05/18/2006 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WORK SESSION
THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on
Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office,
City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric
Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren
Simonsen.
Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director;
Bill Haight, Manager of Technology Consultant Group; Kendrick Cowley,
City Recorder; Sylvia Jones, Council Research and Policy
Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Dennis McKone, Fire Department
Administrative Assistant/Media Relations; Mary Johnston, City Courts
Director; Jamey Knighton, Human Resource Director; Mike Freeland,
Information Management Services Deputy Director; Bryan Hemsley, Chief
Procurement Officer; Kay Christensen, Budget Analyst; Dan Mule' , City
Treasurer; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Rick
Graham, Public Services Director; Kevin Bergstrom, Public Services
Deputy Director; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Rocky Fluhart,
Chief Administrative Officer; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff;
Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Mary Guy-Sell, Intermodal Hub
Consultant; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Greg Davis,
Finance Director; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst; Gary Mumford, Deputy
Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Chris Burbank, Police Chief; Ken
Pearce, Assistant Chief; Jerry Burton, Assistant Chief; Scott Atkinson;
Assistant Chief; Terry Fritz, Assistant Chief; LaMont Nelson, Fleet
Management Division Director; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder.
Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 28 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1 . 6 : 09 : 58 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S
RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT INCLUDING THE
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 . View
Attachments
Sylvia Jones, Steve Fawcett, Rocky Fluhart, Mary Johnston, Dan
Mule' , Kendrick Cowley and Bill Haight briefed the Council from the
attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler said the Council recently
funded a six month study on staffing at the Justice Court . He
suggested funding for additional staff be deferred until the results of
the caseload study were available. He said they would need to continue
funding some temporary contract employees . Council Members were in
favor of that approach.
06 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WORK SESSION
THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006
#2 . 6 : 49 : 05 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S
RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE INTERMODAL HUB FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 . View
Attachments
Mary Guy-Sell, D.J. Baxter and Russell Weeks briefed the Council
from the attached handouts .
#3 . 6 : 51 : 29 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S
RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 .
View Attachments
Chris Burbank, Lehua Weaver, Jerry Burton, Ken Pearce, Scott
Atkinson and Terry Fritz briefed the Council from the attached
handouts .
#4 . 7 :28 : 08 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S
RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR FLEET DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 . View
Attachments
LaMont Nelson, Jennifer Bruno, Rick Graham and Kevin Bergstrom
briefed the Council from the attached handouts .
#5 . 7 : 52 : 59 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S
RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE GOLF FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 . View
Attachments
Rick Graham, Jennifer Bruno, Kevin Bergstrom and David Terry
briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler
said reference had been made to a new golf plan. He asked if that plan
had been made available. Mr. Terry said the plan had been shared with
the Golf Advisory Board. Mr. Graham said he would get the Council a
copy of the plan.
#6 . 5 : 29 : 08 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION,
IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PURSUANT TO
UTAH CODE ANNOTATED § § 52-4-4 AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (ii) .
Councilmember Saxton moved and Councilmember Turner seconded to
enter into Executive Session, which motion carried, all members voted
aye .
See file M 06-2 for sworn statement and confidential tape .
#7 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL
INFORMATION ITEMS AND 8 : 58 : 32 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS .
No report was given. See file M 06-5 for announcements .
06 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WORK SESSION
THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006
The meeting adjourned at 9 : 02 p .m.
Council Chair
Chief Deputy City Recorder
This document along with the digital recording constitute the
official minutes for the City Council Work Session held May 18, 2006 .
bj
06 - 3
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
DATE: May 12, 2006
BUDGET FOR: DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES
STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones
cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Steve Fawcett, Bryan Hemsley,
Gordon Hoskins, Ken Cowley, Dan Mule, Jamey Knighton, and
Mary Johnston
The proposed budget for the Department of Management Services for fiscal year
2006-07 is $10,708,331, representing an increase in expenditures of$1,073,810
or 11.1%, as compared to fiscal year 2005-06.
The proposed budget for the Information Management Services (IMS) is also
included in the last portion of this report. The Insurance & Risk Management
Fund will be analyzed in a separate report.
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Adopted Proposed
2005-06 2006-07 Difference %Change
Office of the Director (budget and policy development,
emergency management,environmental management,civilian $1,092,814 $1,126,472 $33,658 3.1%
review board investigations)
Finance (monitors revenues and accounts payable;prepares $1,161,144 $1,233,764 $72,620 6.3%
quarterly and annual financial statements;processes payroll)
City Treasurer's Office(collects,manages and disburses $749,960 $936,346 $186,386 24.9%
City funds,bills,manages and collects special assessments,and
issues and services debt)
Purchasing/Contracts/Property Management
(provides purchasing,contract development/process and property $1,165,016 $1,227,290 $62,274 5.3%
management services)
Justice Court(traffic/parking adjudication,criminal $3,777,581 $4,394,639 $617,058 16.3%
adjudication,small claims)
Human Resource Management(labor relations,
develops and oversees programs that attract,motivate,and retain $1,204,429 $1,305,153 $100,724 8.4%
a skilled,productive work force)
City Recorder(manages city records,administers City
elections,publishes official City notices,and records City Council $483,577 $484,667 $1,090 .23%
meeting minutes)
Total $9,634,521 $10,708,331 $1,073,810 $11.1%
1
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE AND MAJOR BUDGET ISSUES:
Some of the major changes reflected in the proposed budgets include:
• Additicnal positions - The Administration has recommended an increase of
13.20 FTE positions and a .50 part time position.
• $(75,000 - 10 months) - 1 Deputy City Treasurer (annual cost: $90,000)
• $(52,500 - 10 months) - 1 Human Resources Records Administrator
(annual cost: $62,813)
• $(30,000 - 8 months) - 1 Court Hearing Officer (annual cost: $45,018)
• $(28,667 - 8 months) - 1 Court Small Claims Clerk (annual cost: $42,894)
• $(11,000) - 1 Court Traffic Coordinator 0.2 FTE (from part-time to full-time)
(annual cost: $55,092 of which only $11,000 is the proposed increase)
• $(110,667 - 8 months) - 4 Criminal Court Clerks (annual cost: $40,896
each) (1 clerk assigned to each current judge)
• $(25,333 - 8 months) - 1 Court File Clerk (annual cost: $39,060)
• $(56,994 - 6 months) - 1 Court Judge (annual cost: $116,940)
• $(84,000 each - 8 months) -- 3 Criminal Court Clerks for new judge (annual
cost: $41,778 each)
The Council may wish to note that the Justice Court's request for additional staffing as
well as one-time funding and funding for ongoing costs are contingent upon a favorable
recommendation from the auditor after the weighted caseloadstudy results are
finalized.
• Justice Court One-Time Funding - The Justice Court has requested one-time
funding of$89,633 as follows:
• $10,000 (Software licenses at $2,500 each for the new hearing officer,
small claims clerk, file clerk and judge positions)
• $7,500 (Software licenses at $2,500 each for 3 new criminal court clerk
positions)
• $17,000 (Remodeling, security access system, printer, copier)
• $10,000 (New computer server)
• $45,133 (Continue four contract employees - 4 months)
• Ongoing Costs - The Justice Court has requested funding for ongoing costs of
$52,656 as follows:
• $3,984 (Computer lease and phones for new small claims clerk, hearing
officer, judge and file clerk at $996 each)
• $500 (Mandatory training for small claims clerk)
• $2,000 (Mandatory training for 4 new criminal court clerks.)
• $3,984 (Computer lease and phones for 4 new criminal court clerks.)
• $2,988 (Computer lease and phones for 3 new criminal court clerks)
• $1,500 (Mandatory training for new judge)
• $1,500 (Mandatory training for 3 new criminal court clerks)
• $22,500 (Bailiff services for new judge for 6 months - this will become
an ongoing expense in FY 2007-08)
• $13,700 (Court interpreter fees)
• Credit card charges - The Treasurer's Office is requesting $60,000 for
increased costs related to the use of credit cards for building permits and
impact fee payments, as well as small amounts associated with general
banking charges. Last year, in order to maintain lower banking costs, the
Administration proposed that the City stop the practice of accepting credit card
payments for building permits. This year, the Administration suggests that the
City allow these payments to be made again by credit card. Additionally,
according to the Administration, the volume of credit card payments has
increased, and there is an associated banking fee paid by the City for each
credit card transaction.
• Parking meter collection costs: The Administration requests $38,000 for the
cost of parking meter coin collection by off-duty police officers. The
Administration has indicated that increased meter fees adopted last year cause
the meters to fill more quickly, thus the meters must be emptied more
frequently.
• Base salary increase for judges - The Administration is requesting $29,324 to
bring the Justice Court judges' salaries to 85% of the district court judges.
According to Management Services' staff, the adjustment approved by the
Council in FY 2005-06 brought the Justice Court judges' salaries to 85% of the
district court judges' salaries (for 2004). The current request of$29,324 will
bring the Justice Court judges' salaries to 85% of the district court judges'
salaries as of July 1, 2006. The Council may wish to note that the City is not
required to maintain Justice Court judge salaries at 85% of the district court
judge salaries. State law prevents cities from compensating Justice Court
judge salaries higher than 85% of district court judge salaries.) The proposed
increase equates to an increase of approximately $7,330 per judge.
The Council Members may wish to note that Justice Court judges' salaries are
currently outside of their current pay structure range, according to Human
Resource Management. The Administration is proposing to move the judges
from the Executive Plan to the Unclassified Plan. According to the
Administration, this change is necessary regardless of whether the Council
funds the judges' salaries at 85% of the Third District Court judges' salaries.
• Health insurance increases -The Department of Management Services will
incur a total of$27,792 of additional costs for employee health insurance.
3
Budgetary Breakdown by Division
Office of the Director:
The Office of the Director has 9.0 FTE and a .50 part time employee. The
functions of this office include budget development, policy analysis, project
development and management, emergency management, environmental
management, and Civilian Review Board investigations. The budget shows an
increase of 3.1% or $33,658 as compared to FY 2005/06. The increase can be
attributed to projected salary increases, pension and health insurance
adjustments.
Given the Council's recent interest in emergency planning from a district and citywide
perspective, the Council may wish to request quarterly written briefings regarding the
status of the City's emergency preparedness plan, includng a description of the
trainings being conducted, and updates regarding key issues that emergency
management is addressing.
Finance Division:
The Finance Division includes the functions of accounts payable, financial and
budget reports, payroll, grant acquisition and revenue auditing. The Finance
Division has 17.0 FTE and .20 part time employees. The budget reflects an
increase of 6.3% or $72,620 which is attributed to projected salary increases,
pension and health insurance adjustments.
City Treasurer's Office:
This Division currently has 8.0 FTE. The functions of the Treasurer's Office
include cashiering, cash and debt management, as well as special assessments.
The Treasurer's Office budget reflects an increase of 24.9% or $186,386. The
budget increase can be attributed in part to the Division's request for a Deputy
City Treasurer to assist the City Treasurer with the Division's increasing workload.
According to the Administration, the Deputy Treasurer will assist with the
creation, certification and updating of comprehensive investment and debt
policies; the creation and implementation of Citywide cash handling policies and
procedures; the preparation of RFP's and the maintenance of existing contracts;
provide support to each program within the Division; assist in the performance
review process of employees, and other duties related to administration of the
Division. The Treasurer's Office anticipates that the recruitment process for this
position will take approximately 1-2 months, and requests funding for a 10-month
period during FY 2006-2007. Other increases are for bank fees (for credit cards) and
parking meter collections. The City Treasurer has provided staffing justification for
the Council's review. Please see the attached documents which describe the City's
future debt issues and compare Salt Lake City to other comparable cities from a debt
management standpoint. The Deputy Treasurer's position is proposed at a salary
equivalent to a senior level analyst position.
Purchasing/Contract/Property Management Division:
The functions of the Purchasing, Contract and Property Management Division
4
include contract development, purchasing and property management. There are
17 FTEs in this Division, and the Division's budget reflects an increase of 5.3% or
$36,452, which is attributed to projected salary increases, pension and health
insurance adjustments.
Justice Court:
The Justice Court functions include adjudicating small claims, criminal and non-
criminal cases, domestic violence court cases, and cashiering. The Division's
budget is proposed to increase by 16.3% or $617,058. The increase is attributed
to the budget request for additional FTEs, as well as ongoing funds requested for
employee training, computer lease, bailiff and interpreter services. One-time
funds are requested for software and facilities remodeling.
As a result of a recent Justice Court audit, the City Council approved funding for
Matrix Consulting Group and the National Center for State Courts to conduct an
independent weighted caseload study of Salt Lake City's Justice Court. The
Council anticipates that the results of the weighted caseload study will provide an
objective and realistic methodology for determining staffing needs for the Court.
The auditor anticipates that the study will be completed in six months.
The Administration has submitted a memorandum (see attachment) in support of
funding the additional FTEs for the Court, explaining that Salt Lake City's Justice
Court, the Police Department, the City Prosecutors and Legal Defenders are four
interdependent components of the same system. The memorandum states that
modifications to one area create change in the three other areas. For instance,
hiring additional police officers in the field may increase caseloads for the Justice
Court, the Prosecutor's Office, as well as the Legal Defender's Office.
The Administration maintains that hiring an additional judge will reduce the
number of cases per judge, and allow the Court to set smaller calendars, which
could decrease the amount of waiting time for police officers during court
proceedings, as well as the frequency with which officers are called to testify.
According to the auditor's first report, the comparative survey results indicated
that by a variety of measures, the Justice Court Criminal Section operates with
workloads significantly higher than other courts. However, during the Council's
Work Session discussion with the auditor, the auditor recommended that before
staffing adjustments are made, the Justice Court should implement most of the
audit recommendations and review the impact of changes to workflow. The
auditor also recommended that an independent weighted case workload
assessment should be conducted before requesting additional staff.
A Council Member has raised a number of questions relating to the Justice Court
and asked whether other Council Members would be interested in discussing how
it compares to the District Court. One question relates to the amount of police
overtime and whether the Justice Court system has reduced or better-managed
the amount of police overtime (as compared to police overtime that was required
when the Third District Court was hearing the City's cases). According to the
5
Administration, the information isn't available given that Police Department
records are kept for only three years. Justice Court personnel indicated that
when traffic violations were civil in nature, the Justice Court could schedule
officers to appear in court during their 'on-duty' time; however, now that traffic
violations are criminal, the Justice Court schedules officers to appear in court
during both off and on-duty time. One could argue that efficiencies can be
achieved through the efforts of the hearing officers who work towards avoiding
court appearance altogether.
The Council Member also asked which cases are still heard in the Third District
Court. It is Council staff's understanding that the cases heard by the District
Court include Class A misdemeanors, as follows:
Assault on police officers
DUI's (with injury or with minor in the car of person issued the DUI)
Domestic violence with prior convictions
Protective orders
Substantial bodily injury/assault
Prostitution based on prior convictions
Sex solicitation based on prior convictions
Drug cases in drug free zones (schools, churches)
Theft based on value (more than $300, less than $1,000)
Vehicle burglary
Trial de novo - appeals to Third District Court
Hearing de novo - appeals to Third District Court based on question of law or
ruling made in the Justice Court
When Salt Lake City's cases were being handled exclusively by the Third District
Court, there were nine judges assigned to handle the caseload generated by the
City's prosecution, along with other matters. Currently there are three full-time
judges assigned to handle Salt Lake City cases.
The Council may wish to hold a separate briefing on the Justice Court during this
budget season, as well as another briefing after the weighted caseload study is
completed in six months by Matrix Consulting Group in conjunction with the National
Center for State Courts. The Council may alsowish to defer funding additional
staffing for the Justice Court until after the results of the weighted caseload are
received. The disadvantage to this approach s that if the weighted caseload study
does justify additional staffing, the Council would be faced with funding that staffing
with one-time resources, unless ongoing funding can be identified midyear.
During the public hearing for Budget Amendment #4, the Council approved
funding to hire four contract employees to assist with Court duties. The
Administration has proposed continuing the contract employees for four more
months and then hiring additional court staff, assuming a favorable
recommendation from the weighted caseload study. The Council may wish to
include funding in the budget to allow for a longer transition period, or to allow for the
6
continuation of these positions, should the weighted caseload study not justify
additional full-time positions
Human Resource Management Division:
The Human Resource Management Division is responsible for managing records
which are governed by federal and state laws, rules and regulations. Examples of
the types of records include investigative reports related to discrimination
complaints, classification reports, employment files, employee records for
insurance, training and development, negotiation notes, grievance history and
other labor relations issues. Currently, the Division has a total of 18.0 FTEs. The
Division's budget proposes an increase of 8.4% or $100,724. This increase can be
attributed in large part to the request for a Human Resources Records
Administrator, as mentioned previously in this report. According to the Division, at
one time, there was a staff person responsible for records management; however,
when that person retired, the position was eliminated as part of a budget cut. Since
then employee records have been kept by various staff members, but there is no one
specifically charged with retention and maintenance of all employee records. Human
Resources will purchase a filing system using funding from their current budget;
however, the Division has identified the need for a staff person to gather the records,
and manage record retention.
The Division has indicated that the City may be faced with potential liability for not
having a records retention program that meets the requirements of the law. If the
EEOC, Civil Service or Department of Labor were to find during a legal or
administrative hearing that records were destroyed prior to scheduled retention, or if
a record should have been destroyed and was not, or if there is no retention schedule
for a record requiring one, the City could face increased risk for legal liability,
according to the Division. The Division has indicated that this issue has been
discussed with the Attorney's Office, and they share the concern.
The Council may wish to ask for additional informationregarding the request for a
records staff member:
a. Could a part-time position be added to the City Recorder's Office for this
function, since the Recorder's Office has the expertise to manage records in
accordance with state statute and city ordinances? Given the level of expertise
in the Recorder's Office, a lower level staff person could be hired if the
individual were responsible for the records without supervision with this
specific expertise. Council staff recognizes that this would necessitate the
movement of records. The Recorder's Office also maintains the City's off-site
storage system.
b. Give that the City will transition from internal administration of the medical and
dependent flex accounts to external administration, might some time be freed in
the Human Resources Division to assist with this filing task?
City Recorder's Office:
The Recorder's Office functions include managing City records,
administering City elections, publishing official City notices and the
recording of City Council meeting minutes. The budget for this office reflects
an increase of .23% or $1,090. There are a total of 5 FTE and .50 part time
positions in this division.
7
Additional Information
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
The Council issued the following legislative intent statements that relate to the
Management Services budget:
Employee Health Insurance - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration study the rising costs of health insurance and identify options to
help control costs. The study could be combined with a study that the City
Library System is proposing.
Response from the Administration: The City's Benefits Committee studies
issues related to the rising costs of health care and recommends options to the
Administration annually. We have proposed a change in the City's health
insurance plans that will be rolled out with the FY 2006-07 Mayor's
Recommended Budget. We have not yet discussed or coordinated with the Library
as to what their study included.
Advance Notice of Employee Retirement: It is the intent of the City Council
that the Administration explore the possibility of requiring that employees give
advance notice of retirement or providing an incentive for employees to give
advance notice of retirement.
Response from the Administration: This issue has not been dealt with yet. All
staff resources that would conduct these reviews have been actively engaged in
other projects.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Departmenbf Management Services
During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or functions
to be added to the Council's list for future audits.
8
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES BUDGET
Information Management Services provides citywide computer and network
support, maintenance, software development, and telephone services and repair.
Internal service funds such as Information Management Services are used to
account for the financing of services provided by one department or agency to
other departments or agencies of the City. Cities use internal service funds in
order to account for the full cost of providing the services similar to private
businesses. This type of accounting helps governments know whether the
services are competitive with private businesses with regard to their fees. Internal
service funds reimburse the General Fund for overhead costs and track the full
cost of their operations.
Revenue for the Information Management Services Fund for fiscal year 2006-07 is
proposed to increase by $252,814 or 3.2% over fiscal year 2005-2006. Expenses
are increasing by $352,323 or 4.6%.
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FUND
PROPOSED BUDGET
Adopted Proposed Difference Percent
2005-06 2006-07 Change
Revenue& other sources
Fees from departments/funds $2,579,317 $2,627,719 $48,402 1.9%
Interest 20,000 20,000 -0- -0-
Miscellaneous revenue&sale of 37,077 37,078 1
Equipment
Transfer from General Fund 5,161,883 5,366,294 204,411 4.0
Total revenue $7,798,277 8,051,091 252,814 3.2
Expenses&other uses
Network/infrastructure $2,667,664 2,875,203 $207,539 7.8%
Software engineering 1,323,740 1,389,499 65,759 5.0
Web services 389,554 416,925 27,371 7.0
Telephone services 852,387 740,179 (112,208) (13.2)
Consulting team(coordinate with customers) 1,025,761 1,065,255 39,494 3.9
Security group(from hackers,viruses,spam) 395,779 349,960 (45,819) (11.6)
IFAS(accounting system) 178,994 178,994 -0- -0-
SLCTV-video processing 76,820 135,988 59,168 77.0
Administration 479,402 433,412 (45,990) (9.6)
Computer rental program 225,000 382,009 157,009 69.8
Total expenses $7,615,101 7,967,424 352,323 4.6
Increase to reserves $ 183,176 $ 83,667 $(99,509) (54.3)
In prior years, the Division experienced a cash deficit. Last year, the IMS
Administration projected that by the end of FY 2006-07, the division would have a
surplus of$20,000. According to the Division, the cash deficit has been
eliminated, and IMS is now projecting a positive cash flow of $66,000 by the end
of FY 2005-06.
9
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE AND MAJOR BUDGET ISSUES
Some of the major changes reflected in the proposed budgets include:
• IMS Audit -This past spring, the Council requested an operational audit of
IMS. The auditor has finished the field work and is now compiling an
executive summary. Some of the auditor's recommendations will take time to
implement. Most of the recommendations do not require additional funding or
resources.
• SLCTV's Proposed Budget Increase - IMS is receiving additional requests for
video services (ie: informational spots for departments, live broadcasts, or tape-
delayed broadcasts of city events) from almost all City departments. In
January through March of 2005, SLCTV completed 13 projects. 18 projects
were completed during the same 3-month timeframe in 2006.
According to the Division, post production work such as editing and video
conversion is quite time-consuming. The Division indicates that it can take up
to four hours to create one hour of film. In response to growing requests, the
Division estimates that 300 hours of overtime will be needed during FY 2006-
07 to meet deadlines and deliverable dates.
In FY 2005-06, the Council approved funding for equipment purchases as
noted in the left column below. As a result of increased requests for video
services, the Division is proposing the purchase of equipment outlined in the
column below on the right.
FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07
Tripods $ 500 Post Production $ 3,000
Camera $2,500 MiniDV VTR $ 1,000
Camera $2,300 Wireless AV Transmitters $ 3,000
Program Monitor $1,300 Streaming Media Server $ 7,000
Teleprompter $5,000 Video Encoder Servers $10,000
PA System $5,000 Video Encoder Cards $ 2,000
Broadcast Monitor $ 500 Replacement Workstation $ 5,000
Video Capture Cards $2,000 Live Captioning Equipment $ 7,000
Post Production $6,400 Lighting $ 3,000
Workstation $ 5,000
Software $ 2,000
Total $27,400 Total $48,000
The Division is also proposing to hire two interns to assist with SCLTV for 20
hours per week at a cost of$9,000 annually per intern.
The Council may wish to ask the Division whetherthe work of two interns at 20
hours per week would completely reduce the estimated 300 hours of overtime
necessary to keep up with post production workload.
10
The Council may also wish to ask which items of equipment are most critical to
post production functions versus equipment necessary for a live broadcast.
The Council may wish to discuss working with the Administration to develop a
policy on the nature of items that are within the scope of IMS to film, given the
limited resources.
The Council may wish to consider whether it may be more cost effective to add a
part time or full time employee to this function,if filming for SLCTV is a high
priority.
• Transfer from General Fund: The General Fund's portion of major systems is
funded by a direct transfer from the General Fund. A $5,366,294 transfer is
proposed for fiscal year 2006-07, which is an increase of$204,411, or 4.0%.
The increase in the transfer includes $63,468 for projected pay adjustments
and health insurance increases, which includes the General Fund's portion of
the proposed two interns for SLCTV; $136,534 for a network support rate
increase; as well as $4,409 for SLCTV equipment (in addition to the amount
budgeted in FY 2005-06 for equipment).
• Fees from Departments/Funds: Departments are charged for computer
maintenance (set fee per computer), for discretionary computer support
services not covered by the set fee amount, and for telephone services.
• IMS Fund Lease Program: The lease program provides for the IMS Fund to
purchase computers and lease them to City departments (for general fund
only) which pay for the computers over time. The Division anticipates the need
to replace an increased number of PC's during FY 2006-2007.
• Security/UNIX (proposed decrease of$45,819): Most of the decrease can be
attributed to a reduction in capital expenditures as well as a reduction in
support agreement adjustments. The Division's computer equipment
replacement cycle is staggered such that some years will require more funding
for equipment replacement than other years.
• Telephone Services (proposed decrease of$112,208): According to the
Division, technology changes have necessitated that telephone services
personnel are now receiving more network assignments. To better account for
the use of their time, the IMS Administration is re-allocating their time to the
network team.
11
Additional Information
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
No legislative intent statements are outstanding for the Information
Management Services Fund.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Informatia Management Services Fund.
During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or functions
to be added to the Council's list for future audits.
SIX YEAR BUSINESS PLAN
The following are goals and anticipated needs outlined in the Management
Services Department's Six Year Business Plan which was prepared in 2004 to
apply to Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010. This list was provided to the Council
as a reminder, given that several of the items have already been completed.
• Policy and Budget, Emergency Management, Environmental
Management, Civilian Review Board, and Labor Relations, all expect to
remain at the current level of operating costs adopted by the City
Council in the FY 2005 budget. The Finance Division expects the only
budgetary changes to be reflective of salary and benefit adjustments as
outlined in the compensation plans.
• Justice Court
o The traffic school section of the Justice Court would like to
increase the fee for traffic school from the current $30.00 to
$40.00 to help bring in revenue. (Based on more recent
discussions, the Administration is considering increasing this fee
to $50.00. Any fee increase would require Council approval.)
o In the Misdemeanor/Small Claims section of the Justice Court,
caseloads are extremely high. In order to maintain current service
levels, it is likely that more clerk, and possibly judge positions will
need to be added. One way to help manage workload, is by the
implementation of the Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) system,
which should be in place by late FY 2005.
• Human Resource Management Division
o As Salt Lake City's organizational and development training
expenditures fall well below other employers', the division will
continue to advocate for more training resources, in order to
provide higher levels of training for city employees.
12
o Annual adjustments for the City's benefit program must be made
to ensure adequate reserves so that unexpected claims will not
negatively impact or deplete premiums from the City and
employees.
• Information Management Services:
o Increased internet usage will require the Division to provide
additional software development and network maintenance.
o Growth in wireless services continues to improve and decrease in
cost. Systematic implementation throughout city offices are
ongoing.
o Radio Frequency ID tags are a new technology used for tracking
parts, files, and equipment. The division will begin to test RFIDs
throughout the city in FY 06 with possible implementation by FY
08 or FY 09.
o Additional system capacity will be required as large files and
graphics are increasingly shared over e-mail, and as GIS mapping
becomes more widely used.
o Virus and hacker prevention is taking up increased time and
resources, as it has increased exponentially industry-wide.
■ To accomplish this and the above listed anticipated
changes, an additional two network technicians, one in FY
06 and one in FY 09 will be requested, to maintain the
industry standard ratio of 1 technician to every 100 PCs.
Additional software engineers will also have to be hired in
order to achieve desired results (one every year from FY 06-
09).
o Infrastructure costs will steadily increase over the years, ranging
from $721,847 in FY 2005, to just over $1 million in FY 2010.
This will include wiring upgrades to provide better service to city
facilities.
• Purchasing, Contracts, 86 Property Management
o Purchasing - Implementation of a city-wide Environmentally
Preferable Procurement Policy (EP3) and a partnership with the
US Environmental Protection Agency, in their WasteWise program,
to reduce waste and pollution - a team will meet quarterly to track
the progress of the program.
o Contracts - Insurance and liability management issues since 9/11
have become more challenging. Over the past ten years, City
contracts have increased three-fold, while 2 clerical positions, a
supervisory position, a buyer position, a part time technical writer
and a full time contract insurance specialist position have been
eliminated. In order for the shift in staff responsibilities to be
handled by the remaining 3 contract employees, the department
must maximize technology and process improvements in order to
maintain a satisfactory level of service.
• Treasurer's Divisions
13
o The online cash receipt system is running and has proven to be
very efficient (eliminating dual entries, encoding errors, cost of
printing forms).
o The goal of the Special Assessment's department is to keep the
special assessment payment delinquency rate below 19%. In FY
2004, itiaveraged 11%. Programs to further reduce the
delinquency rate are going into affect, including keeping up-to-
date assessment information online for title companies to access.
Also, a new foreclosure policy will establish a fair and systematic
procedure to follow when foreclosing on non-owner occupied
property with delinquent assessments.
o Cash Management - Though direct electronic payments have
reduced previously time-consuming activities, the popularity of
credit card payments, and overall cost of processing them (around
2% of the charged amount in order to process) continues to
increase steadily. In the future, these costs to the City will be
reduced with the introduction of e-Checks (customers can pay
directly from their checking account to the City, at a fraction of
the processing cost).
o Debt Management - There is a dramatic strain on staffing at the
time a bond is issued due to the significant amount of information
that need to be gathered and documents that need to be carefully
read and prepared. The fact that sizeable other bonds to be
issued are on the horizon, could therefore affect the staffing
resources of the cash and debt management programs.
14
^nrhr:
ROCKY J. FLU HART `"1=1 T, A �I '_"_'_�_ #F # 1`� '_`t0 f
am�� �� ���� �s� s ROSS C. ANDERSON
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Dave Buhler, Chair DATE: May 9, 2006
Salt Lake City Council
FROM: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Justice Court
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: See attached memorandum.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 8O 1-535-6426 FAX: 80 1-535-61 90
�� nccrc�eo rnPCA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Fawcett
FROM: Kay Christensen
DATE: May 8, 2006
ISSUE: The Salt Lake City Justice Court is part of a systemic
operation with four separate, but interdependent components:
the Court itself, the Police Department, the City
Prosecutors and the Legal Defenders. Any change in one of
these components has a ripple effect on the other three. When
resources are allocated, that interdependency should be a
primary consideration. The FY 2006-2007 Mayor's
Recommended Budget calls for increases in each.
BACKGROUND
The Justice Court
The Salt Lake City Justice Court opened its doors on July 1, 2002.
The Court has jurisdiction over all Class B and C misdemeanors, ordinance
violations and infractions committed within the corporate boundaries of Salt
Lake City. The Court works with numerous law enforcement agencies,
including the University of Utah Police, the Utah Highway Patrol, the Salt
Lake County Sheriff and the Salt Lake City Police Department and any other
law enforcement agency that might enforce violations of class B
misdemeanor or lower in our municipal boundaries.
The Justice Court is made up of three sections. The criminal section
handles misdemeanor criminal violations such as driving under the influence
and domestic violence cases. The civil/traffic section handles primarily
parking and traffic violations as well as returned check collections, vehicle
booting, impound hearings, and animal control cases. The third section is the
small claims section, which handles legal issues and problems from
contractual or service disputes or others claims which do not exceed the sum
of$7,500.
The Salt Lake City Justice Court handles 12% of the overall judicial
caseload in Utah and 24% of all DUI cases.
The City Justice Court handles approximately 225,400 cases per year
including parking, traffic, civil, criminal and small claims. Approximately
66,000 of those cases could require the involvement of a prosecutor.
Approximately 25,000 of those cases are settled when the individual charged
simply comes to court and pays the fine. Another 10,000 to 12,000 cases
will be handled through a plea in abeyance, leaving approximately 29,000
cases that will be calendared in the Justice Court and will require a
prosecutor. Another 1,200 to 1,500 City Class A misdemeanor cases will be
calendared in the Third District Court and will also require a prosecutor.
Approximately 5800 of the cases will also require the assignment of a legal
defender (projected total in this calendar year).
The four sitting Justice Court Judges each carry approximately 7,300
cases, compared to 1,202 for each judge in the Salt Lake County Justice
Court, 1,278 cases for each judge in the Sandy Justice Court and 5,712 for
each judge in the West Valley Justice Court. The average caseload for a
judges is 2,000 in Salt Lake County and nationwide.
The recent management audit of the Salt Lake City Justice Court
recognized that the court is operating at a much higher caseload level per
judge and support staff that any of the other courts surveyed in the audit.
Recently the Justice Court sponsored a two day workshop through the
National Center for State Courts' Institute for Court Management to study
the issue of caseflow management. The workshop included participants
from every phase of the process, including court personnel, legal defenders,
prosecutors, police, and jail personnel. The Justice Court is making a
sustained effort to run the Court in the manner most conducive to justice and
quality service for the public and maximum efficiency in the use of
resources.
City Prosecutors
The average caseload handled by the City Prosecutors Office is, as
stated, approximately 30,000 a year. In 2005 there were 24,417 new filings,
with a rollover of approximately 5,000 cases from the previous year. The
management audit showed a yearly clearance rate of 71%, resulting in a
rollover of 29%. The criminal filings have been stable for the last two years
2
and the Prosecutors Office believes that figure will remain stable unless
there is a substantial change in the system. For example, an increase in
police officers on the street could have an impact on the caseload (the
officers approved in the FY 2005-2006 budget have just recently entered the
force, for a net increase of seven).
It is also important to note that a backlog of cases may be created if an
adequate rate of adjudication or clearance is not maintained. This may be the
result of both the lack of initial resources to effectively clear the cases or
also because defendants fail to appear. The ability to clear cases is directly
related to the capacity to increase the number of cases set for a judge and
funding of the proper number of prosecutors and legal defenders to assist in
adjudicating these set matters.
Each of the four judges is supported by two full time prosecutors,
resulting in a caseload for each attorney of approximately 3600 cases.
When a case is given a court calendar, the prosecuting attorney may
participate in video arraignments with incarcerated defendants, attend pre-
trial conferences, conduct discovery, prepare and take evidence on motions
hearings, and participate in bench and jury trials. Post adjudications may
also include Trial de novo appeals and Hearing de novo appeals to Third
District Court where the process begins anew on the same case.
There are no national standards established for the recommended
caseload for misdemeanor prosecution given the jurisdictional and other case
variables. The American Bar Association endorsed the level of 300
misdemeanor cases per year. In 2002, the American Prosecutors Research
Institute (APRI) concluded that it would be more advantageous to look at
average processing time per case and compare that to the number of hours a
prosecutor has available. They arrived at an average per misdemeanor case
time of 4.3 hours. The gross working hours for each prosecutor are 1772 a
year (minus sick leave, vacation, holidays and continuing legal education
requirements). Using that basis, the carrying capacity of an attorney is 412
cases a year. Obviously, many cases take much less 4.3 hours, but many
take much more. For example, DUI cases average between 5 to 8 hours a
case and Domestic Violence cases are close behind (the average number of
DUI cases a year is 2000).
In addition to the 3 prosecutors who cover cases in the District Court
and the 8 who work in the Justice Court, the Prosecutors Office is aided by 2
3
full time employees funded by the YWCA. These employees serve as
victim advocates and work with witnesses in domestic violence cases. They
are often supported by interns who offer additional assistance.
Legal Defenders
The Salt Lake Legal Defender Association has a contract with Salt
Lake City to provide legal representation to low income defendants when
requested in all Class A, B and C misdemeanor cases. The FY 2005-2006
City budget for this service was $466,794. This provided the services of 7
legal defenders, 2 secretaries and a part-time law clerk. The Legal Defender
Office has 63 full-time attorneys and 100 full-time staff. All other funding
comes from Salt Lake County, the other contractual client of the Defenders
Office.
As stated above, the legal defenders are assigned approximately 5800
cases in a calendar year at current levels. This is an increase of nearly 800
cases in the last year. One legal defender is assigned to each judge, one
assists as needed with all cases and court calendars, and two cover Class A
misdemeanor cases at the Third District Court. As a result, each legal
defender averages approximately 830 cases. The American Bar Association
and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association recommend a maximum
yearly caseload of 400 cases per attorney. In reality, the Justice Court
caseload is much higher because 2 legal defenders cover the more involved
Salt Lake City Class A misdemeanor cases and cases from the County
Attorney at the Third District Court. They covered 956 cases last year for an
average caseload of 428 per legal defender, a much more manageable figure.
That leaves the five legal defenders in the Justice Court to cover over 4,800
cases, an average of 960 cases per each defender.
At the present level of support, Salt Lake City is receiving services
from the Legal Defenders that are not covered in their budget. Director F.
John Hill's administrative time is not covered nor is the work of Assistant
Director, Vernice Trease, or Patrick Anderson, Chief of the Misdemeanc
Division. Mr. Anderson meets regularly with the City Prosecutors to
coordinate schedules and other matters. Mr. Anderson covers mental health
court, Passages, Safe at Home, CAT support and numerous other programs.
His work frequently deflects cases into the mental health system, and then
the County takes responsibility. Mr. Anderson allocates a portion of his
time to City-related work. One additional secretary partially funded by Salt
4
Lake City opens City case files and an investigator is available as needed to
assist in City cases. That investigator also serves subpoenas. Social Service
staff at the Legal Defenders Office also serves as a City resource.
The Legal Defender Office encourages courts to assess recoupment
costs where possible and does not stand in the way of recoupment.
With a budget of$466,794 and a caseload of 5,818, the cost to the
City for the work of the legal defenders for FY 2005-2006 was $80 a case.
Salt Lake City Police Department
It is obvious that the caseload at the Justice Court is the direct result of
the number of citations and arrests made by the Police Department and other
law enforcement entities active within the City's jurisdiction. An increase in
officers on the street is likely to result in an increase in arrests and citations.
Patrol officers spend a significant portion of their time supporting the
work of the Justice Court. Officers must appear in court when subpoenaed
whether on duty or off. When on duty officers appear in court there is no
additional cost to the City other than the opportunity costs associated with
taking that officer off the street. When off-duty officers appear in court, by
contract, they are paid for 2 hours of preparation time and whatever time
they actually spend in court. During the FY 2005-2006 budget year it is
projected that court costs for off-duty officers will be $365,000 (this is not
broken down by court). Obviously, the City has a major interest in having
officers on patrol as much as possible and spending the least amount
necessary to cover the costs of court time.
ANALYSIS- Budget Request
The Mayor's Recommended Budget for 2006-2007 contains requests
for increases in personnel and services that will impact the interconnected
relationships described above.
In anticipation of a positive recommendation from the auditor hired by
the City Council to conduct a weighted caseload study of Justice Court
operations, the Administration is recommending an additional judge, 3
criminal court clerks to support the judge, and 4 additional clerks, one for
each sitting judge. The Administration is also recommending 1 new hearing
5
officer, 1 small claims clerk, and a file clerk. The Administration also
recommends making a part-time traffic coordinator full-time and continuing
the 4 contractual clerks until the full-time clerks are hired.
If the City Council approves the new judge, the 3 new clerks are
essential. The other positions are necessary regardless of the decision on the
additional judge. Those positions affect the internal efficiency of the Court,
while the additional judge affects all the interdependent parties.
An additional judge will reduce the number of cases per each judge
from 7300 to 5840. In addition, a fifth judge will allow the Court to set
smaller calendars and therefore, police officers will not be called as often to
cases that are not heard on any given day and their wait to testify could be
shortened.
The Administration is also requesting an additional prosecutor and an
office technician for the office. If a new judge is added, this additional
prosecutor will be essential to cover the judge's calendar. A court without
the proper number of attorneys to help facilitate the case flow will result in
the dismissal of cases (or no adjudication at all). Thus, the addition of a
judge necessitates that a proper number of prosecutors and legal defenders
also be funded to be efficient and effective. The City Prosecutors Office
continues to seek ways to maximize the use of allocated resources. Both the
original council audit and the current case flow support the additional
attorney and support staff allocation.
The Salt Lake Legal Defender Association is requesting a budget
increase in FY 2006-2007 of$148,368. This will allow them to add two
new attorneys and one new legal secretary to handle Salt Lake City's
caseload. This increase is necessary whether the fifth judge is added or not.
The Association has stated in writing that the current staffing level is not
sufficient for them to continue to meet their constitutional and ethical duty to
provide adequate defense services. The Administration strongly supports
this request and included it in the Mayor's Recommended budget. If case
referrals remain at approximately the same level, this will mean that the cost
for representation for Salt Lake City is at $105 per case.
The Administration is also recommending an increase of 8 new police
officers and 1 new sergeant. With the 7 new officers who have just entered
the force, this could result in an eventual increase of officers in the field that
6
•
would impact caseload (an increase of 7 officers would only mean that 1 or
2 more officers would be in the field at any given time).
The Administration urges the City Council to consider the above
requests as a set of recommendations aimed at achieving maximum
efficiency and effectiveness in our law enforcement and justice system, and
to consider the impact of each funding decision on the overall system.
7
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Management Worksheet for Budget Development
Request for Deputy City Treasurer Position
Treasurer's Division
April 2006
Measurable Impact on Functions, Structure and Organization
The workload continues to increase in the Treasurer's Division requiring additional staff
support. This Division is currently understaffed based on comparisons with private
industry and cities similar in population to Salt Lake City. Increasing the staffing will
assist in assuring that cash and debt management issues, as well as special
assessment needs, are being addressed timely and managed efficiently.
Criteria
The debt management and cash management programs within the Treasurer's Division
are understaffed based on comparable information provided by other municipal
treasurers' offices as well as private industry. Outstanding indebtedness for the City is
currently at $321 million. The current size of the City's investment portfolio is $427
million. Staffing to support these programs consists of three positions, a Debt
Management Analyst, a Cash Management Analyst and the City Treasurer.
Boise, Idaho, a capital city with a population of 193,000, currently manages debt of
$115 million and investments of$131 million with a combined staff of 4 individuals.
Salem, Oregon, also a capital city and having a population of 147,000, currently has
$286 million in outstanding debt and a $197 million investment portfolio. Salem has a
combined staff of 3 individuals.
At Intermountain Healthcare (IHC) the treasury function consists of short-term investing
and banking relationship management. There are five positions within the Treasury:
treasurer, cash manager, investment manager, cash accountant, and investment
accountant. This group currently manages a $320 million fixed income portfolio, but
does not issue or manage debt.
Staffing to support the special assessment program within the City Treasurer's Division
consists of the Assessments Analyst and the City Treasurer. No other city or town
within Utah has an assessment program as extensive as ours with which we can
provide a reasonable comparison. As of March 31, 2006 there were 4,771 active
special assessment accounts. Each fiscal year approximately 3,800 new street lighting
assessment accounts are billed and 3,400 are collected. During the current fiscal year,
2,580 new street lighting construction assessments and curb and gutter assessments
were created. Also this year nearly 1,300 Central Business Improvement Districts were
billed.
Document7
-2-
Condition
Currently, the City is anticipating issuing approximately $78 million in new debt during
FY 2007 and an additional $17 million in FY 2008. These amounts are over and above
the $321 million of debt outstanding at this time. Issuing bonds directly impacts cash
management functions because as bond proceeds are received these monies need to
be invested in accordance with the applicable terms of the borrowing instruments.
Many of the future bonds to be issued are special assessment bonds for proposed
special improvement districts that have been or are in the process of being created.
These new districts and the associated accounts that require servicing will dramatically
impact the workload of the City Treasurer and Assessments Analyst throughout the life
of each district, from the time the Notice of Intention is prepared until the last
assessment is cleared and the final bond payment is made.
Effect
Debt Management: With so many bond issues and not enough support staff, the risk of
missing important deadlines is greatly increased; bond issues may be delayed when
schedules and crucial information are not provided timely; errors or omissions may
occur when bond documents are hastily proofed during the review process; debt related
budgets may not be accurate when prepared too quickly; difficulty maintaining
compliance with continuing disclosure requirements and bond covenants may occur.
Cash Management: Without enough staff support, covering daily cash needs for the
entire City is very challenging; delays in reconciling daily transactions with daily bank
deposits will hold up the Finance Division's monthly reconciliations of bank statements;
investment opportunities may be lost; cash handling policies and procedures are not
developed or updated.
Special Assessments: With so many accounts to manage and not enough staff support,
billings may be delayed; problem payments may not be resolved or properly applied;
response time to customer questions may not be timely; and infrequent reconciling of
parcel information with County records may result in uncollectible assessments.
Cause
The number of new bond issues is increasing which equates to additional outstanding
bond issues that need to be managed. The sizeable current investment portfolio is
increasing. New products and services change the way our three banking relationship
contracts (general banking services, lockbox services and credit card processing
services) are managed. New developments in electronic commerce change the way we
do business. The number of assessment districts is increasing. The types of districts
we assess are changing.
-3-
Recommendation
Fund one new position in the Treasurer's Division—one Deputy City Treasurer. (Aside:
The Deputy City Treasurer position was eliminated in 1993. The current City Treasurer
held that position until he was appointed City Treasurer in 1993.) This new position is
needed to assist the City Treasurer with the Division's increasing workload. The Deputy
City Treasurer will assist with the creation, certification and updating of comprehensive
investment and debt policies; the creation and implementation of City-wide cash
handling policies and procedures; the preparation of RFP's and the maintenance of
existing contracts; provide support to each program within the Division; assist in the
performance review process. This is not a complete identification of duties.
FUTURE DEBT ISSUES*
Estimated Estimated
Bond Type Project Description Issue Date Par Amount
General Obligation The Leonardo at Library Square FY 2007 $10,200,000
General Obligation Open Space Lands Program FY 2007 5,400,000
Sales Tax Revenue Fleet Facility FY 2007 24,700,000
Sales Tax Revenue Grant Tower FY 2007 11,300,000
Special Assessment Yale Avenue Street Lighting - 106029 FY 2007 208,000
Special Assessment 900 South - Main St. to 900 West- 102004 FY 2007 505,000
Special Assessment Sidewalk Replacement- 102112 FY 2007 408,000
Special Assessment Quayle Avenue- 102113 FY 2007 84,000
Special Assessment Strongs Court- 102109 FY 2007 74,000
Special Assessment Fenway Avenue- 102129 FY 2007 67,000
Special Assessment 900 South and 900 East Streetscape- 106018 FY 2008 467,000
Special Assessment Sidewalk Replacement- 102119 FY 2008 500,000
Special Assessment Sidewalk Replacement- 102136 FY 2008 700,000
TRAN's General Fund cash flow needs FY 2007 25,000,000
Water& Sewer Water line replacements and water treatment plant improvements FY 2008 15,100,OC
Total Future Debt Issues** $94,713,000
* Bond issues impact the cash mamagement section with additional investment responsibilities.
** Plans to issue general obligation bonds to fund construction of public safety facilities is not included in this analysis.
C:\Documents and Settings\js8573\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK60\Position Justification- Future Debt.xls Bond Issues
5/15/2006 9:16 AM
Bonds Issued by Salt Lake City Corporation Since 1999
Bond Types/Names Amounts
Municipal Building Authority Bonds
MBA Series'99A $13,595,000
MBA Series'99B $24,935,000
MBA Series'01 $11,855,000
MBA Bonds Subtotal $50,385,000
Motor Fuel Excise Tax Bonds
MFET Series'99 $5,155,000
MFET Bonds Subtotal $5,155,000
General Obligation Bonds
GO Series'99 $81,000,000
GO Series'01 $22,650,000
GO Series'02 $48,855,000
GO Series'04A $11,300,000
GO Bonds Subtotal $163,805,000
Airport Bonds
Airport'OOA $19,145,000
Airport'01 $19,200,000
Airport'04A&B $61,875,000
Airport Bonds Subtotal $100,220,000
Special Improvement District Bonds
SID 101007'01 $174,000
SID 101011 '02 $124,000
SID 103009'03 $1,217,000
SID 101016'03 $62,000
SID Railyard'03 $17,600,000
SID 106024 $472,000
SID Bonds Subtotal $19,649,000
Redevelopment Agency Bonds
RDA'02A $16,190,000
RDA Bonds Subtotal $16,190,000
Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes
TRAN'99 $16,000,000
TRAN'00 $22,000,000
TRAN'01 $25,000,000
TRAN'02 $25,000,000
TRAN'03 $21,000,000
TRAN'04 $25,000,000
TRAN'05 $21,000,000
TRAN Subtotal $155,000,000
Housing Authority Bonds
Housing Authority'03 $16,300,000
Housing Authoity Bonds Subtotal $16,300,000
Industrial Revenue Bonds
IRB Rowland Hall'01 $18,500,000
IRB Valley Mental Health'01 $16,120,000
IRB Spring Air'03 $3,840,000
IRB Subtotal $38,460,000
Water&Sewer Bonds
Water&Sewer'04 $30,955,000
Water&Sewer'05 $11,075,000
Water&Sewer Bonds Subtotal $42,030,000
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds
Sales Tax Series 2004 $17,300,000
Sales Tax Series 2005A $47,355,000
Sales Tax Revenue Series Subtotal $64,655,000
Grand Total of All Bonds Issued Since 1999 $671,849,000
C:\Documents and Settings\js8573\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK60\Bonds Since 1999.xls Sheet1 5/13/2006 7:20 PM
DEBT AND INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO BENCHMARKING
FOR
CITIES SIMILAR IN SIZE TO SALT LAKE CITY
Number of
Employees Involved
Outstanding in Debt and Cash
Population as of Indebtedness Investment Portfolio Management
City July 1,2005 (Current) (Current) Functions
Boise, ID* 193,085 $114,886,272 $130,840,821 4
Chandler, AZ 247,807 $296,439,000 $458,925,769 6
Eugene, OR 146,160 $130,379,930 $202,432,244 2
Salem, OR* 147,250 $286,188,430 $197,340,285 3
Salt Lake City, UT* 178,605 $320,895,423 $426,742,940 3
Spokane, WA 200,000 $191,987,486 $269,965,210 3
Tacoma, WA 194,900 $1,224,137,000 $790,948,428 11
*State Capital
C:\Documents and Settings\js8573\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK60\Debt Benchmarking for Cities similar to SLC.xls FY 06
5/15/2006
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: May 16, 2006
Subject: Intermodal Hub Enterprise Fund
Staff Report By: Russell Weeks
Cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, DJ Baxter, Gordon Hoskins, Gary
Mumford, Mary Guy-Sell
KEY ELEMENTS:
• The proposed budget anticipates a roughly 50 percent decline in revenue and expenses
because of the City's plans to turn over the Intermodal Hub to the Utah Transit Authority
in the next fiscal year.
• The proposed budget would allocate about$4.9 million in revenue toward the UTA
project to connect the Intermodal Hub with the Trax light rail system at the Delta Center.
MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS TO ADMINIS[RATION:
To pay for the initial phase of the project the City lent the Intermodal Hub Enterprise
Fund $6.4 million. Of that sum, $1.8 million in Class C road funds is the only guaranteed revenue
identified to repay the loan. About$3.3 probably will be repaid from additional reimbursements
from the Federal Transit Administration. If the loan is to be completely repaid, the remaining$1.3
million might have to come from other City sources such as Redevelopment Agency or Capital
Improvement Projects funds. It also should be noted that the Administration would like to have
about$900,000 appropriated in Fiscal Year 2007-2008 to complete the City's share of paying for
building the light rail connection between the Delta Center station and the Intermodal Hub at 200
South 600 West. Given that,how likely is it that Salt Lake City will be completely reimbursed for
the original $6.4 million loan to the Intermodal Hub Enterprise Fund?
DISCUSSION:
Except for one or two issues, the proposed budget for the Intermodal Hub Enterprise
Fund might be considered nearly a close-out budget. The City Council on April 20 adopted an
ordinance authorizing the implementation of an interlocal agreement between the City and the
Utah Transit Authority to build a light rail connection between the Delta Center Trax station at
South Temple and 400 West Street and the Intermodal Hub. Teinis of the agreement included the
conveyance by Salt Lake City to Utah Transit Authority(UTA)of the Salt Lake City Inteiiiiodal
Hub at 200 South 600 West Street, and the assignment of all City leases and agreements related to
the Intermodal Hub.
1
The proposed budget appears to reflect the agreement. The Transit Authority projects that
the Trax connection to the Intermodal Hub will be fmished between late 2007 and early 2008—
the same time UTA projects its commuter rail service between Ogden and Salt Lake City will
start operating.The latter project also involves straightening the Grant Tower curve, which may
have an effect on the Transit Authority's schedule.
The two tables that follow depict projected revenue and proposed expenses for the
Intermodal Hub Enterprise Fund for the 2006-2007 fiscal year.
Adopted Proposed
Intermodal Hub Fund 2005-2006 2006-2007 Difference Percent
Federal Grants $1,500,000 $3,200,000 $1,700,000 113.33%
Building leases 146,448 0 ($146,448) -100.00%
Private Donations 3,000,000 0 ($3,000,000) -100.00%
RDA Transfer 1,700,000 1,700,000 $0 0.00%
Bond Proceeds 3,000,000 0 ($3,000,000) -100.00%
TOTAL 9,346,448 4,900,000 -4,446,448 -47.57%
Adopted Proposed
Intermodal Hub Expenses 2005-2006 2006-2007 Difference Percent
Materials and Supplies $17,600 $5,000 ($12,600) -71.59%
Charges and Services 244,500 1,995,000 $1,750,500 715.95%
Capital Expenditures 9,084,348 2,900,000 ($6,184,348) -68.08%
TOTAL 9,346,448 4,900,000 -4,446,448 -47.57%
One might see from the tables that there are significant projected reductions in
anticipated revenue. However, it should be noted that$3 million in bond proceeds for the
Intermodal Hub under the current year's revenue actually never was used because the City did not
issue bonds for the project, according to the Administration.
In addition, the line items listing an expected loss of$3 million in "private donations"
and$146,448 in lease revenue are the result of the April 20 agreement between the City and the
Transit Authority. According to the Administration, the$3 million loss in "private donations" is
projected revenue from UTA initiating contractual agreements for the Trax connection to the
Intermodal Hub and paying those costs directly to the contractor instead of Salt Lake City. The
projected loss of$148,446 in building leases is the result of UTA acquiring ownership of the
Intermodal Hub which includes lease revenue from Greyhound Bus Lines and Amtrak.
Among expenditures, the largest percentage increase is in charges and services. Of the
$1.75 million budgeted for that category$1.5 million is earmarked for architect and engineering
services related to completing the final design of the Trax connection to the Intermodal Hub plus
the City's share of construction engineering costs related to the project, according to the
Administration. The projected$2.9 million in capital expenditures also will be used for the
balance of the City's share of construction costs to connect the Intermodal Hub to the Delta
Center light rail station.
In preparing City Council material for the Council to consider at the April 20 meeting
where the Council authorized implementing the interlocal agreement between the City and the
Transit Authority, the City Council staff wrote the following:
2
a. Salt Lake City Corporation originally made a$6.4 million"loan"to the Hub
Enterprise Fund,to build the Intermodal Hub. The original intent was to pay off
the loan with revenue generated at the Intermodal Hub. However,because the
proposed agreement has UTA assuming ownership of the Hub,the City will
forfeit all future revenue generated at the site(However,as a municipality,
federal guidelines restrict the City from spending any revenue generated at the
Hub, anywhere except the Hub. UTA does not have these restrictions.)
i. The only 100%"sure"money coming into the City to pay back this
loan, is$1.8 million in Class C road fund, in effect"repaying"the City
for reconstruction of 200 South(a project that was needed and
scheduled independently of the TRAX extension). This is money that
is scheduled,but not yet appropriated,for FY 2009 according to the
CIP 10 Year plan. 200 South was slated to be repaired independent of
the TRAX extension project,using Class C funds. Since the
repairs/upgrades will be done in conjunction with this project, the City
is eligible to be"paid back"for this work with Class C funds.
ii. About$3.3 million still"due"to the City from the Federal Transit
Administration(FTA)is likely to be reimbursed because the proposed
agreement in Section 12.1.3 calls for the City to be reimbursed from
federal funds before UTA is reimbursed. The remaining$1.3 million of
the original loan would then have to be"repaid"with other sources—
possibly from the RDA or the Capital Improvement Program. An
alternative is for the City to elect not to"repay itself'(as the repayment
would be from RDA or CIP funds into the general fund).
The ultimate disposition of the loan remains an outstanding issue that the
proposed budget does not appear to address. The City Council may wish to
prepare a legislative intent that would say what the Council's expectations might
be pertaining to repaying the loan.
In addition, as mentioned earlier in this report, the Trax light-rail
connection between the Delta Center station and the Intermodal Hub is part of a
series of projects related to mass transit—and future development. The
Administration has proposed issuing about$36 million in bonds to pay for
construction of a new fleet facility, the City's share of straightening the Grant
Tower railroad curve, and a trail project to bring City Creek to the surface west
of the Gateway Mall. Bonding for straightening the railroad curve and bringing
City Creek to the surface are estimated to cost roughly about$7.07 million and
$5.06 million respectively.
3
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS— FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
DATE: May 18, 2006
BUDGET FOR: POLICE DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver
cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Chief Burbank, Scott Atkinson, Jerry
Burton, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter,
Gary Mumford, Sylvia Jones, Lehua Weaver, Jennifer Bruno, Jan
Aramaki
The Mayor's Recommended Budget proposes $51,083,387 of funding for the Police
Department, which is 27% of the General Fund budget. According to the Mayor's
Recommended Budget, one of the proposed property tax increases is attributed to
funding eight additional police officers, one sergeant, and two crime lab technicians
for $940,000.
KEY CHANGES
• Staffmg Changes (14 new positions, $703,460)
a 8 new police officers
o 1 new sergeant
o 2 new crime lab technicians
o 1 new civilian Evidence Room supervisor
o 1 new civilian Pawn Shop Technician
o 1 School Resource Officer from grant funding to the general fund (there
is a partial reimbursement by the School District).
• Additional replacement of equipment ($532,000 increase) $305,000 of this
increase is attributed to equipment and vehicles for the nine new sworn
officers.
• Special Events overtime ($58,000 increase)
• An additional Citywide policy shift that will affect the Police Department is a
new policy for take-home vehicles. Council staff has prepared a separate staff
report on this topic.
The following is a summary of the proposed budget for fiscal year 2006-07 by bureau
and division compared with the adopted budget for fiscal year 2005-06.
C
1
POLICE DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED BUDGETS
Bureau Division Adopted a P- Difference Percent
2005-06 _ Change
Office of the Administration $910,507 s4g'% 2�6� $42,257 4.64%
Chief � `; l
Administrative Administrative Services 507,402 $21,560 4.25%
Bureau
General Services 2,026,491 * 0tr $301,410 14.87%
Support Services Division 5-,
" :
_'
Internal Affairs 606,354 °
, $38,460 6.34/o
Training 948,226 ! ;,, ri $2,387 0.25%
Management Services 1,731,966 `® � •-1.u:t:Ii.i $134,062 7.74%
Division (includes Crime �g.;,1
Analysis, Planning&
Research)
Technical Support 322,632 a 4, $11,842 3.67%
Communications 3,474,667 r $75,597 2.18%
Records Management 1,968 511 $ °
t )g i $78,177 3.97/o
Bureau Total 12,496,756 1 6 $705,752 5.65%
Investigative Detective Division 6,206,049 A23 $917,627 14.79%
Bureau (Includes Auto Theft, nAl7,:gl.
Burglary/Larceny/Pawns, 4£ y
Domestic Violence,
Financial Crimes, Bomb
i �
Squad, Homicide,
Robbery/Assault, Sex34110
...
Crimes/Special Victims,
Victim Advocates,Task `
Force Participation, School `A :Y
Resources) ,• •, A,
Crime Lab 895,606 Ti, $139,101 15.53%
Evidence Room 315,650 0i, ($12,598) -3.99%
Special Investigations 4,551,582 , ' $214,293 4.71%
Division (Includes
SWAT/Gangs, Intelligence, si 4
Meth Initiative, Metro
Narcotics Task Force,
Metro Gangs, Narcotics,
Public Order Unit, Special r -, F , W
Events Management, Vice, K-� '*
Project Safe v.
Neighborhoods)
'
Motors/Traffic 3,347,032 R3w6.30,,$65 $283,833 8.48%
Bureau Total 15,315,919 6>��,�.7 ' $1,542,256 10.07%
Operations Liberty Patrol Division 9,765,419 , 1{l�'7579fi,j $992,578 10.16%
Bureau (Includes Watch :' P "
Command, 24 hour patrol
services for east side, K-9
Unit and COP Bike Patrol) " '
Pioneer Patrol Division 9,550,366 s 1.0,264p70 $714,341 7.48%
(Includes 24 hour patrol A :
services for west side and .
downtown bike patrol) '' -
Bureau Total 19,315,785 2 �d1O4 $1,706,919 8.84%
Total Police Department $47,128,460 �$5 ,p83, 7 z $3,954,927 8.39%
.1 yX
2
The following is the current allocation of authorized full-time equivalent positions and
the proposed allocation including the additional positions.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS
Current $x
Allocation of `£
FTEs E� �� '
Bureau Division Sworn Civilian ; 1,
Office of the Chief Administration 5 2
Administrative Administrative Services 0 6
Bureau
General Services 0 7.07
Support Services Division
Internal Affairs 5 1
Training 7 1 •
Management Services Division 14 7
(includes Crime Analysis,Planning&
Research, Intelligence,Homeland
Security/Emergency Preparedness, k
Joint Terrorism Task Force)
Technical Support 0 5
Communications 0 57
Records Management 0 38 •
R`9
Bureau Total 26 122.07
Investigative Bureau Detective Division(Includes Auto 66 11
C- Theft,Burglary/Larceny/Pawns,
Domestic Violence,Financial
Crimes,Bomb Squad,Homicide,
Robbery/Assault,Sex
Crimes/Special Victims,Victim
Advocates,Task Force Participation, > °
School Resources
Crime Lab 0 14 a
Evidence Room 1 4 ,'
Special Investigations Division 46 5
(Includes SWAT/Gangs,Meth @
Initiative,Metro Narcotics Task
Force,Metro Gangs,Narcotics, f "
Public Order Unit,Special Events ;a
Management,Vice,Project Safe
Neighborhoods) �x �
Motors(traffic enforcement) 22 0
Traffic(accident investigation) 18
Bureau Total 153 34 a <
Operations Bureau Liberty Patrol Division(Includes 113 6
Watch Command,24 hour patrol
services for east side,K-9 Unit and
COP Bike Patrol)
Pioneer Patrol Division 119 5
(Includes 24 hour patrol services for
west side and downtown bike patrol)
Bureau Total 232 11
. Total Police Department 416 169.07
3
BUDGET DETAIL
The following are general explanations of budget changes in fiscal year 2006-07.
Staffing Changes ($703,460 increase)
- Overall, the Police Department's goal is to maintain a ratio of 1.53 officers per
1000 service population (using a weighted average of resident and daytime
populations (visitors), the service population is 268,000 as of 2000). If the
recommended staffing changes are adopted, the number of police officers would
increase to 426. Part of this increase would be achieved by hiring two civilians to
fill positions currently filled by officers - a Sergeant currently supervises the
evidence room and a detective currently works at the pawn shop. These two
officers would be reassigned to the field.
The Police Department provided the following statistics to illustrate the impact of
the daytime population (visitors) on police activity. From January thru April of
2006:
49% of people arrested, cited, subjects, wanted or offenders were not
residents of Salt Lake City
33% of victims were not residents of Salt Lake City
55% of those involved in traffic incidents were not residents of Salt Lake
City
As an additional note, the Police Department projects that this weighted average
of the service population will grow from 268,000 in 2000 to 326,000 by 2010. If
the same ratio calculation is used, the number officers needed to serve a
population of 326,000 would be 499. With development in the Northwest
Quadrant, other residential development, and recruiting efforts of businesses to
the City, it is difficult to determine whether the 326,000 is an accurate estimate.
- The proposed budget includes the following staffing changes:
Position Annual Cost
o 8 new police officers ($52,548 per officer) $420,384
• Four of these officers would be assigned to the Patrol
Division - two in the Pioneer Precinct and two in the
Liberty Precinct.
• Four of these officers would be assigned to the
Detectives Division.
The Council may wish to ask what need these officers
would fill in their respective Divisions.
o 1 new sergeant at the Pioneer Precinct $91,032
in the Patrol Division.
o 2 new crime lab technicians ($44,328 per technician) $88,656
There was an increase last year of 1 new position. This
request is driven by the number of calls for service that
crime lab technicians need to respond to, and to maximize
officers'time at crime scenes while a technician responds.
Overtime expenses for crime lab technicians was $43,595 in
fiscal year 2004-05 and for the first 10 months of 2005-06, it
has been $36,301.
4
o 1 new civilian Evidence Room supervisor $52,020
(which frees up an officer for the field - a sergeant to the
Detectives Division)
o 1 new civilian Pawn Shop Technician $41,820
(which frees up an officer for the field - to the
Detectives Division)
o 1 School Resource Officer from grant funding to the $9,548
general fund. This officer is assigned to Highland
High School, and the School District has agreed to
reimburse the City for the 9 months of the school year,
totaling$43,000. Part of the agreement for the grant was
that the City would continue the position for one year after
the expiration of the grant.
The Council may wish to ask whether the new officers will allow the
Department to follow-up more on neighborhood crimes, such as car break-ins
and car prowls.
- In the Mayor's Recommended Budget the following positions are attributed to the
proposed property tax increase:
o 8 police officers $420,384
o 1 police sergeant 91,032
o 2 crime lab technicians 88,656
$600,072
•
- Positions otherwise requested in the proposed budget:
o 1 Evidence Room Supervisor (civilian) $ 52,020
o 1 Pawn Shop Technician (civilian) 41,820
o 1 School Resource Officer from grant funds
(The School District will reimburse a portion 9,548
of the cost to the City.)
$103,388
- The Police Department has reviewed various positions to evaluate whether they
could be filled by a civilian rather than a sworn officer. The proposed civilian
positions not only free up an officer to be assigned to the field, but it also costs
less to equip a civilian, they are hired at a reduced pay level, and do not undergo
officer training, and are not equipped with a vehicle, laptop and radio.
The Council may wish to ask the Department whether there are any other
positions that could be civilianized.
- 1.0 FTE from Liberty Patrol to Management Services Division - One of the vacant
Youth & Family Specialist positions is proposed to be reclassified to the
Administrative Bureau as a Data Specialist position, which would fill a need for
the additional statistical analysis within the Department. This would leave two
Youth and Family Specialists; one for the Westside and one on the Eastside.
The Council may wish to ask whether this will represent a service level
reduction, and to clarify the role currently being filled by the Youth and
Family Specialist positions.
- Within the Administrative Bureau, the positions currently assigned to "General
Services" would be transferred to the area more consistent with their work
assignments, including Administrative Services and Records. (The 14.9%
5
increase in "General Services" listed in the Budget summary above relates to the
increase in equipment purchases, which is discussed below.)
Benefits and Salary Increases ($2,411,405 increase): A large portion of the
increases to Personal Services is due to increases for benefits, pensions, and pay.
The proposed cost-of-living and step increases are still) the subject of ongoing
negotiations.
Equipment ($532,000 increase):
- The recommended budget includes requests for additional funding for the
following equipment purchases:
o 9 Fleet Vehicles (new officers) $225,000
o Replacement of 3 servers used for dispatch $104,000
o Replacement of an additional 51 of 170 laptops 87,000
o New laptops, police radios 86 personal 80,000
equipment (new officers)
o Replace modems for laptops/radios 36,000
- The purchase of nine fleet vehicles and new laptops, radios, and personal
equipment to equip new officers is included in the Mayor's Recommended
property tax increase, which would be ongoing funding. The Council may wish
to consider the use of one-time funding for this equipment.
- The $87,000 for existing laptop replacement is also proposed to come from one-
time money. The Police Department plans to replace laptops on a 3-year
replacement cycle. In fiscal year 2006-07 the Department proposes replacing a
total of 170 laptops, which is a bit more than 33% of their inventory. The
$87,000 requested is in addition to existing funding for replacement.
- Likewise, the request for $36,000 to replace modems in laptops would increase
existing funding for modem replacement, and would allow the Department to
replace a total of 40 modems out of 400 and follow a 10-year replacement cycle.
The $36,000 would pay for 12 replacements. These modems are more expensive
because of the technology involved. Rather than a modem that would be inserted
into the laptop, these are modems mounted in the trunk of police cars.
Vehicle fuel and maintenance ($269,000 increase): The City's Fleet Management
Division is recommending an increase of$200,000 in gasoline costs and $69,000 for
increased costs of maintenance. The increase for fuel costs takes into account
anticipated savings in fuel costs from changes to the take-home vehicle program.
These cost increases primarily impact the patrol divisions.
Special Events overtime ($58,000 increase): The Police Department budgets for
overtime expenses associated with Special Events held throughout the City. This
would bring the annual budget to $400,000. This would cover those same costs;
there are no new special events planned.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the status of the cost-
benefit analysis associated with special events and what City expenses
should be reimbursed by event organizers.
Overtime costs - According to the Police Department, overtime is not intended to
meet staffing in beats on a regular basis. The proposed overtime budget (including
6
Court Time) for fiscal year 2006-07 is $1,256,000. (This includes the $400,000 listed
above under the Special Events item.)
Actual overtime and court time paid in fiscal year 2004-05 for officers and dispatch
was $1,710,253 and for the first 10 months of fiscal year 2005, actual overtime and
court time paid for officers and dispatch has been $1,402,178.
Council Members have asked if hiring additional officers can reduce overtime costs.
Even with increased officers, overtime will continue to be needed for detective follow
up, SWAT, narcotics, special evens, dispatch and court appearance. Overtime pay
(at time and one half) doesn't always cost the City more than regular straight time.
For example, new officers are paid annual salaries of $32,052. Benefits for each
new officer are $11,448 for pension, $7,476 for health insurance, and $468 for med-
FICA. The hourly rate based on 2080 hours per year is $24.73. No additional
pension or insurance costs are incurred for overtime hours. The overtime rate for a
new officer is $23.45, which is about the same as the regular hourly rate with
benefits. However, the overtime rate for an experienced (top step) officer is $41.94.
Therefore, the amount of savings by hiring additional officers and reducing overtime
depends on the experience level (and salary) of the officers that are earning the
overtime. While overtime may be more economical than hiring new officers in some
circumstances, use of overtime rather than hiring officers does in effect limit the
total number of officers available for a significant citywide emergency situation
should one arise.
The Council may wish to ask whether any methods of reducing overtime have
been identified.
Overtime for Liberty Park Enforcement - The Department will not be using overtime
hours to cover Liberty Park enforcement. The new recruits that were hired last July,
are completing their training cycle and are being assigned. As a result of adding
them to the patrol schedules, enforcement at Liberty Park will be covered without
routinely accruing overtime.
Traffic enforcement - 22 Officers are assigned to traffic enforcement. None of the new
officers are proposed to be assigned to traffic enforcement.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Crime statistics - In 2005, there were 1,322 violent crimes (murder, forcible rape,
robbery, aggravated assault) in Salt Lake City, which was an increased 4.8% over
2004. There were 16,168 property crimes in 2005, which was a decrease of 3.8% over
2004.
Patrol deployment - The Police Department is currently operating with 23 officers
below the current 413 authorized staffing level (20 vacancies, 3 military leave).
Training of new recruits - The Police Department is shifting their training practices
from the POST training academy to an in-house academy so that new recruits have
more time with Salt Lake City Police Officers to get familiar to practices specific to the
Salt Lake City Police Department. This will significantly cut down on the training time
for new recruits. Under the former training schedule, a new recruit would spend 42
weeks in training including 17 weeks at POST, and then 11 weeks of in-house
academy and 14 weeks of field training. Under the new plan, recruits will receive in-
7
house academy training for a total of 18 weeks followed by the 12-14 weeks of field
training.
This would not result in a cost savings to the Department's training budget, because
officers were generally assigned to teach at POST. Their overall time will be about the
same.
The next class of new recruits are anticipated to be hired in July 2006.
Attrition savings -The Police Department realizes some salary savings because of: (1)
timing between when employees leave and when they are replaced, and (2) salary
differential between a senior officer and new recruit as more officers retire or leave the
force. In addition, some positions are held open for officers on military leave. The
Police Department currently has 3 officers on military leave and 20 vacant positions.
Attrition savings of$100,000 are included in the proposed budget.
Organization - The Police Department is organized with an Office of the Chief and
three bureaus:
• The Administrative Bureau provides direct support to the field and
investigation functions. These services include Internal Affairs, Training,
Dispatch, Technical Support, Planning 86 Research, Records, Budgeting,
Payroll, and Human Resources.
• The Operations Bureau provides initial police response to all requests for police
assistance and is the core support group for the Department's community
policing efforts. The Pioneer and Liberty Patrol Divisions, in addition, provide
specialized field assistance to the patrol units in the form of bike patrols and
service dog support. The Operations Bureau administers a grant to provide
critical incident training on protocols involving mentally ill individuals.
• The Investigative Bureau provides follow up on initial investigations of crimes,
the collection and the safeguarding of evidence for use in prosecution. Specials
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) provides high hazard support of field operations.
Special Investigations Division provides proactive investigations of narcotics,
vice, gang suppression activity, Motors, traffic enforcement and special event
assistance. The Detective Division provides follow up investigative work for
homicide, robbery, burglary, sex crimes, domestic violence, financial crimes
and hazardous devices investigations.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
The Council issued the following legislative intent statement:
Overtime within the Police Department - It is the intent of the City Council that
the Police Department make every effort to keep within its overtime budget and
submit a written report to the Council on actual overtime incurred and steps
taken to reduce reliance on overtime. Specifically, the Council requests that
the Administration complete a detailed analysis on approaches to reduce
overtime.
Departmental response: "Formal overtime reports are reviewed by the Chief and
his executive staff once a quarter. Monthly overtime reports are distributed to
Division Commanders. Consistent general staff reminders are provided in
8
discussing alternative methods to address police service needs other than
overtime."
Special Events - (Note: While this statement did not apply directly to the Police
Department, it does have relevance to their budget.) It is the intent of the City
Council that the Administration prepare a list of the special events held within
Salt. Lake City boundaries that require the use of City resources in support of
the event (Police/Security, refuse collection, park maintenance, etc.) and that
the Administration prepare a cost analysis of providing the City services
compared to the economic benefit of the event being held in Salt Lake. The data
compiled should also identify where charging reimbursement fees would be
appropriate.
Department's response: "The Public Services Department has completed the
analysis of the special event information and use of city resources in
supporting them. An ordinance has been reviewed and policy discussions are
proceeding, within the Administration, of how best to use events to improve the
quality of life in Salt Lake City while maximizing the economic benefit. Since
there are budget impacts the intent is to incorporate them within the Mayor's
Recommended Budget to the City Council as well as any ordinance changes
that will be necessary. Some funding is included in the FY2006-07 Mayor's
Recommended Budget.
Take Home Vehicle Fees - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration review take-home vehicles for compliance with the distance
limits and other City policies and evaluate the fees charged for taking a City-
owned vehicle home since it has been several years since the current fees were
established.
Department's response: "The Finance Division and Fleet Services are studying
the costs associated with the take home vehicles program. A proposal is
expected to be presented to the Council in May as part of the FY2006-07
Mayor's Recommended Budget. (Note: this has been received and a separate
staff report has been prepared.)
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify legislative
intents relating to the Police Department.
In the past the Council has adopted legislative intent statements requesting an
evaluation of the special events program and the resources allocated to special events,
since this has such a significant impact on overtime. Is the Council interested in
requesting further information on this?
During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or functions to
be added to the Council's list for future audits.
9
FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND
PROPOSED BUDGET
Revenue & other sources EgippENERMil
Maintenance fees $ 4,508,160 > '';;=l;:`4i' ' # 290,818 6.5%
Fuel fees 2,085,850 iingiiiggigit011.00 701,550 33.6%
Sale of vehicles 450,000 ':.':;'': ;;;;' ': 51O OOO 120,000 26.7%
General Fund transfer 5,135,381 >>�«<; 225,000 4.4%
Other revenue 60,500 "> '<' 5 .:00.0 (8,500) -14.0%
Debt Proceeds - GE Capital 3,800,500; ;;';; x4 0 (1,400,500) -36.9%
ail ;:;(i:;i•:iw',.! :;.fi: �
Use of reserves 229,628; ; <>; 4OO$60 1,171,232 510.1%
Total revenue & other sources $ 16,270,019 € ' :; t '........... $1,099,600 6.8%
Expenses & other uses
s
Personal services $ 2,571,722 > $ $ 117,577 4.6%
Parts and supplies 4,009,150 ' M a0i 840,300 21.0%
Charges for services 758,059 ; ` `''< `: $.i (42,246) -5.6%
IA:.,::�11 e(ti,11;,:.111,,;.};IM 1. :.I N
Debt and interest 3,419,088 <; ; ;$# 'j 308,969 9.0%
Capital Expenditures- GE 3,800,500 <4046:0 ' (550,500) -14.5%
Capital
Capital outlay1 711 500 ` ``: 1$`: ::`:: :: o
:<. . .....;:.,�^���.7}�34�; 425,500 24.9/o
Total expenses & other uses $ 16,270,019 ;;; :; ; gx .° $1,099,600 6.8%
d
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
DATE: May 18, 2006
SUBJECT: FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND
STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno, Budget & Policy Analyst
CC: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Rick Graham, Kevin
Bergstrom, Lamont Nelson, Greg Davis, Bryce Lindeman,
Steve Fawcett, Laurie Donnell, DJ Baxter
The City's Fleet Management Internal Service Fund provides vehicles, fuel and vehicle
maintenance for the City except for the Airport, which provides its own fleet services.
General Fund departments and enterprise funds reimburse the Fleet Management
Fund for these services (excluding actual vehicle borrowing). Vehicle purchases for
general fund departments are funded by a transfer from the Non-departmental
budget. The operating budget for the Fleet Management Fund is proposed to increase
by $912,828, which is a 12.5% increase. Of this increase $628,820 is related to the
increased cost of fuel (overall fuel costs increased by 44% over FY 2006).
FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND
PROPOSED BUDGET
�Yrr'
4 k^
a 7 a w e
er
Revenue & other sources
Maintenance fees $ 4,508,160 x $ 290,788 6.5%
Fuel fees 2,085,850 701,550 33.6%
Sale of vehicles 450,000, 120,000 26.7%
General Fund transfer 5,135,381 ; r 225,000 4.4%
Other revenue 60,500 o (8,500) -14.0%
Debt Proceeds - GE Capital 3 800 500", 1 400 500 -36.9%
Use of reserves 429,628 3 951,198 221.4%
Total revenue & other sources $ 16,470,019
Expenses & other uses
Personal services $ 2,571,722 $ 117,577 4.6%
Parts and supplies 4,009,150 �`� 840,300 21.0%
Charges for services 740,798
Debt and interest 3,419,088 l 308,969 9.0%
Capital Expenditures - GE 3,800,500 'i' i o (1,400,500) -36.9%
Capital
Capital outlay 1,711,500 a ;'i 1,275,500 74.5%
Total expenses & other uses $ 16 252 758m`
$1,096,797 6.7%
man
During Fiscal Year 2005, there was an accounting change requiring that the City
reflect the cash flow with escrow accounts for installment purchases of vehicles. This
has affected the Fleet Management budget accounting, and is reflected above in the
line items "Debt Proceeds - GE Capital" and "Capital Expenditures - GE Capital" on
the revenue and expense side, respectively.
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE
The major changes and some of the issues relating to the proposed budget are as
follows:
A. Elimination of positions - The Division is not recommending the elimination of any
positions.
B. Addition of positions - The Division is not recommending the addition of any
positions.
C. Fuel Costs - Fuel costs to the fund are expected to increase at a greater rate that
fuel fees charged. Fuel costs are expected to increase by $628,820 (43.5%) in
fiscal year 2007. Fuel fees charged (source of revenue) are expected to increase
by $701,550 (33.6%). Overhead costs are built into the fuel fees charged (30 cents
per gallon). The Council may wish to ask whether enterprise funds in particular
(golf, refuse, public utilities) are covering their full cost of fuel and services, and if
there are more efficient ways to more accurately reflect costs.
o The division's proposed budget includes the purchase of 1.14 million
gallons of fuel at the per gallon purchase price of $1.95 for unleaded and
$2.28 for diesel. At the time of budget preparation, the average price of fuel
for FY 2005-2006, was $1.80 per gallon for unleaded and $2.13 for diesel.
The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration if this amount of
fuel would cover multiple years' needs, or if this represents one year of total
fleet fuel usage.
D. Capital Outlay - The Capital outlay budget is proposed to increase by $1.3 million.
This is due to a policy shift in the department, to purchase more of certain types of
vehicles with cash instead of financing.
E. Cash Reserve Draw - The Administration is recommending in the proposed budget
that $1,380,826 be drawn from cash reserves to offset the proposed budget
increases. This number is artificially high due to the timing of accounting for
receipt of a Fire Department apparatus, budgeted in FY 2006, but will be received
in fiscal year 2007 (representing $850,000). The true operational draw from cash
reserves is approximately $550,000. As of June 30, 2005, the Fleet Management
Fund had a total of $4.2 million (unrestricted net assets). The Council may wish
to inquire about true cash available in the Fleet Management Fund at any given
time. The Council may wish to have further discussion regarding this strategy as
a short-term budget fix.
o Also at issue is the long-term status of the fleet fund balance in general.
The Department Six Year Plan (see below) states that between $4.9 and $5.6
million will be needed annually over the next five years to cover costs of fleet
replacement (based on a life-cycle analysis). In the FY 2006 budget year
discussion, the division indicated that the current funding levels were not
Aidget
sufficient to complete ideal life-cycle replacement needs of vehicles. The
Council may wish to ask the Administration if there are now strategies in
place to begin doing so.
2
F. Fleet Facility - The Administration is recommending that the City issue sales tax
revenue bonds to secure approximately $36 Million in bonds, the majority of which
would be used in order to construct a new Fleet Facility, at a site purchased
during the current fiscal year. This proposal is included in the CIP discussion, as
there is a request for $209,692 for the first year of interest payments this fiscal
year. Actual debt service for the bond would be roughly $490,000 (split between
the General Fund - $320,000, The Refuse Fund - $63,050, and The Fleet Fund -
$67,900).
o New Facility - The City hired a consultant to do a needs/deficiencies
analysis. The consultant identified 38 deficiencies with the current Fleet
site, 11 of which could not be addressed regardless of the funding scenario
- mostly due to space. On the new site and with new construction however,
the consultant has indicated that all 38 deficiencies could be met for an
approximate construction cost of $19.4 million (not including land
acquisition, based on an estimate prepared in 2005). It is estimated that
selling the current fleet facility would yield approximately $3 to 5 million,
for a net cost of$14.4 - $16.4 million.
• In the current sales tax bond proposal, $24.3 million of the $36
million is proposed to be for the Fleet Facility project. The land costs
that can be reimbursed to the surplus land account are $3.1 million.
It is likely that the increase in project costs, to $21.2 million, are due
to increased costs of materials. The Council may wish to clarify the
most recent appraised value of the current fleet site, considering that
this money could be used to offset the costs of construction.
■ The first year of debt service for this project only would be
approximately $686,000. However, continuing debt service,
assuming a 20 year bond, would be closer to $1.8 million per year
(not including any other proposed projects included in the sales tax
bond proposal). The Fleet Fund and Refuse Fund would be both be
eligible to contribute to debt service payments on this bond, and are
planned to do so, according to the CIP 10 Year plan. The Fleet Fund
portion would be approximately $235,000.
• Currently traffic enforcement motorcycle storage is at the
international center. The Council may wish to ask the
Administration whether it would be more efficient to include this at
the fleet facility. There is currently not sufficient space at the current
facility to accommodate these vehicles, even with the renovation.
G. Take-home vehicle policy - A take-home vehicle committee was established to
study the City's policies regarding take-home vehicles. The Committee analyzed
the costs and benefits, and came up with a series of recommendation aimed at
reducing the burden on the general fund while at the same time encouraging the
public safety aspect of having convenient "call-back" for off-duty officers in case of
an emergency. For further detail on the Committee's study and findings, see the
attached document transmitted from the Administration, titled "Take-Home
Vehicle Policy Review).
o The following summarizes the committees findings:
3
• The current number of take-home vehicles is 446 (Police - 413,
Fire - 21, Other City Departments - 12). Of these 104 belong to
employees living within the City limits.
• The total expense for take-home vehicles is $736,162 per year, of
which $295,181 is reimbursed by employees. The remaining
$440,981 is absorbed by the general fund.
• In 2005, 10,000 of 233,000 calls for police were responded to by
off-duty staff(4.3%).
o The following summarizes the committee's recommendations
• Establish the City and County Building as the standard point of
reference in establishing the "commute distance."
• Non-commuting personal use of City vehicles should be
prohibited.
• Secondary employment commuting and use prohibited unless the
secondary business reimburses the City directly for vehicle costs.
• No take-home vehicle allowed if the employee lives farther than 25
miles from the City and County Building (existing non-complying
employees grandfathered for a period of 5 years).
• Employees reimburse the City for commuting mileage at 50% of
the vehicle operational costs - adjust these rates annually (see
rate chart below). The City would still be subsidizing this
program, but at a lower rate. The Committee recognized that as a
policy the City should support a mechanism for these off-duty
employees to respond in case of an emergency situation, in a - ,
timely manner.
o The following summarizes other options that were investigated by the
committee:
• Status quo - the committee recognized that costs being born by
the general fund are increasing each year, and as a policy, the
City does not benefit by subsidizing the pool completely.
• Elimination of all take-home vehicles - The committee recognized
the cost savings in terms of vehicle operation, but they also noted
that the City would need to construct a parking lot to house all of
the vehicles currently being housed at employee's homes (800
cars, $1,200 per stall for a total of $960,000). This is a rough
engineering estimate and does not include increased costs if the
parking were in a structure or under ground. The committee also
noted the national trend that other Cities have communicated,
that employees generally maintain their vehicles better if there is
a small sense of ownership. The committee also recognized the
safety concerns by the delays that this could cause in terms of off-
duty officer response.
• Various levels of commuting cost reimbursements - the following
chart shows the various levels of reimbursements that the
committee looked at, and the savings that each of these options
would result in:
4
l'
Re-imbursement Policy(Employee Cost Per Pay Period Rate Chart)
50%Cost Recovery
Full Cost Public Safety (committee
Current Recovery Proposal* recommendation)
Police/Fire within City limits $ - $ 14.80 $ 25.00 $ 9.25
All others within City limits $ 6.92 $ 14.80 $ 25.00 $ 91.25
Within 5 miles $ 25.38 $ 18.50 $ 29.19 $ 9.25
Within 10 miles $ 27.69 $ 37.00 $ 31.84 $ 18.50
Within 15 miles $ 30.00 $ 55.50 $ 34.50 $ 27.75
Within 20 miles $ 32.31 $ 74.00 $ 37.16 $ 37.00
Within 25 miles $ 34.62 $ 92.50 $ 39.81 $ 46.25
Within 30 miles $ 34.62 $ 111.00 $ 39.81 $ 55.50
Within 35 miles $ 34.62 $ 129.50 $ 39.81 $ 64.75
Total Cost $ 736,162 $ 736,162 $ 736,162 $ 736,162
Employee Reimbursement $ 295,181 $ 736,162 $ 378,000 $ 375,000
Eliminating Personal Use n.a. n.a. n.a. $ 150,000
City Subsidy $ 440,981 $ - $ 358,162 $ 211,162
*note:This proposal was presented by Public Safety Staff-it proposes not to restrict personal use of vehicles or the
limits which one can live outside of the City.
H. Police Vehicles - The Administration is proposing adding police officers. Should
the Council approve this recommendation, additional police vehicles would be
needed. There are currently 39 vehicles that are considered "spare" allocated to
the police department. The "spare" vehicles are used as loaners when other police
vehicles are in the shop for maintenance or repair. Because there are multiple
computer systems and mounts in the vehicles, more spare vehicles are needed
than would be necessary if there was a single computer system vehicle mount.
Fleet management and the Police Department are currently working to resolve this
issue. Fleet has indicated that they have a need to maintain between 24 and 30
vehicles to use as loaners in the case of repairs (currently approximately 8-10 cars
per day are brought in for repairs, minor and major). Therefore, approximately 10
vehicles could be considered truly "spare" and may be available for use with new
officers (assuming that existing injured officers assigned to "light duty" do not
need these cars). Each additional police vehicle costs $32,500.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
A. In the Fiscal Year 2005-06 budget process, the Council adopted the following
legislative intent statement with regard to the Fleet Management Fund:
• "It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration analyze the
age of City-owned vehicles and maintenance costs associated with
vehicles to determine the optimal replacement cycle. Options for
adequately funding optimal replacement should be forwarded to the City
CCouncil for a joint discussion." (Intent #A2, response discussed as part
of Mayor's proposed budget)
5
• Administration's Response: The Fleet Division has performed an analysis
of this issue, taking into account the various factors with regard to fleet
maintenance. The Division will provide information to the Council for
this budget briefing for a joint discussion.
B. During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Fleet Managermnt Fund.
SIX YEAR BUSINESS PLAN
The following has been identified as specific and likely future changes to budget
and/or staffing of the Fleet Management Division, as outlined in the Six Year
Business Plan:
o Based on fleet "life-cycle" analysis, approximately $4.9 to $5.6 million will be
needed annually over the next five years, for fleet replacement. The level of
replacement will contribute an average of 2% to the Fleet fund balance, from
which the Fund will draw heavily in FY 06-07 and 07-08. This life-cycle
replacement reduces the overall cost of fleet operation. The Council may wish
to clarify with the Administration whether this will be met.
o There will be a possible proposal for a new Fleet Management Facility in the
FY 06 budget.
6
�05
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2006
(City-Owned Motor Vehicles)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHATER 2.54 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY
CODE, RELATING TO CITY-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLES.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 2.54 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to city-
owned motor vehicles be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows: -
2.54.020 Designation Of Ownership-Insignia Required:
All motor vehicles owned and operated by the city shall1 l av ntedin a
conspicuous place on both sides of the vehicle, display an identification mark designating
the vehicle as the property of the city, thereof, designating the city's ownership in the
following language: "Property of Salt Lake City" under conditions and as required by
Section 41-1a-407title 41, chapter 7 of the Utah eCode or its successor. The designation
•
• , Nothing in this chapter
shall be construed to require such a display on any police or fire department vehicle,-
exempt from such requirements under state law to be so painted.
2.54.030 Use Policy And Restrictions:
A. No motor vehicle owned by the city may be taken home by any city employee
except under the following circumstances:
1. Authorization to regularly take home a city-owned vehicle is granted by the
department director and approved by the chief administrative officer or his or her
designee based on a demonstrated need for such vehicle to be taken home to serve the
public interest; or
2. Due to an isolated incident of use when, because of the lateness of the hour or other
peculiar circumstances, it is impractical or impossible to return such vehicle to city
custody at the end of a duty shift.
B. Authorization to regularly take home a city-owned vehicle may be granted to a
full-time employee for a "demonstrated need" based on at least one of the following
criteria:
1. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department;
2. The vehicle is assigned to a sworn and certified law enforcement officer of the Salt
Lake City police department, pursuant to the department's take home car program
requirements. Specifically, off-duty use of the vehicle is unrestricted to commuting to and
from the employee's place of residencewhile within the-S-a-lt Lake Ce ty4&undar s_;
including-iTravel to and from approved secondary employment in a city vehicle is
prohibited unless the secondary employer reimburses Salt Lake City directly for the
vehicle costs.; and approved for-use outside of the county limits while going toT--an from
work-,
3. The full time employee must respond to at least five (5) emergency situations or
callbacks to work per month;
4. The nature of the employee's work requires immediate response to emergency
situations, regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or emergency
equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's personal vehicle.
C. 1. Employees who have a demonstrated need as set forth in subsection B of this
section;may use city-owned motor vehicles on a voluntary basis to travel to and from
their homes only with the knowledge and consent of the appropriate department head,
and only if such employees make payment to the city for such use according to a written
fee schedule adopted by the mayor or mayor's designee. Such fee schedule shall include a
policy favoring those employees who live within the city. The fee required shall be no
greater than the total actual costs incurred by the city for such voluntary use, including
depreciation and capital costs.
2. The mayor shall, by written policy, set forth liability insurance coverage to such
employees, which coverage shall be not less than two hundred thousand dollars
($200,000.00) per incident, shall cover bodily injury, deaths and property damage and
shall be in addition to that required by Utah Code Annotated sections 31A-22-304 and
63-30d-8022375.
D. Under no circumstances shall a city-owned vehicle be authorized for take-home
use for an employee who resides farther than twenty five (25) thirty five (35)miles from
the City & County Building , regardless of the
department in which the employee is employed. Employees qualifying for a take-home
vehicle as of May 1, 2006 will be grandfathered from this limitation for a_period of five
(5) years beginning May 1, 2006. Such grandfathered use (which allows the employee to
take home a vehicle to a residence up to thirty-five (35) miles from the corporate limits of
Salt Lake City) shall apply only as long as the employee resides in his or her residence as
of May 1, 2006. If the employee thereafter changes residence, he or she must comply
with the twenty-five (25) mile limitation.
E. Under no circumstances shall a city vehicle be used for any purpose other than
city business, to promote a city interest, or for any use other than authorized by the mayor
or the mayor's designee.
2.54.040 Maintenance And Upkeep:
A. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the driver or operator of a city vehicle to
see that it is properly serviced, maintained, and cleaned. This includes, but is not limited
to, having the appropriate servicing perfoiined on the vehicleequipment at all designated
intervals as set forth by the cep-a 4� erg of ad-n+i-Histrative servicesPublic Services
Department. A sticker will be affixed to the vehicle in a conspicuous place indicating
time of usage and service due for the vehicle.
2
B. If the driver or operator of the city vehicle fails to have the vehicle properly
serviced or maintained as prescribed by the administrative services departmentPublic
Services Department within ten (10) working days or two hundred (200) miles of the
required service or maintenance time, itsuch failure may result in loss of use of the
vehicle to the user or department as well as possible disciplinary action.
2.54.050 Accident Involvement Or Damage-Reporting Requirements:
A. In the event If a city vehicle is involved in an accident or is otherwise damaged,
the police department and administrative services departmentPublic Services Department
must be notified immediately. A written report shall be prepared by the driver or operator
of such vehicle relating to the accident For damage on forms prescribed by the Public
Services Departmentdirector of administrative services, and forwarded to the
administrative services departmentPublic Services Department. Additional copies shall
be made available to all departments requiring a copy of such report.
B. If the driver or operator of the city vehicle fails to submit the report to the Public
Services Departmentdirector of administrative services or his or her designge within a
reasonable period of time, the city department which has been assigned the vehicle may
lose the use of it, and the driver or operator maybe subject to disciplinary action.
C. In the event any person is injured in an accident involving the operation of a city
vehicle, the driver or operator of the vehicle must notify the city attorney and risk
manager must be notified.
2.54.060 Violation-Penalty:
Any violation of provisions of this chapter shall be grounds for suspension or dismissal
from employment, but shall not be considered a criminal offense.
SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of
its first publication.
3
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of
, 2006.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
MAYOR
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2006.
Published:
l:\Ordinance 06\Amending 2.54 city-owned motor vehicles 4-25-06.doc
4
Salt Lake City
Take-Home Vehicle Policy
Review
April 25, 2006
BACKGROUND
Take-home use of city-owned motor vehicles is governed by City Ordinance
2.54. The ordinance identifies four criteria that allow employees to take-home a
city vehicle on a regular basis:
1. Department Director.
2. Sworn and certified law enforcement officer.
3. Five emergency situations or callbacks are responded to per month.
4. The nature of an employee's work requires immediate response to
emergency situations, regardless of frequency, and requires the use of
specific safety or emergency equipment that cannot be reasonably carried
in the employee's personal vehicle.
Accompanying these criteria are some restrictions.
1. Under no circumstances shall a city-owned vehicle be authorized for take-
home use for an employee who resides farther than thirty five (35) miles
from the corporate limits of Salt Lake City, regardless of the department in
which the employee is employed.
2. For all but sworn officers, under no circumstances shall a city vehicle be
used for any purpose other than city business, to promote a city interest,
or for any use other than authorized by the mayor or the mayor's
designee.
3. For sworn officers and certified law enforcement officers, off-duty use of
the vehicle is unrestricted while within the Salt Lake County boundaries,
including travel to and from approved secondary employment; and
approved for use outside of the county limits while going to and from work.
Employees who are authorized to take-home city-owned vehicles are then
assessed the following fees adopted by the Mayor but not spelled out in the
ordinance:
Current Reimbursement Policy
Bi-Weekly Rate Chart
Police/Fire within city limits -
All others within city limits 6.92
Within 5 miles 25.38
Within 10 miles 27.69
Within 15 miles 30.00
Within 20 miles 32.31
Within 25 miles 34.62
Within 30 miles 34.62
Within 35 miles 34.62
PURPOSE OF STUDY
Since the adoption of the ordinance in FY 2000-01 there has been an increased
emphasis on reducing the number of vehicles to eliminate additional costs and to
lessen the use of fossil fuels. In addition gas prices are at all-time highs which
have made the costs of the take-home vehicle program increase dramatically.
Fuel prices are not predicted to decrease in the foreseeable future.
For these reasons the ordinance and policies have been reviewed by a city team
to look at more cost-effective alternatives and opportunities to the current
program while weighing in the benefits and efficiency of response time from off-
duty staff.
FACTS
1 . Current number of vehicles taken home by city staff:
• Police Department 413
• Fire Department 21
• Other City Departments 12
Note: Since the police department has the vast majority of take-home
vehicles, much of the data that follows concerns them.
2. Of these take-home vehicles, 104 belong to police employees living within the
city limits.
3. Average cost of personal use and commuting for the take-home fleet is
$.26/mile.
4. Police Department take-home vehicles accumulate 14,380 rounds trip miles
per day commuting to and from home.
5. Total take-home vehicle expense is $736,162 per year. Of that total,
$295,181 is reimbursed to the city by employees. The remaining $440,981 is
absorbed by the General Fund.
6. In 2005, Police Officers responded to 233,000 calls. This does not include
traffic stops and issues they respond to that are not given a case number.
10,000 of these were responses by off-duty staff.
7. Non-city public safety agency take-home vehicle policies:
Salt Lake County Sheriffs Office
- No cost to employee
- Must live within the County to have take-home
- Can be used for personal reasons including 2nd job
- Family members can ride in vehicle
Davis County Sheriff's Office
- No cost to the employee
- Must live within 10 miles of County limits but policy isn't enforced
- Officers can use the vehicle for 2nd job
2
Utah County Sheriff's Office
- No cost to employee
- Must live within the county to have take-home vehicle
- No personal, social or unofficial use
- No family or friends
Sandy City
- No cost to employee
- Must live within Salt Lake County or not more than 20 miles south
- Take-home vehicle can only be used for commuting except if living
in Sandy City limits
Murray City
- No cost to employee
- Must live within Salt Lake County
- No personal use
Provo City
- No cost to employee
- Off-duty use allowed within Utah County for on-call employees
Layton City
- No cost to employee
- Must live within 15 miles of Layton City limits
- Family members may ride in the vehicles in city limits
Ogden City
- No cost to employee if they live within the city or no further than 13
miles from the Public Safety building
- Standard IRS rate is applied if outside limits
- Off-duty use allowed within Ogden City limits
- Part-time use allowed if benefits to Ogden City are validated
- Vehicles cannot exceed 18,000 miles per year
- No family or friends allowed to ride in vehicle
West Valley City
- No cost to employees living within West Valley City limits
- Outside city limits employees are charged $1.00/mile one way
-- No personal use outside West Valley City limits.
- No family or friends allowed to ride in vehicle
Issues
1. The current City ordinance dictates that personal commuting mileage for
reimbursement purposes is calculated by measuring from the city boundary.
This is difficult to calculate and enforce because there is no standard point to
calculate from nor can technology be used to automate the process.
2. Vehicle manufacturing costs continue to skyrocket and vehicle replacement
funds allocated for replacement are not increasing at the same rate.
3
3. Fuel costs have increased 83% over the last three years and they are
expected to continue to rise.
4. The average take-home vehicle accumulates 35 miles/day in take-home
mileage, or 6,475 miles per year. There are many take-home vehicles that
exceed 60 miles/day in off-duty miles.
5. The rising cost of vehicles, fuel, oil and maintenance items have caused our
vehicle cost-per-mile (CPM) to rise from $.18/mile to the current $.26/mile.
6. 46 police vehicles exceeded 20,000 miles in one year. 17 police vehicles
exceeded 25,000 miles in a year. Many of these high-mileage vehicles
belong to employees who live within city limits and took advantage of the
"unrestricted off-duty use." This will result in vehicles needing replacement
sooner than the budgeted 5 year replacement cycle.
7. The city absorbs the $440,981 non-reimbursed cost of take-home vehicles.
8. Vehicle life is extended by having a car per officer program because the
vehicle is not being used 24/7 as would be the case if officers used a "shared
pool" concept of vehicle assignment. Most agencies that do not have a take-
home program utilize the "shared pool" concept.
9. Vehicle condition is shown to be better when employees feel ownership by
being assigned to them.
10.Parking space can remain at minimum levels with a take-home car per officer
program since officers drive their vehicles home. Otherwise, sufficient
parking would have to be constructed to accommodate the influx of personal
vehicles as well as police pool vehicles.
Recommendations
Status Quo
After analyzing the costs, considering the policies of other municipal agencies,
and evaluating possible options, the committee does not recommend that the city
accept a status quo option with take-home vehicles. Status quo would result in
the city continuing to subsidize take-home vehicles out of the General Fund in
the amount of $440,981 and increasing each year. Employees would continue to
use vehicles in the current manner which would require earlier replacement and
increased costs in future years as the vehicles wear out. The committee does
not believe that the benefit of take-home vehicles by off-duty employees is cost-
effective for the City to subsidize fully.
Elimination of All Take-Home Vehicles
The committee does recognize that some benefit is gained by public safety
employees taking a vehicle home within certain limitations. The main reason for
this is response time to emergency situations for first responders. This benefit
diminishes the further away from the city an employee lives. Additionally if the
ordinance eliminated all take-home vehicles there would be operational and cost
concerns. The City would need to provide parking for the City vehicles which
4
would require a parking lot to be constructed at an estimated cost of $960,000.
The only location currently available to the City that would accommodate the
number of cars in the take-home program would be adjacent to the parks facility.
The rough engineering estimate is that the parking lot would need to
accommodate 800 cars which would require 5 acres. Parking lot costs are
estimated at $1,200 per stall. This does not include security or other operational
changes if the City were to implement a "shared pool" concept with vehicles.
Further extensive research would be needed to evaluate if this would be
beneficial operationally or financially. The benefits of reducing fossil fuel use
would be negated or worse under this condition since employees would need to
drive their personal vehicles to work and home and in many cases this parking
facility would require a longer commute. Eliminating personal use would
potentially be more beneficial to the environment than eliminating take home
vehicles.
It must be recognized that data does indicate there is a trend among large
metropolitan agencies across the country to eliminate take-home vehicle
programs and operate fleet needs through the use of "shared pool" programs.
Employees are on their own to commute and are assigned a pool vehicle upon
reporting to work. Police department representatives from San Diego, Las Vegas
and Reno gave the following reasons for eliminating their take-home programs:
• Ability to reduce the number of fleet vehicles as much as 50%. To do this
those agencies operationally changed to 12 hour shifts. This would be a
major change to Salt Lake City's operation and more extensive research
and analysis would be needed to evaluate this before it were
implemented.
• Increased vehicle control since they would be located at a City facility
during off-duty time.
• Decreased vehicle expense due to the elimination of personal use.
While this program has the benefits indicated above, the cities also pointed out
there are some drawbacks and costs associated with this type of program as
follows:
• Vehicles do not last as long and are usually kept in a much worse
condition due to employees not assuming ownership of them. With good
policies and monitoring in place this usually becomes a short term
situation that improves over time.
• Vehicles under the "shared pool" concept would have to be replaced at 3-
year rather than 5-year intervals.
• Adequate parking is needed to accommodate the vehicles as well as
employees vehicles. This would have to be a secure facility to prevent
vandalism and theft.
• Lockers would need to be constructed at facilities to accommodate
overnight storage of weapons and specialized equipment.
5
• The responses made by off-duty employees would need to be absorbed
by on-duty employees.
• Employees called back from off-duty would not be able to respond as
quickly.
• If a "shared pool" concept were implemented the total number of vehicles
that could respond in an emergency situation would be reduced.
• Decrease in employee morale.
Standard Point of Reference
The committee believes that adopting a standard point of reference that will not
change over time will allow a take-home vehicle program to be more easily
administered and implemented. The recommendation is to use the City &
County Building as that standard measuring point. The City can then use
automated programs that will calculate the residence of employees and provide
the mileage from that standard point to their home. This will allow the City to
calculate and charge employees the appropriate fee for take-home use and can
easily be verified and audited when necessary.
Personal Use Restrictions
The committee recommends that there should be further restrictions in personal
use of city vehicles. Currently the ordinance allows unrestricted personal use of
its vehicles in Salt Lake County for sworn officers and certified law enforcement
officers. This includes travel to approved secondary employment. The current
ordinance also prohibits employees from taking a vehicle home if they live 35
miles from the corporate limits.
The committee recommends that all personal use of city vehicles be prohibited.
This would include prohibiting travel to and from secondary employment unless
the secondary employer reimburses the City directly for the full cost of the vehicle
while traveling to, from, and during secondary employment.
The committee also recommends that the City prohibit any employee from taking
a City vehicle home if they live further than 25 miles from the standard point of
reference; the City & County Building. Since we are changing both the mileage
restriction and the point of reference for calculating commuter miles, it is
recommended that all employees currently authorized to take home vehicles be
grandfathered from their current residence if they exceed the 25 mile limit. No
additional employees, current or new, would be allowed to take home a vehicle if
they lived outside of this restriction. The 25 mile limit was derived from
calculating response time to the city. Anything further than 25 miles would result
in a response time that would not be a benefit to the city for first response
capabilities. Data is not kept on personal mileage so the savings of these two
recommendations can only be estimated to be approximately $150,000 a year.
Reimbursement for Commuting Costs
Employees currently reimburse the city for commuting anywhere from $0 to
$34.63 per pay period based on their mileage from their home to the corporate
6
limits. This same fee structure is not stated in the City Ordinance but required to
be adopted by the Mayor or designee and to favor employees living within the
city.
The City could adopt the policy that all commuting costs be recovered from
employees taking vehicles home. To implement this policy the City would be
saying that there is no benefit to the taxpayer for quick and convenient response
from off-duty employees therefore all commuting costs would be reimbursed.
There would be a different reimbursement schedule for a 4-day work week and a
5-day but for purposes of illustration, the 4-day work week policy change would
be as follows:
Full Cost Recovery
Bi-Weekly Rate Chart
Police/Fire within city limits 14.80
All others within city limits 14.80
Within 5 miles 18.50
Within 10 miles 37.00
Within 15 miles 55.50
Within 20 miles 74.00
Within 25 miles 92.50
Within 30 miles 111.00
Within 35 miles 129.50
This reimbursement policy would collect the full $740,000 cost of commuting in
city vehicles and would double to quadruple the bi-weekly costs to the
employees.
Public Safety Staff involved in this discussion reviewed their policies and have
proposed a reimbursement schedule that charges those in the city limits $25 and
then adds 15% to the other existing rates.
Public Safety Proposal
Bi-Weekly Rate Chart
Police/Fire within city limits 25.00
All others within city limits 25.00
Within 5 miles 29.19
Within 10 miles 31.84
Within 15 miles 34.50
Within 20 miles 37.16
Within 25 miles 39.81
Within 30 miles 39.81
Within 35 miles 39.81
7
This proposal would collect approximately $378,000 of the $740,000 cost of
commuting in city vehicles. This is approximately 50% of the cost of commuting
and is an increase of $83,000 over the current reimbursement schedule. This
proposal does not make changes to the personal use of vehicles or in the miles
out of the city one can commute with a city vehicle. The ordinance requires a fee
schedule "favoring those employees who live within the city." This proposal does
charge less for those who live in the city but one could argue that with only a $15
difference per pay period between those who live in the city and one who lives 35
miles out is not very favorable.
The committee recommends that the city recognize there are benefits to quick
and convenient response from off-duty employees who live within 25 miles of the
City & County Building and that with the restrictions recommended above, the
City should share 50% in the cost of the take-home program. Additionally the
committee felt that those living within the city should reimburse a minimal but still
favorable amount for the use of the vehicle to commute to and from their
residence. The reimbursement schedule for a 4-day work week with a 50%
participation would be as follows:
50% Cost Recovery
Bi-Weekly Rate Chart
Police/Fire within city limits 9.25
All others within city limits 9.25
Within 5 miles 9.25
Within 10 miles 18.50
Within 15 miles 27.75
Within 20 miles 37.00
Within 25 miles 46.25
Within 30 miles 55.50
Within 35 miles 64.75
This reimbursement policy would collect approximately $375,000 of the $740,000
cost of commuting in city vehicles but would only increase the bi-weekly costs to
the employees anywhere from $9 if you live in the city to double the current
reimbursement for those that live at the maximum distance. If eliminating
personal use results in a savings of $150,000, the General Fund subsidy for
take-home vehicles would be $225,000.
Summary
The take-home vehicle committee recommendations are as follows:
1. Establish the City & County Building as the standard point of reference to
calculate the commuter distance to employees' homes.
2. Non-commuting personal use of city vehicles prohibited.
8
3. Secondary employment commuting and use prohibited unless business
reimburses City directly for vehicle costs.
4. No take-home vehicle allowed if employee lives farther than 25 miles from
the City & County Building. (Existing employees not complying would be
grandfathered for their current residence for a period of 5 years.)
5. Employees reimburse the city for commuting mileage at 50% of the
vehicle operational costs. Adjust these costs annually.
6. Employees with an automobile allowance can be reimbursed for mileage
on business trips in excess of 100 miles each way.
9
Q SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
DATE: May 18, 2006
SUBJECT: GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND
STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno, Budget & Policy Analyst
CC: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom,
Greg Davis, Steve Fawcett, DJ Baxter
GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND
PROPOSED BUDGET
Revenue & other sources
Green fees $ 4 798,629 J $ 113 607 2.4%
Cart rental 1,885,224 F '°', 97,624 -5.2%
Retail sales 701,043 - 30 057 4.3%
-
Marketing-Related Revenue . 50,000 -
Tar:et
Drivin_ ran:e fees 329,965n 'S: 13,965 -4.2%
Concessions 153 248 8,198 -5.3%
Other Golf Fees 66,324 ` 4,926 7.4%
Advertisin: fees 58,840 18,840 -32.0%
Interest income 33,219 ',42zAkei 1,781 5.4%
Miscellaneous Leases/Rental 26,763 2,400 9.0%
Revenue
Season .asses 19,904 ye § � 1 164,896 828.5%
Other 7 260 7 160 -98.6%
IMF
A..ro.riation of reserves 11,618 196,114 1688.0%
Total revenue& other sources $ 8,092,037 fit` $ 417,994 5.2%
Ex.enses & other uses "�-
O.eratin: &Maintenance
Personal Services $ 3,653 018 • $ 156,484 4.3%
Materials and Sus'lies 1,131,327 136,523 12.1%
, ,2207982 ,_ .,
Other(Charges/Services/Fees, � � 53,1532.4%
Admin Service Fee, PILOT,
Intradepartmental Chgs, Water,
Fuel Utilities
Casital outla 120,800 ` 97,700 80.9%
Debt Related
Debt/Interest Char:es 978,911 . � ® 25,867 -2.6%
`fir.. Total ex i enses & other uses $ 8,092,038 a „ $ 417,993 5.2%
The City has provided golf facilities for over 80 years. The City owns and operates
eight .golf facilities. The main policies that guide the division are to offer an
accessible, reasonably priced, recreational opportunity to all sections of the golfing
public and to preserve open spaces in an urban setting. Golf participants pay fees
that underwrite the cost of providing these services. The Council traditionally sets
golf fees at a level necessary to ensure the long-term financial stability of the Golf
Fund while maintaining the golf program's competitiveness within the market.
The budget for fiscal year 2006-07 is proposed to increase by $417,993 or 5.2% over
fiscal year 2006-07, for a total expense budget of $8,510,031. Of this, $953,044 is
dedicated to debt and interest charges.
KEY ELEMENTS
A. Shift in Personal Services from Full-time positions to Part-time positions -The
Administration is proposing a shift in the hourly/seasonal staffing balance in an
effort to reduce costs and align staffing more closely with operations. The
proposal includes 1 permanent elimination of an office tech, and the shift of 14
full-time positions to seasonal positions. (4 Pro Shop Starters shift to seasonal, 1
Pro Shop Starter moved to Assistant Pro position, 10 Groundskeepers shift to
seasonal). Currently these positions are 100 Series employees and receive full
benefits and health insurance.
o In April of 2005 the Council was presented with a plan to make these
employees a separate "class" of full-time, salaried employee, to eliminate
the "comp time" issue (see below for review of this issue). The Council
briefly discussed the issue and asked the Administration to provide further
information, specifically how other City's pay and manage budgets for their
programs. During this time, the Administration decided to step back on
the issue,and re-evaluate the situation once the new Golf Manager was
hired. After re-evaluation, the Administration believes that this current
proposal would increase operational efficiency.
o According to the Mayor's proposed budget this would save approximately
$364,624 annually in salaries/wages and benefits. The initial year of
savings would likely be lower, as the major shift would occur mid-fiscal
year, and one-time payouts for comp time would be necessary. See
Attachments B 8s C for a breakdown of all staffing changes and their net
costs and savings. The total savings for all of the staffing changes
proposed (including the addition of positions, and paying the shifted
employees at a higher rate than normal seasonal employees), is $130,712
in FY 2007 and $347,021 in FY 2008.
o These employees have voiced concern about health care benefits and the
likelihood that the quality of maintenance at the golf courses would
decline. They have communicated to staff that it would be hard to keep
the knowledge and skill level constant from year to year if the employees
were only seasonal.
o There are currently 3 facilities with more than one non-superintendent
full-time groundskeeper - Bonneville, Mountain Dell, and Rose Park (all
with 2). Mountain Dell and Rose Park both have in essence two facilities
in one (Rose Park with the Jordan River Par 3).
2
B. Other Elimination of Positions -The Administration is proposing eliminating 1.64
part-time "Marshalls." Marshalls primarily patrol the pace of play to ensure a
positive playing experience for every player on the course. The current staffing
level does not adequately serve this purpose for all 9 city courses. The
Administration is proposing shifting this responsibility to volunteers. The
Council may wish to clarify that the Administration has had sufficient interest in
volunteering to ensure that these positions would be filled.
C. Additional Positions-The Administration is proposing adding the following
positions:
o Golf Professional - 1.0 FTE-This golf professional would be at Forest Dale
and Nibley Park. This would allow each 18 hole facility to have one PGA
professional per facility. The Administration has communicated to Council
Staff that Golf Professionals are beneficial to the City golf system and
necessary in order to fulfill what is needed in marketing and player
development roles.
o Assistant Golf Professional - 1.0 FTE-This assistant golf professional
would be supplementing operations at Mountain Dell. Mountain Dell
currently has 1 Golf Professional and 1 Assistant Golf Professional, but
because of the volume of play at the two 18-hole facilities, an additional
assistant golf professional is needed. This employee would also serve to
help the Westside golf courses that are still open in the winter months,
when Mountain Dell is typically closed. This employee would likely be
hired from the group of Golf Starters that are shifting from full-time to
seasonal.
o Driving Range coverage - 0.56 FTE-This would provide additional
"rangers" at Nibley and Mountain Dell to assist in maintenance and
operations of the driving ranges.
D. Reclassification of positions -The Administration is proposing reclassifying 8.0
FTE Assistant Superintendents from series 119 employees to series 307
employees, and 3.0 FTE Golf Course Maintenance Workers from 118 employees
to series 306 employees. This would have no immediate budget impact, however
each yearly step increase would likely be higher than their current yearly
increases, as they would follow the rest of the City in terms of salary increases.
E. Revenue -Attachment D shows a yearly breakdown of revenues and
expenditures, as well as a forecast of potential revenues and expenditures,
should the proposed budget be approved. Revenues are budgeted to increase
5.1% ($403,000) this coming fiscal year, and increase by 3.5% in the following
fiscal year.
F. Green Fees -The Administration is proposing to increase three of the green fees
for the 9-hole courses. These changes would be effective January 1, 2007.
Forest Dale's green fee will increase from $11 to $12 for 9 holes, to bring it in line
with fees at Glendale and Rose Park. The fees for 9 holes at Bonneville and
Mountain Dell will increase from $13.50 to $15.00, to bring it in line to Old Mill
Golf Course (owned by Salt Lake County). The Administration has
communicated that this is the primary competition for these two courses. The
Council may wish to clarify how increasing the fees at these two courses will
affect their competitive position. The following tables detail the proposed green
fees (changes are in boldface).
3
Greens Fees-Weekdays excluding Holidays
Course Regular Senior Junior
9-holes 18-holes 9-holes 18-holes 9-holes 18-holes
Bonneville $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 12.00 $ 21.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00
Forest Dale $ 12.00 n.a. $ 10.00 n.a. $ 7.00 n.a.
Jordan River Par-3 $ 6.00 n.a. $ 5.00 n.a. $ 5.00 n.a.
Glendale $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 10.00 $ 20.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00
Mountain Dell Lake $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 12.00 $ 21.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00
Mountain Dell Canyon $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 12.00 $ 21.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00
Nibley Park $ 10.00 n.a. $ 8.00 n.a. $ 7.00 n.a.
Rose Park $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 10.00 $ 20.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00
Wingpointe $ 13.50 $ 27.00 $ 10.50 $ 21.00 $ 7.00 $ 14.00
Greens Fees-Weekends and defined Holidays
Course Regular Senior Junior
9-holes 18-holes 9-holes 18-holes 9-holes 18-holes
Bonneville $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00
Forest Dale $ 12.00 n.a. $ 12.00 n.a. $ 12.00 n.a.
Jordan River Par-3 $ 6.00 n.a. $ 6.00 n.a. $ 6.00 n.a.
Glendale $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 12.00 $ 24.00 . ,R
Mountain Dell Lake $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00
Mountain Dell Canyon $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.00
Nibley Park $ 10.00 n.a. $ 10.00 n.a. $ 10.00 n.a.
Rose Park $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 12.00 $ 24.00 $ 12.00 $ 24.00
Wingpointe $ 13.50 $ 27.00 $ 13.50 $ 27.00 $ 13.50 $ 27.00
Note: Defined holidays include Memorial Day, Independence Day, Pioneer Day, and
Labor Day.
G. Season Pass Program - Previously, the Administration had been phasing out
season passes. There were concerns regarding abuse of the peak times and
number of golf rounds played. The proposed season pass program is priced and
restricted to help address these concerns, while at the same time encouraging
the people who regularly play golf at Salt Lake City courses, to continue to do so.
Attached is a table detailing the different season pass plans and their various
restrictions (See Attachment A).
o Revenues were calculated using a conservative estimate of the utilization
of these plans, given that most will not be "useful" to the average golfer
this calendar year. The Administration estimates that usage will
dramatically increase once a golfer can purchase the plan before the start
of the golf season.
o The Council may wish to consider giving the Administration direction with
regard to the proposed Season Pass program, particularly the Junior
Season Pass program (as many junior season passes are summer specific).
If the Council is supportive of the program, and intends to eventually
4
adopt at least part of the ordinance, the Division can start preparing
advertising and marketing materials to implement the program
immediately if the ordinance is adopted. This would increase the benefit
for golfers, particularly for junior golfers, who would like to utilize the
program this summer.
H. Resident discounts - Council staff has inquired with the Administration as to the
justification for or arguments against discount pricing for City residents. The
Administration has communicated that very few jurisdictions offer this type of
service, usually because they are already subsidizing golf courses so heavily that
they need every effort to recoup costs. Park City offers this discount pricing.
However, their costs are most likely recouped with the large tourist base, and
higher prices for non-resident play. St. George has recently ended their
residential discount program, specifically because it was not financially beneficial
to the courses.
I. Capital Outlay-The Administration is proposing to increase the capital outlay
budget by $97,700, or 81%, to recover from the FY 2006 budget, where capital
outlay was reduced by 71%. Additional monies will be available in fiscal year
2008/2009, as debt service payments for the Golf bonds will expire.
J. Water-The budget for water has decreased by $32,033, or -3% in the proposed
budget. The Council may wish to inquire if this is due to irrigation/conservation
effectiveness, or other factors.
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE
1. Golf Employee Compensation Plan - On April 7, 2005, the Council was presented
with a substitute compensation plan for Golf Employees, that would build in
more "salaried" employees, thereby increasing budgeting predictability by
reducing overtime. This proposal was put on hold through last year's budget
process, and further on hold until after the new Golf Division Manager was hired
and could weigh in with their opinions and recommendations. The Council may
wish to revisit this issue, as it presents continual issues during the budgeting
process (with respect to comp time accrual and payout over the season). If any
Council Members would like additional information about this previous proposal,
please contact Council Staff.
2. Rounds - Locally, the increase in golf courses has been greater than the increase
in population to play the courses. Salt Lake City's golf rounds for calendar year
2005 of 459,708 represents a decrease of 3.7% over 2004 (an improvement over
the 9% decrease seen between 2003 and 2004). The number of courses in the
greater Salt Lake region continues to present an issue in terms of rounds played.
Over the past few years supply has exceeded demand. It is likely that this trend
will continue.
3. Marketing Plan -The Golf Division has drafted a new strategic plan with over 200
initiatives relating to marketing, promotion, customer service, and player
development. The Administration is currently finalizing this plan (requested
through the Council's legislative intent - see below) and will share it with the
Council once it is complete. It has been shared in draft form with the Golf
Advisory Board, which will submit their written comments to the Council in time
for the budget briefing. The Administration's legislative intent response had
indicated that this information would be shared as a part of the budget. While
5
the season pass program is part of the proposed budget, the context of the
marketing and business plan has not yet been finalized and transmitted to the
Council.
4. Capital Improvements - Investment in capital improvements has been steadily
declining as the Golf Division has been faced with mounting costs.
5. Audit- The Audit subcommittee has in the past discussed the potential of
initiating a Golf audit, and has reviewed a preliminary scope of inquiry. The
Council may wish to discuss this further, and decide whether or not to
recommend an audit be performed.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
A. In the Fiscal Year 2005-06 budget process, the Council adopted the following
legislative intent statement with regard to the Golf Course Fund:
• "It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration explore the
option of providing junior golf passes during off-peak hours for City golf
courses." (Intent #Al, response discussed as part of Mayor's proposed
budget)
• Administration's Response: The Golf Division is currently finishing a
business plan which includes various initiatives (including a pass
program) designed to increase participation by junior golfers. This pass
program will be presented as part of the FY 2006-07 Mayor's
Recommended budget.
B. During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Golf Division of the Public Services
Department.
SIX YEAR BUSINESS PLAN
The following has been identified as specific and likely future changes to budget
and/or staffing of the Golf Division, as outlined in the Six Year Business Plan
(Note: The Department's Six Year Business Plan was written in fiscal year 2004):
o Fees are scheduled to increase by 5% in FY 2007-08, in order to keep pace
with projected growth in expenses, relatively flat demand, and over-
supplied market.
o Personal services expenses are projected to increase an average of 4% per
year over the next six years.
o Water expenses are expected to increase as City water rates increase (9%
in FY 2005).
o Other expenses are anticipated to increase 2.5% annually.
o Retirement of debt service obligation in FY 2008 will free up $694,000 per
year for other large capital improvement projects.
6
} } N M V� cs
O
.5 *E ttl ' tt v tt
ct
v In .� In .�
.V. to
O en N m0 m
›, ›, J 0 0 0 00 tom. 00
CZ tC 'd 0 ') 0 `� O G O
'0 � z .az .0z �. 44. k
x x 0 0 e CZZ M as
'0 0 .3 O .° O Q Ts 73 O Q 73
0 0 -. o •i o •�. O , i. 0 , 0
Z Z w H w w ro cn w '" o 0
en CA
O 0 'DJ u asa 4o.
0 0 . 0 g 0 g 0 . rt 0 e~
.g $ 3 3 `Cn cn cn .c cn ,�
es as ds es en
0 . i. tC `' m D, m D, m ›, t g h D p,, g
fa
a) u' w b -0 en-g 6n� � a, c aaq$ cu v;
,A vi N N 0 }" 0 o k k 0 k , k
d cn F F" � � cn ,� � cn ,� � cn aH
ro o o g G o o R o o 0 0 0 ro o O o
C) C v) v)
o v 0 v 0 o
0 a,
a 0 a) O a
9 o g n O v 0
z � � '0v z z
,. a, Z
� 03
z � z > v) > v)
P4 .a a 0
d °-"' d v d 'd '0 v
0 � � 0 0 � 0 0 '° 0 0A
a) � z � z
Cl cs '0 Cl '' '0 Clai al' a
os Q v as Q v a e
ct a; v
aJ -. .0 °) a) v 0 a;
L) 0 4-1 v o ( 0 0 C7 0 U 0 C7 U
v v 4i. 41 x O .1 a-, � CU ,y
o ° 4 ° ° ° °U w � D0 . [Li m p. wa, w s wa w s-
o Tu.'
E v �
a. 50
C) ° 0 d, IN IN th
iCr, LIN
1 ` 0 0 CI.
N v aJ v U
N u) O O .�. O p LA C,
PS 0 o) LA ti O IN Q O 0
O. v O G y et G o
C ua AY ar v o R Q d
0 to
a N 0
v' m m
w+ ". ,.k CD ^. Fr ro
o ro el
0 N z `n a a) u) a, w w
cs)
4)E I' zrd,� CA � �-• PO Pal W W
O q q r
O oh1 o -S
Ir kQ F W A
Qa C os
-S
Co O
O U) U O
eo N
r c c ,.O
C O O
C 2a, C
9 a) ` O U O ., O
C 7 >O U C C O N
E O a) > O C a) _ ,
O hi co a) co i i
4 LLL Q) 0 O C 'C O "O' w
7:3E E
d w C O O O 0 0
C 0) 2 C) O c 0 2
C (Q C 0 (13 "O •D
a.
t ID O (a U (o _ O O
Oa) v c m
V o c U L -a o a
N U °QOO �, 2 UU CcLL E EC QU .
CO C .
_ -
4- E .- O O
O
v v 13 a) O NNO
aO
, a) O ,) W 0-
0 O (n (n c c u) u) c v) cn
Q Q• u) 0 0 v) v) 0 a) O
U U •N .N T. U (n
Z zo: CCdtl W W �,
c c
F-
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) N C) "* c
o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 CO � CO O O CO
p , CO c- N 'ct •-- CO CO .-- CO O O ,— N 0 0 0 0 M O 01, M OO to
N N CO O M LO
(D
9 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cr ~ N- O) N O N
C C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 00 O M O 01 O OA
p •-- to r- N V = ti O O , (n , N O M - O N ON O , O
N
U)
90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- r. O) O O O
O O O O O O) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 M CO C! O C
p i- (n t-- N •q O O , O N LL7 , N 00 V `� 0 0 0 0. O mI N
N N N ti to N
N
O_ CA
73 r_' CO 0 V M N N- I,- N- CO O) _M COCA 00 't
CU CD CD CD c- CD CD CD CD ,- N - •-
CO M M CO CO M M M M M N N T- t1) x- e-
0 CDCO S
C
(6
_U
C
L
(L)) a) U )
O) h. O N C I C C)
C O O O
L O ° (0 L c
0 ` Et
U O 7,,, MM a) c 00 p N O __
C C �_ C ?O L
C L. C ~ C a) O > O V)
} O LN -0 C a .(U Q D- U 0 CD U
W (n _ N a) C C O Cn 0) _ -CU ) C O > C
Oall44 0 O (6 (� O C U U O as (,) U
�. N a C C •C a) s- 0 C C j O
C U f6
ww d u (U 2 Q Q O O — m L L U C o Q O
�° Q)v) v) aU � _ Ui UU2O U �Y C
L O
6 ' 22O
t� o (0 0 Y T- C (9C9 .-3 2 0 c C 9 2 r c E N E E
w _m c 4-(o E a) D o c c ill ca cco LL o I— 2 E E o o .- o o '� ~
+' a) 2a2UU , �, OU a) U) QQ�, UU R
.- 2 2 -0
go 4- 4- 4- 4.- 4- O • U_ 4_ U_ 4- • v- 4- O C7 W v- W d
O O O O O CUj c U O O CT O (U) O O H H j H O
U' U' U' U' U` Q Q Q 0 O U W W < O O W M M M O
0
0
0
N
co
,-
f
(7
0
c_
c
O
O
E
>. t0
(3) 0
n
Z s
}, a) U
min H.
4 z .'-'
c
N M
i ri a
V) a)
ci) 'mw + O
c (p C
0 O (0
r,, O Cr) N M
co f0 N (0 L
L O .
o O
O C ,-,
-o O N >= i
Q Q .\-1 > Q LL I-
NOLnOt0O 't Ln0000d-
OONOLnOtO NOO0000
• d rl +--1 .--1 O r-1 ,4 O 00 00 ffi M M
N Ln t0 dt O Ln d'
Ql t\ Ln l0 O N 00
i"' (Ni M 0 .1 0 0 Ln
0. d- .-I Ln
0 0 o o O O 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O
i- N .v,- .-1 O 00 00 �M O0
to .-i M
a)
(0
L
a)
0
-p U
Ur !? cli a)O cn Cn^^0 O
O O (0
Z O a) ooMNN (h (n >'
_ N a c O c O O 0 00 00 N
U — O — ,' o u ,� .� � � c
-� c ac aa) o ( a) - '- L
C� t" LaL .o° � ca Lnw � � y_i_
Z c vn aJ ° L c c L L 0
O ' U
c Z Z W a) a) O O , - a a a''
E U O 2 O , t a) U C i i z - o -
= O 1 a) o
1- Vo aa , zE a
V ovn �~ Q } ua ai ui ui U U
10 (9Ja www - ct < C7C7w
L (u
Z O W •W H (13 O o, o ct3 V) cn V) v) E
N 0 ca) WC7carcc <n � cn , E
LL O LL Ly= - V) .3 L O O D U U U U
QUJ UOU < ODZC9C c o ci
NN 't V'
OM N N
0 CO NO LD
N ,--I CO ,-1 t1' O
(a NM CO to O
a) ,-I N fM N
(n � ,-.
C
N N N O O [t 1t Q) ,-I
MOMM ,--1ONM N
CO O CO N O M Ln ,--I I- N I I I 0
O} ,-iN Nice M OCDM ,- N
LL m MNM ,-i NNCO
d' CO N O O t N O) N
Ol [tLnM ,-10 ,-( In '--i
• O M O M Ln ,-1 CD N I I I N
O N ,710ONMNO 1- O
N OM ,--I N N .-a M
m) N ,--i N
a..' Ln lf) Ln Lf)
D M CO 1 1 I I Q ' 1 1 1 N
O M l0 d'
M ,-1 N Q)
a
N
o
} LONNOO71- 00O1 Q�
LL �t O If) M ,-I O l0 Lf) LD
z I. NOMLn ,-ICON I I I O)
O _ Ln ,-1 CO N M r N r
f- Q N N M ,--I N N CO N
... ...
U .�
Q
a
2
W ,--i 0 '.D O) N
0E 1 M N N N
O N N 'D Cr ,--i
i-I N r1 NCO in
i_ ... ,--I N
a
t0 M N O I- ,--I
E .:I- OMO Ln 0� N
I- Lt .--i CO M .-i QD
N Cr) M N N N
Li_
a)
2
L
a)
O
73 0
/1/\
WW
. C a) O tD L
Q O N 0).-- O O (0
Z C• 6 (U N N
M M a
VO OMO004-'_ > a = CO X
U — o _ - 0u +. 4'
mam i n 00)-I0
,-1 ,-i
Q O O C >O a) O
V Z LL O C a) �p a) 0 2 ' • L L O
W O Z ' O O i C C L L -0
CEZZ (i) — 0 . � •- a) a) „ �
O W U (0 i i a Q C C ..0
D• IL (1) C a) a) U) U) (v (o 10
t p F— iEZw
—
Q -~ i O Cn m a) a) ('"'n i -O
v I.1 LL -F a) a C a a) a) Q Q U U C
M Or J a LL - LL w (L° ,W m a)
LL L U 4_ a-' 4._ m 7 7 (6 (0 (0 f0 O
LL O LL L w - 0 .- — L O O u u u u u
Q U J C 4- O (n L 0 () L L a) a) a) a) a)
111.10 1W (' UOU < OC7ZUWC cc
CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • o 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•0 000000000000 0 (DO O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
wN 000000000000 ' O `rO C0000 O 0000 0 000 O 0
0 h CO O) M N '- 0 0 0 U) O O O N- O) CO M N- M O O O O CO O I- M CO N
N ' N N NJ- CD0 COIl) 0N V 0 0) CO 0) CO CO N U) 0 0 U) r` O) '— No) co
CT Co N- - N ,- N ,- N Co N CO_N CO N N CO CO CO N CO '- N 0 0
d W U) r O NI ,- N 00 ,- O d <- CV o
I.LN
E9 69 (9 E9
Q • N
000000000 00 0 ,E! 0 ' 0000 0 0000 0 000 O 0
W SS d 000000000 00 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 000 CD
000000000 ' O O ' 0 40 ,C0000 O 0000 O 000 O 0
0 O a- (00) N O O (P 0 0 0 do co- N N N N- 6O O O O 6 M - (O N O)
r N O V O U) N IC) N U) •a' 0 N N_ N O O O N 0000 N N 'V N 0 0)
} 0 O) CO N - N ,- N N CO N CO CS) N CO (0 CO CO ,- CO CO CO C)
O` LL II (A 'd' •- N 1� r O) oo
0.
(R 69 69
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 . 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 000000000 00 0 D 0 00000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 ' 0 40 ,C0000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0
y0 G 0 0 IC) N C) N O O O O 0 d' Co U) 0o C9) IC) 0) O O O O O) U) d 6 .4
} N O) Co ID v N U) 1- IC) �t O co CO Co Co CO V 00 U) 0 tt CO Co V* N C")O O CO M N - N - N N 0 D CO - N - CO CoO) . I N U) ,- N 0 N N O)
LL U) - O co- e- N I- ,.- 66 e-
a
69 69 to 6o
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 — 00000 0 0000 0 000 0 0
•a 000000000 00 06 ° 0 00000 O 0000 0 000 0 o
m
000000000 oo o •
(0 40 c0000 0 0000 0 000 o o
.... o 6d6666666. O O CJ) , _ O)(0 CA 10 00 0 O U7 O) IC) C6 _
N O) N V 'd' It) N N NI- 0 O N N CO U) 0 U) 0 O) 00 I. N N
•O} a) 1- CO N N. N — •- N n CO CO 0 N •�t CO N ("0N CO 0I,- N U) O) CO
LL CO- M <-N ,- 0505 a
69 69 69 69
00000000 00 0 . 000000 0 0IC) NN N 0NN 0 0
•a 00000 000 00 0 ° 000000 0 06) V V 0 `V• V' 0 0
N
00000000 I ' 00 ' 0 4000000 0 0I- N0 O OOO O O
N N CO N V' OO OO O) '-I 1�C7 (D O IS O) 0MO) M .4 CA (•`)� - O
V O N CO N CO NI" U) N V O co Ct O) s- (O N In C)) 0 00 CO O) 0 O
O .
• O) I- (0 -I- . N — N U) 0 CO N O N N CO N (O U) U) CD NJ- CO2 W V CO- NJ-- 1- N I� , CO CO v
a
ER E9 69 (R
00000 (00 (D 000C) o N_ N_ (DON N_ 0U) 0) V N C) .- N O O
a) OOOOU) '- OM OOOO) O N U) CO 000. 0O) V t CO 0MM 0 0
G +r CO 0 O .- 0 - 0 CO I ' ,- N O N , d' N N co <- 0 V'. CO U) I� N U) h N 0 I� 0 0
a a) N N M CO U) _O O V CO COO N N 0-N.-N.-N.-6 CO CO Co C) N N 0 I- 1. 6o C)9 I-- CO COV 0 CO Co COU) 0 CO CO CO U) 0 CO (D — O) LC) I- 0 O 0 (0 CO
•p 00 1- CO 1� ,- N ,- .- Co O '- N O) N CO O) N CO N '- N CO U) N U) CO
a = LL Ni.,--- v' � r 00 C') CO CO
•rr m
a
a)
0 69 69 69 69
0 0 0 0 CO N 0 ' CO CO (0 NJ- 0 0 N V N co M O co M O O
•o OOOO 'V Co co0 co co CO 1- (O U) 'ct V V CO cc) .- CO 0 0
a)
0 0 0 0 N ,- ' 0 ' W 'ct M CD 1� CD U) N V CO <t CO 0 0
O O IC) (O M U) O) O r U) N U) CO O) V• 0) CM O (A C) CT Co V O O U) co U) ti O) 0 (O II) CD Co 0) U) 0 (D 0 CO (0 (�
Ti-
m �- I-- N CO N ,- N CO I-- '— CO N O) 6) (O N O CO O) N I`
W'''''tL v I� c'S (D r I�
a
to- (R 69 to
co .4- N- CO 0) N o 0 to co (0 V CO CO CD 0 N N V N_ No
N N O M O N N N• 0 CO ' 0) N V O V _(o NM ,- I-- 0
C)) CO (O M CO CO ' ' ' ' ' ' ' N N N ' co <- .- U) (1) 0 (I) N N IC) Nt 0
(a p Co O) 0 IC) N N C) N I�O N (O CO CO CO N (O M N CO
_ 'V N 0 V O) CO CO 000 ,- N (O O) N U) CO CO U) V In
o } U) CO co 1- ' ,- U) U) .- CO (0 CO O) N N CO U) CO CO CO CO
Q LL V N: M .. r (D .-- N..-N.-
ft 69 69
CO
O
00 o
No E
U) w
T� co T
c >. 00 _ co
7 a) o U C
E — u LL •QS
N E .� N m
a) N 0) N O) (d •C Q o C
NY0 m
(y6 r (t (0 (0 N V) o oi5 0 6.0 C)
dT �0 (9 V) W o
CO 0 C 4. f6 I i E.
t O co (6 (6 c - D C @ a) a)
U) O OMM � O C "O U. o -o �_
N t C C C ) O a) co C co
c V (� O O O f0 U) C OS C O C a) O
CO
m 3 3 a) a) NC0 > to M c Ui V ) UC LC m O_C > N > Q `
"a a) a C C ! /1 V0 C ,_ U
OCON U) a
`- co (ti N a OWa)
LL N c 0 co co O Q inc N N a) aX c 0. ow 6 , U � nW To
N O
co
O a) W C U) o ao) a) W Z Z U 3 �-c� C •a a o .0 c T CO- o u O a) o
`c CC
a) � - co)o0000oc W o3• uf°i � (I° 2 `-° OaZ :a c 3a
V C c@ r d •O C) U U U U U > 0) C Cn a) O 0 N a) m •a .. CC co
Qy 0 a) a) U._ 0 C) 0 Y CO () (o CO CU (6 ct N •C (0@ 2 rn C 0 a O 0 cA U 6 > a U o
co a. o .> a) o (n `m a a a a a D 2 % t5 a 06 t ca O O N: (DOG)G) U a CC W CO
F' J d ac) UUD2U - 2 E E E E E ET3 c W0 OOH M QUOOM 0 C a
a ` H W z 0 � W n a Z I- I- Z I-
Thomas E. Wright
1076 Bonneville Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108
(801) 652-5700 mobile
May 15, 2006
Re: Golf Enterprise Advisory Board positions to key issues in 2007 budget
Attention: Salt Lake City Council
As the elected committee chairman of the Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Advisory
Board, I write to you concerning key issues relevant to the 2007 budget.
Since David Terry was hired as the director of the SLC Golf Division, I have witnessed
Mr. Terry's passion and dedication to making golf at SLC golf courses affordable,
enjoyable and competitive.
In the budget you will find 8 key changes that I wish to address.
First, the budget proposes a reduction of 16 full-time positions including 10 in
maintenance, 5 in pro shops and 1 in administration. The reduction in full-time positions
is intended to mirror the seasonality of golf in Salt Lake City. By reducing the number
of full-time positions the fixed human resource cost will be reduced dramatically and the
service won't suffer since a detailed plan is in place to utilize the remaining and sufficient
full-time employees to cover the human resource needs during the traditional off-season.
Simply put, SLC cannot afford to pay the current number of full-time people a year's
work for a performing a consistently seasonal job.
Second, because golf is SLC has trended more to an excess of supply rather than demand,
it is important that every golf course has a resident head professional to cater to the
variety of clientele that each course produces. The shared head professional position for
Nibley/Forest Dale with Bonneville and Glendale needs to be adjusted. By adding one
professional to oversee the two adjacent 9 hole courses of Nibley and Forest Dale the city
can then appoint a permanent head professional at both Bonneville and Glendale.
In the latest issue of"Fairways Magazine" (the official magazine of the Utah Golf
Association), there is a feature article on Devin Dehlin, Head Professional at SL County's
South Mountain Golf Course. The article stresses the importance of having a full-time
PGA professional at local golf courses and what the relationship between a pro and the
amateur players should be. To compete in this market, SLC golf courses must have a
full-time and dedicated PGA Professional onsite and in tune with the players.
Third, the 2007 budget introduces a new adult season pass program. There is a huge
difference between the proposed adult season pass program and the season pass program
that the city moved away from in previous years. In the proposed program, the season
pass program is tiered to ensure that the city's premier golf courses are not losing full-
priced paid rounds during their peak times and so that there is four prices of season
passes that meet the needs of the diversity of SLC residents.
Season pass implementation has been one of my key initiatives for two reasons. First, the
city has lost the loyal and avid players who previously only played courses where they
could use their pass. Instead, these people have opted to play the different courses
around the valley and we have lost their business and the business of the regular-paying
friends that they used to bring. Second, the city's profit and loss statements show fixed
and variable costs but only have variable and seasonal revenue to offset those expenses.
By adding the adult season pass program the city adds a fixed income to the profit and
loss statement that will prove to be incremental revenue instead of just discounting the
current revenue. May I also note that the new adult season pass program specifically
states, "Purchase price and program availability subject to change annually." This will
allow the SLC golf courses to ensure that the season pass program is profitable and
mutually beneficial.
Fourth, in addition to the adult season pass program a junior season pass program is
proposed in the 2007 budget. Like the adult pass, the junior pass is tiered and subject to
change annually. But, the junior pass may be the cornerstone of the golf division's plan
to get budget deficits back. Without introducing junior golfers to the game and allowing
them to feel comfortable with SLC golf facilities and personnel, the future of the game of
golf is in jeopardy.
As a junior golfer, my parents purchased a pass for me to play every year. My birthday
present was always the pass that allowed me to develop my game and cultivate the
attributes of discipline, honor and integrity. It's time to get the juniors back out on the
course. I wonder, if it were possible to do a study, what the return on investment would
be though the intangible benefits of learning the game of golf in your youth? I imagine it
would be huge.
Fifth, a $1.00 green fee increase at Forest Dale and a$1.50 green fee increase on 9-hole
rounds at Bonneville and Mountain Dell as of January 1, 2007 are proposed in the
budget. To be able to maintain and operate an 18-hole facility like Bonneville and
Mountain Dell you need more people playing 18-holes and paying the associated fee.
The golf courses cannot afford the costs of an 18-hole course on the fees of a 9-hole
round. By encouraging people to play 18-holes at Bonneville and Mountain Dell the city
can increase the number of rounds played thereby keeping the cost affordable to all
citizens in Salt Lake City. By only increasing the fee for 9-hole rounds, the city can
recover some of the opportunity cost while not punishing the 18-hole players.
Sixth, the viability of the Jordan River Par 3 course needs to be addressed immediately.
Currently, there are major budget deficits at this facility that are eroding the golf
division's ability to provide affordable, non-subsidized golf at the other long-standing
facilities. The budget deficit at Jordan River is significant enough to conclude that at
this time, it is not viable and not something that SLC should continue to fund.
Seventh, as was previously stated, golf is oversupplied in the Salt Lake valley. This
increase in competition has created a competitive advantage for the competitors of SLC
golf courses in one key area—facilities. I play in at least 20 corporate golf outings every
year and I haven't played one on a SLC golf course in the past 6 years.
The county's newer and more up-to-date facilities are really hurting SLC golf courses.
Mountain Dell with its scenic majesty and cool canyon location should be the home to
consistent corporate events, but because it cannot accommodate luncheons for enough
people it is passed over for inferior golf courses and the inferior locations of South
Mountain, Old Mill and Stone Bridge.
And, along with those losing those paid corporate event rounds on weekdays when our
courses are not full are loses on concessions, merchandise and repeat round sales that the
city competes for. There must be a focus in the next decade on improving the facilities at
SLC golf courses as well as adopting an aggressive equipment acquisition program to
keep SLC golf courses competitive. Currently, the facilities are inadequate to compete.
Finally, the Golf Division Strategic Plan drafted by Mr. Terry, with the help and input of
many, is an innovative and passionate stance on making the golf experience at SLC golf
courses affordable and enjoyable. I encourage every member to read it.
The strong emphasis on customer service, dress codes for employees and player
development programs are certain to improve the competitive position of the golf
courses. By addressing the personnel issues that are draining the budget, the golf division
has shown its commitment to continuing to be self-sufficient and in-touch with its
financial status. Changing the structure of employees is never popular, but in any
business it is absolutely necessary.
By adopting the 2007 budget, the golf courses will be positioned as self-sufficient
services to the taxpayers of SLC. The commitment to making the facility improvements
and to change the culture of the golf division won't be easy. But, in the face of an ever-
changing industry that is fiercely competitive, the changes are necessary and essential to
the success of SLC golf courses.
I want you to know that I support the 2007 budget as it is presented.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Wright
My Name is Susan Hoskins. I work for the Golf Division in the administration office as
an Office Tech II. The Golf Division has suggested several positions be eliminated or
changed from full time to seasonal positions for this next budget year, 2006-07. My
position is one that is being eliminated.
I would like to address several items that the Council might consider before they
implement these suggested changes.
First
David Terry is the new director. He was hired in August of 2005 and has been unable to
work for two month out of the seven that he has been employed. I don't believe that he
has gained the knowledge or understanding of the positions he is affecting in these
eliminations and moves. I know that he hasn't talked to me enough to gain a complete
understanding of my position or function at all. I believe you need to know what impact
this elimination would have in the daily functions of the office.
Dave says they are going to automate my job which they have been saying for five years.
He doesn't understand that the automation is the input only which is only 30% of the
position. I do reconciliations the other 70%. You can't automate a reconciliation
function. The reconciliation is correcting the input errors that each of the golf courses
have in their daily cash deposit, recording of golfing rounds and other miscellaneous
incomes. I would think that when times are bad for the golfing fund that they would like
to make sure that all of the funds are accounted for and in the proper object codes. This
would give them accurate information on where revenues are being posted and which
ones need to be improved.
Second
Moving full time employees to seasonal will create a major problem for the appearance
of the golf courses. You are going to find that the full time employees will go
somewhere else to find full time benefits leaving the maintenance and appearance of the
golf courses to seasonal employees that don't care as much as a full time employee.
Again I would think that in times of high competition for golfers playing on the City's
courses that appearances and maintenance would be at a very high priority.
Third
They are planning to bring back the golf pass. If they do bring the passes back, it will
increase the work load to process those passes. They can look back several years when
we started to sell the Frequent Player Discount Cards and see how busy we were. There
is no way the passes can be sold and the other work of the office be maintained with a
diminished staff. Most of the time I am the only person in the office from 8:00 A.M.. to
10:00 A.M. to help customers.
Fourth
Three years ago a new position was added to the golfing budget for marketing and
improving the golf revenues. This new position was added in the budget with the
assurance that it would generate new revenues that would more than pay for itself. Since
that time the revenues have decreased. The position was implemented with the provision
that it would be re-evaluated in a couple of years. If the administration is eliminating
positions to offset the shortage in revenues why not this position? It was added for the
production of new revenue and has not produced.
Fifth
We had two Office Tech II positions working in Administration a year and a half ago.
When the woman quit the position was eliminated. That left an Office Facilitator and my
position for helping customers. They also hired a seasonal to help with the work load.
Eliminating my position would leave one person for everything during the time the
seasonal has to be laid off There is plenty of work to keep us all busy.
I have enjoyed working for the City for the past fifteen years. I understand the need to
improve the performance of the Golf Fund. I believe that providing better service and
better golf courses will help improve the performance more than eliminating needed
positions.
I appreciate your attention in this matter.
Susan A. Hoskins