Loading...
11/01/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, November 1, 2011, at 3 : 00 p.m. in Room 326 , City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street . In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Jill Remington Love, Luke Garrott, Stan Penfold, JT Martin and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ralph Becker; Ben McAdams, Senior Advisory to the Mayor; Helen Langan, Senior Advisor to the Mayor; DJ Baxter, RDA Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; Jan Aramaki, Council Constituent Liaison/Research & Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Research and Policy Analyst; Curtis Preece, Steven Akerlow, Housing Programs Specialist; David Everitt, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Randy Hillier, Policy and Budget Analyst; April Harris, Salt Lake County Animal Shelter Manager; Patick Leary, Salt Lake County Public Works Director; Boyd Ferguson, Senior City Attorney; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Bob Farrington, Economic Development Director; Steve Boule, Theater Presenter; Florence Reynolds, Water Quality Administrator; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; David Terry, Golf Manager; John Anderson, Principal Planner; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Gina Chamness, Budget Director; Dan Mule, City Treasurer; Dale Okerland, Financial Advisor; Leslie Chan, Open Space Lands Program Manager; Ryan Bjerke, Bond Counsel; Russell Weeks, Council Senior Policy Analyst; John Naser, City Engineer; Kevin Young, Transportation Engineer; Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Benjamin Roberts, Parking Compliance Director; Dave Childress, Fleet Management Director; Karl Lieb, Fire Deputy Chief of Operations; Mary Beth Thompson, Payroll Accounting; Janice Jardine, Council Senior Policy Analyst; and Chris Meeker, City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 3 : 09 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: (a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §54-2-205 (1) (B) ; 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011 (b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF 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) (C) ; (c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; (d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION UNDER 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 SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (F) . This item was not addressed. #2 . 3 : 10 : 04 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See File M 11-5 for announcements . #3 . 3 : 28 : 30 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO CHAPTER 8. 04 ANIMAL CONTROL, THAT INCLUDE: REMOVAL OF TWO (2) DOGS AND TWO (2) CATS LIMIT PER RESIDENCE WITH A RECOMMENDED CHANGE OF NO LIMIT; IMPLEMENT A CAT LICENSING FEE; AN INCREASE TO CURRENT $25 ANNUAL RENEWAL LATE PENALTY; AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PET ADOPTION AND EDUCATION FACILITY. View Attachments Randy Hillier, April Harris, Patrick Leary and Jan Aramaki briefed the Council with the attached handouts . #4 . 3 : 52 : 43 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A GOLF GREEN FEE INCREASE WHICH WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 1, 2012 . THE INCREASE WOULD INCLUDE SETTING ASIDE $1 PER 9-HOLE ROUND OF GOLF TO BE 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011 USED FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND THE CITY' S GOLF COURSES (ITEM H4) View Attachments Rick Graham and David Terry briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Love said the increase would include setting aside $1 per 9-hole round of golf to be used for Capital Improvement Projects at the City' s golf courses in addition to a per course operation fee increase. Mr. Graham said fees would be different at each course . He said the proposal was that the CIP fee be combined into one fund and not be held separately at each course . He said the intent was to be shared at each course . Councilmember Love said the Council would like to hear from the CIP board in the near future. #5. 4 : 14 :41 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $2, 000, 000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY FOR PURPOSES OF ACQUIRING AND PRESERVING OPEN SPACE, PARK AND RECREATIONAL LANDS; FIXING CERTAIN MAXIMUM TERMS FOR THE BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE HOLDING OF A PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO SUCH BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR RELATED MATTERS. (ITEM G2)View Attachments Leslie Chan, Dale Okerlund and Dan Mule briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Mule said this was the second bond being issued for open space. #6.4 : 19 : 09 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO PLEDGE FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE TO INCREASE BORROWING CAPACITY FOR SALES TAX BONDS. THIS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZES THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE IN ORDER TO PLEDGE CERTAIN FRANCHISE AND OTHER EXCISE TAX REVENUE AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR SALT LAKE CITY' S SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS; AND RELATED MATTERS. (ITEM G3) Dale Okerlund, Ryan Bjerke, Jennifer Bruno and Dan Mule briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Mule said the law allowed pledging franchise taxes for an additional amount of sales tax. He said that allowed bonding for a larger amount. #7 . 4 : 24 : 37 PM and 8 : 36 : 15 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . BUDGET AMENDMENTS HAPPEN SEVERAL TIMES EACH YEAR TO REFLECT ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY' S BUDGETS, INCLUDING PROPOSED PROJECT ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS. THIS AMENDMENT INCLUDES ITEMS RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND PURCHASE OF PARKING PAY STATIONS, THE FLEET BUDGET, AND SOME GRANTS. View Attachments 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011 Jennifer Bruno, Gina Chamness, Gordon Hoskins, David Everitt, Benjamin Roberts, David Childress, Mary Beth Thompson, Karl Leib, Rick Graham, D J Baxter, Lehua Weaver and Luann Clark briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Christensen asked that an audit be conducted regarding fleet management issues . Councilmember Love said a hearing would be set for November 22, 2011 for the Parking Pay Stations . Councilmember Christensen asked if the Administration had any way of tracking parking meters . Mary Beth Thompson said current meters couldn' t be tracked but the new pay stations were track able . Councilmember Love said it was $100, 000 for repairs to way- finding equipment, $200, 000 for the master plan and $70, 000 for new banners in the downtown area. Ms .Bruno asked if it was the intent of the Council to use the $100, 000 from the Redevelopment Agency and the $100, 000 from the Downtown Alliance to go for the total of $375, 000 for way-finding. All Council Members were in favor. Ms . Bruno said funding for repair and re-vinyl of signs would be $180, 000 . All Council Members were in favor of funding the Landlord Tenant electronic training. Councilmember Garrott was concerned with the pedestrian crossing in front of the Capital Theater. He asked staff to see if CIP funding was available . He said he was concerned about programming at the Leonardo. He said they needed $25, 000 for a special exhibit. Councilmember Christensen said the grant should go through the Human Rights Commission. Councilmember Turner asked for funding for the cross walk in front of the Chapman Library. #8. 8 : 35 : 34 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING UPDATED POLICY STATEMENTS FOR THE CITY' S COMMUNITY HOUSING PLAN. THE INTENT IS TO ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT OF NEW HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, PRESERVATION OF THE CITY' S EXISTING HOUSING STOCK AND REFLECT CURRENT HOUSING AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS. This Item was moved to another date. #9. 5 : 36 : 08 'PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM COUNCIL STAFF AND THE ADMINISTRATION TO DISCUSS VARIOUS ITEMS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF A UTAH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER (UPAC) , INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: View Attachments • 5 : 36 : 52 PM A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES COMPLETED REGARDING PERFORMING ARTS FACILITIES; • 5 : 45 : 53 PM A REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION' S TRANSMITTAL REGARDING THE PROPOSED UPAC, INCLUDING A RESOLUTION APPROVING TERMS OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO A PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AREA (CDA) ON BLOCK 70, A RESOLUTION REGARDING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ALLOWING A PORTION OF FUTURE PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT IN 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011 THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SARR FUNDS) TO BE USED TOWARDS DEBT SERVICE ON THE UPAC, AND A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ISSUING SALES TAX BOND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES TO PAY FOR THE INITIAL DESIGN OF THE UPAC. (ITEM Fl) • 6 : 13 : 19 PM A RELATED MATTER FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION IS A BUDGET AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF DESIGN FUNDS AND UPFRONT COSTS (APPROXIMATELY $15 MILLION) . (BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 3, ITEM H3) Mayor Becker, Helen Langan, Steve Boule, Jennifer Bruno, Bob Farrington and Ben McAdams briefed the Council with a power point presentation and the attached handouts . Mayor Becker said plans and studies went back to the 1962 Second Century Plan. Ms . Bruno said all the previous studies used different methods but came to the same conclusion of a need for increasing arts opportunities . She said the idea of co-location and co-operation was a key to success . Councilmember Garrott asked the Council to consider using some funding for the Utah Theater. Mr. McAdams said they could develop the idea and put it on the informal wish list. 7 : 19 : 59 PM Council Chambers and 8 : 33 : 26 PM Work Session Room #la. RE: Adopting a joint resolution authorizing approving of an interlocal agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and the Board of Education of the Salt Lake School District to use a portion of tax increment to support a proposed performing arts center and infrastructure and development activities related to the establishment of a cultural core. (This item would ratify an October 1, 2011, decision by the City Council acting as the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors to use some property tax revenue generated by new construction if the City Council ultimately approves funding for a proposed performing arts center. ) View Attachments Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Turner seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Resolution 41 of 2011, which motion carried, all members voted aye . (C 11-732) 7 : 24 : 49 PM Council Chambers and 8 : 34 : 46 PM Work Session Room #lb. RE: Adopting a resolution calling for a public hearing to receive comment from the public on the issuance of up to $18 million in subordinate excise tax revenue notes for the purpose of financing a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping a proposed performing arts center. (This item would set the date of November 22 , 2011 for a public hearing on the Administration' s proposal to issue up to $18 million in sales tax revenue notes to pay 11 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011 for the final design and other non-construction costs of a proposed performing arts center. If construction of the center ultimately is approved, the notes would be repaid from a larger issue of bonds . If construction does not proceed, the sales tax revenue notes would be repaid through other sources . ) View Attachments Councilmember Simonson moved and Councilmember Garrott seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Resolution 42 of 2011, which motion carried, all members voted aye. (Q 11-9) #10 . HOLD A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION OF THE PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED AT THEIR SEPTEMBER RETREAT, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF A PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT ON ARTS AND CULTURE. (THE OTHER PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED WILL BE DISCUSSED AT FUTURE COUNCIL MEETINGS AND INCLUDE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE CITY, NEIGHBORHOODS AND SCHOOLS, LOCAL/NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, SUSTAINABILITY, AND TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY) . This item was not discussed. The meetin adjourned at 9 : 02 p.m. CIT• G� + („27 cil Chair • ,; !,, Cif ecordei \9per This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held November 1, 2011 . cm 11 - 6 ♦ SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ♦ l BUDGET AMENDMENT#2-FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: November 1,2011 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment#2 STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver,Karen Halladay,and Jennifer Bruno CC: David Everitt,Gina Chamness,Gordon Hoskins,Frank Gray,Mary De La Mare-Schaefer,LuAnn Clark,Chief Chris Burbank,Chief Kurt Cook,Rick Graham,Kay Christensen,Shannon Ashby,and Sherrie Collins Budget Amendment Number Two contains 28 proposed adjustments,as suggested by the Administration. There are seven new initiatives proposed,including purchases for seven undercover Police Department vehicles and equipment for the Fire Department. Additionally, the Administration has included the parking pay station and wayfmding signage proposal with this budget amendment. (During the last budget amendment,the Council only funded the Pay Station"test"portion of the initial budget request.) The financial impact of the new initiatives to the City budget include increases in: 1. Fleet expenditure budgets of$1,214,000; 2. General Fund of$3,996,647,which includes$3,288,969 for encumbrance carryovers from FY 2010-11; 3. Capital Improvement Project net expenditures of($149,553.44). Components include: a. Parking Pay Stations- an increase in the expenditure budget of$1,814,29 from CIP,an increase in the General Fund budget of$292,770 for the portion of FY 2011-12 operating expenses,and to use the remainder of the CAM set aside funds of$2,408,229(The Council allocated$291,771 in budget amendment#1 for the parking pay station test.) The City's capital investment in the parking pay stations is proposed to be$4,514,298. b. Grant Tower-property expenses of$379,442. Expenses include property appraisals,watering of the properties,legal and other expenses. c. CIP Recapture-of twenty-three(23)completed and closed CIP projects, including General Fund,Class C and Impact Fees of$913,025. The Administration is proposing the recaptured funds increase the cost overrun accounts of the respective programs and be used for future reprogramming. In addition,three SAA budgets of$2,593,293 be reduced to zero. These budgets,which are no longer needed and do not involve a cash balance,had been established to collect the property owner's portion of the SAA. The Council requests a year-to-date revenue forecast with each budget amendment. The Administration provided the following revenue forecast,which includes revenues through September 30, 2011. Sales and Use Tax and Miscellaneous Revenues are essentially on target for the FY 2012 budgeted amount,with minor shortfalls forecasted in the Franchise Tax, Licenses,and Fines and Forfeitures category,totaling roughly$550,000. The Administration indicates that Parking Ticket revenue continues to come at less than anticipated in the budget. Page 1 ►The Council may wish to ask for an update or briefing on this matter, as it was a key focus area for the FY 2012 budget, and because revenue projections take on more importance due to the City's proposed investment in a new parking program. In addition to the revenue forecast,the Administration provides a projected Fund Balance based on actual and forecasted revenues,expenditures,and encumbrances or outstanding obligations. If estimates for FY 2010-11 year-end funds dropping to fund balance come in as expected, General Fund fund balance would be approximately$25 million. Using the FY 2011-12 adopted budget figure for ongoing revenues,this puts fund balance at approximately 13%(about$5.7 million over the 10%level). Revenue Forecast-Budget Amendment#2 FY 2011-12 Variance Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total General Fund 195,114,853 194,559,704 (555,149) Selected Discussion Items Total Property Taxes 63,175,537 63,175,537 0 Discussion: Total Sales and Use Tax 45,622,655 45,622,655 0 Discussion: Total Franchise Tax 28,434,888 28,366,228 (68,660) Discussion: Franchise Fee for Public Utilities is lower than budgeted due to a cooler and wetter summer. License and Permits: 18,452,058 18,379,780 (72,278) Discussion: Intergovernmental Revenue 5,426,994 5,426,994 0 Discussion: Interest income 780,000 780,000 0 Discussion: Total Fines 8,Forfeiture 10,988,815 10,567,259 (421,556) Discussion: Parking Ticket revenue is down due to parking ticket issuance being down. Parking Meters 1,651,000 1,651,000 0 Discussion: Charges and Services 4,118,852 4,126,197 7,345 Discussion: Miscellaneous Revenue 3,020,641 3,020,641 0 Discussion: lnterfund Reimbursement 9,907,993 9,907,993 0 Discussion: Transfers 3,535,420 3,535,420 0 Discussion: Page 2 MATTERS AT ISSUE The Administration classified the following as: New Items: A-1: Fleet Replacement: Sales and Make Ready for FY 2010-11 Replacement Vehicles- (Expenditure Increase$345,000 and Revenue Increase$351,000-Source: Fleet Fund) During FY 2010-11,many changes were made within the Fleet Division. As a result of the transition and division changes,decisions regarding Fleet vehicle purchases were delayed while City department needs were assessed and operational processes were developed for the Fleet Division. According to paperwork provided by the Administration,vehicle purchases for FY 2010-11 were ordered late in FY 2010-11. These purchases were received and are being equipped and prepared for department use in the current fiscal year,FY 2011-12. The FY 2010-11 budgeted amount for supplies needed to prepare the vehicles for use dropped to the Fleet's Fund Balance because the budget had not been spent or encumbered prior to the end of FY 2010-11. The Administration is requesting this one-time budget amendment to re- establish an expense budget of$345,000 for supplies and equipment needed to prepare the FY 2010-11 vehicles purchased for departmental use. Additionally,the Division sells vehicles that have been replaced at public auction several times a year. Due to the delay the FY 2010-1 1purchase and delivery timeframe,the sale of the old vehicles will occur in FY 2011-12. The Administration is requesting to establish a one-time revenue budget of$351,000. This will be in addition to the$550,000 FY 2011-12 budget for vehicle sales. A-2: Fleet Replacement: Undercover Vehicles(Sources: $47,000 Non-Departmental General Fund and$75,000 Fleet Fund) e City needs to replace seven(7)undercover police officer vehicles. According to the Administration,due to prior practice and the transition within the Fleet Division,the need to replace these vehicles had not been identified during the annual budget process or by the time e first budget amendment was submitted. The Administration indicates that these,and all other,vehicle purchases will be included in the yearly vehicle replacement plan. This total budget request is for$75,000 in Fleet expenditures. The budget amendment proposes at$28,000 of this amount come from proceeds from the sale of vehicles and$47,000 come from a General Fund-Non-departmental transfer. ►The Council may wish to ask the Administration how an oversight such as this will be prevented in the future,so that all regular expenses can be included in each annual budget. Further,the Council may wish to ask whether these purchases can be accommodated within the 15%of the annual budget appropriation set aside for contingency purchases which was approved as a legislative intent in the recently adopted budget amendment#1 for FY 2011- 12. It isn't clear why these vehicles would need additional funding,when there was money informally set-aside for needs that were to be identified later. It seems that these vehicles fit within that definition. ► At the close of FY 2010-11,approximately$1.6 million dropped to the Fleet Division's Fund Balance. Does the Council wish to ask the Administration about the Fleet Division's ability to replace the undercover vehicles request without the transfer from the General Fund? Page 3 , 111. ►Given the changes in management and location to the Fleet and Streets Complex is the Council interested in an update briefing with the Fleet Division? ►Given the significance of Fleet in the City's operations, and the evolution to cleaner vehicles and more efficient use of vehicle fleets, is the Council interested in a financial and best practices audit of the Fleet Division? A-3: Pay Station Parking Meter Installation ($2,107,068 - Sources: $1,814,298 CIP Fund and $292,770 General Fund) Please refer to a separate memo prepared by Council staff for this item. A-4: Wanding ($250,000 - Source: CIP Fund) This budget amendment request was reviewed in a separate Council briefing on October 25, 2011, and a separate briefing memo was prepared. Please see attached. It should be noted that this project did go through the City's CIP process (The original application request was for $150,000.) and was not initially recommended for funding by the Community Development Capital Improvements Program Board or the Mayor. ► Does the Council wish to discuss or form a policy and process for when exceptions to the CIP process are given for special or unique capital projects? A-5: Equipping Fire Apparatus (Three units) - ($128,700 - Source: General Fund) The Administration is requesting $128,700 in one-time funds from General Fund fund balance in order to equip three new fire apparatus that have already been ordered. Typically this expense would have been requested in the Department's annual budget, but this year it was not. The Administration indicates that this oversight was due to staff turnover. ►The Council may wish to ask the Administration when these apparatus will be delivered, and may wish to consider deferring action on this item until the FY 2013 budget. ►The Council may wish to ask the Administration how an oversight such as this will be prevented in the future, so that all regular expenses can be included in each annual budget. Had the Council been aware of this during the budget process the Council may have made a different decision on whether all of the fleet purchases should have been completed in this fiscal year. A-6: Replacement in Lieu of Repair of Fire Ladder Truck ($848,000 - Sources: $54,000 General Fund and $794,000 Fleet Fund) The Administration is requesting $54,000 from General Fund Fund balance and $794,000 from the fleet fund to replace a Fire Ladder Truck. This vehicle was not on the list reviewed and approved by the Council in September 2011. Since that list was developed, a Fire ladder truck (Station #9) has become in need of approximately $400,000 in repairs. Rather than repair the existing ladder truck the Administration is requesting the City purchase a new one. Because it is over $75,000, to comply with the Council's legislative intent, the Administration is bringing this request to the Council for approval. ►Council Staff has requested the Administration explain how the decision was made to purchase a new vehicle rather than repair the existing one. Note: This information will be available for the Council's briefmg. Page 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 26,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks and Lehua Weaver RE: Briefing:Parking Pay Stations CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Gina Chamness,Gordon Hoskins,Rick Graham,Frank Gray,Tim Harpst, Brent Beck,Alden Breinholt,Karen Halladay,Holly Hilton This memorandum pertains to a briefing about parking pay stations.The Administration has requested an allocation to acquire and install 344 digital pay stations.The Administration would like to install the majority of the pay stations by March 22,2012,in part to coincide with the scheduled opening of the City Creek Center later that month.The proposed allocation is part of Budget Amendment No.2.If the City Council decides to include the allocation in the amendment,it would be part of a public hearing on Budget Amendment No.2 that is scheduled for November 22. I{EY POINTS The City Council at its September 27 meeting adopted a motion allocating$291,771 from the It.. $2.7 million CIP Capital Asset Management placeholder to lease 50 parking pay stations,install them, and test their operation and effectiveness for three months.The Council also adopted a legislative intent to formulate a way to make the purchase and operation of the entire system"revenue neutral"or"revenue positive"—meaning that revenue generated by the stations ultimately would pay for the cost of obtaining, installing and maintaining the pay stations. Ill The Administration recommends that to ultimately accomplish revenue neutrality the simplest way would be to extend collection hours at the parking pay stations until 10 p.m.on weekdays and initiate collection hours on Saturdays between 8 a.m.and 10 p.m. It should be noted that the policy shifts of expanding the hours for paid parking and requiring payment for Saturday parking have not been the subject of a public process.These are both policy suggestions the Council has considered before.A public process could be considered during the holiday free parking season. To pay for acquiring the rest of the pay stations the administration proposes to use the remaining $2,408,229 in the CIP Capital Asset Management placeholder plus$1,814,298"in lease proceeds"that also would be allocated from the CIP,plus$292,770 from General Fund fund-balance for half-year operating costs.' ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION o Is the City Council comfortable in approving a final purchase of parking pay stations before the experimental period is finished and prior to a more extensive public process? o Are there any figures available from the installed pay stations to gauge whether revenue levels are equal to those of mechanical meters? o Is the opening of the City Creek Center a necessary deadline to meet, or is it an optimal time to initiate a new program? o How does the proposed allocation mesh with the City Council's interest in the Capital Asset Management(CAM)Projects Set Aside? o The installation of parking pay stations previously has been described as the initial step toward a downtown parking management program. What is the status of efforts to set up a parking management program? o There has been some interest expressed by the private sector in purchasing and using the same parking pay stations as the City's. Have any companies purchased the pay stations? POTENTIAL MOTIONS Any motions would be part of Budget Amendment No.2. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION This item has returned for the Council's consideration for two reasons. First, because the Administration has prepared cost options in response to the Council's legislative intent of September 27. Second, the Administration is requesting that the budget and next steps be approved so that pay stations can be installed and operational in time for the City Creek Center opening. The Council may wish to consider whether to hold to that timeline. If the Council wishes to consider the Administration's request,the budget amendment request includes three components: 1) Capital Costs—the Administration is requesting that the Council establish the budget for the lease portion and approve the use of the Capital Asset Management"set-aside"funds for the capital costs of the pay stations.As explained below,the Council has some options on how the capital costs are funded. 2) Operating& Maintenance—the Administration is requesting that the Council approve the budget for the ongoing operations&maintenance costs for the remainder of the fiscal year. 3) Cost Recovery—the Administration has provided a response to the Council's legislative intent statement—including: a. scenarios for financing upfront capital costs b. term options between 5-year, 7-year, or 10-year terms c. scenarios for generating additional revenues to cover the capital and operating costs. The full cost of the conversion to Parking Pay Stations includes: $4,514,298 Full upfront capital costs to purchase all related equipment and cover the installation costs. 2 $ 292,770 Ongoing operating costs for the remainder of this fiscal year,that would cover software, warranty,and maintenance.(Note:this could be less depending on the number of months the pay stations are actually operational.The$292,770 represents one-half year.) (For a full year ongoing operating costs are estimated to be$585,535,plus any annual debt payment on a lease payment option—could range from$200,000 to$940,000.The wide range on the debt payment would be due to the term length and initial financed amount.) I) Capital Costs- Administration's Recommendation: The Administration's recommendation is that the Council split upfront capital costs between a cash payment of$2.7 million from the CIP Capital Asset Management funds and$1.8 million from a lease option.The Administration's recommendation would be to utilize the lease-purchase option for$1.8 million on a seven-year lease term. Options—The Council may wish to consider the following options: • Lease for a different amount-$0 to the full$4.5 million. • Lease for a different term—the Administration has provided 5 year or 10-year variations. > The Council may wish to confirm the expected life of the Parking Pay stations. • Fund any cash-purchase amount from a source other than the CIP Capital Asset Management funds. Additional Information: • With regard to the budget mechanics,the$2.7 million in CIP Capital Asset Management funds was allocated by the Council during the annual budget for a to-be-determined use that would come to the Council for final review and approval.From those funds,the$291,771 was taken for the test period.The cost of the test period will be credited toward the final purchase price. o It should be noted that the$2.7 million Capital Asset Management(CAM)Projects Set Aside is designed to set aside a portion of CIP funds to accumulate and fund future (CAM)projects. The projects,not yet specified,were defined by the Administration as major infrastructure projects that cost$5 million or more,require other funding sources, such as bonds,grants,private and public funding,and generally have a useful life of over five years.The Council discussed two questions involving the CAM Projects Set Aside: Does the Council wish to establish a policy to define the criteria or requirements for use of these funds? • Given there are many unfunded City projects,including capital repair,maintenance, and replacement needs,does the Council wish to have a policy discussion about setting aside funds for major future projects when needs associated with current City assets, including infrastructure,facility,and park needs are not being met? o These funds have also been mentioned as a potential`backstop'for funding the theater project.To the degree that the funds are used for this or other projects,it should be recognized that they are not available as a backstop for theater funding. 3 • If the Council supports the proposal to utilize the lease arrangement,a budget for the$1.8 million will need to be established,as well as a future debt payment budget. • It should be noted that Budget Amendment No.2 proposes to obtain two vehicles as part of the pay station contract,equipped with a plate recognition system to track other vehicles parked at the pay stations.These will be used to enforce expired time.As an additional method,if the City Council wants to purchase sensors for all public parking spaces controlled by the pay stations in addition to the plate-tracking vehicles,the upfront capital costs would increase by$600,000 and the annual maintenance costs would increase by$600,000. This figure would be in addition to ongoing operating and maintenance costs.The Council may wish to consider whether the technology is changing significantly enough that sensors would be included at a later date. ➢ The Council may wish to ask for a quick public summary on what the stations will and will not do,and how enforcement of expired time will be handled.Some confusion may exist for the public since the capabilities of the system have been discussed both with and without the sensors. 2) Oneoine Operating&Maintenance—Administration's Recommendation: The Administration is requesting$292,770 from the General Fund fund-balance for operations and maintenance through the end of the fiscal year.The full annual cost would be$585,535.The figure includes software,licensing,warranties,parts,and total maintenance. Options—If the Council wishes to move forward with parking pay stations,there is no option to the ongoing costs. Additional Information: • Ongoing costs would include a debt payment if a lease purchase option were selected for capital costs. 3) Cost Recovery—Administration Recommendation in Response to Council's legislative intent: The Administration has provided a detailed chart that shows each lease option balanced with each revenue-generating option.(Please refer to the transmittal packet for a copy.) The Administration has provided a primary recommendation to use a 7-year lease term and secondary recommendation for a 10-year lease term. The 7-year lease term would result in an additional $45,995 in revenue and the 10-year lease term would result in an additional$120,384.(See'Chart l' below.) Again,the Administration's first and second preferred recommendations include the following same components: • Upfront capital costs: pay$2.7 million in cash from the City's CIP Capital Asset Management funds;lease purchase$1.8 million for the remainder of the capital costs. • To generate additional revenue to cover the increased expenses extend parking meter limits and enforcement from 8 a.m.to 10 p.m.Monday through Saturday.This would increase the metered hours Mondays—Friday from 6 p.m.to 10 p.m.and add the full day on Saturday. 4 • Decrease in budgets for meter head repairs,collection of coins,and maintenance of meters. • Increase in budgets for parking enforcement during expanded hours of service. An alternative to extending parking pay station operational hours would be to increase the hourly rate charged at the pay station.The Administration notes that the parking rate in metered areas will change from$1 dollar an hour to$1.50 an hour starting January 1.The Administration projects an increase in parking meter revenue of about$250,000 between January 1 and June 30. Increasing the$1.50 to$1.75 would raise another$250,000 in the same period,and increasing the $1.50 an hour to$2 an hour would raise an additional$500,000,according to the Administration. Chart 1:Comparison of the Administration's primary&secondary recommendations—difference between a 7-year or 10- year lease. (2nd Recommendation) (1st Recommendation) Leasing$1.8M for 10- Leasing$1.8M for 7-years: years: Expenses $ 280,470 $ 206,081 Annual Lease Payment: $ 280,470 $ 206,081 Ongoing O&M $ 585,535 $ 585,535 Expense Adjustments Decreases in budgets $ (152,000) $ _ (152,000) (repairs,collections) Increases in budgets $ 120,000 $ 120,000 (expanded hours of enforcement) Total Expense Adjustment: $ 834,005 $ 759,616 New Revenue Recognize full year of $ 250,000 $ 250,000 630,000 already-approved hourly rate increase Expand hours to include $ 630,000 $ Mon-Sat 8 a.m.to 10•.m. Net over/(short): $ 45,995 $ 120,384 111/4 , Salt Lake City FY 2011-12 Budget Amendment No.2,Section A,New Items,Page I. 5 PAY STATIONS FUNDING OPTIONS ...venue implications: Policy Options: Annual Amounts Additional half year on$.50 increase effective'1/1/12(Already passed L 250,000 Rate increase$.25 per hr 250,000 Rate increase$.50 per hr 500,000 Expanded hours from 6 to 8 P.M. 320,000 Expanded hours from 8to 10 P.M. 160,000 Expanded hours from 10 P.M.to 2 A.(Monday thru Thursday) 115,000 Expanded hours Saturday 8 A.M.to 10 P.M. 150,000 Expanded hours 10 P.M.to 2 A.M. (Friday and Saturday) 65,000 implementation Options: Savings on meter head repair 80,000 Savings on police Collections 72,000 Third party maintenance of Units (Option for contract in yearly on goin 157,000 Additional costs for enforcement for expanded hours -120,000 Additional costs for enforcement for expanded hours 10 P.M.to 2 A.M -60,000 Financing Options: 1. Lease purchase full$4.5 million for 5 years plus$585,535 yearly costs = $1,523,959 per year 2. Lease purchase full$4.5 million for 10 years plus$585,535 yearly costs=$1,098,352 per year 3. Lease Purchase full$4.5 million for 7 years plus$585,535 yearly costs = $1,283,463 per year 4. Use cash sources for$2.7 million and lease Purchase$1.8 million for 5 years plus$585,535 yearly costs=$962,651 per year 5. Use cash sources for$2.7 million and lease Purchase$1.8 million for 10 years plus$585,535 yearly costs=$791,616 per year 6. Use cash sources for$2.7 million and lease purchase$1.8 million for 7 years plus$585,535 yearly costs =$866,005 per year Financing Options 1-3:Lease-purchase entire amount Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Lease Purchase$4.5 million/5 Year Term Lease Purchase$4.5 million/10 Year Term Lease Purchase$4.5 million/7 Year Term Options 1-A 1-B 1-C 1-D 2-A 2-B 2-C 2-D 3-A 3-B 3-C 3-D Policy Options: Additional half year on$.50 increase effective 1/1/12 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Rate increase$.25 per hr 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Rate increase$.50 per hr 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 Expanded hours from 6 to 8 P.M. 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 Expanded hours from 8 to 10 P.M. 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 Expanded hours from 10 PM to 2 AM(M-Th) 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 Expanded hours Saturday 8 A.M.to 10 P.M. 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Expanded hours 10 PM to 2 AM(F-Sa) 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 Implementation Options: Savings on meter head repair 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Savings on police Collections 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 Third party maintenance of Units 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 Additional costs for enforcement for expanded hours -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 Additional costs for enforcement for 10 PM to 2 AM -60,000 -60,000 -60,000 -60,000 -60,000 -60,000 Net of Options 1,939,000 1,162,000 1,662,000 1,189,000 1,939,000 1,162,000 1,412,000 1,189,000 1,939,000 1,162,000 1,412,000 1,189,000 Yearly Costs 1,523,959 1,523,959 1,523,959 1,523,959 1,098,352 1,098,352 1,098,352 1,098,352 1,283,463 1,283,463 1,283,463 1,283,463 Difference 415,041 -361,959 138,041 -334,959 840,648 63,648 313,648 90,648 655,537 -121,463 128,537 -94,463 Financing Options 4-6:Pay cash for part,lease-purchase part Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Cash$2.7 million Cash$2.7 million Cash$2.7 million Lease Purchase$1.8 million /5 Year Term Lease Purchase$1.8 million /10 Year Term Lease Purchase$1.8 million/7 Year Term Options 4-A 4-B 4-C 4-D 5-A 5-B 5-C 5-D 6-A 6-B 6-C 6-D Policy Options: Additional half year on$.50 increase effective 1/1/12✓ 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Rate increase$.25 per hr 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Rate Increase$.50 per hr 500,000 500,000' 500,000 Expanded hours from 6 to 8 P.M. 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 Expanded hours from 8 to 10 P.M..i 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 Expanded hours from 10 PM to 2 AM(M-Th) 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 Expanded hours Saturday 8 A.M.to 10 P.M., 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Expanded hours 10 PM to 2 AM(F-Sa) 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 Implementation Options: Savings on meter head repair 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Savings on police Collections 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 Third party maintenance of Units 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 157,000 Additional costs for enforcement for expanded hours -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 -120,000 Additional costs for enforcement for 10 PM to 2 AM -60,000 -60,000 -60,000 -60,000 -60,000 -60,000 Net of Options 1,939,000 912,000 1,162,000 1,189,000 1,939,000 912,000 1,162,000 1,189,000 1,939,000 912,000 1,162,000 1,189,000 Annual Costs 962,651 962,651 962,651 962,651 791,616 791,616 791,616 791,616 866,005 866,005 866,005 866,005 Difference 976,349 -50,651 199,349 226,349 1,147,384 120,384 370,384 397,384 1,072,995 45,995 295,995 322,995 1ST RECOMMENDATION: 6-B SEVEN YEAR LEASE PURCHASE$1.8 MILLION AND USE CIP FOR$2.7 MILLION 2ND RECOMMENDATION: 5-B TEN YEAR LEASE PURCHASE$1.8 MILLION AND USE CIP FOR$2.7 MILLION ?PKK1MEaYI%'I swimwaraif 0 IV GI'� HRLL : From: Weaver, Lehua Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 4:05 PM To: City Council Members Cc: City Council Staff Subject: Parking Pay Stations- Briefing Info&OPEN CITY HALL Comments Council Members, Two items related to parking pay stations. This is included in the Budget Amendment NO. 2 briefing tomorrow— 1. A representative from the pay station company,APARC,will be at the Council's Work Session briefing. 2. Below are the comments posted to Open City Hall so far.We will check back tomorrow and provide these and any updates for your briefing. Thanks, Lehua Name not shown in District 2 October 14, 2011, 5:19 PM Supporters 0 Support I am in agreement with most of the comments listed esp--where are you getting the money and why would you replace perfectly good parking meters with a million $ fix? Leave it! except for the "idle free" comment which I believe we need. We can also deal with train tracks from out TRAX system and middle of the road parking using the antiquated Brigham Young streets for parking when we aren't using covered wagons any longer. I guess I don't understand why you are replacing meters. I hate parking in those parking areas in Park City. They are inconvenient and a pain to use. I will drive anywhere to avoid parking in them. Name not shown in District 6 October 13, 2011, 11:50 PM Supporters 0 Support Another great way to have shoppers avoid downtown. I know they understand that parking downtown is the greatest problem for shopping in the downtown area and deters shoppers from coming in to the downtown area Stephen Hertz in District 6 October 12, 2011, 3:40 AM Supporters 0 Support 1 • 4 - It is not necessary a waste of money. The coin operated ones work just fine. People always have change on ihaim,Whytst.our credit card it is not going to make the city anymore money. It makes the city flashy like electronic billboards. Nancy Starks in District 4 October 11, 2011, 7:51 PM Supporters 0 Support I have encountered these in other cities and found them to be very difficult to deal with. Will these enable people to stay in a parking stall over and over again more easily? Isn't the idea of a 2 hour parking place to create turnover so other people can park in that stall and support those businesses nearby? Ron Borg in District 3 October 11, 2011, 1:59 PM Supporters 0, Support The site asks only to comment on the pay stations after they are installed, not to comment on whether they should be installed at all! So why seek citizen input on matters already decided? If I were instead asked my opinion about replacing existing parking meters with an unnecessary and expensive "improvement," I would say--ARE YOU MAD!?! In this dreadful economy we do not need another dime of taxes to go into another unneeded dream project of Mayor Becker. Save our taxes for more important and pressing needs, please. I don't particularly mind if we have a Park City model for collecting parking fees, except to the extent of how much tax money will have to be "invested" for the mayor's desired course. I live very near to downtown but `rarely go there anymore due to other civic "improvements" such as narrower streets, one-way traffic, reduced lanes, Trax tracks, inconsiderate (to motorists)pedestrians who don't obey traffic signals, bicyclists who operate in the same mode as pedestrians, lousy parking options, and overall congestion. I generally try to find resources outside the core of downtown for my needs. Jill Burke in District 7 October 10, 2011, 8:46 PM Supporters 0 Support I like the idea of the pay stations. I've used the them in Park City and find them to be very convenient. However, there are other capital improvments which should be considered before replacing the parking meters. According to The SL Trib's article on Oct. 9th, the city is lacking funding for other projects under consideration. Where would the money come from for the parking meters? I would much rather see downtown streetcars and the SLC Public Market before parking pay stations. 2 Name not shown in District 6 October 10, 2011, 7:25 PM Supporters 1 Support 2 Related Statements» I must agree with those who are questioning the timing of this kind of expenditure in the current economic environment. If the system works don't fix it. I live in Salt Lake City and I do everything I can to avoid driving into downtown. The green(share the road) cycle lanes are a waste of paint as I have yet to see one bicycle in the painted area. How much did that cost the city?Now you want to replace the existing parking meters with a new, costly and high maintenance computer system to collect parking fees. Good, another reason to do my shopping in other areas of the valley. Between this and the "idle-free" nonsense I will just take my shopping dollars to areas where I don't have to pay anything to park my car. That will save me money and time since finding parking spaces anywhere within a three to four block area of my destination is not happening. I do not like driving in all the construction of downtown. I don't like having to cross very uneven train tracks that knock out my vehicles alignment. Don't even get me started on parking with the "back in" parking and middle of the street parking. Yep, make downtown Salt Lake City even more inhospitable than it already is and lets do it at a very high cost to the residents of the city. If there is that much extra money sitting around maybe the city should save that money to do something about all the potholes that we can expect this winter. Stop spending Our money in such unnecessary ways. Name not shown in District 6 October 10, 2011, 6:44 PM Supporters 1 Support s.. 2 Related Statements» I agree with Morham and Kingston to date (first three), and yes indeedee the City,under Comrade Becker(sorry I stole that title from Mr. Mattingly in his Golf Course Fee statement- love ya Phil!), anything that makes it easier for the City to get more money/fees/etc. works no matter how much they have to spend to do it--money well spent principle - according to their standards, of course, not anyone with any common sense. I plan to stay away from the downtown area if at all possible and Sugar House as well--comprised of Becker comrades in waiting. M Ray Kingston FAIA in District 4 October 10, 2011, 3:06 PM Supporters 0 Support STOP SPENDING OUR TAX DOLLARS ON EXPENSIVE BONDING AND OTHER SO-CALLED 'UPGRADES'! LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE. Name not shown in District 3 October 10, 2011, 2:38 PM 3 Supporters 1 Support toe 2 Related Statements» The city has gone mad. Why would you do this in this economy. Scott Morham in District 5 October 10, 2011, 10:56 AM Supporters 1 Support Why are we installing millions of dollars of new parking meters in an economy like this? Where is the city getting all this money? This is insane! City Govt. has entirely too much money to throw away if they can afford to replace perfectly good parking meters for high tech ones which will likely need alot of maintenance. We need to cut the amount of money flowing to this Govt. so that they can't implement any ridiculous idea that pops in to their airheads.... Lehua Weaver I Salt Lake City Council staff member I (801)535-7653 I lehua.weaver@slcgov.com 4 MEMOR AND DATE: October 19,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing:Downtown Way-Finding Sign System and Budget Allocation CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Neil Lindberg,D.J.Baxter,Jennifer Bruno,Gina Chamness,Frank Gray,Rick Graham,Karen Hale,Tim Harpst,Gordon Hoskins,Robert Farrington, Karen Halladay,Lehua Weaver,Downtown Alliance Executive Director Jason Mathis This memorandum pertains to a scheduled briefing October 25 of options to update downtown Salt Lake City's system of signs designed to guide pedestrians and motorists in and around the downtown.Two of the options would refurbish existing signs in time for the planned opening of the City Creek Center Mall in March 2012. Downtown Alliance Executive Director Jason Mathis,Karen Hale of the Mayor's Office,and Jim Baehr of Infinite Scale Design Group are scheduled to brief the Council on updating the sign system at the Council's briefing session October 25.The briefing session is scheduled to start at 2 p.m.in Room 326 of the City&County Building,451 South State Street. A potential allocation for a portion of the sign system will be part of Budget Opening No.2 which is scheduled for a briefing November I. KEY POINTS o Infinite Scale Design Group and The Downtown Alliance recommend that if the Council supports updating the downtown sign system that it support an option estimated to cost about$450,000 to refurbish the existing system. o It should be noted that Salt Lake City Wayfinding—Final Analysis and Recommendations published September 7 by Infinite Scale with the support of Salt Lake City,the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency,The Downtown Alliance,and Visit Salt Lake indicates that all prices mentioned in the publication"are estimates that are not based on vendor quotes."The publication also notes the"prices do not include design fees and are meant to give a rough order of magnitude only." o The Administration suggests in a transmittal about Budget Opening No.2 that$250,000 could be allocated to the project.The Redevelopment Agency potentially could contribute$100,000 and The Downtown Alliance and other private parties also could contribute$100,000.The Administration indicated in the transmittal that a potential source of funds for the$250,000 allocation could be about$913,000 from"completed and closed general fund,Class"C"and impact fee capital improvement projects." 1 0 The Wayfinding—Final Analysis divides the downtown into six sections roughly bordered by North Temple, 300 East, 500 South and 500 West Streets. A seventh section roughly bordered by 600 South, Main, 800 South and 300 West streets also is part of the analysis. OPTIONS Based on the Wayfinding—Final Analysis there are three proposed options pertaining to the proposed project: o Repair and update the existing system at a projected cost of$190,000. o Refurbish the existing system at a projected cost of$450,000. o Completely redesign the system at a projected cost of$1.5 million to$2.5 million. A fourth option available to the City Council is to leave the sign system as it is. POTENTIAL MOTIONS Council staff has prepared no motions for the briefing because formal Council consideration of the proposal will occur during consideration of Budget Opening No. 2. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • The project appears to have the support of the Administration, The Downtown Alliance, and Visit Salt Lake(the Convention and Visitors Bureau). Redevelopment Agency staff recently have discussed the need for improving downtown wayfinding signs. • How much would the potential cost be lessened if improvements in the area designated as Zone 7 were deferred? Is the most immediate need in Zone 7 existing signs along 600 South Street? • How much should the scheduled opening of the City Creek Center mall be considered in evaluating the proposed project? • Are there other capital improvement projects that would provide a greater public benefit? • The Council recently indicated a desire to reaffirm many of the components in its previously adopted Capital Improvement Policy. The Administration's proposal of using $250,000 recaptured from"completed and closed general fund, Class"C"and impact fee capital improvement projects" may not be in keeping with aspects of the policy for which the Council supported. Aspects include: o The Council intends that all large or new capital projects(costing more than $50,000)be evaluated and prioritized by the Capital Improvements Program Citizen Advisory Board. o The Council does not intend to fund any project that has not been included in the Five-Year Capital Plan for at least one year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified. 2 o The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects which preserve and protect the health and safety of the community,are mandated by the state or federal government,provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the community's prior investment,in decreased operating costs or other significant cost savings,or improve the environmental quality of the City and its neighborhoods. o If the City Council decides to allocate funds for the project,would signage be useful that indicates to pedestrians that they are within the downtown free-fare transit zone? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Salt Lake City Wayfinding—Final Analysis and Recommendations is the result of a concern that the signage system providing guidance to pedestrians and motorists about how walk or drive through downtown and information about locations of note and where to park is outdated and aging. The Downtown Alliance,with the support of agencies listed earlier,commissioned Infinite Scale Design Group to evaluate the signage system and recommend steps,if any were needed,to improve the signage system. Infinite Scale returned with three options outlined below. Option No.1 would: o Not change the design of existing signs and use existing posts and"footer covers." o Repair and touch up damaged post and footer covers. o Remove or replace outdated messages. o Remove signs that were completely obscured by trees,or prune trees so the signs could be seen. The design group said three benefits of the option would be to eliminate confusion caused by outdated signs;to create a short-term solution within budget;and the project would be possible to complete by March 2012. The downsides to the option would be:old messages would remain visible on some faded sign panels;a significant portion of funds would be used to repair signs,but no aesthetic improvements would be made to the sign system;and"depending on budgeting"installing a new sign system could be delayed two to five years. Option No.2 would: o Reuse existing sign posts and panels. o Repair damaged posts and footer covers and repaint all posts. o Remove panels to resurface and update messages and update design. o Relocate and add signs as necessary. • o Add new sign types as necessary. The design group said benefits of the option would be:a refreshed look to the downtown wayfinding system while reusing as many of the existing signs as possible;a way to allow for expansion, 3 I' EL updates,and improvements to the system;the best balance of cost and sign updates;and the refurbishment of highest priority signs by March 2012. The downsides to the option would be:installation of a new sign system could be delayed five to 10 years depending on budgeting;limited possibilities for a"refreshed look";and although the cost is significantly higher than Option No.1,there is a compromise in terms of the signage system's visual impact. Option No.3 would: Completely redesign the system with new sign types and locations...for about$1.5 million to$2 million. The design group said the benefits of the option would be:the highest level of impact on the downtown;a capability for a future-oriented,expandable system;the most longevity of the three options; and the provision of more time to secure funding during the time needed for planning,bidding contracts, designing and implementing the option. The downsides to the option would be the delay of any visible results by two years or more, making certain that the project would not be finished by March 2012. All language in the section is taken from Salt Lake City Wayfinding—Final Analysis and Recommendations,September 7, 2011. 4 SCANNED TO RALPH BECKER sAIT SCANNED BY. MAYOR ]�'� �c•�w/ `lc�i��,��..Lj DATE. /L•/ OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL L ( f a T IE r' �-'� per` `, J RECER,` 2-- OCT 11 2011 10 Date Receive David eritt, Cmef of Staff Date sent to Coun . SL.0 COUNCIL 3 F=! so% to 1 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 11,2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt,Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Budget Opening#2 for Fiscal Year 2011-12 STAFF CONTACT: Gina Chamness(801) 535-7766 Gordon Hoskins(801)535-6394 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a public hearing date to discuss the budget amendment#2 for Fiscal Year 2011-12. BUDGET IMPACT: General Fund 3,996,647.00 Fleet Fund 1,214,000.00 CIP Fund (149,553.44) Misc.Grant Fund 23,950,275.89 Donations Fund 1,871,608.44 E-911 Fund • 289,000.00 Housing Fund 2,682,072.01 Special Revenue Fund 665,720.74 CDBG Operating Fund 1,791,102.44 Total 36,310,873.08 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Attached is a revenue forecast for the General Fund based on revenues through the end of September. This forecast shows the City essentially on-track to meet its revenue targets this year. As of the end of September,we are expecting a shortfall of less than one-half of one percent of the overall budget, or approximately$550,000. The majority of this 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 shortfall is associated with a continued decrease in the number of parking tickets issued. We would caution, however, that these projections reflect only one month of sales tax revenues, and while the overall trend in this category has been positive,we are not revising our projections in this category until more data is available. In addition, the majority of our largest single category of revenue,property tax, will be reflected in the second quarter of the fiscal year. As has been the practice for the past few years,we would be happy to discuss multi-year revenue trends through FY 2010-11 projects actuals with the Council if requested. The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling$36,310,873. The vast majority of this request consists of encumbrance carry-overs from FY 2010-11. The Administration is proposing to use $552,470 from the General Fund fund balance for five separate items. More detail on each of these items, as well as other items is provided in the attached narrative summary. In addition, a summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes, is also attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources pork D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, inch cling the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2011-2012) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 50 of 2011 Which Adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City,Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2011 and Ending June 30,2012. PREAMBLE On August 9, 2011,the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document,for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2011 and ending June 30, 2012,in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget, including the employment staffing document,was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City,Utah The City's Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer,prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein,copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget,including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City,including the employment staffing document,as approved, ratified and finalised by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 50 of 2011. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah,including the amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2011 and ending June 30, 2012,in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget ,,.,, Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document,in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of , 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date - !( BY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: HB ATPY-#15990-v1-Budget Amendment_FY11-12.DOC 3 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#2 Expenditure Revenue On-going or One Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Amount time FTEs Section A: New!tents , ,' ti'01`. ; 1 Fleet Replacement Budget Adjustments: Sales and Make Ready Fleet 345,000.00 351,000.00 one-time 0 2 Vehicle Replacement: Undercover Cars GF 47,000.00 - one-time 0 2 Vehicle Replacement: Undercover Cars Fleet 75,000.00 75,000.00 one-time 0 3 Parking Pay Stations CIP 1,814,298.00 - one-time 0 3 Parking Pay Stations GF 292,770.00 - on-going 0 4 Wayfinding CIP 250,000.00 250,000.00 one-time 0 5 Equipping Fire Apparatus GF 128,700.00 - one-time 0 6 Replacement in lieu of Repair of Fire Ladder Truck GF 54,000.00 - one-time 0 6 Replacement in lieu of Repair of Fire Ladder Truck Fleet 794,000.00 794,000.00 one-time 0 7 Good Landlord Electronic Training(On-line and DVDs) GF 30,000.00 - one-time 0 Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources ,, $„4 i' 1 State of Utah, VOCA Victim Assistance Grant Misc.Grants 59,750.49 59,750.49 one time 0 2 State of Utah,Department of Public Safety 911 Dispatch Equipment Misc.Grants 1,522,324.00 1,522,324.00 one time 0 3 State of Utah,Federal Office of National Drug Control Rocky Mountain HIDTA Grant Misc.Grants 67,314.00 67,314.00 one time 0 4 Initiative#B-4 Withdrawn prior to Council submittal 5 State of Utah,Department of Workforce Services Multicultural Teen Grant Misc.Grants 70,000.00 70,000.00 one time 0 6 State of Utah,Public Safety Emergency Management Performance Grant Misc.Grants 20,000.00 20,000.00 one time 0 7 US Dept.of Health Drug Free Communities Grant Misc.Grants 125,000.00 125,000.00 one time 0 Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources ,,;, Section 0: Housekeeping a �- 1 US Dept.of Interior,Water Conservation Grant Increase Misc.Grants 39,032.00 39,032.00 one time 0 2 State of Utah,Homeland Security Terrorism Prevention Grant Increase Misc.Grants 50,979.60 50,979.60 one time 0 3 State of Utah,Department of Public Safety Emergency Management Program Income Misc.Grants 8,244.00 8,244.00 one time 0 4 US Dept.of Energy Solar Salt Lake Grant Increase Misc.Grants 20,000.00 20,000.00 one time 0 5 CIP Grant Tower Budget Increase CIP 379,441.58 - one time 0 6 CIP Recapture Completed and Closed Projects(GF,Class C and Impact Fees) CIP (913,025.54) - one time 0 6 CIP Recapture Completed and Closed Projects(GF,Class C and Impact Fees)Recapture CIP 913,025.54 - one time 0 6 CIP Recapture Completed and Closed Projects (SAA budgets) CIP (2,593,293.02) - one time 0 7 Grants Completed Budgets Recapture Misc.Grants (993,498.66) - one time 0 7 Grants Completed Budgets Recapture Misc.Grants 993,499.00 - one time 0 8 Carryover Budget from the E-911 Fund E-911 289,000.00 - one time 0 9 General Fund Carryover Budget for Prior Year Encumbrances GF 3,288,969.00 - one time 0 10 Grants and Other Special Revenue Carryover Housing 2,682,072.01 2,682,072.01 one time 0 10 Grants and Other Special Revenue Carryover CDBG Operating 1,791,102.44 1,791,102.00 one time 0 10 Grants and Other Special Revenue Carryover Misc.Grants 21,277,997.46 21,277,997.46 one time 0 10 Grants and Other Special Revenue Carryover Spec.Revenue 665,720.74 665,720.74 one time 0 11 Donations Fund Carryover Budget Donations 1,871,608.44 1,871,608.44 one time 0 12 Additional General Fund Interest Income and Expense GF 155,208.00 155,208.00 one time 0 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#2 Expenditure Revenue On-going or One Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Amount time FTEs Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1 State of Utah,Juvenile Justice Drug Public Awareness Grant Misc.Grant 250,000.00 250,000.00 one time 0 2 US Dept.of Justice,Justice Assistance Grant Misc.Grant 421,634.00 421,634.00 one time 0 3 State of Utah,Dept.of Environmental Quality Wetland Redesign Grant Misc.Grant 18,000.00 18,000.00 one time 0 Section F: Donations Section G: Council Consent Agenda--Grant Awards Section I: Council Added Items Total of Budget Amendment Items 36,310,873.08 Total by Fund,Budget Amendment#2: General Fund 3,996,647.00 Fleet Fund 1,214,000.00 CIP Fund (149,553.44) Misc.Grant Fund 23,950,275.89 Donations Fund 1,871,608.44 E-911 Fund 289,000.00 Housing Fund 2,682,072.01 Special Revenue Fund 665,720.74 CDBG Operating Fund 1,791,102.44 Total of Budget Amendment Items 36,310,873.08 Current Year Budget Summary,provided for information only FY 2011-12 Budget,Including Budget Amendments FY 2011-12 Adopted Budget BA#1 Total BA#2 Total BA#3 Total BA#4 Total Total To-Date General Fund $195,154,853 3,996,647.00 $199,151,500 Fleet Fund $16,716,891 1,214,000.00 $17,930,891 CIP Fund $19,618,798 (149,553.44) $19,469,245 E-911 Fund $2,524,801 289,000.00 $2,813,801 Housing Fund $9,877,616 2,682,072.01 $12,559,688 Special Revenue Fund $0 665,720.74 $665,721 CDBG Operating Fund $2,663,167 1,791,102.44 $4,454,269 Misc.Grant Fund $8,630,249 23,950,275.89 $32,580,525 Donations Fund $200,000 1,871,608.44 $2,071,608 2 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#2 Expenditure Revenue On-going or One Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Amount time FTEs Certification I certify that this document is a full and correct copy of Ordinance of 2011,amending Salt Lake City Ordinance of 2011,which adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City Utah for the fiscal year beginning June 1 2011 and ending June 30,2012. Budget Director Deputy Director,City Council 3 Salt Lake Cit FY 2011-12 Bud•et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Section A, New Items A-1: Fleet Replacement: Sales and Make Ready for FY 2010-11 Fleet $345,000.00 Replacement Vehicles The majority of vehicles approved for replacement in FY 2010-11 were not ordered until late in the fiscal year, and as a result most of the vehicles from that list are being received and prepared for use by various city departments during FY 2011-12. Because of the delay, the budget for supplies for these purchases dropped to the Fleet fund balance at the end of FY 2010-11. Sales of vehides that were to be replaced by the FY2010-11 planned purchases were also delayed because of the delay in ordering. We are therefore requesting to re-establish expenditure authority in the current fiscal year for supplies needed to equip purchases made with FY 2010-11 funds that are being delivered in FY 2011-12, as well as a revenue budget for planned vehicle sales from those vehicles that are being replaced. A-2:Vehicle Replacement: Undercover Vehicles GF $47,000.00 Fleet $75,000.00 The Police Department maintains a number of vehicles that are used by undercover officers. These cars need to be routinely turned over for safety purposes. Due to turnover in staff, the adopted FY 2011-12 Fleet budget and the FY 2011- 12 Vehicle Replacement Plan did not anticipate the need to replace these vehicles, nor did it anticipate the sale of existing vehicles to replace existing stock. Because of potential officer safety issues associated with these vehicles, we are requesting a one-time increase of the non-departmental transfer to fleet line item of$47,000 to be used in combination with estimated sales proceeds of$28,000 from existing stock to purchase 7 vehicles. The Fleet Fund budget will be increased by a total of$75,000 to accommodate both the transfer from the General Fund, expected vehicle sales, and vehicle replacement purchases. The General Fund portion will come from Fund Balance. A-3: Pay Station Parking Meters Installation CIP $1,814,298.00 GF $292,770.00 As part of Budget Amendment#1, discussed by the City Council in work session on September 6, 2011, the Administration requested an appropriation to proceed with both a test period for and the purchase of parking pay stations. As part of this original proposal, we proposed using a combination of funds for this program. As part of the adoption of Budget Amendment#1 on September 27, 2011, the Council provided funding of$291,771 from the $2.7 million placeholder in the CIP Program,which funds the initial test period of the system. In addition, the Council asked through a legislative intent statement that" the Administration forward a recommendation on moving forward with the Parking Pay Stations, that the proposal would include a recommendation for a fee structure that would make both the ongoing and capital costs of implementation of the pay stations revenue neutral or"revenue-positive"over a five year term." The Administration has provided this information in a separate communication to the Council, and included options for a five, seven and ten-year plan. In order to move the project forward and have the majority of the system operational by March 1, the Administration is now requesting the full cost of the pay stations be approved as part of Budget Amendment #2. This budget amendment proposes to use the remainder of this amount($2,408,229) plus $1,814,298 in lease proceeds to enter into a contract for parking pay stations. In addition, we are requesting $292,770 in operating expenses for the remainder of FY 2011-12. This amount is being requested from General Fund fund balance. If the Council were to choose to delay approval of funding for the overall project until the test period is completed, implementation of the pay stations would happen 3 1/2 to 4 months from the date of approval. For example, approval of the overall project at the end of January would mean the program could not be operational until the middle to end of April. The overall cost of the project remains the same, and the amount previously approved will be applied to the total cost of the project. The following information regarding the overall cost of the project, including what options are not being proposed at this time, was provided as part of Budget Amendment #1, and is provided again below. 1 Salt Lake Cit FY2011-12 Bud.et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Provided as part of Budget Amendment # 1: The follow is a breakdown of the proposed system costs: Multi-space pay stations 344 @ $8,944 $3,076,788 Plate recognition vehicle and equip 2 @ $115,000 230,000 Installation and Configuration costs 357,492 Ticket Manager 144,380 Handheld Ticket Units 20 @ $5,980 119,600 Signage 223,458 Ambassador Personnel (2) 25,000 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 5 @ $5,500 27,500 Installation of Unit Platforms(Salt Lake City Portion) 110,080 Contingency 200,000 Total $4,514,298 These estimates do not include street sensors, but instead two vehicles equipped with a plate recognition system for tracking vehicles. The street sensors(50)will be tested in phase I of the implementation. These 50 sensors will be sunk costs for the units are not reusable. The cost of these units are in the total costs presented above. If the option of street sensors is selected it would add to the cost an additional $1.2 million. $600,000 for the purchase and $600,000 for maintenance. The yearly operating costs for communication software, licensing, central management and ticket manager communication is$270,262 per year. The ongoing maintenance cost for warranty, parts and software for years 1 to 3 would be$38 per month per pay station. ,04,4 An option of an additional $38 would cover the total maintenance costs of the stations. The costs would go up to$48 for years 4 to 10 and the additional costs of total maintenance would stay at$38. The first year would be$313,728 for a �{ total maintenance free system. The yearly operating costs of the five electric vehicle charging stations is$509 each for a total of$2,545 per year. The total operating costs is$585,535 for a full year and $292,770 for the remainder of the fiscal year 2012. This amount is being requested from the General Fund Balance. The system will have an option that will allow a merchant the ability to pay for a customer's parking stall. The option is a yearly cost of$1,188 per merchant. There will be approximately three stations per block face. One at each end and one in the middle of the block. A-4: Wayfinding CIP $250,000.00 In 2011, a group induding representatives of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, the Downtown Alliance,the Mayor's Office and Visit Salt Lake began meeting to a) review and analyze existing conditions of all sign types installed as part of the Salt Lake City Wayfnding program, b) provide recommendations to the City for ways to reinforce and enhance the Salt Lake City brand and visitor experience via wayfinding signage and placemaking, and c) support the opening of the City Creek Center in March 2012. The group engaged Infinite Space, who reviewed and documented all wayfinding signs in the City. Infinite Space provided three options for wayfinding. Level 1, at a cost of$190,000 would update and repair the existing system. This option is not recommended by Infinite Scale, as a significant portion of the budget would be used for repairs. Old messages would be visible on some signs, and there would be no aesthetic improvement to the system. Level 3, with an estimated cost of $1.5- $2 million, would create an entirely new system, with new sign types and locations that fit both the city as it is now as well as the future vision of the City. Because of both the timeframe involved (at least 2 years) as well as the overall cost, this option is not recommended. 2 Salt Lake Cit FY2011-12 Bud,et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount The group is instead recommending Infinite Space's Level 2 recommendation, which would refurbish the existing wayfinding system. This option reuses existing posts and panels, repairs and repaints all posts, removes and resurfaces all panels, updates messages and design of all panels, and relocates and adds signs as necessary. Infinite Space estimates the cost of this project at$450,000. We anticipate that the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City will contribute $100,000 to this project, and the Downtown Alliance and other private contributors will contribute $100,000, therefore we are proposing a $250,000 contribution from recaptured CIP funds. For more information on recaptured funds, see item D-6 of this budget amendment. A-5: Equipping Fire Apparatus GF $128,700.00 These engines will be delivered to the Fire Department late in this fiscal year. Generally, when fire apparatus purchases are anticipated, one-time funds to equip these purchases are added to the Fire Department's budget as part of the development of the Mayor's recommended budget. Because of staff changes, this year's replacement list was not prepared until this summer, after the Council had approved the FY 2011-12 budget, and the cost of equipping these apparatus were not included in the budget. The Fire Department is therefore requesting funding to purchase the necessary emergency response equipment. Engines are sold without equipment so each Department can outfit the apparatus to their specifications. Each apparatus will need to be equipped with fire hose, nozzles, power tools, hand tools and other firefighting equipment. The cost to equip a single engine is $42,900 with the total cost for the three apparatus being $128,700. We are requesting the use of General Fund fund balance for this one-time expense for necessary equipment. A-6: Replacement in Lieu of Repair of Fire Ladder Truck GF $54,000.00 Fleet $794,000.00 The Fleet Vehicle Replacement List reviewed by the City Council in September includes three pumpers needed by the Fire Department to be replaced in FY 2011-12. Since this list was developed and approved, a fire ladder truck(#139) has become in need of serious repairs of approximately $400,000. The Fire Department wishes to continue with the planned purchase of the three pumpers on this year's replacement list and also buy a replacement for the truck needing the substantial repairs. The cost of a fire ladder truck is approximately$740,000. This truck is vital to respond to the airport operations and serve as a backup for the downtown corridor. This $740,000 unit is a Quint which is a hybrid that functions both as a fire engine and a ladder truck. It has dual axles and a 100 foot ladder. This unit is for Station 9, but will also serve as a backup to another quint that is the front-line unit for downtown Salt Lake City. It is prudent that the City have such a backup unit in its inventory. Time is critical for this purchase. Fortunately, a vendor has a demo unit that is approximately 1 year old. This unit can be ready for the City within a short time, most likely ready for service within a month. (Another unit, a single axle with a 75-foot ladder is also available.) A legislative intent approved by the City Council on September 27, 2011 requests that all purchases over$75,000 not on the Vehicle Replacement List be brought to the City Council for approval. We therefore request the addition of this vehicle to the FY 2011-12 Vehicle Replacement List. In addition, we are requesting the addition of$54,000 to the Non- Departmental Transfer to Fleet line item to fund a partial year's debt service payment on this new vehicle. Finally, we are requesting that the Fleet budget be increased by$794,000 to accommodate the overall purchase of the vehicle and the transfer amount from the General Fund for debt service. The General Fund amount will be from fund balance. A-7: Landlord Tenant Initiative Electronic Training (On-line and DVDs) GF $30,000.00 Beginning this year, all landlords who wish to participate in the Landlord Tenant Initiative are required to take a training class. The City has not directly provided this required training and currently only one group offers training to meet this component of the Landlord Tenant Initiative. Business Licensing would like to create a program that will not hinder anyone that wants to participate in the Landlord/Tenant Program due to lack of available options for participation. Business Licensing sees a great need for other training options and requests the use of General Fund fund balance to create a DVD and online training course. 3 Salt Lake Ci FY2011-12 Bud-et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount on= ;Grantklarftatong Staff Resources B-1: Utah State VOCA Victim Assistance Program Misc Grants $59,750.49 The Police Department applied for and received $59,750.49 from the State of Utah, Office of Crime Victim Reparations under the Victim of Crime Act(VOCA) grant program,for the continuation of the Mobile Response Team Victim Advocate Program. These funds will be used to pay 1040 hours of wages and benefits of two (3)victim advocate positions who provide 24-7, on scene crisis counseling and resource services to victims of any violent crime. Of these funds, $56,291.49 is allocated for twelve (12) months of an hourly wage of$16.76 per hour plus FICA of the three part-time victim advocate positions; $1,559.00 will be used for mileage when personal vehides are used to attend conferences, conference registration, hotel and per diem to attend the Statewide Advocates for Victims Organization (SWAVO)training and National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA)conferences; $400.00 will be used to purchase Traumatic Death handbooks for victims; and $1,500 will be use as emergency funds to assist victims with immediate needs. A$14,951.14 match is required which will be satisfied by the payment of an hourly rate of$14.00 per hour x 104 hours to a volunteer advocate and 270 hours of the salary and benefits of another full-time victim advocate position. These funds are budgeted for within the Police Departments general fund budget. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. B-2: Utah State Dept of Public Safety 911 Committee Dispatch Misc Grants $1,522,324.00 Equipment The Police Department applied for and received $1,522,342 grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety,to purchase 911 dispatch equipment needed for the new Salt Lake City Public Safety Facility. The new 911 center will be a .,,*,,, 30 position consolidated center which will provide police,fire and medical dispatching. The estimated cost of the 911 **or phone system is approximately$1,549,443 and consists of the 911 phone system and 3 year maintenance on the equipment. The grant requires a 30% match of$456,702 which is budgeted within the PD's Public Safety Answering Point(PSAP) fund. The match will be used to pay the balance of the equipment/maintenance cost's, and other related costs associated with the equipment. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. B-3: Federal Office of National Drug Control Rocky Mountain HIDTA Misc Grants $67,314.00 Grant The Police Department applied for and received a $67,314 Rocky Mountain HIDTA grant from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control. The SLCPD receives this grant on an annual basis. The funds will continue to fund the salary and benefits of one (1) K-9 Law Enforcement Officer assigned to the Metro Narcotics/Drug Enforcement Task Force to address drug issues throughout the Valley. The purpose of this grant is to support the national drug control strategy of reducing drug use in the nation. Specifically, the RMHIDTA's grant funding is allocated to jurisdictions to facilitate cooperation and coordination among federal, state and local drug enforcement efforts to enhance combating drug trafficking organizations locally, regionally and nationally. This is accomplished through intelligence-driven joint multi-agency drug task forces sharing information and working cooperatively with other drug enforcement initiatives. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. 4 Salt Lake Cit FY2O11-12 Bud,et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount B-5: Utah State Workforce Services Multicultural Teen Grant Misc Grants $70,000.00 The Public Services Division of YouthCity applied for and received a $70,000 grant from the Utah State Department of Work Force Services under the Federal Grant for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). These funds have been awarded to continue the Teen Program for middle,junior and high school aged children at the Central City YouthCity site and implement the Teen Program at the Northwest Multicultural Center. The Teen Programs must provide at least two risk-prevention components that includes career exploration, healthy body/lifestyles, financial literacy, healthy interpersonal relationships, prevention of tobacco/drug/alcohol abuse, prevention of violence/gang affiliation, pregnancy/sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention and must include a parent involvement component. Of these funds, $37,514 will be used to pay four Group Facilitators II hourly wage and FICA; $2,782 will fund the fiscal grant monitors time for fiscal oversight and grant management; $900 will be used for transportation of youth at Northwest Multicultural Center; $1,140 will be used for copying and printing STD prevention flyers for parents; $2,900 will be used for sports equipment and some furniture at Northwest Multicultural Center; $4,704 will be used for supplies, maintenance and snacks; $960 will be used for community activity fees for the youth; $200 will be used for educational training of staff; and $18,900 will be used to pay for contractual activity instructors. A 100% match is required which will be satisfied with 8% of the Youth Programs Manager's salary and benefits and 100% of the Teen Program Coordinator's salary and benefits. Matching funds are budgeted for within the YouthCity general fund budget. The City Council adopted the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the Work Force Service grant award and to sign any additional agreements or awards as a result of the initial grant. B-6: Utah State Public Safety Emergency Management Performance Misc Grants $20,000.00 Grant The Emergency Management Services Division received a $20,000 FY2011 EMPG project based grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of planning and updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to emergency preparedness. SLC's population increases from 180,000 to an estimated 310,000 each workday. Should a disaster occur during the workday, employees become a part of the SLC emergency response, but are not trained to assist themselves or others. These funds will offset costs in providing National Incident Management System (NIMS)training to SLC staff with emergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to purchase training materials, supplies and equipment including books, brochures, handouts, etc. The grant requires a 50% match which will be satisfied with the Community Preparedness Coordinator's time. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept Utah Department of Public Safety grants and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. B-7: US Dept of Health Drug Free Communities Grant Misc Grants $125,000.00 The Mayor's Office applied for and received $125,000 of grant funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for continuation of the Mayor's Drug Free Communities Support program. This program supports the Mayor's Coalition on Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs in the reduction and prevention of substance abuse in Salt Lake City. This is year three of the grant which has been awarded for an additional 5 year period. Of these funds, $70,167 has been awarded for the salary and benefits of the Coalition Coordinator, who coordinates and supports the coalition strategy in program implementation and activities that include training, data collection, dissemination of findings, and liaising between the Coalition, the Mayor's Office and the community, and $5,371 will fund the Grant Monitors time for the fiscal monitoring and oversight of the grant. In addition, $13,745 has been awarded for travel and training of the Coalition Coordinator, a coalition member, four(4) students and one (1) advisor to four (4) 5 • Salt Lake Ci FY2011-12 Bud.etAmendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount mandatory conferences that indude the grantee meeting, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of American (CADCA) trainings and Youth Leadership Initiative; $7,640 will be used for memberships, registration for conference's listed above, printing, photocopying and postage; and $28,077 will be used for other contractual components to include continuation of program evaluation and needs assessment data collection and analysis for the Coalition, Salt Lake IMS web-site domain, a contractual strategic planning facilitator to assist the Coalition in its annual strategic planning process, stipends paid to high school teachers who serve as school advisors for Governing Youth Councils, and graphic design costs for brochures, posters mailings, etc. The grant requires a $297,319 in-kind match which will be met with the Mayor's Office staff, IMS staff time for Community Forum tapings, a portion of the consultants time for the evaluation services and data collection, Coalition members time and SLC Public Utilities expense related to the production and mailing of four publications of the Salt Lake City News with articles featuring Coalition prevention messages and is included in the City's water bill. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Section D:Housekeeping D-1: US Dept of Interior Additional to the Water Conservation Grant Misc Grants $39,032.00 The US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation awarded the Public Utilities(PU) Department a $30,535 grant to develop a suite of on-line landscape water conservation tools that will provide commercial contractors and private property owners with quantitative methods to assess landscape water-use demands, to make informed decisions regarding water use in landscapes and to educate the public of proper weed identification and control. This grant was brought in during budget amendment #1 FY 2012. The Department of the Interior has recently informed PU that the grant allocation has been increased to $69,567 which reflects an additional $39,032. The additional funding will be used to secure the services of a local DVD manufacturing company to record and press ,, ,, 50,000 copies of the DVD-5s containing the 13 water conservation best management practices instructional videos with , four-color art work sleeve and mailer boxes. The grant requires a 50% match which also increase's PU's match by an additional $39,032 for a total grant match of $70,176. The entire match will be satisfied with the salary and benefits of the associated time spent by the Water Conservation Program Coordinator,the IMS Video Production staff, the mailing of promotional brochures, SLC TV 17 airtime, production of a instructional video and 1 year of web license fees which is budget for within the Public Utilities enterprise fund. This request is to increase the grant cost center budget by $39,032, for a total grant budget of$69,567. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept Bureau of Reclamation Agreements and to sign any agreements or awards that stem from the original Agreement. D-2: Utah State Additional to Homeland Security Terrorism Prevention Misc Grants $50,979.60 Grant During FY 2010, the Emergency Management Services (EMS) Division received a 2009-Homeland Security SHSP and LETPP grant from the State of Utah Department of Public Safety, in the amount of$148,486. These funds were brought in during budget amendment #4 FY 2010. The grant is awarded on an annual basis to local jurisdictions to purchase equipment and provide training opportunities as necessary to prepare in the event of a terrorist, weapons of mass destruction attack or natural disaster. The County is the lead agency and reimburses the City for eligible expenses as outlined in the grant award. The EMS Division was recently notified by the County that the grant allocation had increased by, $50,979.60 to purchase emergency 72 hour preparedness kits for emergency responders. The kits include water, food, sanitary supplies, etc. They will be distributed to EOC locations, and the City's 4 Task Force fire stations. At this time the cost of the kits has not 6 Salt Lake Ci FY2011-12 Bud•et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount been determined. This request is to increase the grant cost center budget by the $50,979.60, for a total grant budget of$199,465.60. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. D-3: Utah State Dept of Public Safety Emergency Management Misc Grants $8,244.00 Program Income The Emergency Management Services Division received a $12,500 project based grant from the Utah Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of planning and updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other media for public educational outreach and CERT training pertaining to emergency preparedness. The EMS Division charges fees for costs associated with the kits and trainings for the CERT program. As of Aug. 30, they have collected total program income fees in the amount of$15,434, have remaining cash in the amount$13,184, and remaining budget of$4,940. Fees collected due to the nature of the program are considered program income and must be spent in accordance with the grant. This request is to increase the current budget to match the available cash of $8,244, enabling the EMS Division to expend the CERT fees received. The funds will be used to purchase additional kits at approximately $42.00 each and trainings. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept Utah Department of Public Safety grants and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. D-4: US Dept of Energy Solar Salt Lake Grant Increase Misc Grants $20,000.00 In FY 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE) awarded the Mayor's Sustainability Division a $197,286 grant under the DOE's Solar America Initiative. These funds were awarded to meet the Administrations "Solar Salt Lake Goals" by developing a full-scoped city and county -level implementation plan that facilitated at least an additional ten megawatts of solar photovoltaic installation in government, commercial, industrial, and residential sectors by 2015. To achieve this goal, the program strategy included a combination of barrier identification, research and policy analysis that utilized the input of various stakeholders. The stakeholders include Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, the State of Utah, Utah Clean Energy, Kennecott Land, Rocky Mountain Power, and Rio Tinto. The grant was originally awarded for a two (2)year period but has since been extended until 4/30/2012 and the DOE has awarded the City an additional $20,000. The funds will be used to continue the contract with Utah Clean Energy for the continued development of the "Solar Salt Lake" program and comprehensive city and county-wide solar implementations plan. The grant requires a 100% match. The City has already met the 197,286 match and the additional $20,000 will be satisfied with in-kind time of the Sustainability Directors salary and benefits, and Clean Cities will also donate additional time to the project. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept Utah Department of Public Safety grants and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. D-5: CIP Grant Tower Budget Increase CIP $379,441.58 In FY 07, the City awarded $400,000 for expenses related to the Grant Tower project. These funds were and are being used for property appraisals, watering of the properties, legal expense and other project related expense. In FY 2010, $379,441.58 of unspent bond proceeds from the Grant Tower Project funded by Sales Tax Revenue Bonds were moved to the Local Street Reconstruction project. The Local Street Reconstruction Project would have been eligible for tax-exempt financing and qualified to receive unspent bond proceeds from the Grant Tower Project. In return, $379,441.58 of general fund monies were moved from the Local Street Reconstruction project to the general fund Grant Tower Project. 7 Salt Lake Ci FY 2011-12 Bud•et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount This request is to increase the budget in the FY 2007 CIP cost center by the $379,441.58 so that cash and budget match. D-6: CIP Recapture Completed and Closed Projects CIP -$2,593,293.00 This request decreases the remaining budgets of twenty-three(23)completed and closed general fund, Class "C" and Impact Fee CIP projects totaling $912,985.54, and increases the cost over run accounts of the respective programs for future reprogramming. Of these projects, fifteen (15) are general fund CIP projects totaling $392,747.17; six(6) are Class "C" CIP projects totaling $478,063.79; and two (2) are Impact Fee projects totaling $42,174.58. In addition, there are three SAA budgets totaling $2,593,293.02 which need the remaining budgets reduced to zero. These budgets were established for collection of the property owners portion of the SAA but are completed/closed with remaining budgets that are no longer needed. There is no cash involved in the SAA projects. D-7: Recapture of Grants Completed Projects Misc Grants -0- This request decreases the remaining budgets of twenty-seven (27)completed and/or closed US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) programs/projects totaling $993,498.66, and increases the cost overrun accounts of the respective programs for future reprogramming as per HUD Federal Guidelines. Programs/projects and amounts indude twenty-two (22)CDBG programs totaling $932,770.61; one (1) ESG program totaling $287.94; and four(4) HOPWA programs totaling $60,440.11. D-8: Carryover Budget For E-911 Fund E-911 $289,000.00 This is a request for carryover budget for the E-911 fund (60)for the Versaterm, which provided a CAD system for the Salt Lake City Police Department. The purpose of the contract is to include the Salt Lake City Fire Department on the CAD system as the first step in combining the Police and Fire Departments' into a single dispatch center. The request is to Amok carry forward the remaining encumbrance of$289,000 to be spent in the current fiscal year. This budget requests additional expense budget from the E-911 fund to upgrade of the CAD system to add the Fire Department dispatchers. D-9: General Fund Carryover Budget for Prior Year Encumbrances GF $3,288,969.00 General Fund departments comparison to budget includes encumbrances that are outstanding at fiscal year end. Historically,the Coundl has appropriated fund balance to provide a means to "hold harmless" the General Fund departments' prior year encumbrances. Without Council action,the General Fund departments' Fiscal 2012 appropriation will be forced to fund encumbrances outstanding at fiscal year end. It is recommended that the Council approve the budget for the outstanding encumbrances in the General Fund. D-10: Grants and Other Special Rev Carryover Budgets from Prior Year Housing $2,682,072.00 CDBG Op. $1,791,102.00 Misc. Grants $21,277,997.00 Spec Rev. $665,721.00 City Council has in the past approved carryover budgets in these funds in order to complete the started projects. After June 30, 2011,the spending authority of any remaining amounts held by these funds lapsed. Without Council action,the City cannot finish the started projects. It is recommended that the Council approve the carryover budgets for these grants and other special revenue funds. D-11: Donations Fund Carryover from Prior Year Donations $1,871,608.44 City Council has in the past approved carryover budgets in these funds in order to continue the use of funds for which they were donated. After June 30, 2011, by state law, the spending authority of any remaining amounts held by these funds lapsed. Without Council action, the City cannot continue these programs. It is recommended that the Council approve the net cash balance carryover budgets for these donations special revenue funds. 8 Salt Lake Cit FY2O11-12 Bud,et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount D-12: Additional General Fund Interest Income and Expense GF $155,208.00 On June 14, 2011 the City Council adopted a Resolution authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale of$19 million of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes for fiscal year 2012. The Tax Notes were sold on June 22, 2011 using the competitive method of sale, and awarded to JP Morgan Securities, Inc. As a result of this issuance, the Notes will have a coupon of 2.5% and General Fund interest expense for FY 2012 will be $455,208.33. This is $155,208.33 more than the $300,000 that appears in the Adopted Budget for FY 2012. However, the Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes were sold at a premium sufficient to cover the additional interest expense. Section Et. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: Utah State Juvenile Justice Drug Public Awareness Grant Misc Grants $250,000.00 The Police Department applied for and received a $250,000 continuation grant from the State of Utah, CCJJ, under their Utah Pharmaceutical Drug Crime Project(UPDCP) Public Awareness grant program. In 2010, SLCPD working with CCJJ staff formed the UPDCP Committee which includes prevention, treatment, law enforcement,judiciary, environmental quality, health specialists, medical providers, prosecutors, faith-based and Tribal Nations members. This committee was formed to bring together federal, state and local law enforcement and drug education/prevention specialists to develop a comprehensive, statewide program to address Utah's pharmaceutical problem. At that time, the City also received a $250,000 grant from CCJJ to contract with a qualified advertising, marketing, and public relations agency to create and implement a direct public awareness campaign to heighten awareness and serve as a "call to action" to Utah's citizens to become involved in efforts to eliminate non-medical pharmaceutical use in Utah. At that time, the City contracted with R&R Partners. The 2012-$250,000 grant award will be used to continue the contract with R&R Partners and further the Use Only as Directed public awareness campaign. R&R Partners will utilize TV, radio, print and other non-traditional media. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the State of Utah CCJJ grant funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. E-2: US Dept of Justice—Justice Assistance Grant Misc Grants $421,634.00 The Police Department applies for and receives this grant annually. It is awarded to provide operational support and services in the eligible areas of law enforcement, crime prevention and drug courts. The City received $421,634 which includes$138,750 of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office funding. The City acting as the lead agency, will provide fiscal management and grant reporting. The City's portion of the grant is $282,884. The police Department will use $100,000 of the funds allocated to fund officer over-time @ $45 per hour x 2222.22 hours, for direct Community Policing; $60,000 for training of both sworn and civilian personnel; a $12,000 contractual component with Salt Lake Peer Court; and $110,884 of equipment which includes digital crime scene scanner, aerial video system, media room equipment and camera and equipment necessary to upgrade the Pioneer Precinct security system. No match is required. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the US Department of Justice, JAG funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. E-3: Utah State Dept of Environmental Quality Wetland Re-design Misc Grants $18,000.00 Grant The Public Utilities Department applied for received an $18,000 grant from the State DEQ under the Water Quality Hardship Grant Fund for the re-design of the Jordan River Wetland at 900 South 900 West, the Jordan River, and the Jordan River Parkway to conserve soil, water or other natural resources and to help reduce the number of water bodies not achieving water quality standards. The project is expected to improve water quality in the Jordan River through the re-engineering/design of a vegetative, one acre wetland, to reduce storm water pollution and fine particulate matter flowing into the Jordan River. 9 Salt Lake Ci FY2011-12 Bud'et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount The funding will be used to develop construction and engineering documents for implementation and maintenance of a wetland system. The documents will include specifications for increasing water flow and increasing the surface area of the wetland, re-design of the sediment forebay to increase sediment filtration, and will address stagnation and vegetative growth issues. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Amik 10 FY 2011-12 Variance Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total General Fund 195,114,853 194,559,704 (555,149) Selected Discussion Items Total Property Taxes 63,175,537 63,175,537 0 Discussion: Total Sales and Use Tax 45,622,655 45,622,655 0 Discussion: Total Franchise Tax 28,434,888 28,366,228 (68,660) Discussion: Franchise Fee for Public Utilities is lower than budgeted due to a cooler and wetter summer. License and Permits: 18,452,058 18,379,780 (72,278) Discussion: Intergovernmental Revenue 5,426,994 5,426,994 0 Discussion: interest income 780,000 780,000 0 Discussion: Total Fines&Forfeiture 10,988,815 10,567,259 (421,556) Discussion: Parking Ticket revenue is down due to parking ticket issuance being down. Parking Meters 1,651,000 1,651,000 0 Discussion: Charges and Services 4,118,852 4,126,197 7,345 Discussion: Miscellaneous Revenue 3,020,641 3,020,641 0 Discussion: Interfund Reimbursement 9,907,993 9,907,993 0 Discussion: Transfers 3,535,420 3,535,420 0 Discussion: • September 20, 2011 From: David Everitt To: The City Council and Staff Re: Supplemental Information about Parking Pay Stations Hi everybody. We have tried to compile all of the latest information and responses to requests for information about this topic into one document(and supporting charts of course). This supplemental memo regarding parking pay stations contains: 1. Clarifying information about the RFP process and the rationale for how we got to the winning bid; and 2. Responses to your inquiries regarding fmancing and funding of the system. There are three attachments referenced in this memo: 1. Matrix of Vendor Details 2. Pay Station Financing Options 3. Pay Station Funding Options Clarifying information about the RFP process I understand that some of you are being approached by a lobbyist for one of the RFP bidders for the parking pay stations. Here is some additional information that may be helpful for you. As we have discussed before, until we have a signed contract with the winning bidder, this information is not really for public consumption. - There are two different "products" that the City would be investing in: one is the hardware(the towers)and the other is the system technology (mainly the software that runs the towers and interfaces between the towers and the humans). Both products' costs include maintenance of them. -In our recommendation,Aparc is the systems provider and the primary contractor. They have partnered with Siemens for the towers themselves. (I can't fmd-this on the website, but I suspect that they are somehow owned or a division of Siemens.) http://aparesystems.com/products/pay- stations/ -ACS was the other systems provider that was close to the top for us. They are a division of Xerox (can't remember who was providing their towers,maybe Xerox themselves). http://www.acs-inc.com/transportation/on-street-parking.aspx - It is definitely true that ACS has more clients than Aparc. Aparc is a smaller company, and according to their website they have six municipal clients and some others such as hospitals, an airport, and universities for whom they have set up systems. The scope of their projects have all been smaller than what we want to do in SLC,no doubt about it. 1 -As you can see from the document labeled"Matrix of Vendor Details",the up-front costs from ACS are notably lower.Their maintenance and operations costs are slightly lower as well, meaning that their initial information shows that their overall annual costs(capital and maintenance)are lower than Aparc,assuming we went with the sensor technology.(ACS did not submit a bid for the license plate recognition approach). -The catch,however,was that ACS's proposal required a percentage of revenue sharing to the tune of approximately$1 million annually(using current revenue rates;this would go up if the hourly rates or the hours of operations changed). This is reflected in the"Total debt payment and ongoing cost"column.When revenue sharing is factored into the equation,the overall costs/benefits led our cross-departmental team'that reviewed the RFPs to conclude that Aparc's approach(a non-revenue sharing approach,whereby the City collects and keeps all of the revenue)justified the higher up-front cost.It provides us with more potential for additional revenues in the future without creating a relationship that revolves around revenue with the vendor. -Here are a couple of articles on their Aparc's implementation in Sausalito. (I tried to find some negative coverage of the results but none revealed themselves.) • Mann Journal article-http://www.marinij.com/ci 15548032 • Sausalito article-http://www.oursausalito.com/2010/07/new-sausalito-city-parking-lots- automated-systems-roll-out-today.html -We are moving ahead with the test phase,but please remember that it's not to test whether or not to use Aparc at all,but whether to use the puck system or go with the license plate recognition(LPR)system.(Of course,in the off chance that both are total failures then we would go back to look at the other bidders,but our assumption is at this point that the LPR system works well and the major question is whether to use the puck system or not.) Responses to your inquiries regarding financing and funding of the system During the City Council's discussion of item A-6 in FY 2011-12's Budget Amendment #1,Parking Pay Stations,a number of questions regarding raising revenue sufficient to pay for the system were raised. This document and the accompanying spreadsheets provide a number of options that the Council may choose to consider. There are two main areas of discussion:A.How to finance the pay stations;and B. Sources for funding the expense(and additional savings/costs associated with implementing this new system). 1 The RFP team included the following people:Purchasing:Tiffany Sorensen,then Jerilyn Midthun; Transportation:Scott Vaterlaus and Tim Harpst;Parking Enforcement:Carroll Mays,then Alden Breinholt;City Courts: Claudia Sundbeck;Public Services maintenance:Cabot Jennings;Finance:Jay Blades,Randy Hillier, Gordon Hoskins,Sandee Moore,and Mary Beth Thompson;IMS:Ernest Field;Downtown Alliance:Camille Winnie;Jason Mathis,Bill Knowles;Invited from the Council:Russell Weeks.(During interviews,we invited a rep from ISIS and a rep from UTA to comment to the committee on compatibility of the proposed equipment with their systems.) 2 A. How to finance the pay stations: We have provided three basic options for the purchase of the new meter system: 1)Purchase the entire system with Chase Financial Lease Services at full purchase price(Options 1-3 on the attached spreadsheet labeled "Pay Station Financing Options"); 2) Split the purchase between cash sources and Chase Financial Lease Services (Options 4-6 on the same spreadsheet); or 3)Purchase the entire system with funds from the general fund's fund balance and/or other cash sources, such as the CEP. B. Policy options for how to fund pay stations: We are proposing two principal methods for funding the associated expense of the pay stations: 1)Expansion of Operational Hours. There are several options for expanding the hours of collection. Many large metropolitan areas are expanding their hours of parking meter operations. We looked at 5 different options: a)Expand hours from 6pm to 8pm Monday-Friday; b)Expand hours from 8pm to 10pm Monday-Friday; c)Expand hours from 10pm to 2am Monday-Thursday; and d)Expand hours from 8am to 10pm Saturday,and e)Expand hours from 10pm to 2am Friday-Saturday. 2)Increased parking meter rates. We analyzed the impact of two additional different rate changes one increased the hourly rate by $0.25, and the other by $0.50. You have already approved, as of January 2012, an increase of$0.50,which will increase the rate from$1.00 to $1.50 per hour. An increase of rate by $.25 or $.50 would change the rate to $1.75 and$2.00 per hour accordingly. Additionally,we have discussed the implementation of a graduated rate structure,which would increase the hourly rate after the initial one- or two-hour period. At least one major city is currently using a graduated rate structure. At this time we are reticent to quantify the results due to lack of data output from current meter system. During the test period,we will continue to explore potential options regarding a graduated rate. 3)Additionally,we have identified four potential consequences that could affect implementation costs: a)Reduction of the current Public Services budget for the repair and replacement of the equipment on the current meter heads; b)Reduction of the current costs associated with coin collections; c)Elimination of third party maintenance costs already structured in the ongoing annual costs of the new system, in which case maintenance would be performed by city staff; and d)Increased expenses associated with enforcement during the expanded hours of operation. 3 All of these considerations are quantified in the attached spreadsheet(labeled"Pay Stations Funding Options")2 Conclusion Finally,the spreadsheet"Pay Stations Funding Options"also includes a range of scenarios that show how the financing could be funded.Our two recommendations in order of preference are: 1)Option 6-B:Purchase the system with$2.7 million from the CIP and finance$1.8 million with the lease purchase from Chase Financial Lease Services for a term of seven years. 2)Option 5-B:Purchase the system with$2.7 million from the CIP and finance$1.8 million with the lease purchase from Chase Financial Lease Services for a term often years. Neither option would require additional rate increases beyond the already-approved January 1 increase,but both would require expanded hours of collection on weekdays(until 10PM)and Saturdays(from 8AM until 10PM).This approach provides additional flexibility in future years for opportunities to increase revenue if needed,while immediately meeting the annual capital and ongoing expense obligations. 2 Other policy options may be considered as we move forward,including expansion of parking pay stations into other areas of the City. At this time,however,the Administration is not recommending any significant expansion of the locations for pay stations beyond the geography of the current parking meter system. 4 PAY STATIONS FINANCING OPTIONS • FISCAL YEAR 2011 PARKING METER REVENUE BUDGET $1,100,000 FISCAL YEAR 2012 PARKING METER REVENUE BUDGET $1,405,000 •REVENUE INCREASE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 $305,000 THE CITY HAS APPROXIMATELY 2,100 METERS CURRENT PARKING METER RATE IS$1 PER HOUR EFFECTIVE 1/1/12 THE PARKING METER RATE WILL BE$1.50 PER HOUR TOTAL CAPITALIZATION COSTS OF PAY STATION: $4,514,298 TOTAL YEARLY ON GOING COSTS $585,535 (COMMUNICATION COSTS,SOFTWARE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE COSTS) OPTIONS 1,2,AND 3:CAPITAL LEASE FOR TOTAL AMOUNT FROM JP MORGAN CHASE BANK (INTEREST RATE CHANGE DAILY BASED ON THE US TREASURY RATE ON THAT DATE) INTEREST TOTAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ON TOTAL ADDITIONAL OVER LEASE LEASE COSTS GOING COSTS ANNUAL COSTS COST PER METER LEASE TERM PAYMENTS 1:5 YEAR TERM RATE AS OF 9/28/11 IS 1.862% $938,424 $585,535 $1,523,959 $1.385 $177,824 $4,692,122 $ 103,946 SEMI ANNUAL PAYMENT PER MILLION 2:10 YEAR TERM RATE AS OF 9/28/11 IS 2.494% $512,817 $585,535 $1,098,352 $0.999 $613,877 $5,128,175 $56,803 SEMI ANNUAL PAYMENT PER MILLION 3:7 YEAR TERM RATE AS OF 9/28/11 IS 2.145% $697,928 $585,535 $1,283,463 $1.167 $371,195 $4,885,493 $77,307 SEMI ANNUAL PAYMENT PER MILLION OPTIONS 4,5,AND 6: PAY CASH FOR PART,LEASE THE REST TOTAL CAPITALIZATION COSTS $4,514,298 CIP FUND and/or OTHER CASH SOURCES -$2,700,000 REMAINING CAPITAL AMOUNT TO BE LEASED $1,814,298 4:5 YEAR TERM RATE AS OF 9/28/11 IS 1.862% $377,116 $585,535 $962,651 $0.875 $85,580 $1,885,580 $ 103,946 SEMI ANNUAL PAYMENT PER MILLION 5:10 YEAR TERM RATE AS OF 9/28/11 IS 2.494% $206,081 $585,535 $791,616 $0.720 $260,813 $2,060,813 $56,803 SEMI ANNUAL PAYMENT PER MILLION 6:7 YEAR TERM RATE AS OF 9/28/11 IS 2.145% $280,470 $585,535 $866,005 $0.787 $163,289 $1,963,289 $77,307 SEMI ANNUAL PAYMENT PER MILLION 8 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 27,2011 TO: Council Members FROM: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst SUBJECT: Housing Policy discussion COUNCIL PROCESS: On September 27,2011,the Council received an initial introduction from the Administration regarding proposed revisions to the City's Comprehensive Housing Plan.A follow-up discussion is scheduled for November I, 2011. Additional dates for follow-up discussion and Council action will be identified at a future date. A. To assist in the Council's discussion,Council staff has provided the following: 1. The Administration's proposal including policies discussed by the Council in 2006 that remain the same or have slight revisions. (highlighted in grey) 2. New sections and policies(highlighted in E. 3. Items/issues the Council may wish to discuss in further detail.(highlighted in yellow,pg.9) • B. It would be helpful if Council Members would review the following information and be prepared to provide direction to Council and Administrative staff regarding support for the proposal, potential changes/comments and items/issues that may need additional discussion or information from staff. (Please pay particular attention to the issues highlighted in yellow and listed on pg.9.) C. Proposed changes include an introduction,purpose and updated housing policies and action items. The Administration notes: 1. The proposal was developed by a Housing Coordination Committee consisting of city staff from the Mayor's office,Housing and Neighborhood Development,Planning, Redevelopment Agency,Building Services and Sustainability and Environment. 2. Consultants reviewed the proposal relative to historic preservation and sustainability issues. Recommended changes were included in the draft policies. 3. Action steps outlining strategies to implement the updated polices will be established after adoption of the proposed policies. (During the Council's discussion on September 27,2011,the Administration indicated that they would place the proposal on the City's Open City Hall forum to receive public input.The City's housing policy has typically been of significant interest to the public.) D. A resolution will be prepared to adopt the proposed changes based on direction from the Council. • 1 A. Salt Lake City's Comprehensive Housing Policy Introduction As the largest city in Utah and the economic hub of the state,Salt Lake City faces significant housing and population issues.Precipitous increases in land values over the last decade, volatile financial and lending conditions,and escalating construction costs are some of the factors that create barriers to the development of affordable housing.At the same time,a renewed interest in walk-able neighborhood commercial centers,increased residential development downtown,and an emphasis on dense,transit-oriented residential projects throughout Salt Lake City offer opportunities for policymakers to capitalize upon as they seek to provide a range of housing choices to meet the desires and needs of residents. Demographics in the United States are rapidly changing,and Salt Lake City is no exception. Populations are aging,minority communities are growing,and there are more single-parent households and households without children. These seismic shifts require changes in Salt Lake City's housing policies to effectively address today's realities. Purpose By ng Policy,the Mayor and City Council seek to: residential tradition; • Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts,including those with historic character and qualities,while also providing opportunities for the provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods; • Promote a diverse and balanced community by ensuring that a wide range of housing types and choices exists for all income levels,age groups,and types of households; • Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City; • Ensure that affordable housing is available in all neighborhoods and not concentrated in a few areas of the City; • Emphasize the value of transit-oriented development,transit accessibility and proximity to services; • Recognize that residents,business owners,and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods; • Create an appropriate balance of rental and ownership opportunities in neighborhoods without jeopardizing an adequate supply of affordable housing;and • Strongly incentivize or require the use of green building techniques and sustainability practices in public and private housing developments. The Mayor and City Council expect this Housing Policy to be considered whenever the City Administration engages in the following activities: • City and Redevelopment Agency funding assistance • Zoning and land use planning • Master planning of neighborhoods • The creation of economic development incentives The Housing Policy is a combination of 13 Policy Statements that are detailed below. Policy Statements 1.New Development New housing development in Salt Lake City should meet the following criteria: • Be consistent with requirements of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act,Fair Housing Amendments Act(FHAA),Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the International Building Code. • Encourage for sale and rental mixed-use and mixed-income projects in areas with established transportation,public infrastructure,and related public services. Encourage mixed-use projects to include some affordable housing units. • Encourage single-family infill housing,in single-family neighborhoods,to attract middle-income families where appropriate; • Require architectural designs that are contextually compatible with the surrounding structures and overall fabric of the neighborhood.These designs should: a.Preserve and incorporate open space,even minimal amounts. b.Interface well with public spaces. c. Incorporate energy efficient technologies and design. • Provide for realistic parking needs in the least intrusive manner possible in single family neighborhoods;and Provide aesthetically pleasing and attractive public spaces,such as designated tr common areas,community centers,community parks,trail networks,bikeways, resident gathering places,and resident/community gardens. Action items: a. Ensure better compatibility with existing neighborhoods for new infill development. b. Review the residential and mixed-use zones for redundancy and consistency to ensure they accurately reflect this policy. c. Revise the permitted and conditional use table to reflect a stronger emphasis on xed-use development and to limit or prohibit uses that are incompatible with the hborhood. nsider developing design standards for buildings in residential and mixed-use zones. 2.Affordable Housing Provide affordable homeowners housing opportunities for residents who make 80%or less of ligrea median income in Salt Lake City. The City should strive to ensure that affordable ing is available for purchase in Salt Lake City. Provide affordable rental housing in Salt Lake City for residents who make 80%or less of the area median income. The City should strive to ensure that affordable rental housing is available in Salt Lake City. • i A primary purpose of Salt Lake City's Housing Policy is to foster a diverse and balanced community with housing that offers a wide range of choices for all income levels.Accordingly, affordable housing should be available in all neighborhoods and not concentrated in a few areas of the City. Encouraging a variety of low,medium and high density housing developments for all income levels will help to enhance,maintain and sustain livable,viable neighborhoods. The Council and Mayor recognize that there is a segment of the City's population whose income level and other circumstances may make it difficult to qualify for established housing programs. The City should address housing for this population. The City,through the RDA,Housing and Neighborhood Development,the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and successful housing development nonprofit organizations should provide examples of how affordable housing can be built or rehabilitated. Action items: a. Analyze the impacts of fees and current zoning on affordable housing. b. Develop an incentive program for housing developers to provide a percentage of affordable housing as part of their overall development. c. Preserve and expand,as appropriate,the amount of subsidized and Section 8 housing in the City. d. Continue to provide funding for homeownership and rental affordable housing projects with federal funds and housing trust funds. 3. Housing Stock Preservation and Rehabilitation The City should support the preservation,rehabilitation,and adaptive reuse of existing housing stock to the most practical degree possible. Action items: a. Adequately fund the City's apartment inspection program to promote housing safety and quality. b. Adequately funding programs that assist home and apartment owners in rehabilitating and maintaining housing units. c. Support the reinvestment of existing urban and inner suburban areas. 4.Transit-Oriented Development The City should support transit-oriented development as well as adequate,reliable public transportation so that residents may easily access employment,good and services,and housing. The City should support housing densities,mixed-use projects,parking policies,and pedestrian-oriented urban designs that encourage walking and the use of alternative and public transportation. 4 Action Items: a. Review the residential and mixed-use zones for redundancy and consistency to ensure they accurately reflect this policy. b. Continue to review the permitted and conditional use table to reflect a stronger emphasis on mixed-use development on an on-going basis. 5.Zoning The City should evolve its zoning ordinance to effectively address the City's changing housing needs. While the City supports mixed-use development,it also recognizes that there are some zones that are not conducive to residential development. Action items: a. Allow for higher densities and building height,in the form of density bonuses,in affordable multi-family,mixed-income and mixed-use housing developments if the developer incorporates features to minimize potential negative impacts such as buffer landscaping,usable open space,on-site amenities,support services,preservation of existing structures,and underground vehicle parking. b. Allow accessory housing units in single-family zones,subject to restrictions designed • to limit impacts and protect neighborhood character. c. Allow neighborhood anchor areas or commercial uses that enhance the function of residential neighborhoods and/or are compatible with residential activity. Allow the flexible application of zoning standards to encourage innovation and creative problem solving in new developments. e. Research and adopt an ordinance to allow the Director of Community and Economic Development or the Planning Director the authority to administratively modify zoning requirements up to 10%when specific criteria have been met. 6.Permitting The City should review the permitting process to evaluate the impacts of the building permitting process on proposed residential development. Action items: a. Provide expedited plan review for projects designed as sustainable,high performance buildings,including design that impacts neighborhoods in a positive manner that meets the Mayor's Executive Order,Expedited Plan Review for New Construction and Major Renovation Projects that Meet Certain Sustainable Building Criteria,dated August 22,2008. b. Complete One Stop Shop initiative,which will streamline the permitting process for development and provide seamless customer service at the City and County Building for development related customers. The goal remains co-location of staff responsible • for core plan review,thus creating a true One-Stop-Shop for development-related customers. To accomplish this level of customer service,a representative from each of the six groups conducting plan review must be represented in Room 215 at the City v and . Spa, es and staffingI be M/ed this goal' h revie digitized submittalSA9�Fes will !'us to IIIaccompli . e 7.Downtown Housing Permanent residences in downtown Salt Lake City are a critical part of creating a vibrant, safe,and sustainable Capital City.The urban core should be considered a neighborhood for purposes of housing planning,and the City should expect housing to be available to all income levels downtown. Action Items: a. Conduct an inventory and zoning review of land within the Downtown that could be used for housing sites,studying the feasibility of developing the sites for housing uses. b. Explore options for protecting multi-family housing units east of 200 East between South Temple and 400 South and encourage infill development housing east of 200 East. c. ermit and encourage retail support services that promote increased residential population and support downtown workers. 8.Homeless,Transitional and Special Needs um provision of temporary and permanent housing options for those who have no other option is a fundamental responsibility of government in modern day society. The City will work with Salt Lake County,the State of Utah,and its community partners to assist in providing temporary and permanent housing options to its residents. Action Items: a. Collaborate with the providers of homeless services,neighborhood residents and business owners to create an environment to ensure that a mix of income populations can live,work,flourish together while still providing services to those in need. b. Utilize the efforts of the"Long Range Planning for Sheltering Needs of Homeless Persons Committee"in implementing the County-wide ten-year plan to end chronic homelessness. c. Continue to support the development of scattered site affordable housing projects with appropriate case management as needed. 9.Historic Preservation The City should preserve valued historic structures designated as significant to the cultural or architectural heritage of the City based on an up-to-date historic resource survey. Action Items: a. Complete a city-wide historic resource survey. b. Develop a preservation plan. c. Reevaluate the infill ordinances and revise them accordingly. 10.Funding Mechanisms Housing development is funded through a combination of private and public funds. The City should continue to use best practices to efficiently fund the development of a variety of housing. Action items: a. Increase the housing stock through non-profit and/or for profit partnerships. b. Maintain the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan that outlines annual sources and uses of funds for housing and housing programs. c. Maintain public reviews and input relating to use of City housing monies through the City's Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board,Redevelopment Advisory Committee and the Redevelopment Agency Board. d. Establish a permanent funding source for the Housing Trust Fund. 11. Marketing and Education on Housing in Salt Lake City Residents,developers,govemment,and social service providers all play a role in educating I the public(and each other)about the availability of housing types and the gaps in the housing spectrum. The City can take the lead to ensure that accurate information is conveyed to all stakeholders. Action Items: a. Develop educational programs for developers,community councils,and the public to dispel myths and stereotypes about high density and affordable housing.Topics to be covered in these programs include:density,accessibility and visit-ability design concepts;affordable housing;and home buyer issues for developers. b. Develop public/private partnerships to market housing and educate the public on housing issues. c. Invest in marketing programs to highlight Salt Lake City's housing strengths and pportunities. lize market research for the development of aggressive public marketing campaigns entice area residents to live in Salt Lake City;and to provide guidance for the City, the Redevelopment Agency and the development community in their efforts to develop housing within the city. I. Prepare educational information to distribute to the public regarding when a building permit is required. f. Continue the development advisory forum to bring together all stakeholders in the development process,including applicants,Housing,Planning,Building,Fire, Engineering,Public Utilities and Transportation Divisions. 1. Review new/proposed programs and processes. 2. Offer presentations from specific divisions that may affect the industry and stakeholders. 3. Provide training in current practices. 4. Review changes and additions to the processes that regulate and control the • development of the built environment. question and answer dialogues. 12.Growth Targets • Salt Lake City's goals for growth are predicated upon the orderly development of additional housing. Accordingly,the City's housing policies must be consistent with overall growth goals. Action items: a. Develop and maintain a citywide plan for attracting population growth in Salt Lake City. b. Set and achieve 5-, 10-,and 20-year growth targets that will help maintain the City's status as Utah's largest city.The City should use all available tools to achieve these growth targets including zoning,permitting,marketing,fees and incentives. c. Recognize the significance of the Northwest quadrant of the City and the need to encourage and accommodate future residential growth in this area;move forward with careful planning and programming for this area. 13.City Funded Projects The preservation and creation of affordable housing are high priorities.The City will continue to provide financial assistance to projects that meet the goals of the Housing Policy. Requests for City funding will be evaluated based on their consistency with this Housing Policy. ti B. Issues previously discussed regarding the City's housing policy 1. Avoiding significant commercial and institutional expansion in to residential areas,such as with the expansion of health care facilities in the Avenues,East Central and the 500 East 2000 South areas. 2. Importance of retaining a strong full-time population base. 3. Importance of maintaining the fabric of the neighborhood and discouraging demolitions,or discouraging demolitions without authorized re-use plans. 4. Boarding issues--having adequate regulations in place to discourage boarding,or to assure that negative impacts on abutting property owners are minimized. Limiting cost to other taxpayers by moving toward assuring that the disproportionate cost of enforcement and public safety response is covered by the property owners. 5. Identify the balance the Council wishes to establish/maintain/refine in terms of commercial development in areas zoned for residential. (This may be particularly timely given that the Council will soon be provided with the small neighborhood business(SNB)zoning project the Administration has in progress.) 6. Given the Council's emphasis on walkability and the long-term goal of reduced reliance on automobile use,the Council may wish to add a statement relating to allowing for viable commercial nodes that are sensitive to neighboring residential properties. 7. Identify options(in addition to density bonuses)to encourage affordable housing construction. (This was discussed by Council Members at the September 27,2011 briefing.) 8. Other issues or items identified by Council Members. • One Council Member has suggested including policy statement(s)to address the location and quality of housing that address environmental justice concerns.(This may be discussed in further detail at the Nov. Work Session.) cc: David Everitt,Bianca Shreeve,Karen Hale,Art Raymond,Holly Hilton,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Paul Nielson,Jeff Niermeyer,Tom Ward,Rick Graham,Frank Gray,Mary De La Mare-Schafer,Orion Goff,Les Koch,Larry Butcher, LuAnn Clark,Michael Akerlow,Steve Akerlow,Sandi Marler,Craig Spangenberg,Randy Isbell,Wilf Sommerkom,Cheri Coffey,City Council Liaisons,Mayors Liaisons File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Housing&Neighborhood Development Division, OHousing Policies 9 'l RALPH BECKER ►7� TTji ' �1 'j��1 Di: -: ll1w f r p/o MAYOR ►JV+.`j��[ '` � V �nl / // OFFICE OF THE MAYOR T t(+� J \ (1 T CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL OCT 22 2010 001111111.6 Al Date Received: ID Z O David veritt, Chief of Staff Date Sent to City Council: I D /22-/lot D TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 22,2010 JT Martin, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff RE: Salt Lake City's Community Housing Plan STAFF CONTACTS: LuAnn Clark,Housing&Neighborhood Development Director, at 535-6136 or luann.clark@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the Council schedule a briefing on this issue DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan was adopted in 2000 and needs to be updated in order to provide a current framework of housing policies and implementation strategies. Updated policies and implementation strategies will guide the City's efforts in the development of new housing opportunities while preserving the City's existing housing stock. They will also address issues relating to the types of housing the City desires to develop and preserve,as well as establish specific action steps necessary to implement the new policies. Issue Origin: The State of Utah's House Bill 295 requires all municipalities throughout the state to prepare and adopt a moderate-income housing plan. Salt Lake City's adopted housing plan includes policies for moderate-income housing but should be updated to reflect current housing and economic conditions. Analysis: At the request of Mayor Becker, a Housing Coordination Committee was established to develop updated housing policies for Salt Lake City. The Housing Coordination Committee consisted of representatives from the Mayor's Office,Housing and Neighborhood Development, 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.skgov.com �� 11[CYCL[D PA/PP Planning and Zoning,the Redevelopment Agency of-Salt Lake City;Building Services,and the Sustainability and Environment Division. A series of meetings was held by the Committee to address the City's housing issues and ensure a comprehensive approach in covering the broad spectrum of housing issues. The Housing Coordination Committee used the policies adopted in the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, adopted in April 2000,as a starting point,making changes and including new policies as deemed necessary to create the draft housing policies, a copy of which is attached. During the Committee's review process,consultants reviewed the proposed updates relative to historic preservation and sustainability issues and recommended changes that were incorporated into the draft policies. Upon completion of the adoption of housing policies for the City,the Administration will establish action steps outlining strategies to be taken to implement the updated policies. Mayor's Recommendation: Mayor Becker reviewed the proposed housing policy updates in October 2010 and recommended approval of them. RE: Petition PLNPCM2009-00171: SLC Historic Preservation Plan Page 2 of 2 Salt Lake City's Comprehensive Housing Policy Introduction As the largest city in Utah and the economic hub of the state, Salt Lake City faces significant housing and population issues. Precipitous increases in land values over the last decade, volatile financial and lending conditions, and escalating construction costs are some of the factors that create barriers to the development of affordable housing. At the same time, a renewed interest in walk-able neighborhood commercial centers, increased residential development downtown, and an emphasis on dense, transit- oriented residential projects throughout Salt Lake City offer opportunities for policymakers to capitalize upon as they seek to provide a range of housing choices to meet the desires and needs of residents. Demographics in the United States are rapidly changing, and Salt Lake City is no exception. Populations are aging, minority communities are growing, and there are more single-parent households and households without children. These seismic shifts require changes in Salt Lake City's housing policies to effectively address today's realities. Purpose By establishing the Salt Lake City Housing Policy, the Mayor and City Council seek to: • Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition; • Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods; • Promote a diverse and balanced community by ensuring that a wide range of housing types and choices exists for all income levels, age groups, and types of households; • Dexelop new housing opportunities throughout the City; • Ensure that affordable housing is available in all neighborhoods and not concentrated in a few areas of the City; • Emphasize the value of transit-oriented development, transit accessibility and proximity to services; • Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods; • Create an appropriate balance of rental and ownership opportunities in neighborhoods without jeopardizing an adequate supply of affordable housing; and • Strongly incentivize or require the use of green building techniques and sustainability practices in public and private housing developments. The Mayor and City Council expect this Housing Policy to be considered whenever the City Administration engages in the following activities: • City and Redevelopment Agency funding assistance • Zoning and land use planning • Master planning of neighborhoods • The creation of economic development incentives The Housing Policy is a combination of 13 Policy Statements that are detailed below. 1 Policy Statements_ 1. New Development New housing development in Salt Lake City should meet the following criteria: • Be consistent with requirements of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the International Building Code. • Encourage for sale and rental mixed-use and mixed-income projects in areas with established transportation, public infrastructure, and related public services. Encourage mixed-use projects to include some affordable housing units. • Encourage single-family infill housing, in single-family neighborhoods, to attract middle-income families where appropriate; • Require architectural designs that are contextually compatible with the surrounding structures and overall fabric of the neighborhood. These designs should: a. Preserve and incorporate open space, even minimal amounts. b. Interface well with public spaces. c. Incorporate energy efficient technologies and design. • Provide for realistic parking needs in the least intrusive manner possible in single family neighborhoods; and • Provide aesthetically pleasing and attractive public spaces, such as designated common areas, community centers, community parks, trail networks, bikeways, resident gathering places, and resident/community gardens. Action items: a. Ensure better compatibility with existing neighborhoods for new infill development. b. speview the residential and mixed-use zones for redundancy and consistency to ensure they accurately reflect this policy. c. Revise the permitted and conditional use table to reflect a stronger emphasis on mixed-use development and to limit or prohibit uses that are incompatible with the neighborhood. d. Consider developing design standards for buildings in residential and mixed-use zones. 2. Affordable Housing Provide affordable homeowners housing opportunities for residents who make 80% or less of the area median income in Salt Lake City. The City should strive to ensure that affordable housing is available for purchase in Salt Lake City. Provide affordable rental housing in Salt Lake City for residents who make 80% or less of the area median income. The City should strive to ensure that affordable rental housing is available in Salt Lake City. A primary purpose of Salt Lake City's Housing Policy is to foster a diverse and balanced community with housing that offers a wide range of choices for all income levels. Accordingly, affordable housing should be available in all neighborhoods and not concentrated in a few areas of the City. Encouraging a variety of low, medium and high density housing developments for all income levels will help to enhance, maintain and sustain livable, viable neighborhoods. The Council and Mayor recognize that there is a segment of the City's population whose income level and other circumstances may make it difficult to qualify for established housing programs. The City should address housing for this population. 2 The City, through the RDA, Housing and Neighborhood Development, the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and successful housing development nonprofit organizations should provide examples of how affordable housing can be built or rehabilitated. Action items: a. Analyze the impacts of fees and current zoning on affordable housing. b. Develop an incentive program for housing developers to provide a percentage of affordable housing as part of their overall development. c. Preserve and expand, as appropriate, the amount of subsidized and Section 8 housing in the City. d. Continue to provide funding for homeownership and rental affordable housing projects with federal funds and housing trust funds. 3. Housing Stock Preservation and Rehabilitation The City should support the preservation, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of existing housing stock to the most practical degree possible. Action items: a. Adequately fund the City's apartment inspection program to promote housing safety and quality. b. Adequately funding programs that assist home and apartment owners in rehabilitating and maintaining housing units. c. Support the reinvestment of existing urban and inner suburban areas. ti 4. Transit-Oriented Development The City should support transit-oriented development as well as adequate, reliable public transportation so that residents may easily access employment, good and services, and housing. The City should support housing densities, mixed-use projects, parking policies, and pedestrian- oriented urban designs that encourage walking and the use of alternative and public transportation. Action Items: a. Review the residential and mixed-use zones for redundancy and consistency to ensure they accurately reflect this policy. b. Continue to review the permitted and conditional use table to reflect a stronger emphasis on mixed-use development on an on-going basis. 5. Zoning The City should evolve its zoning ordinance to effectively address the City's changing housing needs. While the City supports mixed-use development, it also recognizes that there are some zones that are not conducive to residential development. Action items: 3 a. Allow for higher densities and building height, in the form of density bonuses, in affordable multi- family, mixed-income and mixed-use housing developments if tie developer incorporates features to minimize potential negative impacts such as buffer landscaping, usable open space, on-site amenities, support services, preservation of existing structures, and underground vehicle parking. b. Allow accessory housing units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit impacts and protect neighborhood character. c. Allow neighborhood anchor areas or commercial uses that enhance the function of residential neighborhoods and/or are compatible with residential activity. d. Allow the flexible application of zoning standards to encourage innovation and creative problem solving in new developments. e. Research and adopt an ordinance to allow the Director of Community and Economic Development or the Planning Director the authority to administratively modify zoning requirements up to 10%when specific criteria have been met. 6. Permitting The City should review the permitting process to evaluate the impacts of the building permitting process on proposed residential development. Action items: a. Provide expedited plan review for projects designed as sustainable, high performance buildings, including design that impacts neighborhoods in a positive manner that meets the Mayor's Executive Order, Expedited Plan Review for New Construction and Major Renovation Projects that Meet Certain Sustainable Building Criteria, dated August 22, 2008. b. Complete One Stop Shop initiative, which will streamline the permitting process for development and provide seamless customer service at the City and County Building for development related customers. The goal remains co-location of staff responsible for core plan review, thus creating a tthe One-Stop-Shop for development-related customers. To accomplish this level of customer service, a representative from'each of the six groups conducting plan review must be represented in Room 215 at the City and County Building. Space issues and staffing levels must be resolved to realize this goal. Electronic plan review and digitized submittals/records will aid us toward this accomplishment. 7. Downtown Housing Permanent residences in downtown Salt Lake City are a critical part of creating a vibrant, safe, and sustainable Capital City. The urban core should be considered a neighborhood for purposes of housing planning, and the City should expect housing to be available to all income levels downtown. Action Items: a. Conduct an inventory and zoning review of land within the Downtown that could be used for housing sites, studying the feasibility of developing the sites for housing uses b. Explore options for protecting multi-family housing units east of 200 East between South Temple and 400 South and encourage infill development housing east of 200 East. c. Permit and encourage retail support services that promote increased residential population and support downtown workers. 4 8. Homeless, Transitional and Special Needs The provision of temporary and permanent housing options for those who have no other option is a fundamental responsibility of government in modern day society. The City will work with Salt Lake County, the State of Utah, and its community partners to assist in providing temporary and permanent housing options to its residents. Action Items: a. Collaborate with the providers of homeless services, neighborhood residents and business owners to create an environment to ensure that a mix of income populations can live, work, flourish together while still providing services to those in need. b. Utilize the efforts of the"Long Range Planning for Sheltering Needs of Homeless Persons Committee" in implementing the County-wide ten-year plan to end chronic homelessness. c. Continue to support the development of scattered site affordable housing projects with appropriate case management as needed. 9. Historic Preservation The City should preserve valued historic structures designated as significant to the cultural or architectural heritage of the City based on an up-to-date historic resource survey. Action Items: a. Complete a city-wide historic resource survey. b. Develop a preservation plan. c. Reevaluate the infill ordinances and revise them accordingly. 10. Funding Mechanisms Housing development is funded through a combination of private and public funds. The City should continue to use best practices to efficiently fund the development of a variety of housing. Action items: a. Increase the housing stock through non-profit and/or for profit partnerships. b. Maintain the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan that outlines annual sources and uses of funds for housing and housing programs. c. Maintain public reviews and input relating to use of City housing monies through the City's Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board, Redevelopment Advisory Committee and the Redevelopment Agency Board. d. Establish a permanent funding source for the Housing Trust Fund. 11. Marketing and Education on Housing in Salt Lake City Residents, developers, government, and social service providers all play a role in educating the public (and each other) about the availability of housing types and the gaps in the housing spectrum. The City can take the lead to ensure that accurate information is conveyed to all stakeholders. Action Items: a. Develop educational programs for developers, community councils, and the public to dispel myths and stereotypes about high density and affordable housing. Topics to be covered in these 5 programs include: density, accessibility and visit-ability design concepts; affordable housing; _ and home buyer issues for developers. b. Develop public/private partnerships to market housing and educate the public on housing issues. c. Invest in marketing programs to highlight Salt Lake City's housing strengths and opportunities. d. Utilize market research for the development of aggressive public marketing campaigns to entice area residents to live in Salt Lake City; and to provide guidance for the City, the Redevelopment Agency and the development community in their efforts to develop housing within the city. e. Prepare educational information to distribute to the public regarding when a building permit is required. f. Continue the development advisory forum to bring together all stakeholders in the development process, including applicants, Housing, Planning, Building, Fire, Engineering, Public Utilities and Transportation Divisions. 1) Review new/proposed programs and processes. a) Offer presentations from specific divisions that may affect the industry and stakeholders. 2) Provide training in current practices. 3) Review changes and additions to the processes that regulate and control the development of the built environment. 4) Include question and answer dialogues. 12. Growth Targets Salt Lake City's goals for growth are predicated upon the orderly development of additional housing. Accordingly, the City's housing policies must be consistent with overall growth goals. Action items: a. Develop and maintain a citywide plan for attracting population growth in Salt Lake City. b. Set nd achieve 5-, 10-, and 20-year growth targets that will help maintain the City's status as Utah's largest city.The City should use all available tools to achieve these growth targets including zoning, permitting, marketing,fees and incentives. c. Recognize the significance of the Northwest quadrant of the City and the need to encourage and accommodate future residential growth in this area; move forward with careful planning and programming for this area. 13. City Funded Projects The preservation and creation of affordable housing are high priorities. The City will continue to provide financial assistance to projects that meet the goals of the Housing Policy. Requests for City funding will be evaluated based on their consistency with this Housing Policy. 6 SALT 1T�`_;Wit C�O. 'PNalai SCANNED TO'� FRANK B. GRAY SCANNEDII DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DATE.• / I.. .Y DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER ///YOl/ DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL -, p1MIUTI B^iddo lloNfoo ols Date Received: O C T 19 2011 avi ve 'tt, Chi of Staff / J ���..�� By / / a 3 A I D 11ai'e-Sent to City Council: /O/2' i2// TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 17, 2011 Jill Remington-Love, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, Community & conomic Development Department Dir or SUBJECT: Quarterly Housing Report for Fiscal ear-2 1-2012, First Quarter STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, at 801-535-6131 or luann.clark@slcgov.com ACTION REQUIRED: None DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The City Council has requested a quarterly housing report from the Community and Economic Development Department. Analysis: The following information is included in the report. • Loans to First-Time Homebuyers, Rehabilitation Projects, Funding Sources and Outreach/Marketing Efforts • Housing Starts, Additions, Remodels and Repairs • Boarded Building Activity and Closed/Boarded Houses/Apartments by Council District • Housing Trust Fund Ledger • Subdivision Housing Report • Community Development Corporation CDBG and HOME Reports • NeighborWorks Salt Lake CDBG and HOME Reports • Economic Update 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114.5486 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COMIC ED is `Y� RCCVCLEO PAPER TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachment A: Loans to First-Time Homebuyers, Rehabilitation Projects, Funding Sources and Outreach/Marketing Efforts Attachment B: Housing Starts, Additions, Remodels and Repairs Attachment C: Boarded Building Activity and Closed/Boarded Houses/Apartments by Council District Attachment D: Housing Trust Fund Ledger Attachment E: Subdivision Housing Report Attachment F: Community Development Corporation CDBG and HOME Reports Attachment G: NeighborWorks Salt Lake CDBG and HOME Reports Attachment I-I: Economic Update HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT HOUSING PROGRAMS REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 QUARTER 1 (July 1, 2011 —September 30, 2011) The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division's funding sources include the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), the HOME Program, and Program Income from CDBG, HOME, Renter Rehab, the Housing Trust Fund, and Utah State Funding. Private Funding Sources include GE Capital, Ally and American Express. The First Time Homebuyer Program, which uses HOME, CDBG, and private funding sources, has placed 367 families in properties. This fiscal year two First Time Home Buyer homes have been built. At of the end of the quarter, eight First Time Home Buyer homes were in the process of rehabilitation, three were available for sale, and offers had been accepted on two. First Time Home Buyer Loans Fiscal YTD 1st Quarter Loans Closed 2 2 Dollar Amount $377,020.00 S377,020.00 Average Per Loan $188,510.00 S188,510.00 The Housing Rehabilitation Program completed 20 projects including 20 units during the quarter. Single Family Rehabilitation Projects Fiscal YTD 1st Quarter Loans Closed 19 19 Dollar Amount $240,130.00 $240,130.00 Change Orders $ 6,175.00 S6,175.00 Average Per Loan S12,638.42 $12,638.42 Number of Units 19 19 Average Per Unit $12,638.42 S12,638.42 Multi-Family Rehabilitation Projects Fiscal YTD 1st Quarter Number of Projects 1 1 Dollar Amount $5,466.00 $5,466.00 Average Per Loan $5,466.00 $5,466.00 Number of Units 6 6 Average Per Unit $911.00 $911.00 Housing Program Funding Sources FUNDING SOURCES Fiscal YTD % OF 1st Quarter % OF 07/01/11 —9/30/11 FUNDS 7/01/11 —9/30/11 FUNDS Community Development Block Grant $ 66,120.00 10.5% $ 66,120.00 10.5% Rental Rehab Funds $ 0.00 0.0% $ 0.00 0.0% Personal Contributions $ 96,731.00 15.4% $ 96,731.00 15.4% Private Funding Sources $ 0.00 0.0% $ 0.00 0.0% Home $ 465,940.00 74.1% $ 465,940.00 74.1% River Park Funds $ 0.00 0.0% $ 0.00 0.0% Other Funds $ 0.00 0.0% $ 0.00 0.0% TOTAL S 628,791.00 100% S 628,791.00 101 Outreach and Marketing Efforts HAND is continuing its outreach efforts. It mailed out 5,900 brochures during the first quarter and is scheduled to attend upcoming community council meetings. HAND has also created television commercials that are running on the City's cable channel and on Univision. Quart" Housing Report 0 For the Quarter From 7/1/2011 to 9/30/2011 I Cap ID Open Date Project Address Valuation State Permit ID Issued Date New Housing Units BLD2011-04029 7/1/2011 WIRTHLIN RESIDENCE 1369 E LAIRD Ave $2,200.00 110701001 7/1/2011 1 BLD2011-03016 5/25/2011 1497 WASATCH 1497 W WASATCH Ave $71,465.00 110712018 7/12/2011 1 BLD2011-02445 4/29/2011 JOHNSON RESIDENCE 2280 N 2200 W $94,000.00 110722007 7/22/2011 1 . Permits Issued Number of Units July 3 3 August I Cap ID Open Date Project Name Project Address Valuation State Permit ID Issued Date New Housing Units BLD2010-04277 6/25/2010 RENDON TERRACE 158 N 600 W $7,000,000.00 110816009 8/16/2011 70 . Permits Issued Number of Units IEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 70 I Cap ID Open Date Project Name Project Address Valuation State Permit ID Issued Date New Housing Units BLD2011-00056 1/4/2011 SOLEIL COVE LOT 1 1710 S Soleil CV $220,000.00 110930017 9/30/2011 1 BLD2011-05123 8/16/2011 CRANDALL COVE SUBDIVISION LOT 2865 S 1335 E $500,000.00 110907017 9/7/2011 1 106 . Permits Issued Number of Units II September = M 2 2 Permits Issued Number of Units 6 75 Additions,Remodels,&Repairs July --_ _-- Permits Issued Number of Units I ' 93 115 N y-� N• N ._ N a n > > z O O O N 4f d a a E E E • 3 0 z z z -- a, v N 1 d �O I a' 3 N" N �(Ai :in'N Y E E E ✓ a, kia a. a__...... !!LI Boarded Buildings Activity 1st Quarter July 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011 Existing Boarded buildings as of June 30, 2011 55 Vacant/Secure Buildings as of June 30, 2011* 123 Demolition 7 Resolved 9 New boarded buildings 7 Total boarded buildings September 30, 2011 46 Buildings vacant/secure September 30, 2011 105 *Properties, which are vacant, and complaints or activity is such that they require monitoring, but not boarding. CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT Districts Boarded Buildings Vacant& Secured Buildings District#1 6 11 District #2 10 21 District #3 1 16 District #4 19 25 District #5 7 - 22 District #6 1 2 District #7 2 8 Total 46 105 rvmyR CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 10/4/2011 i Address 1District#1 - Boarded !Sidwell No. !Owner Owner's Address , Boarded* Comments •1569 North Baroness Street 108-22-330-009 !Rene Guerra 1569 North Baroness Street !Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84116 %. 571 North Redwood Road �,08-34-131-028 Mariposa Properties &• 1260 East Stratford Avenue ,Residential Development LLC i Salt Lake City, UT 84106 578 North Redwood Road 1 08-34-202-012-1001 Alan T. Parsons 131 S_McClelland Street#3 1 Reside ntial !Salt Lake City, UT 84102 i 1 Oct-99 -- -- 1 esid 2816 Provo Way !Residential 411 North Star Crest Drive i08-34-153-023 Tofua & Mele S. Tuuefiafi �ISacramento, CA 95822 1 I ..- 1102 West 400 North 08-35-177-021 Salt Lake City Corporation I PO Box 145460 I Residential 1 c/o Property Management Salt Lake City, UT 84114 - - -- --------- — ------------------- I' Boarded Residential 1801 West 1100 North j08-27-176-002 Garth C. North 3653 South 500 East Residential ---- - ------------ ---- 1 ;Salt Lake City, UT 84106 13-Dec Distrtict#1 -Vacant& Secured I 594 North Billy Mitchell Rd. 107-36-201-004 1KRE Properties LLC 14140 Utica Ridge Road 'Commercial Bettendorf, IA 52722 , pWay 1028 West Eclipse 08-26-331-009 1 US Bank NA 11010 South 7th Street Residential - - - Minneapolis, MN 55415 I 553 North Oakley Street 108_35-106-021 1 Bac Home Loans Servicing 1400 Countrywide Way SV-35 ;Residential I _ ' { - Simi Valley, CA 93065 -F ! 1 1848 West Sir Charles Dr. 08-27-157-010 Ma L F Dela Cruz PO Box 33053 Residential Las Vegas, NV 89133 436 North Star Crest Drive 08-34-176-008 'Carmen J Alvarez 436 North Star Crest Drive T Resident- ial & Rodrigo D Costa Salt Lake City, UT 84116 1060 West Sterling Drive 08-26-326-014 -- Larry J Winkelkotter 565 South Cheyenne Street Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84104 1 Richard B Turnbow 1149 North 900 West 149 North 900 West 08 35 453 014 Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84116 1 153 North 900 West 08-35-453-013 1Ralph H Green '2080 West 5620 South i Residential c/o Evan Case :Taylorsville, UT 84129 I i.-._. 279 North 900 West 08-35-403-038 1Margie E. Verig ,5695 South Highland Drive Residential c/o Vierig & Co. Real Estate Holladay, UT 84121 452 North 1100 West 08-35-179-012 Barbara Burrell ;General Delivery Residential it 'Salt Lake City, UT 84101 I I 526 North 1100 West '08-35-133-012 Fannie Mae '14523 SW Millikan Way 200 'Residential _ c/o Lender Business Process Beaverton, OR 97005 Service 1 CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/4/2011 , . . 1 I - 1.........atrIc ..1 Address iSidwell No. Owner Owner's Address 'Boarded* 'Comments 632 South Glendale Street I 15-02-383-013 1Carl W. Barney, Jr. 1854 East 5725 South PRE 1986 1CTO Ogden, UT 84403 Residential _ 1 1 1 1 48 South Jeremy Street '15-02-205-006 1Tunnel Investments LLC 1P0 Box 645 Commercial Lehi, UT 84043 1 1 572 South Post Street 15-02-451-035 Manuel A Landaverde 1409 South 1000 West Residential i : 1 - --- 'Salt Lake City, UT 84104 6-Feb . -- 749 South Prospect Street :157_10-203-001 (Garth C North 3653 South 500 East 111/7/2002 Boarded w/o permits ;Salt Lake City, UT 84106 'Residential 708 South Pueblo Street 15-10-229-010 Nadine Harman 1461 South Cheyenne Street ifesidential :Salt Lake City, UT 84104 1 H : 1 1 , 353 North 700 West 08-35-279-023 !John R. & Helen M Powell 15385 South Ridgecrest Drive I Residential 1 c/o Rita Richins Taylors UT 84129 16-Feb 1 359 North 700 West ;08-35-279-022 John R. & Helen M. Powell ;5385 South Ridgecrest Drive 3-Oct 'Boarded Secured c/o Rita Richins Taylorsville, UT 84129 Residential Residential 1 I 10 South 800 West 115-02-226-006 'Salt Lake City Corporation .P0 Box 145460 l 1Commercia : 1 : c/o Property Management Salt Lake City, UT 84114 1 1 680 South 900 West 15-11-202-015 Maria Duran 1975 South Navajo Street I4-Nov 1DRT for restaurant ; Salt: Lake City, UT 84104 'Residential 1 _I 1476 West 800 South 115-10-232-013 ;Jitske K. Landaal 13375 West 3650 South#310 1Residential 'West Valley, UT 84119 1 1 1 ; 1 1 4 .P ) '4 1 District#2 -Vaant & Secured J 1235 West Arapahoe Ave. '15-11-102-005 !Manuel A Landaverde 614 South Stewart Street Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84104 1487 West Bell Avenue 15-10-476-006 !Miguel P Ramos PO Box 27894 i Salt Lake City, UT 84127 (Residential 871 South Concord Street 15-11-152-008 !Wendy & Darick Sparks '871 South Concord Street Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84104 472 South Emery Street 15-02-308-022 Regan Richmond PO Box 891 i Residential Lehi, UT 84043 974 West Euclid Avenue 15-02-203-013 Tomejiro & Komatsu Yamamoto 1 Lakeview '2-Nov Vacant/Secured &Yukiko Nataishi Stansbury Park UT 84074 1 Residential Residential 'c/o Brad Parsons 1346 West Mead Avenue I15-11-159-014 :Angelina ,Residential Lake City, UT 84104 & Marcos Hernandez !Salt West Mead Avenue 1500 W. North Temple St. 08-34-476-017 1Jae Ju & Lib Bun Jun 1500 West North Temple St. Commercial_ P I I '- - Salt Lake City, 84116 1050 West Pierpont Ave. :15-02-179-008 Edward W. & Gladys R. Evans 11991 South 2240 West _ -j Residential _ Riverton, UT 84065 834 West Simondi Avenue 108-35-257-027 !Claudia & Elmer Dove 5928 South 'I' Street !Residential - - :Tacoma WA 98408 842 West Simondi Avenue 108-35-257-026 Federal National Mortgage Assoc PO Box 650043 Residential - Dallas, TX 75265 1 863 West 100 South j 15-02-206-003 I Curt D Warren 864 West 100 South - 'Commercial Salt Lake City, UT 84104 1 i 927 West 300 South :15-02-257-002 'Ron Case 9288 South Janalee Drive 1Residential 1 West Jordan, UT 84088 1 1 1 I 1 973 West 500 South 1 1 15-02-451-002 1Empire Recreation Inc 12142 South 3300 West 5-Jul 1Residential, Partially I c/o Michael Fountaine Riverton UT 84065 Residential Boarded, . 1 765 West 800 South 115-11-276-005 1Robert B. Sheldon 354 East Tenth Avenue 1Residential . 1 1 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 1 1 i , 1 1107 AKA 1109 W. 800 S. 115-11-131-003 Maka L. &Vika P. Vai 11448 South 1200 West 1Residential 1 _ Salt Lake City, UT 84104 1 1 1 1 257 North 800 West 108-35-426-010 1Salt Lake Valley Habitat 1257 North 800 West Residential 1 for Humanity Salt Lake City, UT 84101 1 1 ! 1 572 South 800 West I 15-02-476-017 Likeila Ika 14110 S Mackay Meadows PI !Residential - West Valley, UT 84119 i i 1 1250 South 900 West 15-11-454-027 1Milissa Lyman 1307 East 5300 South PResidential 1 Murray, UT 84107 1 , 1426 South 1200 West 115-14-108-013 Asian & Ilmiha Kraja 19784 S. Sweet Blossom Dr. jResidential 'South Jordan, UT 84095 1 1 1 1061 South 1300 West 15-11-302-007 1Maria S Castro Martinez 9539 East Avenue Q2 Residential Palmdale CA 93591 1 709 West 400 North ,08-35-279-011 ikira Waters 709 West 400 North 1Residential ISalt Lake City, UT 84116 . 1 • . i CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/4/2011 District#3 - 77771 Address Sidwel!No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded* Comments 70 South Wolcott Street 16-04-104-016 Gamma Beta House Assoc Inc PO Box 25365 Residential c/o Rick Strehl Salt Lake City, UT 84125 District#3 -Vacant & Secured 658 North East Capitol St 09-31-104-043 Jeffrey E Adams 1448 West 950 North Residential & Igor Maksymiw Provo UT 84604 253 West Fern Avenue 08-25-456-007 Echoland Properties LLC 1505 North 1980 West 5-Mar Boarded Owner Provo, UT 84604 Residential 619 East Fifth Avenue 09-32-306-019 Carol Weeks 1413 East Center Street Residential Bountiful, UT 84010 1 119 East First Avenue 09-32-481-016 Locke Avenues LLC 3500 Lenox Road #200 Residential c/o One Alliance Center Atlanta, GA 30326 1204 East First Avenue 09-32-489-001 Bleu Moon LLC PO Box 1149 Residential c/o Mark Bonasera Mgr Monterey, CA 93942 647 North Grant Street 08-35-226-011 Patricia B. Watson 727 South 1000 West 5-Aug Boarded Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84104 Residential 579 W. North Temple St. 08-36-354-020 GCII Investments LC 242 South 200 East Commercial Salt Lake City, UT 84111 214 East Tenth Avenue 09-31-176-001 Elsie M Knowlton 725 South 200 West#102 Residential c/o Heather Knowlton Salt Lake City, UT 84101 577 East Tenth Avenue 09-32-109-005 Federal National Mortgage 400 National Way Residential Association Simi Valley, CA 93065 275 North Vine Street 08-36-433-002 Chad Spector 1909 Shadow Valley Drive Residential Ogden, UT 84403 572 North Wall Street 08-36-229-015 Derek S Miller 166 North 'T' Street Residential c/o Lisa Miller Salt Lake City, UT 84103 245 West 300 No. Rear 08-36-403-037 Charles D & Charles R Larsen 186 East Dorchester Drive Residential c/o Dean Larsen Salt Lake City, UT 84103 175 West 400 North 08-36-282-010 George A Venizelos 175 West 400 North 3-Mar Vacant Secured Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Residential 340 West 700 North 08-25-378-021 Michael W McKendrick 336 West 700 North Mixed Use Salt Lake City, UT 84103 343 West 800 North 08-25-377-006 Wade Peabody PO Box 521474 Commercial AKA 345 West 700 North Salt Lake City, UT 84152 585 North 400 West 08-36-128-031 Allen Jeppeson & 1346 North Colorado Street Commercial Michael G.Haslam Salt Lake City, UT 84116 CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/4/2011 District 4 - Boarded Address Sidwe!!No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded* Comments 836-838 S. Jefferson St. 15-12-254-027 Redevelopment Agency of PO Box 145518 Duplex Vacant/Secured Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Residential PTB Expired 4/29/08 455 East Sego Ave. 16-06-461-018 Richard K. Thomas Jr. 167 West 1300 North 1992 PTB Expires Sunset, UT 84015 Residential 26-Aug 46 South 700 East 16-05-101-005 Northcliffe III LLC 780 East Northcliffe Drive Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84103 50 South 700 East 16-05-101-006 Northcliffe III LLC 780 East Northcliffe Drive May-89 PTB Exp 7/01 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Residential 632 So. 700 East#rear 16-05-353-014 Trolley Square Associates LLC 600 East Las Colinas#400 1-Aug Permit Exp 10/9/02 c/o L Phillips 3rd Fl Operations Irving, TX 75039 Residential 322 South 1100 East 16-05-402-026 V Paul Schaaf 1140 East Harrison Avenue 1-Sep Stay granted Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Residential Going to B.O.A. 666 East 300 South 16-05-154-003 Vincent Court LLC 655 East 400 South PRE 1998 PTB 10-06 Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Residential 479 East 400 South 16-06-403-018 Grey Oak LLC 2157 South Lincoln Street Commercial Salt Lake City, UT 84106 427 East 600 South 16-06-454-019 Denver Delight LLC 465 West 800 South PRE 1992 PTB Exp 3/21/03 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Residential 652 East 600 South 16-05-353-001 Trolley Square Associates LLC 600 E Las Colinas#t'100 PRE 1990 Exp, 10/09/05 c/o L Phillips 3rd FL Operations Irving, TX 75039 Residential 345 West 700 South 15-12-130-027 Urban Blue Development LLC 250 East 100 South Commercial Salt Lake City, UT 84111 29 East 900 South 16-07-151-020 Ninth Street Development LLC PO Box 65809 Commercial Salt Lake City, UT 84165 501 East 900 South 16-07-276-028 MB Rentco LLC 8 East Hillside Ave#801 Spring 1997 PTB Exp 3/01/06 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Commercial 521 East 900 South 16-07-276-031 Lionel M. Drage 3830 South 2900 East 2/24/2004 do Filia H. Uipi Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Residential 219 West 200 South 15-01-254-018 Olafson II LLC 224 South 200 West 3-Sep Secured do Jaye Olafson/Tomax Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Residential 566 West 200 South 15-01-108-011 Mary M. Drasbek 530 Utterback Store Road Residential Great Falls, VA 22066 Jul-06 349 West 700 South 15-12-130-002 Urban Blue Development LLC 726 East Sixth Avenue Commercial Fire damage Salt Lake City, UT 84103 6-Jul 643 South 400 West 15-01-380-011 Ameritel Inn, Elko, LLC 10200 West Emerald Street Commercial Boise, ID 83704 161 South 600 West 15-01-108-008 E Jex& Jeannine Hepworth LLC 708 East Riverview Circle Commercial Pine, ID 83647 District#4-Vacant& Secured 649 South Conway Ct 16-06-458-004 Dean & Rosie C Y Williams 649 South Conway Ct Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84111 925 E. East Place 16-05-332-013 Kay H Christensen 925 East East Place 4-Sep Boarded Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Residential 755 South Elizabeth St 16-08-229-009 Susan R. Fulsome 755 South Elizabeth Street Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84102 511 E Hawthorne Ave 16-06-476-018 Bonnie Kingston 511 East Hawthorne Avenue Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84102 144 South Main Street 15-01-229-068 Redevelopment Agency of SLC PO Box 145518 Commercial c/o Executive Director Salt Lake City, UT 84114 158 South Main Street 15-01-229-070 Redevelopment Agency of SLC PO Box 145518 Commercial c/o Executive Director Salt Lake City, UT 84114 354 South Strongs Ct. 16-05-326-015 Clark W. Miles PO Box 25083 Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84125 825 So.Washington St. 15-12-253-003 SNT Enterprises LC 231 West 800 South #A Residential Active permits Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Sep-06 831 So.Washington St. 15-12-253-004 SNT Enterprises LC 231 West 800 South #A 5-Apr Vacant/Secure Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Residential Closed to Occupancy 123 S. West Temple St. 15-01-229-012 VMM Arrow Press LLC 51 East 400 South #210 Commercial Salt Lake City, UT 84111 643 South 300 East 16-06-386-002 Wells Fargo Bank NA One Home Campus Residential c/o MAC X2505-05D Des Moines, IA 50328 541-543 So. 500 East 16-06-476-041 Autonomy Incorporated 6036 South Linden Street Residential Holladay, UT 84121 780 South 500 East 16-07-210-022 Joseph Shool 2388 East 1700 South Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84108 634 South 700 East 16-05-353-012 Martha Daniels 1960 South 400 East Apr-99 Vacant Secure c/o Janie M Durham Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Residential CTO Fire damage 320-322 So. 900 East 16-05-327-011 US Bank 12650 Ingenuity Drive Residential c/o Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC Orlando, FL 32826 543 South 1000 East 16-05-452-006 Lewis J. Paskett 369 East 900 South #132 Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84111 45 East 200 South 16-06-151-006 Alice Hsia PO Box 80804 Commercial San Marino, CA 91118 319 East 800 South 16-07-131-004 Tuy-Hong Vo PO Box 651553 Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84165 540 East 500 South 16-06-476-032 Utah Community Credit Union 188 West River Park Drive Residential c/o PO Box 1900 Provo, UT 84603 563-565 East 600 So. 16-06-477-023 Metro Envision Real Estate 321 South Main St. #201 Residential Vacant duplex c/o Toshio Osaka Salt Lake City, UT 84111 820 East 600 South 16-05-380-009 Dee Dillman 755 East Northcrest Drive Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84103 621 East 700 South 16-07-228-025 Ryan W Jones 621 East 700 South Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Citation#159930 Boarding letter sent 149 East 900 South 16-07-176-016 Bonnie F. Miller Investments LTD 344 East Draper Downs Dr. Commercial Draper, UT 84020 Rehab w/permits 839 South 200 West 15-12-254-008 Redevelopment Agency of SLC PO Box 145518 Commercial Salt Lake City, UT 84114 244 South 500 West 15-01-152-022 S L Beehive LLC 1301 South 2100 East Commercial Salt Lake City, UT 84108 CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/4/2011 District#5 - Boarded Address Sidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded* Comments 1856 South Edison Street 16-18-308-011 Douglas C. & Linda H. Bott 1863 South State Street 1996 Permit Exp. 11/30/2004 486-1691 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Residential BOA Commercial Appeal 182 East Hampton Avenue 16-07-312-018 Christian T. & Christy L. Allen 2963 South Judith Street Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84106 365 East Harvard Avenue 16-07-405-013 Betty J. Mark PO Box 651069 Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84165 1241 South Major Street 16-07-353-009 Free Wesleyan Church of 57 East 1300 South Commercial Tonga in Utah Salt Lake City, UT 84115 1359 South Major Street 16-18-102-001 Aurora Loan Services LLC 2617 College Park Drive Commercial Scottsbluff NE 69361 1815 South State Street 16-18-306-004 MFFP LLC Series Dad's Store 170 West Rosewood Circle Commercial AKA 1811 & 1819 S State Centerville, UT 84014 915-17 South Jefferson St. 15-12-279-004 Dwight Laird L. L. C. 1182 East Laird Avenue 6/4/1999 No Permit to Board Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Residential District#5 -Vacant & Secured 23 East Cleveland Avenue 16-18-101-020 Dan Garzarelli 1813 South 1500 East Residential Boarded no PTB Salt Lake City, UT 84105 6-Jun Junk/Tire Storage 134 East Downington Ave. 16-18-307-004 Grant A Walker 134 East Downington Avenue Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84115 1852 South Edison Street 16-18-308-010 Blaine E. & Phyllis J.Tanner 1833 South State Street Residential c/o Tanner Transmissions Inc. Salt Lake City, UT 84115 1875 South Edison Street 16-18-333-006 Wade Rees Real Estate LLC PO Box 1190 Residential Riverton, UT 84065 254 West Fayette Avenue 15-12-257-023 Ronald H. & Danielle K. 514 North Locust Avenue Residential Vacant Duplex Torgersen Lindon, UT 84042 1363 South Filmore Street 16-16-127-003 H. Ken Engeman 1435 East Yale Avenue Residental Salt Lake City, UT 84105 1367 South Lincoln Street 16-17-132-005 Carl E. Connelly 2263 E. High Mountain Drive Residential Sandy,.UT 84092 1497 South Main Street 16-18-104-019 Won June Lee 4372 South Bouck Circle Commercial West Valley, UT 84120 1341 East Michigan Avenue 16-09-153-058 Kim Hardy 1337 East Michigan Avenue 6-Aug Salt Lake City, UT 84105 771 East Roosevelt Avenue 16-17-107-031 Hugh C. Cowley 771 East Roosevelt Avenue Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84105 35 East Redondo Avenue 16-18-353-018 Kathryn J. Price 4760 South Highland Dr. #141 3-Feb Vacant/Secured Holladay UT 84117 1149 So. West Temple St. 15-12-431-004 Todd W. Gee 1145 South West Temple St. Commercial Salt Lake City, UT 84101 1044 East Wood Avenue 16-17-253-010 Claudia S. &J. Douglas 4693 Madison Residential Jacobsen - do Sallee Orr Ogden, UT 84403 1050 East Wood Avenue 16-17-253-011 Claudia A. &J. Douglas 4693 Madison Avenue Residential Jacobsen - do Sallee Orr Ogden, UT 84403 1032 East 900 South 16-08-254-049 John Rice 1032 East 900 South Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84105 150 East 1300 South 16-07-379-001 Quality for Animal Life Inc. 6037 South Highland Drive#2 Residential Holladay, UT 84121 1470 East 1300 South 16-09-357-013 Federal National Mortgage 400 National Way Residential Association Simi Valley CA 93065 18 West 1700 South 15-13-282-011 James H. Hatch 838 North Main Street Commercial Farmington, UT 84025 28 West 1700 South 15-13-282-010 James H. Hatch 838 North Main Street Commercial Farmington, UT 84025 1430 South 400 East 16-18-204-026 Steve Atkin & Jim Arthur 1426 South 400 East Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84115 1321 South 500 East 16-07-478-015 Michael C. Lobb 1714 South 1100 East Commercial c/o Service First Realty Group Salt Lake City, UT 84105 1046 South 400 West 15-12-328-009 SLC 1030 LLC PO Box 126308 5-May Commercial, old warehouse c/o Trilogy Real Estate Mgmt San Diego CA 92112 Commercial Transient issues, Boarded CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/4/2011 District#6 - Boarded Address Sidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded* Comments 1316 E. Downington Ave. 16-17-430-001 J. Helen Udell PO Box 520638 4-Mar Duplex % Roger W Swensen Salt Lake City, UT 84152 Residential Vacant 1.12Lstrict#6 -Vacant& Secured 1456 East Logan Avenue 16-16-157-009 Gary L. Beard 858 South 300 East Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84111 2134 East Roosevelt Ave. 16-15-110-005 Ann R Cunningham 2124 East Roosevelt Avenue Residential do Rebecca Dunham Salt Lake City, UT 84108 :t CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/4/2011 District#7 - Boarded Address Sidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded* Comments 820 East Westminster Ave. 16-17-376-004 Maxine M. Robinson 820 East Westminster Avenue Residential Salt Lake City, UT 84105vta 2818 South Highland Drive 16-29-229-002 John E. Arrington 1921 East Summer Willow PI Residential Vacant Partial Boarded do Craiag P Arrington Sandy, UT 84093 District#7 -Vacant& Secured 2855 South Highland Drive 16-28-103-008 C. Ray Openshaw III 1127 West Dalton Avenue Commercial c/o Trust Department Salt Lake City, UT 84104 2739 So.McClelland St. 16-20-457-012 Norman D. & Diane Gritton & 4272 Sunnyside Drive Residential Carol Wilson Riverside, CA 92506 2233 East Parleys Terrace 16-22-327-007 William P. & Richard B. Neville 3109 Haddonstone Drive Residential Owens Cross Rds., AL 35763 1147 East Ramona Ave. 16-17-454-023 Bank of New York Mellon 400 National Way Residential Simi Valley, CA 93065 984 East Wilson Avenue 16-17-333-015 Manoochehr Khavari 2700 West 2nd Street Residential c/o Khavar Rohat Abadi Roswell, NM 88201 2025 South 1200 East 16-17-476-012 Gardiner Properties 1200 E LLC 1073 East 2100 South Residential do John Gardiner Salt Lake City, UT 84106 2033 South 1200 East 16-20-226-001 Gardiner Properties 1200 E LLC 1073 East 2100 South Commercial c/o John Gardiner Salt Lake City, UT 84106 RDA AND HOUSING TRUST FUND QUARTERLY REPORTS LEDGER First Quarter, 2011-2012 2010-11 - RDA HOUSING TRUST FUND CREDIT DEBIT BALANCE BEGINNING BALANCE as of July 1, 2010 1,214,259.00 RDA Contribution to Trust Fund 100,000.00 1,314,259.00 2010-11 - HOUSING TRUST FUND CREDIT DEBIT BALANCE BEGINNING BALANCE as of July 1, 2010 3,716,000.00 Quarterly Subdivision Housing Report For the Quarter From July 2011 to September 2011 PO,757,'::WYTTIPK.,7,ar7glarridgraMENIESEFERMETEAOTONIZEMME Preliminary Plats* 7/7/2011 Planning S1VanCr Business Park 1303 S SWANER Rd 2 Corn COMMISS i on 7/7/2011 Administrative 1444 1/Yale Ave Minor Sub 1,1214 F.YALE:Ave 11.ine adjustment Res !fearing 7/14/201 Planning State Street Plaza 237 S State 180 Res Commission 8/1/2011 Planning FIRST UNITARIAN CIII1RCII OF SALT LAKE CITY 516 S 1300 e 1 Consolidation Commission Lots/Units Residential ISO Quarter Totals Lots /Units Commercial 3 Preliminary* SALT LAKE CITY CDBG QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT This form is to be used to report on the funding provided by Salt Lake City for this grant. Do not report 1000/0 of your programmatic results unless Salt Lake City CDBG fully funded your program. FY 11/12: 1st Qtr. _X_ 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr. Name of Subrecipient: Community Development Corporation of Utah Name of Program: CDBG Administration Contact Person:Jean Barton Phone #: 801-994-7222 Email:jean@cdcutah.org SECTION I - PROJECT DESCRIPTION &STATUS SECTION II- RACE/ETHNICITY I otai Served THIS Hispanic/ Race Category Qtr Latino White 1 Black or African American Asian American Indian or Alaskian Native Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native&White Asian and White Black or African American&White American Indian or Alaska Native and Black or African American Multi-Racial Other Grand Total of Clients served with SLC funding: 1 0 SECTION III - BENEFICARY INCOME Income Category New/Continuing access to Improved access to Service Service or Infrastructure no (Median Family Income) Service or Infrastructure or Infrastructure longer substandard Extremely Low (<300/0 MFI) Very Low (310/0 to 500/0 MFI) 1 Low/Mod (51%-79% MFI) Non-Low MOO (>80% MFI) Totals: 1 0 0 SECTION IV -ACCESS TO SERVICES Of All Reported Beneficiaries, How Many Are: # Clients 1. Disabled 0 2. Single Female Head of Household (with children under the age of 18) 0 SECTION V- PROGRAM FUNDS(List all sources of funding utilized in supporting this program) PROGRAM FUNDS AMOUNT ESG Funds HOME Funds HOPWA Funds Other Federal Funds(including CDBG from other sources) State/Local Funds Private Funds Other Total $ - SECTION VI - HOUSING INFORMATION (Assist,CDC, NeighborWorks&SLC HAND only) Of Owner Occupied Units: # Units 1. Units Occupied by Elderly: 2. Units Moved from Substandard to Standard (HQS or Local Code) 3. Section 504 Accessible Units 4. Units Qualified as Energy Star 5. Units Brought into Compliance with Lead Safety Rules (24 CFR Part 35) SECTIOIN VII - RENTER INFORMATION (Assist,CDC, NeighborWorks&SLC HAND only) iota' g Income Category Race Category (Renters) Served THIS Hispanic/ Report"OWNERS" IN SECTION Report"OWNERS" in Section II Qtr Latino III Renters White Extremely Low (<30% MFI) AdmioBlack or African American Very Low(31%-50% MFI) ` Asian Low/Mod (51%-79% MFI) American Indian or Alaskian Native Non-Low Mod (>80% MFI) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native&White Asian and White Black or African American&White Am Indian/Alaska Native&Black/African Am Multi-Racial Other Grand Total of Clients served with SLC funding: 0 0 SECTION VIII: SHELTER ACTIVITIES- FILL IN SHADED AREAS ONLY **This section is to be filled out by:CCS,Road Home,YWCA and any other organization that received funding under the "PUBLIC SERVICE"category of the CDBG grant that provides support to Homeless individuals/families. Of the total number of persons assisted: # Persons Homeless Persons given Overnight Shelter Beds Created(w/this funding)in Overnight Shelter HOME QUARTERLY REPORT HOME quarterly reports shall be due to Salt Lake City no later than October 31, 2011, January 31, 2012, April 30, 2012, and July 31, 2012. In addition to the quarterly reports, the annual report shall also be due no later than July 31, 2012. Submit all reports to: Steven Akerlow Phone: 535-7115 Housing & Neighborhood Development 451 South State St., Room 406 PO Box 145488 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488 Numbers included in this report should only involve HOME funds received from Salt Lake City, not the County or your entire budget. NAME OF SUBGRANTEE ORGANIZATION: _Community Development Corporation of Utah PROJECT/PROGRAM NAME: _Property Acquisition and Rehabilitation CONTACT NAME:_Jean Barton CONTACT PHONE: _(801) 994-7222 CONTACT ADDRESS:_501 E 1700 S, SLC 84105 CONTACT EMAIL:_jean@cdcutah.org TIME PERIOD COVERED: July 1, 2011 to September 30, 2011 Report the total number of clients served in the first column. In the second column report the number of clients counted in the first column also claiming Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. If clients only claim Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, include them first in the White race column. Adding an "Unknown" category is not acceptable. If necessary, make a best guess estimate. CODE RACE/ETHNICITY Total Number Hispanic 14 American Indian or Alaska Native 16 American Indian or Alaska Native and White 19 American Indian or Alaska Native and Black or African American 13 Asian 17 Asian and White 12 Black or African American 18 Black or African American and White 15 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1 11 White 20 Balance of individuals reporting more than one race TOTALS 1 INCOME INFORMATION Indicate below the number of households/persons served in each income category below. Please indicate whether you are serving households (H) or persons (P). Total numbers from Income Information must match those from the Race/Ethnicity totals above. Adding an "Unknown" category is not acceptable. If necessary, make a best guess estimate. Number of clients assisted at 30% AMI or lower Number of clients assisted between 31% and 50% AMI 1 Number of clients assisted between 51% and 60% AMI Number of clients assisted between 61% and 80% AMI Total Number of Households/Persons Served during the Quarter: 1 HOUSING ACTIVITIES Types of housing activities: Rental housing development, property acquisition for home buyer development, home owner housing development, home buyer assistance, housing rehabilitation and tenant based rental assistance. Types of activities NOT considered housing activities: Emergency shelter assistance and short- term assistance to support homeless persons are considered public service activities, not housing activities. ovillook Homebuyer Assistance Activities: Types of homebuyer assistance housing activities: Down payment and closing cost assistance, gap financing, interest rate buy-downs, and subsidized second mortgages. Of the total number of persons assisted, how many: Are first time home buyers 1 Are receiving down payment/closing cost assistance 1 Are coming from subsidized housing Are receiving housing counseling 1 Total number of housing units in entire project: 1 Of those, how many are HOME assisted 1 Total number of units in entire project meeting Energy Star Standards Of those, how many are HOME assisted Total number of units in entire project meeting 504 Accessibility Standards Of those, how many are HOME assisted Homebuyer Project Addresses for which these HOME funds assisted: 258 N 900 W, Salt Lake City Homebuyer Development Activities: Types of homebuyer development housing activities: Property acquisition for homebuyer housing development, new construction of homebuyer units and rehabilitation of existing units for resale to homebuyers. Total number of housing units in entire project: 1 Of those, how many are HOME assisted 1 Of those, how many units are restricted for those at 80% AMI 1 or less whether HOME assisted or not Total number of units in entire project meeting Energy Star Standards: Of those, how many are HOME assisted Total number of units in entire project meeting 504 Accessibility: Standards Of those, how many are HOME assisted Of the total owner units developed: Number for households previously living in subsidized housing Number of units to be occupied by the elderly (62 and older) Number of units to be occupied by a female-headed household Number of units set aside for persons with HIV/AIDS Of those, number designated for the chronically homeless Number of units designated for the homeless Of those, number designated for the chronically homeless Rental Housing Activities Types of rental housing activities: Acquisition of existing units for rent, property acquisition for new construction of rental units, new construction of rental units, rehabilitation of existing rental units, and conversion of nonresidential structures into rental units. Total number of housing units in entire project: Of those, how many are HOME assisted Total number of units in entire project meeting Energy Star Standards Of those, how many are HOME assisted Total number of units in entire project meeting 504 Accessibility Standards Of those, how many are HOME assisted Of the total owner units developed: Number of units to be occupied by the elderly (62 and older) Number of units set aside for persons with HIV/AIDS Of those, number designated for the chronically homeless Number of units designated for the homeless Of those, number designated for the chronically homeless Number of years the project will remain affordable Number of units subsidized with project-based rental assistance by another federal, state or local program Number of units designated for homeless persons and families including units receiving assistance for operations Of those, the number of units for the chronically homeless Permanent housing units designated for homeless persons and families including units receiving assistance for operations Of those, the number of units for the chronically homeless Homeowner Rehabilitation Types of homeowner rehabilitation activities: All activities designed to make physical improvements to owner-occupied housing units. Total number of units in the entire homeowner housing rehab project: Of those, the number of units to be occupied by the elderly (62 and older) Units moved from substandard to standard (HQS or local code) Units qualified as meeting Energy Star Standards Units made accessible that now meet Section 504 Standards Units brought into compliance with lead safety rules Rehab Project Addresses for which these HOME funds assisted, if applicable: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Types of tenant-based rental assistance activities: All direct rental assistance to tenants (TBRA), and short-term assistance to households including security deposits. Total number of households assisted: Of those, how many receive short-term rental assistance (not more than 3 mos.) Of those, the number of chronically homeless households Total number of housing units in entire program: Of those, the number of units designated for the homeless Of those, the number designated for the chronically homeless Was this activity carried out by a faith-based organization? YES NO O.Further,the Council may wish to ask for more information on whether this vehicle was previously projected to be near the end of its useful life. A-7: Landlord Tenant Initiative Electronic Training(On-line and DVD)-($30,000- Source: General Fund) As discussed during the October 11 follow-up briefing on the Landlord Tenant Program,the Administration will be developing an on-line training that meets the Program's training requirement.This will include a DVD version as well,for people who may prefer that option. Other training options will continue to be available by outside organizations,but this would provide an option with some flexibility for Landlords. The Administration classified the following as: Grants Requiring Existing Staff Resources B-1:Utah State VOCA Victim Assistance Program($59,750.49-Source:Grant Fund) B-2: Utah State Department of Public Safety 911 Committee Dispatch Equipment ($1,522,324-Source:Grant Fund) B-3:Federal Office of National Drug Control Rocky Mountain HIDTA Grant($67,314- Source:Grant Fund) B-4: WITHDRAWN BY ADMINISTRATION PRIOR TO BUDGET AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL B-5: Utah State Workforce Services Multicultural Teen Grant($70,000-Source:Grant Fund) B-6: Utah State Public Safety Emergency Management Performance Grant($20,000- Source:Grant Fund) B-7: US Department of Health Drug Free Communities Grant($125,000-Source:Grant Fund) The Administration classified the following as: Housekee•in_ D-1: US Department of Interior Additional to the Water Conservation Grant($39,032- Source:Grant Funds) D-2: Utah State Additional to Homeland Security Terrorism Prevention Grant($50,979.60 -Source:Grant Funds) Page D-3: Utah State Department of Public Safety Emergency Management Program Income ($8,244-Source:Grant Fund) D-4: US Department of Energy Solar Salt Lake Grant Increase($20,000-Source:Grant Fund) D-5:CIP Grant Tower Budget Increase($379,441.58-Source:CIP Fund) D-6:CIP Recapture Completed and Closed Projects(($2,593,293-Source:CIP Fund) D-7:Recapture of Grants Completed Projects($0-Source:Grant Fund) D-8:Carryover Budget for E-911 Fund($289,000-Source:E-911 Fund) 1406. D-9:General Fund Carryover Budget for Prior Year Encumbrances($3,288,969-Source: General Fund) D-10:Grants and Other Special Revenue Carryover Budgets from Prior Year($26,416,892 -Sources: Housing-$2,682,072;CDBG Operating-$1,791,102;Misc Grants- $21,277,997;and Special Revenue-$665,721) 11:Donations Fund Carryover from Prior Year($1,871,608.44-Source:Donations Fund) D-12:Additional General Fund Interest Income and Expense($155,208-Source:General Fund) -s The Administration classified the following as: Grants Re•uirin• No New Staff Resources E-1:Utah State Juvenile Justice Drug Public Awareness Grant($250,000-Source:Grant Fund) E-2:US Department of Justice-Justice Assistance Grant($421,634-Source:Gra Funds) E-3:Utah State Department of Environmental Quality Wetland Re-design Grant($18,000 -Source:Grant Funds) SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: November 1,2011 SUBJECT: Social Media Policy AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Neil Lindberg The City Council and Council Staff have taken a number of steps to reach out and involve the public in city governance. One of these is using social media to not only distribute information, but to also receive feedback in the form of online comments. The Council and Staff readily can control what their part of the conversation says. However,under the First Amendment, government is limited in what it may do to manage what commenters say on a public website. The attached Social Media Policy establishes terms of use,within First Amendment limitations, for a City Council social media website such as Facebook. POTENTIAL MOTIONS [I move that the City Council]adopt the attached Social Media Policy. [I move that the City Council]adopt the attached Social Media Policy with the following amendments[specify the change]. [I move that the City Council]not adopt the attached Social Media Policy. KEY POINTS 1.Within First Amendment limitations,the City Council may adopt terms of use for a social media website. 2.A public social media website that allows public comments may be designated as a "limited public forum"open to certain groups or topics. The attached Social Media Policy is limited topically. Comments must relate to City programs,services,projects,issues,events,or activities. 3.Rules for using a government sponsored social media website which is a limited public forum must be reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum and must be viewpoint neutral. 4.Comments posted on a government sponsored social media website may not be deleted simply because they may be critical of Salt Lake City,its officials and employees. However, comments which do not conform to the posted guidelines can be deleted. SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY Attached is a social media terms of use policy for the Council's Facebook page. It may also be used for other Council sponsored social media sites which allow public comments. This draft is an amalgam of many examples prepared by other government entities,policies already posted on the City's official website and my research. It's most important element is a declaration that the site is a"limited public forum." Under First Amendment common law this allows government to exercise reasonable"viewpoint neutral"regulation based on the purpose of the forum(here,to enable communication between the public and the City Council regarding City programs, services,projects,issues,events,and activities). Adopting this policy will allow Council Staff to remove posted comments that are inappropriate based on the posted guidelines. Since this area of the law is evolving,this policy will need to be reviewed periodically to ensure it is consistent with the latest statutory and/or case law. ..k Social Media Policy and Terms of Use The Salt Lake City Council Office(the"City")has created this web page to enable communication between the public and the City Council regarding City programs,services,projects,issues,events,and activities. Salt Lake City's official website is htto://www.slcgov.com/. The City Council's official website is htto://www.slcoov.com/council/. Any individual accessing this page(the"User")accepts,without limitation,the following terms and conditions("Policies"). The City maintains the right to modify these Policies without notice. Any change is effective upon posting to this page. A User of this page is also subject to the terms of use of the website provider("Provider"). Salt Lake City has no control over a Provider's terms of use,content,commercial advertisements or other postings produced by the Provider that may appear on this page as part of the Provider's website environment. Comment and Posting Policy This page is a limited public forum moderated by City staff.Posted content(comments,photos,links, etc.,referred to hereafter As"Comments")must relate to discussion of City programs,services,projects, issues,events,and activities. Comments posted on this web page will not be edited by the City. However,Comments that do not relate to a topic posted by the City may be removed,including Comments that: • Endorse or oppose a political candidate or ballot proposition; • Promote,foster,or perpetuate discrimination on the basis of race,creed,color,age,religion, gender,marital status,national origin,physical or mental disability,or sexual orientation; •Include personal attacks,threatening or harassing language,obscene or sexual content or links to obscene or sexual content; • Solicit commerce,including spam,advertising,or links to other websites; • Promote illegal activity; •Violate a legal ownership interest of any person,including improper use of a trademark or copyrighted material;or • May compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems. Comments are the opinion of the commentator and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of Salt Lake City,its officers,employees,or agents. Comments may be a public record subject to public disclosure under the Utah Government Records and Access Management Act("GRAMA"). Comments made on this page do not constitute a legal or official notice or comment to Salt Lake City and will not be regarded as a request for service. • A Comment asking for a public record will not be considered. A public record request can be made here. •To ensure consideration of a Comment regarding a proposed City Council action,please send an email to Comments.Council@slcoov.com. This web page may contain links to other websites not owned or controlled by the City. The City is not responsible for content that appears on these websites and provides links as a convenience only. The City reserves the right,at any time and without notice,to delete information posted by a User who violates these Policies. A User who,in the opinion of the City,repeatedly violates these Policies may,at any time and without notice,be denied access to this page. Copyright Policy Information and materials produced by the City and posted on this page are City property. The City retains the copyright to all text,graphic images,and other content produced by the City. A User may, without obligation to the City,view,copy,link to,or distribute information found here if for non- commercial use,unless otherwise stated on particular information which has a use restriction. However, the City makes no warranty that information on this web page is free of copyright claims or other restrictions on free use. Commercial use is prohibited. Disdaimers The City does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of any information posted on this web page. The City may suspend or discontinue this web page at any time. The information posted on this web page is provided on an"as is"basis and the User assumes the risk of use or reliance on such information. Salt Lake City,its officers,employees,or agents are not liable for any damages for viewing,distributing,or copying of materials on this web page,including indirect, special,incidental,or consequential damages. Contact Us Questions about these Policies or this web page may be directed to Comments.Councikaslcgov.com. SCANNED TO:, SCANNED BY: L RALPH BECKER ! _;1 %� �.,�,a,. AL!Ti r G�rT_►1'(C�,RPnRiI,© � DATE: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL (L_ OCT z C 2011 Ll f! ►�v LLi ! J Date Recei 4,,e,L, David veritt,Chief of Staff Date sent to Countil. TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:October 20,2011 fill Remington-Love,Chair FROM: David Everitt,Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Changes to Salt Lake City Animal Services Ordinance to Reflect Salt Lake County Animal Services New Approach STAFF CONTACT:Randy Hillier Policy and Budget Analyst 535-6606 Gina Chamness Budget Director 535-7766 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance 8.04 ANIMAL CONTROL,8.04.010: DEFINITIONS,8.04.070:DOG AND CAT LICENSE;REQUIRED WHEN; APPLICATION AND FEES,8.04.080:DOG OR CAT LICENSE;TAG REQUIREMENTS,8.04.090:DOG AND CAT LICENSE;EXEMPTIONS.8.04.100: DOG OR CAT LICENSE;REVOCATION PROCEDURES,8.04.120:RABBITS; NUMBER PER RESIDENCE,8.04.130 COMMERCIAL AND PET RESCUE PERMITS:REQUIRED WHEN;APPLICATION;ISSUANCE CONDITIONS, 8.04.510:ISSUANCE OF MISDEMEANOR CITATIONS;NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS, 8.04.521:SALT LAKE CITY ANLMAL SERVICES ANNUAL PERMITS AND PENALTIES,CONSOLIDATED FEES SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Council approve the attached changes to the Animal Services ordinances,fees and penalties. These ordinance updates are related to the proposals made by Salt Lake County Animal Services to change some of the Animal Services requirements,including enforcement,licensing,and limits on the number of animals per household. The Council was briefed by the County Animal Services Director regarding these proposed changes on April 5th,and expressed support for these changes at that time. .. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE.801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 wwwslcgov.com BUDGET IMPACT: Assuming a December 1 implementation date,we estimate that the County will collect seven months worth of fees at the increased level,or approximately$18.000 in new license fees. However.there is an anticipated reduction in penalty revenue of approximately($11.000). This revenue reduction is due to the fact that under the new non-compliance penalty model,no fee is charged for the first encounter. Animal Services anticipates that during the first year the majority of non- compliance cases will result in a warning only,with no fee being charged. Under the provisions of the existing contract,fees will remain with Salt Lake County and be used to offset Salt Lake City's contractual costs. Salt Lake County has indicated, however,that in the future they may wish to use these additional funds for debt service on a new facility. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Since 1991.Salt Lake City has contracted with Salt Lake County to provide Animal Services. In June of 2004,Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County signed the most recent 5-year contract. Following 2009,Salt Lake City has had the option of extending the contract for five additional 1-year periods. The City has currently extended the contract three times. Salt Lake County has provided Salt Lake City full animal control services through the contract period for a flat fee,negotiated annually. In addition,licensing and other fees remain with Salt Lake County to offset the cost of our contract. In June 2010,the contract was amended to implement a new adoption fee program that eliminated designated animal adoption fees in favor of a fee structure that is based on demand for and adoptability of particular animals. This,along with other changes in the philosophy of Animal Services leadership,has altered the program considerably in the last three years. There has been more of a focus on increased adoption and reduced euthanasia. During the April 5th Council Study Session.Salt Lake County Animal Services presented several proposed changes to their operating model. Since then,the County has adopted this new operating model,and is now encouraging Salt Lake City to adopt the same changes. These proposed changes are anticipated to improve pet licensing compliance, provide more pet ownership educational opportunities and further reduce euthanasia. This new model is largely based on an existing model currently being used in Calgary. Canada. Some of the elements of this new model include cat licensing,removing limits on the number of pets and increasing the cost of licensing non-compliance. These changes are reflected in the attached proposed ordinance. The consolidated fee schedule will need to be amended to include the cat licensing fees. A list of the proposed cat licensing fees,as well as the proposed costs associated with licensing non-compliance is shown below. 1 Cat Licenses Regular Senior Citizen* i 1 Year Lifetime License** j Unsterilized/micro-chipped S15 NIA Sterilized/no microchip $10 j $15 Sterilized/micro-chipped $5 $5 Unsterilized/no microchip I$25 I N/A *Over 60 years of age,proof of age required. **Must provide annual rabies vaccination information. Late Fees First Encounter I No Fee Second Encounter I $125 Third Encounter $250 While the Administration supports the County's recommendation to remove the restrictions on the number of animals,there are a number of areas we will closely monitor in order to ensure this proposed ordinance change does not have unintended long or short-term consequences. This primarily relates to the usage and long-term plans for parks and open space. For example,there is currently a need to evaluate the adequacy of enforcement in parks and open space,as well as to evaluate whether more park space is needed. A change such as removing animal limits may require such evaluations to happen more quickly. Questions regarding the level of enforcement and associated costs, as well as long-term property needs and costs may also need to be answered. The question of whether to change or increase animal limits within parks may also need to be explored. We will also monitor potential effects on city residents who do not own animals. In addition to the above-mentioned changes,the County is proposing the construction of a new pet adoption and education facility. They feel that the existing facility does not currently meet their needs. The County's current plan is to have this facility completed by 2013. Funding for the construction would come through the issuance of Municipal Building Authority(MBA)bonds. The County currently anticipates that revenue from increases in the number of licenses issued,as well as increases in non-compliance fees, will be sufficient to fund the debt service on these bonds. According to the County's current financial estimates,the licensure and penalty changes will provide approximately $223.000 in additional revenues by 2014,for the Salt Lake City area alone. Although it is early in the process,the County is currently projecting that total revenue increases will be sufficient to cover the debt service and increases in operating costs for the new facility,and will not result in increases in Salt Lake City's contract costs. Debt service is anticipated to be approximately$500,000 annually,with an increase of approximately $250,000 in ongoing operating costs. Prior to the County proceeding with the construction of this facility.Salt Lake City will need to thoroughly evaluate whether ongoing revenue will be adequate to cover debt service and operating costs without increasing the burden on the City's General Fund. The City may also want to consider contractual assurance to minimize or eliminate any financial risk for the City. PUBLIC PROCESS: Feedback from the public was sought prior to finalizing these ordinance changes. The information provided by the County was placed on the Open SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 26,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jan Aramaki,Council Staff Member SUBJECT: Proposal to change sections of SLC Code to reflect SL County Animal Services' new operating model and approach to include: removal of two (2) dogs/cats limit per residence with a recommended change of no limit;implement a cat licensing fee; an increase to the annual renewal late penalty fee; and construction of a new pet adoption and education facility. CC: David Everitt,Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rick Graham, Ed Rutan,Jeff Niermeyer,Gina Chamness,Randy Hillier, Linda Hamilton,Patrick Leary,Shawni Larrabee,April Harris,Jason Oldroyd,City Council Liaisons,Mayor Liaisons,Andrew Keddington,Jim Strong,Emy Maloutas,Ann Ober,Lehua Weaver,Karen Halladay.Leslie Chan ACTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL (ORDINANCE REVISIONS) In April of 2011,Salt Lake County Animal Services briefed the City Council on Animal Services'new operating model and approach that includes a more effective licensing program modeled after Calgary,Canada. The intent behind Animal Services' change in its operating model and approach is to work toward encouraging and promoting responsible pet ownership and in creating a safer and more responsible community for both pets and the public. As a follow-up to the City Council's April briefing on this topic, the Administration has provided four proposed ordinance revisions to Chapter 8.04, the Animal Control sections of Salt Lake City Code, for the City Council's consideration. On April 15, 2011, Salt Lake County adopted these changes into their code. The County is interested in the City Council adopting these same changes into Salt Lake City Code to align County and City codes. 1. Removal of two (2) dogs and two (2) cats limit per residence. Recommended change to Salt Lake City Code is to allow unlimited number of dogs/cats provided that they receive licenses, vaccinations, and proper care from owners. There are numerous people who currently do not license their pets because they have more than the current limit of two (2) per residence. 1 Unsterilized/no $25 N/A microchip To qualify for a senior citizen/lifetime license fee, resident must show proof one is 60 years of age. Proof of current rabies vaccination for cat(s) is also required. 3. Increase current $25 late licensing renewal penalty. In April 2011 when the County adopted the increased late licensing renewal penalties, they elected to educate County residents on the increased penalty for the first year and with the intent to encourage responsible pet ownership. The County reports compliance has been positive and they have yet to issue anyone for the second encounter fee of$125. - PROPOSED INCREASE;IN LA i' LIC N ING RENEW1 pE TAI.Ti y' :' A ' I.E P12G Gel - lu'addition to the list d'pro v efont1e es for r dh- hanc `'to eerie 1 regular iicen a fee{s al ti' eo First offense/encounter No fee Second offense/encounter $125 Third offense/encounter $250 Note: According to Section 8.04.521(B): Appendix A: Salt Lake City Animal Services Annual Permits and Penalties, there are separate violation penalties per animal if a person is non-compliant with initially licensing dog(s)/cat(s): First offense $25; second offense $50; third offense $100; and subsequent offenses become criminal (occurrences within a 24 month period). 4. Build a new pet adoption and education facility. The proposal to build a new pet adoption and education facility is to better meet the needs of the community and Animal Services. The County believes a stronger community would be developed through an education and safety program by utilising education to enhance responsible pet ownership,such as providing courses on proper animal care, and how to better train one's pet. BUDGET RELATED FACTS Funding plans for the proposed new pet adoption and education facility will be through a Local Building Authority (LBA) bond. As part of the Administration's transmittal, estimated generated revenue to cover debt services on LBA is provided, but is no longer applicable because the County Council has since allocated $40,000 for a shelter feasibility study to be completed by December 12th. Animal Services reports that a 90 day programming study is halfway completed. Details from the study will assist with identifying size of the facility and approximate costs. More information will be available for the City Council in 2012 once Salt Lake County Council has time to review the final programming study with Animal Services. 3 2. Animal Service's Recommendation to Maintain a Pet Rescue Permit: According to Animal Services,it is best to maintain the pet rescue permit even if pet limits are removed from Salt Lake City Code. Foster animals are required to be licensed if they remain in a foster home longer than 30 days. By maintaining a rescue permit and licensing requirement,Animal Services will be able to track the number of foster homes in Salt Lake City as well as individual animals coming in and out of those homes. 3. Status Report from the County on how their New Approach is Working for County Residents When the County and Administration briefed the City Council in April 2011 on this topic,the County anticipated positive outcomes should result from their new operating model and approach. Below is a status report(question/answer format) on the reported successes of their new approach: Q At the Council's April 2011 briefing,the City Council was informed of SL County Animal Services' intent to also create a friendlier image approach by changing the way Animal Services officers interact with the community-with the goal to identify and achieve solutions to issues which would minimize enforcement through emphasis of education, mediation and improved communication when assisting community members. What type of feedback has the County received from the community regarding Animal Services' friendlier approach? Has the County seen a reduction in enforcement since Animal Services officers have been working toward achieving solutions through art emphasis of education,mediation and improved communication when assisting community members? A The County doesn't yet have comprehensive data to measure their success regarding the implementation of a friendlier approach in the community;however,they have received positive feedback from their officers and a number of positive calls from residents they serve. The County provides all staff (including officers,shelter personnel,managers and supervisors)with 20 hours of mediation/conflict resolution training. The field management team meets with the officers on a regular basis to share ideas and techniques that have been used to solve irresponsible or uneducated pet owner issues in the field- problem solving efforts are more apparent and common amongst staff. By empowering staff to solve problems by education rather than enforcement,there has been an improvement in employee morale which contributes to improved positive customer interactions. 5 Q What educational efforts were made by the County when unlimited number of pets,cat licensing,and increased late renewal pet licensing fee were first implemented? A Educational efforts were made through the County's website,mass mailings,customer interactions,outreach events and media. The County anticipates using these same communication tools if the City adopts the proposed ordinances. The County intends to hire an Education Specialist to focus on educating the community in the near future. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Open City Hall: Following the April 2011 City Council briefing on this topic,the Administration engaged the public regarding this proposal on Open City Hall (OCH)for three weeks. OCH results indicate: • 165 attendees • 25 participants from City residents • 1.3 hours of public comment received Overall, the comments received were in support of the changes proposed to Animal Services program. Concerns expressed on various aspects of the proposal are captured for the City Council's review in the following"Matters at Issue" section. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION AND/OR COUNTY: 1. If the Council supports the proposed changes,you may wish to express additional educational steps you are interested in having the Administration and the County include in their communication toolbox. 2. The Administration had published on Open City Hall the following topic for public input: The Administration is interested in combining the Parks, Trails and Urban Forestry Board with the Open Space Advisory Board. What is your opinion about this change? Topic is now CLOSED and transmittal has been received in the Council Office. According to the Administration,if both these boards are combined,this board will play an important role in the open space natural areas within the City which also will tie into off-leash areas for open space areas-the Administration views this as a stepping stone regarding the discussion of off-leash areas in open space natural areas. The Administration and County are in the process of exploring the City of Boulder's Voice and Sight Dog Tag Program and are working to identify how a program of this 7 increase in the number of barking dog complaints since the County adopted a no limit on the number of pets and whether there have been any changes to the process to help streamline a resolution. • Pet owners may opt to abandon their unlicensed pets at the shelter rather than paying the non-compliance penalties. • Lack in enforcement efforts relating to animals running at large and off-leash dogs along the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. • Request for some type of process to exempt people with financial hardships from increased late renewal license fees. • Construction of a new education/pet adoption facility is a duplication of service that existing non-profits already provide. 9 // /8 SCANNED TO: SCANNED BY: RALPHr BoERCKER S '�1 \� a�Nit 0..O. 0M II02 DATE: /0 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR �� CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL D ( Q U -, RE E3 '.r / 1 OCT 2 0 2011 Date Received g Davi veritt, Chief of Staff SLC COUNCIL OFF ate sent to Council: 1 I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 19,2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Budget Opening#3 for Fiscal Year 2011-12 STAFF CONTACT: Gina Chamness (801) 535-7766 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a public hearing date to discuss the budget amendment#3 for Fiscal Year 2011-12. BUDGET IMPACT: This proposed amendment would increase the Capital Improvement Project(CIP) fund budget by $15,000,000, funded by the sale of a short term financing note. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Attached is a revenue forecast for the General Fund based on revenues through the end of September. This forecast shows the City essentially on-track to meet its revenue targets this year and has not changed from the forecast submitted previously as part of Budget Amendment#2. The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $15,000,000 associated with the Utah Performing Arts Center(UPAC). A separate transmittal addresses the overall plan for the project, including proposed funding sources for an estimated total cost of$110,000,000. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing 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 �aE. Eo P,.PER SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2011-2012) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 50 of 2011 Which Adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City,Utah,for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2011 and Ending June 30,2012. PREAMBLE On August 9,2011,the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,Utah,inchiding the employment staffing document,for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2011 and ending June 30,2012,in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6,Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated,and said budget,including the employment staffing document,was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City,Utak The City's Budget Director,acting as the City's Budget Officer,prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget,including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto,for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget,including the employment staffing document as provided above,have been accomplished. . c Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document,as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 50 of 2011. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments,including amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be,and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah,including the amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2011 and ending June 30,2012,in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6,Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document,in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2011. CHAIRPERSON A ZEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR A1ThST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Ott' ice Date to' -1 CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: 13B ATrY-i15990-v2-Budget Amendment FYI1-I2.DOC 3 Salt Lake Ci FY2011-12 Bud•et Amendment#3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Section A: New Items A-1 UPAC Short Term Financing: Project Design CIP $15,000,000 The Utah Performing Arts Center(UPAC)will include an approximately 2500-seat theater,as well as rehearsal spaces and other facilities that will support the operation of the theater and various performing arts functions. A separate transmittal addresses the overall plan for the project,including proposed funding sources for an estimated cost of $110,000,000.The.estimated cost of$110,000,000 is based on work conducted for the Redevelopment Authority(RDA) by Garfield Traub Swisher Development and includes a base cost of approximately$100,000,000 as well as potential additional options or phases,totaling approximately$20,000,000. This overall budget of$110,000,000 assumes that half of the additional phases/options will ultimately be included in the final project. At this time,the Administration is proposing to issue a short term financing note of up to$15,000,000. Depending on market conditions,the financing may be issued as a bond anticipation note or a short term bond issue,depending on which instrument is less expensive and provides the City maximum flexibility. The key feature of whichever bond or note is issued is that the principal will be paid at or prior to maturity from the proceeds of permanent financing. Before the final bonds are issued,the City will need to make interest payments on the short term note. We currently estimate the amount of those payments to be approximately$262,000 annually. Assuming the short term note is issued in the early part of the 2012,the first installment will not be made until FY 2012-13. Until the final bonds are issued,we anticipate using a portion of the Capital Asset Management(CAM) major projects placeholder in the CIP fund to make interest payments. The current timeline estimates that the final bonds will be issued for the project in late June of 2013, so the City would likely make only one year's interest payment on the note,although the stated maturity on the note will be three years from the date of issuance. This note will provide funding for the final design of the UPAC and associated costs. Major categories include: Architecture, Engineering and Preconstruction 9,566,902 Other Professional Fees 1,295,357 Owners Costs(including project management, legal costs, reimbursement and property negotiations) 4,137,741 $ 15,000,000 The Administration is proposing the use of this short term financing note for several reasons. Over the next year,design work and other preparations will take place. During this process,the overall project cost will be refined before final bonds are issued and construction of the facility begins. In addition,the City will continue to pursue private and other potential funding sources that are not yet secured. This strategy assumes that bonds for the complete project will be issued at a later date and used to refund the short term financing note. If a decision were made not to proceed with this project in the future,the City would continue to be obligated to repay this short term note. The note would need to be re-financed at maturity, and could be refinanced over a period of time. The tax implications for this type of re-financed note, however, are not clear. It is possible that the proceeds could become taxable if the project does not move forward as is currently anticipated. Attached are two debt service runs for the UPAC project provided by the City's financial advisor. One run estimates debt service on the short term financing note,and the other estimates annual debt service on the entire estimated project amount of$110,000,000. As stated above, at current rates,the annual interest only debt service payment on the short term note will likely be approximately$262,500. Assuming bonds were issued at current market rates,estimated interest only bond carrying costs for FY 14 and FY 15 would be approximately$3.7 million annually. 1 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#3 Expenditure Revenue On-going or Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Amount One time FTEs Section A: New Items 1 UPAC Short Term Financing: Project Design CIP 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 one-time 0 Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Section F: Donations Section G: Council Consent Agenda--Grant Awards Section I: Council Added Items Total of Budget Amendment Items 15,000,000.00 Total by Fund,Budget Amendment#3: CIP Fund 15,000,000.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 15,000,000.00 Current Year Budget Summary,provided for information only FY2011-12 Budget,Including Budget Amendments FY 2011-12 Adopted Budget BA#1 Total BA#2 Total BA 113 Total BA#4 Total Total To-Date General Fund $195,154,853 15,000,000.00 $210,154,853 CIP Fund $19,618,798 $18,000,000 $37,618,798 Certification I certify that this document is a full and correct copy of Ordinance of 2011,amending Salt Lake City Ordinance of 2011,which adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City Utah for the fiscal year beginning June 1 2011 and ending June 30,2012. Budget Director Deputy Director,City Council 1 $15,000,000 Preliminary; subject to change Salt Lake City, Utah 10.18.11 Subordinated Excise Tax Revenue Notes (UPAC Project) Series 2012 Table of Contents Report Debt Service Schedule - - - 1 Sources& Uses 2 SLC UPAC BAN.Series 2011 I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 10/18/2011 I 5'02 PM f I�1 IFIfl $15,000,000 Salt Lake City, Utah Subordinated Excise Tax Revenue Notes (UPAC Project) Series 2012 Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 02/15/2012 - - - - - 09/15/2012 - - 131,250.00 131,250.00 - 03/15/2013 15,000,000.00 1.500% 112,500.00 15,112,500.00 - 06/01/2013 - - - - 15,243,750.00 Total $15,000,000.00 - $243,750.00 $15,243,750.00 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $16,250.00 Average Life 1.083 Years Average Coupon 1.5000000% Net Interest Cost(NIC) _ _ _ 1.5000000% True Interest Cost(TIC) 1.4994948% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.4994948% All Inclusive Cost(AIC) 1.4994948% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.5000000% Weighted Average Maturity 1.083 Years SLC UPAC BAN,Series 2011 I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/18/2011 I 5 02 PM lit 11 3 Page 1 $15,000,000 Salt Lake City, Utah Subordinated Excise Tax Revenue Notes (UPAC Project) Series 2012 Sources & Uses Dated 02/15/2012 I Delivered 02/15/2012 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $15,000,000.00 Total Sources $15,000,000.00 Uses Of Funds Deposit to Project Construction Fund 15,000,000.00 Total Uses $15,000,000.00 SLC UPAC BAN,Series 2011 I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/18/2011 I 5:02 PM 111113 Page 2 $110,000,000 Preliminary; subject to change Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, UT 10.18.11 [Tax Increment] Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 (UPAC - 25-yr Tax-Exempt) Table of Contents Report Debt Service Schedule _ 1 Sources& Uses 2 Total Net Debt Service 3 SLC UPAC S110M,RDA 25-yr I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/18/2011 1 5:04 PM 111ff f fi1 $110,000,000 Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, UT [Tax Increment]Revenue Bonds,Series 2013 (UPAC-25-yr Tax-Exempt) Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 03/15/2013 - - - - - 10/01/2013 - - 1,963,279.73 1,963,279.73 - 04/01/2014 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,766,291.73 10/01/2014 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/01/2015 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,606,024.00 10/01/2015 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/01/2016 3,545,000.00 0.950% 1,803,012.00 5,348,012.00 7,151,024.00 10/01/2016 - - 1,786,173.25 1,786,173.25 - 04/01/2017 3,580,000.00 1.270% 1,786,173.25 5,366,173.25 7,152,346.50 10/01/2017 - - 1,763,440.25 1,763,440.25 - 04/01/2018 3,625,000.00 1.600% 1,763,440.25 5,388,440.25 7,151,880.50 10/01/2018 - - 1,734,440.25 1,734,440.25 - 04/01/2019 3,680,000.00 1.850% 1,734,440.25 5,414,440.25 7,148,880.50 10/01/2019 - - 1,700,400.25 1,700,400.25 - 04/01/2020 __ 3,750,000.00 2.120% _ 1,700,400.25 5,450,400.25_ _7,150,800.50 10/01/2020 - - 1,660,650.25 1,660,650.25 - 04/01/2021 3,830,000.00 2.420% 1,660,650.25 5,490,650.25 7,151,300.50 10/01/2021 - - 1,614,307.25 1,614,307.25 - 04/01/2022 3,925,000.00 2.660% 1,614,307.25 5,539,307.25 7,153,614.50 10/01/2022 - 1,562,104.75 1,562,104.75 . - 04/01/2023 4,025,000.00 2.780% 1,562,104.75 5,587,104.75 7,149,209.50 10/01/2023 - - 1,506,157.25 1,506,157.25 - 04/01/2024 4,140,000.00 3.050% 1,506,157.25 5,646,157.25 7,152,314.50 10/01/2024 - - 1,443,022.25 1,443,022.25 - 04/01/2025 4,265,000.00 3.180% 1,443,022.25 5,708,022.25 7,151,044.50 10/01/2025 - - 1,375,208.75 1,375,208.75 - 04/01/2026 4,400,000.00 3.310% 1,375,208.75 5,775,208.75 7,150,417.50 10/01/2026 - - 1,302,388.75 1,302,388.75 - 04/01/2027 4,545,000.00 3.420% 1,302,388.75 5,847,388.75 7,149,777.50 10/01/2027 _1,224,669.25 __1,224,669.25 - 04/01/2028 4,700,000.00 3.520% 1,224,669.25 5,924,669.25 7,149,338.50 10/01/2028 - - 1,141,949.25 1,141,949.25 - 04/01/2029 4,865,000.00 3.620% 1,141,949.25 6,006,949.25 7,148,898.50 10/01/2029 - - 1,053,892.75 1,053,892.75 - 04/01/2030 __ 5,045,000.00 3.720% _ 1,053,892.75 6,098,892.75 7,152,785.50 10/01/2030 960,055.75 960,055.75 04/01/2031 5,230,000.00 3.820% 960,055.75 6,190,055.75 7,150,111.50 10/01/2031 860,162.75 860,162.75 04/01/2032 5,430,000.00 3.890% 860,162.75 6,290,162.75 7,150,325.50 10/01/2032 - - 754,549.25 754,549.25 - 04/01/2033 5,640,000.00 3.950% 754,549.25 6,394,549.25 7,14.9,098.50 10/01/2033 - - 643,159.25 643,159.25 04/01/2034 5,865,000.00 4.000% 643,159.25 6,508,159.25 7,151,318.50 10/01/2034 525,859.25 525,859.25 04/01/2035 6,100,000.00 4.030% 525,859.25 __ 6,625,859.25 7,151,718.50 10/01/2035 - - 402,944.25 402,944.25 04/01/2036 6,345,000.00 4.050% 402,944.25 6,747,944.25 7,150,888.50 10/01/2036 - - 274,458.00 274,458.00 - 04/01/2037 6.600.000.00 4.070% 274,458.00 6,874,458.00 7,148,916.00 10/01/2037 - - . 140,148.00 140,148.00_ - 04/01/2038 6,870,000.00 4.080% 140,148.00 7,010,148.00 7,150,296.00 Total $110,000,000 00 - $61,838,621.73 $171,838,621.73 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $1,697,728 89 Average Life 15434 Years Average Coupon . _ 3 6424321% Net Interest Cost(NIC) 3 6424321% True Interest Cost(TIC) _ _ 3 5872619% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3 5872619% All Inclusive Cost(AIC) 3 5872619% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 3 6424321% Weighted Average Maturity 15434 Years SLC UPACSIIUM RDA25,I SINGLE PURPOSE 110,18,2011 I 504PM Q IiiiIir rt111 I ill Page 1 $110,000,000 Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, UT [Tax Increment] Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 (UPAC - 25-yr Tax-Exempt) Sources & Uses Dated 03/15/2013 I Delivered 03/15/2013 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $110,000,000.00 Total Sources $110,000,000.00 Uses Of Funds Retire Subordinated Excise Tax Revenue Notes $18,135,000.00 Amount Deposited to Construction/COI Fund $91,865,000.00 Rounding Amount $0.00 Total Uses $110,000,000.00 SLC UPAC$110M,RDA 25-yr I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/18/2011 I 5 04 PM IEt 1 I I III Page 2 $128,000,000 Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, UT [Tax Increment]Revenue Bonds,Series 2013 (UPAC-25-yr Tax-Exempt) Total Aggregate Debt Service: Notes & Bonds Date Principal Interest Net New D/S Fiscal Total 02/15/2012 - - - - 09/15/2012 - 157,500.00 157,500.00 - 03/15/2013 - - - - 04/01/2013 - - - 157,500.00 10/01/2013 - 1,963,279.73 1,963,279.73 - 04/01/2014 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,766,291.73 10/01/2014 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/01/2015 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,606,024.00 10/01/2015 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/01/2016 3,545,000.00 1,803,012.00 5,348,012.00 7,151,024.00 10/01/2016 - 1,786,173.25 1,786,173.25 - 04/01/2017 3,580,000.00 1,786,173.25 5,366,173.25 7,152,346.50 10/01/2017 - 1,763,440.25 1,763,440.25 - 04/01/2018 3,625,000.00 1,763,440.25 5,388,440.25 7,151,880.50 10/01/2018 - 1,734,440.25 1,734,440.25 - 04/01/2019 3,680,000.00 1,734,440.25 5,414,440.25 7,148,880.50 10/01/2019 - 1,700,400.25 1,700,400.25 - 04/01/2020 3,750,000.00 1,700,400.25 5,450,400.25 7,150,800.50 10/01/2020 - 1,660,650.25 1,660,650.25 - 04/01/2021 3,830,000.00 1,660,650.25 5,490,650.25 7,151,300.50 10/01/2021 - 1,614,307.25 1,614,307.25 - 04/01/2022 3,925,000.00 1,614,307.25 5,539,307.25 7,153,614.50 10/01/2022 - 1,562,104.75 1,562,104.75 - 04/01/2023 4,025,000.00 1,562,104.75 5,587,104.75 7,149,209.50 10/01/2023 - 1,506,157.25 1,506,157.25 - 04/01/2024 4,140,000.00 1,506,157.25 5,646,157.25 7,152,314.50 10/01/2024 - 1,443,022.25 1,443,022.25 - 04/01/2025 4,265,000.00 1,443,022.25 5,708,022.25 7,151,044.50 10/01/2025 - 1,375,208.75 1,375,208.75 - 04/01/2026 . 4,400,000.00 1,375,208.75 ___ 5,775,208.75 ___7,150,417.50 10/01/2026 - 1,302,388.75 1,302,388.75 - 04/01/2027 4,545,000.00 1,302,388.75 5,847,388.75 7,149,777.50 10/01/2027 - 1,224,669.25 1,224,669.25 - 04/01/2028 4,700,000.00 1,224,669.25 5,924,669.25 7,149,338.50 10/01/2028 1,141,949.25 1,141,949.25 - 04/01/2029 4,865,000.00 1,141,949.25 6,006,949.25 7,148,898.50 10/01/2029 1,053,892.75 1,053,892.75 04/01/2030 5,045,000.00 1,053,892.75 6,098,892.75 7,152,785.50 10/01/2030 - 960,055.75 960,055.75 - 04/01/2031 5,230,000.00 960,055.75______ 6,190,055.75 7,150,111.50 10/01/2031 - 860,162.75 860,162.75 - 04/01/2032 5,430,000.00 860,162.75 6,290,162.75 7,150,325.50 10/01/2032 - 754,549.25 754,549.25 - 04/01/2033 5,640,000.00 754,549.25 6,394,549.25 7,149,098.50 10/01/2033_ - 643,159.25 _ 643,159.25 - 04/01/2034 5,865,000.00 643,159.25 6,508,159.25 7,151,318.50 10/01/2034 - 525,859.25 525,859.25 - 04/01/2035 6,100,000.00 525,859.25 6,625,859.25 7,151,718.50 10/01/2035 - 402,944.25 402,944.25 - 04/01/2036 .. 6,345,000.00 402,944.25 6,747,944.25 7,150,888.50 10/01/2036 - 274,458.00 274,458.00 - 04/01/2037 6,600,000.00 274,458.00 6,874,458.00 7,148,916.00 10/01/2037 - 140,148.00 140,148.00 - 04/01/2038 6,870,000.00 140,148.00 7,010,148.00 7,150,296.00 Total $110,000,000.00 $61,996,121.73 $171,996,121.73 - Par Amounts Of Selected Issues l' Senes 2012 Notes 18,000,000 00 Senes 2013 Bonds 110,000,000 00 TOTAL 128,000,000.00 Aggregate 10'12011 150a PM i fill(r ++I I I III Page 3 FY 2011-12 Variance Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total General Fund 195,114,853 194,559,704 (555,149) Selected Discussion Items Total Property Taxes 63,175,537 63,175,537 0 Discussion: Total Sales and Use Tax 45,622,655 45,622,655 0 Discussion: Total Franchise Tax 28,434,888 28,366,228 (68,660) Discussion: Franchise Fee for Public Utilities is lower than budgeted due to a cooler and wetter summer. License and Permits: 18,452,058 18,379,780 (72,278) Discussion: Intergovernmental Revenue 5,426,994 5,426,994 0 Discussion: Interest income 780,000 780,000 0 Discussion: Total Fines&Forfeiture 10,988,815 10,567,259 (421,556) Discussion: Parking Ticket revenue is down due to parking ticket issuance being down. Parking Meters 1,651,000 1,651,000 0 Discussion: Charges and Services 4,118,852 4,126,197 7,345 Discussion: Miscellaneous Revenue 3,020,641 3,020,641 0 Discussion: Interfund Reimbursement 9,907,993 9,907,993 0 Discussion: Transfers 3,535,420 3,535,420 0 Discussion: eI o //-03 FRANK B. GRAY ^'�� � aJ �`' -���� ,�,-,� RALPH BECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC-E .Ft V MAYOR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR J ED .2Y DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER DEPUTY DIRECTOR SEP 2 0 2011 ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. ,,; DEPUTY DIREC CITY COUNCIL TRANSNaaITA-L G� '""` RECERIED SCAM Date ReceivaCANNED BY: �tiiA.� David en , Chie of Staff DATE: 00/// SLC COUNCIL OFFICE Date Sent to City Council: U q /221 Zo it TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 19, 2011 Jill Remington-Love, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, Community &Economic Development Department Di for RE: Request to waive parking meter fees from Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2011 to Sunday, January 1, 2012, inclusive,to allow two-hour free parking as a means of encouraging additional visitors in the Downtown area during the holiday season STAFF CONTACT: Tim Harpst, Transportation Director, at 535-6630 or tim.harpst@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the accompanying ordinance change waiving the meter fees during the specified period. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None. The current city budget was adopted anticipating a reduction in meter coin and fine revenue associated with this request. DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: City Council has approved waiving meter fees and bagging all parking meters during the holiday season since 2003. The Downtown Alliance is again requesting meter fees be waived this year from Thanksgiving Day, 24, 2011 to New Years Day, Sunday, January 1, 2012, inclusive. Analysis: This incentive to shop and enjoy Downtown during the holiday season has been well received by retailers, the Downtown Alliance,the Downtown Retail Merchants Association, Chamber of Commerce and the public. The current fiscal year budget anticipated that this incentive would be approved this year through New Year's Day and reflects a reduction in meter 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 4-548 6 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED ��� wcceeo v<new coin and citation revenue based on the previous years' experience of providing this free parking during the holidays. The reduction in revenue, although highly dependent on weather and shopping conditions, is anticipated to be approximately $100,000 in meter coin revenue and $50,000 in fine revenue for the period between Thanksgiving and New Years Days. In their accompanying letter, the Downtown Alliance expresses its appreciation for this consideration. The bags will display a 2-hour free parking time limit which is what has been successfully used in prior years. The Downtown Alliance covers the cost of the bags and bows. Thanksgiving Day, New Years Day, and weekends are normally free parking days. To implement this proposal, City Council will need to adopt an ordinance waiving the meter fees for the designated period. This action is requested now in order to provide sufficient time to acquire the materials and provide merchants and the Downtown Alliance sufficient time to prepare advertisements of the program. Master Plan Considerations: Not specifically applicable, but this request is a key element in the effort to keep downtown active and "open for business" during this time of major reconstruction. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Downtown Alliance has provided the accompanying letter requesting the holiday meter bagging, see Attachment A. If their request is approved, the Downtown Alliance and the Downtown Retail Merchants Association intend to advertise it as part of their holiday advertising campaign. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Ordinance 12.56.170 Parking Meters—Rates will need to be modified to waive the meter fees during the specified period. The appropriate wording is shown in Paragraph B of the accompanying draft ordinance, Attachment B. RE: Free Holiday Parking Meters-2011 Page 2 of 2 D O ©® SLC AL ANC September 1, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Councilwoman Love; The Downtown Alliance would like to thank the Salt Lake City Council for providing free on-street parking during past holiday seasons. We respectfully request that you continue the practice this holiday season from Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2011 to New Years Day, January 1, 2012. Allowing free parking for two hours at city meters during the holiday shopping season is a highly anticipated tradition that helps to keep downtown Salt Lake City vibrant. Free holiday parking is a valuable public relations tool that we plan to feature in our holiday marketing efforts. We have received feedback from downtown merchants who benefit from this practice. And their customers very much appreciate this annual gesture. We are very aware of the budget constraints currently felt by local governments, including Salt Lake City. We are dedicated to ensuring that any resources used to support holiday activities in the downtown area provide the greatest benefits to our community at the lowest possible cost. As Salt Lake City prepares to launch a new parking pay station system, we plan to work with Salt Lake City's Transportation Department and Community and Economic Development Department to evaluate the continuation of this program for the 2012 holidays. We hope to develop an even more strategic and innovative approach to holiday parking in the downtown area for future years. Thank you again for your support of this important program. C/o/rdially, Kent Gibson Jason Mathis Chair Executive Director Downtown Alliance Downtown Alliance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Waiving parking meter charges for holidays) An ordinance amending Section 12.56.170, Salt Lake City Code, relating to parking meter rates, to waive parking meter charges during the holiday season. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 12.56.170, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to parking meter rates be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.56.170 Parking Meters-Rates: A. Prior to January 1, 2012, parking meter rates shall not exceed one dollar ($1.00) per hour of parking within any parking meter zone. Effective January 1, 2012, parking meter rates shall not exceed one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) per hour of parking within any parking meter zone. A parking meter token may be used in parking meters installed by the city at a rate not to exceed one hour of parking per token. Parking meter tokens shall not be used as legal tender to satisfy any debt to the city and shall only be used in connection with a downtown parking and transit token program. B. The foregoing notwithstanding. all parking meter charges shall be waived during the period of November 24, 2011. through January 1. 2012. However, during said period, no person shall park or permit any vehicle to remain parked in any parking meter space adjacent to a meter for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: HB ATTY- 19892-v I-Amending Parking_Meter Ordinance (Fees) 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM Date ke Gt Attu y's Office SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 20110 (Waiving parking meter charges for holidays) An ordinance amending Section 12.56.170,Salt Lake City Code,relating to parking meter rates,to waive parking meter charges during the holiday season. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION I.That Section 12.56.170,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to parking meter rates be,and the same hereby is,amended to read as follows: 12.56.170 Parking Meters-Rates: A. Prior to January I.2012. Parking meter rates shall not exceed Hw,my fire eesssone dollar($10.0025)per hour fifteen-(-I-?}-smites-of parking within any parking meter zone.Effective January I.2012,narkinLI meter rates shall not exceed one dollar and fifty cents (SI.nQtcr hour of parkin,within any parkin(1 meter ronc__A parking meter token may be used in parking meters installed by the city at a rate not to exceed one hour of parking per token. Parking meter tokens shall not be used as legal tender to satisfy any debt to the city and shall only be used in connection with a downtown parking and transit token program. B. The foregoing notwithstanding,all parking meter charges shall be waived during the period of November 24>ts,201 i(4t-W,through krt t++ar.,H-3t), nett'.:, 6taill nI I 2012 = However,during said period,no person shall park or permit any vehicle to remain parked in any parking meter space adjacent to a meter for a continuous period longer than two(2)hours. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah this day of 20110. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of20110. Published: 2 Item Fl See A4 Item G2 See A5 Item 113 see A6 SCANNED TO: I; RALPH BECKER S. t ^�Q SCANNED BY: SAL, ��..�. ..� i��.e MAYOR DATE: 1� OFFICE OF THE MAYOR /Y/?��� COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL IJ J I F �� �I RECEIVED Date Received; OCT 1 2 2011 •avid Everitt Chief of Staff Date sent to Council By 2- SLC COUNCIL OFF CL i01 I' 11/0(1 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 11, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Parking Ticket Ordinance Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Kay Christensen 801-535-7677 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration forwards to the City Council an ordinance related to the parking ticket appeals process and recommends Council adoption of the ordinance with a minor change that was inadvertently omitted from the ordinance the City Council passed on September 27, 2011. BUDGET IMPACT: Minimal but unknown at this time. The Administration does not anticipate amending current revenue or expense projections. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION: On September 27, 2011, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah passed Ordinance No. 58 of 2011 providing for the amendment of Section 12.56.570 of the Salt Lake City Code. The changes included the requirement that governmental entities seeking free and unlimited time parking for their vehicles while on official business would need to obtain a permit placard from Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement. During the briefing discussion prior to the formal Council meeting, the Council determined that the proposed amendment( Section 12.56.570 E. 5) should include language anticipating the City's future ability to use electronic license plate recognition technology rather than depending 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 Ordinance No. of 2011 (Amending Section 12.56.570, Salt Lake City Code, clarifying and revising provisions governing the dismissal and reduction of parking citation fees.) An ordinance amending Section 12.56.570 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the dismissal and/or reduction of parking citation fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 12.56.570 of the Salt Lake City Code be amended as follows: 12.56.570: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF STREETS; APPEAL PROCEDURES: A. The mayor shall appoint such hearing officers as he or she deems appropriate to consider matters relating to the unauthorized use of streets. B. Any person having received notice of such unauthorized use, or the owner of any vehicle employed in such use, may appear before a hearing officer and present and contest such alleged unauthorized use. C. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the person raising such defense. D. The hearing officer may find that no unauthorized use occurred and dismiss the ticket. E. If the hearing officer finds that an unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is applicable, the hearing officer may dismiss the notice of unauthorized use and release the owner or driver from liability thereunder. Such defenses are: 1. At the time of the receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been acquired in violation of the criminal laws of the state; 2. If the notice of unauthorized use alleges a violation of any ordinance pertaining to a parking meter, such meter was mechanically malfunctioning to the extent that its reliability is questionable; 3. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and irreparable injury to persons or property. 4. Parking notices for overtime parking at a meter or in a time restricted zone received by a city employee or guest while on official Salt Lake City business will be dismissed upon written request from the applicable department director or designee on official letterhead or by electronic Aft, mail. The request must be made within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice and must include a brief description of the reason for the request, and be submitted to: Salt Lake City Corporation, Traffic Manager, 333 South 200 East, P.O. Box 145499, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5499. Parking violations other than overtime parking and meter violations will not be dismissed in this manner. 5. Unlimited time parking by employees of other governmental entities on official business will be allowed at City meters and time restricted locations. In order to qualify, the vehicle must display a placard or sticker issued by Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement or the vehicle's license plate must be registered with Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement for enrollment in any license-plate recognition system used to regulate parking enforcement. Requests for placards must include a brief description of the reason for the request and be submitted to: Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement, PO Box 145552, Salt Lake City UT 84114- 5552. Requests for dismissals of other parking violations will be considered and should be submitted to: Salt Lake City Corporation, Traffic Manager, 333 South 200 East, P.O. Box 145499, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5499. 6. If the hearing officer finds that the owner of the vehicle is deceased but was living when the ticket was issued. 7. If the hearing officer finds that the vehicle was sold with the original license plates on, and the ticket was received prior to the sale, provided the sale is reported to the DMV and the bill of sale is provided within twenty (20) days of receipt of the parking notice. 8. If the hearing officer determines that the driver of a vehicle with a valid freight loading sticker was unable to find a freight loading zone and parked at a meter. The freight loading sticker must be properly displayed and the vehicle must not remain longer than the thirty (30) minutes authorized in a freight loading zone. Requests for dismissal must be made by the director or manager of the company within ten (10) days of the receipt of the notice and be submitted to: Salt Lake City Corporation, Traffic Manager, 333 South 200 East, P.O. Box 145499, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5499. F. If the hearing officer finds that an unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is applicable, the hearing officer may reduce the penalty associated therewith, but in no event shall such penalty be reduced below the sum of ten dollars ($10.00). Such defenses are: 1. 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; 2. The subject vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved from such location; provided, however, such defense shall not apply to any vehicle which remains at such location in excess of six (6) hours; 3. Any markings, signs or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible or comprehensible; 4. At the time of receipt of notice for expired registration, the vehicle was registered but the sticker not displayed, or if the vehicle is registered within five (5) days of the expiration date. 5. At the time of the notice of violation a residential parking permit was valid but not properly displayed. 6. Such other mitigating circumstances as the hearing officer may find, with the written approval of the court's traffic manager, which must include the basis for the decision. A report on such decisions is to provided to the Mayor and City Council on a quarterly basis. G. If the hearing officer finds that an unauthorized use occurred and no applicable defense exists, the hearing officer may, in the interest of justice and on behalf of the city, enter into an agreement for the timely or periodic payment of the applicable penalty. H. If the penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter remains unsatisfied after forty (40) days from the receipt of notice, or ten (10) days from such date as may have been agreed to by the hearing officer, the city may use such lawful means as are available to collect such penalty, including costs and attorney fees. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: F1FaR VED AS TO FORM C ,;alt Luke CI Altorney's Office Date By CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR Ordinance No. of 2011 (Amending Section 12.56.570,Salt Lake City Code, clarifying and revising provisions governing the dismissal and reduction of parking citation fees.) An ordinance amending Section 12.56.570 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the dismissal and/or reduction of parking citation fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 12.56.570 of the Salt Lake City Code be amended as follows: 12.56.570: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF STREETS; APPEAL PROCEDURES: A. The mayor shall appoint such hearing officers as he or she deems appropriate to consider matters relating to the unauthorized use of streets. B. Any person having received notice of such unauthorized use, or the owner of any vehicle employed in such use, may appear before a hearing officer and present and contest such alleged unauthorized use. C. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the person raising such defense. D. The hearing officer may find that no unauthorized use occurred and dismiss the ticket. E. If the hearing officer finds that an unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is applicable, the hearing officer may dismiss the notice of unauthorized use and release the owner or driver from liability thereunder. Such defenses are: 1. At the time of the receipt of the notice,possession of the subject vehicle had been acquired in violation of the criminal laws of the state; 2. If the notice of unauthorized use alleges a violation of any ordinance pertaining to a parking meter, such meter was mechanically malfunctioning to the extent that its reliability is questionable; 3. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and irreparable injury to persons or property. 4. Parking notices for overtime parking at a meter or in a time restricted zone received by a city employee or guest while on official Salt Lake City business will be dismissed upon written request from the applicable department director or designee on official letterhead or by electronic mail. The request must be made within ten(10) days of receipt of the notice and must include a brief description of the reason for the request, and be submitted to: Salt Lake City Corporation, Traffic Manager, 333 South 200 East, P.O. Box 145499, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5499. Parking violations other than overtime parking and meter violations will not be dismissed in this manner. 5. Unlimited time parking by employees of other governmental entities on official business will be allowed at City meters and time restricted locations. In order to qualify, the vehicle must display a placard or sticker issued by Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement or the vehicle's license plate must be registered with Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement for enrollment in any license-plate recognition system used to regulate parking enforcement. Requests for placards must include a brief description of the reason for the request and be submitted to: Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement, PO Box 145552, Salt Lake City UT 84114- 5552. Requests for dismissals of other parking violations will be considered and should be submitted to: Salt Lake City Corporation, Traffic Manager, 333 South 200 East, P.O. Box 145499, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5499. 6. If the hearing officer finds that the owner of the vehicle is deceased but was living when the ticket was issued. 7. If the hearing officer finds that the vehicle was sold with the original license plates on, and the ticket was received prior to the sale,provided the sale is reported to the DMV and the bill of sale is provided within twenty (20) days of receipt of the parking notice. 8. If the hearing officer determines that the driver of a vehicle with a valid freight loading sticker was unable to find a freight loading zone and parked at a meter. The freight loading sticker must be properly displayed and the vehicle must not remain longer than the thirty (30) minutes authorized in a freight loading zone. Requests for dismissal must be made by the director or manager of the company within ten (10) days of the receipt of the notice and be submitted to: Salt Lake City Corporation, Traffic Manager, 333 South 200 East, P.O. Box 145499, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5499. F. If the hearing officer finds that an unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is applicable,the hearing officer may reduce the penalty associated therewith, but in no event shall such penalty be reduced below the sum of ten dollars ($10.00). Such defenses are: 1. 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; • 2. The subject vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved from such location; provided, however, such defense shall not apply to any vehicle which remains at such location in excess of six (6) hours; 3. Any markings, signs or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible or comprehensible; 4. At the time of receipt of notice for expired registration, the vehicle was registered but the sticker not displayed, or if the vehicle is registered within five (5) days of the expiration date. 5. At the time of the notice of violation a residential parking permit was valid but not properly displayed. 6. Such other mitigating circumstances as the hearing officer may find, with the written approval of the court's traffic manager, which must include the basis for the decision. A report on such decisions is to provided to the Mayor and City Council on a quarterly basis. G. If the hearing officer finds that an unauthorized use occurred and no applicable defense exists, the hearing officer may, in the interest of justice and on behalf of the city, enter into an agreement for the timely or periodic payment of the applicable penalty. H. If the penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter remains unsatisfied after forty (40) days from the receipt of notice, or ten(10) days from such date as may have been agreed to by the hearing officer, the city may use such lawful means as are available to collect such penalty, including costs and attorney fees. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR SUGGESTED MOTION LANGUAGE ITEM 46 I move that we adopt the first resolution in the proceedings before the Board and suspend the normal rules of order and appoint the persons to the designated offices indicated therein. ITEM 4c I move that we adopt the second resolution in the proceedings before the Board and adopt the Bylaws presented to the Board at this meeting as the Bylaws of the Authority. ITEM 4D I move that we adopt the third resolution in the proceedings before the Board and that the officers of the Authority be authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority such documents and instruments that may be necessary or desirable in connection with the conduct of the affairs of the Authority as provided therein. ITEM 4E I move that we adopt the fourth resolution in the proceedings before the Board and that the regular meetings of the Board be held and notice of the annual meeting schedule of the Board be given as provided therein. ITEM 4F I move that we adopt the fifth resolution in the proceedings before the Board and that the Board, the Budget Officer and other officers and employees of the Authority be authorized to and shall take all actions required by the Fiscal Procedures for Local Districts Act as provided therein. ITEM 4G I move we adopt the sixth resolution in the proceedings before the Board and that the Authority and its directors,officers and employees be authorize to acquire property and services using procurement procedures that are in the best interest of the Authority as provided in therein. ITEM 4H I move that we adopt the seventh resolution in the proceedings before the Board and that the actions of the officers described therein be ratified,confirmed and approved. Id3A Motion Language.docx rue,c � ^ SCANNED TQ RICHzRD GRAHAM _Ar `VERTI D � 1 21 SCANNEDSY cn ceal/moron .1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES DAT •is_ w�i DIRECTORS OFFICE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Sg RECEIVED Noe z r 1J0 LC COUNCIL OFFICEDate Received: 031 n I 5� o DaviLnefofSlaffSDate Sent to Council: . MI TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:October 12,2011 Jill Remington Love,UCh FROM: Rick Graham Director of Public Services SUBJECT: Dog Park Rules/Regulations STAFF CONTACT: Ann Ober Administrative Services Division Director 535-7753 Emy Maloutas Parks and Public Lands Program Director 972-7804 DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational RECOMMENDTION: That the Council maintains the current rules restricting the number of animals per owner in a City park. BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION: It is the stance of the Administration and the Salt Lake County Animal Services that the limit for dogs on and off leash in City parks and public lands remains at two dogs per handler,while the animals per home limit be removed. The Administration believes that lifting the restriction in parks will make it extremely difficult for dog handlers to meet the following park standards: I. Handler must accompany dogs at all times. If in a dog park,handlers must be in possession of a dog leash no longer than 6 feet. 2. You are required by law to pick up your dog feces.Dispose of them in designated trash cans. 3. If in a dog park all dogs must be visible and under voice control of the handler at all times,in all park areas. 4. Dog handlers must take precautions to ensure their dogs do not disturb wildlife and sensitive environmental areas like streams,ponds and historical areas. LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 138,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111-31 O4 MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145469,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 841 14.5469 TELEPHONE:BO1-}535-7775 FAX:801.535.7963 iT a ceee rues 5. Remove your dog from the area if it becomes hostile or out of control.Dogs and owners creating a problem must leave. 6. Owners must quiet dogs that bark,howl,or whine excessively. 7. No digging!Dog handlers must fill holes created by dogs. As an aside,the Administration is currently investigating ways to increase the opportunities for off leash dog/owner use. It is our intention to present models and options for increased off-leash opportunities in the City to the public and the Council in the coming months. This proposal will also include education and enforcement components. MEMORANDUM DATE: November 1, 2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno and Russell Weeks RE: Review of previous studies relating to a large-scale performing arts center in the Salt Lake Valley In an attempt to look at this issue in a comprehensive but dig. esti. e way, °dna!Staff _ has approached the analysis of this complex issue in two sections,each addressing a key question about this project. > Section 1 -Addresses the following question: Can the Salt Lake Market Support this project? > Section 2-Addresses the following question:Can the City afford this project? (this Section begins on Page 5 of this report) Key points covered in this memo include: ✓ Recent and previous feasibility and economic impact studies indicate that there is pent up demand for a performing arts theater of this size. The methodologies that these studies have used,while containing minor flaws,are sound; ✓ A recent public opinion survey indicates there appears to be public support for a performing arts theater downtown; ✓ In Council Staff's analysis of the proposed funding plan for the project,there appears to be an immediate and possibly long term shortfall in funding for this project. ✓ Key variables include Salt Lake County's participation, Interest rates at the time of bond issuance,and other City needs and priorities. Section 1 - Can the Salt Lake Market support this project? At the request of the Salt Lake City Council Chair,City Council staff has gathered and reviewed all feasibility studies from recent history relating to construction of a large- scale performing arts center,in order to identify common themes,note any inconsistencies,identify areas not explored,and distill these analyses into a relevant set of conclusions for the Council's consideration as Council Members determine whether or not to fund construction of a large-scale performing arts center in downtown Salt Lake City. The following is a list of studies reviewed- • September 1997-Salt Lake City New Theater Needs Assessment-Interim Report-Webb Management Services (commissioned by Salt Lake County) • October 1997- A plan for New Performing Art Facilities in Salt Lake City- CWebb Management Services (commissioned by Salt Lake County) 1 •January 1998-A Vision for Arts and Culture in Salt Lake City-Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer,Shepard Quraeshi Associates(commissioned by EDCU,Salt Lake City RDA,Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee,Salt Lake County,Artspace,and the Downtown Alliance) •December 2005-Cultural District Market Study-HVS(commissioned by Salt Lake City,Salt Lake County,the Salt Lake Chamber and Downtown Alliance) •November 2007-The Case for a New Large Hall in Sandy-Webb Management Services(commissioned by Sandy City) •December 2008-Salt Lake County Cultural Facilities Master Plan-AMS Planning and Research(commissioned by Salt Lake County) •May 2011-Utah Performing Arts Center Feasibility Study-Garfield Traub Swisher(commissioned by Salt Lake City RDA) The review in this report is intentionally broad,in order to keep the report to a digestible length. Staff is prepared to provide further detail of the review upon request. While the methodologies,case studies,and data sets used are slightly different in each case,the bottom line conclusion of all of these studies,dating to the 1997 report,is that there is pent up demand for expanded cultural facilities-that is,there are people who are living in the metro area who would likely participate in cultural activities that are not currently participating in cultural opportunities. This could be due to a variety of factors-location,pricing,availability. Whether the quantity of pent up demand exists to the extent predicted in some of the studies can be debated. As with any study,the conclusion is only as sound as the data, and some of the reports acknowledge where data is either incomplete or skewed. Despite this data challenge,in the opinion of Council staff,these different methodologies(all used some form of demographic and market penetration analysis, recognizing the unique nature of the demographics in Utah)are sound,and are the only scientific way to begin to answer what is essentially a projection of future behavior. Based on these sound methodologies and the reports listed above,the conclusion is that the Salt Lake Market can support an additional venue for performances. The most compelling parts of the various studies,with respect to the immediate question before the Council,is that the methodologies used for identifying"pent up demand"leads to the conclusion that among the different categories of performing arts, and given the unique demographics in Utah and the Salt Lake metro area,the greatest demand potential from a demographic and market penetration perspective exists in the Musical and Non-Musical Plays categories. This then leads to the conclusion that building a facility to suit this category would make the most sense,and would ultimately be viable,if the end goal is to"grow the pie"of cultural offerings. Many of the studies touch on the aspect of impact on other facilities in the form of case studies and market experience. The across-the-board conclusion is that there will likely be an initial adjustment period for facilities that currently show offerings that could be presented in the larger theater. However,the adjustment period will likely conclude with the older facilities specializing in offerings that cannot be held at the larger theater 2 Ago r budget or calendar reasons), and"backfilling" those freed up dates with more (fo appropriately-scaled events to those venues. Without a more thorough analysis,it is not possible for staff to guess whether these backfilledt dates will be sufficient to keep all existing venues operating asr they are today. However,using case studies ofl comparable areas as a guidepost,it is certainly possible. A number of case studies and other cities' experiences were reviewed by Council Staff. If the Council would like further information details can be provided. ➢ Some of the key lessons learned from these various case studies on this topic are that negative impacts can be mitigated when the portfolio of venues is managed by a public entity,when cross-promotion of venues and support of existing organizations is a stated mission of the new facility,and when revenues or fundraising opportunities can be shared to the extent possible. The City is currently negotiating an Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU)for operations of the theater with Salt Lake County,although an agreement has not yet been reached and the County Council has not yet officially weighed in (see item G,page 10,and Matters At Issue#4). Based on the case studies reviewed by staff,shared management,goals,and revenue among facilities, or at the very least coordination,eventually increases the diversity in the portfolio of cultural offerings. > A key area of concern for Council Staff that was not analyzed to a detailed and long- term degree in these studies,is whether a theater is sustainable in the long term with no public subsidy. Some similarly-scaled projects have operated successfully with no public subsidy,although there are often naming or operating agreements that are key to this success. Other projects have required a"bail out" from the public when rental rates don't quite meet projections. The Council may wish to discuss this further in the context of the MOU for operations. Direct Discussions with other cities Some Council Members met September 28 with Reginald Johnson,interim director of the Durham,North Carolina, Department of Community Development;Ken Neufeld of the Benjamin and Maria Schuster Performing Arts Center in Dayton,Ohio; and Randy Weeks,president of the Denver Center for the Performing Arts to discuss their cities' experience in operating regional performing arts centers in their cities. All three speakers indicated that the centers were focal points of their respective downtowns and that their presence helped solidify the downtowns. Mr. Neufeld said the Schuster Center helped preserve Dayton's downtown when companies were moving out of the downtown. About 475,000 people attended events in the center last year,he said. Dayton has a population of about 175,000 people in an eight-county area containing about 1.3 million people,he said. Dayton also competes with Columbus and Cincinnati for business and attracting to people to events. Mr.Johnson said the Durham Performing Arts Center drew about 350,000 people in 2010. Other arts groups advertise in the Durham Center because it's a place where the groups know their ads will be seen. He said the Center was built across the street from a jail to keep better locations available for economic development which has occurred. Mr. Weeks said the Denver Center has been a part of downtown Denver for about 40 years and is somewhat unique 3 because it originally was funded by a single person. It might be noted that a Denver Post article on September 13 said when the Broadway version of Walt Disney's The Lion King opened in Denver in 2002 the show stayed"10 weeks,drew 214,000 people, generated $13.1 million in ticket sales,and pumped$58 million into the local economy." Mr. Weeks told Council Members that generally the Broadway theater in the Denver Center is booked 26 weeks a year. Other weeks are filled with graduations,concerts,and "one- offs like Jay Leno." Mr. Neufeld said Broadway shows at the Schuster Center acted more as a "gateway" experience for people with a burgeoning interested in the performing arts. The Schuster Center houses the Dayton Philharmonic,the Dayton Opera,the Dayton Ballet,and the Victoria Theater Association. Mr. Neufeld said there is little overlap between performing arts patrons who go to touring Broadway shows and patrons of the other performing arts. Of the overlap that occurs,Broadway show patrons also attend performances by the Dayton Philharmonic,he said. Gauging Public Opinion of this project The following information is taken from a survey done in August and September by Richter 7 and Lighthouse Research for The Downtown Alliance.The survey was a state-wide telephone survey of 402 adult people.The survey followed the state-wide population distribution which means more responses came from population centers along the Wasatch Front than from rural areas in other parts of the state. Some survey results: • Sixty-five percent of the people surveyed visited downtown Salt Lake City one to ten times between the start of 2011 and the survey-a nine percent increase over 2010. • Attending performance arts events were cited forty-four percent of time as a reason for visiting downtown. Dining,shopping,and attending religious events were cited more often in the multi-answer question. • Attending performance arts events showed the greatest growth as a reason for visiting downtown.The reason was cited 18 percent of the time in a 2010 survey but 44 percent of the time in the 2011 survey. • People ages 18 to 54 were more likely to indicate they visited downtown at least once for nightlife between January and the survey. More than 50 percent of people in those age groups indicated they had visited downtown. Forty-four percent of people between ages 55 and 64 also visited the downtown for the same reason. • While youth led the way in attending performing arts events,a significant number of people ranging in age from 45 to 65 and older also attended performance events (51 percent of people 45-54;46 percent of people 55-64;and 46 percent of people 65 and older.) • Thirty percent of men surveyed and 41 percent of women surveyed indicated a high interest in attending performing arts events downtown. • An average of 35 percent of people surveyed by annual household income indicated a high interest in downtown performing arts events. (The two highest 4 levels of interest were those with incomes between$25,000 and$50,000-41 Cpercent-and those with incomes of more than$100,000-42 percent.) •When asked an open-ended question about the biggest motivator for coming downtown the majority of the people surveyed indicated arts and entertainment -including theater,concerts,festivals and events-were the biggest motivators. (In the question religious events,dining,and shopping followed respectively at 14 percent,12 percent,and 12 percent.) •A 2,500 seat Broadway style performing arts center was viewed as important by 52 percent of the people questions. •Reasons given for supporting the idea were in descending order economic development,enhancing downtown vitality and supporting the cultural heart of Utah,support for the arts generally,greater access to Broadway performances, and none. Part 2-Can the city afford to finance this project? The Administration has prepared a transmittal for Council consideration that includes a number of resolutions and a budget amendment ordinance that would finance the design of the Utah Performing Arts Center(estimated at$15 million),and pave the way for the overall financing of the project(estimated at$110 million). Because of the complexity of the project,and the likelihood that these complexities could dramatically affect the final construction cost of the theater,the Administration is recommending that the Council first fund a detailed design process with short term bonds. This would allow the City to have a more firm idea of what final construction costs would be,and allow the City to only take on the amount of debt needed to cover construction costs. Public Hearings have been scheduled for the various components relating to this decision(budget amendment,bond issuance,resolutions)on November • 22.d. The Administration is hopeful that the City will vote to decide to fund the design of the theater and issue short term bonds by December 6th. A. Request to fund design-The Administration has submitted a budget amendment for Council consideration that would establish$15 million in expenditure authority to fund the design of the UPAC and other related soft costs. This budget would be funded with bond proceeds that the Administration would like the Council to issue on December 66.This bond(likely a Bond Anticipation Note or other Short Term Note)would be slightly different than the typical bonds issued by the Council. It would be short term in nature and it would have a mechanism by which the Council could"pay it off"in about a year,likely with the construction bond(see item B), likely in early 2013. > The City would still have to pay a portion of the interest each year before this bond is paid off-approximately$272,000 per year-which would have to be funded either by the General Fund or RDA. > At the conclusion of the design period,if the Council elected not to issue construction bonds and/or not to go forward with the project,the City 5 would still be "on the hook" for this$15 million debt. The Administration recommends that if the Council did not want to go forward with the project at that time,the$15 million debt could be refinanced into a typical sales tax bond. > The reasoning for this bifurcated plan,is to preserve the City's financial flexibility and to ensure that only the necessary amount of debt is issued. B. Overall Finance Plan-While a number of funding sources are unknown or not exact the Administration has provided a general outline of how this project could be financed: Approximate Debt Service Needed* $ 7,152,000 Potential Source of Funds: SARR Funds City(80%of SARR amount) $ 2,375,000 RDA (25%-$amount matches City) $ 2,375,000 County(100%of SARR amount)** $ 1,500,000 Block 70 CDA(70%of respective Increment for each entity)*** City $ 406,290 School District $ 564,920 County** $ 207,646 Total All Sources $7,428,856 *Approximate Debt Service is calculated assuming a 3.59%interest rate and a 25 year term(a "best case scenario"). This Debt Service will fluctuate depending on interest rate and term. ** Note:The County has not yet approved documents to commit these funds. ***Note:Staff is currently reviewing the assumptions used to estimate these increment funds for the Block 70 CDA. ➢ A note on SARR Revenue-this is a stream of property tax increment that the City,County,RDA and School District agreed years ago to pledge to debt service to cover improvements on the block housing the Energy Solutions Arena. Debt service is scheduled to be paid off in April of 2015. Per the original agreement, this stream of revenue is intended to go back to the taxing entities once the debt is paid off(approximately$2.9 million to the SLC General Fund,approximately $1.5 million to the County,and approximately$9 million to the RDA). The administration is proposing to pledge this stream of revenue,which is not yet technically considered"general fund revenue" to fund the major portion of debt service on the Theater. o The Council may wish to note that the Administration's current proposal calls for the City to pledge 80% of this revenue stream($2.375 million), and for the RDA to match that stream. The RDA has approximately $6.625 million per year in funds available beyond this match that the Council, as the RDA board, may wish to discuss. The RDA has indicated that these funds will significantly improve the number and scope of other redevelopment activities in the Downtown project area,so to the extent these funds are tapped for the UPAC,these activities could be reduced. o The Council may wish to clarify roles between the City and the RDA. *‘ The interlocal agreements provided by the Administration seem to set up 6 the RDA as being responsible for collecting and distributing funds,while the City is responsible for issuing debt. The interlocal agreement relating to Bond Anticipation Notes seems to indicate that the Mayor and Director of the RDA will act as a"joint board" to administer the project. The Council may wish to discuss this point,and clarify which branch of the City will ultimately manage the project. > A note on Steiner Bond Payments/General Fund Obligation-In FY 2016, General Fund Debt Service obligations will increase by$5.3 million due to the transfer of the Steiner Ice Sheet obligation from the RDA to the General Fund (this agreement was made in 2006 when other City bonds were refinanced). This payment is required for six years,from FY 2016 to FY 2021 and dramatically impacts the City's ability to fund other capital projects through that period. The SARR stream of revenue mentioned above could be used to offset this debt. The Administration's proposal for the UPAC would mean that this debt would have to be covered with existing general fund resources (note:This is reflected in the Administration's current CIP 10 Year Plan Proposal, and many CIP projects are deferred in order to make the plan pencil). The Council may wish to discuss alternate ways to fund this debt obligation so that these CIP projects are not deferred to the extent they are proposed to be deferred. C. Variables and Long Term Funding Gap-If the interest rate increases beyond 3.59%,or the County does not agree to participate in SARR or Block 70 CDA funding,the available and identified funding sources will not cover the needed debt �• service. The short-term funding gap would exist regardless of whether the County 4 participates with SARR or CDA funding, or whether the CDA generates increment in the long term.Staff has attached year-by-year sources and uses tables for various scenarios for those interested in the year-by-year detail. a. Interest Rate Variable Impact-Bond counsel provided estimates of what debt service would be at current(low),medium,and higher interest rates,all assuming a 25 year bond term. Interest Rate Scenarios and Funding Availability Scenario Interest Annual Debt Gap after FY 2016* Gap over life Rate Service (per year, 22 years) of bond** Current(low) 3.59% $7,151,000 - ($ 1,767,001) Medium 4.79% $ 8,038,000 ($ 609,144) ($ 24,799,806) High 5.99% $ 8,988,000 ($ 1,559,144) ($49,296,244) *Average Gap per year after FY 2016. **This column includes funding gap in Years 1-3 as noted below in item D. The Council may wish to note the following assumptions that have an impact on the annual debt service amount: > The Administration has proposed a 25 year bond rather than the City's typical 20 year bond- this slightly lowers annual debt service amount, although it increases the total interest paid over time. > The Administration has proposed a payment schedule that would defer payments on principle until SARR funds are available in FY 2016- this results in slightly higher annual debt service payments. 7 > Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, has recently released a statement indicating that the Fed will likely try to "hold interest rates steady"at their current levels for the next two years,although Bond Counsel notes this can be changed with little advance notice. b. Impact of County participation-The Administration has provided information about a funding scenario that includes County participation in both a new CDA on Block 70,as well as diversion of SARR funds once the debt service on Energy Solutions Arena have been paid off. The County has not yet voted to participate in either of these funding streams. The purpose of the following chart is to illustrate a range of"worst case" scenarios if the County chooses not to participate in construction of the UPAC. Long Term Shortfall Scenarios without County Participation Scenario Interest Annual Debt Gap after FY 2016* Gap over life Rate Service (per year,22 years) of bond** Current(low) 3.59% $ 7,151,000 ($ 1,429,790) ($41,023,393) Medium 4.79% $ 8,038,000 ($ 2,316,790) ($64,056,197) High 5.99% $ 8,988,000 ($ 3,266,790) ($88,552,635) *This assumes the more definite funding sources of$5.7 million (City, RDA and School District). **This assumes funding gap in Years 1-3 as noted below in item D. D. Funding Gap in Years 1-3- Because SARR Revenue is not available until 2016,and because the Administration is hoping to issue construction bonds in 2013 in order to take advantage of favorable interest rates and construction costs,there is a 2-3 year immediate shortfall in funding needed versus funding available. Bond Counsel has proposed a debt service structure where interest-only payments would be made on the bond in those years to reduce this shortfall. However,interest-only payments on $110 million are still a significant amount. Depending on interest rate,this shortfall in these years could range from$7.4 million to$12.8 million. The following chart shows the immediate shortfall in the various interest rate scenarios: Immediate Term Budget Shortfall Scenarios Interest Shortfall in Shortfall in Total Early Rate FY 2014 FY 2015 (interest Years Shortfall (interest only only payment) payment) Current (low) 3.59% ($ 3,766,291) ($ 3,606,024) ($ 7,372,315) Medium 4.79% ($ 5,186,617) ($ 4,965,910) ($ 10,152,527) High 5.99% ($ 6,535,566) ($ 6,257,457) ($ 12,793,023) ➢ The Administration indicates it is currently working on a plan for how to address this early gap,and indicates they will have a plan for how to address the gap when the Administration asks the Council to issue construction bonds for the project(potentially in late 2012 or early 2013). ➢ The Administration indicates that this shortfall could be offset with naming rights (this would mean that naming rights would not be available to reduce the total amount needed to be financed),or through a loan from the RDA from future years' SARR funds. No analysis has yet been completed on the scenario of the RDA loaning these funds. Depending on the interest rate at time of issue,the RDA may not have sufficient funds to make that loan. 8 > As a backstop the general fund would need to cover this gap. The Administration has indicated that the$2.5 million CIP"placeholder" could be used. Note that this would not be adequate to cover the short term gap,nor would it be enough to cover the gap in a"worst case" scenario of no County participation. > Note that this gap would not be an issue if the project is funded through a general obligation bond,as there would be a dedicated stream of revenue. ➢ The Council may wish to have an in-depth policy discussion with the Administration to come to an understanding about how both short term and long-term funding gaps can or should be addressed. The Council may wish to memorialize the conclusions of that discussion in a series of legislative intents so that the public record is clear for future City officials. E. Strategy for Timing-The Administration is asking the Council to issue short-term bonds and fund design of the project now,in order to take advantage of historically low interest rates,and a relatively favorable construction climate. However,as has been noted above,the major portion of potential revenue for this project is not available until 2016. Scheduling interest-only payments until then,does increase the total cost of debt slightly,but the long-term potential savings from interest rates likely offsets that. The Council could elect to wait until 2016 to construct the project, , although interest rates will likely be higher at that point,which could cause the debt to exceed available resources. F. Alternative Financing Options-Council Staff asked bond counsel to run a scenario that would finance the construction of the UPAC with a General Obligation Bond (this would need to be approved by voters in SLC). Yearly debt service in the GO Bond Scenario is lower than the in the Sales Tax Bond Scenario. This is due to the level debt service that can be funded with a direct property tax levy,as well as a slightly lower overall interest rate. Sales Tax Bond GO Bond Difference (as proposed by Administration) Interest Rate 3.59% 3.16% .43% Term 25 Years 25 Years - Annual Debt Service $ 7,151,000 $ 6,437,000 $ 714,000 Total Debt Paid $ 171,838,622 $ 161,656,748 $ 10,181,874 > The property tax increase on a$110 million GO Bond with the terms referenced above would be approximately$55 per year for a$275,000 home, or$400 per year for a $1 million commercial property. Using a General Obligation Bond to finance this type of project has various pros and cons from a policy perspective. The Council may wish to note that the Mayor has made a commitment not to raise property taxes to build this facility, so the Administration would not support pursuit of a GO Bond at this time. The Administration indicates however that it does feel it is appropriate to consider a GO Bond for other key CIP projects if necessary. Pros - Lower Interest Rate/Debt Payment/Overall Money Paid over the life of the bond - Using GO Bond financing allows SARR revenue to be absorbed into the 9 General Fund to be used to pay for other deferred maintenance or other priority projects. - Preserves Sales Tax headroom Cons - Residents and Businesses of SLC bear the burden of funding a facility that is more regional than local in nature - Voters may not see this project as a priority, or could be resistant because of economic conditions, and may reject the measure - Waiting for a voting cycle and election period would delay the project, exposing the City to risk that interest rates will rise. G. Operations -The Administration is in the process of negotiating an MOU with Salt Lake County for operations of the theater. While this MOU has not yet been approved,the Council may wish to note the following components of the draft,as they do potentially commit future City resources: a. The MOU states that all parties will be responsible for any financial losses or benefits that the theater will have"allocated annually on a mutually agreed, equitable basis between the City and County". While the current operating plan predicts that there will be no subsidy required,most other facilities of this type in the country require some sort of operating subsidy. The Council may wish this point and decide whether or not the City can participate in operating subsidy,and how. b. The MOU states that a "Venue Financial Impact Fund" will be established and maintained for the first five years of UPAC operations. Prior years net gains from the UPAC will be contributed to this fund. The UPAC Advisory board (proposed to be created by the MOU with City and County representation)will then distribute these funds on an annual basis to other facilities operated by the County Center for the Arts (CFA) in addition to an annual economic impact analysis of any losses sustained by these facilities during the first years of UPAC operations. i. The Council may wish to discuss how this will be handled if both the UPAC and existing CFA facilities are sustaining operating losses. ii. The Council may wish to note that this fund would not address any economic impact felt by facilities not operated by the County. c. The MOU states that the parties agree to fund the maintenance of the UPAC if there is any "extended period of inactivity." The Council may wish to discuss this further. d. The Council may also with to consider the following policy issue relating to the role of the City-if agreement is not reached with SL County does the City want to move into the business of providing arts and cultural opportunities and/or managing a facility such as the UPAC, including the possibility of an annual subsidy for operations. This would be a fundamental policy shift in terms of the role of Salt Lake City municipal government. Matters At Issue 10 In addition to the various Matters at Issue throughout the above analysis,the Council may also wish to consider the following matters at issue: 1. Would building this facility strain City general fund resources to the degree that a tax increase would become necessary to fund other City priorities? 2. The Council may wish to discuss the timing of the issuance of debt for both design and construction of the UPAC. 3. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if this project has been reviewed by the CDCIP Citizen Advisory Board,or if other large projects have been reviewed and ranked as other capital projects are. 4. The City and County are currently in the process of negotiating a memorandum of understanding for operations of the proposed UPAC (see draft). This agreement has not yet been agreed upon by the County,and is fluid in nature. However,there are some elements that would seem to commit future City resources. The Council may wish to review the proposed draft for any items that the Council does not agree with or discuss an acceptable strategy with the Administration that would encourage the County to participate in operation of the theater, but would minimize the financial exposure of the City. Pending Questions Council Staff forwarded the following questions to the Administration. Staff has incorporated responses where feasible given the timeframe,and has attached the full list of answers to this report. The Council may wish to discuss scheduling a follow-up briefing on this issue for November 15th. Finance/Specific Project Budget Questions - 1- SARR Funds/RDA-The Administration has previously indicated that the proposed RDA SARR contribution represents 25-30% of the total RDA SARR stream. Is the RDA SARR Stream$8 million or$9.5 million? Will this stream grow over time as property values increase? 2- CDA-What are the assumptions made that result in the$1.2m CDA? Does this assume an X-story office tower? What would happen to this figure if the office tower was delayed by 5 or 10 years? Would you couch these assumptions as conservative or aggressive? 3- On the final page of the cover memo,it seems to insinuate that the UPAC will "share" any key fundraising efforts or naming opportunities with other arts groups (as was done for the Durham Performing Arts Center). Is this the definite proposal? 4- Operations MOU-The MOU States that bond proceeds will be the initial funding source for the"Venue Financial Impact Fund". Is this figure included in the$110 million total figure?What is the annual amount estimated for this fund? Bond Counsel has indicated that this is not eligible to cover out of bond proceeds -given that,how would year one of this fund be funded? 5- Operations MOU-If the UPAC has a sustained operating shortfall,is it correct to state that the City/County/RDA will be responsible to cover that shortfall in a proportion equal to their respective capital investment? Is there a"worst case scenario" about what this amount could be? 6- Operations MOU-Is there a separate line item in the UPAC operating budget to cover deferred maintenance/ongoing capital expenses? Is there a guarantee that 11 this line item will be funded,even if it means less money available to the "Venue Financial Impact Fund"? 7- If the County does not run the theater,how can we assure the Council that the City will not be forced to contribute an operating subsidy once the theater opens? If the County does run the theater,how can we assure the Council that the County will not ask the City to contribute to operating expenses? Budget Policy Questions 1- Has the City considered a general obligation bond for the project? What are the policy arguments for and against a general obligation bond? 2- Is it correct to say that either the City or the RDA will be the ultimate bonding authority for this project,and will therefore be the ultimate "backstop" for funding, should the revenue from a CDA not materialize? 3- If the performing arts center is the top priority,and the City general fund is the ultimate"backstop" for funding,what other proposed projects or infrastructure maintenance might be deferred in order to ensure sufficient funds to complete the performing arts center project? 4- If the City reaches the limit for sales tax bonding capacity,would the City pursue a general obligation bond to preserve existing infrastructure,for other special projects or for both? Economic Development Policy Questions 1- If a theater is built and is successful, to what degree would the City,Salt Lake County,and Utah benefit in terms of sales,income and property tax?Has this been quantified? Which level of government among the three would benefit most?Which level of government would benefit soonest?Is there a graphic to illustrate the relative benefit to each level of government?Has the state been approached in terms of the respective benefit that the State will receive? 2- What are the specific benefits that the overall performing arts community might experience if this project is built? 3- Have any communities with existing and robust arts communities seen any negative consequences from large new performing arts centers being introduced? How have these consequences (perceived or real)been mitigated? Examples? 3 12 • 1 11/1/2011 THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PRESENTATION TO SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL tos s � or s r1 AGENDA • Introduction • Community Outreach • Arts Audience Potential in Utah • Market Demand for the UPAC • Creating an Arts and Cultural Destination • Economic Benefits • Imagine the Possibilities • Funding Plan oza„o.a..,rube..,.a �l 1 11/1/2011 INTRODUCTION • All studies and committees have come to the same conclusion that a new theater would contribute to City and County economic impact • The new theater and related development will contribute to the revitalization of Main Street • The new theater will create cultural opportunities not currently available in the marketplace • Evidence from other similar developments in other communities indicates that the"rising tide will raise all ships" C 2011 Garfish]Traub Swisher Development INTRODUCTION • Second Century Plan conceives new downtown theater idea (Early 1960s ) • Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team recognizes importance of arts to downtown fabric(1988) • Salt Lake County commissions study that recommends a new larger theater to accommodate touring Broadway be built within ten years(1990) • Salt Lake City RDA, Downtown Alliance, and Salt Lake County market study identifies touring Broadway theater need and potential(2005) • A large performance venue to complement existing arts facilities is listed as one of eight signature Downtown Rising plan projects(2007) • Theater Action Group confirms theater need; identifies preferred site (2008) C 2011 Garfield Traub Swisher Development 2 • 11/1/2011 COMMUNITY OUTREACH 3 Stakeholder meetings 3 Formal Steering Committee meetings 11 One-on-one stakeholder interviews • Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company • Kingsbury Hall • Pioneer Theatre Company • University of Utah Fine Arts • Ballet West • Utah Symphony and Opera • Jeffrey Berke Productions • MagicSpace Entertainment • County Center for the Arts • State of Utah Division of Arts and Museums 02011 D.w Traub®..w Drnnent COMMUNITY OUTREACH 9 One-on-one interviews by AMS with prospective UPAC users 5 One-on-one interviews by AECOM Economics 5 Technical one-on-one interviews by GTS with prospective UPAC users 5 Follow-up technical one-on-one interviews • Ballet West • Utah Symphony and Opera • County Center for the Arts(3) 11 Intergovernmental Work Group meetings(including County and CFA staff) 6 City Council Cultural Subcommittee meetings 2 Meetings with City representatives and Plan B Theater Company 1 Presentation to County Cultural Facilities Funding Advisory Board 1 Press roundtable with County and Salt Lake Tribune e2011 D...D.nub a....D.. .. 3 11/1/2011 COMMUNITY OUTREACH 1 Presence at Legislative Night at Mary Poppins 1 UPAC Booth at Farmer's Market Art&Culture Day 5 Meetings with County on terms of UPAC operating agreement MOU 3 Meetings/interviews with the press with three experts with similar experiences with theaters • KCPW radio show • Deseret News Editorial Board • Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board 1 Meeting with 3 outside theater experts with elected City and County officials 1 Televised Community Forum with 3 outside theater experts 02011 Garfield Traub Swisher Development COMMUNITY OUTREACH 1 Meeting with 3 outside theater experts with arts stakeholders • Salt Lake County Center for the Arts • Hale Center Theater • Salt Lake Acting Company • Plan B Theater Company • Utah Playwrights Coalition • Pioneer Theatre Company • Kingsbury Hall • Utah Symphony and Opera • Ballet West • RDT • Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company • 02011 Garfield Traub Swisher Development 4 • 11/1/2011 Y COMMUNITY OUTREACH 13 Presentations/meetings with Mayor Becker and/or Senator McAdams • Chamber of Commerce Board • Downtown Alliance • Editorial Boards • Utah Symphony and Opera Board • Governor Herbert • Mayor Corroon • County Council(2) • School Board(2) • Update to RDA Board • LDS Church(2) 5 Cultural Core Meetings and Workshops hosted by AMS COMMUNITY OUTREACH 11 Meetings since 9/22/09 in which UPAC was included on RDA Board agenda 7 Meetings since 11/18/08 in which Block 70 property relating to UPAC was included on RDA Board agenda 5 MEOW 11/1/2011 ARTS AUDIENCE POTENTIAL IN UTAH • Utahns'arts participation exceeds the national average • 25%growth in year-over-year arts participation from 2010—2011 based on recent survey conducted by Downtown Alliance • Demonstrated track record of success of touring Broadway shows in Utah • Utah is among top three states in projected growth,with its population projected to double in the next 30 years 02011 Garfield Traub Swdeher Deselopmenl PROJECTED UTAH POPULATION GROWTH Figure I:Utah's Population,1940-2060 7.000,000 -- 6.500,000 6.000.000 — - 5,500.000 - - _ _ 5.000,000 4,500,000 4,000.000 — 3,500.000 —-------- 3.000,000 2.500,000 i 000 r_ - 000000 - - 0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee. C 2011 Garfield Traub Swaher Development 6 11/1/2011 FACILITY PROGRAM 148,000 sq.ft.,2,500-seat p:•i loi niin,arts -. - center with support spaces 1 f annex space on regent street with • � i potential rise for retail,studio/black box, - rehearsal space,classrooms,offices and • .• r' a arid-block walkway connecting main �j''(� street and regent street (, f It Up to 20,000-sq.lt.of Regent Street entail MO of approximately 050 parking stalls in the regent street parking garage ppp.FFk Phase 11450,000 mixed-use 25-story office i\ r?, tower private development -\ .., MARKET DEMAND FOR THE UPAC • There is"significant market potential"and"meaningful latent market demand"within a 30-mile radius according to AMS • AMS believes the Salt Lake market can"successfully absorb additional weeks of programming,including Broadway activity,commercial programming and expansion by local performing arts groups,in a new facility." • Strong local support indicated by 52%of surveyed Utahns indicating that UPAC would be important to them,with another 20%undecided, according to a recent survey conducted by the Downtown Alliance 7 11/1/2011 CREATING AN ARTS AND CULTURAL DESTINATION • UPAC will augment the existing constellation of arts venues as an additional attraction to reinforce downtown as a destination • There are "significant visitor-attracting synergies with other major developments" including City Creek Center and Gateway • City Creek Center projects that it will attract 10 to 14 million unique visitors per year, many of which will be from out of state • Will support and complement the new City/County Cultural Core effort C2011 Garfield Traub Swisher Development CREATING AN ARTS AND CULTURAL DESTINATION • Attractive power beyond borders of Salt Lake County throughout Intermountain West region as demonstrated AECOM report • 49% of net new attendees are projected by AECOM to come from outside the County • 74,000 net new patrons to Salt Lake County performances including retention of residents due to increased entertainment options C 2011 Garfield Traub Swisher Development 8 • 11/1/2011 ECONOMIC BENEFITS • Construction and permanent job creation 1 115 permanent jobs associated with the theater ✓ 168 permanent jobs including the office tower 1 Up to 4,000 jobs created during construction • Up to$500mm in one-time expansion of the economy • Increased visitation and net new touring companies • More entertainment patronage and spending retained in Utah • More downtown activity,parking revenues,restaurant and retail sales • Sales taxes generated by visitor spending • $1mm in incremental property taxes associated with office tower ECONOMIC BENEFITS • $9.4 million/year in total ongoing economic output expansion from the theater alone • $14.8 million per year in recurring annual economic impact including the office tower • Projected impacts are above and beyond existing activity in the market, netting out estimated ✓ Existing resident patron spending ✓ Existing visitor spending ✓ Existing theater operations ✓ Existing touring productions and local spending ozo„a.flw,Traub a..Dowlopment 9 11/1/2011 ECONOMIC BENEFITS • Property value stabilization and growth • Strengthened regional economic development • Enhancement of the Utah and Salt Lake"brands" • Downtown revitalization • Induced private investment • Supports other private investment (e.g. City Creek and the Gateway) 02011 Garfield Traub Swisher Deva0pmenl BENEFITS TO THE ARTS • AECOM projected a material increase in audience participation in resident arts groups based on review of AMS data and its own experience • AECOM notes that in similar developments in other cities, the initial impact to existing venues is transitory, with overall utilization "...perhaps equaling or exceeding previous levels within a few years..." • More programming benefits patrons and grows arts audiences overall, and the UPAC provides existing arts groups an opportunity for growth • County-operated model is projected to generate money for other County venues 02011 Garfield Traub Swisher Dewbpmenl 10 • 11/1/2011 IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITIES... Durham Performing Arts Center—Durham,NC • Increased tourism • Annual impact of more than$28 million Overture Center—Madison,WI • Five-fold increase in area property value over 10 years • $10 million in annual downtown spending IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITIES... Holland Center and Orpheum Theatre—Omaha,NE • 350,000 downtown visits generated annually • Downtown housing market resurgence,even through recession Pittsburgh Cultural District—Pittsburgh,PA • 10,192 full-time employees countywide in arts and culture • Successful re-marketing of Pittsburgh region as cultural hub ep„o....]Tn.s....D...wm..I 11 mmim- 11/1/2011 IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITIES... Salt Lake City • A dynamic and integrated cultural core with new funding for marketing and audience development • Significant new retail, housing and office development with over$2 billion invested and drawing 10 million new visitors downtown • Easy downtown access via new light rail,street car and parking garages • Coordinated and complementary management and programming of new and enhanced performing arts facilities like UPAC, Capitol Theatre, Ballet West Academy, and a renovated Utah Theatre ®2011 Garfield Traub Swisher Development THE PERFORMING ARTS �rnrTrri PRESENTATION TO SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL _ _ r- 4)0 9�'1 G.vrt..:A Tr..i t S:'i-.h:r p=_velnnent 12 • \ . • usbank :1 -71%4' • 111 South Main HAMILTON_ARTNERS I Cit Salt Lake y,Utah a E— � 4 ` .nt @ E— Nb ASYaiorrrrrt ----I C 1ooso„m I - office tower Ii I MI D. wai ,,o a nLem,. I thoa itr EM • __ a I IEMEM ■ o C I— gallivan Plaza Jj / II L� f 111 South Main Street HAMILTON Salt Lake City,Utah PARTNERS 100 south lobby retail retail n • tel. lec. =' 711: 1 1 eff' 1 S � I a lobby retail a pedestrian galleria to Y Y U future performing arts center main level plan 111 South Main Street HAMILTOI�ARTNERS Salt Lake City,Utah • • 7 C , r I typical level plan 111 South Main Street HAMlLI u , Salt Lake City,Utah PARTNERS ADMINISTRATION RESPONSES TO COUNCIL STAFF QUESTIONS 10/26/2011 Finance-related questions- 1- Debt service in the memo is mentioned to be$7.1m per year, but all of the worksheets we received beforehand in the coordinating meetings list debt service for$110m bond at$8.6m per year(w/the same interest rate/length terms). Can you explain this$1.5m difference? RESPONSE: The$8.6 million debt service number that we had been working with over the summer calculates a debt service payment based on a conservative interest rate (5.96%)rather than a rate we would likely find in the current market. The 5.96%interest rate number was derived using very conservative interest rate numbers at the beginning of the finance discussions and before Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke made his "hold rates steady for one or two years"announcement. The$7.1 million number is based on an estimated interest cost that we would likely find in the current market (3.59%). You'll find that interest cost on the bottom of page 11 of the transmittal(also called page 1 of the$110 million calculations) vs. the TIC on the UPAC Funding Plan document you're probably looking at. Exposure to higher rates 13-18 months from now(the likely window for issuing the take-out debt)is possible, of course, but the general market consensus is for rates to remain relatively low for some time. I would be happy to answer any further questions you may have on this matter if you need more detail or wish to examine any assumptions. 2- Does the$110m figure include all land acquisition costs—my early notes say that it does not. Has this changed? RESPONSE:An estimated amount was included for land in that the$110 million. If the land is donated the City could do more of the things on the optional items list. 3- What is the proposal to fund the "gap years"—where the short term note has been re-financed, but the SARR Funds are not yet available? In the BA#3 paperwork, it looks like there is a $3.7m payment due in FY 2014 and a $3.6m payment due in FY 2015, before SARR funds are available. What is the administration's proposal of how to fund these payments? RESPONSE: The Administration has several strategies for bridging the 'time gap'and will present a recommended solution, determined in consultation with City financial advisors, at a future date prior to requesting council authorization for issuance of the final construction. The particular strategy that constitutes the wisest financial solution depends on future market conditions, interest rates and other factors which are not presently knowable.Strategies currently contemplated for bridging the time gap include(i)delaying bond issuance(balancing a desire to issue bonds at favorable interest rates while market conditions persist against a modest delay that would minimize the time gap), (ii)use one time capital raised through private donations and foundation contributions for up-front expenditures rather than funding ongoing debt service obligations, (iii)capitalize interest during the time-gap years, (iv) acquire a loan from the City or RDA to fund the time gap, which loan will be repaid from future SARR or CDA increment in excess of amounts needed to fund annual debt service obligations, (v)seek one-time funding through the City, RDA, County or the State or(vi)identification of other revenue sources that would generate present funds. 4- SARR Funds/City—is it correct to say that the City's total "new" revenue from SARR is $2,968,750,and that will be available after April of 2015? Is this amount constant or is there a potential for the amount to fluctuate and/or grow? RESPONSE:Based on our estimates,just updated with 2011 property values, the City's "new"revenue after the SARR bonds are paid is$2,955,206. These funds come from tax year 2015, and would normally be passed from RDA to the City in April 2016, after we receive the funds from SL County Auditor. So long as taxable values in the downtown grow, this number should also grow. 5- SARR Funds/RDA—Early on in my notes I have that$2,375,000(proposed to come from the RDA-SARR stream) represents 25-30%of the total RDA SARR stream. Is the RDA SARR Stream $8 million or$9.5 million?Same question as above also—is this a "base" number that will likely grow over time,or is this amount constant? RESPONSE:After the SARR Bonds are paid, the RDA's share of CBD funds should be somewhere between $8 million and$11 million, and should grow each year,so long as the total taxable property valuation in CBD is growing. The wide range is due to our uncertainty about how the City Creek Center will be valued by the County Assessor, and how long they will take to bring it onto the tax rolls at full value.A recent example that's causing me some concern is 222 Main. Its construction cost was$125 million. It has been on the rolls for two tax years now, and is still only assessed at$80 million. So, in spite of CCRI's enormous investment in the City Creek Center, it may take a while for us to benefit from that investment in property tax receipts. Amok 6- CDA—What are the assumptions made that result in the$1.2m CDA? Does this assume an X- .: story office tower? What would happen to this figure if the office tower was delayed by 5 or 10 years? Would you couch these assumptions as conservative or aggressive? RESPONSE: The CDA Assumptions are as follows: - 20+story office tower - Assessed value of$135 million - Base value of$8.6 million (yields incremental value of$126.4 million) - 2010 tax rate of.015359 - CDA participants are SLCity,SLCounty,SLC School District, all allowing RDA to keep 70%of increment from the block, while we pass through the other 30%to the entities. (note that SLCo has not yet signed on). - Once the office building comes on the rolls, and reaches an assessed value of$135 million, this alone should produce$1.684 million of increment/year. Our 70%share=$1.179 million/year. - I will call this our"simple estimate,"which does not reflect building timing, or growth over time. The simple estimate was the basis for the numbers in our transmittal, and is based only on the office building. So, our biggest risks come from the timing of the building's completion, and the County Assessor's valuation of the building. In this sense, our estimates are probably "aggressive,"since we can't control either of these timing factors. In other respects, the estimates are conservative: In our more detailed TI estimate for the Block 70 CDA, we assumed that the office tower would come on the rolls in tax year 2017. The developer has indicated he's already getting interest in the project from prospective tenants, and if that interest turns into a sufficient number of lease commitments, he could start the building sooner, and complete it a year or more earlier. The more detailed TI estimate we prepared for the CDA approval process includes funds only from SLC and the School District. If we never get the county's participation, the increment flow starts at about$1.5 million/year once the office building is complete. Our 70%share would be about$1.05 million. If the County opts in, that will add approximately$200,000/year. Also, the simple estimate of$1.789 million/year was based only on the value of the office tower, but the CDA actually includes the entire block.So, the income stream from the CDA will benefit from property appreciation on all taxable parcels on the block, and from any other private investment that occurs. So, if the Carl's Junior, Zim's, or SL Tribune properties were to redevelop, those increased values would all be captured by the CDA for the benefit of the UPAC project. It's important to note that even if the office tower proceeds pretty quickly, we could have a 1-2 year cash flow issue where the CDA isn't producing sufficient funds to hit the$1.1 79 million/year mark until tax year 2017. The CDA should more than make up for this in its later years, and as its cash flow grows above the$1.179 million/year level, it could be used to carry a larger share of the project's debt service. 7- On the final page of the cover memo, it seems to insinuate that the UPAC will "share" any key fundraising efforts or naming opportunities with other arts groups(as was done for the Durham Performing Arts Center). Is this the definite proposal? RESPONSE: The Administration is committed to constructing and operating the UPAC in a manner that is complementary to existing arts venues and their ongoing operations. The Administration intends to seek corporate and private sector donations for the UPAC. The specific terms of the fundraising campaign will be determined and implemented contemporaneously with the final design process. We do not anticipate direct revenue sharing on the total amount raised, although the scope of fundraising efforts will be developed in consultation with the existing arts community and impact mitigation efforts will be considered. 8- MOU—The MOU States that bond proceeds will be the initial funding source for the "Venue Financial Impact Fund". Is this figure included in the$110 million total figure?What is the annual amount estimated for this fund? Is this legal to cover out of bond proceeds(considering the City does not own any of the other facilities)? RESPONSE:It will not be possible to fund this fund with bond proceeds(even if the bonds in question are issued at taxable rates). While working capital for the facility itself during a "start-up"or"shakedown" period is contemplated by the Bond Act(and provided for in the tax law), the use contemplated by Section 2.f. iv. of the draft MOU, if I understand it correctly, cannot be financed with borrowed money. 9- MOU- If the UPAC has a sustained operating shortfall, is it correct to state that the City/County/RDA will be responsible to cover that shortfall in a proportion equal to their respective capital investment? Is there a "worst case scenario" about what this amount could be? RESPONSE:Although the details of how operating shortfalls will be handled have yet to be finalized in any potential operation of the UPAC by the County/CFA, it is the position of RDA staff that under the most conservative scenario, operating shortfalls would be covered by each party according to its proportionate percentage of ownership, if and after operating reserves have been exhausted. In the event, which we believe to be unlikely, that the UPAC operating expenses exceed revenue for any extended period, the UPAC could be closed to minimize operating losses pending a disposition of or establishment of another management arrangement for the UPAC. The physical asset would have to be preserved until such time as such other arrangements for the re-activation of the theater could be made. No detailed estimate of the annual cost of maintaining the closed facilities has been made, but the cost would be substantially less than the annual cost of operating an active theater. It is the position of RDA staff that the cost of maintaining a closed theater would be borne by each party according to its proportionate percentage of ownership, if and after operating reserves have been exhausted. In this worst-case scenario, alternate scenarios for the ownership and/or operation of the theater would be actively explored, and may include the City engaging either a not-for-profit operator or a private,for- profit(commercial) theater operator, as the City of Durham has done, with substantial economic and financial benefit to the City, with the Durham Performing Arts Center. 10- MOU- Is there a separate line item in the UPAC operating budget to cover deferred maintenance/ongoing capital expenses? Is there a guarantee that this line item will be funded, even if it means less money available to the "Venue Financial Impact Fund"? RESPONSE: Under both scenarios studied in the Pre-Development Strategic Plan for the UPAC, there is assumed to be a$1.00 per ticket "facility fee"or"Preservation Fee"collected on each ticket sold. A line item for annual repair and replacement is also included under each scenario. Under the private, "stand- alone"operation, this line item is projected to be$78,000 per year increasing to approximately$88,000 per year in year five of operation. The balance of the facility fee funds collected per each paid ticket would be allocated to cover other operating expenses of the UPAC. Under the County/CFA operated model, this line item is projected to be$258,000 per year increasing to approximately$273,000 per year in year five of operation. The reason the line item is substantially greater under the County/CFA operated model is that Preservation Fee income collected is restricted under current County/CFA policy, to facility repair and replacement. Under a County/CFA operation, if, under a final operating agreement with the County/CFA, the UPAC is subject to the current policy for County-operated venues, these Preservation Fee funds will be available for use both by the UPAC and by other County venues, as needs arise. Under this scenario, the UPAC would also have access to Preservation Fee funds collected by other County venues, as UPAC needs arise. Although a specific life-cycle cost analysis of major capital repairs and replacement has not yet been prepared, we believe it is advisable to prepare such a life-cycle cost analysis and establish plans for a "sinking fund"to ensure capital is available for the UPAC at the anticipated time of such capital repair and replacement needs if and to the extent that capital repairs are not covered by the County/CFA from Preservation Fees collected at the UPAC and other venues. Currently, there is no guarantee that future capital needs will be funded, beyond the availability of funds collected by the UPAC, and, in the case of a County/CFA operation, by the total Preservation Fee funds collected and available from all County venues. 11- If the County does not run the theater, how can we assure the Council that the City will not be forced to contribute an operating subsidy once the theater opens? If the County does run the theater, how can we assure the Council that the County will not ask the City to contribute to operating expenses? RESPONSE: The AMS study projects that a non-profit operator on behalf of the City would break even operationally(before debt service). We believe this to be a reasonable and conservative assessment. We further believe that the maximum exposure of the City to potential operating losses would be limited to the City's proportionate share of the annual cost of any temporary closure of the facility pending an alternate disposition or management arrangement, as discussed above. If the County/CFA is the operator, it is the position of the RDA staff that performance criteria will be established which include operating the theater in a manner that does not require operating subsidies. If the County does not perform, the City will have the right to close the facility temporarily and/or seek another operator. Budget Policy 1- Has the City considered a general obligation bond for the project?What would the difference in interest rate mean for the total amount paid over the life of the bond? Would the projected shortfalls decrease? What are the policy arguments for and against a general obligation bond? RESPONSE: The Mayor has made a commitment to not raise taxes to build the Utah Performing Arts Center. Suggested savings in the use of general obligation bond assumes the bond would be passed this November. The delay of passing a general obligation bond may move us beyond the current favorable interest rate and construction rate climates. It is also much more difficult to predict what interest rates will look like when issuing the bonds when also accounting for additional time required for a general obligation bond. 2- Is it correct to say that either the City or the RDA will be the ultimate bonding authority for this project, and will therefore be the ultimate "backstop"for funding, should the revenue from a CDA not materialize? RESPONSE: It is correct to say that the City or the RDA will be the "backstop";however, the risk for this CDA is much lower than the risk we assumed for the North Temple Viaduct CDA.Also, the projected revenues are conservative and reflect no appreciation in the CDA area. If annual budget appropriations from the CDA exceed projections, that money can be used to repay initial loans from the "backstop" ,,, source. 3- If the performing arts center is the top priority,and the City general fund is the ultimate "backstop" for funding,what other proposed projects or infrastructure maintenance might be deferred in order to ensure sufficient funds to complete the performing arts center project? RESPONSE: The administration recommends using the Capital Project placeholder in the CIP budget as a source of"backstop"funding rather than deferring infrastructure maintenance or proposed projects. 4- If the City reaches the limit for sales tax bonding capacity,would the City pursue a general obligation bond to preserve existing infrastructure,for other special projects or for both? RESPONSE: The administration feels it would be appropriate to consider general obligation bonds for key CIP projects. Economic Development Policy 1- If a theater is built and is successful,to what degree would the City,Salt Lake County,and Utah benefit in terms of sales, income and property tax? Has this been quantified? Which level of government among the three would benefit most?Which level of government would benefit soonest? Is there a graphic to illustrate the relative benefit to each level of government? Has the state been approached in terms of the respective benefit that the State will receive? RESPONSE: The AECOM Economic Impact Model provided region-wide economic impacts and benefits but it is difficult to apportion all of those benefits, especially ones that are the components or inputs of the multiplier of the direct benefits and impacts, to a particular geography or governmental unit. The City, County and State will benefit from increased sales tax revenue from the cost of materials purchased for the construction of the Theater and the Office Tower credited to Utah purchases. The City will receive permitting fees for all construction costs. Those specific fiscal benefits will be detailed after further analysis. Earnings for one time construction work on the Theater and the Office tower will accrue largely to the State of Utah through new income taxes collected. The City and County would receive some sales tax revenue benefits in the multiplier of earnings though purchases made in their respective areas. The operation budget for the Theater and the Office building primarily generates earnings and other expenses that would flow to the State of Utah. New and increased sales tax collections would come to the State, County and City through the increase of patronage at Broadway shows and non-broadway shows in the new Theater. The total increase in patronage at all downtown theaters, including Capitol Theater,Abravanel Hall, and Rose Wagner, as well as UPAC, account for 123,000 new patrons, with an average spend of$20 per person. The City, County and State all receive net new sales tax revenues from new patron spending. A small percentage of net new patrons will come from out of State, and over 61,000 net new patrons are from out of Salt Lake County. New outside County spending is estimated to bring in$1.5 million per year in sales, not counting the cost of ticket purchases. AECOM estimates that the total value of the Office Tower will be about$130 million and will generate about$1 million annually in property tax revenue of which about 45%is captured by the Salt Lake School District, and 45%by the City and County. We are discussing with the sub-consultant AECOM to further breakdown general revenue streams and net new income into a fiscal revenue stream for each major taxing entity. The State of Utah will be approached in the legislative session to consider several options in which they could participate in helping fund the project due to some of the benefits they receive. 2- What are the specific benefits that the overall performing arts community might experience if this project is built? RESPONSE: The overall performing arts community benefits in several direct and indirect ways by having a new 2,500 seat Theater. It is anticipated that local arts organizations will utilize the Theater for selected performances that cannot be accommodated in their existing facility, or where the new Theater and a larger seating capacity will be advantageous to them in selling tickets and generating revenue. The current performance pro forma anticipates several performances by the Utah Opera, Utah Symphony and Ballet West. The presenters of Broadway shows will benefit by having greater booking opportunities, more seats to sell, and a bigger booking window in order to attract more touring broadway shows, and bring in broadway shows sooner than later. Other local for profit and non-profit arts organizations and presenters will benefit by now having capacity to book a theater for local or touring music, or other cultural or entertainment performances, by now having more date availability. Currently, many touring concerts and other performers by-pass Salt Lake City due to lack of date availability in existing theaters. Other smaller performing arts organizations can benefit by building, cultivating and increasing the audience for live theater and live performances. The experience in many other communities is that touring broadway shows are the entry point for many people to experience live theater and musical presentations. This positive experience then encourages them to explore other art forms and those that might be less well know and more experimental. The comment has been frequently made that touring broadway shows are the gateway theater performance for other theater and performing arts experiences because it is so popular and accessible. The addition of a new Theater and the attendant publicity, branding and excitement is generates as part of a broader array of cultural offerings is an important mark of support and affirmation of the arts. The competition for attention, time and money from many other forms of leisure and entertainment are seen as the biggest obstacles to greater participation and attendance in the arts. The more opportunities to brand and co-brand the downtown and arts community experience will help build audience and support especially in relationship to the many other forms of competition for people's time. Finally, the operating projections for the UPAC indicate it will generate surplus operating funds which can be used in a variety of different ways to backfill other performing arts presentations, used for continued operating subsidies by arts organizations in the County facilities, or a host of other ways that benefit current local performing arts organizations. 3- Have any communities with existing and robust arts communities seen any negative consequences from large new performing arts centers being introduced? How have these consequences (perceived or real) been mitigated? Examples? RESPONSE: We will need to research this question further since the overwhelming experience is that communities large and small have used new performing arts centers as both a facility for cultural enrichment and as a economic catalyst for redevelopment projects. One project was brought to our attention in San Antonio whereby an existing vaudeville era theater was renovated by a private company, and served as the location of the Symphony, Opera, touring Broadway and other performances. Due to a unfavorable rental arrangement with the Symphony, as well as many other reasons, the Symphony found itself in some financial difficulties. But they have apparently rebounded and now an aggressive community effort is underway to renovate another local auditorium as a purpose-built facility for the Symphony and Opera. The lesson perhaps is that the operating arrangements are key to a successful venture, and we are drafting one with Salt Lake County that takes into account the needs of the building owners, the building operators, major users of the building, and those organizations in other facilities whose need should be considered. Yearly Debt Service Sources and Uses.Interest Rate Scenarios scenarios-Low interest Rate(Current Environment)A,,.m ns•39%00 25 5 Year n an Bond FY 1013 FY 2014FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 PC 2018 EY 2019 FT 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2018 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 203E FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 Total Use-Debt Service •nd aTT!vpativn Note 1$15M) $ 262,000 $ 262,003 1e-027 Bonds($110M) $ 157,503 $ 3,766,292 $ 3,606,024 $ 7,151,024 $ 7,152,347 $ 7,151,881 $ 7,148,801 $ 7,150,801 $ 7.151,301 $ 7,153,615 $ 7,149.210 $ 7,152,315 $ 7,151045 $ 2,150,410 5 7,149,778 $ 7,109,389 $ 7,148,899 $ 7,152,786 $ 7.150,112 $ 7,150,326 $ 7,149,099 $ 7,151319 $ 1151,719 5 7,150,889 $ 7,148,916 $ 7,150,296 Total Debt Service Needs $ 419,500 $ 4,028,292 $3,606,024 $7,151,024 5 7,152,347 $7,151,881 $7,148,881 $7,150,801 $7,151,301 5 7,153,615 $7,149,210 $7,157,315 $7,151,045 $7,150318 $ 7,149,778 $ 7,149,389 $ 7,148,899 $ 7,152,786 $ 7,150,112 $ 7,250,326 $ 7,149,099 $7,151,319 $ 7,151,719 $ 7,150,889 $ 7,148,916 $ 7,150,296 $122,520,17E Source SARB Funds C3y(80%) $ - $ - $ - $ 2875,0. 5 2,375,000 $ ;375A00 $ ;375,030 $ 2,375,000 $ ;375,000 $ ;375,003 5 ;375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ ;375A �00 $ 7.375203 $ 2,375,000 $ 15,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2.375,000 $ 2375,000 $ ;375,003 $ ;375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 R0A(2506-$amount matches COI$ - $ - 5 - $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375.003 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,03 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375,003 countyflco%/' $ - $ - $ - $ 1,502000 $ 1,500,0. $ 1500,000 $ 1,500,o00 $ 1,500,I03 $ 1500,000 $ 1,50600D $ 1,543,1100 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,030 $ 1,500,100 $ 1,500003 $ 1,500,030 $ 1,510086 $ 1,503,000 $ 1,500,o00 $ 1,500,003 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 0,500000 Block 70CDA inoe or'wpm)..,eeoor' City $ 12,697 $ 50,786 $ 101,573 $ 203,105 $ 4062% $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 006,290 $ 406,2. $ 406,2. $ 406,230 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,250 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 School District $ 17,654 $ 70,615 $ 141,230 $ 202,460 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 560,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 5E4,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 5E4,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 560,920 5 560,920 $ 560,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 0 564,920 $ 560,920 $ 564,920 County $ 6,489 $ 25,956 $ 51,912 $ 103,823 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207.646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 Total All Sources $ 36,839 $ 147,357 $ 291,714 $6,839,428 5 7,428,856 $7328,856 $7,028,856 5 7,428,856 $7,428,656 $7,428,856 $7,428,856 $7,428,856 $7,128,856 $7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7328,856 $ 7,428,356 5 7A28,856 $ 7,428,856 5 7,428,856 $7A28,856 5 7,428,856 $ 7,028,156 $ 7,423,356 $ 7,028,856 $170,753,170 rw Orysn,2e, 5 12487 $ sass 5 100579 5 2575145 5 2781290 5 2782286 5 2782290 5 2781290 5 27e1297$ 2781270 5 2785290 5 2781250 5 2781290 5 0781.290 $ 2781243 5 27e2290 5 2781250 5 270,290 5 2,0,290 5 2781250 5 270,290 5 2781,200 5 270,00 5 2781290 $ 2781,250 5 278120 GAP ($382,661) ($2,880,925) 03,211,210) (5311,596) $276,510 $276,976 $279,976 $278,056 $277556 $275,242 $279647 $276,542 8277,812 5278,439 $279,079 $279,468 5279,958 $276,071 $278,745 $274531 $279,758 $277,538 $27138 $277,968 $279,940 $278,560 ($1,767,00)) Scenario 2-Medium Interest Rate Assuming 79%Interest s e,s ...end FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 PI 2022 PC 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 PI 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 PE 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 Total Uses-Debt Service Band Annopal!ot 5208(015 MI $ 262,000 5 262,003 1a6e-061 Bonds 15110M) $ 5,186,618 $ 4,965,911 $ 8,035,911 $ 8,037,101 $ 8,337,641 $ 8,038,914 $ 8040,262 $ 8,037,397 $ 8,037,126 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,038..6 $ 8,040,294 $ 8036.055 $ 8039,789 $ 8,040,577 $ 8,037,939 $ 8,038,417 $ 8,036,593 $ 8,036,966 $ 8,038,782 $ 8036,288 $ 8,039,351 $ 8,040,069 5 8,037.652 5 8,036,313 Total Debt Service Needs $ 262,000 $ 5,448,618 $4,965,911 $8,035,911 $8,037,101 $8,037,641 $8,038,910 $8,040,262 $8,037,397 $8,037,126 $8,038,914 $8,038,096 $8,040,291 $8,036,055 $ 8,039,789 $ 8,000,577 $ 8,037,939 $ 8,038,417 $ 8,036,593 $ 8,036,966 5 8,038,782 $8,036,288 $ 8,039,351 $ 8,040,069 5 8,037,652 5 8,036,313 5195,552,976 Source SARP Funds CFty(e0%) $ - $ - $ - $ 2,375,000 $ 1,375,000 5 2.375.000 $ ;375,000 $ 2,375,C00 $ ;375,003 $ ;375,003 $ ;375,003 $ 2375A00 $ 2375,060 $ ;375,003 $ ;315,000 $ 2315,000 $ ;375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375A00 $ ;375,600 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375.000 ROA(25%-$amount moteles CO)$ - $ • $ - $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2.375.000 $ 23 000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,00D $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,0 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 000 $ 2,375,000 $ 000 $ 000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2.375.003 County IIW%)' S - 0 - $ - 0 1,500,0W $ 1,50601D 0 1,501030 5 1,5W,OOD $ 1,503,000 $ 1,503,,000 $ 2500,003 $ 1,500,00 $ 1,503,000 $ 1,530,000 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,003 $ 150,003 $ 1,500,603 $ 1.5500,603 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 0 1,50300 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,003 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,00 $ 1500,1300 Block 70 CM IAA ann..inunnenl-- City $ 12,697 $ 50,786 $ 101,573 $ 203,145 $ 406290 $ 406,290 $ 406290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 405,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,2510 $ 406,2510 $ 406,290 $ 406.290 $ 406,290 $ 406.290 $ 406.290 $ 406.290 5 406,250 $ 406,250 School055k1 $ 17,654 $ 20,615 $ 141.230 $ 282,460 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ S64.920 $ 564,920 $ $64,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 County $ 6,489 $ 25,956 $ 51,912 $ 103,823 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 207,6t6 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 Total All Source $ 36,839 5 147,357 $ 294,714 $6,839,428 $7A28356 $7,428,856 $7,028,856 $7,428,856 5 7,428,156 $7,428,856 5 7328,656 $7,428,156 $7,428,856 5 7,028,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7A28,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,423,855 $ 7,428,856 $ 2,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $7,423,156 $ 7A28,856 $ 7,028,156 $ 7A28356 $ 7,428356 $170,753,170 Fern yFeteett 5 12457 5 5a755 5 102573 5 2578,145 5 27812s0 5 2751295 5 2781290 5 275y2s0 5 2781290 5 270,20 5 L7d 790 5 2n1.590 5 2751,290 5 2781,050s 5 2781,0 5 2781290 5 278115o 5 270190 5 2781210 5 2782290 5 2781290 5 2781200 5 2781,250 5 2710190 $ 27,290 5 2781,280 GAP ($225,161) (55,301,261) ($4,671,197) (51,196,483) ($608,245) ($608,785) (5610,0581 (5611,406) ($608,541) (S608,270) (5610,058) ($609,240) 0611438) ($607,199) (0610,933) ($611,721) 0609,083) ($609,561) ($607,727) ($608,110) ($609,926) ($607,422) 0610,495) ($611,113) (5608,796) (5607,457) ($24,799,806) -narlo3-High Interest Rate-Ass amine.•598%interest T 25 Tea r Sales ae Bend FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 1018 Fr 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 P12030 FY 2031 FY 203E FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 Total Uses-Debt Service Bond A ntici pation Note 1$15 MI $ 262,000 $ 262.000 Takeout 60018(0110 MI $ - $ 6,535,566 $ 6,257,457 $ 8,987,457 $ 8,986,290 $ 8,987,933 $ 8988,634 $ 8,987,520 $ 8,909,594 $ 8,991,283 $ 8,986,747 $ 8986,411 $ 8,993,346 $ 8,988,772 $ 6990,599 $ 8,989,573 $ 8,989,713 $ 8,987,525 $ 8,986,588 $ 8,990,650 $ 8,9138,150 $ 8,988,150 $ 3 $ 8,987,590 $ 8,985,925 $ 8,987,493 Total Debt Service Needs $ 262,000 $ 6,797,566 $6,257,457 $8,987,457 $8,986,290 $8,987,933 $8,988,634 $8,987,520 $8,989,594 $8,991,283 $8,986,747 $8,986,411 $8,990,346 $8,9138,772 $ 8,990,599 $ 8,989,573 $ 8,989,713 $ 8,987,525 $ 8,986,588 $ 8,990,650 $ 8,988,150 $8,988,150 $ 8,989,453 $ 8,987,590 $ 8,985,925 $ 8,987,493 $220,049,414 Source SARR Funds C17(85%) $ - $ - $ - $ 3375,000 $ 3375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 237500 $ 1,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 23753000 $ 2,30,000 $ 2,375.000 $ 2375300 $ 2,375300 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2375,000 $ 1375,030 $ ;375300 $ 237500 $ 2375000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375300 RDA(25%-$amount attlls City)$ - $ - $ - $ 2375,000 $ 2,375.000 $ 2,375.000 $ 2375000 $ 2375003 $ 2,375. $ 2,375003 $ 2,375000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,0001 $ 2,375,00 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2.375,030 $ 2,375. $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,375,000 wnn(IOW' $ $ • $ - $ 1,500,000 $ 1,503,,000 $ 1500,000 $ 1,503,000 5 1,500,003 $ 1,503,000 $ 1,500,003 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1.500,000 $ 1,500,003 $ 1,500,000 5 1,503,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,003 $ 1,503,000 $ 1,503,000 $ 1,sao,I%p $ 1,500000 $ 1,503,000 $ 1,500,030 $ 1,500,003 $ 1,500,000 Block 70 CDA1.6on6on6.e in„nneeti-- C8y $ 12,697 $ 50,786 5 101573 $ 203,145 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406290 5 406,220 0 406.290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 0 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 52,1801048e $ 17,654 $ 70,615 $ 141230 $ 282,460 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 560,920 $ 564,920 0 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 5.,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 560,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 560,920 $ 564,920 County $ 6,489 $ 25,956 $ 51,912 $ 103,823 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207.646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,656 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,606 5 207,606 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 Total All Sources $ 36,639 $ 147,357 $ 291,714 $6,839,428 $7A28356 $7,428,856 $7,428,350 $7,428,856 $7,428,856 $7,428,856 $7,428,856 $7A28,856 $7,028356 $7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7A28,856 $ 7A28356 $ 7A28A56 $ 7A28,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $7,426,356 $ 7,428,856 $ 2,428,856 $ 7,028,656 $ 7,428,856 5170,753,170 .01 07052000, 5 12887 5 50,75 5 10157E$ 2,978143 $ 2781280 0 0581290 0 2781280$ 2782,290 5 2781290$ 2702290 5 27111,250 5 278120 5 270,290 0 270,290 5 2741,290 5 2781,290 5 2782290 5 2781250 5 27e2280 5 2782290 5 2781290 $ 2782290 $ 2781,290 5 2,0290 $ 27e1290 5 2782.290 GAP 0225,161) (36,650,209)-(55,962,743/ ($2148,029) ($2557,434) ($1)559,077) (51,559778j (51,558,664) ($1,560,738) ($1,562,427) ($1,557,891) (52557,555) (31,561,090/ (51,559,916) (53561,713) ($1,560,717) ($1,560,857) ($1,558,669) ($1,557732) 61,561,7941 ($1,559,294) 01,559,294) 254560,597) (51,558,730) ($1,557,069) (51,558,637) 049,12- otes/Assumptions 'Doty County c0mmnment t0 SARR Funds and CPA has not yet been approved. Assumption'.Council Staff assumed a 5 year ramp-up to full CDA potential Increment. Yearly Debt Service Sources and Uses-NO COUNTY PARTICIPAT3ON-Interest Rate Scenarios Scenario 1-low Interest Rate(Current Environment)Ass u 4 3 I0 59% u.e, 35 Year s1e.70 9nn4 FY 2013 FT 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 Total Uses-Debt Service Iri 0nd Anticipation Note l sr, M) $ 262,2% $ 26Z.02 ake-Out 00749(5110 M) $ 157,500 $ 3,766,292 $ 3,606,024 $ 7,151,024 $ 7,152,347 $ 7,151,831 $ 7,148,881 $ 7,150,801 $ 7,151,301 $ 7,153,61S $ 7,149,210 $ 7,152,315 $ 7151,045 $ 7,150,418 $ 7,149,778 $ 7,149,389 $ 7,148,899 $ 7,152,786 $ 7,150,112 $ 7,150,326 $ 7,149,099 $ 7,151,319 $ 7,151,719 5 7,150,889 $ 7,148,916 $ 7,150,296 Total Debt Service Needs $ 419,500 $ 4,028,292 $3,606,024 $7,151,024 $7,152,347 5 7,151,881 $7,148,881 $7,150,801 $7,151,301 $7,153,615 $7,149,210 $7,152,315 $7,151,045 $7,130,418 $ 7,149,778 $ 7,149,389 $ 7,148,899 $ 7,152,786 $ 7,150,112 $ 7,150,326 $ 7,149,099 $ 7,151,319 $ 7,151,719 $ 7,150,889 $ 7,148,916 $ 7,150,296 $172,520,172 Source SARR Funds Cite(80%) I - $ • $ - $ 2375000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,325,000 $ 23)5000 $ 2375,000 $ Z375,000 $ 2.375,0110 $ 2375,2% $ 2.375,030 $ 1,375,060 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375A00 I 2375.800 $ 2.375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,373,080 $ 2375,600 $ 2375,4100 $ 23752% $ 2,3752% $ 237f,000 0 2375,0. $ 2.375,000 DA(25%-$omountmpir9e3 City)$ - $ - $ - $ 2,375,803 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,37500 $ 2,375803 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 7375.2% $ 2,375,003 $ 2.375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2.375000 $ 2,375,800 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,375803 $ 2,375000 $ 2,375.803 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375803 $ 2,375000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 County Block 70 CDA pate,..os.u..,en,e., 847 $ 12097 5 50,786 $ 101,573 $ 203,145 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,293 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406.0 $ 406,290 $ 406,293 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 405,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,293 5 40.290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,2% $ 406,290 School 067103 $ 17,654 $ 70,615 $ 141,230 $ 282,460 $ 564,920 5 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564920 $ 564,920 $ 564920 $ 564.920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 5E4,920 5 564,920 County Total All sources $ 30,350 $ 121,401 $ 242,803 $5,235,605 5 5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,221,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $131.496,779 row'Cry 5 12697 5 50786 5 101575 3 2074235 $ 2,81290 5 2742250 5 7381490 5 2781.290 5 2781291 S 2741190 S L781290$ 2741290 5 2785,290 5 275.55 5 2781200 S 2781290 $ 0781,294 5 8281290 5 27e1290 5 0781230 $ 1)81200 5 2781290 S 5781230 $ 2 42* 5 0781297 5 5785.230 GAP (53,906,690) 03,363,122) (51,918419) (51,431,137) ($1,430,6,1) (51,427,6,1) (52429591) ($1,434091) ($1,432,405) (51,428,000) (51,431,105) (51,429,835) (51,429,2061 01,428,568) (51,424179) (51,427689) ($1,431,576) ($1,028,901) ($1,429,116) (51,422,889) (51,438109) ($1,430,509) ($1,429,619) (51,42),106) ($1,429,0B6f\II (541,073,393) Scenario 2-Medium Interest Rale-asuvu n z�e.a u Mr m a. _ FY 2013 29 m FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 Total Uses-Debt Service Bond Anticipation Note($15 M) $ 262,003 $ 262,080 Take-OIIB0nd3($1100) $ 5,186,618 $ 4965911 $ 8,035,911 $ 8,037,101 5 8,037641 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,040.262 $ 8,037.397 $ 8,037,126 $ e 38,914 $ 8,038,096 $ 8,040,294 $ 0,036,055 $ 8,039,789 $ 8,040,577 $ 8,037,939 $ 8,038,417 $ 8,036,593 $ 8,036,966 $ 8,038,782 $ 8,036,288 $ 8,039,351 $ 8,040,069 $ 8,037,652 $ 8,036,313 Total Debt 5er310e Needs $ 262,000 $ 5,448,618 $4,965,911 $8,035,911 5 8,037,101 $8,037,641 $8,038,914 $8,040,262 $8,037,397 5 8,037,126 $6,038,914 5 8,038,096 $8,040,294 $8,036,055 $ 8,039,789 $ 8,040,577 $ 8,037,939 $ 8,038,417 $ 8,036,593 5 8,036,966 $ 8,036,782 $ 8,036,288 $ 8,039,351 $ 8,040,069 $ 8,037,652 $ 8,036,313 1195,552,976 Source SARR Funds City(895) $ - $ • $ - $ 2375.000 $ 2375.000 $ 2,375,0. $ 2375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2.376030 $ 2375,000 $ 2375000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,315,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2.375,000 $ 2375A00 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,030 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2.375,000 RDA(255-5 om0unt matches City)$ • 5 • $ - $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,800 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,803 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,020 $ 2,375,1300 $ 2,375,800 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,010 $ 2,375,000 $ 2376000 $ 2,375000 $ 2,375,033 $ 2,375,0. County Block)OCDAoaam,e•seune u..,ew,eml'• City $ 12,697 $ 50,786 $ 101,573 $ 203,145 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406203 $ 406.290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 405..3 $ 406,290 $ 406290 $ 293 $ 4062. $ 406,250 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 405,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 4(6,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,293 0000211,5M103 $ 17654 $ 20,615 $ 141230 $ 282,460 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564.920 $ 564,920 $ 564920 $ 564,920 $ 564920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564920 $ 564,920 Total All Sources $ 30,350 $ 121,401 $ 242,803 $5,235,605 $5,721,210 5 5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 5 5,71,210 $5,721,210 5 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 5 5,221,210 S 5,721,210 $ 5,721.210 5131,496,779 78341470090e, 5 12,697 5 30786 5 101373 5 0374143 5 2781290 5 2.781230 3 2,781290 5 2.785290 5 0781290$ 2781290$ 2182290 5 478120$ 1781293 $ 2.781290 5 2781290 5 0000290 5 2781290 $ 2,781290 5 2781290 $ 2781290 5 2782290 5 2781290 $ 4.701290 $ 07e1290 5 L781,290 5 L781,290 ©GAP ($259650) (55,32N216) (54,713,108) (51,800,306) (58315,891) ($2,316,431) (51,311,704) (51,319,052) ($2,316,187) ($2,315,916) (52,317,7041 ($2,316,886) (52,319,084) (58314,8451 (51,318,579) (58319367) (52,316,729) (58317207) (52,315,383) (58315,756) (52,3175721 (52,315,078) (52,318,141) (52,318,853) (58316,4421 (52,315,103, ($64,056,197) narlo 3-High interest Rate-Ass um T FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FT 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 Total Uses-Debt Service Bond Anticipation Note($15 M) $ 262,800 $ 262,000 Tale•Oul Bonds($110M) $ - $ 6,535,566 $ 6,257,457 $ 8987,457 $ 8,986,290 $ e 7,933 $ 8,988,634 $ 8987,520 $ 8,989,594 $ 8,991,283 $ 8.986747 $ 8,986,411 $ 8,993,346 $ 8,986772 $ 8,993,599 $ 6989,573 $ 8,989,713 $ 8,987,525 $ 8,986,588 $ 8,990,650 $ 8,988,150 $ 8,988,150 $ 8,989,453 $ 8,987,590 $ 8,985.925 $ 8,987,493 Total Debt Service Needs $ 262,000 $ 6,797,566 $6,257,457 $8,987,457 $8,9E16,290 $8,987,933 $8,988,634 $8,987,520 $8,989,594 $8,991,283 $8,986,747 $8,986,411 $8,990,346 $8,988,772 $ 8,990,599 $ 8,989,573 $ 8,989,713 $ 8,987,525 $ 8,986,588 $ 8,990,650 $ 8,988,150 $ 8,988,150 $ 8,989,453 $ 8,987,590 $ 8,985,925 $ 8,987,493 5220,049,414 Source SARR funds City(80%) $ - $ - $ - $ 2375000 $ 2375000 $ 2,3)5,030 $ 2.375000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,2% 1 2375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2.375,000 $ 2,375,00 $ 2375,000 $ 0.079.00 $ 2375,003 $ 2375,000 $ 2,3752% $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 23752% $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,000 RDA(25%-5 amount matches City)$ - $ - $ - $ 2,375,030 5 2,375,003 $ 2,375,800 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,1300 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375,000 $ 2.375,030 $ 2.375,003 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375030 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375010 $ 2,375,000 $ 2.375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,1203 $ 2,375,003 5 2,375,003 Block 70 CDA 0.6resseanen.e,eme6r City $ 12,697 $ 50,786 $ 102573 $ 203,145 $ 250 $ 406,290 $ 406.2911 $ 406790 $ 406.290 $ 406,290 $ 406.290 $ 406,293 $ 406,290 $ 406290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406.290 $ 406.290 $ 406,290 3050010605k3 $ 17.654 $ 70,615 $ 141,230 $ 202.460 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 554,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 534.920 $ 564.920 $ 564,920 Total All Sources $ 30,350 $ 121,401 $ 242,803 $5,235,605 $5,721,210 $5,221,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 5 5,721,210 $5,721,210 $5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,)21,210 $ 5,721,210 $131,496,779 Tara CM Sown 3 32697 5 54745 5 101573 5 2,978,1$ $ L781,290 5 201290 5 0781290$ 2781,290 5 0781290 5 2781,290$ 0781290 5 2,781297 5 079,190 5 L781290 5 1,81290 5 1781290 5 1781290 5 2781290 $ L781230 $ 2741290 5 2781250 5 ;784280 5 1781190 5 L781,290 5 4781290 S 2,782230 GAP ($131,650) ($6,676,165) ($601d655) 03,751,852) ($3,265,080) ($3,266,713) ($3,267,424) (53,266,310) ($3,168,380) (53270,073) ($3,265,537) ($3,265,201) ($3,269,136) ($3,267,,562) ($3,269385) ($3,268,363) ($3,268,503) ($3,266,315) ($3,265,378) ($3,269,440) ($3,266,940) ($3,266940) ($3,268243) ($3,266,380) ($3,268,715) ($3,266,283) (588,552,635) 0 ~' - "=1 RALP'H BoECKER 51 Y t(gym. ,��I��.. 1 ►►✓✓�r��++// OFFI`CyEkOOFFF THEi MAYOR 1 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL R,L:1VED 1111PIAllik Date Received: to Zo /I Davie veritt, Chief of Staff SLC COUNCIL,oFPtte sent to Council: D /' TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 19, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt Chief of Staff, x7732, david.everitt@slcgov.com SUBJECT: UPAC Approval for Final Design, City participation in SARR and CDA funding, authorization of bond anticipation note financing for design and associated soft costs. STAFF CONTACT: Ben McAdams, Senior Advisor to the Mayor, x7939 DJ Baxter, RDA Director, x7735 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing, Ordinances, Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinances or resolutions. BUDGET IMPACT: The action includes authorization for expenditure of up to $15 million for the final design of the UPAC and associated soft costs. This amount will be funded by sales tax revenue notes, authorized hereby, the amount of which will be fully paid from the proceeds of bonds issued at a later date for the full construction costs of the facility and related improvements, currently estimated at $110 million. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Utah Performing Arts Center is a proposed 2,500-seat, state-of-the-art theater located in the heart of Utah's capital city on Main Street's Block 70, between 100 and 200 South. The Center helps to fulfill community leaders' longtime vision for a vibrant capital city—rich in the arts—that belongs to all of Utah. The goal for this premier venue is to attract first-run touring Broadway shows, provide an additional venue option for beloved Utah performing groups such as Ballet West and Utah Opera, and attract nationally prominent family shows and music and comedy acts. With such a theater as a drawing card, Salt Lake City will attract premier arts presentations and experiences, expand cultural offerings and provide an economic catalyst to Salt Lake City, the state and the region. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7)04 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com w[cvCEC PAPER Recent History The construction of a downtown performing arts center has been identified as a key economic development project for downtown Salt Lake City for several decades. The project will include an approximately 2500-seat theater, as well as rehearsal spaces and other ancillary facilities that will support the operation of the theater and various performing arts functions. In 2008,the Administration convened a group of community leaders and representatives of arts organizations under the banner of the Downtown Theater Action Group (TAG). This committee considered numerous possible sites and funding alternatives for the theater. In its final report, issued July 18, 2008, the TAG identified six potential sites for consideration, and recommended particular focus on four of those sites. TAG also recommended pursuit of two primary project funding sources: New Markets Tax Credits and creation of a Community Development Area that would use sales tax increment generated by the City Creek Center and surrounding blocks. Responding to the TAG's recommendations, Mayor Becker asked the RDA and Economic Development staffs to lead the effort to further narrow the list of possible sites through direct negotiations with property owners. That process yielded a decision that Block 70, the location of the former Newspaper Agency Corporation printing presses, was the ideal location, given its proximity to other attractions and arts facilities downtown, the possibility of a Main Street entrance, the availability of abundant parking, and the opportunity to revitalize Regent Street as an attractive pedestrian connection between City Creek Center and Gallivan Center. The RDA staff worked directly with the property owners to secure a 1-year exclusive negotiation agreement. On November 18, 2008, the RDA Board passed Resolution No. 651.02, approving the Exclusive Negotiations Agreement, and authorizing staff to negotiate terms for the acquisition and development of the property. Since that time, the property owners have agreed to, and the Board has approved, several extensions of the exclusive negotiations agreement. RDA staff continues to work with the owners of multiple parcels on Block 70 to locate a new performing arts center on the properties. The properties are located between 100 South and 200 South Streets, and Main and Regent Streets, and are owned by Property Reserve, Inc., and Suburban Land Reserve, both of which are development arms of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Early in the discussions with these entities, it became clear that the RDA and the City would benefit from selecting and engaging a development partner to assist with the acquisition of the properties, conduct further predevelopment work for the project, and prepare for construction. In March 2009, the RDA issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for developers to work with the RDA and Salt Lake City to design and construct a 2500-seat theater and other commercial, residential, or mixed-use buildings. Two development teams responded: one led by Garfield Traub Swisher/Hamilton Partners (GTS/HP), and the other consisting of HINES Interests. In October 2009, the RDA Board approved GTS/HP as the first-ranked developer, and approved a six-month exclusive negotiations period during which staff was directed to negotiate a contract 2 for pre-development services. In March 2010, the RDA Board approved a contract for pre- development services with GTS for a fixed fee of$741,000. Since that time the Board has approved additional funds for strategic communications work, an economic impact analysis, and a facilitated process with the community to develop a joint policy for the City & County to follow in allocating funds under the Interlocal Agreement to fund arts promotion downtown. Estimated Costs The Administration is recommending issuance of a sales tax revenue bond, local building authority bond, RDA revenue bond or a blend of these options in order to generate the anticipated need of$110 million for the UPAC construction and related costs. The Administration recommends deferring the ultimate decision on the form of bonding until final design process is sufficiently advanced so construction and related costs are known to a greater degree of accuracy. The form of financing will also depend on prevailing market conditions at the time bonds are issued. Based on current assumptions, debt service for a 25-year sales tax revenue bond of$110 million at an interest rate of 5.96% is $7.1 million per year. This amount is interest rate sensitive and will increase if interest rates at the time of issuance are greater than current rates. Funding Sources The Administration is proposing a combination of several revenue sources to fund debt service obligations on the proposed bond. The first component of revenue for annual bond payments is a recommitment of existing SARR property tax revenue dedicated to economic development projects in the Central Business District. This existing revenue is currently committed to debt obligations for improvements made in connection with the Energy Solutions Arena and other significant public facilities. The debt for these improvements will be fully retired in April of 2015. The Administration is proposing to the respective taxing entities a recommitment of these economic development funds to the construction of the UPAC and related improvements. This revenue would be a recommitment of existing property tax revenues upon retirement of existing debt obligations and not an increase in property tax collection. The collective value of the City, County and RDA commitment of SARR revenue under the Administration's proposal would equal $6,250,000 per year and would be available for 25 years beginning in April of 2016. The second component of revenue for annual bond payments is a community development area, or CDA, on block 70 to capture tax increment generated in conjunction with the UPAC development. The primary source of anticipated tax increment is the proposed office tower. Under the proposal, the County, City and School District would commit 70%of their respective tax increment to fund annual debt service for the UPAC. The collective value of the proposed CDA would equal $1,178,856 per year for 25 years beginning in tax year 2015. 3 If interest rates increase such that the annual debt service exceeds the amount of available financing,the difference between the anticipated annual debt service obligation and the combined revenue of the SARR and CDA available for annual payments will be bridged by private sector and foundation contributions to the project, new market tax credits, a cost savings in the construction of the venue,phased construction, a potential in interest savings due to favorable market conditions, or reliance upon a portion of a projected operating surplus. The financing plan will be fully developed and presented to the council for policy direction and approval during the final design phase and prior to the issuance of final construction bonds. Revenue under the SARR and CDA proposals will not be available for debt service on construction bonds until April 2016. In order to take advantage of favorable market conditions, the Administration anticipates seeking issuance of construction bonds as soon as 2013, depending on prevailing market conditions. The Administration expects to make recommendations to the Council, based on advice of city financial advisors, on bridge financing proposals to meet debt service obligations until the SARR and CDA revenue becomes available. Approaches to bridging debt obligations until such revenues become available will depend on future market conditions, but may include capitalizing interest, funding interest expenses through other UPAC revenues while deferring principal payments, or even phasing construction of the venue. Timeline Cost estimates for the project include an expectation that historically low interest rates and favorable construction costs will still be available when final construction bonds are issued and construction begins. An approximately one year period for design and other preparations is necessary prior to issuing final construction bonds and proceeding with construction of the facility. The Administration requests a timely public process and council action relating to the items described herein as expeditiously as possible and prior to the end of 2011 in hope of concluding final design and initiating the next phase of the project financing and development while favorable market and construction windows persist. In order to initiate this process, the Administration is seeking authorization to expend $15 million for final design and property acquisition that will be financed through a short-term note. Upon conclusion of the final design phase of the project development, the Administration anticipates seeking approval for facility construction bonds of approximately$110 million. The short-term note issued as part of the final design process will be fully repaid from these construction financing bonds. Reasons for this two step bond financing approach include the fact that a guaranteed maximum price for the facility will not be determined until final design is complete and the interest carrying cost is minimized by deferring incurrence of debt until capital is required. If the City concludes to not proceed with the construction of the venue after expending the $15 million short-term financing, these bonds will need to be repaid through other sources. In this case, the Administration anticipates recommending issuance of a 20-year bond equal to the outstanding balance of the short-term financing. 4 Memorandum of Understanding relating to County operation of the UPAC As part of the dialogue with the County Administration about their proposed participation in the financing of the UPAC, the County expressed concern about the potential that the UPAC could operate to the detriment of other County arts venues in the downtown. The Administration agreed to develop a memorandum of understanding relative to certain key factors important to the County in order to gain their support for participating in the financing. A draft copy of this memorandum of understanding will be provided as supplementary materials. The Administration believes the County would be a preferred operator of the venue and has collaboratively developed a memorandum of understanding intended to be embodied in an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County for the operation of the UPAC. The intent of the points in the proposed MOU are intended to facilitate transition to an new equilibrium among downtown arts venues with the construction of the UPAC that will benefit existing entities and leverage the opportunities available with a growing base of arts patrons as a result of the UPAC. Utah Performing Arts Center Economic Impact Economic Development Objectives The economic impact of the Utah Performing Arts Center should be viewed in the context of Salt Lake City's long held urban planning and economic development objectives. The overarching economic development strategy for Salt Lake City for over five decades has been to reinforce and catalyze growth, development and reinvestment in the urban core of Salt Lake City. That investment in the downtown area has been focused on providing goods, services and amenities that would service the entire region. As the seat of commerce, government, education, entertainment, and culture in Utah and the Intermountain region, Salt Lake City has long strived to maintain market share and priority in those sectors of the economy as a point of distinction from surrounding communities and regions. In particular it has been recognized that arts, cultural and entertainment facilities can help draw people to the downtown area, activate and animate the city,provide economic benefits for restaurants and other supporting businesses, and provide jobs for an ever-growing creative, innovative and educated population. While economic growth and investment has occurred during that time in manufacturing and distribution in west Salt Lake City, and technology and medical research and services at the University of Utah, most efforts supported and led by city government during this time have been to reinforce economic activity and social engagement in the downtown area. Some of the investments that have been made in the downtown area(many by the RDA) that have supported the economic development objectives of a culturally vibrant and active area are: 5 o Salt Palace construction and expansion o The Gateway, including the Clarke Planetarium and Discovery Gateway o The Energy Solutions Arena o Gallivan Plaza o Pioneer Park improvements o Purchase of the Utah Theater o Trax investment and station amenities o Various public art projects downtown o Signature event fund for local arts.and cultural celebrations o Cultural Core funding for arts branding, coordination and programming o Abravanel Hall o Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center o Artspace projects o The Leonardo o Salt Lake City Library That goals and philosophy of using arts and cultural facilities as a cornerstone of economic and social activity was first established by the early pioneers who built the Salt Lake Theater as one of the first public buildings in the region in the 1850"s. That same reasoning of connecting economic activity and cultural amenities was again articulated by the planning and development effort led by local architects and the business community called " The Second Century Plan" in 1962. That plan detailed 10 major projects that would help revitalize downtown Salt Lake City. Of the ten projects recommended, the only one yet to be completed is a multi-use theater. Various other studies over the years also have analyzed and demonstrated the need and opportunity for a larger multi-purpose theater. One commissioned by Salt Lake County from Webb Consultants in the early 1990's led to the Rose Wagner Theater, and indicated that a larger theater would also be an asset for Salt Lake City within 10 years from that time. That study was followed by the HVS Consultants Study in 1995 commissioned by Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, and the Downtown Alliance. That study found that market demand supported "a large theater with approximately 2,400 seats and suitable for major Broadway productions as well as large ballet, opera, and entertainment performances." Further analysis of the need, opportunity and feasibility of a large multi-use theater followed by the Salt Lake County Cultural Facilities Master, the Downtown Rising plan and the Mayor's Theater Action Committee. Most recently, the consultant team of Garfield, Swisher and Traub, in association with economic and arts consultants AECOM and AMS, provided further details on the specific fiscal and economic impacts and benefits of a 2,400 seat theater. Unlike economic development efforts elsewhere in the region, Salt Lake City has made place- making and community activation a central part of our economic development agenda. And the expectation and realization of that effort is that great places are where people and businesses want to congregate, engage and share ideas. That interplay of business, commerce, art and cultural has made for the most interesting and successful cities for centuries, and is one in which Salt Lake City has a great foundation with even higher aspirations. 6 Economic Impacts The most recent economic impact studies were conducted in 2010 by Garfield, Traub, Swisher (GTS), and their sub-consultants AECOM and AMS. They concluded that the UPAC will be partially a"resident serving"business, enhancing the entertainment, culture, and quality of life for Salt Lake residents and recirculating money within the local economy. In that recirculation of spending within the local economy, Salt Lake City and businesses in and around the Theater will be the beneficiary of that spending that may otherwise be taking place elsewhere in the County. However, UPAC will also be partially a"basic" business in that it will also draw revenues from outside Salt Lake County and indeed outside the State of Utah. The analysis also indicated that a performing arts theater also functions as a business in the tourism industry (a basic industry)to the extent it draws patrons from other counties and surrounding states. Expenditures by individuals or families spending a night in a hotel and other associated restaurant, shopping and entertainment spending has a"direct impact"on the Salt Lake County economy that would not have taken place without the additional performances which the new theater will generate. In addition to the economic and fiscal impacts of the Utah Performing Arts Center, the project plans call for a large office building to be built adjacent to the Theater. The office building also generates economic impacts and benefits in the construction process, and provides another opportunity to recruit new businesses to downtown or provide an expansion option for an existing company, which keeps those jobs and investment within Salt Lake City. One time Economic Impacts of Construction (includes multipliers) Total Output Personal Earnings Employment Theater Development $201,951,183 $55,129,102 1,671 Office Development $289,156,500 $78,934,500 2,392 On-going Economic Impacts Five elements were identified that will create net new direct economic impacts on Salt Lake County on an ongoing basis by UPAC. 1. Operation of the new Theater 2. Local spending to produce additional touring shows 3. Induced visitation and visitor spending from outside the County and State to attend new Theater performances 4. Induced visitation and visitor spending due to more touring acts and productions 5. Operations of a new office building 7 The economic analysis indicated that the new performance center will change and expand the "ecosystem" of performing arts facilities in Salt Lake City and will take several years for all facilities to reach a new equilibrium. Some of the performances in the new Theater will have been relocated from existing venues, but others will be due to the increased availability of dates and expanding seating capacity. In addition, the new UPAC will create other"backfill"booking dates for other arts groups to take the dates in other facilities now available due to the new theater. For purposes of economic impact projections, the following assumptions were made by the consultants: Net new Broadway shows audience to the Salt Lake County area is 138,000. "backfilled"patronage for performing arts in existing facilities was assumed to have 1/3 of the economic impact generating potential the Broadway shows. expansion from three venues to four(a 38%expansion in seats and 33% expansion in dates)will attract approximately 123,000 new patrons over a year. The on-going economic impacts resulting from those and other assumptions are: Output Earnings Employment Theater Operations $4,619,000 $1,298,000 49 Touring Productions $ 584,000 $ 165,000 11 Induced Visitation Audience $3,163,000 $ 832,000 41 Touring Cast and Crew $1,057,000 $ 281,000 13 Subtotal Theater $9,423,000 $ 2,576,000 115 Office Operations $5,418,000 $ 859,000 53 Total eco impacts annually $14,841,000 $3,435,000 168 Economic Impact Summary for the Utah Performing Arts Center and Office Building In summary, the latest economic impacts analysis indicated that during the construction years the County economy will expand by almost $500 million and over 4,000 jobs will be created. Once built and at stabilized occupancy, the project will generate on-going economic benefits of$14.8 million in output and create 168 permanent new jobs in Salt Lake County. 8 PUBLIC PROCESS: (If applicable, the boards, commissions, community groups, and others contacted about the proposed recommendation and a summary of their concerns/opinions.) UPAC History of Public Process and Outreach to Arts Community The recognized need for a new, larger performing arts center in Salt Lake City dates back to the 1962 Second Century Plan, created by the Salt Lake Chamber which listed a new performing arts center among ten projects Salt Lake City needed to complete in the 1960's, in order to move into the second century. Of those ten projects all were completed except the performing arts center. Some of the other projects included the Salt Palace, Farmers Market, Main Street Plaza, Restored City and County Building and a new Federal Building Downtown. In 1990 Salt Lake County completed a study which recommended a new, larger theater to accommodate touring Broadway be built within ten years. In 2005 a feasibility study commissioned by the Salt Lake City RDA, Downtown Alliance, and Salt Lake County identified the need and potential for a touring Broadway theater. In 2007 a large performance venue to complement existing arts facilities is listed as one of the eight signature projects in the Downtown Rising plan, stating that these key projects would"add immensely to the life and vitality of downtown on their own, and together they will make Salt Lake City one of the most livable and prosperous cities in the nation." Also in 2007, then mayoral candidate Ralph Becker, included the plan for pursuing a large performing arts venue in blueprints for a Great American City, a campaign policy document developed with wide spread community input which has become a guiding force behind many of the key initiatives that have been implemented during the first term of the Becker Administration. In February 2008, following his election, Mayor Becker took up the task of advancing the Utah Performing Arts Center project through the creation of the Downtown Theater Action Group. The group was comprised of a cross section of community, business and cultural representatives. The work of this group included nine public meetings held over a four-month period. The full report of recommendations by the Downtown Theater Action Group can be found in Attachment 3 of the April 21, 2010 City Council transmittal here: https://dotnet.slcgov.com/Mayor/MayorCouncilTransmittals/Documents/k20 I .PDF Following six months of public process and work and based on the recommendation of the Downtown Theater Action Group, the City determined and publicly announced that the NAC building site on Block 70 would be the ideal location for the new performing arts center. In 2009, the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office convened three half-day, facilitated meetings with a significant number of representatives from local arts groups, these meetings built on the earlier public process and work of the Downtown Theater Action Group. The purpose of these meetings with to collaborate with the arts and culture community about both the Utah Performing Arts Center and the broader vision for arts and culture in Salt Lake City. During these meetings, the arts groups expressed a greater interest in hearing about how the City could help them strengthen their marketing efforts, than the UPAC and as an outgrowth of those conversations, the City responded by eventually creating an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County to fund marketing of the cultural core over the next 20 years. 9 On April 7, 2010, Mayor Becker held a meeting with arts stakeholders to update them on the progress the City had made following the aforementioned three half-day meetings and asked for feedback on the strategic initiatives the City was continuing to work on formulating related to arts and cultural efforts in Salt Lake City. In 2010, the Salt Lake City RDA selected the development team of Garfield Traub Swisher through an open, competitive public bid process. At the direction of the City, GTS was asked to engage the public and third-party stakeholders in connection with t the process of studying the feasibility of the UPAC. A summary of those meetings is listed below. GTS PUBLIC MEETINGS SUMMARY 3 Formal Stakeholder meetings 3 Formal Steering Committee meetings • 11 One-on-one stakeholder interviews • Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company • Kingsbury Hall • Pioneer Theatre Company • University of Utah Fine Arts • Ballet West • Utah Symphony and Opera • Jeffrey Berke Productions • MagicSpace Entertainment • County Center for the Arts • State of Utah Division of Arts and Museums 9 One-on-one interviews by AMS Planning & Research with prospective UPAC users 5 One-on-one interviews by AECOM Economics 5 Technical one-on-one interviews by GTS team with prospective UPAC users 5 Follow-up technical one-on-one interviews • Ballet West • Utah Symphony and Opera • County Center for the Arts (3) 11 Intergovernmental Work Group meetings (including County and Center for the Arts staff) 6 City Council Cultural Subcommittee meetings (x) Meetings with City representatives and Plan B Theater Company 1 Presentation to County Cultural Facilities Funding Advisory Board 10 1 Press roundtable with County and Salt Lake Tribune 1 Presence at Legislative Night at Mary Poppins 1 UPAC Booth at Farmer's Market Art & Culture Day 5 Meetings with the County on MOU terms of potential UPAC operating agreement with County 3 Meetings/interviews with the press with 3 experts with similar experiences with theaters • KCPW radio show • Deseret News Editorial Board • Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board 1 Meeting with 3 outside theater experts with arts stakeholders 1 Meeting with 3 outside theater experts with elected City and County officials 1 Televised Community Forum with 3 outside theater experts 13 Presentations/meetings with Mayor Becker and/or Senator Ben McAdams • Chamber of Commerce Board • Downtown Alliance • Editorial Boards • Utah Symphony and Opera Board • Governor Herbert • Mayor Corroon • County Council (2) • School Board (2) • Update to RDA Board • LDS Church (2) 4 Cultural Core Meetings and Workshops hosted by AMS (with 1 more to take place in October) Once the GTS report was released, representatives from the Mayor's Office proactively met with numerous community organizations to review the report and gather additional feedback as the project unfolded. Another meeting with arts leaders was held on September 23 to give arts leaders the opportunity to meet with representatives from Denver, Colorado, Durham, North Carolina and Dayton, Ohio who could speak to projects with parallels to the UPAC. Some of the organizations the Administration has outreached to during this phase of the project included: • Salt Lake County Center for the Arts 11 • Hale Center Theater • Salt Lake Acting Company • Plan B Theater Company • Utah Playwrights Coalition • Pioneer Theater Company • Kingsbury Hall • Utah Symphony and Opera • Ballet West • RDT • Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company In addition to outreach to the arts community,the Administration organized a well attended community forum at the Salt Lake City Library on September 23 to give the public a chance to hear about how facilities similar to the UPAC had been developed and impacted the communities of Denver, Colorado, Durham,North Carolina and Dayton, Ohio. In addition to these meetings various aspects of the Utah Performing Arts Center has been discussed in numerous RDA Board meetings as detailed below. BOD meetings where the term "Utah Performing Arts Center or UPAC"was included on the RDA Board agenda were: • 10/11/11 - Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving a Second Amendment to the Contract for Pre-Development Services with Garfield Traub Swisher for the Utah Performing Arts Center. • 9/9/11 - Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving a Contract for Consulting Services with Moca Systems for the Utah Performing Arts Center. • 5/10/11 - Briefing and Board Discussion of the Final Report Regarding the Feasibility of Constructing a Performing Arts Center Suitable for Touring Broadway Performances. • 4/6/11 - (Joint meeting with RAC) RDA Updates. UPAC—Contract Extension • 3/8/11- Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving an Amendment to the Contract for Pre-development Services with Garfield Traub Swisher for the Utah Performing Arts Center. • 11/16/10 - Briefing and Board Discussion Regarding the Feasibility of Constructing a Performing Arts Center Suitable for Touring Broadway Performances. • 8/10/10 - Consideration and Approval of the Expenditure of Funds for an Economic Impact Analysis Supporting the Pre-Development Services for the Utah Performing Arts Center. • 7/13/10 - Motion Approving the Expenditure of Funds for Strategic Communications Work Supporting the Pre-Development Services for the Utah Performing Arts Center. 12 • 3/9/10 - Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving a Contract for Pre-Development Services with Garfield Traub Swisher for the Utah Performance Center. • 10/13/09 - Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 665.01, "Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City. Authorizing the Agency to Enter Into a Six-Month Exclusive Negotiation With Garfield Swisher Traub for Development Services Associated With the Acquisition and Development of Property Located on Block 70 for the Development of the Utah Performance Center and Adjacent Commercial Uses. • 9/22/09 - Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 664.01: Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving the First Amendment to Exclusive Negotiations Agreement With Property Reserve, Inc. and Suburban Land Reserve, Inc. for the Potential Acquisition of Property for Construction of a Downtown Theater Located on Block 70. Block 70 • The RDA has started the process to open a Community Development project area on block 70- this was discussed at meetings "(10/11/11) and (9/20/11)" • Property purchase and property matters- • 6/7/11- Consideration and Adoption of a"Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving the Fifth Amendment to Exclusive Negotiations Agreement with Property Reserve, Inc. and Suburban Land Reserve, Inc. for the Potential Acquisition of Property for Construction of a Downtown Theater Located on Block 70." • I/11/11 - Consideration and Adoption of a"Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving the Alley Reconfiguration Agreement between Block 70 Property Owners and the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City." • 4/12/11 - Consideration and Adoption of a"Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving the Fourth Amendment to Exclusive Negotiations Agreement with Property Reserve, Inc. and Suburban Land Reserve, Inc. for the Potential Acquisition of Property for Construction of a Downtown Theater Located on Block 70." • 10/12/10 - Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency Of Salt Lake City Approving the Third Amendment to Exclusive Negotiations Agreement With Property Reserve, Inc. and Suburban Land Reserve, Inc. for the Potential Acquisition of Property for Construction of a Downtown Theater Located on Block 70. • 3/9/10 - Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving the Second Amendment to Exclusive Negotiations Agreement With Property Reserve, Inc. and Suburban Land Reserve, Inc. for the Potential Acquisition of Property for Construction of a Downtown Theater Located on Block 70. • 11/18/08 - Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 651.02: "Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving Exclusive 13 Negotiations With Property, Inc. and Suburban Land Reserve, Inc. for the Potential Acquisition of Property for Construction of a Downtown Theater Located On Block 70." GOING FORWARD Salt Lake City and the business community are committed to developing the new performing arts center in a manner that does not impair existing arts organizations and their funding. This means the theater must be part of a grander arts vision that grows audiences, increases participation in the arts and cultivates Utah's creative economy. It also means that new public and private funding must be identified and dedicated to the arts, to both fund the new theater and sustain existing arts organizations. In response to the specific requests of the arts community not to build a project that competes with other funding sources, the UPAC will not seek ZAP funds as a non-profit organization or pursue TRCC funding. However, securing some funds from corporate and individual donors (naming rights are about 10% of the project financing)will generate some additional funding and demonstrate community support without compromising the ability of other arts groups to secure private donations. The potential donors for the UPAC could conceivably come from individuals and corporations that are not currently giving to arts groups in a major way. Due to the extensive public dialogue that has taken place on this topic, the City is deeply familiar with the sensitivity of competing with existing arts groups and venues for funds from existing donors and has taken numerous steps to address these concerns through careful facility planning, sensitive finance plan development and in-depth planning with the Salt Lake County Center for the Arts. Similar concerns were expressed in Durham,North Carolina with respect to the Durham Performing Arts Center. Fundraising efforts for DPAC through philanthropic contributions and the sale of naming rights were approached with care and sensitivity to the arts community. The DPAC development team and the City of Durham created a fundraising-sharing arrangement with key arts groups to ensure that all groups would benefit from the sale of many naming rights opportunities at the DPAC. This innovative program mitigated concerns that the DPAC might be "competing for the same dollars." Careful attention to the needs of the Durham arts community resulted in the building of a theatre that completed an unmet need in the Arts District, improved programming and co-promotion opportunities, enrichment of the arts community and participation and satisfaction from stakeholders. Salt Lake City has developed a similarly thoughtful and innovative approach to this issue. 14 RALPH BECKER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY D.J. BAXTER CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFNCER OF SALT LAKE CITY EXEcunvr aRECT011 DATE: October 11, 2011 ITEM#: RE: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY APPROVING THE TERMS OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT TO AUTHORIZE USE OF A PORTION OF TAX INCREMENT TO SUPPORT THE UTAH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CULTURAL CORE PREPARED BY: Edward Butterfield EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Administration is proposing creation of a Community Development Area(CDA) whose tax increment collections could support the development of a regional performing arts theater and ancillary facilities (the "UPAC") and activities related to the establishment of a cultural core on Block 70. Implementing the CDA requires approval of a three-party Interlocal Agreement among the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (the"RDA"), Salt Lake City(the "City"), and the Salt Lake City School District(the "District") for the purpose of collecting tax increment for 25 years in the proposed boundaries(the"Project Area") of the CDA(Exhibit C). FUNDING: The costs of creating the CDA are currently being covered from $250,000 allocated in recent years for project area creation. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Pass a motion to adopt the Resolution As 2)Pass a motion to adopt the Resolution with revisions z 3) Do not pass a motion to adopt the Resolution ANALYSIS AND ISSUES: Description of the interlocal agreement is included below. Interlocal Agreement among Agency, Salt Lake City, and Salt Lake City School District The RDA will retain 70%of the City's and District's portion of the Tax Increment from the Project Area for 25 years,consisting of tax years 2016 through 2040. The District also consents to the RDA receiving Tax Increment from both the District's basic levy and its local levy. The calculation of annual Tax Increment will be made using the 2011 base year taxable value. The RDA will collect 100% of the City and District Tax Increment for the Project Area and distribute 30% of the Tax Increment to the City and District. 1 461 SOUTH STATE,ROOM 416 PO SOX 145518,SALT LAKE CITY UTAH 84114 TELEPHONEI SO I.636-7240 FAXI 001.625.7246 W W W.OLDROA.ODM A draft project area plan("the Plan)will be submitted for the Board's consideration in November.In the event that the RDA does not approve the Plan,the Interlocal Agreement will terminate and the City and District will not have any obligations related to the CDA. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AREA CREATION STEPS: A brief description of the steps completed to date and future steps for the creation of theCDA is included below: Steps Completed Steps completed as of October 10, 2011 for the creation of the CDA • September 20—The RDA Board authorized the Agency staff to prepare a draft community development project area plan. • September 28 -The RDA staff completed a draft community development project area plan. • October 4—The Salt Lake City School Board approved the Three-party(District, City, and Agency) Interlocal Agreement. • October 7—RDA sent a notice of the Plan Hearing by mail to each property owner in the proposed project area boundaries, the State Tax Commission, the Salt Lake County Assessor and Auditor,the State Board of Education, and the legislative body of each taxing entity. • October 10 -A notice for the scheduled plan hearing on November 15 was published in The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. • October 10 - Draft community development project area plan was made available for the public at the Agency's office during normal business hours. Next Steps Steps to complete for the creation of the CDA • October 11 -The RDA Board approves the three-party(District, City, and Agency) Interlocal Agreement • October 28—Salt Lake City Council approves the three-party(District, City, and Agency) Interlocal Agreement. • October 29 - The RDA publishes a notice of the finalized three-party Interlocal Agreement in the newspaper. The 30-day protest period for the agreements begins. • November 15—The RDA Board holds the Plan Hearing to collect public comments on the draft Community Development Project Area Plan. • November 22 —The RDA Board approves a resolution adopting the draft Community Development Project Area Plan as the CDA's Project Area Plan • November 22—The City Council adopts an ordinance that designates the approved project area plan as the official Community Development Plan of the project area. 2 BACKGROUND: Mayor Becker has made the construction of a downtown Broadway-style theater one of his highest priorities. He has asked the RDA to assist with the acquisition of property and selection of a developer for the project,which will include a 2500-seat theater, as well as rehearsal spaces and other ancillary facilities that will support the operation of the theater and various performing arts functions. The creation of a CDA will generate funds to contribute to the cost of the construction of the UPAC and activities related to the establishment of a cultural core. The CDA would include all of Block 70 in Downtown Salt Lake City with boundaries from Main Street to State Street and from 200 South to 100 South. Currently, Block 70 is in the Central Business District (CBD) Urban Renewal Project Area,but tax increment is not collected on this block based on the original terms of the CBD Project Area,which limited the area of collection to 100 acres. Establishing the CDA will allow the RDA to collect tax increment generated from properties on Block 70, including the office tower and mixed-use developments that will be constructed as part of the UPAC project. Because the construction of the UPAC will benefit property values and create significant potential for development in the area, it makes sense to capture incremental values from selected taxing entities to assist in funding the project. The CDA option would enable the city to capture incremental increase in property values that increase due to appreciation, as well as increases from new investments within the area. The actual net present value of the increment generated depends on a variety of factors, including how quickly or slowly properties' values increase over time, and how the Salt Lake County Assessor values other new developments on the block when they are added to the tax rolls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A-Project Area Map 3 Exhibit A: Project Area Map �& Br 4. I ; -*'; 4T- 'fi b. k;x.. )} -. ;mot :, Y s ,1 w tv, y 1 i . ° , � y a s . ► # .., s. E . I t Proposed UPAC CDA y- a........... Project Area t r 4 JOINT RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 (Utah Performing Arts Center) A joint resolution of the City Council and the Mayor approving an Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and the Board of Education of Salt Lake City School District to authorize use of a portion of tax increment to support the Utah Performing Arts Center and infrastructure and development activities related to the establishment of a cultural core. WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City(the"RDA") proposes to create a Community Development Project Area(the"CDA")to capture tax increment from Block 70 to support the development of a regional performing arts theater and ancillary facilities (the "Theater") on Block 70 and activities related to the establishment of a cultural core; and WHEREAS,the CDA boundaries would include the area described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Proposed Project Area"),that is generally all of Block 70 in downtown Salt Lake City from Main Street to State Street and from 200 South to 100 South; and WHEREAS, the Central Business District Project Area Plan adopted by the RDA does not allow for the collection of tax increment from the properties in Block 70; and WHEREAS, construction of the Theater will facilitate private development on Block 70 through the construction of an office tower and other mixed-use projects; and WHEREAS, in 2005, a feasibility study commissioned by the RDA,the Downtown Alliance, and Salt Lake County identified the need and potential for a touring Broadway theater; and WHEREAS, in 2011,the development team of GTS/Hamilton Partners issued a feasibility report demonstrating the economic development benefits and financial viability of a touring Broadway Theater on Block 70; and WHEREAS,the creation of the CDA will capture increased property taxes from the proposed private development and assist with the repayment of bonds issued to construct the Theater; and WHEREAS, the Theater and private development will activate and revitalize Main Street between First South and Second South and leverage the economic impact of City Creek Center, the Gateway, 222 South Main, and other recent developments; and WHEREAS, the Theater will create educational opportunities and cultural enrichment statewide, and introduce and attract new and broader audiences to the downtown cultural core; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan calls for the expansion of downtown arts, cultural, and entertainment activities and the creation of a theater district; and WHEREAS, the anticipated cost of constructing the Theater,based on the preliminary program and cost estimates, is approximately$100 million to $120 million depending on options; and WHEREAS, the Theater and its associated facilities and infrastructure will help to activate Regent Street as a vibrant, inviting mid-block retail street connecting City Creek Center to the Gallivan Center; and WHEREAS,the Theater, its associated facilities, and infrastructure improvements on the block will promote the redevelopment of Block 70; and WHEREAS,the City is considering issuing sales tax revenue bonds(the"City's Bond"), the proceeds of which would be used to finance a portion of the costs associated with the Theater; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Chapter 4, Community Development,of Title 17C of the Utah Code (the"Act"), the RDA may approve a Community Development Project Area Plan (the "Plan") for the purpose of supporting community development within a designated project area; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project Area is generally ready for redevelopment and, if the Theater is constructed, it is likely that commercial and other development will occur,which will benefit the community by creating additional opportunities and by increasing the tax base; and WHEREAS,the RDA's adoption of a community development project area plan for the Proposed Project Area for the purpose of stimulating commercial development within the Proposed Project Area, including without limitation by use of tax increment created within such area as a result of the economic development stimulated by the construction of the Theater, and for the other enumerated purposes,may satisfy a public purpose,provide public benefits,be economically sound and feasible, conform to the City's General Plan, and promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the City; and WHEREAS,the Board of Education of Salt Lake City School District (the "District") has approved the use of its tax increment from the Proposed Project Area to support the Theater and development activities related to the establishment of a cultural core in accordance with the Act; and 004/44, WHEREAS, in the event that the RDA approves the Plan,the RDA will desire to enter into an interlocal agreement with the City and the District pursuant to which the City and the District will each consent to the RDA being paid a portion of its share of the tax increment from the Proposed Project Area; and WHEREAS, in the event that the RDA and/or City do not approve the Plan, the Interlocal Agreement with the City and District will be void. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council and the Mayor of Salt Lake City, that: 1. The City Council hereby approves the use of a portion of the City's tax increment from the Proposed Project Area to support the Theater and development activities related to the establishment of a cultural core in accordance with the Act. 2. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor to negotiate and execute an interlocal agreement among the RDA, the City, and the District substantially in accordance with the form of Interlocal Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A,with such modifications and additions as such officers shall approve as necessary or appropriate. DATED this 25th day of October, 2011. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 25th day of October, 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER SALT LAKE CITY MAYOR By: ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Draft of September 28,2011 Interlocal Agreement THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is entered into as of this day of 2011, by and among the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY (the "AGENCY"), BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT (the "DISTRICT"), and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION (the "CITY") (collectively, the "PARTIES"). A. WHEREAS the Agency was created pursuant to the provisions of the Utah Redevelopment Law and the Agency continues to operate under the Limited Purpose Local Government Entities — Community Development and Renewal Agencies Act, Title 17C of the Utah Code (the "Act"), and is authorized thereunder to conduct urban renewal, economic development, and community development activities within Salt Lake City, Utah as contemplated by the Act; and B. WHEREAS pursuant to Resolution No. 700.04 adopted by the Agency on September 20, 2011, the Agency has commenced the process under the Act to create the Block 70 Community Development Project Area (the "Project Area"), and has prepared a draft of a community development project area plan for the Project Area, a copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Draft Project Area Plan,"which includes the legal description and a map of the Project Area), pursuant to which the Agency desires to support the Utah Performing Arts Center, together with improvements to infrastructure on and surrounding Block 70 and other development activities that will support the cultural core located on Block 70 (collectively, the "Projects"), which will promote economic development in the Project Area and in the surrounding community; and C. WHEREAS each of the City and the District have determined that it is in the best interests of the City and the District, respectively, to provide certain financial assistance through the use of Tax Increment (as defined below) in connection with the development of the Projects as set forth in the Draft Project Area Plan; and D. WHEREAS the Agency anticipates using tax increment (as defined in Utah Code Annotated ("UCA") § 17C-1-102(44) (hereinafter "Tax Increment")), created by the Projects and by other development activities on Block 70, to assist in the development and completion of the Projects as provided in the Draft Project Area Plan; and E. WHEREAS UCA § 17C-4-201(1) authorizes the City and the District to consent to the payment to the Agency of a portion of its share of Tax Increment generated from the Project Area for the purposes set forth therein; and F. WHEREAS UCA § 11-13-215 further authorizes the City and the District to share their tax and other revenues with the Agency; and 1 Interlocal Agreement G. WHEREAS in order to facilitate development of the Projects, each of the City and the District desires to pay to the Agency a share of the Tax Increment generated by the Project Area in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and H. WHEREAS the provisions of applicable Utah State law shall govern this Agreement, including the Act and the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11 Chapter 13 of the UCA, as amended (the "Cooperation Act"). NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. City's and District's Consent. a. Pursuant to Section 17C-4-201(2)(b) of the Act and Section 11-13- 215 of the Cooperation Act, (i) the City hereby agrees and consents that the Agency shall be entitled to retain seventy percent (70%) of the City's portion of the Tax Increment from the Project Area (the "Agency's Share of the City's Tax Increment") and (ii) the District hereby agrees and consents that the Agency shall be entitled to retain seventy percent (70%) of the District's portion of the Tax Increment from the Project Area (the "Agency's Share of the District's Tax Increment"), in each case for twenty five (25) years, consisting of tax years 2016 through 2040, inclusive. The District hereby also consents to the Agency's receiving such Tax Increment from both the District's basic levy and its local levy. The calculation of annual Tax Increment shall be made using (a) Salt Lake County's then current tax levy rate, but excluding from the calculation of any Tax Increment hereunder the Salt Lake County Library tax levy rate, and (b)the 2011 base year taxable value of$ , which taxable value is subject to adjustment as required by law. b. Each of the City and the District hereby consents to the Agency requesting from Salt Lake County each year during the specified twenty five (25) year period 100% of its Tax Increment each year, from which the Agency shall retain the Agency's Share of the City's Tax Increment and the Agency's Share of the District's Tax Increment, respectively. The Agency shall pay the City thirty percent (30%) of the City's portion of the Tax Increment from the Project Area and shall pay the District thirty percent (30%) of the District's portion of the Tax Increment from the Project Area, in each case within thirty (30) days of the final report and payment from Salt Lake County for each tax year. 2. Payment of the Costs of the Projects. a. As used herein, the "Costs of the Projects" shall mean all costs incurred by the Agency in connection with the development of the Projects consistent with the Project Area Plan. The Costs of the Projects may include reimbursements to the City for any expenses incurred by the City in paying for a portion of the costs of one or more Projects, including debt service payments made by the City with respect to bonds issued by the City the proceeds of which are used to pay for such costs, together with interest on such reimbursements at the Applicable Interest Rate. For the purposes of this Agreement, the "Applicable Interest Rate" shall mean the interest rate that is equal to the true interest cost ("TIC") of the bonds 2 Interlocal Agreement Error!Unknown document property name. issued by the City, as determined by the underwriters of such bonds, or a reasonably equivalent rate in the event that no such bonds are issued, as determined by the City's then bond underwriters. b. The Parties agree that the Agency shall apply the Agency's Share of the City's Tax Increment and the Agency's Share of the District's Tax Increment to the payment of a portion of the Costs of the Projects. c. The Agency agrees that it will not be entitled to the Agency's Share of the City's Tax Increment and the Agency's Share of the District's Tax Increment unless and until the Agency shall commence the construction of that portion of the Projects consisting of the Utah Performing Arts Center. 3. Additional Condition; Final Project Area Plan. Each of the Parties agrees that in the event that the Agency does not approve any Draft Project Area Plan pursuant to UCA 17C-4-102(1)(f), this Agreement shall terminate and no Party shall have any further obligations hereunder. In the event that the Agency does approve the Draft Project Area Plan pursuant to UCA 17C-4-102(1) (f) in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto, then the "Project Area Plan" attached hereto shall be such approved plan. In the event that the Agency makes any changes to the Draft Project Area Plan in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto in connection with its approval pursuant to UCA 17C-4-102(1(f),the Agency shall provide each of the City and the District with a copy of such revised Project Area Plan. If each of the City and the District approve such revised Project Area Plan,then the Parties shall amend this Agreement to attach the revised Project Area Plan, and the "Project Area Plan" hereunder shall be the revised Project Area Plan attached to the amendment. In the event that the Parties do not execute an amendment within 90 days of the date the Agency provides the City and the District the copy of such revised Project Area Plan, this Agreement shall terminate and no Party shall have any further obligation hereunder. 4. No Third Party Beneficiary. Nothing in this Agreement shall create or be read or interpreted to create any rights in or obligations in favor of any person or entity not a party to this Agreement. Except for the parties to this Agreement, no person or entity is an intended third party beneficiary under this Agreement. 5. Due Diligence. Each of the Parties acknowledges for itself that it has performed its own review, investigation, and due diligence regarding the relevant law and facts upon which this Agreement is based, including representations of the Agency concerning the Project and the Project's benefits to the community and to the Parties, and each Party relies upon its own understanding of the relevant law, facts, information, and representations, after having completed its own due diligence and investigation. 6. Project Area Boundaries. The Parties acknowledge that the Salt Lake County Assessor and the Salt Lake County Auditor will include in the calculation of Tax Increment from the Project Area the Tax Increment generated by all parcels of land located wholly within the boundaries of the Project Area at the time Tax Increment is determined. 3 ]nterlocal Agreement Error!Unknown document property name. 7. Interlocal Cooperation Act. In satisfaction of the requirements of the Cooperation Act in connection with this Agreement,the Parties agree as follows: a. This Agreement shall be authorized and adopted by resolution of the legislative body of each Party pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-13-202.5 of the Cooperation Act; b. This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with applicable law by a duly authorized attorney in behalf of each Party pursuant to and in accordance with the Section 11-13-202.5(3) of the Cooperation Act; c. A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed immediately with the keeper of records of each Party pursuant to Section 11-13-209 of the Cooperation Act; d. The Chief Administrative Officer of the Agency is hereby designated the administrator for all purposes of the Cooperation Act, pursuant to Section 11-13- 207 of the Cooperation Act; e. The term of this Agreement shall not exceed 29 years and shall commence on the publication of the notice required by Section 17C-4-202 of the Act and shall continue through the date on which all of the City Share and the District Share has been paid to and disbursed by the Agency as provided herein or the Agency ceases to receive such Tax Increment pursuant to Section 2.c. hereof; f. As provided in §11-13-219 of the Cooperation Act, the Parties agree that the Agency shall cause a notice of this Agreement to be (i) published in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, which are hereby designated by the Parties as the official newspapers for all publications made under the Cooperation Act, and (ii) posted on the Utah Legal Notices website (www.utahlegals.com) created under Utah Code Ann. §45-1-101. The Parties shall make a copy of this Agreement available at their respective principal places of business during regular business hours for thirty (30) days after the publication of the notice of 0040 Agreement, during which time any person in interest may contest the legality of this Agreement. After the thirty(30) days have passed, no one may contest the regularity, formality, or legality of this Agreement or any action performed or instrument issued under the authority of this Agreement for any cause whatsoever; g. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each Party shall be responsible for its own costs of any action done pursuant to this Agreement, and for any financing of such costs; and h. No separate legal entity is created by the terms of this Agreement. To the extent that a Party acquires, holds, or disposes of any real or personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this Agreement, such Party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other property of such Party. 8. Modification and Amendment. Any modification of or amendment to any provision contained herein shall be effective only if the modification or amendment is in 4 Interlocal Agreement Error!Unknown document property name. writing and signed by each of the Parties. Any oral representation or modification concerning this Agreement shall be of no force or effect. 9. Further Assurance. Each of the Parties hereto agrees to cooperate in good faith with the other, to execute and deliver such further documents, to adopt any resolutions, to take any other official action, and to perform such other acts as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to consummate and carry into effect the transactions contemplated under this Agreement. 10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and interpreted in accordance with, the laws of the State of Utah. 11. Interpretation. The terms "include," "includes," "including" when used herein shall be deemed in each case to be followed by the words "without limitation." 12. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction or as a result of future legislative action, and if the rights or obligations of any Party hereto under this Agreement will not be materially and adversely affected thereby, a. such holding or action shall be strictly construed; b. such provision shall be fully severable; c. this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such provision had never comprised as part hereof; d. the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement; and e. in lieu of such illegal, invalid, or unenforceable provision, the Parties hereto shall use commercially reasonable efforts to negotiate in good faith a substitute, legal, valid, and enforceable provision that most nearly effects the Parties' intent in entering into this Agreement. 13. Authorization. Each of the Parties hereto represents and warrants to the other that the warranting Party has taken all steps, including the publication of public notice where necessary, in order to authorize the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by each such Party. 14. Time is of the Essence. Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement. 15. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above, "A" through "H," are hereby incorporated by reference as part of this Agreement. ENTERED into as of the day and year first above written. 5 Interlocal Agreement Error!Unknown document property name. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -- SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY By: Ralph C. Becker Its Chief Administrative Officer By: D.J. Baxter Its Executive Director Approved as to proper form and compliance with applicable law: Jones, Waldo, Holbrook and McDonough,PC By: [Signatures continue on next page.] 7 Interlocal Agreement INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT-- SIGNATURE PAGE FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT By: Kristi Swett Board President By: Janet M. Roberts Business Administrator Approved as to proper form and compliance with applicable law: Attorneys for the Board of Education of the Salt Lake City School District [Signatures continue on next page.] 8 Interlocal Agreement INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -- SIGNATURE PAGE FOR CITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By: Its: ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: Deputy City Recorder Approved as to proper form and compliance with applicable law: By: Senior City Attorney 9 Interlocal Agreement Error!Unknown document property name. Salt Lake City, Utah November 22, 2011 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Council"), met in regular session at its regular meeting place in Salt Lake City, Utah on November 22, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., with the following members of the Council present: Present: Jill Remington Love Chair Stan Penfold Vice Chair Carlton Christensen Council Member Luke Garrott Council Member JT Martin Council Member Soren Dahl Simonsen Council Member Van Blair Turner Council Member There were also present: Ralph Becker Mayor Christine Meeker City Recorder Absent: After the meeting had been duly called to order and after other matters not pertinent to this resolution had been discussed, a Certificate of Compliance with Open Meeting Law with respect to this November 22, 2011, meeting, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The following resolution was then introduced in writing, was fully discussed, and pursuant to motion duly made by Council Member and seconded by Council Member adopted by the following vote: AYE: NAY: This Resolution was then signed by the Chair and recorded by the City Recorder. The Resolution is as follows: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (THE "CITY"), AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (THE "AGENCY") TO ALLOCATE A PORTION OF CERTAIN TAX INCREMENT REVENUES TO BE USED BY THE AGENCY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS (THE "UPAC PROJECT"); PROVIDING FOR THE RUNNING OF A CONTEST PERIOD; AND RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Limited Purpose Local Government Entities — Community Development and Renewal Agencies Act, Title 17C, Chapters 1-4, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended(the "Redevelopment Act"),the Agency is authorized to use tax increment revenues (the "Tax Increment Revenues") generated from its Central Business District Project Area (the "Project Area") to finance redevelopment within such project area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 04-01 (the "TEC Resolution") of the Taxing Entity Committee for the Project Area, the Agency is authorized to retain 40% of the Tax Increment Revenues generated from the Project Area each year beginning in the 2015 tax year and continuing through the 2040 tax year (the "Collection Period"), as more specifically set forth in the TEC Resolution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the TEC Resolution, the remaining 60% of the Tax Increment Revenues generated from the Project Area in each year of the Collection Period are to be distributed by the Agency pro rata to the taxing entities within the Project Area, based on their proportional share of the certified tax rate (not including judgment levies); and WHEREAS, the City is a taxing entity entitled to a proportional share of Tax Increment Revenues from the Project Area pursuant to the TEC Resolution (the City's proportionate share of the 60% of the Tax Increment Revenues from the Project Area is referred to herein as the"City TEC Allocation"); and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City desire that certain improvements be made in the Project Area for the purpose of fmancing the construction of the UPAC Project; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Interlocal Act") permits public agencies as defined in the Interlocal Act to enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action; and WHEREAS, the City and the Agency are public agencies as defined by the Interlocal Act and are authorized to enter into an interlocal agreement to act jointly and cooperatively as described herein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Interlocal Act and the Redevelopment Act, the City desires to enter into the Interlocal Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Agreement") to assist in financing the UPAC Project by allowing the Agency to retain a portion of the annual City TEC Allocation, as more specifically described therein; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 11-13-219 of the Interlocal Act, the Agency is to publish a"Notice of Interlocal Cooperation Agreement"with respect to the Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, and the City shall keep a copy of the Agreement on file at the City's principal place of business during regular business hours for thirty (30) days after the publication of the notice of Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 3. The City Council hereby fmds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and the residents thereof for the City to enter into the Agreement with the Agency in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, and the City Council hereby authorizes the execution and delivery of the Agreement. The Mayor and the City Recorder are hereby authorized to execute the Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B for and on behalf of the City. The Agreement shall commence on the date of final execution by the parties. 4. The City hereby consents to the Agency's use of a portion of the City TEC Allocation to pay financing, design, construction, acquisition, and related costs of the UPAC Project as provided in the Agreement. 5. Pursuant to the Agreement and Section 11-13-219 of the Interlocal Act, . the Agency shall cause a notice of the Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C to be (i) published in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, and (ii) posted on the Utah Legal Notices website (www.utahlegals.com) created under Utah Code Ann. Section 45-1-101. The Agency and the City shall make a copy of the Agreement available at their respective principal places of business during regular business hours for thirty (30) days after the publication of the notice of Agreement, during which time any person in interest may contest the legality of the Agreement. After the thirty (30) days have passed, no one may contest the regularity, formality, or legality of the Agreement or any action performed or instrument issued under the authority of the Agreement for any cause whatsoever. 6. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed and this resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its approval and adoption. PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on , 2011. By: Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing resolution is hereby approved on this , 2011. By: Mayor STATE OF UTAH ) :ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, Christine Meeker, the undersigned duly appointed, qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), do hereby certify according to the records of the City Council in my official possession that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct excerpt of the minutes of the meeting of the City Council held on November 22, 2011, including a resolution (the "Resolution") adopted at said meeting and that said minutes and Resolution are officially of record in my possession. I further certify that the Resolution, with all exhibits attached, was deposited in my office on November_, 2011. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my signature and impressed hereon the official seal of the City,this November_, 2011. (SEAL) By: City Recorder EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, Christine Meeker, the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), do hereby certify, according to the records of the City in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-202, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty- four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time, and place of the August 9, 2011, public meeting held by the City Council of the City(the "City Council") as follows: (i) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 1, to be posted at the City's principal offices on November , 2011, at least twenty- four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; (ii) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 1, to be delivered to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News on November_, 2011, at least twenty-four(24)hours prior to the convening of the meeting; and (iii) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 1, to be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov) at least twenty-four(24)hours prior to the convening of the meeting. In addition, the 2011 Notice of Annual Meeting Schedule for the City Council, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 2, was given specifying the date, time and place of the regular meetings of said City Council to be held during the year, by causing said Notice to be (i) posted on December 23, 2010, at the principal office of the City Council, (ii)provided to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the City on January 1, 2011 and (iii) published on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov) during the current calendar year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this 22nd day of November, 2011. By: City Recorder A-1 EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, (the "Code") that SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "City"), and the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "Agency"), have entered into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement dated November 22, 2011 (the "Agreement"). The Agreement provides for the division between the Agency and the City of a portion of the annual tax increment revenues generated from the Agency's Central Business District Project Area (the "City Allocation"). Pursuant to the Agreement, the City has agreed to allow the Agency to use a portion of the City Allocation to pay fmancing, design, construction, acquisition, and related costs of a performing arts center to be located in downtown Salt Lake City (the "UPAC Project"). The division of the City Allocation described above is intended to begin with the 2015 tax year and continue through the 2040 tax year. The Agreement shall commence on the date of final execution by the parties and shall continue through December 31, 2041, unless changed by mutual agreement in writing by each Party. The Agreement also provides for the initial financing of the UPAC Project and an agreement of the Agency to use the allocated tax increment revenues for the UPAC Project and to reimburse the City for financing costs incurred by the City or to refinance debt initially issued by the City for the UPAC Project. A copy of the Agreement and the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Agency(the "Agency Resolution") authorizing and approving the Agreement are on file at the office of the Executive Director at 451 South State Street, Room 418, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. A copy of the Agreement and the Resolution of the City Council of the City (the "City Resolution") authorizing and approving the Agreement are on file at the office of the City Recorder, 451 South State Street, Room 415, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. The Agreement, the Agency Resolution, and the City Resolution may be examined during normal business hours for a period of at least thirty(30) days following the publication date of this Notice. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law and for a period of thirty (30) days from and after the date of the publication of this Notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of the Agreement, the Agency Resolution, and the City Resolution, and that after such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality, or legality thereof for any cause whatsoever. DATED November 22,2011 By: /s/Christine Meeker City Recorder (SEAL) By: /s/D.J. Baxter Executive Director INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into this _ day of , 2011 by and between SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "City"), a municipal corporation and body politic and corporate duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Utah, and the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "Agency"), a separate body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State of Utah. The City and the Agency are sometimes referred to as the "Parties." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Interlocal Act"), the Parties have heretofore entered into the Interlocal Act dated as of , 2011 (the "UPAC Interlocal Agreement"), in which the Parties made certain covenants with respect to the financing of a performing arts center and related improvements (the "UPAC Project") within the Agency's Central Business District Project Area(the "Project Area"); and WHEREAS, the UPAC Interlocal Agreement memorialized the Parties' intent to finance the UPAC Project through the issuance of debt obligations secured in whole or in part from, or to be repaid in whole or in part from, tax increment revenues from the Project Area (the "Tax Increment Revenues"), which debt obligations include, without limitation, debt issued by the City,the Agency, or others; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the UPAC Interlocal Agreement and a resolution of the City Council of the City (the "Council") dated , 2011, the Council has authorized the issuance of$ Salt Lake City, Utah [Sales Tax Revenue] Bond Anticipation Notes, Series 2011 (the "Notes"), the proceeds of which are to be used by the City and the Agency to finance [design costs with respect to the UPAC Project]; and WHEREAS, the Agency has covenanted in the UPAC Interlocal Agreement to use Tax Increment Revenues to reimburse the City for any payments made on debt obligations issued by the City to finance the UPAC Project, and if requested by the City, to issue its own debt obligations, to the extent possible, to refinance debt obligations issued by the City to finance all or a portion of the UPAC Project; and WHEREAS, the pursuant to the Interlocal Act, the Parties desire to memorialize their agreement and understanding with respect to the use of proceeds of the Notes and to make certain covenants with regard thereto in accordance with the requirements of Utah law. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties mutually agree and covenant as follows: 1. Definitions. Terms defined in the foregoing recitals shall have the same meaning when used herein. 2. Agency's Use of Note Proceeds. The City will make the proceeds of the Notes, when available, to the Agency for use with respect to the UPAC Project. The Agency hereby covenants to use such proceeds of the Notes solely for the purpose of financing [design costs with respect to the UPAC Project]. 3. Covenant with Respect to Reimbursement/Refinancing. Pursuant to the UPAC Interlocal Agreement and §17C-1-409 of the Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, the Agency hereby covenants that it will use Tax Increment Revenues to reimburse the City for any payments made on the Notes, and if requested by the City, will issue long-term debt obligations, to the extent possible,to refmance the Notes. 4. Duration and Termination. As permitted by Utah Code Ann. §11-13-216, this Agreement shall commence on the date of final execution by the Parties and shall continue through or until repayment of the Notes, if earlier„ unless changed by mutual agreement in writing by each Party. 5. Integrated Contracts; Amendments. This Agreement and the UPAC Interlocal Agreement contain the entire agreement of the Parties regarding the Agency's use of Note proceeds and the Agency's intention to reimburse the City with respect to the Notes, and no statements, promises, or inducements made by any party or agents that are not contained in this Agreement shall be binding or valid. This Agreement may not be altered, or amended, except upon agreement of all Parties and in writing executed by the Parties hereto. Additions, deletions, or changes in the provisions of this Agreement that do not comply with this requirement shall not be binding on any party. 6. Severability. If any clause, sentence or paragraph of this Agreement is declared to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not affect the remaining portions. 7. Notices. All notices required under this Agreement shall be sent as follows: Redevelopment Agency of Attn: Executive Director Salt Lake City: 451 South State Street, Room 418 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Salt Lake City Attorney: City Attorney P.O. Box 145478 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5478 Salt Lake City: Attn: Mayor P.O. Box 145474 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-5474 Each party may designate further or different addresses or individuals to which subsequent notices shall be sent. 8. Interlocal Act Requirements. In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal Act, and in connection with this Agreement,the Parties agree as follows: (a) This Agreement has been authorized by resolution of the legislative body of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act; (b) This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party, pursuant to §11-13- 202.5 of the Interlocal Act; (c) A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed with the keeper of records of each Party,pursuant to §11-13-209 of the Interlocal Act; (d) Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each party shall be responsible for its own costs of any action done pursuant to this Agreement, and for any financing of such costs; (e) No separate legal entity is created by the terms of this Agreement. To the extent that this Agreement requires administration other than as set forth herein, it shall be administered by the Mayor of the City and the Executive Director of the Agency, acting as a joint board. No real or personal property shall be acquired jointly by the Parties as a result of this Agreement. Unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, to the extent that a party acquires, holds, and disposes of any real or personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this Agreement, such party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other property of such party. (f) As provided in §11-13-219 of the Interlocal Act, the Parties agree that the Agency shall cause a notice of this Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be (i) published in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, which are hereby designated by the Parties as the official newspapers for all publications made under the Interlocal Act, and (ii) posted on the Utah Legal Notices website (www.utahlegals.com) created under Utah Code Ann. §45-1-101. The Parties shall make a copy of this Agreement available at their respective principal places of business during regular business hours for thirty (30) days after the publication of the notice of Agreement, during which time any person in interest may contest the legality of this Agreement. After the thirty (30) days have passed, no one may contest the regularity, formality, or legality of this Agreement or any action performed or instrument issued under the authority of this Agreement for any cause whatsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF: (A) the City by resolution duly adopted by the City Council has authorized this Agreement to be signed by its Mayor, attested to by its City Recorder and (B) the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City by resolution duly adopted by its Board has authorized this Agreement to be signed by its Chief Administrative Officer and its Executive Director all as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By: Mayor ATTEST: By: City Recorder APPROVED AS TO PROPER FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: By: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY By: Chief Administrative Officer By: Executive Director APPROVED AS TO PROPER FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: By: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into this _ day of , 2011 by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "Agency"), a separate body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State of Utah, and SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "City"), a municipal corporation and body politic and corporate duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Utah. The Agency and the City are sometimes referred to as the "Parties." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Limited Purpose Local Government Entities — Community Development and Renewal Agencies Act, Title 17C Chapters 1-4, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended (the "Redevelopment Act"), the Agency is authorized to use tax increment revenues (the "Tax Increment Revenues") generated from its Central Business District Project Area (the "Project Area") to finance redevelopment within such project area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 04-01 (the "TEC Resolution") of the Taxing Entity Committee for the Project Area, the Agency is authorized to retain 40% of the Tax Increment Revenues generated from the Project Area (the "Agency TEC Allocation") each year beginning in the 2015 tax year and continuing through the 2040 tax year (the "Collection Period"), as more specifically set forth in the TEC Resolution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the TEC Resolution, the remaining 60% of the Tax Increment Revenues generated from the Project Area in each year of the Collection Period are to be distributed by the Agency pro rata to the taxing entities within the Project Area, based on their proportional share of the certified tax rate (not including judgment levies); and WHEREAS, the City is a taxing entity entitled to a proportional share of Tax Increment Revenues from the Project Area pursuant to the TEC Resolution (the City's proportionate share of the 60% of the Tax Increment Revenues from the Project Area is referred to herein as the "City TEC Allocation"); and Afabok WHEREAS, the Agency and the City desire that certain improvements be made in the Project Area for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and equipping a performing arts center and related improvements within the Project Area (the "UPAC Project"); and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Interlocal Act") permits the Agency and the City to cooperate to their mutual advantage, and this Agreement is made pursuant to that authority; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Redevelopment Act and the Interlocal Act, the City and the Agency desire to cooperate in financing the UPAC Project by allowing the Agency to retain a portion of the City TEC Allocation, as more specifically described herein; and WHEREAS, §17C-1-401(4) of the Redevelopment Act provides that, with the written consent of a taxing entity, the Agency may be paid tax increment from such taxing entity's portion of the tax levy in a higher percentage or for a longer period of time than otherwise permitted by the Redevelopment Act; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Agency adopted on November_, 2011 (the "Agency Resolution") and a resolution of the City Council of the City adopted on November _, 2011 (the "City Resolution"), the Parties have each approved the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the transaction contemplated hereby; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties mutually agree and covenant as follows: 9. Definitions. Terms defined in the foregoing recitals shall have the same meaning when used herein. 10. UPAC Project Description; Debt Obligations. The UPAC Project will be located within the Project Area and will include the construction and equipping of a performing arts center and related improvements. The Parties intend that the UPAC Project will be financed through the issuance of debt obligations secured in whole or in part from, or to be repaid in whole or in part from, Tax Increment Revenues from the Project Area, which debt obligations include, without limitation, debt issued by the City, the Agency, or others (the "Debt Obligations"). 11. Consent to Agency's Use of Tax Increment Revenues. In accordance with §17C- 1-409 of the Redevelopment Act, the City has consented in the City Resolution to the Agency's use of the City TEC Allocation as described in Section 12 herein. 12. Allocation of Tax Increment Revenues. In order to facilitate the financing of the UPAC Project, the Parties agree that beginning in tax year 2015 and for the duration of the Collection Period,the annual City TEC Allocation shall be divided by the Agency as follows: (a) The City shall receive from the Agency a portion of the City TEC Allocation in an amount equal to the dollar amount of the Tax Increment Revenues that the City receives for tax year 2014 (the "2014 Equivalent Revenues"); and (b) After the Agency distributes the 2014 Equivalent Revenues to the City, the Agency shall (i) retain 80% of the remaining City TEC Allocation, for application to the payment of principal and interest on the Debt Obligations or otherwise to pay for or finance the UPAC Project; and (ii) distribute 20% of remaining City TEC Allocation to the City. As provided in the TEC Resolution, the Agency shall continue to retain its annual Agency TEC Allocation from the Project Area, and the Agency agrees that it will annually allocate from its Agency TEC Allocation an amount equal to the amount for such year retained by the Agency under (b)(i) above to the payment of principal and interest on the Debt Obligations or otherwise to pay for or finance the UPAC Project. 13. Covenants. (a) In consideration for the City's agreement to the division of Tax Increment Revenues pursuant to Section 12 herein, the Agency hereby acknowledges and agrees that it shall cause such amounts to be used for the financing, design, construction, acquisition, and related costs of the UPAC Project, including the reimbursement of Debt Obligations issued by the City pursuant to Section 16 herein. (b) The City hereby represents that the Agency's covenant in Subsection (a) above to undertake the UPAC Project is fair and adequate consideration for the City's agreement to the division of Tax Increment Revenues pursuant to Section 12 herein. 14. Ownership and Operation of the UPAC Project. (a) [It is anticipated that the Agency, the City, and Salt Lake County, Utah will each own the UPAC Project on a pro rata basis based on .] (b) [The Parties agree to work together with the Salt Lake County Center for the Arts regarding its operation and maintenance of the UPAC Project, once constructed.] (c) [Each Party shall dispose of its property interest in the UPAC Project in the same manner that it disposes of other property of such Party.] 15. Debt Obligations as Agency Debt. The Parties hereby agree that any Debt Obligations issued by the Agency and the Agency's obligation to pay amounts with respect to debt issued by the City for the UPAC Project as contemplated in Section 16 herein shall constitute "Agency debt obligations" for purposes of Section 2(b)(iii) of the TEC Resolution, such that if there is a redistribution of Tax Increment Revenues in the year 2025 as provided in the TEC Resolution, such redistribution will be subordinate to any outstanding Agency or City debt obligations payable in whole or in part from Tax Increment Revenues. 16. Reimbursement or Refmancing of City Debt Obligations. The fmancing plan for the UPAC Project has yet to be finalized as of the date of this Agreement. It is anticipated that the UPAC Project may be financed with (i) Debt Obligations issued by the Agency payable in , * whole or in part from the Tax Increment Revenues allocated to the Agency for such purpose under this Agreement and under a separate agreement anticipated to be entered into between the Agency and Salt Lake County and from other sources available to the City or the Agency or (ii) Debt Obligations issued by the City payable in whole or in part from City funds or the sources identified in (i) above. In order to facilitate the schedule for the design, site assembly and construction of the UPAC Project, the City may issue Debt Obligations and as authorized by §17C-1-202 and §17C-1-409 of the Redevelopment Act,the Agency agrees to use Tax Increment Revenues to reimburse the City for any payments made on any such Debt Obligations issued by the City and, if requested by the City, to issue Debt Obligations of the Agency, to the extent possible, to refinance Debt Obligations issued by the City to finance all or a portion of the UPAC Project. 17. Supplement. Upon the issuance of all Debt Obligations, the Parties agree to supplement this Agreement by attaching a debt service schedule with respect to said obligations illustrating the amount of Tax Increment Revenues allocated to payments of principal and interest on the Debt Obligations in each year of the Collection Period, to be further amended in accordance with the issuance of any additional obligations or refunding obligations, as applicable. 18. Duration and Termination. The City and the Agency intend that the allocations herein of Tax Increment Revenues shall provide a long term funding source for the UPAC Project that will continue throughout the term of any Debt Obligations issued to finance the UPAC Project. As permitted by Utah Code Ann. §11-13-216, this Agreement shall commence on the date of final execution by the Parties and shall continue through December 31, 2041, unless changed by mutual agreement in writing by each Party. However, this Agreement may not be terminated while any of the Debt Obligations remain outstanding. 19. Integrated Contracts; Amendments. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties regarding the use of the City TEC Allocation for the UPAC Project, and no statements, promises, or inducements made by any party or agents that are not contained in this Agreement shall be binding or valid. This Agreement may not be altered, or amended, except upon agreement of all Parties and in writing executed by the Parties hereto. Additions, deletions, or changes in the provisions of this Agreement that do not comply with this requirement shall not be binding on any party. 20. Severability. If any clause, sentence or paragraph of this Agreement is declared to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not affect the remaining portions. 21. Notices. All notices required under this Agreement shall be sent as follows: Redevelopment Agency of Attn: Executive Director Salt Lake City: 451 South State Street, Room 418 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Salt Lake City Attorney: City Attorney P.O. Box 145478 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-5478 Salt Lake City: Attn: Mayor P.O. Box 145474 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5474 Each party may designate further or different addresses or individuals to which subsequent notices shall be sent. 22. Interlocal Act Requirements. In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal Act, and in connection with this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: (a) This Agreement has been authorized by resolution of the legislative body of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act; (b) This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party, pursuant to §11-13- 202.5 of the Interlocal Act; (c) A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed with the keeper of records of each Party,pursuant to §11-13-209 of the Interlocal Act; (d) Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each party shall be responsible for its own costs of any action done pursuant to this Agreement, and for any financing of such costs; (e) No separate legal entity is created by the terms of this Agreement. To the extent that this Agreement requires administration other than as set forth herein, it shall be administered by the Mayor of the City and the Executive Director of the Agency, acting as a joint board. The manner of each Party's acquisition, ownership, and disposition of real and personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this Agreement is set forth in Section 14 herein. (f) As provided in §11-13-219 of the Interlocal Act, the Parties agree that the Agency shall cause a notice of this Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be (i) published in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, which are hereby designated by the Parties as the official newspapers for all publications made under the Interlocal Act, and (ii) posted on the Utah Legal Notices website (www.utahlegals.com) created under Utah Code Ann. §45-1-101. The Parties shall make a copy of this Agreement available at their respective principal places of business during regular business hours for thirty (30) days after the publication of the notice of Agreement, during which time any person in interest may contest the legality of this Agreement. After the thirty (30) days have passed, no one may contest the regularity, formality, or legality of this Agreement or any action performed or instrument issued under the authority of this Agreement for any cause whatsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF: (A) the City by resolution duly adopted by the City Council has authorized this Agreement to be signed by its Mayor, attested to by its City Recorder and (B) the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City by resolution duly adopted by its Board has authorized this Agreement to be signed by its Chief Administrative Officer and its Executive Director all as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By: Mayor ATTEST: By: City Recorder APPROVED AS TO PROPER FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: By: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY By: Chief Administrative Officer By: Executive Director APPROVED AS TO PROPER FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: By: EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, (the "Code") that SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "City"), and the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "Agency"), have entered into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement dated as of , 2011 (the "Agreement"). The Agreement provides for the division between the Agency and the City of a portion of the annual tax increment revenues generated from the Agency's Central Business District Project Area (the "City Allocation"). Pursuant to the Agreement, the City has agreed to allow the Agency to use a portion of the City Allocation to pay financing, design, construction, acquisition, and related costs of a performing arts center to be located in downtown Salt Lake City(the "UPAC Project"). The division of the City Allocation described above is intended to begin in the 2015 tax year and continue through the 2040 tax year. The Agreement shall commence on the date of fmal execution by the parties and shall continue through December 31, 2041, unless changed by mutual agreement in writing by each Party. The Agreement also provides for the initial financing of the UPAC Project and an agreement of the Agency to use the allocated tax increment revenues for the UPAC Project and to reimburse the City for financing costs incurred by the City or to refinance debt initially issued by the City for the UPAC Project. A copy of the Agreement and the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Agency (the "Agency Resolution") authorizing and approving the Agreement are on file at the office of the Executive Director at 451 South State Street, Room 418, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. A copy of the Agreement and the Resolution of the City Council of the City (the "City Resolution") authorizing and approving the Agreement are on file at the office of the City Recorder, 451 South State Street, Room 415, Salt Lake City, Utah Amok 84111. The Agreement, the Agency Resolution, and the City Resolution may be examined during normal business hours for a period of at least thirty (30) days following the publication date of this Notice. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law and for a period of thirty (30) days from and after the date of the publication of this Notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of the Agreement, the Agency Resolution, and the City Resolution, and that after such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality, or legality thereof for any cause whatsoever. DATED , 2011 By: /s/Christine Meeker City Recorder (SEAL) By: /s/D.J. Baxter INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 2011 by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "Agency"), a separate body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State of Utah, and SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH (the "County"), a political subdivision duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Utah. The Agency and the County are sometimes referred to as the"Parties." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Limited Purpose Local Government Entities — Community Development and Renewal Agencies Act, Title 17C Chapters 1-4, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended (the"Redevelopment Act"), the Agency is authorized to use tax increment revenues (the"Tax Increment Revenues") generated from its Central Business District Project Area (the "Project Area") to finance redevelopment within such project area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 04-01 (the "TEC Resolution") of the Taxing Entity Committee for the Project Area, the Agency is authorized to retain 40% of the Tax Increment Revenues generated from the Project Area (the "Agency TEC Allocation") each year beginning in the 2015 tax year and continuing through the 2040 tax year (the "Collection Period"), as more specifically set forth in the TEC Resolution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the TEC Resolution, the remaining 60% of the Tax Increment Revenues generated from the Project Area in each year of the Collection Period are to be distributed by the Agency pro rata to the taxing entities within the Project Area, based on their proportional share of the certified tax rate (not including judgment levies); and WHEREAS, the County is a taxing entity entitled to a proportional share of Tax Amok Increment Revenues from the Project Area pursuant to the TEC Resolution (the County's proportionate share of the 60% of the Tax Increment Revenues from the Project Area is referred to herein as the "County TEC Allocation"); and WHEREAS, the Agency and the County desire that certain improvements be made in the Project Area for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and equipping a performing arts center and related improvements within the Project Area (the "UPAC Project"); and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Interlocal Act")permits the Agency and the County to cooperate to their mutual advantage, and this Agreement is made pursuant to that authority; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Redevelopment Act and the Interlocal Act, the County and the Agency desire to cooperate in financing the UPAC Project by allowing the Agency to retain a portion of the County TEC Allocation, as more specifically described herein; and WHEREAS, §17C-1-401(4) of the Redevelopment Act provides that, with the written consent of a taxing entity, the Agency may be paid tax increment from such taxing entity's portion of the tax levy in a higher percentage or for a longer period of time than otherwise permitted by the Redevelopment Act; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Agency adopted on November_, 2011 (the "Agency Resolution")and a resolution of the County Council of the County adopted on November _, 2011 (the "County Resolution"), the Parties have each approved the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the transaction contemplated hereby; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration,the Parties mutually agree and covenant as follows: 23. Definitions. Terms defined in the foregoing recitals shall have the same meaning when used herein. 24. UPAC Project Description; Debt Obligations. The UPAC Project will be located within the Project Area and will include the construction and equipping of a performing arts center and related improvements. The Parties intend that the UPAC Project will be fmanced through the issuance of debt obligations secured in whole or in part from, or to be repaid in whole or in part from, Tax Increment Revenues from the Project Area, which debt obligations include, without limitation, debt issued by the Agency, Salt Lake City, Utah(the "City") or others (the"Debt Obligations"). 25. Allocation of Tax Increment Revenues. In order to facilitate the financing of the UPAC Project, the Parties agree that beginning in tax year 2015 and for the duration of the Collection Period, the annual County TEC Allocation shall be divided by the Agency as follows: (a) The County shall receive from the Agency a portion of the County TEC Allocation in an amount equal to the dollar amount of the Tax Increment Revenues that the County receives for tax year 2014 (the "2014 Equivalent Revenues"); and (b) After the Agency distributes the 2014 Equivalent Revenues to the County, the Agency shall retain from the County TEC Allocation up to $2,375,000, and shall apply said revenues to the payment of principal and interest on the Debt Obligations or otherwise to pay for or finance the UPAC Project; and (c) After the amounts described in (i) and (ii) above have been distributed, any remaining County TEC Allocation shall be distributed to the County as provided in the TEC Resolution. As provided in the TEC Resolution, the Agency shall continue to retain its annual Agency TEC Allocation from the Project Area, [a portion of which shall be applied to the payment of principal and interest on the Debt Obligations.] 26. Covenants. (a) In consideration for the County's agreement to the division of Tax Increment Revenues pursuant to Section 12 herein, the Agency hereby acknowledges and agrees that it shall cause such amounts to be used for the financing, design, construction, acquisition, and related costs of the UPAC Project. (b) The County hereby represents that the Agency's covenant in Subsection (a) above to undertake the UPAC Project is fair and adequate consideration for the County's agreement to the division of Tax Increment Revenues pursuant to Section 12 herein. 27. Ownership and Operation of the UPAC Project. (a) [It is anticipated that the Agency, the City, and the County, will each own the UPAC Project on a pro rata basis based on .] (b) [The Parties agree to work together with the Salt Lake County Center for the Arts regarding its operation and maintenance of the UPAC Project, once constructed.] (c) [Each Party shall dispose of its property interest in the UPAC Project in the same manner that it disposes of other property of such Party.] 28. Debt Obligations as Agency Debt. The Parties hereby agree that any Debt Obligations issued by the Agency and the Agency's obligation to pay amounts with respect to debt issued by the City for the UPAC Project as contemplated herein shall Amirk constitute "Agency debt obligations" for purposes of Section 2(b)(iii) of the TEC Resolution, such that if there is a redistribution of Tax Increment Revenues in the year 2025 as provided in the TEC Resolution, such redistribution will be subordinate to any outstanding Agency or City debt obligations (including Agency obligations to the City) payable in whole or in part from Tax Increment Revenues. 29. Supplement. Upon the issuance of all Debt Obligations, the Parties agree to supplement this Agreement by attaching a debt service schedule with respect to said obligations illustrating the amount of Tax Increment Revenues allocated to payments of principal and interest on the Debt Obligations in each year of the Collection Period, to be further amended in accordance with the issuance of any additional obligations or refunding obligations, as applicable. 30. Duration and Termination. The County and the Agency intend that the allocations herein of Tax Increment Revenues shall provide a long term funding source for the UPAC Project that will continue throughout the term of any Debt Obligations issued to finance the UPAC Project. As permitted by Utah Code Ann. §11-13-216, this Agreement shall commence on the date of final execution by the Parties and shall continue through December 31, 2041, unless changed by mutual agreement in writing by each Party. However, this Agreement may not be terminated while any of the Debt Obligations remain outstanding. 31. Integrated Contracts; Amendments. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties regarding the use of the County TEC Allocation for the UPAC Project, and no statements, promises, or inducements made by any party or agents that are not contained in this Agreement shall be binding or valid. This Agreement may not be altered, or amended, except upon agreement of all Parties and in writing executed by the Parties hereto. Additions, deletions, or changes in the provisions of this Agreement that do not comply with this requirement shall not be binding on any party. 32. Severability. If any clause, sentence or paragraph of this Agreement is declared to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not affect the remaining portions. 33. Notices. All notices required under this Agreement shall be sent as follows: Redevelopment Agency of Attn: Executive Director Salt Lake City: 451 South State Street, Room 418 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Salt Lake County Attorney: District Attorney 2001 South State Street S3500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84190 Salt Lake County: Attn: Mayor 2001 South State Street Salt Lake City UT 84190 Each party may designate further or different addresses or individuals to which subsequent notices shall be sent. 34. Interlocal Act Requirements. In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal Act, and in connection with this Agreement,the Parties agree as follows: (a) This Agreement has been authorized by resolution of the legislative body of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act; (b) This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party,pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act; (c) A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed with the keeper of records of each Party, pursuant to §11-13-209 of the Interlocal Act; (d) Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each party shall be responsible for its own costs of any action done pursuant to this Agreement, and for any fmancing of such costs; (e) No separate legal entity is created by the terms of this Agreement. To the extent that this Agreement requires administration other than as set forth herein, it shall be administered by the Mayor of the County and the Executive Director of the Agency, acting as a joint board. The manner of each Party's acquisition, ownership, and disposition of real and personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this Agreement is set forth in Section 27 herein. (f) As provided in §11-13-219 of the Interlocal Act, the Parties agree that the Agency shall cause a notice of this Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be (i) published in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, which are hereby designated by the Parties as the official newspapers for all publications made under the Interlocal Act, and (ii) posted on the Utah Legal Notices website (www.utahlegals.com) created under Utah Code Ann. §45-1-101. The Parties shall make a copy of this Agreement available at their respective principal places of business during regular business hours for thirty (30) days after the publication of the notice of Agreement, during which time any person in interest may contest the legality of this Agreement. After the thirty (30) days have passed, no one may contest the regularity, formality, or legality of this Agreement or any action performed or instrument issued under the authority of this Agreement for any cause whatsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF: (A) the County by resolution duly adopted by the County Council has authorized this Agreement to be signed by its Mayor, attested to by its County Recorder and (B) the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City by resolution duly adopted by its Board has authorized this Agreement to be signed by its Chief Administrative Officer and its Executive Director all as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH By: Mayor or Designee ATTEST: By: Notary Public Residing in Salt Lake County APPROVED AS TO PROPER FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: By: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY By: Chief Administrative Officer By: Executive Director APPROVED AS TO PROPER FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: By: EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, (the "Code") that SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH (the "County"), and the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "Agency"), have entered into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement dated , 2011 (the "Agreement"). The Agreement provides for the division between the Agency and the County of a portion of the annual tax increment revenues generated from the Agency's Central Business District Project Area (the "County Allocation"). Pursuant to the Agreement, the County has agreed to allow the Agency to use a portion of the County Allocation to pay financing, design, construction, acquisition, and related costs of a performing arts center to be located in downtown Salt Lake City(the "UPAC Project"). The division of the County Allocation described above is intended to begin in the 2015 tax year and continue through the 2040 tax year. The Agreement shall commence on the date of final execution by the parties and shall continue through December 31, 2041, unless changed by mutual agreement in writing by each Party. A copy of the Agreement and the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Agency(the "Agency Resolution") authorizing and approving the Agreement are on file at the office of the Executive Director at the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Room 418, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. A copy of the Agreement and the Resolution of the County Council of the County(the "County Resolution") authorizing and approving the Agreement are on file at the office of the County Clerk, 2001 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84090. The Agreement, the Agency Resolution, and the County Resolution may be examined during normal business hours for a period of at least thirty (30) days following the publication date of this Notice. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law and for a period of thirty (30) days from and after the date of the publication of this Notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of the Agreement, the County Resolution, and the Agency Resolution, and that after such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality, or legality thereof for any cause whatsoever. DATED , 2011 (SEAL) By: /s/ Sherrie Swensen County Clerk By: /s/D.J. Baxter Section 1. Findings and Determinations. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the financing of the Project with proceeds of the Notes is in the public interest and is in the best interest of the City and the businesses,residents and consumers within the City. Section 2. Public Hearing. In satisfaction of the requirements of Section 11-14-318 of the Act, a public hearing shall be held by the City Council on Tuesday,November 22, 2012, during the regular City Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m., at the regular meeting place of the City Council, in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah,to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance by the City of the Notes and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. Section 3. Publication of Notice of Public Hearing. In accordance with the requirements of Section 11-14-318, the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder(the "City Recorder') shall cause a Notice of Public Hearing in substantially the form attached hereto as Annex 1, to be(a) published in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, each a newspaper having general circulation in the City and in which notices relative to the City are customarily published, once a week for two consecutive weeks,with the first publication being at least fourteen days prior to the date set for the public hearing, and(b)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website, at least fourteen days before the date set for the public hearing. Section 4. Form of Petition. The form of the petition to be used by registered voters in requesting that an election be called to authorize the Notes shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Annex 2. Section 5. City Recorder to Perform Certain Acts. The City Recorder is hereby directed to maintain a certified copy of this Resolution on file in office of the City Recorder during regular business hours for inspection by registered voters of the City, and other interested persons. The City Recorder is hereby directed to,upon request, supply copies of the form of petition specified in Section 4 hereof. Section 6. Reimbursement of Expenditures. The City reasonably expects to reimburse one, both or either of the Funds for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the Notes. Section 7. Severability. It is hereby declared that all parts of this Resolution are severable, and if any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Resolution shall, for any reason,be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of any such section,paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect the remaining sections,paragraphs, clauses or provisions of this Resolution. Section 8. Repealer. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are, to the extent of such conflict,hereby repealed. - 2 -UPAC Public Hearing Resolution Section 9. Effective Immediately. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. ADOPTED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 1st day of November, 2011. [SEAL] ATTEST: By [Deputy] City Recorder SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH By Chair, City Council APPROVED: By Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Senior City Attorney - 3 -UPAC Public Hearing Resolution ANNEX 1 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ISSUE SUBORDINATE EXCISE TAX REVENUE NOTES PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on November 1,2011, the City Council (the "City Council') of Salt Lake City, Utah(the "City") adopted a resolution(the "Resolution"), calling a public hearing to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of its subordinate excise tax revenue notes, in one or more series (the "Notes"), for the purpose of financing a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping a performing arts center and related improvements(the "Project") and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector,pursuant to the Local Government Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Amok Code Annotated 1953, as amended(the "Act"). TIME, PLACE AND LOCA TION OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council will hold a public hearing during its regular City Council meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday,November 22, 2012. The public hearing will be held at the regular meeting place of the City Council in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah. All members of the public are invited to attend and participate in the public hearing. Prior to the public hearing,written comments may be submitted to the City Council,to the attention of the City Recorder. PURPOSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTES The City intends to issue the Notes for the purpose of financing a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping the Project and paying all related costs authorized by law pursuant to authority contained in the Act and other applicable provisions of law MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE NOTES The City intends to issue the Notes in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $18,000,000. EXCISE TAXES PROPOSED TO BE PLEDGED The City proposes to pledge to the payment of the Notes all of the legally available revenues, after all required payments relating to the City's outstanding senior Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, from (a) the Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2,Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended; (b)the Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3,Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.06; (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3,Utah Code Annotated 1953, as Annex 1-1 UPAC Public Hearing Resolution amended, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.06; (d)the Municipal Telecommunications License Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.10; (e)the franchise fees associated with public utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3,Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and Salt Lake City Code Section 17.16.070; and(f)the franchise fees associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20. The City does not propose to pledge any ad valorem property taxes for the repayment of the Notes. PURPOSE FOR HEARING The purpose of the hearing is to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Notes for the purpose of financing all or part of the cost of the Project and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE PETITION TO HOLD AN ELECTION NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Section 11-14-307(7),Utah Code, if within 30 calendar days of the final publication of this notice on November 13, 2011, a written petition requesting an election and signed by at least twenty percent(20%) of the registered voters of the City is filed with the City,then the City shall submit the question of whether or not to issue the Notes to the voters of the City for their approval or rejection. If no written petition is filed or if fewer than 20% of the registered voters of the City sign a written petition, in either case,within 30 calendar days of the final publication of this notice on November 13, 2011,the City may proceed to issue the Notes without an election. DATED this 1st day of November,2011. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH By [Deputy] City Recorder Annex 1-2 UPAC Public Hearing Resolution To: City Recorder Salt Lake City,Utah ANNEX 2 PETITION We,the undersigned citizens and registered voters of Salt Lake City,Utah, respectfully request that an election be called by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-307(7),Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended,to authorize the issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its subordinate excise tax revenue notes, in a maximum principal amount not exceeding $18,000,000, as to which notice of intention to issue was published on November 6, 2011 and November 13, 2011, in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News pursuant to the provisions of a resolution passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on November 1, 2011, and each for himself or herself says: I have personally signed this petition; I am a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Utah; my residence and post office address are correctly written after my name: Annex 2-1 UPAC Public Hearing Resolution WARNING It is a felony for any one to sign any initiative or referendum petition with any other name than one's own, or knowingly to sign one's name more than once for the same measure, or to sign such petition when one knows that he or she is not a registered voter. REGISTERED VOTER'S PRINTED NAME(MUST BE LEGIBLE TO BE SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED COUNTED) VOTER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE,ZIP CODE Annex 2-2 UPAC Public Hearing Resolution [The following certification shall appear on the reverse side of each page attached to the Petition containing the signature of voters] STATE OF UTAH) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE) I, , of ,hereby certify that I am a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County,Utah, that all the names which appear on this sheet were signed by persons who professed to be the persons whose names appear thereon, and each of them signed his or her name thereto in my presence, I believe that each has printed and signed his or her name, and written his or her post office address and residence correctly, and that each signer is a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 20 . Notary Public(or other official title) Annex 2-3 UPAC Public Hearing Resolution Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Draft Work Product MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between SALT LAKE CITY And SALT LAKE COUNTY This Memorandum of Understanding is made and entered into as of this day of , 201 , by and between Salt Lake City("City") a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah and Salt Lake County, on behalf of Salt Lake County and its Center for the Arts, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah ("CFA"or "County") and. City and CFA or County and are collectively referred to as the "Parties". This Memorandum of Understanding shall remain in effect until the MOU is superseded by a subsequent written agreement entered into by the Parties. This Memorandum of Understanding may be renegotiated, amended or modified at any time by mutual agreement of the Parties. RECITALS WHEREAS the Parties desire to establish terms and conditions for operation and management of the new Utah Performing Arts Center("UPAC"), a cultural facility located at Main Street, Salt Lake City,Utah WHEREAS the Parties have mutually agreed to jointly participate in the capital costs of construction of the UPAC under terms and conditions reflected in the UPAC funding plan adopted contemporaneously heretofore, and desire to adopt provisions related to the mutually beneficial operating procedures for the UPAC. WHEREAS the County's Center for the Arts ("CFA") operates and manages the current publicly owned arts facilities and programs of Salt Lake "Cultural Core"and the Parties concur that there are efficiencies and programming benefits of managing these arts facilities and UPAC as a combined operating unit for the benefit of serving the local and regional audiences. WHEREAS the Parties intend that the responsibility for financial loss(es) and the rights to financial benefit(s) from UPAC will be allocated annually on a mutually agreed, equitable basis between the City and County. Such mutual agreement by the Parties will be clarified and set forth in a future operating agreement. Page 1 of 7 October 24,2011 Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Draft Work. Product WHEREAS the Parties intend that CFA will program and operate UPAC for the purposes and goals set forth herein. WHEREAS the Parties intend that UPAC as a cultural facility and its programs will contribute significantly to the economic and business development of the "Cultural Core" of the Salt Lake region, including the creation of new employment opportunities, increasing property values, attracting tourists and visitors, and increasing business activity. WHEREAS the citizens of the State of Utah,the City and the County support regional cultural facilities and programs through sales tax revenues,preservation fees, and attendance at cultural facilities, they are primary beneficiaries of the facilities, and the requirements contained herein should be implemented and applied to advance their interests. WHEREAS the Parties intend that UPAC will be used by national touring artists and companies, local cultural organizations and artists, and will promote, encourage, and showcase the arts and arts education. WHEREAS the Parties intend to support the presenting organizations that use UPAC and the County's existing facilities in their audience development, community education and outreach programs; the Parties expect that users/presenters shall institute effective, coordinated programs for audience development and community outreach. WHEREAS the Parties seek to increase the coordination of cultural event programming, cross-promotion, marketing,ticketing, fundraising, and efficient operations of the presenting organizations using UPAC and other regional cultural facilities. WHEREAS ArtTix is owned and operated by CFA and ArtTix is central to CFA's mission of providing world class venues and services to the community using the cultural facilities. WHEREAS ArtTix serves the community by providing cost-effective customer service and data management, marketing, audience development, fundraising, controlling building capacity, and protecting patrons from ticket fraud. WHEREAS the Parties desire that subscription admission tickets and single admission tickets for events presented at UPAC and County supported regional cultural facilities shall be sold by ArtTix, as ArtTix serves as an important revenue stream to assist in the reduction of taxpayer subsidy while providing transparent levels of service and cost structures to users of City's and County's cultural facilities and their ticket-buying patrons. WHEREAS the Parties desire to ensure public access through ArtTix to these cultural facilities and programs by offering admission tickets available at reduced prices to those Page 2 of 7 October 24,2011 Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Draft Work Product patrons that warrant such opportunities according to mutual agreements with the presenting organizations using these facilities NOW, THEREFORE, City and County have the following understanding as to how they will work together to successfully operate the County's regional cultural performing arts facilities of The Capitol Theatre,Abravanel Hall,Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center and UPAC as one operational management entity. Salt Lake County Center for the Arts will meet the following goals and objectives: 1. Program and operate UPAC to integrate the new cultural facility into the City's and County's Cultural Core in coordination with other community, regional and state arts and education facilities and organizations to: a. Increase audiences for the performing and visual arts in the region, b. Grow and maximize economic and business development in the Salt Lake region, c. Take an active role supporting the Salt Lake cultural event and entertainment market to evolve and create new opportunities for presenters with increased venue dates and the appropriately-sized and technically-equipped venue for each event, d. Work together with existing and potential new presenters and expand outreach to national presenters for replacement programming content to develop their presentations in the more available Capitol Theatre and Abravanel Hall venues, e. Create new strategies for event bookings, incentives,rental and ticketing rates, staffing, and overall branding/marketing for all venues and services, f. Create more successful programming collaboration with other Cultural Core members, g. Provide and increase arts educational opportunities for secondary and post- secondary school students and for adults, h. Promote efficiencies in the marketing,ticketing,programming, and operation of facilities and organizations, i. Create earned revenue(s) for the benefit of the community by being proactive to the positive influence of a more active marketplace while growing the Cultural Core and its role in economic development, j. Maximize venue utilization,public participation and operating revenues at all venues, by means of combined booking calendar management in order to grow the market with a unified vision for an effective mix of programming. 2. In order to meet the above goals and objectives,the Parties will conclude an operating agreement for UPAC which will establish the following: a. A UPAC Advisory Board Charter and Bylaws (Board membership to be proportional to ownership interest of the Parties in UPAC)with clarification of how this Board is integrated to and separate from the existing County CFA Advisory Board b. Criteria for booking events and management of the calendar c. Rental rates (including equipment) Page 3 of 7 October 24,2011 Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Draft Work Product d. ArtTix ticketing operations and ticketing fees e. Provisions for operation by the CFA of a Black Box Theater, in the event such a theater is developed as part of the UPAC. The intention of the Parties is that the Black Box Theater revenue cover operating overhead attributable to,plus the incremental costs of,the Black Box Theater operations. f. Annual Budget Process i. Procedures and criteria will be established for the periodic review, analysis and calculation of the amount of net gain earned, or loss sustained, by CFA in its operation of The Capitol Theatre,Abravanel Hall, and Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center("Existing Venues")that is directly attributable to the operation of the UPAC ("Venue Financial Impact"). Venue Financial Impact shall include accounting for the reduction or increase, if any, due to the UPAC, in revenue (as mitigated by alternative programming) or operating costs (as warranted by changes in usage) at Existing Venues. ii. Procedures and criteria will be established to ensure that CFA's centralized services costs charged to the UPAC reflect a fair and reasonable allocation thereof to the UPAC. iii. An operating reserve will be established and maintained for the UPAC that is intended to cover, with respect to any given period of time, any excess of UPAC operating expenses over UPAC operating revenue ("Operating Reserve Fund"). The Operating Reserve Fund will initially be funded from bond proceeds in an amount to be determined by the Parties, and thereafter will be funded from UPAC operating revenue in an amount to be established in the annual budget process. iv. A Venue Financial Impact Fund will be established and maintained for the purpose of mitigating Venue Financial Impacts during the first five years of UPAC operation, with initial funding from bond proceeds in an amount to be determined by the Parties. Each Party shall have the right to funds from the Venue Financial Impact Fund up to an annual amount to be negotiated between the Parties, subject to the annual accounting for Venue Financial Impact as provided in Section 2.f.i. above. Any funds remaining in the Venue Financial Impact Fund at the end of each of the first four years of UPAC operations will remain in the Venue Financial Impact Fund for the next year's Venue Financial Impact. Additional funding, if any is required to meet the next year's Venue Financial Impact Fund requirement, shall be funded from the prior year's net gains of the UPAC, if any, before any distributions to parties providing capital for the construction of the UPAC. Any funds remaining in the Venue Financial Impact Fund at the end of the fifth year of UPAC operations will be transferred to the Operating Reserve Fund. The Venue Financial Impact Fund will thereafter be discontinued. v. Any net gain from the operation of UPAC, after funding the Operating Reserve Fund and the Venue Financial Impact Fund, shall be distributed to the Page 4 of 7 October 24,2011 Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Draft Work Product parties providing capital for the construction of UPAC, in proportion to their respective capital contributions. g. Establish and administer performance criteria for the use of UPAC which shall: i. enhance audience development for users not only of UPAC but also of other CFA facilities and cultural organizations throughout the region, and ii. advance the economic and business development of downtown Salt Lake City, the County, the region, and the State. h. In the event of any extended period of inactivity at the UPAC,the Parties agree to fund the maintenance of the UPAC facilities on a basis that is proportionate to each Party's contribution to the construction costs of the UPAC. 3. In order to meet the above goals and objectives,the Parties will conclude an operating agreement for all four regional cultural performing arts facilities which will establish the following: a. Opportunities for Marketing, Promotion, and Facility Utilization: Allocate funds generated from earned revenues and other sources, in an amount when and as mutually agreed upon to enable increased flexibility in negotiating contract terms and conditions for presentations at the County's four facilities; b. Preservation Fund ticketing fees (as defined as restricted funds by County Ordinance which does not accrue to the CFA operations budget and are dedicated to enhancing and accelerating all CFA capital improvement projects). Further, as UPAC ticketing fee funds are identified as Preservation Funds, then the other CFA venue facilities will share in these funds for identified and approved capital expenses at the venues and the reciprocal benefit of these funds will accrue to UPAC as a CFA venue. Authority of Signers: Salt Lake City is a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah. The signature of the City Mayor, pursuant to a resolution of the City Council, is required in order to bind the City. County is a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah. The signature of the Salt Lake County Mayor, pursuant to a resolution of the County Council, is required in order to bind the County. In the event an authorized representative of CFA first executes this agreement, this agreement is subject to ratification by the County Council, and to execution by the County Mayor. If the Salt Lake County Council or Salt Lake City Council decides, in its individual discretions,not to fund performance of County nor City under this agreement, County shall promptly notify Salt Lake City and Salt Lake City shall promptly notify Salt Lake County of said non-funding and County's or City's termination of this Agreement. If the Parties terminate this Agreement due to non-funding, both Parties shall not incur any penalty. [SIGNATURE PAGES TO FOLLOW] Page 5 of 7 October 24,2011 Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Draft Work Product IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the day and year provided above. SALT LAKE CITY: SALT LAKE COUNTY: Mayor or Designee Mayor or Designee Date Date ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL: Director, Center for the Arts: Date [INSERT FILE PATH HERE] STATE OF UTAH ) :ss County of Salt Lake ) On this day of , 2011, personally appeared before me , who being duly sworn, did say that (s)he is the of Salt Lake County, Office of Mayor, and that the foregoing instrument was signed on behalf of Salt Lake County, by authority of law. NOTARY PUBLIC [SEAL] Residing in Salt Lake County State of Utah STATE OF UTAH ) :ss County of Salt Lake ) On this day of , 2011, personally appeared before me , who being duly sworn, did say that s/he is the of , a non-profit Utah corporation, and that the foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Page 6 of 7 October 24,2011 Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Board of Directors, and said acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC [SEAL] Residing in Salt Lake County State of Utah Page 7 of 7 October 24,2011 6 v SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members SUBJECT: Retreat Follow-up: General Discussion&Review of the"Arts& Culture"priority topic DATE: October 4, 2011 FROM: City Council staff—policy analysts: Janice Jardine, Jennifer Bruno, Russell Weeks, Karen Halladay, Brady Wheeler,Jan Aramaki,Nick Tarbet, Dan Weist,Neil Lindberg, Lehua Weaver During the Council's September 9th retreat,the following topics were discussed as the Council's priority interests: 1) Arts &Culture 2) Economic Health of the City 3) Local/Neighborhood Businesses 4) Neighborhoods& Schools 5) Transportation&Mobility 6) Parks &Open Space 7) Sustainability The Chair and Vice Chair requested that staff schedule each of the seven topics on Work Session agendas in order to continue the Council's discussion and review of the items before the end of the year. Since the Council's retreat, staff has focused on using the flip charts and notes from the Council's discussion to develop Philosophy Statements for the Council's review. The first item scheduled for discussion is the Arts& Culture priority topic, and a quick first draft of a Philosophy Statement is attached for the Council's conversation. Since the term"Philosophy Statement" is relatively new in Council jargon, staff has first provided an operating definition on Attachment A. The Council may wish to confirm or adjust staff's direction. Attachments: A: Components of a Philosophy Statement B: Copy of the 2003 Council Policy Statement on Downtown&Economic Development C: List of Arts& Performance venues around Salt Lake City 1 PRIORITY: ARTS & CULTURE DEFINITION Supporting "Arts&Culture" as a priority means that the City Council supports creating an environment where event organizers, artists,performers,residents,businesses, and visitors can provide and participate in a wide variety of artistic expressions. The Council believes that vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural events in Salt Lake City add to the City's Quality of Life for residents and visitors. Arts and Cultural events may include,but are not limited to: • Celebrations of cultural diversity, celebrating all communities • Diverse types of visual or performance art ranging from casual or impromptu performances to formal pre-planned events in venues around the City. • Presence of Public Art pieces • Musical events—concerts, symphonies, festivals,many genres, sizes, locations,paid and free • Independent film • Educational opportunities • Access to a variety of events for all residents Supporting Arts &Culture as a priority also means that the Council intends for the City to continue fulfilling a role for the valley and state as"the focal point of arts, culture, and entertainment in Utah." (Excerpt from the current Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown, Attachment B.) ➢ Are these statements an accurate way of representing why the topic of'Arts& Culture' is a priority to the Council? ➢ Are there any components that should be added to more accurately reflect the Council's interests? VALUES/GOALS • We encourage events that celebrate cultural diversity&celebrate all communities. • We value all genres of music, art, and performance and want it to be accessible to all of our communities—not only Downtown,but city-wide. • We want to create an environment where a wide range of theater options and performance venues can thrive. • We support quality public art that is complementary to surroundings, and is strategically placed around the City. • We support local talents and artists and educational opportunities. > Do these statements accurately reflect the Council's values and goals for Arts&Culture in Salt Lake City? 2 ➢ Are there any components that should be added to more accurately reflect the Council's interests? INTENTS/PROJECTS • We look forward to the discussion about a Utah Performing Arts Center. • We also look forward to continuing the conversation and review of the Salt Lake County study about a Convention Center Hotel to provide more hotel rooms for visitors who may also enjoying the arts and cultural opportunities. • We support a review of ordinances for amendments that would create a more welcoming environment for people to perform on City sidewalks, and for the review to involve outreach and engagement with business and property owners in the Business Districts to enhance an arts & cultural environment for the City. > There are more projects for the Council's consideration under the second question below. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Does any Council Member have an item or interest that is not reflected? 2. Specific Tasks/Projects: Based on the Council's discussion at the retreat and Council staff brainstorming, following is a list the Council may wish to consider adding to the"Intents/ Projects" category above? a. We would like Council staff to explore the saturation of different types of theater venues in Downtown. b. We would like to hold a policy discussion regarding the pros and cons of creating an Arts (or Cultural Core) District. c. We would like to consider and explore opportunities to support private organizations in providing more arts education. d. We would like to explore how to expand opportunities for private organizations, including Community Councils and churches,to host neighborhood events. e. We would support a review of ordinances for amendments that would make it easier for people and organizations to hold events—including more assistance through the City's permit process and/or changes to the permitting process. f. We would like Council staff to review the January 2003 Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown and suggest updates specific to Arts&Culture in Downtown for the Council's review. (See Attachment B for a copy of the 2003 statement.) g. We would like Council staff to review other related plans(Downtown Rising, Futures Commission Report, R/UDAT study, Cultural Necklace/Cultural Campus Plan) to identify key components. h. We would like to request that the Arts Council staff prepare a briefing and present to the Council the current process for considering Public Art pieces around the City, 3 including the Percent for Art program, location,type, other budgetary ;. considerations, etc. i. We would like to request a briefing with Chief Burbank regarding the public safety costs associated with supporting Special Events and safety issues that are involved with Special Events. j. Public Engagement/Communication Opportunities i. We would like to request exploration of ways to better coordinate and advertise all events within the City(expand for non-City sponsored events). ii. We would like to request that the Special Events website have an expanded, more-user friendly presence on the City website. iii. We would like Council staff to include the City's Arts& Cultural component in the educational information about the benefit SLC provides to the valley. 3. Tools for Implementation-the Council may wish to consider whether to apply any Legislative tools to assist in moving the Council's values for Arts& Culture ahead. For example: a. Budget $$ - including allocation or removal of funds b. Ordinances-revision, development or removal c. Oversight/Audits d. Partnerships (government,private, others) e. Hire Consultant f. Land Use Planning g. Efficiencies h. Public Education i. CDBG Funds j. Public Engagement k. 10-Year CIP 1. Policies m. Other 4 ATTACHMENT A Philosophy Statement The Arts& Culture Philosophy Statement was drafted based on this outline of components. The Council may wish to provide feedback or different direction to Council staff. A Philosophy Statement is a document that provides: a) Definition-what the topic means to the Council. For example, does Parks & Open Space only relate top programmed parks with recreational equipment or something broader or more narrow? b) Values- List of the Council's identified values relating to the topic, and what specifically makes the topic a priority, and perhaps lists a goal or vision for the topic. The values are generally more broad than the intent(Item c below). For example, is Parks & Open Space a priority topic because the Council envisions acquiring more or less open space based on certain factors; maintaining a certain level or type of open space; etc. c) Intent- Outlines the intent of the Council on the topic. The intent of the Council may get to more specific interests of the Council and may be more narrow than the values(Item b above). For example, the Council may have specific ideas or tasks that relate to the priority topic and would like to collaborate with the Administration on certain projects, or request that Council staff complete a project or research, etc. 5 ATTACHMENT B Council Policy Statement re: Downtown (excerpt from Council Policy Manual) D.9 COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The following statement was adopted by the City Council in January of 2003: Salt Lake City Council Policy Statement on The Future Economic Development of Downtown INTRODUCTION By most objective measures, downtown Salt Lake City is healthy and doing well. Yet, even though there is much "good news" about downtown, City leaders and residents share a concern about its future. At the beginning of 2002, the City Council named the future of downtown, and in particular, Main Street, as its top policy priority for the year. While downtown is much more than Main Street, Main Street is at the center it is the heart—of downtown. The challenge facing Salt Lake City policymakers as we move forward after hosting the Olympics and into the 21st Century is how to build upon downtown's many strengths, and further enhance the vibrancy and vitality of the downtown. The City Council's role is to provide policy direction and to ensure that its efforts support the City's policy goals. The Council's tools are its authority to allocate city resources, including those of the Redevelopment Agency; to make zoning decisions; and to adopt ordinances. To help focus on how the Council could best fulfill its responsibilities, it held hearings in March and April. Over one hundred citizens including representatives from various interest groups, provided comments and suggestions. A draft policy statement was circulated in November, and a Public Hearing was held on December 3. Council members have also, throughout the year, individually and in small groups,had many meetings with downtown stakeholders and citizens to deepen their understanding of the issues and forces shaping downtown. As a result, the City Council's overarching policy regarding downtown is this: The City Council recognizes that Main Street is the core of our downtown commercial,tourist, and convention activity. To encourage the relocation of retail or other commercial businesses or other key "anchors" away from Main Street will undermine these activities to the long-term detriment of downtown, including the Gateway and other developments. The continued vitality of Main Street is essential to the economic and cultural health of our great city. Downtown, defined generally as the area from Temple Square on the north,to The Gateway on the West,to Trolley Square on the east,to the hotel district along the 600 South Street entrance to the city from Interstate 15, is important to Salt Lake City residents for a variety of reasons. Historically it has Updated: September 18,2009 -Page 1- been the business, financial, retail, and government center of the City, County,region, state, and in many ways the entire Intermountain West. The health and vitality of Salt Lake City's downtown is important to city residents and people throughout the region. Business and commerce; institutional uses; local government and related public facilities; arts, culture and entertainment; tourism, and housing are all vital to the health of Salt Lake City's downtown. A brief listing of the downtown's strengths shows what downtown Salt Lake City means to Utah: Business and Commerce Salt Lake City is Utah's commercial and financial center. • The Central Business District within the downtown contains 28.8 percent of the total square footage of office space in Salt Lake County. When office space on the CBD's periphery is included the figure rises to 42.8 percent. (1) • Downtown Salt Lake City contains the corporate offices of the two largest banks in Utah, and 10 commercial banks operate in the Central Business District. Retail Services Although it contains 10 to 15 percent of the total space leased for retail in Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City's downtown is perhaps the only downtown in the nation to have four destination malls within its borders: The Gateway, the Crossroads Plaza,the ZCMI Center and Trolley Square. • Salt Lake City's downtown workforce grew by nearly 25 percent to 61,000 people between 1990 and 2001, leaving a significant daytime population to support retail services. • According to a May 2002 survey conducted by the Downtown Alliance, 32 percent of Salt Lake County's population said they had visited the downtown"within the past week" to dine, shop, or seek entertainment. Institutional As Utah's capital, Salt Lake City is the seat of state government including state and local courts, and the local presence of the Federal Government. • Near downtown are the State Capitol and the University of Utah,providing further opportunities to attract people to the core of the city. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 2- • As the World Headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City's Aottft,, downtown is a magnet to members of that faith worldwide, as well as a draw to tourists from throughout the world. Temple Square and other LDS sites downtown including the world- renowned Family History Center draw more than five million visitors per year. • Downtown is also home to several religious communities including the Roman Catholic and Episcopal dioceses, a number of historic churches—the Cathedral of The Madeleine, the Cathedral Church of St. Mark,the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, the historic First Presbyterian and First United Methodist churches, and the Buddhist Temple, each of which attracts people to the downtown area. Local Government and Related Public Facilities Maintaining Salt Lake City's downtown has been a major concern of city government for decades. • Since 1975 the City's Redevelopment Agency has allocated a substantial amount for downtown public improvements, land purchases and sales, and loans to businesses to renovate buildings. • Salt Lake City voters approved bond issues of$30 million and up to $84 million respectively to renovate the City&County Building and build a new main library and public plaza. • Salt Lake City elected officials also have been instrumental in encouraging the construction of the state's only operating light rail lines, and the location of the State Courts Complex in the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse. Arts/Culture/Entertainment Downtown remains the focal point of arts, culture and entertainment in Utah. • It is the home of Utah's premier performing arts organizations and Utah's only major league sports franchise. • The Capitol Theater, Abravenel Hall, and the Delta Center serve as venues for a wide variety of special events. The Days of'47 parade, the Utah Arts Festival and the New Year's Eve First Night celebration identify Salt Lake City as a core activity center for the region. Tourism Downtown is the focal point of Utah's convention business. • It is home to the Salt Palace Convention Center and more than 5,000 hotel rooms. (2) Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 3- • In terms of square footage, downtown contains 67 percent of the top meeting space in Utah. It contains the two top facilities for meeting space,three of the state's top five facilities for meeting space, and five of the state's top ten facilities for meeting space. (3) • Salt Lake City also attracts ski visitors from out of state to stay in downtown hotels while enjoying several world-class resorts within a one-hour drive of downtown. Housing Downtown living is on the rise in Salt Lake City, and housing is an increasingly important component of downtown. • Partly due to the concerted efforts of the City Redevelopment Agency, housing stock in downtown has increased substantially during the past decade, to where it is now estimated that 4,500 residents live in the downtown's core. • Downtown is bordered on the east by a neighborhood that has the highest density of any neighborhood in the state and on the west by a neighborhood that is projected to ultimately be the home of 13,000 residents. (4) Downtown is not in decline. According to a recent economic study conducted by the University of Utah's Bureau of Business and Economic Research for the Downtown Alliance, in the 1990's every major economic indicator for downtown has been positive, including: • 24%increase— 12,000 more employees—working in the CBD • 69% increase in housing units • 30% increase in office square footage, with the lowest vacancy rates in a decade. • 45% increase in retail square footage • 54% increase in wages • 35% increase in commercial bank deposits • 25 new restaurants and 15 new private clubs • 6% increase in retail sales The only major indicator that has been a disappointment, however, is one that is among the most visible—retail sales. While retail sales increased a slight 6% from 1990 to 2001, sales peaked in 1996, and then declined by 21%. The loss of retail business from downtown to the suburbs and other retail outlets such as the Internet, coupled with the empty storefronts of South Main Street have led policymakers,the news media, and citizens to be concerned about the viability and vibrancy of Main Street. To further focus and shape City policies to enhance the success of downtown and Main Street, the City Council adopts these statements of principle: Updated: September 18,2009 -Page 4- 1. City's Leadership Role The City can and should be a vigorous advocate of downtown,encouraging business investment, working to retain as well as attract businesses to downtown, and making it easy to do business in the City. The City's advocacy should include being proactive to make businesses feel welcome in and a part of Salt Lake City. The City Council recognizes that many decisions affecting the fate of downtown must be made by the private sector. There is much City government can and should do to encourage a healthy downtown. And yet it must be remembered that the City,through the tools available to it, is a catalyst and coordinator,not a wealth-creator in and of itself. City government should provide focus and leadership to encourage and support private efforts leading to downtown investment. It should make sure that its roles—including but not limited to infrastructure, business licensing,regulation, zoning and code enforcement and public safety —are done efficiently, effectively, and in a way that encourages rather than discourages private investment. The City should encourage and facilitate communication and cooperation among the various private and public interests who have a stake in downtown, such as the Downtown Alliance, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Corporation of Utah, the Downtown Merchants Association, the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau, and County, State and Federal governments. The City should leverage its resources as much as possible by encouraging, utilizing, and not duplicating, the services of private non-profit organizations including the Downtown Alliance, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, and the Economic Development Corporation of Utah, in furthering the City's goals for downtown. 2. Build Upon Downtown's Strengths and Uniqueness People will come downtown when it provides an experience or opportunity they can't find in their own neighborhoods. Salt Lake City must distinguish itself from the suburbs by building upon what is unique to downtown—things that cannot be experienced anywhere else. The City Council supports a greater emphasis on leveraging historic preservation as an economic development tool by working more closely with the Utah Heritage Foundation to find opportunities to use Salt Lake City's historic buildings in new and exciting ways, for office, cultural, retail, and institutional uses. Despite numerous efforts to promote downtown, for too long Salt Lake City too often has assumed that downtown will attract people just because it exists. The time is long past when people will come to downtown because it is the only place to shop, eat at a restaurant, or see a movie. The City Council encourages greater efforts to market downtown to people where downtown is geographically the closest retail shopping area. Marketing campaigns should Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 5- target Salt Lake City residents, the daytime population,particularly office workers, University of Utah employees and students,visitors, and the suburban population,particularly residents of South Davis County. • The City Council supports encouraging the Downtown Alliance and Downtown Merchants associations to promote joint marketing opportunities, such as seeing the Utah Symphony and enjoying a dinner or staying the night in downtown hotels. The Council supports marketing campaigns targeting University of Utah employees and students to come downtown for restaurants, entertainment and shopping and to our own residents who shop in suburbs rather than coming downtown. • The City Council supports the development of other anchors to Main Street, in addition to retail,that will attract people to the City's core. Anchors could include museums, a Broadway-style theater, Olympic legacy or other similar attractions that would provide unique"draws"to downtown. 3. Take the long view rather than focusing on quick fixes While there are some immediate steps that should be taken during the next one to three years, City policy-makers must resist the temptation to think short-term and instead take a long-range view of how decisions now will impact the City five, ten, even twenty years into the future. The City Council believes that the elements of sound development and marketing strategies for the downtown already exist in available plans and studies. The Council believes that the time for additional plans and studies have past, and the time for implementing a coherent, rational, and achievable program is now. The City Council urges the Mayor and his administration to fashion an implementation program based on existing plans and strategies and carry out the implementation. To keep the City Council and general public involved and informed of specific program steps taken and tied to long-term priorities with measurable benchmarks, the City Council supports having the Administration provide updates to the Council and the public on the program's implementation. Regularly, the Administration should share,on a confidential basis as needed, its efforts with a subcommittee of the Council that will include representatives of Council and Redevelopment Agency leadership. 4. Support All facets of Downtown Development Too often the focus on downtown is on just one aspect of downtown—such as nightlife or retail —while failing to recognize that a successful downtown is made of several important elements. Each element is important in its own right,but, like an ecosystem, the success of each is intertwined and interdependent. These elements can be summarized as follows and measured by the criteria listed under each section: Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 6- • Business center,providing the premier location for a variety of businesses, in particular, local, regional, and where possible national headquarters. o Indicators of success include: • Square footage and type of office space in the downtown inventory • The vacancy rate • The number and size of"headquarters" located in the downtown. • New businesses relocating to the Central Business District. • Existing businesses expanding at their present locations in the Central Business District. • Existing businesses renewing their leases. • Retail, supporting the retail needs of daytime population and drawing people to the downtown. o Indicators of success include: • Number of jobs generated • Square footage of retail • Total retail sales and retail sales per square foot at each of the major retail destinations. • Sales tax revenue generated. • Institutional Center o Indicators of success include: • Increased presence of county, state and federal offices • Presence of educational facilities available to the public • Local government and related public facilities o Indicators of success include: • Well-maintained public infrastructure • Continued development of efficient public transportation systems with easy access to homes and businesses and connected to a wider area Updated: September 18,2009 -Page 7- • Arts, culture, entertainment and nightlife,providing unique entertainment and cultural opportunities for residents throughout the region and visitors o Indicators of success include: • Sales generated • Number of nights of entertainment offerings • Location of new entertainment and cultural facilities including theater for Broadway productions and museums • Tourism including convention visitors o Indicators of success include: • Convention bookings • Hotel occupancy rate • Housing—available at all ranges of income levels will further enhance the livability and vibrancy of downtown o Indicators of success include: • The number of housing units • Vacancy rates • Population • The mix of market rate,middle income, affordable and low income housing units FIRST STEPS Based on the quantity and quality of public input the City Council has received resulting from its focus on Main Street and Downtown,the Council suggests the following areas be considered immediately relating to the seven elements of a successful downtown: • Business Center o Administration should identify major corporate presences in downtown, ascertain their satisfaction, and make appropriate efforts to ensure that they will remain downtown and not relocate to the suburbs. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 8- o Administration, in cooperation with EDCU, should target businesses to locate . , corporate or regional headquarters downtown. o The City should encourage greater cooperation between the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Alliance, and EDCU. o The Administration should meet with major landowners of property fronting Main Street between 600 South and South Temple,to ascertain plans for development and to encourage appropriate development as supported by market conditions. o The City should endorse legislation to be presented to the Utah Legislature extending historic preservation tax credits—that currently exist only for residential properties—to commercial properties. o The City should utilize the assistance of the Utah Heritage Foundation in identifying key vacant or underutilized historic buildings and all financial incentives available to encourage appropriate development as supported by market conditions. o The City should strongly consider encouraging legislation to extend the expiration date of the Central Business Redevelopment District to enable the City to continue to use RDA tools in the future to bolster the center of downtown. • Retail o The City should continue to support and encourage retail on Main Street, with complimentary retail at The Gateway, Trolley Square, and in East Downtown in an effort to generate economic growth in the broader downtown area. o The City and RDA, in conjunction with local businesses and landowners, should actively promote and market our downtown's opportunities to national, regional and local retailers,using existing plans and studies to identify and recruit potential retailers for the downtown area. o Perceived parking problems continue to be a major obstacle to retail activity downtown. The City should continue to support the Parking Token initiative of the Downtown Alliance,but also look at more aggressive marketing of existing downtown parking to Salt Lake residents. Such marketing efforts could include advertising the availability of parking but also the advantages of covered parking at a mall versus parking in a flat parking lot in the elements of sun and snow. Marketing efforts also should dispel misperceptions that no parking is available downtown. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 9- o The City should also consider additional free parking downtown, such as that provided on a pilot basis on 300 South. The cost-benefit of parking meters should be studied. o The UTA Free Fare zone should be advertised by the City and downtown merchants. The UTA, the City, and downtown merchants should evaluate and implement ways, including small buses and possible expansion of the Free Fare Zone,to link the Gateway, Main Street,the future Intermodal Hub, and Trolley Square in such a fashion as to make movement around the downtown simple and easy for any visitor. o The City should encourage and support the owners of the ZCMI Center and Crossroads Plaza in undertaking significant renovations and upgrading of both mall properties including making the retail spaces more accessible to the streets. o RDA dollars should go toward supporting additional retail in all the CBD with a primary focus on filling vacant Main Street locations. o The Downtown Alliance and Downtown Merchants Association should be encouraged to develop more joint marketing opportunities with conventions being hosted in downtown to attract more tourists to stores and restaurants. o Given the proximity to downtown of communities in South Davis County, those communities should be targeted in a special marketing campaign. Emphasis should be on helping Davis County residents feel welcomed to and appreciated by Salt Lake City. o Efforts to make Main Street more pedestrian friendly should continue by creating elements that generate interest along the length of Main Street. Elements could include public art, window decorations and benches where people can relax. o 100, 200, and 300 South streets, along with South Temple Street, are important links between Main Street and West Temple Street,where much of the convention and tourist traffic flows. Efforts should continue to be made to make these links as inviting as possible to pedestrians. • Institutional Center o The City should meet with the State Building Board and/or its executive director to find opportunities to work together to enhance state offices or locating state cultural centers downtown. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 10- o The City should meet with officials of the University of Utah to find areas where the City and University can work together to locate functions that attract people and activities downtown, including classrooms, museums and galleries. o The City should meet with officials of Salt Lake Community College to ascertain the success of their downtown classroom building and to see if there is anything the City can do to aid its success. o The City should meet with officials of the LDS Church to ascertain any plans for expansion of office space, use of properties(such as State Street and First South) in the downtown area. • Local government and related public facilities o The City Council will continue to support making downtown more friendly to pedestrians,the disabled, and bicyclists. o The City should pursue ways to move the future construction of a light-rail connection to Salt Lake City International Airport—including completion of the downtown light-rail loop—further up the list of projects on the Wasatch Front Regional Council's long-range transportation plan. o The City Council is committed to support the installation of Olympic legacy memorabilia in a prominent location downtown. • Arts, Culture, entertainment, and nightlife o The City should focus on offering several successful events, such as "First Night,"rather than putting efforts into weekly activities that are less likely to be successful. o The City should consider current alcohol policies and monitor any changes in state laws that may be proposed in 2003. o In partnership with Salt Lake County—the owner of downtown arts facilities— consider the feasibility and advisability of constructing a Broadway-style theater on or near Main Street, capable of presenting full-scale productions. o The City Council will support marketing efforts to dispel misperceptions that "there's nothing to do"downtown. • Tourism o The City should support a feasibility study regarding further expansion of the Salt Palace to keep Salt Lake City competitive in attracting conventions. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 11- o The City should cooperate with the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Utah Travel Council in attracting convention business and tourists to Salt Lake City. • Housing o The City should continue to encourage downtown housing for a full spectrum of income levels throughout the downtown area. o The City should conduct an inventory of land within two blocks of the new main library that could be used for housing sites and study the feasibility of purchasing the sites for housing uses. o The City should explore ways to protect further multifamily housing units on 300 East Street between South Temple and 400 South streets and encourage in- fill development of multifamily housing along 300 East Street. o The City should encourage retail services, especially grocery stores, necessary to support an increased residential population as well as services that cater to downtown workers. Notes Except where noted, all factual statements were taken from the Downtown Alliance's Economic Change in Salt Lake City's Central Business District— 1991 to 2001 prepared by James A. Wood of the University of Utah's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Noted exceptions follow: 1. Collier's CRG. 2. City Council staff estimate. The Economic Change in Salt Lake City's Central Business District— 1991 to 2001 study defined the Central Business District's borders as North Temple, 300 East, 500 South and 500 West streets. The borders do not appear to include hotels between 500 South and 600 South streets including the 850 rooms in the Little America Hotel or the 775 rooms in the Grand America Hotel. Other hotels south of 500 South Street contain at least 375 rooms. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 12- Attach,. ,t C: List ofArt Venues in the City Arts in the Capital City Type I Address I Additional Information _....._. .Art Galleries .._.. _..........._._.._.... _....... ................................_...................._...................._..........._._....._._.............._._. 3W Gallery at W Communications 159 West 300 South,Suite 200 15th Street Gallery 1500 East 1500 South Art Access Gallery 230 5 500 W,#125 _ _ ^ Arts for persons with disabilities Art at the Main 210 East 400 South Supports beginning artists Blonde Grizzly 15 East 400 South - City Creek Antiques 169 East Broadway - David Ericson Fine Art 418 South 200 West Gallery at Library Square 210 East 400 South,Level 4 Exhibit space is integral part of Main Library building Graywall Gallery 351 W. Pierpont Ave.STE 2B - Hellenic Cultural Museum 279 South 300 West - Hope Gallery 151 South Main Street - ...._....._...._...._..-House Gallery 29 East 400 South_._.._._._._........_._.-._.._._.__._._.._._......._.._......._.__......._._._._.._...._._........_...._._.._._._._. Kayo Gallery 177 East Broadway Supports Local Artists Ken Sanders Rare Books and Gallery 268 South 200 East Carries rare books,documents Marble Gallery 44 East Exchan a Place Museum of Church History and Art 45 North West Temple Displays historical artifacts Repartee Gallery Downtown 20 East South Temple - Rio Gallery 300 South 455 West(Rio Grande St.) In the historic Rio Grande depot building Rose Wagner Art Gallery 138 West 300 South Permanent Art installations and Rotating Art galleries Salt Lake Art Center 20 South West Temple Supports Youth and Local artists Social Hall Heritage Museum 51 South State Street - Southam Gallery 50 East Broadway - TP Gallery 252 South Main Street - Utah Artist Hands 61 West 100 South Supports Local Artists Utah Arts Alliance Gallery 127 South Main 3 locations,supports Youth and Local artists (Quick 1st Draft) Attachment C: List of Art Venues in the City Tyke J Address I Additional Information Williams Fine Art 200 East South Temple,Suite 100 Supports Local Artists _ _Film__ _ _ _• ~Broadway Centre Cinemas __.__._.._.__._.___.111 East 300 South .............._.._.___••••*•�• •.�� - •••••••M�•••»M••�•••� •••• � ........ . ...._.._._ayCen._._._._ne .._._....._._._._.._._...._...._..__..1 Eat30. ot........... ......................._.._._._. . . .. ._. . ._.._...._._....._._._._. ..........._....... .._.... ._.. ...._. Center for Documentary Arts 243 East 400 South,Suite 301 _ - ....__..........._Clark Planetarium 110 South 400 West at The Gateway Legacy Theater 15 E.South Temple - Salt Lake Film Center 122 S. Main St. - Performing Arts Ballet West 50 West 200 South - Childrens Theatre 3605 South State Seating Capacity=185+ ___ Off____._____________________Broadway Theatre 272 South Main Street_____ __Seatin`Capacity=250_ ______________ Plan B Theatre Company 138 West 300 South Repertory Dance Theatre 138 West 300 South - ___ _ Salt Lake_A_ctin�Company_________168 West 500 North __. __._._._._.___.__._._._.__._______.:_.__.__....._._._._._.__.__._._..._._. Utah Opera 123 W South Temple - ____ ._ Utah Symphony ._ 123 W South Temple Museums/Conservatory ._....__._»_ Clark Planetarium M_.._...._..........___....»•110 South 400 West_..__.___..__�_._._._.__._..__..._._.._._.........._.__._._.__._._._._..__...._._.__.__., ._._._._.W.__ Daughters of the Utah Pioneers 300 North Main Street - .__..._._.__DiscoveryGateway..._._._._._.___.._.__......._444 West 100 South ._._._._....._..._...._.._......_._.__..___._...._._...._.. _...._._._..._..._.____.___._._._._.. Family History Library 35 N.West Temple - ��^ Family History Search Center 15 E.South Temple Fort Douglas Military 32 Potter Street - _._.__Governor's Mansion._....._......._._..__._._.�603 East_South Temple. _._.__.__._.__._._.__._....._._____._.„_._:_._.____..___........__.__.___._.... µ Red Butte Gardens 300 Wakara Way - The Beehive House 67 East South Temple#1 _._.._. ._._._-_The Leonardo 209 East 500 South - Utah Museum of Fine Arts 410 South Campus Drive - Utah Natural History Museum Along Bonneville Shoreline Trail - (Quick 1st ) Attachmk... C: List of Art Venues in the City Type Address I Additional Information Performance Venues Abravenel Hall 123 West South Temple Seating Capacity M2,768 Assembly Hall on Temple Square 50 W. North Temple - Capitol Theatre 50 West 200 South Seating Capacity= 1,876 Dumke Recital Hall 1376 East President's Circle Seating Capacity= 114 (University of Utah) Dumke Student Theatre 1840 S 1300 E(Westminster College) Seating Capacity=150, Black Box proudctions Edgar J.Thompson Chamber Music 1375 East President's Circle Seating Capacity=300 Hall (University of Utah) Energy Solutions Arena 301 W.South Temple Seating Capacity=20,000 Gallivan Center 239 S. Main Street Holds Summer Concert Series In the Venue 219 South 600 West - Kingsbury Hall 1395 Presidents Circle#190 Seating Capacity= 1,992 LDS Conference Center 60 W. North Temple Seating Capacity=21,333 Libby Gardner Concert Hall 1377 East President's Circle Seating Capacity=680 (University of Utah) Library Square 210 East 400 South Holds Festivals and Concerts during the Summer Pioneer Park 350 S 300 W Holds Twilight Concert Series-max attendance 52,000 people for final concert of Summer 2011 Red Butte Garden Ampitheater 300 Wakara Way Holds Summer Concert Series Rose Wagner Theatre 138 West Broadway Seating Capacity=501 Salt Lake City&County Building 451 South State Street Summer Festival Series Tabernacle on Temple Square 50 West North Temple Holds weekly performance of Mormon Tabernacle Choir The Depot 13 North 400 West - Urban Lounge 241 South 500 East - Vieve Gore Concert Hall 1250 E 1700 S(Westminster College) Seating Capacity=285 (Quick 1st Draft) ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECONOMIC INDICATORS Change Data Most Recent Previous Last Year Indicator as of Mth/Qtr. Mth./Qtr. Year Ago Mth/Qtr Ago, Source Nonfarm Employment(seasonally adjusted): Colorado June-11 2,236.2 2,231.7 2,221.9 0.2% 0.6% BLS Montana June-11 434.6 433.6 428.2 0.2% 1.5% BLS North Dakota June-11 394.0 389.5 375.5 1.2% 4.9% BLS South Dakota June-11 406.6 403.4 403.5 0.8% 0.8% BLS Utah June-11 1,202.2 1,202.8 1,182.3 0.0% 1.7% BLS Wyoming June-11 288.3 287.9 282.6 0.1% 2.0% BLS Rocky Mountain Region June-11 4,961.9 4,948.9 4,894.0 0.3% 1.4% BLS United States July-11 131,190 131,073 129,932 0.1% 1.0% BLS Unemployment Rate(seasonally adjusted): Colorado June-11 8.5 8.7 8.8 -0.2 -0.3 BLS Montana June-11 7.5 7.3 7.2 0.2 0.3 BLS North Dakota June-11 3.2 3.2 3.9 0 -0.7 BLS South Dakota June-11 4.8 4.8 4.7 0 0.1 BLS Utah June-11 7.4 7.3 7.7 0.1 -0.3 BLS Wyoming June-11 5.9 6.0 7.0 -0.1 -1.1 BLS Rocky Mountain Region June-11 7.3 7.3 7.6 -0.1 -0.3 BLS United States June-11 9.1 9.2 9.5 -0.1 -0.4 BLS GDP Growth Rate(%)-United States 2nd Qtr 2011 1.3 0.4 3.8 0.9 -2.5 BEA U.S.Housing Starts(Annual rate) June-11 629,000 549,000 539,000 14.6% 16.7% Census Residential Building Permits: Colorado 2nd Ott 11 2,904 2,324 2,439 25.0% 19.1% Census Montana 2nd Ott ii 5.7 225 541 143.1% 1.1% Census North Dakota 2nd Qtr 11 1,134 31S 764 256.6% 48.4% Census South Dakota 2nd Qtr.11 702 336 920 108.9% -23.7% Census Utah 2nd Ott-11 2495 1,323 2,319 88.6% 7.6% Census Wyoming 2nd Qtr.11 530 231 548 129.4% -3.3% Census Rocky Mountain Region 2nd Ott 11 8,312 4,757 7,531 74.7% 10.4% Census Apartment Vacancy Rates: Colorado Springs Metro 2nd Qtr 11 5.3 5.3 5.8 0.5 0.0 Apartment Insights Denver/Boulder area 2ndQtr11 5.0 5.5 6.4 -0.5 -1.4 Apartment Insights Salt Lake City Metre 2nd Qtr 11 5.4 5.8 6.9 -0.4 -15 Reis,Inc. United States 2nd Qtr 11 9.2 9.7 10.6 -0.5 -1.4 Census Existing Single-Fa n;ily Home Sales: Denver PMSA Active Listings June-11 19,580 19,580 23,300 0.0°% -16.0% MetroList,Inc. Number of Sales June-11 3,329 3,296 3,614 1.0% -7.9% Hanley Wood LLC Median Price June-11 $241,265 $234,794 $241,320 2.8% 0.0% Hanley Wood LLC Existing Single-Family Home Sales: Salt Lake City MSA Number of Sales June-11 1,350 1,332 1,413 1.4% -4.5% Hanley Wood LLC Median Price June-11 $206,486 $195,895 $221,054 5.4% -6.6% Hanley Wood LLC Existing Single-Family Home Sales: United States Annual Rate of Sales(SA) June-11 4,770,000 4,810,000 5,230,000 -0.8% -8.8% NAR Average Price June-11 $184,300 $169,300 $182,900 8.9% 0.8% NAR Residential(1-4 Family)Foreclosure Rate: Rocky Mountain Reg.on June-11 4.40 4.50 4.90 -0.10 -0.50 LPS Applied Analytics United States June-11 7.80 7.80 8.50 0.00 -0.70 LPS Applied Analytics Consumer Price Index-All Items' Denver-Boulder CMSA nd Half 2010 213.9 211.0 209.7 1.4% 2.0% BLS United States(SA) June-11 224.3 224.8 216.9 -0.2% 3.4% BLS Avg.30-Year Mortgage interest Rate: July-11 4.55 4.51 4.56 0.04 -0.01 Freddie Mac THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECONOMY: UPDATE August 2011 (see Economic Indicators data below) Economic conditions in the Rocky Mountain region have improved in recent months, and employment has increased from a year ago. Seasonally adjusted nonfarm payrolls for June 2011 were up by about 13,000 jobs, or 0.3 percent, from a month earlier, to 4.96 million jobs. Payrolls were also up by 67,900 jobs, or 1.4 percent, from a year ago. The largest increases occurred in North Dakota and Colorado, where nonfarm payrolls expanded by 4,500 jobs in each state, representing increases of 1.2 and 0.2 percent, respectively, from the previous month. In South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming, nonfarm payrolls increased by 3,200, 1,000, and 400 jobs, for increases of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.1 percent, respectively. Nonfarm payrolls in Utah declined by 600 jobs, the only monthly decrease among states in the region. The unemployment rate for the region as of June 2011 was 7.3 percent, unchanged from the previous month, but down slightly from the 7.6- percent rate of a year ago. State unemployment rates ranged from 3.2 percent in North Dakota to 8.5 percent in Colorado, and all states in the region continue to have rates below the national average of 9.1 percent. For the U.S., nonfarm payrolls increased by 117,000 jobs in July 2011 compared with a month earlier, and payrolls were up by 1.3 million jobs from a year ago. All of the gains were in the private sector, which added 154,000 jobs from a month earlier. This was partly offset by a loss of 37,000 jobs in the public sector. Within the goods-producing sectors, during the past 12 months the manufacturing sector added 165,000 jobs, and construction sector payrolls were up by 32,000 jobs. In the service-providing sectors, the education and health services sector expanded by 405,000 jobs, while the professional and business services sector added 512,000 jobs. Temporary services, which is a leading indicator for employment overall, added 156,600 jobs. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose 1.3 percent nationally in the second quarter of 2011, which was an improvement from the 0.4-percent increase for the previous quarter, but below the 3.8 percent growth of a year ago. The stronger growth in GDP during the second quarter primarily reflects a reduction in imports, along with a rise in government spending, partly offset by a sharp downturn in consumer expenditures. The Conference Board's Index of Leading Economic Indicators rose by 0.3 percent in June to 115.3, after increasing 0.8 percent in May and declining 0.3 percent in April. The Consumer Confidence Index rose 1.9 points to 59.5 in July. These measures suggest that moderate economic growth is expected to continue. The annualized pace of new-home starts in June 2011 was up 14.6 percent from May, to 629,000 units, and up 16.7 percent from the year-ago rate of 539,000 units. Homebuilding activity within the region during second quarter 2011 was up 10.4 percent from a year earlier. Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and Utah all reported increases from a year ago in the number of residential building permits issued, ranging from 1.1 percent in Montana to 48.4 percent in North Dakota. In the second quarter of 2011, apartment vacancy rates in the Colorado Springs area rose slightly to 5.8 percent, but vacancy rates declined in the Denver-Boulder and Salt Lake City areas, to 5 and 5.4 percent, respectively. Existing home sales in June 2011 in the Denver and Salt Lake City metro areas were down 7.9 and 4.5 percent, respectively, from a year ago. According to data from LPS Applied Analytics, foreclosure rates for both the region and the U.S. declined in June 2011. The decrease of 0.5 percentage points from a year earlier in the Rocky Mountain region was slightly less than the 0.7 percentage point national decline. U.S. consumer prices were up by 3.4 percent from a year ago. Excluding the volatile energy and food sectors, the core inflation index rose 1.6 percent from a year ago. In a recent statement, the Federal Reserve announced its determination to keep short-term interest rates low through at least mid-2013, a response to stronger economic headwinds. The average 30- ," year fixed mortgage interest rate remains low, at 4.55 percent, which is just 32 basis points above the recent record low of 4.23 percent recorded in October 2010. — Homeowner Rehabilitation Types of homeowner rehabilitation activities: All activities designed to make physical improvements to owner-occupied housing units. Total number of units in the entire homeowner housing rehab project: Of those, the number of units to be occupied by the elderly (62 and older) Units moved from substandard to standard (HQS or local code) Units qualified as meeting Energy Star Standards Units made accessible that now meet Section 504 Standards Units brought into compliance with lead safety rules Rehab Project Addresses for which these HOME funds assisted, if applicable: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Types of tenant-based rental assistance activities: All direct rental assistance to tenants (TBRA), and short-term assistance to households including security deposits. Total number of households assisted: Of those, how many receive short-term rental assistance (not more than 3 mos.) Of those, the number of chronically homeless households Total number of housing units in entire program: Of those, the number of units designated for the homeless Of those, the number designated for the chronically homeless Was this activity carried out by a faith-based organization? YES NO Of those, how many units are restricted for those at 80% AMI 33 or less whether HOME assisted or not Total number of units in entire project meeting Energy Star Standards: Of those, how many are HOME assisted Total number of units in entire project meeting 504 Accessibility: Standards Of those, how many are HOME assisted Of the total owner units developed: Number for households previously living in subsidized housing Number of units to be occupied by the elderly (62 and older) Number of units set aside for persons with HIV/AIDS Of those, number designated for the chronically homeless Number of units designated for the homeless Of those, number designated for the chronically homeless Rental Housing Activities Types of rental housing activities: Acquisition of existing units for rent, property acquisition for new construction of rental units, new construction of rental units, rehabilitation of existing rental units, and conversion of nonresidential structures into rental units. Total number of housing units in entire project: Of those, how many are HOME assisted Total number of units in entire project meeting Energy Star Standards Of those, how many are HOME assisted Total number of units in entire project meeting 504 Accessibility Standards Of those, how many are HOME assisted Of the total owner units developed: Number of units to be occupied by the elderly (62 and older) Number of units set aside for persons with HIV/AIDS Of those, number designated for the chronically homeless Number of units designated for the homeless Of those, number designated for the chronically homeless Number of years the project will remain affordable Number of units subsidized with project-based rental assistance by another federal, state or local program Number of units designated for homeless persons and families including units receiving assistance for operations Of those, the number of units for the chronically homeless Permanent housing units designated for homeless persons and families including units receiving assistance for operations Of those, the number of units for the chronically homeless itisk INCOME INFORMATION Indicate below the number of households/persons served in each income category below. Please indicate whether you are serving households (H) or persons (P). Total numbers from Income Information must match those from the Race/Ethnicity totals above. Adding an "Unknown" category is not acceptable. If necessary, make a best guess estimate. Number of clients assisted at 30% AMI or lower Number of clients assisted between 31% and 50% AMI 44 Number of clients assisted between 51% and 60% AMI 63 Number of clients assisted between 61% and 80% AMI 17 Total Number of Households/Persons Served during the Quarter: 124 HOUSING ACTIVITIES Types of housing activities: Rental housing development, property acquisition for home buyer development, home owner housing development, home buyer assistance, housing rehabilitation and tenant based rental assistance. Types of activities NOT considered housing activities: Emergency shelter assistance and short- term assistance to support homeless persons are considered public service activities, not housing activities. Homebuyer Assistance Activities: 1004, Types of homebuyer assistance housing activities: Down payment and closing cost assistance, gap financing, interest rate buy-downs, and subsidized second mortgages. Of the total number of persons assisted, how many: Are first time home buyers 124_ Are receiving down payment/closing cost assistance 2 Are coming from subsidized housing Are receiving housing counseling 124 Total number of housing units in entire project: Of those, how many are HOME assisted Total number of units in entire project meeting Energy Star Standards Of those, how many are HOME assisted Total number of units in entire project meeting 504 Accessibility Standards Of those, how many are HOME assisted Homebuyer Project Addresses for which these HOME funds assisted: Homebuyer Development Activities: Types of homebuyer development housing activities: Property acquisition for homebuyer housing development, new construction of homebuyer units and rehabilitation of existing units for resale to homebuyers. Total number of housing units in entire project: 35 Of those, how many are HOME assisted 33 HOME QUARTERLY REPORT HOME quarterly reports shall be due to Salt Lake City no later than October 31, 2010, January 31, 2011, April 30, 2011, and July 31, 2011. In addition to the quarterly reports, the annual report shall also be due no later than July 31, 2011. Submit all reports to: Sandi Marler Phone: 535-7269 Housing & Neighborhood Development 451 South State St., Room 406 PO Box 145488 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488 Numbers included in this report should only involve HOME funds received from Salt Lake City, not the County or your entire budget. NAME OF SUBGRANTEE ORGANIZATION: _NeighborWorks Salt Lake PROJECT/PROGRAM NAME: CONTACT NAME: Geoff Hardies CONTACT PHONE:801.539.1590 CONTACT ADDRESS:622 W 500 N SLC, UT 84116 CONTACT EMAIL:geoff@nwsaltlake.org TIME PERIOD COVERED: 07/01/11_to 09/30/11 Month Day Year Month Day Year Report the total number of clients served in the first column. In the second column report the number of clients counted in the first column also claiming Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. If clients only claim Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, include them first in the White race column. Adding an "Unknown" category is not acceptable. If necessary, make a best guess estimate. CODE RACE/ETHNICITY Total Number Hispanic 14 American Indian or Alaska Native 4 16 American Indian or Alaska Native and White 19 American Indian or Alaska Native and Black or African American 13 Asian 1 17 Asian and White 2 12 Black or African American 3 18 Black or African American and White 15 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 11 White 109 30 20 Balance of individuals reporting more than one race 3 TOTALS 124 30 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT FY 11/12: 1st Qtr.X_ Name of Subrecipient: NeighborWorks Salt Lake Name of Program: Contact Person: Geoff Hardies Phone#: 801.539.1590 'Email: geoff@nwsaltlake.org SECTION I- PROJECT STATUS(Progress and/or Delays; not financial) SECTION II-BENEFICIARY GOALS Annual Client Goal: #Houseolds(H): OR #Persons(P): SECTION III-BENEFICIARIES SERVED(Number of Households(H)or Persons(P)Served) 1.Total Beneficiaries Served THIS Quarter: 124 Households or Persons(H or P): 2.If Households (H),number of Female Headed Households:THIS QUARTER: ASSIST,CDC, NeighborWorks: How many clients for THIS QUARTER were renters: 3.Beneficiary Income Information-Provide Information for THIS QUARTER only income Category (Median Family New/Continuing access to Improved access to Service or Infastructure no Income) Service or Infactructure Service or Infactructure longer substandard txtreemry Low �1ns, (<30%MFI) very Low (31%to 50% MFI) 44 LOW/Mod (51%-79% MFI) 63 NOn-LOIN MOd (>80% MFI) 17 Totals: 124 0 0 • 4. Race and Ethnicity-Number of Households or Persons Total Of the# Number served,how Race Served THIS many are Category - Qtr also Race Categories 11 109 30 11 White 12 3 12 Black or African American 13 1 13 Asian 14 4 14 American Indian or Alaskian Native Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 15 2 15 Islander American Indian or Alaska Native& 16 16 White 17 2 17 Asian and White 18 18 Black or African American&White American Indian or Alaska Native and 19 19 Black or African American 20 3 20 Multi-Racial Other(The balance category will be used to report Total 124 30 individuals that are not included in any of the single race categories or in any of the mulitple race categories listed above) 4, SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT "ATE: November 1,2011 SUBJECT: Golf Enterprise Fund • Update—Golf Green Fee increase effective on January 1,2012. The increase would include setting aside$1.00 per 9-hole round of golf to be used for Capital Improvement Projects at the City's golf courses in addition to a per course operations fee increase. The fee change would be reflected in an ordinance which would amend the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule by December 2011. STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Halladay,Budget and Public Policy Analyst AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: All ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND AND CONTACT PERSON: RICK GRAHAM AND DAVID TERRY PUBLIC PROCESS: • Golf Advisory Board • Mayor's Golf CIP Task Force • Open City Hall—Online Discussion • Public Hearing—Amendment to Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule—Golf Fee Increase November 22,2011 On September 27,2011,in response to City Council request,the Administration presented several green fee increase scenarios—Scenario A,Scenario B,and Scenario C-for the Council's consideration. Each scenario included an operations and dedicated Capital Improvement Program(CIP)fee component by golf course. (Details of the three options can be found in the September 27,2011 Staff Report found on Salt Lake City's Open City Hall.) The Council and Administration discussed the fee increase options,including the possibility of a reduction in the number of rounds if green fees are increased. The Council and Administration also talked about other possible pricing options during the discussion. The Council asked the Administration to come back with their fee increase recommendation and the recommendations of the Golf Advisory Board and the Mayor's Golf CIP Task Force. They also requested that the scenarios be shared with the public via Open City Hall. The Open City Hall comments as of October 27th are attached for your review. Recommendations regarding the various scenarios are as follows: • Administration—Scenario A—The Administration recommends Scenario A,which includes$1.00 fee per nine- hole round to go towards Capital Improvement Projects. Depending on the course,Scenario A also proposes to an additional increase in green fees for operations. Proposed green fee increase by course details are included in the below chart. Depending on the impact of the fee increase on rounds of golf,it is estimated the increase could generate between$2.4 million to$2.5 million in operational revenue and approximately$1.6 million for CIP projects. • Golf Advisory Board(GAB(—Scenario A—The GAB approved the following motion at their October 13,2011 meeting: "A Dedicated Golf CIP Fund should commence January 1,2012. At least$1(pre-tax)per nine-hole round at all golf courses should be dedicated to this fund. The money in this fund should be used to help pay for the completion of the current list of deferred capital improvement project priorities,and in keeping with current 1 business practices the money generated at all courses should be pooled into one fund." According to the Administration,the GAB realizes the CIP fee increase is part of the funding solution,but will not address all improvements needed at the golf courses. Additionally,the GAB expressed to the Administration their desire to continue to be involved as golf course decisions are made. • Mayor's Golf CIP Task Force-The Golf Task Force met on October 26th. At the time of this report,an update regarding whether or not the Mayor's Golf CIP Task Force had a preference was not available. ► The Council may wish to ask the Administration during the briefing if the Mayor's Golf CIP Task Force indicated a preference regarding the green fee increase proposals. Revenue Estimates for Scenario A are as follows: (See Attachment A for larger version of chart.) Salt Lake City Gott Fund Scenario A-$1.00 CIP F!e Per Nine-Hole Round At All Courses/Variable Fee to Operations Effective Date-January 1,2012 Proposed Fee Increase Estimated Revenues with Proposed Fee increases Estimated Revenues with Proposed Fee InMases Effective January 1,2012 Scenario A-3%Reduction In Rounds Scenario A-6%Reduction in Rounds FY 1/1/2012 to FY1016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 Total Total by Total by Operations Total Course- Total Course- Projected and Operations Operations Operations Operations Rounds of CIP Dedicated and Dedicated and antl antl Oedlotetl Course Golf Operations-Feelncreases Dedicated CIP Fee Operations Dedicated CIP CIP Dedloted CO Operations Dedicated CIP Dedicated CIP CIP nneville 345,962 $ 1.50 $ 1.00 $ 100 5 1.00 $ 2.50 $ 572,929 $ 269,158 $ 842,087 20.5%$ 555,209 $ 260,834 $ 816,043 203% Forest Dale 206,910 $ - $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 107,055 $ 160,976 $ 268,031 6.5%$ 103,744 $ 155,997 $ 259,741 65% Glendale 340,061 5 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 100 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 440,514 $ 264,567 $ 705,081 17.1%$ 426,889 $ 256,385 $ 603,274 17.1% • Jordan River - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 00% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Mountain Dell-Canyon 216,379 $ 1,50 $ 1.00 5 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 250 $ 358,331 $ 168,342 $ 526,673 12.8%$ 347,251 $ 163,136 $ 510,307 12.8% Mountain Dell-lake 251,270 $ 1.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 5 100 $ 250 $ 416,116 $ 195,489 $ 611,605 14.9%$ 403,245 $ 189,442 $ 592,687 14.9% Nibley Park 157,885 $ - $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 81,689 $ 122,834 5 204,523 50%$ 79,163 $ 119,035 $ 198,198 50 k Rose Park 292,008 $ - $ 100 $ 1.00 5 100 $ 100 $ 151,084 $ 227,182 $ 378,266 9.2%5 146,412 $ 220,156 $ 366,568 9. Winapointe 307,426 $ 0.75 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 100 $ 1,75 $ 339,088 $ 239,178 $ 578,266 14.1%$ 328,601 $ 231,781 $ 560,382 14.1% Total 2,117,901 $ 2,466,806 $ 1,647,726 5 0,114,532 1000%$2,390,514 5 1,596,766 5 3,987,280 100.0%I As mentioned the impact to operating revenues if the rounds of golf decrease is difficult to predict. The following is an estimate of the potential impact to total operating revenues,FY 2012 thru FY 2016,assuming rounds of golf decrease by 6 percent and 3 percent. (Note: The net impact to revenue is calculated by taking average revenue per round of golf ($17.50 per round)multiplied by the predicted rounds of golf after the decrease in golf rounds has been considered. Additional revenue generated is added back to determine the net impact.) Scenario A-Impact to Net Operating Revenue Considering Rounds of Golf Decrease FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Cumulative (6 months) Total 6% ($323,160) ($23,807) ($3,998) $331,800 $344,427 $325,262 3% ($83,717) $225,190 $245,631 $592,146 $605,176 $1,584,426 The Administration is evaluating various pricing options and programs,including demand pricing. The Administration is not prepared to make recommendations at this briefing with regard to other pricing changes. The Administration plans to discuss the future of the Jordan River Par 3 with the Council at a later date. Salt Lake City Golf Fund Scenario A•$1.00 CIP Fee Per Nine-Hole Round At All Courses/Variable Fee to Operations Effective Date-January 1,2012 Proposed Fee Increase Estimated Revenues with Proposed Fee Increases Estimated Revenues with Proposed Fee Increases Effective January 1,2012 Scenario A-3%Reduction in Rounds Scenario A-6%Reduction in Rounds FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 FY 1/1/2012 to FY 2016 Total Total by Total by Operations Total Course- Total Course- Projected and Operations Operations Operations Operations Rounds of CIP Dedicated and Dedicated and and and Dedicatee Q Course Golf Operations•Fee Increases Dedicated CIP Fee Operations Dedicated CIP CIP Dedicated CIP Operations Dedicated CIP Dedicated OP CIP w 1/1/2012 FY2014 FY2016 £ Bonneville 345,962 $ 150 $ 1.00 $ 1,00 $ 1.00 $ 2.50 $ 572,929 $ 269,158 $ 842,087 20.5%$ 555,209 $ 260,834 $ 816,043 20.5% cn ruForest Dale 206,910 $ - $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 107,055 $ 160,976 $ 268,031 6.5%$ 103,744 $ 155,997 $ 259,741 6.5% Q Glendale 340,061 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.00 $ 440,514 $ 264,567 $ 705,081 17,1%$ 426,889 $ 256,385 $ 683,274 17.1% Jordan RHer - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.0% $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Mountain Dell•Canyon 216,379 $ 1.50 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.50 $ 358,331 $ 168,342 $ 526,673 12.8%$ 347,251 $ 163,136 $ 510,387 12.8% Mountain Dell-Lake 251,270 $ 150 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.50 $ 416,116 $ 195,489 $ 611,605 14.9%$ 403,245 $ 189,442 $ 592,687 14.99i Nibley Park 157,885 $ - $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 81,689 $ 122,834 $ 204,523 5.0%$ 79,163 $ 119,035 $ 198,198 5.0% Rose Park 292,008 $ - $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 151,084 $ 227,182 $ 378,266 9.2%$ 146,412 $ 220,156 $ 366,568 9.2% Wingpointe 307,426 $ 0.75 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.75 $ 339,088 $ 239,178 $ 578,266 14.1%$ 328,601 $ 231,781 $ 560,382 14.1% Total 2,117,901 $ 2,466,806 $ 1,647,726 $ 4,114532' 100.0%$2,390,514 $1,596,766 $3,987,280 100.0% Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? Public comments as of October 27, 2011 , 1 :22 PM All Participants around Salt Lake City tot e1 10 lea 4 al goat I 4 m ++* 414 IOW tsW C r titif t As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected fficials. Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? Introduction Updated 10/20:The Mayor's Office and the Golf Advisory Board are recommending Scenario A (see below)—the $1.00 fee going towards Capital Improvement Projects. The Golf CIP Task Group may be discussing the fee proposals and making their recommendation at an upcoming meeting. Council Members will likely be considering the fee proposals and recommendations in an upcoming work session. A new Council staff memo with the latest developments will be written and posted here on Open City Hall. As always, the Council welcomes your thoughts During the fiscal year (FY) 2011-12 budget discussions, the Golf Fund suggested the possibility of charging a $0.50 per nine-hole round fee in FY 2014 to help fund deferred improvement projects at all City golf courses. During this discussion, the Council asked the Administration to present a proposal for a possible fee increase of$1.00 to $2.00 to help fund needed maintenance and capital improvements at the City's golf courses that would be effective January 1, 2012. The Administration submitted their proposal, which is presented in the staff report as scenario C. In addition to the this proposal, Council Staff asked the Administration to also present two additional scenarios —one with a $1.00 dedicated to CIP (Scenario A) and another with $2.00 dedicated to CIP (Scenario B). Details regarding each of these scenarios can be found in the attached staff report. The Mayor's CIP Golf Task Advisory Group and Golf Advisory Board will be evaluating these scenarios this Fall. Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 1 of 21 Council : Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? As of October 27, 2011 , 1 :22 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 696 Participants around Salt Lake City: 64 Hours of Public Comment: 3.2 Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1 22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 2 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 24, 2011, 10:48 PM First and foremost, SLC needs to offer an annual pass that isn't a total ripoff. I'm a serious golfer, as I suspect many here are. The only SLC courses I play are Bonneville and Wingpointe. They could hike the price $1 or$2....that really isn't an issue. I probably spend $6 round trip in gas just to get to Bonneville, but it's a favorite so I don't mind the drive. I live in the south end of Salt Lake county, and I'd rather play Bonneville than, say, South Mountain or Riverbend. I buy a weekday season pass to Alta every year for$799, tax included. If I want to buy a weekday pass to play Bonny and Wingpointe, I'm looking at $1218, and it's only good on Fridays until noon. If I want to play on Sundays, I have to buy the 7 day pass for almost $1900. Like many others, I have NO desire to play Nibley, Forest Dale, Glendale, Rose Park. Why can't you offer a season pass for a single course, or even two courses, for a reasonable rate? I guarantee you I'd pay $799 if I could play unlimited at Bonny and Wingpointe. You could even block out Fridays after 12:00 and Saturdays....make it a Sunday-Thursday deal. As it is, now I just buy the frequent player card and I'll pay $21 to walk 18. Why not give a discount on cart as well, and make it $30 to ride 18 IF you have the Frequent Player Card? $30 is a good price point for 18 with a cart, and if I have to choose between South Mountain twilight rate for $30, or 18 at Bonneville for the same price, I'll pick Bonneville every single time, even with the longer drive. But right now, that's not an option. Also, slow play is killing Bonny. No starters, no marshals. I played Talons Cove last Sunday in 2.5 hours. Sure, it costs a few extra bucks, but it's equidistant for those of us in the Sandy/Draper area, it's a great layout, and the pace of play is great on a Sunday. My rounds at SLC courses are getting fewer and farther between because of their refusal to offer a reasonable season pass, and pace of play. There are just too many other options these days. One more thing....most courses are pretty dead Monday-Thursday between 10:00 am and 3:00 pm. Why not offer a discounted rate during those times to help fill up the empty tee times? Why not contract with GolfNow.com to fill unused times? Why not try to get something, ANYTHING, for those tee times instead of letting them go to waste? Are you telling me you'd rather get $0 than offer a special, say $20 for 18 with a cart on Wednesdays between 10:00 and 3:00? And, finally, why no twilight rates? You guys need to start being creative with your pricing in order to draw the golfers to your venues. Richard Middleton in District 3 October 23, 2011, 4:45 PM I don't play golf, so according to some people I don't have a right to comment... Nevertheless... I value the open space that golf courses provide; it's important for the city to retain them, not sell them off.There have been some good suggestions about trying to boost revenues by lowering fees and trying to encourage higher usage. Why not try this before raising fees (which seems to be the mayor's solution to every issue, even during this recession)? If it turns out that they really cannot be made competitive (in terms of the combination of playing conditions and cost), and if there really are cheaper, better private courses available in the vicinity, then why not convert them to public parks? This would allow many more people to use them, and as our population grows we will be desperately short of open space (especially for children). Name not shown in District 6 October 23, 2011, 4:09 PM I strongly believe that any increase to the current greens fees will result in fewer rounds played. If that's what the city wants, then go ahead and pass this - but it will hurt more in the long run than it will Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 3 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City fix in the short term. I realize that golf is generally less expensive to play here in Utah than most anywhere else. I also realize that *some* courses need *some* improvements. But I'm not supportive of these proposals because in this economy, fee increases are absolutely unjustifiable. (I am, however, pleased to see a quite modest fee hike of$1 or$2, rather than the $10 I had read/seen earlier.) Fact is that until the economy recovers and I can use my degree from the U. to get a real job instead of delivering furniture, I'm not going to be able to play much golf anyway. So I hope that my 5-6 rounds next year and the $5-$6 the city gets for Capital Improvements are spent well. Scott Morham in District 5 October 21, 2011, 4:08 PM Again most of what I am reading is complaints about the city courses and their being poorly run. Additionally, I see alot of people mention that they are not being played, people like other courses better. Perhaps the city should concentrate on a couple of good courses and not funnel so many tax dollars to inefficient usage. As to comparing skate parks & other rec facilities to golf courses, golf courses require a much larger commitment of maintenence (and money!) than a cement patch or a pool. If there are too many or poorly maintained rec centers I would advocate that they be shut down as well. If I were to advocate for my personal benefit, since I am a skier, I think we should have public ski areas! But I don't seem to see any since they SHOULD BE and ARE for profit enterprises that the taxpayer should not be funding. Even so, I still think a couple of city courses might be valuable as city funded recreation, just not so many. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 19, 2011, 1:57 PM I am part of a 16 person golf group of which a subset plays 2-3 times a week, several will play year round weather permitting. I keep track of all rounds plus have booked the majority of tee times over the nearly 10 years the group has been together. In 2010 I recorded 908 rounds, 35% (318 rounds) played on City courses the rest on area courses. Most city rounds are played on Bonneville, Mtn Dell, and Wingpointe; we played 64 rounds at Glendale, up from prior years since the goose problem was addressed (well done) and only 5 rounds at Rose Park. No rounds are played on the nine hole courses. Most of the group have a frequent players card. Thoughts on the proposed rate increased and 22 million capital proposals. A $7 increase during a recession is very risky. Our group likes to play different courses and cost is an important element to that decision.We played Sleepy Ridge frequently until they raised their rates after building the new clubhouse, have not played since. Same is true for The Ranches after they raised their rates. A $7 or any increase amount where the city courses are no longer competitive would shift our playing to less expensive courses. In my opinion the $22 million is a full wish list better addressed over a 20-year plan not in one bite. What is important to our group of golfers: Public comments as of October 27.2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 4 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City Course conditions: Greens and tee boxes in good shape; for example Bonneville needs improvement to the tee boxes (uneven and a little rough). Bonneville does not have white tee distances marked at holes 9, 15, and 17. Some golfers have marked the ball washer with yardage. How hard or expensive is it to make these kinds of improvements? Fairways do not have to be that lush, save some water.A Golf Digest article suggests fairways should be a little drier than in the past;Wingpointe was mentioned as a positive example. It's my understanding that your water bill exceeds $1 million per year so any funds allocated to move off of culinary water would seem to be a priority with a reasonable payback. Other on course improvements listed in the proposal to benefit the playing experience seems to warrant a priority: upgrade cart paths, and adding restrooms for example. Low priority: Clubhouses, driving ranges, maintenance facility, entrance signage. We do not select a course based on its clubhouse. Soldier Hollow has an outstanding clubhouse yet they struggle to get rounds, when we play there no one is using it; same can be said for TalonsCove. Driving ranges are nice but not a decision maker: Bountiful Ridge, one of the best courses in the state does not have one. Maintenance facilities need to be functional not made state of the art or better than someone else's; upgrading existing ones may make more business sense? Banquet Pavilions at Rose Park and Glendale????? Redesign of courses: wait until after the recession. Nibley: we don't play it but $3.6 million seems questionable, golfers should not pay for batting cages and miniature golf. Ben Dover in District 4 October 17, 2011, 2:45 PM Zip Zero. I play 100 nine hole rounds of golf per year. So far this year(2010-2011) I have played zero rounds on a Salt Lake City or Salt Lake County course. Neither of these entities can sustain any increase in fees when most courses are considering lower fees. Right now, you can golf 18 holes at River Oakes GC for$20.00 cart included. Or Cedar Hills for$25.00. etc. etc. For these nut jobs to even consider rate increases shows just how little they know about the current state of golf in the valley. If you want any of my golf dollars, then offer a city/county wide golf pass($1500.00). Otherwise, good luck with a rate increase in a declining market. And don't look for me. Ben Dover G. Pete Hogelin outside Salt Lake City October 15, 2011, 10:23 AM Increase the differential between the "A" cources and the "B" cources. The "A" cources being Wingpointe, Mountain Dell and Bonneville. "A"'s +$2.00 per 18 holes and "B"'s leave as is, G. Pete Hogelin David Adam in District 7 October 13, 2011, 5:01 PM I moved to SLC 20 years ago from the east coast. I have played alot of public golf everywhere in this Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracycom/788 Page 5 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City country and I contend that Salt Lake has the finest, cheapest public golf that I have experienced. I would be willing to pay more to enhance the condition of the courses. I also believe that trying to grow the local golfers is paramount to long term success. Local discounts like the frequent players discount and charging non-locals higher fees are good ideas in my opinion. Another would be selling local season passes. The key is maintaining the quality of the courses. I could care less what the club house or parking lot looks like. For me, it's about the quality of the course. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 13, 2011, 12:37 PM Like a few other comments, I think that SLC should have a fee schedule like out of town courses. If I go to St. Geroge to play, I pay more than the locals. If I go there in the winter and they come here in the summer, they should pay more. I purchase a frequent player card each year and it saves me money. that is a good program, too bad it increased by $25 last year. I supose I will buy another one for next year. I play regularly at Mtn. Dell and notice a lot of people standing around in the club house. I don't know if they are all employees or just like standing behind the counter. Maybe re-evaluate the total number of employees that work at golf course and make some changes.The items that are sold, clothes, equipment, etc could be priced lower and it would generate revenue that now goes to other retail stores. I am not sure how I would react to higher prices, I would most likley complain and pay any way. Barry Bonham outside Salt Lake City October 13, 2011, 7:11 AM Right now SLC golf courses are not in that great of shape to raise any kind of green fee. There are better courses for the same if not less money to play. I feel that raising any kind of fee will have players going other places and impacting income even more. If the green fees are raised, I for one will not play SLC. I tried to hold a tournament at a slc course and the fees went way up. Seems that if you want more volume, you should cater to the programs that will WANT people to play and not send them away by charging more, which is what we did. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 12, 2011, 4:13 PM You are approaching this without thinking outside the box.You should not just add a fee onto the golf, as that is too much like a tax.You should actually give incentive for more frequent golfing, or entice new golfers with lower pricing with special promotions.You could say that you can purchase an all city pass that would include all or some courses at special discounts.This way, you will get more participation.You can be selective about when the promotions work, so that you provide the promotions outside of high traffic times. Chris Mazuran outside Salt Lake City October 12, 2011, 4:05 PM Why not raise the fees? It will just make the already desolate city golf courses even more enjoyable for those who can hack the spend. Ultimately, the city, like a typical government entity, has got it wrong.Why not lower prices and sell more units and then reap greater profit. I've been playing city courses since I was 6 and I have never seen them as empty as I did in 2011.Why not introduce a )layers card where you sell 10 rounds of golf at an aggressive discount for a limited time, so you get Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 6 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City people out to the course to buy the food, buy drinks, etc and if they don't use up their card, then they lose the benefit and the city takes the cash.Why not sell more reasonable season passes that do not allow for peak hour play.Why not sell range passes for much less money, so you have people coming to your course, rather than running away because of higher prices. I bought a $100 pass to Pebblebrook this season and I ended up spending tons of cash at the pro shop because my kids wanted snacks and to play their video games. There are so many better and more creative ways to stick it to us players that we will actually be happy to absorb. My thought is to encourage people to come to your course with well-crafted, money-making promotional efforts, rather than fee increases that will just incense those that still have a little loyalty left. Furthermore, maybe city courses should make tournament play easier, so big groups of friends can come and play at full price, buy a bunch of snacks, get some overpriced Pro V1 s in the pro shop, and not have to take pro-shop credits to stage their little tournament or pay up charges for no special service. Do smart things that bring players, not automatically chase them away.That is how you will make tons of cash from us who just want to play golf and a lot of it. Name not shown in District 5 October 12, 2011, 12:43 PM I think this discussion is more important for those that utilize the SLC golf courses than those that do not since the burden of price increase will fall on those who use them.Therefore those outside the golf playing populations comments should be taken less seriously. I play 9 holes of golf between 20 & 30 times per year. I grew up playing golf at Salt Lake City courses, they hold priority in my mind when I look at my schedule for play time. However the decline of the courses has gotten to the point in my mind that my first priority for tee times is now with Salt Lake County courses because they are so much better in quality of play. I played 27 holes at Mountain Dell this year and the condition of that course is deplorable. I had friends that play other courses and they described it as a "cow pasture" by comparison. I played 36 holes at Bonneville this last year and felt the condition of the course was fair to good (not great) but Salt Lake City doesn't do the little things right. (Like having ball cleaning devices on each hole.) Essentially what I'm saying is the result from years of neglect has people like me opting out of playing Salt Lake City courses and the lack of revenue becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.The condition of the course means you don't earn my business and you need my business to improve the condition of the course.With this in mind, a $1-2 increase in greens fees will likely push me to think, "would I play at a cow pasture for more money, or a quality course for less money?" Salt Lake City has actively displayed a poor track record of course maintenance, management and improvement which further discourages faith that any increase would go toward course improvements. Facilities ARE an issue... having a place where you can adequately service a large corporate event means that there is additional revenue that can come in through food service, corporate sponsors typically hold annual events and do them at the same place if they achieve positive results. Many corporate events happen on weekdays when tee times are not completely taken. Finally, The improvement plan is too ambitious...There is not a need to reinvent the wheel here. Salt Lake City should look at this like a business and say, if we put money into our facilities what ROI can we expect to see from incremental revenue generated from these course improvements and make decisions on existing public revenue based on these questions. If there is money taken out of golf revenues and distributed to tennis, parks & other things and you still want to hike golf greens fees by Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 7 of 21 • Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City $1-$2 that is shameful and I would strongly vote for a new city council member over an incumbent. val kidman outside Salt Lake City October 12, 2011, 11:53 AM I beleve the commishiners should donate all the money thier net wourth increased above wages after they were elected or appointed and we could play golf for free just like them Gregory Fraser outside Salt Lake City October 12, 2011, 10:43 AM I think most golfers would go along with the .50 per nine holes increase.To increase fees beyond that you'll run a real risk of losing many golfers.The present economic climate does not lend itself to large fee increases.We've already lost many golfers that simply cannot afford today's green fee's because of job loss, pay cuts, etc. I find it very curious that cost increases and improvements for city golf courses signal a need to raise prices with the argument that golfers should pay for these items. If that is the prevailing view of city council members, then why aren't you charging admission to city parks and playgrounds to cover their costs or charging $7.00 per person for admission to city swimming pools to cover their costs and improvements. Let the user pay for those amenities too. Scott Morham was quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune as questioning why the city should even be involved with golf courses. His contention was they should be private for-profit enterprises with the user paying for them. Using that rational, then parks, skate parks, rec centers, swimming pools should all be private for-profit ventures with user gees paying for everything. How far do you think that would go with the voters? Bill Anderson outside Salt Lake City October 12, 2011, 10:07 AM I play golf about once each week and frequently play on SLC courses. It is troubling to me that the golfing program in the city is not self-sufficient. It does not seem reasonable I should expect my neighbors to help pay for the cost of my recreation. Increasing fees to cover the operating costs of the courses is prudent and fair to consider. Increasing fees to pay for COURSE IMPROVEMENTS is also prudent and fair, although I don't see the value of IMPROVING THE CLUBHOUSES. Typically, I only use the reservation/payment desk and the rest rooms in the clubhouse. I'd be willing to pay more to cover operating costs and improvements to the course itself. But, unless there is clear evidence that other non-course improvements somehow improve revenues more than the cost of the improvements, then I would not want to pay increased fees to support those kinds of non-course improvements. Although I do not believe the proposed fee increases would change my golfing activity, past experience has shown increased fees have lead to a reduced number of paying rounds. This is only a problem if the reduction in rounds also leads to a reduction in total revenues. It would not be prudent to raise fees if the net result was actually less revenue than before the fee increase. If the economics are such that operating a golf course cannot pay for itself, with or without improvements and/or fee increases, the green space still should be preserved. Then, the appropriate economic decision becomes a choice between the cost/loss of using the space as a golf course or as a public park. If the cost of operating the space as a public park (which generates negligible revenue) more than operating the space as a golf course (which does generate revenue - even if it is not Pubhc comments as of October 27,2011, 1 22 PM http.//www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 8 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City enough to pay all the costs), then it still would seem prudent to continue to operate the space as a golf course because the net cost of operating the golf course is less than the cost of operating a public park. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 12, 2011, 10:06 AM Many other States and Cities charge non-residents higher green fees to play. Salt Lake City should look into this option. Other options include different fees for different time of the day, membership cards for discounts and/or preferred reservation privilege, are also potential revenue generators. Operate the golf courses as a business! Name not shown in District 2 October 12, 2011, 9:55 AM I have golfed a couple courses and they are definitely nothing to write home about.They are convenient and not too expensive but thats it. It just seems like poor planning/budgeting restrictions is behind the city courses. I would think it would be harder to run since they are city/government owned with the possibility of more red tape/restrictions but the courses need to be run like a business. Like any city entity (ie library) these courses are going to be abused. But the main issue is that budget needs to be in place with room and definite ideas for growth. Dont raise the fees so much that no one will go but keep in mind that if the funds are raised and improvements are made that the budget needs to include funds to maintain the improvements with future improvements in mind. Kenneth Atkin in District 7 October 12, 2011, 9:42 AM It has been clear for many years that golf was not a priority for Salt Lake City. Yes, we had new courses open 20 years ago, but since then our courses have been slowly declining. I believe under any of the scenarios there has to be something to go with it, namely a commitment by the city that golf is important. It is important to our tax base, it creates open space, it creates jobs, and most of all it helps when we are promoting tourism. This is not just about the local golfer, it is about golf in Salt Lake City. With that in mind, I would urge the city to examine the idea of slightly higher rates for those that are not Salt Lake City residents. This is common place in golf and will not deter those that travel to play golf, whether it be 100 miles or 10 miles. Even the courses surrounding Salt Lake, such as Bountiful and Park City, either have higher rates or have preferential tee time policies. There is no reason such programs should not be instituted as part of the changes to Salt Lakes golf program. In regards, the specific question above, I would support any of the scenarios, with the condition that these funds are only used to support and upgrade the city courses. I understand that we as a city have decided to use some golf money to support other programs. However, in order to increase rounds, our golf courses have to be returned to a condition where people want to play them. If we continue to ignore our courses, we are simply guaranteeing that rounds on city courses will continue to decrease. I know for a fact that some people stopped playing Bonneville in years past, simply because the course was not in the condition they had come to expect. I also know the number one reason for that condition is lack of a sprinkling system.You can not expect a grounds crew to keep a Public comments as of October 27,2011 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracycom/788 Page 9 of 21 • Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? _ All Participants around Salt Lake City golf course in great shape when 70% of their maintenance budget is spent on watering alone.We must invest in these courses otherwise we run the risk of loosing more and more rounds for years to come. It is also important to note, that it is not just our courses that are suffering. It is also a few of the clubhouses. Some previous comments have questioned why the clubhouses are important. The simple answer is tournament golf and special events. Tournament golf and special events can be a large portion of the money generated by a golf course. At the current time, Salt Lake City has fallen behind all the surrounding courses in this regard. While this factor may not change how much I play golf, I recognize that it is extremely important to the bottom line for both the courses and the city. Finally, I urge the city to take action on this issue now. We currently have a two year window where a course near the city will be closed for renovation (West Ridge). Many of the golfers that have become accustomed to playing West Ridge will likely be playing city courses due to the proximity of Wingpointe, Glendale and Rose Park. However, if they see these golf courses to be in disrepair, we run the risk of losing those rounds, and possibly losing them for good. Creed Stobbe in District 6 October 12, 2011, 8:59 AM rate increase would be the straw that broke my golfing backbone. and yes I realize it is only .50 per 9, but I'm still ticked off about Dee Dee Corrodini raising rates to pay for other city needs. Golf should stand alone! in a free market. if you think that I am wrong and that rounds of golf played in the state, city, or the nation are on the rise or even going to stay constant in a failing economy, then raise rates and ride that wave! Sadly though rounds of golf played year after year are on the decrease and study after study show that the main inhibitors are MONEY and TIME. Golf takes too long to play, and costs too much. I would like to see steps made to really encourage quick play. Incentivize quick play with rebates or discounts on future rounds. Or take a deposit before the round, and if players finish within a certain time limit, they get their deposit back. If they take longer than the stipulated time, then the course keeps the deposit. the deposit could be $2 or whatever. Don't discount the studies people have already conducted for figuring out why golf is on the decline. Time and Money are important to people. if you can fix the time or money part of the equation, or BOTH, it stands to reason that rounds played will increase. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 12, 2011, 7:52 AM The simple fact for seniors is they will have to play less if fees are increased, they live on a fixed income. During weekday hours seniors should be attracted to the courses by lowering fees not increasing them.The 11,000+ free rounds for employees should be discontinued. Last years Salt Lake city's budget ask for no increase in fees.Was the 22 million shortfall just noticed?. Is any of the 'golf' money diverted elsewhere in the 'general fund'? By posting all of the courses around the valley's prices is Salt Lake city trying to get them to increase their rates so Salt Lake city won't lose rounds played? or is this done behind closed doors?. Is anyone looking at maybe generating more revenue from driving ranges, clothing, food, golf equipment sales.Why aren't they competetive with Uinta and '3olf Galaxy?. Are all employees seasonal or are they paid in the average 5 months closures? It is Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 10 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City odd that in last years Salt Lake city budget that the golf courses broke even with the projected budget but if that is true then the public should realize that golf is self supporting.The upgrade/new building proposed for Bonneville has no benefit for the majority of golfers. It is something for the University of Utah so either let the University or a donor pay for it or forget it. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 9:20 PM I am retired and play golf twice a week with a group of fellow retirees - about 20 in number twice a week. We purchase and use the Utah PGA book to play at the most economical rates. We quit playing Rose Park and Glendale because they are not the most challenging courses and the present rate charged is the same as Bonneville and Mountain Dell this year. Not too smart SLC planners. Mountain Dell and Bonneville are two of the highest priced courses we play and if the prices are increased per the plan, we will not be playing any city courses in the future. Davis County, Salt Lake County and even Utah County courses are better maintained and are not priced unfairly for the product delivered. I know that all the other courses are excited for SLC to go right ahead and increase prices and drive the golfers to the their better maintained and economical courses in the Salt Lake area. In short - I would not support any fee increase scenarios for the city courses. They are already out of line with the rest of the golf courses in the area and will continue to see the number of players decrease as they continue on a path to increase fees and drive away even those that have remained loyal to the Salt Lake City courses in the past. With this kind of business model, makes me wonder who is in charge. Name not shown in District 4 October 11, 2011, 8:41 PM I would be willing to pay more--up to $2.00 per round is very reasonable-- to keep our courses in better shape. I love playing the city courses and feel grateful for the quality and variety that is available to me. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 8:36 PM Never figured out how you can come up short on fee's but want to charge more money. Is this supposed to get more people to the courses?You keep jacking up the prices & golfers will go to golf courses outside of SLC.Your golf courses in large are poorly kept, but you think charging more will generate more income? Most business's when revenue goes down, lower prices to encourage more customers, why is this any different? Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 8:28 PM If I can post out more $ to SLC golf and it goes directly to the SLC golf courses that's one thing. I do not believe this is what the goal of this fee increase would be and thus, I'm directly opposed to any fee increase at SLC golf courses. SLC golf should be ran as a business and not as a revenue source for other parks, pools, skate parks, etc. In fact, I do believe that direct action needs to be taken towards promoting local resident discount passes, a better frequent player program such as what existed 6 years ago and getting more people who want to golf involved. These are the types of actions that promote golf and don't prey upon its Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1.22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 11 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City resources to fund other activities. SLC is one of the greatest cities in the US for its municipal golf. I don't see this assett being treated nearly as well or appreciated like it should be. Go live in the East Coast/Southern US and then come back to appreciate what we have. Let's make it better and protect it as the low cost valuable treasure it is. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 5:33 PM I feel you have choosen the wrong economy for a fee increase.Your courses are not the most challenging and your competition is great.Why should I be willing to pay more for less. Russ Fairless outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 5:21 PM Tennis, city parks, jogging trails, softball, soccer fields, etc., are all non-revenue generating recreation venues and activities. They should be supported by the general fund for the good of the entire population. Golf is a business. It should be run like a business. And as such, it should not be called upon to support the other non-golf, non-revenue generating recreation. It should be able to support itself. Profits from golf should go to the maintenance and improvements. If this is what is happening, I mould support a modest increase in green fees. However, be careful not to price the golf out of the completive market, especially in the current economy. Raise the fees too much and you will lose players and end up losing money. Look at the county and South Mountain. They spent so much money buying that course that they thought they needed to charge higher green fees in order to pay for it. However, instead of making money, they have driven golfers elsewhere. The course is too far away, too difficult, and too expensive. Now they can hardly find anyone to play there, it's losing money like crazy, and they are trying to sell it. Oscar Fuller outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 5:07 PM I have read the comments and all have missed the real question. Why should I play a SLC golf course when there are so many nice courses to play at a similar rate? SLC does not have any real incentives for me to play their courses.They are not Pebble Beach. Even their discount and pass programs are lame and under used. Look at the number of adults and seniors that have passes. They are to expensive and offer nothing in the form of incentives. If the city wants golfer to play their courses over the others around the valley and state, they need to do some marketing. SLC needs to market inexpensive annual passes that provide an upfront commitment from the golfer to play SLC courses and spend their money there.Add some other incentives like free or discounted range balls before or after a round, priority tee times, discounts in pro shop and the snack bar, etc. I believe that SLC has miss managed their golf courses and fee schedules for over a decade.You just keep doing the same things over and over that make things progressively worse. Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com1788 Page 12 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 4:30 PM Way back when Dee Dee Coridini was Mayor of SLC there was a big discussion on golf revenue subsidizing tennis, city parks, jogging trails, softball and soccer fields, etc.. I am opposed to any fee hikes if in fact golf subsidizes other activities. Dedicate golf green fees to golf. If green fees do not subsidize those other activities, and they are in actually funded by their own "user fees", then I would not be opposed to a modest 5% increase in green fees. One question I would pose: What happened to all the windfall dollars from those drought years that I was golfing in November, December, February (and even New Year's Day)? Joshua Nielsen outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 4:28 PM This proposal is flawed and lacks strong business sense. I would support an increase in rates to update the city courses if the proposal made sense. I have lived in the Salt Lake valley my entire life. I grew up on Bonneville watching my father and grandfather play every Saturday. I learned how to play at Nibley and Forest Dale. I understand and love the history of our Salt Lake City golf courses. The proximity of the courses as well as the affordability of the courses keep me playing in the city versus other more challenging and interesting courses throughout the northern part of the state. An increase in the rates would only serve to drive me, my family, and friends away from the courses I know better than my own backyard. I have read through the proposals and from my perspective I see a mismanaged and broken system that will not be fixed by price increases and a reduction in the number of discounts. This proposal fails to explain to me, as a consumer of this product, several of the issues that cause businesses to fail: • I understand $20 - $22 million is needed to maintain and improve the courses. I do not see nor understand how much debt remains to be paid for the Wingpointe and Mountain Dell facilities, the irrigation system at Glendale and clubhouse renovation at Forest Dale (which I have not noticed). How much debt remains and how much is budgeted to be paid over the next four years? • What is the operating budget for the Salt Lake City Golf System in total? What if anything has been done to cut operating costs? Are the City Courses operating on a margin system? If so, how much on the dollar does the City collect yearly? • Page 2 of the document states that ($595,541) has been lost this year from operations and that total would have been over $1 million without the sale of land near Rose Park. How much of this is due to a decline in the number of rounds played? How do food and beer concessions as well as cart rental fees play into the budget of the courses? Other than a loss in the average number of golf rounds per year, what is the main reason for the decline in revenue? • Assuming discounts are an issue, rounds at full price have declined 28% since 2007. How many Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 13 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City rate increases have there been since 2007? Have studies been conducted correlating the increase in discounted rounds versus the increased prices per round over the past four years? Golf discounts are promotions to get golfers on the course. Golfers according to the charts in the proposal are playing less, but is that because of increased prices? This proposal seeks to increase prices as well as reduce discounts which will result in another reduction of golf rounds played per year and reduction in revenue. • The annual total chart on page 8 illustrates a 20% decrease in annual rounds played from 2001 through 2010. Is there a chart showing the green fees charged in 2001 versus 2010? Is there a chart showing the operating costs from 2001 through 2010? Has the city taken into consideration the increase in golf courses near or around the Salt Lake valley and improved conditions of other non-city operated courses? Competition has to be a major cause and business cannot compete in a free market by driving up the price for a product that has not improved. Please keep in mind, city golf courses not a utility. Based on this report and the lack of detail, I have to assume the city golf courses are poorly run. Until another alternative is presented, one that includes an improved operating budget, improving competition, and debt elimination, I cannot support a price increase. If the city golf course prices increase without sincere budget corrections and course improvements, please consider me as part of the 6% decrease that is negligibly thrown around in this document. I am all for making a profit, but not at the expense of incompetence. I would rather spend my money on golf facilities that are improving and not slowly dying. Please consider all that I have to say and do not arbitrarily throw around price increases. That is the easy way out. Take a look at what is really causing an operating loss: debt, competition, and poor budgeting. Please keep our courses affordable and alive as they have been for decades to come. mark graef in District 2 October 11, 2011, 4:08 PM i currently spend about three thousand dollars a year in golf. if you raise the fees.i do not think i will play as much. you should lower fees so more people would play. raising revenue. i will not support any raise increase. i think that you should also offer fregent player cards. play 10 rounds,get one free. mark graef Name not shown in District 5 October 11, 2011, 3:35 PM I'm sure that city officials must be aware of the highly competitive nature of running golf course in this area. Be very careful with making fee increases.You may very well get the exact opposite of what you think you are going to get. Less revenue instead of more. I am aware of other golf course that have Significantly increases play by providing group type benefits, groupons, and other deals that tend to Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1.22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 14 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City lower per round costs but increase total revenue. Hopefully city officials have done their homework in studying the marketplace before doing something as simplistic and taking the number of historic rounds played and multiplying by a new increased rate. "That dog won't hunt!" Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 3:28 PM I think there is insufficient information presented to ask us to comment. Are the budgets of the various courses interrelated? Does one subsidize another? Do the courses keep and use the revenue they collect? Do golf fees truly subsidize other parks, tennis, biking any other activities? If extra fees are collected they should definitely stay with the course that collects it. I agree that charging more on underutilized courses could discourage play and actually have a negative effect on income. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 3:22 PM I would wholeheartedly support not only a .50 per 9 hole increase, but go farther to support a $1.00 per nine hole fee increase. I feel we, as golfers, have paid incredibly low rates for years.Though each course is always well maintained and professionally run, an increase in fees can only help in keeping these great course open. Jeff Simmons in District 4 October 11, 2011, 2:42 PM Of the two options, I am more than comfortable with a two dollar increase as long as the fee goes to improvements. I feel the cost is more than reasonable. Jeff Simmons Name not shown in District 4 October 11, 2011, 2:25 PM I will just go play in Davis County.The courses are cheaper and better maintained, at least they actually put money back into the courses. It is joke in slc. Look at the sprinkler system at Bonneville, it is a joke.The slc courses are beautiful layouts, but no money is put back into them and they stay in horrible shape all year. Shame on slc for how they handle their courses, no wonder rounds are down so much. Bob Vayo outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 2:13 PM I believe $1.00 per nine holes for greens fees and another$1.00/nine holes for cart rental would be reasonable. Bob Vayo 3615 Cascade Circle Salt Lake City 84109 Mike Pezely in District 7 October 11, 2011, 2:03 PM Cmon guys, think this thru. Now is NOT the time to be raising golf fee's.The economy is terrible and money is very tight for many golfers. If you LOWER the golf fee's you will attract more players in this highly competitive market which will bring in more DOLLORS and help fill the many vacant tee times Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.comf788 Page 15 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City that you now have, Do you want $11.50 for 100 players or $8.50 for 200 hundred players. This is not rocket science! Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 1:54 PM I had trouble on the site getting to the specifics. However, I would like to say that a small increase would not bother me, up to a $1 or$2, but once it gets beyond that and if the County doesn't do anything similar, then the County courses and nearby courses in Davis, Utah and Wasatch counties become more or an attraction. I understand the need for upgrades, but in this economy you can get the opposite affect that you are hoping for when you raise costs too much. Tim Funk in District 6 October 11, 2011, 1:53 PM SLC courses are in pretty decent shape. Capital improvements to keep them that way or improve things like the Bonny watering system are supportable with a small fee increase. On the other hand a $1 or $2 increase in this down economy will only add to the problem. Driving away golfers, especially lower income ones like myself, is unnecessary and even discriminatory. Grand plans like those imagined for Bonny are way overboard. Pretty much as is, the course has served us well for sixty some years. Re-configuring the holes or digging up the neighborhood with a new access entrance is just crazy and overly expensive.Again, look for affordable improvements and go after them in a deliberate and conservative manner. As to the closing of courses. No.The choice we have, the variety it provides and the open space it gives us makes our city unique in a way very few are or could ever be. Don't take that way. Next, course management.There have been some comments on moving the play along. I agree. Scrappers like me need to be moved along. Slow Friday and weekend play kills all the enthusiasm one ever has for a particular course.The pace should and can be better managed. Cut 5 and a half hours down to four.This will go a long way towards keeping or even improving the number of players on our courses. Finally, promotions are great and I enjoy my frequent player discount. I'm not sure what should be kept and what should go but simplify things. Not sure I am supportive of what has been proposed but less complicated is better. Special promos like the end of season deals at Nibley and Rose Park get us out there and should be used but judiciously. And, finally finally, the idea of charging golf course staff to play, taking away one of their small benefits, is just silly. Let them use and promote the course like it is their own, the rest of us will follow. Name not shown in District 7 October 11, 2011, 1:40 PM I'd pay a little more as long as the money went back into the golf program and not other venues. I'd like to see the money spent towards course improvements at the course the fees are collected at. For ;xample, Bonneville gets far more play than Wingpointe. Bonneville badly needs a watering system. I Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 16 of 21 • Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to , pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City play most of my rounds at Bonneville and would like to see the money I spend there help get these improvements accomplished. SLC has some great golf venues and it would be a real tragedy to see them deteriorate further. Ron Borg in District 3 October 11, 2011, 1:40 PM I agree that golfers should pay a fair price to play SLC courses, covering the capital and operating expenses of the courses to the greatest extent possible--if and when tennis players on city courts, park users in city parks, soccer players on city fields, cricket players on city pitches, etc. (you get the idea)--also pay a fair price to cover capital and oprating expenses of their venues. For years, I understand, fee-paying golfers have subsidized other recreational activities in SLC. Why should that be so? I certainly have no problem with appropriate and necessary golf fees so long as those fees are dedicated to the course where collected or to SLC golf in general. It seems the city government has already made up its collective mind to charge some sort of increased fee for golfers since the only choice presented is "which fee increase scenario" would you be willing to pay. So, now we get only to comment on the size of a fee increase, not the question of an increase or not. Thanks for asking. Name not shown in District 3 October 11, 2011, 1:34 PM 4 I would support an increase in green fees $2.00 if the fees are dedicated for improvments and operation of the golf courses only. I believe that golf is a great activity for a city to have and adds value for the citizens. Mark Deveraux outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 1:17 PM I would support the increase, if it was solely used to maintain and improve golf courses in the city. Not used to take care of every tennis court, city park, bike trail and what ever else. Right now I understand that a portion of our green fees goes to take care of all the parks and recreation.Why shouldn't everybody that plays tennis, uses the parks, bike trails, and anything else, help pay for all the up keep, not just the golfers? Name not shown in District 7 October 11, 2011, 1:14 PM Fifty cents, $2, it seems little to ask. But it all adds up. I know people who cannot AFFORD TO PLAY, given the current economy. So it might seem cheap, but every penny counts when you are trying to pay the bills. Why aren't we finding ways to INCREASE PLAY? It is a big financial commitment to take on golf as a sport.We need to make it more affordable to people considering the commitment, until they are committed.Who wants to invest in clubs, dues, and fees, then realize they will never play? No one benefits unless the player has longevity. Plans for improvements, unless essential to playability, should be put on hold. Keep the plans, know Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 17 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City what we need, but put them on hold until the city and the citizenry can more readily afford the game. Why doesn't Salt Lake take advantage of our beautiful courses?We should PROMOTE THE CONCESSIONS, as beautiful places to have a bite to eat in a great atmosphere.Why are the clubhouses only for golfers? I am always on the lookout for an outdoor dining experience. How much are we PAYING THE PEOPLE IN CHICAGO to book our tee times? They don't know us, our courses, our city...and I for one would like to keep the jobs at home! There must be profit in booking times, or no one would do it. Bring that job home, and put the profit into the courses. I think that Salt Lake Golf is short-sighted. Let's improve play, the courses, and the City by expanding the love of the game, before improving the course. Let's use the opportunities we have to make money, and reinvest it, before pricing ourselves out of the game. Michael Workman outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 1:05 PM I would be willing to pay an additional small increase in green fees, as long as they are used for improvements on the golf courses and property. If they are used at the golf courses where the fee is generated that is fine, but let's not let the beginner course fall in to total disrepair, because we need these courses to attract beginning golfers and others back to the game. Salt Lake City golf courses are a great value even with a small fee increase. Let's make sure that all increased revenue from these fees are not accessible to the Mayor and other politicians to move in to there pet project coffers and leave the golf courses under funded and in disrepair. I am an employee of with Salt Lake City and have several golf courses around my home and closer to me but I prefer to drive and use the Salt Lake City Courses. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 12:57 PM There is a simple solution to all of this.We live in Utah, right, just make the sinners pay for this. Raise the price of beer a buck a can and hire a security person at each course to stop outside beer from coming on to the course. Problem solved, see you at church. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 12:53 PM What happened to the increase in fees that we had to eat a few years ago to subsidise the tennis court lighting. I think golfers are the only entity that pays anything. Nobody pays to go to the park. I will be willing to pay more. But, I'll bet nothing ever gets done. I've been golfing the city courses for over 20 years, and haven't seen any improvement yet. They don't even water the grass. What are the proposed improvements? New garbage cans and ball washers? Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 18 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City Please, please, please we need to have a discount fee schedule for SLC residents. Many, many other cities have this for thier residents. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 11, 2011, 12:40 PM If$2. will make our golf courses sustainable, I will happily pay and support the increase. Any amount makes sense to avoid selling off pricless open space to developers. Jill Burke in District 7 October 10, 2011, 8:31 PM The variety and quality for the price of golf in SLC has always been a great value. A slight price increase to maintain and improve the city courses seems to be a reasonable request.We always tout to our out-of-state friends about how affordable public golf is in SLC compared to other major cities. Our city courses are gems, especially Bonneville! M Ray Kingston FAIA in District 4 October 10, 2011, 3:23 PM Users should pay for using. If they cannot or are unwilling to cough up the money needed, change the course into a public park. And, PLEASE, NOT a disneyland -which is what Liberty Park now resembles. A good park does not require "Activation", the key word used by the SLC Parks and Rec folks. We are losing all of our 'passive' landscaped parks. Look at Pioneer as well as Liberty. Name not shown in District 6 October 10, 2011, 12:02 PM '' ' I agree with Phil Mattingly - my new patron saint of SLC's Open City Hall. Mr. Mattingly, would you please run for Mayor? You have all the right qualities, and I would support you. Name not shown in District 4 October 10, 2011, 11:55 AM I'm no longer a golfer, but let's see: a fee to improve the courses or let them languish in their current state. Sure it would be nice to have every taxpayer pay for the upgrades ... it would also be nice if those same taxpayers would help pay for my ski addiction, but unfortunatly these are trying times. It would be a shame, as mentioned below, to let these city assets fall into further disrepair because of the selfishness of a few. Name not shown in District 7 October 10, 2011, 11:34 AM Let's face it - golf is a pastime in decline. It uses a tremendous amount of water and fertilizers which leech into the ground water.That said, it's clear I'm not a golf fan and I used to golf. The fees charged in Salt Lake are comparatively low.The fees should be increased as much as need to fully fund the needed improvements. I think the greater public would benefit the lesser used golf course(s) are closed and turned into open space, park space, or public gardens. More golfers paying slightly higher fees would then fund major improvements at the remaining courses. Joseph Rook outside Salt Lake City October 10, 2011, 11:30 AM While I am generally supportive of activities to improve the courses, I feel the city should be highly aware of the competitive nature of the golf business in the Salt Lake City area. All the estimates are based upon either a 6% or 3% reduction in course use in the event the fee increases are '" Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 19 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City implemented. No "proof' of these assumptions are provided. The increase at Mountain Dell (my home course) approaches 18%. At this level of increase, I will aggressively look for alternative courses, of which there are many to choose from. I sense I will not be alone in this. Any increase in fees to support CIP should remain with the course that raises them. I agree with earlier comments that some courses are funding the needs of lesser-played courses and this inequity should be brought to a halt. Name not shown in District 6 October 10, 2011, 10:46 AM It is a hike in the user fee. If it is to benefit the user, so be it. If the courses are to remain competitve than they need improvements. I would like to see the money raised stay at the course where it was collected. Bonneville and Mountain Dell help to cover other courses maintainence. Bonneville is long overdue for upgrades because they have been paying for other courses upgrades. Keep the money at home until they have been fixed. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City October 10, 2011, 9:48 AM The city golf courses are all in need of significant capital and operational improvements. One of the major reasons golf is declining everywhere is slow play and five hour rounds are common at city courses. Recent articles in golf magazines indicate play is slow on courses without a starter and sufficient marshals to keep play time reasonable and the city courses have neither.The lack of daily or weekly course maintenance to make it easier to find lost balls is also is a factor. In order to make the golf experience better, the city must generate more money to operate and improve the courses. If average people are willing to pay$5.00 or more for Starbucks, they certainly can afford a dollar or two more for golf which lasts hours instead of minutes. But people will only pay more for what they perceive as "good", so improvements better parallel any increase in fees. Go ahead and increase fees but tie the increase to mandated physical and management improvements! Charles Akerlow in District 7 October 10, 2011, 9:33 AM It is true that golf course usage has leveled off over the last few years. Developers don't build as many golf courses as they used to because they do not provide the benefits nor have the usage they used to. However, the golf courses are great assets to a city and need to be maintained and improved. We have probably the most value-priced golf of any major city in the US. Inching the fees up a $1.00 or$1.50 for 9 holes is not a significant increase in anybody's book and ought to be done to protect the investment. Name not shown in District 3 October 10, 2011, 9:21 AM Sure, golf is only supposed to be affordable to the rich anyway, right. Let's make completely out of reach for the commoner to afford! The gap is widening, why waste time. Commoners shouldn't have leisure time anyway, why tempt them with affordable golf! Name not shown in District 7 October 10, 2011, 8:59 AM Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/788 Page 20 of 21 Council: Golf Fund - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Of the golf course user fees presented here, which fee increase scenario would you be willing to pay to help fund improvements at Salt Lake City golf courses? All Participants around Salt Lake City With excellent public courses and comparatively low greens fees, I'm in full support of a fee increase and would be willing to pay an extra $2 per 18 holes to keep our golf courses well maintained.The proposed fees would benefit those who pay them, which for luxuries such as golf is only fair. Phil Mattingly in District 6 October 10, 2011, 8:31 AM I am against fee increases. The records show that the committee recommended a .50/game increase so Comrade Becker and his boys that never met a tax increase or fee that they didn't like has decided that if .50 is good then $2.00 is better. But this is all to make the new tax more palatable. The truth will be an increase of much more in the future. The reality is that the city is trying to keep a sharply declining industry alive. A decline mostly driven by demographics....fewer people playing golf driven by the 'graying of The government solution is always to just raise the fees if the revenues decline thus proving the economic law of diminishing returns. The more you charge for something the fewer people will purchase it. Golf courses is a luxury cities cannot afford and it should be in the hands of private industry. Selling the courses to a private developer with the condition that it must continue to be used as a golf course would do several things. It would bring revenue into the city from property taxes that are not being collected now, revenue from the sale of the land, reduce the payroll of the city to maintain the golf "- course and expenses for maintenance of the properties. Name not shown in District 2 October 10, 2011, 8:02 AM I would not be willing to pay for golf course improvements. If improvements are needed, I propose asking golfers for donations. Name not shown in District 4 October 8, 2011, 5:06 PM I'm not willing to pay fees for capital improvements for city golf courses, but that won't stop it from happening I'm sure. In a tight economy, it seems there would other priorities for city dollars that would effect a larger segment of the population and/or generate revenues to either be self-sustaining or give back the city coffers. Privatize these spaces and let the market decide if they succeed or fail. Or, better yet turn them into low maintenance green spaces that the public can really use. No capital improvements that need public funding on golf courses! Public comments as of October 27,2011, 1:22 PM http://www.peakdemocracycom/788 Page 21 of 21 FECEI VEn .. SCANNED TO: yk M_11 a���' trl �` �' ���� 1 CANNED � : RICHARD GRAHAM 1 DA.TERALBECKER r PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR • DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES .�// DIRECTORS OFFICE -/ CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL I 44,(44 ' � afriAr Date Received: APR 13 2011 David Everitt, Chief of Staff Date Sent to C TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 13, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Rick Graham, Director Public Services Department SUBJECT: Golf Fund CIP Priorities and Funding Proposal STAFF CONTACT: David Terry, Golf Enterprise Fund Manager 485-7831 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing on Legislative Intent Issue RECOMMENDATION: This proposal focuses on securing the long-term financial viability of the Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Fund. Attached is a list of the Golf Enterprise Fund's major capital improvement project priorities. As facility conditioning is the number one factor influencing where golfers play,these improvements are vital to the Golf Fund's ability to control water costs and protect and grow revenues given the competitive market for the public golf dollar. Therefore, the Administration requests that the Council support the menu of revenue solutions recommended in this report, or provide other solutions to the immediate and long-term capital needs of the golf fund with the end goal of authorizing the Golf Enterprise Fund to move forward with the generation of up to $23 million in CIP funds from sources outside of standard golf course operations. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Identified, are nine potential funding sources that, when combined, have the potential to generate the revenue required to fund Golfs major capital improvement projects. We have made progress on each of these potential funding mechanisms. But, until a decision is made concerning the proposed transfer of property to the SLC General Fund for the construction of other recreation facilities, or sale of this property for development purposes,no additional progress can be made on the other funding options. This is because all other funding options are linked to improvement projects at the golf courses. Until we can commit to the scope of the project, we can't ask LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 13B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1.3104 MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145469, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 14.5469 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7775 FAX: 801.535-7963 W W W.BLCOO V.COM � wECTCLEO PAPEa potential partners to commit. At this time,none of the following potential revenue sources is committed: PROPOSED GOLF CIP FUNDING SOURCE POTENTIAL FUNDING 1&2. Surplus Property Transfer to the City or Development $13,045,641 3. ESCO Energy Performance Contractor Financing $ 3,300,000 4. Capital Cost Sharing Partnership at Nibley Park $ 100,000 5. Golf Fund Revenue Bond $ 2,500,000 6. University of Utah Partnership $ 2,000,000 7. Private and Corporate Donor Program at Bonneville $ 1,590,000 8. UGA/Utah PGA Golf House Partnership at Bonneville $ 500,000 9. Food& Beverage Concessionaire Partnership $ 155,000 TOTAL POTENTIAL CIP FUNDING $23,190,641 The following are answers to the City Council's most recent questions concerning the Golf CIP issue: "What is the long-term strategy for solving the Golf Fund's financial challenges, staying competitive, maintaining the properties, etc.?" This proposed CIP funding plan positions Salt Lake City Golf to remain financially self- sufficient for the long term by providing quality facility conditions,maintaining a competitive fee structure, and implementing a"Golf CIP Dedicated Fund" in FY14 (with an allocation of up to 50 cents per nine-hole round played)to ensure funds are available in future years for capital improvement projects. "Is there a revised prioritized list of projects with time frames?" This packet includes spreadsheets listing the proposed capital improvement projects by facility,by priority, by type of improvement, and by project start date. Given the Golf Fund's financial position,the prioritized list takes into account the need for improvement projects that will facilitate the generation of the necessary capital funding from outside sources,to decrease irrigation water expenses and conserve culinary water resources, and to increase operating revenues in future years. Therefore, Priority"A"projects are those • tied to the generation of CIP funding, Priority"B"projects are those that reduce irrigation water expenses, Priority"C"projects give us the potential to increase future operating revenues (some Priority"A"projects also increase future operating revenues), and Priority "D"projects are other infrastructure improvements at all facilities. "In order to generate the revenues or sales prices as projected, what zoning would be necessary? How would that fit into the City's land use/master plan?" The highest and best use of up to 14.54 acres at Glendale,as determined by NAI Commercial Real Estate,was determined to be commercial. For up to 10 acres at Bonneville,the highest and best use was determined to be residential. As you know,the City is currently considering changes to the open space ordinance and open space zoning. At this time,I am not sure how those changes will impact the City's land use/master plan and this golf course property issue. "Does the Administration support the re-zoning of land so that highest and best land values are achieved?" Yes,if absolutely necessary,that option should be considered.However,effort should be made by the Administration and Council to identify and discuss the merits and values of all available funding options,before rezoning is considered. "Has the City considered entering into long-term leases on the properties proposed to be sold?" We have considered this option. A long-term lease appears to be a viable option for the UGA/UPGA Utah Golf House building that would be located adjacent to a new clubhouse at Bonneville,and for the University of Utah's Indoor Golf Practice Facility that would be located adjacent to the expanded driving range at Bonneville. Leasing may be an option for the 14.54 acres at Glendale and the 10 acres at Bonneville. When we obtain approval to move forward on these property issues,we will continue to work with SLC Community&Economic Development to determine if this is an option that could be included in a request for proposals. We have been told that,due to current economic conditions,it is difficult for developers to obtain loans on leased land. Another option to consider is for these properties to be transferred to the General Fund for future park and/or recreational facility development. The question is how the Golf Enterprise Fund would be compensated for the value of the land. Attached,is a spreadsheet that shows projected"highest and best use"values as determined by NAI Utah Commercial Real Estate Services in October 2009. Also,from our discussions with SLC Property Management,the estimated open space value of the land using local comparables is only approximately$40,000 per acre. While NAI Utah did not conduct an open space valuation study on the property,it confirmed that SLC Property Management's open space valuation appears accurate. At$40,000 per acre,the open space value of the 14.54 acres at Glendale is$581,600. The open space value of the 10 acres at Bonneville is$400,000 for a combined total of$981,600 compared to a combined total value of approximately$13 million using highest and best use estimates. Emy Maloutas,the City's Open Space Lands Program Manager,has experience valuing open space lands.She says that generally speaking,open space that is limited to recreational value only,and is left in a predominantly natural condition can be valued between$5,000-$10,000 per acre.The Jensen-Bowers property near the mouth of Parleys Canyon appraised at approximately$9,000 per acre. She also believes that the most aOtNIS recent open space appraisal that would be comparable to golf property, as far as speculative development within the open space zone, would be the Staker Parsons property south of the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve. That property appraised at approximately $40,000 per acre. It is also important to note that the City has recently purchased commercially zoned(M- 1)property to create the Riverview Preserve along the Jordan River. The City's plan is to rezone and preserve the property as open space. The City paid approximately $110,000 per acre for this land. "Which courses are subsidized?" After allocating Golf Admin net costs to all courses, the following golf courses were subsidized by the other golf courses in our system the past two years: FY09 FY10 Jordan River Par Three ( $95,125) ($ 82,317) Nibley Park GC ( $67,369) ($133,976) Rose Park GC ($132,226) ($ 94,345) Wingpointe GC ($ 65,482) It should be noted that Nibley Park hosts 90% of our junior golf clinics and camps during the summer months. This limits range, green fee, and cart rental revenue during certain AfteN times of the day. In other words,Nibley Park takes a hit financially for the very important role it plays in developing new golfers. In FY10, Wingpointe incurred unexpected repair costs totaling over$100,000 as a result of a collapsed canal culvert under the eighteenth fairway and a wild fire that burned down the restroom on hole thirteen. BUDGET IMPACT: The Golf Fund's attached financial projections show that our future operating capital budgets will provide funding for an equipment replacement program and minor and/or emergency facility improvement projects only through FY15. Beyond FY15, it is projected that no money will be available for even minor and/or emergency facility infrastructure improvements. Therefore,the only way to fund the Golf Division's $22 million in deferred major capital improvement projects is through an infusion of capital dollars from new sources. A significant portion of these projects focus on improvements that will either expand future operating revenues or reduce irrigation water-related expenses. The completion of these projects will enable the Golf Fund to allocate appropriate cash capital dollars on an annual basis for minor and/or emergency facility improvement projects and for the implementation of a maintenance equipment replacement program. Attached are budget pro forma spreadsheets that project the financial future of the SLC Golf Enterprise Fund through FY18 under three scenarios. " "' Pro Forma"A": This projection is a status quo budget scenario without a $22M investment into the Golf Fund's major capital improvement project priorities. The following is a summary: • FY12-FY18 total revenue $62,769,321. • FY12-FY18 total operating expense $58,666,864. • FY12-FY18 total non-financed capital outlay of only $730,000. Cash capital needs to total $1,750,000, an average of$250,000 annually, to handle facility deferred maintenance issues. • Three equipment buys in FY11, FY14, and FY17 each financed over three years total $2,295,000. This is the minimum investment into an equipment replacement program required to handle basic facility maintenance at our nine golf courses. • FY12-FY18 total capital $4,252,579. • Major CIP projects totaling $22M are not funded. Facilities continue to deteriorate as does our competitive position in the public golf market. • By FY16, only$15,000 is available for cash capital. • FY12-FY17 budgets show basically a$0 net income. The budgeted net income in FY18 is -166,335. Budgeted net income should be a minimum of$200,000 to increase cash reserves and allow for potential revenue shortfalls due to inclement weather conditions. Pro Forma`B": This projection shows the increased operating revenue and decreased irrigation water expenses resulting from an investment of$22M, all from outside revenue sources, into the Golf Fund's major capital improvement project priorities. The following is a summary: • FY12-FY18 total revenue of$64,782,307 is+$2,012,986 compared to Pro Forma "A". Revenue increases resulting from capital improvements have been projected conservatively. • Revenue losses due to construction are estimated at$1,000,000. These losses are not included in Pro Forma`B"as the plan is for$1,000,000 in CIP funding to be transferred to the operating budget to offset lost revenue during construction. • FY12-FY18 total operating expense of$57,412,991 is -$1,253,873 compared to Pro Forma"A"as a result of reduced irrigation water expenses. Irrigation water expenses were projected at 50%their current levels. • Three equipment buys in FY11, FY14,and FY17, each financed over three years totaling $2,910,000,total+$615,000 compared to Pro Forma"A". • FY12-FY18 total non-financed capital outlay of$1,835,000 is+$1,105,000 compared to Pro Forma"A" and meets the projected need of an average of $250,000 annually to handle deferred facility infrastructure issues. • FY12-FY18 total capital of$5,887,579 is+$1,635,000 compared to Pro Forma «A„ • Major CIP projects totaling $22M are funded totally with outside funding sources. • Net income from FY12-FY18 is projected to total $1,481,737, an average of $211,677 annually, and is $1,631,859 more than the-$150,122 loss projected for the same seven year period on Pro Forma"A". • A"Golf CIP Dedicated Fund"is implemented with the green fee increase in January 2014. It is proposed that 50 cents per nine-hole round would be allocated to this fund to ensure monies are available in the future to complete necessary capital improvement projects on the golf courses, clubhouses, and maintenance facilities. By the end of FY18, it is projected that this fund would total $1,121,904 under this scenario. Pro Forma"C": Revenues and operating expenses are the same as Pro Forma"B". Some cash capital amounts and net income levels decrease as a result of a$210,000 annual bond payment resulting from a$2,500,000/15Y/3%I Golf Fund revenue bond. Bond funds would be used to start top priority projects prior to securing CIP funding from property transactions and partnerships. The $210,000 bond payment is the maximum amount of debt the Golf Fund can handle. Due to the addition of the annual bond payment, only 25 cents per nine-hole round could be allocated to a"Golf CIP Dedicated Fund". In this scenario, the total in this fund at the end of FY18 is only $560,952. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public hearings may be required in association with golf course property decisions. Golf course user group and community council meetings and/or open houses will be held to explain the need for these capital improvement projects,project plans/options, and the details associated with the proposed funding sources. The Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board will be involved throughout this process. Attached is a letter submitted by that board in 2007 recommending the transfer or sale of surplus golf course property as a way to fund the completion of the Golf Fund's deferred CIP priorities. In the Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board's meeting on March 23, 2011, current board members confirmed that their position on this issue has not changed, and they would like to see this progress on this critical issue very soon. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 0 PRO FORMA"A"(Without$22 million CIP Investment from Outside Funding Sources) Salt lake City Golf Division 3/21/2011 Fund Summary-Cash Basis 32% .2w-2% -216.2% •2% 32% .21v-2% ease Percentage Change In Rounds/Revenue 4% 2% n92 o% 2% 2% 0% Nine-Noll.Rounds 458,581 470,925 450,173 450,173 466.180 477,544 477,544 477,544 487,094 496.834 496,836 3,381,577 Actual Actual Actual Bdgt/Projection Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total FV-08 FY-09 FY-10 FY-11 FY-12 FY-13 FV-14 FY-15 FY-16 FY-17 FY-18 2012-2018 Revenue Green Fees 4,483,569 4,519,334 4,398,695 4,589,804 4.439,000 4,527,780 4,527,780 4,527,780 4,618,336 4,710,702 4,710,702 Golf Cart Rental 1,912,527 1,882,413 1,793,780 1,889,200 1.839,200 1,875,984 1,875,984 1,875,984 1,894,744 1,913,691 1,913,691 Driving Range Fees 328,519 330,452 327,872 345,013 343,000 349,860 349,860 349,860 356,857 363,994 363,994 Merchandise Sales 807,905 772,120 738,057 809,000 800,500 816,510 816,510 816,510 832,840 849,497 849,497 Concessions 177,816 153,144 126.840 121,200 117,200 119,544 119,544 119,544 121,935 124,374 124,374 Miscellaneous Revenue 377,051 325,310 406,015 380,330 412,188 420,432 420,432 420,432 428,840 437.417 437,417 Impact of cad fee increases in January 2010 130,000 130.000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 Impact of green fee increases in January 2010 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 Impact of green fee increases in January 2014 - 175,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 Impact of cart fee increases in January 2016 65,000 130,000 130,000 Impact of green fee increases in January 2018 175,000 Total Revenue 8,087,387 7,982,773 7,791,259 8,614,547 8,431,088 8,590,110 8,765,110 8,940,110 9,148,552 9,359,676 9,534,676 62,769,321 -2.5% -1.3% -2.4% 4.0% 4.1% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.3% 2.3% 1.9% Expense FY11 Projection.s of Mooch 2011, 8,100,000 Operating Expenses 3%2%3%2% 3%2%3%2% 3%2%3%2% 3%2%3%2% 3%2%3%2% 3%2%3%2% Aso,,ned%hoses. Personal Services 3,672,967 3.564,216 3,591,048 3,778,867 3,879,236 3,995,613 4,115,481 4,238,946 4,366,114 4,497,098 4,632,011 O&M Supplies 1,191,607 1,206,580 1,039,305 1,159,857 1,265,982 1,291,000 1,239,000 1,264,000 1,289,000 1,315,000 1,430,000 it Charges and Services 2.106,190 2,302,723 2,080,921 2,328,776 2.357,380 2,428,000 2,501,000 2,576,000 2,653,000 2,733,000 2,815,000 Transfers out,PILOT,Gen Fund,8 PS Dept.costs 268,162 256,216 225,407 284,999 240,003 245,000 250,000 255,000 260,000 265,000 270,000 Total Operating Expenses 7,238,926 7,329,735 6,936,681 7,552,499 7,742,601 7,959,613 8,105,481 8,333,946 8,568,114 8,810,098 9,147.011 58,666,864 FY11 Projection es or March 2011: 7,250,000 Net Operations before Capital and Debt Service 848,461 653,038 854,578 1,062,048 688,487 630,497 659,628 606,164 580,438 549,578 387,665 FY11 Projection es of March 2011: 850,000 Genital Outlay and Debt Service Capital Outlay(non-financed)-Equip.and Facilities 114,070 84,622 239,336 110,000 *w00 1000, 1db,0 00 _0e 310,000 15,0 - - 730,000 Debt Service for Irrigation and Construction 698,628 - - - - - - - - - - - Debt Service for Equipment Carts#1(Maintenance) 251,699 259,373 263,316 - - - - Debt Service for Equipment#2(Maintenance) 246,056 246,056 250,000 - - - - Debt Service for Equipment#3(Maintenance) - - - 290,000 290,000 290,000 - - 8 Debt Service for Equipment#4(Maintenance) - - - - - - 280,000 280,000 n Debt Service for Carts#1(Pro Shop) 259,753 - 258,174 258,174 258,175 258,174 258,174 - - - - Debt Service for Carts#2(Pro Shop 8 Maintenance) - - - - - 274,000 274,000 274,000 Total Capital Outlay and Debt Service 1,072,451 336,321 756,883 877,546 679,231 628,174 658,174 600,000 579,000 554,000 554,000 4,252,574 FY11 Projection as of March 2011, 850,000 Net Operations on Cash Basis $ (223,990) $ 316,717 $ 97,695 $ 184,502 $ 9,256 $ 2,325_ $ 1,454 $ 6,164 $ 1,/31 $ $ (166,335) (150,122), FY11 Projection es of March 2011: 0 Total Revenue 8,087,387 7,982,773 7.791,259 8,614,547 8.431.088 8,590,110 8,765,110 8,940,110 9,148,552 9,359,676 9,534,676 62,769,321 Total Expense 8,311,377 7,666,056 7,693,564 8,430,045 8,421.832 8,587,787 8,763,656 8,933,946 9,147.114 9,364,098 9,701,011 62,919 443 Net (223,990) 316,717 97,695 184,502 9,256 2,323 1,454 6,164 1,438 14,422)_ (166,335) (150,122) Ending Cash Reserves 956,054 1,140,556 965,310 967,633 969,087 975,251 976,689 972,267 805,932T FY11 Projection as of March 2011: 356,054 Three months of operating expense $ 1,832,434 1,734,170 1.888,125 $ 1,935,650 $ 1,989,903 $ 2,026,370 $ 2,083,486 $ 2,142,029 $ 2,202,524 $ 2,286,753 # Cart Buttery Replacement Costs in Fy12,13,18,and 19 @ $710,000/3%f3Y/6P Equipment Purchase 8 $810,000/490Y/SP Equipment Purchese ^ $775,000/5%/3Y/6P Equipment Purchase PRO FORMA"8"(With$22 million CIP Investment from Outside Funding Sources) Salt Lake City Golf DI,Sinn 321(2011 Fund Summary-cash Bash 150.113 Nine-Hole Peon. Actual x1 Actual Actual'rr Bdotlproiection Budget Protected r Protected' Prolecleda4 Projected Protected a Protected t.111,00 Total Fy-08 FY-09 FY-10 FY-11 FY-12 FY-13 FY-14 FY-15 FY-16 FY-11 FY.18 2012-2015 Revenue Green Fees 4.483,569 4,519,334 4,398.695 4,589,804 4.439.000 4,542,780 4,566.780 4,661,780 4.785,016 4,880,716 4,929.523 Golf Cart Rental 1.912,527 1,882413 1,793,780 1,889,200 1.839.200 1.877,984 1.882.984 1,921,984 1,954,204 1,973,746 1,993,483 Driving Range Fees 328,519 330,452 327,872 345,013 343000 384,860 434.860 494,860 519,757 530,152 535654 Merchandise Sales 807,905 772,120 738,057 809,000 800.500 821.510 824,510 844,510 868.400 883,728 892.565 Conreesions 111,816 153,144 126,84D 121,200 117200 119,544 119,544 134,544 147,235 150,180 151,681 Miscellaneous Revenue 3T7,051 325,310 406,015 380,330 412,188 420,432 420432 420432 428,840 437.417 441.791 Impact of cart fee increases In January 2010 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130.000 130,000 Impact of green fee increases In January 2010 350.000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350.000 Impact of green lee increases in January 2014 . 175,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350.000 Impact of can fee increases in January 2016 65.000 130,000 130,000 Impact of green fee increases in January 2018 175,000 Total Revenue 8,087,387 7,982,773 7,791.259 8,614.547 6,131,08E 8,647,110 8.904,110 9.308.110 9,596.452 9.815,939 10,079,499 64,782,307 -2.5% -1.3% .2.4% SOX At% 2.8% 3.0% 4.5% 3.1% 2.3% 2.7% Expense Fr II o,e/.au,..NM.eh 2011: Operating Expenses s%MSS 7•4 s% 1% a% A.dm %.e now. Personal Services 3,672,967 3,564216 3,591.048 3,778.867 3,89.236 3,995.613 4,119,481 4,253.065 4,380,657 4,512,011 4,647,439 O&M Supplies 1191,607 1,206.580 1.039.305 1,159.857 1.265.982 1.301.000 1,249,000 1.281,480 1,307.110 1.333,252 1,450,009 8 Charges and Services 2106,190 2,302.723 2.080.921 2.328,776 2357,380 2,430,101 2.401,000 2,358,030 2298.771 2,361734 2638,766 Translars out PILOT,Gen Fund,6 PS Dept costs 268.162 256,218 225,407 284,999 240,003 244,803 250,000 255,000 260,100 265,302 270,608 Total Operating Expenses 7,238,926 7,329,735 6,936.681 7,552499 7,742601 1011618 8,016481 83141615 8,246,638 8478,385 8.806,614 57412,991 m1 Py.em,•�.ru..n Seft: Net Operations before Capital and Debt Service 848.461 653,038 854578 1,062,0413 688,487 616592 884,629 1,160,534 1,346814 1.337,574 1,272,685 FW1 Pey.etlen as ans.Alf: eA.e4e Capital Outlay and Debt Service Capital Outlay(non-financed)-Equip-end Facil6es 114,070 64,622 239,336 110,000 1FS.0A8 1M/1{{' 250.000 350,090 350.000 300,000 250.000 1,835,000 Debt Service for Irrigation and Construction 698,628 - - - - - - - - DebtServiceforEsubmenl+Carts 41(Maintenance) 251,699 259373 263,316 - . - - Debt Solute Ion Eoulprnnnll2 IMaInlenence) 245.056 246,056 250,000 - . . - - tla Debt Service for Equipment 43(Maintenance) - - - 360,000 360,000 360,000 - . 6 Debt Service for Equipment 84(Maintenance) . - - - - 440,000 440,000 Debt Service for Cans#1(Pm Shop) 259.753 • 258,174 258,174 258.175 258,174 258,174 . _ - - Debt Service for Carts#2(Pro Shop 8 Maintenance) - - - - . 274,000 274,000 274,000 Total Capfal Outlay and Deft Service 1,072,451 336,321 756,883 877,546 679231 668.174 866174 710,000 984,000 1,014,000 964,000 5.887,579 al,Fr.*ea et Verna Art: Net Operations on Cash Basis $ (223,990)$ 316,717 $ 97,695 5 184.502 { %056 1 7;4*--1---4440 $ 450,53d $ 365,814 $ 323,574 5 308,685 1,481,131 FM nNrnNe re %..h Set, Total Revenue 8087,387 7,982 773 7,791,259 8014547 8.431,088 8,647,110 8.904,110 9,308,110 9,596,452 9815,939 10,079,499 64,782,307 Total Expense 8.311377 7.666,056 7.893.564 8,436045 8,421,832 8,639,692 6887,655 8,857,575 9,230.638 9,492,365 9,770,814 63,300,570 Net (223,990) 316,717 97.895 184.502 9,256 7,418 16,455 450.534 365,814 323,574 308,685 1,481.737 Ending Cash Reserves 956054 1,140,556 965,310 972,728 989.183 1,439.717 1,806531 2.129,106 2,437,791 sirif Pre.ellen a at%a,h Alt: es Three mnnms of operating expense 8 1.832 434 1.734170 1.888,125 5 1.936650 $ 1,992879 $ 2.004.870 $ 2.036,894 $ 2,061,659 $ 3119,591 5 2,201 703 Golf CB'DedIcated Fund(SO cents per nlnedrole round).,. $ 110,336 8 243,078 $ 248,689 $ 253,642 S 266.179 $ 363,414 $ 812,083 $ OS5,725 5 1,121,804 #Cart Battery Replacement cos a In FY12,13,18,and19 ®5110,00079%01Y,6P E9fecrmnl Purchase 651,090,00014%,TVIOP Equipment Purchase "$1,200,000c59f,JYx5P Equipment Purchase 0 0 0 PRO'FORMA"C'(With$22 millon CIPIn,oV RBb s5M from 15-Year Bond/Balance from Outside Funding Sources( Salt Lake City Golf Division 3t21/201 Fund Summary-Cash Basis . . - Base Prom..rur..In*Ale x% 2.00% 7. 1. Mne-Nole R.M mar, .1e,ax 1n .0.171 te4rw 4,eu er a N n 812,57 3,1,101 Actual Actual A6N 8P N Bdprojec60n (WPM Projected Projected Protected Projected Protected Protected T04N FY-06 FY48 FY-10 FY.11 F'64,6 FY43 FY44 FY-15 FY.16 FY-17 FY-18 2611t21116 Revenue Green Fees 6483,569 4,519,334 4.398,695 4.589.804' 4.488,116 4.542.780 4,566,780 4,661,780 4.785.016 4,880,716 4,929,524 Golf Cart Rental 1.912,527 1,882,413 1,793,780 1.889200 4,84>60110 1,877.984 1,882,984 1,921,984 1.954204 1.973.746 1,993.483 Driving Range Fees 328,519 330,452 327.872 345.013 343808 384860 434.880 494,860 519,757 530,152 535,454 Merchandise Sates 807,905 772.120 738,057 809,000 870,500 821,510 824.510 844,510 866,400 883,728 892.565 Concessions 177,818 153144 126.640 121200 777208 119,544 119,544 134,544 147235 150,180 151,681 Miscellaneous Revenue 377651 325,310 406,015 380.330 412,100 420,432 420,432 420.432 428,840 437,417 441.791 Impact of cart fee increases In January 2010 130.000 1381900 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 Impact of green fee increases in January 2010 350,000 355880 350,000 350.000 350,000 350,000 350600 350.000 Impact of green fee increases In January 2014 - 175,000 360,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 Impact of cart fee increases in January 2016 65,000 130,000 130,300 Impact of green fee Increases in January 2018 175,000 Trial Revenue 8,087,387 7,982,773 7,791259 3,614.547 0431.1386 8,847,110 8,904,110 9,309,110 9,596,452 9,815,939 10,079498 64,782,307 -2.5% -1.3% .2.4% 10.6% .2.1% 2.6% 3.0% 4.5% 3.1% 2.3% 2.7% Expense FY11 Pr..emn in ace.0 Mt 41017,ew Operating Expenses %Wm.Tin Pit Mee M2a>f 2x a1311 re re a%3%a%2% a%3%p%x% ae a%s%a5 Aurae Personal Services 3,672,967 3.564216 1591048 3,778,867 3.879,236 3995,613 4,119,481 4253,065 4,380,657 4,512,077 4,647,439 08M Supplies 1,191.607 1206,500 1,039,305 1,159,857 1265.982 1,301,000 1249.000 1281,480 1,307,110 1,333252 1,450,000 A Charges and Services 2,106,190 2,302,723 2.080.921 2328,778 9,357.380 2,430,101 2,401.000 2,358,030 2298,771 2,367,734 2,438,766 Transfers out,PILOT,Gen Fund,8 PS DepL caste 288,182 256216 225.407 284.999 240.003 244,803 250,000 255,000 260,100 265,302 270,608 Total Operating Expenses 7238,926 7,329,735 6,936,681 7,582,499 7,742,601 7,971,518 8,019,481 8,147,575 8246,638 8478,365 8,806,813 57,412,911 FYtlnyna.,nsw..nMr, 7.1m.000 Net Operations before Capital end Debt Service 848,481 653038 854.578 1.062,048 688,487 675,592 884,829 1,1680,535 1,349,814 1,337,574 1272,685 FYI.In.*,maoeeo ant: 4e4.aa Capital Oster and Debt Service Capital Outlay(nen-craned)-Equip.end Facilities 114,070 84.622 239.336 110.000 175,000 50,000 80,686 350000 300,000 250,000 250,000 1A26,866 Debt Service for Irrlpmeon and Camtruc00n 698,628 - - - - . 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210.006 II Debt Service for Equipment.Carts RI(Maintenance) 251.699 259.373 263,316 - - 05594 Ace for Equipment 12(memoriam,/ 246,056 246.056 250.000 - - Debt Service for Equipment 03(MeMenance) - - - 360,000 360.630 360,000 - - & Debt Service for Equipment 64(Maintenance) - - - - - 440,000 440,000 e Debt Service for Carte at(Pro Strop) 259.753 - 258,174 258,174 258.175 258.174 258,174 - - - - Debt Service for Carta R2(Pro Sn0p 8 Mein9 tune) - - - - - 274,000 274,000 274,030 Total Capital Outlay and Debt Service 1,072,451 336,321 756,883 877.546 679,231 788,174 878,174 920,000 1,144,000 1,174,000 1,174,900 6,737,579 FY1l wynaenn wawa,wn: Net Operations on Cash Basis $ (223,990)$ 316,717 $ 97,695 $ 184,502 1 9251 1 1KN 801$ b.4SI 9 240,535 $ 205,814 8 1118,614 8 1080$ 631,737 FYn PrcOellenmallIwoh ant Total Revenue 8,1387,387 7,982,773 1,791259 8.614,547 8,431.088 8647110 8,904,110 9,308,110 9,596,452 9,815,939 10,079,498 64,782,307 Total Expense 8,311,377 7,6613,056 7,893.564 8.430.045 6,421,83 8,739,692 0897,655 9,067,575 9,390,838 9,652,385 9,980,813 64,150,570 Net (223,990) 318,717 97,066 1(14,502 9256 (92,582) 6,455 240,535 205,814 163,574 98685 831,737 Ending Cash Reserves 958,054 1,140,556 965.310 872,728 879,183 1,119,718 1.325,532 1,489,106 1,367,711 All Refire u ON*ent: Three months of operating expense $ 1,832.434 1,734,170 1,888,125 3 1,936.1350 $ 1,992,879 8 2,004,870 $ 2,036,894 8 2,061,680 8 2,119,591 5 2201.703 atafP w■r WATI Wale: .-.--''-"'ibis' '7)V530'S Alfa 8 0a6tfatr A- WON I 40,FM $ MOM* I 41,10 $ AMR O Cart Battery Replacement Coati In Fy12.13,18,and19 23710,00213%'3Y16P Equipment Purchase a$1,000,008/4%/JY,%P Equipment Purchase "31,200,000,15W345P Egr4Pnsnf Purchase SLC Golf Course Excess tql.ig Jai :"" unit .tau ...esOW i•� r Summary of Conclusions Glendale Golf Course Location 2100 South between 1200 West& 1600 West Property Size 13.65 acres+(1)0.89 acre non-contiguous pad Current Use/Zone Golf Course Use/Zoned OS Highest&Best Use Commercial(office/high image industrial use) Anticipated Pricing 13.65 Acre Parcel $4.50 PSF-$8.00 PSF($2,675,000-$4,756,000) 0.89 Acre Parcel $8.00 PSF-$10 PSF($314,000 - $387,700) Total Pricing Range for Combined Parcels $2,989,000-$5,144,000 Bonneville Golf Course Location Approximately 1100 South Foothill Blvd Property Size 10 acres Current Use/Zone Golf Course Use/Zoned OS Highest&Best Use Residential(multi-family,for sale condominiums or single family) Anticipated Pricing 10 Acres Multi-Family= $11.02 PSF(8 units per acre @$60,000 per unit)$4,800,000 =$13.77 PSF(12 units per acre @$50,000 per unit)$6,000,000 10 Acres Single Family=$13.77 PSF(4 units per acre @$150,000 per lot)$6,000,000 =$18.37 PSF(4 units per acre @$200,000 per lot)$8,000,000 Total Pricing Range for Multi-family: $4,800,000-$6,000,000 Single Family: $6,000,000-$8,000,000 0 Utah Creating and preserving real estate values.- Commercial Float Esime Services.Woiloncle 343 East 500 South I Salt Lake City,UT 84111 I Office 801.578.5555 I Fax 801.578.5500 1 naiutah.com 7M1,;:a'•r"ryD^r1.11-rG}•.Tt pYAr,;1;:1,,r,]-^.,,-o',L r rr ):•fan•,.at.1'PCP rr.,)er PnVe A,pox f t;1.nea :•,O,ir..1r+lg.ns rrr.7vrcol-•m;tr. r•1rnadxnr2.,0'I t✓Cr r•Ir.Ne trI.•M:•. SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES (SALTLAIIMO Y OLF sit' * , ice. r : i'.1.....:??7•,.'-i' •..........:4:4-•;:•i.;-.4.', 10:1 ii: . .- . .l ��� �'Y + 4�,v 0:00, tt i r ,ti k r r ir ,f' -, ri•-:''.2" ''' ' y- •4pt4,",$'.•,:_-,::,,-. '-.',.i.,—.#"..1 tif,•-.4,N..C...4.•r • � ,.A ,� ii�, j 4 1- t• "R4' " r r It IV .h. ..!,0,7 , ,,l(t-!;., fi-, .4 { 1 r t• jp- � ' r CC Sr1� saItl I 1�` ,,r q �M t o j j tit- f r MI { '. •' rfr-. itr A, i r !,1 A. .•-'is-',Vie, r4°II rv.11 iotil µdi i,-I) . or- • i. -i1 -• • Option 2-C Bonneville Golf Club — pesign Preliminary Design&Renovation Concept 0 0 O . �U e 1 /It i yr_I _ .�i '._./ ,}f lC •.. :11,777"?*)."•..„.;;Yir'' -. i / .: + .. / L.1_ file _".ar{1 � O c 4.144* . If.7", ,1-',...... . ity-,, ' --• • :...*: . 0 fh) ' 9F t A; W d'I aaOJ ALD rtrvis o S31.1.111101111d 133f O21d 1N3W3AO2JdINI 1V1.1dV0 2101‘vW NOISIAIO A100 A110 33fV1 llYS I SAN RICHARD GRAHAM e� ME At , �lJ��,�1� Ist I 0 r RALPH BECKER DEPARTMENT Or PUBLIC SERVICES MAYON November 28,2007 Mayor Ralph Becker Salt Lake City Council Members 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: The citizen members of the Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board respectfully submit the following letter for your consideration. Throughout the'90's,the golf industry experienced unprecedented growth. Then,almost as rapidly as interest had grown in the game,a period of stagnation set in. Theories about the slowdown arose:a sagging economy,the cost of the game in many areas of the country,the proliferation of golf facilities,the inherent difficulty of the game,and an aging golfer population--none of which,when taken alone,adequately accounted for the decline in rounds played at many facilities. . The Wall Street Journal reported on April 2,2007,this sobering fact:"Last year,for the first time in 60 years,more courses closed in the U.S.than opened." As dire as that may sound and as stagnant as the national golf market has been in recent years,we in Utah have a number of singular advantages that industry managers in others areas of the country do not have. Our population continues to grow at an accelerated pace,fueled by a continued high birth rate and the desirability of Utah as a preferred place of residence by those relocating from other states—both of which predict good news for the future of golf in Utah. Statistically,our senior population lives longer than those in other states and enjoys a healthier,more active lifestyle well into their 70's,80's and even 90's,a factor that bodes well for golf now and into the future. Compared to facilities around the nation,Utah public golf courses offer their clientele a quality golf experience for a reasonable price. Still,Salt Lake City Golf has not been immune to the decline in rounds played per golf course over the past decade(see attached Total Rounds Spreadsheet),and as new golf course construction continues to advance in Salt Lake County,as well as in neighboring counties to the north,south,east,and west(see attached New Public Golf Course Development List),the City courses find themselves struggling to fund a timely equipment replacement program and major capital improvement projects in the midst of a highly competitive environment. The same Journal article offered a different perspective on one possible solution to the declining numbers:"Golf has tried hard to draw new players. But it may have missed a bigger opportunity:getting more rounds out of its most avid golfers." Golf professionals know this intuitively;just as they know that avid golfers are always looking for ways to get the"best bang for their buck." Locally,the rapid pace of new public golf course openings,which has outpaced the modest increase in demand,has created a competitive SOLI-DIVISION 2375 SOUTH 900 EAST,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 9510B ONE,SO1.4S15-77SO FAXe 31O1-4ee-B705 • environment where"best bang for the buck"has come to mean green fee discounts. This practice has been a boon to some golfers who hop from course to course looking for the deal of the day. But golf course managers,who have offered discounts hoping to increase their share of an over-supplied market,have discovered that although their efforts might have resulted in a small,short-term increase in rounds,this strategy failed to result in long-term revenue growth. The desirability of maintaining green space in the City demands that we ensure the fiscal health of our Salt Lake City golf courses. If we take into account the Wall Street Journal's suggestion that part of the solution lies with our"most avid golfers,"then the problem can be framed by asking what must be done to attract dedicated patrons to Salt Lake City courses and to encourage their loyalty to our facilities while charging them a fair price for these services? Given that facility conditioning ranks as the top factor influencing where golfers play,Salt Lake City golf courses and associated support -facilities must be upgraded and brought current with the atmosphere and services found at.the best public facilities locally,statewide,and beyond. Golfers want to feel that their dollar is buying the very best golf experience possible. This experience begins with the amenities provided to anyone walking through the door. What services are offered by the pro shop? Is the clubhouse inviting? Does the restaurant provide quality food service? Are the restrooms clean and attractive? Are the grounds around the clubhouse well maintained? Are practice areas available for driving, iron practice,chipping,and putting? Is the course itself in good condition and enjoyable • to play? How is the pace of play? Are golf course employees friendly and helpful—both in the pro shop and on the course? The list goes on. The problem is that too often the money runs out before a course is able to invest into the new maintenance equipment and improved facilities required to provide the very best public golf experience possible. In Salt Lake City,the factor that contributes most seriously to our failure to meet the standards set by the best public golf facilities is the on-going problem of deferred capital improvements:the practice of allowing machinery and infrastructure to deteriorate by postponing prudent but less than critical renewal,renovation,or replacement in an effort to save cost,labor and/or materials in the short term. Salt Lake City Golf has been in a perpetual state of deferring capital improvements,and the continued neglect or postponement of essential projects has brought our system to a near critical point. As a governmentally established"enterprise fund,"Salt Lake City's golf courses are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises. The costs of providing golf-related goods and services to the general public on a continuing basis are intended to be funded through user charges. However,because a substantial portion of the Golf Fund's revenue base has been required annually to service the bond associated with the construction of Wingpointe and eighteen additional holes at Mountain Dell,the task of replacing the machinery and improving the infrastructure of Salt Lake City's golf courses in a prudent manner has proven increasingly difficult over the past decade and will continue to be so without an infusion of capital dollars from new sources. Salt Lake City Golf cannot be financially successful when facilities include such inadequacies as outdated,wasteful,and labor-intensive manual irrigation systems; • • clubhouses that are unable to host corporate tournaments,banquets,and other public events;dilapidated permanent and embarrassing portable on-course restroom facilities; driving ranges that do not allow for the use of today's improved golf equipment;a lack of cart paths in key locations required to provide quality turf conditions;a lack of rip rap or gabion baskets to prevent erosion to lake banks;and maintenance facilities without adequate equipment and chemical storage bays and power and water supplies. In order to compete with the surrounding area golf courses and continue to operate as a self- sufficient enterprise fund,Salt Lake City Golf must find the means to upgrade facilities. The Director of Golf,in conjunction with the Golf Course Superintendents,Head Golf Professionals,and Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board,has compiled a list of deferred capital improvement projects that are now critical to the infrastructure if we expect our golf courses to compete in today's marketplace. This attached CIP Potential Funding Sources,Priorities,and Projected Costs Spreadsheet includes both"A"and"B"priority -items that will require a preliminary estimate of$17 to$19 million in capital funding. Unfortunately,the costs associated with these pressing capital improvement needs at all Salt Lake City golf courses extend beyond the Golf Fund's ability to generate funding for this purpose through operating revenues. While funding must come from multiple sources,the primary solution lies in the Golf Division divesting itself of surplus property on selected golf courses. By transferring this property to other Salt Lake City divisions or departments for recreational,open space,or facility needs with a fair market payment • going to the Golf Fund,or by selling this surplus property for residential or commercial development purposes,the Salt Lake City Golf Division could fund up to an estimated $14 million of its top-priority capital improvement projects. A preliminary evaluation including formal property appraisals shows the feasibility of taking such action. The improved services provided by our golf facilities as a result of these capital improvement projects will most certainly result in an increase in patronage,which in turn will translate into greater revenues. This increased revenue,combined with the FY2008 retirement of the Wingpointe and Mountain Dell Construction Bond,will allow the Golf Division to fund on-going operations,a long-term equipment replacement program,and third tier capital improvements with revenues generated through normal operations. The citizen members of the Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board strongly urge both\the Mayor and the City Council to consider,review,and adopt this innovative solution by allowing the Golf Division to divest itself of land bordering select City courses through transfer or sale for the express purpose of reinvesting all earnings into the Golf Fund. The proceeds from this transfer or sale are to be used solely for implementing and bringing to completion our long-deferred and much needed City golf facility capital improvement proiects. Funding of"A"priority Golf CIP items by means of this process is of primary importance;however,after those golf facility infrastructure needs have been met,any surplus funds remaining should then be used to address as many`B"level capital projects as possible. O If the Golf Division is denied the opportunity to generate funding for long-deferred major capital improvement projects through the transfer or sale of surplus golf course property, Salt Lake City's golf courses will be faced with the following two less than acceptable • options: 1)ask the City for a general fund subsidy from tax monies to help pay for the • completion of deferred capital improvements at the golf courses,or 2)face a grim financial future as deteriorating golf facility conditions coupled with a very competitive public golf market result in a downward spiral of decreasing rounds and revenues. Neither of the above options seems acceptable given Salt Lake City Golf s mandate to remain a self-sufficient enterprise fund free of taxpayer subsidy combined with its potential to be one of the top public golf systems in the country that 1)provides a high- quality,affordable recreational amenity to a significant portion of the community,2) beautifies and preserves valuable open space,and 3)plays a key role in tourism and economic development efforts. The Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board requests that the Mayor and City Council authorize the Golf Director to proceed in solving the problem of deferred capital improvements through the transfer or sale of surplus real property. Concurrently,the potential for the development of partnerships with businesses,educational institutions, golf associations,and private citizens should be explored in an effort to fund additional capital improvement projects and otherwise financially benefit Salt Lake City's golf program. Sincerely, Darian Abegglen Cheri Ause s Burbidge Alan Seko Kir Bidden Thomas Wri 1 t 4 ! v't dt; >. i rt w ' II s • '1 • ' � . t s f" ` •, R 1 9 % •' _ L� - y rt Fir j,�t • .'tc L I'�1G �41. f-' � .z .�� �l � ,: tt�-,•rat,.:e ��'r�t- •«M-' �7-�t^� +r'•.� c t 1 t 12 E•:•.�t s t a. i t./ New uhAt •4y�v. •.•. 4 t . �M 'i M . t l Deltona club ��/ N. y1y�Y . v;�' � s near Orlando, �0"h,` :. T' 1.. i , t -, .;,'4 -- . .' room forade ' 4•r t 1 •Y s '� ,s• { \ f condos on site of old practice � L e'�"l.1 Y` "� �}" ♦ "J t*Y M' range so the �,� 'r.F Y V�5 • :'� '` -� new owner .Q"�@," ,".-1 �'d 1• :. r 'r C• could fund ! .r* S4' t^ r- «.;F .C�, Y. _ ,s _ improvements 1Y1a _ .i:;,,,_ '4.4. to the course. WEEDING OUT: A Survival Plan For Struggling Clubs , ..0. Bobby Weed has been around golf course or 30 years ago,is magnified."Whether it be - .i. design for 30 years.He has persevered through an inefficient routing,too big a clubhouse, 'c rT plenty of economic ups and downs,and he wrong pricing structure,strung-out golf holes, doesn't think this one has bottomed out yet. not4nough room,too much rooln,wrong en- ;°i- 7 "I wouldn't be surprised to see 1,000 courses- try,too much overhead,too many layers,too . plus close,"he says. much management"Weed asserts that a - To Weed,it all comes downto one four-letter plethora of issues have private clubs"bleed- , word:debt.In good times,when rounds are up ing money."Even if these clubs wanted to and membership is growing,debt is fine,but if update and upgrade,they simply can't take you're not growing your membership,it is very on any more debt. , - - difficult to get the financing or to take on the Further,Weed argues,the idea of funding debt to make capital improvements,to stay capital improvements through debt that and hopes to balance that out by creating$4 competitive and maintain high standards. is serviced by initiation fees or through million worth of condominiums on a 17-acre Weed realized several years ago that the member assessments is"laughable"in this swath that Weed carved out. joyride of the late 1990s—more than 300 environment. Weed believes it is the best of all worlds. course openings a year—was unsustainable. A Weed re-purposing begins with an aerial "We can find a way to keep the course open, Heard associate Chris Monti have tried to look photo.The target:wasted space.Perhaps a find a vehicle to fund the improvements to around the corner to divine the next phase for parking lot was poorly sited or the practice make the facility competitive,create a little the industry and for their firm.Their premise: range could be moved.The dubhouse could be more tax base and create some development Architects have lost touch with the business downsized,or a par 5 could be condensed into opportunities that previously never existed," side of the game."People weren't asking the a par 4.The idea is to find bits of ill-used land he says. right questions on the front end,"says Weed, within the existing property.Then,by shifting Weed,who is still somewhat protective of "because it's obvious that much of it didn't a hole or moving a piece of the parking lot,or the concept,is expounding on it because he make business sense on the back end." relocating a maintenance barn,all the loose thinks the industry needs it.With new construc- Weed refers to the concept he and Monti bits are condensed into one mass.The owner tion at a standstill and the financial barriers are touting as"re-purposing,"anew financial can then go apply for rezoning,perhaps for to improving existing courses very high,re- modeltofundmeaningful course improvement, residential housing,maybe for a conservation purposing—whether 10 or 100 acres—could As they see it,the United States has hundreds easement.The resulting increase in land value keep architects and courses in business. of 20-to 40-year-old golf clubs that need im- can then facilitate loans for much-needed "The inventory of courses out there facing provements and updates if for no other reason capital improvements. declining infrastructural issues is huge and than a new or improved course was built down Weed has completed a handful of such growing"Weed says,"andthefinancialpressure the street within the last decade. projects,most notably at the Deltona(Fla.) on them is growing.Meantime,acquisition of Next comes sloppy club management.In Club,near Orlando(known previously as Del- existingfacilities is so much less expensivethan good timesthere is plenty of margin for mistake, tone Hills G&CC).There,the current owner building new golf courses.Those trends aren't ii but today every error,whether made yesterday invested$4 million in the struggling facility going to change in the near term." —CM. Golf W orld.com March 22,2010 39 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENT R4P1tlSE-PUNb POTENTIAL CIP FUNDING SOURCES, PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS-PROJECTS LISTED BY FACILITY 10-Mr-11 ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDIN SOURCES 1-2 TRANSFER OR SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PARCELS GROSS ESTIMATED LESS COSTS NET ESTIMATED PROPERTY ASSOCIATED PROPERTY PROCEEDS WITH SALE PROCEEDS FY11 Rose Park 1400 North 1200 West(3 Acres) $425,000 ($3,000) $422,000 FY13 Bonneville Holes#7/#8(10 Acres) $8,000,000 ($560,000) $7,440,000 FY14 Forest Dale South Parking Lot(1.00 Acre) S400,000 $0 $400,000 FY15 Glendale 2100 South Frontage(13.65 Acres) $4,756,000 ($332,920) $4,423,080 FY15 Glendale 2100 South West Portion of Parking Lot(.89 Acre) $387,700 ($27,139) $360,561 Estimated Proceeds from Transfer or Sale of Surplus Golf Property: $13,543,700 ($920,059) $13,045,641 3 ESCO ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACT FUNDING FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System,Nibley Park Irrigation System,and Glendale Secondary Water Source $3,300,000 4 CAPITAL COST SHARING PARTNERSHIP AT NIBLEY PARK FY13 Indoor academy addition,driving range expansion,short game practice area development $100,000 5 GOLF FUND REVENUE BOND FY13 15 Years,3%Interest=$210,000 Annual Bond Payment(BV Additional 3.5 Acres Option) 52,500,000 6 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH PARTNERSHIP FY14 Naming Rights Fee and Property Lease at Bonneville 52,000,000 7 PRIVATE DONOR HOLE SP•NSORSHIPS AT BONNEVILLE FY14 $100,000 Per Hole x 14 Holes/$125,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes/$150,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes $1,950,000 Less Donor Benefits Requiring Revenue Transfer to Operating Budget(18 x$1,000 x 20 Years) ($360,000) Net Revenue from Donors: $1,590,000 8 UTAH GOLF HOUSE PARTNERSHIP WITH UTAH GOLF ASSOCIATION AND UTAH SECTION PGA AT BONNEVILLE FY14 Options include a stand-alone building that would include banquet space for SLC needs,or leasing space in our new clubhouse $500,000 9 F 8 B CONCESSIONAIRE CONTRIBUTION TO FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS FY14 Bonneville(New On-Course Snack Shack) 575,000 FY14 Mountain Dell(Deck Extension) 540,000 FY15 Glendale(Banquet Pavilion) _ 530,000 FY17 WingpPointe(Sliding Glass Doors and Patio Wind Breaks) $10,000 TOTAL ESTIfiAATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES: S23,190,60 • '-WAt IMPROVEMENT PROOCf PRTORri9ES AND PROJtt' .'D OOb6T5-PI OJtCTS UStleb BY FACILITY BONNEVILLE PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY[3 Bonneville Irrigation System $2,200,000 FY13 Bonneville Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $500,000 FY13 Bonneville Golf Course Improvements(Including 3 New Holes,New Greens,Bunkers,Forward Tees,and Perimeter Fencing) $2,750,000 FY13 Bonneville Driving Range&Short Game Areas $500,000 FY13 Bonneville New Entrance Road from Foothill Drive Directly East Into the Parking Lot&Parking Lot Improvements $250,000 FY13 Bonneville Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 1-Y13 Bonneville Maintenance Relocation $500,000 FY14 Bonneville On-Course Restrooms(Including Snack Shack 150G) $300,000 FY14 Bonneville Cart Path Improvements $200,000 l-Y14 Bonneville Clubhouse $2,500,000 BONNEVILLE TOTAL $9,750,000 FOREST DALE PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY15 Forest Dale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option 300,000 FY15 Forest Dale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY15 Forest Dale On-Course Restroom(At#4 Tee/#6 Tee) $75,000 FY15 Forest Dale Piping of Drainage Streams through Fairway Corridors $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Cart Path Improvements $75,000 FY15 Forest Dale Irrigation Control Upgrade $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Practice Hitting Net $35,000 FY15 Forest Dale Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY15 Forest Dale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $20,000 FOREST DALE TOTAL $1,030,000 9LENDALE PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY13 Glendale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $225,000 FY13 Glendale Range Fence Repairs,Target Greens,and North End Teaching Tee $150,000 FY15 Glendale Redesign and Additional Improvements(Includes Forward Tees on Select Holes $1,200,000 FY15 Glendale Maintenance Relocation $600,000 FY15 Glendale On-Course Restrooms(At#6 Green/New#12 Tee) $75,000 FY15 Glendale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY15 Glendale Cart Path Improvements $110,000 FY15 Glendale Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY15 Glendale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $15,000 GLENDALE TOTAL S2,565,000 MOUNTAIN DELL PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY13 Mountain Dell Club House Infrastructure Improvements $200,000 FY14 Mountain Dell Patio Deck Extension $200,000 FY15 Mountain Dell Irrigation Control Upgrade $200,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,Sand Bins,and Cart Storage $600,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Course Improvements(Canyon#12,#14,#15/Lake Retaining Walls,#8 Green Expansion,#14 Old Green Level) $300,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Practice Tee&Range Improvements $100,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Tee Leveling and Ladies Tee Addition $200,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Cart Path Improvements $100,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 MOUNTAIN DELL TOTAL S1,950,000 NIBLEY PARK PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY12 Nibley Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY12 Nibley Park Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $40,000 FY13 Nibley Park Range Extension, New Fence,and Associated Course Redesign $750,000 FY13 Nibley Park On-Course Restrooms(At New#5 Tee/#9 Tee) $75,000 FY13 Nibley Park Cart Path Improvements $30,000 FY13 Nibley Park Perimeter Fencing Improvements $100,000 FY13 Nibley Park Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements/Cafes Remodel $20,000 FY13 Nibley Park Irrigation System $900,000 FY13 Nibley Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY13 Nibley Park Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY16 Nibley Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY16 Nibley Park Miniature Golf Course&Batting Cages $850,000 NIBLEY PARK TOTAL $3,350,000 ROSE PARK PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY12 Rose Park Range Extension(Includes Range Fencing Both Sides) $500,000 FY14 Rose Park Irrigation System Improvements $900,000 FY14 Rose Park Pumps,Wells, and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY16 Rose Park On-Course Restrooms--Two Locations(At#5 Tee/#9 Tee and#14 Tee/#16 Tee) $150,000 FY16 Rose Park Cart Path Improvements $65,000 FY16 Rose Park Clubhouse Improvements and Cart Storage Expansion $350,000 FY16 Rose Park Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY16 Rose Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $350,000 FY16 Rose Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY16 Rose Park Forward Tee Addition on Select Holes and Bunker Renovation $225,000 ROSE PARK TOTAL $3,000,000 WINGPOINTE PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY12 Wingpointe Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $25,000 FY13 Wingpointe Cart Path Improvements $50,000 FY17 Wingpointe Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY17 Wingpointe Clubhouse Restroom Improvements $20,000 FY17 Wingpointe Café Sliding Glass Doors,Roof,and Wind Breaks for Banquet Purposes $50,000 FY17 Winqpointe Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY17 Wingpointe Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $100,000 WINGPOINTE TOTAL $355,000 'TOTAL ESitIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES: $23.190,60 TOTAL PROJECTED COST ALL PROJECTS: $22,000,000 Plus AIIotation to Operating Budget for Lost Revenue-Construction Down Time: $1,00g00 TOTAL PROJECTED COST: $23,000,000 CIP FUNDING BALANCE F'OR"CONTINGENCY ANDlOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS: $190,641 • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND POTENTIAL CIP FUNDING SOURCES, PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS -PROJECTS LISTED BY PRIORITY 10-Mar-11 ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES 1-2 TRANSFEROR SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PARCELS GROSS ESTIMATED LESS COSTS NET ESTIMATED PROPERTY ASSOCIATED PROPERTY PROCEEDS WITH SALE PROCEEDS FY11 Rose Park 1400 North 1200 West(3 Acres) $425,000 ($3,000) $422,000 FY13 Bonneville Holes#7/#8(10 Acres) $8,000,000 ($560,000) $7,440,000 FY14 Forest Dale South Parking Lot(1.00 Acre) $400,000 $0 $400,000 FY15 Glendale 2100 South Frontage(13.65 Acres) $4,756,000 ($332,920) $4,423,080 FY15 Glendale 2100 South West Portion of Parking Lot(.89 Acre) $387,700 ($27,139) $360,561 Estimated Proceeds from Transfer or Sale of Surplus Golf Property: $13,543,700 (S920,059) $13,045,641 3 ESCO ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACT FUNDING FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System,Nibley Park Irrigation System,and Glendale Secondary Water Source $3,300,000 4 CAPITAL COST SHARING PARTNERSHIP AT NIBLEY PARK FY13 Indoor academy addition,driving range expansion,short game practice area development $100,000 5 GOLF FUND REVENUE BOND FY13 15 Years,3%Interest=$210,000 Annual Bond Payment(BV Additional 3.5 Acres Option) $2,500,000 6 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH PARTNERSHIP FY14 Naming Rights Fee and Property Lease at Bonneville $2,000,000 7 PRIVATE DONOR HOLE SPONSORSHIPS AT BONNEVILLE FY14 $100,000 Per Hole x 14 Holes/$125,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes/$150,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes $1,950,000 Less Donor Benefits Requiring Revenue Transfer to Operating Budget(18 x$1,000 x 20 Years) ($360,000) Net Revenue from Donors: $1,590,000 8 UTAH GOLF HOUSE PARTNERSHIP WITH UTAH GOLF ASSOCIATION AND UTAH SECTION PGA AT BONNEVILLE FY14 Options include a stand-alone building that would include banquet space for SLC needs,or leasing space in our new clubhouse $500,000 9 F 8 B CONCESSIONAIRE CONTRIBUTION TO FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS FY14 Bonneville(New On-Course Snack Shack) $75,000 FY14 Mountain Dell(Deck Extension) $40.000 FY15 Glendale(Banquet Pavilion) $30,000 FY17 Wingpointe(Sliding Glass Doors and Patio Wind Breaks) $10,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES: $23,190,641 :CAPITAt1MPROVEMENT Pi 'OJECTFR1ORITIES AND-PROJECTED tQSTS PRUJ ' li a p� _ T ------• YR PRIORITY"A":IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TIED TO GENERATION OF CIP FUNDING SOURCES 1-8 PROJECTED COST FY12 1 Rose Park Range Extension (Includes Range Fencing Both Sides) $500,000 FY13 2 Nibley Park Range Extension, New Fence, and Associated Course Redesign $750,000 FY13 3 Bonneville Driving Range & Short Game Areas $500,000 FY13 4 Bonneville Golf Course Improvements (Including 3 New Holes, New Greens, Bunkers, Forward Tees, Perimeter Fencing) $2,750,000 FY13 5 Bonneville New Entrance Road from Foothill Drive Directly East into the Parking Lot& Parking Lot Improvements $250,000 FY13 6 Bonneville Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY13 7 Bonneville Maintenance Relocation $500,000 FY14 8 Bonneville Clubhouse $2,500,000 FY15 9 Glendale Redesign and Additional Improvements (Includes Forward Tees on Select Holes) $1,200,000 FY15 10 Glendale Maintenance Relocation $600,000 PRIORITY"A"TOTAL $9,600,000 YR PRIORITY"B": IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS REDUCING FUTURE IRRIGATION WATER COSTS FY13 11 Bonneville Irrigation System $2,200,000 FY13 12 Bonneville Pumps, Wells, and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $500,000 FY13 13 Glendale Pumps, Wells, and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $225,000 FY13 14 Nibley Park Irrigation System $900,000 FY13 15 Nibley Park Pumps, Wells, and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY14 16 Rose Park Irrigation System Improvements $900,000 FY14 17 Rose Park Pumps, Wells, and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY15 18 Mountain Dell Irrigation Control Upgrade $200,000 FY15 19 Forest Dale Pumps, Wells, and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY15 20 Forest Dale Irrigation Control Upgrade $100,000 PRIORITY"B"TOTAL $5,925,000 YR PRIORITY "C": IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS INCREASING FUTURE OPERATING REVENUES(Not Included in Priority "A") FY12 21 Nibley Park Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $40,000 FY12 22 Nibley Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY12 23 Wingpointe Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $25,000 FY14 24 Mountain Dell Patio Deck Extension $200,000 FY15 25 Glendale Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY15 26 Rose Park Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY15 27 Forest Dale Piping of Drainage Streams through Fairway Corridors $100,000 FY15 28 Nibley Park Miniature Golf Course & Batting Cages $850,000 FY15 29 Forest Dale Practice Hitting Net $35,000 FY16 30 Mountain Dell Course Improvements (Canyon#12, #14, #15/Retaining Walls/#8 Green Expansion/#14 Old Green Level) $300,000 FY16 31 Mountain Dell Practice Tee & Range Improvements $100,000 FY16 32 Mountain Dell Tee Leveling and Ladies Tee Addition $200,000 FY16 33 Rose Park Forward Tee Addition on Select Holes and Bunker Renovation $225,000 FY16 34 Wingpointe Café Sliding Glass Doors, Roof, and Wind Breaks for Banquet Purposes $50,000 PRIORITY"C"TOTAL $2,435,000 YR PRIORITY"D":OTHER FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS(All Essential, Difficult to Prioritize FY13 35 Mountain Dell Club House Infrastructure Improvements $200,000 FY13 36 Glendale Range Fence Repairs,Target Greens, and North End Teaching Tee $150,000 FY13 37 Nibley Park On-Course Restrooms(At New#5 Tee/#9 Tee) $75,000 FY13 38 Nibley Park Perimeter Fencing Improvements $100,000 FY13 39 Nibley Park Cart Path Improvements $30,000 FY13 40 Nibley Park Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY13 41 Nibley Park Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements/Cafe Remodel $20,000 FY13 42 Wingpointe Cart Path Improvements $50,000 FY14 43 Bonneville On-Course Restrooms(Including Snack Shack 150G) $300,000 FY14 44 Bonneville Cart Path Improvements $200,000 FY15 45 Glendale On-Course Restrooms(At#6 Green/New#12 Tee) $75,000 FY15 46 Rose Park On-Course Restrooms--Two Locations(At#5 Tee/#9 Tee and#14 Tee/#16 Tee) $150,000 FY15 47 Forest Dale On-Course Restroom (At#4 Tee/#6 Tee) $75,000 FY16 48 Mountain Dell Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,Sand Bins,and Cart Storage $600,000 FY16 49 Wingpointe Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY15 50 Forest Dale Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY15 51 Glendale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY15 52 Forest Dale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $20,000 FY15 53 Rose Park Clubhouse Improvements and Cart Storage Expansion $350,000 FY15 54 Glendale Cart Path Improvements $110,000 FY15 55 Forest Dale Cart Path Improvements $75,000 FY15 56 Rose Park Cart Path Improvements $65,000 FY15 57 Rose Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $350,000 FY15 58 Forest Dale Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays, and Sand Bins $175,000 FY15 59 Nibley Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays, and Sand Bins $175,000 FY15 60 Glendale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $15,000 FY15 61 Forest Dale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY15 62 Rose Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY16 63 Mountain Dell Cart Path Improvements $100,000 FY16 64 Mountain Dell Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY16 65 Mountain Dell Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY16 66 Wingpointe Clubhouse Restroom Improvements $20,000 FY16 67 Wingpointe Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays, and Sand Bins $100,000 FY16 68 Wingpointe Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 PRIORITY"D"TOTAL $4,040,000 TOW NW , 'WO'ALL PROS t _ _. 2 a,p,$,A0 TOTAL F PIMATED CAPITAL.FUNDING SOU _ TOTAL PROJECTED OOST ALL PROJECTS: $22,4©O,,)OO” Plus Ailacatibn toOperott,ng Budget for Lost Revenue-Construction Down Time; j"1„attflOO, TOTAL PROJECT-ED COST: . $.2t4110,000 GIP FUNDING BALANCE FOR CONTINGENCY AND/OR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS: $19:040,41' SA t SAKE CITY GOLF ENTE WRNS€•RIND POTENTIAL CIP FUNDING SOURCES, •.- PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS-PROJECTS:LISTED$Y TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT - 10)-luar--11 • - -------- -------� -- CAPITAL FUNUIN,6 .�, _ • 1-2 TRANSFER OR SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PARCELS GROSS ES7IMA TED LESS COSTS NET ESTIMATED PROPERTY ASSOCIATED PROPERTY PROCEEDS WITH SALE PROCEEDS FY11 Rose Park 1400 North 1200 West(3 Acres) $425,000 ($3,000) $422,000 FY13 Bonneville Holes#7/#8(10 Acres) $8,000,000 ($560,000) $7,440,000 FY14 Forest Dale South Parking Lot(1.00 Acre) $400,000 $0 $400,000 FY15 Glendale 2100 South Frontage(13.65 Acres) $4,756,000 ($332,920) $4,423,080 FY15 Glendale 2100 South West Portion of Parking Lot(.89 Acre) $387,700 ($27,139) $360,561 Estimated Proceeds from Transfer or Sale of Surplus Golf Property: $13,543,700 ($920,059) $13,045,641 3 ESCO ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACT FUNDING FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System,Nibley Park Irrigation System,and Glendale Secondary Water Source $3,300,000 4 CAPITAL COST SHARING PARTNERSHIP AT NIBLEY PARK FY13 Indoor academy addition,driving range expansion,short game practice area development $100,000 $ GOLF FUND REVENUE BOND FY13 15 Years,3%Interest=$210,000 Annual Bond Payment(BV Additional 3.5 Acres Option) $2,500,000 6 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH PARTNERSHIP FY14 Naming Rights Fee and Property Lease at Bonneville $2,000,000 7 PRIVATE DONOR HOLE SPONSORSHIPS AT BONNEVILLE FY14 $100,000 Per Hole x 14 Holes/$125,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes/$150,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes $1,950,000 Less Donor Benefits Requiring Revenue Transfer to Operating Budget(18 x$1,000 x 20 Years) ($360,000) Net Revenue from Donors: $1,590,000 8 UTAH GOLF HOUSE PARTNERSHIP WITH UTAH GOLF ASSOCIATION AND UTAH SECTION PGA AT BONNEVILLE FY14 Options include a stand-alone building that would include banquet space for SLC needs,or leasing space in our new clubhouse $500,000 9 F&B CONCESSIONAIRE CONTRIBUTION TO FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS FY14 Bonneville(New On-Course Snack Shack) $75,000 FY14 Mountain Dell(Deck Extension) $40,000 FY15 Glendale(Banquet Pavilion) $30,000 FY17 Win inte Slidin Glass Doors and Patio Wind Breaks $10,000 T A $23, 90,641 • RR10RTFIES A'NN PR✓.f ISTEWCOSTS-PROJ,ECTS LISTED BY TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT YR' OPERATING REVENUE GROWTH IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTED COST FY12 Rose Park Range Extension and JRP3 Changes(Includes Range Fencing Both Sides)_ $500,000 FY12 Nibley Park Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $40,000 FY12 Wingpointe Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $25,000 FY13 50%Bonneville Golf Course Improvements(Including 3 New Holes,New Greens,Bunkers,Forward Tees,and Perimeter Fencing) $1,375,000 FY13 Bonneville Driving Range 8 Short Game Areas $500,000 FY13 Nibley Park Range Extension,New Fence,and Associated Course Redesign $750,000 FY14 50%Bonneville Clubhouse $1,250,000 FY14 Mountain Dell Patio Deck Extension $200,000 FY15 25%Glendale Redesign and Additional Improvements(Includes Forward Tees on Select Holes) $300,000 FY15 Glendale Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY15 Forest Dale Piping of Drainage Streams through Fairway Corridors $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Practice Hitting Net $35,000 FY16 Nibley Park Miniature Golf Course 8 Batting Cages $850,000 FY16 Rose Park Forward Tee Addition on Select Holes and Bunker Renovation $225,000 FY16 Rose Park Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Course Improvements(Canyon#12,#14,#15lLake Retaining Walls,#8 Green Expansion,#14 Old Green Level) $300,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Practice Tee 8 Range Improvements , $100,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Tee Leveling and Ladies Tee Addition • $200,000 FY17 Wingpointe Café Sliding Glass Doors,Roof,and Wind Breaks for Banquet Purposes $50,000 OPERATING REVENUE GROWTH IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL $7,100,000 YR CIP FUNDING-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FY13 50%Bonneville Golf Course Improvements(Including 3 New Holes,New Greens,Bunkers,Forward Tees,and Perimeter Fencing) $1,375,000 FY13 Bonneville New Entrance Road from Foothill Drive Directly East into the Parking Lot 8 Parking Lot Improvements $250,000 FY15 75%Glendale Redesign and Additional Improvements(Includes Forward Tees on Select Holes) $900,000 FY15 Glendale Maintenance Relocation $600,000 CIP FUNDING-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL $3,125,000 YR IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND WATER SOURCE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System $2,200,000 FY13 Bonneville Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $500,000 FY13 Glendale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $225,000 FY13 Nibley Park Irrigation System $900,000 FY13 Nibley Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY14 Rose Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY14 Rose Park Irrigation System Improvements $900,000 FY15 Forest Dale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY15 Forest Dale Irrigation Control Upgrade $100,000 FY15 Mountain Dell Irrigation Control Upgrade $200,000 IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND WATER SOURCE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL $5,925,000 YR CLUBHOUSE AND RESTROOM INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FY13 Mountain Dell Club House Infrastructure Improvements $200,000 FY13 Nibley Park On-Course Restrooms(At New#5 Teel#9 Tee) $75,000 FY13 Nibley Park Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements/Cafe Remodel $20,000 FY14 50%Bonneville Clubhouse $1,250,000 FY14 Bonneville On-Course Restrooms(Including Snack Shack 150G) $300,000 FY15 Glendale On-Course Resbooms(At#6 Green/New#12 Tee) $75,000 FY15 Glendale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 YR CLUBHOUSE AND RESTROOM INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS(continued) FY15 Forest Dale On-Course Restroom(At#4 Tee/#6 Tee) $75,000 FY15 Forest Dale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $20,000 FY16 Rose Park Clubhouse Improvements and Cart Storage Expansion $350,000 FY16 Rose Park On-Course Restrooms--Two Locations(At#5 Tee/#9 Tee and#14 Tee/#16 Tee) $150,000 FY16 Mountain Dell Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY16 Wingpointe Clubhouse Restroom Improvements $20,000 CLUBHOUSE AND RESTROOM INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL $2,615,000 YR GOLF COURSE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FY12 Nibley Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY13 Bonneville Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY13 Glendale Range Fence Repairs,Target Greens,and North End Teaching Tee $150,000 FY13 Nibley Park Perimeter Fencing Improvements $100,000 FY13 Nibley Park Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY13 Nibley Park Cart Path Improvements $30,000 FY13 Wingpointe Cart Path Improvements $50,000 FY14 Bonneville Cart Path Improvements $200,000 FY15 Forest Dale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY15 Forest Dale Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Cart Path Improvements $75,000 FY15 Glendale Cart Path Improvements $110,000 FY15 Glendale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $15,000 FY16 Rose Park Cart Path Improvements $65,000 FY16 Rose Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY16 Mountain Dell Cart Path Improvements $100,000 FY16 Mountain Dell Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY16 Wingpointe Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY16 Wingpointe Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 GOLF COURSE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL $1,335,000 YR MAINTENANCE FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FY13 Bonneville Maintenance Relocation $500,000 FY15 Forest Dale Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY16 Nibley Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY16 Mountain Dell Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,Sand Bins,and Cart Storage $600,000 FY16 Rose Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $350,000 FY16 Wingpointe Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $100,000 MAINTENANCE FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL $1,900,000 y12, ,1540JEGTED COST ALL P i.J,,, ,-; ... 008 0®b TOTAL BVINIATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE& 03,190,641 TOTAL PROJECTED COST ALL PROJECTS: $22,000,000 Plus Allocation to Operating Budget for Lost Revenue--QbnstsuctIA Down Time: $1 000,006 TOTAL PROJECTED COST: $23,000,000 toi,puNoiNG BALANCE FOR CONTINGENCY AND/OR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS y '$190,641 • 0 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND POTENTIAL CIP FUNDING SOURCES, PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS-PROJECTS LISTED BY START DATE 10-Mar-11 ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES 1-2 TRANSFER OR SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PARCELS GROSS ESTIMATED LESS COSTS NET ESTIMA TED PROPERTY ASSOCIA TED PROPERTY PROCEEDS WITH SALE PROCEEDS FY11 Rose Park 1400 North 1200 West(3 Acres) $425,000 ($3,000) $422,000 FY13 Bonneville Holes#7/#8(10 Acres) $8,000,000 ($560,000) $7,440,000 FY14 Forest Dale South Parking Lot(1.00 Acre) $400,000 $0 $400,000 • FY15 Glendale 2100 South Frontage(13.65 Acres) $4,756,000 ($332,920) $4,423,080 FY15 Glendale 2100 South West Portion of Parking Lot(.89 Acre) $387,700 ($27,139) $360,561 Estimated Proceeds from Transfer or Sale of Surplus Golf Property: $13,543,700 ($920,059) $13,045,641 3 ESCO ENER Y PERF•RMANCE CONTRACT FUNDING FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System,Nibley Park Irrigation System,and Glendale Secondary Water Source $3,300,000 4 CAPITAL COST SHARING PARTNERSHIP AT NIBLEY PARK FY13 Indoor academy addition,driving range expansion,short game practice area development $100,000 5 GOLF FUND REVENUE BOND FY13 15 Years,3%Interest=$210,000 Annual Bond Payment(BV Additional 3.5 Acres Option) $2,500,000 6 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH PARTNERSHIP FY14 Naming Rights Fee and Property Lease at Bonneville $2,000,000 7 PRIVATE DONOR HOLE SPONSORSHIPS AT BONNEVILLE FY14 $100,000 Per Hole x 14 Holes/$125,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes/$150,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes $1,950,000 Less Donor Benefits Requiring Revenue Transfer to Operating Budget 118 x$1,000 x 20 Years) ($360,000) Net Revenue from Donors: $1,590,000 8 UTAH GOLF HOUSE PARTNERSHIP WITH UTAH GOLF ASSOCIATION AND UTAH SECTION PGA AT BONNEVILLE FY14 Options include a stand-alone building that would include banquet space for SLC needs,or leasing space in our new clubhouse $500,000 9 F 8 B CONCESSIONAIRE CONTRIBUTION TO FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS FY14 Bonneville(New On-Course Snack Shack) 575,000 FY14 Mountain Dell(Deck Extension) $40,000 FY15 Glendale(Banquet Pavilion) $30,000 FY17 Win pointe(Slidin Glasors and Patio Wind Breaks mom TOTAL ESTIMATED s Do Olt $23,190,641 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS - PROJECTS LISTED BY START DATE YR FY12 PROJECT START DATE PROJECTED COST FY12 Rose Park Range Extension(Includes Range Fencing Both Sides) $500,000 FY12 Nibley Park Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $40,000 FY12 Nibley Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY12 Wingpointe Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $25,000 FY12 TOTAL $575,000 YR FY13 PROJECT START DATE FY13 Nibley Park Range Extension, New Fence,and Associated Course Redesign $750,000 FY13 Nibley Park Irrigation System $900,000 FY13 Nibley Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY13 Nibley Park On-Course Restrooms(At New#5 Tee/#9 Tee) $75,000 FY13 Nibley Park Perimeter Fencing Improvements $100,000 FY13 Nibley Park Cart Path Improvements $30,000 FY13 Nibley Park Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY13 Nibley Park Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements/Cafe Remodel $20,000 FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System $2,200,000 FY13 Bonneville Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $500,000 FY13 Bonneville Driving Range&Short Game Areas $500,000 FY13 Bonneville Golf Course Improvements(Including 3 New Holes, New Greens, Bunkers, Forward Tees,and Perimeter Fencing) $2,750,000 FY13 Bonneville New Entrance Road from Foothill Drive Directly East into the Parking Lot&Parking Lot Improvements $250,000 FY13 Bonneville Maintenance Relocation $500,000 FY13 Bonneville Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY13 Glendale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $225,000 FY13 Glendale Range Fence Repairs,Target Greens,and North End Teaching Tee $150,000 FY13 Mountain Dell Club House Infrastructure Improvements $200,000 FY13 Winqpointe Cart Path Improvements $50,000 FY13 TOTAL $9,650,000 YR FY14 PROJECT START DATE FY14 Bonneville Clubhouse $2,500,000 FY14 Bonneville On-Course Restrooms(Including Snack Shack 150G) $300,000 FY14 Bonneville Cart Path Improvements $200,000 FY14 Rose Park Irrigation System Improvements $900,000 FY14 Rose Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY14 Mountain Dell Patio Deck Extension $200,000 FY14 TOTAL $4,400,000 YR FY15 PROJECT START DATE FY15 Glendale Redesign and Additional Improvements(Includes Forward Tees on Select Holes) $1,200,000 FY15 Glendale Maintenance Relocation $600,000 FY15 Glendale Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY15 Glendale On-Course Restrooms(At#6 Green/New#12 Tee) $75,000 FY15 Glendale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY15 Glendale Cart Path Improvements $110,000 FY15 Glendale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $15,000 • • 0 0 • YR 15 PROJECT START DATE/con tin ued) FY15 Forest Dale Piping of Drainage Streams through Fairway Corridors $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY15 Forest Dale Entrance Signaqe and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY15 Forest Dale Practice Hitting Net $35,000 FY15 Forest Dale On-Course Restroom(At#4 Tee/#6 Tee) $75,000 FY15 Forest Dale Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Cart Path Improvements $75,000 FY15 Forest Dale Irrigation Control Upgrade $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY15 Forest Dale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $20,000 FY15 Mountain Dell Irrigation Control Upgrade $200,000 FY15 TOTAL $3,420,000 YR FY16 PROJECT START DATE FY16 Rose Park Forward Tee Addition on Select Holes and Bunker Renovation $225,000 FY16 Rose Park Clubhouse Improvements and Cart Storage Expansion $350,000 FY16 Rose Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $350,000 FY16 Rose Park Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY16 Rose Park On-Course Restrooms-Two Locations(At#5 Tee/#9 Tee and#14 Tee/#16 Tee) - $150,000 FY16 Rose Park Cart Path Improvements $65,000 FY16 Rose Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY16 Nibley Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY16 Nibley Park Miniature Golf Course 8 Batting Cages $850,000 FY16 TOTAL $2,325,000 YR FY17 PROJECT START DATE FY17 Mountain Dell Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,Sand Bins,and Cart Storage $600,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Course Improvements(Canyon#12,#14,#15/Lake Retaining Walls,#8 Green Expansion,#14 Old Green Level) $300,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Practice Tee 8 Range Improvements - $100,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Tee Leveling and Ladies Tee Addition $200,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Cart Path Improvements _ $100,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY17 Wingpointe Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY17 Wingpointe Clubhouse Restroom Improvements _ $20,000 FY17 Wingpointe Café Sliding Glass Doors,Roof,and Wind Breaks for Banquet Purposes $50,000 FY17 Wingpointe Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements _ $10,000 FY17 Wingpointe Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins _ $100,000 FY17 TOTAL $1,630,000 COST ALL PROJE $22,00 D CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES: $23,1 TOTAL PROJECTED COST ALL PROJECTS: S22,0 Plus Allocation to Operating Budget for Lost Revenue--Construction Down Time, $1,0 TOTAL PROJECTED COST: $23,0 Q.IP FUNDING BALANCE FOR CONTINGENCY AND/OR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS: $190, • 'i €r 1^ '4Pv. `Y 4 h t 7'v iiiiii P. +~ '� ate -e. .6' 4.:pt� 14.0,''. .•ram :At'.^+� +. .✓ "' y., ...• ! �; i\.+_ yrR. •1� ,,,,i .‘ _.�."", -R._ fi' Z .... .r ... Jy,�W. ♦�,_ `eta'. _ r:•. — �. Wf x' =icy" — ,� « r ..'tea Yf� yb ■� Fae; k • t ,N_a +t 1.. J. KAI, 'w 1/4,.. Salt Lake City Golf Division Major Capital Improvement !' Project Priorities Basic Project Descriptions SALT LAKE CITY p with Visual Supplements GOLF umminimir SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF • Irrigation System Replacements at Bonneville, Nibley Park and Rose Park. The irrigation systems at Bonneville, Nibley Park and Rose Park are critically in need of replacement. The systems are decades old with Bonneville and Nibley Park operating as manual systems. Projected cost of replacement BV=$2,200,000, NP=$900,000, RP=$900,000 • Inadequate irrigation upgrades have led to ongoing costly repairs on an annual basis. For example, at Bonneville in the early 1980's, rather than installing the required schedule 40 pipe,the contractor used schedule 20. This has resulted in costly repairs on an annual basis. 4, ° ". ' s+:' • � } ` Much of the current system at Bonneville v ;• j is the original cast iron pipe that was installed when the course was first built over 75 years ago. —17 .\ J K ce.. : '.�� • ''' _,�.tit ne SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION ,k. MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF • 7 • Irrigation System Re- nbtmr r -WWW.SLTRID.COM I FRIDAY,J placements at Bonne- , Golf I� ville, Nibley Park and _, Rose Park continued. ~ ""` .., I(eeping• � _ This article details the demands of a night waterman at Bonneville and it green Nibley Park. Night waterman a master . - of low-tech irrigation ` . - ' BYJOHN RENSHAW Speciern Mt Tribune - - Tray Kennedy is 8 man of summer.En tnved at .'. y ^ ,'cr -.-'"u Bonneville Golf Course in Salt Lake City.Kennedy is 2 the night waterman. It's a unique job,since t most courses in Utah handle ' `I'i'ay their watering needs with timed irrigation systems. Kennedy Kennedy s so troll the 'to whole course every night to Kennedy is a keep all 6,824 yards of grass gNiaduateneteen of looking s to go. Highland High "I love to golf bat bon- esch estly haven't had the time -• s He served in file with this profession,"he '` said."By the end of your U.S Marine Core shift.your so doggone tired r . from,979 fo 1981 to do anything." He continues Kennedy has outlasted many couerparts within working hard in his the tw nto-man operation dur- ninth year as night ing his nine years of duty. waterman for Unlike many other courses - _ Bonneville Gall along the Wasatch Front,or .pi-!... - Course across the U.S.for that mat -u� tar,Bonneville remains one Ry »s 4- of few courses without auto- r matic irrigation timers. The sprinkler system isn't likely to change for a few years,which means more work for the grounds crew at Bonneville. "It's quite a grueling job—it definitely takes a rare - Nunn..tud see WATERMAH,VS Troy Kennedy sets the sprinklers at Bonneville Golf Course In Salt Lake City. Waterman month on the job site,he pro- melts during the hot evening. "I just take the[golf]cart's of a boss in Steve[Campbell], hours will be cut in half wh `'V`a l Grn]`d i] vides players with slick dark He brings along one or two 32 headlights and shine it wher- who knows what were dealing they get a new system. green grass on the par-72 ounce mugs of water,and ever Pm working.It's also with,"Kennedy said."Regard- "'What can you do'is allj keeps the course. there's a hand towel to wipe good in regards to not giving less of the issue,the next day can say,"Kennedy said,"B And it's not like the course away the summer sweat. out a lot of light.If a bunch of it'll be taken care of." [Steve]assured me there'll just gets that way.It wears This is no job for people kids drove by and saw lighting Campbell,the superinten- a place for me on staff once grass growing down from golfers playing on who don't like getting dirty. at the course,they might be dent,got his start in golf in change takes effect.I'm teal . the turf and from wildlife Said Kennedy:"When first compelled to trespass after 1901.After working his way happy to have this position.I >Continued from VI abusing the grass. arriving.I'll survey the course hours,"he said through the ranks,Campbell wasn't something I wanted tl It's a never-ending battle, to see If there's any dead spots Making Kennedy's life now calls the shots. do for a couple of years then but one Kennedy says the Ma- that need to be attended to or more difficult is the technol- "The plumbing's been move onto something else. rinse prepared him to endure, decide what areas need water. ogy on the course.Make that around a long time here and "It's my profession of breed of person to deal with which is why be's lasted so Then I'll take our hoses, old technology. [manual]maintenance isn't choosing,and since we're n the swapping shifts and man- long in a position where so which are more like 250-foot Bonneville uses its original nearly as efficient as auto- open during winter,I need ual labor,"Kennedy said. many have failed. fire hoses,and connect them irrigation system from 1928 on matic irrigation,"Campbell seasonal job and It's hard Nicknamed"Hollywood Kennedy starts his shift at to our 32[sprinkler]heads to first nine holes and the system said.'But we'll be able to up- cause companies want you i Marine"after his U.S.mill- 6 p.m.wearing a white cutoff conduct maintenance the rest from 1957 on the back nine. grade in a few years after permanent or not at all Batt tary enlistment days in Holly- shirt,baseball cap and tan of the night." Problems such as clogging some financial bonds are paid I'm not going to leave becata wood and Bridgeport Calif., shorts.Trying to stay hy- That maintenance can last and tears through old hoses back" I enjoy my co-workers and 1 from 1979 to 1982.Kennedy is drated during the 100-degree until 2 or 3 in the morning. tend to make the job difficult. While an automatic system job itself.I take great pride no stranger to work ethic.Ar- temperatures,Kennedy pre- And how does Kennedy "There's going to be prob- could help Bonneville's prof maintaining the course and riving six days a week and ac- pares his golf cart with a fro- work with no overhead light- lems due to the age of the its.it won't help Kennedy's the grass looks beautiful,th crying over 200 hours per zen jug of water that quickly hug? equipment,but we have a hell personal bottom line—his I know it's a job well done'j 1 I 1 r wow ..iimmommosums. SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF lki Pumps, Wells and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Options at Bonneville, Forest Dale, Nibley Park and Glendale Nearly all of Salt Lake City's courses rely solely on culinary water sources. Investing in a number of pumps, wells and various other irrigation infrastructure would allow for the addition of a number of secondary irrigation sources. Projected cost of replacement: $1,625,000 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION FY05-08 WATER EXPENSES 8 COST PER IRRIGATED ACRE FY05 to FY08 FY05 ACTUAL FY06 ACTUAL FY07 ACTUAL *FY08 ACTUAL ***FY09 BUDGET %INCREASE **Bonneville $154,294 $197,998 $217,853 $221,737 $240,000 44% Cost Per Irr.Acre $1,403 $1,800 $1,980 $2,016 $2,182 1 Cost Per Irr.Acre Rank 110 irrigated acres 180 total acres Glendale $120,636 $146,425 $203,307 $225,961 $215,000 87% Cost Per Irr.Acre $731 $887 $1,232 $1,369 $1,303 6 Cost Per Irr.Acre Rank C165 irrigated acres 175 total acres Forest Dale $49,381 $54,791 $57,419 $60,121 $70,000 22% Cost Per In.Acre $914 $1,015 $1,063 $1,113 $1,296 7 Cost Per Irr.Acre Rank 54 irrigated acres 61 total acres Mtn.Dell $85,913 $100,392 $117,347 $118,080 $125,000 37% Cost Per Irr.Acre $477 $558 $652 $656 $694 8 Cost Per Irr.Acre Rank 180 irrigated acres 381 total acres **Nibley Park $38,066 $44,540 $51,678 $53,051 $65,000 39% Cost Per Irr.Acre $828 $968 $1,123 $1,153 $1,413 3 Cost Per Irr.Acre Rank 46 irrigated acres 50 total acres *"Rose Park $155,195 $191,843 $211,375 $226,255 $235,000 46% Cost Per Irr.Acre $1,338 $1,654 $1,822 $1,950 $2,026 2 Cost Per Irr.Acre Rank 116 irrigated acres 120 total acres Wingpointe $129,451 $130,132 $192,226 $193,563 $210,000 50% Cost Per Irr.Acre $819 $824 $1,217 $1.225 $1,329 5 Cost Per Irr.Acre Rank 158 irrigated acres 193 total acres Jordan River Par 3 $19,068 $23,659 $28,563 $29,416 $30,000 54% Cost Per Irr.Acre $867 $1.075 $1,298 $1,337 $1,364 4 Cost Per Irr.Acre Rank 22 irrigated acres 24 total acres TOTAL: $752,004 $889,780 $1,079,768 $1,128,184 $1,190,000 50% Cost Per Irr.Acre $887 $1,049 $1,273 $1,330 $1,403 848 irrigated acres 1184 total acres I SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION -, MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAXF CITY GOLF Bonneville Clubhouse i The clubhouse at Bonneville is in need of replacement. It is inadequate to meet the needs of golfers. Many corporate events would like to move to Bonneville, however we are unable to meet their event needs because there is no banquet space. Projected cost of replacement: $2,500,000 ' j�;. ,. -- —. ., .'�4� ------- . - Kam" 4' v `!t !_ , ,era , _.1 -- v`�a �- Or .�. 1 1 l j , 4 _ to '�, *'' °,.... . e,. ter,.,,: „iiiiiimit , Bonneville is one of the busiest courses in the state, yet also has one of the most outdated clubhouses in the state. `a y 4is ., .rl. Y R �, `+. ' �,� ,+Y• A•► +w-.gyp. _+_ - SA LT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT_CITY ( GOLF Bonneville Clubhouse continued. The pictures below are of a preliminary design conce p for the Bonneville clubhouse replacement | | ' co | | 11 o i , . z . . . : I §2( z < \\ , / � ,, . . m . b\ < .. `r _ _ tiEI \ ° / .\ ✓ i IT ■ \ c \ / / / , \ Z ` \ /i O . 4.3,1 UIg .� . r [ III Ti11 . | 11 §. - ' ' '� n \ . �j! o ] l \ i » � \ | ; f^ ® : , � •± i , _ !. _i § Bp | g { _, r- `/� . . | — I WO\2 C \ . a2gn= \ _ .. y 0\0 ei 0 o � / I [ '00 ; » m: . O ( O/ \ E \ 000030 U ID1 w < 3 \ ! .I. %} / |+ < con if § m • 1 | cou SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF Q Bonneville Maintenance Relocation The maintenance building at Bonneville is in need of replacement. It is inadequate to meet the needs of the maintenance crew. Projected cost of replacement: $500,000 ,a s'{sy• •'k • The maintenance area at Bonneville is 1 inadequate given the scope of its `I ' , Ii<ii r operations. The placement of the building '" /34. > . 4. , ' -.tjf at the end of the driving range presents a : .K I number of safety concerns to both course altlr;ki ,F I �, maintenance workers and equipment. 4 • ff • ,:�.. az_. �i = e fir. ... •oz.. . r ._ E¢ tl L$r.t405.Fil . .l-sue ` `' .. 3;: ;lei{-' Ir . ,t+ . , _ ve:; : 4, t,, . ' `f. . This picture illustrates the measures that a This picture is of a maintenance building county golf course uses to protect their located at the Old Mill Golf Course. equipment from errant range balls. MImiftr• SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF Bonneville Golf Course Improvements It is proposed that the Golf Division transfer surplus parcels of the course to Salt Lake City for other recreation uses or to sell this land for development. The funds obtained from surplus course parcels will go to fund a number of course improvements including hole re-routing, improvement of tees on select holes and the installation of perimeter fencing. The fencing is critical for customer and resident safety as well as general course security and protection from vandals. Projected cost of replacement: $2,750,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed course improvements. These pictures illustrate course damage that happens on a regular basis due the lack of perimeter barriers ' — at Bonneville. .. .. , 1 • +,r 11,5 -141111411111 • • These pictures show perimeter fencing at other municipal courses in Salt Lake County. C . SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION , , MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CM' GOLF Bonneville Golf Course Improvements Cont. Bonneville is perceived by many industry experts to be a venerable classic golf course and is often mentioned with the likes of much more renown golf courses with much more advanced operations and amenities. Bringing Bonneville in line with even modest industry standards would further enhance this City treasure. The attached article is from the 2008 edition of the PGA Professionals' Guide to Travel. 46 THE PRICE IS RIGHT J Favorite Classic Courses ~ as chosen by PGA Professionals,representing only golf courses that have green fees of Si25 or less in peak season. O w H:t, BETHPAGE STATE PARK COG HILL GOLF&COUNTRY CLUB p Callaway rdens Farmingdale,N.Y. Chicago,III. O Black Course _ . Ravines Course ;,, http://nysparks.state.ny.us/golf _ www.coghillgolf,corn Q J w Z BONNEVILLE GOLF COURSE~ DEL MONTE GOLF COURSE O • Salt Lake City Utah Monterey,Calif. vi- w wwwslcgov.com/publlcservices/golf www.pebblebeach.com "_ LL I 0 re CALLAWAY GARDENS - , ,�` 0 - SEAVIEW RESORT&SPA ; 0 a Pine Mountain,Ga. stidego Galloway,N.J. 1 t7 Mountain Course BayCourse a -, www.callawaygardens.com wwwseaviewmarriottcom ,- gy�pp.. g° ' .,'F . .CY, —__.___.„_,____:_____________ ,—.. .1,- rem _ _. b.iatsl r r .1 _Y h ^ • -R. —3 — — ` - SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF Bonneville Driving Range and Short Game Areas The range at Bonneville is small and currently has iron-only hitting restrictions. This limits driving range revenues. The addition of an expanded driving range with a short game practice area would create a top-rate attraction befitting a course like Bonneville in an area that would support and welcome such an addition. Projected cost of replacement: $500,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed course improvements. 4 a x • • • ... . � err r.- 611 .. M SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION - . MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF 4 On-Course Restrooms at Bonneville, Forest Dale, Glendale, Nibley Park and Rose Park The restrooms located at Bonneville, Forest Dale; Glendale, Nibley Park and Rose Park need to be replaced, including the on-course snack shack located at Bonneville. Projected cost of replacement: Bonneville $300,000, Forest Dale $75,000, Glendale $75,000, Nibley Park $75,000 and Rose Park $150,000 1 ,. - r. f' .TO : apir. ,,, li ' . siv.tt ..„ I CI) yyyam�{{( ` ' ., .l. ,< ito„q. µy 4-' 1 / . . 4 .,d , ...... , . imp iiiir. , 1,d1 il. t.al-. ifii, _ _41 . - .,, ri • A � • w _ yin �-r- ` ,µ ^-- ; . • �y- 0.-- - , --. - s I SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF Bonneville Parking Lot Improvements and New Entrance Road from Foothill Blvd. This project would install a new entrance road from Foothill Blvd. plus a number of improvements to the existing parking lot. Projected cost of replacement: $250,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed changes to entrance road. p The current entrance at Bonneville can i 4 " s -% _' 9 't. only be accessed by traveling through .�� ., '- , .r: a residential area on Connor Street. �f, �r- I. ..•t -•� S .4 'b .. 1, -._ ,:,, --7, -. _2,, - .44 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES ' SALT LAKE CITY GOLF al Forest Dale Piping of Drainage Streams through Fairway Corridors The streams that bisect holes 4, 5, 7, and 9 create a significant pace-of-play problem at Forest Dale. Piping these streams the width of the fairway will resolve this problem without impacting the drainage corridors. The end result will be a faster pace of play, increased customer satisfaction, more rounds played, and increased revenue on busy days during the summer. Projected cost of project: $100,000 ,:k, * its_, e� I ,. ....,:--7'::: „' „i*, , •♦• Irk f .. -,.� 'G.!.F ,r yam' .I _. .... • . � r�;;r .y ..U.r�i'�§�.. r+ �. '' X oY • .• . • . „.. .4„ . , , ... -, . , • _ ,.. . , .. . , _.- tuip,., ,..... . - . ,....„T„.„ . ..-.:.. . ,•-•- • a. - ' •!5•.':. -.4—:,, . • _ , 1111 • . T. . . rr; ,;1 - _ n " t4ft �A y r - .-,: r ''' 4 , r8' .- ., ,•. . 1. V' _ . .f'' + ;. N"�'- p- hi `.:. .4 4i.�r Qh F: � �, : '- '.Y a+{,. R 1.�e. f= ug SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LARF.CITY GOLF Glendale Redesign and Additional Improvements A proposed sale of property adjacent to 2100 South would generate funds to make a number of needed course and driving range improvements. Projected cost of replacement: $1,350,000 I Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed course improvements. I i s . • ilaw ii ,' ' ., • • - - 4 it f _.ty.- .t . r'. - SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF C:11 Glendale Maintenance Relocation A proposed sale of property adjacent to 2100 South would require the relocation of the maintenance building and operations at Glendale. Projected cost of replacement: $600,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed maintenance building relocation. i 7'1—tT _-'17 ¢ z .? y ��. . ,.I II R „lolls fir _ _ `aitF • ;w Ia !rti" CD onasam ,- SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF Mountain Dell Clubhouse Infrastructure Improvements A number of improvements and upgrades need to be implemented at the Mountain Dell Golf Course. Improvements would include upgrading the bathroom areas and installation of a new boiler system. Projected cost of replacement: $200,000 q , WI 11• J -•'Iw ycq r +ut�,_ _"T:^'( v. k 4 ,:: _ lyaMia Devi Gott Coarse NZ tail . ,,4,,4 4 Git N., .,...., AfR • 4141 -iiiii i; . . .,_ 21 1 i • I • . 4I A J • .. .-.Iii k tea. ifr-1 - ' . f , • I, 1 - ID SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF Nibley Park Range Extension, New Fence and Associated Golf Course Redesign Extending the range at Nibley Park would allow for increased revenues and reduce safety concerns. Projected cost of replacement and installation: $750,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed course improvements. j • CI) . x�~F 4131 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY ( GOLF Nibley Park Perimeter Fencing Improvements The perimeter fence surrounding the Nibley Park Golf Course needs to be replaced. Projected cost of replacement: $100,000 -0. '" • �; ~ate: • P, may►~I�r p 10- ; 4 • Y► p 4 +' 4,000 ,Sid(, 1,• • y _ ✓'l+ti _ f. y 1 'x �strz op......=F Amami. ry+ ,l4t.o", ° 1. 1t i}ivi -wat, 1 • Picture of perimeter fencing at a municipal course in Salt Lake County. • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT IAKE CITY GOLF 3 Rose Park Redesign and Additional Improvements There are a number of proposed improvements to the course at Rose Park including adding forward tees on selected holes. Projected cost of replacement: $225,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed course improvements. SK: tolt COL"RSG E; V qxY t 4' r SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKP CITY GOLF Rose Park Range Extension and Jordan River Par-3 Redesign A proposed extension of the driving range at Rose Park will include a connection from the Jordan River Par-3 from the South. This will increase the revenue potential of the range as well as increase the opportunities to develop a top-rate teaching facility at the Jordan River Par-3 course. The pro- posal includes purchasing vacant homes on Redwood Road between the two courses to allow for the needed range expansion. Projected cost of replacement: $500,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed range expansion. • v 1 4 40 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SA7.7 LAKE cm GOLF 0 Maintenance Building Improvements, Wash Bays and Sand Bins at Mountain Dell, Forest Dale, Nibley Park, Rose Park and Wingpointe Nearly all of Salt Lake City's maintenance facilities lack the adequate structures for storing equip- ment, course supplies such as fertilizers and sand as well as proper wash bays. Projected cost of replacement: $1,400,000 ;: . Qi: .: IL•,1Ly •. ; ,_ i. i - • i t Ifi J• - r 11111111r-,-._,' imf mill The three photos above are golf course maintenance buildings at Salt Lake County courses. SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LASE CITY GOLF Lake Bank Stabilization at Forest Dale, Nibley Park and Winqpointe Lake banks at Forest Dale, Nibley Park and Wingpointe are in need of stabilization in order to prevent further deterioration. Projected cost of replacement: $300,000 ay 1 ii I3 n ��yyyy .- It'. 41 i. c ' "'#• 4 ' sue- • �..,.. o � i l. t h a N IIMP a i L A. SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CMGOLF 1 Pro Shop and Restroom Improvements at Mountain Dell, Forest Dale, Nibley Park, Glendale and Winqpointe Upgrade clubhouse restroom facilities at Mountain Dell, Forest Dale, Nibley Park; Glendale and Wingpointe. Projected cost of replacement: $140,000 ,� 1 . - . . - x iclIsi. . I ,i' '' ' j : , .1 _I ,„64.4morteCsidicil) i • _ .� , _ .. 0 „.-.h,.-i ,` t"-kme , .,. .. . _ , I ' II '' L" - -'.. • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION -k� MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LASE CITY GOLF Cart Path Improvements at all Courses Install new cart paths and improve conditions of current paths at all courses. Projected cost of replacement: $630,000 Art j• .$e. I!>`a� ' i Lei ,� 5- ' x is rt {P 04t`Y x -. --,„ , Y w F 211.;.a£r- At Y µ.. .. la .�j z.` 'uwy.4 -_- _ ..:.ate .. .-.: .-. • MU SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION - � MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT):JARF CITY -rz041 ..., , GOLF 0 ' - • 1 J -J , 1 it ` • i .i.,t:, '. y f .� F .1 :A_ F i r , o i Are, '. i' ,, _ ., ..... 1, tI L., ::1 ,, ii, Ai' - Nz.e.r_.- i 1 i . it j _ �' Ilk ar. ,,,,,,. 0; ? ) " ' 6 ,, s �` �l.Z4:. ..*' , 0 ,- , - . kis ...,.. . ., ,, _ ., jj:',I .j:1-...' ', 1 ' IV. ,: r Aft :r 4t*74k% . ) I. , - f.-..,...4.A <,t. ` r w, .1t .. 51/4:4:40.0., �� •• ► ` 'fiis t 1.4 V� , }r • fir ' e ,,�},�. tills ''.A ,i r, �, i' '',.4. , Vii vt,4 iii, .,,,,:it i , ,it /AY 4:!. .0.-ti 0, 1 1 . ' ito « .� 111111lllll 1,I; ' /•. f ,e, ..,.. ,I., , kr''. li ,„, l lillilijlj.., ,$ "t . ,"�► if. , • r , .. , .. . . q . —r It:. . .. . Ipit 10 .1._ . ..-—- —''""-- — g — : k I Z. , - t.int' (:) Option 1 umnerhaLIt- Bonneville Golf Club . Design Preliminary Design & Renovation Concept O SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY • • "T - ,a - -- =- .A, F !�. ......,. r ~ 4 r . s I G a y s mow.- ----* ii'` Il yr -4 4ic .�e ;ai,---w q. r• iikb. gib k 1 It elt its,:e ,, a� / 1 aY it '1. 9 • 111' '• ,. w.1 � '. ,i,, +.�.• . .11. .' t.. ta , li. ,_. '... ). 4' IA! .ii5.- ^r '. A� r s is I. t " jt7_ \ ' _ I t r I i ti .4-IA , ,„ ,t,r _ if c - 4, die 'S- .‘. , . i , k • : $ v ""' • $ : 4giiv .43t . 0 Option 2-A Par-3 _-r,mrnert►ay. Bonneville Golf Club -- Design Preliminary Design & Renovation Concept .............mb. SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION 4'- , MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LABT CITY ,, P II' . T°'*;ii-'1414'''1Z-4 el-W-4%41'7 It fJ'I-4;'.4.14"tr"---- "T4;;;A% GOLF P, .-i-•i, ' ---. , ..- - - ' ,. . . - — - - - 1 '_ — .. . • ;1- ',in ... . ,, <otitAtb,, - ei,:tt _ • i I 1 .0.4--- ),, 4 '.• ' ,, , i--,,--- 444,100,4 , - ..„,..,„1 "L ,.„. _ A; • , ,• • I . . . ' • ....., ._.,,, . , . 4; z.... "--- " ,.. ,;.... ` 111.. ... , ',/ , r'"` . 411111111111P, • I . •., ,-, 1-•-- ,' ?A _. 7 .„..41; * -, dt, '— -0:-.1,...-- ... $. , ,/I - 1_ -N,....,i,,,..;: , . ......, _Ili,. a, , .4 ,.. ,I 1 IA - N'It."- ; - ''...' ; 1 • ,i . ''' .. ' • 7 J :: S. -NI k tst I- i I ; 7.. 7; ri.' s• ,•:....• :-.. ...., .,..., ., . -. s ..... 7 . Ir,...„. -.6. 1`411 A. "---. ,--47 I. 14:, *e* 11 CO ;•-: VI, i ii / I 1, •ii /4; • 7.•,;--.6i %.:'/I, 4 .., • _ .: -,;• . i '. ... ! • • 4 pi. 'Iiii -'7', • I* - - I • . itt . ... , .. . .,di %. • i ,• - t.„,..e.. i . 4 1 t. l' 4 • 1 ' i or.- '•..k. ,fr , * - , 0•,-*-, -.,- .- vi- , . .. T. .- . , ,i r to-,lit% - ,c A7k, , 'f 4• ili•-:- 111 .,;,,,,: . . , -"kr.' - 1 i ' • ••• iff-•- k 4-It .1t •7' _ f. ,.4a. . :414 1 - ' 1;..:' ;1116; 4 ' :A "F5/a ii , ., , - ' 111'. it `0 r ' 6 . . , IQ .' '4 k, , r - • 7 I, • r\ ot ,,...- ,' ' ' -_ It.,,',:•tk. •.''' ) ' 'I' i 4 iii;t 4 ' .4 • '‘P iv At, t , 4 _ lit, . 1 •., ,-,,,,„, . t.,4 v—fii _ • , f • '!I -, s gr- i---:.--:21,... illipli.„,, , • . i.:.. -i•tt 4 11 .7.4... II"... .... .,[. ; •- • - ' (4• v — , ....) 1 .,•;.a, )1- , ,s , , . , ii •' • •••2 , tit i lia i I ,,,--• , ki / , l' -. 'el.- f ••:j F -i 6' il. Option 2-B ..,....10101- gionmerhays Bonneville Golf Club Design Preliminary Design&Renovation Concept ... ....... Nommissoistillis,- .--- 4-'-' SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES • 1....z. T--,:4--ikt,..-7, - ':.,f,c-4' !,..";•"-k----; 271$ : • & .• ; .4 GOLF -,,,, • -4 --•••••••—• . .141litt„ —1111111, AIN‘.. ,,,,,;15 .c.-4,011-"ViStApair" L A.. .i4 -a ' ' .5.' •• 7-P.Z.Z1hOgri fl. ' i r • 1 • ''''''A,r Ai 'Ill&' 1 ' ' i 1 -''' 'VI '41‘• ) i 4., •• s _ _ 1 , it 4' -'0e, ••• 4' .., *\ It ,..... - i k .:,-N,. .,.._. • 0. if'•,'-''i•, 1 " d'• lb.,:41 kA'• L,t, V ;44 ' Oa )r..,:rr. . e. i ,,,,,, • ;ill.;It a• ,ni,r i ' it';:io, e „ _ 4 /i ' '*' '. -: ir *.L i•Ve'/A: '11' ;*" • ar.4 ar . • r ' ' e 41. • , 1,0'''' ‘„,, -4°,' - loid ,. .:,. 11 Agyh'Iti,l 1, •IF, 7 '47 -..4. -.• 1 , ,,,,V il, I • ',jk'i,o1, - .#D.,,,,,tditinlli i 11:iInA'1[golwit ili1p, h$, /N 1't„gr1 fr 4tf,}",. •It,..:. •,' -• : .. 40Iipliiillpiliosolti , Anty•''•' , ,•I $1 ! • Option 2-C ......40..... r - lerhays Bonneville Goff Club Design Preliminary Design&Renovation Concept .. 4.1 , SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION ..-:.. 4.."-• _MAJOR CAPITAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT I.A.ICF CITY GOLF 1 6 0 . ._ Wit u••• .--- --1-1111414elk.' . _ _ • rill/id-2 ' • Aug ap Sow - V* 1.: `,, .., ',.- at ,. —Am_ , ,,,,,,e gliaAltink1114111"tr° . .....---.• . Ili . 1- 111Prenr-: • , es "I i ,s . ' -` - *, 4, Ir '.. .....1 ,.- 1 . :' 1,ale G•If Courael., ' ;••..- ,- ‘ - -- ' - •- . ;•,,44v •,., - ,,,-, . 01,01iic- ie, 1I:, 1..1 , ...., ,., Al* - - ‘4.• ' ' - - , . : ' a 5 , -•• lc.' ' ' • „ , , .,,,. • ....- -t • • ar li• , ' . . ' Giig .1.9... t y. •,41,.. s., ".;.,.., • . 9 - . _ Ittort.. .4 ir. ., '' I . Irb4teliZ 80 . r lir t [ I ,I -.... , ,_. , •, .' , ilk 4?. ' r; 1 4 :0, ' V o. • . !IT ' . ' 4 - . ak•gt. • tt Iff „, .....,, 410 • t 4). • . .4 1 63 di t t- . t'•t e•' , : -711 a %:4'• fe t ..--- L.1 '1 if. • .... ; • .. .( i ' , . f X. l' ,,iv , i 2,„ • • ' 3,0 t ' : : •4',., .Ael114 _ ; -... .'A•'^ it 1, k . . ., • ••..,ec,4.., 'et,. • Illit il's If . .1110 1 0 ,t ,fl. 1(04 e; 0,. t • ' ,-• er ' -` r• , itqt -- 41k . ' q3 • . IC" * ------. - -- •••.:.0'.' 1/1111" fl' ,.., .. ' lir ' ? ,' 7:- 4"--• ' 'I' s, !SF 110 ..,... I itip, c ., a •• , .,,, • . .•. --Itilli N -. ilh At A .. i .i..111"*' 4' - AP 4 # • '- '. T T Y, . 64 , . , . , .. t i ' • Nr-, • , lit, ... P. w ,i, . * v. . Ca. • ._.- 4._ . r ,. ... .. . e. ... . .. ... . . , • -,,- Imap (:) , - DigltatGlobe I tip.livaifialfOr4, 4‘. ' lithj''' k? 1i' 4 4" 0 I .2008 lele.rAttas..r. , lir Liiiir.—Ir .1; '1 .Oltrf:' I' -• ' .. ..... ,2. • .111'5144 WW ' aek- m . .Aug 2006 ' , Eye, Forest Dale Golf Course SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES # SALT LA®CITY GOLF CDvv \ '` . . ji t.()i t' 3• * - _ �4 , ,,,„,_. , . `t'17 \ yr r _ � O i in �/ . j ,v ..V.j • F� ) • op y •! (') . r , o _ e . . 0 i .• f �M . t f3• �c • .--� ice+ 1�' �. , N ►y. i . t •, as SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION - MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES 4ALI LAKE CITY GOLF D r{, (8, .1.I~ .-tom y,: ,,;v:/x' ,107, .� ` ,A. 5 4, et ' . k. •• �..., it; .. ...fit. '• • ti. 5 ♦ 14114 CI1 1R ��• 10. 4: ".• .II. t.•,.•'...•u a �_ r. '`tom , . ,.�' y 1141111":eas )".. " *•••,... r r , ♦ Ad , -.age .:00B D.p.telGloDe'°_ _ e a;20D8 Ta'e 4 _ y Goo ZR• .' "-- r, 1 .,II I ,,'. LL`777 '‘,di • 40'44'52 7C'N 111'41 17 18'W ele.1771 m .AugAsp 700 4- Eye at 3 45,rn V Mountain Dell Canyon Golf Course SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION - MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES , SALT LAKE el GOLF • . •< '. ., 1, p c p I. ,re k T .. ill, 'y��ip�,k kICI i ,..,,,,,.),,,,, :, ,.. , ,"\ Y r..._ . .,..„ ) _ . , , - : .., ..... -,,,. -,...- - - 4 7. z• ire 4�/ �,� • fib.. % , v}c.. 4,''' , , ail s c.. . .. .. .. .,004nu.'.. -r... 1W.2006 - r."�iall ... .1 Mountain Dell Lake Golf Course • mop II SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION \- MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT JAM..crr GOLF • 'TT_- ___._.__ --_' __ _._..-.___—.__._ .._--._—_—_ - ---- __-__.__- IV. ', ' .- 1401,0*41104100 .A*114P'''4410001:7 -4*- : .t ' ;16;iitogw' if. ,7.4 s r irk...-. 1‘., ,...4 . 4-ss.- -)1. ,..., ,..% . - . 111: ..' ' I Iliblir 10,. , i e 1,:;4* :_. ., ` 7. r, e �1 i • - ' t4;16414' -'.;t1 •:'iii, ..t„ LA k T.'."' .tyr-rit Oral",ji i. ".P 1.1.obi 44%. gh: 4#7 t 4 1 likkti4 t ' V 1.' Pt - 0 .%r""' 0 • t L r ' - - -1 . 0 ., 1.. .. ...,;:,:liv,;(41::rhyg,;;iit, ; , -t% _.,._ .digieogigigkiiii, 10.10. ..„,,,„____ - Ith;L. -:. , .---# . ri-.' - , ,,,.. sir_ .i.....:.....:::,:...,:::::.....tw,,.. .. ,..„ .. ..._ "ii,:-,--ilfig. . -Piet)1 •t+•Iga�� ♦ .1. .,;__,,. "4:::7'7 7..... •i�i• :ii�wii M�iM "T ■■ R••r'+w r fk• ri::i••r�i.i�vfv•i�it • .. 'g s:a6L—.w I _l h,.. M .i�i.•7IK� `1+.. . ..,....A. .i. . _ ,. * ' RI. iii• '.if •. !„'.',:v.:" . ` �'e7r 1 fti 7 ,. 11 t -' .- „.R k ri s. fati .• j Fi•, •Jam% limb t ",k G �"S`.� 'IP% � .i . :.4li. • • *'! N • bl Date: Novemberr 2009 Scale 1" = 100' Preliminary Design & Renovation Concept a SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION -!� MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF 0 ,., ,.•••• :`• . it's ,-.1. „. 7''',,,., •..4 Y ,- • , - .*se :4 . ',:.-„.'.'l'-''''2:::141:. ';'....'•••ir,A,..,,;',.., ,.:44' ..., . ,...d . -.,:'... . ..,.:''''' '''''''' .:. :. ,may • s ',I., , - - .•r. .k -. `'• «.raid.i.- . ..._ _-- '. fi' • f, ., , w. . _ 1 •4 .. _. - t.: ,y�,. .vItF1 Z y 2. ,. . i ^ I 1 • $. E fr - 1 , . , _, ..,. . , ... . . . . ... II, .1 • ., r i t. .,•'','..\ -•,. . -; -,s, IIlI z: • _ F E 0 ' , t .� 4.- �� . . : '..... .t9 '+ a..'rr1j�� '6 . I eS ', l .,r }a . ,11•ir� l.v .. ,p4.1� ii_ ►w` Kra s • •, : t:. t. • 11V t r`•r14'.1S o lT« ..- ,s .- 5 ~• i 1 -4 -t' ! i. 11 F r. 4 F` . .t a• K a . - P s;_. i.• ' n +NrY• gr T .I r'•`f. a Cam, ftit*4,- ._' a -- • u ►A -6 Mc•� 1 ' i. .-:"r.-....:,.,-t'l.is:- .):a.:. r+7La. -- + - .ei1` v�l_ `4P; _3':•.P '!�1f'ir 4-4-.k4i:a r *` v � Y •, qr t , • 11 � • � • ` \, ,! ev4, ✓V' 1 • vI •-y r 1 ..airs •e.. a ,.r c A 4 - n; • �P -` it ,n A te• , a ;AI' i .aa` `• A .. '..Y `, - ~ - • . i S.'d I" ~4 J +"' • . t . - �...,.-•.- ter Rose Park & Jordan River Par-3 ® Preliminary Design & Renovation Concept Date: a,` er20DS SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION - -, MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF a , . ,. ...- .m.,.......,. .., ... . . , ., ,.. a It . I% --....". ' ,,,r : .4,, . ..,... . • . .,.... .. ., . .. ,, 4 fr `��- •..,,�--- --.... -- - • 4 iiilieth,i \ t If. - - ' ( . , ' 1115*,...,••lift., •,,,,,,,.. ,.. 4. • Y-7 f %, , . 'k i • . 0 , 'Yr . .. oot I • �i �.4 — 0 't• -4" 40-3,.,3,4c. ,• 111'S9Lc c_ �e. '. .•••• - Aug?OCK `*'3.,,..-F1, a., ,- Wingpointe Golf Course SCANNED TO SAK 12 U% TTel,R O OAT SCANNED BY. DANIEL A. MULE. ""� RA��-�L////PH BECKS ®��� CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES • / '1 R TREASURER'S DIVISION -(((/ ;0I,/ CITY CORiiMITTAL I,l / 6 , I�� i 13 2u11 , Date Received: Ralph Becker. Mayor SLC COUNC€L 'OFF;Dhte sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October IS, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer 1 / SUBJECT: General Obligation Bonds, Series 2011 Parameters Resolution for Open Space Projects STAFF CONTACT: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer 801-535-6411 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Resolution RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a discussion and adopt a Parameters Resolution on November 1, 2011 for the above-mentioned bond issue. The Parameters Resolution will: a) authorize a Notice of Public Hearing to be published twice prior to the date set for the public hearing; and b) set November 22, 2011 as the date to hold the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT: None. A property tax levy resulting from the issuance of voter- authorized general obligation bonds will generate sufficient property tax revenue to cover debt service costs for the period over which the bonds are outstanding. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On November 4, 2003, voters within Salt Lake City authorized the City to issue and sell general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $5.4 million for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring and preserving open space, park and recreational lands, and amenities within Salt Lake City or its environs. The attached Parameters Resolution contemplates these general obligation bonds being issued in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,000,000, to bear interest at a rate or rates of not to exceed 5% per annum, and to mature over a period not to exceed 11 years. In accordance with provisions of the Local Government Bonding Act, the City is required to hold a public hearing to receive input from the public with respect to: a) the issuance of our general obligation bonds; and b) the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. The financing team is requesting that the City Council LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 145462, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5462 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7946 FAX: 801-535-6082 WWW.SLCGOV.COM ®accvcco rnvcw Page 2 of 2 approve a motion on November 1. 2011 setting Tuesday, November 22. 2011 as the date to hold the public hearing. A Notice of Public Hearing is required to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks, with the first publication being at least 14 days prior to the date set for the public hearing. The current plan is for the Notice of Public Hearing to be published on November 6. 2011 and November 11, 2011. The Parameters Resolution, Notice of Bonds to Be Issued, Notice of Public Hearing, and Final Bond Resolution are attached. The Final Bond Resolution is scheduled for adoption on December 6, 2011. In January. 2009 the City issued $800,000 of General Obligation Bonds for Open Space Projects. Bonding requirements state that within eighteen months after an asset is placed into service or three years after the first expenditure, bonds need to be issued. To date two properties have been purchased but not placed in service: Sugar House Draw Properties: (purchased 4/8/2011) • Three parcels: $384,072.30 of which Salt Lake Country contributed $275,000 towards the purchase of these parcels leaving $109,072.30 as eligible for bonding. Wasatch Hollow: (purchased 12/30/2008) • Goodwill Parcels: $1,377,335. In addition to the purchases indicated above and miscellaneous surveys and appraisal fees. and a pro-rated portion of bond election costs, there will be bond issuance costs totaling approximately $48,500. Debt service is estimated to be approximately $180,000 per year for 10 years. In 200S Zions First National Bank was selected through a Request for Proposal process to act as Underwriter for any Open Space bonds issued relative to the November 2003 ballot proposition. Because of the small par amount of the current issue (approximately $1,580.000). Zions Bank will privately place these bonds into their portfolio rather than sell them through a public offering. Attachment cc: Gina Chamness, Leslie Chan, Boyd Ferguson, Gordon Hoskins, Emy Maloutas, Marina Scott H. rrca, D.insDo,s'.Council Coker Letters\Open Space 2011 Brteline-P.tranuters Reso doe Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 10/18/1 1 RESOLUTION No. OF 2011 A Resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of up to S2,000,000 aggregate principal amount of General Obligation Bonds of Salt Lake City, Utah, for purposes of acquiring and preserving, Open Space, Park and Recreational Lands, as described herein; fixing the maximum aggregate principal amount of the bonds, the maximum number of years over which the bonds may mature, the maximum interest rate that the bonds may bear and the maximum discount from par at which the bonds may be sold; providing for the publication of a Notice of Bonds to be Issued; providing for the running of a contest period; providing for the holding of a public hearing relative to the City's general obligation bonds for open space; authorizing the advertisement for sale of the bonds and the circulation of an Official Statement with respect thereto; and providing for related matters. WHEREAS, at the special bond election duly and lawfully called and held in Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), on November 4, 2003 (the "Special Bond Election"), the issuance of bonds was authorized as follows: (1) $10,200,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds (the "Proposition No. 1 Bonds") was authorized for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring. improving and renovating facilities for Hogle Zoo located at approximately 2600 East Sunnyside Avenue; (2) S 10,200.000 principal amount of general obligation bonds (the "Proposition No. 2 Bonds") was authorized for the purpose of paying the costs of renovating, improving and preserving the old main library building and providing related facilities located at approximately 5th South Street and 2nd East Street to establish a science, culture and art education center currently known as The Leonardo at Library Square; (3) $5,400.000 principal amount of general obligation bonds (the "Proposition No. 4 Bonds") was authorized for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring and preserving open space, park and recreational lands and amenities (the -Project"): (4) S15,300,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds (the "Proposition No. 5 Bonds") was authorized for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring. constructing, furnishing and equipping a multi-purpose regional sports, recreation and education complex and related roads, parking and improvements: (5) S1.100,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds (the "Proposition No. 6 Bonds") was authorized for the purpose of paying the costs of 3083104.01.03.doc 0868117 RDB mo '1 1 Parameters Resolution,Open Space improving and renovating Tracy Aviary located at approximately 589 East Street and 1300 South Street; and WHEREAS, the result of the Special Bond Election was declared by the City Council of the City (the "Council"),sitting as a Board of Canvassers,on November 10. 2003; WHEREAS, the City has heretofore authorized and issued $22,300,000 of the bonds voted at the Special Bond Election, consisting of all of the Proposition No. 1 Bonds, the Proposition No. 2 Bonds and the Proposition No. 6 Bonds and 5800,000 of the Proposition No. 4 Bonds; WHEREAS. the City has not heretofore issued any of the Proposition No. 5 Bonds voted at the Special Bond Election; WHEREAS, the Council has determined to authorize the issuance and sale at this time of up to an additional $2,000,000 principal amount of the bonds voted at the Special Bond Election, consisting of up to $2,000,000 of authorized Proposition No.4 Bonds to finance the Project (the "Bonds"); WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable provisions of Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Utah Code"), the Local Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11 of the Utah Code and the authorization of the Special Bond Election, the City has the authority to issue the Bonds for the purpose of paying all or a part of the costs of the Project; WHEREAS, Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code provides for the publication of a Notice of Bonds to be Issued, and the City desires to cause the publication of such a Notice at this time in compliance with said Section with respect to such general obligation bonds; WHEREAS, Section 1 1-14-318 of the Act requires that a public hearing be held to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector and that notice of such public hearing be given as provided by law and, in satisfaction of such requirement, the City desires to publish a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Issue Bonds (the "Notice of Public Hearing") pursuant to such Section; and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide for the holding of a public hearing, as required by law, and to allow for alternative methods for the sale of the Bonds; Now, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: Section 1. The Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the residents of the City for the City to issue the Bonds as its general obligation bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed S2,000,000, consisting of up to S2,000,000 of authorized Proposition No. 4 Bonds, to bear interest at a rate or rates of not to exceed five percent (5.00%) per annum, to mature over a period not to exceed eleven (1 1) years from the date or dates of their issuance, and to be sold at a discount from par,expressed as a percentage of - 2 - I I Parameters Resolution/Open Space principal amount,of not to exceed two percent (2.00%),pursuant to a resolution to be adopted by the Council authorizing and confirming the issuance and sale of the Bonds (the substantially final form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I and is herein referred to as the "Final Bond Resolution"). Therefore, the City hereby declares its intention to issue the Bonds according to the provisions of this Resolution and the Final Bond Resolution. The Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of paying, all or a part of the costs of the Project. The Bonds may be issued and sold in a single series or in multiple series. If the Bonds are sold in more than one series, each series may be sold separately or may be combined with one or more other series of the Bonds. Section 2. The Council hereby authorizes and approves the issuance and sale of the Bonds, pursuant to the provisions of this Resolution and the Final Bond Resolution, with such changes to the Final Bond Resolution as shall be approved by the Council upon the adoption thereof.provided that the principal amount, interest rates, maturity and discount, if any, of and for the Bonds shall not exceed the respective maximums set forth in Section 1 hereof. Section 3. In accordance with the provisions of Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code, the City Recorder shall cause a"Notice of Bonds to be Issued," in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 2. to be published one time in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret Morning News, newspapers of general circulation in the City, and shall cause a copy of this Resolution (together with all exhibits hereto) and of the Final Bond Resolution to be kept on file in the office of the City Recorder for public examination during the regular business hours of the City until at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of publication thereof. For a period of thirty (30) days from and after publication of the Notice of Bonds to be Issued, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of this Resolution (including the Final Bond Resolution attached hereto) or the Bonds hereby authorized or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Bonds. After such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of this Resolution (including the Final Bond Resolution) or the Bonds or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Bonds for any cause. Section 4. In satisfaction of the requirements of Section 11-14-318 of the Act, a public hearing shall be held by the Council on Tuesday,November 22, 2011,during the regular Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m., at the regular meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building,451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance by the City of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. Section 5. The City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder(the "City Recorder") shall publish or cause to be published the Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Issue Bonds (the "Notice of Public Hearing") in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, newspapers having. general circulation in Salt Lake City, Utah, and in which notices relative to the City are customarily published. Such notice shall be published once a week for two consecutive weeks. with the first publication being at least 14 days prior to the date set for the public hearing. The City Recorder shall also post or cause to be posted the Notice of Public Hearing on the Utah - 3 - 1 I Parameter,Re olution/Open Space Public Notice Website no less than 14 days before the public hearing. The Notice of Public Hearing shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Section 6. It is hereby declared that all parts of this Resolution are severable, and if any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Resolution shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable,the invalidity or unenforceability of any such section, paragraph,clause or provision shall not affect the remaining sections, paragraphs, clauses or provisions of this Resolution. Section 7. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed. Section 8. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. (Signature page follows.) - 4 - .1 I Parameter~Resolution Open Space EXHIBIT 2 NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-316, Utah Code Annotated 1953. as amended, that on November I, 2011, the City Council (the "Council") of Salt Lake City. Utah (the "City"),adopted a resolution (the "Resolution") in which it authorized and approved the issuance of its general obligation bonds (the '`Bonds"), in one or more series, in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed Two Million Dollars, to bear interest at a rate or rates of not to exceed five percent per annum. to mature over a period not to exceed eleven years from their date or dates and to be sold at a discount from par, expressed as a percentage of principal amount,of not to exceed two percent. Pursuant to the Resolution, up to S2,000,000 principal amount of the Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring and preserving open space, park and recreational lands and amenities. The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City pursuant to the Resolution, including as part of the Resolution the draft of the final bond resolution that was before the City and attached to the Resolution in substantially final form at the time of the adoption of the Resolution. The Council is to adopt the final bond resolution in such form and with such changes thereto as the Council shall approve upon the adoption thereof, provided that the principal amount, interest rate or rates. maturity and discount, if any, will not exceed the respective maximums described above. A copy of the Resolution (including the draft final bond resolution attached to the Resolution) is on file in the office of the City Recorder of the City at 451 South State Street, Room 415, in Salt Lake City, Utah, where the Resolution may be examined during regular business hours of the City Recorder from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Resolution shall be so available for inspection for a period of at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of the publication of this notice. NOTICE Is FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law for a period of thirty (30) days from and after the date of the publication of this notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of the above-described Resolution (including the final bond resolution attached thereto) of the City or the Bonds authorized thereby or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Bonds. After such time. no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of the Resolution, the Bonds or the provisions for their security or payment for any cause. DATED this 1st day of November, 2011. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH By [Deputy] City Recorder [SEAL] Exhibit 2-1 'I I Parameter~Resolution Open Space EXHIBIT 3 SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ISSUE BONDS PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on November 1, 2011, the City Council (the "Council-) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), adopted a resolution (the "Resolution") calling a public hearing to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of its general obligation bonds (the "Bonds") to finance all or a portion of the cost of acquiring and preserving open space, park and recreational lands and amenities (the "Project") and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. pursuant to the Local Government Bonding Act,Title 11.Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953,as amended (the "Act"). PURPOSE FOR ISSUING BONDS The City intends to issue the Bonds for the purpose of(1) financing all or a portion of the costs of acquiring and preserving the Project and (2) paying the costs incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds. MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BONDS The City intends to issue the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding Two Million Dollars, as authorized at a special bond election duly and lawfully called and held in the City on November 4, 2003. THE TAXES,IF ANY,PROPOSED TO BE PLEDGED The City proposes to pledge the full faith and credit of the City for the payment of the Bonds and may be obligated to levy and collect ad valorem taxes without limitation as to rate or amount in order to pay the Bonds,as provided by law. TIME,PLACE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING The City will hold a public hearing during its City Council meeting that begins at 7:00 p.m. on November 22, 2011. The public hearing will be held at the regular meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers. Room 315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah. All members of the public are invited to attend and participate in the public hearing. Written comments may be submitted to the City, to the attention of the City Recorder,prior to the public hearing. Exhibit 3-1 -1 I Parameter'Re olution;Open Space Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 10/t 8/1 l .. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Resolution No. of 2011 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of General Obligation Bonds,Series 2011 Adopted ,2011 3083181.01.03.doc 0868117'RDB mo Final Bond Re,olution i I I Open Spaces TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS 2 Section 101. Definitions Section 102. Rules of Construction 5 Section 103. Authority for Bond Resolution 5 ARTICLE II AUTHORIZATION,TERMS AND ISSUANCE OF BONDS 5 Section 201. Authorization of Bonds. Principal Amount, Designation and Series 5 Section 202. Purpose 5 Section 203. Issue Date 5 Section 204. Bond Details 5 Section 205. Denominations and Numbers 6 Section 206. Paying Agent and Bond Registrar 6 Section 207. Optional Redemption and Redemption Price; Notice of Redemption 7 Section 208. Sale of Bonds 8 Section 209. Execution of Bonds 8 Section 210. Delivery of the Bonds; Application of Proceeds 9 Section 211. Further Authority 9 Section 212. Establishment of Accounts 9 ARTICLE III TRANSFER AND EXCHANGE OF BONDS; BOND REGISTRAR 10 Section 301. Transfer of Bonds. 10 Section 302. Exchange of Bonds 10 Section 303. Bond Registration Books 11 Section 304. List of Bondowners 11 Section 305. Duties of Bond Registrar 11 ARTICLE IV INITIAL ISSUANCE OF BONDS I 1 Section 401. Initial Issuance of Bonds 11 ARTICLE V COVENANTS AND UNDERTAKINGS 12 Section 501. Covenants of Issuer 12 Section 502. Levy of Taxes; Bond Account 12 Section 503. Arbitrage Covenant: Covenant to Maintain Tax-Exemption 13 ARTICLE VI FORNI OF BONDS 14 Section 601. Form of Bonds 14 - i - Final Bond Re,olution I.1 I Open Space) RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 A Resolution confirming- the sale and authorizing the issuance of S General Obligation Bonds, Series 2011 of Salt Lake City, Utah; fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby; providing for the levy of taxes to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds; providing for the use of the proceeds thereof; making certain findings and covenants in connection therewith; ratifying actions heretofore taken; making certain representations and covenants concerning maintenance of the tax-exempt status of interest thereon under the federal income tax laws; approving the form and authorizing the execution of a Purchase Contract; and providing for related matters. WHEREAS, at the special bond election duly and lawfully called and held in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Issuer"), on November 4, 2003 (the "Bond Election"), the issuance of bonds was authorized as follows: (1) S 10,200,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds (the "Proposition No. I Bonds") was authorized for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, improving and renovating facilities for Hogle Zoo located at approximately 2600 East Sunnyside Avenue; (2) $10,200,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds (the "Proposition No. 2 Bonds") was authorized for the purpose of paying the costs of renovating, improving and preserving the old main library building and providing related facilities located at approximately 5th South Street and 2nd East Street to establish a science, culture and art education center currently known as The Leonardo at Library Square; (3) $5,400,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds (the "Proposition No. 4 Bonds") was authorized for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring. and preserving open space, park and recreational lands and amenities (the "Project"): (4) $15,300,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds (the "Proposition No. 5 Bonds") was authorized for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring. constructing, furnishing and equipping a multi-purpose regional sports. recreation and education complex and related roads, parking and improvements; and (5) S I.100.000 principal amount of general obligation bonds (the "Proposition No. 6 Bonds") was authorized for the purpose of paying the costs of improving and renovating Tracy Aviary located at approximately 589 East Street and 1300 South Street; Final Bond Resolution I'I I Open Space) WHEREAS. the Issuer has heretofore issued 8800,000 of the Proposition No. 4 Bonds voted at the Bond Election; • WHEREAS, the Issuer has determined to authorize the issuance and sale at this time of S principal amount of the Proposition No. 4 Bonds voted at the Bond Election to finance the Project; WHEREAS. in satisfaction of the requirements to Section 11-14-318 of the Utah Code, the City, on Tuesday, November 22, 2011, held a public hearing after due notice thereof to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City adopted a resolution on November 1, 2011 (the "Parameters Resolution"), approving the issuance of the Bonds, calling for the publication of a "Notice of Bonds to be Issued" and setting certain parameters for the Bonds: WHEREAS, the Notice of Bonds to be Issued was published pursuant to the Parameters Resolution on , 2011, in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, newspapers having general circulation in the City, and posted on the website created pursuant to Section 45- 1-101�of the Utah Code on ,2011; WHEREAS, no action contesting the legality of the Bonds has been filed to the date hereof, as permitted by Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code; "som' WHEREAS, the Issuer has made arrangements for the purchase of the Bonds and the financing of a portion of the Project at favorable interest rates; and WHEREAS. in the opinion of the Issuer, it is in the best interests of the Issuer that (a) the offer of the Purchaser for the purchase of the Bonds be accepted, (b) the sale of the Bonds to the Purchaser be ratified and confirmed, and (c) the Mayor and the City Recorder be authorized to execute,countersign and attest the Purchase Contract between the Purchaser and the Issuer; NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Section 101. Definitions. As used in this Bond Resolution (including the preambles hereto). unless the context shall otherwise require, the following terms shall have the following meanings: "Act" means. collectively, the Local Government Bonding Act. Chapter 14 of Title 11 of the Utah Code. the Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 7 of Title 15 of the Utah Code. and the applicable provisions of Title 10 of the Utah Code. - 2 - Final Bond Resolution I'I I Open Space) "Bond Account" means the Bond Account established in Section 212 hereof. "Bond Counsel" means Chapman and Cutler LLP or another attorney or a firm of attorneys of nationally recognized standing in matters pertaining to the tax-exempt status of interest on obligations issued by states and their political subdivisions, duly admitted to the practice of law before the highest court of any state of the United States. "Bond Election" means the special bond election duly and lawfully called and held in the Issuer on November 4, 2003, at which the issuance and sale by the Issuer of $42,200,000 of general obligation bonds, consisting of the Proposition No. 1 Bonds, the Proposition No. 2 Bonds, the Proposition No. 4 Bonds, the Proposition No. 5 Bonds and the Proposition No. 6 Bonds. were authorized, the results of which election were declared by the City Council of the Issuer, sitting as a Board of Canvassers,on November 10, 2003. "Bond Registrar" means each Person appointed by the Issuer as bond registrar and agent for the transfer, exchange and authentication of the Bonds. Pursuant to Section 206 hereof, the initial Bond Registrar is U.S. Bank National Association, of Salt Lake City, Utah. "Bond Resolution" means, collectively, this Resolution of the Issuer adopted on , 2011. and the Parameters Resolution, both authorizing the issuance and sale of the Bonds. "Bondowner" or "owner" means the registered owner of any Bond as shown in the registration books of the Issuer kept by the Bond Registrar for such purpose. "Bonds" means the Issuer's $ General Obligation Bonds, Series 2011 authorized by the Bond Resolution. "City Recorder" means the duly qualified and acting City Recorder of the Issuer or in the absence or disability of such person, a deputy city recorder or such other official as shall be duly authorized to act in the City Recorder's stead. "City Treasurer" means the City Treasurer of the Issuer or, in the absence or disability of such person, a deputy city treasurer or such other official as shall be duly authorized to act in the City Treasurer's stead. "Closing Date" means the date of the initial issuance of the Bonds. "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.as amended. "Depositors'Account" means the Depository Account established in Section 212 hereof. "Exchange Bond" means any Exchange Bond as defined in Section 209 hereof. "Issuer" means Salt Lake City, Utah. - 3 - Final Bond Resolution r I I Open Space) "Mayor" means the duly qualified and acting Mayor of the Issuer or in the absence or disability of such person, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Mayor of the Issuer. "Paving Agent" means each Person appointed by the Issuer as paying agent with respect to the Bonds. Pursuant to Section 206 hereof, the initial Paying Agent is U.S. Bank National Association.of Salt Lake City, Utah. "Person" means natural persons, firms, partnerships, associations, corporations, trusts, public bodies and other entities. "Project" means acquiring and preserving open space, park and recreational lands and amenities. "Proposition No. I Bonds" means $10,200,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds authorized for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, improving and renovating facilities for Hogle Zoo located at approximately 2600 East Sunnyside Avenue. "Proposition No. 2 Bonds" means $10,200,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds authorized for the purpose paying the costs of renovating, improving and preserving the old main library building and providing related facilities located at approximately 5th South Street and 2nd East Street to establish a science,culture and art education center currently known as The Leonardo at Library Square. Amok "Proposition No. 4 Bonds" means $5,400,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds authorized for the purpose of financing the Open Space Project. "Proposition No. 5 Bonds" means S15,300,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds authorized for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, constructing, furnishing and equipping a multi-purpose regional sports, recreation and education complex and related roads. parking and improvements. "Project Account" means the Project Account established in Section 212 hereof. "Purchase Contract" means the Purchase Contract, dated , 2011, between the Issuer and the Purchaser pursuant to which the Bonds are to be sold by the Issuer to the Purchaser, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit I. "Purchaser" means Zions First National Bank of Salt Lake City, Utah, as the initial purchaser of the Bonds from the Issuer. "Record Date" means (a) in the case of each interest payment date, the day that is fifteen (15) days preceding such interest payment date, or if such day is not a business day for the Bond Registrar, the next preceding day that is a business day for the Bond Registrar and (b) in the case of each redemption, such record date as shall be specified by the Bond Registrar in the notice of redemption required by Section 207 hereof;provided that such record date shall be not less than fifteen (15) calendar days before the mailing of such notice of redemption. °~ - 4 - Final Bond Resolution('I I Open Space) "Regulations" means United States Treasury Regulations dealing with the tax-exempt bond provisions of the Code. "Tax Certificate" means any agreement or certificate of the Issuer that the Issuer may execute in order to establish and maintain the excludability of interest on the Bonds from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes. "United States" means the government of the United States of America. "Utah Code" means Utah Code Annotated 1953,as amended. Section 102. Rules of Construction. Unless the context otherwise requires: (a) references to Articles and Sections are to the Articles and Sections of this Bond Resolution: (b) the singular form of any word, including the terms defined in Section 101, includes the plural, and vice versa, and a word of any gender includes all genders; and (c) the terms "hereby," "hereof" "hereto," "herein," "hereunder" and any similar terms as used in this Bond Resolution refer to this Bond Resolution. Section 103. Authority for Bond Resolution. The Bond Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Act. ARTICLE II AUTHORIZATION,TERMS AND ISSUANCE OF BONDS Section 201. Authorization of Bonds, Principal Amount, Designation and Series. In accordance with and subject to the terms,conditions and limitations established by the Act and in the Bond Resolution, a series of General Obligation Bonds of the Issuer is hereby authorized to be issued in the aggregate principal amount of Dollars (S ). Such series of bonds shall be designated "General Obligation Bonds, Series 2011." Section 202. Purpose. The Bonds are hereby authorized to be issued under authority of the Act for the purpose of(a) financing the Project and (b) paying a portion of the costs related to the issuance and sale of the Bonds. Section 203. Issue Date. The Bonds shall be dated as of the Closing Date. Section 204. Bond Details. The Bonds shall mature on [December 15] of the years and in the principal amounts, and shall bear interest (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) from the date of original issuance thereof, payable semiannually on [June 15] and [December 15] of each year, commencing [June 15. 2012], and at the rates per annum,as shown below: - 5 - Final Bond Resolution i•I I Open Space) [DECEMMBER 151 AMOUNT INTEREST RATE OF THE YEAR MATURING PER ANNULI ck Each Bond shall bear interest from the interest payment date next preceding the date of registration and authentication thereof unless (a) it is registered and authenticated as of an interest payment date, in which event it shall bear interest from the date thereof, or (b) it is registered and authenticated prior to the first interest payment date, in which event it shall bear interest from its date, or (c) as shown by the records of the Bond Registrar, interest on the Bonds shall be in default, in which event it shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid in full. The Bond Registrar shall insert the date of registration and authentication of each Bond in the place provided for such purpose in the form of Bond Registrar's certificate of authentication on each Bond. The Bonds shall bear interest on overdue principal at the aforesaid respective rates. Section 205. Denominations and Numbers. The Bonds shall be issued as fully-registered bonds, without coupons. in the denomination of [$15,000 or any whole multiple of $5,000 in excess of thereof], not exceeding the amount of each maturity. The Bonds shall be numbered with the letter prefix "R-" and from one (I) consecutively upwards in order of issuance. Section 206. Paving Agent and Bond Registrar. U.S. Bank National Association, of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby appointed the initial Paying Agent and Bond Registrar for the Bonds. The Issuer may remove any Paying Agent and any Bond Registrar, and any successor thereto, and appoint a successor or successors thereto. Each Paying Agent and Bond Registrar shall signify its acceptance of the duties and obligations imposed upon it by the Bond Resolution by executing and delivering to the Issuer a written acceptance thereof. The principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America that, at the respective dates of payment thereof, is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts. The principal of and premium, if any,on the Bonds shall be payable when due to the owner of each Bond upon presentation and surrender thereof at the principal corporate trust office of the Paying Agent. Payment of interest on each Bond shall be made to the Person that, as of the Record Date, is the owner of the Bond and shall be made by check or draft mailed to the Person that, as of the Record Date, is the owner of the Bond. at the address of such owner as it appears on the registration books of the Issuer kept by the Bond Registrar, or at - 6 - Final Bond Resolution(•I I Open Space) such other address as is furnished to the Bond Registrar in writing by such owner on or prior to the Record Date. Section 207. Optional Redemption and Redemption Price; Notice of Redemption. (a) The Bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity, at the election of the Issuer, at any time, in whole or in part. from such maturities or parts thereof as shall be selected by the Issuer, upon notice given as provided below, at a redemption price equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption. (b) [If less than all of the Bonds of any maturity are to be redeemed, the particular Bonds or portion of Bonds of such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected at random by the Bond Registrar in such manner as the Bond Registrar in its discretion may deem fair and appropriate. The portion of any registered Bond of a denomination of more than $15,000 to be redeemed will be in the principal amount of S15,000 or any whole multiple of $5,000 in excess thereof, and in selecting portions of such Bonds for redemption, the Bond Registrar will treat each such Bond as representing that number of Bonds of such denomination that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by $15,000.] (c) Notice of redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar by registered or certified mail, not less than thirty (30) nor more than forty-five (45) days prior to the redemption date, to the owner, as of the Record Date, of each Bond that is subject to redemption. at the address of such owner as it appears in the registration books of the Issuer kept by the Bond Registrar, or at such other address as is furnished to the Bond Registrar in writing by such owner on or prior to the Record Date. Each notice of redemption shall state the Record Date, the principal amount, the redemption date, the place of redemption, the redemption price and, if less than all of the Bonds are to be redeemed, the distinctive numbers of the Bonds or portions of Bonds to be redeemed, and shall also state that the interest on the Bonds in such notice designated for redemption shall cease to accrue from and after such redemption date and that on the redemption date there will become due and payable on each of the Bonds to be redeemed the principal thereof and interest accrued thereon to the redemption date. Each notice of optional redemption may further state that such redemption shall be conditional upon the receipt by the Paying Agent, on or prior to the date fixed for such redemption,of moneys sufficient to pay the principal of and premium. if any, and interest on such Bonds to be redeemed and that if such moneys shall not have been so received said notice shall be of no force and effect and the Issuer shall not be required to redeem such Bonds. In the event that such notice of redemption contains such a condition and such moneys are not so received, the redemption shall not be made and the Bond Registrar shall within a reasonable time thereafter give notice, in the manner in which the notice of redemption was given, that such moneys were not so received. Any notice mailed as provided in this Section shall be conclusively presumed to have been duly given. whether or not the owner receives such notice. Failure to give such notice or any defect therein with respect to any Bond shall not affect the validity of the proceedings for redemption with respect to any other Bond. (d) If notice of redemption shall have been given as described above and the condition described in Section 207(c) hereof. if any, shall have been met. the Bonds or portions thereof specified in said notice shall become due and payable at the applicable redemption price on the - 7 - Final Bond Resolution I'I I Open Space) redemption date therein designated, and if, on the redemption date, moneys for the payment of the redemption price of all the bonds to be redeemed, together with interest to the redemption date, shall be available for such payment on said date, then from and after the redemption date interest on such bonds shall cease to accrue and become payable. (e) Upon the payment of the redemption price of Bonds being. redeemed,each check or other transfer of funds issued for such purpose shall bear the numbers identifying, by issue and maturity, the Bonds being redeemed with the proceeds of such check or other transfer. Section 208. Sale of Bonds. (a) The Bonds are hereby sold to the Purchaser at an aggregate price of $ (representing the principal amount of the Bonds[, less a placement agent fee paid by the Purchaser on behalf of the Issuer to Zions Bank Public Finance of $ D. on the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Contract and upon the basis of the representations therein set forth. The Purchase Contract, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and containing substantially the terms and provisions set forth therein, is hereby authorized and approved. To evidence the acceptance of the Purchase Contract, the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver, and the City Recorder to attest, countersign and seal the Purchase Contract, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1, with such insertions, deletions, changes, omissions and variations as the Mayor may deem appropriate (such approval of the Mayor of any such changes shall be conclusively established by the execution of the Purchase Contract). (b) The Bonds shall be delivered to the Purchaser and the proceeds of sale thereof ''" applied as provided in Section 210 hereof. Section 209. Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the Issuer by the Mayor, countersigned by the City Treasurer and attested and countersigned by the City Recorder (the signatures of the Mayor, City Treasurer and City Recorder being either manual or by facsimile) and the official seal of the Issuer or a facsimile thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. The use of such manual or facsimile signatures of the Mayor.the City Treasurer and the City Recorder and such facsimile or impression of the official seal of the Issuer on the Bonds are hereby authorized,approved and adopted by the Issuer as the authorized and authentic execution, attestation,countersignature and sealing of the Bonds by said officials on behalf of the Issuer. The Bonds shall then be delivered to the Bond Registrar for manual authentication by it. Only such of the Bonds as shall bear thereon a certificate of authentication, manually executed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of the Bond Resolution, and such certificate of the Bond Registrar shall be conclusive evidence that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly authenticated and delivered under, and are entitled to the benefits of, the Bond Resolution and that the owner thereof is entitled to the benefits of the Bond Resolution. The certificate of authentication of the Bond Registrar on any Bond shall be deemed to have been executed by it if (a) such Bond is signed by an authorized officer of the Bond Registrar, but it shall not be necessary that the same officer sign the certificate of authentication on all of the Bonds issued hereunder or that all of the Bonds hereunder be authenticated by the same Bond Registrar, and (b) the date of registration and authentication of the Bond is inserted in the place provided therefor on the certificate of authentication. - 8 - Final Bond Re,,olution r I I Open Space) The Mayor. the City Treasurer and the City Recorder are authorized to execute, countersign, attest and seal from time to time, in the manner described above, Bonds (the "Exchange Bonds") to be issued and delivered for the purpose of effecting transfers and exchanges of Bonds pursuant to Article III hereof. At the time of the execution. countersigning. attestation and sealing of the Exchange Bonds by the Issuer, the payee, principal amount. maturity and interest rate may be in blank. Upon any transfer or exchange of Bonds pursuant to Article III hereof, the Bond Registrar shall cause to be inserted in appropriate Exchange Bonds the appropriate payee, principal amount,maturity and interest rate. The Bond Registrar is hereby authorized and directed to hold the Exchange Bonds and to complete, authenticate and deliver the Exchange Bonds for the purpose of effecting transfers and exchanges of Bonds;provided that any Exchange Bonds authenticated and delivered by the Bond Registrar shall bear the same series, maturity and interest rate as Bonds delivered to the Bond Registrar for exchange or transfer and shall bear the name of such payee as the Bondowner requesting an exchange or transfer shall designate; and provided further that upon the delivery of any Exchange Bonds by the Bond Registrar a like principal amount of Bonds submitted for transfer or exchange, and of like series and having like maturity dates and interest rates, shall be cancelled. The execution. countersignature, attestation and sealing by the Issuer and delivery to the Bond Registrar of any Exchange Bond shall constitute full and due authorization of such Bond containing such payee, principal amount, maturity and interest rate as the Bond Registrar shall cause to be inserted, and the Bond Registrar shall thereby be authorized to authenticate and deliver such Exchange Bond in accordance with the provisions hereof. In case any officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature shall appear on any Bond (including any Exchange Bond) shall cease to be such officer before the issuance or delivery of such Bond, such signature or such facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until such issuance or delivery, respectively. Section 210. Delivery of the Bonds; Application of Proceeds. The Bonds shall be delivered to the Purchaser at such time and place as set forth in, and subject to, the provisions of the Purchase Contract. The City Recorder and the City Treasurer are hereby authorized and instructed to make or to cause delivery of the Bonds to the Purchaser and to receive payment therefor in accordance with the terms of the Purchase Contract and to deposit the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds into the Project Account to be used for the purpose for which the Bonds are herein authorized. The City Treasurer is authorized to cause to be transferred to the Paying Agent a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds to pay any costs of issuance of the Bonds authorized by the City Treasurer. Section 211. Further Authority. The Mayor, the City Treasurer and the City Recorder and other officers of the Issuer are, and each of them is, hereby authorized to do or perform all such acts and to execute all such certificates, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to provide for the issuance, sale, registration and delivery of the Bonds and to fulfill the obligations of the Issuer hereunder and thereunder. Section 212. Establishment of Accounts. (a) The following accounts on the accounting* records of the Issuer are hereby created, which are to be held as follows: - 9 - Final Bond Re.olution i I I Open Space) (i) Bond Account, to be held by the Issuer; (ii) Depository Account,to be held by the Paying Agent; and (iii) Project Account,to be held by the Issuer. (b) Pending application for the purposes contemplated hereby, moneys on deposit in the Bond Account, Depository Account and Project Account shall be invested as permitted by law in investments approved by the City Treasurer or other authorized officer of the Issuer. Following the earlier of March 1, 2012, or the date upon which all of the costs of issuance of the Bonds have been paid, any moneys remaining from the sale proceeds of the Bonds held by the Paying Agent at the direction of the City Treasurer pursuant to Section 210 hereof to pay the costs of issuance of behalf of the Issuer shall be transmitted to the Issuer for deposit into the Project Account. ARTICLE III TRANSFER AND EXCHANGE OF BONDS;BOND REGISTRAR Section 301. Transfer of Bonds. (a) Any Bond may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred, upon the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar pursuant to Section 303 hereof, by the Person in whose name it is registered, in person or by such owner's duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of such Bond for cancellation, accompanied by delivery of a duly executed written instrument of transfer in a form approved by the Bond Registrar. No transfer shall be effective until entered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar. The Issuer, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the Person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner thereof for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of. the principal thereof and interest due thereon and for all other purposes whatsoever. (b) Whenever any Bond or Bonds shall be surrendered for transfer, the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver a new fully-registered Bond or Bonds (which may be an Exchange Bond or Bonds pursuant to Section 209 hereof) of the same series, designation, maturity and interest rate and of authorized denominations duly executed by the Issuer, for a like aggregate principal amount. The Bond Registrar shall require the payment by the Bondowner requesting such transfer of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer. With respect to each Bond, no such transfer shall be required to be made after the Record Date with respect to any interest payment date to and including such interest payment date. Section 302. Exchange of Bonds. Bonds may be exchanged at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of fully-registered Bonds (which may be an Exchange Bond or Bonds pursuant to Section 209 hereof) of the same series, designation, maturity and interest rate of other authorized denominations. The Bond Registrar shall require the payment by the Bondowner requesting such exchange of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such exchange. With respect to each - 10 - Final Bond Resolution("I I Open Space) Bond, no such exchange shall be required to be made after the Record Date with respect to any interest payment date to and including such interest payment date. Section 303. Bond Registration Books. This Bond Resolution shall constitute a system of registration within the meaning. and for all purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 7 of Title 15 of the Utah Code. The Bond Registrar shall keep or cause to be kept, at its principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds, which shall at all times be open to inspection by the Issuer; and, upon presentation for such purpose, the Bond Registrar shall, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, register or transfer,or cause Bonds to be registered or transferred on those books as herein provided. Section 304. List of Bondowners. The Bond Registrar shall maintain a list of the names and addresses of the owners of all Bonds and upon any transfer shall add the name and address of the new Bondowner and eliminate the name and address of the transferor Bondowner. Section 305. Duties of Bond Registrar. If requested by the Bond Registrar, the Mayor, the City Treasurer and the City Recorder are authorized to execute the Bond Registrar's standard form of agreement between the Issuer and the Bond Registrar with respect to the compensation. obligations and duties of the Bond Registrar hereunder, which may include the following: (a) to act as bond registrar, authenticating agent. paying agent and transfer agent as provided herein; (b) to maintain a list of Bondowners as set forth herein and to furnish such list to the Issuer upon request,but otherwise to keep such list confidential; (c) to cancel and/or destroy Bonds that have been paid at maturity or submitted for exchange or transfer; (d) to furnish to the Issuer at least annually a certificate with respect to Bonds cancelled and/or destroyed; and (e) to furnish to the Issuer, upon its request, at least annually an audit confirmation of Bonds paid, Bonds outstanding and payments made with respect to interest on the Bonds. ARTICLE IV INITIAL ISSUANCE OF BONDS Section 401. Initial Issuance of Bonds . The Bonds shall be initially issued in the form of a separate. single. certificated. fully-registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 204 hereof. Upon initial issuance, the ownership of each such Bond shall be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of the Purchaser or its designee. - 11 - Final Bond Re,olution I'1 I Open Space) ARTICLE V COVENANTS AND UNDERTAKINGS Section 501. Covenants of Issuer. All covenants, statements, representations and agreements contained in the Bonds and all recitals and representations in the Bond Resolution are hereby considered and understood, and it is hereby confirmed that all such covenants, statements, representations and agreements are the covenants, statements, representations and agreements of the Issuer. Section 502. Levy of Taxes;Bond Account. The Issuer covenants and agrees that to pay the interest falling due on the Bonds as the same becomes due, and also to provide a sinking fund for the payment of the principal of the Bonds at maturity, there shall be levied on all taxable property in the Issuer in addition to all other taxes, a direct annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on the Bonds and to pay and retire the same. These taxes when collected shall be applied solely for the purpose of the payment of the interest on and principal of the Bonds, respectively, and for no other purpose whatsoever until the indebtedness so contracted under the Bond Resolution, principal and interest, shall have been fully paid, satisfied and discharged, but nothing. herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the Issuer from applying any other funds that may be in the Issuer's treasury and available for that purpose to the payment of such interest and principal as the same respectively become due and mature. The levy or levies herein provided for may thereupon be diminished to that extent. The sums herein provided for to meet the interest on the Bonds and to discharge the principal thereof when due are hereby appropriated 0004b, for that purpose, and the required amount for each year shall be included by the Issuer in its annual budget and its statement and estimate as certified to the County Council of Salt Lake County, Utah, in each year. Principal or interest falling due at any time when there shall not be available from the proceeds of the levies described in this Section money sufficient for the payment thereof shall, to the extent of such deficiency, be paid from other funds of the Issuer available for such purpose, and such other funds shall be reimbursed when the proceeds of such levies become available. The taxes or other funds that are referenced in the foregoing paragraph and that are to be used to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds shall be deposited into the Bond Account. On or prior to the date preceding each date on which monies are required to be on deposit with the Paying Agent sufficient for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds, but in any event not later than the business day next preceding, each such payment date, the Issuer shall transfer from the Bond Account to the Paying Agent for deposit into the Depository Account an amount sufficient to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds on such payment date. Moneys remaining. on deposit in the Bond Account immediately after each such payment date, including any investment earnings thereon earned during the period of such deposit, shall be immediately withdrawn from the Bond Account by the Issuer and commingled with the general funds of the Issuer. Moneys remaining on deposit in the Depository Account immediately after each such payment date, including any investment earnings thereon earned during the period of such deposit, shall be immediately withdrawn from the Depository Account by the Paying Agent and paid to the Issuer and commingled with the general funds of the Issuer. The Bond Account and the Depository Account have been established primarily to achieve a proper matching of - 1) - Final Bond Resolution i'I I Open Spice) revenues and debt service on the Bonds. The Bond Account and the Depository Account shall be depleted at least once each year by the Issuer,except for a reasonable carryover amount not to exceed the greater of one year's earnings on the Bond Account or one-twelfth of the annual debt service on the Bonds. Section 503. Arbitrage Covenant; Covenant to Maintain Tax-Exemption. (a) The Mayor. the City Treasurer and other appropriate officials of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute such Tax Certificates as shall be necessary to establish that (i) the Bonds are not "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and the Regulations, (ii) the Bonds are not and will not become "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code,(iii) all applicable requirements of Section 149 of the Code are and will be met, (iv) the covenants of the Issuer contained in this Section will be complied with and (v) interest on the Bonds is not and will not become includible in gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes under the Code and applicable Regulations. (b) The Issuer covenants and certifies to and for the benefit of the owners from time to time of the Bonds that: (i) it will at all times comply with the provisions of any Tax Certificates; (ii) it will at all times comply with the rebate requirements contained in Section 148(f) of the Code and the Regulations, including, without limitation, the entering into any necessary rebate calculation agreement to provide for the calculations of amounts required to be rebated to the United States, the keeping of records necessary to enable such calculations to be made, the creation of any rebate fund to provide for the payment of any required rebate and the timely payment to the United States of all amounts, including any applicable penalties and interest, required to be rebated, except to the extent that the Bonds are not subject to such arbitrage rebate requirements; (iii) no use will be made of the proceeds of the issue and sale of the Bonds, or any funds or accounts of the Issuer that may be deemed to be proceeds of the Bonds, pursuant to Section 148 of the Code and applicable Regulations, which use, if it had been reasonably expected on the date of issuance of the Bonds, would have caused the Bonds to be classified as "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code; (iv) it will not use or permit the use of any of its facilities or properties in such manner that such use would cause the Bonds to be "private activity bonds" described in Section 141 of the Code; (v) no bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of the Issuer (other than the Bonds) have been or will be issued. sold or delivered within a period beginning fifteen (15) days prior to the sale of the Bonds and ending fifteen (15) days following the delivery of the Bonds,other than the Bonds; (vi) it will not take any action that would cause interest on the Bonds to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion from gross income of the owners of the Bonds as - 13 - Final Bond Re.olution 1'I I Open Space) provided in Section 103 of the Code. nor will it omit to take or cause to be taken in timely manner any action, which omission would cause interest on the Bonds to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion from gross income of the owners of the Bonds as provided in Section 103 of the Code: (vii) it recognizes that Section 149(a) of the Code requires the Bonds to be issued and to remain in fully registered form in order that interest thereon is excludable from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes under laws in force at the time the Bonds are initially delivered and the Issuer agrees that it will not take any action to permit the Bonds to be issued in, or converted into, bearer or coupon form without an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that such action will not adversely affect the excludability of interest on the Bonds from the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes; and (viii) it acknowledges that, in the event of an examination by the Internal Revenue Service of the exemption from federal income taxation for interest paid on the Bonds, under present rules, the Issuer may be treated as a "taxpayer" in such examination and agrees that it will respond in a commercially reasonable manner to any inquiries from the Internal Revenue Service in connection with such an examination. Pursuant to these covenants, the Issuer obligates itself to comply throughout the term of the issue of the Bonds with the requirements of Section 103 of the Code and the Regulations proposed or promulgated thereunder. '""ik ARTICLE VI FORM OF BONDS Section 601. Form of Bonds. Each fully-registered Bond shall be, respectively. in substantially the following form, with such insertions or variations as to any amortization provisions and such other insertions or omissions, endorsements and variations as may be required: - 14 - Final Bond Resolution i•I I Open Space) [FORM OF BOND] Registered Registered UNITED STATES OF AMIERICA STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE SALT LAKE CITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND,SERIES 2011 Number R- S INTEREST MATURITY DATED RATE: DATE: DATE: December 15, 20_ ,2011 REGISTERED OWNER: PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: DOLLARS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Salt Lake City. Utah (the "Issuer"), a duly organized and existing municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the State of Utah, acknowledges itself indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to the registered owner identified above, or registered assigns, on the maturity date identified above, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal amount identified above (the "Principal Amount"). and to pay the registered owner hereof interest on the balance of the Principal Amount from time to time remaining unpaid from the interest payment date next preceding the date of registration and authentication of this Bond, unless this Bond is registered and authenticated as of an interest payment date, in which event this Bond shall bear interest from such interest payment date. or unless this Bond is registered and authenticated prior to the first interest payment date, in which event this Bond shall bear interest from the dated date identified above (the 'Dated Date"). or unless, as shown by the records of the hereinafter referred to Bond Registrar. interest on the hereinafter referred to Bonds shall be in default, in which event this Bond shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid in full. at the interest rate per annum (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) identified above (the "Interest Rate"). payable semiannually on [June 15] and [December 15] in each year. commencing [June 15, 2012]. until payment in full of the Principal Amount. This Bond shall bear interest on overdue principal at the Interest Rate. Principal of and premium, if - 15 - Final Bond Re,olution)•I I Open Space) any, on this Bond shall be payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the principal corporate trust office of U.S. Bank National Association, of Salt Lake City, Utah, as Paying Agent for the Bonds. or at the principal corporate trust office of any successor who is at the time the Paying Agent of the Issuer, in any coin or currency of the United States of America that at the time of payment is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts; and payment of the interest hereon shall be made to the registered owner hereof and shall be paid by check or draft mailed to the person who is the registered owner of record on the Record Date. This Bond is one of the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2011 of the Issuer (the "Bonds"), limited to the aggregate principal amount of Dollars (S ),dated as of the Dated Date, issued under and by virtue of the Local Government Bonding Act. Chapter 14 of Title 11, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Utah Code"), the Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 7 of Title 15 of the Utah Code, and the applicable provisions of Title 10 of the Utah Code (collectively, the "Act"), and under and pursuant to resolutions of the Issuer adopted on November 1, 2011 and _ , 2011 (collectively, the "Bond Resolution"), after having been authorized at a special bond election held on November 4, 2003, in the Issuer by a vote of the qualified electors thereof, for the purpose of acquiring and preserving open space,park and recreational lands and amenities. U.S. Bank National Association, of Salt Lake City, Utah, is the initial bond registrar and paying agent of the Issuer with respect to the Bonds. This bond registrar and paying agent, together with any successor bond registrar or paying agent, are referred to herein.respectively,as the "Bond Registrar" and the "Paying Agent." °' ° The Issuer covenants and is by law required to levy annually a sufficient tax to pay interest on this Bond as it falls due and also to constitute a sinking_ fund for the payment of the principal hereof as the same falls due. This Bond is transferable, as provided in the Bond Resolution,only upon the books of the Issuer kept for that purpose at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by such owner's attorney duly authorized in writing. Such transfer shall be made upon surrender of this Bond,together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar,duly executed by the registered owner or such duly authorized attorney and upon the payment of the charges prescribed in the Bond Resolution, and thereupon the Issuer shall issue in the name of the transferee a new registered Bond or Bonds of authorized denominations of the same aggregate principal amount, series, designation, maturity and interest rate as the surrendered Bond. all as provided in the Bond Resolution. No transfer of this Bond shall be effective until entered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar. The Issuer, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name this Bond is registered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal hereof and interest due hereon and for all other purposes whatsoever, and neither the Issuer, the Bond Registrar nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. The Bonds are issuable solely in the form of registered Bonds in the denomination of S I5,000 or any whole multiple of SS.000 in excess thereof. - 16 - Final Bond Resolution('I I Open Space) The Bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity, at the election of the Issuer, at any time, in whole or in part, from such maturities or parts thereof as shall be selected by the Issuer. upon notice given as provided below, at a redemption price equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption. Notice of redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar by registered or certified mail not less than thirty (30) nor more than forty-five (45) days prior to the redemption date, to the registered owner of each Bond that is subject to redemption, at the address of such registered owner as it appears on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar,or at such other address as is furnished in writing by such registered owner to the Bond Registrar, all as provided in the Bond Resolution. Each notice of optional redemption may further state that such redemption shall be conditional upon the receipt by the Paying Agent, on or prior to the date fixed for such redemption. of moneys sufficient to pay the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on such Bonds to be redeemed and that if such moneys shall not have been so received said notice shall be of no force and effect and the Issuer shall not be required to redeem such Bonds. In the event that such notice of redemption contains such a condition and such moneys are not so received, the redemption shall not be made and the Bond Registrar shall within a reasonable time thereafter give notice, in the manner in which the notice of redemption was given, that such moneys were not so received. Any notice mailed as provided in this Section shall be conclusively presumed to have been duly given, whether or not the owner receives such notice. Failure to give such notice or any defect therein with respect to any Bond shall not affect the validity of the proceedings for redemption with respect to any other Bond. If notice of redemption shall have been given as aforesaid, the Bonds or portions thereof specified in that notice shall become due and payable at the applicable redemption price on the redemption date therein designated. If on the redemption date, moneys for the payment of the redemption price of all the Bonds to be redeemed, together with interest to the redemption date, shall be available for such payment on that date, then from and after the redemption date interest on such Bonds shall cease to accrue and become payable. Less than all of a Bond in a denomination in excess of[S15,000] may be so redeemed. In such case, upon the surrender of such Bond,there shall be issued to the registered owner thereof, without charge therefor, for the unredeemed balance of the principal amount of such Bond, registered Bonds of any of the authorized denominations,at the option of such owner. all as more fully set forth in the Bond Resolution. In selecting portions of any registered Bond that is of a denomination of more than [S15,000] for redemption, the Bond Registrar will treat each such Bond as representing that number of Bonds of [S15,000] denomination that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by [S15,000.] Except as otherwise provided herein and unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, words and phrases used herein shall have the same meanings as such words and phrases in the Bond Resolution. This Bond and the issue of Bonds of which it is a part are issued in conformity with and after full compliance with the Constitution of the State of Utah and pursuant to the provisions of - 17 - Final Bond Resolution 'I I Open Space) the Act and all other laws applicable thereto. It is hereby certified and recited that all conditions, acts and things required by the Constitution or laws of the State of Utah and by the Act and the Bond Resolution to exist, to have happened or to have been performed precedent to or in connection with the issuance of this Bond exist, have happened and have been performed and that the issue of Bonds, together with all other indebtedness of the Issuer, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and laws referenced above, and that the full faith and credit of the Issuer are hereby irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the principal of and interest on this Bond according to its terms. This Bond shall not be valid until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by the Bond Registrar. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, has caused this Bond to be signed in its name and on its behalf by its Mayor, countersigned by its City Treasurer and attested and countersigned by its City Recorder, and has caused the official seal of the City to be impressed hereon, all as of the Dated Date. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH By (manual signature) Mayor [SEAL] ''" COUNTERSIGN: By (manual signature) City Treasurer ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By (manual signature) City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: (manual signature) Senior City Attorney - 18 - Final Bond Resolution CI I Open Space) [FORM OF BOND REGISTRAR'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION] This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Bond Resolution and is one of the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2011 of Salt Lake City. Utah. U.S.BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Bond Registrar By Authorized Officer Date of registration and authentication: , 2011. Bond Registrar and Paying Anent: U.S. Bank National Association 170 South Main Street, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 - 19 - Final Bond Resolution 1"1 I Open Spaces [FORM OF ASSIGNMENT] The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of the within Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations. TEN COM — as tenants in common UNIF TRAN MIN ACT— TEN ENT — as tenants by the entirety Custodian JT TEN — as joint tenants with right (Cust) (Minor) of survivorship and not as under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act of tenants in common (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto Insert Social Security or Other Identifying. Number of Assignee (Please Print or Typewrite Name and Address of Assignee) the within Bond of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney. to register the transfer of said Bond on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. DATED: SIGNATURE: SIGNATURE GUARANTEED: NOTICE: Signatures) must be guaranteed by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting the requirements of the Bond Registrar, which requirements include membership or participation in STAMP or such other "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by the Bond Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, all in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular. without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. - 20 - Final Bond Resolution I•I I Open Space) ARTICLE VII MISCELLANEOUS Section 701. Ratification. All proceedings, resolutions and actions of the Issuer and its officers taken in connection with the sale and issuance of the Bonds are hereby ratified. confirmed and approved. Section 702. Severability. It is hereby declared that all parts of this Bond Resolution are severable, and if any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Bond Resolution shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of any such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect the remaining sections, paragraphs, clauses or provisions of this Bond Resolution. Section 703. Conflict. All resolutions, orders and regulations or parts thereof heretofore adopted or passed that are in conflict with any of the provisions of this Bond Resolution are, to the extent of such conflict,hereby repealed. Section 704. Captions. The table of contents and captions or headings herein are for convenience of reference only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions or sections of this Bond Resolution. Section 705. Effective Date. This Bond Resolution shall take effect immediately. (Signature page follows.) - 2 1 - Final Bond Resolution V I I Open Space) Co SCANNED Tlx: 1 I2 A J Vat at c.O. 0.. �I��. I SCANNED BY: DANIEL A. MULE' ""� DATE:RALPH BECKER CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES {,�' f M OR TREASURER'S DIVISION /9 74 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED OCT 19 2011 Date Received: �— Ralph ecker, Mayor Date sent to Council: SLC COUNCIL OFFICE TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 18, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer SUBJECT: Amendatory Resolution Allowing for the Pledge of Certain Franchise Taxes as Additional Security for the City's Sales Tax Revenue Bonds STAFF CONTACT: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer 801-535-6411 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an Amendatory Resolution on November 1, 2011 authorizing the execution and delivery of a Fifth Supplemental Trust Indenture for the purpose of pledging certain franchise taxes as additional security for the City's Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. BUDGET IMPACT: None at this time. However, because of the additional pledge of revenues that would be available for debt service, additional future debt could be issued within certain prudential and legal limits, necessitating the need to budget for increasing annual debt service amounts. BACKGROUND/DISCUSS.ION: On June 14, 2011 the City Council was briefed by the City's Financial Advisor and the City Treasurer. The City Council was provided with a coverage analysis showing two scenarios, one based on a pledge of current sales and use taxes only and corresponding available capacity. The second scenario showed a pledge of current sales and use taxes as well as certain franchise taxes and the increase in available capacity that the additional pledge would provide. Attachments cc: Gina Chamness, Boyd Ferguson, Gordon Hoskins, Marina Scott H:\Treas\DansDocs\Council Cover Letters\Pledge of Franchise Taxes to Sales Tax Bonds.doc LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 145462, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5462 TELEPHONE: 801-535.7946 FAX: 801-535-6OB2 WWW.SLCGOV.COM RECYCLED RvER Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 10/14/1 1 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE IN ORDER TO PLEDGE CERTAIN FRANCHISE AND OTHER TAX REVENUES AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR SALT LAKE CITY'S SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS; AND RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City") is a duly organized and existing city of the first class,operating under the general laws of the State of Utah (the "State"); WHEREAS, the City has previously entered into that certain Master Trust Indenture,dated as of September 1, 2004, as amended and supplemented to the date hereof (the "Master Indenture"), between the City and Zions First National Bank, as trustee (the "Trustee"), providing for the issuance by the City of its Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (the "Bonds"); WHEREAS, initially-capitalized terms used and not defined in this Resolution have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Master Indenture; WHEREAS, as provided in the Master Indenture, the Bonds are special obligations of the City, payable from and secured solely by a pledge of the Revenues and other moneys. securities and funds pledged under the Master Indenture; WHEREAS, the Revenues currently consist of 100% of the Local Sales and Use Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2, Utah Code Annotated 1953,as amended (the "Utah Code"); WHEREAS, the City considers it necessary and desirable and for the benefit of the City and its residents to pledge to the payment of the Bonds, in addition to such Revenues. (i) 100% of the Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.06; (ii) 100% of the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.06; (iii) 100% of the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.10; (iv) 100% of the franchise fees associated with public utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code. and Salt Lake City Code Section 17.16.070; and (v) 100% of franchise fees associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20; WHEREAS, the City considers it necessary and desirable and for the benefit of the City and its residents to enter into a Fifth Supplemental Trust Indenture (the "Fifth Supplemental Indenture") with the Trustee in order to amend the Master Indenture to revise the definition of "Revenues" to provide for such additional pledge; 3083989.01.05.B.doc 8702441/CJ Amendatory Resolution WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.01(b)(1) of the Master Indenture, no consent of the Bondholders is necessary in connection with the execution of the Fifth Supplemental Indenture to so amend the Master Indenture; and WHEREAS, the City now desires to approve the form of the Fifth Supplemental Indenture and authorize its officers and employees to take any other action as may be necessary or desirable to provide for the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Fifth Supplemental Indenture and this Resolution; Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: Section 1. Approval and Execution of the Fifth Supplemental Indenture. The Fifth Supplemental Indenture, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby authorized and approved, and the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor is hereby authorized,empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Fifth Supplemental Indenture on behalf of the City, and the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized,empowered and directed to affix to the Fifth Supplemental Indenture the seal of the City and to attest such seal and countersign the Fifth Supplemental Indenture, with such changes to the Fifth Supplemental Indenture from the form attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor, his execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. The provisions of the Fifth Supplemental Indenture, as executed and delivered, are hereby incorporated in and made a part telik of this Resolution. "' Section 2. Further Authority. The officers and employees of the City are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to take all action necessary or reasonably required to carry out, give effect to, and consummate the transactions contemplated by the Fifth Supplemental Indenture and this Resolution, including, without limitation, the execution and delivery of any certificates,documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to be delivered in connection therewith. If (a) the Mayor or (b) the City Recorder shall be unavailable or unable to execute or attest and countersign, respectively, the Fifth Supplemental Indenture or any other document that they are hereby authorized to execute, attest and countersign, the same may be executed, or attested and countersigned, respectively, (i) by the Deputy Mayor or (ii) by any Deputy City Recorder. Section 3. Resolution Irrepealable. Following the execution and delivery of the Fifth Supplemental Indenture, this Resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until the Bonds shall have been fully paid,cancelled,and discharged. Section 4. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this Resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Resolution. Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its approval and adoption. Amendatory Resolution Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 10/14/11 FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY,SALT LAKE COUNTY,UTAH AND ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK, AS TRUSTEE DATED AS OF[NOVEMBER 1],2011 AMENDING THE MASTER TRUST INDENTURE BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY,SALT LAKE COUNTY,UTAH AND ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK,AS TRUSTEE DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 1,2004 PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS 3083934 01.05.B.doc 870244I/C1 Fifth Supplemental Indenture TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND AUTHORITY Section 101. Definitions Contained in the Master Indenture 2 Section 102. Authority for Fifth Supplemental Indenture ARTICLE II AMENDMENT OF MASTER INDENTURE Section 201. Amendment of Section 1.01 the Master Indenture ARTICLE III MISCELLANEOUS 3 Section 301. Article and Section Headings 3 Section 302. Partial Invalidity y 3 Section 303. Execution of Counterparts 3 Section 304. Effective Date; Master Indenture Remains Effective as Amended 3 Section 305. Representation Regarding Ethical Standards for City Officers and Employees and Former City Officers and Employees 3 SIGNATURE PAGE 4 - i - Fifth Supplemental Indenture THIS FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE (the "Fifth Supplemental Indenture"), dated as of [November l]. 2011, between Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah (the "City"), and Zions First National Bank, a national banking association duly organized and qualified under the laws of the United States of America. authorized by law to accept and execute trusts and having an office in Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Trustee"): WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City has entered into that certain Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as amended and supplemented to the date hereof (the "Master Indenture" and together with, and as amended by,this Fifth Supplemental Indenture,the "Indenture"), with the Trustee; WHEREAS, as provided in the Master Indenture, the Bonds are special obligations of the City, payable from and secured solely by a pledge of the Revenues and other moneys, securities and funds pledged under the Master Indenture; WHEREAS, the Revenues currently consist of 100% of the Local Sales and Use Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended; WHEREAS, the City considers it necessary and desirable and for the benefit of the City and its residents to pledge to the payment of the Bonds, in addition to such Revenues, certain franchise fee and other tax revenues; WHEREAS, the City considers it necessary and desirable and for the benefit of the City and its residents to enter into this Fifth Supplemental Indenture in order to amend the Master Indenture to revise the definition of"Revenues"to provide for such additional pledge; and WHEREAS,this Fifth Supplemental Indenture is being entered into without the consent of the Bondholders pursuant to Section 8.01(b)(1) of the Master Indenture; NOW,THEREFORE,THIS FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE WITNESSETH: -1- Fifth Supplemental Indenture ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND AUTHORITY Section 101. Definitions. Except as otherwise provided in this Fifth Supplemental Indenture, words and terms that are defined in the Master Indenture shall have the same meanings ascribed to them therein when used herein, unless the context or use indicates a different meaning or intent. Section 102. Authority for Fifth Supplemental Indenture. This Fifth Supplemental Indenture is entered into pursuant to the provisions of the Act and Section 8.01(b)(1) and the other provisions of the Indenture. ARTICLE II AMENDMENT OF MASTER INDENTURE Section 201. Amendment of Section 1.01 of the Master Indenture. The definition of "Revenues" contained in Section 1.01 of the Master Indenture is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: "Revenues" means (a) 100% of the Local Sales and Use Tax '" revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended; (b) 100% of the Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.06; (c) 100% of the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.06; (d) 100% of the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.10; (e) 100% of the franchise fees associated with public utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10,Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and Salt Lake City Code Section 17.16.070; and (f) 100% of franchise fees associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20. -2- Fifth Supplemental Indenture ARTICLE III MISCELLANEOUS Section 301. Article and Section Headings. The headings or titles of the several articles and sections hereof, and any table of contents appended to copies hereof, shall be solely for convenience of reference and shall not affect the meaning, construction or effect of this Fifth Supplemental Indenture. Section 302. Partial Invalidity. If any provision, or any portion thereof, of this Fifth Supplemental Indenture shall be contrary to law, then such provision, or such portions thereof, shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining provisions or portions thereof and shall in no way affect the validity of this Fifth Supplemental Indenture. Section 303. Execution of Counterparts. This Fifth Supplemental Indenture may be executed in any number of counterparts,each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 304. Effective Date; Master Indenture Remains Effective as Amended. The provisions of this Fifth Supplemental Indenture shall become effective immediately upon the execution and delivery hereof. This Fifth Supplemental Indenture and all terms and provisions herein contained shall form a part of the Master Indenture as fully and with the same effect as if all such terms and provisions had been set forth in the Master Indenture, and the Master Indenture remains in full force and effect in accordance with the terms and provisions thereof, as amended hereby. Section 305. Representation Regarding Ethical Standards for City Officers and Employees and Former City Officers and Employees. The Trustee represents that it has not: (a) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (b) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage,or brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (c) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or (d) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44,Salt Lake City Code. -3- Fifth Supplemental Indenture IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Fifth Supplemental Indenture to be executed by the Mayor and attested and countersigned by the City Recorder, and its official seal to be hereunto affixed and attested by the City Recorder, and to evidence its acceptance of the trusts hereby created, Zions First National Bank has caused this Fifth Supplemental Indenture to be executed by its Vice President,all as of the date hereof. SALT LAKE CITY,SALT LAKE COUNTY,UTAH By Mayor ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By City Recorder [SEAL] APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Senior City Attorney ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK, as Trustee By Vice President -4- Fifth Supplemental Indenture