05/11/2006 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WORK SESSION
THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2006
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on
Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office,
City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric
Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren
Simonsen.
Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Kay
Christensen, Budget Analyst; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer;
Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst;
Brent Wilde, Community Development Deputy Director; Edwin Rutan, City
Attorney; Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director; Lehua Weaver, Constituent
Liaison; John Naser, Engineering Senior Project Manager; Dan Mule' ,
City Treasurer; Larry Spendlove, Senior City Attorney; Gary Mumford,
Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Rocky Fluhart,
Mayor' s Chief Administrative Officer; Louis Zunguze; Community
Development Director; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Kevin
Bergstrom, Public Services Deputy Director; Parviz Rokhva, Technical
Planner/Director of Streets and Sanitation; LuAnn Clark, Housing and
Neighborhood Development Director; Andrea Curtis, Community Development
Management Support Coordinator; Rick Graham, Public Services Director;
Sylvia Jones, Council Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison;
Steve Fawcett; Management Services Deputy Director; Greg Davis, Finance
Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Larry Butcher,
Development Review Administrator; Edna Drake, Business License
Administrator; John Spencer, Real Property Manager; Rosanita Cespedes,
Director of the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center; John Vuyk, Fire
Department Assistant Financial Manager; Janet Wolf, Youth City Division
Program Director; Kim Thomas, Youth City Programs Manager; and Beverly
Jones, Deputy City Recorder.
Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 35 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1 . 5 : 35 : 29 PM INTERVIEW CRAIG D . GALLI PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF
HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD .
Councilmember Buhler said Mr . Galli' s name would be forwarded to
the Consent Agenda for approval .
#2 . 5 : 38 : 25 PM INTERVIEW ESTHER E . HUNTER PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION
OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION.
Councilmember Buhler said Ms . Hunter' s name would be forwarded to
the Consent Agenda for approval .
06 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WORK SESSION
THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2006
#3 . 5 : 41 : 24 PM RECEIVE AN OVERVIEW OF MAJOR BUDGET ISSUES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 . View Attachments
Gary Mumford, Gordon Hoskins and Steve Fawcett briefed the Council
from the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler suggested Council
staff prepare recommendations for the Council based on not including
any tax or fee increases . All Council Members were in favor.
Councilmember Love said she was interested in how much expenditures had
gone up without adding any full time employees (FTE' s) . She said those
expenditures should include the increased cost of insurance, fuel, etc.
#4 . 6 : 11 : 48 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S
RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 . View Attachments
Louis Zunguze, Brent Wilde, Sylvia Jones, Tim Harpst, John Vuyk
and Steve Fawcett briefed the Council from the attached handouts .
#5 . 7 : 06 : 36 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S
RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2006-07 . View Attachments
Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, Jennifer Bruno, Greg Davis, Janet
Wolf, Kim Thomas and Rosanita Cespedes briefed the Council from the
attached handouts . Councilmember Saxton asked when the Council would
receive a copy of the study that looked at the overall costs of events
with Police and Fire . Mr. Graham said the study had been done and
discussions with the Administration had been held. He said he would
get the Council a copy of the study in 30 days .
#6 . 8 : 32 :29 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S
RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE REFUSE FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 . View
Attachments
Lehua Weaver, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, Greg Davis and Parviz
Rokhva briefed the Council from the attached handouts . A discussion
was held on the City-wide cleanup program and whether there would be
some savings on using dumpsters . Mr. Graham said their proposal was to
continue with the neighborhood cleanup. Councilmember Buhler asked for
a straw poll regarding the Administration' s recommendation to keep the
neighborhood cleanup as it is presently. The majority of the Council
Members were in favor. Councilmember Simonsen said he wanted to
explore other options .
#7 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE
PARKING SERVICE LICENSE TAX FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 .
This item was not discussed.
06 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WORK SESSION
THURSDAY, MAY 11 , 2006
#8 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 .
This item was not discussed.
#9 . 9 : 12 : 42 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE,
OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION
WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER
CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE PUBLIC BODY FROM COMPLETING THE
TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, AND TO DISCUSS PENDING OR
REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED § § 52-
4-4 , 52-4-5 (1) (aa) (iii) AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iv) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT
MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED § 78-24-8 .
Councilmember Jergensen moved and Councilmember Simonsen seconded
to enter into Executive Session, which motion carried, all members
voted aye .
See File M 06-2 for sworn statement and confidential tape .
#10 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INCLUDING A REVIEW OF
COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND 9 : 09 : 19 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS .
See file M 06-5 for announcements . No report of the Executive
Director was held.
The meeting adjourned at 9 : 12 p .m.
Council Chair
Chief Deputy City Recorder
This document along with the digital recording constitute the
official minutes for the City Council Work Session held May 11, 2006 .
bj
06 - 3
Board Appointment — Land Use Appeals Board — Craig Galli
INTRODUCTION:
Mayor Anderson is recommending Craig Galli, District 5, to be appointed to the
Land Use Appeals Board. If elected Mr. Galli will serve a term extending through
December 31, 2008 and will be replacing Mark Wilson whose term has expired.
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
Mr. Galli is an Attorney at Holland & Hart LLP. Mr. Galli is interested in more
legal oriented service and would like to become a member of this board. Mr. Galli is a
member of the American Bar Association and American Planning Association; he has
participated in the Steering Committee for Envision Utah, Legal Aid Society and Pro
Bono Advisor at J. Reuben Clark Law Society.
RESPONSE DEADLINE:
If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Vicki know by
5:00 p.m. on Tuesday May 2, 2006.
CURRENT COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD:
According to City ordinance, the Land Use Appeals Board shall consist of five
members, each serving a three-year term. Members are to be selected from City
residents in a manner that will provide balanced representation in terms of
geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests. Preference may be
given to individuals with legal or land use experience. No more than one alternate
member shall vote at any Land Use Appeals Board meeting at one time. At present,
members of the Land Use Appeals Board include John H. Bogart, District 5; Mark
Hafey, District 7, and Inga Regenass, District 3;
BOARD STRUCTURE:
The Land Use Appeals Board was created to hear and decide appeals of
decisions made by the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission.
Parties aggrieved by a decision of the Historic Landmark Commission or Planning
Commission may object by filing a written appeal with the Land Use Appeals Board
within thirty days following the decision. Decisions of the Land Use Appeals Board
shall become effective on the date the vote is taken. Any party aggrieved by the
decision of the Land Use Appeals Board may appeal that decision to district court
within thirty days.
Historic Landmark Commission Appointment — Esther E. Hunter
INTRODUCTION:
Mayor Anderson is recommending Esther E. Hunter, resident of District 4, to be
appointed to the Historic Landmark Commission for a term extending through July 14, 2009.
Ms. Hunter will be replacing Mark Wilson whose term has expired.
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
Ms. Hunter is a Rapid Eye Therapist and has a keen interest in preserving historic
elements in Salt Lake City. She also has an interest in public service with personal
experience taking projects through the process and being a positive bridge between
preservation and home/business owners. Ms. Hunter has extensive experience in conflict and
problem resolutions. Please note that Ms. Hunter is currently serving on the Capital
Improvement Program but would like to be appointed to this board at this time. If appointed
Ms. Hunter's term on the Capital Improvement Program would end.
RESPONSE DEADLINE:
If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Vicki know by 5:00 p.m. on
Wednesday May 3, 2006.
CURRENT BOARD COMPOSITION:
According to City ordinance, the Historic Landmark Commission "shall consist of not
less than nine nor more than fifteen voting members." In part, the Salt Lake City Code states
that each voting member "shall be a resident of the City interested in preservation and
knowledgeable about the heritage of the City." City code also requires members be selected to
provide representation from the following groups of experts and interested parties: (a) a
licensed architect representing the American Institute of Architects; (b) a member representing
the Utah Historical Society; (c) a member representing the Utah Heritage Foundation; (d) six
citizens at large; and (e) a member representing each historic district in the City.
Current members of the Historic Landmark Commission include Pete R. Ashdown,
Exchange Place Representative, District 3; Paula Carl, District 5; Scott Christensen, at-large,
District 3; David Fitzsimmons, District 5; Creed Haymond, University District, District 4;
Noreen Hammond Heid, Center City, District 4; Warren Lloyd, American Institute of
Architects, District 6.
HLC STRUCTURE:
The mission of the Historic Landmark Commission is to preserve buildings of historic
and architectural significance, encourage proper development in areas adjacent to historic
districts, safeguard the City's heritage by protecting landmarks, protect and enhance the
attraction of the City's historic landmarks for tourists and visitors, and increase public
awareness of historic preservation.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
DATE: May 5, 2006
SUBJECT: OVERVIEW OF MAJOR BUDGET ISSUES
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
STAFF REPORT: Gary Mumford
cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, Kay
Christensen, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter
On May 2, 2006, Mayor Anderson presented his recommended budget for fiscal year
2006-07. Council staff has prepared this overview and will provide a more
Com rehensive analysis of ilrcgosed department budgets prior to each briefing.
Table listing each of the proposed
tax and fee increases is on page 16. Synopsis of the proposed city-wide budget is on
the last page of this overview.
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
General Fund activities are funded primarily by property taxes, sales taxes, and
franchise taxes. The table below reflects the fiscal year 2005-06 adopted budget for
wrz
revenue and the projected revenue for fiscal year 2006-07.
PROPOSED GENERAL FUND REVENUE
FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Difference Percent
2005-06 2006-07 Change
Property taxes—certified rate $48,492,592 $48,492,592 $ - -
Property taxes—general obligation debt 7,794,057 8,949,456 1,155,399 14.8%
Property tax increase - 2,090,000 2,090,000 -
Property tax judgment levy - 1,304,779 1,304,779 -
Property taxes-vehicle, delinquent, RDA 6,700,000 6,703,000 3,000 0.0%
Sales and use taxes 38,528,000 41,000,000 2,472,000 6.4%
Energy tax—natural gas 4,047,979 4,602,000 554,021 13.7%
Franchise taxes 22,956,972 23,446,972 490,000 2.1%
Payment in lieu of taxes 1,030,580 871,836 (158,744) (15.4%)
Business licenses 5,528,338 7,553,743 2,025,405 36.6%
Building permits 4,641,477 7,948,749 3,307,272 71.3%
Fines and forfeitures 8,949,300 8,962,400 13,100 0.1%
Intergovernmental revenue 4,581,960 4,761,375 179,415 3.9%
Charges for services 2,949,960 2,932,813`'' (17,147) (0.6%)
Parking meter revenue 1,493,000 1,464,000 (29,000) (1.9%)
Interest income 2,235,575 4,100,000 1,864,425 83.4%
Reimbursements from other City funds 9,204,605 9,528,488 323,883 3.5%
Miscellaneous revenue 765,663 876,100 110,437 14.4%
Interfund transfers 1,579,300 1,622,300 43,000 2.7%
Fund balance&one-time sources 1,258,300 3,725,000 2,466,700 196.0%
Total General Fund Revenue $172,737,658 $190,935,603 $18,197,945 10.5%
Projected General Fund Revenue
Fiscal year 2006-07
Interest income Reimbursements
Fines and forfeitures 2% \ from other City funds
5% -\ 5%
Sales and use taxes
24% ��. Property taxes
36%
ftyi
Interfund transfers
Charges for services
and other
Parking meter Franchise taxes
revenue 13%
1% Intergovernmental \
\
revenue \_Licenses and permits
3% 8%
Property taxes - The Administration recommends a property tax increase of$940,000
plus a property tax increase of $1,150,000 to fund liability claims and judgments as
allowed by law. A property tax to fund liability claims has not been levied in recent
years, rather the liability claims have been funded through the general fund. Levying
a separate tax for liability claims will free up $1,150,000 for reallocation with the
proposed budget. The Administration also proposes a judgment levy to recover
amounts deducted from the City's current fiscal year (FY05-06) revenue for court
ordered refunds or judgments. This one-time revenue is proposed to fund one-time
costs. (See page 11 for listing of proposed one-time costs.) In 2003, the voters
approved bonding for the purchase of property for open space and building renovation
for the Leonardo. The proposed budget includes the first-year debt service of
$1,171,199. The total taxes for the three property tax increases and the judgment
levy will be $38 on a home valued at $190,000 and $364 on a $1 million business.
Sales tax: Projected sales tax revenue for fiscal year 2005-06 reflects a 6.4% increase
of$2,472,000.
Municipal energy tax: The municipal sales tax on natural gas was capped by the
state legislature at 110% of the previous year's revenue. According to the
Administration, the legislation will allow the City to collect a maximum of$4,602,000
in fiscal year 2006-07. The increase from fiscal year 2005-06 budget to fiscal year
2006-07 budget is greater than 10%, but actual revenue will not exceed the allowable
amount. The finance division is setting aside approximately $1,100,000 of receipts for
rebate in December 2006. Salt Lake City would be eligible to receive a small portion
of this rebate based on its own natural gas purchases.
2
Franchise tax: Franchise taxes are projected to increase by $490,000 or 2.1% based
on current revenue trends.
Business licenses: The Administration has updated the cost study to support
business license fees and has proposed adjustments to fees, which is projected to
increase revenue by $1,323,900. In addition, proposed revisions to the parking
license fee are expected to increase revenue by $560,000 for total parking lot license
revenue of $1,000,000. The current parking license fee is applicable to the airport
and other parking lots that specifically service the airport. The proposed ordinance
would also apply to publicly built/privately operated parking lots that support public
facilities such as the underground parking lot at the Library.
Permits: The Administration projects that building permit revenue will increase 62%
based on proposed projects for a total of $7,546,525. In addition, proposed
ordinances relating to fire prevention inspection fees and hazardous materials fees are
projected to increase permit revenue by $402,224.
Charges for services: Forecasted revenue from charges for services reflects some
increases and decreases for a net decrease of$17,147. The principal decrease relates
to ground transportation background checks, which may be done in the future by the
Airport.
Parking meter revenue: The Mayor's Recommended Budget continues the free holiday
parking program. Forecasted parking meter revenue is slightly down from the fiscal
year 2005-06 budget by $29,000 based on actual revenue collections.
Fines and forfeitures: Estimated revenue for parking and traffic fines reflects a very
slight increase of $13,100 based on current trends of actual receipts. The
Administration has designated one meter parking area as free without limits on
Saturdays, which may have an impact on parking fine revenue. The Council may
wish to ask if the Administration plans to retain or expand that program and what the
projected cost (lost revenue) may be.
Interest revenue: Interest rates have significantly increased over the past year.
Estimated interest income reflects an 83% increase from $2,235,575 to $4,100,000.
Administrative fees and reimbursements from other City funds: The General Fund
provides services to enterprise and internal service funds. The Administration is
projecting an increase of $276,863 in airport fire reimbursement and an increase of
about $47,020 in other reimbursements for services provided by the general fund
such as accounting, payroll, purchasing, human resource management, legal, cash
management, Mayor, and City Council.
Transfers from other funds: This revenue category primarily reflects the transfer of
E911 fees from a separate "special revenue fund." The E911 funds are restricted to
reimburse the City for the cost of answering emergency calls and related equipment.
Reimbursements are projected to be $43,000 greater than fiscal year 2005-06.
Use of fund balance: The Mayor's Recommended Budget includes use of fund balance
of$3,725,000 to fund one-time uses for the following:
• $2,000,000 - land acquisition
• $1,500,000 addition to the old library building for the Leonardo to be matched
• $ 225,000 - offset sales tax from downtown malls reconstruction.
See page 10 for analysis of fund balance.
3
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
The following table summarizes proposed expenditure budgets for the General Fund.
PROPOSED GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Percent
2005-06 2006-07 Difference Change
Attorney's Office $ 3,475,240 $ 3,909,521 ` $434,281 12.5%
Community Development 8,331,182 9,183,080 851,898 10.2%
Fire 28,696,411 30,549,938 1,853,527 6.5%
Management Services 9,634,521 10,708,331 1,073,810 11.1%
Police 47,128,460 51,083,387` 3,954,927 8.4%
Public Services 34,609,623 36,756,738 2,147,115 6.2%
Office of the Mayor 1,566,133 1,633,638 67,505 4.3%
City Council Office 1,550,473 1,595,941 , 45,468 2.9%
Non-Departmental 37,745,614 45,515,029 7,769,415 20.6%
Total General Fund Expenditures $172,737,657 $190,935,603 $18,197,946 10.5%
Proposed General Fund Expenditures
Fiscal year 2006-07
Police
26% Fire
16%
Office of the Mayor
1% Public Services
19%
Attorney's Office
2% Management
services
Community / 6%
Development-
5% City Council Office
Nondepartmental
24% °
4
CHANGES PROPOSED IN FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS
The proposed budget includes several additional employee positions.
PROPOSED CHANGES IN FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS
FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
Amended Fiscal Year Proposed Percent
Fiscal Year 2006-07 Increase Change
2005-06
Attorney's Office 43.6 45.6 2 5.1%
Community Development 123.0 128.0 5 4.1%
Fire 362.0 362.0
Management Services 119.5 132.7 13.2 11.0%
Police 585.0 .599.0 14 2.4%
Public Services 435.3 4450 9.7 2.2%
Office of the Mayor(including mayor) 17.0 17.0
City Council Office(including council) 18.6 18.6.`
Total General Fund FTEs 1704.0 1747.9 43.9 2.5%
MAJOR POLICY ISSUES
1. Property tax increase ($940,000) - The budget proposes a property tax increase of
$940,000. This will result in a $7.80 tax increase o a home valued at $190,000
and a $75 increase on a $1 million business. The Administration has indicated
that additional police positions and equipment would be funded through a tax
increase, although there are additional increases in the budget beyond the police
officers.
2. Property tax increase to fund governmental immunity claims ($1,150,000) - A
property tax increase of $1,150,000 is requested to fund liability claims and
judgments as allowed by law. In reality, this is a general property tax increase
since claims and judgments are currently funded by the general fund. This
property tax increase will result in a $9.60 tax increase on a home valued at
$190,000 and a $92 increase on a $1 million business.
3. Property tax judgment levy ($1,304,7791 - A judgment levy is an additional
property tax rate imposed to offset a shortfall stemming from a Tax Commission or
court decision that reduces a tax entity's tax base (total assessed value). The
failure to adopt a judgment levy impacts only one year rather than each year in the
future as was the case before the Legislature made changes a few years ago. The
Administration is proposing that this one-time revenue be used to fund one-time
costs. This judgment levy will result in a one-time tax of$10.90 on a home valued
at $190,000 and $104 on a $1 million business.
4. No elimination of positions or budget reductions - The Mayor's Recommended
Budget does not contain any elimination of positions in the general fund or
reductions in services.
5
5. Additional positions ($2,249,4851: The Mayor recommended 43.9 new FTE
positions in the general fund including 14 positions at the Police Department, 11
positions at the Justice Court, 4 positions relating to one-stop building permits
shop, 2 positions for the Prosecutor's Office, 2 at the Unity Center, 4.75 youth
program FTEs that are currently grant funded, and 6 other positions. Council
staff will provide more information regarding these proposed new employee
positions in separate staff reports for each department. Annual salaries are shown
below. In some cases the position will not start until November, January or April.
Annual salaries are still shown, but the start dates are indicated.
Proposed Additional General Fund Positions
Annual Salary Annual Benefits
City Prosecutor's Office
Associate city prosecutor $47,640 $16,644
Office technician $29,280 $13,116
Community Development
Planner $51,588 $17,400
Building inspector $50,244 $17,136
Project coordinator/building plans examiner $47,736 $16,656
Fire engineer $65,664 $20,112
Office facilitator $36,108 $14,424
Management Services
Deputy treasurer(hire Sept 1) $57,000 $18,500
HR recorders administrator(hire Sept 1) $45,158 $17,654
Court hearing officer $28,350 $16,668
Court small claims clerk $26,568 $16,326
Court traffic coordinator 0.2 FTE (part-time to full-time) $39,792 $15,300
4 court clerks (hire Nov 1) $24,894 $16,002
each each
Court file clerk (hire Nov 1) $23,364 $15,696
Court judge (hire Jan 1) $91,800 $25,140
3 court clerks for new judge (hire Nov 1) $25,632 $16,146
each each
Police
School resource officer (grant funding expired; school district to $32,856 $19,692
reimburse$43,000 for nine months)
8 police officers $32,856 $19,692
each each
Police sergeant $60,912 $30,120
2 field crime lab technicians $30,300 $14,028
each each
Civilian evidence room supervisor $36,756 $15,264
officer to be transferred to direct police services
Civilian technician over pawn shop review $28,200 $13,620
officer to be transferred to direct police services
Public Services
Open space coordinator $71,328 $21,203
Facilities energy efficiency coordinator $51,216 $17,340
Engineering office tech $34,164 $14,052
2 Unity Center program coordinators (hire April 1) $41,820 $15,528
3 YouthCity program coordinators (moved from grant) $40,224 $15,192
each each
Computer Clubhouse coordinator(moved from grant) $33,700 $13,968
Part-time Clubhouse assistant 0.75 FTE (moved from grant) $20,784 $7,728
6
6. Bonding-The Administration is recommending the following bonding:
Voter-approved General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $10.2 million are
proposed to be issued to help refurbish and retrofit the former City library building
(Leonardo project). Voter-approved bonds in the amount of $5.4 million are also
proposed to be issued to purchase property within the City to be preserved for
open space. Debt service for both the Leonardo bonds and the open space bonds
will be $1,171,199 in fiscal year 2006-07. The Council has already taken the first
step in the bonding process on these two sets of bonds.
Sales tax revenue bonds in the amount of approximately $24.7 million are
proposed to be issued to construct a new fleet facility and to reimburse the capital
improvement program for the purchase of the land. Bonds are also proposed to be
issued in the amount of approximately $11.3 million to realign the railroad tracks
at the Grant Tower Curve and construct the Folsom Street/City Creek Parkway
which will daylight City Creek. Under this recommendation, debt service for the
2006-07 fiscal year will be $682,917.
Bonding for a new public safety building is not proposed for fiscal year 2006-07.
Two of the City's bond issues will be retired within the next five years. In 2009,
payments for bonds that were issued for various road improvements will be
completely repaid freeing up $730,000 annually. In 2011, the annual debt
payments of about $2,390,000 for the City & County Building renovation will end.
Other bond payments expire between 2019 and 2026.
7. Business license fees ($1,323,379 increase! - In 2005, the Administration
conducted a review of business license fees to identify the actual costs associated
with issuing business licenses. The proposed ordinance increases the base
business license from $70 to $90 in order to better reflect the actual cost of
licensing and monitoring as determined by the study. Under the proposal, the
per-employee fee will increase from $10 to $14. Adjustments are proposed to
regulatory fees for indirect costs associated with doing business within the City.
New disproportionate fees are proposed to certain types of businesses due to their
receiving a disproportionate level of city services. The Council may wish to
schedule a separate briefing on business license fees.
8. Fire prevention plan review fees ($276,224 new fees) - The Fire Department
provides fire plan review for fire code regulations and fire suppression systems. At
the current time, no fee is specifically designated to pay for fire plan review. This
service is instead funded by taxpayer dollars and an unidentified portion of
business licensing construction permit fee. The Administration proposes that the
City establish a set fee schedule for fire plan reviews and hire a fire protection
engineer at the one-stop shop.
9. Fire hazardous materials permit fees ($126,000 increase) - The Fire Prevention
Bureau currently collects fees for hazardous materials permits, tank permits,
blasting permits, high rise permits, fireworks public display permits, temporary
structure permits, health care facility inspections and day care inspections. A
recent review of business license fees showed that the fee amounts were less than
the costs. The Administration is recommending that fees be established based on
size, difficulty, and the type of permit or inspection needed. In addition to the
items listed above, the proposed ordinance establishes a fee schedule for open
7
burning permits, flame effects permits, assembly permits, trade show permits,
suppression, alarm or detection system installation permits, hot works operations
permits and re-inspections
10. Capital Improvement Program on-going funding ($12,502,682) - The 10-year CIP
plan requires average funding from the general fund to be 7.95% of general fund
revenue. The 10-year plan projected that this percentage would provide funding of
$13,433,750 in fiscal year 2006-07. The Mayor recommends that $12,502,682 of
general fund revenue be transferred to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund for
fiscal year 2009-07, which is less than the 10-year CIP plan by $931,068. Of the
proposed transfer to CIP, $7,306,425 is for debt service and $5,196,257 is for pay-
as-you-go projects.
The Mayor's proposed funding the following projects:
• $2,000,000 future land purchases (from fund balance)
• $1,500,000 expansion of the Leonardo Building Project (fund balance)
• $1,000,000 local streets
• $ 770,000 California Ave street reconstruction 4800 W to 5600 W
• $ 500,000 Liberty Park improvements
• $ 450,000 traffic signal upgrades
• $ 400,000 Phase II improvements of Pioneer Park
• $ 400,000 sidewalk replacement SID
• $ 300,000 ADA ramps
• $ 210,000 Sugarhouse rails with trails project
• $ 200,000 Westminster Park ADA playground & improvements
• $ 150,000 sidewalk rehabilitation - citywide
• $ 150,000 traffic signal installation, 1000 N 1200 W
• $ 150,000 Jordan River Trail, 2000 North to Davis County Line
• $ 75,000 pedestrian safety devices
• $ 60,000 tennis court resurfacing
• $ 50,000 tree replacement in parks
• $ 50,000 barrier beautification design, 800 S 1100 E
• $ 50,000 safety lighting
• $ 50,000 bicycles routes and paths
• $ 45,000 street improvements, 750 N 2200 W
• $ 20,000 ADA transition parks
• $ 56,257 baseball park concession stand improvements
• $ 60,000 percent for Art
11. Golf Course session passes ($174,8001 - The Administration is proposing a new
season pass program for adults: weekday 5-course pass ($895), weekday 9-course
pass ($1,095), unlimited 5-course pass ($1,295), and unlimited 9-course pass
($1,695). There will be a discount in the pass purchase price for seniors 65 or
older. A junior pass program is proposed to be available for persons 17 or younger
as follows: junior summer 5-course pass ($250), junior summer 9-course pass
($375), junior year-around pass 5-course pass ($495), and junior annual 9-course
pass ($695). The budget includes revenue estimates of$136,700 for the new adult
season pass and $38,100 for the junior season pass. Some adjustments to the 9-
hole green fees at Bonneville, Mountain Dell and Forest Dale are also proposed.
Some employee positions are proposed to be eliminated and some full-time
8
positions are proposed to be reduced to seasonal. Council staff will include an
analysis of these changes for the Council briefing on the Golf Fund. It should be
44,00- noted that a previous City Council audit recommended that the pass program (as
previously configured) be eliminated.
,,12.Proposed cost-of-living and step increases ($3,713,700) - The Mayor's
Recommended Budget includes a citywide cost-of-living increase. Merit or step
increases are also proposed for laborers (100 series), office/clerical (200 series),
fire fighters, and police officers (except for those employees already at the top
step). The proposed cost-of-living and step increases are still the subject of
ongoing negotiations. The Administration is available to discuss labor bargaining
in executive sessions. Council staff will provide more detail in a staff report later
in the Council's budget review process.
13.Health insurance - major change in premium structure ($375,000 general fund
increase; 3.75%1 - The City is self-insured for employee health coverage. The
City's health insurance costs have increased an average of 8.1% per year over the
past eleven years (less than the national average). To maintain the current
medical plan benefits, a premium increase of 8.5% is needed this year at a cost to
the general fund of about $850,000. In order to reduce this cost trend, the
Administration is proposing some major changes.
The Administration's health insurance proposal continues to allow employees the
option of three health insurance plans. Currently, the City pays 100% of the
employee's premium in any of the three plans. One plan, Summit Care, costs the
City 20% to 30% less than the other plans due to higher discounts that have been
negotiated with providers and facilities. Under the new premium structure, the
Administration is proposing to pay 100% of each employee's premium in the
Summit Care plan and require employees to pay the additional cost if they select
one of the more expensive plans. This will help control future claims costs and
premium increase. The Administration also proposes to implement a $150 annual
deductible (not subject to the employee clinic use and prescriptions). Those
enrolled in Summit Care will have the option to use any medical provider, but if an
out-of network provider is used, the plan pays 70% of the Summit Care schedule
of benefits and a $250 deductible applies in addition to the standard co-pay.
In order to encourage movement from the higher cost plans to the more cost
effective plan, the Administration is proposing to pay 100% of the cost to add
spouse/double coverage or family/more-than-two coverage in the Summit Care
plan. Employees can pay the additional cost for one of the more expensive plans.
The total cost increase to the general fund for the proposed premium structure will
be $375,000, which is an increase of only 3.75%. These changes were
recommended by a majority vote of the City's Benefits Committee. The Human
Resource Management Division briefed union membership and the professional
employees council. According to the Administration, the changes received support
from a majority of those attending these briefings. Additional meetings are
scheduled for all employees during the month of May. The City Council may wish
to have a separate briefing on the employee health insurance proposal. If the
Council decides to suggest any changes, the Administration would like to know as
soon as possible since employees must decide whether to change plans by May
31 st in order to allow time to implement the new health insurance program by
July. Under past practice, the specific implementation of benefits is largely an
administrative matter, while the funding is legislative.
9
I
14. Pension premium increase ($1,051,677) - Pension costs are increasing $1,051,677
for the General Fund. The increase in the retirement costs are as follows:
• Firefighters increased 0.89% (from 7.83% to 8.72%);
• Public Safety increased 3.03% (from 33.70% to 36.73%);
• Public Safety Noncontributory increased 3.19% (from 32.52% to 35.71%);
• Public Employees Contributory increased 0.50% (from 13.08% to 13.58%);
• Public Employees Noncontributory increased 0.50% (from 11.09% to 11.59%).
15. Use of fund balance ($3,725,000) - The Mayor's Recommended Budget proposes
the appropriation of $2,000,000 for land acquisition for a possible future site for
city facilities, $1,500,000 for matching funds for an annex to the old main library
building for the Leonardo, and $225,000 from fund balance to offset the decrease
in sales tax revenue from downtown mall reconstruction. In the past, the Council
has had a policy of maintaining a fund balance of at least equal to 10% of general
fund revenue. It should be noted that there was some discussion on the part of
the Council previously about funding some of the costs associated with Grant
Tower from fund balance rather than through a bond.
Fund Balance
General Fund
Fund balance - June 30, 2005 $26,631,000
Less use of last year's lapsed appropriations for one-time (887,000)
costs in fiscal year 2006
Less appropriation of fund balance by budget amendment (6,632,000)
Less proposed use of fund balance in budget (210,000)
amendment #5
Less proposed use of fund balance in Mayor's (3,725,000)
Recommended Budget for fiscal year 2007
Plus forecasted excess revenue in fiscal year 2006 3,393,000
Plus approximate expenditure savings in fiscal year 2006 400,000
Estimated Fund balance -June 30, 2006 $18,970,000
(10.1% of proposed general fund revenue of$187,210,603)
Minimum amount per Council policy 18,721,000
(10% of general fund revenue)
Amount in excess of Council's 10% policy $ 249,000
16. Justice Court ($498,950 increase) - In March 2006, the Council appropriated
funds for four contract employees at the Justice Court to be continued until the
result of a study are available. The Administration has proposed continuing the
contract employees for four more months and then hiring ten regular court staff.
An additional judge is also proposed beginning in January after the next judge
training opportunity. Council staff will include an analysis of the proposed court
budget increases in the staff report for the Council briefing on the Department of
Management Services
10
17. One-Stop Permit Shop ($269,124 increase plus one-time costs of $98,000) - The
Administration proposes to remodel the one-stop counter area into a one-stop
shop and add four employee positions. On May 2, the Council received a briefing
on this request. The funding for geographic information components that would
ultimately facilitate communication among departments and fully implement this
concept is not included in the Administration's recommended budget. These
would be one-time costs and could be funded over a several year period. Council
staff suggests and investment of$200,000 to $250,000 in one-time funding for the
first year.
18. Airport/public facilities parking/license tax increase ($560,000 increase) - The
Administration is proposing to change the basis of the license fee for airport and
public facilities parking services from a percentage of gross revenue to a per-
paying vehicle fee and increase the fee. The proposed ordinance would apply to
privately operated parking lots that primarily support public facilities such as the
underground parking lot at the Library.
19. Refuse fee increase ($606,000 increase) -The Administration is proposing a 10.5%
fee increase for refuse collection for fiscal year 2006-07 with automatic increases
in subsequent years through fiscal year 2011-12.
Per container Delivery charge
Fiscal Year for additional
charge
containers
Current fees $ 9.75 $10.00
2006-07 10.75 11.00
2007-08 11.25 11.00
2008-09 11.75 11.00
2009-10 12.50 12.00
2010-11 13.25 12.00
2011-12 14.00 12.00
20. Water rate increase - The proposed budget contains a 4% increase to water rates
effective July 1, 2006 to continue a strong capital improvement program. The
proposed ordinance also contains another 4% increase effective July 1, 2007.
While adoption of a second-year rate increase does not bind a future Council, it
makes it necessary for a future Council to take formal action to halt or change the
planned rate increase. In the past when the Council has approved multi-year rate
plans it has noted the value of advance planning and clearly articulating policy
direction.
11
21. One-time expenditures - The proposed budget includes several items that the
Administration considers as one-time expenditures. The Mayor proposes to fund
most of these from a property tax judgment levy.
Community Development
• $ 63,500 - automated housing & zoning enforcement software/hardware
• $ 30,000 - preservation plan
• $ 12,816 -Avenues historic district survey
• $ 98,000 - reconfigure office space for one-stop shop
Fire
• $428,000 - new apparatus equipment
• $ 43,750 - heavy rescue equipment
• $ 53,500 - self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) equipment
• $ 6,200 - CPR equipment
• $182,500 - computer aided dispatch (phased in over FY07 and FY08)
• $ 45,000 - early retirement incentives for firefighters
Management Services (Justice Court)
• $ 2,500 - software license for new hearing officer position
• $ 2,500 - software license for new small claims clerk position
• $ 10,000 - software license for new criminal court clerk position
• $ 2,500 - software license for new file clerk position
• $ 10,000 - high speed scanner for new file clerk position
• $ 2,500 - software license for new judge position
• $ 7,500 - software license for new criminal court clerk position
• $ 17,000 - remodeling, security access system, printer, copier
• $ 45,133 - continue contractual employees for court (4 months)
Police
• $ 15,000 -SWAT vest replacement
• $ 87,000 - laptop computer replacement (51 of 179)
• $104,000 - three computer servers
• $ 36,000 - radio/laptop modems replacement (12 of 400)
Public Services
• $ 46,000 - paver repairs, central business district crosswalks, widewalks
• $165,000 - tree removal and replacement (500 large weak trees)
16.Vehicle take-home policy ($53,000 increase in revenue) - Take-home use of
city-owned motor vehicles is governed by City Ordinance 2.54. The ordinance
allows take-home vehicle for: (a) law enforcement officers, (b) when emergency
situations or callbacks occur on a regular basis at least five times a month, (c)
when the nature of an employee's work requires immediate response to
emergency situations and requires the use of specific safety or emergency
equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's personal
vehicle. Since adoption of the ordinance in June 2001, there has been an
increased emphasis on reducing the number of take-home vehicles. In
addition, gas prices are much higher than in 2001. The proposed ordinance
contains the following revisions: (1) employees reimburse the city for
commuting mileage at 50% of the vehicle operational costs. Employees
currently reimburse the city for commuting anywhere from $0 to $75 per
month based on their mileage from their home to the corporate limits. The
proposed fees are $20 per month if living in the city limits or within 5 miles of
the city limits, $40 within 10 miles, $60 within 15 miles, $80 within 20 miles,
12
$100 within 25 miles, $120 within 35 miles, and $140 per month within 35
miles. (2) Non-commuting personal use of city vehicles will be prohibited
under the proposal. The current ordinance allows personal use of police
vehicle if in Salt Lake County. (3) Secondary employment commuting and use
will be prohibited unless business reimburses City directly for vehicle costs.
(4) No,take-home vehicle is allowed if employee lives farther than 25 miles from
the City & County Building. Existing employees not complying would be
grandfathered for their current residence for a period of 5 years.
SOME OTHER POLICY ISSUES - Mayor's Recommended Budget
The following items will be included in individual department briefing staff reports.
17.Animal Control Services ($100,000 increase) - Salt Lake County has been
providing animal control services for Salt Lake City for several years by
contract. The Council recently received a briefing on Animal Control Services
including potential fees. Salt Lake City is beginning its third year of its current
5-year animal control services contract with the County. The Administration is
proposing a $100,000 increase in the appropriation for animal services for a
total of$967,000. Contract negotiations with the County are pending.
18.Cemetery fee increase ($11,705 increase) - Last year the Council adopted a
two-year phased approach to increasing Cemetery fees to put them in line with
other local Cemeteries. The increases set to take effect July 1, 2006 will be $50
for all of the categories (e.g., gravesites from $650 to $700, continuing care
from $650 to $700, opening and closing from $450 to $500). This year's fee
increases are expected to bring in an additional $11,705 in revenue. Cemetery
operations are subsidized by taxes and other general fund revenue. A report
indicated that there was an assertion that the City's rates are artificially
holding down rates of the private facilities. The City has the option of
increasing the rates to more accurately reflect the cost of operations.
19.Contract person to manage construction mitigation - The Mayor proposes to
contract for a downtown renovation coordinator to be funded 50% by the Salt
Lake Chamber and 50% by the City for a total of$60,000. This will be similar
to the 400 South light rail contract. The goal will be to mitigate construction
impact on existing downtown businesses and help make the construction
process go well for the developers, the public, and the existing businesses. The
budget is proposed to be appropriated within the Department of Community
Development from ongoing revenue.
20.Donation Fund - A donation fund is used to account for contributions held in
trust by the City for contributions received for a specific purpose. For the last
few years, the Administration requested and the Council appropriate $400,000
annually for donations with the understanding that the appropriations will be
held in a "budget only cost center" until cash is received. As contributions are
received and interest earned, appropriations are moved from the "budget only
cost center" to the project to match the actual amount of available cash. In
March 2006, the Council reduced the unspecified budget for donations from
$400,000 to $50,000. This allows the Council the opportunity to consider the
more significant projects funded from donations. The proposed budget
continues the Council's intent by proposing a $50,000 budget for fiscal year
2007.
13
21.Economic Development Corporation of Utah - The Mayor's budget includes
funding for the Economic Development Corporation of Utah. In 1997, the total
municipal funding of the Economic Development Corporation of Utah (EDCU)
was assessed based 50% on population and 50% on certain revenues (sales
tax, franchise & utility tax, licenses & permits, and other fees). Salt Lake City's
contribution was calculated to be $126,659. This amount remained
unchanged until 2000 when all assessments increased 5%. Salt Lake City's
contribution based on this formula is $132,992. Last year, the City's payment
was $108,000. The budget proposes to continue funding at this levy.
22.Energy costs ($805,657 increase) - Fuel prices for vehicles have increased
significantly over what was originally budgeted for fiscal year 2005-06. The
proposed budget includes a general fund increase of $359,972 for fleet fuel.
Natural gas prices have also increased since the budget for fiscal year 2005-06
was developed. The proposed budget includes a general fund increase for
natural gas of $198,750. The budget also contains a $246,935 increase for
street lighting and other electricity costs. Asphalt, concrete and almost
everything the City buys costs more due to fuel rate increases for production
and transportation.
23.Fire retirement incentive ($45,000) - The budget includes an experimental one-
time retirement incentive. Firefighters who have served over 30 years would be
eligible for a single payment of $15,000 per employee with the intent to help
pay for health insurance. The Fire Department expects to generate savings of
$90,000 over five years for each employee taking the incentive. The budget
does not include a similar proposal for police officers. The Council may wish to
ask the Administration about the status of the physical fitness requirements
for City fire and police positions.
24.Fleet Management Fund reserves - The budget proposes to use $550,000 of
reserve funds that have accumulated in the Fleet Management Fund for
operations.
25.Geographic Information System ($10,000 increase) - Over the past several
years, the City has spent significant resources toward the development of a
geographic information system (GIS). GIS resources including technology and
staffing are distributed throughout the City. Each year, beginning in 1997, the
Non-Departmental budget has included funding for equipment to help with
additional GIS applications or implementation. Proposed funding for fiscal year
2006-07 is $35,000, which is a $10,000 increase from the prior year. The
$35,000 appropriation is very modest given the potential uses that the GIS
system has to make City tasks more efficient. At some point the Council may
wish to consider making a one-time investment in this program to make it
more useful. Additional information was noted on page 11 in relation to the
one-stop shop.
26.Legal Defenders ($148,368 increase) - The City is required to provide legal
counsel for indigent defendants where jail time is a possibility. The City
contracts this responsibility to Salt Lake Legal Defenders at a proposed cost of
$615,162 for fiscal year 2006-07. The increase is for two attorneys and one
secretary. The Administration considers the increase in the amount budgeted
to be consistent with the case load that the Salt Lake Legal Defenders is
experiencing.
14
27.No More Homeless Pets in Utah ($10,000) - The Administration is proposing a
$10,000 grant to No More Homeless Pets in Utah to support a
trap/neuter/release program for feral cat populations. Contributions to non-
profit organizations require a study to identify and determine that the benefits
received by the community are equal to or greater than the amount of funds
contributed. A public hearing is also required under Utah Code 10-8-2. Me
Administration provided the Council with the study and a resolution.
28.Sidewalk replacement 50/50 program ($13,100 increase) - The budget projects
a 25% increase in project work for the sidewalk replacement 50/50 program.
Usually, there is a waiting list for this program, with nearly the entire annual
budget being spent in the first four months of the fiscal year.
29.Special Events - The Administration is requesting $110,000 to support special
events.
30.Street Lighting electrical power ($150,000 increase) - The cost of electricity for
street lighting is estimated to increase $150,000 for a total of $1,350,000.
These costs are budgeted in the Nondepartmental budget.
31.Tracv Aviary-The proposed budget of$250,000 for Tracy Aviary is the same as
the current budget.
32.TRAX Extension - Salt Lake City will need to pay $8.45 million for its share of
the TRAX extension to the Intermodal Hub. The Intermodal Hub Fund has
funding available of $7.6 million ($2 million from UTA, $2.4 million from
existing RDA appropriations, $3.2 million from already-secured FTA
reimbursements). The remaining amount is $850,000, which the City will need
by July 2007. Nothing is included in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2006-
07 since the additional funds are not needed in this coming fiscal year.
33.Unfunded Retirement Liability - When a City employee retires, the City makes
a cash payment of accumulated vacation leave. Under an old sick leave plan,
the City also pays the retired employee a portion of accumulated sick leave.
Vacation leave, compensatory leave, and the portion of sick leave that will
eventually be paid are recognized as liabilities as they are earned in the City's
enterprise funds. These liabilities are unfunded in the General Fund. The
general fund's long-term compensation liability was $14,925,000 as of June 30,
2005 as reported in the City's financial statements.
According to a recent study by the Administration, 690 employees or 25.5% of
all city employees are eligible to retire within the next five years. Based on
historical trends, the study projects that 301 employees will actually retire
within the next five years which is 11.1% of the entire workforce. For the past
several years, the City has budgeted $650,000 of general fund monies annually
in anticipation of employees retiring. These funds are used mostly for Fire and
Police retirees. Police and Fire payouts averaged $636,500 over the past six
years. Other general fund departments cover most retirees' cash payments by
leaving positions vacant or by using savings within their department. The
study projects that 217 general fund employees will retire during the next five
years for a total cost of $6,360,500. This is an average of approximately
$1,272,000 per year. The Administration is proposing to increase the
15
retirement payout appropriation to $1,000,000. This appropriation will be
available to all general fund departments rather than primarily for Police and
Fire. Any amount unspent will be transferred to a separate account to
accumulate for the expected increase in future years.
34.Unity Center Operations - The Administration expects construction of the
Unity Center to start in August 2006. The Center is scheduled to open in April
2007. Based on that schedule the Public Services Department included
$90,000 to operate and maintain the center in the department's proposed
budget for Fiscal Year 2006-07.
35.Utah League of Cities & Towns - The Administration has included membership
dues for the Utah League of Cities & Towns in it proposed budget. For fiscal
year 2006-07, the City's dues are calculated to be $104,168 based on the
League's formula.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX OR FEE INCREASES
The following table lists the proposed tax or fee increases.
Proposed Tax or Fee Increases
Additional
Annual Revenue
Property tax increase $2,090,000
Judgment levy one-time tax $1,304,780
Voter-approved property tax for open space and Leonardo $1,171,200
Business license fee increase $1,323,000
Water rate increase $1,808,000
Refuse collection fee increase $606,000
Airport/public facility parking lot license fee $560,000
Fire prevention inspection fees $276,200
Hazardous material fees $126,000
Golf Course fee increase/passes $174,800
Cemetery fee increase $11,700
SYNOPSIS OF CITYWIDE BUDGET
The schedule on the following page summarizes the proposed citywide expenditure
budget compared to the fiscal year 2006 adopted budget. The Council already held
briefings on the proposed budgets for the Department of Airports, the Department of
Public Utilities, the Community Development Operating Fund (CDBG), and the Grants
Operating Fund (ESG, HOME, HOPWA). The Council generally doesn't hold individual
briefings on all of the special revenue fund budgets. Briefings are not currently
scheduled for those funds marked with an asterisk. The Council may wish to ask
staff or the Administration questions regarding those funds not scheduled for a
briefing. The Council could ask staff to prepare a written briefing on certain funds or
schedule some of the funds marked with an asterisk for a formal briefing.
16
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURE BUDGETS
Adopted Proposed Percent
2005-06 2006-07 Difference Change
General Fund
Police $47,128,460 $51,083,387 $3,954,927 8.4%
Public Services 34,609,623 36,766,738 2,147,115 6.2%
Fire 28,696,411 30,549,938 1,853,527 6.5%
Management Services 9,634,521 10,7'08,331 1,073,810 11.1%
Community Development 8,331,182 9,183,080 851,898 10.2%
Attorney's Office 3,475,240 3,909,521 434,281 12.5%
Mayor's Office 1,566,133 1,633,638 67,505 4.3%
Council Office 1,550,473 1,595,941 45,468 2.9%
Nondepartmental 37,745,614 45,515,029 7,769,415 20.6%
Total General Fund 172,737,657 190,935,603 18,197,946 10.5%
Enterprise Funds
Department of Airports 198,592,800 181,564,579 (17,028,221) (8.6%)
Water 63,107,903 51,378,407 (11,729,496) (18.6%)
Sewer 31,699,301 24,056,639 (7,642,662) (24.1%)
Stormwater 14,625,134 8,533,648 (6,091,486) (41.7%)
Refuse Collection 9,907,256 8,869,022 (1,038,234) (10.5%)
Golf 8,092,038 8,610,031' 417,993 5.2%
Intermodal Hub 9,346,448 4,900,000 (4,446,448) (47.6%)
Total Enterprise Funds 335,370,880 287,812,326, (47,558,554) (14.2%)
Internal Service Funds
,� Insurance& Risk Management 29,414,599 31,897,477 2,482,878 8.4%
Fleet Management 16,270,019 17,369,619 1,099,600 6.8%
Information Management Services 7,615,101 7,967,424 352,323 4.6%
Governmental Immunity 1,273,276 1,182,200 (91,076) (7.2%)
Total Internal Service Funds 54,572,995 58,416,720 3,843,725 7.0%
Capital Improvement Program 33,746,831 30,829,337 (2,917,494) (8.6%)
Debt Service Funds
Debt Service—CIP* 16,974,088 17,437,570 463,482 2.7%
Debt Service—SID* 1,868,269 393,594 (1,474,675) (78.9%)
Total Debt Service Funds 18,842,357 17,831,164 (1,011,193) (5.4%)
Special Revenue Funds
Community Development(CDBG) 3,333,487 2,971,961 (361,526) (10.8%)
Grants Operating (ESG,HOME, HOPWA) 6,091,585 4,721,609 (1,369,976) (22.5%)
Street Lighting* 2,227,122 1,896,923 (330,199) (14.8%)
Emergency 911* 2,055,100 2,056,600 1,500 0.1%
Housing Loan Fund* 2,104,306 6,608,367 4,504,061 214.0%
Downtown Economic Development*
(Downtown Alliance) 700,000 700,000'
Demolition &Weed Abatement* 153,000 26,500 (126,500) (82.7%)
Donation Fund* 400,000 50,000 (350,000) (87.5%)
Total Special Revenue Funds 17,064,600 19,031,960 1,967,360 11.5%
TOTAL $632,335,320 $604,857,110 $(27,478,210) (4.3%)
* 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.
17
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
DATE: May 9, 2006
BUDGET FOR: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones
cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, DJ Baxter, Louis Zunguze,
Brent Wilde, Steve Fawcett, LuAnn Clark, Orion Goff, Tim
Harpst, Nancy Boskoff and Alex Ikefuna
The proposed budget for the Department of Community Development for fiscal
year 2006-07 is $9,183,080, representing an increase in expenditures of
$851,898 or 10.2% as compared to fiscal year 2005-06.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED BUDGETS
Adopted Proposed Percent
2005-06 2006-07 Difference Change
Office of the Director(Land Use Appeals Board,Northwest Quadrant $626,756 $623,841 ($2,915) (.5%)
Master Plan)
Arts Council(City arts grants,Living Traditions Festival,public art
program,Twilight Series concerts) $274,680 $292,902 $18,222 6.6%
Transportation(planning&design,parking permit program,traffic
controls,issues permits for use of right-of-way,traffic calming program, $1,713,488 $1,588,804 ($124,684) (7.3%)
street lights)
Building Services&Licensing(construction code enforcement,
business licensing and plan review) $2,329,822 $3,237,002 $907,180 38.9%
Planning
(master plans,zoning,environmental reviews of proposed development $3,014,582 $3,014,904 $322 .01%
projects,zoning enforcement,support to Historic Landmark Commission,
Board of Adjustment,Housing Advisory and Appeals Board and Planning
Commission)
Housing&Neighborhood Development(housing inspection,
residential rehabilitation&first-time homebuyer's assistance programs, $371,854 $425,627 $53,773 14.5%
administers&monitors various grants,support to Community
Development Advisory Committee and the Housing Advisory&Appeals
Board)
Total $8,331,182 $9,183,080 $851,898 10.2%
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE AND MAJOR BUDGET CHANGES
■ Additional positions - The Administration has recommended the addition of
5.0 FTE positions:
$64,392 - Plans Examiner position, 1.0 FTE- The Administration is
requesting an additional FTE to serve as a project coordinator and plans
examiner for the one stop shop.
1
$50,532 - Office Facilitator I position, 1.0 FTE - The Administration is
requesting an additional FTE to serve as an office facilitator to assist with
the one stop shop.
$85,776 - Technical Development Engineer position, 1.0 FTE (Fire
Inspection Plan Reviewer) - To assist with the one-stop counter, the
Administration is requesting a Technical Development Engineer for fire
inspection plan review. The Council may wish to inquire whether the skill
level of this particular position requires the knowledge and expertise of an
engineer, or whether the position could be filled by a welltrained individual
who is not an engineer.
$67,380 - Building Inspector III position, 1.0 FTE - The Department is
requesting a Building Inspector to assist with the one stop shop.
$68,988 - Principal Planner position, 1.0 FTE- The Department is
requesting a principal planner to focus on downtown redevelopment and the
recently adopted Compatible Residential Infill ordinance. The
Administration indicates that the compatible infill ordinance requires more
intense review by plan review and field inspection staff.
It should be noted that last year a planner position was moved from the
Planning Division to the Office of the Director. The Office of Director filled
the planner position with a Research and Policy Analyst position.
■ Other Proposed Funding Requests - The Administration has requested the
following additional funding:
$98,000 One-time Funding - Reconfiguration of room for one stop counter
- According to the Administration, rooms 215 and 218 of the City 86 County
Building will need to be reconfigured to accommodate the one stop shop. The
proposal does not include funding for the carpet for the area that is being
reconfigured. Council staff has requested information on the price to replace
the carpet at the same time the one stop is established, in order to avoid down
time at a later date for carpet replacement.
$60,000 - Downtown Renovation Coordinator - The individual contracted
for this position will provide construction mitigation during the reconstruction
of the downtown malls and other projects. According to the Administration,
the cost to fund this coordinator will be split evenly ($30,000 each) between the
City and the Chamber of Commerce. This coordinator may need to be funded
for one, two or even three years.
2
$100,000 - Contract Plans Examiner - The Administration is proposing to
contract some plan review for the increased workload anticipated by the
reconstruction of the downtown malls and other projects. The Administration
anticipates that the cost of these contracted services will be offset by the
building permit fees submitted for downtown development.
$63,500 Automation of Housing and Zoning Enforcement Software/
Hardware - The Department is requesting funding to automate Housing
and Zoning Enforcement's paperwork processing. Vehicles will be equipped
with computers (for 17 inspectors and 2 weed enforcement officers) allowing
them to enter data while in the field as opposed to returning to the office to
process paperwork.
$30,000 - City Preservation Plan One-time Funding- The Department
has requested $30,000 of General Fund monies to create a city preservation
plan. It is Council staffs understanding that the Council also approved
$50,000 of CDGB monies to assist with the preservation plan. The
preservation plan will clarify inconsistencies between other land use
regulations and historic preservation.
$12,816 - Avenues Historic District Survey One-time Funding-
F Funding is being requested for a historic survey of the Avenues. Last year
the Council approved $47,000 of one-time funding for a historic
preservation survey and plan for South Temple and West Capitol Hill;
however, the Avenues was not included in the survey.
• Business License Fee Increase ($1,323,379) - The Administration has
updated the cost study to support business license fees and has proposed
adjustments to fees, which is projected to increase revenue by $1,323,000. In
addition, proposed revisions to the parking license fee are expected to increase
revenue by $560,000 for total parking lot license revenue of$1,000,000. The
current parking license fee is applicable to the airport and other parking lots
that specifically service the airport. The proposed ordinance would also apply
to publicly built/privately operated parking lots that support public facilities
such as the underground parking lot at the Library. Separate reports will be
provided to the Council on the parking fees and business licensing.
• Fire Prevention Plan Review Fees ($276,224 new fees) - The Fire
Department currently provides fire plan review for fire code regulations and fire
suppression systems. At the current time, no fee is specifically designated to
pay for fire plan review. This service is instead funded by taxpayer dollars and
an unidentified portion of business licensing construction permit fee. The
Administration proposes that the City establish a set fee schedule for fire plan
review and hire a fire protection engineer (as mentioned on page two of this
staff report) for the one stop shop.
3
• Prior Council Appropriations - Council staff was informed recently that
funding appropriated by the Council during the last fiscal year for the
Northwest Quadrant Master Plan ($154,000), the Transportation Master Plan
($30,000), and the education traffic campaign ($25,000) has not yet been spent
by the Department. It cannot be encumbered by the Department at this time
because contracts are'not yet in place.. Therefore, the Department may be
requesting a re-appropriation of the funding during the first budget opening of
FY 2006-07.
• Building Permit Revenue - The Administration projects that building permit
revenue will increase 62% based on proposed projects for a total of
$7,546,525. In addition, proposed ordinances relating to fire prevention
inspection fees and hazardous materials fees are projected to increase permit
revenue by $402,224.
• Proposed cost of living increase - The Mayor's Recommended Budget
includes increases still the subject of ongoing negotiations. The Administration
is available to discuss labor bargaining during executive sessions.
• City share of employee health insurance - Health insurance is projected to
increase by 3.75% for a total cost to the Department of Community
Development of$29,280.
Budgetary Breakdown by Division
Office of the Director:
The budget for the Office of the Director shows a decrease of .5% or $2,915 as
compared to FY 2005-06. The slight decrease is a reflection of one-time funds of
$154,000 requested in FY 2005-06 for the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan, the
transfer of a Planner position to the budget of the Office of Director, and the
additional $60,000 request to fund the mall renovation coordinator. ($30,000 will
be offset due to the contribution by the Chamber of Commerce.)
Arts Council:
The Arts Council budget shows an increase of$18,222 or a 6.6% increase over
last year. This increase can primarily be attributed to projected salary and health
insurance increases.
Transportation Division:
The Transportation Division's budget shows a decrease of 7.3% or $124,684.
Most of the decrease can be attributed to the one-time funding of$114,000
approved in FY 2005-06 for non-infrastructure traffic calming devices. The
$30,000 for the Transportation Master Plan update and the $25,000 for the traffic
education campaign are also counted in this reduction. There will be a request to
re-appropriate those funds after the first of the fiscal year.
4
The Transportation Division is working with Purchasing on a scope and bid
document for the lighting consultant, and anticipates that bids will be due in
June. According to the Administration, the analysis will be performed during the
summer months, and results and recommendations would be forwarded to the
Council in the fall.
Building Services and Licensing Division:
The budget for the Building Services and Licensing Division is increasing by
38.9% or $907,180. The increase in budget is partially a result of the request for
4.0 FTE to support the one stop shop, as well as a request for two rooms to be
reconfigured. Additionally, the Department is requesting to continue funding for
2.0 FTE from FY 2005-06 Budget Amendments #1 and #4 (ground transportation
administrator and plans examiner). The Division has also requested one-time
funds of$100,000 to be used as contingency money for outsourcing plan review if
the Permit's staff cannot keep up with the workload generated by the downtown
projects. According to the Department, this is a one-time request. The remainder
of the difference is attributed to changes in personnel costs.
The Council may wish to note that a request for $24,384 of General Fund monies
for third party enforcement in conjunction with the Ground Transportation
Administrator was apparently inadvertently left out of the Mayor's Recommended
Budget. If the Council wishes to fund third party enforcement for ground
transportation a request for a funding recommendation could be made of the
Administration, or the Council could elect to identify funds.
Planning Division:
The budget for the Planning Division projects an increase of .01% or $322. The
Division has requested an additional planner to replace a position that was
transferred to the Office of the Director in FY 2005-06.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (H.A.N.D.):
The budget for the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division is increasing
by 14.5% or $53,773. Part of the increase is attributed to projected salary and
health insurance cost increases. Also, in FY 2006-07, CDBG is reimbursing fewer
administrative salaries while the General Fund is covering more.
The H.A.N.D. Division is divided into two groups, Capital Planning and Housing
Rehabilitation. The Capital Planning section monitors federal grants, and the
Housing Rehabilitation section administers the housing rehabilitation and first
time homebuyer's program.
Questions/Items for Council Discussion:
The Council may wish to discuss the following items and questions:
Arts Council Questions (included in the budget of Office of the Director):
1. Last year, some Council Members expressed interest in additional funding for
Arts Council programming, and the possibility of allocating a percentage of
funds that would otherwise lapse to fund balance. Does the Council wish to
5
consider allocating additional funding towards Arts Council
programming?
Transportation Division Questions:
1. The Council may wish to inquire as to the number of requests Transportation
receives for the placement of electronic speed boards, the number of electronic
speed signs available, and the status of funding provided in the current year for
the purchase of items of this nature.
Building Services and Licensing Division Questions:
1. The funding for geographic information system components (GIS) that would
ultimately facilitate communication among departments and fully implement
the one stop shop concept is not included in the Administration's
recommended budget. These would be one-time costs and could be funded
over a several year period. Council staff suggests an investment of$200,000
to $250,000 in one-time funding for the first year. The Mayor's Recommended
Budget requests an additional $10,000 of funding for the GIS system for FY
2006-07 in the non-departmental. The Council may wish to consider
discussing funding GIS at a significantly higher level.
2. It is Council staff's understanding that carpet replacement costs were not
included in the estimate to refurbish rooms 215 85 218 for the one stop shop.
Council staff asked Public Services for an estimate and comparison of what
the replacement costs would be now as compared to waiting to re-carpet until
after the rooms are reconfigured.
Planning Division Questions:
1. Council Members may wish to inquire regarding the status of establishing an
updated protocol to determine which community council receives notification
and/or a presentation when an issue affects two or more community councils.
This is being lead by the Mayor's Office, but attendance at the meetings
creates a staffing demand for Planning.
2. A Council Member expressed concern regarding nuisance houses that are
habitual problems for neighborhoods. The Council may wish to ask whether
the Administration considered recommending an ordinance change to allow foran
enhanced penalty for property owners who are repeat offenders from an
enforcement standpoint.
Housing Division Question:
1. The Council may wish to ask whether H.A.N.D. has had an opportunity to
consider potential changes to the boarded building ordinance, given that
currently houses can be boarded for unrestricted amounts of time.
6
Additional Information
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
1. Fire Engineer at One-Stop Permit Counter - It is the intent of the City
Council that the Administration explore opportunities to fund a fire engineer
at the One-Stop Permit Counter (e.g. identifying ongoing revenue, transferring
one FTE from the Fire Department, or setting fees to recover the cost.)
Response from the Administration:
The Community Development Department has collected all of the information
needed to determine the cost of the plan review conducted by all City
Departments that participate in the plan review process. This issue will be
addressed as part of the FY 2006-07 Mayor's Recommended Budget.
2. Nuisance Cases - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration
provide the Council with periodic reports on the development of nuisance
cases.
Response from the Administration:
Nuisance cases addressed by the Planning 86 Zoning Division of the
Community Development Department typically involve boarded properties
with recurring break ins, transient activities, and related criminal activities.
The Department responded to 12 cases, 3 of which have been resolved.
We are continuing to address nuisance issues with other departments and
will report our findings in June, 2006.
3. Building License per Employee Fee - It is the intent of the City Council that
the Administration provide an updated cost study for business license fees.
Response from the Administration:
The study has been completed and should be presented to the Council in the
near future. (This is being addressed in the Mayor's Recommended Budget
for 2006-07.)
4. Review City Fees - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration
review fees charged by divisions such as petition fees, subdivisions fees, etc.
to determine the level of cost recovery. It is the intent of the City Council that
the focus be on those fees that have not recently been reviewed.
7
Response from the Administration:
The Planning Division is proposing fee increases for many of the
applications/processes administered by Planning as part of the FY 2005-
2006 budget.
5. Cross-train Inspectors in Community Development - It is the intent of the
City Council that the Administration continue to explore opportunities to
cross train inspectors in the Division of Community Development for the
purpose of enhancing customer service, increasing the efficient use of budget
and human resources, expediting the review process to encourage economic
development, and reducing the number of visits to each site.
Response from the Administration:
Efforts have been made, and industry trend is moving toward "combination
inspectors," which may require additional resources; a recommendation will
be forthcoming.
6. Late Fees and Penalties - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration explore the consistency of late penalties, which are sometimes
double the normal fee. The Administration could propose ordinance
amendments that phase in late fees depending on the number of days late
rather than significant penalties for minor delinquent payments.
Response from the Administration:
Late penalties vary with the type and the amount of licensing or fee. In some
cases, they are based on a percentage of the original fee, and in other case
they may not be a set dollar amount. The differences are due to some being a
penalty for not renewing on time, while others reflect the time and costs
associated with following up on the license or materials. No immediate
ordinance changes are expected. Late fees in the City ordinances can be
found for the following items:
Business licensing late penalties (5.04.114) are 25% of the amount due, but if
the license is renewed after two months, the penalty is 100% of the amount
due, although that same section of the ordinance requires that the business
be closed if the license is not renewed within 60 days. ("In addition, any
licensee whose license renewal fee is not paid within sixty (60) days of the due
date shall terminate business operations at the previously licensed location.
No business shall be conducted thereafter at said location unless and until
the Mayor or the Mayor's designee approves an application, notice or petition
for renewal of a license or for a new license.") When businesses do not renew
their license, follow-up is done to check whether the business is still
operating. The base business licensing fees are $70 for commercial locations
and $50 for home businesses. In addition, disproportionate regulatory fees
may also apply. If any changes are made to the ordinance, the
recommendation is to have the 25% late fee apply only for the first 30 days,
and to charge the 100% fee after that.
8
To renew a permit to board a building (18.48.180) costs $1200 per year. A
late fee of$25 is added for every 30 days (or portion thereof) that the permit
is not renewed and the building is still boarded. The section of the ordinance
specifically states that the City may take legal action to collect any amounts
owed.
7. Building Permit Hours of Service - It is the intent of the City Council that
the Administration analyze the possibility of expanding hours of service for
individuals applying for building permits. Hours of service may need to be
coordinated with the Treasurer's Office since permit fees are collected by the
Treasurer's Office.
Response from the Administration:
The building permit counter is currently open for business from 7:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. We have resisted changing these hours as our primary customers
feel these hours are the most convenient. We will continue to monitor this
arrangement, and if a need is shown to increase hours of operation, we will
forward a proposal to do so. Additional staffing will be needed to accomplish
additional hours of operation without incurring significant overtime.
8. Traffic Calming - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration
continues and enhances efforts to look at traffic calming opportunities and
engineering options as streets are scheduled for overlay or reconstruction,
including how redesign of streets may encourage compliance with speed
limits.
Response from the Administration:
Implemented. The Transportation Division reviews every City road rebuild or
major rehab project to incorporate traffic calming aspects into the design, if
justified. This also applies to design review of new subdivision streets.
Additional solar powered speed boards have been purchased and will be
deployed upon receipt on a prioritized, rotating basis on streets that have
been identified as impacted by speeding. Traffic speed awareness signs for
garbage cans, the Pace Car Program, Neighborhood Speed Watch Program,
and traffic calming lawn signs are available from the Transportation Division
on request as resident-initiated programs. The Transportation Division
remains on the lookout for new opportunities to incorporate traffic calming.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Community Development Department.
During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or
functions to be added to the Council's list for future audits.
9
SIX YEAR BUSINESS PLAN
The following are goals and anticipated needs outlined in the Community
Development Department's Six Year Business Plan which was prepared in 2004 to
apply to Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010:
• Arts Council - will continue to attempt to increase independent revenue to
supplement general fund financial support in order to achieve the desired
level of growth in programs provided and individuals served.
• Building Licensing:
o Implementation of the online business license application and
renewal program will help improve customer service.
o Addition of in-vehicle wireless computers to enforce and approve
licenses in the field, as well as providing data access.
o Implementation of on-line business licensing data, to allow customers
to know if they are doing business with a licensed business.
• Construction Compliance:
o Provide increased training so inspectors can perform multiple
inspections on one site, improving efficiency and reducing number of
required site visits, saving money in the long run.
• Permits:
o Re-instating the crashed Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system,
which would allow contractors to access their permit and inspection
information without the aid of City staff. Currently, there is a
seasonal employee to cover until the crashed system is restored.
Once the IVR system is restored this employee will no longer be
needed.
o Working with IMS, the Department is utilizing wireless technology
with its permit programs, to allow contractors and homeowners to
access and discuss permit issues in the field. This eases the
customer experience as well as the burden on City staff at the
counter downtown.
• Housing and Neighborhood Development:
o As this Division is funded in part by the US Department of Housing
and Urban Development, it is required by law to prepare a five year
consolidated plan for all programs. This plan also details Salt Lake
City's share in spending. This plan is available on the City's web
page at http://wwvv.slcgov.com/CED/hand.
o The programs implemented by this Division serve the low income
residents of Salt Lake City, and the need for these programs is
projected to continue to increase, as the numbers of individuals in
need is projected to increase. Due to recent federal expenditures on
homeland security and the war in Iraq, it is predicted that available
federal funding will decrease, despite increased demand.
o With regard to Housing, the Division is partnering with Salt Lake
County, and is hopeful that this collaboration will help in
rehabilitating at least 110 units annually.
10
o Once a new mortgage system, being installed currently, is
operational, it will be able to quickly calculate complicated blended
mortgages, thus freeing up staff time, previously spend calculating
mortgages by hand, for increasing collection and outreach efforts.
• Planning and Zoning
o The Division administration has a need to acquire a new records
management system in the next two years, to address the number of
records being generated by the Division, and the need for these
records to be stored both physically and digitally.
o The demand for services from the zoning administration is
anticipated to significantly increase over the next several years.
Planning Commissioners have recommended the commission should
focus on larger policy issues, rather than uncontested/routine
administrative items. This could place additional burden on
administrative staff.
o Zoning enforcement needs are expected to increase, particularly in
areas with aging housing stock. Depending on the level of increased
demand, additional staff may be needed.
o The Division intends to facilitate ongoing training for planning staff in
graphic and presentation programs, in order to better facilitate the
public participation process in planning. The Division will need to
increase outreach efforts in order to respond to the diversifying
population base and to encourage broad participation.
• Transportation Division
o In order to address the anticipated expansion of the City Parking
Permit Program (CPP) and maintain level of customer service, one
additional Office Technician will be required.
o In order to upgrade and update the current regional traffic modeling
software (used in planning and programming traffic timing and
planning), it will cost the Division roughly $60,000, which will be
submitted as a budget request in the next two years.
o In order to keep up with increased demand for different modes of
travel, and managing current traffic, the Division anticipates it will
need to: (1) install three closed circuit television cameras per year at
a cost of$100,000 per year, (2)provide traffic monitoring stations in
conjunction with the camera installations at a cost of$30,000 per
year, (3) in the next year approximately $130,000 will be submitted
as capital improvement requests.
o Due to increased demand as well as CommuterLink
recommendations, one additional Traffic Control Center operator will
be needed in the next year, at a cost of$50,000.
o A formal funding source for a transportation intern (from the
University of Utah), at a cost of$17,000 per year, will likely be added,
as in the past this has been funded through other cost centers, which
have been greatly reduced.
11
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
DATE: May 11, 2006
BUDGET FOR: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno and Gary Mumford
cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom,
Greg Davis, Nancy Sanders, Steve Fawcett, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter
The Department of Public Services has 11 divisions including 2 enterprise funds
and 1 internal service fund. This staff report discusses the budget for only the
general fund portion of the Department's proposed budget. The Golf and Refuse
enterprise funds, and Fleet Management internal service fund, will be discussed in
subsequent Council briefings. Separate staff reports will be available for the Golf
and Refuse enterprise funds and the Fleet Management internal service fund.
The Public Services Department provides many of the direct, day-to-day services
Salt Lake City residents and visitors receive. They repair streets, maintain parks
and public open spaces, provide culture, education 85 recreation activities for at-risk
youth and families, remove snow, remove graffiti, trim trees, sweep streets,
maintain traffic signs and signals, enforce parking ordinances, maintain the City's
buildings and other activities.
The general fund budget for the Department of Public Services for fiscal year 2006-
07 is proposed to be $36,756,738. This proposed budget represents an increase of
6.2% or $2,147,116, (compared to a 1.5% increase between FY 2005 and FY 2006). •
The table below details the proposed budget as compared to the adopted budget of
FY 2005-2006.
C
1
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
PROPOSED BUDGETS
ioraplip.a
.. I % II
P ) •;i&c;e : m , a - P!! . a s
Office of the Director $ 1,742,131 $ 93,144 5.3% Additional position for
(budget,planning,training, '.
afety,communications,contract open-space
mane.ement V
coordinator
Streets 8,286,047 6 \ 23 366,348 4.4% CBD Paver
(maintenance of streets, replacement, increase
idewalks&signals;snow �z tv s,; 1 in fuel, concrete
removal;signing and marking;
treet swee.in. r. Y `;i"r
Parks 7,437,506aliiingarl 442,547 6.0% Increased water and
(maintenance includes City miniatfailimi natural gas costs
Cemetery and Graffiti Removal (46%), increase in
program) IlinAktrigillspecial events budget
Engineering 4,367,542 rigarTiTTiFE 219,210 5.0% Additional position
(engineering,surveying, (office tech)
Iloo.mapping,design of City-owned „;_= ,
acilities,oversight of work in the
public way,review of private
.evelopment projects,) 4
Facility Management 5,462,417 � 7; 315,805 5.8% Additional position
(maintenance of City-owned 10 A. (energy efficiency
buildings,Franklin Covey Field, s
£, coordinator), paver
•owntown and Sugarhous? .1 , t
business districts) maintenance
re
r, °. ,
Compliance 2,237,651 f £ ;` 9 O1. 52,949 2.4% Continuation of service
(parking enforcement,crossing � `�
(P 9 9 y .
.uards,impound lot) „�z ,,-,
Gallivan Utah Center 1,255,060 rZKI14,77.9014 40,161 3.2%
(reimbursed by Redevelopments;
..en ... ,_ .44
Youth & Family 1,705,609 ice„ F 2;Q 8;8 5 341,286 20.0% Multiple positions
g ", t shifted from Grant to
Programs Z
6
(provides intervention activities gikl::` A General Fund, partial
and assistance for at-risk youth year Unity Center
and families primarily at the w
Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center) ` % � expenses
F
Urban Forestry 1,745,765 in fi,984,351; 238,586 13.7% Tree removal costs
(protects and maintains City- t '
�,� P g and trimming contract
owned trees.) increase
Community Events 369,894 �# 06,$7'1, 37,080 10.0% Continuation of service
1f .
(including activities at the
x
Gallivan Utah Center,Celtic
Festival,SLC Class,24th of July
Total $ 34,609,622 6,= 369a6,738 2,147,116 6.2%
.
2
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE
Some of the major changes reflected in the proposed budgets include:
A. Elimination of positions The Department of Public Services is not recommending
the elimination of any positions.
B. Addition of positions - The Department is recommending the addition of a total
of 9.75 FTE for a total cost of$464,648 (salary and benefits). Of these positions,
4.75 FTE represent a shift from grant-funded positions, to general fund
positions.
o $ 68,888 - Facilities energy efficiency project coordinator - 1.0 FTE
o $ 50,000 - Engineering office tech 2 - 1.0 FTE
o $ 30,536 - Unity Center-program coordinator, 3 months- 2.0 FTE (full
annual cost - $61,072 per person - salary & benefits)
o $ 90,000 - Open space coordinator - 1.0 FTE
o $ 150,000 - Program site coordinators for Youth City- 3.0 FTE ($50,000 per
person, shift from grant funded)
o $ 47,360 - Computer clubhouse coordinator (shift from grant funded)- 1 FTE
o $ 27,864 - Computer clubhouse assistant (shift from seasonal, grant funded
position) - 0.75 FTE
C. Other Budget Changes -
Co $ 563,365 - Contractually-obligated compensation adjustment (cost of living)
o $ 139,777 - Pension and insurance rate changes (City share)
o $ 295,685 - Electricity and natural gas
o $ 96,408 - Water
o $ 158,844 - Road Materials and premixed concrete
o $ 100,000 - Fleet fuel
o $ 8,000 - Old Children's Museum/Wasatch Plunge building maintenance
increase
o $ 5,000 -Building security electron system maintenance increase
o $ 9,176 - Rental payment increase to County for C&C Building (based on
CPI)
o $ 110,000 - Enhanced level of special events
o $ 13,100 - 25% increase in 50/50 concrete program work
o $ 55,000 - Unity Center maintenance and supplies - 3 months (annual cost =
$220,000)
o $ 165,000 -Tree removal and replacement (500 large weak trees)
o $ 50,000 -Tree trimming contract price increase
o $ 46,000 - Paver repairs in CBD crosswalks, sidewalks and streets
o $( 130,000) - Operational adjustments - Franklin Covey field utilities
D. Salary Increases -The recommended budget shows $563,365 for contractually-
salary increases. These negotiations are on-going.
3
E. Pension/Insurance rate changes - Pension and health insurance premiums are
increasing. The City's share of the health insurance rate increase is $73,740,
and the cost to the City for pensions will increase by $66,037.
F. Water - The Administration is recommending a $96,408 increase in budget for
water (an approximate 8% increase from FY 2006).
G. Fleet Fuel - The Administration is recommending a $100,000 increase in budget
for Fleet Fuel (an approximate 20% increase from the Fleet Fuel budget in FY
2006). This figure is almost double the increase seen between FY 2005 an FY
2006, which was $56,000. This is largely due to the overall increases in gas
prices across the country.
H. Tree Trimming Contract Increase - A new contract with Asplande was negotiated
in the current fiscal year, which may account for the $50,000 increase.
I. Tree Removal - There are approximately 500 large, weak trees located in City-
owned spaces that need to be removed. The Administration is proposing
$165,000 to begin a program to remove these trees. The Administration
indicates that this figure will be needed for at least three years to finish
removing all of the trees that need to be removed.
o It often takes a full day to remove a large tree, at a cost of$1,500, and the
cost to replace a tree is $250-$300.
o The $165,000 requested by the Administration would remove and replace
up to 92 trees, or if no trees were replaced the figure would be sufficient to
remove 110 trees.
o At this pace, it could take 4 to 5 years to finish removal/replacement of all
identified large, weak trees.
J. Enhanced level of special events - The Mayor's proposed budget includes a
$110,000 request to "support special events rather than passing the costs on to
the event organizers." The detailed budget financial report for the Parks Division
indicates that this money would be used for "Graphic Design." The
Administration has communicated to Council Staff that this money would not
necessarily be spent in one specific area, but rather be "available" as increased
needs arise. The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration the specific
intent of this request.
o The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration the status of
implementing the special events study - examining the true costs of and
fees for special events on City property. Given that the study has been
completed, The Council may wish to request that a copy be provided to the
Council for review. Further, the Council may wish to ask whether there
may be legal disclosure issues associated with the provision of services to
various groups. The existing ordinance has been under review for a
4
•
number of years, even prior to the court ruling requiring a benefit analysis
under certain circumstances.
o The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration if this money is
intended to assist organizations with payment of City fees for special
events. If so, what is the proposed standard by which to judge when a fee
is waived? If the funds are to be used in this manner, the Council may
also wish to clarify whether a benefit analysis would be legally required.
o The Council may wish to clarify whether the Administration intends to
host additional special events using these funds.
K. Youth City Positions -The Administration is recommending shifting 4.75 FTE
positions relating to the Youth City program from grant funding to the general
fund. This is due to the fact that the federal grant funding for these programs
will be ending in the Spring of 2008 (see Legislative Intent Statement section
below for Administration's formal response to the Council's legislative intent on
this issue). The Youth and Family Division is preparing to finish a
"sustainability plan" in the next few months that will address the long-term
financing of these programs. The Council may wish to examine the fee structure
for the Youth City program, and consider if the fee structure could be altered in
an attempt to offset these increased personnel costs. Since these positions are
funded through the Spring of 2008, the Council may wish to ask what the freed-
up funding would be used for if the Council elects to fund these programs
through the general fund. The Council has had a long-standing policy that grant
positions end when funding ends. Further, in approving the Youth programs,
some Council Members indicated their willingness to do so only if the program
were sustained with funds other than direct City taxpayer resources.
L. Unity Center -The Unity Center is expected to open by the end of March 2007.
The Administration's proposed budget includes $85,536 for the 3 months of
salary, maintenance, and materials needed for the operations between March
2007 and the end of the fiscal year.
o The annualized cost for the maintenance and materials is $220,000.
o The annualized cost for the two program coordinators' salaries and
benefits is $122,144.
o The projected annual revenue from tenants is $135,000, but is not
expected to be realized until after the end of FY 2007.
M. Changes in Franklin Covey Field Contract -The Administration's proposed
budget shows the results of the lessee taking over operations of Franklin Covey
field, after successful contract negotiations over the last fiscal year. This has
resulted in $130,018 savings in utilities costs. According to the terms of the
contract, the City is still responsible for certain capital projects, and will be
setting aside $50,000 per year in anticipation of eventual capital needs as they
arise. The contract specifies that this amount be set aside and made available in
the event of capital needs. The Council may wish to inquire the current status of
5
the lease regarding Franklin Covey field, and clarify how the cost savings
compare with loss of revenue generated from stadium operations.
N. Cemetery Rate Increase -Last year the Council adopted a two-year phased
approach to increasing Cemetery fees to put them in line with other local
Cemeteries. The Administration is not recommending a separate rate increase in
Cemetery fees. The largest jump in fees was seen on July 1, 2005 (gravesite
from $600 to $650, continuing care fee from $100 to $650, opening and closing
from $400 to $450). The increases set to take effect July 1, 2006 will be $50 for
all of the categories (gravesites from $650 to $700, continuing care from $650 to
$700, opening and closing from $450 to $500). This year's fee increases are
expected to bring in an additional $11,705 in revenue. Last year's fee increases
were projected to increase revenues by $82,000 - actual figures show revenues
are slightly behind schedule with this projection. The Administration attributes
the drop in projected revenue to a slowing of sales volume. For a comparison of
FY 2006 City Cemetery Fees with area Cemetery fees, see attached.
o By some current estimates the Cemetery will be largely sold out in 13
years. After FY 2006-2007, most "desirable" plots will be sold, and
revenue is expected to decline significantly. The Council has issued a
legislative intent on this issue (see below) and may wish to have a follow-
up briefing based on the Administration's response. In FY 2004-2005, the
City cemetery was subsidized in the amount of $582,000 (expense
exceeding revenue).
o In previous budget years the Administration and Council have discussed
the process for reclaiming graves. The Council may wish to ask the
Administration whether additional opportunities in this area still exist,
and if the 13 year figure is dependent upon the reclaiming of graves.
Other Budget-Related Issues
A. Engineering Audit - The Council hired a consultant to conduct a management
audit of the Engineering Department. The audit report will be presented to the
Council some time in June.
B. Sidewalk Replacement - The City has defined standards and procedures for
determining when and where a sidewalk needs to be replaced. A relatively new
program, horizontal saw-cutting, is enabling the City to eliminate tripping
hazards (in cases where a sidewalk is raised an inch or less) for a much lesser
cost than total sidewalk replacement. The Cost is roughly $20 per location for
situations where the displacement is quite minor. In FY 2004-2005, 4,000
locations were fixed for $70,000.
o Alternative Sidewalk Replacement Programs - Special Improvement Districts
(SIDs) - A recent inventory indicates over $10,000,000 would be needed to
replace all of the deteriorated sidewalk in Salt Lake City. The problem is
extensive and citywide. Decisions regarding locations for sidewalk SID's are
based on evaluation of need throughout the City, previous SID locations, and
6
•
citizen petitions and requests for sidewalk improvements. Federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding is available for sidewalk
replacement in specifically defined areas of the City; therefore, SID's are
generally created in areas not qualifying for CDBG funds. Citizens can
petition the City for sidewalk replacement through a Special Improvement
District. Further information explaining deteriorated public way concrete
replacement options is available.
o The Council may wish to ask the Administration consider further reviewing
the City policy for sidewalk replacement and repair, and determine whether
all potential cost/project efficiencies are being realized.
o The Council has established a concrete subcommittee that will meet following
the budget to further review this issue.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
A. In the Fiscal Year 2005-06 budget process, the Council adopted the following
legislative intent statement with regard to the Public Services Department:
1. Youth and Family Programs - "It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration examine the expiration dates of grants for youth programs
and prepare a plan for when these grants expire." (intent #A5, response
forthcoming, partially included in budget)
• Administration's Response: Grants from the US Department of
Education will carry the programs through Spring 2008. The
Youth and Family Programs Division will seek more federal
appropriations and will continue to pursue other funding through
proposals and partnerships. The Division is completing a
"{Su stainability Plan" in the next few months, and is proposing to
shift some funding responsibility to the General Fund. This
proposal will be part of the FY 2006-07 Mayor's Recommended
Budget.
2. Parks/Golf (Irrigation Systems) - "It is the intent of the City Council that
the Administration inventory city-owned irrigation systems with the
purpose of identifying priorities for funding upgrades to conserve water
and reduce ongoing costs, and present funding options to the City Council
for consideration." (intent #A1, response included with Mayor's budget)
• Administration's Response: The Parks and Golf Divisions have
inventoried their irrigations systems, and identified priorities and
costs. Funding options, including grant opportunities, will also
be developed in the next few months.
3. Parks (Cemetery) - "It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration develop a financial and capital plan for the City Cemetery."
(intent #A 10, response still in progress)
• Administration's Response: Substantial progress has been made
in developing a financial and capital plan for the Cemetery.
Revenues and expenses have been estimated and capital needs
have been identified. The Administration has indicated an
7
interest in doing a more in-depth inventory of available plots.
However, further refinement is needed.
4. Special Events - "It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration prepare a list of the special events held within Salt Lake
City boundaries that require the use of City resources in support of the
event (Police/Security, refuse collectio 1, park maintenance, etc.) and that
the Administration prepare a cost analysis of providing the City services
compared to the economic benefit of the event being held in Salt Lake.
The data compiled should also identify where charging reimbursement
fees would be appropriate." (intent #B9, response included with Mayor's
budget) Note: The Administration has been working on an amendment to
the Special Events ordinance that may address some of these issues.
• Administration's Response: The Public Services department has
completed the analysis on this issue, and policy discussions are
proceeding, within the Administration, of how best to use events
to improve the quality of life in Salt Lake City while maximizing
the economic benefit. Since there is a budget impact, the
Administration's intent is to incorporate them with the Mayor's
Recommended Budget.
B. During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to thePublic Services Department.
C. During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or
functions to be added to the Council's list for future audits.
SIX YEAR BUSINESS PLAN
The following, by division, has been identified as specific and likely future changes
to budget and/or staffing of the Public Services Department, as outlined in the Six
Year Business Plan. The items below are from the latest version of the department's
Six Year Business Plan, which was written in Fiscal Year 2004. Items and more
current departmental goals may be slightly different. A more current version of the
department's Six Year Business Plan will be available sometime in August.
A. Engineering Division
o CIP - If the number or type of projects already adopted in the Five Year
CIP Plan, or the size of the engineering staff is changed, the amount of
revenue anticipated for reimbursement will change accordingly.
o General Services - Because of the new electronic document managing
software (EDMS - in process of implementation), the Engineering Division
reduced the records staff by one (in anticipation of time savings).
o Street Pavement Management - the Division expects increased demands
regarding infrastructure asset management. An enhanced asset
management system (implementation begun FY 2004) as well as new GIS
programming and map support, is needed to avoid an increase in current
staffing levels and continue to meet demand.
o The Division contracts for surveying to collect street condition data. Re-
surveying must occur every five years. The next survey is scheduled for
FY 2006-2007, for a cost of approximately $100,000. Note: The proposed
budget for FY 2006-2007 does not include this funding.
8
o GIS - Based on projected increased demands in infrastructure asset
management, requests for additional GIS staffers may be advisable in the
future.
o Increasing ADA accessibility at locations undergoing work, will increase
the workload for the Engineering Division. Costs will increase as well, but
some may be incurred by private developers and contractors hired by the
city.
B. Facilities Services Division
o As this division pays for all city-owned buildings' utilities, the budget will
be impacted as utility costs continue to rise.
C. Fleet Management Division
o Based on fleet "life-cycle" analysis, approximately $4.9 to $5.6 million
annually over the next five years, for fleet replacement. The level of
replacement will contribute an average of 2% to the Fleet fund balance,
from which the Fund will draw heavily in FY 06-07 and 07-08. This life-
cycle replacement reduces the overall cost of fleet operation.
o There will be a possible proposal for a Fleet Management Facility in the FY
06 budget. Note: Bonding for a new Fleet Facility is included in the
proposed FY 2007 budget.
D. Forestry Division
o The advancing age of the City's forest, storm damage, drought, special
project locations, and price of contractor-provided services will all affect
the Forestry Division budget in the coming six years.
E. Gallivan and Events Division
o It is the division's objective to increase the self-sufficiency of the Gallivan
Utah Center by FY 2007-2008, by increasing facility rentals by 30%,
increasing sales, commencing fundraising activity, and soliciting support
from individuals and private foundations and corporations.
F. Golf Division
o Fees are scheduled to increase by 5% in FY 2007-08, in order to keep
pace with projected growth in expenses, relatively flat demand, and over-
supplied market. Personal services expenses are projected to increase an
average of 4% per year over the next six years. Water expenses are
expected to increase as City water rates increase (9% in FY 2005). Other
expenses are anticipated to increase 2.5% annually. Retirement of debt
service obligation in FY 2009 will free up $720,000 per year for other large
capital improvement projects.
G. Parks Division
o An average of $4.7 million per year for the next six years will be needed
from the CIP Fund to cover the various projects and maintenance updates
that the Parks division has scheduled (the final years of the Liberty Park
Renovation project being a large share of the cost).
9
o The Cemetery has several significant capital improvements that need to be
addressed, whose costs and schedules have yet to be figured. Revenue for ,
the Cemetery will significantly decrease after FY 06-07, as most if not all
of the available plots in "desirable" areas of the Cemetery will be gone.
H. Streets Division
o A variety a traffic signing, marking, and signal service demands are
anticipated over the next six years, with costs to be determined. However,
this program will continue to replace incandescent signal lamps with red
and green LEDs at 23 intersections per year for the next six years, for an
estimated cost saving to the City of $28,286. In addition, the City may
receive annual incentives from the State for its participation ($24,110
estimated for FY 2004-2005).
o Curbside recycling is expected to increase from 35,440 residences per
week to 41,840 residences per week by FY 2009-2010. This would also
increase facilitating the tonnage of recyclable material.
I. Youth and Family Programs Division
o YouthCity will work in the next six years to increase the number of youths
served by after school programs to 1,400 youth. (Staff Note: as of Fiscal
Year 2006, the Youth City program served 4,300 youth).
o In order to meet demand for additional services and hours at the Sorenson
Center, in will be necessary to increase one RPT to a FTE, at an annual
increase in personal services of$32,140.
o To maintain existing programs in technology centers and clubhouse
programs, in the face of decreases and discontinuations of existing grant
funding sources, an additional $80,000 per year will be required.
10
,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ul Ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
of 00 U) UlU)LI CU) ni. oU)U) in o0o 00 00 00
> 01 m Tr '. ' .-1 ti .-I .-1 M M 01 M.-1 .-I .i .1 .i M O U1 U) .1 N
O •C
G
CL - in--1►V}V► V►ill-OF V► V►to in V► Oa V►litV► V►V►*faV►Oa to V► VI-d} Q
CU -
a, Ln c
a) .. g
E c CD 00 0000 op CD CD 000 op InO o0
of of ; OO 0000 ON OM U) to O In0 IN C) 00 CO t
U 0,0, MM ' ' .•i .i.1 .-I N N ' ' CA M ' ' - .i IN 0 CA M .••IN O.
Z
O in V .►V►V► . in V►V► V►L. V►V) V►V►V►V► V►in V► V►V► loon in V►V► LID p
a
•C3 o v
C T, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 U 1 O 0 0 p CD O
7 O.0 00 U)O OO U)U) in U) LA U) 00 N U) N0 LA U) 00 c
Z ,_ IT U)U) CA CA .i .i .i .-4 N N U) Ln.•i .-i ' ' ' U) V' .-1 .-1 .-i N O\1 10
7 a IAL
f O y U
io v►V►tf► V►V►V►V► OF v► V►V► if►V►V►V► V►V►Or V►u► if►V► V!in V
t
O.
44
y 00 00 0000 u)O 00 00 Op V)> 00 00 Inlnu) In r.U) 00 00 00 x
V• V• N N N I.N N .i O CO O CO N N
u1 a, ~ C
f V►V► OF V► V►V►V►OF V►Vr V►V► V►V► V►V► 77
U) V
4.0
a) Ul LALn U) In Ln OO U) U E LA In ) UlN 00 O 0 L.
ID Cr Cr) 0) C)CA CA O)C) O) O) I. 0) U) w
W C L V V• v LID LD CP O) r) M .-1 .-1 0 0 Cr V' "I LID LID U) ID .i •0
ti ti .•i U
y V►V►V►V► V►V► V►V► V►V►V►d} V►V► V►V► tf► V► y1
m
0- C..CC LOf)Lnmrn 00 U) UI Op 00 U)If1 U) 00 li
'O V• CA N N O U) N N N p N0•� O) on on V' V' MM 01 ID1NN NOO CA M .-1N
>.0. n4 oa
to- V►if►V►V► V►V► if).V►dt to d}v► in V► V► tk dt £
0.
In
0 0 0 0 0 .o 0 0 0 0 0 0 LgIDg 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 2
o .i M °)N to .i U) I\ O O n1 U) ML O .-I CT ni-N 000 nn o 4,
.iM NM .iNTNcp MU) MUl N N .-1 .1 IV
a)E Q
y N 0U)OLn U)0000O CD CD U) 0U) 0 O V► -I 0 M U). U) NNU)II) V' U) U) LnNIf)NLO U)NO 0
t0 N N N 1-1 .-I .i ' .i .i ' ' ' .-L
FP
Q V►V►*fa Oa V►V►Oa V►V►V► V►V►V►V►V► V►V►V►V► V►V►V► V►in in
V CD un000000OU) 0000U) OU)OU) 000 ppp 000 O 00 O III
d
C) 4, O I.O U)U) O U) V' ON C Ul CO I. OI. ON U)U)O 000 OU)O U) Cr 00 M
> E U)CO LID 0 CO U)N Cr 1+)U) N M N ,-1 .i U) CO CA)LO .4 0 Cr U) Ln CO .i C') .-1 N U.
Q ,.i .-i .- .-i ti s- y
C(14 V►V►V►V►V►V►V►L. V►V► V►V►V►V►V► V►V►V►V► V►V►V► V►V►V► V►V►OF if► V►bf V► C
C L
IC ate,
.0 4Enr. C
O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O I•i
V o 0 0 0 0 LI 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0
N o MI. 000 LOMM .+In I. OU)000 ON .-4 CCD 00 O
` .i 'LT' .i MU) .-'MI. NtO NNIn IAN N .i V' O NN 0
.i U1 .4 .i
C < a
0
LID 000V)U) 00tn0O Olf)O LA CD to U)tn Ln pp C)
C 0 OF U) .i In N N U)U) N Ln U1 U1 Al U) NLID NNN Al NCr )
Owl al 13 N N N .-1 .i .i U) ' .i •.i ' ' ' N
cm
N o Q V►V►V►V►V►V►V+V►V►V► V►V►V►V►V► V►V►V►V► V►in V► V►V► M C
10 LL
t 000 U)U) CD CD CD CD U) O If)O Ln O O-U)U)U) 000 000 000 O 00 0
A. U) I.
y U) OU) NNIIOCU) N U)NU) N .•i 0NNN NNO 000 OU)0 U) N V' M jp
E V•LOU) W LO V• NMNM .4 N L0 .-I N Tr .i O V U) U)CO .i M .t N U
u►to V►w V►V►tf►in V►V► V►V►in V►ion V►V►V►V► V►in V► V►iPr V► V►V►V►V} V►V► V►
N
4, 000000O U) 0 in 00000 0000 U10o 00 00 CD
O
C O U)O O O O U) I. O N O O O U) U) O O U)p N U)O O U) O U) O O M In
L ID V . N Al . i .-I Tr Tr Ln L nr .i i 1 . U) LID N en .i ID) V Ta N -t N >
L
7 V►V►V►V►V►V►V►V►V►V► V►in V►V►V► V►if►V►V► V►V►V► V►d} V►V► V►tR if► UI.
V
IS c
E v
N 4,, m N
v D. v
c
U U 0 k!
C
a, a)
U av, U m > > c c m E
L
C C IL) \ E a1 IL° a) O „ :° VI 0 0
---
II) tn ++ co ;V 3 U C N v Z L 0
CL
U. �Nm c UI/)caci 4,0U oU � 0 I c O > U
m L a) C '-' •p O C N I coJ V .y(/_J� O L. C L L - T
G 0 '- C C L '0 a"''V) ID a' •In C V V) £ L L aI aJ L. 10
Ili in m (NOmm C UI
as yce F- aci a, ,°� + a°' j •N o N 0 O O ;O 00 0'0 •
ao � cc � a,N� � 7) c01.) c C C
v7o > ° E E v— —vv L
a a, ° LY c VI
a) Oa) N0 w o > a, o 17vc c Eo
O L co-0 V i O V co ,•, ILO C p m L Q C C C
et, ° ,.+ ,_ C a)ce a) ° IY Z O IL' Z L a, v) C L C of w >w CO N m T
In tY Z a, - IT o O O
U C y a) O •- • CI ' , ' 0 C O O) C) m
al� rr � z a�io � a) afvvm a�iaci �� � o ++ of c � > aEi > +�'�� > > �� V
N • ' a a In a) LY Z —^ V m m m m m >.0 ' in ' 4, c c a) o aO, o ° c o 0 0 o d• a w
p'U O cu o d ° m E O •1° UUUUU i 'n c w o o m of ° y' c_ E d E E L H
IY ° U a Z v °Ty, a In n > L. La— — —76 C7 z o z o m 10 E E Eim O L O VI LY £ N N y°, d d° c ICILI o
W en
J � L L � 0 30 U C C m m Y 7 7 7 '� I ' � li � L+ CI O L.t°� C ' 0 1 ' £ m ° L.
C IO 10 G) of 0 L •'p •m a, a, C) u ,.1 a.+ a, u O ' ' a, a, U) a)t a, .-'.- ' a+ 1 1 y In H
f „ v rn rn> > � U E E C C 0. E.U) U U U d+"' c c C— 0 0) c �. ,_, c c 4, E c c_ a, 4, c c -m co
W en O.N of O O O R.
0 C CI N N QI N 0 O v v C C i°i C 0 a N 'C v C C 7D " co N 1' C C > •� •� d
VIn OaID' 0C) LL .•. UU .i .i A. o o. o. V) QQ .i .i NLnO : a .i .iQU.. CQ ¢ ,.., 0mm C
or
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS — FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
DATE: May 11, 2006
SUBJECT: REFUSE COLLECTION FUND
STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver
CC: Rocky Fluhart,Sam Guevara,Rick Graham,Kevin Bergstrom, Parviz Rokhva,
Greg Davis, Nancy Sanders, Steve Fawcett, DJ Baxter
REFUSE FUND
PROPOSED BUDGET
Adopted •
Percent
2005-06 Y Difference Change
Revenue & other
sources
Refuse fees $ 5,747,166 $ 606,162 10.55%
Landfill dividends $ 1,120,725 £.,.,, � (575,725) -51.37%
Interfund $ 298,000 _ 5,400 1.81%
Reimbursements
Sale of vehicles $ 368,675 (111,175) -30.16%
Interest income $ 80,000 F`�� ��� �� : 80,000 100.00%
ihie Appropriation of $ 301 865 ,,.
�` ., ��� (174,664) -57.86%
reserves ,
Total revenue & other $ 7,916,431 „ $ (170,002) -2.15%
sources
Operating Expenses
Weekly trash collection $ 4,017,543 $ 50,024 1.25%
& Administration
Curbside recycling $ 990,950 y ` ;` (14,851) -1.50%
Annual neighborhood $ 1,540,144 (88,178) -5.73%
cleanu•
Total Operating $ 6,548,637 . � $ (53,005) -0.81%
E •enses
Capital Outlay .11.1111.11111111111111111
Debt service �```' e� 9 0
$ 1,140,796 = '� (46,428) -4.07/o
Equipment purchases $ 226,998 (70,569) -31.09%
Total expenses & capital $ 7,916,431 $ (170,002) -2.15%
outla
In addition to the above, the proposed budget reflects an additional $1,122,594
relating to accounting entries of the escrow accounts, which are used for installment
purchases of vehicles and equipment through a lease program.
CSalt Lake City provides a refuse program of weekly trash collection, curbside
recycling, annual neighborhood cleanup, holiday tree pickup, and leaf removal (half of
r►
the leaf bag expense is funded by the Stormwater Fund). The Refuse Fund operates
as an enterprise fund, so the General Fund does not subsidize these services. The
operating budget for fiscal year 2006-07 is proposed to decrease by $53,005 or 0.8%
compared to fiscal year 2005-06.
The operations of the Landfill are not part of the Refuse Fund budget. The Solid Waste
Facility administers the Landfill, coordinates the transfer station and the long range
planning for future landfill sites. However, the Salt Lake City Council reviews and
adopts the budget for the Solid Waste Facility on a calendar year basis, which affects
the revenue and expenditures of the Refuse Fund. For instance, an increase in
material collection through the curbside recycling program will result in less garbage
collection and lower tipping fee expenditures in the Refuse Fund. It also reduces the
over-all revenue to the landfill, impacting the dividend that the City receives as a
result of landfill revenue.
KEY ELEMENTS
The major matters reflected in the proposed budgets for the Refuse Fund include:
• Fee Increase ($606,162 increase, 10.55%) - This budget proposal includes multi-
year increases to the monthly fee for refuse collection scheduled over the next six
years:
Refuse Collection Fees
Proposed multi-year increases
Fee Per Container
Proposed
Proposed Current FY Proposed FY delivery fee
increase 2005-06 Fees 2tl7 Fe % for 2nd can
2006-07 $ 1.00 $ 9.75 ; ;.,;10 10.3% $ 11.00
2007-08 0.50 10.75 1 4.7% 11.00
2008-09 0.50 11.25 • �� 5 4.4% 11.00
2009-10 0.75 11.75 ,t4?s, it\-• 7,; A„,0 6.4% 12.00
2010-11 0.75 12.50 ;&7. °
��� �� 2.5� 6.0% 12.00
2011-12 0.75 13.25 ACM VOW 5.7% 12.00
Total Change $ 4.25 .' 43.6%
There are no fee increases proposed for the recycling program.
The last increase to the Refuse Fund took effect in fiscal year 2001-2002. Since
that time, the fees have remained at $9.75 per month. These proposed fee
increases will help in responding to increases in operating costs and to offset the
reduction in the landfill dividend.
• Landfill Dividends ($575,725 decrease, -51.4%) - This significant decrease in
Landfill Dividend revenue in 2006-07 is due to a reduction in the expected
tonnage that will be taken to the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management
Facility. A private landfill opened in Tooele County providing another option for
commercial waste collection companies.
• Use of Reserve Funds - The budget proposes the use of$127,201 from reserves in
fiscal year 2006-07. Available cash (cash less current liabilities) in the Refuse
Collection Fund was $4,338,632 as of June 30, 2005, which represents 66.8% of
2
I
the annual operating expenses. There is a plan to draw down some of this
available cash over the next six years on capital costs, specifically equipment
replacement, resulting in a remaining balance of $2,390,026 in fiscal year 2011-
12.
The Council may wish to ask why it is necessary to have such a healthy cash
reserve.
• Fuel Expense ($46,999 increase, 16.4%)
• Street sweeping ($60,900 decrease) - As part of the Neighborhood Clean Up
program, efforts have been made to improve scheduling. This has resulted in a
reduction of the amount of sweeping required.
• Equipment Purchase - The Refuse Fund uses a lease program for the replacement
of vehicles. The Refuse Fund has a fleet of 16 refuse packers on a four-year
replacement cycle and 14 trucks on a six-year replacement cycle. The Department
of Public Services has found a four-year replacement cycle to be cost effective
taking into account maintenance and resell value. Each year, the Refuse Fund
also budgets for replacement expense of the cans for weekly pick-up and recycling
on a cash basis.
• Staffing Adjustments - No new employee positions are requested.
• Replacement of Neighborhood Clean-up with an alternate program- In prior years,
the Council has requested information about options to the Neighborhood Clean-
up program, including distributing cans for green waste and establishing an
alternate pick-up schedule for this throughout the year (excluding winter months).
The Administration has provided updated numbers for the cost of this type of
green waste program:
Start-up Costs: $3.2 million one-time, including:
1 new can per: $2.1 million
household
retire existing $1.0 million
leased equipment
Ongoing Costs: $1.6 million per year, including:
pick-up: $1.3 million
tipping fees: $100,000
staff for other: $200,000
maintenance and
support tasks
Impacts:
- This would result in reducing the number of seasonal staff, because pick-up
services would be provided by an outside contractor.
o As an alternative, keeping the pick-up services in-house would result
in significant capital costs for the needed equipment.
o The staff used for the Neighborhood Clean-up Program is also used
for leaf collection in the fall. As an alternative to continue providing
this service, the City could place dumpsters in parks for leaf
collections.
3
- By comparison, the Neighborhood Clean-up Program costs $1,451,966
annually ($148,034 less). However, there would be a savings in replacement
of trucks (14 trucks). Additionally, the $200,000 attributed to maintenance
and support tasks could be otherwise classified and not charged solely to
the Neighborhood Clean-up function.
- The contract for pick-up services would cost $385,291 more than the
weekly recycling pick-up due to the likelihood that a more recently
negotiated contract would reflect fuel price increases.
- The Administration has some concerns about a reduced service level. They
have provided an information sheet (attached) with details of this alternate
plan.
The Council may wish to consider whether the cost to purchase containers
may be available within the $4.3 million of reserve funds.
The Council may wish to ask how the program would be structured, for
example, instead of distributing cans Citywide, could interested residents
request the can?
The Council may wish to ask whether it would be possible to charge an
additional fee for the service, perhaps in lieu of raising garbage pick-up rates.
The Council may wish to ask whether pick-up would need to be scheduled on
a weekly basis, or whether it would be sufficient to collect the green waste
monthly instead. This may provide some cost savings to the amount for pick-
up.
The Council may wish to ask how pick-up of Christmas trees might be
handled - including a possible drop off location instead of a pick-up schedule.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
No legislative intent statements are outstanding for the Refuse Fund.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify legislative
intents relating to the Refuse Fund.
During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or functions to
be added to the Council's list for future audits.
4
MARCH 08 2006
ALTERNATIVE
Neighborhood Cleanup Program Changed to one 90 Gallon Greenwaste Container Per
Home and Dumpsters in Parks to Support Leaf Removal
FY06-07 FY07.08. FY08-09 FY09-10 FY10.11
Current Fee $10.75 $11.25 $11.75 $12.50 $13.25
/Can/
Month
Proposed $12.25 $12.50 $12,75 $13.00 $13.25
Fee/Can/
•
Month
Service level parameters:
Mach home would receive a 90-gallon greenwaste can •
Greenwaste cans would be picked up weekly for ten months each year
Recycling pick up service levels would not be changed
Greenwaste cans would not support pick up of many of the items currently handled by neighborhood cleanup
No leaf bag distribution
Major impacts of greenwaste containers:
One-time sale of 14 leaf bed trucks to the General Fund totaling$490,000 •
Payoff of lease purchase schedules for neighborhood cleanup program
Upfront,cost of greenwaste can purchase would be$2,1 M •
Contract for collection of greenwaste cans projected to cost$1,3M beginning in FY07-08
Savings in personal services(fewer seasonals),fleet expenses and tipping fees
One-time community education costs
Contamination rates will be high in the initial years of implementation
Illegal dumping and limbo tonnage projected to be high on an ongoing basis
Major impacts of dumpsters in parks for leaf collection:
.Cost to place the dumpsters
Seasonals to monitor dumping
Dumpsters in parks for six weeks •
Bottom line:
Materially reduced service level
Very large upfront cost then operates at higher annual cost than status quo.
Will require upfront education and ongoing enforcement
°06
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2006
(Refuse Fund Fees)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9.08.030 OF THE SALT LAKE
CITY CODE, RELATING TO GARBAGE AND RECYCLING PICK UP SERVICES.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That Section 9.08.030 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to
garbage and recycling pick up services be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:
9.08.030 Garbage And Recycling Pick Up Services:
The city will provide for the collection and disposal, at the expense of the property
owner, of garbage, community waste, stove ashes, recyclable material and other such
refuse from residences, eligible multi-family properties and eligible businesses as
provided herein. Said collection shall be under the supervision of the department of
public services pursuant to the following:
A. Garbage And Recycling Pick Up Services To Residences:
1. Garbage Service To Residences And Responsibility For Payment: Except where
water, sewer and garbage service to the owner's premises is properly terminated or the
owner notifies in writing the director of public services that the owner's garbage will be
picked up by a private collector, the owner of every residence shall be responsible and
liable for the below enumerated monthly charges for garbage service. The charge for such
service shall be billed with the city's regular water and sewer billings to the owner of
such dwelling units as the department of public utilities has records, and directly to the
address of all other such residences provided by the director of the city's department of
public services. In those instances where the water and sewer bill is currently being sent
to a tenant at the owner's request, the garbage service will be similarly billed. However,
the owner is responsible to pay and is liable for all charges for garbage service furnished
to the residence if such tenant or occupant shall fail to pay the same.
2. Charges For Garbage Service To Residences:
a. Monthly charges for general garbage pick up service provided to residences for the
city's fiscal year 20062-20073 shall be ten_nine dollars seventy five cents ($109.75)per
month for the first automated container. The first automated refuse container shall be
delivered to residences without a delivery charge. Additional automated containers can be
obtained for ten nine dollars seventy five cents ($109.75) each per month plus a delivery
fee of 1 ,.cno' dollars ($1 I0.00) each. This id,L will change in fiscal year< 007-;''dtl8 to
cleci'rl dollars In enty five cents (S I 1.25;),Ter month. During that fiscal year, )ddition ll
atitonl ued ccn(ainets can lv' obtained tor clinic!) dollars twwent./ five cents (,` 11 .!5) each
dirondt pills a deiincr - the ttrelelen dollars Ott 1 .00) each. "I.lie We will change in fiscal
year 1)08.20OO to eleviin difllars seventy five cents (S 117 )per motidi I urine that.
fiscal year, additional silloinilt�d containers rs can 1e obtained (or eleven dollars eveniy
d cat = (S I 1 75) per moral' iglus a delivery lee of leven dollars (S 11.00) each. The tee
will chingie in fiscal year 2009-20 1 10 to twelve dollars fitly cents (512.50) per inoiidi.
Durinc That fiscal year, additional automated containers can be obtained For twelve
(toildolktitsiid'rtit t lams 91 2.a0t per month plus adelivery Ice of twelve dollars (S12.00) each.
The Ice will change in fiscal year 010-201 I to thirteen dollars twenty five coritd (S13.25)
i {'ri month. During that INC'al year, additional automated containers can be obtained ti)r
1llirtee n ddfl.dd i; twenty live cents(513.25) per month Lus a delivery We ol twelve dollars
'I .00) each. The the ill change in fiscal xl year...20112 01 p to loin t d ttdollars (91 l 00)
per motnh. kmnip that fiscal year, additional automated containers can be obtained for
Idiii-teen di: ll rl ( 1-1.00) per month plus a deli-very tic of'twelve iloll<zds (``l 12.00.) each.
These fees`1 all changes, as outlined aborte)ema n the -lain e tinno .h tiiititttitidotitear 20(i0-
007, ire subject to modification by future city councils.
3. Recycling Pick Up Services Available To Residences: Owners or occupants of
residences may elect to subscribe to the city's recycling pick up service. Owners or
occupants of residences will not be charged for this service in addition to the fee set forth
in subsection A2 of this section.
B. Recycling Pick Up Service Available To Eligible Multi-Family Property
Owners And Eligible Businesses:
1. Recycling Pick Up Service: Owners of eligible multi-family properties and eligible
businesses may elect to subscribe to the city's recycling pick up service. A business or
multi-family complex located outside of the service provider's normal routes may not be
eligible to subscribe to the recycling program. Such service shall be billed with the city's
regular water and sewer billings to owners of eligible multi-family properties and eligible
businesses as the department of public utilities has records. In those instances where the
water and sewer bill is currently being sent to a tenant at the owner's request, the
recycling pick up service will be similarly billed. However, the owner is responsible to
pay for the recycling pick up service furnished such tenant, or any other occupant of the
premises named in the department of public utilities application, if such tenant or
occupant shall fail to pay the same. The city may collect from private streets with a
signed written agreement between the department of public services and the private street
owner.
2. Charges For Recycling Pick Up Services: Charges for recycling pick up service
provided to the owner of an eligible multi-family property or eligible business for the
city's fiscal year 2002-2003 shall be three dollars fifty cents ($3.50) per month for the
first automated container. Additional automated containers can be obtained for three
dollars fifty cents ($3.50) each per month. Automated recycling containers shall be
2
delivered to eligible multi-family properties and businesses without a delivery charge.
These fees shall remain the same through fiscal year 2006-2007, subject to modification
by future city councils.
3. Promotion And Education Requirements Regarding Recycling Pick Up Service
In Multi-Family Properties And Businesses: The business owner or manager of any
eligible business who has subscribed to the city's recycling pick up service must
distribute general recycling information and current program recycling guidelines to
every employee within fourteen (14) days of employment and to all employees of the
business annually. The owner or manager of any eligible multi-family property who has
subscribed to the city's recycling pick up service must distribute general recycling
information and current program recycling guidelines to every tenant housed in the
complex within thirty(30) days of occupancy and to all tenants housed in the complex
annually. If requested, the city will assist by providing educational flyers.
C. Billing:
1. Periodic Billing Statements: The department of public utilities shall cause billings
for garbage collection and recycling pick up services to be rendered periodically at rates
established in this chapter. In the event partial payment is made on a combined bill, the
payment shall be applied first to franchise fees due, and then to each service on a pro rata
basis as determined by the director of public utilities.
2. Delinquency: Fees and charges levied in accordance herewith shall be a debt due to
the city. If this debt is not paid within thirty(30) days after billing it shall, at the option of
the director of public utilities, be deemed delinquent and subject to recovery in a civil
action for which the city may recover reasonable attorney fees, and/or said department
shall have the right to terminate water, sewer, garbage collection and recycling pick up
services to said premises. Any uncollected amount due from the owner on any inactive,
terminated or discontinued account may be transferred to any active account under the
owner's name and upon failure to pay said bill after at least five (5) days' prior written
notice, water, sewer and/or garbage collection and recycling pick up services to that
account and premises may be discontinued.
3. Restoration Of Service: Water, sewer, garbage and recycling pick up service shall
not be restored until all charges shall have been paid.
D. Deposits Required From Nonowners: All new water, sewer and garbage
collection service users who are not the owners of the premises shall pay to the
department of public utilities for deposit with the city treasurer an amount sufficient to
cover the cost of garbage collection services which may accumulate. The amount
deposited shall be not less than twice any monthly or bimonthly bill for garbage
collection over the preceding year on such premises, but in no case shall it be less than
ten dollars ($10.00). The department of public utilities shall issue a certificate of deposit.
The amount deposited shall be refunded by the city treasurer to the holder upon the
surrender of the certificate properly endorsed, provided all garbage bills and other
3
charges are paid. All bills for garbage service must be paid promptly without reference to
said deposit. Whenever any user of garbage collection services shall have failed to pay
for garbage services rendered to such premises, the money deposited or any part thereof
may be applied to the payment of such delinquent bills by the department of public
utilities. The owner of the premises will be required to pay the remainder.
E. Abatement: Those owners, each year, granted indigent abatement for taxes on
their dwelling by Salt Lake County under section 59-2-1106 et seq., Utah Code
Annotated, or its successor, shall be granted a fifty percent (50%) annual abatement of
the above garbage pick up charges.
F. Enterprise Fund: All funds received from garbage service and recycling pick up
service shall be placed in the garbage enterprise fund and left separate and apart from all
other city funds. The collection, accounting and expenditure of all such funds shall be in
accordance with existing fiscal policy of the city.
G. Vacancies: In the event a residence being served is vacant and the owner is
trying to sell it, or it is or will be vacant because of an extended vacation of the occupant,
the owner may apply to the public services director in writing for termination of garbage
service for a specified period. The automated refuse and recycling container(s) will be
picked up and returned pursuant to the owner's request upon payment of a ten dollar
($10.00) service fee. If said service fee is paid, no garbage collection fee shall be charged
during the period of vacancy.
SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of
its first publication.
4
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of
, 2006.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
MAYOR
•
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2006.
Published:
I:\Ordinance 06\Amending 9.08.030 refuse fund fees 4-20-06.doc
5