been adequately funded for capital replacement and the current fiscal year O&M budget is $400,000 lower than needed to light and maintain all existing lights. Lighting replacement costs could be significant if lights are converted to energy efficient light types and/or current program subsidies are modified. Ongoing 0 &M savings resulting from conversion to energy efficient lighting would also be significant. DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The City's street lighting system is a multi-million dollar infrastructure investment that provides for traveler safety and has not had adequate maintenance and replacement funding. Salt Lake City engaged BBC Research& Consulting (BBC)to perform a study of the City's street lighting programs and to recommend a sustainable financing plan for 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4114-5466 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLC8OV.COM/CED RECYCLED PAPER existing and future capital, operation and maintenance of street lighting. Attachment A contains '"' ► BBC's Final Report. Analysis: BBC's report provided eight(8) findings: 1. Residents and businesses desire increased lighting in residential areas despite current lighting levels meeting industry-wide standards. 2. There is confusion over multiple lighting programs,particularly the Special Assessment and Private Lighting options for decorative lighting,which leads to requests by property owners for variations in the programs to suit unique situations or desires. Doing so escalates the confusion. 3. The Continuous Lighting program is currently incomplete. (Since the BBC study, City Council provided funding to complete the Continuous Lighting Program. At this time, North Temple west of 600 North is the sole remaining major street that does not have Continuous Lighting. It will receive it as part of the Airport Light Rail project.) 4. Street lighting has inconsistent and insufficient funding. Combinations of property owner funds, developer funds, City General Funds, City CIP Funds, City RDA Funds and Federal CDBG funds have been used for lighting with little consistency in the amounts from year to year and totals less than adequate to sustain the system. 5. There is no long-term plan for funding capital replacement. Even though it is identified in the 10-Year CIP, insufficient funding has been appropriated to maintain the system. 6. There are significant disadvantages and city funding inequities with private lighting systems. Although Private Lighting has been a popular program in upper-income areas of the city, very few lower and middle-income neighborhoods have opted for it, primarily 4000, due to the requirement of a 50 percent match. Another issue is the City has no control .. over maintenance of privately-owned lights. 7. Street lighting SID's are becoming cost prohibitive. The required administrative fees and bonding costs, combined with more durable and reliable equipment than those used for private lighting, results in much higher overall costs to participate in SID lighting versus private lighting. (For example, residents on four block faces of Yale Avenue wanted decorative lighting,which priced out at$200,000 if done as a special assessment area, and $80,000 if done as private lighting. The residents chose the private lighting option, resulting in a$60,000 resident contribution and a$20,000 City matching grant contribution.) 8. Salt Lake City's street lighting program is consistent with state and regional best practices and industry standards. The report recommends that Salt Lake City pursue a more streamlined street lighting strategy that: a. completes and maintains a minimum city-adopted standard lighting level b. clearly identifies both current and long-term funding sources, and c. provides a means for additional lighting above the selected standard. The report also recommends that,because there will always be a desire for above-standard lighting and there are issues with both the special assessment and private lighting programs, the best of both programs be combined into a single program that minimizes confusion. BBC o recommends that the tried and true special assessment process be continued, but the larger Street Light Program and Funding Study Briefing Page 2 of 6 subsidy provided to the private lighting program be provided to new and replacement assessment areas. BBC further recommends that the private lighting program be discontinued by allowing existing private lighting areas to continue with the City installing standard lighting at intersections in private lighting areas if the lights are not maintained, in order to provide safety lighting at intersections. The report proposes three (3) service level scenarios the City could choose from, which would seek to accomplish the goals of BBC's recommended strategy, including funding for future capital replacement: • Scenario A—Fully funded base level(industry-wide standard lighting levels). This scenario provides the currently adopted city standard base lighting level. This lighting level was achieved last year(the Airport Light Rail project will light North Temple at this level) • Scenario B —Quarter block spacing(higher than industry standard lighting levels). Would require the installation of approximately 2,500 wood poles generally located in residential areas. Lights would be spaced at approximately every 150 feet. • Scenario C—Decorative lighting(world class standard decorative lighting). The city would install decorative street lighting throughout the city. This would require approximately 9,740 new decorative street lights to be installed over a period of about 15 years Since the BBC study, the following has occurred: 1. Energy Service Company (ESCO) review of lighting The City participated in an energy audit last year with Siemens Corporation, an energy service company (ESCO). The ESCO effort identified a means of paying to replace some of the city's street lights with energy efficient lights through savings over a multi-year period if the lighting budget remained at previous years' level during the payback period. However, the savings were highly dependent on a significant reduction in maintenance costs, which was questionable (very optimistic), and the proposal would not have replaced all of the lights in the city. Some of the proposed "comparable" light replacements were not as bright or aesthetically pleasing as the current lights. A citywide scenario could not be formulated at that time for citywide comparable replacements that would meet the ESCO requirements. However, because new lighting products are being developed at a fast pace and product costs are reducing, an ESCO proposal may be possible in the future. 2. Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant(EECBG) The City recently replaced 1,370 street lights with energy efficient LED lights funded by an $850,000 Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant (EECBG). This represents about 10% of the City-owned street lights. 250 watt sodium vapor lights were replaced with LED lights of comparable light output, but using half the power and requiring little ongoing maintenance. This work was completed in January 2011. The city applied for a Rocky Mountain Power incentive (rebate) for switching to energy efficient lighting. The application was approved and the city expects to receive the incentive check for just over $71,000 within a few weeks. The incentive funds will need to be deposited back into the EECBG pool which could be used to install more LED street lights. There is also a potential to replace even more lights if other unused EECBG funds are allocated for street lighting upgrades. A meeting is scheduled to discuss the usage of the remaining EECBG funds at the end of this month. Street Light Program and Funding Study Briefing Page 3 of 6 3. Special Assessment Area (SAA) law modifications Several changes have been made to state law affecting special assessments, which appear to limit the ability to accrue replacement capital funding as part of the assessments that are billed annually to property owners for O&M. The City Attorney and City's bond counsel are reviewing these changes to determine if it is possible to accrue capital replacement funding as part of the annual assessment such that poles, lights and wiring can be replaced at the end of the useful life of the lighting system, rather than needing to create a new assessment. This could have an impact on the continuing use of SAAs for street lighting. 4. Street lighting budget reduction of$400,000 The current fiscal year street lighting budget was adopted at a level $400,000 lower than needed to fully operate the system. The reduction is being met through a combination of savings: a. reduction in maintenance of non-intersection lights b. reduction of electrical power usage by converting 1,370 lights to LED c. elimination of extraordinary street light maintenance on non-assessed midblock lights. Note: The deferment of maintenance on midblock lights will require an additional "start-up" cost to repair or replace midblock lights no longer functioning. Depending on when non-functioning midblock lights can be restored and available funding, it may make more sense to convert those lights to energy efficient types rather than repair them. Amok Program Issues and Recommendations Direction on the City's street lighting program is desired. With the many recent advancements in energy efficient and reduced maintenance lighting sources, an opportunity exists to update the City's lighting system and reduce the ongoing operation and maintenance costs. Considering the above, the following issues have been identified and recommendations offered: 1. Lighting Master Plan a. Update 2006 plan The current master plan identifies the type of lighting property owners desire and establishes the lighting levels used within the City which are based on national industry standards, the abutting land use and the type of public way being lit. Attachment B contains the 2006 lighting master plan. However, the 2006 plan needs to be updated to require the use of energy efficiency lights. It will also need to be updated to reflect any changes in the lighting program approved by City Council. This plan update should be able to be accomplished in-house once the direction for street lighting is set. b. Administrative or Council adopted plan From previous discussion with City Council, the plan is currently administrative. It is requested that City Council decide if it wishes to adopt an updated plan or leave it administrative. 2. Simplified program options The BBC study reported that the current program is confusing because there have been four "` lighting offerings and there are disparate costs between the two offerings for decorative lighting. Street Light Program and Funding Study Briefing Page 4 of 6 a. All lighting citywide now meets adopted standard After many years, the City has recently completed lighting all City streets at the standard level identified in the plan. Thus, two of the program offerings, Traffic Safety Lighting (intersection and one midblock light on local streets) and Continuous Lighting (brighter lighting on major streets) can now simply be replaced with a statement in an updated master plan that the City standard lighting is being provided citywide. This will be clarified in the master plan update. b. One or two decorative lighting options? The other two program offerings are special assessment lighting and private lighting. These are optional programs that property owners can participate in financially to have decorative poles and brighter lighting. Both have been offered for many years. BBC has recommended the two options merge into one, the special assessment, but with a 50 percent subsidy by the City as opposed to the current 25 percent. It would certainly be simpler to provide only one decorative lighting program. Although it is recognized the private lighting offering is popular because of its lower cost, only higher income neighborhoods have availed themselves of it. Another issue is that the City has no ability to maintain private lighting that is non-functioning. If the two programs are to be combined into one program that is an assessment, City Council will need to decide if the City's participation rate in assessment areas should change. Historically, the City has generally participated at 25% of the total cost because it approximates the cost of providing the city-standard lighting in non-assessed areas. 3. Conversion to energy-efficient lighting The LED lights that have been installed with a 100% federal grant are energy efficient and require less maintenance than other lights. The City received a very favorable bid for both the light fixtures and their installation. Testing of various lighting products over the past year has identified different types of LED and Induction lights that could replace the remainder of the City-owned lights while providing comparable lighting. If the City were to receive similarly favorable bids to convert the remainder of City-owned lights, the cost would be around $8 million with a payback of about 10 years in reduced maintenance and electrical power costs. 4. Ongoing O&M and Capital Replacement Funding The BBC study identified three lighting options. We recommend the equivalent of Scenario A because: a. it is the industry-standard base level of lighting b. this lighting level is now deployed, and c. this lighting level is at or higher than what many cities in the country provide. We further recommend that the remainder of city-owned lights be converted to energy efficient light types. Doing so requires a capital investment of about $8 million. Upon completion of conversions,the lighting annual budget needs reduce from: d. $1,200,000 to approximately $600,000 for electric power e. $832,000 to approximately $260,000 for maintenance f. $1,000,000 to approximately $600,000 for capital replacement The power costs reduce due to using energy efficient lights. Maintenance costs reduce by converting from a monthly fee/light contract to a per repair fee since there should be less maintenance needed on the newer lights which also have longer warranties than prior light types. Capital replacement costs should also reduce due to newer equipment being installed. Street Light Program and Funding Study Briefing Page 5 of 6 Master Plan Considerations: There is an administrative Street Lighting Master Plan and Policy. Auk* It needs to be updated to incorporate recent energy efficient lighting technologies. It would also need to be updated to incorporate any City Council approved program modifications resulting from this review. PUBLIC PROCESS: N/A RELEVANT ORDINANCES: None. Street Light Program and Funding Study Briefing Page 6 of 6 Final Report January 14,2008 Study of Street Lighting Program and Funding Options Salt Lake City Corporation, Utah Final Report January 14,2008 Study of Street Lighting Program and Funding Options Prepared for Salt Lake City Municipal Corporation 349 South 200 East,Suite 450 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Prepared by BBC Research &Consulting 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive,Suite 850 Denver,Colorado 80209-3868 303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448 www.bbcresearch.com bbc@bbcresearch.com and Galena Consulting 1214 Johnson Street Boise,Idaho 83705 208.860.0133 RESEARCH & CONSULTING TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Research Findings 1 Lighting Program Recommendations 3 SECTION I. Introduction and Current Condition S Report Overview 5 Introduction 6 Current Streetlighting Program 6 Current Streetlighting Program Funding 8 Issues Related to the Current Streetlighting Program 8 Findings of Best Practices Research from Comparable Cities 11 SECTION II. Service Level Alternatives 13 Scenario Comparisons 14 SECTION III. Financial Analysis 17 Cost Background on Streetlighting Scenarios 17 Potential Revenue Sources 18 Funds Already Dedicated To Streetlighting 19 Pro Forma Analysis of Scenarios 21 SECTION IV. Next Steps and Implementation Issues 24 Recommendations 24 APPENDIX A. Streetlighting Practices of Comparable Cities 26 APPENDIX B. Comparison of Streetlighting Service Level Scenarios 29 BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Salt Lake City Corporation (City) engaged BBC Research&Consulting(BBC) to perform a study of the City's streetlighting programs and to recommend an innovative and optimal financing structure that would be sustainable for existing and future master planned capital,operation and maintenance of streetlighting in Salt Lake City, Utah. BBC assembled a team with broad experience in program and funding analysis, transportation-related engineering and project management to conduct this study. Members of the study team included Tom Pippin, BBC Research &Consulting;Anne Wescott, Galena Consulting; Bill Knowles,W.A. Knowles Company; and Jeff Owen and Chad Walker, Envision Engineering. Research Findings Our stakeholder interviews, best practices analysis and additional research resulted in the following findings about the City's existing streetlighting program: 1.There is a desire for increased lighting in residential areas. Despite the city standard meeting industry-wide standards for minimum recommended lighting levels, a large number of neighborhood residents and businesses interviewed expressed dissatisfaction with the current illumination level of lighting in residential areas. Much of the existing streetlighting in the City is provided by streetlights on wooden poles with overhead lighting at a height of between 25 feet to 30 feet.This lighting pattern is effective for the roadway, but not always effective for pedestrians due to shading by trees and the difficulty in providing uniform lighting along sidewalks. 2.There is confusion over multiple lighting programs.The City's current lighting program consists of four separate programs: Traffic Safety Lighting, Continuous Lighting, Special Improvement District(SID) Lighting and Private Lighting.The Traffic Safety and Continuous Lighting programs represent the City-funded base lighting level provided for the protection and safety of pedestrians and automobile traffic on the street system.The Special Improvement District and Private Lighting programs represent an attempt on the part of the City to address requests for additional streetlighting service levels for neighborhoods and commercial property owners, primarily at the property owners' cost. Residents and businesses find it hard to understand the SID and Private Lighting options which lead to requests for variations in the programs to suit the unique situation and desires of the requestors,which leads to further escalating the confusion. 3.The Continuous Lighting program is currently incomplete.All of the required (intersection) lighting in the Traffic Safety Lighting program has been installed. The great majority of optional mid-block lighting(300 foot spacing) in the Traffic Safety Lighting program has been installed and there are no pending requests. Only 250 potential mid-block lighting locations do not currently have streetlights because they have not been requested by the property owners. These lights, if requested, would require one-time funding to install.Three arteries remain to be addressed in the Continuous Lighting Program—California Avenue, Redwood Road and North Temple. It is believed that North Temple will be addressed in the airport light rail project. The other two projects, consisting of BBC RESEARCH& CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 1 Amok approximately 205 lights, require Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) allocations in order to be completed. Requests for CIP funding for these projects have not been approved in recent CIP funding cycles.Thus, the current base level of lighting citywide would be provided if: ® 205 Continuous Lighting street lights were funded at a capital cost of$340,000 for California Avenue and Redwood Road; ® Continuous Lighting is included in the airport light rail project; and e a small ongoing capital fund is available to install qualifying mid-block lighting when requested. 4. Streetlighting has Inconsistent and insufficient funding.Numerous funding sources have been used for streetlighting capital,maintenance and operations.These include local property owner funds, developer funds, City General Funds, City CIP Funds, City Redevelopment Agency funds and Federal Community Development Block Grant funds. There is little consistency in the amount of these funds available or appropriated on a given year,and their total is less than adequate to maintain the City's significant lighting investment in a sustainable manner. 5.There is no long-term plan for funding capital replacement.The City has no comprehensive plan for how it will fund the long-term capital replacement of the City's existing lighting infrastructure in a manner that will protect the value of the City's past investment and current assets. Although streetlighting funding has been identified in the Ten-Year CIP,little or no funding has - been appropriated in recent years toward the capital replacement of aging streetlighting infrastructure.The inconsistent and insufficient funding is resulting in more outages and extraordinary repairs than should be expected. 6.There are significant disadvantages and city funding inequities with private lighting systems. While many property owners who have participated in private lighting areas have reported satisfaction with the program, the most significant challenge is the lack of control the City has over the long-term maintenance and operation of the lighting. Property owners are required to maintain and operate their privately-owned lights as a condition of the revocable permit they sign that allows their light to be located on the public right-of-way.Many do, but as properties change ownership and poles/wiring break, the overall commitment to maintain these lights decreases. Some property owners either do not repair the lights or purposely turn them off. Often new residents are not even aware that the light is their responsibility and contact the City to request maintenance or repair services. Likewise, residents near these lights contact the City requesting or demanding the City repairs them. The revocable permits are somewhat"hollow"in that there is no mechanism to enforce the repair work, only to remove the poles,which is counter to the purpose of having the lights.Another significant issue with private lighting is the inequity of lower-and middle-income neighborhoods not finding it financially feasible to take advantage of the 50 percent match the City offers.Thus, private lighting has occurred almost exclusively in the more affluent neighborhoods of the city. BBC RESEARCH Si CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 2 7. Street lighting SIDs are becoming cost prohibitive.Special Improvement Districts (SIDs) are too costly for many residential neighborhoods compared to the Private Lighting program. SIDs are more costly because of the administrative fees, bonding costs, use of better quality poles, lights and wiring as well as lack of City subsidy that private lighting enjoys.At the same time, private lights are less durable and reliable.Although the SID process has worked well to provide and maintain above- standard lighting for decades, it has the drawback of being costly for some lower and moderate income areas. Although the Private Lighting program has worked well in areas that have the ability to maintain the systems, it is resulting in lower than city-minimum lighting levels when neighborhoods are not maintaining them. 8. Salt Lake City's streetlighting program is consistent with state and regional best practices. Our research informed the study team that there is no single"best practice" for providing municipal streetlighting services.Some cities can utilize their power utilities to recover the costs of a streetlighting program, but this option is not available to Salt Lake City. Some Utah cities have utilized streetlighting utility programs to install decorative citywide lighting systems. Salt Lake City is more progressive than many larger cities in its provision of streetlighting levels and in its willingness to facilitate options for property owners requesting additional lighting. Salt Lake City base lighting, if completed, is comparable to industry standard/best practice for adequacy of light provided and offers an opportunity for residents to buy into more and/or decorative lighting. Lighting Program Recommendations In summary, we believe that Salt Lake City should pursue a more streamlined streetlighting strategy that: ® completes and maintains a minimum city-adopted standard lighting level; 13 clearly identifies both current and long-term funding sources; and c provides a means for additional lighting above the selected standard level. Because there will always be a desire for above-standard lighting and there are issues with both the SID and Private Lighting programs, it is recommended that the best of both be combined into a single program which also has the benefit of minimizing confusion. It is recommended that the tried and true SID process be used,but the subsidy currently provided to the Private Lighting program be provided to new and replacement SID areas.The Private Lighting program should be discontinued for new areas, but existing areas that are being maintained should be allowed to continue. Non- maintained Private Lighting program areas should be reminded annually of their operation and maintenance responsibilities and offered the option to enter into an SID.Adopted city standard lights should be installed at intersections with non-operating private lights in order to provide the minimum level of safety lighting. Based on our research findings above, the study team developed three lighting program scenarios that could address these issues. Requests for lighting above the levels described can be accommodated in any of the three scenarios via the modified SID process described above. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 3 Scenario A—Fully funded base level. If City Council wishes to provide industry-wide standard lighting levels, it could choose to pursue Scenario A which completes the currently adopted city standard base lighting level.The base service level would address the ongoing repair, maintenance and capital replacement of the City's existing streetlighting infrastructure and would complete the City's traffic safety obligations with the installation of the remaining 205 lights in the Continuous Lighting program.This scenario would include a small ongoing budget for installation of qualified property owner requests for mid-block lighting.Additional lighting above this standard can be provided using the modified SID process. Scenario B—Quarter-block spacing. If Council wishes to provide higher than industry-wide standard lighting levels on non-arterial streets, but not at the high cost of decorative lighting with underground wiring,it could pursue Scenario B. Salt Lake City residents continue to express a desire for streetlighting throughout their neighborhoods at a higher frequency than the current service level. Increasing the current streetlighting service level to intersection and quarter-block instead of intersection and mid-block would provide this increased level of lighting.This option would require the installation of approximately 2,500 additional lights matching the existing lights in the neighborhood. as for the implementation process,reversing the existing 150-foot proximity petition process currently used for mid-block lighting requests would allow neighborhoods to "opt out"of the quarter-block lighting if desired,this would require a systematic notification program, but,would preclude adding lights in areas where property owners do not wish them. In addition to this increase in residential lighting level of service, Scenario B includes the completion of the Continuous Lighting program and a long-term plan for the capital replacement of existing and future streetlighting Amoik infrastructure.As in Scenario A, additional lighting above this standard can be provided using the modified SID process. Scenario C—Decorative lighting. If Council wishes to provide higher than industry-wide standard level lighting using world-class decorative lighting with underground wiring, it could pursue Scenario C. This scenario would provide"Rose Park"-standard decorative lighting throughout the City, combined with the completion of the Continuous Lighting program and a long-term plan for the capital replacement of this highest level of streetlighting infrastructure. This service level standard would represent the "model standard," contributing strongly to a holistic and aesthetic environment for pedestrians and to traffic safety and crime prevention, and integrating with other urban design elements.The daytime appearance of the light poles and fixtures and the nighttime appearance of the illumination would reflect the desires and characteristics of each neighborhood and its master plan, as each neighborhood could choose a decorative standard from a family of comparable fixtures that would represent its own unique identity.Additional lighting above this standard can be provided using the modified SID process,although the City should consider not subsidizing it beyond what level Scenario C would provide because it would already be"world class"lighting. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 4 ,mow► SECTION I. Introduction and Current Condition Salt Lake City Corporation (City) engaged BBC Research&Consulting(BBC) to perform a study of the City's streetlighting programs and to recommend an innovative and optimal financing structure that would be sustainable for existing and future master planned capital, operation and maintenance of streetlighting. BBC assembled a team with broad experience in program and funding analysis, transportation-related engineering and project management in Salt Lake City to conduct this study. Members of the study team included Tom Pippin, BBC Research & Consulting;Anne Wescott, Galena Consulting;Bill Knowles,W.A. Knowles Company;and Jeff Owen and Chad Walker, Envision Engineering. The study team was assisted in their research by City staff including Michael Barry, Salt Lake City Transportation Division Streetlighting Coordinator; Kevin Bell, GIS Technician; Garth Limburg, Special Assessment Coordinator; Kurt Larson,Transportation Planning Engineer; and Tim Harpst, Salt Lake City Transportation Division Director.The study team met several times with members of the City's Steering Committee for this study.This committee was represented by individuals from the City Council Office,Mayor's Office, Redevelopment Agency, City Attorney's Office,Treasurer's Office, Community Development Department, Housing and Neighborhood Development Division and Transportation Division. Report Overview The report summarizes the findings and recommendations resulting from this study. It has been divided into the following sections: o Section I. Introduction and Current Condition; e Section II. Service Level Alternatives; 12 Section III, Financing Options;and ® Section IV. Next Steps and Implementation Issues. In addition to these sections, this report has two appendices:Appendix A. Streetlighting Practices of Comparable Cities; and Appendix B. Comparison of Streetlighting Service Level Scenarios. Together, these sections and appendices summarize the assumptions and analysis that were necessary to develop the model and its primary conclusions. BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 5 Introduction Streetlighting serves many purposes.Effective streetlighting illuminates the street and sidewalk to offer visibility by and of the users of the public right-of-way for the safe and comfortable interaction of drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians. While streetlighting systems were originally designed to address traffic safety, the environmental issues of lighting design are recognized as critically important to maintaining quality of life in neighborhoods.These issues go beyond the amount of light produced and include minimizing light pollution, enhancing the urban environment during the day by use of decorative poles and fixtures with underground wiring and at night by the provision of pedestrian-level light, deterring undesirable or illegal activities, increasing safety,restricting unwanted truant light onto private property and minimizing glare,power consumption, cost and visual impacts (day and night). Salt Lake City's history illustrates a long-standing concern for the quality and safety of the urban environment influenced by streetlighting. Salt Lake City was the fifth city in the United States to have electric streetlights. By 1887, streetlights were operating on Main Street and along First South and Second South Streets. In 1908 Salt Lake City adopted a systematic plan for locating streetlights at each intersection on long blocks and an additional light mid-block,when requested. Historically, the lighting levels for streetlighting, although modified and expanded over the years, were generally based on the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) recommendations.These are widely considered as generally accepted guidelines. Salt Lake City's lighting standards also take into account factors such as traffic volume, accident rates, nighttime pedestrian activity, crime prevention and neighborhood preferences.' Current Streetlighting Program Salt Lake City currently provides streetlighting through four programs: Traffic Safety Lighting(base level street lighting provided by the City on local streets); o Continuous Lighting(base level street lighting provided by the City on major streets); n Streetlighting Special Improvement Districts (optional programs for increased or decorative lighting paid for by property owners); and a Private Streetlighting(optional programs for increased or decorative lighting paid for by property owners). Source:Salt Lake City Streetlighting Master Plan,2006 BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 6 The Traffic Safety program provides wood pole/cobra head fixture lighting for pedestrian and traffic safety on local streets. Lights are located at each intersection and, if requested by the majority of property owners within 150 feet,at the mid-block on a 300-foot spacing.There are currently approximately 5,106 City-owned lights within this program, including park lights.The installation, repair, replacement, maintenance and operations of these lights are funded entirely by the City's General Fund. The intersection lighting system is complete throughout the City. Lights have not been requested by property owners and therefore are not located in approximately 250 mid-block locations throughout the city. The Continuous Lighting program provides a brighter level and more uniform dispersion of lighting along major arterials for traveler safety.Wood pole/cobra head fixture lighting is located along streets with high traffic volumes and high speed limits,as well as higher pedestrian traffic.There are typically six to eight lights per block face.There are currently approximately 6,635 City-owned lights within this program.The installation, repair, replacement,maintenance and operations of these lights are funded entirely by the City's General Fund. This system is complete to existing standards throughout the City with the exception of lighting on portions of California Avenue, Redwood Road and North Temple,where 205 additional lights are needed. Streetlighting Special Improvement Districts(SIDs),are offered by the City to property owners who want additional and/or decorative lighting and are willing to pay 100 percent of the capital cost for new or replacement light installation and 75 percent of the operating and maintenance (O&M) cost.The City pays 25 percent of the O&M cost of SID lighting systems which has been previouslyoak calculated to approximate the cost the City would incur if the streets were lit under one of the above lighting programs.The City owns and manages the SID lighting systems and bills the property owners to recover the cost.There are 2,588 lights in 42 streetlighting special improvement districts located throughout the City in both commercial and residential areas.The SID option of providing additional lighting has been used primarily(though not exclusively) in the east and central areas of the city, both in residential and commercial applications. The fourth program is Private Streetlighting, in which property owners on local residential streets purchase and install lights that are connected to individual homes and agree to operate and maintain them at no cost to the City. Each streetlight has underground wiring connected to the electrical service in the home of the owner of the streetlight. Each light owner signs a revocable permit issued by the City that is recorded with the property.The permit allows the light to be placed on public property and stipulates that the homeowner is responsible for operating and maintaining the light at the property owner's expense. Each neighborhood designs its own lighting system,which the City's Transportation Division then reviews and approves to ensure adequate lighting. Design features include the type of pole, fixture,size and type of light, and the spacing and location of poles. Once a plan is approved, the neighborhood arranges privately for the installation of the lights.The City offers one-time financial assistance via the Neighborhood Matching Grant Program to pay up to 50 percent of the capital cost incurred by the property owner in purchasing and installing the street lights, up to $5,000 per block face.There are over 70 private lighting systems in Salt Lake City neighborhoods,consisting of 2,849 privately-owned street lights.Another 10 to 12 private lighting systems are currently in various stages of development.A large majority of these projects are situated ,, , east of 700 East between 800 and 2700 South. Only two streets west of State Street, for a total of six BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 7 blocks, have private lighting. There has been increasing development of private lighting projects recently in the Avenues area. The majority of the existing neighborhood lighting coordinators cited crime prevention/safety as the prime issue driving their decision for additional lighting.Aesthetics were considered as a secondary but important consideration. Current Streetlighting Program Funding Salt Lake City funds its existing level of streetlighting from various funding sources.Annually, the General Fund expends at least$1.4 million in operations and maintenance(streetlight repair, fixture maintenance and power)for all of the non-SID streetlights and the City's share of the SID streetlights. Participants in Special Improvement Districts currently contribute approximately $385,000 annually to support their portion of the operations and maintenance of streetlighting in SID areas. In addition to this amount, CIP appropriations have been made in the past to fund new streetlight installation and/or capital replacement.These CIP appropriations have fluctuated in recent years between $50,000 and$250,000. No appropriation was made from the CIP Fund for streetlighting in Fiscal Year 2007,perhaps due to a commitment on the City's part to develop a long-term capital installation and replacement plan prior to further appropriations. However,when the City developed its ten-year fiscally constrained Capital Improvement Plan (FY07—FY16), $1,000,000 was included per year for streetlighting installation and capital replacement.While these funds were not appropriated in FY07, their inclusion in the Ten-Year Capital Improvement Program indicates a commitment on the part of the City to address the future capital needs of the City's streetlighting system. In past years, the City has also allocated a portion of its Neighborhood Matching Grant Program to assist neighborhoods in installing private lighting systems. The current balance in that grant fund is approximately$260,000.This remains a potential funding source for current and future streetlighting programs.When streetlighting has been installed or replaced in a redevelopment area, RDA funds have been appropriated to contribute to this cost.While Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) funding is eligible for expenditure on streetlighting, it is current Council policy not to expend CDBG funds on streetlighting. Issues Related to the Current Streetlighting Program As part of its analysis, the study team conducted numerous interviews with stakeholders to identify the issues related to the City's current streetlighting program.The team conducted interviews with and sought input from the following stakeholders: e City Council members and Council staff; ® City Transportation Division staff members; O Former Salt Lake City Streetlighting Master Plan Advisory Committee members; n Redevelopment Advisory Committee; ® Rocky Fluhart, Former Salt Lake City Chief Administrative Officer; BBC RESEARCH& CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 8 iamb o Louis Zunguze,Salt Lake City Community Development Department Director; u Community Council chairs (met with numerous chairs as part of Mayor's monthly meeting and held specific interviews with council chairs Jim Fisher, Ken Neal and Jay Ingleby); s Representatives from Police Department's Crime Prevention program; ® Barry Esham,Mayor's Office; o Neighborhood Special Improvement District representatives; e Private lighting area coordinators and other private lighting stakeholders; ▪ Bob Farrington, Downtown Business Alliance; c Vasilious Priskos,Internet Properties; © Helen Reddick,Vest Pocket Coalition; ® Jake Boyer, Boyer Development; e Steve Rosenberg, Liberty Fresh Market;and oak e Representatives from Rocky Mountain Power. These interviews and additional study team research resulted in the following findings about the City's existing streetlighting program: 1.There is a desire for increased lighting in residential areas. Despite the city standard meeting industry-wide standards for minimum recommended lighting levels, a large number of neighborhood residents and businesses interviewed expressed dissatisfaction with the current illumination level of lighting in residential areas.Much of the existing streetlighting in the City is provided by streetlights on wooden poles with overhead lighting at a height of between 25 feet to 30 feet.This lighting pattern is effective for the roadway, but not always effective for pedestrians due to shading by trees and the difficulty in providing uniform lighting along sidewalks. 2.There is confusion over multiple lighting programs.The City's current lighting program consists of four separate programs:Traffic Safety Lighting, Continuous Lighting, Special Improvement District (SID) Lighting and Private Lighting.The Traffic Safety and Continuous Lighting programs represent the City-funded base lighting level provided for the protection and safety of pedestrians and automobile traffic on the street system.The Special Improvement District and Private Lighting programs represent an attempt on the part of the City to address requests for additional streetlighting service levels for neighborhoods and commercial property owners, primarily at the property owners' cost. Residents and businesses find it hard to understand the SID and Private Lighting options which lead to requests for variations in the programs to suit the unique situation and desires of the requestors,which leads to further escalating the confusion. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 9 3.The Continuous Lighting program is currently incomplete.All of the required (intersection) lighting in the Traffic Safety Lighting program has been installed.The great majority of optional mid-block lighting(300 foot spacing) in the Traffic Safety Lighting program has been installed and there are no pending requests. Only 250 potential mid-block lighting locations do not currently have streetlights because they have not been requested by the property owners. These lights, if requested, would require one-time funding to install.Three arteries remain to be addressed in the Continuous Lighting Program—California Avenue, Redwood Road and North Temple.It is believed that North Temple will be addressed in the airport light rail project. The other two projects, consisting of approximately 205 lights, require Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) allocations in order to be completed. Requests for CIP funding for these projects have not been approved in recent CIP funding cycles.Thus, the current base level of lighting citywide would be provided if: e 205 continuous lighting street lights were funded at a capital cost of$340,000 for California Avenue and Redwood Road; e continuous lighting is included in the airport light rail project; and © a small ongoing capital fund is available to install qualifying mid-block lighting when requested. 4. Streetlighting has Inconsistent and insufficient funding.Numerous funding sources have been used for streetlighting capital, maintenance and operations.These include local property owner funds, developer funds, City General Funds, City CIP Funds, City Redevelopment Agency funds and Federal Community Development Block Grant funds. There is little consistency in the amount of these funds available or appropriated on a given year, and their total is less than adequate to maintain the City's significant lighting investment in a sustainable manner. 5.There is no long-term plan for funding capital replacement.The City has no comprehensive plan for how it will fund the long-term capital replacement of the City's existing lighting infrastructure in a manner that will protect the value of the City's past investment and current assets. Although streetlighting funding has been identified in the Ten-Year CIP, little or no funding has been appropriated in recent years toward the capital replacement of aging streetlighting infrastructure. The inconsistent and insufficient funding is resulting in more outages and extraordinary repairs than should be expected. 6.There are significant disadvantages and city funding inequities with private lighting systems. While many property owners who have participated in private lighting areas have reported satisfaction with the program, the most significant challenge is the lack of control the City has over the long-term maintenance and operation of the lighting. Property owners are required to maintain and operate their privately-owned lights as a condition of the revocable permit they sign that allows their light to be located on the public right-of-way. Many do, but as properties change ownership and poles/wiring break, the overall commitment to maintain these lights decreases. Some property owners either do not repair the lights or purposely turn them off. Often new residents are not even aware that the light is their responsibility and contact the City to request maintenance or repair services. Likewise, residents near these lights contact the City requesting or demanding the City repairs them. The revocable permits are somewhat"hollow" in that there is no mechanism to enforce the repair work, only to remove the poles,which is counter to the purpose of having the lights.Another BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 10 Ask significant issue with private lighting is the inequity of lower-and middle-income neighborhoods not finding it financially feasible to take advantage of the 50 percent match the City offers.Thus, private lighting has occurred almost exclusively in the more affluent neighborhoods of the city. 7. Street lighting SIDs are becoming cost prohibitive. Special Improvement Districts(SIDs) are too costly for many residential neighborhoods compared to the Private Lighting program. SIDs are more costly because of the administrative fees, bonding costs, use of better quality poles, lights and wiring as well as lack of City subsidy that private lighting enjoys.At the same time, private lights are less durable and reliable.Although the SID process has worked well to provide and maintain above- standard lighting for decades, it has the drawback of being costly for some lower and moderate income areas.Although the Private Lighting program has worked well in areas that have the ability to maintain the systems, it is resulting in lower than city-minimum lighting levels when neighborhoods are not maintaining them. 8. Salt Lake City's streetlighting program is consistent with state and regional best practices.As described below,our research informed the study team that there is no single"best practice" for providing municipal streetlighting services. Some cities can utilize their power utilities to recover the costs of a streetlighting program,but this option is not available to Salt Lake City. Some Utah cities have utilized streetlighting utility programs to install decorative citywide lighting systems. Salt Lake City is more progressive than many larger cities in its provision of streetlighting levels and in its willingness to facilitate options for property owners requesting additional lighting. Salt Lake City base lighting,if completed, is comparable to industry standard/best practice for adequacy of light provided and offers an opportunity for residents to buy into more and/or decorative lighting. Findings of Best Practices Research from Comparable Cities In order to determine whether other cities experience the same challenges faced by Salt Lake City regarding streetlighting and to determine if there were best practices for streetlighting provision and funding yet unidentified by Salt Lake City, the study team conducted a best practices survey. The best practices survey provided the following guidance to the survey team (see Appendix A for full survey): e Among the Wasatch Front, Bountiful, Orem and Sandy provide streetlighting at a higher frequency in the residential areas and with decorative fixtures. Each of these cities does so within a streetlight utility fund and assesses the cost of installing this infrastructure to the property owners via utility fees. Operations and maintenance of the lighting are paid for by the General Fund in Orem and Sandy; in Orem's case due to an increase in the franchise tax. n In Bountiful, Provo and Seattle, streetlighting is funded by customers of the municipal power utility. e In Phoenix and Tempe, streetlighting is non-decorative. The purpose is traffic safety, not crime prevention or aesthetics.The Arizona Highway Users Revenue Fund (state gas tax) finances installation, electricity and maintenance.Additionally, there is some private lighting. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 11 ® In Las Vegas and Los Angeles,additional lighting(frequency,alley, or decorative) is paid for by property owners through SIDs. Los Angeles will install an additional light on an existing wood pole for no charge. u In Boise, residents of historic/economic districts may petition for decorative lights. Most traffic safety lighting installation is funded by the highway district as a part of roadway projects; the City pays operations and maintenance from the General Fund. The City appropriates$20,000 per year for additional lighting requests on a first-come, first-served basis. The City does not have statutory authority to establish a streetlighting utility district. Most cities reported that a policy decision was made about the level of street lighting the city wanted to provide and that they fund their program according to that policy decision. Essentially, Salt Lake City needs to determine its own policy objectives for streetlighting and to align its programs and funding sources with those objectives. Sections II and III of this report outline potential options for consideration. BBC RESEARCH bi CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 12 SECTION II. Service Level Alternatives The study team reflected on the eight findings of its interviews and other research: ® A desire for increased lighting in residential areas; e Confusion over multiple streetlighting programs; m Inconsistent funding; © The advantages and challenges of Special Improvement Districts; 0 The advantages and challenges of private lighting areas; ra Incomplete Traffic Safety Lighting and Continuous Lighting Programs; m Lack of a long-term plan for funding; and © Lack of a clear streetlighting strategy. In considering an optimal streetlighting program structure, the team focused on options that would address the majority of these issues in an integrated and comprehensive manner. The most optimal structure would be a long-term streetlighting strategy and funding plan that addressed the City's external streetlighting needs (addressing continued requests from residents for additional lighting) and the City's internal streetlighting needs (completing the City's current streetlighting program and addressing long-term maintenance and replacement needs). Before asking"Who should pay for streetlighting?"or"How should they pay?",the question to be addressed is"What streetlighting service level does Salt Lake City want to obtain?" To facilitate this discussion, the consulting team has developed three service level scenarios, in addition to status quo, for consideration: Status Quo would be a continuation of existing service levels.The existing service level is inadequate-205 lights in the Continuous Lighting program have yet to be installed along portions of California Avenue and Redwood Road due to lack of funding, and the current program does not fund the long-term replacement of existing streetlighting infrastructure. In addition, the current service level does not provide the level of frequency and aesthetic quality that many residents desire in their neighborhoods. BBC RESEARCH Sr CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 13 Scenario A—Fully funded base level. If City Council wishes to provide industry-wide standard lighting levels, it could choose to pursue Scenario A which completes the currently adopted city standard base lighting level.The base service level would address the ongoing repair, maintenance and capital replacement of the City's existing streetlighting infrastructure and would complete the Ciry's traffic safety obligations with the installation of the remaining 205 lights in the Continuous Lighting program.This scenario would include a small ongoing budget for installation of qualified property owner requests for mid-block lighting.Additional lighting above this standard can be provided using the modified SID process. Scenario B—Quarter-block spacing. If Council wishes to provide higher than industry-wide standard lighting levels on non-arterial streets, but not at the high cost of decorative lighting with underground wiring,it could pursue Scenario B. Salt Lake City residents continue to express a desire for streetlighting throughout their neighborhoods at a higher frequency than the current service level. Increasing the current streetlighting service level to intersection and quarter-block instead of intersection and mid-block would provide this increased level of lighting.This option would require the installation of approximately 2,500 additional lights matching the existing lights in the neighborhood. as for the implementation process, reversing the existing 150-foot proximity petition process currently used for mid-block lighting requests would allow neighborhoods to "opt out"of the quarter-block lighting if desired, this would require a systematic notification program,but,would preclude adding lights in areas where property owners do not wish them. In addition to this increase in residential lighting level of service,Scenario B includes the completion of the Continuous Lighting program and a long-term plan for the capital replacement of existing and future streetlighting ink infrastructure.As in Scenario A, additional lighting above this standard can be provided using the modified SID process. Scenario C—Decorative lighting. If Council wishes to provide higher than industry-wide standard level lighting using world-class decorative lighting with underground wiring, it could pursue Scenario C. This scenario would provide"Rose Park"-standard decorative lighting throughout the City, combined with the completion of the Continuous Lighting program and a long-term plan for the capital replacement of this highest level of streetlighting infrastructure. This service level standard would represent the"model standard," contributing strongly to a holistic and aesthetic environment for pedestrians and to traffic safety and crime prevention, and integrating with other urban design elements.The daytime appearance of the light poles and fixtures and the nighttime appearance of the illumination would reflect the desires and characteristics of each neighborhood and its master plan, as each neighborhood could choose a decorative standard from a family of comparable fixtures that would represent its own unique identity.Additional lighting above this standard can be provided using the modified SID process, although the City should consider not subsidizing it beyond what level Scenario C would provide because it would already be"world class"lighting. Scenario Comparisons Exhibit II-1 is a matrix comparing and contrasting these three service level scenarios. In order to assist policy makers in determining the desired streetlighting service level for Salt Lake City, the study team developed cost estimates for each of the scenarios.The analysis of these costs and potential funding sources are outlined in Section III. BBC RESEARCH& CONSULTING SECTION II,PAGE 14 Exhibit 11-1. Service Level Scenario Comparisons �,y,.�eli ,(.",`, tb�'. ;.+'., •;+1.vNj" ,"IICu (1''4,,,�i.�..,� I. '4. �k,,. b!A l' M 2 Iw'w. ..,v+�m tii d.. % .t w�'.ii'• „h.Olt',O."', +�ie:'� ,,;0W, '1 ,t a ,. oo-r w''tr 1 ' ,,,Yrv^xQs w,�'ri:, -�4b e 'AM,�a+ s ,e u..,� 4a ' >!"''", sc. "bld„ei�',:..r „' ,w,,.. , ,1 "A i'vk �%1i.'i pPY,w6t , i tafi{n'l'1„•O ,i'k r.,ii•Li, ,r'.ul f'171/d- a5ei le . �-0s'. yYt• I_ l`r `bcl '<:. 1:� .�" � �,.rfi�r.,.,t!#,,d,k�r•��:�+. n;•,.",i .:Y"c.., 4 .�.e�''+:1,'S":J�f �' .0 W,k�, „4� Y•.�� '37r.�i t ,sl�Lv�.3' �'2, rt =bloc „�, ,eo,I�J{ h71�g"" � @ ��s, { .Y,a� 'NV F .E y�T' ,.a,r,.,tom, f., ii GA' ,-E �vi ti ,.F. N;.i' ,2 '� rv+'rvt.{�4"y�f", ,� �.�.. .,a:. �,n i �r'i� ,,k ,.,tb. Ir �,,,,,,�';�;' ,�A ,�„ 6.�:e vp •v� .ef."..tir,.�«, �,n,., �.,�.IP�AJ�&r,'�iw."h+r,��,. ,L'�i+hu,.,�.. �"'4," ,ow:Aa"hz:.i_kac.a"r6. �.�h:c,''�n�. �4v�viFa:a,/.+..fi:�+u�a+..��l:d�u�.,,.15�'Ww.�x�tfiit�•"nn^si�.,.tv`u."miat.»».k'.�u.sfii��7'�.rr,,..al'aim.ud�'..............t.i'W?�. "� ,.d�.'w�.��Y3t�n'4,��' `� .�a 1��":sF7�..+�u,,,.,��w�av, .i,l ;,Seervice�'L'evel+�»''ti%, City provides wood pole lighting City'completes Continuous City installs wood pole lights every City provides"Rose Park" il'i' ,%..-:K ^.''''.,1, -.'''''"'' on residential streets at every Lighting(205 lights)on California residential intersection and decorative standard lighting w ".,',;. zC'�>>-'.<,�•."' - �; ';;;'•: intersection and mid-blocks as Avenue and Redwood Road and quarter-block(2,500 new lights) throughout the non-industrial `•y' dry': `""I?k;i1`''M"yiM;% ' requested.Total 14,329 lights; funds annual"infill lighting"in over 10 years.Neighborhoods can areas of the City(9,740 new ,?'',rr..''s"a " ``I'. ? " 2,588 SID lights and 11,741 non- non-residential infill areas by opt out(versus opting in as lights)over 15+years. '-'4'.,?4g.','iy{`' ,,,,'k; SID lights, g request. current).Funds"infill lighting"in ' , i s private lighting areas where City completes Continuous r°" "'a'° +' ' '` intersection lights are not being t'?;3 „,',,74:t1gY t;, <,1,,,7;I; 205 Continuous Lighting lights on 40-year capital replacement maintained. g Lighting(205 lights)on California t(.,d F4 m, a ,S$' portions of California Avenue and schedule is funded. Avenue and Redwood,Road and f' I, ' Redwood Road are not yet funds"infill.li htin In non- ', fit a0s u s com leted. Citycompletes Continuous residential areas by request, ��<�v �,�s1�� y P Power and maintenance(City pays P s 1, , itow '�. 100%for non-SID areas,25%for Lighting(205 lights)on California ;4 r"41''sW 4 , Insufficient capital replacement. SID 'areas)" Avenue and Redwood Road and 40 ear capital replacement ,'" 4i y funds"infill lighting"in non- schedule is funded: d fi� residential infill areas byrequest a Power and maintenance(City pays q $..'� � , 100% 25% 40 year capital replacement 'emu for non-SID areas, for Power and maintenance(City pays r'orik• ,.>') d schedule is funded. ,, s„A tl SID areas). 100%for non SID areas;prorated tti "' wa#� ‘ share for SID areas—computed ,urft rr ''''/00 ,; Power and maintenance(City pays based on increased level of service .,,IA;t>'4 .1.; 100%for non-SID areas,prorated citywide):Cityymay adjust portion' {L`Y+ 'Y 'F t�).: share for SID areas—computed of contribution to SIDs based on -1k in ,� f; based on increased level of service �, ��"' ,- ,fir,�, increased service level. , rhv�;. •- "i',E; citywide).Citymayadjust portion >< 4,'1, 't. ';, rFr of contribution to SIDs based on '11P:•„u:ik•n'.'110 1U4'.:' increased service level. ".. aG'e.r.. BBC RESEARCH ET CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 15 Exhibit 1l-1. (continued) Service Level Scenario Comparisons t, { 1 ,',FY.� ,`f .'yip �\"• "fir+'r,! �''wy"- 1 '41�r', n'��',`. •'�'' f1 1i. '1.,�, ,¢ 1 e��.'�a ++r'i #", �" 'i"r ''Gfi ,:,, !'r� "t A" �r.„%Pt" i '<a i `�'^' ,✓.r ,.,• �. il.a•r:'�4•AS� 7•; ,,� .d'W" •e.�r,. �^''c•. rya", r'(� ,.h q;d ?'�'�a •� 5 a ni n ,., h". .'."r'� uumm'' w� 4.: d5 '2 4,: c, >".� ,��,•.`,d ,.v� ,6;Y�.y«:« ,'N' .��t'�e'`° a..a,�•.'a�' �! �;1`' 'smli� ref„ ,i,mrva, ��mm s, a''; ;,i`a,r,:nL.�t."�" >,f:` -';y,' °+L"' ':�,.("•, ";i'• ;.1` a �; ,�,�.. ,w�, '`:ry`� w:x.:..��++:�'o;"$C �,Ys: s'�„ "��r-' � {.;,im lr ,r r. ,nw^t„.: , , ,, O . ��'m,,. ea"ri, ' ".�- ,x:. „,,,�.,�i.„w a,s teI'V o; rar.C� ,r �.., nq.yr".„,'�'"..•k+¢•Cm,�?, ,s m•, "H�?�riYPli.,,,'�„•,,,• .' .n .,!. ,t, ';;1;;yk�J.�+"J•r:`�r,`a.F.t. •, .,`�t fin. :r �r' -.n,n -�'; �.W ¢ hw� �', .,� ,�',w n,#, ;v1�;�,,1,i+:�,, 'm1v.��i .cv ,�r�.�rk,r r;r, ,�, '<:" 'r, y..ra, r. �:'l�ur'^M8'��u"^^.4;"r•;•'.r�.�'•f:�� ^:m... a. .,,� 1.4 r'"� `,w' „,"s'�,� t,m 7; V'1"�.+""e r .1,•u,"�;.•r,;:$'. !0, i.,, „r�,1, .4 n "'��., fl ��, i, ,�„Ar.>•--,+,n�,v,� •abl .','": ,.y ,¢�•:"Y �q'' "''°f S,ti� ",•x,.�l. ,ra;,$atur uo�" .,�j+"�.•.�i: :ta,,,.F•�,��Ful ,'t=uuti'c�t��b'as'plev t;; ;:,;��:;"r ,,�,. � �. �" h � ,�, ,�• ,.'��,.•. ,Q r` r;i- �, t•, rt,,k , el"°,s'�`-- ..a:,':a:4r;..s��I,�p,� rimerblbk„s�iri' r Via rr �y iv ��i'�h�rr'fi 'ar �� ;y;,. ! .°N''Y¢�.ry s,„yi l.nFA,.� nt ,S 1,r�." ,�u,4i"• ,I... ,Y4. .tr rM �4 1 +��., G�, `J' �,Y••�"5.;. 4 „"S7i., ��° � ',i;. r;e=- ,r. �"".,' ,v^•.rR':1a' �,a.• •�rc .r4 :'k,-w,.�. x.,�,:,.r�' W .�w a^ v� 'n f i .,�¢. ,�., rr;§ ,rd ,s ,h i.�. Y;7':i'+l'L h..ri ;r:^i�'1a. ,rti,r ,nrvb.k.'" �� a�#.0, ��" �'k�y�� ti�+�.al.„��.��,1,.,.>,�,�.,,,. .•. . ^'L.. ".,, .•y w,.�.•r�•"•.�..r:.•,,,�,""frs, ...,...��.,,, .•..,�.>"r,...,,m,:R ,.,r•. .•.�. ;^?�`1"k_,., or�r.�,,•..,,k��..ta,.,,".r,,..r.�:4�'i�aa,r.,.:'��n...�s.,n:•r ' v} .��;r,,,w -' ��';aiYti'� •e;,•u" '<;I o rk� e'',, . *(' Meets most of Cit s traffic� Meets Cit s obligation for traffic Exceeds Cit 's current obligation Model standard;strongaesthetic; Y' safety Y 9 Y 9 y t y4 4* V f Iy', expectations. safety and continuous lighting; for traffic safety;meets addresses traffic safety,continuous . �e„1 a 0,,, P�'�i,;' increases residential satisfaction; expectations for continuous lighting and capital re lacement; '' V � a3�;; increases perception'of safety;and lighting;increases residential and relieves heed for private `n `� . {'� addresses capital replacement. satisfaction;increase perception of lighting areas. ' Pv , ' a ,re ,+A ',act safety;and addresses capital ix�+ ,' :,� �F li 4 +' k' ,{ replacement. ' kt 7, ° ' 'sx�a; Residents cite inadequate lighting ' Residents may still feel lighting is Private lighting issues not fully Could be cost prohibitive. tV,'x yt its in some areas.City has not inadequate.Private lighting not addressed,particularly non it 4,4,} a ;4• completed its Continuous Lighting always'.maintained:Wood pole working mid-block lights. ihs '' > ' 'wR y . obligations,Private lighting not and cobra head lights are not Residents might not like the ,'`ip`Y.M� 4tiA . , v always maintained.Wood pole aesthetically pleasing. aesthetic of so many wood poles ' k 9 ,r`� 3 ) and cobra head lights are not with cobra head lighting per r iA R' 1' aesthetically pleasing.Adequate block. ��".��,y ti �„ fi?�' capital replacement not being n,;;;:t�r 4 -iV i,*: � r funded- >Q Source: Consulting Study Team. BR SEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 1 E Second, unlike a property tax or Special Improvement District where a lien can be placed on the property for non-payment, there is less enforcement ability with a utility billing.The City is not legally authorized, nor would it be practical, to turn off the streetlight for non-payment(water is the only utility that can be withheld for nonpayment). However, Salt Lake City currently distributes one utility bill for all of its utility fees (water, sewer and storm),prioritizing how payment is allocated to each utility.The water utility is left for last, so underpayment or non-payment of any utility can be enforced via the withholding of the water service. Finally, in order to be included in the Public Utilities billing system, the streetlighting system would have to pay an administrative fee for the billing service of over$400,000 per year.This expense may not be practical considering the total cost of the streetlighting program. Based on the revenue discussion above, it is appropriate to ask:Are these revenue sources sufficient to pay for the identified streetlighting scenarios? Pro Forma Analysis of Scenarios Given the one-time and ongoing costs associated with completing the system and both the currently available and potentially new revenue sources, the study team conducted a pro forma analysis of each streetlighting scenario. Pro forma analysis means subtracting costs from revenues to determine if there is a surplus or deficit and then calculating how any resulting deficits could be mitigated so that the City at least breaks even. Analysis of Scenario A. Scenario A is the least expensive in terms of one-time installation costs and annual, ongoing costs. It is thus the easiest to afford. Exhibit III-4 below summarizes the results of our analysis. Exhibit 11I-4. I =f t ;: T i .,,' ;h, 2006 Present Analysis of Scenario A r1 ne Item � Y Value Amount"' _�,: .��_`•,�i,'�<.":min_'?�_,_.�� :...__� .....-,.�..._,,.cr . . _�_.. ._ Note: 20-Year Total System Revenue(�) $55.4 million (1)All financial figures are expressed in present value(PV)terms.This means that 20 years of revenue and expenses have been discounted back to 2006 20-Year Total Cost(3) $50.4 million terms.This allows for"apples-to-apples"comparison of the three scenarios. _ (2)Assumes that City Council allocates the full$lmillion in CIP earmarked for 20-Year Surplus/(Funding Gap) $5.0 million streetlighting. (3)Includes both one-time installation costs and annual,ongoing operation& maintenance costs. Source: Salt Lake City and consultant study team. Simply stated, Salt Lake City can afford to complete Scenario A by continuing its current level of streetlighting funding and allocating the entire$1 million CIP earmark to streetlighting. This level of funding would actually produce a$5 million surplus over the next 20 years (see Exhibit III-4) ensuring that that was ample funding to install, operate and maintain Scenario A. This surplus could be earmarked back to other long-term capital infrastructure needs of the City. In order for this scenario just to break even, approximately$1.2 million of the CIP earmark would be needed in years 1 and 2, and then just$750,000 each year thereafter. _ T ,., Analysis of Scenario B. Scenario B—upgrading to quarter-block lights—is more costly than Scenario A. Exhibit III-5 demonstrates, therefore, that Salt Lake City would face a$6.4 million funding gap if it chose that option. In other words, even allocating the remaining portion of the $1 million CIP earmark would not be enough to pay for Scenario B. Exhibit 111 S. `t" - , -' ,<. ..::a2rAt,,r : r -k.: Analysis of Scenario B a r [ese� tl `t'intfem a tfeAm�ount (1)All financial figures are expressed in present value(PV)terms.This means that 20-Year Total System Revenue(Z) $55.4 million 20-years of revenue and expenses have been discounted back to 2006 terms.This 20-Year Total Cost(3)(4) • _ $61.8 million allows for"apples-to-apples"comparison of the three scenarios. _ (2)Assumes that City Council allocates the full$1million in CIP earmarked for 20-Year Surplus/(Funding Gap) ($6.4 million) streetlighting. (3)Includes both one-time installation costs and annual,ongoing operation& maintenance costs. (4)In Fiscal Year 2006-2007,the 42 streetlighting SIDs in Salt Lake City incurred approximately$385,000 in operations and maintenance expenses including administrative overhead,recording fees,legal fees and postage fees.This equates to a modest amount of approximately$9,200 per year per district.Similar expenses would likely be incurred if a new district is formed under this financing scenario,although the exact amount is yet undetermined and thus not included in Exhibit III-5. Source: Salt Lake City and Consultant Study Team. If Salt Lake City wanted to pursue Scenario B, how could it close this funding gap?New sources of revenue would be required: a A very modest, annual levy of.0254 mills on all taxable property citywide would close the funding gap—this equates to $2.79 per year on a typical$200,000 house; or n An annual assessment of$4.01 per typical $200,000 house in a newly formed "master" SID would also close the funding gap. Analysis of Scenario C. Scenario C—quarter-block lights with a decorative standard similar to what has already been installed in the Rose Park neighborhood—is by far the most costly of the three options. Exhibit III-6 demonstrates that Salt Lake City would face a significant$73.6 million funding gap if it chose this option.As with Scenario B, even allocating the entire$1 million CIP earmark would not be enough to pay for Scenario C. Exhibit III-6. Analysis of Scenario C Note: '---`- _ .__'- -.- -__-' _.c ._._. 20-Year Total System Revenue(z) $55.4 million (1)All financial figures are expressed in present value(PV)terms.This means that 20-years of revenue and expenses have been discounted back to 2006 terms.This 20-Year Total Cost(3)(4) $129.0 million allows for"apples-to-apples"comparison of the three scenarios. (2)Assumes thatcity council a!locates full$lrnhllion in CIP earmarked for 20-Year Surplus/(Funding Gap) ($73.6 million) streetlighting. (3)Includes both one-time installation costs and annual,ongoing operation& maintenance costs. (4)In Fiscal Year 2006-2007,the 42 streetlighting SIDs in Salt Lake City incurred approximately$385,000 in operations and maintenance expenses including administrative overhead,recording fees,legal fees and postage fees.This equates to a modest amount of approximately$9,200 per year per district.Similar expenses would likely be incurred if a new district is formed under this financing scenario.Similar expenses would likely be incurred if a new district is formed under this financing scenario,although the exact amount is yet undetermined and thus not included in Exhibit III-6. Source: Salt Lake City and consultant study team. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 22 If Salt Lake City wanted to pursue Scenario C,how could it close this funding gap?New sources of revenue would be required: El A small levy of 0.2423 mills on all taxable property citywide would close the funding gap—this equates to$26.65 per year on a typical$200,000 house; or An annual assessment of$38.20 per typical$200,000 house in a newly formed"master" SID would also close the funding gap. A comparison of these costs and funding options by scenario is included in Appendix B— Comparison of Streetlighting Service Level Scenarios. In this appendix,we also indicate how much impact the annual assessment would be on a typical house if City Council did not allocate the entire $1 million in CIP funding. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 23 SECTION IV. Next Steps and Implementation Issues This concluding section of the report contains our recommendations to City Council. Recommendations Based on the results of the financial analysis in Section III of this report, the study team offers the following recommendations for the City's consideration: Le The City Council may wish to consider designating either Scenario A, B or C as the desired service level with which to complete Salt Lake's streetlighting system. e The City Council would then consider making a policy decision to use the entire $1,000,000 in annual earmarked CIP funding solely for streetlighting and not other capital projects. © If Scenario A were designated,no further implementation steps would be necessary. The Transportation Division could complete the streetlighting system in approximately 2 years on a"pay-as-you-go" basis. Less than the$1,000,000 CIP earmark would be Aft, required in years 3-20; approximately$250,000 per year could be reallocated to other capital needs. In this scenario, the City would need to determine how it would facilitate requests for additional lighting.' • If Scenario B were designated (increased frequency of lighting to quarter-block and intersection and completion of arterial lighting program), the Transportation Division could complete the installation in ten years.The City Council would then choose a method to close the resulting funding gap: increase the citywide mill levy, form a new "master" Special Improvement District to assess its membership and/or establish a streetlighting utility.A mill levy increase would be assessed to all property owners; a Special Improvement District assessment or utility billing only to those not already participating in an SID or Private Lighting area. Under this scenario, the Council may wish to suspend the facilitation of Private Lighting areas and encourage those residents wanting to upgrade to decorative quarter-block lighting to utilize a Special Improvement District or to pay up-front for the incremental difference in the cost of the decorative lighting, but allow the City to retain control of the lighting fixtures. 5 In Scenario A,the City could continue to facilitate Special Improvement Districts for residents and businesses desiring „ems, additional and/or decorative lighting.The City could address the concern about the cost of these SIDs by self-funding instead of privately placing the debt.The City could also continue to facilitate requests for private lighting areas. Suggestions for addressing current issues with the private lighting areas are contained later in this section of the report. BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 24 n If Scenario C were designated ("Rose Park"standard decorative and increased lighting service level citywide), the Transportation Division could complete the lighting system in 15+years. The City Council would then choose a method to close the resulting funding gap: increase the citywide mill levy, form a new"master" Special Improvement District to assess its membership and/or establish a streetlighting utility.A mill levy increase would be assessed to all property owners;a Special Improvement District assessment only to those not already participating in an SID or private lighting area. Under this scenario, the City could confidently discontinue the facilitation of any additional lighting districts, as the streetlighting service level would be increased citywide. The City could also consider"rolling up"existing SIDs into a master citywide Special Improvement District.An important part of this transition would be to collect SID assessments from the approximately 15 percent of SID participants currently in areas. ® The Council may wish to consider the equity issues associated with each funding option. The mill levy funding option would be assessed to all property owners, including those with private lights and current members of streetlighting Special Improvement District, consistent with the policy decision that the lighting system was a general public improvement.The Special Improvement District assessment funding option would only be assessed to those property owners not already in a private lighting or SID program, consistent with the desire not to "double charge" these property owners. However, if the mill levy funding option was preferred by City Council for fiscal and administrative reasons, the City could consider evaluating the potential of"closing out" the existing SIDs and wrapping the SID operations and maintenance costs into the mill levy-funded program,particularly under Scenario C, where the service level would be consistent citywide. ✓ Under all three scenarios—A, B or C—City Council could also choose to eschew"pay- as-you go" funding,as modeled in this report section,and direct staff to explore the feasibility of up-front bonding to accelerate the completion of the system.'In this case, the City's bond counsel and investment banker would need to evaluate the appropriate borrowing structure (i.e., type of bond, ability to obtain municipal bond insurance, cost of issuance, term of bonds, etc.) including the possibility of self-funding wherein the General Fund would loan money and be repaid with interest just as a private bond- holder would be. Self-funding the master SID would be less expensive to property owners as it would save the issuance costs and result in a lower interest rate. ri The Council could consider mixing elements of Scenarios A, B or C to best meet its desired streetlighting policy. 6 One reason City Council might favor up-front bonding is to minimize any temporal inequities related to which un-lighted neighborhoods are"first in line"for completion,especially under Scenario B and C,which take longer to complete.It should be noted,however,that assessments from a master SID would likely not be sufficient to securitize a bond issue due to the possibility on non-payment by property owners and difficulties in enforcing the resulting property liens.In this case, the City might have to pledge General Fund revenues in order to obtain municipal bond insurance. BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 25 APPEN )APPEN 0, IX A. Streetiighting Practices of Comparable Cities Wasatch Front Comparables r a ry t yr '� — _,..- '` 'A' m ^I Decorative Private Status/ "', ,S s �' a<Pu s .. n',,. Fun , h i M•et" ' rMgp . o r ry N e ,, tr"4l y, ,m. d m d k rl a � htin 19 CQ mints ,1'r..,7,K k„, .,s 71 u+'Y° ry,,r'!'N,.raT,M.G,''�v! MkW�Y'�MN11; ih✓•,F a.~.�eRMm^Y�: AW, ,r .'flk aM:,r.;n,y 44�d..,W,>fk ,Y{^,+S{•latt; c.r+.M1�^A;l><,,.ryku;',Yri r�:a r*',,, at,<r r ..;kihr..,, A r, .,ra, ..�.,Y �. r ,I v+....r 1. •, rr it"t„'fit. '° , c'10 fusr`'. Traffic safety. Power unlit Installation and BouFI of ,U7rw, Y- utility. operations and - s maintenance fr•.; M, a recovered via utility F "n" f",, ;i bill;commercial y; c+ r �y C d ' security lighting paid '?� � a ^ business.requesting I 'n+8 f4z>fi + for by Ore ,A' T� r .4` 5,000 lights, ,' i Safety(strong crime, Cityfloated a; Special Service All decorative. "Some' ! focus . ': 7million bond for '.Li ht{n Distract for: I e nvate li hhn he $ 9 9 ; P g . 9 Begin paying in t uA {E� r month lights are a 9 tiM { installation of three i $7million 1 I m'stalled.•Those m " e, �., .f"'f�"a"M1 ,"I�,i ",.,s;• ,' `r approved styles I installation r,, d previous SIDS will 45'''d r",?* ,,4'•fl' <roit..j,' i,, x r�•As 4 N, s �f, 4 1.,' ! -!' h 7 �r3.,:. `�. � ^•,Iw 1 , r �:r, an yf v' ,� k •t � fi, � { �t,+ ~<sr•a; ova. M�. ` ' 'n >s 1 „ prlotlf{ied r ^ re'sidenff"pa` i. ,, >w � r ba. ,,a + � ,,� ,lie'{n to'.'3'for ne'w'-; • ,' r;Cry fSo;".-sfn�i� t'r'.�5 sH fir�w mJ w ��''?t^rw: a.. r� .,,y , .: y ,,.. ) � Ya tW,s,: n ,.�_- � �.� �3'.r r� .,:p•r .,,g P, Y>'c "n i,, �✓��ta(:�. ', ;k(•>,,y,',,d I. 1- �'.r .4 ' .:'Piiv, 35 '.4'4: tl kiris a..,..}... t,i. lei,i icii`o �..r A +. f : ., "a::;?; t �<~ ` �:., st ,$�: n•{,s n ,'` „ ,..� f.';�''rns a atron( d i e. �. ,rn ,� a�•.;. s _ {. ��.�� >~k �!"�w •',T_w(7; ,,� � r .{�'J I -, 1Cde!F. .iw•a19d,t. .1 it'ir-a, 0', f..e-;, k,1^xF,. .,, Il C ,,, r ry'1 ,;,,,,;1'L3i' S�mO On.,v,.y ., 'I' t ii Y i 5G ..roof .r•~m t4 ry`dIS�nCt,r..-.. ��,r,,�s;,}}�� af"..t� !u.a h.: Y ,,Inf-,: 4W..;!•_v��h.fnc S'" ,.It +. :a, .,.. .s.,,, ,;c ��a4u�,eF�'�� •k ':?+r•�t'��.�7PY:",- ;;4 �,✓z.+x, N?rr�IlgiltS W E , t .c,, Y•• ,a4,4 ,i rah S , ra, , ,e.,,r se• ,•r', K 1r I •i'4:,I:` :. ( q. •,c'i 2,,, t'a; _. , tr, t ,x ,x ,•a , + ,,� ,r. �wti ',�` w�, "'- x•a�ys, �` a r ,J., ..r•.+Y�eed ,>,I1 1 i, •, �,1..bi�l'tlntll",aiclof� :�,-�'�,rj� 4,,� a�} ,p..�;tx,ts ,,,�., �� r w s��'�c ✓ :R .TdK,�� ryl. vj �i �`;r •��.� Cy ��i .:"..G^ .,.s-s � .�}�,,,r,!.,M, F. P t. �`a^+y.'t�.. ,`"�'c5n�r, t�~Cygi�t �ikn;. ,�'` cy V�.. 'ty'y'�t,."it;•'#� '.:E �IreS � ,r 1,4 r a �(, xra ,n7 x �., c;, ,,,�, ,u f �,:y � ,•ia n �+ C k�yy„a r t�'�. �y r• +` r i ,ti^'' ,, ,; ,t *r-', +, �' �`a �a. 3�, i;I. ;'',�:. z r>.v , ,;,tto'r'�'�: `b Aration'�and ��'Y 53•(, ;r'. r�,,i�iw•,. ;�,ti .,w�,rv,? s +� 1 �', > + ,.�:�'1 1 t:, 4" '4' ' .! '� t+n�� .4.,,.. "! p,,nV 1r�,ia1^ l P i N 1 er r , +1r.3 ,g ,s�y aM. Y`v r*ts6 '�d a A: .:j i 9 'C?4 t,. �� u ,N� N ,,�f. ti�, � �' i`6:,6;,.Yf:� .v,�, ",y;.�.ti ,..rl., n., '� �k;,M'•1W.c• �::�� Y h•.t Jf{N�,�r` $"'r4�H ',, I. ,,- 0' .n x'd"( i Xm t }: ,. rT-�,'f•• "'n! i,' m `ma1.1" ' , ,.. 8,)."'G..�,a ;�4 ir .,r ,e;v .��.r m ;�. t%��t�2, .." r 4a� '�r�'.'vt P ,,v :9 a.,� � ,;.i^� w, ��t�„��'��a��f�a��,.�..•%,d n �. {t aG .}I?'.r�.'�;w�.3,. ,,.�CC��.'tit ,.a 1 i !'7,','�t r, ,.>,^ -" +� s - +� ..c s " "'L.7tY,.r: 1, f' A' ;rt.�s ;a • yi --6,, J S „ .,,w{thi6wea5eitiA 4,, !sr v" L^ , ,c:, .,,;e. �> 5��v.tL-'vc �c-7T :.�`�y+��, - ,7�} y. ">.(�. .k, ,4.. � ..t �. ra;ri �. ., ,1 :�' »�`e'+ a 'r�'^�+';�'Y '1:` t 'ry 4�.v�'- F Y,• ,z . r= ak''r. r !„ ,5 '.1l `,4,41..,v',.:i c�s i st'a '' ...,t,, 1:$ `,;.,'.. .,,,ti- +, '} a ., 6- ,fi SY✓� -- 's,fx...7r2. 6. .-,,,p tF.e°v'Ye;, 7.. ,a�1„;,u 01 t. £ •1 ac-• '„': ::: , `;: t.!tg` 4t _ fs,. ., rr. .n .-- „ =t r,�-+ o-4 .,.,tr+r..e, ,; .' . .r:� �,.s k, :l^,franchisetax xx : r ,., ^ sue•:.. * •`ht�t aq , s r f*N .+' .;' ,;4..'''' ' .ar ,t a' � ,c.� .,.+. , - - ,s-�c-Ya-.7 f s •3�"� �;' •, i �*C d'; ;�J�[+� ��ha I?.��.lis�.�.�'ut.,,�,«.vf.,........ .�_`. �._;,t'�':;ha . r . .,�,cz��.� i�.,...�., � r_._ � ,.�:J'�. i:}i,'}�::�`%.�.1r:�._.....,..,».:-,>'.�-.,a�'.a�.' _�i;.1 ...::y,.x.��...�l.:ka`I'd�i..i �_.�._.t� �Y� ,v Y Power utility.7 T Wj,�Cp, yT'� CsmA.f i"3inY"%.'R'" 'R :eF ry r;.l r x,,;kw%. Y i ,:W„ 'e"' ,t , ",^^rtF.'.:•i S7r'Is. ...vc�"'h%:o y'sk ym YVry�s'I ..tr w "`3!,,'vv uxi=7 A 5 ,i;�. r ,,1. 7, {use.. y. .,�.+'',^",,,, r f' •,._r ,...e« S , " k '=t �1'4 17,2"li hts'in Cit E Traffic safet 'crime Genera"I Fund, St les have beep 2849'li hts Iritersecfion li htin n 4 t, i� ,�'. w 9 �' Y Y 9 • ,.,: r�..gp,,,,', „•,.;,-c.,•,,, i r. ..,x,,^.,,',r4: .A{ ;:w..,¢i.••+;. ,.,. 'i ,t ,`: t{'r' it 9 • g fi•, r.. tv eve tionan'cl:"' t u . 'c.,o.s''zf �,•y ? t€N?�. P T },y,: ,., `Z;200 are decors, e.'„':,pr n .'; ii en ore ch'aFea, u complete :.3} FJ >h; 'r; is 'r.. � ...r.. ..ar{..i•.';,•)n r°. ,ki, �;. ,„,M.,...-;i�- f'" rr•: fie. .+,34 - �i, - sn •J. +•,-, F�w` 'w•t i� �aesth'etic's': within master.G'i -o ried r h ri' I�an•t:-"s"' �' P 1 �''ub ,�';, a, .r'r �s�'• Mai r,i.s.�`:�,;•. a` o t M�a' r �•install�-d�in`cert �•��+^�r- 's+t- .S Ds•2849a e'�` a arn`.,.c„ I a h,�'e.G. p'r y �i{.; Y, �a_ ," v'"� �e '•.a ea+and. aid:"o�r'>r. udecorau e'�:i`'rivat I - t f x<r;•` := r. �-r Y`x ,�r ,'Y.a 'Fe's"idenls�r S N 9 .t. s � 1d 'r. a" a - fli }'" 6,672 lights. i Traffic safety;crime i City added 4,800 ; Assessment on utility j i I Some people don't „ 4r, y A l prevention and ; lights-1 standard bills—$5.40 per l want that much light. , Y +. "': 1 aesthetics. j light throughout months for 5 years; ',,,W( y d1 �4 '' i every 150-200 feet. General Fund pays ,O {i ki r` for maintenance. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 26 National Comparables Drecorativ° Priv,ite Status/ System Purpose Structure Funding Lighting lighting Comments , i ', Power company- Safety and security for Highway District and $850k per year from Downtown and City prefers to control ; Some people don't owned lights and , car/pedestrian private development I. General Fund,plus historic districts— ' lighting,so want more lights. City-owned lights; interface(parks does provide 99%of new I $20k for public safety I General Fund.Historic encourages basically built out. pathways). lights to basic i requests. ; districts have to developers to install standard;if City wants ; petition for decorative one of three more than highway S Do not have authority lights.Have some alternatives to basic standard they pay for ! for streetlight utility concern about equity lighting in order to it.$20k per year for i district,but evaluating with non-historic ' get decorative public safety lighting possibility because of districts. lighting but remain with(corner, pressure on General public control. crosswalk)1"come 1" Fund. i ', served. . ..t Inc I.il,,;°ipLt '^I ,: i ' I Citywill install light Special Assessment I Residents petition ' g p p tition and I ! Will provide alley on existingwooden District payfor it. 3 i lighting if property poles for minimal # owners agree to pay traffic safety on ; Average installation is i $40 per year for request at no charge $3,400 per property t i operations and to property owners. ($5,600 ornamental). maintenance. Property owners who ' Average annual want electrolier lights maintenance pay for installation assessment if$70-$90 (50 foot wide lot). ' and maintenance i through assessment district. ! 4 I BBC EARCH& CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 2' National Comparables (continued) .4;4}bµkP 9"ai,I,eI ' ftz`'v Decor•ative P• rivate Status/ "j „ r s ..System ,, ,.Purpose S ructure Funding 'Lightin' .Li htn Comments t ,a .ti' m n ICVw:f3fGktM.r4!��,.�rr�i�'Y�'.,�ri-ltio-.�sfrr�,�'fawl".i'J��5,�' :'bra"nlurF, w r.na�f ,"3llr.�L,ahi<�,rti�i?H�df�inv�.,..4:.4,r d.., ,6 :r!a:, t, <.� �.,r 7 ,, x " a�l' YRI 'h M^ .� . I y...rN .r�} „6r , +�,ra� o-;�,i.,,.F.,'>' ,, ,�d! a r•rr;. 4�f h ,��'q,,.�:rer'ryF"tra i,� ;PhioenixfAZ,7-`, Roadway lighting, ' Standard cobra head; Arizona Highway ° Some by developers. '',k, ^s"t "";a,'f''";'' pedestrian lighting in downtown/historic 'Users Revenue Fund ,,?:,pyz'T°„ .' Il'',z(,r:'";•''g' downtown only—not I districts have some (AHURF)—state gas tax T,r%'rf • �A,rvnr„;.,';,,,-yi,;,,t, , crime prevention. decorative lighting— money funds `y j,'; .O.fi:„xr;?,;,i;i;, strict guidelines. installation,electricity +;';1`?..Y„4te:t".,ifai0+,r ,,, Council policy on and maintenance. 'd,ii,,,ii,lr49<rry,,' rye;{ n'r,;;`,i, spacing.Occasionally ry ,i xF`at",�'4,��p a �Y t,I allow a light for police r" 'p,ti, ' ax v..:,,,,,; , department's j.rNy,; d l'�'`II`4.',:4'''J'': recommendation. is a iar,, n7 ea i tt r g Po iand)soRb" t 8 500 lights Contract with PGE to 1 110,`1''L se,,,i q ' provide electricity and` �:.4 a�'"S" s47� t-1 � ', omaintenanc0e for" .� S 4/1 r87/a ee � f X $P t h t f lights;13/0 1�r a «ti I �iie wi�'s�„�,�,+��,��C�'r5� + maintained by City,= v, r �a�r f�`1,J,k gy ;:'*' " .Fundtbud General .. �°(dr la k�y"t' €f�yr f "�,, get. �. , e"d 1eMW'Aiuii 100,000 or more. Power utility. City sold streetlights �s �ds.� [�^ Y +i. to power utility • • Teinp,e, '''',� a�'i /12,000 lights • Roadwayand All lights are cobra , Arizona Highv(tay Resident's choice _ f f $ r ;''sidewalk lighting— mead;sometimes they Users Revenue Fund w,, 1, `'p' ":� r ress will add a mid block A URF State artax'� , wF�d a� '`$�Y:� not used to add ( H ) .. g w ''i 3 a,r a'4 ff "crim /safety ,. light for severe crime '',,'money funds x?i�j, '1,,`W;;� i t;,":, r'' r ia �,"Fiwl t.4. issues installation;electricity' r* tt y i" tt..; 4Q F'401V and maintenance' ' : I� i., . , BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 28 APPENDIX B. Comparison of Streetlighting Service Level Scenarios • APPENDJX B. Comparison of Streetlighting Service Level Scenarios ' 1 R ? system Purpose Structure: Funding Servace Level%% 'r'±?',City,.provides,wood pole lighting on,. Gity completes Continuous Lighting City installs wood pole,lights at eve' City fovideS„'Rose''Park"decorative k + 4,�5I� ?µ„,, "''",y°'f,c•; ,residential'streets at eve y in'tersection 20�.11 hts on California Avenue and residential intersection,and uartet standard li' hti`rl throw hout the non'- p'•!A"�':''1,'S`irk { iln,.u:; 1 nas r u, 1,�, i .C! , 1 :r ''" „, "',f, a'nd''mid-blocks as re ue'sted;;l"otal'",',•,"' Redwood'Roacl and funds annual"infill ";'Block 2 500 ne'wli'fits ovei ten` ears'.`, industrial''ar %+",f7,;,.,.'vk * Y! a 9 -( ,9 ) Y, ea's°of tFie'City(9,740new • tttiy4,"{ Sp,i!woe � K"fit 14,329lighrts;Z,588 SID lights and .'' `,' lighting'iin non-residential infill areas by';:'Neighborhoods`can opt out(versus .lights)over,15'+years. , ,��'1�yy�'x F` ;+ �11',741;non-SID l• ight`s. a request • • opting in as current).funds",infill' 'w, "y � -Ow: 1I, r` r 4" • „ _lighting' in pnvate'lighting'area's Where - City,completes Continuous Lighting # i Y �, .� fib " ,^i+' `,» �}S' 't' 'tCofltinuous Li g htin,'on.`<ortions of,"I�",„r i,'4b'year.capital replacement schedule is r' inters`ectionilight's"are'not being, A, 5" 1205',,,y;;5 ts){On`California'Avenuee'and 7'iC`�*,,''9 k'%'7^5 iy tyv , , ,,,g iti 7 P,•rt „ ,. ,Y,, ,, : , ,., - ., '{...h .( .g.,wr/ ,. ca )1.:43 ,, txi� ` aIifo'riiia Avenue`and Redwood Road funde''d. maintained "f Redwood Po'ad'and'funds"infill r '�j '{^ ':'"bR!:\ ,n, „ . •, } ,t'„' a"T t sb a ,f. a a^`'' S,',.. '�' 1 to ?• kre`n Ot et COm feted .i,, <yL''�:,;H'.a a sn ro + s 'a s �+; `•,• ��,�s.,"f,`��„� �xi��,r J� p , ,� r f d �.:,;,' �;`lighting..rWiri"hon-residentiaLareas by•, - 4a5 a 7, f��k �, iLL Power and maintenance(City pays City completes Continuous Lighting! `r`equest `• gym,. ; 1, e5 �� '+ �)}�-�i{i�<1t �"N,;LiE�tle•cap'itel'replacement •100�/o.foi'.rion-SID'areas;'25%forSlD ;'�(205 lights)orb California Avenue and. � ,-; ,'f;' iw a'�ir�' �yY I y r wa ;, • - • 11 m'}a-:: ,,`�,,,, .., ,,�_:,•'r .',�l:'Pi' .x #, t.;- RedWoo 'a Kr d'Ro d and funds'.a fi r 'areas" h I) 0::m 4 ear,'ca'iYal�e��aceme t sc �edu is i r I n h ie 4t ' $r ,' $";Power a . L. : '").' n i, v',,.. nti "• ' Y p i b P n- M ,r ,+,, nd maintenance(' Y P.Y - asi by funded ,' r Cit a s i�h,noh r den ahinfih are �t lightih`g esi 6 f r1, ,.F o o •„•„ re uest;`i`, ,,,rr.,p' n� j@ � � "11� :100/oforhonSlbareas,,'25/ofonSlD q { �, ,T: �i,7 ,1w t +a.any a..+,'ti�` i 2 c �'� '. 7 r rw a @ ,t i ri01 fi ",areas)':;.„,,,, ac^t ,, } PoW r.,, r r,N' �v clF ) ., x' 'µ,�,. k , e anti.n,;9 etiance(Gty pays s6 0,y spit epl$ k h ,��€�,4i��,fit<::vat � �` s r ' ,' I , ° 4 t;� ^,a)r reri�ertieFsc�edufe Is 10d yfoF�n,SfD�YeaS prorated s are' " ,.��,7 :?"�,.�k +Yr r�r"T r ;• a 1 i ' r Y r r rx "5t .4�. "? � .7{`�{4 {a}!a'�a ;; i1 'u s' 's _ r 4 a y,, 'r fUnded`s' { ��`�,;{ P, 't,r1 a��iY Yy'1-I r fd'r e'i d TO,,iCOfTl lJted b 1S2d On a�, .'.•ti' r � , e'0,�Y �' x r t, _ .-w, r i-V increased bevel f-i*C4 vice k;i ::t.' Gty, t ,k.'j`0 ,?At' k ,1 :. i , ,,t :. t ..-,� a , r ,t,u}r- 1. 4 ! { 'IA% A,w > Power and maintenance(City pays~;' inay adidtt:poftion of confnb'ution to ' '�±h. I 014'. '` i �' E - 100%for nOn-51D areas `forate,','share SIDS based`on increased seiv"ice level' f �� eI a 4. •c -r.s ''Ki w s , I� a,. r 's,�{ r� ''�.k�k ��1:t,rn i° ,,`N, ;' ,.. _y��° "'��:� : is ,.• ' fo SID,are�s�t�i5��utetl iias'e nFij.:. "�'�;;�,#t� r 'i , :,;�� : yL'�o+ .'S '';''' l �". c>_ ,.'.-'r' ,;,, S I�., x y+ d,Pr `r<x. ..n ky i� :„° fi tr if s ; :,r a L -; -Increased level " efvlc utyw er1 Gty v,+f �. #' +� .; 't ;,1;' .f 1 '' .i; f.Ydtio ,'4 ! a -'v,,. M9 {_�4 Y,;; 4 a,t; 4,h = 1 5 � t '1 t Ibr �rSrl �1� , ,`. ,I - 1, i' 6e j r , 5 R t I''.:'. , 's ? + -9 a i T�4 ' _ _ _ i .-i ly t. - may 2d�l1St :ir t�TCOntn ULIOn tb 1 ° ; s 3s 't y r` � 3 r• �" { e level ., I b, reuse 1 v .� r r yy � SIDS based on inc d sernc rfi 1' f'?f 1 kh`� f • ;In J ? M N/A 2 years. 10 years. 15+years. Ad1i �+ea ,a•1y1,( IYX s+arr .a I •r.r,;.*< -r+„ stt • t ...� tr,. „a .,,,a•„x'u wr fia.•r""i'' a a'd"r " i c;,, ! �._"r 3. ^tt',xa ;1-'R; , e, # r a y.,,;,, g ;h'bt 7�';i Meets,iriost'of Ci „s.tr'affic'safet ;.,Me`etS:Cit 's'obli ation for"traffic safet Exceeds.Ci`S obll anon fot tra fi `yi „•` odel'fandafd; t�o'h aesthetic g�c :, .. ,s tY, Y Y 9 Y .cJ - r,_„ 9 "y �,�r;�; ��, .,:� expectations ,�h'dtonYlnuous`li h'tin' •increases • `•safe' ��riti'ee�s�x ect'a�'tionsf .,:r�+��;,;.,;t',",addreYs s'.ti��iafe continuous tint ,, V`{ :Td °I„- r;'°"�."� resid t a'satisfacfion�increases° °' ,,': ,'�� en i I continlou`s1r'hti'n'`� nc e�ses`a` ,ii lit"In"`afid' a tal Pe lacement°'and'' u' +x't; * - ,^4:r 9 13, 9„ ,g, p, R, : -•,-;'''':•'''.•,;-' < .)4 <i'. .'s a'd'ad�reYse "A -re"s'iddi5'tiahs tisfaction ihd-ease�. Neves p' t t""' '+� a+4 fit'; +.,,r'f, fs,=, ei `tioiat`ofsafet n d a s.'�r% need'fdr,riva e;Ll h m -L^'^v ^iY.�' � - k',ra � -..u.. ,y ti' °ti. a 'dp'a e .'`ta''"a re"lace" entj3=;; erce oit � fe ='any ddr sses°`,�._, "Dis�trrcts,",C_�'s•r., ika7 .,,;,. 4, 1 spa, ,�a'i `'P P �, v ' -a c'_ J�tt "2 i�%m`G"`�*��.i,',. .k'. i is, .C "';F,`t .17'r <iUyw�. 4-r. , j.. tit. ',�.' '>F'v„ Eo - 2^. 'i� 'mY- i1 : :tr • yy "]:`j ','I,e,x;i:41^. +;1', it{� ,.`tic. rF(":* »'t'As t ray h 4... a - p caq'ital"re'"lace er�t.-:- f ,*. F f �>vt,: 'a.. '[�s°x ,, + <ra rx J,'{,k1y'1 , i>a<x°9'"t` Residents cite inadequate li htin in ; Residents maystill feel lighting is Residents mi ht not like the aesthetic of ' Could be cost-prohibitive. 1`+y' • '�itif• '• some areas;City has notco plee d its inadequate;private lighting issues may so many wood poles with cobra head p d M1I11, p • tt i r 3,• "+"4, , x; Continuous Lighting obligations;private ? need to be addressed. i •lighting per block;private lighting issues k„r s;f !r f ' lighting not always maint • ained_ • may need to be addressed. x v ry�'f 1 Wood pole and cobra head lights are �'. ,t�' t d i Wood pole and cobra head lights are not aesthetically pleasing. ,a t,�r, v+r arot not aesthetically pleasing;adequate ' '� t0r A ,�* � capital replacement not being funded. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX B, PAGE 29 Comparison of Streetlighting Service Level Scenarios (continued) 1 .System Purpose Structure Funding ! .t 'ry'� . 9 y .� Y h L .: y _ k L ltS°��`, ��`?r.1s�� '�'�' n n{k�J sr�``1' t,�.�.,, I.i '-y r f r J a as hlti t t l { i 4.'4, . H• �;« 7 '-i1J� l!on;an-nualiy ,induding•City,. „-$2.6 millio'n annually,plus,$434 000., $2.9'million'annually,plus;$5.4,million. `-$4:2 million,annually'plus'$49'million ar t f 1 m,fr�4 f' r io ' %✓r 'f nu giti4 oa,u.,y•:di,, ,..r pe ye 7 - '1,-.r, installation of residential l;' , Nra.i npr l km intenanrce and rftatchingigrants;to , installation'of residential and,non- s and non-residential lighting(which can' ;'and'non=residential lighting(which can '"u.`~ w r y is4 private`lighting systems. --' residential fighting. be spread over,10 years). be spre" y ars):', ,er 1 ��`` ad ov 5"e r:i t cm ..rol r The existing citywide lighting program !:. Utilize current revenue sources. • Utilize current revenue sources, : Utilize current revenue sources, Q 1 �x�y', f k1i is paid for with general revenues;all Appropriate the entire CIP allowance ' including entire CIP allowance including entire CIP allowance �,4: ^,;�f s¢`1.4 +r'�« "� property owners contribute to this )plus ($1,000,000).This leaves an average ($1,000,000).This leaves an average s, rya r`i, Y�� p p y ; ($1,000,000 an additional 0 r c. "�£rx astir '.�y service level. ! $200,000 of CIP funds in the first 2 gapof$775,000 inyears 1-10 and an gapof$5.8 million in years 1-15 and anyi `;" ; L ya y " ��,� . ' Y Appropriate averagegap approximately averagegap approximately y, ears.A ro riate about$750,000 in a of a roximatel $213,000 a of a roximatel $2.3 1 r s yR I '` i CIP funding every year thereafter,which : every year thereafter. ! million every year thereafter. 0. x!a t. 4 t , ?>F t v%yf is less than the allowance designated in „tmi1l r IJ„ ti.f,, r the 10-year CIP. : This gap could be filled with a property ; This gap could be filled with a property t,A't a11) je ' tax of$2.97 or citywide SID assessment ' tax of$26.65 or citywide SID #ie,w,',�i-a ,y' f •t.4' ! Any CDBG or RDA funding for i of approximately$4.01 per$200,000 ' assessment of approximately$38.20 per i ! ', ' a 0, streetlighting in eligible areas could be : house per year for 20 years. $200,000 house per year for 20 years.It g�+�r ', a «,I?,; used to augment or offset the General Alternatively,the City could fund all or is unlikely the City could fund this gap � r Y 1ly!!rI 4 V,, Fund appropriation. part of this gap from existing General from existing General Funds. ¢�; Funds. K' �` a t''a't, If City Council chooses not to Any CDBG or RDA funding for 'v � ..M appropriate the CIP placeholder of Any CDBG or RDA funding for streetlighting in eligible areas could be .11Ah�1d 4I -ru tF. $750,000 to$1,200,000,the City could streetlighting in eligible areas could be used to offset some portion of this gap. ' ,4 +5,>t+x s k i�R' fund the gap between 2006 ; used to offset a portion of this gap. :�,°% ' t t.try 1" ' streetlighting expenditures and Scenario ` : If the council chooses not to appropriate ` t. A cost estimates with a property tax or - If CityCouncil chooses not to : the CIP placeholder of$1,000,000,the .^f'�k�' `�i��'r��a� �' P P Y bra ligi x citywide SID assessment of appropriate the CIP placeholder of : City could fund the gap between 2006 i'a`:r J i,�kf,'. ,: s e , approximately$7.32 per$200,000 $1,000,000,the City could fund the gap i streetlighting expenditures and total 'i s t "`' '�';.,, . house per year for 20 years. between 2006 streetlighting Scenario C cost estimates with a tetW 1 9"` '-.• expenditures and total Scenario B cost propertytax or citywide SID assessment «, ; r estimates with a property tax or of approximately$47.34 per$200,000 a r+ y r7 5(sY • citywide SID assessment of house per year for 20 years. '� ", '4; ,, �t { approximately$13.15 per$200,000 �ti a vPrM ,, �. 3Nt W5� : house per year for 20 years,not `Pw t o s a ,,''.! i assessed to or calculated upon current ? 0, �1' 4r'1,' SID/private lighting participants. BBC 'ARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX B, PAGE 3 Attachment B : May 2006 Street Lighting Master Plan and Policy May, 2006 tt. ,j4 • ttzi • ,: Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master PlanPolicyare • ns.c 1 `y Qm I I. SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City Community Development Department Transportation Division 349 South 200 East, Suite 450 Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 2 Amok, TABLE OF CONTENTS page 1 Introduction 3 2 Purpose 3 3 Street Lighting in a Pedestrian Friendly City 4 4 Lighting Levels and Design Requirements 8 5 Light Types 10 6 Light Cutoff Classifications of Lighting Fixtures 13 7 Fixture and Pole Styles 18 8 Lighting Programs 24 9 Using Crime Prevention in Street Lighting Design (CPTED) 26 10 Banners 28 11 Street Trees and Lighting Compatibility 28 12 Acknowledgements 29 Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 3 1. INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City's history illustrates a long-standing concern for the quality and safety of the urban environment influenced by street lighting. Salt Lake City was the fifth city in the United States to have electric streetlights. By 1887, streetlights were operating on Main Street, and along First South and Second South Streets. In 1908 Salt Lake City adopted a systematic plan for locating streetlights at each intersection on long blocks and an additional light rnidblock,when requested. Historically, the lighting levels for street lighting, although modified and expanded over the years, were generally based on the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) recommendations. These are widely considered as generally accepted guidelines and are currently contained in IES publication RP-8-00 Roadway Lighting. They are based on geometric, operational and envirommental factors. Salt Lake City's lighting standards also take into account factors such as traffic volume, accident rates, nighttime pedestrian activity, crime prevention and neighborhood preferences. This is an administrative master plan recognizing lighting levels required for safety and the decorative style of lighting poles and fixtures as expressed by residents and business owners during numerous outreach meetings. The administrative policies of Salt Lake City that govern the implementation of new and replacement street lighting are shown in italics within this document. This plan includes information on the purpose and impacts of street lighting, required lighting levels within the City, acceptable styles of fixtures and poles, a plan showing the desired lighting for each neighborhood within the City, the technically recommended implementation priority and associated aspects of street lighting such as designing with crime prevention in mind and the use of banners on street light poles. 2. PURPOSE Lighting serves many purposes. To many people, public way lighting goals are seemingly achieved by installing brighter or additional lights. However, harmful or negative effects of lighting such as glare and reduced visibility of the night sky were often overlooked. Lighting technology has evolved tremendously in recent years. There are now more light sources, fixtures, poles and materials available. There is also much interest in the use of decorative light poles with underground wiring along with a recognition of street lighting as an important daytime as well as evening urban design element. Addressing the environmental issues of lighting design is seen as critically important to maintaining quality of life in neighborhoods. These issues go beyond the amount of light produced and include minimizing light pollution, enhancing the urban environment during the day by use of decorative poles and fixtures and at night by the provision of pedestrian level light, deterring undesirable or illegal activities, increasing safety, restricting unwanted truant light onto private property and minimizing glare, power consumption, cost and visual impacts (day and night). Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 4 ""m"'' This Street Lighting Master Plan is intended to be used in a compatible manner with existing land use master plans and updated as necessary to remain compatible with them. Defining lighting design policies will help the public, developers and City officials recognize lighting- related issues that must be addressed. All of these factors have created the need for this comprehensive street lighting master plan and policy applicable to Salt Lake City's public rights-of-way. 3. STREET LIGHTING IN A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY CITY Effective street lighting illuminates the street and sidewalk to offer visibility by and of the users of the public right-of-way for the safe and comfortable interaction of drivers,bicyclists and pedestrians. Street lighting projects should combine with other urban design elements to create a holistic and aesthetic environment for pedestrians. Effective pedestrian lighting helps people feel safe and comfortable while walking in neighborhoods and to transit stops, stores, and other destinations. To accomplish this, the daytime appearance of the light poles and fixtures and the nighttime appearance of the illumination should reflect the needs and characteristics of each neighborhood and its master plan. Salt Lake City desires to be a pedestrian friendly city. The Summary Vision Statement of the 1998 Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission states: "Salt Lake City's transportation system is integrated and multimodal. It moves people and products efficiently into and through the city. If focuses first on pedestrians and bicyclists, second on mass transit, and third on single occupant automobiles in planning and infrastructure support." The report recommends the expansion of late-night recreational programs and the design of streets that are pedestrian friendly. It encourages walking, improvements to the transportation system that promote auto-alternate means of travel such as walking,bicycling, and the use of bus, light rail and commuter rail transit, the adoption of pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly master plans for City neighborhoods and the use of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques to reduce crime. Adequate lighting of sidewalks and pedestrian crossings is a significant aspect of new street lighting projects. In addition to lighting pedestrian areas, street lighting should provide reasonably uniform illumination of the full width of public travel way. Much of the existing street lighting in the City is provided by"cobra head" streetlights at a height of between 25 feet to 30 feet. This lighting pattern is effective for the roadway, but not always effective for pedestrians due to shading by trees and the difficulty in providing uniform lighting along sidewalks. The following drawings show the impact of street light mounting height on the lighting pattern of sidewalks. Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 5 Figure 3.1 shows the uneven light levels often associated with high-mounted lighting particularly in residential areas with mature trees and long spacing between lights. While this type of lighting may be adequate for drivers because the spot light effect is supplemented by their vehicle's headlights, it is neither pedestrian-friendly nor does it encourage walking. Figure 3.1. High-mounted Cobra Head Street Lighting '�` F-# '. y ems , ts, -.€ -- jai ryi 5 `- {{4Iig 0 f f y1 :, ri I i:3 ,-__--_ [,-,-i, t:_. --_m ti ., n, , , ,,.., , ,,,,....,... „,,,„ . „ , . ..., , ,, . ,_. _ , ,_...„,_„,;:- .t,-.- .. .,,,,_::,..--, , ,, , -- - , - - „_.„. _., -„,-- „„---„, ------------- , ,,,,,,, , , , , , „..., Nam ' Al ,- , f 3 ( ° - tL..i INi 4 3 :g ---,Z i'-',7 --2,_..,''_. 1 ook Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 6 ' Figure 3.2 illustrates how pedestrian style streetlights with optically controlled light distribution are located below the tree line and provide a more even level of lighting that invites pedestrian activity during evening hours. Figure 3.2. Pedestrian Style Lighting �� Ii Y 7 y3.!z , u _ rt 6 �� 1 Y . • e � ry Y'_.-ice 11►_ J r.. ✓ x ieft?4,* .. , ,„ ,,,, `F ' ,, 1dK A pF ii �,�. �Yq } ,. - _rev S `rE k -� rz- $�.T. ; � <-- f x , , I, S'g, s4�. 4 1 1 Alitt gg� 1 -4t . 1R- t. t .'kg,,,,o +``{i_--,': `£*' `y'7:I' ''a t t` --] P rX - 9 E 5i C � $ S1c Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 7 Figure 3.3 is a variation of Figure 3.2 showing how side shields can be placed inside light fixtures to reduce light trespass onto private property and into windows. Figure 3.3. Pedestrian Style Lighting with Resident Side Light Shield { � �, t a Q 1 tifk§'-",=,S- zZSR-T; .V 1 �� .76,-,t ',,��•psi . m . ,�..ea ! � 1 >1azz ta 1. ic- a ` �,- _ FAMIN ' ar s lg \ ,.- ° ° e K`,3 �t� ^� `' ttl o ,, 1 $' • o a .w3 `.i ' - - - fi x T ., ' tip i Ord 4 y 3 ',i ". tif LLt ' -<'.'1 Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 8 Auk 4. LIGHTING LEVELS AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS All new and replacement street lighting of City right-of-way shall meet the minimum lighting level and design standards shown in Table 4.1. These standards pertain to all new developments, installation of new lights and replacement of existing lights. Table 4.1. Salt Lake City Minimum Roadway Lighting Design standards Road Area Average Luminance Luminance Veiling Class Classification Luminance Uniformity Uniformity Luminance LaVe (cd/m2) Ratio Ratio Ratio Lave to L,,,r„ -Lax to L,,,r„ Lv to Lau; Major Commercial 1.2 3 to 1 5 to 1 0.3 to 1 Intermediate 0.9 3 to 1 5 to 1 0.3 to 1 Residential 0.6 3.5 to 1 6 to 1 0.3 to 1 Collector Commercial 0.8 3 to 1 5 to 1 0.4 to 1 Intermediate 0.6 3.5 to 1 6 to 1 0.4 to 1 Residential 0.4 4 to 1 8 to 1 0.4 to 1 Local Commercial 0.6 6 to 1 10 to 1 0.4 to 1 Intermediate 0.5 6 to 1 10 to 1 0.4 to 1 Residential 0.1 6 to 1 10 to 1 0.4 to 1 Notes: 1. All new streetlights must meet, at a minimum, the "dark sky semi-cutoff"standard with the exception that all new "shoe box"or "cobra head"style streetlights must meet the "dark sky cutoff"standard. Dark Sky classifications are explained in Section 6 of this master plan. 2. In industrial areas, taller mounting heights and "shoe box"or "cobra head" style streetlights meeting the "dark sky cutoff"standard may be used. 3. Exceptions to these standards are not desirable and must be approved by the City Transportation Engineer. Lighting in new subdivisions and developments All new subdivisions and developments are required to place utility lines underground. This includes electric power lines for street lighting in underground conduit. All costs for this work are borne by the development owner. The lighting levels,poles and fixtures used shall meet the requirements of this master plan and policy. The spacing and location of the light fixtures it'ill be determined by an engineered lighting design and approved by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division. Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 9 Lighting along reconstructed streets It is desirable to upgrade the lighting and/or underground conduit, if needed, at the time of street reconstruction. Desiring to minimize construction impacts to neighborhoods and overall costs, street reconstruction projects within Salt Lake City shall include the installation of underground conduit for street lighting, when practical. New and Replacement Lighting in existing developments and as part of redevelopments New and replacement lighting in existing developments and lighting required as part of redevelopments shall include the installation or use of existing underground conduit where practical for street light wiring and meet the illumination standards of this lighting policy at the time of design approval. It is required that the decorative poles and fixtures contained in this policy be used for new and replacement lighting unless circumstances for their use are not practical and approved by the Transportation Engineer. Previously existing lighting is to be removed as part of projects to install replacement lighting. Lighting of Alleys and Privately Owned Streets Only dedicated publicly-owned streets are eligible for street lighting funded by the City. Public alleys will not be lighted using City fiends; however, they may be lighted by abutting property owners at their expense upon approval of the proposed lighting by the City Transportation Engineer. Privately owned streets, alleys and rights-of-way may be lighted by abutting property owners at their expense. Pole Placement Street light poles can represent a roadside hazard if located improperly. All new street light poles, in areas with sidewalk abutting the street curb, shall be located behind the sidewalk in cr location between the sidewalk and right-of-way line. All new street light poles in areas with a planting strip between the sidewalk and curb are encouraged to be located behind the sidewalk, but may be located in the planting strip if there is a high back street curb and if there is at least 18 inches lateral clearance between the face of curb and nearest side of pole. Exceptions to any of the above standards are not desirable and must be approved by the City Transportation Engineer. Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 10 '"""k" 5. LIGHT TYPES The preceding section described the level or amount of lighting required on Salt Lake City's public rights-of-way. This section describes the type or source of light to be used. Both affect a person's ability to comprehend what is being seen. Currently, the most popularly used light sources for street lighting are metal halide and high- pressure sodium vapor. Previously, mercury vapor, fluorescent and incandescent lighting were prevalent. A few incandescent lights still exist along city streets. Mercury vapor and fluorescent lighting are no longer available for new installations. A relatively new white light source gaining popularity is induction lighting. A number of factors are involved in determining acceptable light sources. These include color rendition, cost to purchase and cost to operate and maintain. Color Rendition and night vision Colors are more readily identified when seen under blue-white light sources found in the shorter wavelengths of the color spectrum than under the longer wavelengths of yellow-orange light sources. This makes metal halide, induction, mercury vapor and incandescent light sources, Alltek which more closely mimic daylight, popular from a visibility and object identification viewpoint. Color rendition is more difficult under the yellow-orange light source of sodium vapor. Metal halide is the technological successor to the mercury vapor, fluorescent and incandescent blue-white light source lamps and offers more economical operation with a longer lamp life (burn time). It is the current lamp technology of choice among lighting design professionals. Induction lights may prove to be the successor of metal halide lights. They provide good color rendition and promise a very long lamp life which equates to reduced maintenance costs. Ease and accuracy of color rendition translate into a more attractive night time pedestrian atmosphere. They make streets feel safer and more attractive to pedestrians. For these reasons, the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) process favors white-blue street lighting over yellow-orange lighting. Purchase Costs Purchase costs for most light types are fairly similar. The new induction lights have a higher purchase cost offset by its much longer lamp life (burn time) claimed to be up to 100,000 hours (20 years). Cost considerations are generally more important with respect to maintenance and power usage than purchase and installation. Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 11 Operating and Maintenance Costs High-pressure sodium vapor lighting uses less electricity to operate and the bulbs have a longer lamp life than many other light sources. This makes them popular from an economical point of view despite their only moderate color rendition attributes. The cost to operate metal halide lighting has been reducing as their popularity and availability in the lighting industry has increased. The cost advantage of induction lights is their long life expectancy which minimizes maintenance costs. Paying for power only on these 20-year bulbs recoups the higher purchase cost of induction lights in a 3 to 6 year period. The Future The lighting industry is focusing its attention on white lights for good color rendition, longer lamp life and energy efficiency for economy and a broader range in the light output (size of lamps offered) for use in various situations. This bodes well for metal halide and induction lighting which will likely succeed high-pressure sodium lighting as the most commonly used light sources. Table 5.1 summarizes the general differences in the lamp types for the most commonly used bulb sizes encountered in street lighting. A comparison of these lights to incandescent lighting is also provided. The values shown are approximate and intended for relative comparisons. Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 12 Am* Table 5.1. LAMP TYPE COMPARISON Lamp Type ' Factor Incandescent • Metal Halide High-Pressure . Induction , Sodium Wattage 25-150 50-400 50-400 55-165 Efficiency 8-18 38-75 72-115 64-73 (lumens/watt) Lumen 90 (85) 75 (65) • 90 (70) 75 (50) : Maintenance (%) Lamp Life • 750-2000 10,000-20,000 . 18,000-24,000 100,000 . (hours) , • Energy Use High Medium Low Low Color Rendition . Very Good Very Good Moderate • Very Good Amok Definitions: v • Wattage - Lamp wattages most commonly used in street lighting • Efficiency—lamp output efficiency at 50% lifetime of lamp • Lumen Maintenance -percent of initial lamp output at 50% lifetime of lamp and at end of lamp lifetime (in parentheses) e Lamp Life - approximate typical lifetime of lamps in hours 4 Energy Use—indicator of energy costs • Color Rendition-relative ability of average observer to accurately perceive colors under the light types shown Acceptable light types Only efficient light types of the blue-white spectrum shall be used for new and replacement lighting. This currently translates to metal halide and induction light types. Existing high- pressure sodium vapor and other light types will continue to be supported until it becomes necessary to replace the light fixtures. Exceptions to any of the above standards are not desirable and must be approved by the City Transportation Engineer. Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 13 6. LIGHT CUTOFF CLASSIFICATIONS OF LIGHTING FIXTURES The term "light pollution" is often used in describing three distinct negative effects of lighting which are light trespass, sky glow and glare. Light trespass occurs when uncontrolled light from a street light is allowed to "spill"into an area where it is unwanted such as onto private property into a building window. Sky glow is the effect of obscuring the view of the night sky as a result of light being directed upward. Glare is created when a harsh light source detrimentally reduces an individual's ability to see objects the light is meant to illuminate. Salt Lake City experiences all three types of light pollution. Light trespass and sky glow can annoy property owners and detract from enjoyment of their property. If the street lights are more noticeable than the objects they illuminate, then the lights are likely producing glare. Glare can be discomforting and counterproductive to drivers, pedestrians and other users of the public right-of-way. With the help of enviromnental groups such as Dark Skies International, the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America(IES)has developed cutoff classifications for the lighting industry which are intended to reduce these negative impacts of lighting. There are four levels of cutoff classifications: Full Cutoff, Cutoff, Semi-Cutoff and Non-Cutoff Full Cutoff light fixtures offer the most light distribution control and provide significant mitigation to all three types of light pollution; however, there are benefits and limitations to each light cutoff classification. Acceptable light cut-offfeatures All new and replacement street lighting shall meet, at a minimum, the requirements of semi- cutoff lighting. In locations where "cobra head"or "shoe box"fixtures are used, they must meet, at a minimum, the requirements for cutoff lighting. Exceptions to any of the above standards are not desirable and must be approved by the City Transportation Engineer. Figures 6.1 through 6.4 describe each cutoff classification and their associated benefits and limitations. Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 14 Ask Figure 6.1. Full Cutoff Light Fixture Full Cutoff ,- : 0%of Lamp Lumens AIIIIIIIK Less than 10%of Lamp Lumens No light above horizontal and less than 10 % of the produced lamp lumens shine above the 80° "' line. .,m Full Cutoff benefits include: • No direct up-lighting which is the major cause of sky glow o Excellent light control at property lines o Limits light trespass o Maximum reduction of glare o Allows greater visual access to the night sky Full Cutoff limitations include: o Typically reduces pole spacing(increasing pole and luminaire quantities and cost) o Typically least cost effective of all cutoff categories o Concentrated down-light component can result in reflected up-light and increase in sky glow o Potential for decreased lighting level uniformity due to higher light levels directly under the pole o Limited number of fixture styles (However, manufacturers are recognizing the importance of providing more light fixture styles meeting the full cutoff classification.) Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 15 Figure 6.2. Cutoff Light Fixture Cutoff - E 5 j F " Liens than_2.5% r � �/ ` of Lamp tuimens 4 =Now mar go° 80 v 4 Less than 10%� of Lamp Lumens No more then 2.5% of produced lamp lumens above the horizontal and less than 10% of the lamp lumens shine above the 80° line. Cutoff benefits include: 6 Small amount of high-angle light that can contribute to sky glow G Limited light trespass O Potential for increased pole spacing and lower overall power consumption compared to full cutoff o More fixture styles available than for full cutoffs Cutoff limitations include: G Does allow some lighting above horizontal ® Light control at property lines is less than full cutoff • Reflection off pavement can increase sky glow Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 16 '' fek Figure 6.3. Semi-Cutoff Light Fixture Semi-Cutoff >'` -e `r ; .ate ' ' V" a ;A-v.; vtx 5 s2 Xt ads .. r _ r twit- Ttrz%, go 80° Less than 20% of Lamp Lumens Askk ?ern-1AI No more then 5% of produced lamp lumens above the horizontal and less than 20% of the lamp lumens shine above the 80° line. Semi-Cutoff benefits include: o Potential for increased pole spacing and lower overall power consumption compared to cutoff o High angle light accents taller surfaces o Less reflective light off pavement than cutoff fixtures o Illumination of vertical surfaces increases pedestrian security and sense of safety o Large selection of fixtures to choose from Semi-Cutoff limitations include: o Allows more lighting above horizontal than cutoff fixtures -° o Light trespass can be a concern in residential areas o Increased amount of high-angle light compared to cutoff Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 17 Figure 6.4. Non-Cutoff Light Fixture Non -Cutoff ink '171 No limitation on light distribution at any angle. Non-Cutoff benefits include: e Potential for maximum pole spacing o Accents taller surfaces • Good uniformity of light distribution Q Least amount of reflective light off the pavement o Largest selection of fixtures to choose from Non-Cutoff limitations include: • Greatest potential for direct lighting above horizontal (major cause of sky glow) O No aiming of light h Least control of light trespass o Greatest potential for glare • Inefficient use of energy compared to fixtures with cutoff features Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 18 'mo""° 7. FIXTURE AND POLE STYLES Certain characteristics and features distinguish each commercial district and residential neighborhood from another within Salt Lake City. Lighting fixtures and poles can uniquely and distinctly enhance the appearance and complement the identity of each neighborhood and district. Major Streets and Commercial District Streets To insure uniform and safe lighting on major streets which by their nature carry higher speed, higher volume traffic, the light fixtures and poles identified in this chapter shall be used to provide appropriate lighting for the conditions present. Decorative poles and fixtures shall be used for new and replacement lighting on major streets whenever practical, except that cobra head fixtures on wood or steel poles may be used in industrial areas. It is desirable to seek public input on the type offixture and pole used for street lighting in commercial areas. The fixture and pole styles in these areas as identified in this chapter have . been selected with public input and consideration of historic and planned urban design elements and land use. Decorative poles and fixtures shall be used for new and replacement lighting in commercial areas whenever practical. Residential Neizhborhood Streets It is desirable to allow each residential neighborhood to adopt a decorative street light fixture and pole for its non-major streets from an approved list offixture and pole styles to help the community achieve and maintain its master plan goals and identity. The approved list has been generated in consideration of the public input received and having sufficient variety to allow neighborhood identity while retaining a reasonable ability to obtain and store parts and provide economic maintenance. All street lighting poles and fixtures used within Salt Lake City must be approved by the City Transportation Engineer. The currently approved `family"of light poles and.fixtures for Salt Lake City is shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. Lamp_fixtures with optical controls and side shield option capabilities are to be used because they provide flexibility in minimizing sky glow, light trespass, glare and energy waste. In special situations, such as within historic districts or when the installation of underground wiring and decorative poles and fixtures is not practical, exceptions to the above requirements may be approved by the City Transportation Engineer. 'd v, Cn o Slo co t" 'it' 4416 fill \ A. 0 all -.I III Gn .. • tii ini ►, 1C ) .-t ! ' l it 1 f %i r it it I •Lt `` 44 4. 4_....) .A innA . A State Street CBD Future CBD Sugar House South Temple 1-15 Ramps Redwood Road (Asparagus Pole) CBD Pole 400 South 700 East Figure 7.1. Major Street & Commercial Street bights and Poles b N N r Po cn q Qi r Lt 6Q ,I it 5. :i a T c ..q7,---4-. I h i 4 q can ,..,„ iv t I , .... r A A li ----ti\-- , ..._ ill I Neighborhood Liberty Glendale Poplar Sugar House Indian Avenues Arterial Wells Rose Park Grove Hills Figure 7.2. Residential Street Lights and Poles Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 21 Major streets require brighter lighting than most streets for the safety of the large volumes of vehicles and pedestrians. Business districts are well lit for the comfort of large crowds and to assure good nighttime color rendition in consideration of retailers displaying wares. Residential neighborhoods prefer lower lighting levels that focus on pedestrian ways as much as the paved streets, enhance the quality of life and walkability of neighborhoods and recognize the lower volumes and speeds of vehicles on the streets. To identify the appropriate lighting for each street within the City, input was provided by community councils, citizens, downtown property and business owners and City planning and technical staff. This master plan incorporates the continuance of the lighting plan developed more than fifteen years ago for the downtown business area and that has been implemented since that time as lighting projects,major land use developments,transit improvements and road rebuild projects have occurred. Community councils and residents have expressed a desire for decorative poles at low mounting height with underground wiring that provides pedestrian scale lighting and a sense of neighborhood identity. Each community council within Salt Lake City was asked to identify their preference should the lighting along their residential neighborhood streets be replaced with decorative poles and fixtures. This has resulted in an approved "family" of decorative light poles and fixtures that provides the opportunity to mix and match pole and fixture styles to create unique lighting systems for each neighborhood while achieving the economy of stocking and maintaining a reasonable number of pole and fixture types. Major Streets and Commercial District Lighting The lighting pole and fixture styles identified for Salt Lake City's major streets and commercial districts are shown in Table 7.1. Table 7.1. Major Streets and Commercial District Street Light Fixtures and Poles Lighting Area Pole Style Light Fixture Style Downtown Cactus Washington Sugar House Salem Tear Drop Trolley Square Cactus Washington 900 East & 900 South (9`I' & 9`I') DB 9 SLA 16 Gateway Cactus Cactus 2200 West - North Temple to north North Yorkshire Acorn City limits Redwood Road - 2100 South to 2300 Salem Tear Drop North 900 West - 2100 South to I-15 North Yorkshire Acorn Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 22 Am Table 7.1. (cont.) Major Streets and Commercial District Street Light Fixtures and Poles Lighting Area Pole Style Light Fixture Style 700 North/600 North- 300 West to 2200 North Yorkshire Acorn West North Temple—State to 2200 West North Yorkshire Acorn 400 South/500 South/Foothill - North Yorkshire Acorn Redwood Road to I-80 Beck Street - I-15 to 100 North Salem Tear Drop Main Street- 500 South to 2100 South North Yorkshire Acorn State Street - 200 North to 2100 South Salem Tear Drop 700 East - South Temple to south City Salem Tear Drop limits South Temple - State Street to Wolcott Lattice Poles Tear Drop 2100 South Salem Triple Tear Drop Sugar House Light 500 West— South Temple to 400 South North Yorkshire Acorn 1300 South— I-15 to State Street Salem Tear Drop Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 23 Residential Neighborhood Street Lighting The decorative pole and fixture styles selected by community councils for their neighborhoods are shown in Table 7. 2. Table 7.2. Residential Neighborhood Street Light Fixtures and Poles Lighting Area Pole Style Light Fixture Style Westpointe Charleston Grandville w/ribs and band Jordan Meadows Charleston Grandville Rose Park Charleston Grandville w/ribs and band Fairpark Charleston Grandville Poplar Grove Charleston Grandville w/band Glendale Charleston Grandville w/ribs and band Foothill North York Shire Grandville Capital Hill Wadsworth Grandville Marmalade Hill Wadsworth Grandville Ensign Downs Wadsworth Grandville Upper Avenues Wadsworth Grandville Avenues Wadsworth Grandville Federal Heights North York Shire Grandville Central North York Shire Grandville East Central North York Shire Grandville Liberty Park North York Shire Grandville University Park Concrete Grandville w/ribs and band College Avenues Concrete Grandville w/ribs and band Sugar House Private light style Tear Drop Highland Park North York Shire Grandville East Bench North York Shire Grandville Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 24 ''_ 8. LIGHTING PROGRAMS Salt Lake City offers four lighting programs. Traffic Safety Lighting(local streets) On local streets, the City provides a light at intersections for pedestrian and traffic safety. Under this program, optional rnidblock lights at approximately 300 foot spacing are also provided if the majority of property owners within 150 feet of the proposed light location concur in having the optional light. The City funds 100% of the cost for Traffic Safety Lighting. Continuous Lighting Systems (major streets) Along major streets, the City provides a brighter level and more uniform dispersion of lighting for traveler safety. These are streets with high traffic volumes and speed limits as well as more pedestrians. There are typically 6 to 8 lights per block face. The City funds 100% of the cost for Continuous Lighting. Special Improvement District (SID) Lighting Additional and/or decorative lighting in residential and commercial areas is offered via special improvement districts wherein abutting property owners agree to pay the capital cost for new or replacement SID lighting plus 75% of the ongoing operating and maintenance costs of the lights. The City pays 25% of the operation and maintenance cost which represents the approximate cost of lighting that the City would typically provide under either the Traffic Safety Lighting Program or Continuous Lighting Program. Private Lighting (residential areas) Under the private lighting program, residents purchase, install, operate, maintain and own decorative lights that are placed in the park strip of the public right-of-way. Each streetlight has underground wiring that is connected to the electrical service in the home of the owner of the streetlight. Each light owner signs a revocable permit issued by the City that is recorded with the property. The permit allows the light to be placed on public property and stipulates that the homeowner is responsible for operating and maintaining the light at the property owner's expense. Each neighborhood works with the City Transportation Division on a design that provides adequate lighting. This includes the type of pole, fixture, size and type of light and the spacing and location of poles. Once a plan is approved, the neighborhood arranges for installation of the lights. All costs of this program are the responsibility of the neighborhood. Since the program's inception, the City has made the Matching Grant Fund available to property owners to apply for up to 50% of the capital cost of private lighting. The City makes an annual budgeting decision on the amount of funding available in the Matching Grant Fund. Map 8.1 shows the locations where each of the above described lighting programs are deployed. N n ocD o I I n w `4e�E ,__ -... , ...w.._ - .-..�w..._......�._1.... !I Map 8.1 . Salt Lake City's Street Lighting na I:I (; 1_ shown by lighting program. I- F rQ __Iy." 1 Ir- } WWW GQ „� � �; 1 ,-- )}'',1000Nl� ..1:17-": 4 a J _ -i``'iiJ.a/4!� i 111 ,L fl�C'�`� ��., ;+'_ ��\\ ._t\� \S�� 93 �I , vi r NORTHITEMPEEI '- •�-=` '''I' I "=�,` �_ Y. !— —1 I a , SOUTH TEMPLE _:.L'- r:\I\ I "� 1.1 1� \� - �� t, 1E ICJ > , - I 1 I I 1 -.400,S.; - ate, I �. �,�5 I_ t I �1 -- -- r-• I 1500r ` t i, I ! o INDIANAII T7t T{- -' I I -I _ _O , -.. i. �r SUNNYSIDE — i i.�_ -t-* t I I I - I i I 1 1 , - 11 I / 1 y - _ - � a i'� 1_ II 1 4 1 E I •( = I _ _ 1r ,_. �:.----'`!_ -�._ 1_. :El_i { ��I d- ,./ 1 II\ e ,-,l t + _ - } w _� " awn O� I_ ; -{ = 1- �,1I �� I._ ` �.b t� 1- 1 Q • - Lip ,g 1 t ,., •y: A.1;,ir 2100 S w�+ c�-m..._. ✓ 1 ;• �,, 2100 S _ .� i .-T ,�n�asur L.L li Legend v..„,.. ...�.-- z � �o tub.... - _1 w CONTINUOUS LIGHTING SYSTEMS II .1 i IF 1i1�* -r .r.�,',�'s PRIVATE LIGHTING STREETS I 4_L.J �_. Mr*,'" SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LIGHTING = .iF wr -{ ' - ALL OTHER STREETS HAVE TRAFFIC SAFTEY LIGHTING t�� Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 26 Auk 9. USING CRIME PREVENTION IN STREET LIGHTING DESIGN (CPTED) In the planning, designing and building of the physical environment, especially in public spaces, it is essential that the principles and standards of Crime Prevention Through Enviromnental Design (CPTED) be given both fair and ample consideration. The proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear of crime and the incidence of crime, and to an improvement in quality of life. Street lighting is very much a part of the physical environment and must be afforded the same level of CPTED assessment as any other aspect of public space. Poor street lighting is not the main contributing factor in nighttime crime in public spaces. The lack of people socializing and using the public space contributes to an environment that may actually encourage crime, regardless of the level of lighting. It is important to note that lighting does decrease fear of crime, making public spaces more attractive for the community, thus promoting a process of greater legitimate use and socializing. Light does not prevent crime. People prevent crime. Lighting is an amenity that encourages interaction of people in public spaces, increasing natural surveillance. In CPTED, natural surveillance is defined as: "The organization of physical features, activities, and people in such a way as to maximize visibility. The placement of windows, doors, common areas; the alignment of sidewalks and paths; the locations and levels of lighting; and the proper design and size of open spaces can contribute to natural surveillance opportunities." If a person wants to pursue any illegal activity, good natural surveillance enhanced by proper lighting will discourage the activity. Street lighting that is well designed and properly maintained will do the following: • Improve the appearance of the public space. o Encourage people to interact. Q Contribute to a positive sense of safety and security. The following are some general guidelines for lighting in public spaces: o Public spaces must be well lighted for pedestrians. © The light type and lighting level must not hinder recognition of people; a good measure is being able to identify faces 50 feet away. O Consistency is essential. e Glare and shadows must be eliminated to the maximum extent possible O Blind spots, entrapment locations, and hidden areas need adequate lighting. © In most cases, the best approach is to use more lights with lower wattage than a few lights with higher wattage. Many aspects of the built environment, including lighting,must be assessed using the situational — approach. The CPTED approach is to ask questions, from every possible angle, to determine if all possibilities are being considered. Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 27 The following questions can serve as a guide in determining proper lighting design or identifying deficiencies: 1. Are public spaces lighted to the minimum standard brightness? 2. Is lighting consistent, with little or no glare, shadows or contrasts? 3. Is reflectivity considered in designing the lighting? 4. Does the lighting adequately illuminate pedestrian spaces and possible entrapment areas? 5. Are grade change entrances well lit? 6. Are lights and vegetation compatible? 7. Are light fixtures located to avoid accidental knockdown? 8. Are light fixtures protected from vandalism? 9. Do the users, or residents, in the surrounding area participate and exhibit good ownership efforts? 10. Is maintenance adequate to insure clean fixtures and replacement of broken or burned out bulbs? 11. Are there other physical features that need improvement so that lighting can be effective? 12. Is there regular, on-going surveillance of the area by the community, contributing to ownership and reporting of deficiencies in lighting? 13. Are landscaping elements chosen and maintained so as not to restrict lighting? 14. Are nighttime corridors properly illuminated to eliminate hiding or entrapment areas? 15. Are sightlines and natural surveillance considered in designing lighting for designated nighttime corridors or activity generators? 16. Are movement predictor routes identified and adequately lighted? 17. Are signs, maps, house/building numbers, and other way-finding devices well illuminated? 18. Are the different seasons considered in designing lighting levels? It is the policy of the Scrlt Lake City Transportation Division to support the use of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles in the design and operation of street lighting within Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 28 Aft, 10. BANNERS Neighborhoods throughout the City may request approval to place banners on street light poles to provide a sense of community spirit and identity. Banners are also used to promote traffic calming. This master plan supports these uses of banners on street light poles. An 18-foot high or taller pole will accommodate a 6' tall banner; however, shorter banner sizes may be necessary on neighborhood streets where shorter poles exist. Street light poles must be rated for wind load based on the desired banner size before approval to hang banners will be granted. In neighborhoods where light poles cannot accommodate banners, separate banner poles may need to be used. Neighborhoods interested in receiving approval to hang banners for neighborhood community spirit and identity purposes must petition the City in accordance with the August 21, 2003 Executive Order: Authorizing the Placement of Street Banners in the Public Way, copies of which can be obtained at the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, 349 South 200 East, Suite 450. The cost associated with producing, hanging and removing these banners is borne by the organization requesting approval. It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation Division to support the use of banners oil street light poles to enhance a sense of community and contribute to traffic calming. 11. STREET TREES AND LIGHTING COMPATIBILITY It is desired that street lighting and trees located within or near the public rights-of-way be compatible. Both add character to neighborhoods and are highly desirable urban elements of livable communities. Street lighting powered from underground wiring eliminates the need for tree pruning around wires. Likewise, locating street lights such that the current and future tree canopy does not significantly conflict with the desired lighting dispersion precludes the need for pruning. At the same time, care must be taken to maintain reasonably similar spacing between lights in order to maintain the desired uniformity of lighting levels along the streets and sidewalks. It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation Division to coordinate the location of nevi' street lights with the Salt Lake City Forester and, in turn, coordinate on the planting of new trees such that both are compatible in providing desired benefits to the neighborhood. Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan 5/06 Page 29 12. ACKNOWEDGMENTS • MAYOR Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson CITY COUNCIL Carlton J. Christensen—District 1 Van Blair Turner—District 2 K. Eric Jergensen— District 3 Nancy Saxton—District 4 Jill Remington Love—District 5 David L. Buhler—District 6 Dale Lambert—District 7 MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON LIGHTING DESIGN Anthony Arrigo —Utah Skies Cheri Coffey—Planning Division Sherrie Collins — Special Project Grants Monitoring Specialist Dell Cook— Engineering Landscape Project Manager Doug Dansie—Planning Division Barry Esham—Community Affairs - Crime Prevention Specialist Rebecca Fleischman- Resident Rick Graham—Public Services Director Gordon M. Haight II—Transportation Engineer Boris Kurz—East Liberty Park Community Council Chair Garth Limberg— Special Assessment Coordinator Kadee Nielson— Westpointe Community Council Chair Alicia Orgill—Police Department Joel Patterson—Planning Division Val Pope—Parks Division Manager Lisa Romney— Mayor's Environmental Affairs Coordinator