Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05/31/2011 - Work Session - Minutes
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011 The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, May 31, 2011, at 2 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Jill Remington Love, JT Martin, Stan Penfold, Luke Garrott and Soren Simonsen. Also In Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ralph Becker; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; David Everitt, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Neil Lindberg, Council Legal Director; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Debra Alexander, Human Resource Director; Gina Chamness, Budget Director; Mary Beth Thompson, Payroll/Accounting; Margaret Plane, Senior City Attorney; Brian Roberts, Senior City Attorney; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; David Terry, Golf Enterprise Fund Manager; Vicki Bennett, Sustainability/Environment Director; Lehua Weaver, Council Research and Policy Analyst; Beth Alder, Library Director; Mike Beckstead, Library Finance and Operations Associate Director; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Anne Wescott, Galena Consulting; Nancy Sanders, Public Services Senior Accountant; John Naser, City Engineer; Frank Gray, Community and Economic Development Director; Timothy Harpst, Transportation Director; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 2 : 08 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 2:08:29PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachments See File M 11-5 for announcements. #2 . 3:41:39 PM DISCUSS THE GOLF FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) NEEDS AND NEXT STEPS. CITY LEADERS ARE CONSIDERING HOW TO FUND LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AT THE EIGHT GOLF FACILITIES (NINE GOLF COURSES-MOUNTAIN DELL HAS TWO 18-HOLE GOLF COURSES) THE CITY OWNS AND OPERATES. PLANS TO IMPROVE THE GOLF COURSES COULD COST $22 MILLION. View Attachments 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011 David Terry, Rick Graham and Karen Halladay briefed the Council with the attached handouts . The Council addressed questions/issues listed in various sections of the handouts . Discussion was held on providing well-maintained golf courses. A majority of the Council was in favor but expressed comments about the appropriate quality/level . Discussion was held on open space preservation. A majority of the Council was in favor but expressed comments about policy issues regarding leasing/selling property. Discussion was held on requiring golf courses to be self- sustaining/no general fund subsidies . A majority of the Council was in favor. Discussion was held on providing recreation opportunities with emphasis on affordability, quality and variety. A majority of the Council was in favor but expressed comments about adding "quantity" as another level . Ms . Gust-Jenson asked for feedback on the degree or level of affordability the Council wanted emphasized. Councilmember Penfold suggested having specialized outreach programming which encouraged participation of lower income communities/people . Discussion was held on golf course improvements/prioritization. Mr. Terry said he felt the main priority was to make improvements that helped the Golf Fund remain self-sufficient . Ms . Gust-Jenson said there were ways to avoid costs and ways to generate revenue and asked if Council Members wanted to combine those approaches . A majority of the Council was in favor. Ms . Halladay asked if the Council wanted staff to conduct a business proforma on Items b and c or request the Administration to do that. Councilmember Love said the Administration. Mr. Terry said those items were included in the CIP data. Discussion was held on fee increases . A majority of the Council was in favor of increasing fees at some courses after appropriate evaluation. Councilmember Love suggested having the Administration come back with an approach with the understanding that fees would increase in January, 2012 . Councilmember Christensen suggested that revenue raised through fee increases, remain at respective courses . Discussion was held on creating a Bonneville Golf Course task force which would include members of the golfing community to address long-term solutions and an implementation plan. Councilmember Martin said he was in support . 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011 Discussion was held on selling golf course property. Councilmember Christensen said there needed to be a nexus between the sale and use. A majority of the Council supported that concept but felt some flexibility was needed. Discussion was held on re-zoning issues relevant to selling golf course properties . Council Members felt property sales needed to be consistent with master plan documents and go through a formal re- zoning process . Council Members also felt it was important to consider generating revenue through leases rather than sales. Councilmember Love asked if the Council was willing to consider a general obligation bond. A majority of the Council was in favor. Councilmember Love asked if the Council was willing to pursue private/public partnerships and collaborate with Salt Lake County. A majority of the Council was in favor. Councilmember Love asked if the Council was willing to consider subsidizing golf courses from the General Fund. A majority of the Council was in favor from a capital standpoint, not operations . Councilmember Love asked if the Council was willing to consider selling and/or closing an entire golf course. A majority of the Council was in favor but expressed concerns about preserving open space. Mr. Graham said some golf properties had restrictions which would impact their ability to be sold. Councilmember Love asked if Council Members objected to items proposed under the "Use of Property" category in the handout . A majority of the Council was in favor. Ms . Gust-Jenson said prior Councils raised concerns about private/public competition issues in terms of banquets/receptions/weddings and asked Council Members to provide staff with comments/feedback. Mr. Graham said the Administration planned to create a committee comprised of residents to work with them to address golf course issues and prepare some options which would be presented to the Council at a future meeting. Councilmember Martin asked about establishing the Bonneville Golf Course task force. Mr. Graham said he wanted to talk to Councilmember Martin about that idea and potentially find a way to combine that group with the one being proposed by the Administration or at least find a way to coordinate efforts . #3 . 4:36:29 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE LIBRARY OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . A PROJECTED 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011 INCREASE IN LIBRARY REVENUE INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MARMALADE BRANCH LIBRARY. View Attachments Russell Weeks, Mike Beckstead and Beth Elder briefed the Council with the attached handouts. Councilmember Christensen asked for feedback on the mill levy cap/projections relating to future capital needs . A straw poll was taken on Option C. A majority of the Council wanted more information about the impact of declining housing values and wanted to know at what point construction/progression could be stopped on Marmalade until economic conditions improved. #4 . 5:05:49PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) 10-YEAR PLAN. View Attachments LuAnn Clark and Anne Wescott briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Love said this issue would come back to the Council for formal consideration at a future date and was not part of the current budget process . Council Members wanted the following projects/proposals included in future discussions : 1300 East from South Temple to 500 South; portions of 500 East north of 900 South; portions of 300 West; analysis of projects identified in various master plans; downtown street car; Broadway Theatre/performing arts center proposals; identify policy shifts; update master plan priorities; Liberty Precinct; 1300 South viaduct (full reconstruction) ; McClelland Corridor; and complete street upgrade priorities on 2100 South. #5. 6:17:59 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY REFUSE FUND CLASS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . (THE CITY PROVIDES A REFUSE PROGRAM OF WEEKLY CURBSIDE TRASH COLLECTION, RECYCLING (INCLUDING CURBSIDE RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING AND CENTRALIZED GLASS RECYCLING) , CURBSIDE YARD WASTE COLLECTION, AND ANNUAL NEIGHBORHOOD CLEANUP. THESE SERVICES ARE FUNDED THROUGH THE OPERATIONS AND RECYCLING FUND (O&R FUND) . IN ADDITION TO TRASH COLLECTION SERVICES, THE CITY' S CONCENTRATED ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS ARE STAFFED AND FUNDED THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY FUND (E&E FUND) . THIS INCLUDES OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT, OUTREACH, BLUE SKY PARTICIPATION, AND TREE PURCHASING FUNDS. ) View Attachments Lehua Weaver, Rick Graham, Vicki Bennett and Nancy Sanders briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Christensen said he was comfortable not raising rates until the Council had a better understanding of on-going costs . He said he did 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011 not want any more of the $5 million spent beyond the two proposed studies until a policy discussion was held on how the $5 million would be used and the Council understood the direction the Refuse Fund balance was headed. He said revenue generated from future rate increases needed to be used to cover ongoing costs and not used to reimburse/restore fund balance. He said that money needed to come out of the $5 million. Councilmember Love asked if the Council supported Councilmember Christensen' s suggestion. A majority of the Council was in favor. #6. 7:15:41 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING ON LANDLORD/TENANT INITIATIVE ("GOOD LANDLORD PROGRAM") , TO REVIEW OPTIONS TO REDUCING THE PER-UNIT FEES, INCLUSION OF 1 AND 2-UNIT PROPERTIES, AND BUDGET IMPACTS FROM ANY CHANGES. (THE LANDLORD TENANT INITIATIVE IS A PROGRAM DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE GOOD MANAGEMENT OF RENTAL PROPERTIES. ) View Attachments Lehua Weaver, Mary Beth Thompson, Frank Gray and Neil Lindberg briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Discussion was held on implementing 1 and 2-unit apartments . Council Members wanted language included in the ordinance for that provision. Discussion was held on proposed fees . Ms . Weaver said a $25 fee was proposed for those participating in the program. Councilmember Love suggested $20 . A majority of the Council was in favor. Discussion was held on disproportionate fees for those not participating in the program. Ms. Weaver said the handout contained five options . A majority of the Council was in favor of Option 4 . Discussion was held on staffing levels . Council Members expressed concerns about one supervisor overseeing just one employee. A majority of the Council was in favor of adding three positions this year and two additional positions next year. Discussion was held on training. A majority of the Council was in favor of eight hours of initial training, additional four-hour training sessions every three years and two independent training providers . Discussion was held on fraternities, sororities and boarding houses . A majority of the Council was in favor of including them in the proposal . Discussion was held on how to handle Single Residential Occupancy units (SROs) . A majority of the Council was in favor of including 11 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011 them in the proposal but concerns were expressed about how to classify and charge them. Mr. Lindberg said he would research the issue and provide feedback. #7 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING AN AUDIT OF THE CITY'S PARKING ENFORCEMENT FUNCTION AND REVENUES. (PARKING ENFORCEMENT IS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES' COMPLIANCE DIVISION. ) View Attachments Item not held. Councilmember Love said the Council anticipated the Administration would come back with their response and wanted them to continue working on problems/goals. #8. (TENTATIVE) DISCUSS COMPENSATION OF CITY EMPLOYEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . Item not held. #9. 6:31:47 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011. (BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 4 CONTAINS 34 PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS, AS SUGGESTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION. BUDGET AMENDMENTS ARE ADJUSTMENTS/CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO THE ANNUAL BUDGET. ) • INITIATIVE A-6: REQUEST TO FUND 900 SOUTH CORRIDOR TRAIL AND BIKE LANES. • INITIATIVE A-11: REQUEST FUNDING FOR PHASE I PILOT PROGRAM - 200 SOUTH BICYCLE CORRIDOR - U OF U TO DOWNTOWN. View Attachments Jennifer Bruno, Frank Gray, Timothy Harpst, John Naser and David Everitt briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Penfold suggested moving both projects out of the budget amendment and into the CIP process. A majority of the Council was in favor leaving them in the budget amendment but including them in CIP discussions . Councilmember Simonsen asked if Council Members would support a funding increase for the Sugar House fireworks project. A majority of the Council was in favor of an additional $10, 000 and potentially including contingencies for future contributions . #10. 7:45:13 PM CONTINUE A DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL STAFF REGARDING UNRESOLVED ISSUES RELATING TO THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . THIS COULD INCLUDE BUT WAS NOT LIMITED TO: • RIPARIAN FEE - OPEN CITY HALL FEEDBACK, • LANDLORD/TENANT FOLLOW-UP, • STREET LIGHTING POLICY FOLLOW-UP - POLICIES/GUIDING PRINCIPLES, • KEY CHANGES HIGHLIGHTS - REMOVE $50, 000 FUNDING FOR TRANSITION - JORDAN RIVER COMMISSION $14K - STRAW POLL 11 - 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011 BUSINESS LICENSE FEE INCREASE - STRAW POLL TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR ($50K) AND • STRAW POLL GOLF FEE INCREASE. Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Gina Chamness and David Everitt briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Discussion was held on ways to close an approximately $900, 000 gap needed to balance the budget which included removing $250, 000 recommended for master plans, other planning plans/studies being paid for with general fund money (lighting study - $50, 000) and resolving parking enforcement revenue loss (approximately $265, 000) . Councilmember Martin said he wanted to fund at least a Foothill Boulevard Corridor study. Councilmember Christensen said the parking/revenue problem needed to be resolved within 60-days . Discussion was held on the street lighting program/proposal . Councilmember Love said before commissioning a study, the Council needed a better understanding of the lighting program/standards and what City goals/policies were. Ms . Gust-Jenson said Public Utilities should have information about what they wanted from a consultant and asked if the Council wanted her to get that information. A majority of the Council was in favor. Ms . Bruno said staff could prepare a list of additions to the budget for Council consideration next week. #11. (TENTATIVE) CONTINUE A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011, INTERIM STUDY ITEMS AND DISCUSS POSSIBLE LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS, ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL AT THE START OF EACH FISCAL YEAR, IDENTIFY THE COUNCIL' S POLICY DIRECTION FOR PROJECTS OR ITEMS RELATED TO THE BUDGET IN THE TERM AHEAD AND HOW THEY MIGHT BEST SERVE THE NEEDS OF SALT LAKE CITY RESIDENTS. View Attachments Item not held. #9. 2:13:22 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (b) ; b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (d) ; c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; 11 - 7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011 d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; AND e) FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78B-1-137 . Councilmember Garrott moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to enter into Closed Session. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Christensen, Turner, Penfold, Love and Garrott voted aye. Council Members Martin and Simonsen were absent for the vote. See file M 11-2 for Sworn Statement and recording. The meeting adjourned at 8 : 10 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR . 11sty -,, ,,44 71*7z1' I CLIT Y RE ORDER This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held May 31, 2011 . sc 11 - 8 Posted: May 27, 2011 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING Please note: this meeting is dedicated to Council briefings and discussions. A 7:00 p.m.Formal Meeting or opportunity for public comment will not be held. Public comment is always welcomed through email,letter,fax or phone call. DATE: May 31, 2011 TIME: 2:00 p.m. PLACE: City&County Building 451 South State Street,Room 326 Salt Lake City,Utah AGENDA ITEMS 1. Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and announcements. 2. The Council will discuss the Golf Fund Capital Improvement Project(CIP)needs and next steps. City leaders are considering how to fund long-term improvement projects at the eight golf facilities(nine golf courses-Mountain Dell has two 18-hole golf courses)the City owns and operates. Plans to improve the golf courses could cost$22 million. 3. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing regarding the Library Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012.A projected increase in Library revenue includes a request for an increase in property taxes to support the construction of the Marmalade Branch Library. 4. The Council will receive a briefmg from the Administration regarding Capital Improvement Projects(CIP) 10 Year Plan. 5. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing regarding the Mayor's recommended budget for the Salt Lake City Refuse Fund Class for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. (The City provides a refuse program of weekly curbside trash collection,recycling(including curbside residential recycling and centralized glass recycling),curbside yard waste collection, and annual neighborhood cleanup. These services are funded through the Operations&Recycling Fund(O&R Fund). In addition to trash collection services,the City's concentrated environmental and sustainability efforts are staffed and funded through the Environmental&Energy Fund(E&E Fund).This includes open space management,outreach,Blue Sky participation, and tree purchasing funds.) 6. The Council will receive a follow-up briefmg on Landlord/Tenant Initiative("Good Landlord Program"),to review options to reducing the per-unit fees,inclusion of 1-and 2-unit properties, and budget impacts from any changes. (The Landlord Tenant Initiative is a program designed to encourage good management of rental properties.) CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 7. The Council will receive a briefmg from the Administration regarding an audit of the City's Parking Enforcement function and revenues. (Parking Enforcement is within the Department of Public Services' Compliance Division.) 8. (TENTATIVE)The Council will discuss compensation of City Employees for Fiscal Year 2011- 2012. 9. The Council will receive a follow-up briefmg regarding Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. (Budget Amendment No.4 contains 34 proposed adjustments, as suggested by the Administration. Budget amendments are adjustments/changes/additions to the annual budget.) • Initiative A-6: Request to fund 900 South Corridor Trail and Bike Lanes • Initiative A-.11: Request funding for Phase I Pilot program—200 South Bicycle Corridor —U of U to Downtown 10. (TENTATIVE)The Council will continue a discussion with Council Staff regarding unresolved issues relating to the recommended budget for Salt Lake City,Utah for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. This could include but is not limited to: • Riparian Fee o Open City Hall feedback • Landlord/tenant follow-up • Street lighting policy follow-up o Policies/guiding principles • Key Changes highlights o remove$50,000 funding for transition o Jordan River Commission$14k o Straw poll business license fee increase o Straw poll transportation special projects coordinator($50k) • Straw poll golf fee increase 11. (TENTATIVE)The Council will continue a discussion regarding the Legislative Intent Statements from Fiscal Year 2010-2011,Interim Study items and discuss possible Legislative Intent statements for the Fiscal Year 2011-2012. Legislative Intent Statements,adopted by the Council at the start of each fiscal year,identify the Council's policy direction for projects or items related to the budget in the term ahead and how they might best serve the needs of Salt Lake City residents. 12. (TENTATIVE)The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session,in keeping with Utah Code§ 52-4-204, for any of the following purposes: a)A strategy session to discuss collective bargaining,pursuant to Utah Code § 52-4-205 (1)(b); b)A strategy session to discuss the purchase, exchange,or lease of real property(including any form of water right or water shares)when public discussion of the transaction would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration or prevent the City from completing the transaction on the best possible terms,pursuant to Utah Code § 52- 4-205(1)(d); c)A strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation,pursuant to Utah Code § 52-4-205(1)(c); CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE d)A strategy session to discuss the sale of real property(including any form of water right or water shares)if(1)public discussion of the transaction would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration or prevent the City from completing the transaction on the best possible terms, (2)the City previously gave notice that the property would be offered for sale,and(3)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the City approves the sale; e)For attorney-client matters that are privileged,pursuant to Utah Code§ 78B-1-137; and f)A strategy session to discuss deployment of security personnel,devices or systems pursuant to Utah Code Section 52-4-205(l)(f). Access agendas at http://www.slcgov.com/council/agendas/default.htm.People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance of council meetings. We make every effort to honor these requests, and they should be made as early as possible. Accommodations may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids.The City and County Building is an accessible facility. For questions or additional information,please contact the City Council Office at 535- 7600, or TDD 535-6021.Assistive listening devices are available on Channel I;upon four hours advance notice.Please allow 72 hours advance notice for sign language interpreters; large type and#2 Braille agendas. *Final action may be taken and/or adopted concerning any item on this agenda.After 5:00 p.m.,please enter the City&County Building through the east entrance. Accessible route is located on the east side of the building.In accordance with State Statute, City Ordinance and Council Policy, one or more Council Members may be connected via speakerphone. Golf Enterprise Fund Purpose: There is a clear need for investment in improvements for Salt Lake City's golf courses, perhaps as much as$22 million. Policy Questions for the Council's Consideration General: 1. The Golf Fund should: Indicate Priority Level High Medium Low a. Provide well-maintained golf courses? b. Preserve open spaces in Salt Lake City? c. Be self-sustaining—No General Fund subsidies? d. Provide a recreation opportunity to the Public with an emphasis on: • Affordability • Quality • Variety e. Add to the Salt Lake City's reputation as a business/convention/tourist destination? f. Other 2. The purpose of golf course improvements should be prioritized based Indicate Priority Level on: High Medium Low 111 a. Maintenance, enhancements, and/or improvements to ensure at least above average golf course quality: • Quality of greens • Playability • Mix and challenge of golf courses • Other b. Customer Service Needs of the Golf Community, including individual golfer and/or tournament needs: • Driving Range _ • Concessions • Equipment • Restrooms • Clubhouse • Other c. Non-golf related revenue opportunities for the Golf Fund: • Batting cages • Miniature golf • Banquet and reception facilities • Restaurant • Other d. Cost saving and environmental initiatives for the Golf Fund: • Automated irrigation systems • Usage of secondary water • Usage of well water, if possible • Equipment replacement program • Recycling • Other Indicate Priority Level High Medium Low e. Value-added service opportunities based on studied business models and best practices: 1:111 • Courtesy services for tournaments and events • Country Club like facilities and services at one or more Salt Lake City courses • Other f. Partnership opportunities that bring return • University of Utah • Utah Golf Association/Utah Professional Golfers Association (PGA) • Private and Corporate Donor Programs • Food and Beverage Cost-Sharing Partnerships • Other Sources of Funds: Fee Increase Agree Disagree 1. Green fees should be increased for all Salt Lake City golf courses to build operating and capital reserves and allow for timely repairs? • It is best to begin a fee increase January because significant improvements are needed and cannot be accomplished within the current fee structure? 2. An additional fee, Capital Improvement Project (CIP Fee), should be charged for each round of golf to provide funding for Golf Fund capital improvement projects? • It is best to wait until all improvements are prioritized before considering a fee increase? 3. Any CIP Fee should be dedicated to the course on which it was generated? 4. Fee increases should be tailored on a course by course basis to reflect the amenities offered by that course: Bonneville Glendale Forest Dale Mountain Dell—Two Courses Nibley Park Rose Park Wingpointe Jordan Park Sale of Property Agree Disagree 1. Golf Enterprise Fund property can be identified as surplus property? 2. Strategically identified golf course property could be sold, provided: • There are no compromises to the playability, aesthetics, character, or economic viability of a golf course? •There is no significant negative neighborhood or community impact or diminishment of value to the public? • Other 3. An initial policy evaluation by the Mayor and Council is made on the potential suitability for putting a parcel through the Master Plan and re- zoning processes before any steps toward sale are made? Agree Disagree 4. If identified as surplus, the property may be considered for sale: • As long as not in conflict with City Master Plans? • As long as an initial policy evaluation by the Mayor and Council is made on the potential suitability for putting a parcel through the Master Plan and re-zoning processes before any steps toward sale are made? • Most strategically appropriate use as determined by the Administration? • "Highest and best use" regardless of current Master Plan and zoning? 5. Property sales proceeds stay within the Enterprise Fund for uses within the Enterprise Fund? 6. Property sales proceeds are used at least partially to acquire additional open space property—value for value replacement of space—no net loss of open space? Financing Agree Disagree 1. Bonds could be issued for identified and prioritized capital improvements for the City's golf courses? 2. A General Obligation Bond is worth investigating for: • Salt Lake City Golf Course Improvements? • Other Salt Lake City recreation improvements or upgrades? • Both Salt Lake City Golf Course and other City recreation improvements or upgrades? Other Revenue Solutions Agree Disagree 1. Private/Public Partnership golf courses could be considered? 2. Investigate whether or not there is an opportunity for joint golf course operations or financial collaboration with Salt Lake County? 3. The City's General Fund should subsidize the City's golf courses? 4. The sale of a golf course, excluding Nibley Park, could be considered? 5. Develop partnerships with other community organizations: • University of Utah • Utah Professional Golf Association • Other organizations 6. Other Use of Property: Agree Disagree 1. If by policy,the City determines Golf Enterprise Fund property(Open Space) cannot be sold for commercial or housing purposes,the following are acceptable, but require an increase in operating expenses for the General Fund: • Parks • Play Fields • Natural Open Space • Pay-to-play tennis • Open tennis courts • Natural Open Space • Neighborhood walking trails • Dog parks • Special use parks- Frisbee Agree Disagree •Banquet,Reception,and Meeting Space •Other Other: Agree Disagree 1. Golf course improvements should be consider in total rather than based on needs/resources of individual golf courses? 2. An independent marketing study should be funded? 3. The City General Fund will consider purchasing surplus golf properties at open space value rather than at the highest and best use value? RICHARD GRAHAM `N'I`w amass RALPH BECKER PUBLIC BERVICe■DIRCCTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR May 24, 2011 Dear Mayor Becker and Salt Lake City Council Members: As members of the Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board, we are writing a follow up letter to again express our support and agreement with the improvement project funding plan developed by the Golf Division to navigate through a challenging era in golf. The proposed plan not only addresses the critical deferred maintenance issues facing Salt Lake City golf courses, but also provides a plan for the future that ensures Salt Lake City is able to continue providing users with an exceptional golf experience at a good value for generations to come. As golfers, we feel the plan meets our needs by addressing long-term inadequacies that limit our experiences on the course. All golfers want to feel that their dollar is buying the very best golf experience possible. Inefficient irrigation systems, clubhouses unable to host corporate tournaments or other public events, dilapidated permanent and embarrassing portable on-course restroom facilities are all too- common throughout the Salt Lake City golf courses. As City residents we appreciate the innovative and responsible approach offered for a complicated situation. The efforts taken by the staff of the Golf'Division to remain a self-sufficient enterprise fund free of taxpayer subsidy are unique and refreshing. While neighboring municipalities are receiving subsidies, Salt Lake City Golf seeks to utilize its resources to address shortfalls and plan for the future. The Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board was created to provide business oversight and insights into the operation and maintenance of the City's golf course system. As a Board,we are committed to that mission and feel that action is needed now. Further delay will only contribute to the growing cost of the "band- aid" approach and loss of patronage at all Salt Lake City golf courses. GOLF DIVISION 2375 SOUTH BOO EAST, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 54105 TELEPHONE:501.485-7730 FAX:S01-465.6705 Lr,It,.1'm A.PC, While we recognize that it is the City Council's responsibility to set green fees for the City's golf course system, it is our strong belief that an increase in fees at this time would be ill advised given current economic conditions and market factors impacting public golf in our area. An increase in green fees would not generate the revenue needed to complete the long list of deferred major capital improvement projects totaling $22,000,000, and in fact, could ultimately diminish potential revenues if golfers elect to patronize other public golf courses in the area. A recommendation was made in 2007 to allow the Golf Division to divest itself of land bordering select City golf courses through transfer or sale for the express purpose of reinvesting all earnings into the Golf Fund for the completion of capital improvements. We believe this plan provides the greatest opportunity for the Golf Division to remain a self-sufficient enterprise fund and to best meet the current and future needs of Salt Lake City citizens and visitors. We, again, urge the Mayor and City Council to adopt this plan and join us in the effort to achieve the full potential of our golf courses. Amok Sincerely, £bgg .t len W Anderson 's Burbidge 1 / 'c ibblee (16"d(-711 ilLte- /(14/__S ( )X1-- — Colleen Mullins Alan Seko Thomas W ' t ,,,,, GOLF DIVISION 2375 SOUTH 900 EAST,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84106 TELEPHONEf 801-485-7730 FAX:S01.466-6705 1= ■EE..n PAPER MEMORANDUM DATE: May 26,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Library Budget: Follow-up CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, David Everitt, Beth Elder,DJ Baxter,Jennifer Bruno,Helen Langan, Mike Beckstead, Gina Chamness,Dan Mule,Kay Christensen,Karen Halladay, Gordon Hoskins This memorandum is a follow-up to the May 3 Salt Lake City Council's discussion of the proposed budget for the Salt Lake City Public Library System for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. At the May 3 discussion the Council reaffirmed its support of building two new branch libraries in the Glendale and Marmalade neighborhoods. It asked Salt Lake City Public Library administrators to provide options for potential increases in property taxes. The options were to be based on revised construction timelines for the new branch libraries. Librarian Beth Elder has provided a memorandum outlining five options(A through E) for City Council consideration. Option E was prepared at Council staff's request.The intent of the request was to provide a full spectrum of options for the City Council to consider. After reading the Library System memorandum Council staff has added one more option separate from the other five. It should be noted that Option C in Ms. Elder's memorandum appeared to receive the most support from the Library Board of Directors when the Board reviewed the options at its May 19 meeting. Option C also is the option that appears to follow the Library System's proposed operating and capital budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 that was presented May 3. To recap,the total requested budget for the Library System for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 is $16,022,342.The figure is $552,802 more than the current fiscal year's adopted budget. The $552,802 represents a 4 percent increase over the current fiscal year's adopted budget.The proposed budget includes a property tax increase for the Library Fund to raise money to pay debt service on bonds to build the Marmalade Branch Library. The bonds would be issued at a future date. In June 2009,the City Council adopted a motion to increase property taxes for the Library Fund in part to pay for debt service on bonds issued to build the Glendale Branch Library. The bonds have yet to be issued. According figures provided by the Library System,under the current property tax rate for the Library Fund, a homeowner whose house is valued by Salt Lake County at$260,890 pays $113.50 to support the Library System. The owner of a commercial property valued at$1 million pays $791. The projected total cost to build and stock the Glendale Branch Library remains roughly$8.2 million, and the projected total cost to build and stock the Marmalade Branch Library remains roughly $8.9. Other factors worth noting are: 1 o The proposed Library System budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 includes$1.5 million in reserve funds that are earmarked for construction of the Glendale Branch Library.The allocation meets one of the assumptions the Council used in adopting a property tax increase in June 2009. o The proposed budget also allocates$800,000 in reserve funds for the Marmalade Branch Library.The amount originally was allocated for a public process for the Marmalade Branch Library,but little,if any of the sum,has been spent. o Since discussions in June 2009,it has been determined that money raised though issuing bonds cannot be spent on library collections—the material that is checked out or made available at libraries.The cost of collections at each of the two branch libraries is projected to be about$2 million.Subtracting$2 million from each branch's total cost leaves roughly$6.9 million for the Marmalade Branch Library and$6.2 million for the Glendale Branch Library.(Again,it should be noted that the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 includes$1.5 million in reserves to build the Glendale Branch. According to Library administrators,the$1.5 million plus property tax revenue already collected since 2009 equals about$2.2 million.The administrators indicate the amount is enough to purchase the library collection for the Glendale Branch.) o Library System administrators estimate that it would cost$825,000 a year to operate each branch library.That would add about$1.65 million to total annual operating costs for the System. o The Library System generally needs$500,000 to$600,000 annually to meet capital needs throughout the System. o The proposed budget for the next fiscal year marks a time when the Library System plans to spend unallocated fund balances more aggressively than in the past.However,System administrators do not want to rely on unallocated fund balances as a revenue source because it is unknown how much unexpended operating funds will fall to an unallocated fund balance in the future. o At the City Council discussion May 3,Redevelopment Agency Executive Director DJ Baxter estimated that a projected timeline for opening the Marmalade Branch Library was: • July 2011-October 2011—Prepare a site development plan. • November 2011-May 2012—Start marketing RDA-managed properties not designated for use by the Marmalade Branch. • May 2012-October 2012—Finish library design;start seeking bids for construction;make final agreements with companies locating around the site proposed for the Marmalade Branch • Mid-2014—Marmalade Library opens. o The projected opening for the Glendale Branch Library is the first quarter of 2013. o The Library System has not yet acquired the preferred sites for either branch library. 2 COP LIBRARY SYSTEM ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions appear in the Library System memorandum to the City Council and Mayor Ralph Becker: o To remain on projected timelines for opening the two branch libraries: • A tax rate increase for the Marmalade Branch construction is needed no later than Fiscal Year 2012-2013. • A tax rate increase for operating costs for the Glendale Branch Library is needed no later than Fiscal Year 2012-2013. • A tax rate increase for operating costs for the Marmalade Branch is needed no later than Fiscal Year 2013-2014. o Any tax rate increase should: • Provide funding need to meet project timelines for the two branch libraries. • Collect$1.2 million in revenue to build the Marmalade Branch collection. (The $1.2 million is calculated by subtracting the unused$800,000 originally allocated for public process in the Marmalade neighborhood from the projected$2 million necessary to create a collection of Library material.) C ■ Ensure funding for capital reserves for on-going system-wide needs. o Any tax revenue in excess of the amounts necessary for building collections in advance of opening day would be used to reduce the amount of bond funding required for construction. o If bond payments are less than originally projected,property taxes collected in excess of the need for bond payments could be used: • To reduce potential tax rate increases for operating revenue; or • To fund on-going or future capital needs for the two branches; or • To help fund capital needs throughout the Library System. OPTIONS PROVIDED BY LIBRARY SYSTEM The following are options provided by the Library System and reviewed by the Library Board of Directors,except for Option E,which City Council staff asked Library administrators to prepare. All options are based on calculations for a homeowner whose house is valued by Salt Lake County at $260,890 and a commercial business valued at$1 million. Again,under the current property tax rate for the Library Fund, a homeowner whose house is valued by Salt Lake County at$260,890 pays $113.50 to support the Library System. The owner of a commercial property valued at$1 million pays $791. Option A • FY 2011-12 Marmalade construction tax rate increase($5.50/home/year or$38.30/commercial/year) • FY 2012-13 Glendale operating revenue tax rate increase($7.03/home/year or$49.00/commercial/year) C • FY 2013-14 Marmalade operating revenue tax rate increase ($7.03/home/year or $49.00/commercial/year) 3 • Effect:A one-year early start of Marmalade construction revenue accumulates$645,000 for the Marmalade Branch opening day collection. Council staff comments:Option A would spread potential tax increases over three years.The increases would be incremental. II Option B o FY 2011-12 Marmalade operating revenue tax rate increase($7.03/home/year or $49.00/commercial/year) o FY 2012-13 Glendale operating revenue and Marmalade construction tax rate increase ($12.53/home/year or$87.30 commercial/year) Effect:A two-year early start of Marmalade operating revenues accumulates$1.65 million for the Marmalade Branch opening day collection. Council staff comments:Option B would provide a small tax rate increase in the next fiscal year,and a larger one the year after.Library Board Members questioned putting an increase for operating revenue ahead of an increase for construction. Option C o FY 2011-12 Marmalade construction tax rate increase($5.50/home/year or$38.30/commercial/year)3 o FY 2012-13 Glendale operating and Marmalade operating revenue tax rate increases ($14.06/home/year or$98.00 commercial/year) Effect:A one-year early start of Marmalade Branch construction revenues and,in Fiscal Year 2012-2013,a one-year early start of Marmalade operating revenues that would accumulate$1.47 million for the Marmalade opening day collection. Council staff comments:This option is the one that appears to follow the Library System's proposed operating and capital budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012.At the May 19 Library Board meeting Board members indicated that the option also appeared to be the same sequence as the one used for the Glendale Branch Library in June 2009. Option D FY 2012-13 Marmalade construction,Glendale operating,and Marmalade operating revenue ($19.56/home/year or$136.30/commercial/year) Effect:A one-year early start of Marmalade operating accumulates$825,000 for the Marmalade Branch opening day collection. Council staff comments:This option would delay consideration of a tax increase for one year.However,it would result in a larger increase instead of spreading a potential increase over time. Option E FY 2011-12 Marmalade construction,Glendale operating and Marmalade operating revenue($19.56/home/year or$136.30/commercial/year) 4 Effect:A one-year early start of Marmalade Branch construction revenues and a one-year early start of armalade operating revenues accumulates$1.47 million for the Marmalade Branch opening day collection;a one-year early start of Glendale Branch operating revenues accumulates$825,000 to reduce the amount of bond funding required for construction. Council staff comments:This option would result in a larger tax increase than proposed in the Library System's original budget and would not spread a potential increase over time.On the other hand,if adopted,it would end further City Council consideration of a property tax rate increase to fund construction and operation of the two branches. CITY COUNCIL STAFF OPTION The only other option that appears available is: • A tax rate increase for Marmalade Branch construction and Glendale Branch operating revenue in Fiscal Year 2012-2013. • A tax rate increase for operating revenue for the Marmalade Branch in Fiscal Year 2013-2014. Effect:The option would delay consideration of a tax rate increase for a year and spread any potential increase over two years.It also would meet the deadlines that were part of the assumptions outlined at the top of Page 3 of this memorandum. Council staff comments:Although the option would delay any rate increase until the latest time necessary,it would not raise enough revenue to fully fund building the collection for the Marmalade Branch Library,according to Library administrators. OTHER ISSUES The City Council may wish to consider whether it is advantageous to include a judgment levy in the Library System budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012.According to Library Administrators,a judgment levy is not included in the proposed budget.Potential revenue from a judgment levy will not be known until after the City Council's discussion on June 7. Library administrators may present information pertaining to how the two branch libraries will relate to trends in the use of public libraries. 5 The City Library 7ME SALT LANE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM To: Mayor Ralph Becker and City Council From: Beth Elder, Library Director Date: May 20, 2011 On May 3, Council Members requested options for the funding of the Marmalade Branch Library. Our findings since that meeting: Marmalade Construction Timeline-A more realistic timeline for a mixed-use project has been suggested by RDA which moves opening to early 2014. This timeline is used in all scenarios. Funding needed in FY 2011-12 is available-Site Development, Project Management and Architectural Design is estimated at$300,000 and currently funds are reserved for Marmalade and available in the Capital Reserve Fund. To remain on the timeline: A tax rate increase for Marmalade Construction is needed no later than FY 2012-13. A tax rate increase for Glendale Operating is needed no later than FY 2012-13. A tax rate increase for Marmalade Operating is needed no later than FY 2013-14. Factors that suggest review of timing for funding: Funding for the Marmalade collection needs to be accumulated in advance-Due to the ephemeral nature of collections and resulting restrictions and reporting requirements, bonding for the collection is not desirable. Council designated $800,000 of the capital reserve for Marmalade, so a minimum of$1.2 m needs to be accumulated in advance of opening (Due to the tax rate increase in 2009, Glendale has collected revenues to provide for the collection.) Capital Reserves will be needed for ongoing system-wide needs and the future needs of the two new branches-This reserve is funded by excess operating revenues that are transferred each year to the capital reserve. Given the economy, there may be less to transfer in the future. Expenditures per year are estimated at $500,000-$600,000 for system-wide needs. Criteria for options: 1. Provide funding needed to meet current project timelines for Glendale and Marmalade 2. Collect revenues of$1.2 m (for a total of$2 m)for the Marmalade collection in advance 3. Ensure funding in the capital reserve for ongoing needs Assumptions in developing options: Options take a conservative approach in assuming revenues collected at the start of a fiscal year will begin to be expended at the start of that fiscal year. Options assume any excess revenue collected for the opening day collection would be used to reduce the amount of bond funding required for construction. Options assume given advance purchase of materials, the bond payments will be less than originally assumed. If property taxes are collected in excess of need for bond payments,these revenues could be used to reduce the two new branch operating revenue requirements OR fund ongoing/future capital needs for the two branches OR help to fund capital needs for the Library system. Estimates of annual property tax impact are based on a home value of$260,890 and a commercial value of$1 m. Options Option A FY 2011-12 Marmalade Construction tax rate increase ($5.50/home/year or $38.30/commercial/year) FY 2012-13 Glendale Operating tax rate increase ($7.03/home/year or$49.00/commercial/year) FY 2013-14 Marmalade Operating tax rate increase ($7.03/home/year or$49.00/commercial/year) (one year early start of Marmalade Construction revenues accumulates$645,000 for the Marmalade opening day collection) Option B FY 2011-12 Marmalade Operating tax rate increase ($7.03/home/year or$49.00/commercial/year) FY 2012-13 Glendale Operating and Marmalade Construction tax rate increase ($12.53/home/year or$87.30 commercial/year) (two year early start of Marmalade Operating revenues accumulates$1.65 m for the Marmalade opening day collection) Option C FY 2011-12-Marmalade Construction tax rate increase ($5.50/home/year or $38.30/commercial/year) FY 2012-13-Glendale Operating and Marmalade Operating tax rate increases ($14.06/home/year or $98.00 commercial/year) (one year early start of Marmalade Construction revenues and one year early start of Marmalade Operating revenues accumulates$1.47 m for the Marmalade opening day collection) Option D FY 2012-13 Marmalade Construction, Glendale Operating, Marmalade Operating ($19.56/home/year or$136.30/commercial/year) (one year early start of Marmalade Operating accumulates $825,000 for the Marmalade opening day collection) Option E FY 2011-12 Marmalade Construction, Glendale Operating, Marmalade Operating ($19.56/home/year or$136.30/commercial/year) (one year early start of Marmalade Construction revenues and one year early start of Marmalade Operating revenues accumulates$1.47 m for the Marmalade opening day collection; one year early start of Glendale Operating revenues accumulates$825,000 to reduce the amount of bond funding required for construction) The Library Board met on May 19, 2011 to review and discuss these options. They did not provide a recommendation but conveyed the following thoughts to Council: Option B seemed counter-intuitive--to fund the Marmalade Operating prior to funding Marmalade Construction. Option C is perceived by the Board to follow the Glendale model and to stay with Board and Council original funding intent. Option D, a delay in funding until FY 2012-13, could send a message to the community that the project is not supported. The Board believed options that generated more funds than needed for the collection would simply reduce the amount of bond funding required for construction and would not be viewed negatively by the public. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Date: April 28, 2011 Subject: Salt Lake City Library System Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Affected Council Districts: All Staff Report By: Russell Weeks Administrative Dept. and Contact Person: Salt Lake City Public Library System, Beth Elder, Mike Beckstead This report pertains to the proposed budget for the Salt Lake City Public Library System for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The proposed budget projects a $552,802—4 percent—in total revenue and expenditures. However,the projected increase in revenue includes a request for an increase in property taxes to support the construction of the Marmalade Branch Library at a site 300 West Street near 500 North. The request to increase property taxes is based on a City Council motion adopted in June 2009 that increased revenue in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year for library operations then and to "build one new library with a sales tax bond, fund planning for Glendale library and fund planning process for Marmalade library at a tax rate of.000057 with the addition of a legislative intent statement indicating the Council's intention to fund,plan and build the libraries." The proposed budget contemplates a property tax increase of.0000383 to generate $645,000 for annual debt service on sales tax bonds for the construction of the Marmalade Branch Library. The proposed increase would add $5.50 per year on a home valued at$260,890 and $38.30 on a business valued at $1 million,according to the transmittal letter from Library System administrators. Although the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 projects a 4 percent increase in expenditures, some portions of the budget have been increased to meet goals in the Library System's strategic plan pertaining to increasing the number of programs"that stimulate and ideas and enhance the fabric of the community,"1 and increasing—by 6 percent over the current year— the amount allocated for materials. The Salt Lake City Public Library System Board of Directors adopted a motion to recommend approval of the proposed budget at its April 21 meeting. 1 POTENTIAL OPTIONS: o Adopt the proposed budget. o Amend the proposed budget. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: Staff will prepare motions later based on City Council discussions. KEY ELEMENTS: The Library System Board of Directors in March affirmed the Marmalade Branch Library Selection Committee's recommendation of a site on 300 West Street currently owned by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency at the location for the Marmalade Branch Library. In April the Board affirmed the Glendale Branch Library Selection Committee's recommendation of the "North"property south of California Avenue as the site for the Glendale Branch Library. If the City Council affirms the Board of Directors decision,it would allow both projects to proceed. The Board's motion on the location for the Glendale Branch Library the Board included a provision that the Chapman Branch Library be evaluated to make sure it will continue to function as an integral part of the Library System. As indicated in a previous section,the Library Board and administrators propose in the budget to increase funding for public programming,materials,and the professional development of staff. The proposed budget includes $160,000 for a possible wage or merit increase. According to the proposed budget,using the$160,000 would be considered after a planned salary and benefit study is finished and the final reconciliation of property tax revenue in Fiscal Year 2011- 2012. BUDGET RELATED FACTS: It should be noted that the City Council motion in June 2009 that began the process for building two new branch libraries contained the following assumptions: o Immediate construction of the Glendale Branch Library. o Allocations from Library System reserves of$150,000 for the Glendale Branch Library planning process; $800,000 for the Marmalade Branch Library public process; and$1.5 million to help construct the Glendale Branch Library.2 The proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 includes $1.5 million in capital fund balances designated for building the Glendale Branch Library.3 The proposed budget contemplates another property tax increase to operate both new branches in Fiscal Year 2012-2013.4 The Salt Lake City Public Library Independent Auditor's Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30,2010,indicated that there was about$5.9 million in unreserved fund balances as 2 of the June 30 date. On February 11,2011,the Library Board of Directors adopted a motion to allocate$1 million to the System's capital projects fund. Unreserved fund balances are projected to $3,188,282 by June 30,2011 —the end of the current fiscal year. Much of the projected decrease is due to the reservation of funds for the Glendale and Marmalade branch library projects in accordance with the June 2009 City Council motion. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: BRANCH LIBRARIES Perhaps the greatest number of questions involves the building of the two new branch libraries: how soon they will be built and what the timing should be to enact a property tax increase. Although two sites have been selected,the property for the Glendale Branch Library still has to be acquired, and the goal of incorporating the Marmalade Branch Library into a unique mixed-use development that conveys the spirit of the Marmalade area requires a partnership between the Library System,the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency,and a private sector developer. The partnership has yet to be formed.Opening dates for one or both projects might slip if the next steps involving each project encounter delays. In addition,since construction of the new Main Library,the paradigm has been to increase revenues before construction starts and use at least some of the money raised to stock a new library and pay for operating costs after the building opens. One might remember that after the Main Library opened,Library and City officials found it necessary to raise property taxes to pay for operating costs. Again,that is the paradigm under consideration for the two branch libraries. There is always a spectrum of alternatives pertaining to funding the projects. At one end of the spectrum is to not increase property taxes in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The other end of the spectrum is to increase property taxes to fund construction of the Marmalade Branch and the operating costs of that branch and the Glendale Branch in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. Another option would be to adopt a property tax increase large enough to pay to debt service on sales tax bonds to build the Marmalade Branch Library and to pay the Glendale Branch operating costs in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The increase would be followed by a smaller property tax increase after the Marmalade Branch is built to pay the operating costs for that library. The City Council may wish to explore whether the Library System could make more unrestricted fund balances available for the project. But enough money would have to left in fund balances to meet the state's legal requirements,and to address other capital needs with the Library System. It is unknown to City Council staff how much difference assigning more fund balance to the projects would have. OTHER ISSUES o The Library has had a long-term practice of allowing retired employees to continue to work for the Library as `substitutes' at the rate of pay that they had when they retired. Given that funds are limited and that substitutes can probably be obtained at a much lower hourly rate,the Council may wish to consider specifying that funds are not authorized for use in a program that allows retired 3 employees to return to work as substitutes.It should be noted that substitutes are paid about$17 an hour.The proposed budget would cut the amount allocated to pay substitutes from$150,000 in the current fiscal year to$61,000 in the next fiscal year.The reason for the decrease is a planned increase in total staff.Again, the Council may wish to consider specifying that no funds should be authorized for the practice. o Council staff has suggested to the Library that they consider using City resources such as the Attorney's Office and Human Resources to address issues as needed. If the Council is supportive of that approach,the Council could consider adopting intent language making that offer.There is always natural concern about combining City and Library functions.The Council could include in the statement wording to assure that the current distance in policy would not be impacted. o Given issues raised recently,and the sophistication of the City's Library system, the Council may wish to consider providing more budget flexibility for consulting to free the Board and Library Administration to get professional consulting expertise beyond that which is proposed.The amount proposed is relatively small given the size of the organization. REVIEW OF PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 REVENUE SOURCES Adopted Budget FY Requested Budget Percent Major Category 2010-2011 FY 2010-2011 Difference Change Property Tax $ 13,331,115 $ 14,176,808 $ 845,693 6% Interest Income 45,000 45,000 0 0% Grants/Donations/Rebates 148,425 104,000 -44,425 -30% Fines/Charges/Leases/Events 495,000 485,000 -10,000 -2% Prior Yr Capital Fund Balance 1,000,000 1,103,000 103,000 10% Branch Fund Carryover(est.) 450,000 108,534 -341,466 10% TOTAL $ 15,469,540 $ 16,022,342 $ 552,802 4% The table above shows the changes in the proposed budget compared to the adopted budget for the current fiscal year.The projected increase in property tax revenue includes a projected modest increase in property tax under the current tax rate plus delinquent tax collections and motor vehicle fees,and a projected increase in revenue to support construction of the Marmalade Library Branch. Other major changes include a realistic projection of income from grants based on data from the previous four years.The proposed budget estimates revenue from grants at$7,000 instead of$50,000.Library Administrators intend to pursue more grants,but have budgeted based on past returns. 4 Funds carried over from the Glendale and Marmalade project reflect money spent on both projects during the current fiscal year. EXPENDITURES Adopted Budget FY Requested Budget Percent Major Category 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 Difference Change Buildings and Grounds $ 1,279,300 $ 1,282,800 $ 3,500 0% Materials 1,767,068 1,868,768 101,700 6% Personnel 9,121,281 9,253,349 132,068 1% Services 1,037,000 1,157,425 120,425 12% Operating Contingency 210,000 0 -210,000 -100% Capital Projects 2,054,891 2,460,000 405,109 20% TOTAL $ 15,469,540 $ 16,022,342 $ 552,802 4% As indicated in another section,projected spending on materials is aimed at increasing the percentage spent on materials to a target of 15 percent of operating revenue. The proposed budget would bring spending on materials to 13.8 percent of operating revenue. Spending on books and reference sources is projected to increase from$735,000 in the current fiscal year to $818,025 in the next fiscal year because"books continue to be in high demand within the (my community.i5 Nevertheless,spending on downloadable books,music and movies is projected to climb from $31,000 in the current fiscal year to$170,750 in the next one—a reflection of interest in digital resources. Although projected spending on personnel indicates a 1 percent increase,Library System administrators plan to increase the number of employees,particularly part-time help significantly. Full-time equivalent staff levels are projected to rise to 185.7, an increase of 1.6 full-time equivalent positions. However,four full-time equivalent positions have been moved into public services,to allocate more staff to directly serving the public. In addition,the number of part-time positions within the Library System has been increased by 13 to 172 to provide more workers. Again,Library administrators plan to initiate a salary and benefits study.The study may lead to wage and merit increases later in the new fiscal year.6 The largest percentage increase occurs in services.Three areas make up the bulk of the projected increase: programming,professional and technical expenses,and staff training and development. Programming involves preparing,booking, scheduling more programs that benefit the community.The proposed budget would increase current expenditures by$73,425 to $199,425 in the next fiscal year. Increased expenditures for professional and technical resources by$25,000 to$123,000 largely are for the cost of the salary and benefits study and for the use of experts who may contribute to the Library System's strategic plan.An additional$12,000 has been budgeted for attorney expenses for review of further potential refinements of Library System policies,and compliance with state and local regulations and ordinances. The increase would bring the budgeted amount for attorney expenses to$20,000. Finally,the proposed budget would allocate $65,000 instead of the$20,000 allocated in the current year's budget for staff training and development. Increased staff training was one of the recommendations made by an organizational study last year by George Needham, a nationally recognized"library strategist." Cf The 100 percent decline in operating contingency reflects Library System administrators' plans to use a"variety of internal controls and monitoring systems to ensure expenditures do not exceed the budget."' Besides moving forward on the Glendale and Marmalade branch library projects,the proposed budget capital project priorities include: o Replacing computers and servers as required. o Evaluating DVD dispensing alternatives to improve efficiency and productivity. o Evaluating alternatives to the"radio frequency identification"system(the filaments placed in books and DVDs) and automatic material sorting to improve efficiency and productivity in circulation. o Replacing damaged glass panels within the Main Library. o Upgrading lighting within the children's area of the Main Library. o Reupholstering 30 percent of the soft chairs within the Main Library. o Repairing and replacing walkways at the Sweet and Sprague branch libraries. o Replacing heating and air conditioning within the children's area of the Main Library. i ' Salt Lake City Public Library System Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2011-2012,Page 18. 2 Please see attached document. 3 Salt Lake City Public Library System Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2011-2012,Page 10. Ibid.Page 10. 5 Ibid.Page 19. 6 Ibid.Page 15. Ibid.Page 6. 6 RECEIVED A"afl 2 7 an • The CityLibrary SLC COUNCIL OFFICE THE SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM Date April 27, 2011 To: Mayor Ralph Becker David Everitt, Chief of Staff Members of the City Council i ' --- From: Beth Elder, Director k. - Re: City Library FY 2011-12 Budget and other matters Please find attached the FY 2011-12 budget request for the City Library. The following items require consideration for approval by the Mayor and City Council. 1. Approval of the FY 2011-12 Operating and Capital Budget (approved by the Library Board on April 21, 2011) Libraries are experiencing great change throughout the U.S. More and more, people are • accessing information and communicating via mobile devices. The City Library is supplying content to patrons using their kindles, nooks or I-Pads. The Library's Strategic Plan recognizes the powerful role the Library can play in giving people the tools to make Salt Lake City an even better place to live. We are doing this by balancing traditional library services with opportunities to serve as a platform for community-created content, a center for stimulating dialogue on important issues and a source for the ever-changing information needs of the community. The Library's new web site (slcpl.org) is groundbreaking in re-envisioning how Library services can be navigated and utilized. Many of our resources are within our resident's fingertips no matter where they are. The SLCPL continues to be a leader in innovation and a center of activity. Given FY 2010-11 revenues were estimated conservatively and came in at higher than anticipated levels, The City Library will be cautiously optimistic in forecasting FY 2011-12 revenues. To accomplish the Library's vision described in its Strategic Plan, revenues reflecting an increase of approximately $150,000 along with funds created by a variety of small efficiencies will make it possible to allocate funds in FY 2011-12 as follows: Staffing in management and support service functions has been reduced to place more people in direct contact with the public. Library Anderson-Foothill Chapman Day-Riverside Sprague Corinne&Jack Sweet 210 East 400 South 1135 South 2100 East 577 South 900 West 1575 West 1000 North 2131 South 1100 East 455"F"Street Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Utah 84111 Utah 84108 Utah 84104 Utah 84116 Utah 84106 Utah 84103 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 ' T:801-524-8200 Hearing impaired:801-364-4669 F:801-322-8181 F:801-322-8180 F:801-322-8182 F:801-322-8183 F:801-322-8184 F:801-322-8194 A compensation and benefits study will be initiated to determine if salary/benefits and staffing allocations for personnel are consistent with other comparable libraries. An important strategic initiative to prepare Library employees for the future, called Building the Culture, will be initiated with the budget reflecting a substantial increase in funding for training. This training will provide professional leadership and management skills, training in managing change and creating optimal operating environments. Overall, the training will enhance the professional level of all staff. Public programming will see an increase in funding as audience demand and attendance continues to grow. With the Leonardo opening in 2011, there are numerous opportunities to create a cultural campus for associated events and learning opportunities. Experiments in early 2010 indicate an increase in expenditures for downloadable materials is advisable. The variety of downloadable books, movies and music will be expanded. The new website will make it possible for the Library to be even more transparent with plans, Library Board decisions, Library operating activities and finances. A transparency initiative will be funded to make many more documents instantly accessible to the public. Improvements to technology will create opportunities to automate and reduce repetitive tasks. Potential phase one implementation of a new RFID system (to replace an obsolete ten-year old system) Libraries in Glendale and Marmalade have completed a great deal of community input and planning processes. Design will follow final site approval with construction expected to begin for both branches in this fiscal year. An analysis will be performed of any needed improvements to the Chapman Library 2. Approval of a tax rate increase for the Marmalade Library Construction (approved by the Library Board on April 21, 2011) As per the Council's 2009 legislative intent, a tax rate increase is being requested to fund the construction of the Marmalade Branch Library at 300 West/500 North. This project will serve as Phase One for an RDA planned mixed-use development. The estimated rate increase is .0000383%, to generate $645,000 annually to service sale tax bonds for a twenty-year period. The Library's current tax rate is .000791% and State law provides for a ceiling of .001%. The new tax rate would be .000829%, well within the cap. This increase represents a cost of$5.50/year on a home valued at $260,890 and $38.30 on a business valued at $1m. • Marmalade Branch costs are based on general estimates, as follows: Land Acquisition $ 700,000 Construction ($235 x 20,000 sf) $4,700,000 Collection ($20 x 100,000 items) $2,000,000 Furnishings ($35 x 20,000 sf) $ 700,000 Consulting (8%) $ 376,000 Technology $ 250,000 Art, Landscaping, Misc. $ 210,000 $8,936,000 3. Approval of the Glendale Library site at Concord and California Streets. (approved by the Library Board on April 21, 2011) The Glendale Library Steering Committee (comprised of Library Board representatives, residents and Library personnel) led a process for selecting the Glendale Library site were. Steps in the process included: May-August, 2010-Community engagement with site options by architectural firm, CRSA October, 2010-Elimination of several sites due to restrictions December, 2010-Consideration of a new site at 900 South 1000 West suggested by the City's Community and Economic Development Dept. as a potential link with a future streetcar line. February, 2011-Presentation of the 900 South option to Mayor and City Council to determine if there was a compelling interest to site the library at this location (Mayor and Council did not indicate a preference for the 900 South location). April, 2011-Review of an independent assessment of the 900 South property by CRSA. Due to a large number of issues that would require resolution, the, Steering Committee voted 7 to 1 to recommend the "North" property at Concord and California. 4. Approval of the Marmalade Library site at 300 West between 500 and 600 North in collaboration with the RDA (approved by the Library Board on March 17, 2011) A Joint RDA/City Library Vision Statement for the development at 300 West/500 North O This mixed-use development, a collaboration between the RDA, development partners and the City Library will be located along 300 West between 500 North and 600 North.The development,with the Marmalade Library serving as an • anchor,will revitalize,activate and create a central gathering place for several neighborhoods including Marmalade,Capitol Hill,Guadalupe,Rose Park and Swedetown.The development will provide a way for residents to connect with each other and to find their everyday needs met by co-located services.Retail might include dining,a coffee shop,an artisanal/local market or a drug store. Housing and office or studio space could also be a component of the design.The development will highlight the unique character of the neighborhood and be a source of pride and a center of activity for those arriving on foot,bike or by car. There will be both indoor and outdoor gathering spaces which will provide opportunities for meetings,performances,concerts,dining or children's activities. The Marmalade Library,as the first tenant,will create excitement and serve as a catalyst for the development's overall identity,attracting compatible mixed-use partners which will evolve with market and design-imperatives. The Library will be presenting these items at the May 3 Council work session.Please let me know if we can be helpful with any further detail. . oo. ...a song°•I'm \ ...goo•..."',' ............"wi...a....',."'""' .....ow ... .Ns^ :,... ... ,,,..,...1.„-....-- A 1 tic .„.....—____::..._::.......,...-_-,-.21 • -.7.---- ri I va ... _ A i, idiot. ...o,_.-- i 11,1 . filt -- t I i ID i••• , \ - ' -,.... ,.: • -1 \ ; 1 , • ...., , , , ix Ile .11.. i. , . . T * . , • - ' Pil A. • 4. a IP" '''' i_.., . Ilk -••••• b i 'RA- . - • The. City Library -OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET 7 FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 The City Library , _ orm The City Library THE SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM April 2011 City Council Members, Mayor Becker and Residents of Salt Lake City: The Salt Lake City Library continues to be a center of community activity and collaboration, a source of information for entertainment and enlightenment and a symbol of openness and ideas. For the last three years, usage at the City Library has shown rapid growth: • Circulation has increased more than 10% to 3,800,287 items checked out. • Circulation per capita at 20.3 items per person is more than double the national average of 9.09. • Visits to City Library locations are estimated at over 3.86 million per year, outpacing the national average by 4 tol. • With over 964,000 items, The City Library has double the materials for check out per capita than other libraries of its size. • The Library offered 2,162 programs for adults and children that drew a total of 82,200 attendances. • Library meeting rooms were booked over 3,000 times for community meetings and events. • Library computers continued to experience heavy use, if all the hours of computer use last year were added together, it would equal 45 years. • The Salt Lake City Public Library ranks sixth in the Hennen's American Public Library Ranking which benchmarks libraries of similar population size. • Locally, the City Library has the highest rating by residents of any City service, scoring 6.33 out of 7. The Library is healthy and robust. With the development of new branches well underway, the Library's role as the cultural center of the community will surely continue to grow. Sincerely, Sincerely, Hugh Gillilan Beth Elder Library Board President Library Director Main Library Anderson-Foothill Chapman Day-Riverside Sprague Corinne&Jack Sweet 210 East 400 South 1135 South 2100 East 577 South 900 West 1575 West 1000 North 2131 South 1100 East $ 455"F"Street Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City 3 Salt Lake City Utah 84111 Utah 84108 Utah 84104 Utah 84116 Utah 84106 Utah 84103 T:801-524-8200 1:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 Hearing impaired:801-364-4669 F:801-322-8181 F:801-322-8180 F:801-322-8182 F:801-322-8183 F:801-322-8184 F:801-322-8194 1 Table of Contents Letter From Library Board President and Director 1 Mission and Ethics Statements 3 Library Organization 4 Budget Development Timeline 5 Executive Summary 6 Strategic Plan 2009-12 8 Income and Revenues 10 Summary of Operating Budget Expenditures 13 Personnel Services Materials Buildings and Grounds Capital Budget Expenditures 23 • Timeline Glendale and Marmalade Branch Construction 25 Building Descriptions 28 Strategic Plan Summary 29 • Mission Statement The City Library is a dynamic civic resource that promotes free and open access to information, materials, and services to all members of the community to advance knowledge, foster creativity, encourage the exchange of ideas, build community, and enhance the quality of life. Ethics Statement We believe that free and open access to information, ideas and diverse perspectives forms the foundation of a democratic society. We promote intellectual freedom and strive to empower our community by facilitating the information needs of individuals. We respect our patrons' privacy and honor the trust placed in us. We engage every patron as an individual with compassion and respect for their uniqueness. We use our access to library resources judiciously and with honorable intent. We hold ourselves accountable for the quality of information and service we provide. We effectively communicate our methods and decision making, in the pursuit of transparency. We build excellence by supporting our colleagues training, skill-building, education, personal and professional development. We continually grow by learning new methods, skills and technologies in order to adapt to the needs of a changing community. We are a collaborative organization that provides a safe environment where staff ideas or concerns are encouraged and addressed. 3 w The City Library ORGANIZATION CHART March 28, 2011 IHt :.,AL' Lxdc cll.( I'U9_IG UtlRr.KY 5YS'L•/ Library Board Director Beth Elder Administrative Assistant Open I I I I I Library Exp—Main Library Exp—Branches Information Tech Human Resources Communications Finance & Operations Associate Director Associate Director Manager Assistant Director Manager Associate Director Debbie Ehrman Patty Steed Tebbin Salvesen Open Julianne Hancock Mike Beckstead Exploring Enjoying Life Early Literacy Tech Access Building Local Solutions/ New Ideas --- Outcome I Outcome I — — Outcome/Lab II — Mktg Media the Culture Relations Bridging Divides Outcome I Darrah Rogers Lies' Johnson Gwen Page Outcome/ Outcome II Safi Safiullah Training II Howard Brown L2—M r II Anderson- Open g Chapman—Mgr II _ Computer Browsing/ Brooke Young Foothill—Mgr I Open Services Maintenance Welcome Desk — Michele WideraBenefits Mgr Mgr II — & Payroll Frans Berghoff Eric Ikenou a Day-Riverside Y L4/AV—Mgr I Mgr l Sprague—Mgr I Mark Ewing Adriane Juarez Mary Maloney Technical L3/Collection — — Srvcs—Mgr II Mgr I Becky Butler Lisa Curt Sweet—Mgr II Children's Library — Alveeda _. Mgr I Circ/Call 1— Events Lauscher Deanna Romriell — Accounting,. Center—Mgr I Frances Glendale—LT Marmalade—LT Brummett Open — Open Grants—as — Funding Allows) Branch Cap— Proj—Contract A ElLeadership Team Positions Non Leadership Team Functional Areas BUDGET (' DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE JANUARY Library administration develops goals and targets for Strategic Outcomes and internal development projects FEBRUARY Outcome leads and managers develop outcome plans for upcoming fiscal year to accomplish targets—including budgetary needs for staff, programming, technology, equipment and training MARCH Library Board reviews preliminary proposed budget revenues and expenditures for next fiscal year, including capital projects Budget briefing with Mayor and staff Budget briefing with City Council staff APRIL Library receives confirmation of property tax revenues Board approves proposed library budget for next fiscal year City Council office and City Administration receive proposed budget for review MAY Library's proposed budget on display at all library public services desks and City Recorder's Office Proposed budget presented to City Council City Council public hearing on proposed budget JUNE County provides tax rate to government entities, including library City Council approves proposed library budget and property tax rate for next fiscal year JULY Library's fiscal year budget effective AUGUST Truth-in-taxation hearings for government entities requesting a tax increase 5 EXECUTIVE Libraries are experiencing great change throughout the U.S. More and more, people are access- 6 SUMMARY ing information and communicating via mobile devices. The City Library is now supplying content to patrons via their kindles, nooks or I-Pads. The Library's Strategic Plan recognizes the powerful role the Library can play in giving people the tools and connectivity to make Salt Lake City an even better place to live. By balancing traditional library services with opportunities to serve as a plat- form for community-created content, a center for stimulating dialogue on important issues and a source for the ever-changing information needs of the community the Library remains busy and relevant. The new web site (slcpl.org) is groundbreaking as it re-envisions how library services can be navigated and utilized. Many resources are within resident's fingertips no matter where they are. The City Library continues to be a leader in innovation and a center of activity. Given FY 2010-11 revenues came in at budgeted levels, The City Library will be cautiously opti- mistic in forecasting FY 2011-12 revenues. The large contingency line item will be eliminated in exchange for a variety of internal controls and monitoring systems to ensure expenditures do not exceed the budget. To accomplish the Library's vision described in its Strategic Plan, revenues reflecting an increase of approximately $150,000 along with funds created by a variety of small efficiencies will make it possible to allocate funds in FY 2011-12 as follows: • Staffing in management and support service functions has been reduced to place more people in direct contact with the public. • A compensation and benefits study will be initiated to determine if allocations for personnel are consistent with other comparable libraries.• • An important strategic initiative to prepare Library employees for the future, called Building the Culture, will be initiated with a substantial increase in funding for training. This training will provide professional leadership and management skills, change management and optimizing operating environments for continual improvement. Overall, the training will enhance the professional level of all staff. • Public programming will see an increase in funding as audience demand and attendance continue to grow. With the Leonardo opening in 2011, there are numerous opportunities to create a cultural campus for associated events and learning opportunities. • Experiments in early 2010 indicate an increase in expenditures for downloadable materials is advisable. The variety of downloadable books, movies and music will be expanded. • The new web site will make it possible for the Library to be even more transparent with plans, decisions, operating activities and finances. A transparency initiative will be funded to make many more documents instantly accessible to the public. • Improvements to technology will create opportunities to automate and reduce repetitive tasks. • Libraries in Glendale and Marmalade have completed a great deal of community input and planning processes. Construction is expected to begin for both branches in this fiscal year. • 6 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BY THE Salt Lake City Population 183,171 NUMBERS Salt Lake City Residents with a Library Card (March 2011) 99,872 Total Number of Registered Library Card Holders 145,136 Salt Lake City Library Agencies/Main Library, five branches Hours Open Weekly Systemwide 378 Items in the Collection 964,193 Items Loaned/Year (April 2009-March 2010) 3,800,287 New Library Card Registrations/Year (Apr 2009-Mar 2010) 34,603 Full-Time Equivalent Staff 176 Web site Pages Viewed (July 2010-February 2011) 2,463,924 Public Access Computers 201 Library Programs (July 2008-June 2009) 1892 Attendance at Library Programs (July 2008-June 2009) 82,228 Interlibrary Loan Items Provided to other libraries 2,706 The Library Ranked #1 of all City Services in the 2009 Dan Jones Survey One-third of card holders use their card in any given quarter The City Library provides about 400,000 hours of public internet time annually—that's more than 45 years of linear time 7 STRATEGIC The City Library has chosen six community outcomes to provide a focus for developing services, • PLAN collections and programs. Along with community partners, staff has developed a rich array of ini- 2009-12 tiatives and experiences to help achieve these goals. Additional details on The City Library's Stragetic Plan are provided on pages 28-34. • Building the Culture / . Build a culture that sustains the Library's Mission and enables the Library to grow and adapt to meet the future needs of the community The City Library requires a common set of beliefs, values and behaviors aligned with the Library's Mission to operate effectively and drive the Strategic Plan. Professionalism, creativity, accountability, teamwork, `` ` adaptability, leadership and management skills, and a reward and • . �l y ,— recognition system that reinforces these areas is required to create a cohesive organization with shared vision, values and strategy. .i .. .j • Enjoying Life People make time for entertainment to -N-- -_ .,/ • lighten up, enjoy life and unlock creativity. • , � ' The City Library celebrates creativity and inspiration. The facilities . ' '•,, ~ \ ' '*'''' 'Allii are inviting and fun to explore. Collections include movies to PP entertain, music to inspire, and books and magazines to learn about 0 �� tiff, the newest trends. Programs encourage family and friends to come r \ , together for events, children's paper airplane contests, outdoor concerts, Author's Live events, or tango classes. Experiencing The City Library reminds us we live in a smart, active and creative city. � Exploring New Ideas ;` I. The community openly explores ideas and engages in conversation, discussion and dialogue, especially about ideas 1 they may never have encountered before. ai t� , . • !46 Curiosity and engagement are essential to advancing knowledge. .. 1 Lifelong learning results when natural curiosity comes in contact _ with a neutral venue where all information can be explored without • l 4.. judgment or bias. The City Library is also the community's urban } ` living room, a place where people engage with one another on • • _ "�' Ai any topic, from city planning to medical discoveries to world politics. 8 Ensuring Early Literacy Every child has an equal chance to succeed. The youngest children have expansive early literacy and early learning opportunities. The City Library will step up efforts to provide parents and children with the language and literacy foundation children need to be ready to read when they enter kindergarten. A love of books and stories doesn't just add to the richness of one's life, but also builds important reasoning skills, encourages community engagement, and promotes the creativity necessary for the entire society to tackle important issues. • Accessing Technology Everyone in the community has access to computers and the skills to use them. Using technology is no longer optional. Without access to technology . , and the skills to use it, individuals may be left disconnected from friends, family, work opportunities, news, information, entertainment and much - 4 _ more. The City Library is already a hub of technology access, providing computers and internet access for public use. Further efforts will be f # made to identify those in the community without access or the needed level of skills and provide modern technologies, information and courses to keep everyone up-to-date. Local Solutions/Bridging Divides The community works together to address challenges and generate innovative solutions to create and sustain the best place to live and then makes it happen. Our focus will be on sustainability and City, State and National urban initiatives. The community finds ways to bridge the east/west racial, cultural and socio-economic divide to strengthen our city. f� Sustainability requires the attention and hard work of the whole community. The City Library will create programs that educate and initiate community activities that foster self-sufficiency and sustainability. The City Library will be a catalyst for bridging the divides that inhibit positive perceptions and collaboration between the east/west neighborhoods. By offering encouragement to explore new neighborhoods, meet each other, share personal stories, and collaborate, Salt Lake City residents will find greater opportunities 0 to value and celebrate the City's collective culture. 9 Ar INCOME AND Financial Picture and 2010-12 Projections 110 REVENUES The downturn and resulting shortfall experienced in 2009-10 Property Tax revenue stabilized in 2010-11. This caused the Library to be conservative in property tax estimates. Actual property tax revenues were 1% higher than budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year. Delinquent Collections came in on budget while Motor Vehicle Fees were less than budget. The aggregate actual General Property Tax revenues of $13,377,951 were higher than budgeted revenues by $46,836 or .4%. The Library's other revenue (from fines, copier/printer revenue, grants and interest) is forecast to be under budget primarily due to a shortfall in grant revenue as well as continued reductions in fine revenue. With a less uncertain revenue picture going into 2011-12, the Library will anticipate property tax revenue consistent with revenue expected to be generated by the certified tax rate and budget for expenditures accordingly. The operating contingency line in the 2010-11 budget ($210,000) set up to minimize the impact of a possible shortfall in property tax revenues will be eliminated. The Library's other revenue for 2011-12 is budgeted lower than the 2010-11 budget to reflect the average actual grant revenue realized over the prior four years, and the continued reduction in fine revenue. The capital budget includes funds generated by the current property tax rate. $556,466 is desig- nated for the construction of the Glendale Branch Library. Additional property tax revenue gener- ated by a proposed rate increase of .0000383% will generate $645,000 for annual debt service on sales tax bonds for the construction of the Marmalade Branch Library. This rate increase is subject to Mayor and City Council approval per the City Council's 2009 legislative intent. A tax increase to operate both Glendale and Marmalade Libraries will be requested in 2012-13. 4110 Summary of General Property Tax Request • 2011 -12 Budget 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Actual Budget Budget Operating $12,374,986 $ 12,774,649 $ 12,975,342 Capital 543,348 556,466 1,201,466 Total General Property Tax $12,918,334 $ 13,331,115 $ 14,176,808 Fund Balance Actual 2009-10 Changes during 2010-11 Operating Capital • Per 2009 rate increase approve by the City Council, Restricted $ 0.2 $ 0.6 $1,500,000 of the unrestricted Capital Fund is Designated - Glendale 0.2 intended to support Glendale construction Designated - Marmalade 0.3 • The Library Board approved the transfer of Unrestricted 2.5 2.9 $1,000,000 from the Operating Fund to the • ($millions) $ 2.7 $ 4.0 Capital Fund on February 17, 2011. 10 Revenue Sources Operating Fund and Capital Fund • 2011 -12 Budget 0 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Actual Budget Budget OPERATING REVENUE General Property Tax $12,374,986 $12,774,649 $12,975,342 Fines and Collections 359,194 340,000 325,000 Grants 13,400 50,000 7,000 Interest 44,978 20,000 20,000 Donations 120,884 75,000 75,000 Copier/Printer and Sundry Revenue 51,903 45,000 50,000 Leases 57,748 60,000 60,000 Events/Conferences 60,395 50,000 50,000 Total Operating Revenue $13,083,488 $13,414,649 $13,562,342 CAPITAL REVENUE General Property Tax $ 543,348 $ 556,466 $ 1,201,466* RDA Rebate 23,425 23,425 22,000 Interest 36,166 25,000 25,000 Prior Year Capital Fund Balance - 1,000,000 1,103,000 Branch Building Fund Carryover (est.) - 450,000 108,534 Donations and Grants; Sundry Revenue 30,568 - - Total Capital Revenue $ 633,507 $ 2,054,891 $ 2,460,000 General Property Tax • General Property Tax revenues are consistent with the stabilization of realized revenue in the current year. Revenue is budgeted at the current certified tax rate, property values and collec- tion rate. • Delinquent Collections and Motor Vehicle Fees are budgeted conservatively based on an aver- age of the last three years. * Additional General Property Tax revenue is included within Capital Revenue from the proposed property tax increase to support the construction or the Marmalade Branch. Fines Fine revenue from lost and overdue materials is expected to continue to decline consistent with current experience and economic conditions. The Library will maintain its contract with Unique Management (UMI) collection systems for collecting overdue materials and accounts. Although this has not generated any increased revenues from fines, it has resulted in more materials being returned which provides better patron service. Grants Grant revenue for 2011-12 has been significantly reduced consistent with the average realized grant revenue over the prior four years. While the Library submitted five grant requests in 2010-11, none proved successful. Opportunities to improve the Library's success in realizing additional grant revenue will be explored during the coming year. 11 • Interest It is anticipated interest rates will remain low into 2012 and Interest revenue is budgeted consis- tent with the current year's actual experience. As of March 2011, the Library earned .4900% on funds invested in the Public Treasurer's Investment Fund. As a comparison, actual interest rates March of 2010 and March of 2009 were .5605% and 1.246% respectively. Donations The Friends of The City Library generously contribute the majority of the Donations received by the Library to support special programs and projects of the Library. The Library will support the Friends organization in any enhancements to their fund-raising approaches. Copier/Printer and Sundry The Library generates revenue from computer printing, copy machines and fees charged for the use of Library locations for professional photography and filming. The Library is budgeting a slight increase of $5,000 in budgeted Copier/Printer and Sundry revenue consistent with current year and prior year actuals. Leases The City Library receives rent from the shops on Library Square. Lease revenue is budgeted con- sistent with the current year's actual experience and assumes no vacancies during the year. During the recent economic downturn, the shops remained 100% occupied with only one turnover out of nine tenants. Events/Conferences Event revenue is generated from the use of facilities both during and after hours.Actual Event rev- • enues are under budget in 2010-11, however, it is anticipated that improving economic condi- tions will increase Event revenue to historical levels. Event revenue is budgeted consistent with the prior year budget. • 12 i + Summary of Operating Budget Expenditures . 2010-1 2011-12 • Budg•. Budget PERSONNEL Salaries and Wages $ 6,841,733 $ 6,829,281 $ 7,006,821 Employees' Insurance 905,005 1,042,000 987,481 Social Security 496,979 513,000 528,191 Retirement 604,407 710,000 703,856 State Unemployment Compensation 11,820 12,000 12,000 Other 11,146 15,000 15,000 Total Personnel $ 8,871,090 $ 9,121,281 $ 9,253,349 SERVICES Cataloging Charges $ 74,510 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 City Administrative Charge 23,125 20,000 20,000 Copier-Printer Supplies 17,528 25,000 22,000 Insurance 204,580 208,000 200,000 Library Supplies 120,633 160,000 160,000 Office Supplies 6,391 8,000 8,000 Payroll Processing Charge 11,412 15,000 12,500 Postage 33,107 40,000 30,000 Professional and Technical 63,964 98,000 123,000 Professional and Technical-Attorney 9,590 8,000 20,000 Programming 98,307 126,000 199,425 Publicity 40,536 65,000 50,000 Staff Training and Development 24,764 20,000 65,000 Sundry Expense 11,747 20,000 20,000 Telephone 120,305 128,000 128,000 Travel 13,287 12,000 15,500 Board Development - 4,000 4,000 Total Services $ 873,786 $ 1,037,000 $ 1,157,425 MATERIALS Art Prints/Misc. $ - $ 1,000 $ - Binding 2,320 4,000 3,000 Books and Reference Sources 848,085 735,068 818,025 Online Databases 193,157 180,000 145,000 Downloadable Books, Music, Movies 31,000 31,000 170,750 Maps - 1,000 - Periodicals 117,763 108,000 119,050 Music and Audio Books 351,536 360,000 232,543 DVDs 330,510 347,000 380,400 Total Materials $ 1,874,371 $ 1,767,068 $ 1,868,768 13 a 2009- 2010-11 _:. ' 2011-12 A . , ,et BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS Buildings-Maintenance $ 196,277 $ 181,100 $ 191,000 City Boiler Operations 91,061 108,900 90,000 Equipment-Maintenance 28,386 40,000 33,000 Buildings and Equipment-Contract Services 289,824 282,000 286,000 Building Security 144,194 150,000 140,000 Equipment Purchases 18,619 25,000 20,000 Technical Equipment Purchase - - 25,000 Heating and Fuel 105,140 100,000 105,000 Lights and Power 337,606 343,000 338,000 Motor Equipment-Service and Maintenance 11,056 9,000 11,000 Rent-Property and Equipment 2,045 2,300 2,300 Water 41,162 38,000 41,500 Total Buildings and Grounds $ 1,265,370 $ 1,279,300 $ 1,282,800 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $ 12,884,617 $ 13,204,649 $ 13,562,342 CONTINGENCY - 210,000 - TOTAL OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURES $ 12,884,617 $ 13,414,649 $ 13,562,342 PERSONNE Accomplishments in 2010-11 • Hired outside professional talent for Executive Leardership roles including Finance, HR and Communications. • Created six Outcome Lead roles dedicated to creating and implementing services and programs in support of the Library's Strategic Plan. • Developed and implemented a staffing plan that slightly increased total FTEs but significantly increased FTEs focused on patron service by decreasing FTEs in management and support services areas. Priorities 2011-12 • Improving organizational effectiveness and internal alignment. • Identifying and developing training programs to improve professional skills. • Researching and evaluating cost effective benefit alternatives for future year implementation. (While benefit costs are not increasing significantly in 2011-12, the trend of double digit increas- es is expected to continue). • Developing and implementing an efficient, effective, standardized staff scheduling tool to opti- mize staffing levels that deliver superior patron service. • Completing a salary/benefit benchmark study using an outside consultant to assess salary/ben- efit programs comparable with benchmark libraries. 14 2009-10 2010-11 _ 2011-12 Actual Budget Budget PERSONNEL Salaries and Wages $ 6,841,733 $ 6,829,281 $ 7,006,821 Employees' Insurance 905,005 1,042,000 987,481 Social Security 496,979 513,000 528,191 Retirement 604,407 710,000 703,856 State Unemployment Compensation 11,820 12,000 12,000 Other 11,146 15,000 15,000 Total Personnel $ 8,871,090 $ 9,121,281 $ 9,253,349 Salaries and Wages (including Flex) Staffing levels are budgeted at 185.7 FTEs (full-time equivalents) compared with 184.1 FTEs in the prior year budget. While the net increase is 1.6 FTEs, there is an increase of 4.0 FTEs in pub- lic services and a reduction in support service positions of 2.4 FTEs. The budget includes a decrease in full-time positions from 114 to 112 and an increase in part-time positions from 159 to 172 compared to the prior year budget. With the increase in staffing levels, flexible wages, which allow for substitutes, have been reduced from $150,000 to $61,000. $160,000 has been included to support a possible wage/merit increase although the decision to do this will be deferred until the results of the proposed independent salary/benefits study is completed and after the final reconciliation of Property Tax revenue. Employee Insurance City Library employees are covered by the Public Employees Health Program. Health care costs for 2011-12 will decrease overall by 2% with the Preferred and Advantage plans decreasing 5% and 8.8% respectively and the Summit plan increasing 3.1%. The Library continues to cover the premium for each employee based on the Advantage program cost plus $45.00 which has decreased from $652.58 to $590.88. The Library does not pay for family coverage. Workers Compensation insurance increased by 11% to $63,276. Retirees under 65 who are maintained on the Library's health insurance have increased from 6 to 9, for an increased cost of $9,000. Social Security The rate for Social Security is currently 7.65%. No increase is forecast for 2012. Retirement Benefited full-time Library employees are covered under the Utah Retirement Public Employees Noncontributory Retirement System. For the 2011-12 budget, the pension funding rate for local government employees increased slightly from 13.37% to 13.77%. The number of employees the Library contributes either 2.65% or 1.4% into a 401(k) plan decreased from 21 to 18. A reduction in full time positions and the reduction in employees in the 401(k) plan offsets the increased pension funding rate. Unemployment Compensation The City Library's unemployment costs are not anticipated to increase from 2010-11 levels. Other This budget center supports employee use of public transit by reimbursing a portion of monthly transit pass costs. Funds are also used for flu and hepatitis shots to help reduce illness among staff members. No change is anticipated. 15 SERVICES Accomplishments in 2010-11 ghir • Launched a new web site with significantly expanded content that includes sections featuring materials, online conversations, user-created content, marketing of Library events and programs, catalog access, placement of material holds and account management. Priorities 2011-12 • To ensure the Library is maintaining a wage and benefit package comparable to benchmark libraries, a salary and benefit analysis will be initiated. The cost to support the study is includ- ed in the Professional & Technical line item. • Increased attention to creating and delivering community programs and outreach consistent with the Library's Strategic Plan is reflected in an increased Programming line item. • Staff and Manager training and development in areas such as performance management, project management, meeting management and presentations is included within the Staff Training & Development line item. 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Actual Budget Budget SERVICES Cataloging Charges $ 74,510 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 City Administrative Charge 23,125 20,000 20,000 Copier-Printer Supplies 17,528 25,000 22,000 Insurance 204,580 208,000 200,000 Library Supplies 120,633 160,000 160,000 Office Supplies 6,391 8,000 8,000 Payroll Processing Charge 11,412 15,000 12,500 Postage 33,107 40,000 30,000 Professional and Technical 63,964 98,000 123,000 Professional and Technical-Attorney 9,590 8,000 20,000 Programming 98,307 126,000 199,425 Publicity 40,536 65,000 50,000 Staff Training and Development 24,764 20,000 65,000 Sundry Expense 11,747 20,000 20,000 Telephone 120,305 128,000 128,000 Travel 13,287 12,000 15,500 Board Development - 4,000 4,000 Total Services $ 873,786 $ 1,037,000 $ 1,157,425 Cataloging The majority of these expenditures are applied to The City Library's contract with Online Computer Library Center, Inc., (OCLC) which provides Bibliographic Center for Research (BCR) pricing plans for cataloging library materials. In addition to OCLC charges, the Library uses this fund to pay for outsourcing the acquisition and cataloging of many of the 80+ international language items represented in the Library's collection. No change is anticipated in this expenditure. City Administrative Charge These charges from Salt Lake City Corporation are administrative fees for the Library's costs for cash management, City Council, and City attorney. No change is anticipated in this expenditure. 16 Copier/Printer Supplies This budget covers the cost of paper for printers and copiers throughout the system to generate the Copier/Printer revenue. A decrease of$3,000 from the 2010-11 budget based on the current year actual experience is forecast. Insurance The City Library practices careful application of risk management principles and regular compet- itive bidding to ensure the best coverage for the lowest cost resulting in a decrease in Insurance costs in 2010-11 vs. 2009-10. It is anticipated that a slight increase will occur in 2012. Insurance coverage includes Property, General Liability, Auto, D&0, Identity theft and Umbrella Liability. Library Supplies The majority of the Supply line item funds expenditures for material RFID tags used on books and DVD/CD items for check-out, check-in and security. In addition, supplies for book coverings, bar code stickers and replacement DVD/CD cases are included in this budget line. No change is anticipated in this expenditure. Office Supplies Every effort is made to contain costs by purchasing through vendors with State of Utah negotiated pricing. No change is anticipated in this expenditure. Payroll Processing Charge The City Library uses an independent vendor to process payroll checks. Based on current year actual experience a decrease from the prior year budget of $2,500 is forecast. Postage The implementation of email and automated calling for patron notification has resulted in a sub- stantial decrease in postage costs over the prior 3 years. A further reduction of $10,000 is anti- cipated based on current year experience and the utilization of the new web site as the vehicle to market programs and communicate with patrons. Professional and Technical This budget supports the funding for the annual financial audit, memberships in professional activities and organizations, and the use of outside consultants for Library projects. Included with- in this budget is the cost for the salary/benefits benchmark study discussed earlier plus costs to ensure the Library's full compliance with transparency requirements and open records law. An increase of $25,000 is included in the line item in support of these initiatives (and the use of experts in areas associated with the Library's Strategic Plan). Professional and Technical —Attorney As the Library refines and rewrites policies and guidelines, additional attorney review costs are anticipated to ensure full compliance with all regulations and codes. A budget increase from prior year budget of $12,000 based on current actual experience is anticipated. 17 • Programming 411 The quality and quantity of public programs and the community's enthusiasm for programs as reflected in increased program attendance continues to be very high. The Library will create pro- grams based on the Library's Strategic Plan that stimulate dialog and ideas and enhance the fab- ric of the community. With six dedicated Outcome Leads focused on the creation and implemen- tation of such programs, an increase of $73,425 in programming expenditures is anticipated to allow the Library to expand the number of programs that serve the community. Publicity This budget covers the cost of printing the Library's quarterly newsletter and producing promo- tional material in support of programs and events. A reduction of $15,000 in this line item is anticipated through utilization of the new web site to promote and market programs and events. Staff Training & Development The City Library continues to build a professional staff and organization through training programs that encourage the staff to expand their expertise and knowledge in support of Library goals and the Strategic Plan. A significant increase of$45,000 in training expenditures is planned in sup- port of a new Strategic Plan Outcome — Building the Culture. The objective is to establish and institutionalize a common set of practices, beliefs and systems that support adaptive change and continuous improvement, improve staff skills and capabilities to work in high-performance teams and improve the overall professionalism of the organization. Sundry Expense This account includes such expenses as advertising for job openings and procurement bids, staff identification badges, and other miscellaneous expenses. Sundry expense items are monitored 1111 closely and no change is anticipated. Telephone This budget includes the cost of internet access through high speed fiber optic lines connected to each branch and at the Main Library, trunk lines for land based telephones, and Dex Media advertising. No change is anticipated. Travel An increase of $3,500 is anticipated in this line item associated with the increased focus and funding for staff training and development. Board Development This budget item supports the Library Board members' membership fees in professional organi- zations (ALA, MPLA, ULA, etc.) and travel expenses to attend library conferences. No change is anticipated. 0 18 MATERIALS Accomplishments in 2010-11 • Launched an online music download service from Freegal that allows patrons to download three songs per week using their library card. • Launched an online book download service from Overdrive that allows patrons to download electronic books through the Library's web site to their personal devices. • Launched a films-on-demand service. Priorities 2011-12 • Increase the total materials expenditures by approximately $100,000 to approach a target of 15% of Operating Revenue. The 2011-12 budget is 13.8% of revenue. • Continue to expand the availability of downloadable music, movies and books. • Increase lending of materials to smaller Utah libraries. • Increase children's materials purchases. 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Actual Budget Budget MATERIALS Art Prints $ — $ 1,000 $ — Binding 2,320 4,000 3,000 Books and Reference Sources 848,085 735,068 818,025 Online Databases 193,157 180,000 145,000 Downloadable Books, Music, Movies 31,000 31,000 170,750 Maps — 1,000 — Periodicals 117,763 108,000 119,050 Music and Audio Books 351,536 360,000 232,543 DVDs 330,510 347,000 380,400 Total Materials $ 1,874,371 $ 1,767,068 $ 1,868,768 Art Prints & Miscellaneous This budget funds the replacement of popular prints that become damaged with use. Reduced patron demand for these materials allows the elimination of this expenditure in the coming year. Binding This budget funds the binding of back issues of magazines. Binding periodicals is vital to organ- ize and protect the historical magazine collection. As online sources expand, a slight reduction of $1,000 is planned. Books and Reference Sources Books continue to be in high demand within the community. This budget supports new and replacement adult books, children's books and reference books. An increase of $82,957 from 2010-11 budgeted levels is forecast. Online Databases While a large number of patrons use online databases, overall usage has declined 12% over the last year as patrons access information through other sources on the web. A reduction of$35,000 from the prior year budget is planned to support the increased demand for downloadable books, music and movies. 19 • Downloadable Books, Music, Movies • This budget line, previously used for downloadable audio only, has been expanded to include all downloadable materials. To support the growing move to electronic materials and current patron demand, an increase of$139,750 from the prior year budget is planned to support a growing col- lection of downloadable books, movies and music. Maps This budget funds the Library's collection of maps. No expenditures are required in the coming year. Periodicals Magazines and newspapers remain a timely and popular source of current and historical infor- mation. Use of the magazine collection throughout the Library is high. An increase of $11,050 is planned. Music and Audio Books Music and audio books on CD are anticipated to decline in demand with the increased availabil- ity of materials in the downloadable format. DVDs DVDs are one of the most popular items and include both entertainment and educational topics. An increase of $33,400 is planned to support the high demand. • 20 BUILDING 2009-10 2010-1 2011-12 • AND w.- Budget GROUNn� BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS Buildings-Maintenance $ 196,277 $ 181,100 $ 191,000 City Boiler Operations 91,061 108,900 90,000 Equipment-Maintenance 28,386 40,000 33,000 Buildings and Equipment-Contract Services 289,824 282,000 286,000 Building Security 144,619 150,000 140,000 Equipment Purchases 18,619 25,000 20,000 Technical Equipment Purchase - - 25,000 Heating and Fuel 105,140 100,000 105,000 Lights and Power 337,606 343,000 338,000 Motor Equipment-Service and Maintenance 11,056 9,000 11,000 Rent-Property and Equipment 2,045 2,300 2,300 Water 41,162 38,000 41,500 Total Buildings and Grounds $ 1,265,370 $ 1,279,300 $ 1,282,800 Buildings Maintenance The maintenance and upkeep of Library facilities is a high priority. Increased use of all facilities has an impact on the wear and tear and associated maintenance costs. The Library will contin- ue to focus on preventative and essential projects and anticipates an increase of $10,000 from prior year budget to maintain the high quality standards of our buildings and grounds. City Boiler Operations The City Library is allocated a portion of the City boiler operations. Based on current year actual allocations, a reduction in budget of $18,900 is forecast. Equipment Maintenance This budget supports the ongoing maintenance costs of all equipment and computers not cur- rently on maintenance contracts. The replacement of the public computers in 2009-10 has reduced computer maintenance expenditures and provides a reduction of $7,000 from the pre- vious year budget. Buildings and Equipment Contracted Services The City Library contracts for a variety of services when outside contractors are a more efficient and economical solution. This line item includes computer service and maintenance contracts, HVAC maintenance, elevator maintenance, garbage removal, copier and alarm service, and win- dow washing. The Library will maintain the elimination of window washing and plant maintenance at the branches. A slight increase of $4,000 is anticipated based on inflationary increases in select service contracts. Building Security The security contract with CBI includes a scheduled presence at the Main Library with visits to the branches as needed. Based on actual expenditures during the current year, a reduction of $10,000 is planned without diminishing security services or safety. 21 • • Equipment Purchases Minor equipment purchases unrelated to computers come from this budget center. Based on currently identified equipment needs, a reduction of$5,000 is planned for this budget item. Technical Equipment Purchases This is a new budgeted line item for the Library to support the replacement of printers, scanners, bar code readers and other technical equipment utilized throughout the Library system. Utilities Utilities include heating, fuel, lights and power. The Library's Strategic Plan calls for a reduction in the Library's carbon footprint. With this goal in mind, this budget was reduced in 2009-10 and the Library is maintaining the reduction in the 2011-12 budget The Library will continue to iden- tify and develop initiatives that reduce utility usage and cost. Motor Equipment—Service & Maintenance This budget covers operational and maintenance costs related to the Library's five delivery and maintenance vehicles. Based on current year and historical expenditures, this line item is increasing by $2,000. Rent— Property and Equipment No change is anticipated for this budget item. Water Based on current year actual expenditures, an increase of$3,500 is planned for this budget item. • • 22 CAPITAL Accomplishments in 2009-10 O BUDGET The Library implemented projects identified in a prior year program assisted by an architectural design consultant.In addition,a new web site was developed and launched utilizing capital fund- ing.A list of the significant capital expenditures is provided below: • Development and launch of a new City Library web site •Various interior cabinetry&shelving upgrades for the branches • Extended fencing along 400 south to deter jay walking from Trax station • Replacement of 60 chairs in the Main Library • New interior signage at several branches • Netting in the Library Plaza to deter pigeons •Various HVAC,door and alarm system replacements Priorities 2011-12 The architectural design, permitting and beginning construction on both the Glendale Branch Library and the Marmalade Branch Library is a critical priority for 2011-12. RFPs for the archi- tectural design phase will be issued in the last quarter of fiscal year 2010-11 to support ground breaking on the Glendale Branch in the first quarter of the calendar year.Significant programs under consideration include: •Advancing the Glendale and Marmalade Branch building projects • Upgrading operating systems to MS 2010 • Replacing computers and servers as required • Exploring Leadership Team productivity improvements with the use of netbooks/laptops • Evaluating DVD dispensing alternatives to improve efficiency and productivity • Evaluating RFID alternatives and automatic material sorting to improve efficiency and productivity in circulation • Replacing damaged glass panels within the Main Library • Replacing HVAC and other equipment within the system,as needed due to age • Repair and replacement of walkways at Sweet and Sprague branches • Upgrading of general lighting within the children's area of the Main Library • Reupholstering 30%soft chairs within the Main Library 23 • CAPITAL 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 BUDGET Actual Budget Budget CAPITAL Glendale Branch Building Project $ 63,684 $ 728,233 $ 700,000 Marmalade Branch Building Project — 278,233 610,000 Capital Improvements 218,591 498,425 775,000 Technology Infrastructure 202,320 200,000 150,000 Qwest Lease Agreement 50,346 50,000 50,000 Capital Repairs 61,730 200,000 125,000 Prior Year/Contingency 16,153 100,000 50,000 Total Capital $ 612,824 $ 2,054,891 $ 2,460,000 Glendale Branch Building Project Funds will be used to complete architectural design, permitting and interest payments on sales tax bonds for the new Glendale Branch. Construction is anticipated to begin in the first quarter of calendar year 2012. Cost for a Project Manager responsible for coordinating all components of site design, engineering, permitting and construction will be shared by the Glendale and Marmalade projects. Marmalade Branch Building Project Working in partnership with the RDA, funds will be used to complete the site design, architectur- • al design, permitting and interest payments on sales tax bonds for the new Marmalade Branch. A rate increase proposal, pending Mayor and Council approval in June 2011, will provide fund- ing for Marmalade construction which is anticipated to begin in the second quarter of calendar year 2012. Capital Improvements The Library has completed many capital improvement projects over the past three years and anticipates reducing the Capital Improvement budget to reflect actual expenditures. Ongoing projects include the replacement of heavily used furniture, fixtures and equipment along with interior improvements at the Main and Branch locations. Phase I funding to support potential replacement of 10 year old RFID technology is included. Funds are also included to determine long-range capital improvement needs for the Chapman Branch. Technology Infrastructure The City Library's computer equipment is heavily used and funds are planned on an annual basis for replacement and upgrades of computers, servers and software. In addition, the Library will explore an additional portable lab to support the Technology Access Outcome, improve efficien- cy through the use of portable computers/netbooks and upgrade operating systems to MS 2010 on both the public and the administrative side. To support enhanced transparency and respond to patron needs, improvements to the web site infrastructure will be necessary. • 24 Qwest Lease Agreement The City Library entered into a contract with Qwest in March 2008 to purchase voice-over IP for all Library locations. Bandwidth increased from 1.544 megabits to 30 megabits resulting in sig- nificantly faster computer access at branch locations. Voice-over IP also provided expanded fea- tures for the Library's phone system, including voicemail and easily customizable messages. The cost of hardware, installation, and entrance facilities for the Main Library and five branches is included in a five-year lease agreement at 3.73% interest. Fiscal year 2011-12 will be year four of the five year lease. Capital Repairs This fund supports ongoing major capital repairs at all locations as needed with a continued emphasis on repairs at the Main Library. Prior Year/Contingency This fund is maintained to cover carryover project and emergency or unanticipated expenses. TIMELINE FOR GLENDALE AND MARMALADE BRANCH CONSTRUCTION CY 2010 2011 2012 2013 ORIGINAL I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV Glendale RC-09 RO OPEN Marmalade RC RO OPEN 2011-12 BUDGET Glendale X - • OPEN Marmalade RC X OPEN ALTERNATE Glendale X RO OPEN Marmalade RC X RO OPEN LEGEND: Site Select Design Construction X- Bonds RC - Rate Incr Construction RO- Rate Incr Operating The "Alternate" Scenario would delay the approval of a tax rate increase for Marmalade Construction to FY 2012-13 and will delay the assumed construction schedule by six months. In this scenario, a tax rate increase for Marmalade Construction and Glendale Operating would be requested in FY 2012-13 with a request for Marmalade Operating in FY 2013-14. Glendale Library Progress Report The programming process for the Glendale Library, led by local architecture firm CRSA, took place from May-July 2010 and produced a fascinating in-depth look at the community and an inspir- ing description of the library services the community wants and needs. With more than 40 com- munity events, eight key areas were identified as priorities: outdoor/connecting, learning, creat- ing, computing, playing, sharing, socializing and eating. The full programming document, avail- able at slcpl.org was approved by the Library Board in December, 2010. A site of 1.1 acres located 25 on the east side of Concord Street at California, in the heart of Glendale's primarily residential. neighborhood, has been selected and approved by the Library Board in April, 2011. The Library will serve a diverse community, composed in large part by families with young children, represent- ing cultures and languages from every corner over the globe. More than 120 first languages are spoken in Glendale. It is anticipated the Glendale Library will be busy during all open hours and will help to form a civic, commercial and community hub for the neighborhood along with near- by schools, churches, shops, the Sorenson Unity Center and the Jordan River Parkway. While for planning purposes the building was estimated at 20,000 square feet in size, this may be adjust- ed depending on the site configuration, architectural design and services offered. It is anticipat- ed the Library will be designed for maximum flexibility with spaces that flow or open up to adjoin- ing spaces. The Glendale Steering Committee will select an architect in early summer to complete the design. Joint RDA/City Library Vision Statement for the development at 300 West/500 North This mixed-use development, a collaboration between the RDA, development partners and the City Library will be located along 300 West between 500 North and 600 North. The development, with the Marmalade Library serving as an anchor, will revitalize, activate and create a central gath- ering place for several neighborhoods including Marmalade, Capitol Hill, Guadalupe, Rose Park and Swedetown. The development will provide a way for residents to connect with each other and to find their everyday needs met by co-located services. Retail might include dining, a coffee shop, an arti- sanal/local market or a drug store. Housing and office or studio space could also be a component of the design. • The development will highlight the unique character of the neighborhood and become a center of activity for those arriving on foot, bike or by car. There will be both indoor and outdoor gathering spaces which will provide opportunities for meet- ings, performances, concerts, dining or children's activities. The Marmalade Library, as the first tenant, will create excitement and serve as a catalyst for the development's overall identity, attracting compatible mixed-use partners which will evolve with market and design imperatives. 26 Marmalade Branch costs based on general estimates, as follows: Land Acquisition $ 700,000 Construction ($235 x 20,000 sf) 4,700,000 Collection ($20 x 100,000 items) 2,000,000 Furnishings ($35 x 20,000 sf) 700,000 Consulting (8%) 376,000 Technology 250,000 Art, Landscaping, Misc. 210,000 $8,936,000 Additional property tax revenue of $645,000 per year generated by a rate increase of .0000383% ($5.50 per home with a taxable value of $260,890 and $38.30 per commercial property valued at $1m) will provide debt service for sale tax bonds. This action is pending approval of Mayor and Council per the City Council's 2009 legislative intent. A tax rate increase to operate both Glendale and Marmalade Libraries will be requested in FY 2012-13. Branch Building Fund Balance 2009-10 Revenue 2009-10 Expenditures Designated Fund Balance Budget I Actual I Variance Budget I Actual I Variance Reserve , 6/30/2010 Glendale $ 278,233 $ 271,674 $ (6,559) $ 278,233 $ 63,684 $ 214,549 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,707,990 Marmalade 278,233 271,674 (6,559) 278,233 _ 278,233 271,674 2010-11 Revenue 2010-11 Expenditures Designated Fund Balance Budget I Actual I Variance Budget Estimate* I Variance Reserve Est 6/30/2011 Glendale $ 556,466 $ 552,320 $ (4,146) $ 782,233 $ 34,011 $ 694,222 $ 1,707,990 $ 2,226,299 Marmalade _ _ _ 278,233 67 278,166 271,674 271,607 * 2010-11 Expenditure Estimate 27 • Main Library • Anchoring Salt Lake City's civic core, Library Square provides a connec- rill011.1111."- . . . . ' tion and transition from the Central Business District to the residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. One of the most heavily used main ``-- libraries in the United States, the Main Library has become a major attrac- r'""''"� tion for residents and visitors since its opening on February 8, 2003. A 240,000 square-foot concrete and glass structure with exceptional views ,, r` of Salt Lake City and surrounding mountains, the Main Library features book, periodical and media collections of over 500,000 items, reading gal- leries, technology center, 315-seat auditorium and adjoining meeting spaces, small conference rooms, and selected community shops designed to enhance The City Library's mission. The adjoining plaza fea- tures a reflecting pool, garden, and granite fountain. Underground park- ing for approximately 600 vehicles provides parking for City and Library soemployees, as well as Library visitors. Anderson-Foothill Branch The pleasing design of the branch has two unique elements as part of its ;'' -`, ii_,, ' • '' plan. The first is a passive solar energy design that includes earth berming, •-' "'� ' ^ ' window placement for solar heating, and zone supplemental heating/cool- 0 i-., 46Il ing. The second element of this 14,900 square foot community library built in 1985, expanded in 1992 and in 2002, is a modular design. Chapman Branch i+ �, ,. Considered to be one of the finest Carnegie Libraries in the West, this - 8,900 square foot library has two levels. Since its opening in 1918, it has 11[10 ...;., been an important part of city services to Westside residents. The Library was completely renovated in 1993. A major remodel of the basement level meeting space in 2002 resulted in a much improved children's area and -' expanded service and collection space for adults on the ground level. Corinne and Jack Sweet Branch r The Sweet Branch is the sister branch of the Anderson-Foothill Branch using the same modular design. The branch contains over 8,000 square -. feet of service space, including a community program and meeting space. „"mpii., In 2009, the interior was completely refreshed. Day-Riverside Branch This beautiful facility was designed to complement the residential neigh- borhood with sensitivity to its site on the Jordan River Parkway. An open space plan, with a large community meeting room and outside deck area, will accommodate this growing neighborhood. Sprague Branch ` IIII This high gabled English Tudor style building has served the Sugar House community for three generations. The building was selected by the American Library Association in 1935 as the "Most Beautiful Branch --, • Library in America." The two-level facility was renovated in 1989-90. The .f Reading Room on the first floor was remodeled in 1993-94. A new slate roof was installed in the fall of 1996. An expansion project to add a new, II _ . larger meeting room and remodel the building was completed in April 2001, which increased the square footage to 9,700. • 28 .4•1111.MMI, • = CU Om ;16 ,„....4" C.) •— bJ3 a.) ) 4.• cz 4-• c4 tiVioN1.1. ( ,..0"...--- ..,..) .... --,..•......- 0 _ Ai ;:, _ . t- . 4 . ..-. ., 1 A ; ." • ,_ _. . .... , 29 Building the Culture Build a culture that sustain the Library's Mission and enable the Library to grow and adapt to meet the future needs of the community The City Library Objectives (Measures • The Library has a common set of beliefs, values and Strategic Measures behaviors that sustain the Library's Mission and drive the • Selected for Work/Life Award: Utah's Best Places to Work Strategic Plan. These are clearly defined, communicated and practiced. Outcome Measures • The Library uses practices and systems that support • Employee Opinion Survey adaptive change and continuous improvement • Positive media related to working at the Library • The Library is highly effective at strategy innovation and • Awards for the Library implementation • Staff have the talents, skills and capabilities to work in Contributing Measures high—performance teams • Employee turnover and exit interview data • Absentee rates Strategies • Involvement and leadership in professional organizations • Involve Staff in designing and implementing the Building • Increased competencies resulting from training the Culture initiatives • Hire, promote and develop employees who exemplify the desired culture • Build leadership skills and enhance staff skills to build effectiveness • Recognize and reward actions supporting the desired culture • Reinforce that we are all part of one library system; a cohesive organization with shared vision, values and strategy 1 • Develop consensus decision making techniques and integrate the concept of collaborative design • Support professional activities and involvement 0 �. Enjoying Life People make time for entertainment to lighten up, enjoy life and unlock creativity. The City Library "Objectives (-Outcome Measures • The Community finds the Library a place that makes • Number of Enjoying Life programs/attendance/cost them happy per attendee • People discover their creativity because of Library • Results of Patron Satisfaction Survey with children, environments and experiences teens, and adults • Adults and children prefer the Library to other options • Percentage of library cardholders in relation to SLC for fun and entertainment population • The Library is an inviting place to interact and meet • Percentage of cardholders who have used their library others in the community card in the last three months • Circulation of Enjoying Life materials (all children's all Strategies young adult, all NV and downloadable, adult fiction • Provide warm and responsive customer service and magazines) • Provide aesthetically pleasing interior spaces, buildings Contributing Measures and grounds • Circulation of Enjoying Life adult materials • Eliminate barriers to easy use (fiction/AV/periodicals) • Create compelling reasons for family and friends to • Circulation of all young adult materials come together with the Library • Circulation of all children's materials • Ensure collections provide entertainment and enjoyment . Rate of materials turnover • Create unique, interactive programs and experiences • Web site visits/events calendar views/facebook and that are fun and foster creativity twitter friends Measures • Volunteer hours • Average time to complete Maintenance and Computer Strategic Measures Service tickets • Ranking on City Resident Survey • Average time from receipt of new material to shelf • Ranking on Literate Cities ' . • Average wait time for call center calls • Number of patron compliments about customer service �. k C) O Exploring New Ideas The community openly explores ideas and engages in conversation, discussion and dialogue. J l especially about ideas they may never have encountered before. The City Library (Objectives ' (Measures • People share in dialogue and conversation about timely Strategic Measures and important topics • Knight Foundation Soul of the City Survey • The Library is a neutral and open place without judgment or bias, many points of view are reflected, encouraged Outcome Measures and shared • Number of Exploring New Ideas programs-gatherings/ • The Library is a place that sparks curiosity and an attendance/cost per attendee interest in learning something new • Program satisfaction as measured by evaluation • People think differently after they've had a library • Number of feature stories highlighting Exploring New experience Ideas Programs • Number of community "experts" recruited Strategies • Provide thought-provoking programs and events with Contributing Measures an opportunity for dialogue • Circulation of Exploring New Ideas adult materials • Encourage engagement in timely and important topics • Number of collaborations and co-sponsors on Exploring • Ensure collections represent many points of view and New Ideas topics inspire curiosity and learning • Number and effectiveness of reference transactions • Create connections with topic experts to contribute to I (by sampling) Library offerings • Database pages viewed/cost/utilization • Make Library Square Salt Lake City's center of inquiry • Percentage of room r and innovation i utilization "'SN • Deliver program content using new technologies • Events calendar views 1' • (i.e. simulcasts, streaming, podcasts, etc.) Ensuring Early Literacy Every child has an equal chance to succeed. The youngest children have expansive I I early literacy and early learning opportunities. The City Library Objectives Measures • Parents have all the tools they need to be their child's Strategic Measures first teacher • Percentage of children who pass the Salt Lake City Public • The Library brings early literacy experiences to School Kindergarten Readiness Test low-income children • The youngest children in the City develop an early strong Outcome Measures connection with the Library • Number of contacts with the parents of newborns • Community awareness is raised about the importance of • Number of Early Literacy Programs in the Library/attendance early literacy to the overall health and sustainability of • Number of Early Literacy Programs outside the the community Library/attendance • Number of books given to children Strategies • Percentage of cardholders in the three zipcodes with the • Make the earliest contact possible with future or new most households with children in the home parents • Take early literacy tools and experiences to young Contributing Measures children, especially those in need • Circulation of children's board books, jp, and jr • Increase number of books in the homes of children birth-5 • Number of Staff who speak languages other than English • Encourage early literacy with creative incentives for parents • Ensure all library policies support, not inhibit family use • Collaborate with community organizations, businesses and the media for whom early literacy is a priority • w 2 () !. 4110 Accessing Technology Everyone in the communityhas access to technologyand the skills to use it 1117 Y The City Library Objectives Measures • The target audience—such as high school drop-outs, the Strategic Measures unemployed, the homeless and seniors—have opportuni- • Comparison to same size cities on Pew Internet and ties for training in the use of technology American Life Project • The Library teaches people enhanced technology skills • Percentage of City residents who have never used a computer to be successful in today's wired world • Percentage of users with expanded technology competencies • People learn current software versions and discover new technologies Outcome Measures • People find technology solutions for an improved quality • Number of class types of life • Number of technology classes at the Library/at • There is an increased number of citywide library community locations/attendance/cost per attendee technology access points • Number of certificates of participation issued • Number of certificates issued for attending basic Strategies technology skills classes • Provide classes in locations convenient to the target audi- ence (community centers, housing projects, senior care Contributing Measures centers, workforce training sites, etc.) • Number of internet cards issued/hours of computer use • Identify locations and implement citywide technology • Number of access points access points • Number of staff with enhanced technology competency • Teach technology skills with innovative, user-centered, • Web site visits subject-centered methods • Number and effectiviness • Use library website to build patron technology skills of computer answer or • Offer friendly one-on-one technology help questions �,. ? ' iI , Creating Local Solutions and Bridging Divides The City Library /The community works together to address challenges and ' Create buzz about new Marmalade and Glendale branches generate innovative solutions to create and sustain the best • Promote and market library activities and programs place to live and then makes it happen. Our focus will be across the divide on sustainability and City, State and National urban initia- • Use the website to encourage co-created community tives. The community finds ways to bridge the east/west content racial, cultural and socio-economic divide to strengthen our city. Measures Strategic Measures Objectives • City's carbon footprint to Mayor's goal • The City's self—sufficiency and sustainability is improved • Library's carbon footprint and strengthened • Strategic measure for bridging divides? • The Library is a catalyst for exchange and interaction between SLC east and westside neighborhoods Outcome Measures • The City's collective culture and resources are advanced • Number of Programs/attendance/cost per attendance and celebrated • Number of collaborations and co-sponsors on Local Solutions/Bridging Divides Ideas topics Strategies • Percent of west side zip code attendances at programs • Educate the community and initiate activities and located on the east side and east side zip code resources that enable sustainability in areas such as attendances on west side environment, food, business, natural resources, etc. • Amount of community created Web site content • Create internal energy efficiency programs to reduce • Number of articles about Glendale and Marmalade the Library's energy consumption libraries • Identify community initiatives that unite us and create • Natural gas and electricity opportunities for the east and west sides to come together usage and recycling amounts around common goals • Number of Staff green commutes • Encourage opportunities for telling of personal stories to emphasize how we are alike and to honor our differences. 0 4 '5 - - BRANCH LIBRARY FUNDING OPTION CHARTS OPTION A 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Glendale Operating Marmalade Construction Operating $645,000 generated for collection OPTION B 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Glendale Operating Marmalade Operating Construction $1.65 m generated for collection OPTION C 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Glendale Operating Marmalade Construction Operating $1.47 m generated for collection OPTION D 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Glendale Operating Marmalade Construction Marmalade Operating $825,000 generated for collection OPTION E 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Glendale Operating $825,000 generated to reduce bond Marmalade Construction Marmalade Operating $2.295 m generated for collection OPTION F 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Glendale Operating Marmalade Construction Operating $0 generated for collection A-3 To: City Council and Mayor Ralph Becker From: Beth Elder Re: Councilman Christensen's Inquiry about Electronic Books How will the advent and popularity of electronic books impact branch library funding and design? Changing uses of libraries-The Glendale programming process indicates people expect libraries to be gathering places for meetings, performances, computing, eating, learning together, collaborating and socializing. Costs the same-Electronic and paper book costs are comparable. Collection budgets for libraries will still be needed to support the community's e-book use. Availability of titles-The newest and most popular books are available in electronic formats but many books are not. For some time, paper may be the only format available for 100,000s of titles. Visual materials-Art, decorating, design and architecture are more appealing in paper than in an electronic format due to their size. Children's books-The Glendale and Marmalade branches will serve large numbers of children. The quantities of materials read by and to children early in life make paper books more economical. It is anticipated half the collections in these branches may be children's books. Flexible design-With the advent of electronic books, less space will be needed to house print books. Flexible design with moveable shelves, furniture and seating will make it possible to adapt and re-adapt spaces as needs change. Modular design-Modular design could make it possible for spaces no longer needed by the Library to be easily converted to co-located leaseable spaces, i.e. retail, studio/office, compatible non-profit, copy center, cafe. A-3 IMF HIDE STRATEGIC Mayor Ralph Becker, Chair Jill Remington Love, and The Salt Lake City Council May 31,2011 Re: Proposed Marmalade Branch of the City Library Dear Mayor Becker and the Salt Lake City Council: I write today to illuminate very serious problems with the site selection process engaged by the Salt Lake City Library,and to clarify misrepresentations made through other documents. As you are asked to consider additional tax increases for the construction of a new library branch in the Marmalade neighborhood,you should be reminded that the Northgate property represents a much more cost effective solution,both as a lease option,or for purchase. Additionally, placing this public facility at Northgate creates a natural demarcation for the Northern entrance onto the 300 West corridor that would create an opportunity for traffic calming and resource maximization utilizing Warm Springs park directly to the East of the property. We have yet to receive a response to our letter to the Library Board dated April 20,2011, a copy of which is attached. Attached please find a petition signed by 300 residents of the Marmalade neighborhood. It is by far the largest component of public input the library received on the placement of the Marmalade branch. Despite the fact that this petition was hand delivered to Beth Elder and the Marmalade Steering Committee staff personally at the beginning of the Committee's scoping process, Library Board Vice Chair, and Chair of the Marmalade steering Committee Ella Olsen stated during the last Library Board meeting that she never saw the petition. Problems with the selection process are many. Many have come to believe that the library never had any intention of using any site but the RDA site since the inception of the idea, and that so called alternative sites were really somewhat of a sham. Cases in point: • During the April Library Board meeting library staff member Mark Ewing stated that the marmalade steering committee"didn't tour any buildings"during the process. Though Northgate was promised a visit by the committee in September of 2010, it was not until we hounded them that they finally came to tour Northgate in February,after all of the public input meetings hosted by the library 825 Ilona 300 Nest,Sine V2011-Salt laxe Ca'r,Uzax 811103-801.7+17.9093-mt.xaisoxawi c.com had passed. It should be noted that the Tribune picked up on my public reaction to Mr.Ewing's statement where I asked rhetorically, "What kind of process is it if you don't tour any buildings." We believe the admission that the committee didn't even tour either of the other two buildings at the so called alternative sites to be evidence that the library never had any real intention other than building anew. • Prior to any visit to Northgate,the library produced a list of"pros and cons"of the potential sites for public consumption,clearly designed to influence the public in their comments. On this list were shown 6 positives and 1 negative for the RDA site, and 6 negatives and 1 positive for the Northgate site,many of which were simply inaccurate. Upon complaint,the Library made some changes after the majority of the scoping meetings were held,but didn't make some changes, including those that showed the significant cost savings of the Northgate option. • As noted above,the steering committee by its own admission did not consider the largest component of public input received;the attached petition. In response to the letter from Katrina Stucki,we simply would like to thank her for coming to visit Northgate on what was apparently the last day of the consideration process as apparently the Library voted on the site that very night of March 17, 2011. We were given no notice of the ensuing vote, in fact were told later the matter would be voted on in April. Contrary to Ms. Stucki's comments,we made no misrepresentations to the press. As noted above,the Tribune simply picked up on my response to Mr. Ewing's amazing statement that the committee toured no buildings during the selection process. Finally, as all of us face belt-tightening during these times,we ask the Council to consider the cost saving alternative represented by the Northgate property. Additionally,the entire process of the site selection in the Marmalade neighborhood needs to be revisited and redressed. Sincerely, /irAP.t. 1. 'o i ert Walton Representing Northgate Park robert.walton@hillstrategic.com 801.550.9472 8Z5 horn 300 Yes,Sun WZOK-Salt laze Cm,Utax 8K103-801.7117.9093-mr.x usaaaze©c.coat Northgate Park, LLC 825 North 300 West Suite C-160 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City Library Board of Directors 210 East 400 South Salt Lake City , 84111 April 20, 2011 Re: Marmalade Library Branch Location Dear Salt Lake City Library Board of Directors: We write to you in anticipation of your April 21 Board Meeting in light of the recent recommendation of the Marmalade Steering committee as to the location of the ensuing branch. We are deeply concerned by the inaccuracies and bias demonstrated by the scoping process engaged by the Steering Committee and the ensuing recommendation. We here attach much information regarding the Northgate park location and its important potential in creating a community center and demarcation for the Marmalade neighborhood in conjunction with the Warm Springs Park, and the amenities inherent to the location. We strongly assert that the recommendation of the committee should be rejected and reconsidered in light of the following: 1) The site recommended is not the best location available. For all the reasons listed in the attached material, Northgate Park represents a much more viable option with community enhancements more favorable to the neighborhood and city as a whole. 2) The scoping process employed by the steering committee was biased and skewed from inception. 1 A) Though a proposal for the Northgate Park location was delivered to the Committee early in 2010, the committee, contrary to commitments made by staff and committee members, the committee did not visit the Northgate location until months after the public scoping process was underway, which included promotional materials with faulty descriptions of the site (See attached email). B) Information Boards placed during scoping events listing the potential locations showed that the 6th North location had 6 "positives' and 1 "negative", while the Northgate location listed 6 "negatives" and 1 "positive", some of which were completely inaccurate, especially relative to other sites. These information boards were clearly designed to influence public input, and were designed well before the steering committee even visited Northgate. 3) Although a petition signed by no less than 300 Marmalade residents (Here attached) was delivered to the Director Beth Elder, and the Marmalade steering committee, those signatures were apparently disregarded, though they dwarf the number of comments received online, and likely from any other source. 4) While building a new structure may always be appealing, doing so at the 600 North location is not in the best interest of the City. That location,placed as it is so close to the 6th North freeway entrance is ripe for a future multi-use development capable of creating substantial tax base for the city. The placement of a library at that location represents a substantial opportunity cost for the neighborhood and city. 5) The Northgate Park location, with the options to purchase or lease the existing 23,000 square foot location, represent substantial cost savings to the city while reinvesting in existing buildings and neighborhoods in need of redevelopment, while helping spur development two blocks to the North. We urge the Board to reject the recommendation of the steering Committee and investigate the matter of its own accord. Sincerely, en ger James Rogers 2 from Robert Walton <robert.walton@hillstrategic.com> to Ella Olsen <ella@uslms.com> Mark Ewing<mewing@slcpl.org>, Mimi Charles <mimi@wfandco.com>, Katia' 'Pace <Katia.Pace@slcgov.com>, Katrina Stucki <jkstucki@gmail.com>, cc Doug Wortham <dougwortham@rowlandhall.org>, "<nephi1963@gmail.com>" <nephil963@gmail.com>, hide details Feb 14 Laura Bayer<laurabayer@comcast.net>, Wendy Rendon <WRendon@slco.org>, Beth Elder<belder@slcpl.org> date Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:40 PM subject Re: Northgate Park mailed-by hillstrategic.com Dear Ella and the Marmalade Steering Committee: We hope the committee found the meeting of last week at Northgate to be as productive as we enjoyed hosting it. Hopefully you found potential in the site as we have. The owners and I continue to be available to answer further questions and to accommodate the needs of the library to any degree possible. We certainly would be willing to show the building and surrounding grounds again upon any request. We lament that the Committee didn't visit prior to the commencement of the public scoping process, but we remain hopeful that the assets of the site will reach public understanding. Visiting the location almost always changes perception and understanding, as we believe the Committee can attest. Please let me know how we might be helpful as the process continues. We wish you well as this exciting project moves forward. Thank you for you time. I am always available. Robert Walton 801.550.9472 Katrina Stucki 222 North 200 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 801-613-8160 May 3, 2011 By US Mail By US Mail Ben Rogers, James Rogers Robert Walton Northgate Business Park Hill Strategic Consulting 825 North 300 West 825 North 300 West, Suite W204 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1459 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Messrs Rogers and Walton, In case you do not remember, I am one of the steering committee members who, upon receiving a call from Mr. Walton, toured your building on March 17 at 9:00 am. I met with all three of you and spent 45 minutes touring the building with Mr. Walton and Mr. Rogers. I agreed to this meeting because I missed the scheduled meeting with the rest of the Marmalade Steering Committee members on February 10th because a staff meeting at my office ran long. I thought it was important that I see the building for myself. Then, upon returning home from spring break with my family, I read your statements in the Salt Lake Tribune on April 22, 2011: Cousins Ben and James Rogers, who own the so-called Northgate Park building, were livid at board members,who revealed the steering committee never actually toured the building in question. "There's a lot of hanky pank going on,"James Rogers said, adding the board wants to build its'Taj Mahal"nearer the 600 North freeway entrance. Added Walton: "How can you make recommendations without going into a building." I am disappointed that you chose to misrepresent the steering committee in such a way. I took time from my job and away from my PTA responsibilities to tour the building on March 17. The rest of the steering committee spent almost an hour touring your building on February 10. I understand you are displeased with the outcome, but to lie to the media doesn't seem like the correct approach. Sincerely i Katrina Stucki cc: Mayor Ralph Becker, Carlton Christensen, Van Blair Turner, Stan Penfold, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love, JT Martin, Soren D. Simonsen (Via Electronic Mail) ,2U Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city a substantial amount of money over other . build options. Printed Name Address Signature Date ,r , _ 1 .) Nini • 1,1,E 7-ico • z;liq _apritim 47-)c.ito --5.1//1" 7-15-67 LAr .U340 5 . (� /t) . A ice. 5r17": ? c c-zao 4 L-tx 1"t �1,fr S � � b.l L� � f EtL '7P-a-V310 l fit Ag tl6„v 'CAta4 to2.O WAt sat 09k jititok 1.is y,07) I• t i Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build options. Printed Name Address Signature Date 3q 7-/c-/ vr C74j)CL1 .3- 9-t-C1+;) 41(9-) R.1 r Yy f o 4 , 11,:s- (1-11i,c ((o Nis Lii0 i .NA-71.0` 44 to(A.,u ,P,A4priA)NJ ! � .E. L &raiN .Wo Of/ 7I Iv 5r6pitt(z-1 &LLAO 582\ • Lti A Lt._ r 7.•tc.zcto QLtx NI _fues S9`F i,.I LL / - ` /J-(42-0 o IkkAgleild, Moutf6ah W Lk1 090japopt1-IS oro 19ly Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature/ Date 6r1Q41 -nyl\‘1) Aftl 6° NI # 1 CIL U-l- ig41t, 11 T/00 oe.Se h oc i , k z 3 5 3 �'� ��� �' 4 nf.0<•i Ne--2 7/l6/(0 7 6 vf 7 d v /)rd-h `�{erGulr.' 7/ tz ll erbe b /3 tv w v► 6/� ,'..," s 7-,:: k / )1,6Ti-C-10-7— 3 '-'('' 4`i '.-)L/tikA ' Alf 74,1r pir pobico-c- 0661'riblit3--/I1040 blVtrIs2:D 3Ig )' 7-o0 ) 1,,, /6 L`r\S C)0 iiCi -- 9 8 L.-) g_to-e 0A Vki -----1,,/ 313 pu\esi- rcfoN, -74&I ivac--A-Ho-(kv - Lfl-a-k-' 'Ai' *id - ii //6 93 we* 1\(*(,(0-6c- i L. e C� 1 L� °'a 6 ,i�, �/ 7�',/i i; A.) are© gtee---e-) it" , ). I4 La 0; d.,,...-, ,,,a- li ` 0\y) lot `� 1.,I Pco,oltc\itt5 •-. -77/tk/p Ask Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build options. Printed Name Address Signature Date 6,012 04- 52.9 t/(CsL .sT ?5iaeo v/c U l • <4/0 *fielt 1/6/7c) gr4 1/ 06, 46 _ c 30 LA 05/ey St 0-- • t3e9tra Cl Aomktt hie 5-63.�u NleY SFn-e,t- SLC, U I g4(03 5 ( e3 (M. 1/1() N q00� OU•e\fS v\ cDL L (a l 1 01 1/(61(0 5le ( .7 S-02, A/e'14 /02 ?Ail Ur ar—//03 27`00 CO c_ -2; 402_V, 47>t, .34/tatzei' MU R, Li 2-S ° ) /1 /1ô AL:144(r w q01) t fi Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build options. Printed ame Address Signatur Date (71-40f6 ( 36 9 56b (Ai cf" 746 (iititoe« Lind if. 3(1 . II 1 /6 ��� • 71 lip ore 3 3/ k/ Lfti&N . o� • 1-4)//6 tio /./Q0A/ a 4074 ja/4 3470 yaN // / S cJ • bi)cdh-1 . -Cn rcn 9-0o 1J o • cM.,,AM0 /,4 („0 %-\ 001A . U Zl hO'22 IVY IR-P Amok Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build . options. Printed Name Address Signature Date 1-4 U 0 K)Av1-1 ctt--ct 0-3 Miwk. 2-I'- fc' �(Oil q s `1( v `3 //j166, 4zrel'r 7 4r, " I (-) LC 0-2, t i- _ -744- to /5 v�'�j s/,� V 5oppot Ri7?w/lNvNSmho 7 N&,5',LEY Oltajw- 7//-!6 71-AX,•*.idt VP-J-44W t-Ke.s- eu 4s1, s7--51 . 7//(oho ;,afp (A)JCCOA). 7/40 500A41(4kA,Lio41774/0 �<< 1 U %3, ^13(t(- 7//e/ic ;?dje,, w/g,„( 14.7/6s Z k ,f / i Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date )41 A-14 fon 52-6 A). /V,9y f/c IL4 ,i 7// 0 glreittA049 �1-Mi d 4er Al l71 - 9- ✓ -71k, `10,4,5 3)-f 4- 6co -X/(1,(77,,, 446/ e,4 cRy, Oti,v Lit le OO it) c C���►�.�. /l 1p1 i o -,--i-a„.„+\061-3crusy, 1/v :+5s) . PG) PVA„ 1-/ \4) 3 7-5 vu 70 por 7- /G-to illyr Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West.We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city.We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build options. Printed Name Address Signature Date �rf1 - w VV\,A Le I G G.w 5 -1 1&I7 A L� I�k't,A>zclk�ar►1 f/r if/jr'7/11r0 :41,hene4A (, 9 l.j l c19 IA) R Dbr vts l �r ;q`^VYQa✓ Jul G, ye K Ave L)cxkiic c, 4.4(Qr jI" 50o p, Dc''N ANs 3L15 iv 360 gt1,161/4�`Y 167 ")U S g`003 ?-Lif/ I-,k ro Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build options. Printed Name Address Signature Date 1\4 ILA- /44Cet112Zfekl' ‘ c.90&(j A 4._ -7,R, / -,--, „ 2 ,0 ( 12 It,,,,, i ,_, 2/10 / v;,/, ,, Z--, 2- I "7' 0 Lit_ Jou itr-i litivele o ..?,5 Atib ►or t � l 7_ /7--/0 6154 n Q-KA 4 . ,2- Aicli-gore s-',/i i, m -kt 'C7-ia Ti Culp zg 2.3 F . .3gods +9.211NO -7-1 - 0 14(<<-11 ---0-3 4 A //(-)c / -41(--(1-2- :hntieoilfyi 514/0, 200/0, I5,) ,2izio , it-L. - i Lim ttl, 3?,04 ,,7--f --- 7/1 0 i — - 15- , W, 3 ea/14 4 n ,,-- 7 N I/ /I* -fie,,, 4 (4,0„ 1 4 7 d ) \V 7/(w/D Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date C j V;7/6 1325 k) t3ou Aelaleiclivli .i41t)e-z,45.51,61 3C)t) .)P40,,,itritehAAATtY7fro lobicvzotnecti-zdea 327e) Ai 3:EC3(A) 11V-114 Odyte.„„o&t.A.,ta ittoi ceia t zU$27 259 Wtslu Aft 14- , .,�; �..�; 17/a rfitleArrti i/erca- 25 3 w, y o o j1. . / 1/1 IA in / 6 L0,� z�s Xgoo ,;rc9--C4 06. r'-ai-C afti ? r r-2=-)A\.. Y-ArA 372 NI 10 \A:, 7/17/ 10 - gfuoR o -q 37/N ao0' s 0xo c911 p.„, 5t,t4 )\,„ ;52_ zo-c) v.\ Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build options. Printed Name Address Signature Date r G�1�t `l no, 3/3 N -zoo \J� �, 7 f 7 A /n� ZZ10 w 3c�D ►v • c—h J�� 7/I U ( W U l 5 _c . Lt-r ZiW • 0° ��1ee 29 l9 w . 300 - \,A)6,,, 7 ICUJ e(1 'sLei 103 710 -.,-1)\3\\0-"Nly\Y /7/, )e.a,A6 /7 j t» ;�� 7 ? _0 F 7--), I AL i Do r*- �� /"1 �, /'?—77 9 1-7 I GU 300 N -#$� ncBs4oic C g ci 10 3 / 7 '741 ' Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build . options. Printed Name Address Signature Date . 200 i 7 fG-rc) ti w_ 2,00 N , iA� � /4' 4 -7L1 4de-sr -204)4 ort.. 016. W d,- /west -200 .r./`.. 7 /710 It,, Pe_de(5r 7(j 0)64712Q1 7-1d i-/o ,,1 44r —7/I u 41.03:1-c f3(,o6-114F; zzzk) 01,1.444 �/ !✓�/� / 7. i 8' f C /elif,/ ;''t//1 --/(,4/ '147/7;f'' 7)/dL't•-'"f7() �; 1 \9u11Jc -i5 -1 "it) Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date r4 25 77 /2/0,- Lie 41\mhpo5 c.4 \-5N(e c -7) l) (os- -cNE L) 7//s// LC tA_j1. 1;fk•A 141 -Pkv-r • G 0). a l(05 (� . �At,6Y ' ,�- �I 1 v 7c03 q/Y .74 a /® d .. �` /O te, 1,7////,02.,(6( 9/-5-- C-4:9L-e‘, 7j f°6044.!ltorfion z&L., 6dArva, 111 -7(4/c) , 9ft/N L Li tI U7 3 co V1) e7), 1:61011 1 G Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date pcNI, (.9c .7 f[vR5 y731 Si 1 7 2c/o T • vvv\vil 1940 0? - ?OD d °9 (AA"LA1\) 5 , lit-r761-110. - `° Th,r90-) 'tire o 3 7-2a/D ..e v c GT--oKf e Z 7 7 iv 3 c'.° c �-y�- 17 P AJ JOa wP64..3_NtL A ne, S -L.C. LIT P (/a3 ( litfr-zed ;1 5A how-6 �? �% �6b Po . /2)40 i �� . 740//6 5CC L ia A\a_pcaildbit At ty-c) 1L� T /6 ) � C`'t 1'1 Y 1�1-E Cyr+' • ,�o,, ��- ‘A\ Q\AV_\( 1---- dug <-?� �r 3ao,� ,- , ? �bC) J l ���� IC • Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date 040 3 iD C( 1\[' VVI'' VK' L117 Rob r I1l1/ -3 it/ ? 5ZP r) 1 Kt 1/23/16 COL/KEG 122 3)()i '' OU \ IOZZ i2,4 S•- 7/' k Ili sue, 077, �v, hdse( 5f �`��l -7/2i/0 ( � I 1 5-i t 2 cat 7/ a tit�a1 Q d�� � �' �I Gu b-iit� >�' 41,c( 56� r �, 37:5 4ovioi,IJ 3/3/lr (4, (� IGNorrk-1— 37.-3 Vzilviltv,,J )cf- 1/z7-7/(16 be /- 3Z3 r / '1�, 1 ci-w77/1� Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build options. Printed Name Address Signature Date W k 9 t,9 A/it ay/4(y Ar+206 __ 0/ /2 ////0 20 O. 0„,Af,v3k. Ey2e6 44z6 6772,140 _ow fSil4yckVoify S 02961 k) C e \c( s� �v��jras1\�XiZ dlld 7 /o� 1 12- G{!/1 J�Q/ y� N . C'e '/r j- S 7/2�// (X ffV1ciiiG5 /into NW hall`U it)ego 'Di C( /U, ( n ( Sf .12(140 -4(1111061VAt° 2-qq 64er 0101) IA/ MQ\ scA pia\ 7s.iG w C@ n1 r 449 ��z�-I� A/ell/ /4 IL Ico K Z 9`1 L-c.ru 71Ly/,e C __\/1Ngf ObV7C-12—S) =)0 912-3// Accoadoos. 'iLt gziO dirtrdW \2-It .0.. 0\06)1v-iv A SI 6°00 zqup Wtni 1_1w so, \1 -7/) ( ( /e Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build options. Printed Name Address Signature Date 4iI<E tic /K 7/23/%w 1�A/lr r i c (oitrira 3 Uaa f tti 'i> $l *Ai Z)/U 1 QNrCii W utti, '1177 w i tJ ,- ‘) •4,1/`7-9,..r ,90/it AlOfit MeA eltf4e1 Si- 1(30110 4)t,--1/tet1 clq3 1,0 .c,r,i4.1 .vrein /U1C� GO�� / 9.1157,(;) L):3 . *teL--)-p-7,-67/ ..r jam, -S741-7/a2-7 y )4 f- f/p7/ 7A/d Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date 77, / OCR f o L ( a4-64yelci 728 . 3/olei:- (lm ` / ,'2 77 7-(j Gov i,/f/ 7441)der ?I hfiy4 2,3 C f befq1,4744/* ' Ak4ti kg( e*RAC 7) > kV/0 Fkittaall it r, ,iA - 71fr1/rTJ7 ( 54?, Yrdin(?4, ti; /to /it - �'� � 5r cobra`i a , 1,4 tJi /r6 7//o L a shot Lf 3Q We r ty/ (Siaq S rilyiefio A-7 lit N3/h/eq Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date r- -Toe H. EGB RT i 5Z im- 3CCG,- c%�l-J.� ' r)- /i /i e,V i4 &°t'►i )6ALA -; 0, c7/i//0 'bi-09'01 ) (D . W , o(r) \A. r - 4 , : i , 17/1 co.,/,0 UK/ 11 o-vn *(--Son-rj ( (.7) Lid 30-0 I) V4,14-4171,14vi 4-//4/ D 7 Wii\it W\ Zoo° \Ail 2_2-6 4 1'\,.�' —T11 s/I v efa dcy t--Y7tf-u,.. .'t�>j 7/I. o :.AAci fv je / sG,wv /( N 02 0 i 7-/8- d Cl ,,,d. R � 1 �9 ,, _ L '7 / : P L--) )Ian � Q L' i > > % i 1(2 4CkCiLSc Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date gnne e ?Oh ci.i tnmmoliik, ck 7 '4l; itt+k4 &p one- 11 i - maw) 4 (1Q0d c- , iJV 1D3 AI '/. 4.-1 kk 3 CA v✓1 5 z' t - QJ - v,10,S,yl. Si -7A E 10 5�C9 v ICI I c, 3 .41, � ,,.�,�./ pry) Letsicr G26/J. r)(1010 , -i /3 4< / V/fi 1 ,Df0 M A 41' torus 105 LOG(r6k rc .per_ -- _, -y3vio 1,.311ta,,, 4,0,4•,4 105 1r3 1(crrc ►' )L „,,Iire , , 1/30ry To - �L � S `�� � 7/N/r, , 7/ /(6 ��it �,...00,40:-.) 1007, 0 _ 14-Prk .�/b Nett ' /� Ff: " l 'TA ID ZZ 'N_ to► GcaA fLtj--fo/C OP ': il4r3 --PlUtV ....„ 1 ,. -,. . (-31 10 tf �� n /0 3 1,,� r-►'( vie .31 Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date • LIO-Y -1,/1 -gd Av I e 001A' e `a9a/6( / (Mc) 01-0524#1)() "49--Y 1,(Jod Le- 7/00 7lr N 7. id artti.S7 t 7 0 fan G q ifb ..ck. Fe-eksy '77311i /111/416P1-7-,P61 C `r' L (; /L(I ( si 7/3//,, peiee, Ai, I4I,N) s; Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date C D d J c /1 zg (Jp5 Cap riv) y i t 7/3.0 ) o id;//4- ai ,,,,3204/. ikvos, . , - 7_,x, LI\ A oArcyt.Q_A6-1Am 7 r / ' �� - --7-/ ;U [ D iti-661471M1 ii it 4 Amok ei, 08,0 i , , 4,, i,„, ,,,___ ---7/,00 ,_ el5ey Cny Z tc ,- - \4 ; 1 ,;Y ) 44 , //-,. -4. --',. Cob-WA-a Z[ 1-t) L Ls:4_..)- ( 1 7/.3 0/to .1) 4 0 10.541) (QUO , 1 4 P-k) 40/1"Afe / it(WO '61( IA) 41)-00V /91/1A-: 7/W)WA) ' oa 2 VA0116V WitiVabckifi / z o • k, k., r i 5c 17.0 2, 7)1 H k >k (/2i_____ 7(106 -4,„ Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date /J/l / Dili A i ( / / slerOAA CNO,kAa 3(119 k3 1\44411V 1/7/ �SSict. • ,�I e -I N u t() 7�3i/c 6,A i'Df\ q-•Z + nr\c.LA , ,,,\;1111W 7/3 IGh rka M o4 0474e 111.6 it w ` , ,4-rk` ;►,114-4,01./A'A.vL. -7..?/ /1� 17; RAJ L-s *to 714,„, 54 . ic 77.30,0 �. 5� 'fz �! y►-.a., s� 7-3/4 1 /kw (i riv-vv-- -7ewi WO C. S2e (,U 13 31 , 0 i � a ,,,,4,(e.„._722) 6�rn TY' 1tn 5� lyibtuwrim ii . W4 r Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build options. Printed Name Address Signature Date (._'\ 1 i. UlCekZ'itieç/31/ 1° v � �n���,�cl \\o/R.. C1acK- Z`i�3G JJ , LE 7/;! a. 7Lt,-)Ca- ckkA,e, ol- -3-30 Q . -7 /)/C) / °LMe ,) (A lc-C fil cb1(14( (47Z 3 0 0 A/ _ v Z'"i/L-- 71‘,"";..)--' r P &qd/(149Aj I'Ml301/) W ,lidAVia_ K,(A, i,,Jl'Il i 0-niVl SG as ilia /rf nkiit ?0//6 3)\ 1 , �a A , 4 3( ID N <, p,i( LiN„E„ a �Q I, J � I r / I "7 31/ 0 Lt.c L-�a /MA- Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date a 2-G2/14vTGl* 'A 9 z-c%s- . ye-e y� �� lU A/Qe XA,-(2- of t dC � (1 - �/ • - e4D3 ' = .2--- AA 0 1--'41(itqw Lf 0 c t_C T" V-1`3 r ///0 CVAN i� N . C ?)/))04 1)o, ITT �3 F� Ce✓ak e s\-. #101 '-caly,/,_ 8/1/10 13- ttei, o_t),500 elpfr.e_e_d_af_ -0. 2_6( Nc<er-i ki)(,002, ‘427i5 CQ,11---Ck 471fict4 , del „ 011110 GT (t- y346 �k� S� ��3 5/1/Iu 1-1 #(1(84 (-,i/Tl et/ /#0.7 a/Ail 91/'17- $ 7/ArP1-1, -`14 ba.Yl-C,11. e ..21d, iN t 11 5 Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date \AJ.1111\r\ ,5 (-I cl ,,/ ir126 \,,,J /1A4:tkitv\, -t(' a t,1 3+-L Le '— <- Cr ca .t� � gel l �c-C 3-iU 0.C52-1\ SS-1. C 6/ ow ei-Z4 '-'1 . 7e,‘,t) c‘aui-tr-s•vc-- _. 7". . la_ 3'4-c16-3 4'I 366 /V Cief-/S4 . i,r6- y� U IC4o I ( rnc ti I ,0.1yIV)/1l s i 1 Ills m 5cy,Pn 466) kl CIi rSi n 67 -Di 'a . .g/ I ro c j . �09 N I3� h/ �G I Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build options. Printed Name Address Signature Date i3 Id� �Su- g till) t. 84/t 3 1-Ai, 1'1 I L c. VT r� lQ `� ��01/// z 5- Ad)? rOf g, 4 1/i tini 6fiAm. 3 PLC e7003 5, ' I'h. irov/5 c-, oed -0-g-7,,,,, (e.,,,4444.-.9 ce-do iC / 0 3i1 /0.. ce,�(jc�r-Gtt- fL � rC� . (f 5LC 0'-1/ a A. ' jo rfipPft 1�1 v7 eENTEr4`% 1, zy ate" cy AKt/N4do I/S (1104/76e- S' ..v a/ `--- e4" /67-4)t-u- 0 , �, 1Vi t.- ,4_ Y t , 1._:_ ie? --37: &Ova-- -6/6. ( 11 (bwjI -5s 9- "I . o Marmalade Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library We the undersigned petition Salt Lake City and our Library system to place the pending Marmalade Branch of the City Library at the southern attachment of the Northgate complex on 825 North on the corner of 300 West. We believe this will help create a community center around the underutilized Warm Springs Park and contribute to the revitalization of this northernmost entry to our city. We also believe this proposal will save the city millions of dollars compared to other build • options. Printed Name Address Signature Date �lo t/i39k. orp: Oactit 06c1-6,L, C-0.-jes'Crr 3r.)? AC2:////0 py: n, Z �� c I VA �1r1` A ONSULTING To: LuAnn Clark and Michael Akerlow,Salt Lake City HAND . From: Anne Wescott,Galena Consulting Date: May 31,2011 Re: Impact Fee Comparisons One of the tasks within our scope of work for the update of the City's Impact Fee Program was a comparison of fees to other jurisdictions. In the following data you will see that we have compared Salt Lake City's current impact fees for roads,parks,police and fire to: > Salt Lake City's preliminary updated impact fees for roads,parks,police and fire; > The national average of impact fees for roads,parks,police and fire; > The average impact fees of 143 cities in ten Western States; > The average impact fees of the capital cities of six Western States; > The average impact fees of seven other cities with a comparable population of 150,000 to 250,000; > The average impact fees of three other Western cities that have a central position in a Metropolitan Statistical Area(MSA)of the same size as the Salt Lake MSA; and > The average impact fees of 14 Utah cities that are comparable to Salt Lake City in population and/or are geographically close to Salt Lake City. 1-Galena Consulting,2011 Roads Impact Fees r �--, ,. .. ; = "4llj retatl/sf oflice/af kxfustriallat Salt Lake City-current $ - $ - $ 8.62 $ 4.20 $ 2.00 Salt Lake City-draft update $ 450 $ 264 $ 2.91 $ 2.07 $ 2.01 National Average Sample Size-268 $ 3,227 $ 2,179 $ 5.95 $ 3.36 $ 2.06 Western States' Samnin Si,.. Arizona 30 $ 2,630 $ 1,818 $ 4.40 $ 2.11 $ 1.15 California 37 $ 6,499 $ 4,322 $ 10.06 $ 6.76 $ 3.96 Colorado 17 $ 2,691 $ 1,897 $ 11.51 $ 3.14 $ 1.93 Idaho 1 $ 3,456 $ 1,950 $ 8.86 $ 9.28 $ 2.13 Montana 1 $ 3,432 $ 2,124 $ 5.93 $ 1.96 $ 1.46 New Mexico 8 $ 2,932 $ 1,815 $ 3.80 $ 3.18 $ 2.32 Nevada 5 $ 2,151 $ 1,676 $ 3.21 $ 1.94 $ 1.48 Oregon 11 $ 3,573 $ 2,482 $ 7.90 $ 4.23 $ 2.88 Utah 18 $ 1,140 $ 1,073 $ 2.03 $ 1.04 $ 0.63 Washington 15 $ 1,889 $ 1,198 $ 4.72 $ 3.26 $ 2.15 average $ 3,039 $ 2,036 $ 6.24 $ 3.69 $ 2.01 Western Capital Cities pon Phoenix AZ 1,445,632 $ 650 $ 449 $ 0.99 $ 0.68 $ 0.41 Sacramento CA 486,189 $ 4,651 $ 3,851 $ 7.01 $ 6.55 $ 2.16 Boise ID 211,720 $ 3,456 $ 1,950 $ 8.86 $ 9.28 $ 2.13 Santa Fe NM 75,764 $ 2,100 $ 1,554 $ 4.60 $ 2.42 $ 1.61 Salem OR 156,690 $ 1,953 $ 1,274 $ 8.14 $ 2.09 $ 1.32 Olympia WA 42,514 $ 3,015 $ 1,957 $ 4.84 $ 6.46 $ 3.74 average $ 2,638 $ 1,839 $ 5.74 $ 4.58 $ 1.90 Similarly Sized-Cities a Chandler AZ 247,140 $ 3,983 $ 2,446 $ 7.39 $ 5.88 $ 1.66 Gilbert AZ 216,449 $ 423 $ 297 $ 1.59 $ 0.57 $ 0.41 Glendale AZ 251,522 $ 1,160 $ 591 $ 4.13 $ 2.17 $ 1.23 Boise ID 211,720 $ 3,535 $ 1,950 $ 8.86 $ 9.28 $ 2.13 Reno NV 218,000 $ 4,177 $ 2,845 $ 7.61 $ 4.00 $ 2.53 Salem OR 156,690 $ 1,953 $ 1,274 $ 8.14 $ 2.09 $ 1.32 Spokane WA 208,916 $ 638 $ 412 $ 2.65 $ 1.71 $ 0.68 average $ 2,267 $ 1,402 $ 5.77 $ 3.67 $ 1.42 Primary cities In slmllary-sized MSAs 3 Tucson AZ 541,811 $ 4,300 $ 2,150 $ 4.28 $ 5.09 $ 2.20 Fresno CA 495,913 per acre per acre per acre per acre per acre Albuquerque NM 528,497 $ 3,662 $ 1,520 $ 3.61 $ 3.42 $ 3.35 average $ 3,981 $ 1,835 $ 3.95 $ 4.26 $ 2.78 Utah Cities 4e Draper UT 42,274 $ 1,447 $ 994 $ 4.85 1.93 $ 1.05 Herriman UT 21,785 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Layton UT 67,311 $ 2,399 $ 1,508 $ 3.73 $ 2.19 $ 2.55 Lehi UT 47,407 $ 1,513 $ 1,513 $ 1.04 $ 1.04 $ 0.21 Logan UT 48,174 $ 669 $ 461 $ 0.30 $ 0.14 $ 0.05 Park City UT 7,558 $ 315 $ 290 $ 0.41 $ 0.41 $ 0.32 Provo UT 112,488 $ 986 $ 657 $ 2.40 $ 0.61 $ 0.40 Riverton UT 38,753 $ 764 $ 2,675 $ 3.20 $ 1.60 $ 0.67 St George UT 72,897 $ 754 $ 754 unavailable unavailable unavailable Sandy UT 87,461 $ 986 $ - $ - $ - $ - South Jordan UT 50,418 $ 1,880 $ 1,316 $ 4.74 $ 2.94 $ 1.31 Tooele UT 31,605 $ 1,515 $ - $ - $ - $ - West Jordan UT 103,712 $ 1,891 $ 4,340 $ 4.34 $ 1.47 $ 0.77 West Valley UT 129,480 $ 846 $ 514 $ 1.34 $ 1.25 $ 0.81 average $ 1,140 $ 1,073 $ 2.03 $ 1.04 $ 0.63 2-Galena Consulting,2011 Parks Impact Fees Salt Lake City-current $ 681 $ 681 Salt Lake City-draft update $ 1,752 $ 1,752 National Average Sample Size-268 $ 2,955 $ 2,254 Western States' Sample Size Arizona 30 $ 2,385 $ 1,801 California 37 $ 8,622 $ 6,681 Colorado 17 $ 3,560 $ 2,774 Idaho 1 $ 1,355 $ 1,050 Montana 1 $ 738 $ 738 •New Mexico 8 $ 1,747 $ 1,261 Nevada 5 $ 2,034 $ 1,625 Oregon 11 $ 5,095 $ 3,817 Utah 18 $ 2,781 $ 1,811 Washington 15 $ 2,244 $ 1,506 average $ 3,056 $ 2,306 Western Capital Cities population Phoenix AZ 1,445,632 $ 4,018 $ 1,876 Sacramento CA 486,189 $ 5,191 $ 3,058 Boise ID 211,720 $ 1,355 $ 1,050 Santa Fe NM 75,764 $ 1,214 $ 971 Salem OR 156,690 $ 3,548 $ 1,937 Olympia WA 42,514 $ 2,930 $ 1 771 average $ 3,043 $ 1,777 Similarly Sized-Cities 2 Chandler AZ 247,140 $ 5,057 $ 3,873 Gilbert AZ 216,449 $ 4,547 $ 3,911 Glendale AZ 251,522 $ 2,072 $ 1,555 Boise ID 211,720 $ 1,355 $ 1,050 Reno NV 218,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Salem OR 156,690 $ 3,548 $ 1,937 Spokane WA 208,916 $ - $ - average $ 2,511 $ 1,904 Primary cities In similary-sized MSAs 3 Tucson AZ 541,811 $ 1,720 $ 860 Fresno CA 495,913 $ 3,398 $ 2,764 Albuquerque NM 528,497 $ 3,990 $ 2,463 average $ 3,036 $ 2,029 Utah Cities45 Draper UT 42,274 $ 3,990 $ 2,463 Herriman UT 21,785 $ 3,445 $ 3,445 Layton UT 67,311 $ 1,873 $ 1,381 Lehi UT 47,407 $ 3,819 $ 3,198 Logan UT 48,174 $ - $ - Park City UT 7,558 $ 3,855 $ 3,150 Provo UT 112,488 $ 3,088 $ 2,391 Riverton UT 38,753 $ 2,675 $ 469 St George UT 72,897 $ 2,730 $ 2,730 Sandy UT 87,461 $ 3,316 $ 1,841 South Jordan UT 50,418 $ 4,346 $ 2,850 Tooele UT 31,605 $ 2,125 $ - WestJordan UT 103,712 $ 1,633 $ - West Valley UT 129,480 $ 2,032 $ 1 429 average $ 2,781 $ 1,811 3-Galena Consulting,2011 Police Impact Fees 3 , J :, 4-1/11_ `' retail/sf OflICe/sf Industrial/atAsk Salt Lake City-current $ 452 $ 452 $ 0.30 $ 0.30 $ 0.30 Salt Lake City-draft update $ 357 $ 357 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 National Average Sample Sae-268 $ 385 $ 303 $ 4.30 $ 0.26 $ 0.18 Western States' Sample Size Arizona 30 $ 467 $ 368 $ 0.59 $ 0.28 $ 0.20 California 37 $ 802 $ 635 $ 0.68 $ 0.52 $ 0.40 Colorado 17 $ 356 $ 325 $ 0.28 $ 0.26 $ 0.15 Idaho 1 $ 628 $ 628 $ - $ 0.08 $ 0.08 Montana 1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - •New Mexico 8 $ 231 $ 123 $ 0.21 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 Nevada 5 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Oregon 11 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Utah 18 $ 181 $ 152 $ 0.12 $ 0.11 $ 0.10 Washington 15 $ 161 $ 134 $ 0.79 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 average $ 283 $ 236 $ 0.27 $ 0.14 $ 0.11 Western Capital Cities population Phoenix AZ 1,445,632 $ 344 $ 153 $ 19.00 $ 0.20 $ 0.22 Sacramento CA 496,189 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Boise ID 211,720 $ 628 $ 628 $ - $ 0.08 $ 0.08 Santa Fe NM 75,764 $ 48 $ 39 $ - $ 0.04 $ 0.03 Salem OR 156,690 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Olympia WA 42,514 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - average $ 170 $ 137 $ 3.17 $ 0.05 $ 0.06 Similarly Sized-Cities 2 0.0 " 1E Chandler AZ 247,140 $ 268 $ 221 $ 0.37 $ 0.28 $ 0.09 Gilbert AZ 216,449 $ 643 $ 643 $ 0.34 $ 0.34 $ 0.34 Glendale AZ 251,522 $ 395 $ 297 $ 0.58 $ 0.30 $ 0.17 Boise ID 211,720 $ 628 $ 628 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 Reno NV 218,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Salem OR 156,690 $ - $ - $ - $ - Spokane WA 208,916 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - average $ 276 $ 256 $ 0.26 $ 0.14 $ 0.10 Primary cities In slmliary-sized MSAs 3 Tucson AZ 541,811 $ 674 $ 499 $ 0.70 $ 0.70 $ 0.70 Fresno CA 495,913 $ 624 $ 508 $ 6.65 $ 6.65 $ 4.22 Albuquerque NM 528,497 $ 218 $ 71 $ 0.34 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 average $ 505 $ 359 $ 2.56 $ 2.48 $ 1.67 Utah Cities 4 e Draper UT 42,274 $ 218 $ 71 $ 0.27 0.11 $ 0.04 Herriman UT 21,785 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Layton UT 67,311 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.07 Lehi UT 47,407 $ 340 $ 340 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 Logan UT 48,174 $ 34 $ 28 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.01 Park City UT 7,558 $ 605 $ 495 $ 0.56 $ 0.56 $ 0.45 Provo UT 112,488 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Riverton UT 38,753 $ 308 $ 308 $ 0.09 $ 0.02 $ 0.31 St George UT 72,897 $ 109 $ 109 $ 0.10 $ 0.07 $ 0.01 Sandy UT 87,461 $ 71 $ 40 $ - $ 0.21 $ 0.06 South Jordan UT 50,418 $ 323 $ 208 $ - $ - $ - Tooele UT 31,605 $ 350 $ 320 $ 0.32 $ 0.32 $ 0.32 West Jordan UT 103,712 $ 105 $ 160 $ 0.14 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 West Valley UT 129,480 $ 66 $ 45 $ 0.11 $ 0.08 $ 0.04 average $ 181 $ 152 $ 0.12 $ 0.11 $ 0.10 4-Galena Consulting,2011 • Fire Impact Fees 4ri,,,fqw retaiUsf office/sf industrialist Salt Lake City-current $ 485 $ 485 $ 0.32 $ 0.32 $ 0.32 Salt Lake City-draft update $ 218 $ 218 $ 0.39 $ 0.39 $ 0.39 National Average Sample Size-268 $ 512 $ 381 $ 4.19 $ 0.38 $ 0.26 Western States' Sample Size Arizona 30 $ 634 $ 511 $ 0.46 $ 0.53 $ 0.36 California 37 $ 1,022 $ 690 $ 0.58 $ 0.61 $ 0.36 Colorado 17 $ 644 $ 407 $ 0.33 $ 0.35 $ 0.25 Idaho 1 $ 479 $ 479 $ - $ 0.25 $ 0.25 Montana 1 $ 823 $ 692 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 . New Mexico 8 $ 477 $ 308 $ 0.57 $ 0.37 $ 0.36 Nevada 5 $ 1,780 $ 1,180 $ 0.80 $ 0.14 $ 0.57 Oregon 11 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Utah 18 $ 159 $ 119 $ 0.16 $ 0.14 $ 0.05 Washington 15 $ 634 $ 670 $ 0.38 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 average $ 665 $ 506 $ 0.35 $ 0.28 $ 0.26 Western Capital Cities pooulauon Phoenix AZ 1,445,632 $ 322 $ 270 $ 0.10 $ 0.12 $ 0.17 Sacramento CA 486,189 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Boise ID 211,720 $ 479 $ 479 $ - $ 0.25 $ 0.25 Santa Fe NM 75,764 $ 136 $ 110 $ - $ 0.12 $ 0.07 Salem OR 156,690 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Olympia WA 42,514 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - average $ 156 $ 143 $ 0.02 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 Similarly Sized-Cities 2 Chandler AZ 247,140 $ 577 $ 442 $ 0.72 $ 0.55 $ 0.18 Gilbert AZ 216,449 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 Glendale AZ 251,522 $ 409 $ 307 $ 0.30 $ 0.45 $ 0.28 Boise ID 211,720 $ 479 $ 479 $ - $ 0.25 $ 0.25 Reno NV 218,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Salem OR 156,690 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Spokane WA 208,916 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - average $ 366 $ 333 $ 0.23 $ 0.26 $ 0.19 Primary cities in simiiary-sized MSAs 3 Tucson AZ 541,811 $ 488 $ 360 $ 0.27 $ 0.27 $ 0.27 Fresno CA 495,913 $ 539 $ 439 $ 2.36 $ 2.36 $ 1.50 Albuquerque NM 528,497 $ 310 $ 107 $ - $ - $ - average $ 446 $ 302 $ 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.59 Utah Cities 43 Draper UT 42,274 $ 310 $ 107 $ 0.41 $ 0.54 $ 0.04 Herriman UT 21,785 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Layton UT 67,311 $ 501 $ 391 $ 0.65 $ 0.47 $ - Lehi UT 47,407 $ 576 $ 576 $ 0.25 $ 0.25 $ 0.25 Logan UT 48,174 $ 118 $ 85 $ 0.09 $ 0.10 $ 0.02 Park City UT 7,558 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Provo UT 112,488 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Riverton UT 38,753 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - St George UT 72,897 $ 216 $ 216 $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.06 Sandy UT 87,461 $ 165 $ 92 $ 0.32 $ 0.09 $ 0.13 South Jordan UT 50,418 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Tooele UT 31,605 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - West Jordan UT 103,712 $ 247 $ 140 $ 0.16 $ 0.20 $ 0.13 West Valley UT 129,480 $ 91 $ 62 $ 0.16 $ 0.11 $ 0.05 average $ 159 $ 119 $ 0.16 $ 0.14 $ 0.05 5-Galena Consulting,2011 Total impact Fees(roads,parks,police and fire) L t ,,ii tf 1,44 A retall/sf of ice/sf Industrial/sf Salt Lake City-current $ 1,618 $ 1,618 $ 9.24 $ 4.82 $ 2.62 Salt Lake City-draft update $ 2,777 $ 2,591 $ 3.54 $ 2.70 $ 2.64 National Average Sample Size-268 $ 7,079 $ 5,617 $ 6.29 4.04 $ 2.69 Western States' sample Size Arizona 30 $ 6,116 $ 4,640 $ 5.22 $ 3.08 $ 1.89 California 37 $ 16,945 $ 15,496 $ 13.96 $ 10.43 $ 7.40 Colorado 17 $ 7,251 $ 4,759 $ 12.54 $ 5.86 $ 3.07 Idaho 1 $ 5,918 $ 4,107 $ 8.86 $ 9.61 $ 2.46 Montana 1 $ 4,993 $ 2,816 $ 6.12 $ 2.15 $ 1.65 New Mexico 8 $ 5,387 $ 2,772 $ 4.40 $ 3.46 $ 2.97 Nevada 5 $ 5,965 $ 3,735 $ 2.65 $ 1.79 $ 1.30 Oregon 11 $ 8,668 $ 6,141 $ 7.82 $ 4.50 $ 3.17 Utah 18 $ 4,061 $ 3,154 2.05 1.22 0.73 Washington 15 $ 4,928 $ 4,120 $ 4.57 $ 3.19 $ 2.29 average $ 7,023 $ 5,174 $ 6.82 $ 4.53 $ 2.69 Western Capital Cities P ,Qo Phoenix AZ 1,445,632 $ 5,334 $ 2,748 $ 20.09 $ 1.00 $ 0.80 Sacramento CA 486,189 $ 9,842 $ 6,909 $ 7.01 $ 6.55 $ 2.16 Boise ID 211,720 $ 5,918 $ 4,107 $ 8.86 $ 9.61 $ 2.46 Santa Fe NM 75,764 $ 3,498 $ 2,674 $ 4.60 $ 2.58 $ 1.71 Salem OR 156,690 $ 5,501 $ 3,211 $ 8.14 $ 2.09 $ 1.32 Olympia WA 42,514 $ 5,945 $ 3,728 $ 4.84 $ 6.46 $ 3.74 average $ 6,006 $ 3,896 $ 8.92 $ 4.72 $ 2.03 Similarly Sized-Ckles 2 Chandler AZ 247,140 $ 9,885 $ 6,982 $ 8.48 $ 6.71 $ 1.93 Gilbert AZ 216,449 $ 6,713 $ 5,951 $ 2.52 $ 1.50 $ 1.34 Glendale AZ 251,522 $ 4,036 $ 2,750 $ 5.01 $ 2.92 $ 1.68 Allink Boise ID 211,720 $ 5,997 $ 4,107 $ 8.86 $ 9.61 $ 2.46 Reno NV 218,000 $ 5,501 $ 3,845 $ 7.61 $ 4.00 $ 2.53 Salem OR 156,690 $ 5,501 $ 3,211 $ 8.14 $ 2.09 $ 1.32 Spokane WA 208,916 $ 638 $ 412 $ 2.65 $ 1.71 $ 0.68 average $ 5,467 $ 3,894 $ 6.18 $ 4.08 $ 1.71 Primary cities in simllary-sized MSAs 3 Tucson AZ 541,811 $ 7,182 $ 3,869 $ 5.25 $ 6.06 $ 3.17 Fresno CA 495,913 $ 4,561 $ 3,711 $ 9.01 $ 9.01 $ 5.72 Albuquerque NM 528,497 $ 8,180 $ 4,161 $ 3.95 $ 3.50 $ 3.43 average $ 6,641 $ 3,914 $ 6.07 $ 6.19 $ 4.11 Utah Cities 4 5 Draper UT 42,274 $ 5,965 $ 3,635 $ 3.95 $ 2.58 $ 1.13 Herriman UT 21,785 $ 3,445 $ 3,445 $ - $ - $ - Layton UT 67,311 $ 4,773 $ 3,280 $ 4.38 $ 2.66 $ 2.62 Lehi UT 47,407 $ 6,248 $ 5,627 $ 1.36 $ 1.36 $ 0.53 Logan UT 48,174 $ 821 $ 574 $ 0.42 $ 0.27 $ 0.08 Park City UT 7,558 $ 4,775 $ 3,935 $ 0.97 $ 0.97 $ 0.77 Provo UT 112,488 $ 4,074 $ 3,048 $ 2.40 $ 0.61 $ 0.40 Riverton UT 38,753 $ 3,747 $ 3,452 $ 3.29 $ 1.62 $ 0.98 St George UT 72,897 $ 3,809 $ 3,809 $ 0.28 $ 0.26 $ 0.07 Sandy UT 87,461 $ 4,538 $ 1,973 $ 0.32 $ 0.30 $ 0.19 South Jordan UT 50,418 $ 6,549 $ 4,374 $ 4.74 $ 2.94 $ 1.31 Tooele UT 31,605 $ 3,990 $ 320 $ 0.32 $ 0.32 $ 0.32 West Jordan UT 103,712 $ 1,089 $ 4,640 $ 4.64 $ 1.75 $ 0.95 West Valley UT 129,480 $ 3,035 $ 2,050 $ 1.61 $ 1.44 $ 0.90 average $ 4,061 $ 3,154 $ 2.05 $ 1.22 $ 0.73 6-Galena Consulting,2011 Rada Impact Fin Pads Impact Foes Polls Impact Few Fin Impact Fea (� Total Impact FIN(roads,parka,poNa and fire) r nun rang (nanny Too "'4rr .rif,iiiirof, mow mN.& roomy 11 7r 370 mow mow Indusbiliii sl It!ep i j raw oNaia taattwr - Salt Lab City•wont $ - $ • $ 8.62 $ 420 $ 200 $ 681 $ 881 8 452 8 452 $ 0.30 $ 0.30 8 0.30 $ 465 $ 485 8 0.32 8 0.32 $ 0.32 8 1,818 8 1,618 $ 924 $ 4.82 $ 262 Se Lab CNy•rad rgdab 8 450 8 264 $ 291 $ 207 $ 201 $ 1,752 $ 1,752 $ 357 8 357 8 0.24 $ 0.24 8 024 $ 218 $ 218 $ 0.39 8 0.39 $ 0.39 8 2777 $ 2,591 $ 3.54 8 270 $ 2.64 Mood hemp 8 3,227 8 2,179 $ 5.95 $ 3.36 $ 206 $ 2,955 $ 2,254 $ 385 8 303 8 4.03 $ 0.26 8 0.18 $ 512 $ 381 8 4.19 $ 0.38 8 0.26 $ 7,079 $ 5,817 8 829 4.04 $ 2.68 Worm!btu 8 3,039 8 2,036 8 624 8 3.69 $ 201 $ 3,056 $ 2,306 8 283 8 238 8 027 $ 0.14 $ 0.11 8 86 8 506 8 0.35 $ 028 8 0.26 $ 7,023 $ 5,174 $ 8.82 $ 4.53 8 2.89 Weston Cipltd CNlea 8 2,638 8 1,839 $ 5.74 6 4.58 $ 1.90 $ 3,043 8 1,777 8 170 8 137 $ 3.17 $ 0.05 $ 0.06 8 156 $ 143 $ 0.02 8 0.08 $ 0.08 8 6,006 $ 3,896 $ 8.92 8 4.72 8 2.03 9kMulyS96ud.NNs' $ 2,267 $ 1,402 $ 5.77 $ 3.87 8 1.42 8 2,511 8 1,904 8 276 8 256 8 0.28 8 0.14 8 0.10 $ 366 8 333 8 0.23 8 0.26 $ 0.19 8 5,487 8 3,894 8 6.1B 8 4.08 $ 1.11 Primary cNlee In Wlary• Had$011' 8 3,981 8 1,835 8 3.95 $ 428 8 278 $ 3,036 $ 2029 $ 505 $ 359 8 2.56 8 2.48 $ 1.87 $ 448 8 302 $ 0.88 8 0.88 $ 0.59 $ 6,641 8 3,914 8 6.07 8 6.19 8 4.11 BNYMC8M" 8 1,140 $ 1,073 8 2.03 $ 1.04 $ 0.63 8 2781 8 1,811 8 181 $ 152 8 012 8 0.11 8 0.10 8 159 8 119 8 0.16 8 0.14 $ 0.05 8 4,061 8 3,154 8 2.05 8 1.22 $ 0.73 Source: Galena Consulting Study Team; 2010 National Impact Fee Survey, Duncan Associates Notes: 1) State Average determined by 2010 National Impact Fee Survey, based on non-exhaustive sample of published fees. Average adjusted with the addition of other cities researched by Galena Consulting. Averages include cities that may not be comparable to Salt Lake City in size or circumstances. 2) Between 150,000 and 250,000 population 3) Approx. 1 M population 4) Utah cities of similar size, and/or geographic proximity to Salt Lake City 5) Bountiful and Murray do not assess General Fund impact fees 6) Information could not be obtained for Ogden and Orem, but Ogden is believed to have fees 7-Galena Consulting,2011 Conclusions Impact fees are calculated based on a set of variables that differ significantly from city to city. As such,there is no"right amount"for an impact fee. We focus instead on ensuring that the impact fee has been calculated properly according to the guidelines set forth in statute and relative to the specific circumstances of the jurisdiction assessing the fee. The data provided above can be useful as a casual comparison of fees between similar entities. If city representatives are concerned that impact fees might affect their ability to compete for desired development,it can be helpful to review the fees of neighboring jurisdictions as well as those considered to be competing markets. There are challenges inherent in making definitive conclusions about the appropriate level of an impact fee based on these comparisons,however: • The list of cities included in the comparison is not exhaustive,nor is it statistically sampled. While attempts were made to include a variety of different comparisons,some cities may have been included that may not be considered by the City to be comparable, ,,., and some may have been omitted that are. • Some cities have complex impact fee schedules,assigning specific fee levels for each land use type,and/or different service areas. In order to include fee data from these cities,estimations were made in order to aggregate the data. • Impact fee statutes change from state to state. Some states may allow impact fees to fund capital items that others do not,which may affect the level of the impact fee. Many jurisdictions used in this comparison have impact fees in categories other than roads, parks,police and fire(i.e.,government buildings,schools,arts and culture facilities, etc.). The total impact fee on a unit of development in these cases would be higher than is shown in this comparison. • Impact fees are based on continuing the current level of service. Every city has a different level of service(i.e.,faster or slower fire response,more or less police officers, more or less park acres,better or worse roadway congestion),which affects the level of the impact fee. 8—Galena Consulting,2011 • Some jurisdictions address the cost of growth in ways other than impact fees. For example,instead of assessing impact fees,a city may choose to exact the improvement as a condition of development approval,or to subsidize the cost of growth from other revenue sources such as General Funds. • Growth patterns are different. For example,some cities are experiencing more infi11 growth,which can be less capital-intensive,while other cities are experiencing growth in annexed and/or previously undeveloped areas that will require a great deal of capital investment. The degree of capital required to meet the demands of growth will differ, and will affect the level of the impact fee. When evaluating comparisons to proposed impact fees,the following questions may be most useful as part of a comprehensive policy discussion: 1. Has the impact fee been calculated in compliance with State statute? 2. Has the impact fee been calculated based on reasonable growth projections? 3. Has the impact fee been calculated based on reasonable capital costs for providing the capital necessary to continue the current level of service as the population grows? 4. Are the calculated impact fees significantly higher or lower than jurisdictions considered comparable to Salt Lake City?If so,can these differences be explained? 5. What kind of development is the City hoping to attract? 6. Will the level of these impact fees be a significant factor in a developer's decision to locate in a location other than Salt Lake City?1 7. If the City is considering adopting a fee lower than what will fully recover the cost of necessary capital infrastructure,can the City afford to fund the difference? Alternatively, will it be acceptable to allow the level of service to decrease? 'Business-location decisions are based on many factors other than government cost(e.g.,demographics of customer base,access to skilled labor,quality of life for residents,transportation access/egress, suitability of retail/office/industrial space,prestige/status of mailing address etc.). If government cost is a factor,it also encompasses ongoing tax rates and the value perception of ongoing services received for taxes and fees. 9—Galena Consulting,2011 8M1 Liu qly•sMd1M MM UEM CIO.MI11361I1M1 MID 2012 4021•IM4.1Iy 03000.11161 c ;.�`.BEA/E' N ,-� ,..::Rlkf�� - MI1 �' r4g,riNINf�w :IMkM` .sNat:s !SOURCES �ze�7kF��4,=a�:,�Fx4r�.„ Ham_ �. ,.�� ,. .�,0, MM..0401254318d 04,0100133-71 $ 11333.047 $ 13723,502 $ 14.135200 3 14552327 $ 14,904107 f 15.445.990 $ 15.009.30 3 19300,951 $ 1617420 s 17191.51111 $ 11f1132970 0351105044.I1110.41 B.3..u..$ 13,321,047 $ 13.711,30 1 14.133201 $ 14.53.327 $ 14.964107 $ 15.44530 $ 15.1404370 4 14104541 $ 14074250 1 17.304.505 S 1119171 Road F...000ud0 awad Md B.Y1.) 5.00,e03 $ 4.339,50 3 5,1429113 f 1,911,150 f 974930 $ 1.960.750 f 2.0M.750 3 4.70.30 $ 3.072350 $ 1,302330 141121118 024068435 Band Fund 5S.04 750,000 f 730.000 1 600,000 4344000 499.CUP 83041 240.000 1 2.400.000 1 240000 $ 2,40200 $ 2.400.000 1 240200 f 2.20,00 $ 2.400,000 f 2,400.000 $ 2.403.009 24,1611,1100 C3410 OPFu141 110.00 $ 110.00 1 1,10,00 $ 1,10400 $ 1,10.00 3 1.10.00 1 1,10,00 $ 1,10.00 $ 1.10.00 3 110,000 1194200 FM1111.-9I4•13338 Rw.na I.M0.00 1,114110 tl 14tlwl.Ml0 GP.avnn 2004. $ - i - f - f - f - $ - s - f - 3 - 20, 6 PV2011 Bud0M MIW10M5-TI.mp06d03 Poach 1_250.00 1 •- f - $ - $ - 3 - 3 - f . I - 3 - 1,11400 F.dad014r1-F11W6 9,330,000 $ - 1 - $ - 3 - $ - $ - $ - 1 - $ - 63210 6.MPW1c 5.I41y4£614c.PI4%015 $ 400,00 $ 5,000,00 11,I00,000 T.1 Owund Fund Rawness$ 34305530 3 243M,141 f 10,376112 $ 14176677 s 16.T4111 $ 21,114746 $ 21,414111 $ 14ML011 I 2440,11411 f 12.1344M f 244,1319I1 !USES -111101i+m.;zAlnx=. ',AMC% ':;;,1w6442, '-. r1Yi4B.. :-"Rk3 --;.ke„ :,:1!£IEii ;1W...*,' ,.ffyt& ,.Yy e'l.ii 01M each 34141 Tax 53341 $ 4251,013 $ 4.111.554 $ 4401174 $ 2330.20 $ 6,564,511 $ 0,354,071 $ 1,342160 5 0035211 f 0.332,520 $ 6337.671 1 60114761 CAM Bap lwuwu-.16md.4M.Mltlea 3 2,309000 3 2,50,000 1 2.500,000 $ 250000 $ 2500.00 1 250,00 $ 2,50,000 1 2500,000 $ 2.500,00 1 Z500.000 1 21,001,14111 005541509401.Me 3 5,257.011 1 8,601,854 1 11,1101,174 1 5,430,705 $ 4304,511 4 11,504.071 $ 11,0428110 $ 11,033.570 f 11,032.520 I 11,031L71 1 113.1111,7116 COW P1o1M. Fln 1.250000 - 0,10, - $ - 0.060,00 - - 12M1.W Pala 00, 0 0.000.00 - $ MOM. PMM040a0Space 4455330 4 050,520 4,60,620 4,20,020 4,155.620 4.130.020 $ 5,35550 4,155,620 4.1556. 46101,304 15,575,350 5.760,60 0 M 5.505.1150 5.104,003 51 ,f00 4,616260 $ 4, 20 1 557450 4,16150 4.SL,00 11,Y,111 sta. 3,270.000 3.130.00 2.090.000 333.00 370,000 530.00 $ 370.000 5347000 370100 530,00 12,424,14 F.d11w-.60 00 150,000 3M994 390,000 SM.MO s 36000 300,060 304000 3992243 1.014A11 Ftl16..-100d16..13 1.M0,000 610,000 516.504 510.000 510,000 610,00 $ 110,00 110,000 110,000 110,000 6151.104 4Fe1p.2Fa UaM. 44,00 -$ 41.1511 Pos.NM 100,000 100,000 MOO 10.0 0 00 0 1 ,000 1 , 0 3 10.00 10 00 0, I ,000 1 . 0 0 MM 0 1, 1, 4 deem s M,4% 00, 0 5400 06000 60,000 80,000 $ 00 0.0, 0 0 0.000 60,00 MM. 0n94454unw1 WM E5605811... 37,00,170 15,031220 23.364014 10,170.610 11301.020 10515,00 1 11.347.770 14972,120 4344120 0,401020 199,a3344 Polar.CA Bond Winn Pr.n#.Onp1My 0OM (S23M dek t se**nix.r b Galan Fap 0.011 Mesa pooch 1. 0w) Sug5 P., . M 10 . Utah P.a..Nb ex. Salt 1.a Gay Palaa Matd $30 L431 Cty CMy0106 10M O ow546n 3.0car 010.N.UpCW51-PI..C64 COOwwplo0 a.OMN Spate Coapw-PBea 2 Pr.b WIa rr.Mnigpm 046•N W. P a.Pap 6h an Proy1M5 D5l5o...a/la nwlw nlln1 a* Jordan Pont Trill ad 10 Bade R.a.d Cnw34 P at61(PRATT)3IMM UM P50.4 SMau Lend shame u..PMnwy Taal 0aw11 Fund 8311.9E33M1611.11 33,337,113 1 11.71374 f 16221,145 3 21,116311 1 55,114411 f 21541,641 1 2310,431 1 16106145 1 21,111,640 1 11.131,111 $ 244.274071 dewwa.5 1.071.547 1 500171 5 (542,006)$ 4.004.332 $ 1110,474)s (1,464,301)s (1.591,310)s (4,213097)$ 1300.640 $ 1.a31.057 s (0) 5 "'C� t Sal Lake Ply-All Departrnsnte CapIW I511p8o0..n.nt Pin 20122021-FUdlr Constrained Fire $ 12,400,000 E 1,250,000 S S 5,100,00 5 - $ $ 6.050.000 $ - S 12,400,000 Ponce $ 9.140,000 5 80,000 5 9,000,000 S - S - S - S - $ - $ - 5 - $ 9,080,000 P1kat,d Open Spada S 44.156.200 $ 4,455,620 5 4980620 S 4,605.620 $ 4,205.620 5 4,155,620 S 4.230,620 5 5.355,620 5 4,155,620 8 4,155,620 8 3,655,620 5 44,156,200 Besets $ 61360,000 $ 15,575,350 5 5,760.600 5 5,505,850 5 5,164,000 S 5,560,800 S 4,595.250 S 4,862,150 S 5,576,500 8 4,163,500 8 4,556,000 5 61360.000 T98.part.6n S 12,820,003 $ 3,270,000 5 3,130,000 S 2,990,000 5 530,000 S 370,030 S 530,000 S 370,060 5 530,000 E 370,000 S 530,030 5 12,620,000 Fad1111.a S 9,198,504 S 2,290,000 5 1300000 S 908,504 S 1000,000 $ 1000,000 S 1000,000 S 500,000 5 500,000 E 500.000 5 500,000 5 9,198,504 gMnpaStFN UptlaG S 44,600 $ - E - $ - $ - S 44,E00 S - $ - 5 - 5 - S - E 44,600 FYlant for Art S 1.050.000 $ 100,000 E 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,005 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,005 5 100.000 5 100.000 $ 100,000 $ 1,500,000 08anan. $ 600,000 8 60,000 $ 60,000 S 80,000 5 80,000 5 60,000 5 60,000 S 60,000 $ 60,000 E 60,000 S 80,000 8 600.000 Sub-Total 5 150,519,304 S 27,080,970 S 15,051.220 5 23,369,974 5 16,179,620 $ 11,291020 $ 10.515.870 S 11,247,770 5 16.972.120 5 9,349,120 5 9,401,620 5 150,459,304 18819CD80W BMW TBD S - $164510.304 $ 27030070 $ 10.061,220 $ 20.300.0.74 $ 10.179,533 $ 11.201,020 6 10.610.670 6 11247.770 $ 10.072.120 $ 0.349,120 $ 9.401.520 $150480.304 •Page 6 Sett Lek.City-All Drp.6nnts Cep9W Improvement Plan 2012-2021-Flec lly Constrelned • Fife S 12,400.000 9 4,737,000 S 7,653,000 $ 2,663,000 $ - $ - S 4.731,000 S - $ 5.000,000 S 12,900,000 Pollee S 9,140,900 $ 2.285,000 $ 6,795,000 S 196,000 S - S - S 2,285.000 9 - S 6.000,000 $ 9,080,000 Parke end Open Bees 9 44,158,200 $ 7,693,500 $ 36,462,700 S 29,062,700 $ - $ 5,300,000 S 7,893,500$ - $ 2,100,000 S 44,156,200 Streets S 61360,000 $ 13,680,000 S 47,680,000 $ 9,560,000 $ 24,000,000 $ 4,600,000 S 13880,000 $ 6.320,000 $ 200,000 S 61360,000 Trensportetlon $ 12,620,000 S 2,322,000 S 10,298,000 S 9,048,000 9 - $ - $ 2,322,000$ - $ 1,260,000 $ 12,620000 Fatllltls S 9,198,504 S - $ 9,198.504 $ 7,298,504 S - $ - S -$ - S 1,900,000 9 9,198,504 CIPAmpear Fee Updae S 44,600 $ 44,600 $ - $ - S - $ - $ 44,600 S - $ - $ 441600 Pereent6MArt $ 1,000,000 $ - 9 1,000,000 $ 400,000 $ - S 600,000 S -S - 9 - S 1,000,000 Overruns 9 600,000 S - S 600,000 S 100,000 $ - $ 500,000 $ -S - S - S 600,000 Sub-Total $ 150,519,304 $ 30,762,100 S 119,697,204 S 58927,204 9 24.000,003 $ 11,000,000 S 30,762,100 $ 9.320,000 9 16,450,000 S 150,459.304 Myer Cepltel Berne TBD $164613,904 $ 90,742.100 B 119,097,204 3 54927,204 $ 24090.000 9 11,000,000 $ 90,702.103 $ 4324000 $ 10,460,500 $ 160.484804 available after debt aerMce S 58.927,204 S 24,000000 $ 11,000,000 $30,782,100$ 9,320,000 $ 16,450.000 S 150,459,304 difference S (0)S - $ - $ - S - $ - 9 RI) This does not account for funding for the Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation Project,2 Streetcars,Parking Meter Upgrade, Utah Performing Arts Center,Salt Lake Public Market,Salt Lake Convention Hotel,or Utah Theater/Building Renovation olrich are wmendy estimated at over$120M.These projects are likely to be funded vnth bonds,grants,or other sources •Page 7 Salt Lake City Fire Department Capital Improvement Plan,2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained Facilities 2012 Fire Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Land Acquisition $ 1,200,000 33% $ 396,000 $ 804,000 2015 Fire Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Constmction 15,000 1.00 $ 5,100,000 33% $ 1,683,000 $ 3,417,000 2019 Fire Station#14 15,000 5.00 $ 5,100,000 33% $ 1,683,000 $ 3,417,000 Apparatus 2019 Truck for Fire Station#14 to serve Southwest growth $ 950,000 100% $ 950,000 $ - Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 $ - Standards of Cover Study $ 50,000 50% $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ 2,396,845 $ 2,396,845 Notes: Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 3/31/11 •Page 8 Salt Lake City Police Department Capital improvement Plan,2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained Facilities 2014 Police Evidence and Crime Lab Facility 100,000 2.00 $ 9,000,000 25% $2,250,000 $ 6,750,000 Plus Cost of Fes-Related Research Impact Fee Study CSI Lab/Evidence Facility Study $ 140,000 25% $ 35,000 $ 105,000 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ - $ - •Page 9 I a i i gh !!! ep • f Eh I'/ IIi ail l!'la ;11 ii hi Hl o Ir9 i llf ;II 31. 111 i aS B g g g 9 : 99 I og ea g g g= g g g 9 'g n g g g g g § .g ..g g g g a g g g 9 g g = fig I 4 g g g 9 '® n n g n asan= g g yy:'e s s : .. $ c 51 99n'.s ® gg .fig Salt lab Idly 6b..0. ene6Onlbn DMebn. Capita Impro0mem Plan 2812-2l01-Flualy CenafSned • Roadway Rejects 13006010Y1.d RFMtiRetion 10,000000 9720,000 209000 - - - - - 10000.000 500/700 Soum-2800 Wed to 5600 Wog 14,780000 3,510,000 3,160.000 2,210,000 2.400.000 2,860.000 ADP aaabity Perms 1,300.000 130.000 130.000 13 0.000 1' .000 700000 DeMdordW SReplacement0 k Replac ement 130.000130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 1300,000 Indians Avenu.00 Sold 8om Redwood to 3600 West 3.810,000 _ _ _ _ 1e50,000 1090,000 - 3,640.000 Gh.ola S6m-1050 So.to 2100 South 4,000,000 - - - - - - 2.900,000 1.100,000 4.000.000 00 West from 700 So.to 650 South 1.600,000 1.000,000 Street Pa1u0.61 Overlay Ruebvtlon ,000,000 700,000 700.000 700.000 0,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700.000 7.000,000 Local Sum Racmwuc2e0 6,500,000 650,000 650.000 650000 85 B50,000 850,000 650,000 650.000 650,000 850.000 850,000 8,500,000 Molar Rohab6a6m and ReoondMdcn of dry Streets 0.36000 445,350 440,600 795,650 664,000 700.000 1..5.250 802t50 Concrete Sb0N Rehabilitation 200,000 200.000 200,000 Badge Raneemmon 2'200.roo 20,000I 20000 20,000 00n ono 000I 220,000I o00I 200.000 200,000 220.000 2'no.o00 Penh..Mt 50000 50,000 50,000 50.000 50,000 50.000 50,003 50,000 500,000 Cod CvwMne 300,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30.000 30,000 30.000 30,000 300.000 82,160.000 15,655,350 5.600.800 5..5.850 5.264,000 5,840,010 4,075,250 4,942,150 5856,500 4,243,500 4,638,000 62,100,000 Transportation Pro8 0. 1 ed Tr00 Rplacwnn 0 2,400,000 320,000 1 160.000 320.000 160.000 320,000 160,000 320,000 2.00,000 PedwM 0004an Safety De.. 250.000 25.000 25.000 25,000 25.000 25,000 25,0002 000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 Now Bike Lane 1.al.Boes 250.000 25.000 25,003 25.000 25,000 25,000 25.000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 250.000 Bike Lanes-200 Sold 6,520,000 2,000000 2,000,000 2.520,000 - - - - - - - 0,520000 9005od Co rridor 700.000 700.000 New Trolac Sipe. 1600000 160,000 M0,000 160,000 160.000 160.000 160,000 160.000 160.000 160,000 160.000 1.600,000 1300 East Traffic ealety-Phase 2 500,000 - - - - - - - 500,000 Street Lighting Replacement 200,500,000 000 200.000 200,000 12020.000 3.270.000 3,030.000 S 2.890.000 .0000 370,000 530,000 370000 530,000 370,000 530.000 12A20.000 Plus COP of Fea-RWM1d Rxurch .pact Fee3b0y 6 11,150$ - S - S - 6 - 1 11,150 6 - S -S - 6 - S - S 11,150 TrempwUtlon Mader Ran 6 200,000 6 100,030 6 101,000 S -S -S -S - 6 - S - S - 6 200.000 Minus Impact F.Balance 6 8,520.700 S 3,510,000 6 3,019.700 6 - $ - S - S -6 - 6 - 6 - 6 - 1 0,520,700 •Page 11 ( salt I.CIty StrestaMansper.161 0111on• Capital Improvament Plen 20124021-Fleeelly*Itrelnedl Roadway Proisete 1300 Sou.Viaduct Rehaaltstion 10,000,000 014 - 10,000,000 - - 30.320.000 200.000 10,000,000 500/700 Sou.-2800 VIssl to 5600 West 14,76000.3 5794 6.413,200 3.173.400 3.173.400 - 5.413200 14.760,000 .60,97es.11y Ramp.. 1,300000 094 1300000 1.300.000 54dawalk Reneteliteson/SawcuMnp 700.000 096 . 700,000 700,000 - 700,000 Delenanidad Sideretilt Replacamanl 1,300.000 016 . 1,300,000 - 1.300000 Indiana Ausnum600 Saudi ton.Redwood to 3800 West 3,640000 5, 2.074.800 1,585,200 752.600 752.600 - 2.074 800 3,640,000 Gladiola Straet-1650 Sou.to 2100 Sou. 4000,000 5794 2,2130,000 1,720,000 660,000 860,000 - Z280,000 4.000000 4400 West tom 700 Sou.to B50 Sou. 1,000.000 5716 912.000 858,000 344.000 344.610 - 812 000 1.600,000 6reetPavement Overlay and Preservation 7,000,000 094 7,000,000 7,000,7830 Local 6644117.consimetion 6.500.000 094 3.500.030 3,067000 - 6,500,000 !Amor 1966611taion and!Simon...lion a City St.. 8.360,000 093 6360,000 8,360,000 Laterals St.Rehalmilloon 2,300.000 094 2,000,000 Bridge Rellehilitshon 200,000 094 200,000 2130,030 - 200,000 Parent for Art 500,000 094 500,000 350,000 - 150,000 500,000 Co.Overruns 300,000 094 300,000 50 000 - 250 000 300.000 62,160,000 13680060 46,460,000 9,060,1030 26,006,000 5 000 063 16680.060 9.320,000 200,030 62,160,063 Tranaper.on Pm.. Repleamenaranle Signela 2,430.000 091. - 2400,000 2.400,000 - Pedestrian SM.Devices 250,000 1014 25,000 225000 225000 25 000 - 250.000 Nlaw Bilm Lana Installabons 250,000 1094 25.000 225,000 2251030 25 000 Bike L•nn-200 Soutn 6.520,000 1096 052,000 5.638,000 5.246.030 052 000 620,000 0,520.000 900 Sou.Rai Gonider 700.000 .0116 700,000 700,000 700,000 /Ie.268,Signels 1,1300,000 10094 1,600,000 1.600 000 - 1.610.000 1300 Earl Traffic 6•16y•Pilaw.2 600,000 094 600,000 600,000 - 600,000 strxt Lighlms 16.616consont 0.16 - 200.000 200,000 - 12,6'2'0.°000 1 2rni2.,000 10,116,000 6 5,798,000 3 -5 2,302,000 30 51,320.000 S12120,000 Plus CeS4 o4F.R.Ord Research Impel Pea MUTly 5 11,150 15099 5 11,150 5 - 5 11,150 3 11,150 irant.6411Mon Master Plan 3 200,000 1014 5 20,000 5 150.000 5 180,000 5 20.000 3 200,000 ; MMus ITSPIM Pee l66.6.. 3 6.520,700 10019 3 6520,700 3 - 3 - Impact Pee Pr...Aleutian 50091.41 1900-00000.03.31 0r..5 18.836000 5 24.000000$ 5.000000 5 18,013,150 5 8.320000 5 1.520.000 5 74,761,150 5 1,370,558 5 6106.862 ..14.•3 is,s3k000 s 24,000,000 5 5,000 000 5 /6,013150 5 9,320.000 5 1 520,000 5 74 791,150 a.*3 I 6483,450 •Page 12 Salt Lal.City.111.015.0 maml cm nu rhea me moat.fuming wada.e tram year.Instead n purmmpg.af for apprmenwmm each tuning yur.Se.Scums.md Uses. Cep.Fad.*Pro 3011.2521 • • Roney Pmanct AC System and Otlmrp Evg1 Comer.m 3493.790 3493.720 CourtsC Span.grede end Energy Con..on 3377.100 3377.100 •4 00.05.11rngeton wan Con..on and Ama Rene.Flora-Owgn.En9nenn9 and ow•Icpnvn 3133,326 3135.556 Ca.got✓ Cent.Plant Ilearang,cooling eye.am able 5 w•..e•s..en m n, got awn✓.. 3110003 31+ow3 omaimpe✓r weer Lene,nn and 5.1 Rene.Croea-o..vn.Enpnennv s2vl ue and Spnry fame Flaa MIPMotr.paong WPC.Cant ole.•m091119 systems 3683.518 3003,516 6.18 So.Proc.ds R.p•�c..ng.pen.wmow Wm Thermal doubl.pp lmnew. CM a CouM4Weng Fan Col Uri Rep.amee 10 Roof So.., 3170292 3170292 wawa Rag ury6cuM Buiinv ror pomu•an.aon�m m.Eu�a den 9pr•� dimMed cnnun pnen lc Mn'"m.mend 0,6ccuM SA*, F 3604,301 10 CMaCooaealding Exterior P4nIng and R.p 5.0.vi wcaa wnddwlr•m... 3100,000 3190000 Cw County 646.0 Vane R..gas 6 neeled...co restore dam.or broken Kyune tt CMacoumy not mu and Sawa 00a f2o0.13J0 Bulanv stone wdpuu.cana.nv wan wan°for Bea step al re...vsad protective wn 12 Cas Count,Bldg CM3 Court mina son.tfpeen.duang r.o+.g deacons stone nnan and.ter popn9 31,400,000 31!00,000 rmp3n Water and d Our Pe FlCons...-Cons We. f0000W 3w0.0Jo RM•c n ntl.pne window rM 1Tnntl double pens Nlndo. andnnenpt.a.Mm mrneps w0.0m 16 cM6 Ml3pang Conera •war system 31000,000 •r• on wm can. n mt and in.... .. 900,000 16 Rgc•..enp ana Mr-oenMonnp add OOC armcYw M.m. 3244.200 3244200 Sorel Pea.. Pep.cem61510 and Pr-dala.onn3WflxC coned.m aY.m.lo remunnp pap.. 30 Sou Sa20MM Starless P.ape m lman Water CORon..O7 and Amp Ron. Prga.-Oexyl.Emgmmnng gxeBM ...eapn.t Sup Sapear.Sumas Cuma lmpeem Water Ceuemem and Oa.R.n..el Pra,c1-cu✓mnen Woi 31,250,000 31 x00.000 II cM6eauMlfi.n2 Fan Cal Unit Replacement 3rd Roo So.RM 3194,620 3.000 23 cM a CouMaaing F R•p.um.m3ra Re✓team R.Y 24 Orly Carey Eulding Fan R.plw.mm tp Floor Norm Mil 25 Orly CwMSYanp Fen Cal Unit Fwlc.m•t.m Floor North rW 28 Orly C✓ a ntyading Fan 50111151 Replacement and Floor Rum 01 3160,126 21 Orly County Mang F Rpc w• em 2nd. Floor South Hann1�t7e 3137.178 26 M6 Mang Gouty ang F .5m Moor Una R•pl•cemnoor So.Rn 5170,292 3170232 MS C.Martanv F ra9.51w.5.2 Floor 30 M e6c•.nyeutdinv 3rd Carpel Act...Flmnng naa.mcal4.pc.m.n 3740.207 LM6 Co4Maadin6 am Replacement 356t6B 3559681 32 City County aiding em Flea Capri.nee Focnng nd EN..Rgecement 3340,907 3368607 33 Flr. w a Pion.R.pn.nd Replc✓nera 3338,192 3330122 SSC of Senior MSCo.aiding E Floen ter,.Aacew Reenrn9 rnd Eteem.Rep•umen 1 35 c 36 Ilbl•,Penang Seuaua W*.pecnrq of Cato.Seuarn Jom.Fapnenen Jan Rep, 3305000 3305,000 Plus .end liesur.co 682 B SpoaableF•la Plaza r.Concouree as✓W.pe4ng Prg.a 3382,315 3368,216 61, 30 36 SP1m91.1.4.Rola 355na 31.4Ria-Ruling S.not Rook.Paman Prow. 31 079763 31 079763 •Page 13 • 8711 b Cry FaeEda O N.. Ca.Fa...Plan 201.011 • 40 City d Can.Bui4np R n .Wad W.K dean.awnp nd algrne n.w5mm�n a.m. , 41 Mon,. . Rel...end.pans wne0.,m010,n,.ame aavamo.. $73,200 573,200 W.r r.pcmnn are 07111.upyae. 5303,000 5300,000 4c rags..ane cone.W0.10 5800000 mu Ran 11.W0000 51300000 Bun W Ramon n501.000 Sd1.0 44 n. . wo Saaan Bun 14 RamnO 1431.000 45 Chess Mown Ras..neap end 0 03344annp.ae OM cone.to svm.ms n aT• CM ane 050.0. Rgcewn..ane.a on each am 51.00.000 3S1v0.000 5100.000 nn P. Rap... 51 Cdy>Ca050 Bra,. Genandorn aTank Up,. 32 Various and Raga.C.m.and d.ae W./dam m.nna 1250.000 5250,000 33 Various 57.1.npg U.rad•ane Ragan lea Se.Som.Cam a Fn[maroon,Fr.supgmon UsO,am S4 Vanout Buildings Upgrade and Rapkn NV0C nd caned 330am. $250000 5250,000 d R.g..Rom and n.4aa,nd 0.mne 5250,000 • nw. .n0Rmaa1 am.an..and m.fam ew.nna $22w,0w 5250,000 ST Various Budebn. Upgradea2R.g.3.033 a.ndgmn0dan,n..n..nan.mannmwe.ndBa. A.q.4ce nd mg.2.1..I.3330003c.f 7.300 $2250,000 usm0.000 50 Various Wk.. Raga.n0 Cava c0Or0Bo Perm.0Im0•5441.a..m. 5250,000 R.g...nd wga.Gasmen and Fu2 Sy.. 5a5gnm 112 .pious Fern Ex..,d BmanP a.drNaomamm $250,,00000 3250000 40 wnw.M r and Reg.wln.Sat.e.g.an afrf04.ro0n,RI.smraaan nd7.ga04,WPC.re Caned S.W. e Papa Ram pie imam..pie eadne IS V.B.Pad.. U.rad•ane R.gc.Can.andd.end...am cmnna sn0,000 $ew,wo Vans.07 Man. Upgrade.ndR.gaa Wm..and giving to highs/.ga..0 resistance l0me and ham S5 Vann.Sodding. u50.00 011 Va..Baleen. A.305.n 00574.lw.p�ra5e.0.8..n.5a noow Ragtime are.dada Cene0O Peen nd a pa na.,..m. 71 Venous Su., R.g.e and.Psalm Gnu. a0 F..sy..n. pious n R mmet al Emmet edema n.5.admrm.. 5250,000 5250,000 73 vnws Stsiden. U.rarle ntl Rega.Ufa s..0Systems mi..Flre Decanan.Fire suppream Dam 0 tl R.g..Bn.rm,.V4C nd Caned By..ms 5250,000 76 Venous(*I. 17.rada e Ragas.Rom pie lmgNon pie amne nso one .000 • ws n and R.gaa Carp.and d.pie...oar cavern, SnO,om 5250,0,000 • Vanwa a and Rahn 4Nodoa and dean,to npn.r.ndency ra.ana la cod and he. 0,mo 0 u.pia pgae.w*W Pa2Mp.y.ana.�p R.. 5250,000 5250000 RW..ndupg.d.CBnee0 Peen nd lnig...mina R.g.•nd upgrade Snare.and Fuel Sy..m. • VVenousRom ous Sudan. a Emm of Ba w...au.Amon f25 a 0,000 3250.000 Taut 011,5116.571 11DN.ma 005d2100 la,al. lla1da20 11212.250 502.. S2305e00 f25m.W0 1.25m.0012 S25O4.000 •Page 14 SCANNED TO: ► Ar SCANNED BY: RECsEIVEL I. 1 k ST DATE: RALPH FRANK B. GRAY r� RALPH BECKER DIRECTOR 8,,� U 5 2PARTMENT OF COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT !T^y''{/\�y,� A��/R//T • �I1- �..LrI fir/ j 7 tY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER ED OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTSLC COUNCIL OFFICE MAY 0 3 2011 ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor 1` Date Received: s. • 3 ,1( David eritt,Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: j S ., 11 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 28, 2011 Jill Remington-Love FROM: Frank Gray, CE irector t-- SUBJECT: 10-Year Fiscally Constraine e Facilities Plan STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, Director Housing and Neighborhood Development (801)535-6136, luann.clark@slcgov.com Mike Akerlow, Deputy Director Housing and Neighborhood Development (801) 535-7966, mike.akerlow(aslcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the Salt Lake City Council consider adopting a new 10-year fiscally constrained impact fee facilities plan and adopt an ordinance establishing impact fees. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City has hired Anne Westcott of Galena Consulting to update the 10-year fiscally constrained impact fee facilities plan and the-impact fee program. The City will need to adopt the 1 0=year plan before we can adopt an update to the City's impact fee program. The attached 10-Year facilities plan has been reviewed and approved by the Mayor and is included in this transmittal to the City Council as part of the budget process. Impact fees have been updated based on the assumptions made in the fiscally-constrained facilities plan. Based on these assumptions a first draft of the Impact Fee Study is also attached and included in the transmittal to the City Council as part of the budget process. Anne Wescott will be available with Administrative staff to present these materials and support documents at the City Council's convenience. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 1454B6, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 14-5485 TELEPHONE: 801-53 5-6230 FAX: 8O 1-53 5.6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED REcvcLE6 PAPER r t Funding reductions,project re-scheduling,and/or project elimination included: Fire—The Fire Training Center,a priority of the Fire Department and Administration for oak some time,was cut as its construction depends almost solely on General Fund revenue sources. Fire Station#14 was left in the CFP,but moved back a few years. In order to fund the project,however,it had to be assumed that$5 million from the sale of the existing Public Safety Building will earmarked for the construction of Fire Station#3 in FY14-15. Police -No cuts were made to the Police Department's CFP as they only have one project on their list—the Crime Lab and Evidence Facility. In order to fund this project,however, it had to be assumed that$6 million from the sale of the existing Public Safety Building would be earmarked for this facility. Parks—With very few revenue sources other than General Fund contribution,the Parks CFP was reduced significantly. Approximately$30 million was cut from the Parks CFP, by aggressively reducing the scope and amount of improvements in existing parks by 50%. In addition,an initiative to increase the number of miles of open space trails was eliminated. While a comprehensive list of specific prioritized projects and locations has been developed,we did not schedule these projects specifically in time. Instead,an averageAmk funding amount was allocated to each fiscal year,with the assumption that the specific projects would be identified during the budget process based on needs at that time. Streets—Much of the Streets CFP is funded by sources other than the General Fund, including Class C,CDBG,and Federal grants. However,over$13 million and 50%of General Fund projects were cut from the Streets CFP,including: a 77%decrease in funding for ADA Accessibility Ramps;a 70%reduction in sidewalk replacement and rehabilitation; a 30%reduction in street pavement overlay and preservation;a 40%decrease in local street reconstruction;a 20%reduction in major rehabilitation and reconstruction;and an 80% reduction in bridge rehabilitation. Transportation—Over$20 million was cut from the Transportation CFP,including a 50% reduction in traffic signal replacement; a 33%reduction in pedestrian safety device installation; a 50%reduction in new bike lane installations;and a 50%reduction in the scope of the 1300 East Traffic Safety project. Furthermore,all additional TCC cameras • Page 3 Salt Lake City-All Departments Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained y { � � a'i^0`"�� ii, IV� K� +. Ur.;L1„�ta i M"t{1,. i .- 1 a�, �' ..,:', 1,r . '.,S v'��'4a u .a„s u .� 4 v�,�, i U ,4F IJi, ,;i y., �"-�.I�i f(,: I S.! 4iF , a y ,Wr7 rs:+.`vS..a__a u. ,cy.u�:'+�,r.,:,.G....�.ay.._.,..,.., r,d�[_. s ![ :1 W. .a?�S� �' 4,_t Fire $ 12,400,000 $ 4,737,000 $ 7,663,000 $ 2,663,000 $ - $ - $ 4,737,000 $ - $ 5,000,000 $ 12,400,000 Police $ 9,140,000 $ 2,285,000 $ 6,795,000 $ 795,000 $ - $ - $ 2,285,000 $ - $ 6,000,000 $ 9,080,000 Parks and Open Space $ 44,156,200 $ 7,693,500 $ 36,462,700 $ 29,062,700 $ - $ 5,300,000 $ 7,693,500 $ - $ 2,100,000 $ 44,156,200 Streets $ 61,360,000 $ 13,680,000 $ 47,680,000 $ 9,560,000 $ 24,000,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 13,680,000 $ 9,320,000 $ 200,000 $ 61,360,000 Transportation $ 12,620,000 $ 2,322,000 $ 10,298,000 $ 9,048,000 $ - $ - $ 2,322,000 $ - $ 1,250,000 $ 12,620,000 Facilities $ 9,198,504 $ - $ 9,198,504 $ 7,298,504 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,900,000 $ 9,198,504 CIP/impact Fee Update $ 44,600 $ 44,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 44,600 $ - $ - $ 44,600 Percent for Art $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 Overruns $ 600,000 $ - $ 600 000 $ 100 000 $ - $ 500 000 $ - $ - $ - $ 600 000 Sub-Total $ 150,519,304 $ 30,762,100 $ 119,697,204 $ 58,927,204 $ 24,000,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 30,762,100 $ 9,320,000 $ 16,450,000 $ 150,459,304 Major Capital Items TBD $ 150,519,304 $ 30,762,100 $ 119,697,204 $ 58,927,204 $ 24,000,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 30,762,100 $ 9,320,000 $ 16,450,000 $ 150,459,304 . `rr 't3. ' 40,4,.t,r LL'. x.J_ 14.,1 ��'1. 6 ` ,,irt i7 , r o,:*- k available after debt service $ 58,927,204 $ 24,000,000 $ 11,000,000 $30,762,100 $ 9,320,000 $ 16,450,000 $ 150,459,304 difference $ (0) $ -_$ - $ - $ - $ - $ (0) This does not account for funding for the Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation Project,2 Streetcars,Parking Meter Upgrade, Utah Performing Arts Center,Salt Lake Public Market,Salt Lake Convention Hotel,or Utah Theater/Building Renovation which are currently estimated at over$120M. These projects are likely to be funded with bonds,grants,or other sources • Page 7 { • Salt Lake City Streets/Transportation Divisions Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained ` r <11ti i'w'.+b.',..i .:41''.,dat'itt'','.'�t�J?0,,,.,u�..�.,F.t.. ..,...._ _r• ::Y'. . ,^'v r, .T'::: 1 t .Ut iP0 i- ?.' :i "'y�.,rs �, :+ .r+ta: isLh', ::• r Roadway Projects . .. ,. , .• ...., . ..���� ��, 1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation $ 10,000,000 $ 9,720,000 $ 280,000 $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000,000 500/700 South-2800 West to 5800 West $ 14,760,000 $ 3,510,000 $ 3,160,000 $ 2,810,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 2,880,000 $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ 14,760,000 ADA Accessibility Ramps $ 1,300,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 5 130,000 5 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 1,300,000 Sidewalk Rehabilitation/SawcuBing $ 700,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 700,000 Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement $ 1,300,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 1,300,009 Indiana Avenue/900 South from Redwood to 3800 West $ 3,840,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,650,000 $ 1,990,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,640,000 Gladiola Street-1650 South to 2100 South $ 4,000,000 $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 2,900,000 $ 1,100,000 $ - $ 4,000,000 - 4400 West from 700 South to 850 South $ 1,600,000 $ - $ - 5 - $ - $ - 5 - $ - $ $ 1,600,000 $ 1,800,000 Street Pavement Overlay and Preservation $ 7,000,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 7,000,000 Local Street Reconstruction $ 8,500,000 $ 850,000 $ 650,000 $ 850,000 $ 650,000 $ 850,000 $ 850,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 850,000 $ 650,000 $ 6,500,000 Major Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of City Streets $ 8,360,000 $ 445,350 $ 440,600 $ 795,850 $ 884,000 $ 780,600 $ 1,045,250 $ 972,150 $ 776,500 $ 1,163,500 $ 1,056,000 $ 8,360,000 Concrete Street Rehabilitation $ 2,000,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 5 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 2,000,000 Bridge Rehabilitation $ 200,000 $ 20,000 15 20,000 I$ 20,000 I S 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 $ 200,000 Percent for Art $ 500,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 S 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 500,000 Cost Overruns S 300,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 5 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 S 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 300,000 S 82,160,000 $ 15,655,350 $ 5,860,600 $ 5.585650 $ 5.284,000 $ 5,640,800 $ 4,675,250 $ 4,942,150 $ 5,656,500 5 4,243,500 5 4.636,000 $ 62,160,000 Transportation Projects Replacement Traffic Signals $ 2.400,000 $ 160.000 $ 320,000 $ 160600 $ 320,000 $ 160,000 $ 320.000 $ 160600 $ 320,000 $ 160,000 5 320,000 $ 2,400600 Pedestrian Safely Devices $ 250,000 $ 25,000 $ 25.000 S 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 5 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 250,000 New Bike Lane Installations $ 250,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25.000 S 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25.000 $ 25.000 $ 25,000 $ 250,000 Bike Lanes-200 South $ 6,520,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,520,000 S - $ - S - 5 - $ - $ E $ 6,520,000 900 South Rail Corridor $ 700,000 $ 700,000 E - $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ 700,000 New Traffic Signals $ 1,600,000 $ 160,000 $ 160600 $ 180,000 $ 160,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 5 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 1,600,000 1300 East Traffic Safety-Phase 2 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 500,000 Street Lighting Replacement $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 12.420,000 $ 3,270600 $ 3,030,000 S 2,890,000 S 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 S 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 12,420,000 „1'.idGfu'7.rn s„e>$,W,Y7441s. '2s. ;;A,A^40a,,, V,v ;t a_,-, .tip , s.;.:7..71 d-,J4.y,.h, -f t r:iri•4., ,s,s•., , r,�4..,. i.T,.,,. 10, :.a;a 4.,7, w ar,,,,, �:;-i I . •-�na.}bJ-:..`:.:: L t•,n.;u.. 141::iJi e1! Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,150 Transportation Master Plan $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 - $ 200,000 Minus Impact Fee Balance $ 6,529,700 $ 3,510,000 $ 3,019,700 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,529,700 br,&B.t,IN,1 iw.,,`,,,,.•,, dw,a,,f,.3.„ ,,+2�,*.c ,`ai4,1P1 r..V. J,.L6 i ti1,9.0_741J: t1.::-4.141. �ii.T.ii;Jai, /: Jl i1i 11.: trzh_,.k..:.:.-a' `;1it.i.tc1J,. ,;..::stli5i k.,..l.. ;:.:.....1141i4,:`. -1-4.a..k i:i • • Page 11 4 e Salt Lake City Capital Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Study Draft Report May 2, 2011 Prepared by: Anne Wescott Galena Consulting ALE A O SULTING facilities by development being charged the impact fee;do not exceed the cost of such facilities; and are"earmarked"to fund growth-related capital facilities to benefit those that pay the impact fees. Impact fees should take into account the following: • Any appropriate credit,offset or contribution of money,dedication of land,or construction of system facilities; • Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in the form of user fees and debt service payments; • That portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by the City to growth- related system facilities;and • All other available sources of funding such system facilities. Through data analysis and interviews with the City,Galena Consulting identified the share of each capital facility needed to serve growth.The total projected capital facilities needed to serve growth were then allocated to new residential and non-residential development with the resulting amounts divided by the appropriate growth projections from 2012 to 2021.Among the advantages of the CFP approach is its establishment of a spending plan to give developers and new residents more certainty about the use of the particular impact fee revenues. Auk Other fee calculation considerations.The basic CFP methodology used in the fee calculations is _- presented above.However,implementing this methodology requires a number of decisions. The considerations accounted for in the fee calculations include the following: • Allocation of costs is made using a service unit which is a standard measure of consumption,use,generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit."The service units chosen by the study team for every fee calculation in this study are linked directly to residential dwelling units and non-residential square feet. • A second consideration involves refinement of cost allocations to different land uses. In this analysis,the study team has chosen to use the highest level of detail supportable by available data.As a result,in this study all impact fees are allocated among residential and non-residential development,with the exception of streets impact fees. Streets fees are allocated to specific land uses according to trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)manual. These land uses include single and multi-family residential;and retail,office,and industrial land uses. Current Assets and Capital Improvement Plans The CFP approach estimates future capital facility investments required to serve growth over a fixed period of time. The impact fee study team has used a 10-year time period. r 5 DRAFT REPORT Section II. Land Uses City services are measured in terms of number of population served,physical structures to be protected, and trips generated. Knowing how much the population,residential households and non-residential square feet are projected to increase assists city staff in determining how many and what type of new capital facilities will be needed within the planning period. As noted in Section I,it is necessary to allocate capital facility plan(CFP)costs to residential and non-residential development when calculating impact fees. The study team performed this allocation based on the number of new households,non-residential square footage, and new trips projected to be added over the ten-year period. The following Exhibit II-1 presents the current and future population projections for the Salt Lake City. Exhibit II-1. Current and Future Population for Salt Lake City 2010-2020 Population 186,440 195,263 8,823 5% Source:2010 U.S.Census,the Wasatch Front Regional Council Transportation Plan 2011-2040,and the 2009 American Community Survey. Salt Lake City currently serves 186,440 persons. By 2020,the population is projected to increase by 8,823 persons to 195,263 persons,a 5%increase. The City must plan for the necessary capital facilities to serve these additional residents. In order to apportion the costs of the capital facilities necessitated by growth over the ten-year planning period,it is necessary to determine the number of new units of development among residential and non-residential development,and then convert both land uses to square feet. The following Exhibit I1-2 presents the current and future number of residential households and non- residential square feet,and their distribution as a total of all new development. 9 DRAFT REPORT • f 6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? The Salt Lake City Fire Department has developed a Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years. Because City residents approved a bond to construct a$125 million Public Safety Building which will be completed in 2013, no future capacity for additional growth-related administrative staff is required. However, the Fire Department must relocate and expand Fire Station#13 in order to continue providing the current service level to projected growth. In addition, it must construct and outfit Fire Station#14 to accommodate the service needs of projected growth. The following Exhibit III-2 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Fire Department plans to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service. Exhibit III-2. Salt Lake City Fire Department Capital Facilities Plan—2012-2021 Fecrlitles 2012 Fire Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Land Acquisition $ 1,200,000 33% $ 396,000 $ 804,000 2015 Fre Station fr3-Relocates and Expansion;Construction 15,000 1.00 $ 5,100,000 33% $ 1,663,000 $ 3,417,000 2019 Fre Station#14 15,000 5.00 $ 5,100,000 33% $ 1,883,000 S 3,417,000 Apparatus 2019 Tntck far Fire Station#14 to serve Southwest growth $ 950,000 100% $ 950,000 3 • AN* Plus Cost of Fee•Related Research '+ew,d1' Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 S Standards of Cover Study S 50,000 50% $ 25,000 3 25,000 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance S 2,396,845 $ 2,398,645 Source:Salt Lake City Fire Department and Impact Fee Study Team. Notes: Replacement cost assumption is$300 per square foot. All cost assumptions based on replacement cost in 2011 dollars. The Standards of Cover study will assist the Department in determining the location of future stations. Fund balance as of 3/31/11. As shown above,the Salt Lake City Fire Department plans to invest approximately$10 million in capital facilities over the next ten years,$2.4 million of which is impact fee eligible. The impact fee eligible portion includes a proportional share of the cost to plan for and construct the relocated Fire Station#3 and the new Fire Station#14,and to provide Fire Station#14 with a fire suppression vehicle. The remaining$7.7 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities? The following Exhibit III-3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibits II-1 and II-2,and the impact fee eligible costs from Exhibit III-2 to calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Fire Department. 13 DRAFT REPORT As shown above,the Salt Lake City Police Department plans to invest approximately $9.2 million in capital facilities over the next ten years,$2.3 million of which is impact fee eligible. The impact fee eligible portion includes a proportional share of the police evidence and crime lab facility,and a facility study prior to the construction of this facility. The remaining$6.9 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels, and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities? The following Exhibit IV-3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibits II-1 and II-2, and the impact fee eligible costs from Exhibit IV-2 to calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Police Department. If the cost of the infrastructure necessary to continue the level of service currently enjoyed by City residents to an additional 8,823 new residents(growth-related CFP cost of$2.3 million), was divided by the number of households and non-residential square footage correlated to the new residents(3,803 households and 3.9 million square feet),every new household and non- residential square foot's proportional share of the CFP cost would be as follows: Exhibit IV-3. Salt Lake City Police Amount to Include in Impact Fees' $ 2,296,150 Department Impact Fee Percent of Future Growth Calculation Residential 59% Nonresidential 41% Note: Amount Attributable to Future Land Use (l)From Exhibit IV-2 Residential $ 1,356,856 (2)From Exhibit I-2. Nonresidential $ 939,294 source: Future Growth by Land Use' Residential(housing units) 3,803 Salt Lake City Police Department and Impact Nonresidential(square feet) 3,923,562 Fee Study Team. Calculated Impact Fee Residential(housing units) $ 357 Nonresidential(square feet) $ 0.24 The amount per household is less than the current$981 investment per household and$0.66 investment per non-residential square foot we calculated based on Exhibit IV-I of this report. This confirms that new growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system. The Department cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above. The Department may assess fees lower than these amounts,but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Department used other revenues to make up the difference. 17 DRAFT REPORT Ask Exhibit V-2. Salt Lake City Parks Division Capital Facilities Plan—2012-2021 Paro50pn Spas Aetpalbn end wwleMn.nt AddSerol sass of developed parks end open space to continue current level of serwce for growth 98 88 $ 8,740,000 100% $ 6,740,000 w8r+da%d open $ Adabonal non gro space TBD 5 2,100,000 0% f - 5 2,100,003 Tn lent rd 154.Poring/Os.Ysplwd Jordan and Sett Lake(McClelland)Canal Shared Use Pathway $ 4,000,000 10% $ 400,000 $ 3,600,000 City Creek Tra3 $ 1.200,000 10% 5 120,000 5 1,080,000 Yrtpeeaeeelb a edging Fro•Specific projects to tea determined on an annual basis $ 27,018,200 $ 421,000 $ 26,595,200 Includes playgrounds,!esteems,Sokde,courts,paths,pavilions,plane,off-leash dog parks eke%parka,BIJXAIie pence,Irrigation end landscaping,and other miscellaneous improvements Cemetery 5 Z000,000 0% $ - $ 2,000000 Percent for Art $ 500,000 0% $ $ 500,000 COM Onwnat' $ 300,000 0% 5 - $ 300,030 P. Cost ofCJffee.liltr.d Rwsrsh . . Impact Fee Sally $ 11,150 100% 5 11.150 $ Parks Recovery Pten $ 50,000 0% $ • 5 50,000 Parks,Open Space end Trey Master Men $ 75,000 5% $ 3,750 5 71,250 Jaden River Master Plan $ 100,000 5% $ 5,003 $ 95,030 PooMa R.aabn end Mrngenlent Plan 5 75,030 5% $ 3,750 $ 71,250 IMale Impact he edam $ 1,040,221 100% $ 1,040,221 5 Source'Salt Lake City Parks Division and Impact Fee Study Team. As shown above,the Salt Lake City Parks Division plans to invest approximately$45.0 million in capital facilities over the next ten years,$6.7 million of which is impact fee eligible. The remaining$38.4 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels,and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. To continue the current level of service of 11.2 acres per 1,000,the Division will need to add 98.88 acres of growth-related parks and open space acreage. These acres will be acquired and developed according to the speed and geographic pattern of anticipated growth. The City desires to further increase the level of service for open space. As this is an upgrade or improvement to the current level of service,it cannot be financed with impact fees. Instead,the Division intends to allocate the remaining balance from the Open Space bond($2.1 million)to achieve this goal. To continue the current level of service for trails and pathways,which are measured in miles instead of acres,the City intends to construct two shared use pathways—the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, and the City Creek Trail. Only a small portion of these projects(10%)is impact fee eligible. This percentage is tied to the historical increase in multi-modal trip generation(i.e.,bike traffic)on greenbelts and shared use pathways. The other 90%of the projects will need to be funded with sources other than impact fees. The Division intends to expend approximately$29 million over the next ten years to make improvements to existing City parks and facilities. A very small percentage($421,000 or 1%)of these improvements relate to adding capacity to existing amenities to support anticipated growth. The remainder of the costs for these improvements must come from sources other than impact fees. 21 DRAFT REPORT Exhibit VI-3. Current Assets—Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions Roadways 1,8431ane miles of roadway $ 1,105,800,000 100% $ 1,105,800,000 Bridges 23 bridges $ 23,000,000 100% $ 23,000,000 Curb and Gutter 4,750,000 lineal feet of curb and gutter $ 199,500,000 100% $ 199,500,000 Sidewalks 20,000,000 sf of sidewalk $ 200,000,000 100% $ 200,000,000 12,000 accessible ramps $ 45,600,000 100% $ 45,600,000 Drlve Approaches 7,680,000 sf of concrete drive approaches $ 99,840,000 100% $ 99,840,000 Bike Facilities 83 linear miles of bike lanes incl.in roadway cost 100% $ - Traffic Signals 200 Traffic Signals $ 32,000,000 100% $ 32,000,000 Crosswalk Lights 31 flashing crosswalk lights $ 1,860,000 100% $ 1,860,000 79 flashing school crosswalk lights $ 1,975,000 100% $ 1,975,000 Driver Feedback Signs 44 driver feedback signs $ 352,000 100% $ 352,000 Facilities Streets Facility $ 9,250,600 100% $ 9,250,000 Fleet Facility $ 2,520,000 100% $ 2,520,000 Salt Storage $ 1,017,405 100% $ 1,017,405 Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study Update $11,150 100% $ 11,150 Plus impact Fee Fund Balance $6,529,700 100% $ 6,529,700 Source:Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions and Impact Fee Study Team. As shown above,the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions currently own approximately$1.7 billion of capital assets. These assets are used to provide the Divisions' current level of service of"C." 4. What is the current investment per unit? By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions by the number of current households and non-residential square feet whose owners have invested in these assets,we can determine that the Divisions have invested $10,161 per existing single-family residential unit;$7,113 per existing multi-family residential unit; $50.81 per existing square foot of retail development; $13.21 per existing square foot of office development;and$9.15 per existing square foot of industrial development. We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar;this represents a"check"to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure. 25 DRAFT REPORT • Exhibit VI-7 relates to the portion of the CFP that represents the trip demand generated by new non-residential development citywide. Exhibit VI-7. Salt Lake City Non- Amount to Include in Impact Fees' $8,106,892 Residential Roadway Fee Percent of Future Trips Calculation Nonresidential Retail 8% Note: Office 18% (1)From Exhibit VI-4;100%of roadway Industrial 74% projects in Westside Industrial Area,plus 41%of all transportation projects. Credited 100%of Allocated Value by Land Use Category impact fee fund balance. Nonresidential (2)From Exhibit II-2. Retail $ 665,671 Source: Office $ 1,461,601 Impact Fee Study Team. Industrial $ 5,976,276 Future Land Uses' Nonresidential(in square feet) Retail 235,936 Office 707,384 Industrial 2,980,241 Calculated Impact Fee Non-Residential(per square foot) Retail $ 2.91 Office $ 2.07 Industrial $ 4.01 1 The amount per square foot is less than the current$50.81 per square foot investment for retail development,$13.21 per square foot investment for office development, and$9.15 per square foot investment for industrial development we calculated based on Exhibit VI-I of this report. This confirms that new non-residential growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system. The Divisions cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above. The Divisions may assess fees lower than these amounts,but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Division used other revenues to make up the difference. A comparison of current investment,current impact fees and 2011 calculated roadways impact fees is as follows: Residential Unit Current Investment per Single Family Unit $10,161 Current Investment per Multi Family Unit $7,113 Current Roadways Impact Fee no fee is currently in effect Draft Residential Roadways Impact Fee-2011 $ 450 Draft Residential Roadways Impact Fee-2011 $ 264 29 DRAFT REPORT v i facility,the donation can contribute to the City's General Fund participation along with more traditional forms,such as revenue transfers from the General Fund. If,however,the donation is for a growth-related project in the CFP,the donor's impact fees should be reduced dollar for dollar. This means that the City will either credit the donor or reimburse the donor for that portion of the impact fee. Credit/reimbursement.If a developer constructs or contributes all or part of a growth-related project that would otherwise be financed with impact fees,that developer must receive a credit against the fees owed for this category.This prevents "double dipping"by the City. The presumption would be that builders/developers owe the entirety of the impact fee amount until they make the City aware of the construction or contribution.If credit or reimbursement is due, the governmental entity must enter into an agreement with the fee payer that specifies the amount of the credit or the amount,time and form of reimbursement. Impact fee accounting.The City should maintain Impact Fee Funds separate and apart from the General Fund.All current and future impact fee revenue should be immediately deposited into this account and withdrawn only to pay for growth-related capital facilities of the same category. General Funds should be reserved solely for the receipt of tax revenues,grants,user fees and associated interest earnings,and ongoing operational expenses including the repair and replacement of existing capital facilities not related to growth. Spending policy. The City should establish and adhere to a policy governing their expenditure of monies from the Impact Fee Fund. The Fund should be prohibited from paying for any operational expenses and the repair and replacement or upgrade of existing infrastructure not necessitated by growth. In cases when growth-related capital facilities are constructed, impact fees are an allowable revenue source as long as only new growth is served. In cases when new capital facilities are expected to partially replace existing capacity and to partially serve new growth,cost sharing between the General Fund or other sources of revenue Impact Fee Fund should be allowed on a pro rata basis. Update procedures. The fees calculated in this study can be updated as the City monitors the future development patterns.Fees can be updated on an annual basis using an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. 33 DRAFT REPORT SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: May 31,2011 SUBJECT: Refuse Collection Fund Class- Operations&Recycling Fund,Environmental&Energy Fund STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver CC: David Everitt, Rick Graham,Vicki Bennett,Art Valente,Greg Davis, Nancy Sanders, Gina Chamness, Randy Hillier, Debbie Lyons At the Council's May 3rd briefing for the Refuse Fund Annual budget, the Council raised some questions for follow-up discussions. Questions regarded varying projections for rate increases, stability of fund balance, and other policy items. Answers to the Council's questions are provided below, as is a list of suggested policy-related questions the Council may wish to discuss and close out. Some pieces of information, namely a solid estimate of the cost to provide in-house recycling services, are not provided at this time, but will be evaluated during fiscal year 2011-12. There are many`moving parts' and pending changes that cause future budget projections to vary or remain in limbo - namely the pending RFP for a sorting facility.All moving parts are interwoven since a change to one component will likely affect several others. This reduces the Administration's ability to estimate and predict future budget numbers at this time. ANSWERS TO THE COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS QUESTIONS: A. Change in the proposed rate increase- Q: Why has the proposed rate increase changed so drastically? (Last year,the proposal included a $2.75 per-year rate increase for each 2011-12 and 2012-13. With the currently proposed budget, the rate increase is $-0- for 2011-12 and $0.25 in 2012-13.) A: The amount of the proposed rate increase has changed for the following reasons: 1) The revenue estimates assumed a certain number of customers would change their can size from the 90-gallon can to a smaller can. That down-sizing has not occurred, and therefore, more revenue than estimated has been received. 2) The proposal to bring recycling collection in-house included the lease-purchase of 16 new packers. When the purchase of those packers was delayed, it resulted in the lease payment schedule also being shifted later. 3) For the proposed 2011-12 budget, the Administration is reducing the number of crews for the Neighborhood Clean-up Program, and therefore, has decided to replace fewer leaf bed trucks. This has reduced the number of full time employees, equipment purchases, as well as the maintenance / fuel expense. (The proposal to bring recycling in-house also included hiring new staff, but many of those Operating Expenses are not a factor in the rate increase projections, because any increase for in-house operating budget would be offset by the cost of the contract for vendor services.) 1 Note:The proposed 2011-12 budget includes the use of$334,065 from cash reserves. Q: How much revenue is generated for each$0.25 increase to the rate?(To residential curbside customers and multi-family/business recycling accounts.) A: $147,585 See policy questions for the Council's consideration regarding rates on page 3. B. Fund Balance levels- Actual Projected Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Operations&Recycling Fund $ 4,080,465 $ 3,485,648 $ 3,151,583 $ 2,755,109 $ 2,183,109 Environmental&Energy Fund $ 159,283 $ 5,692,087 $ 5,706,172 $ 5,703,885 $ 5,649,687 Total Refuse Fund Class: $ 4,239,748 $ 9,177,735 $ 8,857,755 $ 8,458,994 $ 7,832,796 year-to-year difference: $ 4,937,987 $ (319,980) $ (398,761) $ (626,198) Notes. 1.Includes receipt of$7 million from the one-time Landfill payment 2.With in-house recycling plans, the year-end O&R balance would have been $121,851 without the$1.5m from the Landfill navment See policy questions for the Council's consideration regarding Fund Balance on page 3 For Tuesday Council staff will provide a chart that illustrates the effect on fund balance if the Council'backs out'the landfill revenue one-time revenue infusion in total and looks at the ability of the fund to be self-sustaining with in-coming revenue. C. Packer Trucks-New CNG and Old Diesel- Q: Why not consider selling the old diesel trucks or seeing how much the new CNG packers could be sold for? A: There are currently 22 diesel packers in the fleet.Six packers are budgeted to be sold.Until the results of the RFP have been received,the Administration proposes parking 10 of the old diesel trucks at the Fleet Facility and will be using six. Proposals may include using the City's fleet,or if recycling is brought in-house,then the City would need enough packers to adequately cover the number of routes. 2 Q: Are there any remaining lease payments for the diesel packers that will be parked? A: No. Q: What is the lease payment for the new CNG packers and where is that budgeted? A: The lease expense for the new packer trucks will be split between the yard waste and trash collection budgets. The lease payment for the 16 trucks totaled $1,129,485 per year for the four-year lease term.This is $70,593 per vehicle. Q: What are the estimated savings for fuel and maintenance related to using the CNG trucks rather than the diesel trucks? A: The budgeted savings for fuel and maintenance is over$236,930 in 2011-12. Additional Information: a. Proposed Use: i. The new CNG packers are expected to be put into service on the collection routes in October. ii. The Administration estimates that the cost to fuel and maintain the new packers will be less than the diesel trucks currently being used for collections. iii. The old diesel packers will be used on an 'as-needed' basis. b. Budgeting- i. The lease expense for the new packer trucks will be split between the yard waste and trash collection budgets.The lease payment for the 16 trucks totaled $1,129,485 (or$70,593 each). ii. The budgeted savings for fuel and maintenance is over$236,930 in 2011-12. c. Lease Terms - The packers are paid for on a 4-year lease cycle, and the packers have an average 6+ year life. POLICY QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION: Beginning on page 5 is background information or supporting documentation on some of these items. This is intended to be a condensed list of questions based on previous discussions with Council Members. 1. Rate Structure- (background information on page 5) a. Does the Council wish to discuss how to set the rate structure to address: 1) recovering costs, 2) incentivizing customers to use smaller size cans, and 3) provide adequate funding for future program changes and expansions? Options: i. Discuss the true variable cost in providing service for the different sizes of cans. ii. Discuss whether the rate difference between cans should reflect true costs or an artificial variance. iii. Discuss whether the rate for one can size should subsidize the cost of service for another can size, and if so, how that should be applied. iv. Discuss which can size should be set at the fully recoverable rate, and which cans may be charged at a higher rate. (For example, to encourage water conservation, the Water rate has a service fee plus 'per-unit' cost to recover infrastructure and delivery costs. The per-unit amount is 3 applied to the lowest tier of users to cover basic service. For usage above that basic amount, the rate escalates. Currently, the Refuse Fund rates are set close to a recoverable amount for the largest size, and then a discount applied to smaller users.The current Refuse Fund rates may be the opposite of the approach used to incentivize conservation in Public Utilities. The Administration has indicated a willingness to explore options to the rate structure.) b. Does the Council wish to consider the impact and value of offering 3 sizes of cans? (Do smaller cans encourage diversion by motivating residents to more closely sort waste? Does that offset the fuel cost if smaller cans are set out for collection more frequently than a larger can would be?) c. Does the Council wish to consider funding a rate study that would advise any changes to the rate structure to achieve the City's desired results? Discussion: Another'moving part' is a question regarding the way rates are set, which affects success of diversion efforts, resident participation, and service options. When the City's Department of Public Utilities faced similar questions with water rates,the Council commissioned a rate study to identify policy options to achieve goals of maintaining stable programs and providing incentives to the public to meet those goals. The Council could authorize a similar study for the City's Refuse Fund to assure that pricing supports fund stability, and that rates and assumptions reflect and are designed to achieve the City's over-all policy goals. The Council would need to collaborate with the Administration on the timing of the rate study so that the study could take full advantage of the information that is currently being gathered through the Waste Stream Audit, the sorting RFP, and the recycling RFP. Previously, the Council requested that the Recycling service be put out to bid before a decision is made about whether to bring that in-house or continue to contract. Note: The Administration has indicated that recommendations regarding rates will be included in the Waste Stream Audit findings as a part of suggestions for increasing diversion.The Council may wish to consider whether this would provide adequate review of rates, options, and total program needs. 2. Cash reserves (or"Fund Balance") - (background information on page 6) a. The Council may wish to identify a policy standard for Fund Balance levels in the Refuse Fund. Proposed balance by the end of FY11-12 would be $3,151,583. • Note: The proposed 2011-12 budget includes the use of$334,065 from cash reserves toward the Operating& Capital Expenses for the Operations& • Recycling Fund. b. The Council may wish to consider a policy for the Refuse Fund cash reserves based on a percentage of the Fund's Expenses (either just operating or total expenses) or based on a percentage of the Total Revenue. c. The Council may also wish to consider whether any policy decisions with the Refuse Fund might also apply to other Enterprise Funds. 4 d. As part of a rate study, the Council may wish to include a component that would establish a rate sufficient to generate funding for program changes /expansions so that fund balance is not the source for larger peaking purchases. (This speaks to the issue of a then-projected fund balance level of$121,851 when recycling was budgeted to be brought before the one-time Landfill payment.) Note:depending on the outcome of this discussion, the Council may wish to review the two Budget Amendment No. 4 requests using funds from the Environmental&Energy(Sustainability)fund balance. 3. Diversion goals- tools to support diversion goals a. The Council could consider the following ordinance amendments: i. to establish fines for contamination (incorrect type of waste included in recycling or green waste cans that makes the waste not usable, or requires additional sorting) ii. to allow incentives / rebates -this could be applied to either residents or to the vendor for less contamination iii. incentives / requirements for more businesses, etc. b. The Council may wish to start discussions about the impact of diversion on the Landfill annual dividend.As waste is diverted from the Landfill, lower tipping fees will be paid, and the annual dividend (based on the Landfill's revenues) will decrease.This annual dividend has been used in the last few budget years as the primary source of funding for the Environmental & Energy Fund (Sustainability staff). c. Does the Council wish to provide any policy direction regarding the use of the $5.5 million from the one-time Landfill dividend for diversion supporting projects? (Two small projects are proposed in Budget Amendment No. 4 for the Council's consideration.) 4. In-house versus contracts-the cost comparison- In anticipation of the sorting RFP results and other variables, the Administration will provide more detailed estimates for the cost of in-house recycling service.This updated budget estimate will be valuable in reviewing and comparing the collection RFP results.The Council may wish to clarify whether they would like to receive more information about the scope of services before a Request for Proposals is put out relating to this program,or whether it is assumed that the Administration will move ahead with one or more RFPs and then get back to the Council. BACKGROUND INFORMATION / SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: 1. Rate Structure- Some background information: a. In 2011-12, there are 590,342 "revenue generating" cans annually. This includes all sizes of the garbage cans plus the multi-family/ business recycling cans. b. The proposed budget totals $10,201,651 for operating and capital (including lease payments). This is for the full program - all curbside collections, Neighborhood Clean-up,glass recycling, enforcement/education, administration, etc. c. If this expense budget were divided by the number of revenue generating cans, the cost for the collections program is $17.28 per can. 5 d. The highestindividual monthlyratesforeach ratesize for curbsidecanis: collection is$17.25 if the resident has a 90-gallon garbage(green color)can.60-gallon is$15.00 and 40-gallon is $13.75. e. Breakdown of can subscriptions: 2011-12 Can Count of Monthly Avg# Total 90 g 39,816 83.0% 60 g 3,088 6.4% 40 g 3,626 7.6% abated 1,449 3.0% total: 47,979 100.0% f. The difference between the$17.28 cost to provide service per can and the 90-gallon($0.03)per can;$1,194.48 per month;$14,333.76 per year 60-gallon($2.28)per can;$7,040.64 per month;$84,487.68 per year 40-gallon($3.53)per can;$12,799.78 per month;$153,597.36 per year Total:$21,034.90 per month;$252,418.80 per year *Note:this variance is more evenly shared when taking into account that the annual total budget provides service for more than just these general waste cans,but also the two other collections,Neighborhood Clean-up,glass recycling education,etc. However,it does show that even a$0.03 variance on the 90-gallon cans and a"discount"or reduction on the smaller-size cans can result in a significant budget impact. g. Revenue collected from fees totals$9,457,541. The Refuse Fund also receives revenue from: Interfund Transfers: $248,546(these are reimbursements for collections provided at events,for example) Sale of Vehicles: $146,500 Interest Income: $15,000 Fund Balance Use: $334,065 h. Regarding one can rate generating a subsidy for the servicing of another can- the Recycling collection is the only service of the three that includes customers other than residential.(Business/Apartments by request.)Since it contains customers other than the program's core base of"traditional"residential properties,it is essential to the legal functioning of the Fund that the City can demonstrate that each business or apartment customer is paying 100 percent of their costs for the Recycling service,and is not subsidized by either the regular waste or yard waste programs. 2. Cash reserves(or"Fund Balance")- a. Fund Balance for the General Fund is calculated as a percentage of"ongoing revenues".For the minimum or maximum allowable,State Code sets standards of no less than 5%and no more than 18%of ongoing revenues.The City has 6 consistently had a policy target of 15%, although actual balances have hovered around 11 to12% in recent years during challenging economic times. b. For the Operations & Recycling Fund, the Administration has generally aimed at maintaining cash reserves at a level to cover three months of operating expenses. (Rather than basing fund balance on covering an average number of months,the Council may wish to identify a percentage calculation.) c. Proposed balance by the end of FY11-12 would be $3,151,583,which is a 3.8 month cash reserve. d. The proposed 2011-12 budget includes the use of$334,065 from cash reserves. e. The rate per can does not provide for estimated costs for future program changes or expansions. (Similar to how Public Utilities' rate includes a calculation of future infrastructure repairs &maintenance,and their rate is calculated to recover that as well.) This is one factor in the use of fund balance. f. For each $0.25 increase to the rates, $147,585 would be generated in revenue. Rate increase on revenue generating cans MF & Bus Garbage cans Recyclin• Total MF &Bus Increase Garbage cans Recyclin• Total $ 0.25 $143,934.50 $ 3,651.00 $147,585.50 $ 0.50 $287,869.00 $ 7,302.00 $295,171.00 $ 0.57 $328,170.66 $ 8,324.28 $336,494.94 $ 1.00 $575,738.00 $ 14,604.00 $590,342.00 7 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS— FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: May 31, 2011 BUDGET FOR: Fee Options &Revenue Impact for Landlord/Tenant Initiative STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: David Everitt,Gordon Hoskins,Frank Gray,Mary Beth Thompson,Sandee Moore, LuAnn Clark,Wilf Sommerkorn,Orion Goff,Gina Chamness,Jennifer Bruno At the Council's May 24th briefing, the Council requested that staff apply some changes to the assumptions relating to the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program and calculate out the impact to the Mayor's Recommended Budget. Per staffs notes, the requested changes were as follows (the Council may update or correct these as necessary): A. Reduce the proposed "participant per-unit fee" for Landlords participating the Program from $25 to $20. The Mayor's Recommended Budget set this fee at $25 by applying the cost of the five new proposed positions to only the number of units 'in the program.' B. Delay inclusion of 1- and 2-unit Landlords in the Program and Business License Requirements until next fiscal year. C. Reduce the "non-participant per-unit fee"to lower than the proposed amount of$342, likely by adjusting the amount of"Fully Loaded Costs"that the fee is designed to recover. Evaluate options and provide the Council with revenue impacts for evaluation. D. Reduce the number of staff hired to support the program given that the 1- and 2-units would be delayed. The budget impacts to these changes are: $20 Unit Fee Impact to New Sep-June Mayor's Rec Revenue Budget REVENUES Participant Fee Reduction& All assume delaying 1s&2s, which Delaying 1s&2s: $ 310,440 $ (135,943) reduces the number of participants Delaying 1s&2s-other financial impacts Impact to"Non-Participant Per- - unit Fee" revenues $ $ (199,500) Impact to"Base Fee" revenues $ - $ (145,833) Adjusting the Disproportionate Fee TBD-see below in staff report for options Total"known"reductions to revenue: $ (481,276) See next page for expense impacts. 1 EXPENSES-possible staffing scenario Finance Department Reduce to one Business Licensing $ 70,000 $ (38,780) Proposed included 2 licensing positions Position for 10 months. This would provide 1 FTE for the full year to support necessary oversight and implementation of the program Community& Economic Dev Planning Support/Program staff- $ 36,956 $ (145,968) Proposed included 2 HAZE inspectors 1 FTE, assumes 1/2 year and 1 Permit Counter Planner. This would provide 1 FTE for half the year to support CED's role in the implementation of the program and ramp up for inclusion of Is&2s Total possible reductions to expenses: $ (184,748) NOTE: The Administration may have alternatives or information for the Council's consideration on the reduction to staff. It should also be noted that this possible staffing scenario emphasizes the need to have staff to shepherd the program and the increased workload for administering it Based on these changes, the budget would be out-of-balance by ($296,528). However, depending on the reductions the Council may wish to make to the "Non-participant per-unit fee," the shortage will increase. In order to balance the budget, additional revenue sources or cuts to proposed expenses will need to be considered. FURTHER OPTIONS: 1. "Participant per-unit fee" For the Council's consideration, staff also estimated the impact of setting the "Participant per-unit fee" lower than $20. The $16.50 amount represents a 10% increase to the current $15 per-unit fee, which is consistent with the amount of the proposed increase for other business license fees. $18 Unit Fee $16.50 Unit Fee Impact to Impact to New Sep-June Mayor's Rec New Sep-June Mayor's Rec Revenue Budget Revenue Budget REVENUES Participant Fee Reduction& Delaying 1s& 2s: $ 279,396 $ (166,987) $ 256,113 $ (190,270) Note: these numbers also assume delaying is &2s. If the Council wishes to support one of these rates rather than the $20 included in the charts, staff could quickly update the over all budget impact. 2 "Non-Participant per-unit fee"The Council direction was to bring back options on how to recoup the City's costs associated with rental units, but to have the $342 fee reduced. With courtesy assistance from the Administration,Council staff has worked out the following options for the Council's consideration. (The cost recovery percentage is set to provide a range of rate options for the Council's consideration.) F2. Participant Fee Options Option 4-Direct Option l-Fully Option 2-Fully Option 3-Fully Costs 100%(no fleet Option 5-Direct Loaded,100% Loaded costs,fee to Loaded costs,fee to /admin/Mayor/ Costs,75% Recovery recover 65% recover 60% Council) recovered Cost of Services uced by changes to the proposed $ 2,319,074.45 $ 2,319,074.45 $ 2,319,074.45 $ 1,906,648.70 $ 1,906,648.70 ng) pantReenue $ 372,528.00 $ 372,528.00 $ 372,528.00 $ 372,528.00 $ 372,528.00 1 $20per unit)ining Cost to'recover' otal COS-partic rev)'recovery $ 1,946,546.45 $ 1,265,255.19 $ 1,167,927.87 $ 1,534,120.70 $ 1,150,590.52 ntage) Disproportionate Fee: (=Cost to'recover'div.by total 363.39 $ 236.20 $ 218.04 $ 286.40 $ 214.80 estimated#of non-partic.)(includes $111 is&2s in calculation) 'Mainly provided for reference,since the Council requested more adjustment to the Disp.Fee 'Also adjusts Total 'Adjusts Total Cost 'Adjusts Total Cost 'Adjusts Total Cost 'Adjusts Total Cost Cost of Service based of Service based on of Service based on of Service based on of Service based on on assumption to assumption to delay assumption to delay assumption to delay assumption to delay delay hiring some hiring some positions hiring some positions hiring some positions hiring some positions positions Non-Participant Fee x Proposed Non- $ 1,692,171.94 $ 1,099,911.76 $ 1,015,303.16 $ 1,333,641.95 $ 1,000231.46 participants(removing 1s&2s)(full year) September-June anticipated _ $ 1,410,143.28 $ 916,593.13 $ 846,085.97 $ 1,111,368.29 $ 833,526.22 revenue: Difference to Mayor's Recommended $ (116,487.72) $ (610,037.87) $ (680.545.03) $ (415,262.71) $ (693,104.78) Budget Revenue, 2 months of$15 unit fee revenue $ 58,207.50 $ 58,207.50 $ 58,207.50 $ 58,207.50 $ 58,207.50 (added to the 10 months of new fees) Additional(Short)from other Revenue/ $ (296,528.03) $ (296,528.03) $ (296,528.03) $ (296,528.03) $ (296,528.03) Expense Changes: Total Possible Budget Shortage due $ (354,808.25) $ (848,358.40) $ (918,865.56) $ (653,583.25) $ (931,425.32) to program changes: DECISIONS TO BE MADE These options are prepared based on comments to date: 1. Confirm implementation date for single unit and duplexes(ls and 2s). A. July 1,2012,after the Administration conducts public processes on proposals to address unit legalization issues. 3 , B. March 1, 2012, after the Administration conducts public processes on proposals to address unit legalization. (This would have a positive impact on the revenue for FY 2011- 12) C. Other 2. Determine whether the implementation date for single unit and duplexes (1 s and 2s) should be inserted in the ordinance to send a clear signal of the Council's intent to regulate those units. 3. Determine fee for participation in the program. 4. Determine fee for those who do not participate. 5. Specify whether the Council anticipates the training program would be: A. Conducted by the City and a fee would be charged. B. Conducted by the City without a fee. C. Conducted by one or more private providers certified by the City. 6. Indicate whether the staff should prepare the amendment to include fraternities and sororities in this program. If so, with what effective date? 7. Determine whether to amend the ordinance to specify a minimum of 4 hours training the first year, rather than a minimum of 8 hours training. 4 • REC RALPH BECKER _` (l A! �{ RECEIVED CAI 1_vmme �U� I,� ( MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Y MA _ 2 4 2011 CITY�EOCfU�T )JJ ANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor tuna•( "1 4 �9 / SLC COUNCIL OFFICE Date Received: O.�I 120�( David veritt, C ief of Staff Date sent to Council: OS by 1?-�l I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 24, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Parking Enforcement Audit STAFF CONTACT: Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing—Information only BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In September 2010 the City Council and Administration created the parking taskforce. This taskforce was made up of individuals from various departments to draw upon their expertise and insights. The taskforce conducted an operational review to gain an understanding of the ticket process, evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiencies of the procedures, and to attempt to determine why the number of tickets issued has decreased yearly from 140,194 tickets in FY2006 to a projected 106,108 in FY2011. In addition,the review looked at reasons for ticket revenue decreases other than the number of tickets issued. Based on the operational review a number of recommendations emerged that may help ensure compliance with current parking ordinances and lead to procedural improvements. A compilation of observances, complaints and issues regarding Salt Lake City parking ticket procedures has been structured into three categories; Human Resources, Justice Court and Parking Enforcement. - The Finance Department is forwarding the audit results to the Mayor's Office and City Council prior to receiving comments from the City divisions involved. The Finance Department will distribute the audit to Human Resources, Justice Court and Parking Enforcement for responses to the recommendations. Once responses have been received, the audit will be re-transmitted to the Mayor's Office and City Council. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com PE .aEo PAPER Parking Enforcement April 2011 The Finance Department completed an operational review of the Parking Enforcement ticketing processes and procedures. The objectives of this review were to gain an understanding of the ticket process, evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiencies of the procedures, and to attempt to determine why the number of tickets issued has decreased from 140,194 tickets in FY2006 to a projected 106,108 in FY2011. Condition The Parking Taskforce was created by the City Council and Administration in September 2010. This taskforce was made up of individuals from various departments to draw upon their expertise and insights. Salt Lake City experienced a significant decrease in the number of tickets issued in fiscal year 2010. 1st Qtr 2 d Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr YTD FY2011 28,381 25,781 25,971 26,315 106,448 FY2010 29,212 27,516 28,642 31,576 116,946 FY2009 32,195 32,035 31,481 33,622 129,333 FY2008 32,470 29,874 30,698 33,237 126,279 FY2007 32,079 32,528 31,972 31,917 128,496 FY2006 36,319 33,022 35,350 35,503 140,194 The decrease of 12,387 tickets (projected) could not be easily attributed to any one cause. Other cities are also experiencing a loss in not only the number of tickets written but also in their total ticket revenue. These cities have increased their enforcement efforts to insure compliance. The cities include San Francisco, New York, Washington DC, Seattle and Chicago. Based on the operational review, however, a number of recommendations emerged that may help ensure compliance with current parking ordinances. A compilation of observances, complaints and issues regarding Salt Lake City has been broken down into 3 categories; Human Resources, Justice Court and Parking Enforcement. Human Resources It is the current practice of Human Resources (HR) to give out free parking passes to the Council and Recorders office to use when there is a late night meeting. Passes are also given to Interns working within the City and County Building (CCB), HR personnel who work at the Police Department or Airport who comes to the CCB Building on official business or for meetings and the in/out parking is full. Employees who come for new employee orientation are also given passes for parking around the CCB until their parking pass to park under the library arrives. When passes are given out it's for a two week period and some are for the entire fiscal year. In order to get a pass no documentation is necessary and the only passes that are being tracked are for (six) Non-Employee Board Members. The loss of the available parking spaces on the street for public use is not only creating customer complaints but is also reducing the amount of tickets that can be given. The recommendations are: • To establish a tracking system for parking passes given out by the Enforcement Officeol1arking passes will need to be numbered and contain an expiration date related to the individuals business at the CCB. They should also include a limited area of where the pass is valid. Beginning July 1, all parking passes issued with be numbered, contain an expiration date and an area where passes are valid. • AllDty(Drnployees should be given a validation pass to park under the library until a parking pass can be obtained. This should include those working at the Airport, Public Safety Building, new hires and interns. Justice Courts After a review of the reductions performed by Hearing Officers on the parking ticket amounts, it was determined that the reductions do not explain the recent decline in parking revenue. Hearing Officers were reducing parking tickets on an average of 45% of the actual ticket amount prior to the time when the current reduction pattern became evident. A) Annual total reductions for parking tickets have been as follows: 2009 $1,039,871 2010 $1,008,101 2011 thru March 31st $512,170 compared to 2010 To Date $492,756 B) When reviewing all tickets from July 2010 through December 2010, with the base fees at$15, $30, $55, the average reduction is 56%. Combined tickets with multiple violations had an average reduction of 38%. While;the parking ticket reductions allowed by Hearing Officers do not appear to be a significant factor in the recent parking ticket revenue decline, the reductions are a factor in general, and during the course of this review, the Justice Court was reminded of the City ordinance regarding appeals on tickets (City Code 12.56.570).. In November 2010 the average number of reductions went from 93,306 to 88,199 ( a 5% decrease) and down to 85,362 by the end of December making a total of 9% decrease in reductions. . tilecommendations: • Consistent criteria for reducing tickets should be developed by the Justice Court. There are a variety of reasons and circumstances that could prompt the Hearing 4 Officer to reduce tickets. However by establishing guidelines it should take the guess work out of how, when and why reductions are taking place. The Justice Court should develop procedures to ensure they are not reducing tickets below the base ticket for meter violations and other tickets unless: j . • ik o At the time of receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been acquired pursuant to the written lease agreement or similar written \� agreement; \ o The subject vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved from such location; o Any markings, signs or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible or comprehensible; o Such other mitigating circumstances as may be approved by the city law department. • Jurors called to jury duty in the Justice Court will be given validations to park under the Library, rather than being issued parking passes for on-street parking at meters surrounding the Justice Court This change was implemented beginning April 1, 2010. • Justice Court management should review reductions of parking tickets per individual officer on a monthly basis. Parking Enforcement Parking Enforcement currently operates on a beat schedule that is rotated on a weekly basis. If an Enforcement Officer is absent from his/her rotation, there is no order to who can take the shift. Favoritism is often perceived by the Officers in this type of a situation. Upon month end, a posting of the number of violations each officer enforced upon, is displayed on what Officers refer to as the "Wall of Shame". Reports and productivity can be easily perceived on an individual effort but there doesn't seem to be any correlation with the number of officers per month and the number of tickets they give. Nor can a single beat be reported on to show an accurate picture of how many tickets were given there at any one particular time due to a technology restraint. There is no consistency in the number of tickets, the beats, or rotations. There is a definite need for upgraded technology (which will be available with the new Pay Stations) as well as an in-depth review of the current beats. The beat evaluation should establish the effectiveness of the enforcement officer. Currently, the average number of tickets written per hour is 3.74; however the average per enforcer varies from 6.04 to 2.37.,lThe national average of parking tickets written per hour is about 6 per hour in a 6.5 per kvork day, according to data obtained from one of the industry leaders in parking eniaecement management. In FY2010 there was a total of 110,305 parking tickets reported with an average of 9,468 tickets per month and through a projected FY2011 the average is expected to go down to 8,707 tickets per month. PYTD 2010: Average Tickets Per Month 9,468 Per Month/Officer 541 (High 714/Low 368) Per Hour/Officer 3.98 (High 7.04/Low 2.22) FYTD 2011(Projected): Average Tickets Per Month 8,480 Per Month/Officer 551 (High 765/Low 341) Per Hour/Officer 3.20 (High 6.30/Low 2.09) *Boulder Colorado has a new directive to write an average of 900 tickets per month per officer.Which is equal to 45 tickets a day or one every 11 minutes.(www.dailvcamera.com/ci15009955,05/03/2010) Voids have been consistent, at an average of 458 and 427 voids per month for 2010 and 2011 respectively. Various reasons why voids are created but a high number seem to be not reissued. Parking Enforcement Recommendations: • Establish standards for productivity per officer. • Require officers to enter a beat in the handheld device prior to working the beat. This will require an upgraded handheld and this issue will be fixed in conjunction with the RFP for the new Parking Pay Stations. • Explanation of voids and why they weren't reissued. A supervisor should review these on a frequent basis and find commonalities in reasons that could lead to additional training for the officers. • The need for a Field Superviso)0 that can be on call for to go out on the field to be on the scene and fully understand the challenges and obstacles the officers face. • More training from high producers to the lower producers on all ticketing aspects (What to look for, Picture taking, tricks of the trade, etc) • , • While the taskforce believes that these recommendations will help ensure violations and city ordinances are properly cited, the taskforce felt that there was still not enough information to ascertain why the numbers of tickets being written were still consistently falling. Interviews were conducted with each Enforcement Officer to get their input on what they felt the areas of concern where, what issues they had and what, if anything was driving the substantial difference in the number of tickets each officer wrote. The majority of the interviews were conducted in one day, with 3 interviews going on simultaneously. This was in an attempt to cut down on the opportunity the interviewees had to share the questions with their fellow officers. Findings: 1. Interviewees consistently expressed a lack of understanding of the Enforcement Officers Field Supervisors job duties. They felt as if no one was available to discuss issues that arise such as if an officer has a close call with an irate citizens, after being in a wreck and being shaken up there was no one to talk to. Officers also expressed a desire for an afternoon and weekend supervisor. Officers working on Sundays are out on the assigned beat by themselves with no one in the office to check in on them. This is a safety issue and Officers need someone available to communicate their whereabouts. Recommendations: a. Clarify all roles within the organization so everyone understands what each other does. If necessary alter job responsibilities to ensure the supervisory needs of the officers are met. b. Change the job description of the Field Supervisor to include the job task ill 1 of going out into the field on a regular basis and as part of their main duties. Also by creating an additional Field Supervisor position it would aid in providing additional oversight to the afternoon and weekend shifts. A supervisor could help to establish consistency and guidelines in ticketing. Public Services should evaluate whether an additional position S� to act as a afternoon/weekend supervisor is necessary, or whether a shift in job assignments could accommodate this need. c. Implement a remedy where Officers' don't work a beat alone. Someone should be there working with them throughout their shift thus creating immediate help should a situation arise. 2. Currently, parking enforcement does not have a dedicated dispatcher. Rather, Officers rotate responsibility for dispatch on a weekly (?) basis. Lunch-time back-up for the officer assigned to act as dispatcher is provided by other parking enforcement officers. Interviewees expressed the difficulty they felt toward losing hours of work. Current practice consists of officers having to cross beats in order to cover the lunch shift for the dispatcher on duty. This often results in a minimum three hour block of time that an officer cannot be out enforcing. In addition, officers believe that an 8 hour shift makes it difficult to efficiently enforce a beat. There has also been expressed confusion on the flexibility of schedules (lunch, break and end times). It is perceived that the rules are different from one Officer to another as well as what situations could alter the time they actually are taking said breaks. If Officers are required to take a lunch at a certain time, it creates stress when they have marked cars that they need to enforce. Often times leaving those cars so they can make their lunch time. There were also frequent complaints of favoritism on the ability to leave their shifts early and in the scheduling of beats. Officers consistently felt that the change in staffing patterns could improve efficiency. Recommendations: a. Hire a full time Dispatcher. A full time dispatcher, with field knowledge would be of great benefit. This would cut down on the need to fill people in each week as the rotation changes. Given current practice, this could be tried without an additional FTE and b. Explore whether 10 hour shifts would create greater efficiency in the parking enforcement unit. This change would allow for the ability to enforce during prime times when they would usually be on their way back to the office to clean out the jeeps and get ready to end their day. The current schedule ends at 5pm and so the practice is to leave their beats around 4:30pm often leaving their marked tires and enforceable violations. When the new shift begins, the tires marked in the handhelds are all lost due to the technology of not being able to transfer the marked tires as well as the two hours being up by the time the next Officer gets to them. c. Develop procedures for taking breaks and lunches with an eye toward improving morale among parking enforcement officers. d. Explore a rotation for event scheduling and open shifts. This will ensure that Officers are given a fair chance at prime shifts as well as overtime shifts, and may help improve morale in the division. e. Equip vehicles that are used by Enforcement Officers with GPS. This will ensure that we can more efficiently directly associate the beats as well as the officers' location. f. Explore with the City Council the feasibility of expanding meters times of enforcement to 8:00pm or 9:00pm. This would allow for additional enforcement time. 3. There is a lack of consistency in some of the procedures currently in place for marking tires. Currently, there are two ways Parking Enforcement can mark tires to ensure compliance with parking time restrictions. The first is chalking where they simply put a chalk mark on the tire and then come back after two hours (defined by ordinance) to see if the vehicle has moved. This is an easy process but causes problems in the rain or snow and night time because the chalk isn't easily visible. Another problem of chalking is that towards the end of a shift an officer would be required to write down where the vehicle is and the time it was chalked so that the next crew could go and find the vehicle. Most likely not having that vehicle enforceable, because of time constraints. The second way to mark tires is in the handheld devices, which are used to issue tickets. This allows for an easy list of marked cars,. Currently, however, the markings are unique to each Officer's handheld. Markings also expire if tickets are not issued within 21/2 hours and cannot be transferred from one handheld to another . Thus, markings are lost at the end of each Officers lunch or shift change. Of note is that the steep decline in the number of parking tickets issued began about the same time that the new handheld system was implemented. Recommendations: a. Establish a best practice for marking vehicles. Don't allow for either chalking or handheld option to marking the vehicle. Consistency in the process could help to determine if the process is efficient and should be rethought out. Consider a short term experiment to determine whether the move to the handheld devices has contributed to the decline in parking tickets. b. Explore whether software changes could allow for a longer period of time before the markings are lost and for transfer of markings between devices and Officers. c. Looking into better marking resources. Different chalk colors and or waterproof options if possible and available. d. Mark tires after 1:00pm. This will allow for the Officers to have sufficient time to go back and pick up their marks. 4. There is a lack of communication between Zoning/Engineering and the Enforcement Division. Consistency in the enforcing (or not enforcing) of parking ordinances are not clearly defined. There are several areas in the City where parking ordinances apply but where enforcement is not encouraged. Examples include the e area around Judge Memorial High School and 3rd South businesses on Saturday. Discussion of areas of that could be enforceable also was emphasized several times. By updating the ordinance to include these areas it would create additional enforcement opportunities. Recommendations: a. Clarify and if necessary update the process and procedure for determining a non-enforceable area. This may even include an ordinance update as well, for these particular areas if necessary. b. Consider expanding new areas of parking limitations areas and/or put up signs to allow for the additional enforcement opportunities. Possible additional areas include: 2.) Gateway 1st south between 5th and 6th West 3.) Ken Garff Sales Area 4.) Guardsmen Way 5. It was determined through thorough analysis that the numbers of pictures on each citation do not aid in the validity of an issued ticket. Officers are required to take approximately 4 to 5 pictures of the vehicles they ticket. This takes up a lot of time and as the analysis has proven regardless of how many pictures are taken the amount of reductions is still at 45%. Recommendations: a. We suggest that in order to save time, officers should only take 1 to 2 GOOD pictures of each violation. Additional training on picture taking is also a suggestion as there are still a lot of Officers that struggle with that job task. 6. Officers expressed a need for positive reinforcement as well as recognition in their job performance. Current practice is to have a daily Line-up that is supposed to brief Officers on the issues that may have come up during the prior shift and various items the Officers need to be made aware of to efficiently work their shift for that day. The Lines Ups are often viewed as gripe session where Officers complained about each other or were negative feedback is received. It was also discovered that upon month end, a posting of the number of violations each officer enforced upon, is displayed on an official bulletin board that they Officers refer to as the "Wall of Shame". The dysfunctionality in the work group occurs due to the lack of management oversight. The responses of the Officers, both high and low producers, were that they like management but felt there was little to no guidance. Officers also consistently stated that they felt that there was no room for advancement in their position. They felt that any kind of recognition would aid in increasing morale within the organization. Recommendations: a. Establish Line Up guidelines to create a productive work environment. Within these guidelines a time structure should be established. This should ensure efficient time management and dissemination of information. b. Consider eliminating what Officers call the "Wall of Shame." Instead of displaying individual numbers which creates conflict and hostility, create a team environment which promotes team work, i.e. team goal and awards. c. Management should create disciplinary actions for those individuals falling below the standard. d. Team building retreats or activities could be implemented in order to possibly mend work relationships and build trust. e. Formation of a career ladder would reward them for time spent on the job with a title change and possible small step up in pay. Additional suggestions are that of a patch for years of service like the Police Officers earn. 7. Miscellaneous Findings a. Impounds usually take 1 to 2 hours from start to finish. The practice is for the Enforcement officer to stay with the vehicle until a tow truck arrives. Tow trucks on rotation should be required to be able to respond and be on site within a certain amount of time. By an Officer having to wait for the tow truck it makes it difficult to enforce other violations and therefore lowering the number of tickets an Officer can give. The Enforcement Division untilzes a State contract of tow companies which has companies located throughout Salt Lake City and adjoining counties. Recommendation: Determine if an ordinance change is necessary in regards to tow trucks. 8. There is a lack of proper vehicle equipment available for the Enforcement Officers to do their jobs efficiently. Although there are enough vehicles for each officer, the number of actual jeeps available with the right side steering wheels is not sufficient. These Jeeps are needed for safety reasons so the Officers can give tickets opposite of traffic. The two additional cars they have with the steering wheel on the left hand side causes a dangerous situation as the officers get in and out of the vehicle. Recommendation: a. As vehicles are replaced, eliminate the two vehicles with left side steering wheels and replace them with right side steering wheel Jeeps. ITEM A-9 SEE A- 3 FROM 5/24 AGENDA M�xP%L Organized in the Interest of Distributive Education ' I ' cn TO UtcLI I ?etctiPetail rrlcrcianti -463ociation Rssocial\- - 1578 WEST 1700 SOUTH,SUITE 200•SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84104•(801)973-9584•FAX(801)972-8712 May 23, 2011 RECEIVED MAY 25 2011 Mayor Ralph Becker PO Box 145474 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5474 RE: 200 South Bike Lane Project Dear Mayor Becker, The Utah Retail Merchants Association was organized in 1955 for the purpose of uniting the retail industry and providing representation in regulatory and legislative affairs. The association acts on behalf of merchants on a variety of issues at both the State and Iocal government levels. A number of our merchant members operate retail establishments along 200 South in Salt Lake City and have expressed concerns about the proposed Bicycle Greenway on 200 South. As I'm sure you are aware, the past few years have been particularly 41110 difficult for merchants throughout the State. Many merchants are operating on the thinnest of margins and any disruption to their operations, like road construction and access issue, could be financially catastrophic. We are concerned that the proposed Bicycle Greenway will result in vehicle congestion and accessibility issues for retail establishments, furthering the perception that Salt Lake City merchants are difficult to reach by car. In addition,the cost to make these changes seems to come at a time when City budgets are already strained and many costs,like street lighting,are being passed on direction to citizens and merchants. Other similar projects in the City have required a special assessment to property owners along the project corridor, which we would strenuously oppose if applied to 200 South. We urge extreme caution before proceeding with this project and ask that you consider the full financial impact such a project might have on the merchants along 200 South. I would be happy to discuss our concerns in further details at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Utah Retail Merchants Association ,44 avid M. Davis President and Chief Legal Counsel cc: Salt Lake City Transportation Dept. Salt Lake City Council SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: May 24,2011 SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS& INTERIM STUDY ITEMS FROM: Jennifer Bruno,Lehua Weaver,Karen Halladay,Cassie Fairborn, Quin Card,and Russell Weeks CC: David Everitt,Gordon Hoskins,Gina Chamness,Kay Christensen,Randy Hillier In conjunction with the budget,the Administration has provided an annual report on the Legislative Intent Statements and Interim Study items adopted by the Council in June 2010. The current transmittal dated May 2011 includes those items newly adopted in June 2010,but does not include items adopted in 2009 or before.The Administration's mid-year report(in February)included updates on all items. The Council may wish to take an opportunity to review each item,from previous years as well,and take straw polls to identify those that are a)satisfied or outdated and need to be closed,or those that are b)still relevant and should be re-adopted(and possibly updated). In addition to reviewing previously adopted items,the Council may also wish to suggest new items based on the department briefings that have occurred so far this year. There are two sections of information in this report: 1. New items for consideration 2. Previously adopted items for review NEW ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION-Legislative Intent Statements or Interim Studies 1. Inventory of City Property-It is the intent of the Council that the Administration include all enterprise fund properties in City property inventory. 2. New Urban Design Position-It is the intent of the Council that the Administration establish ## priorities for new Urban Design Professional position in the Planning Division. 3. Rate Study for Refuse Fund-The Council may wish to consider an intent statement and appropriate funding for a Rate Study for the City's waste collection services. 4. Streamlining/Technology ADOPTED LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS AND INTERIM STUDY ITEMS: A. Golf Capital Improvement Projects-Interim Study Item-to evaluate policies related to selling open space in order to fund CIP needs. Administration update(May 2011):An updated plan was provided to the Council through the annual budget process,and the Administration has indicated they will be providing additional information for discussions with the Council. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider keeping this item open pending the follow-up briefing regarding the Golf CIP funding and project priorities • scheduled for May 31n.Depending on the discussion and future plans for the Golf Fund's CIP,the Council may wish to revisit the discussion about a Citywide policy regarding selling open space to fund CIP or other projects(broader than just Golf). B. Transportation Related Benefits&Transit Passes-Interim Study Item-to encourage employees to utilize alternative transportation. Administration update(May 2011):The Sustainability Division staff has provided a"transit pass report"to the Administration. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to add this to the list of upcoming briefings for the Chair and Vice Chair to schedule. C. Facilities Charge on Spring Mobile Ticket Sales-Interim Study Item-to evaluate adding a fee to the sale of event tickets to generate money for facility improvements for which the City is responsible. Administration update(February 2011):A charge could be added to the tickets sold at Spring Mobile ball park,because the facility qualifies as a"public assembly or other related facility"as defined in the Utah Code.However,the City could not establish this charge and only apply it at Spring Mobile;the fee would have to be applied across the board on tickets sold for other facilities meeting the same definition of"public assembly or other related facility."This would have a potential complication with the other facilities and any contracts in place for the management of the facility. Council staff recommendation:During the Councils discussion of the February updates, the Council's request was to proceed with the options to implement this charge.Although the ticket charge at Spring Mobile would generate needed funding for the City's portion of facility maintenance,the broader application to other like-facilities may impair support for this issue.Many of those other like-facilities are County facilities,which may cause objections similar to the parking tax issue a few years ago.The Council could consider approaching this topic with the County Council at the next joint City-County Councils meeting. D. Fleet Usage/Replacement-Interim Study Item-to update the fleet replacement analysis to optimal replacement schedules considering budget restraints,and provide a report to the Council with recommendations. Administration update(February 2011):The audit report was transmitted to the Council. Council staff recommendation:(The Fleet Fund budget briefing is scheduled earlier on this same May 24th agenda.)The Administration has mentioned that the new Fleet Director will be evaluating fleet replacement cycles and funding options to maximize the City's resources. The Council may consider keeping this item open until a briefing can be scheduled with the new Director regarding a newly developed strategy. Any changes would also likely have budget implications. E. Special Events -Interim Study Item- information regarding the grants / sponsorship program handled by the Administration. Administration update (February 2011): The Administration has completed two rounds of the grant/ scholarship program- Spring 2010 and Spring 2011, and the program seems to have been successful at providing funding to organized events. Council staff recommendation: The Council may consider closing this item,since any funding for the Special Events sponsorship program would be included in the Non- Departmental Budget each year. Updates and requests to change the program could be reviewed every year in conjunction with the annual budget. F. Transaction Fees- Interim Study Item-to explore ways to encourage environmentally- friendly payment options for City-related transactions. Administration update (February 2011): An administrative working group will be established. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to consider closing this item, unless the Administration indicates that they may have some recommendations forthcoming. This is a difficult issue to balance,because as more residents and customers pay fees online, the City incurs higher credit card charges. (The amount budgeted for credit card fees has been steadily increasing.) Of course,charging a fee to offset the City's expense for accepting credit cards may prove to be a disincentive. The offsetting environmental benefits are also a consideration. The Council could consider raising license and permit fees across the board (regardless of payment method) to help cover these related City expenses. G. Business License Fees - Interim Study Item- to research business license fees to develop an equitable methodology for large and small businesses. Administration update (February 2011): conducting analysis in preparation for the Mayor's Recommended Budget. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to renew this study item as business license revenue is a significant source of revenue for the City, and is a significant issue for business owners. The Mayor's Recommended Budget included an across the board 10% increase to all business license fees,which results in$416,667 additional license revenue. During the Administration's Revenue Outlook presentation on May 10,2011, a comparison to other local jurisdictions showed that Salt Lake City license fees were approximately 10% lower. To further evaluate the City's licensing structure,the Council may wish to update this item and / or identify funding for an outside consultant to assist with parts of the study and propose options. H. Streets Response Team time study- Legislative Intent Statement- to increase the detail of allocating the Team's time to various tasks,including other Enterprise Funds. Administration update(May 2011):the Streets Division has been taking a more detailed accounting of their tasks and billable services to Enterprise Funds. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item.The amount proposed to be cut in the FY10-il budget was$233,840 for the cost of the three positions.The services provided by the Team include: park gate closures,sanitation can pick-ups-including the collection at the Farmer's Market and for residents needing assistance,sweeping bike lanes,and other behind the scenes services to assist residents and other City departments. I. Data Tracking&Collection-Legislative Intent Statement-to collect more detailed accounting data for Public Services expenditures(park maintenance,youth programs,etc.) Administration update(May 2011):the Department continues to improve the data collection and has hired another accountant to assist. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item. To continue to develop this practice of tracking expenses,additional investment in technology will likely be necessary. J. Economic Development Incentive program-Legislative Intent Statement-to prepare criteria and options for the Council's consideration and approval for economic development tools or incentives before any additional offers are extended. Administration update(May 2011):the study is currently being conducted. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider leaving this item open and may also consider whether any additional criteria or suggestions should be offered. • K. Economic Development Neighborhood Grant program-Legislative Intent Statement- earmark$10,000 of the current interest income in the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund for the Neighborhood Grant program. Administration update(May 2011): the Administration proposes to use the interest income from the Loan Fund toward the grant program,and plans to initiate the second round of the grants for Neighborhood Business Districts. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to ask when the second round will be noticed,and whether the Administration intends to continue the program.Based on the Council's satisfaction with the program,the Council may wish to consider closing this item. L. PEC-Legislative Intent Statement-to identify how to receive input from employee groups,such as the PEC and others,and suggest how to clarify their role in providing input from employees. Administrations update(May 2011):the PEC is represented on the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee and has met with the Human Resources Director to discuss exchange of employee input. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item. 1 M. Arts Grant- Legislative Intent Statement- to establish criteria for distribution of youth art grants and focus the funds toward City residents. Administration update (May 2011): The Arts Council has developed a strong program and made a successful use of the grant funds,through awarding 29 grants. Council staff recommendation: The Council may consider closing this item, since funding for the Youth Arts grant program would be included in the Non-Departmental Budget each year. Updates and requests to change the program could be reviewed every year in conjunction with the annual budget. N. Youth Program Fees - Legislative Intent Statement-to ensure that any non-City resident participant is charged a fully recoverable fee for the program. Administration update (May 2011): The Finance Department is assisting YouthCity staff in determining the fully loaded cost of the program. Council staff recommendation:The Council may consider keeping this item open until the results of the study have been reported. O. Collections - Legislative Intent Statement-to enhance collection of debts owed to the City. Administration update (May 2011): Collection Unit in place and receivables have been collected upon. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to consider closing this item. P. Parking Meter upgrades - Legislative Intent Statements- to move toward replacing coin parking meters with units that accept credit card payments as soon as possible. Administration update (February 2011): an RFP was issued. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to consider leaving this item open until the Administration has selected a vendor. The Council may wish to add this to the list of upcoming briefings for the Chair and Vice Chair to schedule. Q. Fuel Usage Reduction- Legislative Intent Statement- to maximize use of alternative fuel vehicles and reduce fuel usage. Administration update (February 2011): Fleet staff is working with Departments to take advantage of any opportunity to increase the use of alternative fuel vehicles. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to consider whether the steps taken are adequate to warrant closing the intent statement. In addition to exploring possible use of alternative fuel vehicles, the Administration has also implemented the usage of GPS units in City cars to monitor and reduce idle time,which has also had a favorable impact on reducing fuel consumption. R. Fire Vehicles- Legislative Intent Statement- evaluate vehicle options for medical response to reduce fuel usage. Administration update (February 2011): Gold Cross ambulance began taking over Alpha medical calls,which significantly reduced the number of calls for Fire Department response. In addition,the Fire Department is evaluating other options for response patterns that would help reduce fuel usage. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item. S. Cemetery Budget&Master Plan-Legislative Intent Statement-use the next phase of the cemetery master plan and financial report to evaluate fees and future cemetery needs. Administration update(February 2011):the next phase of the plan is on hold pending funding. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to discuss whether funds are available to move forward with the plans Phase II.Based on the Council's direction,this item may be closed or updated.The Council may also wish to ask for a formal briefing on Phase I,more than what was included during previous annual budget discussions. T. Public Art Maintenance-Legislative Intent Statement-develop a financial plan to handle the ongoing repair and maintenance of the City's Public Art Collection. Administration update(February 2011):inspections have been performed on over 52 of the City's public art collection,and a priority list has been established for the maintenance to occur. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item,as it seems to have been satisfied. U. Open Space Maintenance-Legislative Intent Statement-hire a parks maintenance employee with expertise in natural open space and vegetative areas,and identify any opportunity to coordinate with Public Utilities. Administration update(February 2011):The Open Space program has been moved under the Parks&Public Lands Division in Public Services,and is coordinating with other City departments on management and maintenance for natural lands. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider keeping this item open pending consideration of the amendments to the Open Space Lands Program section of the Code and Open Space Acquisition Strategy.The transmittal for these items was received in the Council office in May. This will likely include a funding component. V. City Master Plans-Legislative Intent Statement-status of the City Master Plans and City- wide general plan. Administration update(February 2011):Working on Northwest Quadrant,West Salt Lake, the Historic Preservation toolbox,and others. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to consider how best to handle this ongoing request,and how to keep this recurring dialogue going. W.Golf Update-Legislative Intent Statement-capital needs. Note:this item is satisfied by item A,an Interim Study Item.The Council may wish to consider closing this item. X. Fund Balance-Legislative Intent Statement-identify a process to restore fund balance to 15%of General Fund revenues. • Administration update(February 2011):The Administration commits to a fund balance of no less than 10%due to economic conditions,and will reconsider as conditions improve. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider whether this item should be kept open,and if so,whether it should be updated. Y. Citywide Emergency Preparedness Plan-Legislative Intent Statement-submit quarterly written briefings regarding the status of the City's emergency preparedness efforts and plan,including training status,coordination with entities,and other updates. Administration update(February 2011):The Administration will continue to brief the Council regularly. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to consider closing this item with the understanding that briefings will continue. Z. Take-home Vehicles-Legislative Intent Statement-provide an analysis of fleet costs related to take-home vehicles in conjunction with the annual budget. Administration update(February 2011):Fleet Audit Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item with the understanding that if costs associated with the program require updating,then the Administration will bring the issue to the Council in a budget. AA. Overtime within the Fire Department-Legislative Intent Statement-take measures to reduce the dependence on staffing shifts on an overtime basis. Administration update(February 2011):The Administration reports that the Department continues to utilize overtime,and indicated that the SAFER grant has"limited the IDepartment's ability to manage staffing levels." Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider keeping this item open and whether it should be updated.The Council may include this as part of their discussion during the Fire Department budget briefing(also scheduled for May 24),or holding a follow-up budget discussion. Semiannual reports on Legislative Intent Statements and Action Items-Legislative Intent Statement-provide reports. Administrative update(February 2011):they will continue to provide reports. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item with the understanding that briefings will continue. ,A.1 4 ti t 1%j71 'WI ' t ,T RALPH BECKER mummy" gromlanerSRECEIVED MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR MAY 0 9 2011 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: Os 0�' h.,DII David . <eritt, Ch of Staff Date sent to Council: Oc 0� ,p(/ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 9, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Quarterly Report on Interim Study Items and Semiannual Report on Legislative Intents STAFF CONTACT: Kay Christensen Office of Policy and Budget (801)535-7677 The Administration is forwarding to the City Council the quarterly response to the City Council's Adopted Interim Study Items and the semiannual response to the City Council's Adopted Legislative Intent Statements for Fiscal Year 2010-11 This response is due to the Council by the first Tuesday in May 2011. The Administration welcomes further discussion on any of the responses offered in this transmittal. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com Salt Lake City Council Fiscal Year 2010-11 Legislative Intent Statements and Interim Study Items FY 2010-11 Interim Study Items A. Golf Capital Improvement Projects—further discussion of policies related to use or sale of open space to meet Capital Improvement funding needs. The Administration may wish to forward a proposal or options to consider in advance of a Council discussion on the policy issue. Administration Response April 2011- Golf has submitted an updated proposal to the City Council via the transmittal process. Project priorities, operating budget projections, and construction schedules were updated in this proposal. The funding portion of this proposal is generally the same as previous editions with the exception that the 17.5 acres of property at Rose Park have been removed from the discussion due to the current status of the levee issue. The Administration remains open to creative and novel ideas for addressing Golfs CIP funding challenges. Golf will be discussing the Golf CIP issue with the City Council during their meeting AlRik on Tuesday, May 3, 2011. B. Transportation Related Benefits &Transit Passes— study ways to encourage employees to use transit passes including analysis of transportation options, parking options, and proposal of changes with the policy goal of encouraging the use of public transportation. Administration Response-A transit pass report' has been provided by the Sustainability ,,milk Division to City Administration. FY 2010-11 Legislative Intent Statements A. Public Utilities Engineer stationed at One Stop Permit Counter Administration Response-On September 13, 2010 the Department of Public Utilities hired an Engineer IV to assist at the one stop permit counter. This new position along with three existing Public Utilities engineering positions rotates at the permit counter on a daily basis. B. Streets Response Team time study—It is the intent of the Council that the Administration conduct a time study or develop a tracking approach over the course of a year on the Streets Response Team's duties and efforts, especially attributable to other Enterprise Funds. Administrative Response—The Streets Division continues to keep detailed records for services provided by the Streets Response Team (SRT). The total cost of services recorded from July 2010 through April 13, 2011 is $164,777. (See Appendix A for a summary report.) 1 C. Data Tracking &Collection —It is the intent of the Council that the Administration collect more detailed accounting data, particularly with regard to expenditures relating to Public Services function including parks maintenance, youth programs, support to enterprise funds, etc. Administration Response—The Department has continued it efforts with data and cost tracking. Another accountant has been hired, which will help in giving more attention to detailed accounting data. Furthermore, due to the success and satisfaction from the tracking program developed in Streets, consideration is being given to further expanding the use of the system in other programs of the Department. D. Economic Development— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration prepare criteria and options for the Council's consideration and approval for economic development tools before any additional offers are extended. Administration Response-Salt Lake City Economic Development Division is currently undertaking an analysis, with the assistance of the City Financial Advisor and various City departments and City Council staff, of all potential incentive tools permissible in Utah, the economic costs and benefits of those various tools for potential Salt Lake City incentives, as well as the fiscal impact to Salt Lake City Corporation in utilizing various potential incentives for business recruitment and expansion purposes. This economic and fiscal impact analysis will help the Administration and Council determine policies and priorities for potential Salt Lake City economic development incentives. While that analysis is being conducted, Salt Lake City Economic Development Division will continue to work with businesses using standard and current business incentive tools such as the Salt Lake Revolving Loan Fund, the State of Utah incentives provided by the Governor's Office of Economic Development, state and federal incentives available to Salt Lake City such as Industrial Development Bond financing, and Redevelopment Agency tax increment financing. Prior to the completion of the study, analysis and policy recommendation, the Division will consult in advance with the Mayor and Salt Lake City Council prior to any potential incentive offer being proffered to a company relocating or expanding in Salt Lake City or for those that currently require City Council approval, (e.g. revolving loan funds over $250,000). The Economic Development Division is currently negotiating with the City Financial Advisor, Lewis Burningham et. al, to undertake the study. The initial scope and cost were greater than the budget available to complete the project and the Division is now discussing modifications to the scope to complete the work under budget. We will begin the study in May and it should be completed in two months. E. Economic Development— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration earmark $10,000 of the current interest income in the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund for the neighborhood grant program. Administration Response- It is our intention that the interest income from the Loan Fund be used this year for the Neighborhood Business District (NBD) grants. We intend to initiate the 2 second round of Neighborhood Business District Grants utilizing funds from the City Revolving Loan Fund. F. PEC—It is the intent of the Council that the Administration identify how to receive input from employee groups, such as the PEC and others, and suggest how to clarify their role in providing input from employees. Administration Response-The PEC is represented on the Benefits Committee and, along with represented employees, is invited to attend all Citizen Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) meetings. The Human Resources Director has met with the PEC to discuss their role in providing employee input and to receive employee input. The Compensation Program Administrator has met with them to review compensation data and to receive their input. He will be meeting with them for the same purpose periodically throughout the budget process. G. Arts Grant- It is the intent of the City Council in appropriating the funding for youth art grants that the Arts Council Board establish criteria for grant distribution that includes but is not limited to: • Providing opportunities to children throughout the City at various locations. • Providing access and exposure to a very wide variety of quality arts experiences/ art forms. • Providing increased opportunities for children who face multiple risk factors. • Providing funding that will assist organizations in leveraging other funds that will allow the quality of the experience to be enhanced and/or the number of children served to be maximized. • Providing grants to new or existing arts programs that would allow them to take their programs further in to the community and expose children of all income levels. • Providing grants to new or existing arts programs that would allow the programs to establish sliding scale fees or scholarships to lower income children. It is the intent of the Council that the funds be focused directly on City residents since they are """o^ City taxpayer funds. It is further the intent of the Council that: a. The Administration require reporting that will allow the City to determine number of clients served, address of each client and other demographic information that is deemed relevant and reasonable by the City's grant reporting professionals. b. The staff person assigned to the Arts Council confirm that all grant recipients have an internet presence and centralize grant recipients'contact information in a list of providers with direct links (if possible) on the City's web site and in other City materials. Administration Response-The City Arts Council, after consulting with various constituencies and review by the Arts Council Board, developed guidelines and an application for a new City Arts Grants category: "Arts Learning." The information regarding this new category was well- distributed, resulting in a significant number of applications, from both previous and new City Arts Grants applicants. Following a rigorous application review and discussion, the City Arts Council Board awarded 29 matching grants, ranging from $2,500 to $7,500. 3 Thanks to a community-wide distribution of information, the projects supported by these grants are located throughout the City, serve children and young people of all ages and backgrounds, and are offered in every art form, including visual arts, literary arts, theatre, dance, music, folk arts, film and video. The programs are available either free of charge or with a scholarship or sliding fee scale to enable access for children of all income levels. Tracking of demographic data on the participating children will be submitted in the evaluation report from each grant recipient following the grant period which ends June 30, 2011. Preliminary Grant Programs by District (See Appendix B for a list of grant awards): Citywide: 8 Programs District One: 8 Programs District Two: 7 Programs District Three: 1 Program District Four: 6 Programs District Five: 1 Program District Six: 3 Programs District Seven: 3 Programs The number of programs reported here is greater than the number of grant recipients as some organizations provide programming in more than one district. The staff position was filled in February, and one of the responsibilities of this staff person is to create an internet presence for information on these and other opportunities for arts education and arts learning experience for Salt Lake City parents and their children. That process has begun. H. Youth Program Fees— It is the intent of the Council that for all remaining youth programs funded by the General Fund, any non-city resident participants pay the full direct cost of services as identified by the City's Finance Department and authorized by the Mayor. Administration Response—YouthCity, with the assistance of the Finance Department, is currently conducting an analysis of the fully loaded program costs. I. Collections- It is the intent of the Council that the Administration would move forward with plans to enhance collections of debts owed to the City as outlined in the June 1st Work Session briefing. Including: anticipated $1 million in additional revenue, additional $350,000 toward staffing costs within the Finance Department, which will include eight (8) FTEs (8 new Collection positions). With the further understanding that: a. The Mayor and City Council have indicated that collecting funds owed to the City is a matter of equity to taxpayers. b. The City has a wide range of types of funds owed. c. The City has the authority to collect funds owed. d. Judges have the absolute authority to sentence and order a plea in abeyance which is not collectible by the City during the time of abeyance. Judges have complete authority to set the terms of payment and those terms cannot be changed by collections staff without going back to Court for a judicial order. 4 e. The following are clear categories that the City can collect on without stepping in to the Judicial area: i. All civil fines including parking. ii. All criminal fines that are due and payable within the parameters set by the Court. On all criminal cases, only the Court can alter the amount of the fine. f. It is within the City Council's authority to allocate budget and approve a staffing document that specifies within which division / office/ department the City's collection function resides. g. It is within the City Council and Mayor's authority to elect to have general fund collections managed from a single department/ division / office. h. The Court Administrator and the staff members who report to the Court Administrator are Salt Lake City Administrative employees. Administrative Response-The new Collections Unit was up and running by September 2010 with 7 employees. The Unit used one FTE to fund a revenue/collection management system called REVQ. As of March 31, 2011, the Unit had collected $700,000. The new electronic booting program is in place and has generated over $100,000 in the first month. 5 ADDendix A Workgroup Summary Report- by Activity Group: Streets Response Team Costs for Material, Personnel, Equipment Fiscal Year-to-date Amounts Activity YTD 4/13/11 Flags 7,530.44 Gates 40,196.64 Customer Service 13,554.57 Trouble Calls 20,122.78 Sanitation Can Pick-up 1,202.26 Barricading 8,435.94 Bike Lane Sweeping 36,965.05 Request Sweeping 991.61 Tree Trimming 461.88 Pothole/ Road Repair 38.25 Install or Replace Sign 41.04 Charity Can Pickup 2,655.79 Farmers'Market Can Pickup 1,394.51 City&County/ Special Events 1,296.46 Plowing/ Ice Control 11,960.88 Snow Watch 7,070.27 Vehicle/ Equipment Maintenance 6,576.08 Flag Making 3,857.65 Training 134.89 Tar Pots 290.30 Total of all activities 164,777.29 6 001.446 "Accounts" included in costs above Refuse Fund: Sanitation for Can Pickup 1,202.26 Charity Can Pick-up 2,655.79 Farmers Market Can Pick-up 1,394.51 Total Refuse Fund 5,252.56 Public Utilities for various activities 1,224.19 Total of these two accounts 6,476.75 AMOK Appendix B Art Grant Awards Art Access/VSA Utah $7,500 Programs for public school students with disabilities Gina Bachauer International Piano Foundation 5,000 Music-in-Our-Schools program Bad Dog Rediscovers America 7,500 After school and summer programs Boys&Girls Clubs of Greater Salt Lake 5,000 After school and summer programs at three locations Brolly Arts 5,000 Dance workshops and performances for hearing impaired students Center for Documentary Arts 7,500 Photography and oral history project at three elementary schools Children's Alliance for Education (CAFE) 2,500 Mural projects at three locations Children's Media Workshop- 5,000 Visual arts and design projects at elementary schools Community Writing Center 2,500 Literary artist-in-residence for under-served students at several locations Discovery Gateway 7,500 Community ArtWorks dasses for children and parents Gifted Music School 2,500 Musical training at downtown location Great West Institute- 5,000 Neighborhood-based public art project at Sorenson Unity Center Kingsbury Hall 5,000 Ethnic performances for elementary students Mariachi Juvenil de Utah 5,000 Education and performances by youth mariachi band The Mundi Project 2,500 Multidisciplinary workshops at three locations Pioneer Theatre Company 7,500 Student matinees of four productions on campus for secondary students Repertory Dance Theatre- 2,500 Ring Around the Rose program for children and families Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company 7,500 Comprehensive dance education activities at several locations Salt Lake Art Center 7,500 Art Truck and ARTbytes, visual arts programs for young people Salt Lake Education Foundation 2,500 After school music education program at Backman Elementary Samba Fogo 2,500 Samba Crianca Cultural education through multi-ethnicmusic and dance SB Dance/Sugar Space- 2,500 Art in Body program, teaching dance and health education Spy Hop Productions 7,500 Community Partnerships Program in film, video and music Tanner Dance Program 2,500 Creative dance residencies at six elementary schools University Neighborhood Partners 2,500 Multidiscipline projects in partnership with Mestizo Arts Utah Arts Alliance- 2,500 Youth Arts Alliance program in visual arts, music and dance Utah Symphony/Utah Opera 2,500 8 . S RECEIVED RALPH BORECKER 'Ma Off 92 ,2�� I FEB 0 1 2011 MAY OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Salt Lake City Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL / I Date Received: 2 03 Zvi i Day'. Everitt, C ief of Staff Date sent to Council: p Z og ` I I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 1, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt,Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Quarterly Report on Interim Study Items and Semiannual Report on Legislative Intents STAFF CONTACT: Kay Christensen Office of Policy and Budget (801)535-7677 DOCUMENT TYPE: Legislative Intent Statements BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Administration is forwarding to the City Council the quarterly response to the City Council's Adopted Interim Study Items and the semiannual response to the City Council's Adopted Legislative Intent Statements for Fiscal Year 2010-11. The transmittal also includes the Administration's response to open Interim Study Items and Legislative Intent Statements from previous years. This response is due to the Council at the end of January 2011. The Administration welcomes further discussion on any of the responses offered in this transmittal. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com REC1CtCD ow. Salt Lake City Council Fiscal Year 2010-11 Legislative Intent Statements and Interim Study Items FY 2010-11 Interim Study Items A. Golf Capital Improvement Projects — further discussion of policies related to use or sale of open space to meet Capital Improvement funding needs. The Administration may wish to forward a proposal or options to consider in advance of a Council discussion on the policy issue. Administration Response-The Public Services Department Director and the Golf Division Manager met with the City Council in September 2010 to discuss the general concept of selling golf property. Five parcels were submitted for discussion, including 10 acres at Bonneville, 13.65 acres and .89 at Glendale, and 17.5 and 3 acres at Rose Park. The majority of the City Council was of the opinion that they would consider the sale of such open space under certain conditions. Those conditions were not determined at this meeting. At that same time, it was suggested that Golfs situation could be used as a case study to help develop a policy for open space sales. City administration plans to forward a proposal in the near future. B. Transportation Related Benefits &Transit Passes—study ways to encourage employees to use transit passes including analysis of transportation options, parking options, and proposal of changes with the policy goal of encouraging the use of public transportation. Administration Response- The Sustainability Division of Public Services will perform further study and analysis of options the City may employ to promote the use of public transit and other alternative transportation means, in addition to the analysis of the transportation benefits program previously provided to the Council. Policy and Budget will assist in this analysis. Areas of study may include, but not be limited to, sharing the cost of parking with employees, further incentivizing the use of public transit and incentivizing the use of alternatives such as biking or carpooling. An update of the costs associated with the existing parking and transit pass program will also be included in the analysis. Ongoinci Interim Study Items 1. Facilities charge on Spring Mobile Ticket sales Administration Response-As the Administration reported previously, Utah Code Section 10-1-203(5)(a)(i)(B) permits a municipality to levy a license fee or tax to raise revenue"on a public assembly or other related facility in an amount that is no less than or equal to $5 per ticket purchased from the public assembly or other related facility". A"public assembly or other related facility"is defined in Section 10-1-203(5)(b)(iii) as one that is: (1) wholly or partially funded by public monies; (2) operated by a business; and (3) requires a person to buy a ticket to attend an event. A 1 If the City were to adopt a tax under this section, the tax would have to apply to all facilities falling under the definition. The City could not single out one such facility to be taxed and not tax any of the other facilities covered by the definition. Whether a particular facility is covered by the definition depends on the precise facts. Each of the three elements of the definition would have to be met. For example, the facility must be operated by a "business". If the facility is operated by a not for profit entity, the City Attorney's office does not believe it would be covered by the definition. Facilities such as Spring Mobile Ballpark and the Energy Solutions Arena would potentially be covered depending on the facts. Adoption of such a tax by the City could have an impact on contracts that the City might have with such an entity if covered by the tax. Further analysis of any such contracts would be necessary. 2. Fleet Usage/Replacement Administration Response-Final audit findings and the Administration's response has been transmitted to the City Council. A briefing with the Council is anticipated in February 2011. 3. Special Events—"grant"program criteria and administration —the Council is requesting a report on how the first rounds of grants and sponsorships went and a report on revenue collections in 2010-11. Administration Response-As of 12/31/2010, the amount collected this fiscal year was $42,800. We anticipate additional revenue this fiscal year as we enter event season. In February 2010, a letter was sent to local event organizers inviting them to send in sponsorship proposals to the City requesting sponsorship amounts of between $10,000 and $25,000. They were informed that considerations for sponsorship would be made based on the following criteria: 1) public and community benefit; 2) economic impact; 3) cultural and civic contribution; 4) relationship to Salt Lake City's mission and goals; 5) financial position and need. A March 1st deadline was given for submissions and we received 22 sponsorship proposals (plus one more that came over a week late). A small group consisting of David Everitt, Bianca Shreeve, Bob Farrington and Tyler Curtis read and considered each proposal and created recommendations for Mayor Becker's consideration. After Mayor Becker's review of the proposals, and a brief review of the designated amounts by Council members, we asked the event organizers to resubmit proposals based on the new dollar amounts allocated to them. Instead of the proposed amounts, it was decided to offer a few $15,000 sponsorships and then a number of smaller, $1,500 to $2,500 sponsorships. 2 We worked with each of the 11 events to coordinate the agreed upon sponsorship elements (logos on print materials, booths at events, "green"initiatives at events, etc.) and distributed checks in spring/early summer of 2010. The allocation of the $75,000 was as follows: $15,000 sponsorships: Salt Lake International Jazz Festival Downtown Alliance's Farmers Market Utah Pride Festival Utah Arts Festival $2,500 sponsorships: Unified Bouldering Championships People's Market Days of'47 Youth Festival Native American Celebration $2,000 sponsorships: Brazilian Festival $1,500 sponsorships: Living Traditions (SLC Arts Council)Earth Fest (Gallivan Center) The sponsorships were successful and the program will function in 2010-2011 as it did In FY 2009-2010. 4. Ground Transportation— additional enforcement, fees evaluation, ordinance updates, RFP Administration Response-The Department of Airports assumed responsibility for City wide ground transportation operations in August of 2010. Since that time staff has worked with the Council providing recommended revisions of ordinance, which has resulted in the Council adopting the revisions to City Ordinance 5.71, 5.72 and 16.60, which were signed into law by Mayor Becker on December 3`d, 2010. These revisions among other things allow the City, through the Department of Airports to move forward with an RFP for taxicab services for both the Airport and City. This RFP is in the final stages of draft and is expected to be announced early February, with award expected in July of this year. The Department of Airports has revised procedures within the program that have resulted in greater efficiencies and have put in place procedures and policies to safeguard the transaction of funds and fees. With the changes to ordinance, the ground transportation staff is working with the department's financial division to re-evaluate fees at this time so as to capture all related expenses. These fees will be set forth in a published schedule and a description of the method used in determining the fees will be included in the department's rules and regulations which will be posted for public comment previous to adoption in the very near future. Lastly, the ground transportation staff is working with the industry to educate the service providers regarding the new ordinance changes and actively enforcing the provisions of the ordinance. 3 5. Transaction Fees— Encourage environmentally-friendly payment options for City-related transactions. Administration Response-There are no new developments to report. Over the next 3 months, a working group will be formed to explore ideas and encourage these payment options. 6. Business License Fees—— Research business license fees in order to develop a methodology that is equitable for both large and small businesses. Administration Response-Business Licensing has just completed the conversion to Accela, and will be conducting this analysis over the next several months in preparation for the Mayor's Recommended Budget. FY 2010-11 Legislative Intent Statements Newly Adopted Legislative Intent Statements A. Public Utilities Engineer stationed at One Stop Permit Counter Administration Response-On September 13, 2010 the Department of Public Utilities hired an Engineer IV to assist at the one stop permit counter. This new position along with three existing Public Utilities engineering positions rotates at the permit counter on a daily basis. B. Streets Response Team time study—It is the intent of the Council that the Administration conduct a time study or develop a tracking approach over the course of a year on the Streets Response Team's duties and efforts, especially attributable to other Enterprise Funds. Administration Response-For the current fiscal year, the Streets Division has complete records of services provided by the Streets Response Team (SRT). To support this recordkeeping, the Division has implemented a new software system designed with IMS. The system allows the Division to record costs for personnel, materials, and equipment usage and provides reports that track General Fund expenses and will facilitate billings to non-General Fund entities. Year-to-date costs for the services have been reported to the Department's Finance Division and will be billed. Entities to be billed include the Public Utilities Department. The broad categories of services provided by the SRT as per the Group Summary Report below total $109,935 for the first seven months of the fiscal year and are as follows: restocking of the street-crossing orange flags, closing and locking gates in City parks, responding to"trouble calls" (emergency response for a variety of services), missed garbage or yard-waste cans (when citizens claim that their cans were placed timely on the curb but City trucks missed them), emergency barricading, bike lane sweeping, requested sweeping, tree trimming, pothole/road repair, sign installation or replacement, other can pick-ups for special events and circumstances, snow plowing and ice control, snow watch, and flag making/ construction. 4 The following is a summary of services and costs for the time period of July 2010 through January 2011, condensed from a detailed report which can be made available to the City Council if requested: Group: Streets Response Team Group Summary Report- by Activities From 7/1/10 through 1/31/11 Report Date 2/1/11 Costs for Material, Personnel, Equipment Activity Cost Flags 4,982.15 Gates 26,864.31 Customer Service 11,050.30 Trouble Calls 13,155.93 Sanitation Can Pick-up 1,202.26 .+ Barricading 5,517.52 Bike Lane Sweeping 23,297.87 Request Sweeping 467.56 Tree Trimming 461.88 Pothole / Road Repair 38.25 Install or Replace Sign 41.04 Charity Can Pickup 1,711.03 Farmers Market Can Pickup 1,394.51 City &County/ Special Events 1,296.46 Plowing / Ice Control 8,059.30 Snow Watch 3,997.16 Vehicle/ Equipment Maintenance 3,257.50 5 Flag Making 3,005.37 Training 134.89 Total 109,935.29 Two billable entities / "accounts" included in above: Sanitation for Can Pickup 1,202.26 Public Utilities for various 960.09 Total of these two accounts 2,162.35 C. Data Tracking &Collection—It is the intent of the Council that the Administration collect more detailed accounting data, particularly with regard to expenditures relating to Public Services function including parks maintenance, youth programs, support to enterprise funds, etc. Administration Response-The Public Services Department continues in its efforts to separate and detail its costs as completely as possible. New cost centers have been established to further break out costs, including those of payroll. The Department is working on ways to read and monitor water flow to a greater degree. Other utilities are also being split out in more detail between programs, locations, etc. The Department has taken measures to improve employee cost breakout, including making sure that the correct cost center is used with requests for hire. These are all improvements to prior practices. Beginning in July 2010, Public Services has information for billing the enterprise funds for services provided by its Streets Response Team. Year-to-date costs for the services have been reported to the Department's Finance Division and will be billed. Entities to be billed include the Public Utilities Department. (Also see legislative intent B for the Streets Response Team.) With regard to youth programs, the Department is providing information to the City's Finance Department and a study is being conducted (see legislative intent H for youth programs). D. Economic Development— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration prepare criteria and options for the Council's consideration and approval for economic development tools before any additional offers are extended. Administration Response-Salt Lake City Economic Development Division is currently undertaking an analysis, with the assistance of the City Financial Advisor and various City departments and City Council staff, of all potential incentive tools permissible in Utah, the economic costs and benefits of those various tools for potential Salt Lake City 6 incentives, as well as the fiscal impact to Salt Lake City Corporation in utilizing various potential incentives for business recruitment and expansion purposes. This economic and fiscal impact analysis will help the Administration and Council determine policies and priorities for potential Salt Lake City economic development incentives. While that analysis is being conducted, Salt Lake City Economic Development Division will continue to work with businesses using standard and current business incentive tools such as the Salt Lake Revolving Loan Fund, the State of Utah incentives provided by the Governor's Office of Economic Development, state and federal incentives available to Salt Lake City such as Industrial Development Bond financing, and Redevelopment Agency tax increment financing. Prior to the completion of the study, analysis and policy recommendation, the Division will consult in advance with the Mayor and Salt Lake City Council prior to any potential incentive offer being proffered to a company relocating or expanding in Salt Lake City or for those that currently require City Council approval, (e.g. revolving loan funds over $250,000). E. Economic Development— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration earmark $10,000 of the current interest income in the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund for the neighborhood grant program. Administration Response- It is our intention that the interest income from the Loan Fund be used this year for the Neighborhood Business District (NBD) grants. F. PEC— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration identify how to receive input from employee groups, such as the PEC and others, and suggest how to clarify their role in providing input from employees. Administration Response-The PEC is represented on the Benefits Committee and, along with represented employees, is invited to attend all Citizen Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) meetings. The Human Resources Director has met with the PEC to discuss their role in providing employee input and to receive employee input. The Compensation Program Administrator has met with them to review compensation data and to receive their input. He will be meeting with them for the same purpose periodically throughout the budget process. G.Arts Grants Administration Response-The City Arts Council, after consulting with various constituencies and review by the Arts Council Board, developed guidelines and an application for a new City Arts Grants category: "Arts Learning." The information regarding this new category was well-distributed, resulting in a significant number of applications, from both previous and new City Arts Grants applicants. Following a rigorous application review and discussion, the City Arts Council Board awarded 29 matching grants, ranging from $2,500 to $7,500. Thanks to a community-wide distribution of information, the projects supported by these grants are located throughout the City, serve children and young people of all ages and backgrounds, and are offered in every art form, including visual arts, literary arts, theatre, dance, music, folk arts, film and video. The programs are available either free of charge 7 or with a scholarship or sliding fee scale to enable access for children of all income levels. Tracking of demographic data on the participating children will be submitted in the evaluation report from each grant recipient following the grant period which ends June 30, 2011. The staff position will be filled shortly and one of the responsibilities of this staff person will be to create an internet presence for information on these and other opportunities for arts education and arts learning experience for Salt Lake City parents and their children. H. Youth Program Fees—It is the intent of the Council that for all remaining youth programs funded by the General Fund, any non-city resident participants pay the full direct cost of services as identified by the City's Finance Department and authorized by the Mayor. Administrative Response-The Finance Department has been conducting an analysis of the program costs, with some assistance from Public Services. The analysis is not yet complete. A preliminary review had been conducted but the cost structure has not yet been determined, but will be complete prior to the submission of the FY12 Mayor's Recommended Budget. I. Collections Administrative Response-The new Collections Unit was up and running by September 2010 with 7 employees. The Unit used one FTE to fund a revenue/collection management system called REVQ. As of December 31, 2010, the Unit had collected $350,000. The new electronic booting program will be functional by the first week in March (writing the computer interface between Paylock and ALE is taking longer than expected). A publicity effort, beginning in mid-February will encourage people to pay their outstanding tickets and avoid being booted (cars will be booted if the license plate has 2 tickets over 30 days old). The electronic booting itself will add an additional $147 to the cost of having a car booted along with the cost of outstanding tickets. In addition, there is a bill at the legislature that would authorize the Division of Motor Vehicles to rescind or refuse registration of cars with 4 tickets over 30 days old. If this bill passes, it will give the City a significant new tool to use in our efforts to increase collections. Onaoina Leaislative Intent Statements 2009 Parking Meter Upgrades Administration Response-An RFP to replace 2,000 parking meters with 345 pay stations that accept credit/debit cards was published Jan 12. A pre-bid meeting was held Jan 26. Bids are due Feb 23. 8 .101111, 2009 Fuel Usage Reduction Administrative Response-City Fleet is continuing to work with departments to explore every possibility for using alternative fuel vehicles. The Streets Division has obtained three battery-powered vehicles for their use, the Police Department has purchased some hybrid vehicles for detectives and the Chief, the purchase of CNG packers for Refuse is in process, and the purchase of 13 CNG trucks was recently approved for Facilities, Parks and Streets. Additional opportunities in other departments are being explored and further details regarding alternative vehicle needs and potential purchase plans will be provided when the Fleet Audit is presented to the Council in February. 2009 Fire Vehicles-It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration report to the Council regarding how a more fuel efficient vehicle could be used on medical calls with the current staffing and operational models. Administrative Response -The Department successfully negotiated a response plan with Gold Cross Ambulance that allows for an ambulance only response on the Alpha medical calls. This change in response has reduced the Fire Department response by more than 2,000 calls per year, greatly reducing fuel consumption and carbon exhaust. The Medical Division is reviewing alternative response models for all medical calls. This modified response will result in fuel efficiencies without impacting patient care and outcomes. meok The Department has instituted other changes to continue to reduce its carbon footprint and impact to City services. This includes an agreement with Gold Cross Ambulance to assist with the retrieval of paramedics assisting on the transport of patients to hospitals outside the City limits. 2009 Cemetery Budget&Master Plan-It is the intent of the City Council that the cemetery master plan and financial report include an evaluation of appropriate fees (taking into account inflation). In addition, the Administration and the City Council should evaluate and discuss on-going cemetery needs and how to fund them. Administration Response-Phase I of the Cemetery Master Plan is complete and gives recommendations for decisions at the cemetery. The Public Services Department submitted a funding application for Phase II of the study in the FY10-11 CIP, but it was not funded. This project will be'on hold' until funding is provided. 2009 Public Art Maintenance It is the intent of the City Council to have the Administration develop a financial plan to handle the on-going repair and maintenance of the City's Public Art Collection. Administration Response-Inspections and condition reports for more than 52 artworks in the City's public art collection have been completed. Based on this work, a priority list for maintenance and repairs was developed, determined by both the urgency of the need and the budget available. To date, more than two dozen Amok% 9