The URL can be used to link to this page

05/14/2002 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members C. Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert. Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky", Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Jay Magure, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney; Dan Mule' , City Treasurer; Jeanne Robison, Senior Assistant City Prosecutor; Tim Campbell, Director of Airports; LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities; Jim Lewis, Public Utilities Finance Administrator; Jeff Niermeyer, Public Utilities Deputy Director; Stephanie Duer, Water Conservation Coordinator; Rick Graham, Director of Public Services; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Randy Hillier, Capital Improvement Project Administrator/Budget & Policy Analyst; Max Peterson, City Engineer; Margaret Hunt, Director of Community and Economic Development; David Dobbins, Deputy Director of Community and Economic Development (CED) ; Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director; Elizabeth Giraud, Historic Preservation Planner; LuAnn Clark, Deputy Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development HAND) ; Nancy Tessman, Library Director; Alexius Gallegos, Library Board President; Jerry Burton, Police Administrative Manager; and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:36 p.m. #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Item B-2, Library Budget, was under the Consent Agenda, Items 16 and 18, the public hearing date of May 21, 2002 was left off. #2. INTERVIEW NANCY HUNTSMAN PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE AIRPORT BOARD. Ms. Huntsman said she was interested in the Airport Board because she was a pilot and used airports often. She said she was interested in a broader background with regard to expansion of operations and structure. She said she was also interested in the dynamics of air carriers. Councilmember Saxton asked Ms. Huntsman if she felt it necessary for members of the Airport Board to be pilots. Ms. Huntsman said it was not necessary. #3. INTERVIEW JAMES ALCALA PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BOARD. Mr. Alcala said he had lived in Salt Lake City since 1993. He said he was an Attorney and practiced immigration law. He said he had a background in construction and property management and an MBA degree. #4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY (MBA) BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 3. View Attachment Randy Hillier, Jerry Burton, Steve Fawcett, Dan Mule' and Michael Sears briefed the 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 14 , 2002 Council. Mr. Sears explained the content of the amendment. He said Issue #1 was the MBA portion of the pioneer precinct and soil stabilization. He said Issue #2 was the MBA fund. Mr. Mule' explained the MBA's bond rating. He said it was separate from the City's bond rating and was the highest possible for lease revenue bonds. #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. (WATER, SEWER AND STORM WATER) . View Attachment Gary Mumford, LeRoy Hooton Jim Lewis and Jeff Niermeyer briefed the Council. A discussion was held regarding 900 South storm improvements. Councilmember Turner said improvements had been postponed due to the Olympics. He asked when the project would begin. Mr. Hooton said coordination with the Streets Department was needed for maximum efficiency. Mr. Niermeyer said the current schedule was to begin in 2003 to 2004. He said the design needed to be completed. Councilmember Lambert asked what the source of the storm water enterprise was. Mr. Hooton said a fee for storm water was charged on water bills. Councilmember Jergensen asked about the use of gray water at the sewer facility. Mr. Niermeyer said the plant site was 80 acres and was watered with re-used water. He said Public Utilities recommended a water use study. He said the estimate for re-use was 4 to 5 million gallons per day. Mr. Hooton said there had been discussion about re-using water at City parks along Redwood Road. He said re-using water in the public right of way required a higher quality of water with additional filtration. Mr. Niermeyer said to re-use water for a City park or Golf Course a significant investment was needed for separate piping which stopped cross contamination. Mr. Hooton said a pilot program would be started and then expanded. Councilmember Christensen asked what the timing was for a pilot program using gray water. Mr. Niermeyer said the proposal would take approximately 3 to 5 years. Councilmember Saxton asked if new houses were allowed to have gray water systems. Mr. Neirmeyer said the City had adopted the International Plumbing Code which provided for gray water systems. He said the State of Utah had also adopted the International Plumbing Code. He said the stated had excluded the adoption of the gray water system saying the system had to go before the Board of Health for concurrence. A discussion was held regarding the use of gray water. Councilmember Christensen asked when the Master Plan called for an additional treatment plant. Mr. Hooton said they would not enlarge the current treatment plant in Rose Park beyond 56 million gallons per day. Councilmember Lambert asked why funding for the CIP project was $20 million and the bond was $25 million. Mr. Lewis said this was cash flow for a five-year program. He said $20 million would be used this year and $5 to $10 million in the next year. He said some of the project was phased and some would be on one contract. He said the program was for 5 years and was a $57 million capital improvement program. He said part of the program would be funded on a pay- as-you-go basis and the other part would be funded by bonds. Councilmember Lambert asked what the sewer reserve fund was. Mr. Lewis said this was an operating cash reserve. He said currently the fund was approximately $18 million. He this would go down over the next three years to $1.7 million. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the water, sewer, and storm water enterprise funds were now 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002 operating properly due to long-term planning. She said the cash reserve fund allowed forward movement for replacement of infrastructure. A discussion was held regarding the cash reserve fund, increased sewer rates and a second treatment plant. Mr. Hooton said the plan was to build reserves to build large capital improvement projects on a cash flow basis. Councilmember Buhler asked the Council if there were any objections to the sewer fund. No objections were raised. Councilmember Jergensen referred to Page 3 of the staff report listed, Use of Cash Reserves and asked Mr. Lewis to explain. Mr. Lewis said the City Creek Treatment Plant project was a $12 million project. He said it had been budgeted for in the first year and would take 3-years to construct. He said the cash reserve would remain high but drop during that period to approximately $3 million. Mr. Lewis said Public Utilities was adequately funded for the next 3 years depending upon Metro water rates to the City. A discussion was held regarding Metro water rates. Councilmember Turner asked for an update regarding California Avenue and 700 West. Mr. Hooton said they wanted to increase footage of replaced waterlines on the west side of Salt Lake. Mr. Niermeyer said cast iron pipe placed in the 1950' s now had a high failure rate. He said they had a list of replacement priorities based on breakage. A discussion was held regarding upgrades to the City Creek Treatment Plant project. A discussion was held regarding the demonstration garden at Washington Square. Mr. Niermeyer said Public Utilities had received a grant from the Central Utah Project for some of the work for the garden. He said they wanted to up-grade the irrigation system at Washington. Councilmember Christensen asked if radio read meters were a cost savings. Mr. Lewis said that was correct. He said this allowed the meter reader to drive the route. He said 4 to 5 thousand reads could be done in approximately 4 hours. He said they were still analyzing effectiveness. Councilmember Saxton asked if there were programs available to private citizens wanting to replace clay sewer lines. Mr. Niermeyer said assistance was based upon income level through the Red Cross. Councilmember Buhler asked the Council if there were any objections to the water fund. No objections were raised. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE LIBRARY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. View Attachment Nancy Tessman, Alexius Gallegos, and Russell Weeks briefed the Council. Mr. Gillegos said the Library Board was concerned about contracting with tenants. He asked the Council to consider rezoning the Library block before the fall. He said this would allow staff to move forward with commercial tenants on the block. Councilmember Buhler said they could move forward making everything contingent to the change in zoning. A discussion was held regarding the change. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the rezoning included the Central City Master Plan. She said this could be scheduled for Council. Ms. Tessman said the plan entertained shops and services. She said retail consultants were concerned and needed approximately 6 months of planning time. She said the goal was to have the plan and proposals for occupants coincide with the 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002 Council' s zoning decision. She said a letter could be written which stated zoning was speculative pending the City Council's decision. Councilmember Lambert said he was concerned with the ability to establish retail every place a new building was constructed. He said he was undecided. Ms. Tessman asked the Council for feedback regarding what would happen in lieu of rezoning. Councilmember Jergensen said Library specific retail could be established and would not compete with other surrounding businesses. He said this would add to a patron's Library experience. He recommended moving forward in creating Library centered businesses and activities. Councilmember Turner said he supported Councilmember Jergensen. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned with revenue projections and tax increases. He asked if the Library could operate under the current fiscal capacity. Ms. Tessman said she was optimistic and confident for the next two years. She said the only unforeseen reality would be how busy the new Library became. She said the Library currently served over a million visitors per year and this could double. She said supplemental funding had been set aside to handle the influx for the first year. Councilmember Buhler asked that a property tax increase be used only as a last resort. Councilmember Lambert asked what the approximate increase for this year was. Ms. Tessman said approximately 1.5% or $1.5 million was the increase. A discussion was held regarding supplemental funding sources. Ms. Tessman said the focus for supplemental funding was for programs and collections. Councilmember Buhler asked the Council if there were any objections to the Library budget amendment. No objections were raised. #7 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 6 AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS. View Attachment Rocky Fluhart, Randy Hillier, Steve Fawcett, Rick Graham and Michael Sears briefed the Council. Mr. Sears reviewed some housekeeping matters including impact fee exemptions and employee medical premiums. Councilmember Christensen referred to Issue #3, donation of the construction of Liberty Park Tennis Building. He asked what the private donation would fund. Mr. Graham said the design estimate to enlarge the tennis building was approximately $477,000 not including contingency or design fees. He said the project could cost as much as $550, 000 to $600,000. Councilmember Saxton asked about Issue #5, building surveys for historic planning in the East Liberty Park area. She asked if there was a method for logging historical buildings. Ms. Giraud said the area included 900 South to 1300 South and 700 East to 1300 East excluding Gilmer Park which was already on the National Historic Register. Ms. Giraud said funding was from the Certified Local Government (CLG) . She said a survey would be conducted according to standards set by the regional office. She said the survey involved a report, mapping, photography and noting information for each building in the survey area. She said this was the first step to pursue a listing on the National Historic Register. Councilmember Buhler asked if the data collected would be Geographic Information System 02 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 14 , 2002 (GIS) compatible. Ms. Giraud said she would check on this. Councilmember Saxton asked with regard to Issue #7, Prosecutor's Office Victim Advocate Grant (VAWA Grant) , if funding was applied for a specific purpose. Ms. Robison said that was correct and funding could not be switched to another project. Ms. Robison said they were not funding another position within the Police Department Victim Advocate program. She said the funding was for a half position in the Prosecutor's Office. A discussion was held regarding the need for more information regarding the position. Councilmember Christensen asked with regard to Issue #11, Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking, if the officers were in addition to current staff. Mr. Burton said that was correct. Councilmember Buhler asked how long the grant would run. Mr. Burton said grant funds were sufficient to pay for officers' salaries and benefits for a portion of the first year. He said the department would find the remaining funds within the existing budget. He said the intent was that funding would continue as long as the problem existed. A discussion was held regarding continued funding. Councilmember Saxton asked if the department had guidelines to assess staffing needs. Mr. Burton said he would ask for the list of criteria for staffing needs. Councilmember Buhler suggested approving the budget amendment with the understanding that when Federal funding lapsed the positions would also lapse. Councilmember Buhler asked the Council if there were any objections to Budget Amendment No. 6. Councilmember Saxton said she was not comfortable forwarding this issue unless there was documentation which stated the need and how the City would benefit. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned about positions being funded for a whole year. Councilmember Turner said he supported the issue. Discussions were held regarding Issue #15, 5500 West 200 South realignment, Issue #18, Olympic reconciliation, Issue #19, early retirement, and Issue #20, boiler room utility tunnel. Councilmember Christensen said he felt funding for the boiler room utility tunnel should come from contingency money budgeted for the boiler room GO bond. Councilmember Buhler asked the Administration if they objected. Mr. Fluhart said if funds were available in the GO bond contingency rather than CIP contingency funds, they would be used. A discussion was held regarding Issue #21, Landscaping on 700 East. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned that the issue had not gone before the Capital Improvement Project Board (CIP) . Mr. Hillier said the CIP board could be contacted with respect to the issue. Councilmember Love said exceptions to the CIP process were, 1) when project leverage was significant non-City sources of funds, 2) when the project offered an opportunity to achieve significant savings or generate significant revenues, and 3) when the project offered significant opportunity which would be lost if not taken at this time. Councilmember Turner asked if funding could be taken from CIP or another fund to make sure the project moved forward. Mr. Sears said to properly appropriate the fund the full local match amount of $80,000 was required. Mr. Sears said this was for the local match. He said the issue would come back to the Council for consideration of the interlocal agreement. 02 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002 Councilmember Buhler asked that the CIP board review the issue and the Council move the issue forward. No objections were raised. A discussion was held regarding Issue #22, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Reallocation of Fund. Ms. Clark said agencies had requested the reallocations. She said one of the issues was that no policy had been set as to projects applied for being completed. Councilmember Buhler asked the Council how they felt regarding reallocation of funds for CDBG projects. All Council Members were not favor of moving this issue forward. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. View Attachment Rocky Fluhart, Randy Hillier, Steve Fawcett, and Michael Sears briefed the Council. Mr. Sears referred to the handout. A discussion was held regarding the Addition of one investigator position for the Police Civilian Review Board. Councilmember Christensen asked if use of the web site for Justice Court payment could be made user friendly. Mr. Fawcett said that would be encouraged. A discussion was held regarding parking meter collection costs. Councilmember Buhler asked the Council if there were any objections to the Management Services budget amendment. No objections were raised. #9. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR NON-DEPARTMENTAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. View Attachment Item #9 was not discussed. The meeting adjourned at 9:49 p.m. cm 02 - 6 SALT LAKE CITY :COUNCIL STAFF:REPORT:: .......... . .... . MBA BUDGET ANALYSIS -.FISCAL YEAR 2001-021 2002.-0 DATE: May 10, 2002 SUBJECT: Municipal Building Authority Budget Amendment #3 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget and Policy Analyst Document Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Miscellaneous Facts Type Facts Ordinance The proposed budget amendment The ordinance is By law, before bond for the Municipal Building presented to interest can be used Authority has an$85,056 net amend the 2001- on projects for which impact on the MBA Fund in fiscal 2002, 2002-2003 the bond was issued, year 2001-2002 and-$354,906 in biennial budget of it must be fiscal year 2002-2003. This the Municipal appropriated. amendment provides for the Building Authority. appropriation of bond interest for the SW Police Precinct and other bond/debt/interest charges. The briefing and discussion of the third Municipal Building Authority budget amendment of fiscal year 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 is scheduled for May 14, 2002. A public hearing will be scheduled for a later date. The City Council serves as the Board of the Municipal Building Authority. MATTERS AT ISSUE Issue #1: Pioneer Precinct Soil Stabilization($50,000—MBA Fund) Th Administration has requested that the Municipal Building Authority Board appropriate bond interest toward the soil remediation project at the Southwest Police Precinct. This project was approved by the City Council during Budget Amendment #5 and $160,000 in Capital Improvement Funds were appropriated for this purpose. This request allows the remaining $50,000 in necessary funds to be appropriated from Bond Interest earned on the MBA bond issued for the purchase and construction of the SW Police Precinct. The appropriations of funds will allow the soil remediation project to proceed and the City to finish and occupy the SW Police Precinct. Council Member Saxton urged the Administration to spend the funding only on the soil remediation project. Page 1 Issue 02: Municipal Building Authority ($35,056-MBA Fund) The Administration is requesting that the Municipal Building Authority Board approve the necessary adjustments to the Municipal Building Authority's 2001 Bond budgets. These bonds were issued to financing the Justice Court and the Police Precinct. The budgets for these projects were prepared in fiscal year 2001 using preliminary numbers. On the date of issuance the actual bond amounts were slightly different than the preliminary numbers. This budget amendment will correct the adopted budgets to reflect the actual bond issuance numbers. The budgeted amount for fiscal year 2002-2003 will be reduced by $354,906 to reflect the corrected bond issuance amounts. The correction of the budget appropriation will allow the Administration to manage the Municipal Building Authority Fund with correct budgets. This request is a routine housekeeping measure that must occurs each time bonds are issued. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Dan Mule, Elwin Heilmann,Jerry Burton, Randy Hillier,Laurie Dillon, Susi Kontgis, and Kay Christensen Page 2 ROOKY J. FLU HART `-' T •� ®`e,GET—CORPORATION._ - 's, -Awr as -- .s,- ,,aEsa>_A A. ROSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR • COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Dave Buhler, Chairman Salt Lake City Council sl FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: May 7, 2002 SUBJECT: Municipal Building Authority Budget Amendment No. 3 Recommendation: We recommend that on May 21, 2002, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on June 4, 2002, to discuss Municipal Building Authority Budget Amendment No. 6. Discussion and Background: The amendment packet will be transmitted to the City Council Office on May 10, 2002, for the briefing on May 14, 2002. Legislative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by the City Attorney. cc: Dan Mule, City Treasurer Shannon Ashby 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 23S, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01.535-6426 FAX: BO1-535-6190 FY 2002 Initiatives in MBA Budget Amendment - June FY 2002 FY 2003 Initiative Name Initiative Gen. Fund FTE Gen. Fund Amount Impact Impact FTE 1. Pioneer Precinct Soil $50,000 -0- -0- Stabilization 2. MBA Bond Funds Transfer $35,056 -0- -0- Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police Department FY 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year Pioneer Precinct Soil Stabilization MBABA#3 01 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jerry Burton 799-3824 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund SW Police Precinct Bond Interest (50,000) SW Police Precinct Soil Stabilization 50,000 Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund SW Police Precinct Bond Interest (50,000) SW Police Precinct Soil Stabilization 50,000 Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Soil Stabilization) 50,000 Total $50,000 $0 $0 gait Lake Lity Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet y for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization • F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: As the Pioneer Precinct project design and development has progressed, testing of the existing structure and the ground it is built on has been ongoing. The City Engineer's office, with the use of an outside expert, determined the soil beneath the existing structure needs mitigation to assure that in the event of an earthquake, the building structure (which will meet seismic codes within existing budget) is i not compromised by excess movement of the soil underneath. After meeting with City Engineering, Architect Firm Edward Daniels& Associates (EDA) and City Administration, the department proposes the following for council consideration. An additional $350,000 over-and-above the current project budget will be required to address this issue. Of the $350,000 additional project cost it is proposed the City Council appropriate $160,000 from the CIP Contingency fund balance, and $50,000 from interest earned on the project bond, totaling $210,000. The remaining $140,000 of the $350,000 in increased cost will be redirect from within the existing project budget. Analyst Comments: This amendment deals specifically with the $50,000 in SW Police Precinct MBA bond interest to be used toward the project. The $50,000 was requested to be appropriated during the previous budget amendment, however, it was not requested as an MBA budget amendment. In order for the funds to be released for expenditure, they need to be appropriated in an MBA budget amendment. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment anacement Services/Finance FY 01_ 9 Department For Fiscal Year .Municopl i3ultdi.:::...:. :. MBABA#3 Initiative Name Initiative Number ;:: :.::, aniei A MO ; ::.. �t1 :<»<::; Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund MBA Bond Fund-Lease proceeds 66-006601808 (233,767) 274,810 MBA Bond Fund-Transfer in from CIP 66-00660197405 28,966 (380,439) MBA Bond Fund-Transfer in from Trustee-held money 137,364 (249,277) MBA Bond Fund-Appropriation of excess cash 102,493 Total $35,056 ($354,906) $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 I $0 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund MBA Bond Fund-Bond principal 66-00660 2811 (57,300) (575,000) MBA Bond Fund-Bond Interest 66-00660 2821 98,321 220,094 MBA Bond Fund-Bonding/note expense 66-00660 2825 (3,470) MBA Bond Fund-Other expense 66-00660 2590 (2,495) Total $35,056 ($354,906) $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services (2,495) 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Bonding/Debt/Interest Charges) 37,551 (354,906) Total $35,056 ($354,906) $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issu Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Th Municipal Building Authority's Series 2001 Bonds were sold for the purpose of financing the Justice Court and Police Precinct Projects. The budgets to reflect the debt service for thes projects during Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 were prepared during Fiscal Year 2001 using preliminary figures because the bonds were not actually sold and the final numbers were not known until July 2001 (Fiscal Year 2002). Also, at the time the budget was pr pared, it was anticipated that a portion of the MBA Series 1993A Bonds representing the Baseball Stadium would be refunded and included in the financing. The adopted budget also reflected the effect of the anticipated refunding. The refunding never occurred. , SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION No. of 2002 (Amending Salt Lake City Resolution No. 37 of 2001 which adopted the biennial Budget of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003) A RESOLUTION AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. 37 OF 2001 WHICH ADOPTED THE BIENNIAL BUDGET OF THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FOR THE FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2002 AND JULY 1, 2002 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2003. PREAMBLE On June 12, 2001, the Salt Lake City Council acting as the Board of Trustees, adopted the biennial budget of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted biennial budget, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on June 4, 2002, to consider the attached proposed amendments to the biennial budget and ordered notice thereof be published as required by law. A , Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said biennial budget was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said biennial budget was held on June 4, 2002, in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the biennial budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council. All conditions precedent to amend said biennial budget have been accomplished. Be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, acting in their capacity as the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Resolution is to amend the biennial budget of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City as adopted by Salt Lake City Resolution No. 37 of 2001. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments attached hereto and made a part of this Resolution shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the biennial budget of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the biennial Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial budget 2 r i. amendments in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER s—_/t,_oz qvut„.„.. (SEAL) Resolution No. of 2002. Published: G:\admance 02\Amending mba budget 5-03-02 due 3 SALTLAKE CITE` COUNCIL STA P REPORT Sux"JiCET AMENDMENT ANALYSIS FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 DATE: May 10, 2002 _ BUDGET FOR: WATER FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford c: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, LeRoy Hooton,Jeff Niermeyer, Jim Lewis, Steve Fawcett, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter The budget that the Council adopted in June 2001 for the Water Fund's fiscal year 2002-2003 totaled $49,679,421. The Department of Public Utilities is proposing an amendment to increase the budget by $9,829,430 for capital improvement projects and a small increase for postage costs. MATTERS AT ISSUE • The majority of the proposed budget amendment relates to accelerating the upgrades to the City Creek Water Treatment Plant. The Council may wish to discuss the proposed improvement with representatives of the Department of Public Utilities. • The Department is requesting that the Fluoridation costs that were included in the 2001-2002 Budget be transferred to fiscal year 2003 plus addition funding of $855,000 to adjust for consultant's recommendations and improvem nt to existing buildings to store equipment required. This would bring the total for this project to $1.5 million. • Statement #34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which is now in effect, requires the Department of Public Utilities to record contributions from contractors (e.g., water lines installed by developer of subdivision) as revenue rather than as contributed capital. The proposed amendment includes $500,000 from contributions by developers. This does not represent any additional actual cash receipts or cash disbursements. • Postage expenses for mailing water bills are estimated to cost an additional $26,000 because of postal rate increases. • Capital projects include $120,000 for water conservation projects. They include demonstration gardens at Day Riverside Library, Washington Square, and the front of the Utilities Administration Building. The Council may wish to clarify how the Washington Square funding relates to the request for RDA funds for that project. • The adopted budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 includes the first of four water rate increases approved by the Council in June 2001 to finance the Metropolitan Water District's capital improvement program, which will require the City to pay higher wholesale water rates (from $125 to $150 per acre-foot). The City's rate increase effective July 1, 2002 is 4%. While last year's Council 1 action does not bind the current Council, it becomes it necessary for the Council to take formal action in order for the planned rate increases not to be implemented. • The Administration continues to evaluate rate structure changes in relation to conservation. • Council Member Lambert asked about the systemic incentive to encourage, rather than discourage, water use due to the rate structures typical to western communities. Public Utilities representatives will provide additional information at the briefing relating to: o Salt Lake City has officially recognized that the advantages of conserving are numerous. o In 1994 the Administration and Council worked together on establishing a conservation or seasonal rate; the City recognized that in order to encourage conservation, rates would need to be increased because 80 percent of the costs are fixed (debt service costs and management of the system needs to be addressed). The Council emphasized the need for the system to have adequate resources to continue quality operations. o The conservation approach is considered a success because, on a trend line over the past 12 years: • Per capita consumption has gone down • Peak day use has gone down • Peak month use has gone down • Over-all consumption has been nearly flat over the last 12 years, despite the fact that the system has grown by about 20 percent in new connections. o The City has been able to delay very costly infrastructure investments due to the success in controlling the peak water use. o The City's rates compare well those in cities of similar characteristics. 2 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT Use of cash reserves -The requested additional appropriation for capital projects will b funded primarily from reserves. A cash flow schedule provided to Council staff shows cash reserves decreasing from about $17 million to just over $2 million in fiscal year 2002-2003. However, since the treatment plant improvements will take three years to complete, the cash will actually not decrease all in one year. For budgetary control purposes, City departments must have adequate appropriations before entering into a multi-year construction contract. Upgrades to City Creek Water Treatment Plant-The upgrades to the City Creek Water Treatment Plant were originally proposed to be accomplished in three phases over 15 years. The Department's consultant is now recommending a two-phase approach. Rather than closing the treatment plant three times, this plan will result in two closures.. In order to accelerate the first two phases into the first phas , the D partment is proposing $11.2 million for construction. The third phase, to be begin in about 10 years, is the seismic upgrade to the sedimentation basin. If the sedimentation basin were to fail before upgrade, the plant could function with modifications for a limited time. Watermain pipe replacement -The Department plans to replace about 64,700 feet of watermain lines during fiscal year 2002-2003, which is more than the Department's goal of replacing an average of about 40,590 feet of watermain each year. The am ndment proposes decreasing the amount of funds for waterline replacement by $2,967,315. This is because the Department is planning to replace smaller, 1 ss expensive pipelines on the west side where there have been recent failures of steel pip . Conservation demonstration water projects - The Department of Public Utilities will rec ive a grant from the Central Utah Project to set up a demonstration garden at Washington Square. At Washington Square, the garden will be between the driveways on the east side of the building. The garden will be an example of what and how to plant to conserve water. Part of the demonstration project at Washington Square will b a joint project with the Department of Public Services with the installation of new automatic sprinkler systems and new design to show proper watering techniques. Additional capital equipment - The Department of Public Utilities is seeking approval to purchase the following equipment: • $29,000 for trucks • $32,000 for two pump motors • $120,000 for two fluoride feeder tanks • $ 98,000 for office and other equipment Watershed property purchases - Because of a large watershed purchase in fiscal year 2000-2001, the Department didn't originally ask for authorization to make any purchases in fiscal year 2002-2003. However, the Department is aware of some land that may become available and is requesting authorization to spend up to $500,000. 3 A summary of the estimated revenue and expenses contained in the proposed budget am ndment for the Water Fund is as follows. WATER FUND PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT Fiscal Year 2002-2003 p}, £"£7i s e e z 5 s . o•a e e e e £ #� 3�ss' f��}� V �.ii•s}�£� E £�� €�.£4�E�E f 35 t't £�';< £ EE��?.. � i ' t,'» ((�s��<;Es Revenue&other sources Metered sales $40,257,000 $40,257,000 Interest income 1,250,000 1,250,000 Interfund cha •es 2,049,020 - 2,049,020 Sale of used :•ui•ment 50,000 - 50,000 Contributions b develo• -rs 605,000 500,000: 1,105,000 Use of cash reserves 5,468,401 9 329 430 14,797,831 Total revenue&other sources $49,679,421 $9829430 $59,508,851 Ex. =nses Water •ualit $11,375,445 $ .. . . $11,375,445 Maintenance 9,541,930 9,541,930 E •ineerin• 1,238,616 - 1,238,616 Finance(meter reading, 3,546,799 2003' 3,572,799 customer service billin• Administration 3,706,191 _.... . . - 3,706,191 Ca ital Outla Ca•ital im•rovements 13,638,590 9 7204430 23,359,020 Vehicles& -•ui•ment 1,831,850 83 0001 1,914,850 Debt service 4,800,000 - 4,800,000 Total Expenses& Ca•ital Outla $49,679,421 $9,829 430 $59,508,851 The following table summarizes the proposed capital improvement projects. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECTS Fiscal Year 2002-2003 s TS:i,77:€ .::Es�f € 7 : ' _s 1 ',,, :,, t r,x o f#5 's, 1siE>, s t t ��#5�£ �, - �_� � - Y � <sfE��€ts IEtaz,,k z£zti«<tEts}eta 't € ttfif zi44f#'SE; �s a • e t • g • .5{> , <£z z£ Re. = ;-la - • • •• : • • i drants $8,805,840 $5,838,525 Service line re•lacement 1,100,000 700,000 1,800,000 Land •urchases - 500 000 500,000 Water meter re•lacement 2,000,000 700 000 1,300,000 Fluoridation im•lementation - 1 500 000 1,500,000 Wells 425,000 393,000 32,000 Treatment •lants 235,000 11,292,745 11,527,745 Reservoirs 8,000 285 000 293,000 Pum•in• •lant u••rades 540,000 370 000 170,000 Culverts,flumes&brid.es 120,000 95,000 25,000 Maintenance buildin•s 374,750 152 000 222,750 Water stock •urchases 30,000 - 30,000 Landsca•in, —Conservation pro ects - 120,000 120,000 Total Ca•ital Im•rovement Program $13,638,590 $9,720,430 $23,359;020 4 BACKGROUND The Salt Lake City's water delivery system to City and County residents depends on a network of dams, aqueducts, water treatment plants, distribution reservoirs, and water mains. Upkeep and maintenance of older systems and construction f new systems is very costly. The Department of Public Utilities has over 90,000 water service connections and provides over 33 billion gallons of water annually. The Water Utility has 1,199 miles of water mains and 167 miles of conduit and supply lin s. The Water Fund has 269 employees. In June 1997, the Council adopted a five-year capital improvement program that included 7% rate increase each year for five years. The last of these rate increases occurred on July 1, 2001. The average residential annual water bill in fiscal year 2001-2002 is $276 and is expected to be $287 in fiscal year 2002-2003. The Metropolitan Water District is a legal entity that was created by the voters of Salt Lake City in 1935. Creation of the Water District as a legal entity was necessary to allow the City to enter into long-term agreements to build major projects such as Deer Creek Reservoir, and more recently, Little Dell Reservoir. The District's main purpose in 1935 was to help build the Provo River Project (Deer Creek Reservoir and the associated aqueduct infrastructure). The Provo River Project diverts up to 216,500 acre feet of water from the Duchesne and Weber Basins and up to 100,000 acre feet of surplus Provo River flows for use by the Metropolitan Water District. Sandy City became the second member of the District on February 22, 1990. Salt Lake City appoints five of the seven members of the Metropolitan Water District Board and, therefore, has a controlling interest in the District. Sandy City appoints the remaining two Board members. 5 SALT"'LAIC:' CITY"COUNCIL:STAFF=REPORT BUDGET Am ndwr:° NALYSI3°: :`FISCI °lfurt . 0 03 DATE: May 10, 2002 BUDGET FOR: SEWER FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, LeRoy Hooton,Jeff Niermeyer, Jim Lewis, Steve Fawcett, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter The budget that the Council adopted in June 2001 for the Sewer Fund's fiscal year 2002-2003 totaled $23,772,257. The Department of Public Utilities is proposing an amendment to increase the budget by $20,003,400 primarily related to bond proceeds for capital improvements. MATTERS AT ISSUE • The Department of Public Utilities is requesting that the bond issue that was included in the budget for fiscal year 2001-2002 be transferred to fiscal year 2002-2003. The $25 million bond issue is to pay for upgrading the wat r reclamation treatment plant and other capital improvements. The Council may wish to discuss with representatives of the Department the pros and cons of bonding for these projects rather than phasing them in on a pay-as-you-go basis. • The amendment proposes delaying a $3 million sewer trunk line until additional studies and evaluations can take place. • In June 2000, the City Council adopted a six-year incremental sewer rate increase to coincide with a six year capital improvement plan. Sewer rates were increased 121/2% on January 1, 2001 and 9% on July 1, 2001. Future rate increases approved by the Council are 9% on July 1, 2002, 9% on July 1, 2003, 9% on July 1, 2004, and 7%July 1, 2005. While the rate ordinance does not bind future Councils, it makes it necessary for a future Council to take formal action in order for the planned increase not to be implemented. • Statement #34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which is now in effect, requires the Department of Public Utilities to record contributions form contractors (e.g., sewer lines installed by developer of subdivision) as revenue rather than as contributed capital. The proposed amendment includes $500,000 as an estimate of contributions by developers. This does not represent any additional actual cash receipts or cash disbursements. • There are no changes proposed to the operations budget. 1 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT Treatment plant improvements - Upgrades to the water reclamation plant were originally scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2001-2002. The initial plan was to accomplish the upgrade over several years in many phases and projects. Following a consultant's study, the Department is recommending the option of completing the upgrade in a single project rather than many projects. The Department is requesting to move the treatment plant appropriation in fiscal year 2001-2002 to fiscal year 2002-2003 and to increase the project amount to $28,310,000. If the Council approves the budget amendment, final design will take place with construction beginning next spring. Treatment plant improvements included in the budget ar : $22,000,000 - secondary treatment expansion $ 3,100,000 - cogeneration rehabilitation $ 3,000,000 -new force main line between pretreatment and treatment plant $ 100,000 - seismic upgrades $ 60,000 -trickling filter center column modification $ 50,000 - electric gate actuator Collection lines and lift stations - The budget for collection lines and lift stations is proposed to be decreased by $2,746,600 to help fund the treatment plant improvements. A $3 million sewer trunk line is delayed until a future year. Construction of a pump station was canceled reducing the sewer budget by$220,000. Some additional projects have been added. The Council may wish to request that th Administration specify whether these changes will have a potential negative impact on th sewer system. The following table summarizes the proposed capital improvement projects: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 t € # s_at : 1•f 1 bl f g f E ¢i#s { € jf € t #Ek t t. € #3 � z z i €� �� },< 5 �#€ € €Es fE j 3£3 I F3 tz;} £s '<€�s' f I F€£j 13E s 23£f f. { I I £E M ` '• ' 1 1 Ff m l 1 d £=j``F 3sE2€• I E€ £ .is f E �€ {f [ w� u3? 3:3 # 3, 3<.€; t3 3 .3 sn E _ � � € £ £ � � �££'M � � � gt e# }i'£# £g� z � �<i €#sE;:€€t S'sj'sFs'��Is'f{zz`,I.��I ;>i:EE£;EEf #E`; �#� � �� ;f � > ,, E �i � ##s# ; ,>.t,�#>€s: �##;�#EE,E.r;s„E>r� ,ss�a,,m9.Ea;i;�� Treatment slant $4,060 000 $24 250 000 $28 310 000 Collection lines 5,898,700 2 526 600 3 372 100 Lift stations 400 000 220 000 180 000 .► ME= 12,000 - 12 000 Site im'rovements 15,000 90,000 105 000 Post treatment ilot demo 90,000 90,000 - C;lSi-,it „€,1t•1ki11t llI E(.3.. ,yd $10 475 700 $21 503 400 $31 979 100 2 A summary of the estimated operating revenue and expenses contained in the proposed budget amendment for the Sewer Fund is as follows. SEWER FUND PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget Amendment Budget Revenue&other sources Charges for sewer services $14,170,000 $654000 - $14,824,000 Interest income 800,000 - 800,000 Permits 85,000 - 85,000 Contributions by developers - 500;000:.:: 500,000 Other revenue 167,000 167,000 Impact fees 600,000 - 600,000 Interfund charges 140,000 140,000 Bond proceeds - 25000;000;:_ 25,000,000 Use of cash reserves 7,810,257 (6r 150,600) ; 1,659,657 Total revenue&other ••- sources $23,772,257 i120dd3;400 $43,775,657 Expenses Wastewater treatment $5,365,741 $ - $5,365,741 Maintenance 1,122,085 y 1,122,085 Engineering 620,536 - 620,536 Water quality 371,411 371,411 Finance(meter reading, 722,708 722,708 customer service, billing Administration 1,028,276 1,028,276 Capital Outlay Capital improvements 10,475,700 21,503 140 31,979,100 Vehicles 8t equipment 1,040,800 - 1,040,800 Debt service 3,025,000 itilsooi000111i 1,525,000 Total Expenses& Capital Outlay $23,772,257 I$20003°°400 $43,775,657 BACKGROUND The Department of Public Utilities has over 48,350 sewer connections. The Sewer Utility maintains 633 miles of sanitary sewer pipe and connection lines. The reclamation plant treats an average of 35,000,000 gallons of sanitary sewer per day. Maintaining the sewer lines and operating the lift stations and reclamation plant is accomplished with 102 employees. Effective January 1, 2001, sewer fees are based on discharge strength as well as volume. Approximately 1,700 of the 48,000 accounts are charged an additional fee because they discharge sewage with strengths greater than domestic or residential sewer flows. This change sets rates so that residential customers or commercial customers with domestic discharges do not subsidize customers with greater than domestic strength discharges. This rate structure encourages businesses to reduce discharge strengths. The average residential sewer bill in fiscal year 2001-2002 was about $94 and is estimated to be $103 in fiscal year 2002-2003. 3 5ALT"° AKE''CItY CO TNCIL S' `AFF REPORT .. ............ BUDGET AMENDMENT ANALYSIS°°-FISCAL:;YEAR 2002 Q3 DATE: May 10, 2002 BUDGET FOR: STORMWATER FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford c : Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, LeRoy Hooton,Jeff Niermeyer, Jim Lewis, Steve Fawcett, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter Th budget that the Council adopted last year for the Stormwater Fund for fiscal year 2002-2003 totaled $12,193,062. The Department of Public Utilities is proposing an am ndment to decrease the budget by $2,971,000 to defer some capital improvement projects. MATTERS AT ISSUE • The budget continues plans to issue bonds in fiscal year 2002-2003 for about $9 million to help finance stormwater projects. • The 900 South project from 700 East to the Jordan River is delayed until fiscal year 2003-3004 to correspond with the revised street reconstruction schedule. • Statement #34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which is now in effect, requires the Department of Public Utilities to record contributions form contractors (e.g., stormwater lines installed by developer of subdivision) as revenue rather than as contributed capital. The proposed amendment includ s $500,000 as an estimate of contributions by developers. This does not represent any additional actual cash receipts or cash disbursements. • There are no changes proposed to the operations budget. • No fee increase is recommended. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT Bonding-The Department of Public Utilities plans to issue $9,000,000 in bonds that w re previously included in the fiscal year 2002-2003 budget. Debt service for fiscal year 2002-2003 can be reduced by $525,000 because the Department anticipat s issuing the bonds later in the fiscal year rather than at the beginning. Bonding will require an approximate payback of $900,000 annually. The Department of Public Utilities estimates that a rate increase will be necessary in approximately fiscal year 2007-2008. 1 Capital project adjustments - The amendment proposes adjustments to capital projects as follows: • Reduction of $3,500,000 for the 900 South line, which is delayed to meet a revised timetable - • Addition of $190,000 for lift stations - The Department of Public Utiliti s operates 21 stormwater lift stations in relatively low sections of the City where gravity flow is not possible without pumping or lifting the stormwater about 20 feet higher. (Note: The Department also operates 30 sanitary sewer lift stations.) , • Addition of$874,000 for projects and lines budgeted in fiscal year 2001-2002 but not expected to be completed by June 30, 2002 - Each year the Council routinely carries over the unexpended amounts of ongoing capital projects to the next fiscal year by budget amendment. • Reduction of $650,000 for delaying the replacement of the 500 East line until fiscal year 2004-2005 A summary of the estimated operating revenue and expenses contained in the proposed budget amendment for the Stormwater Fund is as follows. STORMWATER FUND PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT Fiscal Year 2002-2003 q P,TORIM':T::!!;:',1,q1,71Mirsqiir!;;,11,a10,11,1,77, „, MIMI] Revenue&other sources Stormwater service fee $4,998,490 $ 296709€ $ 5,295,199 County Flood Control 200,000 - 200,000 Reimbursement Interest 300,000 300,000 Interfund reimbursement 35,000 - 35,000 Im•act fees 250,000 - 250,000 Contribution • develo•ers - 500000 500,000 Other revenue 21,000 21,000 Bond •roceeds 9,000,000 - 9,000,000 Total revenue 8s other sources $14,804,490 $ 796 709 is $15,601,199 :h. eases Maintenance $ 1,075,436 * - $ 1,075,436 MIITMMir=.1111599,832 - 599,832 Water •uali 149,541 - 149,541 Administration(including 1,033,053 x 1,033,053 customer service billin Ca italOutla Ca•ital im•rovements 7,951,200 2*446 000)' 5,505,200 ............................. Vehicles 8s •ui•ment 484,000 484,000 Debt service 900,000 (525 00.0) 375,000 Increase to reserves 2,611,428 3,767'709 6,379 137 Total expenses 8s ca•ital outla $14,804,490 $ 796,709 $15,601,199 �. 2 Proposed Capital Outlay: The following table summarizes the proposed capital improvement projects: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECTS ___ FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 s$r - tt' 3» "t»1zji;v#...!„ ;...ts....,;. ;z # I t ! .a t ! e 1 1 •Ori ! 1 f. 3 zakE 2 ff3F''{ .{I i n •#ty .Q zKif�'�Ruf ' f 1 I I 11 ' I # ! 5 z� F ras #.�.. 333 FF"#F£'• � Collection lines $7,851,200< Otaitn 5,215,200 Lift stations 100,800 przming 290,000 11�Y i 3. . • - - P .:-_ $7,951,200 "t. $5 05 200 BACKGROUND Th Department of Public Utilities maintains over 436 miles of stormwater pipe and collection lines using 28 employees. The stormwater responsibility was transferred from the General Fund to Public Utilities in 1991. That year a new stormwat r fee was implemented. Since that time, there have been no rate increases and no public • tax dollars have been used to help the system. When this enterprise fund was stablished a public process was used to review the list of capital needs and establish a priority for addressing the needs. 3 SAT I a ' LY(%OI PO °'tr �I,OI LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. +•��+ �� rr�� ..�;�► ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Offi er May 7, 2002 RE: Department of Public Utilities Budget Amendment FY 2003 Recommendation: Request that the City Council hold a briefing to discuss the proposed Public Utilities budget amendment. Availability of Funds: Budget approval for the 2002—2003 budget amendment Discussion: The attached Public Utilities Budget for the budget year's 2002- 2003 and budget amendment faun are attached. The majority of the proposed amendment relates to accelerating upgrades to the City Creek Water Treatment Plant and the Water Reclamation Treatment Plant. The Water Utility Fund is requesting $9.8 million for capital improvement projects and a small increase for postage costs. The majority of the request relates to accelerating the construction phases for the City Creek Plant, which was originally proposed to be accomplished in three phases over a 15 years. The department is now recommending a two-phased approach. This will reduce traffic disruption in the canyon to only the two phases. In order to accelerate the first two phases into the first phase, the department is proposing $11.2 million for construction. The Sewer Utility is requesting that the bond issue that was included in the budget for fiscal year 2001-2002 be transferred to fiscal year 2002-2003. The $25 million bond issue is to pay for upgrading the water reclamation treatment plant and other capital improvements. The Stormwater Fund is asking to decrease the budget by $2.9 million to defer construction on 900 south to match public works street overlay project. The department will continue to promote water conservation this next year. This budget will allow the department to continue to implement the following programs: 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 15 TELEPHONE: 801.4B3-69O0 FAX: BO1-4E13-6E118 ®nCCYCLED PAPER 1. The department is requesting a voluntary water reduction of 20%, of all outside water use from all customers. This could cause a decrease in anticipated revenue for next year. 2. Contribute to the Governor's and large water user's state wide water conservation program 3. Contribute to the Salt Lake County-wide "Slow The Flow" program 4. Continue to provide free outside water checks to customers 5. Implement a new program to provide water checks to all City- owned green spaces and large water accounts 6. Review and make recommendations to all City Ordinances related to water conservation landscaping 7. Implement demonstration gardens at Washington Square, Day- Riverside Library Detention Basin, Pork Chop Park, Bend in the River Park, and at the Public Utilities Administrative Building 8. Provide two flyers related to proper watering schedules and conservation methods 9. Consider a more aggressive conservation rate structure 10.Partnering with KUTV Channel 2 and KSL Channel 5 to provide educational material on water conservation Contact Person: Jim Lewis 483-6773 Submitted By: ILA b/(76-CC LEROY . HOOTON, J Director Attachments cc: File SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: May 7,2002 SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Library System Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 STAFF REPORT BY:Russell Weeks Document Type Budget-Related Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Facts Budget The budget is from the The City Council is the The Library System has Salt Lake City Library final budget authority clearly stated positive System,a separate for the Library System. aspects of the budget. taxing district. The System was created by the City's "governing body,"and the City Council sets the tax rate for the Library System. Options and Motions: 1. I move that the City Council adopt the Library System budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. 2. I move that the City Council not adopt the Library System budget for Fiscal Year 2002- 2003. Issues/Potential Questions for Consideration: • The proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 appears to depict a Library System that is cash-rich due to healthy fund balances.However,projected anemic"natural growth"in property taxes—the System's main revenue source—plus projected spending needs in the first year of the new Main Library's operation may pose uncertainties in Fiscal Year 2003-2004. • The City Council may wish to inquire about the Library System's alternative plans if fund-raising efforts do not meet expectations. • The City Council may wish to see operating fund balances as a separate revenue line item in future Library System budgets. 1 Discussion and Policy Considerations: The proposed Salt Lake City Library System budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 indicates a variety of changes from previous budgets. Some changes involve revenue—particularly estimates of revenue derived from property taxes and ideas to augment property taxes. Other changes involve an emphasis on operations instead of capital projects as the new Main Library nears its opening in January 2003. The Salt Lake Library System Board of Directors adopted the budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 at its April 18 meeting.Board President Alexius M. Gallegos is scheduled to present the budget to the City Council on May 14.The Council will receive a briefing on the budget before or after the formal meeting. CITY COUNCIL POLICY OBJECTIVES AND SERVICE LEVEL INDICATORS Historically,the City Council has had three policy objectives and service level expectations for the Salt Lake City Library System. • To provide the best library services and resources possible to Salt Lake City residents and visitors. • To provide sufficient and equitable access to library information and services to all members of the community. • To provide economical and efficient library services to meet the needs of the community. It should be noted that the City Council has not reviewed the policy objectives and service level expectations for eight years. It also should be noted that the City Council had a management review of the Library System conducted in 1997,and the System received high marks for service, performance and efficiency. The authority for the City Council to review and act on the City Library System's budget appears in Title 9, Chapter 7 of the Utah Code.The Chapter includes the following sections: 9-7-401. Tax for establishment and maintenance of public library—Library fund. (1)A city governing body may establish and maintain a public library. (2)For this purpose,cities may levy annually a tax not to exceed.001 of taxable value of taxable property in the city.The tax is in addition to all taxes levied by cities and is not limited by the levy limitation imposed on cities by law.However,if bonds are issued for purchasing a site,or constructing or furnishing a building,then taxes sufficient for the payment of the bonds and any interest may be levied. (3)The taxes shall be levied and collected in the same manner as other general taxes of the city and shall constitute a fund to be known as the city library fund. (4)The city library fund shall receive a portion of the uniform fee on tangible personal property in accordance with the procedures established in Subsection 59-2-405(5). 9-7-402.Library board of directors—Expenses. (1) When the city governing body decides to establish and maintain a city public library under the provisions of this part,it shall appoint a library board of directors of not less than five members and not more than nine members,chosen from the citizens of the city and based upon their fitness for the office. (2) Only one member of the city governing body may be,at any one time,a member of the board. 2 9-7-404.Board powers and duties—Library fund deposits and disbursements. (1)The library board of directors may,with the approval of the city governing body: (a)have control of the expenditure of the library fund,of construction,lease,or sale of library buildings and land,and of the operation and care of the library;and (b)purchase,lease,or sell land,and purchase,lease,erect,or sell buildings for • the benefit of the library. (2)The board shall: (a)maintain and care for the library; (b)establish policies for its operation;and (c)in general,carry out the spirit and intent of the provisions of this park (3)All tax moneys received for the library shall be deposited in the city treasury to the credit of the library fund,and may not be used for any purpose except that of the city library.These funds shall be drawn upon by the authorized officers of the city upon presentation of the properly authenticated vouchers of the library board.All moneys collected by the library shall be deposited to the credit of the library fund. 9-7-406. Reports to governing body and State Library Board.The library board of directors shall: (1)make an annual report to the city governing body on the condition and operation of the library,including a financial statement;and (2)provide for the keeping of records required by the State Library Board in its request for an annual report from the public libraries,and submit that annual report to the State Library Board. It should be noted that it is an internal City Council policy not to have City Council Members serve on City boards and commissions except in an ex officio capacity. Review of Library System Revenue for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 City Council staff prepared the following tables with the intent of showing projected revenue with the general obligation bond for construction of the new Main Library and without the general obligation bond. Full Proposed Revenue Budget Major Category Adopted Proposed Difference Percent 2001-2002 2002-2003 Change Property taxes $ 10,561,103 $ 10,613,202 $ 52,099 0.49% Interest 375,000 280,000 (95,000) -25.33% Grants/Donations 368,282 604,704 236,422 64.20% Fines/Charges/Intergovennmental/Leases 251,000 358,000 107,000 42.63% Fund Balances 2,000,000 3,950,000 1,950,000 97.50% Bond Revenue 70,000,000 45,000,000 (25,000,000) -35.71% Total $ 83,555,385 $ 60,805,906 $ (22,749,479) -27.23% 3 Proposed Revenue Budget Without Bond Revenue Major Category Adopted Proposed Difference Percent 2001-2t002 2002-2003 Change Property taxes $ 10,561,103 $ 10,613,202 $ 52,099 0.49% Interest 375,000 280,000 (95,000) -25.33% Grants/Donations 368,282 604,704 236,422 64.20% Fines/Charges/Intergovernmental/Leases 251,000 358,000 107,000 42.63% Fund Balances 2,000,000 3,950,000 1,950,000 97.50% Bond Revenue - - - Total $ 13,555,385 $ 15,805,906 $ 2,250,521 16.60% Staff also has prepared two graphs intended to indicate revenue growth from 1994 to Fiscal Year 2002-2003 to give Council Members a historical perspective.The first graph includes revenue from the general obligation bond.The second omits it. Revenue Growth Including Bond Revenue 1994-2003 (including Bond Proceeds) $90 000 000 k .., ,:. ,}>:k•�kk!.}} .,..k}..,,...wk,v�:k �k,} , wkkk } k�}. , 000 ...y5 :}Y.,.::v{h FX{:•:•�;'�' �''::::.Y :¢• �.v.,:j� ::.may t{• ��. :: S k�: T{(:.. ff'.'' f k" {xf 4':} f'k r Y A` $80t / �wtiktf��< �y{h4r f� 25}�� ,� �n t£.'�kC ,}f W -0r i> ).r $70 000 000 {} ' 'J 4',f ,.Lt{nur},.. f} ,. fi' .i �{ 01994-1995 t t ,,f{t, : s': { f f ,..: :;f}r.}.; '. i ®19®5-1998 r,':;.} 4s} +f{ •?n'k::::k'}^`y fJ�:+.' .ram 'Cy , }p .3 '4:`ti $60 000 000 . k;`'ku: :m c{}4w ' } ' '' s .,�yw:;•;�r2 kk.::.:.•:k.• C ) k,{fc J �'�{?{n:{� kk•... {}C. "? t fh: f r;J Lw: c w :•::.:....{ }wk. i 01996-1997 $50 000 000 `{ _.fr, r{ >°x x N 019974998 f . . l ry.•3j':.}:' .}£ } ft, ,,,:- f ) +f.> M1,�" } v 1 $40 000 000 :}J:: :, . 'ffx.r• Sv}.4f• k{os;.�r.;•,;; 01999-2000 .v :fJ�.'#y'�t�;t�{kk{�.�,k ,y,r},\:, '� 1n /fit { ::,r �{:rk r} ; �^ $30 000 000 }. _ ° •'• o 2o01-2002 1 t ::�}}Jr•}}i:if' Sf ^444 f . 11 `:� �ii v $20 000 000 :'`•` r..` }% k ■2002-2003 $10,000,000 ` a ;v fdf4}ylt� k^ r ,r } f rr .� "ipi .;;...::;:tat:. ffr,3flif ,frj. ? -f r li t{ 4r ::'11 f { £ so 2: Operating Capital Total 4 Revenue Growth Without Bond Revenue 1995-2003 _ (excluding bond proceeds) $16 000 000 T},}.}„}.}, ): „}}}}TT}T}..},,,},} T,,A r.}. }..}},.},,;} }:} }.-T...,.,, } .{{} '•S• Aq S}:}}�v4+:;.'}+�ii •.A,i�:q•.�� .}v..,:1'1 $12,000,000 ";i • : 113FY94-95 $10 000 000 ', „A.4As }`k ..w ,.. :;. �>� ;.k4 %w<' `1s v A A i s}.`A # O. 13 FY97-98 $8 000 000 :;\A } 41 < A �'A x 4 .S.:e {> •.r • x `•a:` " A •'�''p a FY99-00 AS�Q �fi ••}+}�~ }� j Y. kx $6,000,000 # { ■FYoo-o1 s ;N z, :.„,„„ „„ lii:4 I "kilts*Witaiggat:lig ':ii : I' 0 FY01-02 $4,000,000 . ■FY02-03 '''.0 ..- !::i A:.. g; lii§.*IPft'.4: !MU.... :::: .!ii4......?";i-: -..'". $2,000,000 �, " f t S !T Operating Capital Total As one may see from the tables and graphs above, Council staff has attempted to give a more detailed picture of projected Library System revenue by eliminating the bond revenue from the second table and the second graph. It should be noted that the Library System traditionally divides its budget into operating and capital budgets.The revenue figures in the tables incorporate projected revenue for both budgets.Expenditure tables later in the report include the Library System's capital budget as part of a category of the total expense budget. Fund Balances One also may see from the second revenue table that,minus revenue from the general obligation bond,the Library System's projected total revenue for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 is $15,805,906—a 16.60 percent increase.The bulk of the increase is due to fund balances.They are projected to rise by$1.95 million in the next fiscal year—a 97.5 percent increase.It probably should be noted that if the fund balances are subtracted from the$15.8 million figure,projected revenue falls to$13,855,906.The figure is$300,521 more than the$13,555,385 in the current year's adopted budget—roughly a 2 percent increase. Again,the Library System's proposed budget has broken down the fund balances into two categories.The first is a$950,000 line item in the operating budget titled Contingency Savings. The second is a line item in its capital revenue budget titled Prior Year Capital Fund Balance. That line item is projected to rise by$1 million from the current fiscal year to a total of$3 million. According to the proposed budget(Page 6),the$950,000"is part of the Operating Fund Balance."The Library System has"reserved unexpended and unanticipated revenues"since 1998 5 "to supplement one-time,first-year operating needs for the new Main Library."Page 25 of the proposed budget says,the Library System plans to allocate the$950,000 in the following ways: • Buildings and Grounds—$150,000 • Personnel —$300,000 _ • Services —$250,000 • Contingency --$250,000 According to the proposed budget,the Library System plans to use the$950,000 largely for one-time costs associated with the first-year of operating the new Main Library including "added custodial supplies and maintenance,temporary personnel,and events and programs.The remaining contingency will be allocated"for those unexpected system-wide demands and needs and possible shortfall in property tax revenues." It should be noted that previous Library System budgets have not included the Operating Fund Balance as a line item in its revenue projections.The City Council may wish to have future budgets include the figure as a line item. The Prior Year Capital Fund Balance also is projected to increase by$1 million to a total of $3 million in the next fiscal year.According to the proposed budget,$2 million will be allocated for Main Library and Branch Contingency(Page 28).According to the proposed budget,the$2 million will be allocated to cover"needs beyond the scope of the bond"for construction of the new Main Library and expansion of the Anderson-Foothill Branch Library and as a"safety net"for the two projects funded by the general obligation bond issue. According to Library System Director Nancy Tessman,the money will be used largely to buy items that,although eligible for purchase with bond funds,would depreciate in value faster than the life of bond repayments. Ms.Tessman used computers as an example of the kinds of purchases the Library System contemplates. She also said that by using the$2 million money from the bonds could be used for more permanent capital items connected with the two projects. Another$930,000 is allocated in the proposed budget for Prior Year/Contingency. According to the proposed budget,"This fund is maintained to deal with carryover projects and emergency or unanticipated needs."However,Ms.Tessman said that the Library System also plans to use the money to save for construction of a new branch library in the southwestern sector of the City. She said the System plans to have about$2 million—about half the cost of construction—saved within three to four years. Property Taxes Minus revenue from the general obligation bond,property taxes make up the bulk of the Library System's projected revenue for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Using the$15,805,906 figure, property taxes make up about 67 percent of the Library System's total anticipated revenue. Property taxes make up 85 percent of the System's anticipated operating revenue. According to the proposed budget,the Library System's projections of property tax revenue fell about$105,000 short for the current fiscal year(Page 3),and the System plans to make up the sum through its Operating Fund Balance.The proposed budget projects that revenue from property taxes will grow by about 1.5 percent in the next fiscal year.The current property tax rate for the Library System is .000773.The proposed budget says the Library System will not 6 seek a property tax increase for Fiscal Year 2002-2003.However,Ms.Tessman said that for the fiscal year after that(2003-2004)there might be a request for a property tax increase. If one looks at the two graphs in this report,particularly the second one,they indicate that total revenue growth has increased steadily in the last nine years.The growth is due to two factors,one probable and one certain. First,in the mid-1990s"natural"growth in property taxes met or exceeded projections ranging from 2.25 percent to 3.3 percent. Second,the City Council approved a property tax increase for the Library System in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 that resulted in a$1.2 million annual increase in revenue.In each of the last three years the Library System has used$900,000 of the$1.2 million to buy books and other material for patrons in anticipation of the new Main Library opening. Donations and Grants According to the proposed budget,the Library System"will aggressively seek alternative funding through grants and donations,including an application which is being submitted for a major challenge grant with the National Endowment for the Humanities to support ... programs and build toward a program endowment for the future." The proposed budget anticipates obtaining$300,000 in donations and grants for the operating budget,nearly a quadrupling of donations and grants from the adopted budget for the current fiscal year.According to Ms.Tessman,$250,000 of that is for the National Endowment for the Humanities challenge grant.The Library System anticipates using the challenge grant to raise$1 million in grants and donations over three years to endow and support library programs. The proposed budget also projects$250,000 in grants and donations for the capital revenue budget. It should be noted that the 2000-2001 budget anticipated receiving$78,718 in donations and grants for the operating budget,but the actual budget for the year indicated that the System received$34,353.On the capital revenue side the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 budgets anticipated that the Library System would receive$250,000 in donations and grants in each of the two fiscal years.However,actual revenue from donations and grants was$28,660 in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 and$131,869 in Fiscal Year 2000-2001. Council Members may wish to explore what the Library System's alternatives are if anticipated revenue from donations and grants does not meet expectations,particularly in a lean year for property tax revenue. Lease Revenue The 2002-2003 proposed budget is the first time the Library System lists revenue from leased space in the new Main Library.The proposed budget anticipates that the System will collect$60,000 from leasing about 2,800 square feet inside the new library and 6,500 square feet outside the new library.According to Ms.Tessman,the Library System was scheduled to publish in mid-May requests for proposals to locate in the planned retail areas.According to the tentative timeline prepared for the City Council's briefing last March on Library Block issues,the Council is scheduled in October or November to formally consider rezoning the Library Block to allow retail uses in the new Main Library. Bond Revenue 7 The proposed budget projects that revenue from the general obligation bond will fall from$70 million in the current year's adopted budget to$45 million at the July 1 start of the 2002-2003 Fiscal Year. In Fiscal Year 1999-2000 the total bond proceeds allocated to the Library — System was$72,115,756.If one subtracts$45 million from the previous sum,the remainder indicates that$27,115,756 will have been spent on the library project by the start of the 2002- 2003 Fiscal Year. (Three things should be noted: 1.)The expenditures include expansion of the Sprague Branch Library. 2.)About$25 million of the original$84 million bond was allocated for Salt Lake City projects connected to construction of the new Main Library.The projects included demolition,construction of underground parking,and the installation of a new heating and cooling plant to serve the new Main Library,the existing Main Library and the City&County Building. 3.)The original estimate for construction of the new Main Library was$55 million.The estimate did not include the cost of the arc-wall on the new Main Library's east side.) Page 6 of the proposed budget says,"The remaining$3 million of the$84 million bond authorization will be issued for the Main Library project by summer 2002.Approximately$8 million in earned interest has been earmarked to complete the projects originally planned for Library Square,bringing total expenditures to$92 million."It is Council stair's understanding that the bulk of the$8 million in earned interest will be used to complete the arc-wall. Expenditures by Major Category Level Full Proposed Expenditure Budget Major Category Adopted Proposed Difference Percent 2001-2002 2002-2003 Change Personal Services $ 6,862,078 $ 7,686,800 $ 824,722 12.02% Materials/Supplies 2,513,507 1,970,606 (542,901) -21.60% Charges/Services 806,000 1,809,000 1,003,000 124.44% Capital Outlay&Improvements 73,362,300 49,339,500 (24,022,800) -32.74% Debt Service(Copier Contracts) 11,500 - (11,500) -100.00% Total $ 83,555,385 $ 60,805,906 $(22,749,479) -27.23% Expenditures Minus Bond Money Major Category Adopted Proposed Difference Percent 2001-2002 2002-2003 Change Personal Services $ 6,862,078 $ 7,686,800 $ 824,722 12.02% Materials/Supplies 2,513,507 1,970,606 (542,901) -21.60% Charges/Services 806,000 1,809,000 1,003,000 124.44% Capital Outlay&Improvements 3,362,300 4,339,500 977,200 29.06% Debt Service(Copier Contracts) 11,500 - (11,500) -100.00% Total $ 13,555,385 $ 15,805,906 $ 2,250,521 16.60% The expenditure tables again indicate a change in direction for the Library System as the project to build a new Main Library nears an end.The tables indicate that the System is beginning to focus on operating the new facility instead of building it.It should be noted that while there are 8 significant projected increases in expenditures for Charges/Services and Capital Outlay& Improvements,the major factor in each case is a large fund balance or contingency. Personal Services The projected increase in personal services reflects in part an additional 8 full-time equivalent positions throughout the Library System.The proposed budget calls for increasing the full-time equivalent positions from 146.5 to 154.7.Because the Library System employs numerous people part-time the proposed budget projects that the number of total positions will rise from 218 to 232.Nine of the additional positions appear to be at the new Main Library, according to the staffing level appendix on Page B-1 of the proposed budget.Positions at the Anderson-Foothill,Day-Riverside,Sprague and Sweet branch libraries also have been added.The proposed budget also includes a 2 percent salary increase across the board plus continuation of employee performance appraisal and merit system.In addition,the Library System anticipates hiring one-time,temporary personnel to help staff the new Main Library for six to nine months after the facility opens. The budget projects a more than 12 percent increase in health insurance premiums even though the Library System will join public agencies in the Utah Local Governments Trust group insurance pool.The Public Employees Health Plan still will provide health insurance to System employees,but they no longer will be part of the Salt Lake City Corporation pool.According to Ms.Tessman,the System made the move to continue to provide health insurance to its part-time employees. Materials and Supplies The 21.6 percent drop in the materials and supplies line item also reflects the Library System's change in emphasis from preparing to open the new Main Library to operating it.As mentioned earlier in the report,the Library System has used$900,000 a year of the 1999 property tax increase to buy books and other items to stock the new library.Ms.Tessman said the System still is buying material. She estimated that by the time the new library opens the System will have spent$3 million on new material—roughly 150,000 books and other items. Spending for supplies is projected to increase in Fiscal Year 2002-2003 in anticipation of the opening of the new Main Library. Charges/Services The major element included in this category is the$950,000"contingency savings" referenced in the revenue section of the proposed budget. The sum subtracted from the $1,809,000 in the table above leaves$859,000 in planned expenditures—a 7 percent increase _ over the current year's adopted budget.Nevertheless,there are significant increases in planned spending in this category for programming and publicity. Programming expenses are projected to rise from$55,000 in the current year's adopted budget to$255,000 in the proposed budget. Expenditures for publicity are planned to climb from$51,000 in the current year's adopted budget to$81,000 in Fiscal Year 2002-2003. According to the proposed budget(Page 23),"plans have been developed for a regular lecture series bringing in voices and ideas from some of the most prominent lecturers throughout 9 the world."The Library System plans to pay for increased programming through the fund-raising campaign including the National Endowment for Humanities challenge grant.The Library System's goal is to program the new Main Library during the first year it opens,according to Ms. — Tessman.Major fund-raising events are scheduled for fall 2002 and when the new library opens, she said.In concert with increased programming the Library System plans to spend the extra money allocated for publicity on the opening of the new library and efforts to reach Salt Lake City residents. Part of the efforts involves a campaign to register every resident for a new library card. In addition,the Library System plans to experiment with keeping the new Main Library open on a Friday or Saturday night once a month. Capital Outlay and Improvements This category contain two major components—$2 million the Library System has set aside to pay for items that could be paid for with funds from the general obligation bond,and a $930,000 prior year contingency fund.The other major component is$839,500 for on-going building maintenance and utilities.Among the latter allocation,the Library System expects significant increases in contract services(up$140,000),lights and power(up$95,000)and overall building maintenance(up$32,000).Much of the increase in maintenance costs involves the opening of the new library plus increased space at the Sprague and Anderson-Foothill branch libraries,according to the proposed budget(Page 10).The Library System also plans to remodel the children's area at the Chapman Branch Library in the next fiscal year.The proposed budget notes on Page 9,"The size of the new Main Library is double the present facility,and costs have been adjusted accordingly." Finally,the category includes$350,000 set aside to replace computers used by patrons throughout the system.The Library System has allocated the sum in each of the last two budgets to stay prepared to replace computers in the main and branch libraries as they age. 10 • SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY - OPERATING AFTD C A I T A L BUDGET i FISCAL YEAR 2002 - 2003 44. wah>7 The Salt Lake City Public Library System Expanding Your World TO: Salt Lake City Council • David L. Buhler, Chair • Carlton J. Christensen • K. Eric Jergensen • Jill Remington Love • Dale Lambert • Nancy Saxton • Van Blair Turner FROM: Nancy Tessman,Director Salt Lake City Public Library RE: LIBRARY'S BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR 2002-2003 DATE: April 27, 2002 On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Salt Lake City Public Library,we herewith provide copies of the Library's budget proposal for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. The Board approved the budget proposal at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 18,2002,and will formally submit the budget to you on May 14,2002. We welcome your questions and comments and look forward to meeting with you for further discussion. Enc. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson Gary Mumford Russell Weeks Board of Directors 524-8200 'PAIN LIBRARY ANDERSON-FOOTHILL CHAPMAN BRANCH DAY-RIVERSIDE SPRAGUE BRANCH CORINNE&JACK 209 E.500 S. BRANCH 577 S.900 W. BRANCH 2131 S.1100 E. SWEET BRANCH Salt Lake City 1135 S.2100 E. Salt Lake City 1575 W.1000 N. Salt lake City 455"F"Street Utah,84111 Salt lake City Utah,84104 Salt lake City Utah,84106 Salt Lake City 524-8200 Utah,84108 524-8285 Utah,84116 524-8280 Utah,84103 524-8278 364-4669 524-8287 524-8276 TDD(hearing impaired) SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET APPROVED BY LIBRARY BOARD OF DIRECTORS APRIL I 8, 2002 FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION TO PLANS AND PRIORITIES 2 INCOME AND REVENUES 3 • Summary of General Property Tax Request 4 • Revenue Sources Operating Fund 4 • Revenue Sources Capital Fund 4 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENDITURES • Summary of Operating Budget Expenditures 7 • Buildings and Grounds 9 • Materials 12 • Personnel 16 • Services 19 • Contingency 25 CAPITAL BUDGET EXPENDITURES 27 • Summary of Capital Budget Expenditures 28 • Main Library 30 • Anderson-Foothill Branch 31 • Chapman Branch 32 • Day-Riverside Branch 33 • Sprague Branch 34 • Sweet/Avenues Branch 35 APPENDIX Strategic Plan 2002-2005 A Current Staffing Levels B SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2002-2003 fiscal year will mark the opening of a new era for the Salt Lake City Public Library. In January 2003,the new Main Library and the expansion at the Anderson-Foothill Branch Library will be completed. A new strategic plan for the next three years will be adopted,and the Library's long-sought vision for a vital place of community and culture at the heart of the City will be realized through Library Square. With the foresight of the Library Board of Directors and the Salt Lake City Council,estimated operating costs for the new buildings and programs have already been built into the budget so the Library will not request an increase to the tax rate this year. Growth in property tax revenues is anticipated at only 1.5% for 2002-2003. This reduction in revenue growth poses a serious challenge as demand for services increases and enlarged facilities are completed. Due to savings from prior years which were set aside to meet the unusual costs anticipated in the first year of the new Main Library,adequate resources are available for the coming year. However,the City Library will strive to contain fixed costs in anticipation of slowed growth in property taxes. The opening of the new Main Library provides a unique opportunity to celebrate the role of the Library in the life of the City. Major programs and events are scheduled for the year, including a lecture series involving some of the most prominent and well known speakers in a wide variety of fields. A library card registration campaign will be launched with a goal of registering every resident of Salt Lake City for a new library card. A public gala will be hosted in February 2003 complete with noteworthy authors from around the country. Beginning in February, the Library will experiment with opening on a Friday or Saturday night each month with special programs, events, and conversations for the entire community. It is our goal to periodically extend service hours and enliven Library Square with cooperative programs and events in partnership with the new tenants on the block and in support of the shop owners adjacent to the plaza and around the block. Many aspects of the growing vision of Library Square will be realized in the coming year. We will continue to work to fulfill these dreams, including fund raising for small theaters,the development of appropriate private and public partnerships to program events on the block, and assistance in the plans and development for the eastside of the block. The City Library will look toward the future of the System with the final development of a 15-year capital improvements plan that responds to the growing needs of the City at-large for branch services. The Salt Lake City Public Library continues to achieve record use in both circulation and in-house use. New space and larger collections will vastly improve library service capacity to the diverse patrons it serves. We are convinced that the nature of the new building and the adjacent plaza and shops will generate even more widespread use by the community and create a remarkable cultural commons for our City. The Library looks forward to a hallmark year and appreciates your continued support. Page 1 4/I8/02 .M1? INTRODUCTION TO PLANS AND PRIORITIES pio MISSION STATEMENT The Salt Lake City Public Library is a Dynamic Civic Resource That Promotes Free and Open Access to Information, Materials and Services To All Members of the Community to Advance Knowledge Foster Creativity Encourage the Exchange of Ideas Strengthen Community and Enhance the Quality of Life This budget proposal represents the culmination of many years of planning and preparing for major capital facilities expansions and service enhancements in the City Library System. When completed, the Library will have enlarged two busy branches, greatly improved collections, and introduced an exciting new main library complex to serve the growing needs of the community. Plans for the coming year include a remarkable array of events and services to herald a new age in library service for Salt Lake City. Collections have been improved, services will be expanded, and programs are being organized to highlight the best and the brightest of ideas, people, exhibits, and artistic expression to meet the mission of the City Library. Credit must be given to the Salt Lake City Council and the Library Board of Directors whose foresight enabled the City Library to secure operating funding for the newly enlarged facilities during 2000 while at the same time the commitment was made to proceed with construction. Added to the savings from past budget years, this financial support is creating a strong foundation for the opening year. Over the past two years,the future operating funds were used to improve and enhance collections for the new Main Library. The City Library also sequenced expenditures to ensure that ample new materials will be available with the very busy opening months of the new facility. In addition, this . budget recognizes the one-time anticipated costs necessary to open and celebrate this new addition to the life of the community. Programs and events, supplies,printing costs, temporary staffing, public relations, and extra security will be supported through a contingency fund developed by the Library over the past four years. In this manner, we have tried to plan and budget for the future without requiring additional support from the already generous taxpayers. -I The library staff always tries to keep an eye on the horizon. With that in mind, this proposal also includes the Strategic Plan for the City Library for 2002-2005. The Library's plans and ambitions are intended to meet the growing expectations of a changing community, and we look forward to the ? opportunity of facing the new challenges ahead. `^ Page 2 4/IS/02 INCOME AND REVENUES THE PRESENT The tax rate set for 2001-2002 did not generate the anticipated revenues since the growth rate was only.99%. This resulted in a loss of approximately$105,000 from the proposed budget for the year. The operating contingency will be used to supplement this loss in order to meet budget objectives for the year. THE FUTURE The Library Board of Directors will not request an increase to the tax rate for the 2002-2003 fiscal year budget. The expected natural growth to property tax revenues was disappointing in 2001-2002, and the projection for the coming year's revenues has been estimated at only 1.5%. Due to this downward trend, the City Library is adjusting the distribution of revenues and will reduce the amount added to the capital budget for 2002-2003. Other revenues may increase moderately due to growth in fine collections and the introduction of revenues from leased spaces in the new Main Library. Revenues from copy machines continue to decrease because of resources available through the Internet. Significant efforts will continue to supplement revenues with grant and donation income for capital projects and services,programs, and collection needs. Most importantly, one-time costs associated with the opening of the new Main Library will be supported with savings that were held in anticipation of this unique event. Three years ago,the City Library began reserving funds unexpended from prior years to be used in the first year of operation of the expanded Main Library. This will support some extra staffing during the first six months of operation,additional programs,printing and supplies that will come with special celebrations,and increased building maintenance during the first few months of heavy visits and use. Page 3 4/18/02 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SUMMARY OF GENERAL PROPERTY TAX REQUEST • 2002-2003 BUDGET 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 `l4 ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET - Operating $ 9,754,022 $10,111,103 $10,463,202 Capital 600,000 450,000 150,000 ; TOTAL GENERAL PROPERTY TAX $10,354,022 $10,561,103 $10,613,202 ,R 1 REVENUE SOURCES OPERATING FUND AND CAPITAL FUND 2002-2003 BUDGET Fi 4 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET .,,,-° II OPERATING REVENUE General Property Tax $ 9,754,022 $10,111,103 $10,463,202 Aiv Copy Machines and Sundry Revenue 36,201 40,000 50,000 Fines and Collections 230,077 205,000 240,000 7 Interest 315,818 240,000 180,000 Grants-LSTA/BCR 7,000 7,000 25,000 Utah Library Development Grant 31,282 31,282 29,704 7, Utah Interlibrary Loan Reimbursement 5,486 6,000 8,000 ih Donations/Other Grants 34,353 80,000 300,000 Leases - - 60,000 ri Contingency Savings-From Operating Fund Balance- - - 950,000 ii TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE $10,414,239 $10,720,385 $12,305,906 CAPITAL REVENUE 4.4 General Property Tax $ 600,000 $ 450,000 $ 150,000 Bond Revenue-Reflected in City's Financial Audit- 0 70,000,000 45,000,000 Y Interest 201,374 135,000 100,000 iii Prior Year Capital Fund Balance 2,548,248 2,000,000 3,000,000 _ Donations and Grants 131,869 250,000 250,000 TOTAL CAPITAL REVENUE $ 3,481,491 $72,835,000 $48,500,000 �. TOTAL BUDGET $13,895,730 $83,555,385 $60,805,906 -- 1111, Page 4 4/18/02 GENERAL PROPERTY TAX The Board of Directors of the Salt Lake City Public Library is not requesting an increase to the tax rate for 2002-2003. Following a lean year in property tax growth, estimated natural growth of 1.5%is projected for the coming year. Due to the support for the enlarged Main Library already built into the current tax rate and savings from prior years planned for use during the first year of operation,the Library can support its plans for the year without a tax increase at this time. COPY MACHINES AND SUNDRY REVENUE The City Library provides copy machines at each location as a service to the public and to reduce vandalism,destruction,and loss of library materials. This is especially useful in the case of reference books and periodicals which may not be checked out from the Library. Use of copy machines and subsequent revenue continues to decrease due to the provision of more electronic information services. FINES AND COLLECTIONS Based on anticipated increased use of library facilities,the City Library projects a subsequent increase in fines and fees collected in 2002-2003. INTEREST Interest rates have been fluctuating. The projected interest rate is a conservative one based upon the estimated investable funds at approximately 3% interest. GRANTS/DONATIONS During 2002-2003,the City Library will aggressively seek alternative funding through grants and donations, including an application which is being submitted for a major challenge grant with the National Endowment for the Humanities to support exciting programs and build toward a program endowment for the future. The Friends of the Library continue their generous support and expect to increase their giving to the Library with the anticipated success of the Friends of the Library gift shop planned for the new Main Library. Page 5 4/I8/02 UTAH LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT GRANT The Utah State Library,through the authority of the Utah State Legislature, funds the Utah • Library Development Program which supports all libraries in Utah that meet statewide standards for public library service. Reduced state funding has created a corresponding reduction in state support. a.. UTAH INTERLIBRARY LOAN REIMBURSEMENT The City Library is compensated as a net lender by the Utah State Library for interlibrary loans to other Utah libraries. Use of interlibrary loan services continues to grow. LEASES Beginning in January 2003, the City Library will begin to receive rent from tenants in the library shops. These funds will be earmarked to support shared programs,events,and maintenance of common spaces. CONTINGENCY SAVINGS Since 1998, the City Library has reserved unexpended and unanticipated revenues to supplement one-time,first-year operating needs for the new Main Library. This money is part of the Operating Fund Balance and will be used to fund this one-time revenue source. BOND REVENUE The remaining$3 million in the$84 million dollar bond authorization will be issued for the Main Library Project by summer 2002. Approximately $8 million in earned interest has been earmarked to complete the projects originally planned for Library Square,bringing total expenditures to $92 million. The City Library continues to manage the associated construction projects and is confident that the bond funds and interest proceeds to date will be adequate to meet the project • budget. Page 6 4/18/02 SUMMARY OF OPERATING BUDGET EXPENDITURES 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS Buildings-Maintenance $ 112,768 $ 98,000 $ 130,000 Equipment-Maintenance 32,851 31,000 41,000 Buildings and Equipment-Contract Services 190,378 205,000 345,000 Equipment Purchases 51,661 30,000 30,000 Heating and Fuel 23,969 36,800 65,000 Lights and Power 66,473 100,000 195,000 Motor Equipment-Service and Maintenance 6,237 5,000 6,000 Rent-Property and Equipment 4,839 5,000 6,000 Water 14,348 16,500 21,500 ., TOTAL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS $ 503,524 $ 527,300 $ 839,500 MATERIALS Binding $ 13,445 $ 10,500 $ 8,500 Books and Reference Sources 1,064,300 1,471,002 1,013,606 CD-ROMS/Circulating 22,451 23,000 6,000 Computer Reference Sources 64,675 75,000 79,000 DVDS/Videos 209,779 243,000 200,000 Fee-based Reference Services 1,647 5,000 1,000 Maps 0 5,500 500 Periodicals 92,775 131,500 135,500 Prints and Slides 3,242 2,500 1,000 Sound Recordings 297,539 272,505 201,500 TOTAL MATERIALS $ 1,769,853 $ 2,239,507 $ 1,646,606 Page 7 4/18/02 15, 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET MP PERSONNEL a Salaries and Wages $ 4,977,338 $ 5,431,916 $ 6,047,076 Employees' Insurance 493,848 603,371 709,446 Social Security 374,050 409,343 454,740 Retirement 458,506 403,448 461,538 State Unemployment Compensation 6,804 8,000 8,000 Other-Utah Transit Authority 4,304 6,000 6,000 TOTAL PERSONNEL $ 6,314,850 $ 6,862,078 $ 7,686,800 SERVICES Cataloging Charges $ 88,031 $ 93,000 $ 96,000 Copier/Printer Supplies 40,087 38,000 48,000 3 Insurance and Surety 74,075 73,000 100,000 Library Supplies 83,799 108,000 128,000 Office Supplies 14,755 15,000 18,000 3 Outsourcing 32,203 60,000 60,000 Payroll Processing Charge - - 14,000 -< Postage 86,928 90,000 100,000 Processing Charge/City 39,122 45,000 27,000 Professional and Technical 24,050 30,000 36,000 IN Professional and Technical/Attorney 3,506 5,000 7,000 Programming 39,438 55,000 255,000 Publicity 58,113 51,000 81,000 2 Staff Training and Development 33,126 24,000 30,000 Sundry Expense 21,612 23,000 30,000 Telephone 102,557 120,000 125,000 :5 Travel 21,077 25,000 28,000 TOTAL SERVICES $ 762,479 $ 855,000 $ 1,183,000 0 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 9,350,706 $10 483 885 11 55$ ,3 ,906 COPIER DEBT 11,438 11,500 0 CONTINGENCY 0 225,000 950,000 a TOTAL $ 9,362,144 $10,720,385 $12,305,906 ' U Y; T il 11110 Page 8 4/I8/02 • BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS HIGHLIGHTS The public investment in capital improvements for the City Library has been significant. Efforts will continue throughout the Salt Lake City Public Library System to maintain a high standard of care and upkeep for both current and new facilities and grounds. The expansion of the Sprague Branch Library is complete, and expansion of the Anderson-Foothill Branch Library is underway. The Library is also investing in the remodeling of a children's area for the increasingly busy Chapman Branch Library. That project will be completed by summer 2002. The proposed budget reflects the increased costs for maintaining these newly enlarged facilities. The size of the new Main Library is double the present facility,and costs have been adjusted accordingly. Designs were developed to conserve resources and reduce utility costs whenever feasible. FUTURE PRIORITIES Successful opening of the new Main Library in January 2003. Completion of the expansion of the Anderson-Foothill Branch Library. Completion of the remodeling project at the Chapman Branch Library. Continual use of efficiencies to save costs and provide safe,comfortable buildings. Continual monitoring of utilities to conserve costs whenever possible. Participation in the plan development for the east side of Library Square. Page 9 4/I8/02 as SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY .,. BUILDINGS, GROUNDS AND EQUIPMENT BUDGET 2001-2002 2002-2003 BUDGET BUDGET = ' Buildings-Maintenance $ 98,000 $ 130,000 Equipment-Maintenance 31,000 41,000 Buildings and Equipment-Contract Services 205,000 345,000 ,. Equipment Purchases 30,000 30,000 Heating and Fuel 36,800 65,000 Lights and Power 100,000 195,000 Motor Equipment-Service and Maintenance 5,000 6,000 Rent-Property and Equipment 5,000 6,000 Water 16,500 21,500 TOTAL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS $ 527,300 $ 839,500 BUILDINGS-MAINTENANCE A significant increase in square footage at the branches and with the new Main Library 44 requires an increase to the general maintenance supplies budget. Additional rest rooms, meeting 4.14 rooms, program facilities and outdoor spaces will add to maintenance costs, although every effort has been made to control these costs to the greatest degree possible. EQUIPMENT-MAINTENANCE This budget supports ongoing maintenance costs of all equipment (not currently on maintenance contracts). BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT-CONTRACT SERVICES The City Library routinely contracts for a variety of services when outsourcing is a more efficient and economical solution. This category includes such things as computer service and Page 10 4/I8/02 a_{ maintenance contracts,elevator maintenance,garbage removal,recycling,indoor plant maintenance, copier and alarm service contracts, window washing, and fountain maintenance. EQUIPMENT PURCHASES This annual budget level remains adequate to support the purchase of noncomputer equipment and furniture necessary for library operations since many new additions will be a part of equipping the new Main Library. UTILITIES These increases are reflective of the new and larger facilities throughout the System. Designs were developed to conserve energy and reduce future costs, although actual experience will be the best indication of our success in this area. MOTOR EQUIPMENT-SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE This account covers operational and maintenance costs related to the City Library's delivery and maintenance vehicles. During 2001-2002, one additional vehicle for outreach services to the community was purchased and one aging vehicle was replaced. RENT-PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT A moderate increase in this line for the coining year is needed in recognition of the expanded facilities and services. WATER With the addition of green space directly around the new Main Library, the reflecting pool and the rooftop garden, a moderate increase to this line item is necessary. Page 11 4/I8/02 �!F MATERIALS The Salt Lake City Public Library continues its commitment to high quality collections by sustaining a significant proportion of the operating budget for materials acquisition. Funds authorized by the Salt Lake City Council to operate the new Main Library were devoted to collection development for the past two years. Thousands of new items will be available to patrons when the doors open in 2003. Ongoing funds for collection development are proposed in this budget with approximately 15%of the operating budget being devoted to this critical purpose. HIGHLIGHTS In 2001-2002: Significantly increased book and audiovisual collections at all locations with particular emphasis on strengthening the Main Library collection. Improved and increased collections in support of growing and culturally diverse communities. These materials included books,periodicals,and audiovisual materials in both English and other languages which were responsive to a variety of cultures and literatures. Over 90 languages are now represented in the collection. Enlarged the popular digital video (DVD)collection. Increased the provision of access to on-line resources and collections through Pioneer, a cooperative statewide library and education network, and other web-based informational services. ffl FUTURE PRIORITIES Priorities for 2002-2003 will include: Continued development of expanded collections for the new Main Library and all branch locations. Continued development of international languages collections. • Further development of the Special Collections area with the opening of the new Main Library. • Page 12 4/18/02 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY MATERIALS BUDGET 2001-2002 2002-2003 BUDGET BUDGET Binding $ 10,500 $ 8,500 Books and Reference Sources 1,471,002 1,013,606 CD-ROMS/Circulating 23,000 6,000 Computer Reference Sources 75,000 79,000 DVDS/Videos 243,000 200,000 Fee-based Reference Services 5,000 1,000 Maps 5,500 500 Periodicals 131,500 135,500 Prints and Slides 2,500 1,000 Sound Recordings 272,505 201,500 TOTAL MATERIALS $ 2,239,507 $ 1,646,606 The primary mission of the City Library is to provide access to information and ideas through materials and services for all members of the community. The Library's ability to fund the materials budget at adequate levels is a continual challenge due to increased fixed costs,the continually rising cost of materials,and increasing demand for materials in a growing variety of formats. The infusion of funds over the past two years has helped greatly to improve the strength of the fundamental core collections of the Main Library. This budget reflects a reduction due to the shift in funds from one- time collection development to operating costs for the new Main Library. BINDING This budget center reflects the minimal amount required to bind back issues of well used magazines. Binding periodicals is vital for the City Library's ability to organize and protect its in- depth magazine collection. Even with the increase in access to back issues of magazines on-line, many patrons prefer the original, hard copy edition and binding enables the Library to effectively store and protect the collection. Page 13 4/18/02 BOOKS AND REFERENCE SOURCES Patron surveys and comments continually emphasize the need to place a high priority on — library collections and resources. Use of traditional print resources continues to grow, and the City Library strives to sustain book collections while also experiencing exponential demand for other formats. CD-ROMS/CIRCULATING This budget center minimally supports the upkeep of a circulating collection of CD-ROM resources for adults and children. A decrease is proposed due to greatly reduced demand for this format. COMPUTER REFERENCE SOURCES The City Library faces continual demands for delivery of information products to the Library, homes, and businesses. DVDS/VIDEOS Demand for material in the videocassette format is lessening to a degree as the DVD format becomes more common. However, both formats are very popular and heavily used. With such heavy use, standard titles must also be replaced on a regular basis. FEE-BASED REFERENCE SERVICES Fee-based reference services provide access to hundreds of data bases containing both bibliographic and primary source information. Virtually every subject field is covered with references to millions of records that are stored,updated,and made available economically through shared networks. During previous years,many specialized on-line resources were available for a fee , through on-line vendors such as Dialog and First Search. In recent years, some of this material has been made available over the Internet at no cost,thus allowing a significant cost containment in this budget center. Page 14 4/18/02 • MAPS This small budget supports the replacement of maps. PERIODICALS Magazines and newspapers remain a vital source of current and historical information for patrons. Use of the magazine collections throughout the City Library System is already heavy. With improved indexing and access,use will continue to grow. Over the past three years,the Library has attempted to control costs by absorbing subscription increases through the corresponding reduction of less-used titles. New titles have been added in preparation for the move to the new Main Library, and multiple copies of some titles will be added to meet the demand for both reference and circulating issues. The Library has also supported the development of a collection of"zines,"small and independently produced newsletters of particular interest to our young adult patrons. PRINTS AND SLIDES ... This very small budget enables the City Library to maintain its print collection for circulation as well as maintain a small slide collection used primarily by students and teachers. SOUND RECORDINGS Circulation in sound recordings continues to rise at all locations, especially in the area of compact discs and books-on-tape/compact discs. This allocation will help meet the ever growing demand and will enable the City Library to continue building a better collection to support interest in foreign language and multicultural works in all sound formats. Page 15 4/18/02 PERSONNEL HIGHLIGHTS The Salt Lake City Public Library takes pride in the provision of a well trained,knowledgeable, and committed staff who provide the foundation for excellent public service. The diversity of the Salt Lake City community is well served by an increasingly diverse staff and a generous group of devoted volunteers. During 2001-2002, the Library: Provided an adequate number of qualified staff and volunteers through effective staff allocations, recruitment, hiring and training, performance review, and professional development support. The City Library added staff at the Chapman,Day-Riverside,Sprague, and Sweet Branch Libraries. Developed an organizational staffing plan in response to the expansion of the branches and the new Main Library. Studied and compared options for the most cost effective approaches to providing and managing benefits for library employees. The City Library will shift coverage through the Public Employees Health Program to the Utah Local Governments Trust and contract with a private entity to produce payroll checks. The Library will also reestablish an independent account with the Utah Retirement System. Implemented a new human resources management software system to save administrative time and manage reports and data more effectively. FUTURE PRIORITIES The City Library will continue its commitment to an excellent team of staff and volunteers. Plans include: The implementation of the staffing plan for the new Main Library. Expansion of the volunteer program to support the opening of the new Main Library - F. and significantly increased programs and events related to Library Square. 6.1 4/18/02 Page 16 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY PERSONNEL BUDGET 2001-2002 2002-2003 BUDGET BUDGET Salaries and Wages $ 5,431,916 $ 6,047,076 Employees' Insurance 603,371 709,446 Social Security 409,343 454,740 Retirement 403,448 461,538 State Unemployment Compensation 8,000 8,000 Other-Utah Transit Authority 6,000 6,000 TOTAL PERSONNEL $ 6,862,078 $ 7,686,800 The City Library's strongest resource is its staff. The participative management system utilized by the Library allows for staff to share their strengths and learn from each other. Particular efforts are made to develop young professionals who will be ready to move into management positions in the future. In 2001,the Library utilized more than 669 volunteers who gave 11,297 hours of their time in support of the City Library. Volunteers provide support in areas such as directional assistance, guidance using electronic resources, processing materials, and welcoming patrons to the Main Library. SALARIES AND WAGES These increases reflect the planned staffing for the new Main Library with double the square footage. Service,maintenance,and support staff will be increased to moderate degrees. Efforts have been made to reorganize in a cost effective manner. Departments have been combined to improve flexibility and staff utilization. Staffing additions are primarily at lower cost levels,such as part-time staff and custodial support. This amount also includes a moderate across-the-board increase of 2% 4/18/02 Page 17 to salaries effective January 1,2003,and a continuation of the City Library's performance appraisal Alik= and merit system. IP EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE Health insurance premiums will increase this year by over 12%. The City Library will now join a smaller group of public entities in the PEHP Utah Local Governments Trust rather than 74-4 remaining with the Salt Lake City Corporation group. The Library places a high value on often long- term, part-time employees who support evening and weekend hours. This change allows the Library "' to continue providing access to health care and other desirable benefits for these part-time staff. Workers Compensation insurance costs have also increased although the Library has made significant progress in minimizing these expected increases. 3 SOCIAL SECURITY The Social Security rate will remain at 7.65%. The budget for social security payments has -," increased proportionally to the increased salaries and wages. RETIREMENT The retirement rates increased this year. The contributory rate is 10.68%; the noncontributory rate is 8.69%. 3 STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION A minor increase is proposed for the 2002-2003 fiscal year due to previous use of unemployment benefits. UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY The City Library will continue to promote its transit pass program to reduce employee parking and support a"Be Green"philosophy. 3 4/18/02 • Page 18 U� SERVICES HIGHLIGHTS Major highlights of 2001-2002: Development of a new three-year Strategic Plan for the City Library System(attached). Outreach efforts continued aggressively to extend services to diverse populations in Salt Lake City. The City Library has participated in activities including Cinco de Mayo celebrations,the St. Patrick's Day parade,the Business-to-Business Expo hosted by the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce, the Great Salt Lake Book Festival, the new Jewish Community Center Open House,and street fairs in the Avenues, Sugar House and the City's west side. Over 40 events included a library booth and representative collections for circulation. An open house for the Native American population and home schoolers were also successfully hosted. Programs hosted by the City Library are in increasing demand. Events sponsored by the Library have included celebrations of Dr. Seuss' birthday,read-a-thons,book groups,poetry presentations, lectures, films, and exhibits. Of particular note in 2001-2002 were the Summer Reading Club with a theme in support of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Over 37,000 people attended programs at the Library during 2001, such as the Utah Book Awards, "Lord of the Rings" party for young adults, Harry Potter Jeopardy for children, and the Ten Shades of Green exhibit in support of the Physical Fitness of Cities. The City Library collaborated with many other organizations and agencies to leverage funds and develop strategic alliances. We are actively working with groups such as Global Artways,Downtown Alliance,Utah Humanities Council,Utah Science Center, local radio and television stations, local businesses,and Salt Lake City Corporation. A Library Card Sign-up Campaign was initiated to invite every citizen of Salt Lake City to become a City Library cardholder. Development of a marketing package to determine occupants of the community shops to be located in the new Main Library. Installation of an upgraded telephone system that expanded telephone lines at the branches and increased telephone service at the Main Library in anticipation of the new facility. Page 19 4/I8/02 FUTURE PRIORITIES 111 Continue to explore partnerships with local civic, cultural, and media organizations to enhance the quality of programming and increase the effectiveness of the publicity. _ Launch a series of-high profile programs and celebrations to underscore the role of the City Library in the community. Experiment with opening at least one weekend evening per month at the new Main Library which would include programs and events of particular interest to patrons age 13 to 18 years. Complete the library card registration campaign taking advantage of the opening of the new Main Library. Develop an improved alliance with literacy organizations, such as Literacy Volunteers of America and the Literacy Action Center, to enhance the role of the City Library in developing literacy skills. Initiate a regular program to encourage and support improved community debate and dialog. For example,a monthly"Community Night at the Library"to provide a series of facilitated discussions on issues of timeliness and importance. Host the national traveling exhibit"Frankenstein: Penetrating the Secret of Nature." This exhibit and program series explores serious issues of biotechnology and ethics in cooperation with the National Library of Medicine. • • Page 20 4/18/02 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICES BUDGET 2001-2002 2002-2003 BUDGET BUDGET Cataloging Charges $ 93,000 $ 96,000 Copier/Printer Supplies 38,000 48,000 Insurance and Surety 73,000 100,000 Library Supplies 108,000 128,000 Office Supplies 15,000 18,000 Outsourcing 60,000 60,000 Payroll Processing Charge - 14,000 Postage 90,000 100,000 Processing Charge/City 45,000 27,000 Professional and Technical 30,000 36,000 Professional and Technical/Attorney 5,000 7,000 Programming 55,000 255,000 Publicity 51,000 81,000 Staff Training and Development 24,000 30,000 Sundry Expense 23,000 30,000 Telephone 120,000 125,000 Travel 25,000 28,000 TOTAL SERVICES $ 855,000 $ 1,183,000 CATALOGING CHARGES The majority of these expenditures are spent through the City Library's contract with OCLC (On-line Computer Library Center, Inc.),who provides us with the BCR(Bibliographic Center for Research) fixed-fee pricing plan for cataloging library materials. The Library takes advantage of BCR's plan,wherein the costs are fixed and determined by the previous year's volume. The Library plans to continue with this pricing plan as long as it is cost effective. In addition to OCLC charges, the City Library uses this fund to pay for outsourcing the acquisition and cataloging of many of the 90 international languages represented in the Library's collection. Page 21 4/18/02 COPIER/PRINTER SUPPLIES This budget covers the cost of paper and supplies for public copiers and public computer printers throughout the City Library System. Due to the popularity of the Internet, use of public printers has increased significantly while copier use has declined. In an effort to reduce toner costs for the public computer printers, the toner cartridges are refilled as many times as possible before new cartridges are purchased. INSURANCE AND SURETY The City Library practices careful application of risk management principles and regular competitive bidding to ensure the best coverage for the lowest cost. Even with careful management, 3 insurance premiums increased by almost 15% for the Library in 2002. In addition, costs will increase in 2003 due to the new Main Library and branch expansions. LIBRARY SUPPLIES Supplies are purchased in bulk in order to contain costs and to obtain favorable discounts, but the costs of packaging and processing materials in the newer formats (CD-ROMs and CDs) continue to rise. OFFICE SUPPLIES A minor increase is requested due to the move to the new Main Library and expected increases in service demand. OUTSOURCING This fund was established in fiscal year 1999-2000 to assist the Technical Services Department in handling materials purchased through the Collection Development Committee(CDC). . The City Library is working with several vendors who are providing materials for the new Main Library. For some formats, it is more cost effective to catalog and process materials using outside contracts instead of increasing staffing levels. 4111 Page 22 4/18/02 c:d PAYROLL PROCESSING CHARGE The City Library will begin working with an independent vendor to process payroll checks. POSTAGE Postal rates will increase again this year. Mailing Images, the City Library's quarterly newsletter,to all Salt Lake City residents twice each year during the spring and the fall has been a powerful tool for informing residents of what is happening with the construction of the new Main Library as well as programming opportunities. Events and activities promoting the opening of the new Main Library will also require additional funds for postage. PROCESSING CHARGE/CITY The City Library has contracted with a private vendor to issue the payroll at a reduced cost. Remaining charges from Salt Lake City are for administrative fees for the Library's related costs for City Council,budget/policy, and cash management. PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL This budget supports funding for the annual financial audit,attorneys' fees, memberships in professional activities and organizations,and the occasional use of an outside consultant for library projects. PROGRAMMING Demand for public programming and interpretive events continues to grow. With the opening of the new Main Library,plans have been developed for a regular lecture series bringing in voices and ideas from some of the most prominent lecturers throughout the world. A fund-raising campaign is underway to fund these programs, including a challenge grant application to the National Endowment for the Humanities to be matched with local, private support. Page 23 4/I8/02 ar PUBLICITY Along with the regular publicity for library services and events, additional efforts will be It made in conjunction with the opening of the new Main Library and our aggressive outreach efforts. STAFF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT The City Library continues to support an excellent training program and encourages staff to expand their expertise and knowledge in support of library goals. With additional staff, a moderate increase in this area is required. SUNDRY EXPENSE There are a number of various, small expenses that are not easily categorized, such as advertising for procurement bids, advertising for job openings, staff identification badges, staff incentive awards, and miscellaneous expenses. This budget center supports these expenses. TELEPHONE With the upgrade of the telephone system, the City Library is better able to serve patrons. SI The minor increase to service charges reflects increased lines and functionality. a P M+! TRAVEL This account pays the travel-related expenses for library staff and board members to attend conferences, meetings, and workshops. In addition, all mileage allowances are paid out of this budget center at the reimbursement rate of 30 cents per mile. xi ca[3 Page 24 4/I8/02 _-t CONTINGENCY The City Library has prepared for the unusual demands presented in opening a larger,new facility by saving unanticipated and underspent revenues since 1998. The Library has recognized that certain costs associated with first-year operations will also be one-time costs. Rather than permanently inflating the budget areas for the future, funds will be drawn from this contingency to maintain a clear understanding of expenses and allocations that are associated with these special demands and events. SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY Buildings and Grounds $150,000 Personnel 300,000 Services 250,000 Operating Budget Contingency 250,000 TOTAL CONTINGENCY $950,000 BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS This allocation will enable the City Library to support the added custodial supplies and maintenance support necessary for a new and very busy facility during the first demanding year of operation. PERSONNEL Even with generous support from many volunteers,the anticipated traffic for the new Main Library will require one-time, temporary assistance for the first six-to-nine months of operation. Extra hours for custodial help,circulation,reference,and computer services will ensure that patrons and visitors receive the help they need during these very busy months and that the building is kept clean and safe. Page 25 4/18/02 SERVICES Plans are now proceeding for opening celebrations,a gala event on Valentine's Day 2003, �.,. specially printed materials,and a unique series of programs to highlight the addition of the new Main Library facilities and services. This amount has been lessened due to an aggressive fund-raising campaign now underway to also support these expenses. OPERATING BUDGET CONTINGENCY The City Library will continue to maintain a small operating contingency for those unexpected systemwide demands and needs and possible shortfall in property tax revenues. :w4 tiZ '.L rot Page 26 4/I8/02 CAPITAL BUDGET EXPENDITURES HIGHLIGHTS During 2001-2002,the Salt Lake City Public Library: • Completed the landscaping aspects of the Sprague Branch Library Project. • Continued construction of the new Main Library. The project is presently on budget and the opening is expected in January 2003. • Completed plans and began construction of the Anderson-Foothill Branch Library Expansion Project. • Developed plans and began remodeling a Children's area in the Chapman Branch Library. • Continued necessary improvements to the current Main Library, including the replacement of heating coils in the HVAC system and replacement of the roof. FUTURE PRIORITIES During 2002-2003,the Library will: • Complete the New Main Library Project and open to the public in January 2003. • Complete the expansion of the Anderson-Foothill Branch Library. • Complete the next 15-Year Capital Improvements Plan for the City Library System. • Prepare the current Main Library for its new tenants. Page 27 4/IS/02 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SUM MARY OF CAPITAL BUDGET EXPENDITURES _s 2002-2003 '? BUDGET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Main Library and Branch Contingency $ 2,000,000 TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENT • Systems Upgrade and Replacement Fund 350,000 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 10,000 BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS Signage 10,000 44 Capital Repairs 200,000 PRIOR YEAR/CONTINGENCY 930,000 tl BOND Main Library 43,500,000 Main Library—Boiler — Branch Projects—Anderson-Foothill 1,500,000 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $48,500,000 as alb Wit 1111 Page 28 4/I8/02 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM The City Library's capital improvements plans are proceeding according to schedule. The new Main Library is under construction and is planned to open to the public in January 2003. The expansion of the Anderson-Foothill Branch Library will be completed by spring 2003. Recognizing the finite funding available through the bond,the Library has also set aside funds for the projects as a safety net and to support needs beyond the scope of the bond. The Library will be prepared to turn over the current Main Library to Salt Lake City Corporation by spring 2003. TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENT During 2001-2002,upgrades were installed for a number of computer servers,and the move to the new Main Library will include the addition of new equipment to meet the needs of our patrons. The migration to a new materials security system will better enable the City Library to manage inventory control and enable self-check out for patrons. The Library has applied for a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to underwrite equipment for the computer technology center in the new Main Library. It is the Library's intention to continue saving each year to prepare for the inevitable future upgrades in computer equipment. VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND The City Library replaced one aging van during 2001-2002 and added an additional vehicle to support outreach activities and transportation to all locations for computer equipment maintenance. Funds will continue to be set aside for future replacements. BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS This category of the budget has been created to deal with major capital repairs as they are needed. These busy facilities require continual care and attention. PRIOR YEAR/CONTINGENCY This fund is maintained to deal with carryover projects and emergency or unanticipated needs. Page 29 4/I8/02 1* NAME Main Library LOCATION h { 209 East 500 South6 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 -Th _ x f ti t' I I I i I I I I I I I Anchoring a key corner of downtown Salt Lake j �TaF City is one of the most heavily used main libraries , 1 '11'I lIuIIu'lu""` III z s� :; in the Intermountain West. DESCRIPTION An award-winning building that — complements its geographic setting, the __---; w :==:-�."-"= ----•-----: -- Main Library clearly has an architectural ,,.,C,y,La..., ,,.":.. - ...._, .._ ,.. ; s u W.04,to i style which wears well. This important and well used center of information is one of the busiest in the West;however,major refurbishment,space needs,and parking concerns necessitated the decision to propose a bond for funding the building of a new Main Library. This bond was approved by the voters in November 1998. ' SUMMARY OF MAJOR BUILDING COMPONENTS Energy Value or Year Component Type Special Feature Installed Condition carpet Antron III antistatic,woven thru 1964/1984 poor back,yarn dyed,24 oz. "'I cooling water coils plants added to building renovated poor forced air to naturally supply humidity 1984 11111 chilled water motors automatic,control panels 2002 good electrical 110/220/480 fluorescent lighting equal partial fair2 to sunlight spectrum renovation 1984-85 heating water coils plants added to building renovated fair forced air to naturally supply humidity 1984 heat exchanger culinary hot water 2001 good heat exchanger heating of building 2002 good plumbing copper line replaced main waterline renovated fair 1983-84 roof EDPM new covering R-30 2001 good - ACCESS r:g �i A major upgrade to accessibility was completed in 1992-93. Ramps were added into the Lecture Hall and from Second Fast 414 into the north entrance of the building. Elevators were remodeled to improve access for the disabled and improve fire protection. Both the north and south doors were automated. . NEEDS . III Renovation and refurbishment is needed on all floors. L3 Page 30 4/18/02 NAME Anderson-Foothill Branch S . „ LOCATION • 1135 South 2100 East Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 z. - - 4 - .171A4141.1.." en1:12 11 • • "s - The Anderson-Foothill Branch has a high " r . profile location on the east bench oriented to t a . take best advantage of its passive solar design. ,,,,r:451r• DESCRIPTION The pleasing design of the branch has - • two unique elements as part of its plan. The first is a passive solar energy 5 La.Cur,M4 design that includes earth berming, window placement for solar heating, and zone supplemental heating/cooling. The second element of this 10,000 square-foot community library,built in 1985 and expanded in 1992,is a modular design. Construction is underway to add a community meeting room during 2002. SUMMARY OF MAJOR BUILDING COMPONENTS Energy Value or Year Component Type Special Feature Installed Condition carpet Antron IV antistatic,woven thru 1991 poor to back,yam dyed,24 oz. fair cooling Lennox air high efficiency 1985 fair conditioner electrical 110/220 use of natural light good heating Lennox pulse 96%efficient 1985 fair plumbing low water usage toilet 1985 excellent roof wood shingle R-30 1985 poor ACCESS Meets all new building requirements for access. NEEDS Construction of new meeting room and expanded service areas during 2002. Main west entrance ADA door opener required during 2002. External sealing of roof wood shingles and siding needed. Page 31 4/18/02 w ,•. g 110' NAME Chapman Branch ,ig:-r.f.,,,,„-;t4,,,- .... 0 •-- .s. r • ,nr j 4,:v.t.,,,,,,,, i er-%•%23 •- ''',.. '' .'-• ';'....1 $4.' '''. -4 t.;%‘Y.Ii*'-4 _ LOCATION 4'4,, 1,' ,.•" .•• F.,.'''''s ," — ‘2., 4#1, 577 South 900 West ,.`'Sr , „fa.i....------ ----- - Salt Lake City,Utah 84104 vB*,i::—.------------i----- .=—--'------ I I . 4.,f4ic ___ Serving a multiethnic community on the west ...,:g. It-Y: ILL . , 1 side of Salt Lake City,the Chapman Branch is '',' '''''.- ' ' '''':`;' ''-.0,-- -"-!---------------1---z41'•-- ''.-:---1,-4i, '. -, ,.• ..., .1i-•:,.iii, ,,,' , r,"--_____ _•is,g,,E...------- ---_,.-,,..-•.--• 6.:,. located on a major street with a north-south — a" -- ''. '. . . --. --.--.-.-.--•-:--------- I 4'''-- ''4:kr orientation. DESCRIPTION Considered to be one of the finest -.. - ,„, 1,-.";'...... ' • '' Carnegie Libraries in the West, this ..-7----- 8,900 square-foot library has two °' "L..4.04.MA levels. Since its opening in 1918, it has been an important part of city 71 services to westside residents. The Library was completely renovated, including updated HVAC, following the collapse of the roof during 1993. SUMMARY OF MAJOR BUILDING COMPONENTS 211 Energy Value or Year Component Type Special Feature Installed Condition ic carpet Antron antistatic,woven 1993 excellent cooling Lennox high energy efficiency 1993 excellent multizone limit electrical 110/220 high efficiency,period 1993 excellent design heating Lennox gas fired,high efficiency 1993 excellent forced air plumbing renovated excellent 1993 , al roof Aggregate surface R-30 1993 excellent modified bitumen • i ACCESS •SI „,...-; Elevator was added in 1983. The same year,rest rooms were renovated to permit access for all patrons. Current meeting .04 room will be adapted to a children's room and programming area in 2002. — j 0 Page 32 4/18/02 Li NAME Day-Riverside Branch LOCATION 1575 West 1000 North 11 Salt Lake City,Utah 84116 �� n:. g,,; I, ^" -� . This 13,000+square-foot branch library opened J� 411_ �I::_ _ , �,I, - : �•��j in September 1996. DESCRIPTION This beautiful facility was designed to complement the residential neighborhood with sensitivity to its site on the Jordan River Parkway. An open space plan, with a large community meeting room and outside deck area,will accommodate this growing community for many years. SUMMARY OF MAJOR BUILDING COMPONENTS Energy Value or Year Component Type Special Feature Installed Condition carpet Antron Legacy antistatic,loop pile with 1996 good super-lok backing,28 oz. cooling Lennox air high efficiency with 1996 good conditioner economizer cycle electrical 120/208 high efficiency,low 1996 good energy consuming lighting heating Lennox gas fired high efficiency roof top units 1996 good plumbing Kohler plumbing low water use toilets and 1996 good fixtures metering faucets roof wood shingles R-30 1996 good EDPM single-ply R-30 1996 fair (flat areas) entrance door ADA approved 2001 good ACCESS New building meets all current codes. NEEDS Seal external wood siding. Add concrete/black tar pathway to southwest part of the building during 2002. Page 33 4/I S/02 4t NAME Sprague Branch _- LOCATION / r� ) 2131 South 1100 East :; / . Salt Lake City,Utah 84106 Y„w,,',�i ' �. =s, g The Sprague Branch is situated in the very center of .. ;- h 5.:!.,. /' '��,is c i J , ' the business area of Sugar House. +y; , F I�,k, , • t'' a DESCRIPTION The high-gabled English Tudors le . 1= `"'"' 1,� ii 1' ' 'k. building has served the Sugar House --- - qr....- = F ="=a„=:1 — ` ;,, community for three generations. The —== _ \''�`' '`.' ' � �� =$T ;`^ building was selected by the American d _ _�Y--_ . --_ _,.�:;,`' :""" Library Association in 1935 as the"Most ;R...,, -..„..,,,.._ . ::. • —_ — `.,,k .'Ciep ,, r Beautiful Branch Library in America." 's. The two-level facility was renovated in 1989-90. The Reading Room on the first floor was remodeled in 1993-94. A new slate roof was installed in the fall of 1996. An expansion project to add a new,larger meeting room and remodel the building was completed in April 2001,which increased the square footage to 9,700. iii SUMMARY OF MAJOR BUILDING COMPONENTS Energy Value or Year Component Type Special Feature Installed Condition carpet Antron III antistatic,woven thru 2001 . excellent back,yam dyed,24 oz. y{ cooling Lennox air high efficiency 1989 fair Mkt conditioner 7 electrical 110/220 high efficiency, replaced excellent period design 1989 heating Lennox pulse 96%efficient replaced fair 51 1989 plumbing repaired good 1989 ii roof slate R-12 replaced excellent 1996 46 Trocal PVC R-30 replaced excellent (flat area) 1986 `"? ACCESSiti An elevator and ramped east entrance were added in 1989. A meeting room was added in 2001. f NEEDS Replace one air conditioning condenser unit during 2002. Replace roof covering on flat area(west side)during 2002. 41 mill •:., : Page 34 4/18/02 NAME Sweet/Avenues Branch < . 4r`.4 LOCATION . . s 404, • 455 "F"Street • _ Salt Lake City,Utah 84103 �r�J - - The Sweet Branch was expanded and ` '• , 4 remodeled to meet ADA requirements during v° ; `Ai �• `, 1993-94. It serves the Avenues neighborhood and is situated in the heart of the community. -_ = • r DESCRIPTION The Sweet Branch is the sister branch of the Anderson-Foothill Branch using Ate..Low., _ Salt Wee 04 11....4 the same modular design. The branch contains over 8,000 square-feet of service space,including a community program and meeting space. SUMMARY OF MAJOR BUILDING COMPONENTS Energy Value or Year Component Type Special Feature Installed Condition carpet Antron IV antistatic,woven thru 1984/1994 fair to back,yarn dyed,24 oz. good cooling Lennox air high efficiency 1984/1994 fair conditioner electrical 110/220 use of natural light and 1984/1994 good fluorescent lighting equal to sunlight spectrum heating Lennox pulse 96%efficient 1984/1994 fair plumbing low water usage toilet 1984/1994 good roof wood shingle R-30 1984/1994 poor flat area EDPM 2001 good ACCESS The building meets current codes and ADA requirements. NEEDS Replace two air conditioning condenser units during 2002. Main east entrance ADA door opener required during 2002. External sealing of roof wood shingles and all siding needed during 2002. Page 35 4/I8/02 APPENDIX A STRATEGIC PLAN 2002-2005 • MISSION STATEMENT The Salt Lake City Public Library is a Dynamic Civic Resource That Promotes Free and Open Access to Information, Materials and Services To All Members of the Community to Advance Knowledge Foster Creativity Encourage the Exchange of Ideas Strengthen Community and Enhance the Quality of Life Every three years,the library staff and Board of Directors revisit the purpose,plan, and priorities for the Salt Lake City Public Library. In this way,we continually look toward the future with a renewed commitment to providing both responsive and responsible service to the community. The process includes surveys and conversations with the public,genuine evaluations of our current services, and a spirit of creativity and ingenuity from our entire staff intended to bring new voices and fresh ideas to the fore. This year, even in the midst of an aggressive building campaign and the exciting plans in our immediate future,the City Library continued its commitment to long-term planning. The Library expanded its mission to include a long-held value for fostering creative expression and encouraging community dialog and conversation. This document also represents our specific goals and objectives for the next three years. It is an ambitious agenda, a complement to the fulfilled vision of new, enlarged facilities and a strong foundation for the remarkable opportunities that lie ahead. We welcome your comments and suggestions. STRATEGIC PLAN SERVICES Improve, Expand,and Enhance Access to Resources and Programs • Empower patrons to use the City Library more effectively by providing them with instruction, beginning with English and Spanish, on how to use the library, the catalog, electronic resources, the Internet, and on-line databases. Develop a monitoring and evaluation system to gauge the success of our instruction. • Implement the Service Evaluation Committee's annual recommendations and continually evaluate all services. • Introduce expanded weekend evening hours at Library Square, providing a gathering place for patrons and a variety of programming options, particularly for teens. • Expand telephone reference hours in 2004. Explore offering on-line reference 24/7 in 2004. • During 2003-2004, evaluate opening all branches on Sundays. Expand and Enrich Outreach to the Community • Evaluate existing, and develop effective, community partnerships targeting areas of the community we are not reaching. • Expand and coordinate Outreach Services, providing more outreach to diverse populations through an annual plan. • Launch library card campaign by August 2002 with the goal of issuing a library card to each City resident. Double library visits in 2003. • Capitalize on opportunities to enhance our image locally, regionally, nationally, and within the library profession through positive media driven by a spectacular new building, logo design, and expanded programming. • Improve services to teens immediately through targeted marketing and more effective outreach. Provide Quality Programs • Continue to offer quality programs and coordinate them more effectively. Establish the Adult Services Committee in 2002. • Create a Programming position focusing on coordinated programs and exhibitions. • Increase effective coordination with existing programs targeted to youth. • Stimulate civic dialogue by bringing nationally acclaimed speakers before the community through the Dewey Lecture Series of Distinguished Guests beginning in March 2003. - t- • Encourage the sharing of ideas and creativity through the Performing Arts program series beginning in April 2003. • Offer quality exhibits throughout the City Library System, including an enhanced traveling • exhibit program. 2 • Present the traveling exhibits Surrealist Visions and Dali: The Halsman Photographs in 2003. • Host the national traveling exhibit Frankenstein: Penetrating the Secrets of Nature by 2005. 7 Develop Literacy Programs and Partnerships • Review and improve existing literacy resources and services in 2003. • Identify potential partners among literacy service providers and improve service coordination. Expand the Library's Role as a Center for Civic Dialogue , • Create a venue at Library Square where ideas and opinions can be shared and tested. • Enrich the civic culture of Salt Lake City by hosting, promoting, and facilitating open �= debates, dialogues,and discussions on current and compelling issues. II. RESOURCES •4 Collections T • Maintain 16%of the operating budget for materials. • Purchase and expand collections in new and on-line formats that are viable and have an extended life span. • Centralize collection development to provide better collections to the public by developing a core group of selectors in 2002. • Increase current Training Plan by including annual collection development and maintenance training sessions in 2003. Technology . • Assess and enhance existing and potential software components to improve communication and personalized service, including Web-based information. 7; • Provide training and information for the public related to various uses of technology, including hardware and software. • Dedicate select public computer stations for express electronic mail use. • Redesign and create effective management of the Web page. • -2- • Review and potentially upgrade the Integrated Library System(on-line catalog) in 2003. • Offer word processing service at all locations for patrons in 2003. • Convert Main Library materials to the radio-frequency controlled Checkpoint System (security/inventory) by January 2003. • Begin operation of a Technology Center in the new Main Library, including Gates Foundation computers, in 2003. • Expand wireless technology within the City Library System to include all branches by 2004. • Review Centrex Prime phone system in 2004. • Install Checkpoint System(security/inventory)and convert materials in all branches by 2005. Human Resources • Emphasize the hiring and retention of a well qualified and diverse staff. • Maintain competitive salaries and benefits by conducting a formal compensation survey in 2003. • Provide ongoing training for all staff,with an emphasis on technology training, through the City Library's comprehensive Training Plan. • Adjust staffing levels annually to reflect strategic plan priorities. • Increase hours in support of programming to manage and coordinate systemwide programs and Library Square events. • Expand the number of volunteers, along with their roles, in anticipation of the move into a new Main Library. • Manage staff allocations to create systemwide collection development positions for improved selection. • Provide adequate staffing for weekend hours at Library Square. Facilities and Capital Planning • Open new Main Library as the centerpiece of Library Square in January 2003. • Work in concert with City and other interested parties to complete development of Library Square block. • Develop and sustain creative and complementary partnerships with future tenants of existing Main Library. • Acquire City Council approval of 15-Year Capital Improvements Plan during 2002-2003. • Conduct a post occupancy survey of the new Main Library by January 2004. -3- • Ensure commitment to ongoing capital improvement funding and plan. • Develop an ongoing technology upgrade fund in the capital budget to assure the City Library's ability to meet the growing demands of upgrading hardware and software. • • Plan a new branch in the southwest area of Salt Lake City by 2005. _ 111. IMPROVED MANAGEMENT Improve and Enhance Communication • Improve delivery of information to staff concerning library directions, decisions, and activities. • Improve the Performance Plan system by providing training to managers on coaching and evaluation, and by including these items as a systemwide standard. • Enhance coordination within library departments so that access to materials and services for teens are improved. Promote a Learning Environment for Staff 441 • Build reciprocal relationships to broaden learning opportunities, both within and outside ere the City Library System, by encouraging and promoting staff exchanges. • Develop a cohesive method for staff to report on information and skills gained at conferences and training sessions. Strengthen Our Organizational Structure , • Regularly evaluate and modify our management structure to maintain its responsiveness to the dynamic and changing needs of our organization. • Implement staffing structure for new Main Library in 2002. Evaluate effectiveness of staffing structure at new Main Library by December 2003. • Review the committee process and make needed improvements. Develop an evaluation model for committees in 2003. Expand Fiscal Planning • Implement a multifaceted, long-term fund raising plan which focuses on individuals, corporations, and foundations. • Pursue grants and private funding to enhance technological resources. • Raise$3 million to support a program endowment fund, operating expenses, and program sponsorship by 2005. sb • Prepare and submit a$250,000 NEH Challenge Grant Proposal by 2003. -4- APPENDIX B SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY STAFFING LEVEL 2002-2003 AS OF APRIL 18,2002 FT HOURS FT HOURS AGENCY/BRANCH PT PER WEEK AGENCY/BRANCH PT PER WEEK • ADMINISTRATION • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 3 positions/2.8 FTEs 1 position/1.0 FTE Director FT 40 Manager FT 40 Assistant Director FT 40 Administrative Assistant PT 32 • CHAPMAN 11 positions/7.2 FTEs ANDERSON-FOOTHILL 20 positions/12.1 FTEs Agency Manager FT 40 Assistant Agency Manager FT 40 Agency Manager FT 40 Associate Librarian FT 40 Assistant Agency Manager FT 40 Associate Librarian PT 32 Librarian FT 40 Circulation Specialist FT 40 Associate Librarian PT 32 Library Assistant PT 19 Associate Librarian PT 25 Library Assistant PT 19 .. Associate Librarian PT 18 Library Assistant PT 18 Associate Librarian PT 12 Library Aide PT 17 Library Assistant FT 40 Library Aide PT 12 Library Assistant FT 40 Library Aide PT 12 Library Assistant FT 40 Library Assistant PT 19 • CHILDREN'S/YOUNG ADULT Library Assistant PT 18 13 positions/7.6 FTEs Library Assistant PT 15 Library Assistant PT 15 Agency Manager FT 40 Library Assistant add'I hrs 4 Senior Librarian/Young Adult FT 40 Library Aide PT 19 Librarian FT 40 Library Aide PT 17 Associated Librarian FT 40 Library Aide PT 13 Associate Librarian PT 32 Library Aide PT 12 Associate Librarian PT 18 Library Aide PT 12 Associate Librarian PT 15 Library Aide PT 12 Library Assistant PT 18 Library Aide PT 14 • BUSINESS OFFICE Library Aide PT 14 8 positions/6.3 FTEs Library Aide PT 12 Library Aide PT 12 Business Manager FT 40 Library Aide PT 8 Administrative Secretary FT 40 Administrative Secretary PT 25 Accounting Associate FT 40 Distribution Specialist FT 40 Distribution Specialist PT 8 Support Services Specialist FT 40 Delivery Technician PT 18 B-1 FT HOURS FT HOURS ' AGENCY/BRANCH PT PER WEEK AGENCY/BRANCH PT PER WEEK T, • CIRCULATION • DAY-RIVERSIDE 18 positions/ 10.9 FTEs 14 positions/8.8 FTEs Agency Manager FT 40 Agency Manager FT 40 Circulation Specialist FT 40 Assistant Agency Manager FT 40 Library Assistant FT 40 Circulation Specialist FT 40 Library Assistant FT 40 Associate Librarian FT 40 Library Assistant PT 19 Associate Librarian PT 25 Library Assistant PT 18 Associate Librarian PT 18 Library Assistant PT 18 Library Assistant PT 30 r Library Aide FT 40 Library Assistant PT 25 ad Library Aide PT 18 Library Assistant PT 18 Library Aide PT 18 Library Assistant PT 15 Library Aide PT 18 Library Aide PT 15 Library Aide PT 18 Library Aide PT 15 Library Aide PT 18 Library Aide PT 15 Library Aide PT 18 Library Aide PT 153 Library Aide PT 18 Library Aide PT 18 • FINE ARTS/FICTION/LITERATURE Library Aide PT 18 17 positions/ 11.3 FTEs ._. Library Aide PT 18 Agency Manager FT 40 COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT Assistant Agency Manager FT 40 5 positions/ 1.8 FTEs Senior Librarian FT 4011110 Librarian FT 40 Librarian PT 16 Associate Librarian FT 40 Associate Librarian PT 16 Associate Librarian FT 40 I Associate Librarian PT 16 Associate Librarian FT 40 Giii Associate Librarian PT 7 Associate Librarian PT 20 Library Assistant PT 16 Associate Librarian PT 18 Associate Librarian PT 18 al COMMUNITY RELATIONS Associate Librarian PT 18 3 positions/2.8 FTEs Library Assistant PT 18 Library Aide PT 17 Community Relations Mgr FT 40 Library Aide PT 16 Artist FT 40 Library Aide PT 16 Support Services Associate PT 30 Library Aide PT 16 Library Aide PT 16 �s COMPUTER SERVICES 5 positions/5.0 FTEs . Agency Manager FT 40 Computer Specialist FT 40 Computer Associate FT 40 ^-/ Computer Associate FT 40 Computer Assistant FT 40 o: B-2 FT HOURS FT HOURS AGENCY/BRANCH PT PER WEEK AGENCY/BRANCH PT PER WEEK HUMAN RESOURCES • NONFICTION 4 positions/3.5 FTEs 18 positions/11.6 FTEs Human Resources Manager FT 40 Agency Manager FT 40 Staff Development Coord PT 35 Assistant Agency Manager FT 40 Support Services Associate FT 40 Senior Librarian PT 8 Support Services Associate PT 24 Librarian PT 25 Associate Librarian FT 40 MAINTENANCE Associate Librarian FT 40 20 positions/ 13.7 FTEs Associate Librarian FT 40 Associate Librarian FT 40 Facilities Manager FT 40 Associate Librarian PT 32 Custodial Supervisor FT 40 Associate Librarian PT 30 Maintenance Technician FT 40 Associate Librarian PT 25 Maintenance Technician FT 40 Associate Librarian PT 25 Maintenance Technician FT 40 Associate Librarian PT 10 Gardener FT 40 Library Aide PT 18 Distribution Specialist FT 40 Library Aide PT 18 Custodian-Cha PT 18 Library Aide PT 12 Custodian-Fth PT 18 Library Aide PT 10 Custodian-Riv PT 18 Library Aide PT 10 Custodian-Riv PT 12 Custodian-Spr PT 18 • PERIODICALS Custodian-Spr PT 12 14 positions/8.1 FTEs Custodian-Swe PT 18 Custodian FT 40 Agency Manager FT 40 Custodian FT 40 Librarian FT 40 Custodian PT 18 Librarian PT 18 Custodian PT 18 Associate Librarian PT 25 Custodian PT 18 Associate Librarian PT 20 Custodial PT 18 Associate Librarian PT 19 Library Assistant FT 40 Library Assistant PT 18 Library Assistant PT 17 Library Assistant PT 17 Library Assistant PT 16 Library Aide PT 19 Library Aide PT 18 Library Aide PT 18 B-3 Tr FT HOURS FT HOURS AGENCY/BRANCH PT PER WEEK AGENCY/BRANCH PT PER WEEK • • PROJECTS • TECHNICAL SERVICES 2.positions/2.0 FTEs 26 positions/20.4 FTEs Project&Svc Dev Manager FT 40 Agency Manager FT 40 Outreach Coord/Librarian FT 40 Senior Librarian FT 40 Senior Librarian PT 32 SPRAGUE Technical Services Specialist FT 40 17 positions/ 10.8 FTEs Technical Services Specialist FT 40 Associate Librarian FT 40 Agency Manager FT 40 Associate Librarian FT 40 Assistant Agency Manager FT 40 Associate Librarian PT 32 Librarian FT 40 Associate Librarian PT 32 , Associate Librarian FT 40 Associate Librarian PT 20 Associate Librarian PT 32 Associate Librarian PT 6(temporary) Associate Librarian PT 16 Technical Services Assistant FT 40 Associate Librarian PT 8 Technical Services Assistant FT 40 Library Assistant FT 40 Technical Services Assistant FT 40 Library Assistant PT 38 Technical Services Assistant FT 40 a. Library Assistant PT 32 Technical Services Assistant FT 40 Library Assistant PT 19 Technical Services Assistant PT 18 ,,,,,N. Library Assistant PT 16 Technical Services Assistant PT 8(temporary) Library Aide PT 15 Processing Aide FT 40 Library Aide PT 15 Processing Aide FT 40 Library Aide PT 15 Processing Aide FT 40 Library Aide PT 12 Technician FT 40 O. Library Aide PT 12 Technician PT 18(temporary) Technician PT 18 SWEET Technician PT 18 13 positions/7.3 FTEs Technician PT 15 Agency Manager FT 40 s Assistant Agency Manager PT 32 Circulation Specialist PT 32 0y Associate Librarian PT 19 Library Assistant PT 19 Library Assistant PT 19 Library Assistant PT 19 Library Assistant PT 19 Library Assistant PT 18 �' Library Assistant add'I hrs 2 Library Aide PT 19 Library Aide PT 19 4.1 Library Aide PT 18 Library Aide PT 15 >: 232 positions 154.7 FTEs a: B-4 Ilk SAL T, A E%k ITY= RPO ° IOi f ROCKY J. FLU HART _.� - - r ROSS C. ANDERSON HIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER _ MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Dave Buhler, Chaiiuian Salt Lake City Council 4 FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer' DATE: May 7, 2002 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 6 Recommendation: We recommend that on May 21, 2002, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on June 4, 2002, to discuss Budget Amendment No. 6. Discussion and Background: The amendment packet will be transmitted to the City Council Office on May 10, 2002, for the briefing on May 14, 2002. Legislative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by the City Attorney. cc: Dan Mule, City Treasurer Shannon Ashby 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: BO1-535-6425 FAX: B01.535-6190 ®Rccreeo anPeA r SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2001 which adopted the Final Biennial Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 32 OF 2001 WHICH APPROVED, RATIFIED AND FINALIZED THE BIENNIAL BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT, FOR THE FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2002 AND BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2003. PREAMBLE On June 14, 2001, the Salt Lake City Council approved, ratified and finalized the biennial budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted biennial budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. C The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on June 4, 2002 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, and ordered notice thereof be published as required by law. Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, was held on June 4, 2002, in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the biennial budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council. All conditions precedent to amend said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the biennial budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2001. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The biennial budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the biennial budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. 2 v SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the biemlial Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 3 Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • .. (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Amending budget 6-4 doe 4 FY 2002 Initiatives in Budget Amendment - June FY 2002 FY 2003 Initiative Name Initiative Gen. Fund FTE Gen.Fund FTE Amount Impact Impact 1. Rental PCs for $76,970 -0- -0- Administrative Law 2. Postage Rate Increase $23,000 -0- -0- 3. Donation for the $250,000 -0- -0- Construction of Liberty Park Tennis Building 4. Increase in the Claims and $70,000 -0- -0- Damages Budget 5. Building Surveys for $18,164 -0- -0- Historic Planning 6. Historic Property Public $1,483 -0- -0- Relations Campaign 7. Prosecutor's Office VAWA $21,854 .5 -0- Grant 8. Donation to City to Receive $10,000 -0- -0- and Install Greek Sculpture 9. 1300 S., 1700 E. to Foothill $34,905 -0- -0- Boulevard 10. Landfill Equipment Wash $15,000 -0- -0- Area 11. Rocky Mountain High $84,824 2.0 -0- Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) 2 Officers 12. Local Law Enforcement $30,000 -0- -0- Block Grant Program Income 13. Reimbursed Overtime $174,554 -0- -0- Expenses 14. Policecorp Reimbursement $20,000 -0- -0- 15. 5500 W. 2000 S. $170,000 -0- -0- Realignment 16. Odyssey House $65,000 -0- -0- 17. Accounting for a $184,526 -0- -0- Reimbursement from a lease 18. Olympic Reconciliation $216,803 $216,803 -0- -0- 19. Early Retirement $750,000 -0- -0- 20. Boiler Room Utility Tunnel $85,000 -0- -0- 21. Landscaping on 7th East $40,000 -0- -0- Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services/IMS FY 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year Rental PC Equipment for Admin Law(Courts) BA#6 01 Initiative Name Initiative Number Daye P. Abbott 535-6343 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund , Total $0 $0 I $0 2. Internal Service Fund Anticipated rental fees to be received Admin Law 6,921 30,777 30,777 FY 02 revenue PC rental and maintanence 70,049 0 0 revenue. Total $76,970 $30,777 I $30,777 3. Enterprise Fund -� Total $0 $0 I $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 I $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund , Total $0 $0 I $0 2. Internal Service Fund Expenses to be incured by IMS for equipment 76,970 5,120 5,120 purchase Depreciation expense for PC rental equipment for 0 25,657 25,657 36 month period. Equipment is a Class 1 asset. Remaining depreciation to be reflected in FY 05. Total $76,970 $30,777 , $30,777 3. Enterprise Fund , Total $0 $0 I $0 4. Other Fund , Total $0 $0 I $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail , 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 5,120 5,120 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 76,970 6. Other (Specify) - Depreciation 25,657 25,657 Total $76,970 $30,777 , $30,777 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Measurability of this project is the actual revenue increase from Admin Law verses the actual expense incurred to IMS for purchase and maintenance of rental equipment. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The new Admin. Law operation will require the purchase and installation of 50 Desktop computers with flat monitors, and 10 Laser printers. Admin. Law has requested that these units be rented from IMS, which will allow them to control their maintenance costs. The cost to IMS to set - this request is anticipated to be $76,970 dependent on current pricing. This will be a cash expenditu for IMS in FY 02, with anticipated maintenance costs of$12,900 over a 36-month period. Condition: IMS presently has in place a rental program that is used by various city departments. This has existed for the last three (3) years and has been very successful. Effect: Generally, the IMS rental program is administered on a single or under 10 unit basis. The size of the request from Admin. Law will require a substantial capital outlay by IMS to accommodate. Presently, IMS has revenue increases for FY 02 that will allow for the anticipated up-front capital outlay of $76,970. This amount is primarily from a revenue recovery from PC maintenance fees do to accurate PC inventory for the start of FY 02. Cause: Cash Effect - Cash reduction to IMS of approximately $76,970 for FY 02 offset by inflow for 2 -month rental fees of $6,921. Based on cash balance plus anticipated inflows and outflows through FY 02 year-end, IMS's anticipated year-end cash balance should be $470,000. Current GE Capital Lease obligation for FY 03 will be $250,536 leaving cash reserve of approximately $215,500. Budgetary Basis Effect— Expense: The $76,970 will reflect in Capital Outlay for FY 02. Revenue Source: Increased revenue recovery from PC maintenance fees due to accurate PC inventory for start of FY 02. GAAP Basis Effect — Expense: Class total purchase expense as combined cost in one Class 1 asset. This will result in the moving of the expense from Income Statement to Fixed Asset on Balance Sheet. The asset will be depreciated over a 3-year period, with 6-months charged ($12,828) in FY 0. 12-months charged ($25,657) in FY 03, 12-months charged ($25,657) in FY 04, and the remaining 6- months charged ($12,828) in FY 05. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Maintenance expenses are figured into the same time periods; however, these would be actual expenses as required. Anticipated maintenance expenses figured into the revenue fee are FY 02 ($ 0.00), maintenance expenses ($5,120) for FY 03, maintenance expenses ($5,120) for FY 04, and maintenance expenses ($2,560) for FY 05. Revenue: This will allow for a closer matching of revenue to expense, as the rental fees will be posted as 2-months revenue in FY 02 ($6,921), 12-months revenue ($41,528) in FY 03, 12-months revenue ($41,528) in FY 04, and 8 to 10-months revenue ($34,607) in FY 05 (variable is actual start date of rental). Recommendation: Permit IMS to fund the expense of $76,970 for the Admin. Law PCs from the fund balance with the revenue being posted over the rental period. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services/IMS FY 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year Postage Rate Increase BA#6 02 Initiative Name Initiative Number Daye P. Abbott 535-6343 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Revenue increase in Postage due to rate change 23,000 25,000 25,000 in 2000 and increase in volume usage over budgeted. Total $23,000 $25,000 $25,000 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Expense increase in Postage due to rate change 23,000 25,000 25,000 in 2000 and increase in volume usage over budgeted. Total $23,000 $25,000 $25,000 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail' 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 23,000 25,000 25,000 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $23,000 $25,000 $25,000 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization 1) Postage: The volume and rate can be compared to prior years results. Additionally, the expense can be compared to revenue fees to ensure that all units are being charged. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria: The revenue and expense expectations for actual postage usage was budgeted on a base postal rate of$ .32 per first class unit, and it was based on the average usage of 1999/2000. Condition: The rate increase in July 2000 increased the postal rate to $ .34 per first class unit. The volume has increased during FY 01 and FY 02 by approximately 3,100 units per month which relates to 10% of the gross annual units. Effect: The result of the increase causes an increase to revenue relative to the increase in expense; however, this results in the over-expenditure of the Copy Center expense. The effect is the requirement of Finance to place a comment in the Annual Financial Statements in explanation of the over-expenditure. Cause: The increase in postal rates and usage volume have perpetuated this situation to result in the increase in expense and associated revenue off-set. Recommendation: It is IMS's recommendation that the budget opening be approved, so that current conditions can be properly projected in FY02 through FY04 budgetary processes. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services FY 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year Liberty Park Tennis Building BA#6 03 Initiative Name Initiative Number Rick Graham/Randy Hillier 7922/6353 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund 83-02020-Donation from Cal Nelson for the 250,000 Tennis Building and court lighting Total $250,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund 83-02020-Expenditure for the Tennis Building 250,000 and Court Lighting Total $250,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail` - . 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 250,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $250,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The City has received the offer of a donation of $250,000 to be used for the Liberty Park Tennis Building as well as court lighting near the facility. The donor has stipulated that in order to receive the donation, the City must commit to fund the remaining cost of the structure, and that it be done in a timely manner. In order to accomodate the donor, it is recommended that funding for general park upgrades listed in the Liberty Park master plan be directed toward the building of a new Tennis Building. The construction of a new Tennis Building is part of this Liberty Park master plan, however, was lower on the list and meant to be completed sometime later within the schedule of the plan. In order to take advantage of this donation and complete the facility, it is recommended that the Tennis Building be planned and constructed in as timely a manner as possible. Building Costs: Cost of Construction = $477,180 Contingency @ 10% = $47,718 Engineerin @ 2% = $9,544 Design @ 12% _ $54,262 Total = $588,704 • Analyst Comments: Since this existing tennis facility was planned to eventually be remodeled, I recommend that we take advantage of the donation and move it up in the plan schedule. A wise option may be for us to reevaluate the list of projects currently planned within the park. There is a restroom currently,planned for construction next to the parking lot closest to the tennis courts. Since there is a four stall public restroom planned for in the new tennis building, and it will be relatively close in proximity to the parking lot, it is recommended that the parking lot restroom be delayed, and the funds be used for the tennis building. Allowing the use of the parking lot restroom funds, $300,000, in conjunction with the donated funds, will provide most of the funding necessary to complete the tennis building, including a pro shop, four public restroom stalls, as well as locker rooms for both men and women. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Fiscal Note / Projects with Operation and Maintenance Initiative Name: Liberty Park Tennis Building Prepared By: Randy Hillier Phone: Fiscal Year FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 Revenues $250,000 Total $250,000 $0 $0 Expenditures $250,000 Total $250,000 $0 $0 Fiscal Analysis of Operations and Maintenance Costs Description of CIP Project The project will entail the construction of an entirely new Tennis Building. The structure will include a pro shop and vendor area, with an office for the Tennis Pro, restroom, locker room and shower facilities for men and women, and four public restroom stalls. This building will replace the existing Tennis Building which is in need of replacement. Estimated Impact Estimates for utilities, maintenance, and supplies have been gathered. Gas, electricity and water will cost approximately $1,200 per month, and janitorial will cost approximately $200 per month, for a total of$1,400. Maintenance is also a factor and will cost approximately $3,200 per year. In considering all these factors, it is reasonable to believe that the utilites, maintenance and janitorial costs for the upgraded structure will cost approximately $20,000 for parks per year. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Law Department/Risk Management Div. Governmental Immunity Fund FY 01-02 Department Fiscal Year Increase in the Claims& Damages Budget BA#6 04 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jeff Rowley 535-7727 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Governmental Immunity Fund Balance 70,000 Total $70,000 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund 8501401-2546 Transfer from fund balance to 70,000 Claims& Damages expense account. Total $70,000 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail, ` 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other: Third party liability claims& damages 70,000 Total $70,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization: This transfer is requested in order to fund our continued third party liability self-insurance program. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria: The City continues to maintain a self-insurance program for all third party liability claims. Claims found to have merit are paid out of the Governmental Immunity fund. Condition: Claims payments made this year have exceeded our anticipated budget creating a need for a budget amendment. Effect: Without this budget adjustment, the Division of Risk Management will not be able to pay claims. Cause: A large claim payment of$250,000 was expected to be paid out of the 2001-'02 budget but ended up being taken from the current year's budget. Consequently, the amount allotted for '01-'02 fell to fund balance, and the current budget took a large hit in the first month of the year. Recommendation: Transfer $70,000 from fund balance into the current expenditure budget. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED-Planning Division FY 01-02 Department FiscaL Year Building Surveys for Historic Planning BA#6 05 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 18,164 Total $18,164 $0 # $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 18,164 Total $18,164 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) -Contractual 18,164 Total $18,164 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Measurable Impact F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The Planning Division applied for and received funds from the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development. Condition: The 50% required match will be met with the staff time of the Preservation Planners, parliamentary procedure training for the Landmark Commission members, and staff attendance at th NAPC conference. Effect: These funds will be used to hire a consultant to conduct a reconnaissance level survey of approximately 1,200 buildings in the East Liberty Park area, 700-1300 E., 900-1300 So., and approximately 733 buildings in the West Central City area, 200-500 E., So. Temple to 900 So. Cause: This grant will pay for contractual consulting services. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council adopt the necessary resolution and appropriate budget to facilitate the grant. Analyst Comments: Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. This grant will satisfy criteria related to number 2 below - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use Grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3- Grant fundina will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question I - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds will be used to pay contract consultant services. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No - Grant pertains to historic properties/districts within Salt Lake City boundaries. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet _ - for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED- Planning Division FY 01-02 Department Fiscal Year Historic Property Public Relations Carnpiagn BA#6 06 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 1,483 Total $1,483 $0 # $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 1,483 Total $1,483 $0 $0_ C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 1,483 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $1,483 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Measurable Impact F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The Planning Division applied for and received funds from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Condition: The 100% required match will be provided through the Planning Divisions General Fund budget for expenses associated with the public relations campaign. Effect: These funds will be used for a public relations campaign that will consist of two informational mailings. The first mailing will provide information regarding the federal and state tax incentives available to owners of historic property and the second mailing will announce the completion of the expansion of the Historic Landmark Commission web page. Cause: This grant will provide for costs associated with printing and distributing mailings. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council adopt the necessary resolution and appropriate budget to facilitate the grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 411 G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. This grant will satisfy criteria related to number 2 below 1—In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3—Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question I - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds will be used for printing and distribution costs of two mailings. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable NA IIP Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No - Grant pertains to historic properties/districts within Salt Lake City boundaries. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Prosecutors Office- Law FY 01-02 Department Fiscal Year Prosecutor's Office VAWA Grant BA#6 07 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 21,854.25 Total $21,854.25 $0 # $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 21,854.25 Total $21,854.25 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail` 1. Salaries and Wages 16,577.60 2. Employee Benefits 5,276.65 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $21,854.25 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Court Victim Advocate Salary and Benefits 0.50 Hourly 21,854.25 1040 hours Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Measurable Impact F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The Prosecutors Office applied for and received a Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant from the State Office of Crime Victim's Reparations. This grant will be used to pay the hourly salary of the Court Victim Advocate position. This position will provide court advocacy support to victims of domestic violence whose offenders have been criminally charged by Salt Lake City. Condition: The required 25% cash match will be met with 75 hours of the Program Coordinators and Financial Monitors salary and benefits, office equipment and space, and other office supplies. Effect: Currently, the Police Department provides victim services for victims of domestic violence, however, they do not have the resources to provide court advocacy. The Court Advocate will provide victims with advocacy throughout the criminal justice process, but will specifically focus on making contact with all victims who will be subpoenaed to testify in court against the offender. Cause: This position will ensure that victims have advocacy support during what can be a difficult process and also help ensure victim cooperation in the appropriate and successful prosecution of the offender. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council adopt the appropriate budget, necessary to facilitate the grant. The Resolution for this grant was adopted in Budget Opening #1, Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. This grant will satisfy criteria related to number 2 below 1—In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2—Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3—Grant fundina will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question I - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds will be used for the salary and benefits of a .50 FTE to provide court advocate services to persons who have been victims of domestic crime. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Probable. The Citys Police Department has continued to receive VAWA funds on an annual basis for their Victim Advocate Program. If grant/funding continues at the State level, a service need or progranS expansion will need to be identified and demonstrated in the continued application process for this grant. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes, it is believed so. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Community and Economic Development FY 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year Donation to City to Receive and Install Greek Sculpture BA#6 08 Initiative Name Initiative Number Stephen Goldsmith 535-7117 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Special Revenue Fund 10,000 Total $10,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Special Revenue Fund 10,000 Total $10,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2,791 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 7,209 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $10,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization • F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The City has received a $10,000 donation to facilitate the fabrication of a sculpture base and the installation of a sculpture of the Greek God "Prometheus"that was donated to the City from the country of Greece for the Olympics. The sculpture has been located on the 500 West Park Block at South Temple, directly west of the Gateway Center. The City has spent $6,796 to install the sculpture. These expenditures are as follows: Base fabrication and installation ($3,125), stone for the base ($700), U.S. Customs, ($180), City Staff time ($2791). The $10,000 donation will reimburse the City for these expenses plus leave a balance of$3,204 to either relocate the sculpture or to enhance the landscaped median around the sculpture. -mot=- ... -. t �. 4 + Wit' .:. .. t , ,....:.sac . �q �w ift ...._ $i41.: X. � 7A 1 A i:_�• 1pf �-1 z.., Le ar� .-- a111�: ''' - - � ' I . i Kil __ • a% H i • r - i 3 ``"tom t} L - ( • - f�rr 'C Y'- 6 t`'•�1 *'ifs ; bd : ..is .wry g `_.k y, ,� ' -r 1- �4 ire- 8 �p Tr •'','','•f"Z-,4'".3.:.',.,.,,'-;,..'.1, F' ; ice f �1 :� ;� zany' x ▪ ,,. P3'Yy., ' .S :Q ,, 'fie' . , ,- '�x✓m^ ,,_... <:-' 4)_y.•ays$ '' 41/ y �,4• tfy 5 F_ 3 AiW • . 5. . F a r r',- -. , zi �.- r i Est s IvEc, { • e ` {y ¢>jr � -'• 1 7f ▪ b .e,51.- ,� a'," ¢ �J 4 f - 5 -<, C , v;': '2 L_ie. i ;.r ,.. Pn.`irac..'.,F,..' Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Utilities Engineering Fy 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year 1300 S. - 1700 E.to Foothill Blvd. BA#6 09 Initiative Name Initiative Number Joel Harrison 535-6234 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund 83-01041-2700 Public Utilities Match for Federal 34,905 Funds _ Total $34,905 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 _ $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund 83-01041-2700 Public Utilities Match for Federal 34,905 Funds Total $34,905 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Match for Federal Funds) 34,905 Total $34,905 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The reconstruction of 1300 South from 1700 East to Foothill Boulevard is a federally funded project with the City providing match money to the Utah Department of Transportation. Part of the City match was for utility improvements. The total match was provided from the CIP cost center. An interdepartmental billing has been provided to Public Utilities to reimburse the CIP cost center for their share of the match money. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services Engineering FY 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year Landfill Equipment Wash Area BA#6 10 Initiative Name Initiative Number Joel Harrison 535-6234 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0_ 4. Other Fund Landfill Equipment Wash Area, Salt Lake County 15,000 Contribution Total $15,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP 83-01093-2700 Landfill Equipment Wash Area 15,000 Total $15,000 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 15,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $15,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: A facility to clean equipment that handles the processing of garbage at the landfill is currently under construction. The project is nearing completion, but additional items of work are required to complete the facility. This budget increase will allow a change order to be processed so the contractor can complete the work. All costs associated with the project are reimbursed to the City by Salt Lake County. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Police Department FY 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA), 2 Officers BA#6 11 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72 84,824 Total $84,824 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72 84,824 Total $84,824 $0 $0 E. Expenditure-Impact-Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 62,832 2. Employee Benefits 21,992 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $84,824 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail• FTE Grade/Step Amount 2 additional Officers 2 501a 84,824 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization • Substantial Impact. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The Police Department applied for and received this High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) grant from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy. Funding will be used to hire 2 additional Officers' that will be assigned to Metro Narcotics. HIDTA will provide the Officers' with vehicles, and special tactical equipment, communications equipment and any other supplies needs while the Officers' are assigned to Metro Narcotics. Condition: The Police Department will be responsible to pay a portion of the Officers benefits as match. Effect: This is a multi-agency enforcement program that targets illegal distribution of drugs and drug manufacturing. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept this grant on behalf of the City, and to adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. This grant relates to 2. 1_In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2—Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3—Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question I - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? This grant will pay for the salary and benefits of 2 additional Officers'assigned to the Metro Narcotics Task Force. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? City will continue to apply if funding is available. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes. Program will function at a lower service level. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No - Funding is specifically geared toward drug enforcement. Other enforcement agencies receive their own grants. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police By 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program Income BA#6 12 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jerry Burton 799-3824 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact-of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Misc 72 Grant Fund 30,000 Total $30,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Misc 72 Grant Fund 30,000 Total $30,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure-Impact Detail- 1. Salaries and Wages (Overtime) 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 30,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $30,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Major Impact F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Local Law Enforcement Block Grants accumulate interest as payment received from the federal government occurs in advance, at the beginning of the grant period. The grant requires that the funds be place in an interest bearing account. This accumulated interest must be spent along with the grant. To expend these funds, the budgets need to be increased for the estimated interest earned on two Local Law Enforcement Block Grants. Grant expenses will be limited to the total of federal funds, local cash match and actual interest earned by the grant end date. LLEBG 2001 interest earned is $25,000.00. LLEBG 1999 interest earned is $ 5,000.00. Note: LLEBG 1999, budgeted interest was originally estimated at $15,000. These earn income amounts will be spent on police equipment in relation to the grant. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council increase the appropriate budgets to accept the program income earned. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. 1=In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2—Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3—Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Issue not related to grants Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? NA What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Probable. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the e grant funding time frame? Yes Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? NA Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? NA Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police Fy 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year Reimbursed Overtime Expenses BA#6 13 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jerry Burton 799-3824 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Outside OTServices 0200035 1441 89,000 DUI Enforcement 0200015 1446.03 32,000 Joint Terrorism Task Force 0200035 144605 9,000 Voilent Crimes Task Force 020045 144605 7,000 Narcotics Task Force 0200047 144604 26,000 Gang Task Force 0200047 1446006 8,000 Sundry Revenue 0200069 1890 2,074 Sundry Revenue 0200083 1890 1,483 Total $174,557 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Officer Overtime Reimbursement 174,557 Total $174,557 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages (Overtime) 171,000 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 3,557 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $174,557 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The department throughout the fiscal year provides police services on a overtime basis and is reimbursed for those services. Included in the total are amount actually received and estimates for amounts to be received by the city prior to June 30, 2002. The department also receives reimbursements for sale of duty weapons to retiring officers and "No Trespassing" signs posted in the community. The budget if approved, will offset expenses already incurred. Secondary employment $ 89,000 Driving Under Influence saturation patrols $ 32,000 Violent Crime Task Force $ 7,000 Joint Terrorism Task Force $ 9,000 Metro Narcotics Task Force $ 26,000 Metro Gang Task Force $ 8,000 Supplies - $ 3,557 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police FY 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year Policecoro Reimbursement BA#6 14 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jerry Burton 799-3824 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund 02-00069-1313 Reimbursement from Policecorp 20,000 Total $20,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Equipment Purchases 20,000 Total $20,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages (Overtime) 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 20,000 6. Other (Specify) Total $20,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The department receives payment from Police Corp (an department associated with the state's Peace Officer Standards and Training POST) for recruit officers hired through their program. Funding will be used for needed capital outlay items. The state of Utah through Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) manages a federal grant providing funding for recruits with college degrees or close to graduation to go through their program as satisfying the POST requirement for hiring. Officers selected by the PD make the department eligible for a payment to help offset the additional training the department provides this officers as part of becoming a SLCPD officer. The department proposes to upgrade some worn out elements of the target range in Parleys canyon in the amount of$ 3,100 with the balance of$ 16,900 to accelerate the dept's plan to phase in a ballistic (bullet resistant) helmets for officers as opposed to the traditional helmet. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. 1=In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3—Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Issue not related to grants Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Service Engineering FY 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year 5500 W. 2000 S. Realignment BA#6 15 Initiative Name Initiative Number Joel Harrison 535-6234 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 _ $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 I $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP 83-02038-2700 170,000 Total $170,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP 83-02038-2700 170,000 Total $170,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 170,000 6. Other (Specify) Total $170,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The access road to 5600 West from 2000 South has been closed due to increased traffic congestion in the area as well as safety concerns on 5600 West. UDOT has provided a traffic signal at 1730 South and has agreed to fund half of the cost ($170,000) to realign approximately 1000 feet of industrial roadway to eliminate an inadequate and unsafe road curve that currently exists between 2000 and 1730 South. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services Engineering FY 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year Odyssey House BA#6 16 Initiative Name Initiative Number Joel Harrison 535-6234 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG 71-27041-2590 Odyssey House/ 65,000 Contribution from County Total $65,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG 71-27041-2590 Odyssey House Remodel 65,000 Total $65,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 65,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $65,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization • F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The City has approved $100,000 in CDBG funds for the Odyssey House for the 2001/2002 fiscal year. The Odyssey House had requested funds in excess of this amount from the City for their project. They have requested the additional funding required from Salt Lake County. See the attached letter indicating a public hearing will be held on April 22, 2002, with fund approval/disapproval from the County Mayor in 7 to 10 days. This budget amendment is being requested in order to complete the remodeling of the facility. ni-R—co—cuuc IUG UI.Uc lilt aLu lruttr LIYUIMCA'NU Mitc NU. tlu1J5bUI3 U4/U4 Apr 1e 02 08:19a P-2 MEMORANDUM TO: CDBG APPLICANTS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES SILT LIII COUNTY FROM: LYNN FEVERYEAR Community Resources& Development Division SUBJECT: NOTICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY CONSOLIDATEDPLAN PUBLIC HEARING&FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS "Making a positive difference' DATE: APRIL 10,2002 _ NANCY WORKMAN Sale Lake County Mayor m.orninanW co.aic.w..,, The Salt Lake County Community and Economic Development Advisory Council (CEDAC)has completed its deliberations on proposed funding recommendations Alan Dayton Dapury Mayor for the 2002-2003 (28th Year) Community Development Block Grant and „re"a",.;,_.=,."g Emergency Shelter Grant Programs of Salt Lake County. Attached for your Devld Marshall information is a copy of the funding recommendations;however,final decision and Chief AdrMnfevutl m,once, responsibility regarding the funding rests with the County MaJor. John Rosenthal The Salt Lake County Mayor and the Community and Economic Development Director of Human Services Advisory Council will conduct a Public Hearing on the funding recommendations "°'°"'",i®0a-'1"'" on Monday, April 22, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. in the County Government Center Michael R.Gallegos Council Chambers,First Floor,North Building,2001 South State Street.Affected and interested citizens will have an opportunity to provide comments on the funding recommendations at this time. SALT LAKE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER Please note the}Iearing starts at 5:00 p.m.on Monday,April 22.The County 2001 50um state sheet Mayor will conduct the Hearing and the Mayor will make final decisions Saito S2100 regarding funding within seven to ten days after the hearing. son lake Oily Utah$e190-2718 Should you have any questions,please call Carla Llewellyn at 468-3663 or me at lei (80,1 468-32a6 468-3803. Fax (801)aaa-aea4 Reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities will be provided upon request. For assistance,please contact this office at 468-3663(TTD number 468- 3699). attachment c: Michael Gallegos Carla Llewellyn Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services FY 01-02 — Department For Fiscal Year Accounting for Reimbursement from Lease BA#6 17 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Public Services Dept. Cost Center 03-10300 184,526 (Reimbursement from Lessor) Total $184,526 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Public Services Dept. Cost Center 03-10300 184,526 Total $184,526 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 , $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 184,526 6. Other(Specify) Total $184,526 $0 $0 • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Financing (lease purchase) was arranged for the purchase of a new electronic timekeeping system for Public Services. Prior to the funding on 23 April 2002, Public Services paid directly for certain hardware, software and professional service costs. Public Services was reimbursed once the lease schedule was established. Refer to the transaction list below. This budget amendment will "gross up"the amounts related to the reimbursements from the lease. Ongoing Public Services capital budget will charged when the lease payments are made. Payments made by Public Services: $ 15,223- Database servers and peripherals, Public Services paid on 11/5/01, check#00501376 $166,049 -Time&Data Systems for software, hardware, & professional services, paid 1/9/02, check#00505067 $ 3,254 -Various other purchases for the timekeeping system $184,526 -Total of pmts made by Public Services prior to 1/23/02 funding of lease schedule Reimbursements: $181,272 - reimbursement by GE Capital Public Finance on 1/23/02 $ 3,254 - reimbursement by the escrow agent, Marshall & Iisley Trust Company, on 2/12/02 $184,526 -Total reimbursements made to Public Services from lease schedule Salt Lake City Corporation • Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services FY 01-02 — Department For Fiscal Year Olympic Reconciliation BA#6 18 Initiative Name Initiative Number Susi Kontgis 535-6414 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact-of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund General Fund Contingency 216,803 Total $216,803 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund General Fund Contingency 216,803 Total $216,803 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C Expenditure-Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other-Olympic Games Reconciliation 216,803 $0 Total $216,803 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. F. Issue Discussion: Upon completion of the Olympic Winter Games the reconciliation of the Olympic Budget reflects a -$216,803 deficit. Although careful planning and execution went into the development and implementation of the Olympic planning efforts, a few variables were not anticipated. Primarily, a significant cost was incurred by the late delivery and distribution of the City's walking map, and secondly, insufficient volunteer support for the operational settup and tear down on Washington Square. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services FY 01-02 — Department For Fiscal Year Early Retirement BA#6 19 Initiative Name Initiative Num ber Steve Fawcett 535-6399 Prepared By Phone Number • Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Year End Expenditure Savings from Department 750,000 Budget that would fall to Fund Balance Total $750,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Risk Management and Insurance Fund Transfer 750,000 from General Fund Total $750,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Early Retirement-Transfer to the Risk 750,000 Management and Insurance Fund Total $750,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Risk Management and Insurance Fund-Early 750,000 Retirement Incentives Total $750,000 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail- 1. Salaries and Wages 750,000 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $750,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in of Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Discussion: The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the transfer of$750,000 in year-end savings from General Fund departments to the Insurance and Risk Administration Fund to fund a portion of the City's Fiscal Year 2002 early retirement expenses. The practice of capturing year- end departmental savings and allocating those savings toward funding the City's retirement incentive program has been approved by the Council in the final budget amendment of each of the past seven fiscal years as it enables General Fund departments to fill vacancies created by retirements as they occur, rather than "holding open" vacant positions until enough savings were achieved to fund the retirement incentive, which can lead to decreases in service levels. Only the actual amount needed will be transferred. In previous years, year-end General Fund departmental savings that have been used to fund early retirement incentive pay are as follows: 1994 = $1,286,000; 1995 = $1,486,000; 1996 = $2,652,000; 1997 = $1,200,000; 1998 = $1,500,000; 1999 = $1,288,600; 2000 = $900,000; and 2001=$4??,???. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for • Budget Development and Budget Amendment Facilities Management FY 01-02 — Department For Fiscal Year Boiler Room Utility Tunnel BA#6 20 Initiative Name Initiative Number Stephen Oliver/Randy Hillier 6163/6353 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change - - - Biennial Period-- -- Proposed- A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund C/P Contingency 42,500 Library GO Bond Proceeds 42,500 Total $85,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund C/P Contingency 42,500 Library GO Bond Proceeds 42,500 Total $85,000 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 85,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $85,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: It is being proposed that a tunnel be designed and built which will allow access from the library parking garage to the adjacent boiler room. This tunnel will allow the equipment to be transported into and out of the boiler room with considerable ease since vehicles can access it through the tunnel. Condition: As currently designed, the boiler room, located next to the Library, has limited access. In order to get larger pieces of equipment in or out of the boiler room will require the use of a hoist attached to rails which will be bolted to the ceiling of the boiler room. When these larger peices of equipment are moved into the proper position, another hoist will then list it through the structure's ceiling louvers and into a truck parked below. This is a very time consuming, labor intensive, and often dangerous method to use. It will also be more difficult to work within the boiler room since power lifts will be too large to haul into the facility and much of the work will need to be done on ladders. Maintenance employees will need to manually carry heavy and awkward equipment and parts up the ladders to where the work is being done. Effect: The cost of the design and construction of the tunnel will be approximately $85,000. Library management has agreed to cover half the cost of the project. It is being proposed that CIP contingency be used to cover the remaining half of the costs. Cause: The boiler room services the entire library block, as well as the City and County Building. Operations and Maintenance of the boiler room is run by the City Facilites Division and is funded by the General Fund. While this is a significant cost up front, it will be of considerable benefit over the 40 year life of the structure. Recommendation: It is recommended that funding be approved to allow for the design and construction of the tunnel from the library parking garage to the boiler room. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services FY 01-02 Department For Fiscal Year Trees on 7th East BA#6 21 Initiative Name Initiative Number Rick Graham/Randy Hillier 7922/6353 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund C/P Contingency ($40,000) Tree Planting on 7th East 40,000 Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 40,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $40,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: This project will entail placing trees and various other water-wise landscaping in the median strip along 7th East from 9th South to 13th South. The landscaping will be similar in nature to the median landscaping along Foothill Boulevard. The CIP contingency funds will be used in conjunction with a state 80/20 matching grant funds as well as donated funds. The required match must be $80,000. Half of that matching amount is in the process of being raised in the form of donations. The appropriation of these CIP Contingency funds will be the remaining $40,000. Funds have been approved by the State for this purpose, and will be available for use on October 1, 2002. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: May 10, 2002 SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 Budget Amendment #6 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget and Policy Analyst Document Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Miscellaneous Type Facts Facts Ordinance The proposed amendment reduces The ordinance is The requested General Fund balance for fiscal year presented to amendment has 2001-2002 by$98,303 to complete the amend the issues related to Olympic Budget reconciliation.The 2001-2002, CIP Funds, remaining$118,500 of General Fund 2002-2003 Grants, Public Contingency will also be depleted. biennial budget. Safety, Public Utilities, and donations to the City. The briefing and discussion of the sixth budget amendment of fiscal years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 is scheduled for May 14, 2002, and a public hearing will be scheduled for a later date. Please note that Issue #16 has been pulled from consideration by the Administration. In an effort to make the review of the budget openings more expedient, Council staff has attempted to categorized budget opening items as follows where possible: • "Housekeeping" -- those items that are strictly accounting actions and do not have policy implications. These include transfers internal to the City. • "Donation" -- those items that are donations that require Council appropriation to be used, are consistent with previous Council discussions, or do not have policy implications. • "Grant providing additional staff resources" - those grants that provide staff resources and require a City match. These generally have policy implications; because they may add a new service or create an expectation that the City will fund the position after the grant has expired. • "Grant requiring existing staff focus" -- those grants that will require th City's existing staff to complete a specific project. (Some of these could have policy implications, since staff involved on these projects have less time to focus on other projects within the scope of their work.) Page 1 MATTERS AT ISSUE • Issue #1: Rental PCs for Administrative Law ($76,970 - IMS Internal Service Fund)The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of available cash in the Information and Management Service (IMS) Internal Service Fund to fund the acquisition of 50 desktop computers and flat screen monitors, and 10 Laser Printers. The Justice Court operation will then rent the computers and printers from IMS over a rental period extending into fiscal year 2004-2005. The Justice Court operation will have rental expenses of$6,921 in fiscal year 2001-2002 and $30,777 in fiscal year 2002-2003 and future years. The budget amendment request is for the IMS fund only. The Justice Court is not requesting additional funding for the computer rental payments. Th transmittal includes the cash effect, budgetary basis effect, and the GAAP effect relating to this transaction. The administration recommends approval of this request to fund the Justice Court computers and printers from available cash in the IMS Service Fund. Issue #2: Postage Rate Increase ($23,000 - IMS Internal Service Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of additional revenue and expenditures due to the increase postage rate increase that went into effect in June 2000. IMS oversees the mail service provided by the Copy Center. Departments are billed actual costs for postage. The increase postage combined with increased volume has resulted in additional revenue and offsetting expenditures that need to be budgeted. The budget amendment requests that$23,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2001-2002 and $25,000 in fiscal year 2002-2003. Issue #3: Donation for the Construction of Liberty Park Tennis Building ($250,000 - CIP Fund) ("Donation") Th Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of a private donation in the amount of$250,000. The donation will be appropriated in the Capital Improvement Program Fund for the construction of a Tennis Building and court lighting at Liberty Park. This project is included in the Liberty Park Master Plan and is planned for construction. One stipulation of the private donation is that the construction of the building occurs in a timely manner. The Public Services Department is continually evaluating the construction schedule of projects in Liberty Park and is in agreement that the planning and construction of the building should move forward in the construction schedule to accommodate the private donation. Issue #4: Increase in the Claims and Damages Budget($70,000- Governmental Immunity Fund)("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of available cash in the Governmental Immunity Fund to fund unbudgeted claims and damages to be paid from the fund. The City maintains a self-insurance program for third party liability claims. If claims have merit, they are paid from the Governmental Immunity Fund. The budgeted amount is $70,000 less than projected actual claims. The Administration Page 2 recommends the $70,000 of allocation of available cash in the fund to the claims expense account to cover the increased claims. As part of the discussion of the 2002-2003 budget, the Council may wish to review the adequacy of the City's contributions to this fund. Issue #5: Building Surveys for Historic Planning ($18,164 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing sta ff focus') The City has received a grant from the State of Utah, Department of Community and Economic Development. The grant is for a historic survey of approximately 1,200 homes and structures in the East liberty Park area. The grant will pay for contractual consulting services. Th grant requires a local match of 50% that will be met with staff time of the Preservation Planners, and other staff time at conferences and training. The Administration requests that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the budget to allow for th facilitation of this grant and the resolution relating to this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Issue #6: Historic Property Public Relations Campaign ($1,483 - Misc. Grant Fund)("Grant requiring existing staff focus') Th City has received a grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The grant is for informational mailings for a public relations campaign relating to historic property and the expansion of the Historic Landmark Commission web page. Th grant requires a 100% local match that will be met with the General Fund portion the Planning Division's public relations campaign. Th Administration requests that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the budget to allow for the facilitation of this grant and the resolution relating to this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Issue #7: Prosecutor's Office VAWA Grant ($21,854 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant providing additional staff resources') Th City has received a grant from the State Office of Crime Victim's Reparations. The grant is used to pay the hourly salary of the Court Victim Advocate position. The grant requires a local match of 25% that will be met with 75 hours of the Program Coordinator's and Financial Monitor's salary and benefits, office equipment and space and other office supplies. The Administration requests that the Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously adopted the resolution for this grant. Page 3 One thousand forty hours (0.5 FTE) of the Court Victim Advocate salary and benefits are paid with this grant. Issue #8: Donation to City to Receive and Install Greek Sculpture ($10,000 - Special Revenue Fund) ("Donation") Th Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of a private donation in the amount of $10,000. The donation will be reimburse the City for the construction of a sculpture base and the installation of a sculpture of the Gr ek God "Prometheus" that was donated to the City from the Country of Gre c for the Olympics. The sculpture is located on the 500 West Park Block at South Temple, directly west of the Gateway Center. The donation allows for the construction of the base, the installation expenses, related fees and a balance of approximately $3,204 to either relocate the statue at a later date or to enhance the landscaped median around th sculpture. Issue #9: 1300 S., 1700 E. to Foothill Boulevard ($34,905 - CIP/Public Utilities Enterprise Fund) ("Housekeeping") Th Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of a transfer in local match allocation from the CIP fund to the Enterprise Funds managed by Public Utilities. The complete local match for the federally funded CIP project on 1300 South was appropriated in the CIP fund. The Administration has prepared an interdepartmental billing to Public Utilities to reimburse the CIP local match cost center for Public Utilities'share of the local match. Issue #10: Landfill Equipment Wash Area ($15,000 - CIP Fund) ("Housekeeping') The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of an additional $15,000 to the Landfill Equipment Wash Area project in the CIP Fund. The City's costs associated with the project are reimbursed by Salt Lake County. Th City is managing the project. This issue has been before the Council several times; this request is for additional funds to complete the project. The scope of the project has not changed. Issue #11: Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trucking Area(HIDTA)- Tw Officers ($84,824 - Misc. Grant Fund) '"Grant providing additional staff jf resources") The City has received a grant from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy. The grant is for the hiring of two additional Officers that will be assigned to metro Narcotics. The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program will provide the Officers with vehicles, special tactical equipm nt, communications equipment and any other supply needs while assigned to M tro Narcotics. The grant requires a local match that will be met with a portion of the Officer's benefits. This amount is currently budgeted within the General Fund portion of the Police Department's budget. --- The Administration requests that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing th Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the Page 4 grant. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the budget to allow for the facilitation of this grant and the resolution relating to this grant. Two additional FTE's are associated with this grant. The Council may wish to clarify whether this $84,824 grant does indeed cover the officer's salaries, vehicles, special tactical equipment, communications equipment and other supply needs. The Council may also wish to clarify the length of time the grant is available, and the possibility of renewal. Issue #12: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program Income ($30,000 - Misc. Grant Fund)("Housekeeping") The City has received Local law Enforcement Block Grant for the past several fiscal y ars. The grant specifies that the grant money be placed in an interest earning account until spent. The grant has accumulated $30,000 in interest that can be reallocated to the approved grant expenditure programs as per the requirements of th grant. The Administration is proposing that the interest income be spent on police equipment relating to the grant. Issue #13: Reimbursed Overtime Expenses ($174,554 - General Fund) ("Housekeeping") The City throughout the year provides police services on an overtime basis for special events and other purposes and is reimbursed for those expenses by outside organizations. This amendment request is to recognize the reimbursement revenue and repay the expenditures that have been made out of the General Fund Overtime R imbursement account. This request is routine in nature and is an ongoing method for reimbursing overtime expenses. Issue #14: Police Corp Reimbursement ($20,000 - General Fund) ("Housekeeping") Th City has received reimbursement revenue from Police Corp (a department associated with the State's Peace officer Standards and Training POST) for the training of recruit officers hired through their program. The reimbursement is routine in nature and is an item that the Council traditionally considers during the last budget opening of each fiscal year. The Police department proposes the purchase of $16,900 in ballistic helmets for police officers and a $3,100 upgrade to the target range in Parley's Canyon as the uses of the Police Corp reimbursement. Issue #15: 5500 W. 2000 S. Realignment ($170,000 - CIP Fund) Th City has received negotiated with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) to fund half the cost of the realignment of approximately 1000 feet of industrial roadway between 2000 and 1730 South. The funding from UDOT is $170,000. The acceptance of this revenue will require Council approval of a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with UDOT. The $170,000 in funding from UDOT is proposed for appropriation into the CIP Fund for the proposed expenditures per the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. Interlocal Cooperation Agreements between government agencies for projects such as this project are routine in nature. Th Council may wish t r ceiv an updat. on - th tatus of th n w traffic signal at 1730 8 uth 5500 W st and th g n ral traffi in th ar a. Page 5 Issue #16: Odyssey H use($65,000 -Misc. Grant Fund) This item has been pulled from consideration by the Administration. • Issue #17: Accounting for a Reimbursement from a lease ($184,526 - General Fund)("Housekeeping") The Department of Public Services purchased some electronic timekeeping equipment. A decision was made in March 2002 to enter into a lease of the equipment. The City has received reimbursement from for amounts previously paid to purchase the equipment. The requested amendment will recognize the purchase reimbursement. The transmittal contains additional details of the transaction. The total reimbursement to the City is $184,526. Issue #18: Olympic Reconciliation ($216,803 - General Fund) Th Administration has completed the reconciliation of the Olympic budget and has noted that the difference between the budgeted and actual revenues and expenses was $216,803. The Administration's paperwork proposed that this deficit amount be appropriated from the contingency account in the General Fund. However, the General Fund contingency only has a balance of$118,500. The Council may wish to appropriate the $118,500 from contingency and $98,303 from fund balance. Additional information concerning this item was presented at an Olympic Budget briefing on May 9, 2002. Issue #19: Early Retirement($750,000-Risk/Insurance Fund) The Administration is requesting an appropriation of $750,000 within the Insurance and Risk Management Fund for early retirement costs primarily from police officers and firefighters. Funding for the costs is from funds already appropriated within each General Fund department. This action has been requested during the last budget op ning of each fiscal year for each of the past seven fiscal years. The Administration will transfer the actual amount only, but is requesting a $750,000 appropriation within the Insurance and Risk Management Fund to cover the anticipated costs through the end of the fiscal year. The exact amount isn't known until the end of the fiscal year. Issue #20: Boiler Room Utility Tunnel($85,000 - CIP Fund) The Administration is recommending the construction of a short vehicle tunnel b tween the Library parking garage and the new boiler room on the library block. The transmittal from the Administration proposes using CIP contingency funds and GO Bond (General Obligation) proceeds for the project. Subsequent to the transmittal the Administration has computed revised GO bond proceed and interest information that indicates that the GO bond proceeds will be sufficient to fully fund this project. Th Council may wish to consider funding this tunnel with GO bond proceeds only. Issue #21: Landscaping on 700 East($40,000 - CIP Fund) Based upon citizen interest, the Administration is recommending the planting of trees and water-wise landscaping in the median strip along 700 East from 900 South to 1300 South. The State is contributing $400,000 to this project that will be available in October of 2002. The State grant requires a match of $80,000. On half of th required local match is proposed to come from donations and one half from CIP contingency. /The Administration will forward any additional requests for budget Page 6 allocation on this project at a later date when the grant from the State is available, if • the State grants the funds to the City for construction. If the State grant and donations do not come to the City, then this will be the extent of the City's involvement in the project minus ongoing maintenance costs for the median strip. Issue #22: CDBG Reallocation of Fund($40,000- CDBG Fund) Please note: The transmittal for this item is attached to Budget Amendment transmittal. Occasionally an organization that receives CDBG, HOME, ESG, or HOPWA funding for a specific purpose desires to convert the funding to a different use. The Administration is seeking approval from the Council to authorize the Mayor to amend contracts for organizations that wish to convert that funding allocation to a different use. The current request before the Council is for Donated Dental Services to use their $21,000 equipment funding allocation for salary and operating expenses. This is for a use other than the applied for purpose. The Council may wish to consider ea h of th se funding reallocation requests on future budget amendments as th r quests occur, rather than allowing the Administration to approve funding reallocation requests. Th attached information for this request was submitted to the Administrati n and forwarded to the Council as a written briefing document. Council staff has added this item to the budget opening because of the funding implications that this information contains. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, David Dobbins, Luann Clark, Rick Dinse, Mac Connole, Jerry Burton, Gordon Hoskins, Stephen Goldsmith, David Oka, Elwin Hellmann, Rick Graham, Greg Davis,Jim Lewis,Leroy Hooten,Joel Harrison,Randy Hillier,Sherrie Collins,Laurie Dillon, Susi Kontgis,and Kay Christensen Page 7 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Cornrnunity&Economic Development 2002 Department For Fiscal Year hTilpOCt'Fee Exemptions Initiative Name Initiative Number ; :::.:::David::Dobbins:: Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1.General Fund Include detail here,add rows if necessary 0 0 0 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Include detail here,add rows if necessary Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Include detail here,add rows if necessary Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Include detail here,add rows if necessary Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund G neral Fund Contingency 156,745 0 0 Total $156,745 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Include detail here,add rows if necessary Total $0 I $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Include detail here,add rows if necessary Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Include detail here,add rows if necessary Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay 6.Other(Specify)Impact Fee Exemptions 156,745 Total $156,745 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issu Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition van s from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Roc mmendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The Impact Fee Ordinance allows for exemptions to the fee for affordable housing and for projects that receive financial support from the City or RDA. When exceptions are made the General Fund must cover the entire amount. Condition: Four entities have received exemptions for their projects. Gary Nordhoff of Crownstone Development has built 6 affordable units, so he has received an exemption of $5340. The Habitat for Humanity has built 3 units and has received a $2670 exemption, and the Utah Opera has received a $7815 exemption. NHS' CityFront Project has received a permit, so the $140,920 impact fee exemption must also be covered. Effect: The General Fund must cover the exemption. Caus : The ordinance outlines this. Recommendation: The General Fund should cover the $156,745 in exemptions. Analyst mments: Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Civilian RevieW Board/Policy Development Specialist SIG03.09 Initiative Name Initiative Number Steve Fawcett 535-6399, Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1.General Fund --'- Total IIIMMMIECI MINIMMEI1 1111110111111101 2.Internal Service Fund --'- Total IIIMMINNELIMMMELIIMIIIIIIELI 3.Enterprise Fund --'- Total IIIIIIMIIIIIELIIMIIMME11111111111111113 4.Other Fund --'- Total 11111111111111113_1� B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Civilian Review Board staff postion 90,500 Policy Development Specialist 91,704 Total Sell 2.Internal Service Fund --,- Total 11111111111111:111INIMMIECIl 3.Enterprise Fund --'- Total 1.111.1.1.103:111111111111111111 4.Other Fund --'- Total 11111111111110111.111ME111 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages (6,704) 2.Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 1,500 4.Charges and Services 2,000 5.Capital Outlay 2,000 6.Other(Specify) Total 1=111MIMELIIIIIIIIME2111111111111101 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Civilian Review Board Staff 1.00 U06 $85,000 Policy Development Specialist -1.00 609 -91704 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This will be a new position in this organization. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: 1.)The City Council will approve an ordinance dealing with the Police Civilian Review Board. The ordinance requires the City to provide an independent Investigator for the Board. 2.) Budgetary policy and review functions through Policy Development Specialists. These positions conduct research and work directly with departments to carryout the budgetary policy. Condition: 1.) There is no longer a function to review these actions. An internal auditor position previously provided an audit of these cases but the position was eliminated as part of the FY2003 budget. The new position will provide to the Board an independent investigation concurrent with the Internal Affairs investigation. The Investigator will participate in the Internal Affairs interviewing sessions, and will evaluate the Police Department process of addressing the complaint. If Internal Affairs has already reviewed a case the Investigator will have access to Internal Affairs files and will make a determination about the process and disposition of the case. The Investigator will be able to request additional investigations. question witnesses, and request that the Internal Affairs Unit representatives interview specific witnesses or collect evidence. 2.) There are currently 4.00 Policy Development Specialists. Effect: 1.) The Investigator will add to the city budget approximately $85,000 for salary and benefits and some operating costs for computer, supplies, office space, etc. 2.) The elimination of one Policy Development Specialist will reduce the research potential by 1/4. Cause: 1.) The board review conducted by the Internal Auditing staff was found to be insufficient. 2.) This position has been vacant for one year. An effort was made to fill it during the year, but the successful candidate changed their mind at the last minute. Recommendation; :1.) Fund an additional position for Civilian Review and::.eliminate a Policy Development Specialist. SALT':LAKE CITY:COUNCIL STAFF REPORT: BUDGET'AMENDMENT ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 DATE: May 10, 2002 BUDGET FOR: MANAGEMENT SERVICES (including IMS Fund) STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, Laurie Dillon and DJ Baxter The General Fund budget that the Council adopted in June 2001 for the Department of Management Services for fiscal year 2002-2003 was $9,192,096. The Mayor is recommending an amendment to decrease the budget by $285,197 to $8,906,899. RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENTS Th following budget amendments are recommended by the Administration: • Reduction in personal services - There is a $253,930 decrease in the budgeted amount for personal services. Actual pay increases and benefit costs are less than the amount estimated in the biennial budget. The Council may wish to note that the Controller position was reclassified from executive position 005 to a 612 level, the Deputy Controller position was eliminated, a Finance Director position was created at an executive level 004 and the Senior Financial Reporting Accountant position was reclassified from 608 to a 610 Budget & Reporting Manager position. The changes and other transfers within the department are noted on the staffing document that was provided in the budget amendment transmittal. (BA03-01) • Justice Court Operating Costs - There is a $34,937 decrease in the budgeted amount for the Justice Court operating costs. This decrease was a result of an evaluation of the adopted fiscal year 2002-2003 Justice Court budget. A reduction in the estimated budget was determined to not have an impact on the service level of the Justice Court. In April 2002, the Council received a briefmg on the Justice Court. Interviews were held for three part-time judge positions. The staffing document does not include these types of part-time positions. The staffing document also continues to show the Administrative Law Judge position, the Administration will make that text change. (BA03-08) • Parking Meter Collection Costs - There is a $4,874 increase in the budgeted amount for parking meter collection. This item is in the City Treasurer Office operating costs. This increase is a result of notification from the Police Department that the methodology that Police uses for billing for the parking meter collection service is changing from an average billing rate to an actual billing rate. (BA03-08) Addition of 1 Investigator position for Police Civilian Review Board - The Administration is revising an ordinance that deals with the Police Civilian Review 1 Board. The ordinance requires the City to provide an independent Investigator for the Board. The addition of an employee with the qualifications that have been mentioned in previous Civilian Review Board briefings will result in an increase of $90,500 in expenditures. (BA03-09) • Elimination of 1 Policy Development Specialist - The Administration is recommending that a vacant Policy Development Specialist position in Management Services be eliminated. The expenditure savings will be $91,704. (BA03-09) Outsourcing Copy Center Services (IMS Internal Service Fund) - The City's Information Management Services (IMS) Division is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of additional revenue and expenditures for the Copy Center Fund relating to outsourcing specific customer requests. IMS oversees operations of the Copy Center. Departments are billed for services provided by the City's Copy Center. The Copy Center has expanded the type of services offered. This requires the Copy Center to use outsource vendors for some services. The amendment requests that the budget for both revenue and expenses be increased by $60,000 for fiscal year 2002-2003. (BA03-26) ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED BUDGETS The synopsis below represents full-time equivalent (FTE) General Fund positions from the Staffing Document followed by a synopsis of General Fund budgets for Management Services. FTEs FTEs Adopted Proposed 2002-03 2002-03 Office of the Director 15.00 11.00 Finance 14.20 18.20 Treasurer's Office 7.00 7.00 Purchasing, Contracts, Property Mgmt. 18.50 18.50 Admin. Enforcement/Justice Court 43.10 43.10 Human Resource Management 15.91 15.91 City Recorder 6.10 6.10 Total 119.81 119.81 2 PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 sed..... t :':>2002»200 >: ' Office of the Director $1,420,742 $(1,204) $1,419,538 Finance 965,803 0 965,803 Justice Court 3,262,219 (30,063) 3,232,156 City Recorder 463,672 0 463,672 Human Resources 1,236,469 0 1,236,469 Purch/Contracts/Prop Mgmt 1,121,181 0 1,121,181 Treasurer 722,010 0 722,010 Personal Services reduction (253,930) (253,930) (all divisions) Total Proposed Budgets $9,192,096 $(285,197) $8,906,899 Director's Office This division is responsible for budget development, planning and research; citywide information exchange; emergency management programs; environmental management; and economic/demographic resources. Finance The Finance Division monitors revenues and accounts payable; prepares quarterly and annual financial statements; and processes payroll for City employees. Justice Court Salt Lake City is moving forward with the establishment of a municipal Justice Court by July 1, 2002. The premise for the Justice Court program is that it will preserve the City's ability to locally adjudicate traffic violations and return community justice services to the local community. A building at 333 South 200 East was recently opened as a court facility City Recorder The City Recorder's Office maintains information and documents necessary for the administration of City government, administers municipal elections, and records and prepares minutes for official City Council meetings. Human Resource Management This division, which includes Labor Relations personnel, is responsible to develop and oversee programs that attract, motivate and retain a skilled, productive work force. Purchasing, Contracts and Property Management This division provides purchasing, contract development/processing and property management services. Treasurer The Treasurer's Division is responsible for the collection, management and disbursement of City funds. 3 LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS The Council has some Legislative Action items outstanding with this Department. A complete list of outstanding Legislative Action items will be provided for Council feedback later in the budget process. 4 .................. ... . .......... SAL' "LAKE CITY°COUNCI STAFF''REPOR `.................. .. ............... BUDGET]AMENDMENT"ANALx3I3 :]FISCAL:YEAR:2.002-03 DATE: May 8, 2002 BUDGET FOR: COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears c: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Margaret Hunt, David Dobbins, Steve Fawcett, Laurie Dillon and DJ Baxter Th budget that the Council adopted in June 2001 for the Department of Community and Economic Development for fiscal year 2002-2003 was $9,758,197. The Mayor is recommending an amendment to decrease the budget by$203,036 to $9,555,161. RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENTS Th following budget amendments are recommended by the Administration: Reduction in personal services - There is a $64,036 decrease in the budgeted amount for personal services. This decrease is due to new retirement rates for the State Pension Fund. (BA03-01) Reduced electricity rates-for- streetlights --There is a $50,000 decrease in the budgeted amount for street light electricity. This decrease is due to Utah Power's request for an electricity rate increase not being approved. The total annual cost of electricity for streetlights is approximately$950,000. (BA03-05) • Elimination of 1 building inspector position - The Building Services & Licensing Division added 2 building inspector positions by budget amendment during fiscal year 2000-2001. The proposed budget amendment includes a decrease of$47,000 and one building inspector position. The position is vacant. The slowing of the economy and the completion of the Olympics may have negated the need for this position. (BA03-06) Elimination of 1 zoning inspector position - The Housing Inspection section of the Housing and Neighborhood Development currently has 7 zoning inspectors. The proposed budget amendment includes a decrease of $42,000 and one zoning inspector position. The elimination will result in a layoff. The demand for this position remains constant. The remaining workload will be allocated among the remaining zoning inspectors. (BA03-07) 1 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED BUDGETS An analysis of the proposed budget amendment by division for the Department of Community and Economic Development is as follows. PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 <:>::>::::: :.: >:<;:::>:: >` ..,;..g.: <:<:»::: .:.:::::�ud et:::::::::. Office of the Director $ 498,773 $0 $ 498,773 Transportation 2,506,519 (50,000) 2,456,519 Building Services&Licensing 2,177,590 (47,000) 2,130,590 Planning 1,552,388 0 1,552,388 Housing and Neighborhood 2,561,142 (42,000) 2,519,142 Development Business Services 461,785 0 461,785 Personal Services reduction (all (64,036) (64,036) divisions) Total Proposed Budgets $9,758,197 $(203,036) $9,555,161 Office of the Director The budget for the Office of the Director is proposed to remain the same as was adopted in June 2001. This division provides coordinated direction and support to carry out the Department's goals and policies. The department director and staff provide management support to the department's five divisions. Management support includes the following tasks: coordinating policy discussions with the City Council, setting and monitoring the department's budget, coordinating programs and initiatives that require interdepartmental cooperation, establishing and implementing departmental goals, reviewing requests for offsets and appeals regarding the City's impact fees and staffing the Land Use Appeals Board. The Office of the Director has 5 FTE positions. Transportation The budget for the Transportation Division is proposed to remain the same as was adopted in June 2001 for programs and personnel costs. There is a recommended reduction of $50,000 in the street lighting budget for electricity costs. This division provides planning services and design review for the City's transportation system, manages the City's permit parking program, investigates and recommends changes to traffic controls, issues permits pertaining to the use of public right-of-way, and administers the City's traffic calming program. The program also ensures that streetlights on roadways and in residential, business, and entertainment areas are operational. Transportation has 19 FTE positions. • 2 Building Services and Licensing The budget for the Building Services and Licensing Division is proposed to decrease by $47,000 in the recommended budget amendment for fiscal year 2002-2003. This division ensures that businesses and contractors comply with licensing requirements, and that state and local codes for new construction are enforced. This division has 35 FTE positions. The Mayor is recommending the elimination of one building inspector position. Planning Th budget for the Planning Division is proposed remain the same as was adopted in June 2001. This division provides planning for the City to guide its future development. Community planning provides a comprehensive linkage between the master plan, zoning, and development. The City's urban design goals are established and implemented within the Planning Division. The division also provides nvironmental reviews of proposed development projects. Planning staff provides support to the Historic Landmark Commission, the Planning Commission, the City Administration, and the City Council. This division has 23 FTE positions. Housing & Neighborhood Development The budget for the Housing & Neighborhood Development Division is proposed to decrease by $42,000 in the recommended budget amendment for fiscal year 2002- 2003. The Capital Planning and Programming Section of this division administers --- various grant programs: Department of Housing and Urban Development grants, Justice Department grants, Neighborhood Matching grants, Environmental Protection Agency grants, and State and County grants. They ensure that grant funds are spent on appropriate and eligible projects, and are responsible for all the fmancial, monitoring, and reporting requirements. Capital Planning has 6 FTE positions. The Housing Development Services Section of this division conducts the residential r habilitation and first-time homebuyer's assistance programs. The programs assist in the preservation and development of affordable housing stock in the City. Housing has 12 FTE positions. Th Housing Inspection Section of this division is responsible for housing and zoning enforcement. Division staff provides support to the Community Developm nt Advisory Committee and the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. There are 21 FTE positions in this section. The Mayor is recommending the elimination of one zoning inspector position. Business Services Th budget for the Business Services Division is proposed to remain the same as adopted in June 2001. This division is comprised of the Special Events coordinating staff, the Salt Lake City Arts Council and Business Services. Primary goals include processing special event requests within the City, raising awareness of the role of the arts in the community through programs, grants and education, and increasing the viability of businesses. The division serves as an ombudsman, helping businesses through the various City processes and recruiting new businesses to the community. The small business revolving loan fund is marketed through this division, which also maintains close ties with the Economic Development Corporation of Utah, the State 3 Division of Community and Economic Development, and the Downtown Alliance to ensure businesses are encouraged to locate and remain within the City. The division also staffs the Business Advisory Board, which acts as an advisory board to the Administration and the City Council. This division has 7 FTE positions. A question the Council could ask - what impact did the Olympics have on this division re: business licensing and special permits; is the workload anticipated to decrease; is there a potential to reduce the allocation of resources to this area? - temporary help was hired during the Olympics, so this may not be relevant. Analysis by Major Category Level The expenditure budget for the Community and Economic Development Department (CED) for fiscal year 2002-2003 is proposed to decrease $139,000 over the adopted budget for fiscal year 2002-2003. The recommended budget amendment budget for fiscal year 2002-03 by major category is as follows: P rsonal Services: The recommended budget amendment includes compensation adjustments for eligible employees, as well as a net decrease to the staffing document of two full-time positions in fiscal year 2002-2003. The Mayor is recommending the elimination of one zoning inspector (layoff) and one building inspector (vacant). No additional positions are requested for fiscal year 2002-2003. The total budget reduction for this area is the sum of the salary and benefits for the two FTEs that are b ing proposed for elimination, $89,000. Materials & Supplies: The recommended budget amendment does not propose changes to the adopted budget for this category. This category has been decreased in previous budget years. Charges for Services: The recommended budget amendment for materials and supplies decreases by $50,000 over the fiscal year 2002-2003 adopted budget. The recommended budget reduction for this area a result of lower than anticipated lectricity costs for street lighting, $50,000. The recommended budget amendment does not proposed changes to the adopted budget for this category. Capital Outlay: The recommended budget amendment does not proposed changes to th adopted budget for this category. LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS The following legislative intent statements for the Community and Economic Development Department remain open. The Council may wish to indicate whether these open items should be closed (no longer monitored by Council staff or the Administration). • Economic Development Corporation of Utah - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration coordinates with the Economic Development Corporation of Utah to provide semiannual written information to the Council regarding the accomplishments of EDCU that benefits to Salt Lake City. (Note - 4 a report has recently been provided - would the Council like to schedule a more detailed discussion?) Potential Matters At Issue • The Council may wish to discuss the service level desired by Council Members with regard to the traffic-calming program. Funding for traffic calming funding was adopted within the CIP budget in fiscal year 2002-2003 in the amount of $250,000. In previous fiscal years, the budget for traffic calming was at the $500,000 funding level. The 5 Year CIP Plan indicates a higher funding level in future years. • The travel and training budget is very limited in this department due to previous reductions. This could potentially affect the Department's ability to provide training to new board members, particularly Planning and Zoning Commission Members (currently only one Member is able to attend the annual American Planning Association conference, yet there are many new Members of the Commission). • The Council has some Legislative Action items outstanding with this Department. A complete list of outstanding Legislative Action items will be provided for Council feedback later in the budget process. 5 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 DATE: May 8, 2002 SUBJECT: Overview of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Amendment STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Gary Mumford c: Mayor Anderson, Cindy Gust-Jenson, David Nimkin, Rocky Fluhart,Roger Cutler, Rick Graham,LeRoy Hooton, Rick Dinse,Margaret Hunt, Chuck Querry,Tim Campbell,Steve Fawcett, Laurie Dillon, Kay Christensen, Susi Kontgis,Randy Hillier,DJ Baxter On-going General Fund revenues for fiscal year 2002-2003 are projected to b less than originally budgeted by $2,379,587. The amendment proposes offsetting the shortfall by reducing service levels in some cases (including eliminating several full-time positions). The Mayor proposes funding several projects from one-time revenue: • $4,000,000 for Library Square improvements • $3,000,000 to establish a youth program endowment • $ 150,000 for youth program operating costs • $ 400,000 as matching funds for purchase of Houser sculptures • $ 700,000 to provide Olympic legacy projects in neighborhoods • $ 724,716 for a CIP contingency account for a future project. General Fund Revenue PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 tt�� Y. 5 £ TPM 2 F F" , (( Icf#>F ff F R2 . . f•4 ; G (({{{ . i f fg ON .i'mzsozO$ Pro• -rt taxes $81,269 545 W P° ERA=1 $58 712,072 Sales and use taxes 39,043 833 22 40 151,328 Franchise taxes 19,811 066 Er,:irigaf,10> 20 834 775 Pa ment in lieu of taxes 876 592 `f<{ ""_"_ _`£`=`sane <` 935,960 iSF€F€ t�2ui�€ i tf.z..t:.E Licenses and •,rmits 10,503,170 g‘,€€i '_, IE i 9 653 041 lnte !ovemmental revenue 4,147 922 E ,_,{€ �la 3 969 115 Cha !es for services 3,355,034 raltialligiNI 2,805,110 Parkin! 1,288,500 "I-hiS M•. a!1,1 1 370 000 Fines and forfeitures 7 880,851 ETEMEMIll 7 920 500 Interest income 3,250 600 Earzamigin 2 900 000 Administrative fees to other Cit funds 7,374 721 Ei; _ i , , , i 7 167 713 Miscellaneous revenue 774,854 illibit!rgiffEd 729,929 Interfund transfers in 2 365,540 Egargataarai 2 419 804 One-time revenue 6,459,305 ;," .I rig 8,974,716 Total General Fund Revenue $168,408,239 €=£ I1 ; :008...4�i,} $168,544,063 Property tax: The estimated revenue from motor vehicle fees is $1,500,000 less than originally projected. The Mayor stated that the City will request an audit of the distribution process. A reevaluation of property values for RDA tax increment properties negatively affected the City's property tax revenues. Sales tax: Utah Transit Authority has agreed to forward to the City sales tax distribution not required to support east-west light rail. This will be approximately $600,000 annually. A one-time payment of approximately $1,800,000 will be made to the City for past amounts collected (see one-time revenue discussed below). The proposed amendment also reflects additional sales taxes of$507,495 based on projections. Licenses: Business license revenue is projected to be about $500,000 greater than originally projected in the biennial budget based on current year actual licenses. Permits: Building permits, impact fees, and other permit revenue are expected to be less than originally budgeted by about $1,350,000 because of the slowing of the economy. Charges for services: The Administration is proposing to outsource the impound lot which will result in a reduction of impound fee revenue as well as corresponding costs. Rental and concession fees and other public services fees are estimated to be less than originally projected. Parking: The Administration is proposing a fee of$50 per day for bagging parking meters or temporarily removing meters. Current fees are $10 per meter for th first day; $5 per day for a maximum of 15 days; and $3 per day thereafter. The Mayor expressed that the $50 per day fee may increase the number of parking spaces • available to the public because contractors or others may not keep the meters bagged for extended periods. Administrative fees: Enterprise and internal service funds reimburse the General Fund for services provided by General Fund departments. One reason the revenue is projected to be less than originally budgeted is because the Airport is proposing to hire its own police superintendent rather than reimburse the General Fund for the loan of a police chief. One-time revenue: • $ 240,695 1/64th sales tax reimbursement - The budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 included $4,149,305 for reimbursement of the sales tax loan for Olympic venues. The actual amount is estimated to be about $4,400,000. • $1,800,000 Reimbursement from UTA from a sales tax distribution not required to support east-west light rail. • $ (270,832) SLOC reimbursement of Salt Lake Sports Complex - The budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 included $2,300,000 for reimbursement from SLOC for the Salt Lake Sports Complex. The actual amount is $2,029,168. 2 • $ 177,957 Debt service reserve - Surplus funds in the Special Improvement District Debt Service Guarantee account are available for appropriation. • $ 567,591 One-time savings from refinancing the City & County Building bonds - In connection with refinancing the bonds for restoration of the City & County Building, there was a one-year savings of$567,591 in addition to on-going savings each year. The one-time savings was placed in a CIP account and is available for appropriation. At the May 7, 2002 meeting, the Council requested that staff review the Administration's revenue projections. Council staff will meet with the Administrative staff to review methodology and all available data. Based upon that additional review, the Council can determine whether additional outside review by a professional revenue analyst is of interest. General Fund Expenditures The proposed amendments to the fiscal year 2002-2003 budget for the General Fund are summarized in the following chart: PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 €f�%ItE;�'#�<� ;'4 eF##i`�_ �3 S R3 t t>e ti;g t; 3 71§t� a3j>'€+ £# t Eis,£ �tIEE t #� £.#t#£F'€t..s si i ;s,, ; 1 IE�f#t3 Z >t`� , s ? i figE<t;�( 7 ",I€ ,:i�7„ 1":,1',r F.k{g#Fi F€> { s t; j £ 2 iif i i �EF �t !t€ � 3( #,£;s£ • c • • < . € F 3£3s� s I jj s £ SS EEE ikl OWNY MIti¢ � y EEE �� z • ,• # s� 3s��fri{f.rss f sU itT'#Sd3 SsR'.:i 1-:I :•.I'': > Cit Attome 's Office $ 2,616,056 #1, I $ 2,583,730 Communit &Economic Develo•ment 9,758,197m 9,555,161 Fire 27,003,008 Valtalandl 26,759,046 Mina!ement Services 9,192,096 ijigir `:'ng 8,906,899 Police 42,604,364 attf &gm, 6',,` 42,525,705 Public Services 29,803,376 s 29,441,003 Mayor's Office 1,600,032 illterMild 1,582,831 Cit Council Office 1,656,926 MINSIONNIS 1,556,926 Non Departmental 36,694,396 EMEEMIKEN 45,632,762 Increase to fund balance 5,579,786 .t011:lI' <" ;: :,,,,1! - Total General Fund Expenditures $168,408,239 _` 3 MUM $168,544,063 3 The proposed changes to the number of authorized full-time-equivalent positions within the General Fund are as follows: PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENT POSITIONS FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 kLN>ra#tt�f kS.VAMERNrd.";7410E7ER #" .Nhkk"k Vfiar4;1:117:1Rar; f kx, j 5 .£#k nit i'`Ea:10$001litigB i i i WISPOWN/ 10 Aorta r. i3 #£ i • 1 s t44.444-( E . bcletta # I Cit Attome is Office 30.29 110223 30.29 [3SitluLas t:1a.•rit n inc Dc vra t•]1u13il 129 rlitgirKIORA 127 Fire 365 iniaisamiro 360 Mana.ement Services 119.81 £„ ;,.2,#£ 119.81 Police 586.65 2€k r=u 577.65 Public Services 429.76 r'2'#k2 . "0 418.13 Ma or's Office 19 EL 19 Cit Council Office 19 *Zinikg 19 Total General Fund Ex.-nditures 1,698.54 M 27166f 1678.88 Staff has added underlined notes in areas that the Council may want to discuss in greater detail during Department budget reviews. City Attorney's Office: • $ 57,535 -Additional associate city prosecutor position to assist with workload-The number of new case filings has increased to an average of 1,500 to 1,600 per prosecutor. The Administration indicates that the prosecutors spend more time with each case because the City Prosecutor has set minimum thresholds of performance and accountability. In addition, they indicate that the transition to a justic court will require prosecutors to prosecute existing caseload already in place at the District Court as well as begin to prosecute cases in the Justice Court. When the Justice Court was established there was an indication that this change would allow the City to use its existing resources (prosecutor and police) more efficiently. A major efficiency will be obtained because the travel time of walking between the office and the District Court will b eliminated. Scheduling problems will also be significantly reduced by the City's court. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to address this need with part-time or temporary resources until the Justice Court is fully operational. • $(54,100) - Costs associated with process service can be further reduced as a result of switching from using contracted constables for delivering documents to mailing the documents. The Council may wish to request information on how chronic problem cases are handled. 4 • $(62,000) - Eliminate a senior attorney position that inadvertently was included in the biennial budget-This position has never • been filled. • $ 26,239 -Adjustment for employee pay increases and benefit costs is greater than the amount estimated in the biennial budget. Much if this increase is due to the City's health insurance rates that are increasing by 11%. Community & Economic Development: • $(47,000) - Eliminate a building inspector position (vacant). • $(42,000) - Eliminate a zoning inspector position (layoff) • $(50,000) - Utilities • $(64,036) - Employee actual pay increases and benefit costs are slightly less than the amount estimated in the biennial budget. Fire: • $(125,000) -Eliminate dedicated staffing of CERT program (3 FTEs through attrition). The Council may wish to clarify the role the Red Cross might play in this program. • $(118,962) - Employee actual pay increases and benefit costs are less than the amount estimated in the biennial budget. (2 FTEs layoff) Management Services • $( 34,937) -Justice court operating costs • $ 4,874 - Parking meter collection costs • $ 90,500 -Investigator position for police civilian review board • $( 91,704) -Eliminate policy development specialists (vacant) • $(253,930) -Employee actual pay increases and benefit costs are less than the amount estimated in the biennial budget. Police • $(208,000) - Eliminate four of five youth &family specialist positions (layoffs) -The Youth and Family program began under a federal grant to help combat the potential for at-risk youth to become involved in criminal activity. Although some of the services may be able to be provided by other agencies, the Department states that no other state, county or school program provides the same service level. • $( 49,000) - Eliminate one of five civilian community mobilization specialists (layoff) - Community Mobilization Specialists work with the Community Action Team to identify long- term solutions to neighborhood problems. • $( 12,160) - Eliminate mobile watch coordinator police officer position (vacant) -The Administration deleted most of the funding for this position to meet the 1% proportional cut to the budget. This reduction deletes the rest of the position's 5 funding. The coordination of mobile watch will be accomplished by police officers. • $( 31,000) - Eliminate one of three service desk technicians (layoff or possible transfer to other vacancy within department) -The service desk window provides copies of police reports, prepares releases of impounded vehicles and other services -to the public. Fewer employees may mean more wait time for citizens. • $( 45,000) - Shift janitorial expenses to Public Services-This appropriation is proposed to be transferred to the Public Services Department since that Department is responsible for janitorial services in the Public Safety Building. • $ 266,501 - Employee actual pay increases and benefit costs-The budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 included a 3% increase. Actually negotiated costs and increases to health insuranc premiums require additional appropriations. Public Services • $ 45,000 -Janitorial expenses transferred from Police Department • $ 83,000 -Increased costs of water for parks • $ 20,531 - Increased costs of waste disposal for parks • $ 27,514 - Price increase for contact security in parks • $ 90,963 -Increased costs for utilities in City owned facilities • $ 24,000 -Water and maintenance per gateway area agreement • $ 33,905 -Youth and family program seasonal staff • $( 19,928) -Reduce materials used in graffiti removal program • $( 39,624) -Reduce electrical power used on traffic lights • $( 24,996) -Eliminate hazardous waste funds • $( 14,500) -Transfer all of an accountant's costs to the Golf Fund • $( 56,340) - Eliminate engineer III position (vacant) • $( 54,696) -Eliminate gardening staff at international peace gardens (4.41 FTEs) • $(230,900) - Eliminate early retirement budget - The Council may wish to discuss this further, to ensure that potential retirem nts are funded in each Department. Last year the Council was asked to add funds to cover these expenses mid-year. • $( 45,132) - Eliminate equipment operator position (vacant) • $ 128,468 -Take over part of Jordan River Trail and Cottonwood Park from State (3 FTEs) • $ 50,000 -Take over youth programming at par 3 golf course from state • $(386,636) - Outsource impound lot operating (layoff 5 positions August 31, 2002, 1.83 FTE seasonal) • $(139,762) - Eliminate in-house architects program (layoff 2 positions) • $ 146,760 - Employee actual pay increases and benefit costs are greater than the amount estimated in the biennial budget. 6 Non-Departmental: • $ 4,000,000 -Transfer one-time funds to the CIP fund for Library Square improvements-To provide additional funding for the open space on the east side of the Library Square. • $ 3,000,000 -To use one-time funds to establish an endowment for youth programs-Interest earned on the investments will supplement youth programs in Salt Lake City. • $ 150,000 - Use of one-time funds for operations of youth programs- To continue funding of after-school and summer programs for youth. • $ 700,000 -Use of one-time funds for Olympic Legacy projects in neighborhoods-Funding for at least seven projects throughout City neighborhoods for a lasting legacy of the Olympic Winter Games. • $ 400,000 -Use one-time funds to match private donations to possibly retain two of the Houser sculptures-Several Alan Houser sculptures were displayed on Washington Square before and during the Olympics. A donation effort is under way. • $ 724,716 -Transfer one-time funds to a CIP contingency account- These funds could be used for a future project. • $(1,879,552) -Reduce transfer to CIP to 9%-Previously, the Council appropriated $1,879,552 of revenue to deferred capital projects that was in addition to 9% of General Fund revenue. The Mayor proposes transferring these funds, along with other funding, to youth program endowment, Library Square, and other projects. The budget maintains the 9% of on-going General Fund revenue to CIP. Because these funds have been appropriated for specific projects, the Council may wish to review this in some detail. • $ (233,000) -The budget amendment recommends reducing the $350,000 appropriation for the neighborhood matching grant program by $233,000 to $117,000. Current year remaining funds of$233,000 are proposed to provide $350,000 for fiscal year 2002-2003. This is a departure from Council policy. One-time savings should be used for one-time projects rather than on-going programs. If the Council wishes to continue this program in fiscal year 2003-2004, it will need to identify $233,000 in on-going revenue in order to maintain its policy. 7 • $ 15,000 - Participation in Salt Lake Community College community television project-This would be a Countywide project to provide community information to the public and visitors at hotels/motels. (This project is not public access TV.) • $ 8,000 -Employee actual pay increases and benefit costs - Projected costs are greater than the amount included in • the biennial budget for employees working in the Insurance and Risk Management Fund. The General Fund supports most of the costs of employees of this internal service fund. • $ 20,000 -Increase in cost of property insurance -The cost for property insurance has significantly increased since September 11 th. The General Fund's share of the increases are estimated to be $20,000. (The City is self- insured in liability insurance and vehicle damage repair.) • $ 33,000 -Increase in cost of health insurance for City's share of cost for retirees-The City pays approximately 25% of retired employees health insurance costs. These costs have increased $33,000 more than originally estimated. Appropriation to General Fund balance: • $(5,579,786) -The Council previously appropriated $5,579,786 to be added to fund balance (rainy-day account). The amendment proposes to use these funds for one-time projects. The City's fund balance is at about$19 million, which is approximately 12% of on-going revenue. Airport Fund (enterprise fund) AIRPORT FUND PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT Fiscal Year 2002-2003 xv "Eri i....I: ' :'> K: Y 3 t. "Weak i r i. s -..U. ..... ..4 ,.... .. Operating revenue $102,886,800 ....$ 0131 504}, $ 93,755,300 Operating expenses 62,604,500 (739,500) 61,865,000 Net operating income 40,282,300 18 392 O00 31,890,300 Grants,passenger facility charges,and other non- 61,096,200 12,403,000 73,499,200 operating income Funds available for capital improvements $101,378,500 $ ;4 111000 $105,389,500 Capital improvements $ 16,289,600 .....$21 12 200.. $ 38,081,800 New development program 41,126,000 {9,586,000) 31,540,000 Equipment 3,517,400 {11734,500) 1,782,900 • Debt service 15,667,200 (2,319 500) 13,347,700 Increase to reserves 24,778,300 i4,14120Ol 20,637,100 Total capital outlay,debt service&increased reserves $101,378,500 $4,011,000 $105,389,500 8 • The proposed amendment reflects a reduction in net operating income of $8,392,000 from the original fiscal year 2002-2003 budget is primarily a result of September 11th. • Operating expenses are proposed.at exactly the same level as the fiscal year 2001-2002 budget, which is a decrease of$739,500 from the original adopted budget for fiscal year 2002-2003. This is noteworthy since eleven new security positions were added during the year by budget amendment. • Nine security-related projects are proposed to be added to the capital improvement budget totaling $7,130,000. These projects will be 90% funded by federal grants. • Several capital projects are proposed to be delayed because of the projected decreases in revenue.. Note: The Department of Airports continues to refine the schematic design of a new terminal complex and continues to work with the airlines to obtain their commitments. Golf Fund (enterprise fund) The recommended budget amendment for the Golf Fund includes the addition of a groundskeeper (1 FTE) for the Forest Dale Golf Course. The $34,091 in necessary funding for this position is proposed to come from a reduction in operating costs in the Golf Fund. The total overall fiscal affect of this proposal is $0. Budget Amendment initiative BA03-28 has additional information concerning the necessity of this proposed position. The recommended budget amendment also includes an increase of $223,990 to fund the operation of the Jordan River Golf Course. Green fees, Golf Fund reserves and a transfer of $50,000 from the General Fund (Grant from the PGA for the operation of the Jordan River Golf Course) are the proposed funding sources for this golf course. This course is expected to require more than $93,990 from the Golf Fund reserves in fiscal year 2002-2003. The Jordan River Golf Course is the course that the State has offered to the City. The Administration is interested in preserving the green space for current and future public use and recommends approval of budget amendment initiative BA03-29. The Council may wish to review th health of the fund reserves to ensure that it remains adequate. This proposal uses fund reserves for ongoing operating expenses. A rate increase or some other revenue source would have to be adopted if the Council did not want to use fund reserves for this purpose. Refuse Collection Fund (enterprise fund) The recommended budget amendment for the Refuse Fund includes the addition of .50 FTE Ground Arborist (RPT to FTE) and 2.04 FTE Seasonal. The total proposed staffing additions are estimated to cost $80,953. With the implementation of automated curbside recycling, an increase in recycling activity has occurred. A reduction in the amount of weekly refuse containers has resulted from the increased recycling efforts. Revenue from weekly refuse pick up 9 cans and landfill fees have resulted in an $180,763 reduction. Overall adjustments to the Refuse Fund have resulted in an increase in Fund Balance of$388,367 and $207,604 in changes to the operating fund. Budget amendment initiative BA03-30 has a detailed summary of the proposed changes. _ Water Fund (enterprise fund) WATER FUND PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT } F < `5 xxvi Fiscal Year 2002-2003 <{ >5'S5'd:` 5 5r?> y►j<�,,,-i 21,r'>•{S£>k>4 '4 4"`".1 _e{:2 2.S<Q Revenue $44,211,020 $ 500 000€€ $44,711,020 Use of cash reserves 5,468,401 .9;329%430€' 14,797,831 Total revenue&other sources $49,679,421 $9082940€€ $59,508,851 Operating expenses $29,408,981 -.. $ 26;000ii $29,434,981 Capital improvements 13,638,590 9;7204311i 23,359,020 Vehicles&equipment 1,831,850 $$MOGii 1,914,850 Debt service 4,800,000 4,800,000 Total expenses&capital outlay $49,679,421 $901290430; $59,508,851 • The majority of the proposed budget amendment relates to accelerating the .,._. upgrades to the City Creek Water Treatment Plant. • The Department is requesting that the Fluoridation costs that were included in the 2001-2002 Budget be transferred to fiscal year 2003 plus addition funding of$855,000 for additional improvements for a total of$1.5 million. • Water lines installed by developers (estimated not to exceed$500,000)will be recorded as revenue rather than contributed capital in accordance with Statement #34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. • Postage expenses for mailing water bills are estimated to cost an additional $26,000 because of a postal rate increases. • Capital projects include $120,000 for water conservation projects. They include demonstration gardens at Day Riverside Library, Washington Square, and the front of the Utilities Administration Building. • The Department promotes conservation through education (written materials included with utility bill and mass communication) and by higher rat s during summer months. The Administration is considering other options to encourage conservation including rate restructuring. Note: In June 2001, the Council approved four separate water rate increases to finance the Metropolitan Water District's capital improvement program. A 4% rate increase is schedule to be effective on July 1, 2002. 10 Sew r Fund (enterprise fund) SEWER FUND PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT Fiscal Year 2002-2003 ............. ....... . . ........ Adopted .... .ttoposed Proposed • Budget Amendment Budget evenue $15,962,000 . :::_1 001).D $17,116,000 and proceeds - 23000000 25,000,000 se of cash reserves 7,810,257 (6 360:600)ii 1,659,657 Total revenue as other sources $23,772,257 ii€$20 003 . ::::: $43,775,657 perating expenses $ 9,230,757 : $ $ 9,230,757 apital improvements 10,475,700 2:1503400..... 31,979,100 chides&equipment 1,040,800 - 1,040,800 ebt service 3,025,000 11;099.9000Iii 1,525,000 Total Expenses 8s Capital Outlay $23,772,257 $20;003 400.... $43,775,657 ' • The Department of Public Utilities is requesting that the bond previously budgeted to be issued in fiscal year 2001-2002 be transferred to fiscal year 2002-2003. The $25 million bond issue is to pay for upgrading the water reclamation treatment plant and other capital improvements. • The amendment proposes delaying a $3 million sewer trunk line until #' additional studies and evaluations can take place. • Sewer lines installed by developers(estimated not to exceed$500,000)will be recorded as revenue rather than contributed capital in accordance with Statement #34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Note: The Council approved a six-year incremental sewer rate increase in June 2000. A 9% rate increase is schedule to be effective on July 1,2002. Storm Water Fund (enterprise fund) - STORMWATER FUND PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget Amendment Budget Revenue $ 5,804,490 * 7'90#709 $ 6,601,199 Bond proceeds 9,000,000 - 9,000,000 Total revenue&other sources $14,804,490 O 790009 $15,601,199 Operating expenses $ 2,857,862 $ 2,857,862 Capitalimprovements (2t446 WO)€€ 5,505,200 7 951 200 ........... ... Vehicles&equipment 484,000 • - 484,000 Debt service 900,000 • ---(525MOOP 375,000 Increase to reserves 2,611,428 3 707;709 6,379,137 Total expenses,capital outlay &increase to reserves $14,804,490 7g0)7.:0p : $15,601,199 11 • The Stormwater Fund budget continues plans to issue bonds in fiscal year 2002-2003 for about$9 million to help finance stormwater projects. Debt service can be reduced by$525,000 because the Department anticipates issuing the bonds later in the fiscal year rather than at the beginning. _ • The 900 South project from 700 East to the Jordan River is delayed until fiscal year 2003-3004 to correspond with the revised street reconstruction schedule. • Stormwater lines installed by developers (estimated not to exceed$500,000)will be recorded as revenue rather than contributed capital in accordance with Statement #34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. • Stormwater fee revenue is estimated to be$296,709 greater based on more recent history of actual receipts. Intermodal Hub Fund (enterprise fund) No changes are proposed to the adopted budget. Fleet Management Fund (internal service fund) No changes are proposed to the adopted budget. Information Management Services Fund (internal service fund) The recommended budget amendment for the IMS internal service fund proposes expenditure and offsetting revenue for the out-sourcing for special services at the Copy Center. The total cost for these services are anticipated to be $60,000. Offsetting revenue is obtained at the time of service. This program was included in the fiscal year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 budgets. This is a continuation of this item. BA03-26 budget amendment initiative contains additional information on this proposal. Governmental Immunity Fund (internal service fund) No changes are proposed to the adopted budget. Insurance and Risk Management Fund (internal service fund) INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT FUND PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 1.!°Amendment Budget Premiums and transfers in from $22,147,282 ..--$(19>OOO)' $22,128,282 other funds Operating expenses $22,139,345 $093/00)1i $22,109,282 Increase of reserves 7,937 - 7,937 Total expenses 8s capital outlay $22,147,282 °°° _$(19 O00): $22,128,282 12 • $ 140,000 -Increase in cost of property insurance -The cost for property insurance has significantly increased since September 11 th. Funding is proposed to come from the following funds: $20,000 from the General Fund; $90,000 from the Airport; $30,000 from Public Utilities. • $ 41,000 -Adjustment for employee pay increases and benefit costs is greater than the amount estimated in the biennial budget. Much if this increase is due to the City's health insurance rate that are increasing by 11%. • $(200,000) -To correct error in biennial budget-The proposed biennial budget included $200,000 to create a self- insurance pool to cover liability from off-duty vehicle accidents. The Council chose not to adopt this approach. The transfer from the General Fund was removed from the adopted budget, but the appropriation in the Risk and Insurance Fund unintentionally remained. Copy Center Fund (internal service fund) No changes are proposed to the adopted budget. Special Improvement District Debt Service Fund (dept service fund) No changes are proposed to the adopted budget. Other Improvements Debt Service Fund (dept service fund) No changes are proposed to the adopted budget. Community Development Block Grant Operating Fund (special revenue fund) Budget amendment initiatives BA03-34, BA03-35, BA03-36 and BA03-37 deal with reductions in the amounts of Federal funds received into the CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA grant programs. The reductions for each were: CDBG - $210,700, ESG - $2,000, HOME - $4,000 and HOPWA - $41,000. E911 Fund (special revenue fund) No changes are proposed to the adopted budget. Housing Loans and Trust Fund (special revenue fund) No changes are proposed to the adopted budget. 13 Miscellan ous Grants Operating Fund (special revenue fund) No changes are proposed to the adopted budget. Miscellaneous Special Service Districts Fund (special revenue fund) No changes are proposed to the adopted budget for the Downtown Economic Development Fund. The City contracts with the Downtown Alliance to provide these services. Street Lighting Special Assessments Fund (special revenue fund) No changes are proposed to the adopted budget. Other Special Revenue Fund (special revenue fund) No changes are proposed to the adopted budget. Note: The National League of Cities has selected Salt Lake City to host the National League's annual conference in December 2002. The Administration plans to solicit contributions for the host City costs associated with the conference. The proposed budget doesn't include any General Fund appropriations for the conference. The Council may wish to request a report on the status of the planning and fundraising. The amount the City needs to raise is approximately $800,000. The u..- Administration may wish to discuss contingency plans with the Administration, should the fundraising goals not be met by a specified date. Capital Projects Fund (CIP) The budget amendment for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund for fiscal year 2002-2003 is proposed as the following tables indicate. The tables contain the fiscal information of budget amendment initiatives BA03-18, BA03-19, BA03-20 and BA03-21. The initiatives contain additional text information regarding the proposed reduction to the 9% of on-going General Fund revenue amount and the proposed uses of one-time money. 14 . . 1 FY 2002-2003 CIP Listing!with the New OF Revenue Numbers 2002-2003 Budget 2002-2003 Budget Mayor's Board Staff Project Name Project Description (Current) (Mayor's Proposed) Ranking Ranking Ranking On-Going General Fund 1992-93 CIP Bond Debt Tenth-year debt service payment on a twenty-two-year commitment for a bond $5,004,872 $4,775,126 NA NA NA Service used to complete various capital improvements throughout the City. City&County Building Twelfth-year debt service payment on a twenty-year commitment for a bond used $2,428,496 $2,428,496 NA NA NA Debt Service to rehabilitate and refurbish the City&County Building. Library GO Bond Debt Fourth year debt service on Ubrary/MHJ Block Renovation. $6,817,883 $6,817,883 NA NA NA Service Justice Court Bldg Bond First year debt service on the Justice Court Building. $150,693 $150,693 NA NA NA Debt Service , - Construct various Police,Fire,Park,Road capital improvement projects Identified impact Foe Projects $750,000 $650,000 NA NA NA in the llnjpact fee analysis Capital Facilities Plan. ' , .'''. . '•'••• • '' ' Cantiniietion ot Phase:It of rearmitniatiOir 4041614er road inairding Orirbinti..'' •''. •' • '. ''• •''' ''• ..... . .. .... ..... . ... .. .. .. ..• • Otripliiii Ind Oigniiiiii; li!iltili hi&COnOrrit*bike:path and:other voricrett walki Ili a2.in 000 .,,... Uberrit Park • i• , $2;1MA° •••.......1 A the Perk:]Replace ie*Itint;storM:drain:system,:eenitarY Ilsvfor sYstoilt,and water, ...... settoloo itiyat .... -- . A " , -'Amount Moved to OYi02. $400000 .,,,:::--.' ••••:•:Amount Remaining After:Move 'Si i/nt000 ... .• ADA i i Ramps it Comer C.onstruct various ADA pedestrian]imps: and related]repairs:to oomers;:including . ow:000 $350;000 2 2: .......:.2 iH H .•:::Repairs ...........sidewalk curbii and gutter.. , •.•••• Amount Moved to FY 02 - $200000. • -.. .... ..............•.••• •'. . • • • . •. ... - •••• •••• Amount Remaining Mar Move .$150;000_ Public Safety Radio Radios and dispatch equipment for the Police and Fire Departments. $541,000 $541,000 3 4 4 Communications ..... " I ristell thrift Cairnitici i&Wait stich:as•bUlb-Outti Speed:humpci raised CrOttWall* H..H.::: :...... Trafficiealmlng traffic:ciretesi and imedlansioni streets whets these types ef devices are:approved i i i $250;000 $250;000 4 5 - •••4.::•:::: ...... and:deemed:appropriate. ::••::! Amount.WOW 10 FK 02 _ $250000....s' . • •- .....••••• ••• . •i::::i . . ...Amount Remaining:NW Move $0 -- " "•....- ... .. . Playground Safety&ADA Install new playground equipment that meets ADA standards. Provide resilient Compliance Popperton Park(1350 East 11th surfacing to make the playground equipment accessible to all,and add seating $100,000 $100,000 5 7 4 Ave.) (benches)and other appropriate furnishings. Don Trail Park Replace the old playground equipment which is dilapadated and doesn't meet rier ADA guidelines with new playground equipment,bringing the palyground into $0 $100,000 6 3 3 Playground compliance with ADA standards New Street Lighting Install additional lighting where needed throughout the City. $50,000 $50,000 7 17 1 Installation Washington Park Add ADA standard playground equipment. Park does not currently have a $0 $100,000 8 6 5 Playground playground. Concept plans have been dons. • ' 1 1 ' ' 1 t , . . . • , • FY 2002-2003 CIP Listing!with the New GF Revenue Numbers 2002-2003 Budget 2002-2003 Budget Mayor's Board Staff Project Name Project Description (Current) (Mayor's Proposed) Ranking Ranking Ranking ADA Transition Plan/ To correct ADA deficiencies throughout in park sites city wide. Will address on a Citywide priority basis the most urgent needs first as defined in the inventory process. gg $50,000 9 8 6 LtiCil Street Reconstruction:of deterkinited beat itteett#10010de]ophicionenti Of street "•"• iii:::••• 82;072328 $1',500000 10 ,pavement;idefeetivoisklavalk;tuft):grkel gutter;Mid ley Improve idrainage. ..• ,-•116eiglIgnggkig- - , - , • ""Amount Moved to F' 02 415113,000::'::::.::. • '.• •:: •::::::'::.. ••• ..... .. •.::':- • ••.••'''''• •• •. :: Airiatint filiinaining Attei Minis'••••.• '' • - • • • • •• - -• • ...:•..•'. ::'':'''.:•..:.:$0::..'...::::.•.•* :.::.:•::• '•••:'•:::.:::::'.::••. •:. : :• • .. Pedestrian/Bike Path Develop,design and construct pedestrian and bike paths,routes and facilities $50,000 $50,000 11 NR 6 Development throughout the City. Provide enhancements such as decorative pavement,railings,sculptures, Percent for As $60,000 $60,000 NA NA NA fountains and other works of art 1%of project cost is allocated for art projects. Contingency The amount set aside to cover unanticipated cost overruns on funded projects. $200,000 6272,317 NA NA NA Sugarhouse Business Construct new shop and storage facility. $100,000 $100,000 13 19 1 District Storage Shop Public Safety Building Major upgrades in carpet,blinds as well as garage roof maintenance. $0 $50,000 14 20 2 Upgrades Traffic Signal Upgrade aRrmem;voresexinstiewngsitgraffin:signal heads,nupipment,androved loop upgrai:ine the int,and ieftersectiturn:nhasitngh.mast $550,000 $0 No NR 1 Excess Funding that may be applied to additional CIP projects $0 ., .:.7.g776MANS:s.:..:I'*.Z00.Wr:V:2,7%::.:*:::::**le,i/"..";;,,-i.c,' One-Time Money To design and construct a versatile open space on the east side of the Library Library Square Legacy block that can support large periodic gatherings,festivals,and concerts and will $4,000,000 Park servo to activate the block,and provide a central civic gathering space for the neighborhood Contingency Set-Aside Funds which will be set aside to address currently unforseen needs. $724,716 .,. To provide for the purchase of up to two of the Alan Houser sculptures(with Washingtan Square`.""n matching funds from donations)which were exhibited on Washington Square $400,000 Houser Sculpture Project prior to,and during the Olympics. °I/en°i°Lega°Y Preiects To provide for various Olympic related CIP projects within city neighborhoods. $700,000 in Neighborhoods PRINNOWINII:GaiiiWitiialiKOMOOMMiliitiffSMOINE.NAMENINVOMS iiVISrafteting ignaltagartIVI . A•.......*•s•t• • *:••• WM..: •..S.%.4••••=ai:iiiii:i V.. .• •••%...••:•?.'‘.:s ..-a-mmaiiii General Fund On-Going Funding $21,945,067 $18,215,515 One-Time Money $5,824,716 Total . $21,945,067 $24,040,231 i 2 • :i ." • . . • • . J M „ � {V .t v AA} 4+i44� ith C • 44 •C ec 4v ti 4.v. 4 h •4 } k + V. 4 v •, 4. : .v v, \ • .von .4n4 .� ii :�: :iiii':':iiiiiiii::^iii ::: 'iv:viii. i: iii iiii:i: : ::ii�:::::i::iii:is^:::::::i.iiiiiii�i}}}:':JJ ii?:': ...... ................. ........•ii}::::_: 'J_':v:'{•v}:.is 4 ..... :i:i::':-ti:'riii`ii:i?i::: : : ii:c `.:i:iii}ii?i IIE!ii zi• O '- •.4":i::;?••,„•;"r qr..44!L,,,..N...,.1‘,......e4...,...,,(4,„ Y \l Y } \ �� 4 v. ;� . 4 N 4•'.4:':'tV::'.,:,:.,,:,.,:,,.:Z:4*,,:.O'.....1V:-„I:,::4•oC?:„A%..„.:.‘-..„. vv 4 x•. 4.. 'y t`\ C U C .0 '4v. sy� 1ppprp 'S* ,k. c ' U c U O '• O 4 i;ii:i.:::i:i... :1:,.:„„ :::=ii::.: ::..:. :,..:::.:.. ...:ii:::.:.::::: ::.::::::::..i. E „%:,,,,,,..A .,, ....E.%as,s4..;,•_tv;.,1 ....,.....im .......g: z � C p r` 7 Qom+ p !� } N� 7 r„ Q sx O' Q 1 it.t tiffil:::::.113:3:3:•.; Tiiii..7::::::::. ::i3iii): •'A'..'ARki":-Ite.:-MI=K:sf..., 4 Qa:',...Vi a-41 k z 4 g 1 . •ii:o:i:ii::::.i.:]....:::.:..-,..-.......1:,.:::i::::_.I.::ii:.,.::-,::4....g.KRm:gK:::4•E-:::::].:-:..•i:::..4::::::i-.4lE.1,::..e:]-..]::-::]::::vi_....l.'..:.. .::::.,•:::-.:::::::::::.:: -::.:I.:...:.":.:...::::..::::...::. :N II .-. 4...‘.'.::.•:....:,.:.mkp-,..--,i.,-.:.N...:.-:,,a.I;I.:x..-.,4'4-',''A',.,.N,4'k•.,:s,:.-i•:•.'.,.":...."..s.s............A,.. 2: i ::::. ..3f t.: tr Li vt 4 i ?' : i'-'' `: :? : C41.1r: --..--_ ( — M to,,i- ..,...i...,:,..‹.-[..*:0,...*.....,.:.:.i . z 41 } rlh ; :: �+ N iL U _Av > U 'p t, O 14 a U z.„,.. _ .„. p.„:„.. „,,,,.,... ......, ,.,:,„, ,, •„,..1 .4„.,...„.,..„...„., ,,,,.„:.t.,, ,.,r, ..,,..., i 1 : .„,,t 1 ....5 1.;:isittL'i:41.1111 ."14.1.1.iiif::: i:...::i3 :." .. ' t.g. • 1 siqii i 3 4 ....: . :... 00 I:::': till •'' :43-4-•.• .:• • --.--:::::- : ....ma' . \ � .iciii is iiiiiiiiiii : .. 't 4 � :: t .•r: cu ...ii:::!:-:,::::: .::11,-11 %.:::•icAi:-.- •:::::.::::.i.::Q� 41 C ,f.,:i -Ill Ill 4:::.3.'''': lit �A�t� z iii:i....;..14:: ]E] 41.:!.:::: ,i.--,..w::; ;EiE.. ;.?.?:., z.,, •:::t•ci..:-" Sir� 't?i ti iV v 14 O O v'` .1 i• ::.:*•.•. z—L aII } :::lad:: '< 4 ti•+ A Igo Ea 4+v v : SALLAEE'CITY COUNCIL::STAFF:REPORt BUDGNTEND `T:A 'A ;YsISt°° FIi cA XE :Q0 t3 DATE: May 10, 2002 BUDGET FOR: NON-DEPARTMENTAL STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford c : Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, DJ Baxter The budget that the Council adopted in June 2001 for the Non-Departmental budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 was $38,693,098. Two amendments during the year increased the Non-Departmental budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 by $27,300. The Mayor's proposed amendment increases the Non-Departmental budget by $6,938,364 primarily to appropriate one-time revenue for several projects. The Council may wish to discuss the sources and uses of one-time revenue in a separate work session. Council staff can prepare a supplementary report on the one-time money. The Council may wish to focus on balancing on-going revenue with on-going expenditures and defer appropriation of any one-time money until after July 1st. Proposed Changes to the Non-Departmental Budget (General Fund) 1. $4.000,000 of one-time funds to the CIP fund for Library Square improvements- The Mayor proposes that one-time revenue be appropriated for open space improvements to the east side of the Library Square. The architectural schematic design proposals a cost between $5 to $5.5 million to develop the four acres of open space on the east side of the library block. There is $1.1 million in Library bond money available for the project. 2. $3,000,000 of one-time funds to establish an endowment for youth programs - Interest earned on the investments of the endowment funds can give serve as a base to pursue matching grants and donations. 3. $150,000 of one-time funds for operations of youth programs - The amendment proposes appropriating $150,000 as immediate seed money for youth programs operating budget. The Council appropriated $150,000 in fiscal year 2002-2003 for this purpose. 4. $700,000 of one-time funds for Olympic Legacy projects in neighborhoods - Funding for at least seven projects throughout City neighborhoods for a lasting legacy of the Olympic Winter Games. 5. $400,000 of one-time funds to match private donations to possibly retain two of the Houser sculptures - Several Alan Houser sculptures were displayed on Washington Square before and during the Olympics. A donation effort is under way. 6. $724,716 set aside of one-time funds to CIP contingency 7. $1,549,806 reduction of appropriations to CIP - The amendment proposes reducing the amount appropriated for local street reconstruction and traffic signal upgrades and funding a youth program endowment, Library Square improvements, and other projects with these funds. The budget maintains the 9% of on-going General Fund revenue to CIP. 8. $233,000 reduction to on-going funding of the neighborhood matching grant program - The biennial budget appropriated $350,000 each year for the neighborhood matching grant program. The Mayor proposes that for one year the appropriation be reduced because there is $233,000 of program funds unspent in the account. /O. $15,000 of on-going funds for participation in Salt Lake Community College community television project - This would be an on-going countywide project to provide community information to the public and visitors at hotels/motels. (This project is not public access TV.) 10. $8,000 additional transfer to the Insurance and Risk Management Fund for employee pay increases and benefit costs - Projected costs are greater than the amount included in the biennial budget for employees working in the Insurance and Risk Management Fund. The General Fund supports most of the costs of employees of this internal service fund. 11. $20,000 increase in cost of property insurance - The cost for property insurance has significantly increased since September 11th. The General Fund's share of the increases are estimated to be $20,000. 12. $33,000 increase in cost of health insurance for City's share of cost for retirees - The City pays approximately 25% of retired employees health insurance costs. These costs have increased $33,000 more than originally estimated. P tential Matters at Issue • The Council may wish to discuss the proposed funding of $4,000,000 for the Library Square open space improvements. Perhaps a fund raising campaign could generate a significant amount of funding for improvements on the Library Block. A more modest, less formal design has been suggested. The Council requested a public process for evaluating the two options. The Council may wish to defer action until the public process is completed. • The Council may wish to discuss funding for Youth Programs. The Mayor is proposing establishing a YouthCity endowment with $3,000,000 of one-time revenue. It is anticipated that this endowment will yield about $180,000 in interest annually. The Mayor is also requesting $150,000 from one-time revenue for an immediate operating budget. Another option would be to appropriate $150,000 to $180,000 from on-going funds rather than setting up the endowment. The $3,000,000 could then be appropriated for other priorities. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the past success of receiving donations and grants for the YouthCity program and the possibility of -- operating youth programs with a reduced level of General Fund appropriations. The Council may also wish to discuss the prudence of supplementing the County or State's responsibilities for recreation or social services. 2 • The Council may wish to discuss the proposed appropriation to purchase Houser sculptures. This use of one-time funds can be evaluated along with other needs of the City including deferred maintenance of streets, sidewalks, and parks. Anoth r option would be to appropriate a lesser amount to be combined with donations to purchase one or two sculptures. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the success that the citizen group has had in pledges for donations. • Previously, the Council appropriated $15,627,184 for capital projects. Of this amount, $7,293,123 was available for projects after making debt payments and setting aside impact fees. The amendment proposes reducing funding by $1,549,806 to exactly the 9% level (9% of General Fund on-going rev nue). These reductions are to traffic signal upgrades and local street reconstruction projects. The Council may wish to discuss this reduction taking into consideration past Council's emphasis to catch up on deferred capital projects. • The amendment proposes using $233,000 of one-time accumulations in the neighborhood matching grant account to help finance ongoing General Fund costs. This is a departure from past Council policy: One-time savings should generally be used for one-time projects rather than on-going programs. The Administration's proposal means that if the Council wishes to restore this program in fiscal year 2003-2004, new on-going funds will need to be identified. • Council Member Love asked Council staff to report on the overall economic development activities including the Economic Development Corporation of Utah (EDCU), the State Department of Community and Economic Development, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, and the City's Department of Community and Economic Development. Council staff will follow up on this request. In the interim, we have attached a letter from the EDCU providing a summary of the programs and activities for the calendar year 2001 and first quarter of 2002. The budget includes $132,992 of funding for the EDCU and $29,527 for the Salt Lake Chamber. Previously the Council issued the following legislative intent: It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration review and evaluate the services provided by the Economic Development Corporation of Utah. 3 Proposed Budget Amendment Non-Departmental(General Fund) Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Original Adopted Proposed Proposed Pro,, ants Bud_et Amendment Bud et( [ .TTMelZl�4f,:2.�i.1x:: i§a:. I �uw�, j x}i### `x.;£f 1,a 3i#,,, a 'NE IN E��u£# ((`"((( Civic I S. •rtunities Fund S 15 000 - S 15 000 Council of Govenunents 28 898 - 28 898 East Vall Chamber of Commerce 2 000 - 2 000 Gifts/R- • ons 20,600 - 20,600 His.: 'c Chamber of Commerce 1 500 - 1 500 ICMA Performance Review ' . m 5,200 - 5,200 :al Defenders 295 139 - 295 139 National -::ue of Cities 8,900 - 8 900 Sales Taxes Rebate 162 000 - 162 000 Salt Lake Ci Arts Council 223 600 - 223,600 Sister Cities 5,000 - 5 000 Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce 29 527 - i 29,527 SLCC Communi Television 15 000 15,000 SL Vail Conference of Ma ors 350 - 350 Su:: ouse Park Authori 192 600 - 192 600 200,000 - 200 000 ... 103 000 - 103 000 U.S.Conference of Ma ors 7 320 - 7 320 Utah Economic Develo.ment Co .. 132,992 - 132,992 Utah ue of Cities and Towns 90,000 - 90 000 Winter Overflow Shelter 63,000 - 63 000 Youth Ci Government Pro:ram 7 000 - 7 000 Youth ' .1. s •• :tions one-time revenue 150 000 150,000 Total Munici•:FFytt ContrFiibutions/Civic Su••.rt 1,593,626 165 000 1,758 626 2"l'i' !s"`2?33§'33) L iitvL:: :,,::.;j`E� Es # F F» ##2 2`#: F# F` 2 22 2F#FF, � a � s72, £ t�' ..� is£s, zl y, z :s3,s sI s.�s; �` F. s s�z,3'3 t 3 £ �2e,�,;,�:>� ,�:sd, #� #�;�b�; �€t�� '�`��#ts��1��,��#�� :.s��€t;# ..�I i E:s,s.# �„;,h i Animal Services 805,200 - 805 00 .1. .hic Information S stein 25 000 - 25 000 Non CDBG MailinIs 6,000 - 6,000 Tuition aid . •. .. 110,000 - 110,000 Washin: .n DC Consultant 50,000 - 50 000 Total Other '' • s 996,200 996 00 F ,12- ".,4if.kz ssss 5: '-�'hli niffit:.tis'a�,°�'.'.�£ SE .{ sM#£##ET §€',E7 i s#:>L7: 7 :#£ #sl1 1£T,'#'.' € Interest E A. .se on Tax Revenue Antici.:tion Notes 1,100,000 - 1,100 000 Bondin: ote E.. se 45,000 - 45,000 Total Debt Serviceg # 1,145,000 € 1 145¢,000€g Debt Service-Lib : Bonds CIP Fund 6 817,883 - 6,817,883 1 bt ce- S i er 'ro ects I' un•IniiiiiiniiiiM 7 584 061 229 7 . 7 354 315 Im. t Fees CIP Fund 750,000 100 000 650 000 .'tal Im. .vement Proects 7 293,123 06.22(2101] 5 743 317 CIP-Li. : •uare one-time revenue 4 000 000 4 000 000 CIP-Contin:en one-time revenue 724 716 724 716 CIP-O ...is _ Pro'ects in Nei:hborhoods 700 000 700 000 Fleet R .lacement Fund 3,949,537 - 3,949,537 Governmental Immuni Fund 1,300 000 - 1,300 000 Nei: borhood Matchin:Grants P .:ram 350 000 3 000 117 000 Street Li:htin:Fund 125 000 - 125 000 Accountin:S . Maintenance • :reement 63,000 - 63 000 Youth ' • . Endowment one-time revenue 3 000 000 3 000 000 Houser Scut.tures one-time revenue 400 000 400,000 Total Transfers 28,232,604 6 712 164 34,944,768 Information Man :ement Services 4,886 786 - 4 886 786 •: •• .( .::ement Fund 1,540,382 61000 1,601,382 Total Interf tnd Ch: ,es 6 427168 61000 6 488168 51:;;Z!,i<.i; 21;f f li:ETK€i£€ £25:FE i; £�3 ? 'NE £�f I <=3£ §§B IN ,� 3 ii!l3£n E:#:, 3M R6§V. 3F TOTAL S38,694,398 S6 938 64 S45 632 762 4 THE ECONOMI C DEVELOPMENT Bill Land& 111 PatdiC orp-Utah Powet Chairman CORP ORATION OF U T A H Chi ntopher A Rot hal President&CE( LC LCUTI VC COMMITTEE April 4, 2002 R.Don Cash (Iuesiar Corporation Ms.Margaret Hunt Past Chairman Director of Community&Economic Development Lows I1.McCullough Salt Lake City Corporation &C lltster,Nebeker. McCullough 451 South State Street, Suite 404 A.Scott Andet son 71ons First National Bank Salt Lake City,UT 84111-3104 Vice Chair—Private Sector Mayor Film Dolan RE: Progress Report Sandy City Vice Chair—Public Sector E•dwatd D.Ekstrom Dear Ms. Hunt: Vspring SccrcmryiTrcasurer Per your request, we are providing information regarding The Economic Development Mayor Ross"Rocky"Anderson Salt Lake City Anderson Corporation of Utah's(EDCU's) programs and activities for the calendar year 2001 and year- Joseph R.Christopher to-date 2002. Also, attached is information outlining our specific action plan and core Washington County Economic functions. Development Council Mayor Sandra Lloyd Riverton City Margaret, if you need additional information or clarification of the data provided below, please let me know. We value our partnership with Salt Lake City Corporation and look Mayor Charlie Roberts Tooele City Corporation forward to continued success through the coming year. Mayor Jo Ann B.Seghin Midvale City I. Scope of Services. Attached is The EDCU's Action Plan. This document identifies The Mayor Daniel C.Snarr EDCU's Mission Statement and six supporting objectives. It is presented annually to the Murray City Board of Trustees, which includes representation from Salt Lake City,for input and comment Mayor Douglas E.Thompson prior to adoption by The EDCU Executive Committee and Board of Trustees. The same Cay of Logan protocol will be followed for the development of the FY02/03 Action Plan. (The Action Plan Mayor Gearld Wright West valley City details program activities in the areas of business attraction, retention, expansion and Mayor Nancy Workman marketing.) Salt Luke County Val R.Atuceak II. Benefits. Following is a brief summary highlighting some of the professional services Parsons Noble.0 Latimer rendered to Salt Lake City Corporation during the calendar year 2001 and year-to-date 2002. Rem Gardner Total EDCU impacts are also provided for your review. The Boyer Company Robert A.Hatch Wells Fargo Bank Corporate Recruitment I..Alma Mansell Coldwcll Banker Residential ♦ In 2001 and through the end of the first quarter of 2002, EDCU facilitated 14 corporate Brokerage locations statewide representing 3,395 direct new jobs, real estate absorption of 834,000 John Price Jr Realty,Inc square feet,capital investment of$425.6 million and an annual payroll of$386.5 million. Robin lttggs Seven of the 14 projects were located in Salt Lake City resulting in 1,555 direct jobs, real Qwest estate absorption of 388,000 square feet, capital investment of $198.1 million and an �.les Faroir n annual payroll of$57.6 million. These numbers represent projects at full build-out. `,s ado. 'oibroo4.& McDonough ':er!es C lohnsor • CORPORATE RECRUITMENT ACTIVITY BY EDCU a n Board tit Pe cots Prestoent Bernie'Macyen 2001 ins erstty V(Utah Watkins Motor Lines—SLC Kent`on, Hanjin Shipping—SLC :,.,. .ccura:ce t:.:mn:au:•n Midwest Fasteners ofJ1p1''`r''tD'' Verizon Wireless ..tici Cotporao.,r. Mani ;IrJJL. ,U1Lr _MMMJ _.;Il n.'. _ 's _ial) _LI 11 i4Q1 ;�(il �.11-[ .rr_ • Approximately 26 supplier/vendor searches were conducted for Salt Lake City businesses. Approximately 100 additional searches involved all of Salt Lake County and/or the Salt Lake City/Ogden MSA. Marketing and Communications The EDCU has assisted with 32 national and international articles during the past year. Of those articles, 20 featured Salt Lake City statistics or companies located in Salt Lake City. Included in the list of publications, is The Economist magazine, which participated in a media familiarization tour in March 2001. The EDCU coordinated a meeting with the magazine's U.S. Business Editor, Mr. Matthew Bishop, and Mayor Anderson, to discuss the city's downtown revitalization efforts and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Additional editorial content was included in publications such as the San Jose Mercury News, The New York Times, The LA Times, the Denver Post, The San Jose Business Journal, Business Facilities, Plants Sites and Parks and Entrepreneur magazines. Copies of these articles can be provided upon request. The EDCU has worked aggressively and professionally to promote business investment and quality job growth in Utah and in Salt Lake City. We look forward to our continued partnership with Salt Lake City and would be pleased to respond to any questions. Sincerely, Christopher A. Roybal President and Chief Executive Officer Attachment cc: Mr. David Dobbins,Deputy Director, Community and Economic Development CAR/sm } 2I]rJ MARGARET HUNT SALT Al � sg a'�GORPORATIOI Ross C. "ROCKY" ANDERSDN DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer- DATE: April 19, 2002 p FROM: Margaret Hunt, CED Director /�C� 617 y1-4:- RE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant award provided to the Salt Lake City Planning Division from the State of Utah, Department of Community and Economic Development. STAFF CONTACT: Sherrie Collins, 535-6150 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: The City will receive an $18,164 grant. The required match will be covered by Planning Division staff time. DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Planning Division applied for and received an $18,164 grant from the State of Utah, Department of Community and Economic Development. This grant will pay for the contractual services of a consultant to conduct a reconnaissance level survey of approximately 1,200 buildings in the East Liberty Park area, and approximately 733 buildings in the West Central City area. A 100% grant match is required, which will be met by Planning Division staff time spent on the project. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH S41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX: B01-535-6005 ®Rccvceo PnvcR RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AWARD FROM THE UTAH STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Title 11 , Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services ; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $18 , 164 . 00 of grant funding described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, from the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development, to expend for the purposes of : Contracting with a consultant to conduct a reconnaissance level survey of approximately 1, 200 buildings in the East Liberty Park area and approximately 733 buildings in the West Central City area. 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant award and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2002 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake Ci A orneys Office Date 2_ By „''OCTg ��.''�,' *..,'''� - UTAH STATE :-i Y .;f, ^1 . HISTORICAL ''">'� Department of Community and Economic Development SOCIETY Division of State History Utah State Historical Society Michael O.Leavitt 300 Rio Grande Governor Salt Lake City.Utah 84101-1182 Max J.Evans (8011 533-3500 FAX: 533-3503 TDD: 533-3502 Director ushs5history-.state.ut.us http://history.utah.org March 27, 2002 Ms. Elizabeth Giraud City and County Building 451 South State Street, #406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Elizabeth: Enclosed are 3 copies of the contract for your 2002-2003 CLG grant. Please have all 3 copies signed by your chief elected official, and return them to our office for further processing. We will return a copy to you for your peilnanent records. Also, please check the appropriate box on item 8.b of the contract regarding "related parties.” You would check "yes" only if your commission members, local government officials, or their close relatives were going to be paid for services under this contract; this does not apply to staff salaries used for match. We assume you will have no "related party" issues and will therefore check "no." Please give me a call at 533-3561 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Roger Roper Historic Preservation Coordinator Enclosures (3) Preserving and Sharing Utah's Past for the Present and Future CONTRACT DP-2 1/95 STATE OF UTAH CONTRACT # 1. CONTRACTING PARTIES: This agreement is between the State of Utah, Division of State History, Department of Community and Economic Development referred to as STATE, and Salt Lake City Legal Status of Contractor (Contractor) [ ] Sole Proprietor [ ]Non-Profit Corporation 451 South State Street [ ] For-Profit Corporation (Address) [ ] Partnership [x] Governmental Agency Salt Lake City Utah 84111 (City) (State) (Zip) Federal Tax ID# 87-6000279 refelTed to as CONTRACTOR. State Vendor ID# 09462CA 2. GENERAL PURPOSE OF CONTRACT: The general purpose of this agreement is: To undertake local historic preservation projects under the Certified Local Government program 3. PROCUREMENT: This contract is entered into as the result of the procurement process on requisition # grant--N/A ,FY- N/A 4. CONTRACT PERIOD: This contract is effective April 1, 2002 and will terminate on August 31. 2003,unless otherwise extended or terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of this contract. 5. CONTRACT COSTS: CONTRACTOR will be paid a maximum of $18,164.00 for costs authorized by this contract. See Attachment A. Paragraph 15 for details. 6. ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS CONTRACT: Attachment A-Standard Terms and Conditions Attachment B - Scope of Work 7. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THIS CONTRACT BY REFERENCE BUT NOT ATTACHED HERETO: a.All other governmental laws,regulations,or actions applicable to services provided herein. b. 8. COMPLETE ON COST REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS ONLY: a.AUDIT INFORMATION:Provide the name,address and telephone number of the STATE staff person responsible for the contract audit and review function: Roger Roper, CLG Coordinator, Utah State Historical Society, 300 Rio Grande, Salt Lake City, UT 84101, 533-3561 1. What audits and reviews are required of this contract? Financial? Yes x No_ Program Compliance? Yes x No How often? with each reimbursement request How often? with each reimbursement request By whom? Eric Browning By whom? Roger Roper b. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS: Are any declared by CONTRACTOR?Yes No_ See RELATED PARTIES-Attachment A. Paragraph 14. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties sign and cause this contract to be executed. CONTRACTOR: STATE: Signature,Authorized Representative Division of State History,Director Name and Title of Signer(Type or Print) Division of Finance,Director APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake. ity orneys Office Division of Purchasing,Director Date ( i Y By Revised 2/2/01 ATTACHMENT A:STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. AUTHORITY: Provisions of this contract are pursuant to the authority set forth in 63-56,Utah Code Annotated, 1953,as amended,Utah State ProcurementRules (Utah Administrative Code Section R33),and related statutes which permit the STATE to purchase certain specified services,and other approved purchases for the STATE and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,80 Stat. 915. 2. CONTRACT JURISDICTION,CHOICE OF LAW.AND VENUE: The provisions of this contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah. The parties will submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Utah for any dispute arising out of this Contract or the breach thereof. Venue shall be in Salt Lake City.in the Third Judicial District Court for Salt Lake Co. 3. LAWS AND REGULATIONS: Any and all supplies,services and equipment furnished will comply fully with all Federal and State laws and regulations. 4. RECORDS ADMINISTRATION: The CONTRACTOR shall maintain,or supervise the maintenance of all records necessary to properly account for the payments made to the CONTRACTOR for costs authorized by this contract. These records shall be retained by the CONTRACTOR for at least four years after the contract terminates,or until all audits initiated within the four years,have been completed,whichever is later. Records shall be maintained in accordance with OMB circulars A-102 (revised March 11, 1988) "The New Common Rule for Grants Administration,"and A-87 "Cost Principles for State and Local Governments." The CONTRACTOR shall adhere to procurement standards also specified in OMB circular A102. The CONTRACTOR agrees to allow STATE and Federal auditors,and STATE Agency Staff,access to all the records to this contract,for audit and inspection,and monitoring of services. Such access will be during normal business hours,or by appointment. 5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: CONTRACTOR represents that none of its officers or employees are officers or employees of the State of Utah,unless disclosure has been made in accordance with 67-16-8,Utah Code Annotated, 1953,as amended. 6. CONTRACTOR,AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: The CONTRACTOR shall be an independent contractor,and as such,shall have no authorization,express or implied,to bind the STATE to any agreements,settlements,liability,or understanding whatsoever,and agrees not to perform any acts as agent for the STATE, except as herein expressly set forth. Compensation stated herein shall be the total amount payable to the CONTRACTOR by the STATE. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the payment of all income tax and social security amounts due as a result of payments received from the STATE for these contract services. Persons employed by the STATE and actiig under the direction of the STATE shall not be deemed to be employees or agents of the CONTRACTOR. 7. INDEMNITY CLAUSE: The CONTRACTOR agrees to indemnify,save harmless,and release the STATE OF UTAH,and all its officers,agents,volunteers,and employees from and against any and all loss,damages,injury,liability,suits,and proceedings arising out of the performance ofthis contract which are caused in whole or in part by the negligence of the CONTRACTOR'S officers,agents,volunteers,or employees,but not for claims arising from the State's sole negligence. 8. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CLAUSE: The CONTRACTOR agrees to abide by the provisions of Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(42USC 2000e) which prohibits discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment or any applicant or recipient of services,on the basis of race,religion,color,or national origin;and further agrees to abide by Executive Order No. 11246,as amended,which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex;45 CFR 90 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age;and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disabilities. Also,the CONTRACTOR agrees to abide by Utah's Executive Order,dated June 30, 1989,which prohibits sexual harassment in the work place. 9. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE: A declaration by any court,or any other binding legal source,that any provision of this contract is illegal and void shall not affect the legality and enforceability of any other provision of this contract,unless the provisions are mutually dependent. 10. RENEGOTIATION OR MODIFICATIONS: This contract may be amended,modified,or supplemented only by written amendment to the contract,executed by the parties hereto,and attached to the original signed copy of the contract. 11. DEBARMENT: The CONTRACTOR certifies that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred,suspended,proposed for debarment,declared ineligible,or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction(contract),by any governmental department or agency. If the CONTRACTOR cannot certify this statement,attach a written explanation for review by the STATE. 12. TERMINATION: Unless otherwise stated in the Special Terms and Conditions, this contract may be terminated,with cause by either party,in advance of the specified termination date,upon written notice being given by the other party. The party in violation will be given ten(10)working days after notification to correct and cease the violations,after which the contract may be terminated for cause. This contract may be terminated without cause,in advance of the specified expiration date,by either party,upon 90 days prior written noticebeing given the other party. On termination of this contract,all accounts and payments will be processed according to the financial arrangements set forth herein for approved services rendered to date of termination. 13. LOBBYING: The CONTRACTOR will comply with the text of(18 USC 1913),concerning lobbying with appropriated funds,and will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act which limits the political activity of employees. 14. RELATED PARTIES: (Applies to Cost Reimbursement Contracts ONLY) The CONTRACTOR shall not make payments for goods, services, facilities, salary/wages,professional fees, leases, etc., to related parties for contract expenses without the prior written consent of the STATE. Disbursement by the CONTRACTOR to related parties made without such prior approval may be disallowed on audit,and may result in an overpayment assessment. "Related Parties," for the purpose of this contract,shall mean organizations/persons related to the CONTRACTOR by any of the following: blood;marriage;one or more partners in common with the CONTRACTOR;one or more directors or officers in common with the CONTRACTOR;more than 10%common ownership,direct or indirect, with the CONTACTOR. List"Related Parties"to whom payments are being made: NAME RELATIONSHIP PURPOSE OF PAYMENT 15. PROJECT COSTS&REIMBURSEMENT: CONTRACTOR agrees to provide 50%of the Total Project Budget (see Attachment B)in non-federal funds,and/or donated labor,equipment,and materials. STATE agrees to reimburse CONTRACTOR 50%of the total eligible costs incurred in completing the work items set forth in the Scope of Work,Attachment B. The total eligible costs must consist of at least 50%cash expenditures. Payment by the STATE is subject to the availability of Federal funds, legislative appropriation, and compliance with all project provisions. 16. WARRANTY: The contractor agrees to warrant and assume responsibility for all products(including hardware,firmware,and/or software products) that it licenses, contracts,or sells to the State of Utah under this contract for a period of one year,unless otherwise specified and mutually agreed upon elsewhere in this contract. The contractor(seller)acknowledges that all warranties granted to the buyer by the Uniform Commercial Code of the State of Utah applies to this contract. Product liability disclaimers and/or warranty disclaimers from the seller are not applicable to this contract unless otherwise specified and mutually agreed upon elsewhere in this contract. In general,the contractor warrants that:(1)the product will do what the salesperson said it would do,(2)the product will live up to all specific claims that the manufacturer makes in their advertisements,(3)the product will be suitable for the ordinary purposes for which such product is used,(4)the product will be suitable for any special purposes that the State has relied on the contractor's skill or judgement to consider when it advised the State about the product,(5)the product has been properly designed and manufactured,and(6) the product is free of significant defects or unusual problems about which the State has not been warned. Remedies available to the State include the following:The contractor will repair or replace(at no charge to the State)the product whose nonconformance is discovered and made known to the contractor in writing. If the repaied and/or replaced product proves to be inadequate,orfails of its essential purpose,the contractor will refund the full amount of any payments that have been made. Nothing in this warranty will be construed to limit any rights or remedies the State of Utah may otherwise have under this contract. Attaclunent B Scope of Work Salt Lake City Certified Local Government Project 2002-2003 The Certified Local Government(CLG)grant funds and matching Iocal contributions will be used to accomplish the work items detailed in the "Budget" and"Work Description" sections that follow. The deadline for the completion of all work items is July 31,2003,unless otherwise noted or agreed upon. The State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)must approve any changes to this Scope of Work. BUDGET 1. Reconnaissance Level Survey Consultant, 1,933 buildings @ $8 each $15,464 2. Preservation Planning,Training,and Conferences Training for commissioners(parliamentary procedure) $1,414 Attend NAPC $1,200 Preservation planner: 730 hours @$25 per hour $18,250 $20,864 Total Project Budget* $36,328 *Includes grant amount and local match. WORK DESCRIPTION 1. Reconnaissance Level Survey($15,464)The CLG will hire a consultant to conduct reconnaissance level surveys in the following areas: East of Liberty Park(700 E.to 1300 E.,900 S.to 1300 S.,excluding Gilmer Park), approximately 1,200 buildings;and West Central City(200 E.to 500 E., South Temple to 900 S.), approximately 733 buildings. Products and Standards: The CLG must have the survey conducted in accordance with the SHPO's "Standard Operating Procedures for Reconnaissance Level Surveys" (February 2000 version) and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation and Archaeology(Federal Register,Vol.48,No. 190, Sept.29, 1983). Work that does not meet these standards is ineligible for reimbursement. Originals of all survey materials must be submitted to the SHPO. These include the survey maps,photographs, survey forms,research design,and final report. The consultant must submit two copies of all survey products, one for the CLG and one for the SHPO. 2. Preservation Planning,Training, and Conferences($20,864): This consists of staff time for preservation planning activities,parliamentary procedure training for Landmark Commission members, and staff attendance at the NAPC conference. Products and Standards: The CLG must report the progress of these activities on the progress reports. Any purchases or contracts for services over$500 should follow appropriate procurement procedures, including obtaining at least three bids. 3�L ' ,4 01 T r G0 ZP � . : 'IN ,= �� N� .Jv .��1 we ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: April 17, 2002 FROM: Margaret Hunt, CED Director C/27l� 4�>� RE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant award provided to the Salt Lake City Planning Division from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. STAFF CONTACT: Sherrie Collins, 535-6150 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: The City will receive a $1,483 grant DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Planning Division applied for and received a $1,483 grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. This grant will pay for half of the expected expenses of a public relations campaign that will consist of two informational mailings. One mailing will provide information regarding the federal and state tax incentives available to owners of historic property, and the second mailing will announce the completion of the expansion of the Historic Landmark Commission web page. A 100%match is required, which will becovered by the Planning Division's existing budget.- - - - — Expenses will include printing costs, postage and other supplies. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 641 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 4:11 REDVt LED PAPER RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AWARD FROM THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $1, 483 . 00 of grant funding described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, to expend for the purposes of : A public relations campaign that consists of two informational mailings, pertaining to federal and state tax incentives available to owners of historic property and to announce the completion and encourage the use of the Historic Landmark Commission web page . 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant award and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by--the--City- council -o-f -Sal-t--Lake City,- Utah, this -day day of , 2002 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office Date /Z iDo 2_,-- By . - MOUNTAINS/PLAINS OFFICE el¢ • ill I Wmi - NATIONAL TRUST for HISTORIC PRESERVATION March 25,2002 Ms. Janice Lew, Associate Planner Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Dear Ms. Lew: It is a pleasure to inform you that Salt Lake City Corporation's application for a Utah Preservation Initiatives Fund grant has been approved. We have allocated$1,483.00 from the Preservation Initiatives Fund grant to embark on a public relations campaign to all of the newly created historic districts listed on the National register and the completion of the expanded Historic Landmark Commissions web page. The National Trust is very supportive of your worthwhile preservation activity. It was selected from among a large number of qualified applicants competing for a very limited amount of funds. We hope that this letter of support and financial commitment will assist your organization in raising any additional funds needed for this historic preservation activity. Acceptance of this grant is indication of your willingness to conduct your project in conformance with the following special conditions: 1. Required Match. This grant must be matched with other funding on a one-to one basis. Evidence of the match must be submitted in the final report required in Paragraph 10. 2. National Trust Concurrence with Consultant Selection. We concur with your selection of the preservation planning staff for this project. If you wish to change consultants,new _ approval must be obtained from the National Trust. 3. Competitive Procurement Process. You agree that all procurement of goods and services shall be conducted in a manner that provides maximum open and free competition. When a procurement exceeds $10,000,you must seek at least three (3)competitive bids or quotes. (This applies to any procurement greater than $10,000 that is part of this grant-assisted project,whether financed through PSF funds or through the matching funds that make up the rest of the project's approved budget.) Although it is not always necessary to select the lowest bid, an explanation for the selection must be documented using the attached Competitive Bid Report Form, which should be retained in your files and made available to the National Trust upon request. You should also maintain procedures to ensure that procurement of goods and services, including consultant services, do not present a conflict of interest. Protecting the Irreplaceable 910 16TH STREET • SUITE 1100 • DENVER, CO 80202 303.623.1504 • FAX: 303.623.1508 • WWW.NATIONALTRUST.ORG Serving: CO, KS, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT & WY V 4. Prohibition of Lobbying. You agree that no part of the compensation authorized by this agreement or the matching share will be used, directly or indirectly, to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter,printed or written communication, or any other device intended or designed to influence in any manner a member of Congress, to favor or oppose,by vote or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress. 5. Equal Opportunity. You agree not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color,religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, or national origin. Further,you agree to take affirmative action to assure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during their employment without regard to their race, color, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, or national origin. The obligations of this paragraph also extend to disabled veterans, Vietnam-era veterans and handicapped persons. 6. Retention of Records. You must maintain auditable records of all expenditures under this grant for three(3)years after completion of this grant-assisted project. 7. Planning for Preservation Work. Any documents or plans for preservation work that result from the project must conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, as appropriate. 8. Publicity and Acknowledgement of Grant Assistance. For your assistance, we enclose a sample press release format for use in publicizing the grant. The National Trust must be listed as a supporter in any printed material and publicity releases. Should material emanating from this preservation activity be published for distribution, appropriate acknowledgement of the Trust's participation should be given using the following statement: "This project has been funded in part by a grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation Utah Preservation Initiatives Fund." 9. Project End Date. The time limit for completing your grant-assisted project will be one year, commencing from the date of the grant disbursement letter that will accompany your grant disbursement from the National Trust. Should any problems arise, a written request for an extension of the project must be submitted to our office for consideration within 10 days of The project end date. -- 10. Final Report. Within thirty(30)days of the project end date, you agree to submit to the National Trust,two copies of a final report and financial accounting on the use of the grant, as well as two complete copies of materials emanating from the grant. 11. The Requirement of Return of Funds. Failure to:1) complete the project within one year of the disbursement date; 2) submit the final report within 30 days of the project end date; 3) change the project without National Trust approval; 4) match sufficient amount of grant funds; or 5) fail to complete the project as described shall result in the return of funds plus accumulated interest. 12. Grantee must be National Trust Forum member to receive an award. Funds cannot be disbursed until the enclosed Forum membership packet with payment is returned. We would like to complete disbursement of funds to your organization as soon as possible. If we do not hear from you by June 1, 2002 the funds obligated for the project will be returned to our regional fund reserve for the Utah Preservation Initiatives Fund program. Please sign and return the original of this letter to my office by April 30, 2002 as your acceptance of this agreement. (The enclosed copy is for your records.) By doing this you acknowledge that these grant funds will be used expressly for the purposes described in your grant application and are subject to the conditions contained in this letter of agreement. Please contact John Mitterholzer in our office for additional assistance. We are pleased to assist in your preservation project and trust that this grant will prove valuable to your effort. Sincerely, Barbara Pahl Director CONCUR DATE TITLE Enclosures cc: Melissa Curran, Preservation Services Fund Grant#: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake Ci Att rney's Office Date !1 36 p M14'( ) a %r,v A MARGARET HUNT ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 4 1.1A1 TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: May 1, 2002 FROM: Margaret Hunt, CED Director (it-G 0=,�-1i� RE: A request by the Administration to allow the Mayor to execute a contract amendment between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake Donated Dental Services to reallocate a 27th Year CDBG grant in the amount of$21,000 from dental equipment to salaries. STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark DOCUMENT TYPE: Written briefing BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: During the 2001-2002 budget process the City Council allocated to Salt Lake Donated Dental Services $21,000 for the purchase of dental equipment to be used for their program that provides dental care to homeless and uninsured low-income persons in Salt Lake City. A contract was executed with Salt Lake Donated Dental Services in the amount of $21,000 for equipment purchases. Salt Lake Donated Dental Services has sent a request to the City to amend the contract and convert the $21,000 from dental equipment to salaries. The agency has noted a dramatic decline in charitable giving since September 11 and has a need to pay for staff salaries out of the CDBG grant. Salaries are an eligible expense and would qualify for funding under the same category of Public Services in the CDBG grant. The agency has not spent any of the $21,000. Housing and Neighborhood Development has contacted Salt Lake Donated Dental regarding their funding request for fiscal year 2002-2003. Donated Dental does not want to change the current request to salaries because they think the charitable giving will return to prior year levels. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: SO1.535-6230 FAX: BO1-535-6005 �� necmeo vwven (441114N1)40) Salt Lake Donated Dental Services A Non-Profit Safety-Net Agency „do 4, Clinic: (801) 983-0345 • Fax: (801) 983-0353 °ENT 415 West 400 South • Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 February 4, 2002 Trustees s. Karen Wiley rants Financial Administrator John Henkels ommunity and Economic Development Carolyn Montgomery,JD '51 South State Street Bill Stilling,JD %alt Lake City, UT 84111 Jay Harmer,DDS ear Karen, Harry Wong,MD Tom Bullock his is a request for a Budget Amendment for our CDBG Grant. Essentially, we Dean Robinson, DDS i eed to convert our Equipment award to Salaries for staff as much as possible. Michael J. Ziouras his is necessitated by an imminent cash-flow crunch. As you might be aware, Taylor World, DDS, Chair und-Raising generally has been"off" substantially since September 11. Ralph Montgomery, DDS It espite a 40% increase in activity and other major enhancements in Access by Founder/Chair-Emeritus he end of calendar year 2001, HALF of our traditional funders have been non- i esponsive. I'm happy to give you a complete run-down on other revenue Major Donors sources if that would be at all helpful. George&Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation While no firm commitments have been received, second and third Quarter Marriner Eccles Foundation "forecasts"do seem a bit more promising. A handful of Foundations have Willard Eccles Foundation simply deferred awarding anything until after the Olympics. Salt Lake City Corporation All other terms, of course,remain the same. If you have any questions or further Intermountain Health Care suggestions, please let me know. Thank you for your assistance and Foundation considerate in this matter. Episcopal Diocese JEPS Foundation LDS Charities Ch Hemingway Foundation Executive Director Bamberger Foundation Cc: LuAnn Clark MISSION: TO PRESERVE THE ORAL HEALTH OF PATIENTS WHO ARE HOMELESS OR INDIGENT. y a lti(1\er Salt Lake Donated Dental Services A Private Non-Profit Corporation Olt,..fot Clinic: (801) 983-0345 • Fax (801) 983-0353 �FNT ST� Total CDBG Amount Requested: �— 1 $39,750 Log #: SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT STANDARD PROPOSAL FORM 27TH YEAR PROGRAM FOR JULY 1, 2001 1. Project title: Salt Lake Donated Dental Services (SLDDS) Proposed location: 415 West 400 South 2. Requesting Organization or Individual: Agency: Salt Lake Donated Dental Services Contact: Tom Cherry Address: 415 West 400 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Email Address: t369cherry@aol.com Phone: 983-0351 3. Is agency/organization operated as a profit, nonprofit or government agency? Nonprofit/501(c)3 Community Board members are as follows: Bill Biggs, Carolyn Montgomery, Stephanie James, William Stilling, Drs. Taylor World/Harry Wong/Andy Stutz, Richard Wagner, Margaret Harris, David McConkie and John Henkels. Since 1990, major sponsors have included Intermountain Health Care and the Eccles Foundations. 4. Briefly explain the services you provide. The essence of SLDDS' service-package is filling the Dental need gaps of Homeless or very low-income individuals. The program design—with a fairly full range of services, progressive treatment philosophies and a supportive/protective practice environment—is uniquely Utahn. The services provided range from exams, fillings and cleaning to root canals, periodontal treatments, oral surgery, extractions and even some dentures, or crown/bridge work. Referrals for other donated services are occasionally made to community Orthodontists, Oral Surgeons, and TMJ Specialists. The SLDDS program is focused on preserving the oral health of patients who have little or no other access to Dental care and treatment. This includes short-term, emergency treatment for conditions that can be life-threatening in some instances. The long-term benefits include improving general health by • enabling people to eat properly and more nutritionally, • increasing self-esteem which often removes a roadblock to seeking employment, an important step towards self-sufficiency, SLDDS-1 415 West 400 South• Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 • instruction the importance of Dental Health. Funding will be used on Dental Equipment, but will also include items that are necessary to run a Dental Clinic such as anesthetic products and office supplies for administrative systems (See question 12 for details). The equipment will enable the program to better service larger Disabled and Elderly caseloads. State of the art technology also enables the practice to maintain volunteer professional interest and keep up with 40-60 different practice styles. The Salt Lake Donated Dental Services provide service to people who have no other options: • People who must choose between filling a prescription and losing a tooth • Some are young people who have never seen a Dentist • Others are mentally challenged people of all ages and • Some just suddenly fmd themselves forced onto the streets or into poverty because of a crisis. In sum: the Homeless and very low-income citizens, of all ages and races, in the Salt Lake City area. 5. Amount of CDBG Funds requested: $39;750 tea/ Total amount required this year to complete the project or operate the program, including CDBG funds: $639,750 Other Funding Sources and Amounts, either being applied for or obtained for this project. Specify which: The overall FY 2000 SLDDS funding sources for operations can be broken down accordingly: Private Foundations 19% State and Local Grants 15% Private Contributions 9% LDS Charities 6% Cash Contributions/Co-Pays 1% Medicaid 50% Total amount needed from other funding sources $39,750 If total funding request is not possible, list minimum amount needed to maintain project viability: $20,400 6. Project/Program Plan: Please describe your plan to accomplish the project/program and what the expected results will be. Public service providers need to quantify numbers of persons expected to benefit or be served,justify the necessity of the program including innovative ideas, community needs, etc. Our expanded Clinic provides 250% more square footage Downtown and the long-term opportunity to serve 450%more clients. It is likely the finest facility of its kind for this population. It houses a unique Donated/Volunteer Dental professional service delivery. NO WHERE else in the country is this range of services provided. SLDDS-2 • In a way, the new construction has also forced the organization to professionalize further. For example, our ability to give needy children the Periodontal care and attention they need and deserve. We anticipate our patient numbers to increase to over 9,000 a year. America has been obsessing over the topic of medical care;who gets how much and who decides. Fortunately, medical care is becoming available for almost everyone. However, few people see the important correlation between medical care and Dental care: such that Dental treatment programming tend to be ignored. Indeed, 50%of untreated Dental disease results in serious health-related problems the kind that find their way to expensive Emergency Rooms, Surgery, hospital beds and the community's overall health care bill. Now comes the Salt Lake Valley Oral Health Task Force and State Planning initiatives for Dental Health. The "gap" at the national level is almost 20%; in the U.S. 29% of the population has Dental disease compared to 36% for the Beehive State. As SLDDS is poised for growth, so the larger Dental system is poised for further progress on an already enviable track-record. Simple logic tells us that many health problems are manageable if people have the teeth to eat properly and get sufficient nutrition. Dental care is also intertwined with medical care in another way. Dental problems spread to the surrounding tissues in the form of abscesses or infections; at that point, a simple dental problem can become serious enough to warrant hospital Emergency Room care. A seriously abscessed tooth in a small child can be lethal in a matter of days (if left untreated)! Salt Lake and other cities are getting a wake-up call concerning the voids in our system. Salt Lake Donated Dental Services has provided almost $3,000,000 worth of free Dental treatment to the community over the last ten years. Without a dynamic SLDDS,the people who fall through the medical/dental cracks will lose the teeth they need to smile without embarrassment, obtain gainful employment and chew food for proper nutrition. Likewise, fewer Dentists will volunteer without proper resources and materiels to work with;this kind of practice also requires State of the Art infection control systems and Continuous Quality Improvements of the highest order. 7. Why is the Project Needed? Please provide a brief history of the efficiency/success of your program during the last year. The Unmet Dental Need in Salt Lake is estimated at 105,000 people (State Dept. of Health). One-third may be getting served through other Medicaid or Sliding Scale providers. The Homeless' incidence of HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis makes them a priority population(i.e. Access as Prevention);to ignore their health status would put the entire community at risk. For many of these, a SLDDS professional may be their first and only contact with the Health Care system. Similarly, the 70,000 estimate does not include any reference to inadequacies of the Social Insurance infrastructure! Ex: A person who has Medicaid but can't get a molar restored with it. Or a child who can only have a tooth extracted—creating gaps that risk complications when new teeth come in. Many agencies service the Medicaid population to some level, but none service the Homeless or Very Low-Income populations to the extent SLDDS does. The agency is expected to soon be not only the City's, but the State's largest Medicaid provider of dental services. To be sure, a successful fluoride initiative will SLDDS-3 • • • start these figures into a downward trend but chronic conditions will clearly not evaporate overnight. Childhood difficulties are even more pronounced in respect to society's Dental System failures-11% more untreated dental disease than their counterparts elsewhere in the country. The efficiency of our program in the last year is symbolized by responses to difficulties that would have been the death-knoll of a less dedicated group: • Raising $500,000 for a new facility in the Homeless "Hub"near Pioneer Park—reducing some operating costs by as much as 50% in the process • Maintaining a high quality program when less demanding alternatives are the norm elsewhere in the country(i.e., restoring a tooth to health rather than precipitously extracting it). • Facilitating a smooth transition in Administration and staffing. • Developing additional partnerships with other organizations in the Health/Human Service and corporate communities. • Replacing fifteen Dentists to the roster of regular Volunteers—most notably in Prosthetics, Dental Hygiene and Oral Surgery. • Implementing a new Management Information System. • Embarking on an initiative to expand its Medicaid caseload to 50%of its total revenues (a Prevention measure in its own right). This is not a"fluke"year, to be sure. The agency has grown steadily- in many ways - over its ten-year life span. The mission has been a veritable Labor of Love. It is now not only a credit to the Dental community, but the larger community as well. 8. What other agencies are providing the same/similar product or service? Which organizations do you collaborate with and how? The Community Health Centers and UMAP provide similar service but no one services the Homeless or approaches the volume of Medicaid clients that SLDDS does and will. Likewise, no one has as comprehensive a range of services for these Very Low-Income groups. Collaborators include the entire Homeless and Dental communities for: • Referrals back and forth • Information dissemination about each agency's capacities • Feedback/outcome reporting • Facilitating delivery or transportation • Training for Dental Hygiene students Our most cherished Health and Human Service cohorts have included Wasatch Homeless Medical Clinic, Traveler's Aid Society, Valley Mental Health, Women's Volunteers of America, Salvation Army,Primary Children's, Homeless Children's Foundation, Marillac House, Rescue Haven, YWCA, the law enforcement community, Americorps Detox and the Indian Walk-In Center. It's our agency's experience that integrated case management models have led to more efficient utilization of and accountability for scarce public resources; it also serves as a preventive device for low-income people at-risk of becoming Homeless. (While SLDDS does not have a case manager,two staff do a great deal by way of facilitating SLDDS-4 inter-agency coordination.) This is where the Whole, truly is greater than the Sum of the parts. Steady growth in client volumes, Volunteer hours,number of procedures and Value of service have set the stage for more inter-agency coordination. Given the fragile nature of a wholly donated Budget System, SLDDS is also pursuing a broader and deeper "partnership"with the State's Medicaid agency. 9. Number proposed to be served: 7,200 Average age has been 34 years of age—approximating that in the caseload at our "sister" agency, The Fourth Street Clinic. 25% are expected to be Female Heads of Household (probably the cohort most at-risk for Homelessness). This caseload comes from every corner of Salt Lake;40-48% are Hispanic. Homeless people don't always have zip codes; but our low-income clientele call 84010-84407 "home". 10. Do you anticipate that this project/program will require future CDBG funding? If so, which years? Please explain. If anything can be ascertained from our ten-year history, it seems to be that growth, need and challenges are the only predictables. Salt Lake's most vulnerable people have a resource in SLDDS;not only is there access to care, but it is timely and of good quality. Rising costs are offset,to an extent, by 35-60 generous Dentists who volunteer their services at the Clinic. A positive Community response to the Clinic's facility needs has prompted more long-term thinking. So that the Clinic's services can be provided for another decade the organization's Board is planning to simulate State/County planning initiatives (now focussed on a 44%reduction in the percentage of children with untreated Dental decay in Salt Lake County). Since some of our equipment will need replacement and professional practices will change, CDBG resources are seen as a long-term"piece" of agency infrastructure. This type of need is hard to forecast as to how fast it presents, but its consistency can be presumed. In conclusion, some need for future funding is anticipated. 11. If your project/program serves the entire county, have you, or do you plan to apply for CDBG funds from Salt Lake County, Sandy City, West Jordan or West Valley City? Tracking systems now confirm that a vast majority of those we serve reside in the Salt Lake City area(zip codes 84010 through 84407). We do not anticipate applying for any funds from Sandy or West Jordan Cities, but will consider Salt Lake County with their next cycle. i SLDDS-5 • , 12. Line item budget breakdown for Salt Lake City CDBG Funds requested: Supplies or Materials Only List each category and amount: 1. Stryker Electronic Impaction Drill/Main Unit $1000 A. Burguard $500 B. Cord $500 C. Foot Control $900 D. Handpiece $2000 2. Rinn System X-Ray Kits (4) $280 3. Thermafil Obdurator Heaters(2) $2800 4. FiberOptic Light Source &Kayo Adapter(2) $2000 5. Slow-Speed handpieces(10) $4000 6. DentalEZ LubeFree Compressor $6000 7. DentalEZ Access Dual Vacuum System $5000 8. Barnestead Thermolyne Steam Sterilizer $12000 9. Stabident Anesthetic Delivery System $2500 10. Surveyor $370 Subtotal $ W < <D The Cost/Benefit impact is significantly positive. Nurturing a resource like SLDDS befits both the old and new CDBG philosophies: essential infrastructure "delivery", ensuring a livable environment and expanding economic opportunities. SLDDS-6 * lop c SAL' a C TY CORM�e d " i MARGARET HUNT . r r �_ $` � _ ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON � DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer ATE: April 24, 2002 FROM: Margaret Hunt, CED Director /i RE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept a grant award provided to the Salt Lake City Police Department from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy. STAFF CONTACT: Sherrie Collins, 535-6150 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: The City will receive an $84,824 grant. The Police Department will have to pay for a portion of the benefits of the two new positions,but no additional budget is needed as the expenses will be covered with existing department funds. DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a Rocky Mountain High-intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) grant in the amount of$84,824 from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy. This grant will pay the salary and partial benefits for two (2) additional police officers assigned to the Metro Narcotics Division. The Police Department will be required to pay for the remaining portion of both officers' benefits, which will be covered within the Police Department's existing budget. The Metro Narcotics Task Force is a multi-agency enforcement program that targets illegal distribution of drugs and drug manufacturing. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: BO1-535.6230 FAX: 901.535-6005 RECYCLED PAPER RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AWARD FROM THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $84 , 824 . 00 of grant funding described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, to expend for the purposes of : Paying the salary and benefits for two additional Police Officer' s to be assigned to the Metro Narcotics unit as part of the multi-agency enforcement program that targets illegal distribution of drugs and drug manufacturing. 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant award and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2002 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: APPROVED ASTO FORM Salt Lake Ci tto ey'§®'fiica (Date `� 'Ii ?�,�, 1 ash;Ii.�'.i(' February 8, 2002 Chief Charles Dinse Salt Lake City Police Department 315 E. 200 S. 4th Floor Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Dear Chief Dinse: • We are pleased to inform you that an Award, Grant Number#I2PRMP599,has been approved in the amount of$84,824.00. This award to the Salt Lake City Police Department will support Salt Lake City Police Department initiative(s) at the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area(HIDTA). The original and one copy of the Award with Special Conditions are enclosed. If you accept this award, sign both the Award and Special Conditions and return a copy to The National HIDTA Assistance Center in Miami. Keep the original copy of the Cooperative Agreement Award and Special Conditions for your file. By accepting this award,you assume certain administrative and financial responsibilities including the timely submission of all financial and programmatic reports, resolution of all interim audit findings, and the maintenance of a minimum level of cash-on-hand. Should your organization not adhere to the terms and conditions of this award, it is subject to termination for cause or other administrative action as appropriate. If you have any questions pertaining to this grant award,please feel free to contact Phuong DeSear at 202-395-6739. Sincerely, Kurt F. Schmid National HIDTA Director Enclosures Executive Office of the President AWARD Office of National Drug Control Policy Cooperative Agreement Page 1 of 6 1. Recipient Name and Address 4. Award Number: I2PRMP599 Salt Lake City Police Department 315 E.200 S.4th Floor 5.Project Period: 1/1/2002 to 12/31/2002 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Budget Period: 1/1/2002 to 12/31/2002 1A. Recipient IRSNendor No. 6. Date: 2/8/2002 7. Action 2. Subrecipient Name and Address 8. Supplement Number ® Initial 0 Supplemental 2A. Subrecipient IRSNendor No. 9. Previous Award Amount 3. Project Title 10. Amount of This Award $84,824.00 Salt Lake City Police Department initiative() 11.Total Award $84,824.00 12. Special Conditions(Check,if applicable) �X The above Cooperative Agreement is approved subject to such conditions or limitations as are set forth on the attached 5 page(s). 59. Statutory Authority for Grant: Public Law 107-67 AGENCY APPROVAL MMMENO RECIPIENT ACCEPTANCE 14.Typed Name and Title of Approving ONDCP 15. Typed Name and Title of Authorized Recipient Official Official Kurt F. Schmid Chief Charles Dinse Office of National Drug Control Policy Salt Lake City Police Department 16. Signature of Approving ONDCP Official 17. Signa o uthorized Recipient Date /1.41 Agency Use Only' 18. Accounting Classification Code 19. HIDTA AWARD ff ( a, AS TO Ptiiig{�., N> LA*, ' iV9 +kt4U r '>e'1� C�fi Ds:% Ross C . Anderson Mayor Office of National Drug Control Policy Attachment to Award# I2PRMP599 Page 2 of 6 Award Recipient: Salt Lake City Police Department HIDTA: Rocky Mountain Initiative: Salt Lake City Police Department initiative(s) Project Contact: RAC Barry Jamison Award Amount: $84,824.00 Award Period: 1/1/2002 to 12/31/2002 ONDCP Contact: All requests for payment and inquiries should be submitted to: The-National HIDTA Assistance Center 8401 Northwest 53rd Terrace, Suite 208 Miami, Florida 33166 (305) 716-3270 A. Conditions 1. The award is based on the detail budget attached to the application submitted for this initiative. This is your approved budget for the initiative and any deviation must comply with the reprogramming requirements as set forth in the ONDCP Guidelines. B. General Provisions 1. This award is subject to: a. the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, also known as the"Common Rule", b. the Certifications Regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements; Federal Debt Status, and Nondiscrimination Statutes And Implementing Regulations. c. the audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133, d. the cost principles contained in OMB Circular A-87, and e. the administrative guidelines contained in ONDCP's Financial and Administrative Guidelines. Office of National Drug Control Policy Attachment to Award# I2PRMP599 Page 3 of 6 2. Payment Basis OMB Standard Form 270 - Request for Advance or Reimbursement" shall be used to request payment. Copies of invoices,payroll registers, and canceled checks must accompany the SF 270 to provide documentation for the reimbursement request. Request for advances will be accompanied by detail specifying the obligation. Documentation of how the advance was spent must be submitted before another advance or reimbursement can be requested. Funding for this award is authorized to be paid on a monthly basis. Payments will be made via Electronic Fund Transfer to the award recipient's bank account. Recipients are therefore requested to provide the following information in Block 10 of the SF 270: bank name,bank address, bank telephone number,point of contact at the bank, American Bankers Association(ABA) number, and account number. This will provide the banking information needed to make payments to the proper bank account. The bank must be FDIC insured. It is desirable that the bank be a member of the Federal Reserve System. The account must be interest bearing. (All payments greater than $25,000 must be made by EFT. Recipients must request a waiver from this provision for payments less than $25,000). Except for interest earned on advances of funds exempt under the Intergovernmental Cooperaction Act(31 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) and the Indian Self-Determination Act(23 U.S.C. 450), grantees and subgrantees shall promtly, but at least quarterly, remit interest earned on advances to ONDCP. The grantee or subgrantee may keep interest amounts up to $100 per year for administrative purposes. (21 CFR Section 1403.21i) 3. Reporting Requirements Financial Status Reports (OMB Standard Form 269) will be required quarterly during the award period and at the end of the award. Performance reports will be required as specified in the Program Guidance. Note that the final financial reports should be cumulative for the entire award period. Performance Reports: Due as specified in the Program Guidance. Financial Status Reports (OMB Standard Form 269) should be submitted to Office of National Drug Control Policy, 750 17th Street,NW,Washington DC 20503. Attn: Phuong DeSear,Room 538. Phone: 202-395-6739, Fax: 202-395-5176. Office of National Drug Control Policy Attachment to Award # I2PRMP599 — Page 4 of 6 Special Conditions HIDTA Cooperative Agreements The following special conditions are incorporated into each award document. 1. In order to provide for compatibility, integration, coordination, and cost effectiveness in the use, procurement, and operation of ADP systems, equipment, and software,recipients are encouraged and authorized to enter into joint purchase or service agreements on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable bases with other HIDTA award recipients. Award recipients are authorized and encouraged to enter into joint purchases or service agreements with other HIDTA award recipients. 2. No federal funds shall be used to supplant state or local funds that would otherwise be made available for project purposes. 3. The operating principles found in 28 CFR Part 23,which pertain to information collection and management or criminal intelligence systems, shall apply to any such systems supported by this award. 4. Prior to expenditure of confidential funds, the award recipient or subrecipient shall sign a certification indicating that he or she has read,understands, and agrees to abide by all of the conditions pertaining to confidential fund expenditures as set forth in Attachment B to the ONDCP Financial and Administrative Guide for Cooperative Agreements. This certification should be submitted to the Assistance Center. 5. The award recipient agrees to account for and use program income, including but not limited to asset forfeitures, in accordance with the"Common Rule" and the ONDCP Financial and Administrative Guide for Cooperative Agreements. Moreover, the use of program income must be consistent with the National Drug Control Strategy. 6. Where furniture has been approved in the budget, the recipient will make every effort to utilized existing State and local surplus property prior to the purchase of any furniture, including computer furniture or items of similar nature. 7. The award recipient may not use designated aircraft assigned to HIDTA-approved task operations and initiatives for the transport of VIP Executive(s) or similar circumstances not relating to the goals and objectives of state and local law enforcement programs. 8. The budget submitted with the proposal is approved. Office of National Drug Control Policy Attachment to Award # I2PRMP599 Page 5 of 6 Reprogramming between budget categories within the same agency and initiative requires the approval of the respective HIDTA Director and must be in accordance with procedures established by the Executive Committee. Reprogramming of funds between agencies or initiatives requires the written approval of the ONDCP HIDTA Office,regardless of the dollar value of the reprogramming. In all cases the recipient is responsible for maintaining detailed records of the reprogramming activities and forwarding notification to your HIDTA Director regarding reprogramming activities as they occur. 9. The recipient agrees to comply with the organizational audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133, "Audits of State and Local Governments." The management letter must be submitted with the audit report. Audits must be submitted no later than thirteen (13) months after the close of the recipient organizations audited fiscal year. The submission of the audit report shall be as follows: An original and one copy shall be sent to the cognizant Federal Agency. Also, a copy of the audit report shall be sent to Office of National Drug Control Policy, 750 17th Street, NW,Washington DC 20503. Attn: Phuong DeSear,Room 538. Phone: 202-395-6739, Fax: 202-395-5176. 10. The recipient agrees to submit operation reports as defined in the Current Year Program Guidance. 11. Equipment acquired under the grant program must be used by the recipient in the program or project for which it was acquired as long as needed, whether or not the project or program continues to be supported by Federal funds. When no longer needed for the original program, the equipment may be used in other activities supported by the Federal agency. The recipient may dispose of the original equipment when no longer needed or supported by the grantor agency. Inventory lists must be supplied to the HIDTA Director to facilitate the sharing of equipment within and between the HIDTAs. Items to be inventoried include Communications, Computer& Related Equipment, Surveillance Equipment, Photo, Vehicles, Video, and Weapons. 12. The recipient will be permitted to designate funds that would be matched or shared; however, these matched or shared funds will not constitute an obligation on behalf of the recipient. • Office of National Drug Control Policy Attachment to Award# I2PRMP599 Page 6 of 6 13. Budget item submissions for equipment and other contract items are accepted as best estimate only and are not deemed approved at that price. Recipients are required to assure such items are not currently available, are not duplicative or excessive, and should make market surveys and obtain the best prices available. 14. The recipient acknowledges that failure to submit an acceptable Equal Employment Opportunity Plan(if recipient is required to submit one pursuant to 28 CFR section 42.302), that is approved by the Office of Civil Rights, is a violation of its Certified Assurances and may result in the suspension of the drawdown of funds. 15. The recipient agrees to complete and keep on file, as appropriate, Immigration and Naturalization Service Employment Eligibility Verification Form (I-9). This form is to be used by recipients of federal funds to verify that persons are eligible to work in the United States. RECIPIENT ACCEPTANCE OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS Ross C . Anderson Typed Name Mayor Title (Signature) Date 4,r z;'") u?R%,. P,adF Law* Ci@q in,rrorrzy, c Budget Detail Report Fiscal Year: 2002 HIDTA Location: Rocky Mountain Grant: I2PRMP599 Task Force: Salt Lake City Metro Task Force Recipient Agency: Salt Lake City Police Department Resource Agency: Salt Lake City Police Department Personnel: Name Annual Time Amount Officers(2) $62,832.00 1 $62,832 Total Personnel: $62,832 Benefits: Name Annual Time Amount Officers(2) $21,992.00 1 $21,992 Total Benefits: $21,992 Total: $84,824 Page 3 of 8 RICHARD GRAHAM SALT` �; C ITY 0 RPORAAIOI ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Rick Graham 1� ,(� Public Services Director DATE: May 10, 2002 REFERENCE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for construction of 2100 South Connector to 5500 West, Job No. 102098. STAFF CONTACT: Rick Johnson, 535-6232 RECOMMENDATION: City Council schedule their on the agenda. DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: The City's share of the cost ($165,000) is currently budgeted in cost center: 83-02038-2700. UDOT's share ($170,000) is scheduled for budget appropriation in the June 2002 budget opening. DISCUSSION: The access road to 5600 West from 2100 South frontage road has been closed due to increased traffic congestion in the area as well as safety concerns on 5600 West. UDOT has provided a traffic signal at 1730 South and has agreed to fund half the cost to realign approximately 1000 feet of industrial roadway to eliminate an inadequate and unsafe road curve that currently exists between 2000 and 1730 South. Attachment cc: Vault 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7775 FAX: B01-535-77E19 Aec.cco PAPeA RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002 AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Ann., 1953, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following: A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION REGARDING THE 2100 SOUTH (SR-201) CONNECTION ROAD TO 5500 WEST PROJECT, UDOT AUTHORITY NO. 90122. 2. Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City,Utah, or his designee, is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to such minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, his execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: -- =)i a. = ASSISTANT SALT LAKE ClitY ATTORNEY RESOLUTI\Interlocal UDOT 5600 West 5-10-02.doc 2 Authority No. 90122; Salt Lake County 2100 South (SR-201) Connection Road to 5500 West SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2002, by and between the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as "UDOT" and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as the "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, UDOT has installed a traffic signal system in accordance with traffic signal warrants, at the location of 5600 West and 1730 South,located in Salt Lake City,Salt Lake County, Utah; and WHEREAS,the new traffic signal system is in close proximity to the existing frontage road at 5600 West and approximately 2100 South, WHEREAS, in order to meet safety concerns, UDOT has closed and cul-de-saced the existing 2100 South north frontage road on the east side of 2100 South; and WHEREAS, the City desires to construct a new connection road to 5500 West (as shown on EXHIBIT A) and will provide UDOT with plans and specification for their review prior to construction; and WHEREAS, UDOT is willing to participate in the cost of the connection road by reimbursing the City for 50% of the actual costs incurred to construct the connection road, not to exceed$170,000.00, as contained herein; and WHEREAS,UDOT has deteuiiined by foumal finding that payment for the construction of the connection road is not in violation with the laws of the State of Utah. V1177 1 Authority No. 90122; Salt Lake County 2100 South (SR-201) Connection Road to 5500 West SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: (1). The City shall provide the necessary field and office engineering and shall advertise for bids, award a contract, and shall administer the construction of the 5500 South connection road. (2). Prior to construction,the City shall provide UDOT with plans and specifications for the 5500 South connection road project for UDOT review. Said plans and specifications shall be directed to: Rich Clarke, UDOT Engineer for Traffic and Safety, 4501 South 2700 West, Box 143200, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84114. (3). The City shall be reimbursed by UDOT for fifty percent (50%) of the actual costs incurred to construct the 5500 South connection road, NOT TO EXCEED $170,000.00. Upon execution of this agreement by the parties hereto, the City shall submit itemized bills covering their actual costs incurred to:Rich Clarke,UDOT Engineer for Traffic and Safety,4501 South 2700 West, Box 143200, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114, within one (1) year following completion of the work contained herein. Failure on the part of the City to submit said billings within said one (1) year time limit will result in UDOT's disallowance of reimbursement. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST TO UDOT IS $170,000.00. (4). UDOT shall have the right to audit all cost records and accounts of the City pertaining to this project. Should this audit disclose that the City has been underpaid,the City will be reimbursed by UDOT upon submission of additional billing to cover the underpayment. Should this audit disclose that the City has been overpaid,the City will reimburse UDOT in the amount of the overpayment. For purpose of audit the City is required to keep and maintain its records of work covered herein for a minimum of three (3) years after final payment is received by the City from UDOT. (5). Upon completion of construction of the 5500 South connection road, the City will retain ownership and will be responsible for all future maintenance of the connection road at no cost to UDOT. V1177 2 Authority No. 90122; Salt Lake County 2100 South (SR-201) Connection Road to 5500 West SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION (6). All terms and conditions contained herein will perpetuate to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns until such time that a modification or termination to this agreement is approved in writing by the parties hereto. (7). UDOT and the City are both governmental entities subject to the Governmental Immunity Act, Title 63, Chapter 30, Utah Code Annotated. The City agrees to indemnify UDOT, its officers, employees, and agents and hold them harmless from and against any claims alleged to be the result of,or to have arisen out of, the construction,maintenance, operation or lack thereof,of the 5500 South connection road. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to create additional rights to third parties or to waive any of the provisions of the Governmental Immunity Act. (8). Inter-local Co-operation Act Requirements: (A). This agreement shall be authorized by resolution of the governing body of each party to Section 11-13-17 ofthe Inter-local Co-operation Act,Utah Code Title 11,Chapter 13,as amended (the "Act"); (B). This agreement shall be approved as to foiin and legality by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each party, pursuant to Section 11-13-9 of the Act; (C). A duly executed counterpart of this agreement shall be filed with keeper of records of each party, pursuant to Section 11-13-10 of the Act; (D). Except as otherwise specifically provided herein,each party shall be responsible for its own costs of any action done pursuant to this agreement, and for any financing of such costs; and (E). No separate legal entity is created by the terns of this agreement. To the extent that this agreement requires administration other than as set forth herein, it shall be administered by the mayor of the City and the Region Director of UDOT, acting as a joint board. No real or personal property shall be acquired jointly by the parties as a result of this agreement. To the extent that a party acquires,holds, or disposes of any real or personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this agreement, such party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other property of such party. V1177 3 Authority No. 90122; Salt Lake County 2100 South (SR-201) Connection Road to 5500 West SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION (9). UDOT represents that it has not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (2)retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission,percentage,brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business;(3)knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or(4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. V1177 4 Authority No. 90122; Salt Lake County A 4 2100 South (SR-201) Connection Road to 5500 West SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed by their duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, A Municipal Corporation of the State of Utah By Title Title Date: Date: (IMPRESS SEAL) *************************************** **************************************** RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By By UDOT Engineer for Traffic and Safety Region Director Date: Date: APPROVED: By: UDOT Comptroller Office Contract Administrator Date: James H. Beadles UDOT Legal Counsel V1177 5 -777 Av, ba4 'zoo 2-- .10: `74(A.,),,,L 6A2A-t, rofo-iou 96. 4.4, ,v) Act4 feti4 .�. a - - . -t..,.r•� f-.��., - 4. t4 aides, ;tom o ate- . -ts- C Iwo of4._ a-ua .u.± 31uo etut.4. • A.-- - .moo !L-444r4' iL?0j ,1.,,A.l . ,t a ate.�1 � •- 42. 0 41.- • A.D . J'eT%1 d F/A44k. a. -1/4- A-LAJ4-74-p4-)4) A4,44.44,. ?J.L4t11J- kJ- tzlgtA.4 Ac4-44.d tA1-4 A00;9`. --Q - ala- G _ _ w I Salt Lake City Public Utilities BUDGET PROGRAM 2002 - 2003 Salt Lake City Corporation We SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 - 2003 DATE: March 19, 2002 SUBJECT RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT WATER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND The Department is recommending a Budget adjustment for the Water Utility Fund for fiscal year 2002-2003, for changes unanticipated when the budget was adopted last year. The total increase in expenditure asked for is $9,829,430 or a 19.7%. The majority of this request relates to the financing of the upgrade to the City Creek Water Treatment Plant in the amount of an additional $6,292,745 for a total project cost of$11,292,745. Also, the Department is asking for additional funding for water pump stations and well upgrades, reservoir upgrades and additional funding for watershed purchases NIin the amount of $3,510,685. Finally the Utility is also asking for a small increase in operations and maintenance of$26,000 to cover the proposed postage increase. SUMMARY OF MAJOR BUDGET ISSUES • Implementation of Council Approved Capital Improvement Program - The total capital improvement and capital outlay budget of$23,359,020 is the first year of the Department's five-year capital improvement program approved by the City Council in 2001. • Implementation of the Approved Rate Increase to Finance the Metropolitan Water Districts and Departments Capital Improvement Programs - The proposed budget for 2002 - 2003 includes the first of four water rate increases approved by the Council in June of 2001, to finance the Metropolitan Water District's and Department's capital improvement program. The Metropolitan Water District's plan will require our utility to pay higher water rates for wholesale water and pay a set annual assessment each year for the next thirty years to finance their program. Both capital improvement programs were approved by the City Council last year. The additional water rate increases will be 4% in 2002-2003, 3% in 2003-2004, 3% in 2004-2005, and 3% in 2005 - 2006. • Upgrade of City Creek Water Treatment Plant- This budget includes funding I. for the upgrade of the City Creek Water Treatment Plant in the amount of $11.2 million. The current treatment plant was constructed in the 1940's and needs to be upgraded to meet current treatment methods. The ell Department will not be able to fund all seismic components of the plant upgrade until after the initial five-year program window. PROGRAM ISSUES The recommended budget for fiscal year 2002 -2003 reflects the following program changes from the previous year: • Capital Improvement Program - This budget begins the first year of the five- year capital improvement program that was approved by the City Council in 2001. The water main line replacement program is expected to be about 64,722 feet for the first year with the average replacement of 40,591 feet over the 5-year program. Other major improvements include the upgrade to the City Creek Treatment Plant and the second year of the five-year meter replacement program. • Rate Increase to Fund Capital Improvement Program - In June 2001, the City Council adopted a five-year incremental water rate increase to coincide with a five-year capital improvement plan. Rather than approving a capital program that takes five years to realize and passing a legislative document implementing only the first year, the Council adopted a five-year plan for the Water Fund including rate increases each year. IN Analysis of Estimated Revenue An analysis of the estimated revenue contained in the Department's recommended Budget for the Water Fund is as follows. Revenue Adopted Proposed Difference Percent 2001-2002 2002-2003 Charges for services $38,340,000 $40,257,000 $1,917,000 5.0% Interest 1,250,000 1,250,000 - 0.0% Interfund charges 2,012,000 2,049,020 37,020 1.8% Sale of used equipment 50,000 50,000 - 0.0% Contributions by Developers 855,000 1,105,000 250,000 29.2% Reserve Funds 3,826,910 14,797,831 10,970,921 286.7% TOTAL $46,333,910 $59,508,851 $13,174,941 28.4% Revenue from Charges for Services: The proposed budget includes the 4% rate increase that was approved by the Council in June 2001 as part of a five-year capital improvement program. An additional 1% increase relates to continued growth in our service area. Interest Income: No Change Imo Interfund Charges and Other Reimbursements: The Water Fund processes bills and handles customer service complaints for the Sewer, Stormwater and the Refuse Fund. Revenue will increase as the Water Utility increases charges to the other agencies to cover higher costs from data processing and postage. Contributions by Developers: With the implementation of General Accounting Standard Board Announcement 34 all contributions by developers are now classified as non-operating revenue. This requires the budgeting of$250,000 in anticipation of water lines being installed and donated to the City by developers. Analysis of Proposed Expenditures The expenditure budget for the Department is proposed to increase by $13,174,941 or 28.4% over the 2001 - 2002 budget. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2002 - 2003 by major category is as follows: Major Expenditure Adopted Proposed Difference Percent Category 2001-2002 2002-2003 Personal services $12,758,107 $13,075,538 $ 317,431 2.4% Materials and supplies 2,225,136 2,272,473 47,337 2.1% Charges for services 12,752,557 14,086,970 1,334,413 10.5% NDebt service 4,828,000 4,800,000 (28,000) (0.5%) Capital outlay 4,647,200 1,914,850 (2,732,350) (58.7%) Capital improvement program 9,122,910 23,359,020 14,236,110 156% TOTAL $46,333,910 $59,508,851 $13,174,941 28.4% Personal Services: The proposed budget includes $317,431, for employee compensation adjustments. The average employee will receive a 3% increase. Materials 86 Supplies: The proposed budget for materials and supplies is increasing because of the following: • Additional $10,887 for chemical costs. • Additional postage of $26,000 due to postage rate increase. • Additional water repair materials and parts to maintain system $8,650. • Additional permit costs in Holiday City and South Salt Lake $1,800. Charges for Services: The Department proposes the following budget changes to the charges for service area as follows: • Increase of$ 1,200,000 for water purchases from the Metropolitan Water District due to the proposed rate increase effective July 1, 2002 from $125 per acre-foot to $150. ND • Increase of$29,850 in Administrative Service Fees. • Increase of$28,000 for increase in the payment in lieu of taxes to the 011 General Fund. • Increase of$1,546 for additional safety equipment. • Increase of$6,300 for increases in fuel costs. • Increase of$9,750 for City Data Processing to cover web page and other support. • Increase of$6,000 to cover increase in laboratory testing related to new standards and change in City and County Health contract. • Increase $52,967 to cover increase in Power and Fuel costs. Capital Outlay: The proposed budget for fiscal year 2002 - 2003 includes capital outlay for the replacement of vehicles and heavy equipment. Capital Improvement Program: The Department's proposed budget for fiscal year 2002 - 2003 includes capital projects as follows: Proposed Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Type of Project Budget Amount Replacement of water lines and hydrants $ 5,838,525 Reservoirs 293,000 Treatment plants 11,527,745 Wells 32,000 Maintenance buildings 222,750 Water meter replacement 1,300,000 Culverts, flumes&bridges 25,000 Water stock purchases 30,000 Land purchases 500,000 Landscaping—Conservation Projects 120,000 Service Line Replacement 1,800,000 Fluoridation Implementation 1,500,000 Pumping Plant Upgrades 170,000 Total 2002-2003 Capital Improvement Program $ 23,359,020 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment BO Enter Department Name Enter FY Public Utilties-Water Utility Fund 2002-2003 Enter Initiative Name Adjustment to Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Initiative Number 510001 Enter Preparer Name Enter Phone Jim Lewis 483-6773 Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $0 I I $0 3. Enterprise Fund Donations by Developers 500,000 Water Utility Reserve Funds 9,329,430 Total $0 $9,829,430 $0 De 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $0 I $0 3. Enterprise Fund Capital Improvements 9,803,430 Postage 26,000 Total $0 $9,829,430 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 26,000 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 9,803,430 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 $9,829,430 $0 ND Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact 1011 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for 111. Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization The Water Utility must amend the CIP program for changes that were not anticipated when the budget was approved last year. The majority of the change relates to the financing of the improvements to the City Creek Water Treatment Plant. Preliminary estimates were calculated at$5 million dollars when the budget was prepared last year. The new calculations from our consultant estimated the construction at 11.2 million without seismic upgrade to the plant. This requires the Department to request additional funding for this project in the amount of$6,292,745 to allow us to begin this project. Other increase relate to additional water line replacement projects and upgrades to our existing pump stations and wells. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria: The required adjustment amounts to $9,829,430 which will be mostly funded from reserve funds, which are available. This adjustment will allow the department to meet its goals and continue to build the needed construction projects. A major portion relates to the construction of the City Creek Water Treatment Plant. This budget adjustment also allows us to expand our water main replacement program and install over 60,000 feet of replacement water lines next year and average over 40,000 feet of pipe over the next five year period. Effect: Delaying the proposed projects would increase cost and service interruptions to our customers.. INDCondition: The cost of projects budgeted came in higher than originally estimated. Cause: Projecting the capital needs in the system does not always coincide with the funding requirements anticipated during the budget process. Recommendations We recommend approval of the budget amendment to allow completion of the capital improvement projects. Analyst Comments: NO ell SEWER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND SUMMARY OF MAJOR BUDGET ISSUES The Department is recommending a Budget adjustment for the Sewer Utility Fund for fiscal year 2002 - 2003 for changes unanticipated when the budget was adopted last year. The total increase in expenditures asked for is about $11.4 million or a 35.4% increase. Capital modifications are the primary increase to expenditures by $13,545,100 or a 73.5% increase. Treatment plant projects expected to begin or complete in 2002 were moved and included in the 2003 budget for an increase of reclamation plant projects of$16.8 million. Sewer collection line replacements increased only $800,000. To offset these increases, a large sewer trunk line near the treatment plant budgeted at $3 million has been delayed until a future year and less lift station construction than anticipated reduces capital another $200,000. Decreases in debt service and capital equipment purchases further offset the adjustment by $2.2 million. The major budget issues reflected in this adjustment to the Mayor's Recommended 2002-2003 Budget for the Sewer Fund are: Oil • Sale of bonds to finance a five year capital improvement plan - Originally proposed for the 2001-2002 budget. Bonding was delayed so consultants could reassess the capital project needs and costs at the Sewer Treatment Plant. The Sewer Utility plans to sell a $25 million bond issue to cover the major improvements needing construction at the existing plant to handle the increased organic loading. This proposed budget has included $28 million for treatment plant needs and the financial plan to construct over $65 million in capital improvements over the next five years. • Sewer rate increase - To fairly and equitably charge those customers discharging the higher plant loadings for chemical treatment, the Sewer Utility raised rates beginning in 2001. This restructured rate increases again in 2002-2003 by another 9 percent PROGRAM ISSUES The recommended budget adjustment for fiscal year 2002 -2003 reflects the following policy direction given in the previous year: • Conservation Rate Restructure and Funding of much needed Capital Improvement - In June 2000, the City Council adopted a five-year 011 incremental sewer rate increase to both assist with an aggressive five- year capital improvement plan and help customers conserve on the amount of treatable solids going to the reclamation plant. The new rates and rate restructure went into effect on January 1, 2001. This budget continues with an additional increase of 9% on July 1,2002. • Capital improvement program - The original proposed five-year capital improvement plan includes $18,434,000 for projects during the 2002- 2003 fiscal year. This has been modified up to nearly $34 million as several large projects were delayed pending the larger scope of review for our consultants. Under this scenario bonds scheduled to be sold last year are anticipated to be needed for the fiscal year 2002-2003 to finance the $65 million capital improvement price tag increase over the last estimates. About 55% of proposed improvements are planned for the reclamation plant with 45% for various new and rehab collection lines. Analysis of Revenue An analysis between the estimated revenue contained in the Mayor's Adopted Budget and proposed modifications are as follows. Revenue Adopted Proposed Difference Percent 2001-2002 2002-2003 Sewer Services Fees $13,000,000 $14,824,000 $1,824,000 14.0% Interest 800,000 800,000 - 0.0% Permits 85,000 85,000 - 0.0% Contributions by Developers - 500,000 500,000 N/A Other 167,000 167,000 500,000 299.4% Impact Fees 600,000 600,000 - 0.0% Interfund Charges 140,000 140,000 - 0.0% Revenue Bond issue 25,000,000 25,000,000 - 0.0% From(To)Reserve Funds (7,465,799) 1,659,657 $9,125,456 (122.2%) TOTAL $32,326,201 $43,775,657 $11,449,456 35.4% Explanation of revenue Sewer Service Fees: . Revenue projected for this year is expected to show a total growth of 14 percent. The additional 5 percent above the 9% rate increase is because of the method of charging waste strength to the commercial users. The rate increase will generate about $1.8 million in new revenue above the previous year and a modification of about 700,000 over the original adopted 2002-2003 budget. The budget includes the 9% increase in sewer fees effective July 1, 2001 adopted by the City Council in 2000. This will provide the funds to both pay for the $65 million capital improvement program and anticipated bond issue that will be needed. Interest Income: No change expected. Permit Fees: Revenue generated through permit fees is expected to decrease slightly. Contributions from Developers: New item for the budget. Projecting $500,000 for 2002-2003. We are required to estimate the amount of contributions we expect to receive from outside contractors. The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement 34 that now requires we show contributions as revenue on our income statement instead of applying contributions directly to the balance sheet. These can be reimbursable projects from outside agencies or completely donated by developers. Other Income: No change expected Impact Fees: Impact fees continue to remain fairly steady. Interfund Charges: Again no change expected. Revenue Bond Issue: A $25 million revenue bond issue will be required to pay for the amount of capital projects the department is planning. However, the 2001-2002 bond issue was not sold in the prior year as shown on the budget comparison but delay until 2003. Reserve Funds: Reserve funds or prior utility earnings are required to fund capital or balance the budget. The 2002-2003 fiscal year would require using $1.6 million of the utilities cash reserves. Analysis of Expenditures The expenditure budget for the Department is proposed to increase $11,449,456 or 35.4% over the 2001 - 2002 budget. An analysis between the figures contained in the Mayor's Adopted Budget and proposed modifications are as follows Major Expenditure Adopted Proposed Difference Percent Category 2001-2002 2002-2003 Personal services $5,384,202 $5,502,235 $118,033 2.2% Materials and supplies 1,343,620 1,343,620 - 0.0% Charges for services 2,337,079 2384902 47,823 2.0% Debt services 3,025,000 1,525,000 (1,500,000) (49.6%) Capital improvements 18,434,000 31,979,100 13,545,100 73.5% Capital outlay 1,802,300 1,040,800 (761,500) (42.3%) TOTAL $32,326,201 $43,775,657 $11,449,456 35.4% Personal Services: The proposed budget proposes the same level of funding as last year as the department has continued to trim and still maintain the same high quality service. The additional $118,000 is based on employee pay increases. Personal services actually remains the same as adopted in the Mayor's Proposed two year budget. Materials 86 Supplies: No change proposed as the department expects to continue the Mayor's policy of zero increases for supplies. Charges for Services: The Department proposes an increase to this area to cover administrative service fees and payment in-leiu of taxes charge from the general fund. Debt Service: Since we plan to issue the $25 million in bonds late in the fiscal 2003 year and did not sell any as anticipated in 2002, the debt service decreases by $1.5 million. However, we anticipate a $1 million actual increase for debt service over the actual costs expected for 2002. Capital Outlay: Capital outlay is actually expected to decrease as most of our replacement costs for vehicles and heavy equipment has already taken place. Capital Improvements: The proposed modifications to the budget for fiscal year 2002 - 2003 includes many of the projects budgeted in the prior year but delayed for a more in-depth review by our engineering consultants. The Department's proposed budget for fiscal year 2002 - 2003 includes capital projects as follows: Type of Project Budget Amount Maintenance and repair shops $ 12,000 Lift Stations $ 180,000 Treatment Plant $ 28,310,000 Collection Lines $ 3,372,100 Site Improvements $ 105,000 Total 2000 - 2001 Capital Improvement Program $ 31,979,100 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Enter Department Name Enter FY Public Utilties-Sewer Utility Fund 2002-2003 Enter Initiative Name Adjustment to Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Initiative Number 520001 Enter Preparer Name Enter Phone Jim Lewis 483-6773 Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $0 I I $0 3. Enterprise Fund Increase in customer sewer revenue 654,000 Donations by Developers 500,000 Bond issue 25,000,000 Transfer to reserves for future improvements (6,150,600) Total $0 $20,003,400 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 i $0 I $0 3. Enterprise Fund Capital Improvements 21,503,400 Debt Principle& Interest (1,500,000) Total $0 $20,003,400 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 21,503,400 6. Other(Specify) Debt Service (1,500,000) Total $0 $20,003,400 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact IP • ` Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization The Sewer Utility must amend the CIP program for projects at the reclamation plant that were delayed by consultants requiring funding for 2003 for$21,503,400. This also delayed the issue of the $25,000,000 revenue bond, which was to be used specifically for the treatment plant upgrade. Due to the delay in issuing debt, we were able to reduce our debt service by $1.5 million. GASB 34 required by the accounting profession increases revenue by $500,000 for donations from developers. Customer sewer collections are expected to increase $654,000 from the sewer rate restructure that was effective in January 2001. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria: Considerable funds are needed for this fiscal year and four years into the future to accomplish our five year capital plan needs. The sewer treatment plant requires several upgrades to meet the expected flow into the plant. We expect to bond for $25,000,000 to build the additional $22 million in treatment plant upgrades. Accounting standards require us to show the increased donations as income. The sewer rate restructure placed many businesses in categories that generate greater revenue than under the older flat rate. We anticipate no need to change our normal operating budget. Condition: The planning process for our consultants to complete a review of our plant needs took longer than anticipated and is reflected in the budget. Cost estimates to compete the needed treatment plant projects continues to increase. Completing these projects as soon as possible will cost less in the long run. Effect: Without funding the requested projects for the treatment plant may lead to plant failures in processing the growing volume of waste loadings. This would create fines, penalties and significant excess costs to repair and replace worn equipment and to increase plant capacity. Following accepted accounting procedures will ensure a better financial report to the public. Cause: Projecting the capital needs in the system does not always coincide with the funding requirements acticipated during the budget process. Availability of consultants and the large number of projects in all three utility funds has greatly increased the engineering workload and projects do not always meet with our financial expectations. Recommendation: We recommend approval of the budget amendment to allow completion of the capital improvement projects that will upgrade the sewer reclamation plant and provide the necessary funding to accomplish it. Analyst Comments: STORMWATER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND The Department is recommending a Budget adjustment for the Stormwater Utility Fund for fiscal year 2002-2003 for changes unanticipated when the budget was adopted last year. The total decrease in expenditures is $2,971,000 or a (24.3%). The major reason for the budget change is the delay of the first phase of the 900 South storm drain project from the Jordan River to State Street to align our project with the City Street project scheduled the following year. The budget is also adjusted to be in compliance with GASB 34, which requires that contributions from developers are recorded as revenue and as capital projects. SUMMARY OF MAJOR BUDGET ISSUES The recommended budget for the Stormwater Fund for fiscal year 2002 - 2003 increases expenditures by $2,337,223 and requires the issue of a $9 million revenue bond in the spring of 2003. Analysis of Estimated Revenue An analysis of the estimated revenue contained in the Department's Recommended Budget for the Stormwater Fund is as follows. Adopted Proposed Difference Percent Revenue 2001-2002 2002-2003 Operating Sales $4,949,000 $5,295,199 $ 346,199 7.0% County Flood Reimbursement 200,000 200,000 - 0.0% Interest 300,000 300,000 - 0.0% Interfund Reimbursement 35,000 35,000 - 0.0% Impact fees 250,000 250,000 - 0.0% Contributions by Developers - 500,000 500,000 N/A Other 21,000 21,000 - 0.0% Revenue Bonds - 9,000,000 9,000,000 100.0% From(To)Reserves 1,129,839 (6,379,137) (7,508,976) (664.0%) TOTAL $6,884,839 $9,222,062 $2,337,223 33.9% Operating Sales: Total sales should increase $346,199 because of new public development and internal review of large accounts. _ County Flood Reimbursement: No change is expected. Reserve Funds: A transfer is needed from reserve funds to finance the capital improvement program. Interest Income: No change is expected. Impact Fees: No change is expected. Contributions by Developers: Due to implementation of GASB 34, we are now required to record donated stormwater lines as income and the estimated cost of the donated system as a capital improvement. It is estimated that we will have approximately $500,000 next year. Other Fees: No change is expected. Revenue Bond: To finance the new 900 south storm drainage system to be built over the next three years the Department will need to issue $9 million in revenue bonds in the spring of 2003. Analysis by Proposed Expenditures The expenditure budget for the Department is proposed to increase $6,299,020 or 94.1% over the 2001-2002 budgets. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2002 - 2003 by major category is as follows: Major Expenditure Adopted Proposed Difference Percent Category 2000-2001 2001-2002 Personal services $1,411,472 $1,449,140 $ 37,668 2.6% Materials and supplies 122,240 119,150 (3,090) (2.5%) Charges for services 1,262,827 1,289,572 26,745 2.1% Debt Service 375,000 375,000 100% Capital improvements 3,778,700 5,505,200 1,726,500 45.7% Capital equipment 309,600 484,000 174,400 71.9% TOTAL $6,884,839 9,222,062 $2,337,223 33.9% Personal Services: The proposed budget includes a $37,668 for employee compensation adjustments. The average employee will receive a 3% increase. Materials 85 Supplies: The proposed budget for materials and supplies is decreasing by $3,090. Charges 85 Services: The Department proposes the following budget changes to the charges for service area as follows: • Increase $2,760 for increase in the payment in lieu of taxes to the General Fund. i • Increase $3,984 for increases in fuel costs. • Increase $3,720 for City Data Processing to cover web page and other support. • Increase $1,200 to cover increase in Administrative Service fees. • Increase $1,581 to cover increase in Power and Fuel costs. • Increase $13,500 for additional wet weather testing. Capital Equipment: The proposed capital equipment budget has increased to include the cost of a replacement vactor truck. Capital Improvements: The proposed budget for capital expenditures includes the start of the 600 East interceptor line to Liberty Park and storm water projects on Montgomery Street and Illinois Avenue. The Department's proposed budget for fiscal year 2002 — 2003 include capital projects as follows: Type of Project Budget Amount Lift Stations $ 290,000 Collection Lines $ 5,215,200 Total 2002 - 2003 Capital Improvement Program $ 5,505,200 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Enter Department Name Enter FY Public Utilties-Stormwater Utility 2002-2003 Enter Initiative Name Adjustment to Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Initiative Number 53001 Enter Preparer Name Enter Phone Jim Lewis 483-6773 Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $0 I I $0 3. Enterprise Fund Donations by Developers 500,000 Additional Stormwater Sales 296,709 Stormwater Utility Reserve Funds (3,767,709) Total $0 ($2,971,000) $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 I $0 3. Enterprise Fund Capital Improvements debt service (2,971,000) Total $0 ($2,971,000) $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay (2,446,000) 6. Other(Specify) Debt Service (525,000) Total $0 ($2,971,000) $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact S • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization The Stormwater Utility is delaying a major storm drain project to allow us to coordinate with Public Services. Public Services has a street project that will fit with our storm drain project scheduled for next year. This change will drop our expected capital program by$2.4 million. We also delay issuing bonds and saving interest and principle payments of$525,000. We have also included a revenue adjustment to contributions of$500,000 which is offset by the donation in capital of the same amount. This change is required by newly implemented government accounting regulations. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria: It is the policy of Public Utilities to look for ways to minimize the impact of construction to the public and coordinate and work effectively with other City, County or State agencies to save both our department and others unneeded cost and repairs. Effect: Delaying the current stormwater project may increase some construction costs but the benefit both to the public and Public Services should save money and minimize citizen complaints or disruption of normal activities. The delay will also allow funds earmarked for construction to be placed in the utilities reserve funds. Condition: Although the completion of the 900 south storm drain is needed, it will be better to coordinate with Public Services to limit the amount of disruption to our customers. Cause: Our engineering section works effectively with the City Engineering Division to work effectively in areas where we have mutual benefits. Recommendation: We recommend approval of the budget amendment decrease which would allow our reserve funds to improve and be available to pay for the project in the future. Analyst Comments: I d/12/02 d oc.xlsoc.xls MANNING SUMMARY BY FISCAL YEAR FULL TIME&FULL TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS APPRO PROPOSED NUMBER DESCRIPTION 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001 2002 2003 WATER UTILITY 5101 SOURCE OF SUPPLY 13.23 13.23 14.23 14.23 14.23 13.23 13.25 13.25 13.25 13.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 5103 POWER&PUMPING 6.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 5105 PURIFICATION 43.00 43.20 43.20 43.20 42.20 42.20 43.00 42.70 45.20 47.20 47.20 47.20 47.00 47.00 5107 TRANSMISSION&DISTRIBUTION 116.87 118.37 115.37 114.34 113.34 109.15 111.35 114.35 118.35 114.85 115.35 111.35 109.70 111.70 5109 SHOPS&MAINTENANCE 33.35 31.35 32.35 34.15 30.35 29.85 28.85 28.85 29.35 27.35 27.35 26.35 32.40 31.40 5111 CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING&COLLECT] 52.50 51.50 51.50 50.00 50.00 49.00 50.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 52.60 51.55 51.55 5113 WATER ADMINISTRATION 8.50 8.50 8.50 9.50 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.50 12.50 13.50 14.00 12.00 12.00 11.90 5113 PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 WATER UTILITY TOTAL 274.75 270.45 269.45 269.72 263.42 257.73 261.75 268.95 275.95 273.45 273.45 266.05 269.20 270.10 SEWER UTILITY 5220 LIFT STATIONS 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5230 COLLECTION SYSTEM 28.98 28.98 28.98 28.48 32.48 35.80 27.67 28.67 29.42 27.67 27.92 31.92 27.45 27.45 5260 RECLAMATION PLANT 62.00 61.60 61.60 63.40 62.40 62.40 64.80 64.10 64.10 64.60 64.90 64.90 64.90 64.90 5280 ACCOUNTING&CUSTOMER SERVICE 5.00 4.50 4.50 3.60 3.60 2.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.20 1.20 1.20 5290 SEWER ADMINISTRATION 5.00 5.50 5.50 3.90 4.20 3.70 3.30 2.90 2.65 3.00 3.25 3.25 3.25 2.85 5295 PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 SEWER UTILITY TOTAL 108.98 108.58 108.58 107.18 108.48 110.50 103.37 103.27 103.77 102.87 103.67 107.07 102.60 102.20 STORM WATER 5301 STORMWATER MAINTENANCE 13.37 13.37 11.00 12.00 12.50 12.00 12.00 13.25 13.25 13.25 13.25 12.25 12.25 5301 STORMWATER ENGINEERING 3.00 1.00 2.40 2.10 4.90 11.28 11.28 12.28 11.53 10.08 10.08 10.70 10.70 5301 STORMWATER ADMINISTRATIVE 3.10 3.10 2.40 2.30 2.20 2.45 2.90 3.15 3.15 3.15 2.65 5301 STORMWATER QUALITY 1.30 1.30 2.30 2.30 2.80 2.50 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 STORMWATER TOTAL 16.37 14.37 16.50 18.50 21.10 27.88 27.78 30.78 30.18 28.68 28.68 28.30 27.80 PUBLIC UTILITIES TOTAL 383.73 395.40 392.40 393.40 390.40 389.33 393.00 400.00 410.50 406.50 405.80 401.80 400.10 400.10 WATER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 2002-03 AMENDED PROJECTED PROPOSED FORECAST FORECAST ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET SOURCES 2000-2001 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 REVENUES METERED SALES $39.721.723 $38.340.000 $38,340.000 $40,257,000 $41,867,280 $43,541 971 INTEREST INCOME 2.393,698 1.250.000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 OTHER REVENUES 1.477,971 2.012,000 2,012,000 2,049,020 2087,150 2,126,425 TOTAL REVENUES 043593,392 $41,602.000 $41,602,000 $43,566,020 $45,204,430 $46,918,396 OTHER,S.OI IRCFS GRANTS 8 OTHER RELATED REVENUES $1,806,980 $355,000 $355.000 $855,000 $855,000 6855,000 IMPACT FEES 1,038,540 500,000 500,000 260,000 250.000 250.000 OTHER SOURCES 145,338 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 BOND PROCEEDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES $2,990,858 $905,000 $905,000 $1,165,000 $1,155,000 $1,155,000 TOTAL SOURCES $46,584,250 $42,507,000 $42,507,000 $44,711,020 $46,359,430 $48,073,396 FXPENSFS 8 f1THFR IISFR FXPENRITURFR PERSONAL SERVICES $12,086,241 $12,758,107 $12,758,107 $13,075,538 $13,453,990 $13,843797 OPERATING 8 MAINTENANCE 2,003,023 2,225.136 2.225,136 2,272,473 2,291,616 2,316413 TRAVEL 8 TRAINING 48,996 69,000 69,000 69,000 69,000 69,000 UTILITIES 1,692,564 1.817,715 1,817,715 1,870,682 1,925,237 1,981,426 PROF 8 CONTRACT SERVICES 1,594,309 2,455,350 2,455,350 2,461,360 2 467 531 2,473,897 DATA PROCESSING 284,059 367,000 367,000 376,750 376,792 397,137 FLEET MAINTENANCE 662,493 651,000 651,000 667,300 668789 670,473 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE FEE 471,437 597,000 597,000 626,850 658,193 691,103 PAYMENT IN LEIU OF TAXES 245,864 400,000 400,000 428,000 457,960 457,960 METRO.WATER PURCH 8 TREAT 5,347,419 5,625,000 9,625,000 6,825,000 6.900,000 10,485.946 OTHER CHARGES AND SERVICES 195,136 770,492 770,492 772,038 773,616 775,225 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $24,631,540 $27,735,800 $31,735,800 $29,434,981 $30.037,724 $34.162.377 OTHER USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $1,437,941 $4,647,200 $2,442.018 01,914,860 $1,563,500 $1.047,70D CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET 9,000.761 9,122,910 13,595,664 23,369,020 11007,550 7691.135 DEBT SERVICES 4,528,598 4,828,000 4,828,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 TOTAL OTHER USES $14,967,300 $18,598,110 620,865,682 $30,073,870 $17,371,050 $13.538.835 TOTAL USES $39,598,840 $46,333,910 $52,601,482 $59,508,861 $47,408,774 $47,701.212 EXCESS REVENUE AND OTHER SOURCES OVER(UNDER)USES ( $6,985,410 ($3,826,910) ($10094,482) ($14,797,831) ($1,049,344) $372.1841 (tpFRATIN,CASH RAI ANCFS BEGINNING JULY 1 $20,129,765 $27,115,175 627,115,175 $17,020,693 $2,222,862 $1,173,518 ENDING JUNE 30 $27,115,175 $23,288,265 $17,020,693 $2,222,862 $1,173,518 $1,545,702 Cash Reserve Ratio(Acceptable range 10%to 25%) 54% 8% 4% 5% Operating cash balance is defined as total cash less restricted amounts for bond covenants and outstanding accounts payable. Metropolitan water rates per acre ft. 105 125 $125 $150 $150 $150 WATER UTILITY CASH FLOW ACTUAL ACTUAL CURRENT BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 WATER SALES 37,295,336 39,721,723 38,340,000 40,257,000 41,867,280 43,541,971 45,283,650 45,736,487 OTHER INCOME 1,935,407 1,477,971 2,012,000 2,049,020 2,087,150 2,126,425 2,166,878 2,166,878 INTEREST INCOME 2,104,394 2,393,698 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000, 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 OPERATING INCOME 41,335,137 43,593,392 41,602,000 43,556,020 45,204,430 46,918,396 48,700,528 49,153,365 METROPOLITAN WATER ACCESSMENT -3,510,946 -7,021,892 -7,021,892 METROPOLITAN WATER PURCHASES -5,023,641 -5,347,419 -9,625,000 -6,825,000 -6,900,000 -6,975,000 -7,050,000 -8,225,000 OPERATING EXPENDITURES -18,782,965 -19,284,121 -22,110,800 -22,609,981 -23,137,724 -23,676,431 -24,215,276 -24,215,276 NET INCOME EXCLUDING DEP. 17,528,531 18,961,852 9,866,200 14,121,039 15,166,706 12,756,019 10,413,360 9,691,197 OTHER RECEIPTS / BOND PROCEEDS IMPACT FEES 515,451 1,038,540 500,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS 1,131,886 1,952,318 405,000 905,000 905,000 905,000 905,000 905,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY -2,103,577 -1,437,941 -2,442,018 -1,914,850 -1,563,500 -1,047,700 -902,600 -258,000 WATERSHED PURCHASES -4,345,845 -272,071 -2,200,000 -500,000 0 0 -500,000 -500,000 DEBT SERVICE -4,591,010 -4,528,598 -4,828,000 -4,800,000 -4,800,000 -4,800,000 -2,610,000 -2,610,000 DEBT SERVICE (NEW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER INCOME & EXPENSE -9,393,095 -3,247,752 -8,565,018 -6,059,850 -5,208,500 -4,692,700 -2,857,600 -2,213,000 <Y�;a♦xY, y<��qyr T^�.�•a�,�n��Yn/,�•y�—c.'�„tea ryf �,�ux�.�.,��•:,- - ;%�7"k'.g;;'e.W ry/,,.�4 �,.�c wI9^ q/�-/-�r.:t y asevrry �+n�an<T.,cx�::Cy y h >'�n,•n s*.��;y�?�>;akxH..,�>, s.�*�,�e* - ^•,a�.,. l'�YACL4T: Zu, o:i ft f i'Y,Y,,.t x9 V' ., ic,', 7 '•1,. ill A+i „ , �E' A+ ,,dk� Vi i1Og r'R•�.i>�rE,m { 6&%Y`.rv''�. 'i, p� w��w��.&��\x,.<a.,.:.-awe� �a,.vM�e CAPI ` , pR0 *104TS —� 3 410,'�s `�4?28 '9 �', ,I, r•y,-',p;K..�. > ',., 4 ,��.,.',-,., is '� , � �,r r t , �„�r, ,r. 0;��-,�1 �95 9�: ^�22r8�9 O�OW' µ�.l;`;ti(��<`�0 �°�? fi ��,�5':��,�;�6' �4� ��• „8,.�2� 6q0 ._-> .. _., .,,A,. �.�^sz>r�,:�, ,. „ ..,,. >» ,a„c�aw,>�.,, .w� ��,�. ,i,,, ,.,..Lsew, ,,.,, r,,;� >< c...,v�mom.-�v�r-.�.�;�»..�F+., .<., J,..w«�A r ,M.. CASH INCREASE/(DECREASE) 512,026 6,985,410 -10,094,482 -14,797,831 -1,049,344 372,184 1,408,885 -1,447,403 BEGINING CASH BALANCE 19,617,739 20,129,765 27,115,175 17,020,693 2,222,862_ 1,173,518 1,545,702 2,954,587 CASH INCREASE/(DECREASE) 512,026 6,985,410 -10,094,482 -14,797,831 -1,049,344 372,184 1,4,08,885 -1,447,403 'k�,y��, eeyy/a!m y�y y.�,� ..--><+», ..y��`„ ,v v. .,,� e� rryy ,ks��"„,. y ��,..,..�.,� ..ry.,k..f r .CNY,440,,;,:* 'J1Y " Z Q 4 ri , -1 r "eY'r t^"-S'�?R,3� 77' _,.., ,., ..,... _-.�",5� .�.�,.. .. .., �,>...-. . .. ., _, ..,, ,,.. . -�'��_9r�._65a,. ��`-,e:J._, ,r 7�75; ... ,02U� .9 2�222,862�;'.�a;=�';�.73"`� 1g�M, >�-,�,,.-� '��'�:��' S �5�7.<Kx f';"'],`507 i0 WATER DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE 3.82 4.191 2.04 2.94 3.16 2.66 3.99 3.71 RAT; a A a 9;.00% '?.00%'.; ,,.7 , 3aN;, �,., �"..v >. . ,,._. . . • „ .,, _. �,�_....� .. , ,, w��,..•,.. -x,u�•;a�,..a _��.x_.,;��ti>'."�:.�,�,��;:��;a,-_-_�:> ��0�'s��,�I�:4*$'�-._,.<> .,.M:i�.�,�f�:,,...:� ,,(?.`DI}k ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL WATER BILL (1997=$180.00) $241.42 $258.32 $276.40 $287.46 $296.08 $304.96 $314.11 $314.11 Cash Reserve Ratio (acceptable range 10-20) 84.56% 110.08% 53.63% 7.55% 3.91% 4.52% 7.72% 3.82% Metropolitan water rate 105.00 105.00 125.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 175.00 Metropolitan water purchases in acre feet 47,844.20 49,200.00 45,000.00 45,550.00 46,000.00 46,500.00 47,000.00 47,000.00 Salt Lake ration t Update Department alines /21/2002 WATER CAPITAL IMP MENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-00 2008-07 51-03301- 2710.10 LAND 03301 LAND PURCHASES 2,200,000 SUU,000 U U SUU,000 SUU,UUU - 2,2UU,000 SUU,I 0 U ODU,UUV SUU,UUU 51-03301- 2710.30 WATER RIGHTS&SUPPLY- 03301 WATER STOCK PURCHASES 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 JU,000 JU,000 J0,UUL1s JU,000 JU,0001 JU,UUU 51-01301- 2720.10 MAINTENANCE&REPAIR SHOPS-WIP 51-01301-2772.10 00101 CANAL STORAGE STRUCTURE F AND CHEMICALS 00601 512143 130,416 00201 REPAIR OF BC AND LC FLUMES 5,000 00801 PUMPHOUSE 10,000 00101 5129212 REROOF HOUSE AT ARTESIAN BASIN 15,000 01/01 51214/ BUILDING AND RESERVIOR SECURITY 200,000 02201 ASPHALT SHOP YARD 145,750 02201 ASPHALT EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT 82,875 02201 SHOPS LUNCH ROOM CONVERSION 40,000 00601 RESTROOM/SINGLE/LAMBS - 45,000 00601 2/,000 00601 VARIOUS RESTROOM REPLACEMENTS 40,000 40,000 40,000 S1J43 LEAKING UNUEHGHUUNUS I LINAGE IANKS 2,013U 5,000 5413,090 LZZ7-5U 55,000 4U,000 ILL,t3/O' 4U,LM7 51- - 00701 512276 CITY CREEK-TREATMENT PLA GRADE - - - 520,000 11,292,745 00901 BIG COTTONWOOD-SEISMIC UPGRADE(SEDIMENTATION BASIN) 2,500,000 00701 512281 LIMITORQUE WELL SAFETY UPGRADE 3,000 -- 00701 512282 SECURITY DOORS/CAMERA/SENSOR 10,000 00801 PARLEY'S DRYING BEDS - 100,000 00801 5124463 PARLEYS TREATMENI StLUk I'PROJECTS 38,000 00801 5124464 FILTER CLEANING-ACID WASH -- 15,000 -- 00801 'GRAB SAMPLING FORM COMPLIANCE RULE 25,000 -- -' 00801 INLET CONTROL BOX RE-DESIGN AND REPLACEMENT --- - 300,000 00901 BIG COTTONWOOD DRYING BRDS -- 100,000 -- 00901 REBUILD TW 10,000 -- r 00901 REBUILD TWO WASHWATER PUMPS - --- -- 10,000 00901 REBUILD TRANSMISSION ON FLASH MIXER 14,000 00801 51244561 PARLEY'S SODIUM HYPOCHLORIDE ADDITION 512145 CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT PILOTPLANT 230,000 ---" CITY CREEK TREATMENT PLANT SECURITY SYSTEM- --- 23,000 CITY CREEK VAULT 5,000 512146 FLORIDATION FOR SYSTEM - 70,000 1,500,000 512269 CITY CREEK PHONE LINE - 158 914,IbS IJ,U1/,/40 I U.000 2,014,W11 JUU,UUI1 U 51-01301- 2720.35 PUMPING PLANTS AND PUMP HOUSES-WIP 51-01301-2772.10 01301 51341635 6200 SOUTH PUMP STATION 100,000 01301 PUMPS&MOTORS 7000 PUMPSTATION 25,000 01301 PUMP,MOTOR,&PANEL FOR OAKHILLS PUMP STATION - 40,000 01301 PUMP&MOTOR FOR KEUTON DR PUMP STATION -- 12,000 01301 PUMP&MOTOR FOR EAST-BENCH PUMP STATION 12,000 01301 V.F.D.FOR UNIVERSITY PUMP STATION 16,000 LITTLE WILLOW PUMP STATION-NE:W BOOSTER PUMP 130,000 01301 PUMPSTATION TO FEED ENSIGN RESERVOIR -- 500,000 01301 PUMPS&MOTOR 4500 SO PUMP STATION 14,000 01301 SOFT START MOTOR STARTER BONNEVILLE PUMP STATION 17,000 01301 PUMP BONNEVILLE PUMP STATION 14,000 - 01301 NORTH BENCH PUMP STATION /50,000 4 OF 26 I bxcanhd®a12001Icaahim\eashnow2003A xra Salt Lake City Corporation Last Update Department of Public Unbbes 3/21/2002 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMOER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001.02 200243 2003-04 2004-05 2005.06 2006-0T 01301 MOTOR&PUMP 7800 SO PUMP STATION _ 16,000 01301 MOTOR&PUMP 3900 SO PUMP STATION 17,000 01301 V.F D.FOR 7800 SO PUMP STATION 28,000 01301 REPLACE POWER _ 30,000 01301 PUMPS&MOTOR BIRCH DR ICI'• `I A I ION - - - 16,000 01301 MOTOR RESEARCH PARK PUMP STATION 12,000 01301 AU IUMAIIC URA EGLEANING SYS I EM FUN PUMP S I A I IUN IN IAKt 101I,000 - _- bb,UUU I/U,000 tl1 I,000 14b,UUV bb,OUl. bUU,UUII 51-01301- 2730.02 CULVERTS-FEUMEB&BRIDGE-WIFIT013-01-2773T - 1 00101 5129195 ROCK HOUSE WASTEWASDO CS-13aa W.-RE80IED- - 15,000 00101 5129193 -14600 S.CANAL BANK STABILIZATION - 50,000 00101 6650 S.GREENFIELD WASTE WAV RECONSTRUCTION - 15,000 00101 4800 S WASTEWAY AUTOMATIC OVERFLOW 15,000 00101 8900 S STATE ACCESS WAY 6,000 00101 EAST JORDON EXT.BOXFLU 10,000 00101 9400 S BRIDGE 200,000 00101 9755 S COTTAGE AVE-BRIDGE 00101 CEMENT FLUME 1000 LINEAR FEET DOWNSTREAM OF VAN WINKLE EXPRESSWAY 00101 RELINE JORDAN/SL CANAL EXIS rINU FLUME 1 I00 S.TO 2109S. - - 00101 CEMEN . - 00101 10 I HEAS 113885UUIHIU 1462 SOU I 2b,000 -- _- bb,000 Lb,000 U Sb,000 LIU,000 Ui 51-01301- 2730.04 DEEP PUMP WELLS-WIP 51 01301-2773.10 - 01301 5132239 MILLCREEK WELL C/O - - 01301 5132241 RED BUTTE WELL(NEW) _ - 400,009 01301 5132243 FORT DOUGLAS WELL - 01301 NEFF'S DRAW WILL ---- -- -79,000 - --' 01301 5132240 _ --- --1,000,099 ' 01301 5132235 MICK RILEY WELL&PIPELINE ---- --- ----- - 400,000 --02501 RECONDITION EDGEWOOD WELL ----- 23,000 ---- ---- ---- 02501 RECONDITION DYERS INN WELL - --25,000 -02501 ELECTRICAL PANEL FOR DIAGIONAL WELL --- ---- --"- 7,000 -- -- - -- 02501-- -V:F.DWATKERLANE WELL---- ---------__---- -- --- - -- _- - ------ ----- ---- -- 35,000 0250T RECONDITION FONIAINEBLEUWELL - - - - ----- - --- 2-6706 --- 0i301-- 513223417 2680 S 1300 EAST --- ----- ---- - ---------- ---- ---- --- - -- - -- - ----- ----- -01301 57 -2080EASI-620USOUTFf- - -- __ _ --_____ _ _ .._ ____ - TUT,000 3C000 U 3b,000 41b,000 1,4UU,UUU 51-01301- 2730.06 STORAGE RESERVOIRS-WIP 51-01301-2773.10 -- - - -- ---- - 1301 5134452 LAKE MARY'S DAM- -_ ___ - - ----- ---- - ------- - 1301 5134455 RED PINE DAM - -- -- --- --- - --- -- - - 1301-5124471- M I.DELL DAM - -"- - -- U U U 0 it U. 51-01301- 2730.07 DISTRIBUTION RESERVOIRS-W1P3T301-2773.10 01301 51344122 THIRTEENTH EAST RESERVOIR-DEMO - 7,083 100,000 - 01301-5134454 4500 SOUTH 2700 EAST RESERVOIR 52,474 - 01301 51344221 MILITARY RESERVOIR-RINGWALL 6,800 - 01301 FORT DOUGLAS TANK-DRAIN -- 02501 REPLACE PLUG VALVE AT 1500 EAST RESERVOIR 35,000 02501 FORT DOUGLAS-12'BUTTERFLY VALVE&OPERATOR - 8,000 --- 01301 DEMO PLEASAN CUTLET k SERVOIR -- 700,000 01301 DEMO BRICK TANK --- - --- 02501 VICTORY RD RESERVOIR-EL-EC ACTUATOR --- - - _ -__ 400,000 R-E 14,000 01301 51344271 PERRY'S HOLLOW - - _ 6,648 01301 513441 PARK RESERVOIR 10,023 01301 013442113 -IANNEH NESSHVUIH HOOF 1U,000 250,000 --- 90,ULU 21)0,000 U 14,000 U I,LUU,Ul111 I. 0\---- -O. OF 26 Salt Lake ration I Update Department Wales 21/2002 WATER CAPITAL IM MENT PROJECTS • FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004.05 2005.00 2006-07 51-01301- 2730.08 DISTRIBUTION MAINS&HYDRANTS-WIP 5101301-2773.10 1 1- 1 . ._• _--- —_-- IENIMI MUM 1•. •• •• •_ 1111 • •n I • 543504655 500 WEST-RORTRTEMPLE 10 400 SOUTH —�— 111.111M — I•.• II YyI11:Q.1L1�1 9 •81iI 1X.9id1L'1 . II �— • I — II n 1 - I 1 •lllla• 1116Y•• • ill •• 01301 513504629 410 •• •_II 0. -V _ • -7• ___ 690,000 01301 513504549 1-15 CONSTRUCTION 17,519 01301 513504589 LIGHT RAIL VARIOUS LOCATIONS -01301 513504781 100 SOUTH-740 WEST TO-209 WEST(CES JOS NO.102084) 820 54,000 01301 513504741 800 WEST-600 SOUTH TO 900 SOL I H CELYTAM.102081) 2,315 162,0b0 Ewan 3504742 if;MI yffimill:1I:11RImm8 I I •I IS-IylI1:6yD1a0ISI 1I11.Yy4i:fly4U1P7:1JC•111W11:k 300 21,000 RI Li • • •• •- i&71.117 Iq.III Ir 5A - 11 5:F9611t• •I11 y4.111*4211Ey:1`l•]i won , .1 ,• 11 1 1 1• • •••• •1 •V VI 1 - 110. • •110, I •: `• 1 1• 1,600 112,000 • I 1• •• JO'I_110517V PIXY• 11y-T VIM;111-9:U7•• 01 (S I(•]s.1•Z*[z.y*.9S•Hyd•11Iy:1.C• mug, mow ; n=�� • 1 I• JA•61,1I51i \7�91I• -IT- 1 1.1;F� •I.Y1L y-Fm ly�•I1Ielr:c: f6PbYk 1 I 1 �I:IA:7yy ira\`ly1`lll�i 1L1.f;9-J y_F9iWf I1L yaF'lti yyll[y:17[SEIO.k7•i • • e 1• Id.li•FATI EII* I-�.5 I• 5.1. 1U.1•I11yaF9tlygUll•1:1.f•1ireliel. - • I 1• �:/_t�1311.17IWq:Plxil '16Y•74 1iII1y_F-i •Y BU1y_105t1 •NNI:11`[•7fr1Y1.I,1. miimmagro — I 1ili ••.•. ••-1.1• •1• I •I- -.11 •I • • •I •1 • • •: `•, I 1 I ;1�1��II � • •• irin,YWdR0I YJS;T'L 9i 3IY4•lGllii:I il4,9:1:I.101-14 ly5•Bira .Rd.mud. ••;—� -- • • I•• I F11*.AYJ 1lgXiG:L&II;IZi1ytF i•IL[KOMIAMIII.1.-i-440 IE. * y4•)1•: 1•. 1209 01301 ••• I1IrP 1tetI IQMit•7.• 16W1.I*•F9i Wails 5.:130lygU1NJ:11MIt 0.18. 1111..m1 1 1 bi61.•L►b____ •I11yF9oL11*iP/*:l•1XiG:t1I,)�N1HI1dId:L•Pl 1 x01�y yq•aly:1`WfI1YI1I'7- MEMEMEggita MEI - - I • •• • r- _I• . • •V• 1 • • ■ •: `•, 1 1 1 .1• 1."1 MIMEO • • 1• •11 •1 •_t• \ : • • • •♦ • • so `•. 1 • 11 • 11• • • •• • IF •I• - (2900 W)-500 SOUTHTH TO 1820 SOUTH(CED JOB NO 103007) 1,580 1 •111 -- ' • 1 LIMf1l 361 513504756 500 EAST-1300 SOUTH TO 2100 SOU 1 H(CED JOB NO.102038) 1 :1•ME �1 1 1 14445- ••1 11 - 11 III • • •• III • :11 --- • I 1•a •11 HEST BLOCK REDESIGN-500 NORTH TO 600 NORTH(CED JOB NO.102072) -- - - ---- •31 I•••• •-• - - - -1UU,000 -- 10U,11• 1110,•11 --- 10U,0II0 MII,(44,400 1,U/4,01U blb,. IUU,000 IUU, IUU, TV• _ 'AINMISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS --_ -- - - - • 11 51380001• `EW-MAINLINE VALVES-ZUIIN 1 -- ---- --� - - - -- - - - _0 1 •1111 11' R MAIN REPLACEMENTS -- -- ---- --- -- 5•,n 1 •,1 I 1 —0•,111 1,111 00,0l a --- 1,111 _ _ II II• 11,111 10Q,1u -i11111 100,�n 400,000 01301 51400007 DONArEDZTAES - - - - __ --01-3-61 :•••• -NEW MAINEINEVALVES-CITY --- - ----- - - ---- -- - 200,,011 - 11 1 1••••• 11,111 - 40 ,• .. ••,111 1l I ••1• - - •'•y 1 - •I• TENTS -_ 20Q0.1 •1••• ••,•11 111,110- 200,0•• 111,1•• •1 -:• •1 :'I ♦ OPERS ----- - ------ ----- 200�01 1•11• 11,011 11,111 — 500,011• ---291,,111 — -- _ - -- 11,111 11,1.1 11,111 500,911- - 11,111 0Ou,000 1,UbU,000 I,UbU, 1,000,O I,U5U,000 1,UDU,U -I • - 6-0-8---- n... 1 . 1 - .I. 1 NTS--0N 1301 513504793 MCARTHEY WATERMAIN EXTENSION - MK- 01301 513504792 BACKMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --�— - 1 1• 'III. ` (T `I NORTH)TO 1000 NORTH 11.01 =IIMME 0 01301 513504790 WILMINGTONAVENUE AVENUE(2220 SOUTH) .1111. MIll• I Fi kI.Y,5Vi8:•• • • III. •1••r •Ir Iti=:IiI V IIM — ..I, MI I• 00 SOUTH 770 WEST TO 900 WESTNU III—1• . CALIfUHNIA AVEE(1330 SU1]TH) -- 1111111111.11.11= MI-_ FSBI.'fI •`1.1 •I• I:•IVISION MIIIMIMIIIM--� - • 0 3504711- •I •- •1•y • 075 EAST — 1 1 1• I •11 y -• -: - •V `I 1• ) ••I•-!•-•AVENUE(11105) - I 1• • 1 I, I '! - •.: •1 '•-♦ ( • I n -r FARLAND DRIVE(825 N)l O RAMBLER—DI—FIVE(/2S N) :4 ••,111 - ---- ----- 60F 26 I'bxcenWtlge120011oeshTovA ceshliow2003A els Salt Lake City Corporation Department of Public Utilities Last Update 3/21/2002 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-08 2008.07 01301 513504703 GARNETTE STREET(1525 W)-DUPONT AVENUE(1335 N)TO CAROUSEL STREET(1540 W) 945 61,425 01301 513504702 1500 WEST-DUPON 1,450 94,250 01301 513504701 OAKLEYSTHEEi(1241W)-LAFAYEIrE DRIVE(700N)TO600NORTH 783 78,00 01301 513504700 CATHERINE STREET-DUPONT AVENUE(1335 N)TO GOODWIN AVENUE(1135 N) 1,440 93,600 01301 513504699 WALL STREET(85 W)&200 WEST-REED AVENUE(735 N)TO 600 NORTH 1,080 115,000 -POINSETTIA DRIVE(925 W)TO AMERICAN BEAUTY DRIVE(860 W) 661 62,00 01301-51J5(I4:ISi CALIT-ISh1 AA0EHtE-k UW015114t)iU yl(U" 'Si_ 7,256 86,000 01301 513504694 GLENDALE CT 255 22,571 01301 1513504690 700 WEST-900 SOUTH TO 1200 SOUTH --- -- 2,900 198,299 01301 513504689 700 WEST-1300 SOUTH TO 1700-SOUTH-- ---- 2,500 90,000 01301 513504688 BAILEY SUBDIVISION 1700 EAST REDONO - 250 - 01301 513504682 EMIGRATION PIPELINE-EMIGRATION ROADTOCRESTVIEW DRIVE AND WASATCH DRIVE -- . t ',III 01301 513504682 CRESTVIEW DRIVE(2770 EAST)EMIGRA DON CANYON-ROAD(850 SOUTH) 131 13,045 01301 513504676 1400 WEST LEADVILLE AVENUE-TO TALISMAN -e 01301 513504674 700 NORTH-REDWOOD ROAD(1700 W)TO JORDAN RIVER - 1,032 - 77,083 01301 513504670 SHERMAN AVENUE(1330 S)-500 EAST TO PARK STREET(540 EAST) 285 1,067 01301 513504661 WESTPOINTE FARMS 11 1700 WEST 1800 NOR I N -- 145 - 01301 513504508 REDWOOD ROAD 500 SOUTH TO 650 SOUTH AND 1175 SOUTH 1261 SOUTH 1,950 370,000 01301 513301831 GRANITE MILL EAST PUD PRIVATE - 113 01301 513301830 GRANITE MILL EAST 1100 EAST 3300 SOUTH 01301 513301824 HALE DRIVE(3720 E)-BARBARA(3955 S)TO LOIS LANE(4030 S) (CANCELED) 01301 513301803 ALTA VISTA STREET(1145 E)-BONITA DRIVE(3525 S)TO CARMILITA DRIVE(3600 S) 560 36,400 01301 513301801 LOIS LANE(4030 S)-BARBARA WAY(3820 S)TO HALE DRIVE(4030 5) (CANCELED)] '- -01301 513301800 3320 EA b I E000ANb--Jk OE(4145 U11 LIT1-4l10STIC(4140 S) 270 19,000 01301 513301799 EVERGREEN AVENUE(3435 S)-1903 EAST TO 2000 EAST (CANCELED) =Mg- 01301 '513301798 ESTER CIRCLE(1000 E)-4895 SOUTH TO END r<OL❑ v 'J'5- 15,275 01301 513301794 4390 SOUTH-WANDER LANE(2370 E)IL)CAMILLE STREET(2520 E) (CANCELED) - -- 01301-513301/93 CAMILLE STREET( - 4500 SOUTH (CANCELED) -- - 0130T 513301789 ADO )- (3/tf0 )IIfl 1cNMES-DR(42055) - - - 904 58,700 -- 01301 513301787 TARES WAY(4260 S)-NEPTUNE DRIVE(3900 E)TO BROCKBANK WAY(3925 E) ---- 905 58,825 01301 513301771 JUPITER DRIVE(3935 E)-WASATCH BOULEVARD(3555 S)TO VIEW CREST DRIVE(4390 S) - - - 5,740- 1,321,923 - -01301 513301762 VIEW CRESTDRIVE(4390 S)-OAKVIEW DRIVE(3959 E)TO END OF VIEWCREST CIRCLE(3755Ey- --- -- 2,985 --208,900 -- -- - - --- 0130i 513301758 -GURENE DRIVE(1650 E)-5240 S UTH O MOOR DALE LANE(5040 S) 1,760 416,360 --- 01301 1513301690 4500 SOUTH 2700 EAST TO HIGHLAND - -- 50,000 --- - - GLENDALETORNAROUND - ---------- -------- -- -- - - --- -- 01301 DESIGN PROJECT ---------- ----- --- - ---- ---- ----- L------ 20.507----------- ------ -- - -------- - --- - -------- --- - --- --- -- -TOTAL 3�SG1-T,857,519 ----- - - -- ------ 513301529 300 EAST-3300 SOUTH TO 3900 SOUTH-- - -- - -- --------- ----- -------4 --- ---225,000 - - --- -AIGHCAND DRIVE-3900 SOUTH I U ORESTHIELS(3805-5)-(REPLACE 8"PIPE W112"PIPE) - --"- ---- -- 150,000 1300 EAST-560oGOUTFITOMFIE-STREET--- -- --------- ---- - - - - - --- -- 2,400 - ----f9-2,000 - -- 6400 SOUTH-HIGHLAND TO 1500 EAST -- -- - -----"--------- - - ---- -- ---------- _ 1,900 -- 170,000 - - -- - - - 513504712 DEVONSHIRE CIRCLE(1350 S)--DEVONSHIREDRI E(13S40E)-TO ENDOFTHE-OROLE- - - -"" -- ------- - 426 --- 27,690 -_ STANSBURY WAY(2854 E)-OQUIRRH DRIVE(1186 TOORES I VIEW DRIVE(1010ST - - - -- --- - - 960 - 62,400 - -- KCENNEDY DRIVE(965 S)-DONNER WAY(2895 E)TO APPROX-90-2-SDUTH-- -----------"-- 1920 71,500 513504713 LAKELINE DRIVE(2950 E)-HYCAFI6HILLS ROAD(2130E)TO i985 SOUTH 920 59,800 513504714 BROADMOOR STREET(2640 E)-WASATCH DRIVE(1920 S)TO 2100 SOUTH 1,090 70,525 - - SCENIC DRIVE(2 )- LE- -- - 1,955 127,000 SCENIC DRIVE(2745 E)-COMMON WEALTH AVENUE(2130 S)TO.THUNDERBIRD DRIVE(2275 Sr --- 1,283 96,200 2600 EAST-FOOTHILL DRIVE(1941 S)TO APPROX.1815 SOUTH 1,022 66,430 COMMON WEALTH AVENUE(2130 S)-SCENIC DRIVE7274SE)TO HIGHLAND HILLS(2884 E) - 740 48,100 2100 SOUTH I HYLAFUHICLS i'fO )Y(2883-ET-SCENIC DR1VE(2745 E)TO LAKE LINE DRIVE(2950 E) 1,832 137,400 1000 WEST-NORTH TEMPLE TO 200-NORTH -- -"--"-----'------ ------- 645 45,150 - - 2400 WES 1-APPROX.140 NOH I H TO 180 NORTH - - --- --- 275 19,250 REDWOOD ROAD(170 -NORTH TEMPLE TO SOUTH TEMPLE(WESTSIDE) _ 814 56,980 513504720 SOUTH TEMPLE-GLENDALE STREET(I_I35 W)TO APPROX 1190 WEST 485 38,800 300 NORTH-1100 WEST TOMADICNSraFCT(Intl AI __ "-_-- RIVERSIDECIRCLE(455 N. 'N"FP-r' --.i 7r a .FG' ,DE CIRCLE AND 1400 WEST - 285 20,160 - SIMONDI AVENUE(140 N, ','Fn^F"'^..^r a-- re. - 215 15,050 115 8,050 �I• MONDI AVENUE(34n NA,-:,r^••^a :,re, - - 650 45,500 • 7 OF 26 Salt Lake C tion :Update Department Mines 21/2002 WATER CAPITAL IMP ENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-0S 200548 2008-0T 900 WEST-APPROX.900 NORTH TO 1000 NORTH(EAST SIDE OF THE STREET 6"PIPE) 850 85,000 513504721 900 WEST-SIGNORA DRIVE(705 N)TO 1000 NORTH(WEST SIDE OF THE STREET-18"PIPE) 2,350 282,000 900 WEST-500 NORTH TO 600 NORTH (WEST SIDE OF THE STREET-18"PIPE) 800 96,000 900 WEST-200 NORTH TO 400 NORTH (WEST SIDE OF STREET 18"PIPE) 1,570 188,000 300 SOUTH-300 WEST TO 330 WEST _ 365 25,550 300 WEST-700 SOUTH TO 800 SOUTH 800 56,000 400 WEST-900 SOUTH TO ASPEN AVENUE(1045 S) 1300 91,000 600 SOUTH-APPROX.650 WEST TO 675 WEST 250 17,500 '- 800 SOUTH-200 WEST TO 300 WEST 730 51,100 900 SOUTH-400 WEST TO 500 WEST 675 47,250 JEFFERSON(140 W)-APPROX.750 SOUTH TO WOO SOUTH 184 12,880 JEFFERSON(140 W)-IN i ttS6CIIONOF900SOU! 125 8,750 TOTAL 34,549 2,714,015 SHERWOOD DRIVE(1320 S)-DOVER ROAD(2540 E)TO ROXBURY ROAD(2640 E) 1,030 66,950 SHERWOOD DRIVE(1320 5)-CANTERBURY DRIVE(2-565 E)TO AMBASSADOR WAY(2735 E) 1,163 /5,595' NOTTINGHAM WAY(1370 S)-DOVER ROAD(2540 E)TO ROXBURY ROAD(2640 E) 1,071 - 69,615 BONNEVILLE DRIVE(2700 E)-ST MARY'S WAY(1200 S)TO OAKHILLS WAY(1078 S) 1,529 99,385 MERCEDES WAY(2886 E)-O 845 54,925 _ 257 16,705 2,185 142,025 01301 '513301797 2700 EAST-3955 SOUTH TO 4215 SOUTH 2,025 131,625 01301 '513504738 'CAROUSEL STREET(1540 W)-DUPONT AVENUE(1335 N)TO 1200 NORTH 1,200 72,000 01301 513504705 AMERICAN AVENUE(960 S)-1100 WEST TO EMERY STREET(1170 W) - 670 43,550 - 01301 513504710 PAXTON AVENUE(1180 5)-300 WEST TO 400 WEST 1,665 01301 513504729 FREMONT AVENUE(1120 S)-EMERY STREET(1170 W)TO 1100 WEST 665 43,225 01301 513504730 BURBANK AVENUE(1450 W)-GLENDALE DRIVE(1155 S)TO REDWOOD DRIVE(1194 S) 620 40,300 01301 513504718 PROSPECT STREET(1615 W)-1330 SOUTH TO 1350 SOUTH - 180 12,600 - 01301 513301773 EASTCLIFF DRIVE(4395 S)-FORTUNA WAY(3605 E)TO END OF EASTCLIFF CIRCLE -- --950 61,750 01301-513504734 1200 EAST-MILTON AVENUE(1595'SjTO LOGAN AVENUE(1610 S) ---- 595 38,675 01301 513504735 BROWNING AVENUE(1400 S)-300EASTTO 600 EAST - - - 925 - 60,125 --0--1301 1000 WEST-APPROX.2615 SOUTH TO 2660 SOUTH - 310 - 23,250 ---- 01301- 900 WEST-1300 SOUTH TO CALIFORNIA AVENUE-- ---- 335 26,800 01301 REMINGTON WAY(1125 S)-800 WEST CIRCULAR-1150 SOUTH TO 1190 SOUTH --- 1,300 91,000 --- 01301 I 1600 SOUTH-APPROX.338 WEST TO 390 WL I 720 50,400 - ----01301 1100 SOU1 H-450 WEST TO 500 WEST --- - -- --------460 - -- 32,200 01301 1700 SOUTH-300 WEST TO APPROX.400 WEST - _- - ---- ----720 50,400 -- -- -�--- - -- 01301 200SOUIH-ORANGESTREETTOREDWOODROAD --- --- "---- ---1-,I2O --- --- - 79,100-- -- 01301 SOUTH=EMERY STREET TO 1150 WEST 174 - 12,180 -01-301 300 SOUTH-REDWOOD ROAD TU 1741 WEST --- - --------405- 28,350 -- -01301 REDWOOD(1700W)-300SOUTRTO40O$OUTFf(WESI S`II.) in- 768 53,760 --_-- -G130T 500 SOUTH-NAVAJO STREET-(1350 W)TO CONCORD STREET - 600 42,000 01301-- 300 WEST-INTERSECTIONOF0WESTAND-600-NORTH -27 - 1,890 - - -- O 1301 '300 WEST-500NORTHTO-600NORTH - - - ---- - ------------ ------ ----�5 61,125 -- ----- 300 WEST-1300 SOUTH TO 1500SOUTH T600 128,000 01301 500 WEST=4MfNI5kTH TO500fNORTH--- -- ------------- -- - -- 460 32,200 --- ---- O 1301 600 WEST-APPROX.14 SOUTH TO APPROX.68 NORTH - ---- - -583 - 47,810 01301 200 NORTH-400 WEST TO 500 WEST ___ 855 64,125 01301 513301790 WOODCREST(1720 Er-LAKEWOOD DRIVE(5420 S)TO 5600 SOUTH - 1,210 78,650 01301 513301791 LONE PEAK DRIVE(5465 S)-EDGEWOOD DRIVE(1530 E)TO ) 1,495 97,175 01301 513301792 LAKEWOOD DRIVE(5420 S)-EDGEWOOD DRIVE(1530 E)TO WOODCREST DRIVE(1720-E)_ 1,450 94,250 01301 513301809 MEADOWMOOR ROAD(4995 S)-1645 EAST TO WEST MOOR ROAD(1665 E) - - 640 41,600 TREET(1375 E)TO 1450 EAST(BID WITH 1450 EAST AND 3990 SOUTH) 565 01301 513301811 1450 EAST-3990 SOUTH TO 4645 SOUTH(BID WITH 4045 SOUTH AND 3990 SOUTH) 450 29,250 01301 513301812 3990 SOUTH-1400 EASTl O 1500 EAST(BID WITH 4045 SOUTH-KU50EAST) 630 40,950 01301 513301813 MILLBROOK DRIVE(3465 S)-FfOREYCUT ROAD(1850 E)TO200D EAST - 1,350 87,750- 01301 513301814 "MONTEVERDE DRIVE(3750ET-CRESTWOOD DRIVE(332-OSTTO EASTWOODDRIVE(3390-5) 605 39,325 - 01301 513301822 HEUGHS CANYON WAY(3405 E)-HEUGHS CANYON CIRCLE(3390 E)TO-WASATCH BOULEVARD - 795 51,675 01301 513301802 3580 SOUTH-1T60 EAST TO ALTA VISTA STREET(1145 E) 360 24,700 01301 513301804 GLORIETA STREET(3560 Si AL TA ' A c'REFT 1114S El TO 1200 EAST - 410 26,650 01301 513301805 BONITAORIVE(3525 S) ALTA.'c'A c'a!rT 1 V5 r TO 1200 EAST -- 410 26,650 01301 513504717 LOGAN-AVENUE(162 5 S P:A a"'trr' I4'F ^nr:ER STREET(440 E) --- 840 50,400 01301 513301795 VILLAGE GREEN ROAD fO "p':.Pn " :'E TO MEADOW DOWNS WAY/T750ET - 350 22,750 S OF 26 I bxcelnMWget2001beshllmN c shllow2003A xis Salt Lake City Corporation Last Update Department of Public Utilities 3/21/2002 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001.02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 20050 2000-01 01301 513301796 KINGS HILL DRIVE(3710 E)-WILLOW CANYON DRIVE(8905 S)TO KINGS HILL PLACE(9020 S) 855 55,575 • • FSKKsM;Lf. 1T•- •• `I .1 -T • - .e.r•• . • T -•11. Magalklikkb T•' 'V V 1 • =METROPOLITAN WAY(3165 E)TO VALLEY STREET(3300 E) ;T TII • • 6ikkU -- • - • - .♦ 1 • • T.•.•• n.. --t = -- 1120 72,800 01301 513301818 MORNINGSTAR DRIVE(2560 E)-OLYMPUS DRIVE R155 S)TO ROWLAND DRIVE(4240 S) —� 01301 513301819 4895 SOUTH-900 EAST TO 1070 EAST _ •• •t I t 1 �— 01301 INDIANA AVENUE(830 S)-APPROX.1800 WEST TO APPROX.1925 WEST _ ;t, ,1 01301 •'• • • n - • FORNIA AVENUE TOAPPROX 1365 SOUTH - 3 76,000 • I ,Si - • ROAD(1900 WY-CALIFORNIA-AVE - 950 76,000 01301 ENSIGN TANKS TO MORRIS RESERVOIR---- 2,000 500,000 01301 NORTH BENCH SUPPLY TO UNIVERSITY OFUTAH - 1•• i-�•a_ 01301 1000 NORTH-BUCCANEER DRIVE(1160 W)TO 1200 WEST �pya,��I �� • 1 I• •-IVE(700 N)-1200 W6S I TO LAMARNE STREET(1130 W) •,— •1.i•I I7 t,�.,7 i7 01301 :1 •T - •-T .•11 -•1•S •♦ , T • 1• 1•- • � 01301 DULUTH AVENUE(1550N)-900 WEST 10DECIt❑IFSIHEEI(840W) - 360 25,200 • , 11 — 01301 200 SOUTH-ORANGE STREET(1900 W)TO REDWOOD ROAD(1700 W) 1130 79,100 01301 300 SOUTH-EMERY STREET(1(170 W) 0 11741 E f MI� — 01301 300 SOUTH-REDWOOD ROAD�700 W)10 1741 WEST • 01301 REDWOOD(1700 W)-300 SOUTH TO 400 SOUTH(WEST SIDE 12") I • • es Si •-q•T•11• - I" • •1 •-• - 1250W) .•• —MINIIN� .•111 01301 CONCORD(1250 W)-INDIANA AVENUE TO 900 SOUTH - • =� ME • -EDWOOD ROAD(1700 W)-1100 SOUTH TO CALIFORNIA AVENUE(WESTSIDE MAIN) --- ,. 1 -- 01301 REDWOOD ROAD(1700 W)-5 •• ;•11 • ''• :• ♦n• - V L WAY(3230 E)-SAGEBRUSH WAY(3165 E)TO CANDYTUFT STREET(7110 5) -- - 1�5� K000 2870 EAST-FORT UNION BOULEVARD(7000 S)TO 7230 SOUTH --- -- •• 120,000 - EAST-FORT UNION BOULEVARD -- -- - . • •I•• -- - • 1 'ARLEYS LOWER CONDUIT-2100 TO 100 SOUTH -- - - ------- --- --- TOTA 41. 1.0 - - I I I SOUTH STREET:M0GEASTTO ROXBURY ROAD(2640 E) ---- -- ----- -- --------- • 01301 II •i • BEET-WASATCRDRIVE(2520 E)TO 2300 EAST ---- •:• 76,20-0- -54301 •I y - 300 SOUTH TO FOOTHILL DRIVE(2800 E) --- - _ - - -MISliMilliMIMIIIMMI . • - — T130T- ••'• CS-WAY(2745 S)-CRESTVIEW DRIVE(1010 SYTO S rMARY'S WAY-MOUSY --- T7SE ---------- 01301 - •'TERBURY DRIVE(2865 E)-SRERWOOD DRIVE(1320 S)TO 1332 SOUTH - -TOS ------ - 01301 •QUIRRH DRIVE(1185 S)-Sfl2ARY'S WAY(2912 E)TO OAK HILLS WAY(274SE)------- ------ —UST- --SUE -------- -0301 _ V V,•-V (1UWS)=OARAItES WAY(2745 E)TO CRESTVIEW CIRCLE(2830F)------ ------ - • • : IF •RIVE(2910 E)-SCENIC DRIVE(2278 S)TO GLENOAKS DRIVE(2180 ST _- -- TTS4- -- 01301 --- --- --- -- - -TOTAL64 --- ------- I I 1 I .•• • •• Si •- •• •HIGHLAND DRIVE(1750 EAST) ------- - - ----- ----- ----- - 0130T Y...•/ T/• ' INES ---- --- ---- -- ------- ----- -- •••• — 1,25•,••• 5133 ;; ARTESIAN BASIN LINE- •• - - •••• • • • - ---- • • • ••y • Si •T 55800 SOUTH - - 513301823 5600 SOUTH-850 EAST TO 900 EAST II --------- --- - 0 _ -1198,000 HIGHLAND DRIVE-3300 SOUTH TO 4500 SOUTH - - -- MEI 4�S1 - - 28.600 I 1 • -v T 185 S)TO 6400 SOUTH - a• 900,000 IIIIM 1,tlb/,b IV L,/I4,U Ib b,43b,/bU bL/,13b L,bbb,PU IOIAL IJIS IKIBU I ION MAINS 8 HYDRAS IS 4,201,014 b,tlstl,222 /,uu I,bb 1,•//,13b 3,SUb,b ini n, - -T •r r •NS-2730.09 �� •Y• ••• I•- T --•I• ••••• .••••• .••••• ,11••• ••111�I•LIQiL7 01701 51390015 SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENTS �I •I ••••I• •••••• 02401 51390016 SMALL METER PROGRAM •••••illMLU7•I•IDitMiQ•I•Id•7�UbUUh7 1 1 1 •1," I If - •'V IONS ler— 11,111 •1,111 •1,1.1 11,111 11 11,111 9 OF 26 pdate WATER CAPITAL IMP ENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002uhru2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 200445 2005-08 200$-*? ,,owo,o SERVICE LINE CONNECTION UPGRADES 226,520 51390020 WATER METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 3,49m49 ,.mo.mm 1.300.006 ,,mo/mo "�o�m ^,�v= +,"�"� 'p�^" ,��" .�=�m '--- ' LANDSCAPING'mm.2o- 000901 LANDSCAPE vAs*wmr nneusw/we^ns^ 7,000 03201 DAY RIVERSIDE oETEwrmwuowucm^ATIow/wpmmsmsNTo 20.000 03201 =ASxwor wauu^ns ouwosnv^row/wpmwswsNT --'o 40.000 000, ^ow/wm/n^/ION BUILDING'mowus^v^/mm/Mpm=EMEw.^ bO.oUU '.�" `�� " " " " -_ . .v.Au GAM o^u/wIPnnENCswn�- ' ,,"",.=° ^,.`�� ../°,w� ,.°".,^a ".~°."," ".~"wm � 2750.10 AUTOMOBILES a TRUCKS ��---- -- 00101 --- =.mm �,o, 1'mwxs��MpTRUCK ----- ,m*w - omm ��mw^w�� - �� m, » PI CKUP`noox *�mo�B 44,00 00101 1-3w TON PICKUP 2wo 25,000 00101 ,-ONE TON CA o ou *mSSm nmux - �o/mo �m, ''omw PICKUPS nno�x�vu�m '-----' m,mm omm, 1'ONE TON w� p---p/unn _ -- 30.000. - omm, ,'PICKUP TRUCKS^x4 60,000 omm, FULL SIZED PICK-UP m�mm ��, 1,��o��amMp BED - - 00601 3/4 TON SHORT BED EXTEND CAB 4)(4 PICKUP°/SHELL - - �� — --- m�, ��p��ww -- - - �� omm, PICKUP TRUCK wwonsuv w�000 ro.�o ---- -- omm, wwsm/ - - �.000 - -- nm � m �o, � upspwon`� K - �o.mm - ------ �m, ,�woWr»*rnuox - �.mm - - -------- m�, -- �pouoosrnoox r�*m- --- ' --- ------ o,�, �pou SIZED rnvox -�-' -- --- -- --'-------- ^o.000 -- �.00^ n,� �m m m, - auv, w^ ---- -- - ---- -- .00v - ---'- o,�, m°.ow�,.dt,mun�oco---- --- -- -- ,�.mm --- ,,o.mm n^�oo ,m.no" ' - -- m�, - -rn,w*o�mauo�am ---- ----- - ------- ��m- - u�,� -- ----- o,�, - `w a CA B LO NG -��- --- -- - ,`^.000 ------- o,m, onu��o puvmwrowmweoso------�-- -�- -- -- �o.mm ------- v'wm, ^x+opomununsovsx/ou�-' -�--- -- 2o.mm--- ---- o, , awromww�unons m oa, -�� -- o,. o -n.000 - mm, mW* sLomwprmnor-- -- --- '- -- ---- -- am.000 em.�o 2�.onn ------- mm �, - ' eno^ow m wsomosowm �� m x � --- --- .mm �.noo �,.mm ------ m,o` � �m, rnwww -- m.mm - -- mm, ,romu^aau*�a/uwmuwpopo - no.5m -- o,m, : �r, ruwva*rnooxwm�V/csvoo, '--' - `m*oo 200,000 02101 SMALL FORKLIFT 20.000 20,000 --- o22o, aw TON PICKUP TRUCK www,v^u 25.500 26.500 -- 02201 ,TON xn CAB a CHASSIS WmuwpBED 35.500 36,500 02201 oov,o TON ww eo.mo -- o�o, /TON,m� s�uuxx CHASSIS �m WEL DER 40.�o �.mm o2m � m� mx� ma, �, rowu^o�c*^o uowronaoo,�osws^nw/ ,o.mm oza m� ^TON onomww m � u �u*ooso� �s .�o n2� w � � ww m, ^ row � moomusow� TA NK -- ---- 29.000 omo, ,/2 TON wwEXT CAB SHORT BED 25.000 02401 ,TON W/vnur,SERVICE BODY 35.000 m.000 - o,�/ ow.�� ,.* 30*� o� u o, , rowp/onupmmxsu 25,800 02501 u*TON ww,/omUP-wV=CAB 25*00 53,000 02501 UTILITY BODY o.000 o�o` , 'm TON�uxvm --- .,,wo 45,000 *5,000 45.000 45,000 10vrm Salt Lake City Corporation Last Update Department of Public Utilities 3/21/2002 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-08 2008-0T 02801 1/2 TON FULL SIZE TRUCKS 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 'JUt3,7UU t54U,bUt1 /5U,5UU OtA ,U11 bV.Ab0ll bs,UUt1 2750.30 FIELD MAINT EQUIPMENT-MO JIVE 11 00101 BACKHOE --- 75,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 00201 --- --1-SNOWCAT-- - - --- - -- - - t t t .- 00601 2-SNOWMOBILES - "----- --- - _ 16,000 00601 QUADRUNNER - - -" --" - - :t t0- _ 00801 - 1-BOAT FOR11TDELL-AND LITTLE DELL 15,000 01/01 - BACKHOE 4X4-- -- - - -- ---- - - 150,000 160,000 170,000 90,000 01701 BACKHOEEXCHANGEPROGRAM - - - :ttf t,ttt ,ttt ttt ttt ,ist ALL HELD MAIM ENANUE EQUIPMENT FOR FY00 20 -200T_-"-- - ' 140,000 233,000 IC3,000 IL/,UUU 14,1)00 14,UUU 2760.10 PUMP PLANT EQUIPMENT - -- 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 00501 ELECTRIC STARTER PANEL-WV-AR-FAKE SPEED - - 45,001 -- - 02501 AIR COOLER-LITTLE WILLOW PS - - - 02501 51341684 MAIN ELEC I RICAL PANAL-OAKHILLS PS _ - 3,473 - - 02501 SPARE 400 HP MOTOR - - __ -- 20,000 02501 SPARE 300 HP MOTOR FOR 6200 SOUTH - - 12,000 02501- 513416104 'BONNEVILLE PUMP STATION -" - - -- 3,921 02501 513418172-- "- ----- --- _ --- --- ------"--- -- 6,284 -- -- -- T13;b RS T3Z,Utf T4b,0U11 IUU,000 1UU,U017 100,UW 2760.20 TR T_ 00701 PARTICLE COUNTER ErATNTENANCE -- -- -" -- -- - 5,000 -- 00801 -` 2-HACH SCATTER TURBIDMEII=RS- -------- "------- -------"- ----- ---- - -7,000 - 60801 HACH DR 4000 SPECTROPHOTOMETER--------- - - - - ---- -- - - - -"- - - - 7,000 - - 00801 - --POLYMER FEEDERS FOR PLANTFILTERS------- - --- -- - --- - ----- - --- -- T3,000 -- - - 1 00801 TWO CATIONIC POLYMER FEEDERS ------ -- ---- ------"- - - -- --- ---- --- - - --13,000 --- -00801 POLYMER FEEDERS FUR-PLANT-FILTERS- 13,000 - 00801 REPLACE PLANT SCADA AND OFFICE COMPUTERS_ - --"--- - -----"-- "- - ---24,500 -- ---- 00801 1720 D FINISH&FILTERS WATER TURBIDMETERS - - --" ---"- ----- --- -- -- - - - 21,000 - ------ - 00801 IDOLYMER FEEDERS FOR FILTERS - --- -- - ---- -- - ----- - -- 13,000 93,006------ 00801 FLUORIDE FEEDER TANK -- ------- - - "-- - -"-- ------- --- 60,000 -- 00801 - - FLOCCULA I OR CHAIN SPROCKETS --- -- - - _- -- -" --- 32,000 - - - --- - 00801 --- 13RYNEER BRINE TANK SYSTEM FOR AYPOCHLORITE GENERATION- - - - - 65,000 --- - M066f TWO BOILERS FOR HEATING SYSTEM -- ----____ - -- 80,000 - 00801 - ELEVATOR CONTROL PANEL - 30,000 - 00801 REPLACE PLANTPLC'S 100,000 00901 BACKWASH TANK REPAIR 90,000- 00901 FLUORIDE FEEDER TANK 60,000 00901 N •6 • 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 00901 REPLACE SCADA COMPUTERS 12,000 00901 HACH SS6 TURBIDMETER 3,250 00901 REPLACE FILE SERVER COMPUTER 5,000 00901 NAM FIL 1 ER I HAC 660 LASER TQRBIDMETER us, -00901 S I REAMING tAkk N I MON11 Ulf- - 10,000 01801 51410006 -CHLORINAII), `WI E'f vk 1 `k ER,Ur+ WWI5UNUARY SPRINGS 12 43b 01801 FILTER MEDIA REPLACEMENT _ 35,000 - 01801 WATERSHED MONITORING EOUIPMENI - 35,006 15,000 01801 SCADA INTERFACE@ BC AND r'I P 10,000 01801 HYDROLAB RESERVOIR&STREAM SAMPLER---- :t t t . 01801 • PILOT PLANT DISINFECTION MODUEE ---- . 25,000 11 OF 26 Salt Lake ration I St Update Depanme Utilities 3/21/2002 WATER CAPITAL I MENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL,YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001.02 2002.03 200344 200445 2005-06 200647 01801 PILOT PLANT TRAILER 01801 TOXIMETER ------ - _ 5,000 ----- ------ — —"-- - IN= 104.0 L0, IS,UU U •' 1 / k' LIUIPMENT-- - - ----- - __ 1111 � 1 1 / -' /--•VEMENTS -- - -- -- -- ---- -- - ---- - -- - -- - 1 1 1 1 [111 1 11.111111111. Mil - - - --- � 1 111 t 111 ...• 1 111 1 11r 1 111 2760.50 OFFICE FURNITURE 5 EQUIPMENT ----"- - Mill 00101 TABLE&CHAIRS FORTRRIGATFON OFFICE--------- -- 01001 CARPET FOR CROSS CONECTIOFTOFFICES t 1 11. 11._— •[ ---- 01001 UNIX PROGRAM AND GIS SYSTEM UPGFOMEIlim•1• 01001 COMPUTER PROGRAM FORSCR1I DE BACKFLOW DEVICES - 11— 1 I 7- '6 • '• ` SUBSCRIP I IONS Milij ill 01301 PLOTER(1050C) 01301 NEW COPIER1111111.11 _ - — 00801 UPGRADE SCADA SYS I EM-PAN ET`S 1.1 1 11 ••• • • - 111— 11 02001 OFFICE FURNITURE - •111 1 ..•I 1 •• 'S I EM-- - --- ------ •1 1 • • • I•'TURE --- - -- --- ---- -- _ 02601 METER READERS OFFICE FURNITURE -- - Mill1••- 02701 BILLING COMPUTER -- -- - 1• t •I 1 11 •. --- — -- -- ----- _ au 1 I SOFTWARE UPGRADE TOSCP ------ --- ------- -- - ,111 03-61--- NEW COPIER - - - --- - - - 1 11• 1 I •.••• n•• ',TLSYSIEM — 111 TT3UDD i(Rtl•l • • •NON-MOTIVE EQUIPMENT 1 l l' D.R.MOWER - -------- ---_-_ 00201 STREAM GAUGING AUTOMATIONCANYON-METER?; ------- ------- ••• jDDD 111 TS,DDD III 111 111 00601 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM -- --- -- ----- _ ••.• 11, . • ---- - - •I,111 •111 01001 LECtRUNIC BACKFLOW TES'Krr 5,605 1 11 ••V STGUAGE 111 ill VALVE OPERATOR&POWER TAKE OFF -- - -- I ',ERA SYSTEM • im _-- 01501 BATTERY FOR UPS --tea •MUM:1 __•, - C••7• ••• - : • •.rt••D&PARLEYS) 111 immata 1 1 • • el t 11.. .i 1 • 1 1 1 02101 COVER FOR PLASTIC PIPE W/RACKS t 11 02101 COVER FOR-VALVES 1 111 1 111— — IN i 1 1 • 111111 02201 WELDER FOR SHOP MIMMI 02501 LASER ALIGNMEN rOL - - ---= •••—� all 02501 SPARE-ELECTRIC MO FCR''S — = ib14 �17 1L1�02501 REPLACE SWAMP COOLERS-SHOPS —.�t� INIMM 02501 - PLACEOVERHEAD DOORS-SHOPS - IllmiPI�!II1_K�LL7 111 02501 REPLACE DOOR OPERATORS-$HOPS �1��1I1� ., 11 12 OF 26 I bxcenb get20011cashllaN cashflow2003A xis Salt Lake City Corporation Last Update Department of Public Utilities 3/21/2002 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-00 200647 02601 FOUR FS3 HANDHELD W/RADIO READ 18,400 03001 15 PORTABLE AED'S W/CASE 52300 03001 OTHER IH INSTRUMENTS 19,200 03001 REPLACE CONFINED SPACE MONITORS 125,000 125,000 03001 MISCELLANEOUS IHC SAFETY- 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5192090 RADIO'S FOR OLYMPICS 44,000 MISCELLANEOUS FISCAL YEAR 2000-2UO iY)THERNCt4 MO I WE E EUUIPMEN 1 J/L,/UU ZU/,UVU 112,000 JS,LUU 33,UUlF L9,000 tO I AL CAPITAL OUTLAY - _____ L,442,0 Ib 1,914159U 1,9b3,JUU 1,04/,/01.1 `JUL,bUV LJt1,000 - OTAL CAPITAL Tb,03/,bt12 ZJ,L/3,1170- 11,J/I,UJU 9,/311,23JJ I,J40,4/Y 8,b13,b9U 130F 26 SEWER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 2002-03 AMENDED PROJECTED PROPOSED- FORECAST FONECASI ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET SOURCES 2000-2001 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 REVENUES METERED SALES $11,569,342 $13,000,000 $13,600,000 $14,824,000 $16,158,160 $17,612,394 INTEREST INCOME 694,634 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 OTHER REVENUES 569,449 382,000 382,000 382,000 382,000 382,000 TOTAL REVENUES 12,833,425 14,182,000 14,782,000 16,006,000 17,340,160 18,794,394 OTHER SOURCES IMPACT FEES 788,638 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 GRANTS&OTHER RELATED REVENUES 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER SOURCES 1,587,818 10,000 10,000 510,000 510,000 510,000 BOND PROCEEDS 0 25,000,000 0 25,000,000 0 0 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES 2,376,456 25,610,000 610,000 26,110,000 1,110,000 1,110,000 TOTAL SOURCES $15,209,881 $39,792,000 $15,392,000 $42,116,000 $18,450,160 $19,904,394 EXPENSES&OTHER USES EXPENDITURES ORSONAL SERVICES $5,183,989 $5,384,202 $5,384,202 $5,502,235 $5,658,978 $5,820,424 ERATING&MAINTENANCE 1,033,018 1,343,620 1,343,620 1,343,620 1,343,620 1,343,620 TRAVEL&TRAINING 22,822 48,920 48,920 48,920 48,920 48,920 UTILITIES 557,418 671,937 671,937 690,575 709,771 729,542 PROF&CONTRACT SERVICES 1,054,785 1,059,115 1,059,115 1,073,995 1,089,321 1,105,107 DATA PROCESSING 102,778 114,300 114,300 114,300 114,300 114,300 FLEET MAINTENANCE 272,517 260,000 260,000 265,280 270,719 276,320 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE FEE 121,486 145,000 145,000 152,250 159,863 167,856 PAYMENT IN LEIU OF TAXES 148,438 115,000 115,000 129,375 141,019 153,711 OTHER CHARGES AND SERVICES (3,072) (77,193) (77,193) (89,793) (102,771) (116,138) TOTAL EXPENDITURES 8,494,179 9,064,901 9,064,901 9,230,767 9,433,740 9,643,662 OTHER USES CAPITAL OUTLAY 757,328 1,802,300 1,832,300 1,040,800 667,500 733,500 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET 4,143,352 18,434,000 9,822,503 31,979,100 7,877,500 11,730,000 DEBT SERVICES 557,981 3,025,000 525,000 1,525,000 3,030,000 3,025,000 TOT A L OTHER USES 5,458,661 23,261,300 12,179,803 34,644,900 11,575,000 15,488,500 T 0 T A L USES $13,952,840 $32,326,201 $21,244,704 $43,775,657 $21,008,740 $25,132,162 EXCESS REVENUE AND OTHER SOURCES OVER(UNDER)USES l $1,257,041 $7,465,799 ($5,852,704) ($1,659,657) ($2,558,580) ($5,227,768)1 OPERATING CASH BALANCES BEGINNING JULY 1 15,746,919 17,003,960 17,003,960 11,151,256 9,491,599 6,933,019 ENDING JUNE 30 17,003,960 24,469,759 11,151,256 9,491,599 6,933,019 1,705,251 sh Reserve Ratio(Acceptable range(10%to 25%) 123% 103% 73% 18% Operating cash balance is defined as total cash less restricted amounts for bond covenants and outstanding accounts payable. SEWER UTILITY CASH FLOW AC E YEAR - YEAR -YEW YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR - 99-2000 ' 2000-2001 2001-2002 2902-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 SEWER SALES 10,335,054 11,569,342 13,600,000 14,824,000 16,158,160 17,612,394 18,845,262 19,033,715 OTHER INCOME 733,756 569,449 382,000 382,000 382,000 382,000 382,000 382,000 INTEREST INCOME 585,592 694,634 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 OPERATING INCOME 11,654,402 12,833,425 14,782,000 16,006,000 17,340,160 18,794,394 20,027,262 20,215,715 OPERATING EXPENSES (8,080,848) (8,494,179) (9,064,901) (9,230,757) (9,433,740) (9,643,662) (9,860,804) (10,156,628) NET INCOME EXCLUDING DEP. 3,573,554 4,339,246 5,717,099 6,775,243 7,906,420 9,150,732 10,166,458 10,059,087 IMPACT FEES 1,299,798 788,638 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 OTHER RECEIPTS/ BOND PROCEEDS 0 0 0 25,000,000 0 0 0 0 OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS 491 1,587,818 10,000 510,000 510,000 510,000 510,000 510,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY (809,136) (757,328) (1,832,300) (1,040,800) (667,500) (733,500) (662,100) (478,000) DEBT SERVICE (575,945) (557,981) (525,000) (525,000) (530,000) (525,000) (35,000) (35,000) DEBT SERVICE (NEW) 0 0 0 (1,000,000) (2,500,000) (2,500,000) (2,500,000) (2,500,000) OTHER INCOME & EXPENSE (84,792) 1,061,147 (1,747,300) 23,544,200 (2,587,500) (2,648,500) (2,087,100) (1,903,000) 474 W-_,...,.,.�� ag ;. , _..i. ��L>1 4- - ... 9M.µ10,FI V sT.� �x .�, A*s �aor g6a A a�*�,. Kota e 7,7 C ».,.�l � J � "x , na _„„ s, _ _. . . "- 01ww.,,. -.a:,,-(c # r ,' - ,44.sb .31:7;:X4 .o}.. 7 M50 i,s,.�ssaA� g., TPogy- _aMriT Airo CASH INCREASE/(DECREASE) 769,920 1,257,041 (5,852,704) (1,659,657) (2,558,580) (5,227,768) 1,679,358 636,087 BEGINING CASH BALANCE 14,976,999 15,746,919 17,003,960 11,151,256 9,491,599 6,933,019 1,705,251 3,384,609 CASH INCREASE/(DECREASE) 769,920 1,257,041 (5,852,704) (1,659,657) (2,558,580) (5,227,768) 1,679,358 636,087 BStm xt, _.0 , ;' *;14.6,919 1I:.003:.9i6D- ;� 9:"2 1'256 :•7;:0 ,�,,,,�� s..w��A,� a aw, � �� ti � , - a��r��'�;��rF��,`6ai��"•-; i�:°."% n'�'s��:�� ''�� s�i�=.� SEWER DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE 6.20 7.78 10.89 4.44 2.61 3.03 4.01 3.97 RATE CHANGE _ 0.00% 12.50% 9.00% _ 9.00% _ 9.00% 9.00% 7.00% 0.00% ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL SEWER 0 BILL (1990=$76.80) 76.80 _ 86.40 _ 94.18 102.65 111.89 121.96 130.50 130.50 Cash Reserve Ratio (acceptable range 10-20) 195% 200% 123% 103% 73% 18% 34% 40% Impact Fee per ERU 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Number of ERII connections 2,600 1,577 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Debt Service Coverage 6.20 7.78 4.44 2.61 3.03 4.01 3.97 1 Sall Lake lion !Update Omar. is Utilities '21/2002 SANITARY SEWER CART PROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 tUru 2007 1 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001.2002 2002.2003 2003-2004 2004.2005 2005.20013 2008-2007 10601 I5120.10�BSMIN i TORAGEBUILDINGR REPLACEMENT I- • F '50.000 -1 1060E 51212517 I 524905190 PLANT SECURITY SYSTEM 512,135i 1120E 11301 5121251/3 1AOMINISTRATION STORAGE f 10,0001I 1220E WEST BUILDING ROOFING ---- --- --- 12,000 -- 11201 524905204 ADMININSTATION EXTENSION i 17,345 125,00D 10101 52490739 STORAGE GARAGE CONCORD 10,000 1I- _ 1010E 53411008S- HOPP EXPAN ON LEE DRAIN --- ------- --_- 18.000 --- --1 ---1_--- - - --- -- ? - 11/,46 11,0UUI V 12],WU - ? i j 10101 2720.05 LIFTNTATIONS•MP 52-10101-2772.10 - H--- - - 10101 52490730 1304 OUTH CHNGO 5STAEET(SS-27) 4 150,000 1010E 52490]35 1120 SOUTH PIGNEER ROAD (BUILT) - -- -- -- --- -�- - 25,000I -- - ---I- ---- 10101 - S0 SOUTH 4700 WEST-AODITIONA7 PUMPS AND C�NTR�PANELS - 100000} _ - 10107 1850 SOUTH I�STRIAL ROAD(SS-21)-(RECONSTRUCT AND REP�E) MOVE TOU}l'2005-06 20,000 � - HIIt 10101 1350 NORTH 4800 WEST PUMPS-WOW-AMPL IA EA HART BROTHERS DRIVEjTDBE BUILT BY DEVELOPER) 7 -- 150,000I ---� 01 T - --- - --- 101 I6ITH NORTNTMP STATION-Fa00 NORTH 4800 WEST I- 100,000E III - 10101 -rNcmR HN VE PUMP STATION 355 rAWCANYON OAKS WAY (NEW PUMPS AND CONTROL PANEL) H- 30,0001- 10101 JFUELFARMpump STATION AI2�PORT(COM LEYEUPGRAM - - - 400,00 � - 1010E 52450732 I4000 WEST PUMP STATION(SAL)-OBSERVATION DECK(NEW PUMPS IN SMITH AND LOVELESS STATION) 500001- r _ 00 I 10101 -IBDNNEVILLE PUMP NATION-2350 EASHIRECLIFF t 1 15,000 10101 INDUSTRIAL ROAD PU1v1P STATION-1850 WEST INDUSTRIAL CIRCLE(CUIUPLETE UPGRADE) - - 1. - - - -j - -I 300,0001 10101 TPPUMPSTATIOAAT AIRPORT GATE#1-AIRPORT(PUMPS AND CONTROL PANEL) -II J - t - -I -' 30,000 1010E 52490736 VFD DRIVES INDEPENDENCE �- ---- -- -- - ---�- --- MILI CS 10101 POM2 REILAEVETTRAWAI RS ---- --- --- ---- - --- --- 0 - 00 1010E 4700400T SE ER LIFT T -T8 50,000 SO,000I^ 50,000C EC UP- If _II • 50000� 50,000 1010E 52490737 4700 WEST SEWER LIFT STATIONS UP�DE - I 446,60[I--- - 1Hu0VU 46U,000 110,UV uUUVI SO.UVO 11201 TREATmENT 524906/69 ODOR CONTROL NTS-WIP52 0401-2T72.10 —50,000 493730 LIFI STATION-STUDY-VARIOUS LOCA SIN7H -.- - - ? 200 000 5 O.000 500,000 11201 494 5-11PRETREATMENT ELECTRICAL _ _ 11201 SEISMICUPGRADE -_-- _ -- - - I--- -100000• --- - 100000- - -- _-. -- 1120E TRICKLING FILTER TOP GRADING 1 �_ _ - 1120E 524905203 SECONDARY TREATMENT EXPANSION I I 23,000,000- 11201 T/F INLET/1SUTLET CHANNELS --- _- _ - -_--- -_------ ---- - -1 ---- I---� 500,000 --- - 11201 ilial PE CENTER UOLUMN MODIFICATION_-_--_ r_.--t moot_ 1120E C12 CONTACT EXPANSION I • 1120E 529905188 N W FOR E MAIN BETWEEN PRETREATMENT AND TREATMENT PLANT I 100,000 3,000,000 11201 1524905194 I SNAILREMOVALSYSTEM / t _ 1120E PRIMARY CLAIRIFIEB 524905197 'ELECTRIC GATE ACTT TOR ------- f 1------- 11201 -1-- BIOGRATE INSTALLATION TF#2 1120E - - _ 1 TRICKLING FILTER STRUCTURE T.FILTER SPLINTER BOX 125000 11201 11201 524905187 I COGEN REHAB - -i --I 50,000 3.100.000 14 OF 26 I'1Ea M6udge120011castloal CIP FILEScasfIow2003A.Ns Salt Lake City Corporation Last Update Department of Public Utilities 3/21/2002 SANITARY SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2007 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001.2002 2002-2003 2003.2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 11201 524905197 ELECTRIC GATE ACTUATOR 50,000 50,000 11201 524905195 T.F.VFD STRUCTURE-T.F.PUMP STATION VFD/EXT. 894,929 11201 SECONDARY LINE REPLACEMENT 50,000 50,000 50,000 11201 GRIT CHAMBER EXT. 200,000 11201 SECONDARY CLARIFIER NEW 11201 MECHANICAL DEWATERING _ 3,000,000 11201 ALTERNATIVE DISINFECTION SYSTEM 2,000,000 11201 OIL DRAIN ALTERNATIVE 2,000,000 11201 524905196 SCRUBBER MEDIA 166,377 11201 524905177 COGENERATION SYSTEM EVALUATION 500 - 11201 524905183 PRETREATMENT PLANT EVALUATION STUDY 774,685 513504789 1365 WEST 2300 NORTH WATER RECLAMATION PLANT 143,278 524905149 PROCESS CON1 ROL SYSTEM 58,115 2,4/2,554 28,310,000 2,950,000 550,000 1bU,000 5,SUU,000 10401 2730.14 COLLECTION LINES-WIP 5210401-2773.10 SPECIAL PROJECTS&CED - 525001666 LIGHT RAIL-EAST WEST - 821 10401 525001701 500 WEST-NORTH TEMPLE TO 400 SOUTH WEST SIDE (CED NO.103009) 1,600 91,000 525001793 500 WEST-NORTH TEMPLE&SURROUNDING BLOCKS 5,515 2,470 10401 200 EAST-400 SOUTH-15"TO 18"UPSIZE AND MISC.PIPING 250 120,000 10401 525001758 400 SOUTH-200 EAST NORHTWEST CORNER(NEW MANHOLE) 10 8,000 10401 525001756 STATE STREET-400 SOUTH NORTHEAST CORNER(NEW MANHOLE) 80 20,000 -10401 525001707 GLADIOLA STREET(2900 W)-500 SOUTH TO 1820 SOUTH(PN 103007) 10,032 25,000 250,000 10401 525001646 300 SOUTH-RIO GRANDE TO 400 WEST (WAIT FOR REDEVELOPMENT/UPSIZE) 327 74,000 - - -10401 525001647 1100 EAST-743 SOUTH TO 800 SOUTH (BUILT-REPAIR) 450 - --- 10401 525001649 400 NORTH-400 WEST TO 430 WEST (NORTH SIDE BUILT) 302 - -10401 WEST TEMPLE-PAXTON AVENUE(1180 S)TO FAYETTE AVENUE(966 S)(CED JOB NO.102052) 2,000 100,000 -- 2f367 440,4/U U U 2b0,000 U U OTHER PROJECTS -10401 EMERGENCIES-MISC.LOCATIONS 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000- 100,000 10401 MISC.PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS 210,133 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 CONTRIBUTIONS BY DEVELOPERS - _ 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 -y 310,133 1:1UU,000 5UU,000 5UU,000 tiUU,000 amif REPLACE VARIOUS COLLECTION LINES - 10401 1400 WEST 1000 NORTH TO GOODWIN AVE 1,235 230,000 10401 500 SOUTH 1025 WEST TO 1060 WEST 370 80,000 10401 525001710 WEST POINT FARMS - 53 '-- 10401 525001718 300 SOUTH 1000 WEST 26,400 10401 525001797 600 WEST-500 SOUTH TO 200 SOUTH 2,400 596,700 10401 525001800 NORTH TEMPLE 700 WEST TO 750 WEST 13,400 150F26 1:1Excel\budget2001\cashflow\CIP FILES 2003A.xls Salt Lake ration t Update Departrnen icUtilities 0/21/2002 SANITARY SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2007 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001.2002 2002 2003 2003.2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 20062007 10401 525001804 JUSTIN KAY COURT 350 10401 525001807 OLD MILL COURT 80 10401 525001828 700 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE 1,144 10401 525001873 SKYPARK INTERNATION 7,300 10401 525001874 CANNON PLACE443 - -_ -_ 10401 525001874 900 SOUTH AMANDA DRIVE 35,000 _- 10401 525001875 2100 SOUTH 1400 EAST TO 1700 EAST 1,900 70,000 - �- 10401 525001889 MADISON ESTATES 300-10401 525001891 ELIZABETH STREET 160 10401 525001897 1000 EAST 400 SOUTH TO 500 SOUTH 13,408 10401 525001898 2600 EST DUPLEXES400 10401 525001899 1700 EAST 1300 SOUTH 1700 EAST 500 10401 525001903 KINGS POINTE SUBD 500 10401 525001903 KINGS STREET SOUTH OF PARLEY WAY 2,500- 10401 525001906 BONNEVILLE OFF SITE SEWER 800 II 10401 525001908 540 WEST 1025 WORTH WESTO 2,085 200 10401 525001908 1400 WEST 1000 NORTH TO 1100 NORTH 10401 525001909 SOUTH TEMPLE 550 EAST TO 700 EAST 100 10401 525001911 THE BOYER CO 200 SOUTH-500 WEST TO 600 WEST 2,480 1,215 MIN 10401 525001791 5300 WEST-1-80 TO 5350 WEST (DIG AND REPLACE 21") 330 30,494 10401 525001726 "' ' - II SOU I N I V 3bU SOU 111 665 13,506 10401 525001728 1100 EAST-1040 SOUTH 10 1080 SOU 1 H 13,408 10401 525001737 1700 EAST-11 15 (t I-11--- - 174 174 15,161161 10401 525001738 1800 SOUTH-(CIPP)- - 315 0 10401 525001731 400 WEST-400 SOUTH TU 410-SOUTH (CIPP) - 90 29 231 10401 525001790 -''' • " ' ' •' 2't00-SOUTH-1700-TO 14bu E4S1 910 2020,0001 10401 525001739 " •, -- "' " 1u GOSHEN-STREETj1U40i1VYICIPP) - - - 302 32,301 10401 525001794 300 SOUTH-GOSHEN STREET TO BOTHWELL(OPEN CUT) - 269 13,408 10401 525001825 300 SOUTH -1000 WEST(WESTSIDE TO TRUNKLINE-DIG AND REPLACE) 65 291 10401 525001735 WEST TEMPLE-400 SOUTH T0-40ZSOUTH/DIAGONAL AC 0 1NTERSECTtON} - - - 146 44,102 10401 525001784 5uu SOUTH---1-477EAST TO 148u EAST 138 13,437 10401 525001741 621 SW H- ES 1 (LAG AND-REPLACE} - -- - 153 59,732 III. 10401 525001742 •' ' - '•- - - ■RIVE-TO-18THAVENUE-7C1PP)- - -------------- 996 0 10401 525001734 'ENTAPPROX 72VEAST=-NORTHLAND ut'(IVE N E TOORTHCLIFF-CFRIV - -- 567 0 10401 525001743 '' ' ' - •- 'E-1510 SOUTH"T0 1560-SOUTH 180 30,799 10401 525001800 '•- - '- t-/Uu Wta I 10 ibu-WESTICIPPJ 285 13,408 10401 525001744 '•- - '- -• 'WESTTO 700 VVLE I-(DtG ANU KtPLACE} - 325 82,000 10401 525001745 SIR PAIWCtcuKlvE-5/5NORTH-10bun NUR 1H - ---------- _________ 225 31,368 10401 525001776 SOUTH TEMPLE-550 EAST TO 700 EAST(PIPE BURSTING) 650 156,000 10401 525001751 SOUTH TEMPLE-"B"STREET TO 300 EAST 208 15,000- 10401 525001752 SOUTH TEMPLE-"C"STREET TO 350 EAST 209 19,000-_ 10401 525001753 SOUTH TEMPLE-"F"STREET TO 500 EAST _ 207 18,000-- 10401 525001768 AVENUE-2500 EAST TO 2680 EAST (BUILT) 873 14,000 SOUTH 10401 525001773 SOUTH TEMPLE-"C"STREET TO APPROX.405 EAST(NORTH SIDE-12"MAIN) 190 20,000 ---- 10401 525001774 SOUTH TEMPLE-"B"STREET TO M.H.AT APPROX.350 EAST(NORTH SIDE-12"MAIN) 182 18,000 ---- 10401 525001775 SOUTH TEMPLE-1200 EAST TO 1242 EASTT(SOUTH SIDE-8"MAIN) 10401 525001776 SOUTH TEMPLE-500 EAST TO 550 EAST(SOUTH SIDIE-8"MAIN) - -- 350 25,000==��- 445 26,000 10401 525001777 SOUTH TEMPLE-850 EAST TO 950 EAST(SOUTH SIDE-8"MAIN) 800 48,000- -= 10401 525001778 "P"STREET-SOUTH TEMPLE TO 1ST AVENUE(CENTER-CIPP-DIG AND REPLACE W/NEW MANHOLE) 383 45,000 16 OF 26 I:\Excel\hudget20011cashflow\CIP FILEScashflow2003A.xls Salt Lake City Corporation Last Update Department of Public Utilities 3/21/2002 SANITARY SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2007 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001.2002 2002.2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 10401 525001808 ALLEY EAST OF VIRGINIA STREET BETWEEN PERRY AVENUE TO 2ND AVENUE 546 45,000 10401 525001810 ALLEY WEST OF WOLCOTT STREET-SOUTH TEMPLE TO WOLCOTT STREET 530 40,000 10401 525001811 ALLEY BETWEEN FEDERAL WAY AND BUTLER AVENUE-UNIVERSITY STREET TO WOLCOTT STREET 1030 75,000 10401 525001812 ALLEY BETWEEN BUTLER AVENUE AND 100 SOUTH-UNIVERSITY STREET TO 100 SOUTH 315 25,000 10401 525001813 ALLEY NORTH OF 100 SOUTH-UNIVERSITY STREET TO WOLCOTT STREET 870 65,000 10401 525001814 EASEMENT BETWEEN NAVAJO ST AND 1300 WEST-1100 SOUTH TO MEAD(ABUTT WITH GLENDALE CIRCLE PROJECT) 956 72,000 10401 525001815 EASEMENT BETWEEN 1300 WEST AND GLENDALE DRIVE-ILLINOIS AVENUE TO LEXINGTON AVENUE 710 65,000 10401 525001816 EASEMENT BETWEEN 1300 WEST AND CONCORD STREET-LEXINGTON AVENUE TO MEAD AVENUE 1815 140,000 10401 525001817 EASEMENT BETWEEN CONCORD STREET AND 1200 WEST-LEXINGTON AVENUE TO MEAD AVENUE 1650 125,000 10401 525001818 EASEMENT BETWEEN 1200 WEST AND EMERY STREET-MEAD AVENUE TO LEXINGTON AVENUE 1910 190,000 10401 525001819 EASEMENT 1400 SOUTH-1100 WEST TO EMERY STREET 340 35,000 10401 525001820 EASEMENT SOUTH OF 1300 SOUTH GLENDALE STREET TO JORDAN RIVER 250 20,000 10401 525001821 NORTH TEMPLE-700 WEST TO 750 WEST 285 20,000 10401 525001822 900 EAST-400 SOUTH TO 500 SOUTH(EASTSIDE) 720 72,000 10401 525001823 900 EAST-500 SOUTH TO 600 SOUTH(EASTSIDE) 720 72,000 10401 525001826 300 SOUTH-150 WEST TO 200 WEST 298 20,000 10401 525001827 1300 SOUTH-2373 EAST TO 2330 EAST(JUST EAST OF CED PROJECT#102065) 300 50,000 10401 525001829 1700 EAST-1262 SOUTH TO 1300 SOUTH 180 35,000 10401 525001830 1700 SOUTH-1100 EAST TO 1300 EAST 1621 180,000 10401 525001831 LAIRD AVENUE(1210 SOUTH)-1376 EAST TO 1480 EAST 554 50,000 10401 525001833 NORTH TEMPLE-850 WEST TO 900 WEST(NORTHSIDE) 372 40,000 10401 525001834 NORTH TEMPLE-1030 WST TO 1060 WEST(SOUTHSIDE) 400 40,000 10401 525001835 EASEMENT WEST OF DARTMOOR WAY-DORCHESTER DRIVE TO DARTMOOR LANE(CANCELED) 0 0 10401 525001836 EASEMENT BETWEEN SOUTH SANDRUN RD AND NORTH SANDRUN RD-DORCHESTER DR TO EAST CAPITAL BLVD 366 25,000 -" 10401 525001750 "G"STREET(565 EAST)-21ST NORTH TO SOUTH TEMPLE(CIPP,REPAIRS AND NEW MANHOLE) 193 25,000 10401 525001837 400 WEST-400 SOUTH TO 450 SOUTH(WEST SIDE) 665 125,000 10401 525001838 400 SOUTH-400 WEST TO 450 WEST(SOUTH SIDE 8") 790 30,000 -- 10401 525001839 500 WEST-300 SOUTH TO 350 SOUTH(WEST SIDE 10"CIPP) 350 50,000 10401 525001840 500 WEST-350 SOUTH TO 400 SOUTH(WEST SIDE 10"DIG AND REPLACE) 330 100,000 10401 525001841 1700 EAST-1262 SOUTH TO 1300 SOUTH 180 35,000 -- 10401 525001878 900 SOUTH-1475 EAST TO 1512 EAST(DIG AND REPLACE) 100 35,000 - 10401 525001881 900 SOUTH-1475 EAST TO 1512 EAST (CIPP) (IN CONJUNCTION W/DIG AND REPLACE PROJECT FY 01-02) 305 15,000 - 10401 525001772 SOUTH TEMPLE-150 EAST TO APPROX.220 EAST(NORTH SIDE 18"MAIN) 525 100,000 -�- - ' 10401 525001880 300 SOUTH-1100 EAST TO 1200 EAST(SOUTH SIDE) 750 49,000 - - -- -" EASEMENT(1800 SOUTH)WASATCH DRIVE TO MOHAWK WAY(2655 E) 530 20,000 EASEMENT BLAINE AVENUE TO 1750 SOUTH THEN WEST TO WASATCH DRIVE 465 20,000 - - ____ - ---- ----- - - ---- --- 41285 4,214,684 - --- -"- - -- TOTAL 41,285 4,214,684 10401 1400 WEST-1000 NORTH TO GOODWIN AVENUE(1135 N) (CIPP) 1,235 230,000 10401 CATHERINE STREET(1440 W)-GOODWN AVENUE(1135 N)TO DUPONT AVENUE(1335 W) (CIPP) 1,390 55,000 10401 525001863 600 NORTH-1300 WEST TO 1340 WEST(SOUTH SIDE) 600 79,000 10401 525001850 300 NORTH-800 WEST TO 850 WEST(DIG AND REPLACE) _ 600 45,000 10401 525001646 300 SOUTH-RIO GRANDE TO 400 WEST(SOUTH SIDE) _ 600 135,500 10401 SOUTH TEMPLE "H"TO"I"STREET NORTH SIDE-12'CIPP 600 42,600 "" 10401 SOUTH TEMPLE-1150 EAST TO 1200 EAST(SOUTH SIDE 8"CIPP) 600 25,000 - 10401 SOUTH TEMPLE-1250 EAST TO VIRGINIA STREET(1345 E 8"CIPP) 1,114 40,000 10401 WASHINGTON STREET(240 W)-900 SOUTH TO 950 SOUTH (10"CIPP) 600 30,000 17 OF 26 1:\Excel\budget2001\cashflow\CIP FILES 2003A.xls Salt laketion it Update Dremmeni c Utilities 21/2002 SANITARY SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2007 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 20042005 2005-2006 2006-2007 10901 1400 WEST.VAN BUREN AVENUE(1550 S)TO 170D SOUTH I 913 I 125,000 I 10401 S TE PL -1300 SOUTH TO MEAD AVENUE(12"CIPP SOME SPOT REPAIR l- 2,000 I 100,000 10401 'PSTREET--SOUTH TEMPLE TO 3RD AVENUE(CIPP) I 1,213 50,000 10401 800 EAST-BROWNING AVENUE INTER TIONTDB R) . 600 184000 10401 THORNTON AVENUE(10400j 1300EAST TO 1400 EAST AND 1390 EAST-GILMER DRIVE(9055)TOTHORNTONAVENUE(1040L 1,052 �- 45,00 _ 10401 525001892 B INE A E(lE(1735u0UTH) 1400 EAST TO 1430 EAST(DIG AND REPLACE) 600 113,000 i 10401 525001843 KENNEDY DRIVE(965 SOTH) 3110 EAST TO 3190 EAST-(DIG AND REPLACE) - 600 127,000 I 10401 525001894 ICHHTSN AVENUE(990 SODTH) 1700 EAST TO2000 EAST - 3,130 1 160,000 10401 425001845 PRINCETONN AVENUE(11355T 1800EASTTO 1895EAST H 73 70,000± •10401 _525001646 PRINCETON AVENUE(1I35 5) 1330€AST T01419 EAST(CIPP)/LAIRD AVENUE() 1300 EAVT TO 1330 EAST(CIPP) 1.230 1 45,000 t _ .L---I -� L 10401 525001847 YALE AWNUE(1080 SOUTH) 1300 EAST-TO 1380EAST 730 _60,000 10401 525001848 VALECRESTT/EIJUE(1015 SOUTH)-1900 EAST T02000 EAST - _ 4--85,B1-- + 28,000 10401 -+25001849 YALECRESTA ENUE(1015SOUTH)-1788 EASTT0 7 1900 EEAST ---- _ -- L 87' 55,000 ----- y.--- 10401 1525001855 HARRISON AVEU 70 SOUT)-150€AST TOi700 EAST L 1,800 I 80,000 10401 52500195SHERMAN AVENUE(1340 SOUTH)-1540 EA51 TO 1570 EASFANDESTMORELAND DRIVE 423 50,000 10401 250�2 10030UT iE-470 EAST TO 570 EAST 800 30,000 1040t 5250186TTAAIN STSEET(EAS AND WESTUIDE)-900 1TH TO1300SOUTH (CIPP) 5,52701 7 350,000 10401 5250018670 MAIN STRET(EAST 9UO ANDWEST SIDE) SOt1 OUTH TO 1300TH (DIG AND REVLACE) 750 150,000 10401 525001879 FULLER A ENUE(450)S-1000 EAST AND 1100 EAST 580+ - 38,000 AL �� TOT 31, ` 2562,100 10401 525001857 rSUNNVSIDE AVENUE(840 S)-190 EAST TO 1992 EAST 63 I t 30,000 II- 10401]525001858 ,SUNNYSIDE AVENUE(840 SI-1510 EAR TO 1600 EAST 670r + --- 35,000 I ---IDIESTEL ROAD(1730 E)-930 SOUTH T10GF2 WOOD TERRACE(CIPP) - 659 __4 28,000 10401 525001859 1800 EAST-1300 SOUTH 1400 SOUTH 708-tf 30,000 10401 I525001882 41100 EAST-700 SOUTH TO BOO SOUTH(CIPP) 884 4 45,080 10401 F525001880 IEMIGRATION STREET(1730 EAST).1300 SOUTH TO IVARRISON AVENUE AND-EM1�TION CIRCLE 1,000T - _ t 45,00 10401 525001861 H BBARDAVENUE(935 SOUTH) 1850 EAST T02000 EAST 562± - 65,000 -�900 WEST-MESS AVENUE 980SI TODALTON AVENUE S) (DIG AND REPLASE 4 - ( ) I 600 -1 240,000 __ I_ 180 WEST-FREMONT AVENUE(1120S)TO 1150 SOUTH-(DIG AND REPLACE) 501 -�- 20,000 1 _l-_ 900 WEST-1300 SOUTH TO-CALIFORNIA AVENUE(13205)-(DIG AND REPLACE) -600�� 135,000 -} 11300 SOUTH-800 WEST T0900 WEST-(DIG AND REPLACE) _-- 760I 160,0001 AVENUE(13205) 900 WES�O 1000YJEST-(DIG AND REPLACE) I -�800 60,000} __..�.. _--'CALIFORNIAWUST TEMPLE AND 600 SOUTH --- -._- _--- _-- _-- 90 -.-- 32,000 -_ - -_- - I SOUTH TIEMPLE.400 EAST TO 450 EAST(SOUTH SIDE)(GIPP) I 600 34,000 JI� IW ST TEMPLE-1300 SOUTH TO-MEAD AVENUE(9805) (CIVP) - -- - - _ 2,000 150,000 r - I 800 EAST-BROTNING AVENUE(14005(INTERSECTION IID&R) 600 184,000 KING STREET(2430E)--2222SWTH T02250 SOUTH-(G)PP)- - _- - _ - 11 �600 � 34,0001 [REGENT STREET(90 E)-100 SOUTH TO 200 SOUTH(800'CIPP&50'D&R) 850 50,000` 830 SOUTH-1134 WEST-BH:1200 WEST(CIRCLE)(CIS R) ---- --- T 600 -T --- -120,000 I ---- --- -- NORTH CENTER STREET-1134 WEST TO 1200 WEST(D&R) 600 120,000 -7 830 NORTH-1134-ESTT01200 WEST(CIRCLE)(CIPP)IDB R) --- -- --- __ -360 -- 42,000 • --�----- HAMPTON AVENUE(1135 S)-300 EAST TO 345 EAST(CIPP) 410J 21,000 600 WEST-400 NORTH TO450 NORTH(CIPP) 60U 58,000 I I 1- MARKEA COURT(250S)-656 EAST TO 700 EAST(CIPP) 600I 35000 -- 300 SOUTH-1100 EAST TO ELIZABETH STREET(1140 E)(CIPP) [ 600 26,500 t- 10401 525001854 300 SOUTH-900 EAST TO 1000 EAST 1 714 75,000 300 SOUTH-UNIVERSITY STREET TO 1300 EAST(CIPP) 380, 20,0001- 16 OF 28 t\Exce141usge12001kash6vM CIP FILEScasMow2003Atls Salt Lake City Corporation Last Update Department of Public Utilities 3/21/2002 SANITARY SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2007 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-2002 2002.2003 2003.2004 2004.2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 200 SOUTH-1100 EAST TO 1200 EAST(NORTH SIDE)AND 1100 EAST TO 1180 EAST(SOUTH SIDE) (CIPP) 1,250 52,000 400 SOUTH-1000 EAST TO 1100 EAST(NORTH SIDE-EAST OF LIGHT RAIL) (CIPP) 875 35,000 400 SOUTH-1000 EAST TO 1100 EAST (SOUTH SIDE-EAST OF LIGHT RAIL) (CIPP) 665 25,000 1600 SOUTH-300 WEST TO 400 WEST(CENTER) (CIPP) 475 19,000 STATE STREET-100 SOUTH TO 200 SOUTH(EAST AND WEST SIDE) (CIPP) 1,470 75,000 STATE STREET-200 SOUTH TO 300 SOUTH(EAST AND WEST SIDE) (CIPP) 1,461 75,000 STATE STREET-300 SOUTH TO 400 SOUTH(EAST AND WEST SIDE) (CIPP) 1,615 85,000 STATE STREET-400 SOUTH TO 500 SOUTH(WEST SIDE) (CIPP) 734 40,000 400 WEST-100 NORTH TO SOUTH TEMPLE (CIPP AND D&R) 893 80,000 400 WEST-SOUTH TEMPLE TO 100 SOUTH (CIPP AND D&R) 810 80,000 EDITH AVENUE(1200 S)-400 EAST TO 442 EAST (CIPP) 600 24,000 - 400 SOUTH-400 WEST TO 500 WEST,500 WEST-400 SOUTH TO 430 SOUTH (CIPP) 900 36,000 VARIOUS 2,700 160,000 TOTAL 31,965 2,677,500 10401 VARIOUS LINE REPLACEMENT 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,114,604 1,b42,11JUr 2,bf f,bUUI 1,000,UUU 1,000,000I 1,000,UUU DIVERSIONS 10401 WEST TEMPLE AND 600 SOUTH-(INSTALL NEW MANHOLE AND NEW PIPE DIAGONAL TO HELP FLOW) 80 30,000 MASTER PLAN PROJECTS - - -- --- 10401 525001662 1300 WEST BETWEEN 300 NORTH&WWTP (THOMPSON-HYSELL ENGINEERING) 9,850 1,000,000 9,000,000 10401 525001759 4700 WEST CROSSING OF 180 FROM NORTH TEMPLE TO 700 SOUTH 1,220,000 - " -- 10401 NORTH TEMPLE DIVERSION FROM ORANGE STREET/1200 WEST/BECK STREET 4,000,000 S,S5U 1,220,000 3U,UUU 1,000,U00 9,000,0UU 4,000,UUU U iOiALCOLLECTIONZINtS b189281 3,3(2,10U 4,4( ,b00 11,Ub0,000 5,80U,000 1,8UU,000 2730.20 LANDSCAPING-WIP 52-10401-2773.10 --- 11201 SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT WWTP -11201 524901242 WETLANDS WALKOUT - -' 11201 BLACKTOP T F PUMP STATION ROAD 11201 ASPHALTING 15,000 15,000 15,000 11201 POST TREATMENT PILOT DEMO - - 11201 PLANT PAINTING 90,000 100,000 0 105,000 U 'I9,000 1011,000 15,000 TOTAL CAPITAEIMPROVEMENTS- - 9,821,5U3 31,9/9,10i i,tt((,5uu 11,f2u,000 b,400,000 i,520,000 19 OF 26 I:\Excel\budget2001\cashflow\CIP FILES 2003A.xls Salt LaW oration •st Update Departm lic U�ititics 3/21/2002 SANITARY SEWER CAPIT MPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thou 2007 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001.2002 2002.2003 2003.2004 2004.2005 2005.2008 2005.2007 2750.10 AUTOMOBILES 8 TRUCKS L 10101- 3/4 T0�1 IFCK UP 4X4 ---- - _---- -- --- I II 25.000 I-- --- --29,000 -- __-1 - _- 10101 -- ----1 TON PICKUP --- --- ---- ---- - 28,000 10101 ----3/44 TON PICKUP4X4WIEXT CAB ---- ---- --- ----�-- --- ---- ---- --- 31,000 10401 -_-- FULL SIZED TRUCR ------ ----- -----_--- -f ---24,000- 48,000 24,000 ----- 24,000 10601------.2TONBOSTAIL DUMP_.. --._--.-_i_._-._--.54.000 1 56,000 10601 3/444X441CKUP - - - r 25,000 52,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 60,000 11101 . P05003/4 TON 4X4_- _ 1 25.000 20 F ATE --- _-- -_--. -1 11201 ON W/R - - - 22500 24,000 24,000 24,000 1i201 t. 1 1/2 TON TRUCK W/FLATBED r--- 35,000 35,00oi 35,000 35,000 11201 S-10PICKUP - --- ---- ---- I --- _ 15.0000 20,000 -- - -- _ _ 11201� i-.-_0WTON BB N EXT.CAB W/SH€LUSHELVING/LIGHTBAft - - - - - J 35,000 _ 35.000' 35,000_ 35,000 11201 I, I3I<TO-N W/UTILITY€�-- - - -- --- - - --- - 7 -- r --, 29,500 --I 29,500 11201 �1I2 Tat WRACK I ..- -- -22,000 -- -.22.000._ 12201 10 WHEEL DTIMP(PUPST- -_-- - ---- f 35,000 35.000 -- --- ----12201 1 - -I10lNHEEL DUKIP --I -._-.- t00,00a- _--- _..__.-_t---.------ -. .- I JUU.SUU ZU1.501( ZJU,uuu t<v,auu sl4OOIr 115A0J r75030FIELD MAINTENANCE EQUIP. _.__._ __.___. - - i.----_. -t I 1U 101_ . _.__-FORKLIHT.- -- --- 1 _ _ 10,0001 __.._ 10101 __- DER MOWER _.. .__ - I 7.500i 10601 BACKHOE "--- --- " 1 i 70,0001I 2000 2.000 2,000i- -2,000 10601 1I _ _. IVACIOR TRUCK .. 250.000. -.-. 4 , 10601 'HIGH PRESSURE-TRUCK -�- --- --- - -- I -125,000 128,000 ---I 10801 TV VAN J I. 135,000 __ -I.. I ___... --_- _ If 11201 I ---iEZ G04X4 ; + ....- --- I - -.-- -. -__- 11201� GOLF CARTREHLCAEMENTS - -- - -_ -- -- ___ ____ _ 12,000 12,000 --- 12000 11201 LOADER REPLACEMENT - - - r _ 1 250,000 12201 4 IBACKNOE/VACTOR USED _-- - - -- --- - -- -- --- I 200,0001 -- -- _ - -r--r __. _ --. _- _-_- -_.. _.- _ _.._- _.- _- i__- NJ/,UD� ..1J,000 31,SUUI <]<,UUU 16.001.14 <pu17 _-.-_i .--.r _-- _.__. _-__ _- _-__ - 1 I I .20 _ TREAT1MENfPLANT EQUIPMENT I _ 200,000 200,000 200,000 200000 200,000 200,000 1 <uu,w I zUquUJ <w,uuul 100,000 <uU,Uuu1 mJbQ 2760.30_4TELEMETERING EQUIPMENT -1 r I 11201 524905149 ITELEMETERING UPGRADE-REPLACE_ - 10,0011 10,000 10,0001. 10,000 10,000 10,000 �_-.----.-. -. _. -. 10.0101 10,000' 10,0001 IU,UUu 10,wU1 1up01 __ --.--_-.------ - ------ IF - r --- - 30,000 2760 50 OFFICE FURNITURE 8 EQUIPMENT 30,000 30,000 11700 'SOFTWARE 5,0001 12201 -IPERATION WORK AREA EQUIPMENT I 7 II , 10,000I 10,000 200F 26 I.ceRbudget20011cashflow1CIP FILEScasltflow2003AAs Salt Lake City Corporation Last Update Department of Public Utilities 3/21/2002 SANITARY SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2007 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-2002 2002 2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006 2007 11201 COPIER/MAINTENANCE _ 8,000 10401 RICOH LARGE FORMAT CONTROLLER 18,000 OFFICE-I-URN(I UFtE 8 EQUIIMEN I FOR FY 2000-2001 - - ZS,000 3U,000 U 3b,000 1U.000 4U,WU 2760.90 OTHER NON-MOTIVE EQUIPMENT ADFM velocity and high pressure hose _ 25,000 10101 60 KW GENERATOR 24,000 25,000 26,000 28,000 28,000 10101 ONE TON SHOP CRANE 8,000 10101 UTILITY TRAILER 3,000 10101 SAFETY TRIIPOD 5,000 10101 8"PUMP 30,000 10101 BUMPER CRANE 6,500 10101 DSCHARGE HOSE 8" 7,800 10601 TOWALONG COMPRESSOR _ 11,000 12,000 13,000 10601 SAFETY TRIIPOD 4,000 10601 SIDE DUMP CEMENT MIXERS 8,400 4,300 4,400 9,000 4,400 10601 4"PUMP TRAILER MOUNTED 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 10601 HIGH PRESSURE HOSE _ 8,400 18,000 18,000 20,400 10601 2 FLOW MEASUREMENY DEVICES 22,000 10801 DATA CAP 3.0 18,000 11101 GAS(H2S)SCRUBBER FOR AIR ENTERING LAB __ 250,000 11101 ICP/MS 200,000 - -- 11101 IC/FIAS SYSTEM _ 80,000 - - 11101 TOC ANALYZER -- 80,000 -11101 TURBIMETER 10,000 -- 11101 AIR HANDLING/ELECTRICAL 50,000 --- - - -- -11101 PH/ION ANALYZER OAION 20,000 -11101 BLOCK DIGISTER - - 7,000 11101 (2)MIDI DISTILLATION APPARATUS 20,000 - -' 11101 COLIFORM BATH INCUBATOR 10,000 11101 TWO REFRIGERATORS - 11101 COD REACTOR __ 16,000 9,000 11101 SPECTROPHOTOMER -- 11101 INCUBATOR-HOT AIR - 20,000 ------ --- -- 11201 MAINTENANCE STORAGE CABINETS -- . 11201 INST./ELEC.SHELVING RACK --11201 FLOW METER REPLACEMENTS/SAMPLER REPLACEMENT 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 11201 DIG LEVEL SENSORS -- _- 10,000 12201 STATIONARY SAMPLER W/ENCLOSURE 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 12201 CHLORINE SAFETY EQUIPMENT 10,000 10,000 12201 PORTABLE SAMPLERS _ 9,000 12201 SAMPLER ENCLOSURE 4,600 12201 INTERCEPTOR REDOX PROBES - - 10,000 5219090 RADIO'S FOR OLYMPICS 11,000 O I HER NON-MO I IVE EUUIPMEN I FOR FY 2000-200i - _- /U3,b0U 2bb,30U 19b,000 104,000 114,1UU 48,000 21 OF 26 I:\Excel\budget2001\cashtlow\CIP FILES 003A.xls Salt Lakilk oration Departnte s Utilities Last Update 0rzlrzooz SANITARY SEWER CAPI ROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2007 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001.2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,b31,suu 1,04U,b0U b6/,50U 733,5u0 bb1,1UU 47b,000 -}SAND TOTAL 11,654,6U:3 33,019,y0U 13,b45,000 11,4b3,b0U I,Ub1,1UU' (,99b,000 0 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,832,300 1,040,800 667,500 733,500 662,100 478,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 13,487,103 34,060,700 9,212,500 13,197,000 7,724,200 8,476,000 22 OF 26 I:\Exce5budget2001\cashflow\CIP FILEScashfiow2003A.xls STORMWATER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY • FY 2002-2003 AMENDED PROJECTED ::€'.PROpoS:ED. FORECAST FORECAST ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL `.> >':BUDGE1::::>:>'> BUDGET BUDGET SOURCES2000-2001 2001-02 2001-02 : , 002aE13:{::>::: 2003-04 2004-05 REVENUES METERED SALES $5,190,863 $4,949,000 $5,242,772 >: >::$5 29. 199: $5,348,151 $5,401,633 INTEREST INCOME 379,807 300,000 300,000:;. :: :: 490;000 300,000 300,000 OTHER REVENUES 52,601 40,000 40,0006 ;;`''!::::..i40;000 40,000 40,000 ............................ . ............................ . ..... ........... ... . . ..... ........... .... ......................... . . ..... ........... ........ ............................. ... .... ...... ...... . TOTAL REVENUES $5,623,271 $5,289,000 $5,582,772 <:::•:` $5635'I99 $5,688,151 $5,741,633 OTHER SOURCES GRANTS&OTHER RELATED REVENUE $1,482,579 $216,000 $216,000 > $71e i00: $716,000 $716,000 OTHER SOURCES 131,356 0 0 ' € €'> >'. <::::;>' 0: 0 0 .............. .. ....... ......... ........ IMPACT FEES 567,946 250,000 250,000 ;:: ::;;:'250;1i•09: 250,000 250,000 BOND PROCEEDS 0 0 0 ; iU 9 OO€ O00 0 0 ..........:..................... ................................ .... ........................... ................................. ................................ ................................. ..... .......................... ......... .................... ........ ....................... ................................. ... .. ....................... TOTAL OTHER SOURCES $2,181,881 $466,000 $466,000;;;:;;::.:$9 6 000 $966,000 $966,000 TOTAL SOURCES $7,805,152 $5,755,000 $6,048,772:`. 0:.'.$.15 Bt11 199• $6,654,151 $6,707,633 ... . ........ ........... .. .. ... ................ .. ......... ...... . ....... ............. EXPENSES&OTHER USES • EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $1,252,850 $1,411,472 $1,411,472: :.'.;::::;€$ A4A.9':140 $1,493,088 $1,538,354 TING& MAINTENANCE 74,704 122,240 122,240 :;; ;:;: ::::::iV40.O: 119,150 119,150 L&TRAINING 5,737 10,760 10,760`€ ' '; . 99Q: 10,760 10,760 .g];:i:............. ................................ UTILITIES 47,482 53,050 53,050:: '';:;: " ':54;531 56,260 57,937 ....... ... . ....... .. PROF&CONTRACT SERVICES 704,218 745,567 745,567€[ ; ; ;:.:T5:9 U97` 772,972 787,294 ......................... ................................. DATA PROCESSING 102,778 128,050 128,050::>:'> >'.>>:101:110 135,602 139,549 FLEET MAINTENANCE 108,161 132,800 132,800' ' :' : 136 T$$': 140,888 145,114 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE FEE 39,247 40,000 40,000 . .;-:N]iii:'4.1.-gt.illi:i 42,436 43,709 PAYMENT IN LEIU OF TAXES 113,144 92,000 92,000 .. 84760 97,603 100,531 OTHER CHARGES AND SERVICES 172,617 60,600 60,600: '.:: >::' :>':60t6011: 60,600 60,600 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,620,938 $2,796,539 $2,796,539:: : ::$245740.2 $2,929,359 $3,002,998 OTHER USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $90,526 $309,600 $309,600'< ': $4847000 $140,000 $426,200 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET 4,666,112 3,778,700 5,509,793.: :::::: ;I 54.5 2510 7,710,000 7,870,000 ............. ..:............ .......... ..................... DEBT SERVICES 0 0 0::< ?: ::;;.$1.0) 0:: 900,000 900,000 T 0 T A L OTHER USES $4,756,638 $4,088,300 $5,819,393 €;:;:::.::'$.:5 3.....2(... : $8,750,000 $9,196,200 .............................. .. . ..... ....... .... .... .. ............. ...... ................. ............. ..... . ................... .................. ............. ........ ......... .......... ................... ........... ................................. ................................. ............................. TOTAL USES $7,377,576 $6,884,839 $8,615,932::`':;:`:` ::$J 222062: $11,679,359 $12,199,198 ....................... ... . ............................ ... .......::::; ......g: .............................. ... ........... .............. ............................... ... ............ .............. ................................ ................................ .................................. ................. ............ EXCESS REVENUE AND OTHER SOURCES OVER(UNDER) USES $427,576 ($1,129,839) ($2,567,160):'::'? >: $§:370z137 ($5,025,208) ($5,491,565) ....... . ...... .... . ......... ............. ......................... . ...................... ........ . .............. .......... ............... ....................... .. ....... ............... OPERATING CASH BALANCES BEGINNING JULY 1 $8,824,049 $9,251,625 $9,251,625 : '. >:$984485: $13,063,602 $8,038,394 ENDING JUNE 30 $9,251,625 $8,121,786 $6,684,465'?: ' €$!#_3:063r602: $8,038,394 $2,546,829 eserve Ratio(Acceptable range 10%to 25%) 239% €'>.:.. €€ .451:%: 274% 85% Operating cash balance is defined as total cash less restricted amounts for . ................ bond covenants and outstanding accounts payable. ............ I:Excel/ Budget2003/StO3sum STORMWATER UTILITY CASH FLOW ACTUAL ACTUAL CURRENT BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR 1999-2000 2000-2001 20001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 STORMWATER CHARGES 5,168,129 5,190,863 5,242,772 5,295,199 5,348,151 5,401,633 5,455,650 5,510,208 OTHER INCOME 70,721 52,601 35,000, 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 INTEREST INCOME 277,656 379,807 300,000: 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 OPERATING INCOME 5,516,506 5,623,271 5,577,772 5,630,199 5,683,151 5,736,633 5,790,650 5,845,208 OPERATING EXPENDITURES -2,442,964 -2,620,938 -2,796,539 -2,857,862 -2,929,359 -3,002,998 -3,078,848 -3,171,213 NET INCOME EXCLUDING DEP. 3,073,542 3,002,333 2,781,233 2,772,337 2,753,792 2,733,635 2,711,802 2,673,994 IMPACT FEES 20,068 567,946 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 OTHER RECEIPTS/ BOND PROCEEDS 9,000,000 OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS 753,071 1,613,935 221,000 721,000 721,000 721,000 721,000 721,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY -12,571 -90,526 -309,600 -484,000 -140,000 -426,200 -105,000 -511,000 DEBT SERVICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEBT SERVICE (NEW) 0 0 -375,000 -900,000 -900,000 -900,000 -900,000 OTHER INCOME & EXPENSE 760,568 2,091,355 161,400 9,112,000 -69,000 -355,200 -34,000 -440,000 .,.. 'i':.u...s„s.,, ER _au,.,.,.T,__,,.u:az' '• .�. r'a's'.a.`;."r�:i, ,t; ,i.&._ ...4„ ALp ; 5 `7r l�''r, i,.n,, f 'c. 3 !,•iw �7' w q. ti,. o •• µ' ,u,sr,....a. .....u....,,... �..,«..«... �S�_ad ,w.. Y...x. au ,c '�a3.a. :a ,... 4 �� __ , 44�*..s�..c" 're, a Tom: 2-'a,.n; �#±. "'"`" «w' e: !:M 04x no Fv" a..w ,s s " I ^"s` I .�fi I,j '.. �.i �r�"» kmA - CASH INCREASE/(DECREASE) 1,116,257 427,576 -2,567,160 6,379,137 -5,025,208 -5,491,565 987,802 -3,056,006 BEGINING CASH BALANCE 7,707,792 8,824,049 9,251,625 6,684,465 13,063,602 8,038,394 2,546,829 3,534,631 CASH INCREASE/(DECREASE) _ 1,116,257 427,576 -2,567,160 6,379,137 -5,025,208 -5,491,565 987,802 -3,056,006 •,�-��•xix �z:�;��«;�`,�-�;,p,'�F,�.t,"�°" r.�.a;'�;� rs 'n�� re�;r�y ,t «" ,�.�t•��^,:w, ,s zry aa',,,t��E ��'�a,aYY;r;�w�� ..,�^zr»»w+sv,r:; => k 5: if'«t�;`„'' .a». �; :y..,,u,. = .`�"`. rkr.:m1 .�.,w.,. 4; r `.? y' G '31:61 ;;^'a(} r"'�4 ;'-1 r:�V+ z 2 :�n .,e -; "�-,• iTg �J ...W_,#'.,..�..,�m k�;�•4��..w�.._ ,,,.�.... ,� a,...s..w�...�..�._,.".,� .�rN a*,�.�s,t„�a' �,a�x««�'��. .«.,, , � .,��,�'' �'$,�,i'��` DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.39 3.06 3.04 3.01 2.97 RATE CHANGE 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL WATER BILL (1991=$36.00) $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 Cash Reserve Ratio (acceptable range 10-20) 361.20% 352.99% 239.03% 457.11% 274.41% 84.81% 114.80% 15.09% Salt Lake poraton *Update Departmen Utilities 1/2002 STORM DRAIN CAPITAL OVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBERS DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 53-10301 7770.05 LIFT STATIONS-WIP 53-10301-2772.10 53471009 [ES-1,#7]->400 S.JORDAN RIVER 680,000 53471011 1400 NORTH REDWOOD ROAD 120,000 53471014 300 NORTH NEW STAR DRIVE (ON HOLD) 1,000 53471017 HARTLAND PUMPING STATION 500 53471016 SIR TIMOTHY LIFT STATION 60,000 534701015 LIBERTY PARK LIFT STATION-1300 SOUTH 500 EAST (COMPLETE UPGRADE) 120,000 NEW STAR LIFT STATION-300 NORTH NEW STAR DRIVE (NEW PUMPS AND CONTROL PANEL) 50,000 700 WEST 500 NORTH LIFT STATION (NEED FOR NEW LIFT STATION DUE TO CED PROJECT) 120,000 400 WEST 1300 SOUTH LIFT STATION (CONTROL PANEL,CHECK VALVES,DISCHARGE PIPE) 70,000 PARK UNDERDRAIN LIFT STATION-1910 WEST 1030 NORTH (NEW PUMPS AND CONTROL PANEL) 50,000 OAKLY LIFT STATION-1200 WEST 1200 NORTH (PUMPS,DISCHARGE AND CONTROL PANEL) 150,000 OIL DITCH LIFT STATION-1250 WEST 2000 NORTH (NEW PUMPS AND CONTROL PANELS) 500,000 400 WEST 1300 SOUTH LIFT STATION (PUMPS,CONTROL PANEL AND DISCHARGE) 120,000 PAXTON AVENUE LIFT STATION-700 WEST PAXTON AVENUE (PUMPS,DISCHARGE&CONTROL PANEL) 120,000 VARIOUS PUMP STATIONS 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 $861,500' $290,000 $220,000 $250,000 $720,000 $220.000 53-10301 2730.20 DETENTION BASINS-WIP 5 3-1 0301-2773.10 [ES-1,#15)->LIBERTY PARK 4,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,100,000 53-10301 2730.18 COLLECTION MAINS-WIP 53-10301-2773.10 53470518 AMERICAN BEAUTY(1030w)-OIL DRAIN DICTH TO DUPONT DOWN TO 1200 W 8,185 1,060,000 53470549 PIONEER ROAD-1300 SOUTH TO 1750 SOUTH(CED NO.102042) 12,000 53470547 GUARDSMAN WAY 500 SOUTH TO SUNNYSIDE 1,500 108,000 53470578 500 SOUTH TO 900 SOUTH ON 900 EAST (CED NO.101007) (BUILT) 7,000 53470672 700 EAST TO 900 EAST,900 SOUTH TO 1300 SOUTH-PHASE I(CED PROJECT-PHASE I) 166,000 53470671 2100 EAST-2100 SOUTH TO 1700 SOUTH,1700 SOUTH-2100 EAST TO 2300 EAST 650,000 CRESTVIEW AND OAKVIEW DR-INLETS 2,000 r, 300,000 53470671 WILMINGTON AVE-1900 EAST TO 2250 EAST 500,000 [ES-1,#11]->1700 SOUTH 600 WEST 85,000 765,000 600 EAST INTERCEPTOR-LIBERTY PARK 2,000,000_ 53470354 [ES-1,#12]->900 SOUTH- JORDAN RIVER TO STATE STREET-PHASE I 8,560 _ 6,000,000 [ES-1,#12]->900 SOUTH-STATE STREET TO 600 EAST-PHASE II 3,850 6,000,000 [ES-1,#21]->50 SOUTH GADSBY PLANT [ES-1,#22]->1500 SOUTH 1-215 TESORO(1200 NORTH-600 WEST TO 850 WEST) 1,600 140,000 24,095 $2,889,600 $2.905,000 $6,000,000 $6,000.000 $0 $0 SPECIAL PROJECTS 53470596 500 WEST-NORTH TEMPLE TO 400 SOUTH (CED NO.103009) 3,500 105,000 53470605 BETWEEN 400 WEST AND 500 WEST-BETWEEN NORTH TEMPLE AND 200 SOUTH 1,500 500 53470613 500 WEST-200 NORTH TO 400 NORTH 1,400 53470681 100 SOUTH-770 WEST TO 900 WEST 17,000 53470528 2100 SOUTH-300 WEST 466 53470580 WEST EAST LIGHT RAIL 400 SOUTH 82,125 2100 SOUTH LIGHT RAIL CROSSING 94,000 200 WEST MC CARTHY CIRCLE TO 2100 SOUTH 22,000 5,0001 206,491 $116,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 1 I 1 OF 4 I:\Excel\hudget2001\cashflow\lcashllow2003A.xls Salt Lake City Corporaton Last Update Department of Public Utilities 3/21/2002 STORM DRAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBERS DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 20042006 2005-2006 2006-2007 CED DRIVEN PROJECTS 200,000 200,000 200,000 53470548 SOUTH TEMPLE-STATE STREET TO VIRGINIA STREET(1250 E)(CED JOB NO.102010) 2,600 141,000 53470599 GLADIOLA STREET(2900 W)-500 S TO 1820 S(CED JOB NO.103007) (ENGINEERING STUDY AND CONSTRUCTION) 71,000 500,000 53470586 GLENDALE STREET-NAVAJO STREET TO GLENDALE CIRCLE (GLENDALE AREA STUDY-JOB NO.102044) 1,650 58,000 MONTGOMERY STREET-GLENDALE CIRCLE TO 1300 SOUTH (GLENDALE AREA STUDY-JOB NO.102044) 225,000_ ILLINOIS AVENUE-JORDAN RIVER TO CONCORD STREET (GLENDALE AREA STUDY-JOB NO.102044) 250,000 1200 WEST-ILLINOIS AVENUE TO SOUTH OF MEAD (GLENDALE AREA STUDY-JOB NO.102044) 110,000 CONCORD STREET-ILLINOIS AVENUE TO MEAD (GLENDALE AREA STUDY-JOB NO.102044) 110,000 800 WEST-600 SOUTH TO 900 SOUTH (CED JOB NO.102081) 20,000_ YALE AVE-800 EAST TO MCCLELLAND STREET (CED JOB NO,102093) 20,000 MCCLELLAND STREET-YALE AVENUE TO 900 SOUTH (CED JOB NO.102093) 20,000 MICHIGAN AVENUE-1100 EAST TO 1200 EAST (CED JOB NO.102093) 20,000 1200 EAST-YALE AVENUE TO GILMER AVENUE (CED JOB NO.102093) _ 20,000 53470687 DUPONT AVE-COLORADO STREET 195,000 1300 SOUTH-1700 EAST TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 35,000 300 W-400 S TO 900 S INLETS 0 20,000 1300 S-900 E TO 1300 E INLETS 0 20,000 900 W-500 S TO 905 S INLETS - 0 20,000 CALIFORNIA AVE-JORDAN RIVER TO 800 W INLETS 0 20,000 NEVADA ST-HILLSIDE SCHOOL TO NORTH CUL-DE-SAC INLETS 0 20,000 CHEYENNE ST-300 S TO ARAPAHOE AVE INLETS 0 20,000 600 S-JORDAN RIVER TO NAVAJO ST INLETS 0 20,000 700 S-JORDAN RIVER TO CHEYENNE ST INLETS 0 20,000 HAYES AVENUE-NAVAJO STREET TO 1500 WEST(102086) 840 60,000 53470670 HARMONY/EGLI COURT BLOCK REDESIGN-600 SOUTH TO 700 SOUTH 55,000 53473001 2100 SOUTH-REDWOOD ROAD TO 900 WEST 483,000 600 WEST-500 NORTH TO 600 NORTH 800 100,000 909 EAST-700 EAST TO 1100 EAST 2,800 160,000 500 EAST-1300 SOUTH TO 2100 SOUTH 650,000 ADA RAMPS 75,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 2,600r $915,000 I $1.273,000 $740,000' $870,000 I $220.000 I $220,000 LOCAL AREA PROJECTS(•WORK BY CITY CREWS) 53474005 VARIOUS PROJECTS 381,502 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 3RD AVENUE AND"F"STREET 300 18,000 3RD AVENUE AND"Q"STREET 300 18,000 WASATCH DRIVE AND SKYLINE DRIVE-BOX REPLACEMENT 2,000 EMIGRATION DETENTION BASIN(ORIFICE)-ES-1#2 5,000 MORTON DRIVE 600 NORTH-1 COB,2 INLETS 400 24,000 GOLTZ AVENUE WEST TEMPLE-NEW INLET 50 4,000 300 SOUTH 300 EAST-5 INLETS 130 14,000 2123 EAST 900 SOUTH-REBUILD NORTHEAST CORNER 2,500 500 EAST 900 SOUTH-REBUILD NORTHEAST CORNER 7,000 2875 SOUTH HIGHLAND DRIVE-2 INLETS 3,000 200 SOUTH MAIN STREET-1 INLET 2,000 1116 S.REDWOOD DR.-2 INLETS,3 COB _ 560 26,000 900 S 900 E,NW COR-1 INLET,1COB 100 5,600 200 S 300 E-1INLET,1 OUTLET,RADIUS 100 6,600 BROOKLYN AVE 200 W-2 INLETS 300 12,000 700 E 1300 S-1 INLET,1 COB 70 5,000 700 E 1700 S-1 INLET,1 COB 70 5,000 MAYWOOD DR 2500 E-2 DBL INLET,2 COB,1 OUTLET 700 14,000 I20F4 I:\Excel\budget2001\cashflow\\cashflow2003A.xls Salt Lak raton t Update Depamnen c Utilities 121/2002 STORM DRAIN CAPITAL I PROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBERS DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003.2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 400 N 443 W-DITCH RECONST,CONC.LINING 700 32,000 10 EAST HARRISON TO EMERSON _ 35,000 HARRIS AVE WEST TEMPLE-INLETS 4,500 1300 S NAVAJO-INLETS 3,000 1820 S 3600 W-INLETS 3,000 6TH AVE"C"ST-4 INLETS,DEMO 2 INLETS 250 16,000 10TH AVE"L"ST.-INLETS AND SLIPLINE 250 16,000 SIGSBEE AND MILITARY WAY-INLET 1,200 MISSION RD 1300 S-INLETS,PIPE TO STEWART 600 30,000 9TH AVE"K"ST-INLETS AND SLIPLINE 250 16,000 7TH AVE"D"ST-OULETS AND DEMO INLET _ 4,500 1ST AVE"I"ST-INLETS 6,000 VIRGINIA AND S.TEMPLE-INLET 1,500 VIRGINIA AND PERRY AVE-3 INLETS AND SLIPLINE 70 6,500 600 W 500 N 14,000 800 N MORTON DR 14,000 5,200 $587,202 $371,200 $200,000 $200,000I $200,000 $200,000 SID VARIOUS STREETS--DIP STONE REPLACEMENT 1,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 CONTRIBUTIONS BY DEVELOPERS 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 1,000 $50,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550.000 $550,000 TOTAL COLLECTION LINES 37,895 4,648,293 5,215,200 7,490,000 7,620,000 970,000 970,000 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS , $5,509,793 $5,505,200 $7,710,000 $7,870,0001 $1,690 000 $5,290.000 275010 Motive Replacement Auto&Truck - 10201 BOBTAIL DUMP-21/2TON 70,000 70,000 10201 1 TON HD TRUCK W/DUMP 35,000 35,000 36,000 10201 2 TON DUMP TRUCK 60,000 60,000 10201 3/4 PICKUP 4X4 60,000 10201 1 TON HD TRUCK W/UTILITY BED 38,000 10301 FULL SIZED TRUCK 24,000 10701 TRUCK 22,000 22,000 AUTOMOBILES&TRUCKS FY 2000-2001 $0 $105,000 $119,000 $142,000 $74,000 $92,000 2750 30 Field Maint Eauioment 10201 BACKHOE 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 10201 VACTOR TRUCK 250,000 253,000 255,000 258,000 10201 10 WHEEL DUMP TRUCK 100,000 10201 BACKHOE 710 JD 140,000 $251,000 $354,000 $1,000 $256,0001 $1,0001 $399,000 2760.30 Telemeterinq $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10201 SCADA FOR LIFT STATIONS 3 OF 4 I:1Excellbudget20011cashflowl lcashflow2003A xis Salt Lake City Corpomton Last Update Department of public Utilities 3/21/2002 STORM DRAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL 2002 thru 2006 COST PROJECT FEET OF FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR FISCAL YR CENTER NUMBERS DESCRIPTION PIPE 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2006 2005-2006 2006-2007 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,0001 $10,000 2760.50 Office Eauioment $5,000 $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,0001 $0 2760 90 Other Eauioment — 10201 PULL BEHIND AIR COMPRESSOR 10201 ENCLOSED PUMP TRAILER 5,000 10201 CONCRETE SAW 4,800 - 10201 4"PUMP-TRAILER MOUNTED 22,000_ 10201 CONCRETE PREP SYSTEM 3,800 10201 TOW ALONG COMPRESSOR _ 14,000 10201 REAR DUMP CEMENT MIXER 4,200 10301 GPS UPGRADE 3,000 10701 COMPOSITE SAMPLERS 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 OTHER NON-MOTIVE EQUIPMENT FY 2000-2001 $48,600 $10,000 $10,000 $18,200 $10,0001 $10,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $309,600 $484,000 $140,000 $426,200 $105,0001 $511,000 GRAND TOTAL $5,819,393 $5,989,200 $7,850,000 $8,296,200 $1,795,000 $5,801,000 4 OF 4 I:\Exceabudget2001lcashtlow\\cashltow2003A.xls