The URL can be used to link to this page

11/22/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2011 CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78B-1-137, AND f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS DEPLOYMENT OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 52-4-205 (1) (f) . This item was not held. #2 . 2 : 18 :41 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See File M 11-5 for Announcements . #3 . 2 : 39 : 17 PM HOLD A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF THE UTAH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER (UPAC) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: View Attachments • A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES COMPLETED REGARDING PERFORMING ARTS FACILITIES • 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 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 • A RELATED MATTER FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION IS A BUDGET AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF DESIGN FUNDS AND UPFRONT COSTS (APPROXIMATELY $25 MILLION) (BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 3) Jennifer Bruno, Ben McAdams, Helen Langan and DJ Baxter briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #4 . RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM ARTHUR C. NELSON, PRESIDENTIAL PROFESSOR, CITY AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU' S) PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2010-00612 . THIS RELATES TO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY' S ZONING REGULATIONS ALLOWING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE A BROADER MIX OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ADDRESS CHANGING FAMILY NEEDS, ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, SMALLER HOUSEHOLD SIZES, AND INCREASE 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2011 EFFICIENT USE OF EXISTING HOUSING, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSIT. RELATED PROVISION OF TITLE 21A, ZONING, MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. (PETITIONER MAYOR RALPH BECKER) View Attachments This item was not held. #5. 3 :39 :29 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY, THE "LANDFILL" . THE LANDFILL IS OWNED BY SALT LAKE COUNTY AND THE CITY AND THE BUDGET IS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY THE SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL FOR 2012 . View Attachments Lehua Weaver, Rick Graham, and Phil Bernal briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #6. 3 : 54 :29 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING ON TWO ISSUES REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY: View Attachments • (A) A SERIES OF PROPOSED MOTIONS LEADING TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH AND THE FORMS OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BYLAWS RELATING THERETO; AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATE OFFICERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; DISSOLVING THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH AND PROVIDING FOR RELATED MATTERS. • (B) A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . (POTENTIAL FUNDING FOR THE GLENDALE BRANCH LIBRARY) Russell Weeks, Dan Mule' and Ryan Bjerke briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #7 . 4 : 14 : 06 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 MODIFICATION. THIS AMENDMENT INCLUDES ITEMS RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND PURCHASE OF PARKING PAY STATIONS, WAY-FINDING SIGNS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, THE FLEET BUDGET AND SOME GRANTS. View Attachments Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver and Jason Mathis briefed the Council from the attached handouts . 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2011 #8. 4 : 51:41 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON TWO ITEMS RELATED TO THE PLANNED PROJECT TO BUILD A TWO-MILE STREET CAR LINE AT ABOUT 2200 SOUTH BETWEEN MCCLELLAND STREET (1050 EAST) AND THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY CENTRAL POINTE TRAX STATION AT 221 WEST 2100 SOUTH. View Attachments • THE FIRST ITEM IS A PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMONG SALT LAKE CITY, SOUTH SALT LAKE AND UTA THAT WOULD GOVERN EACH CITY' S AND UTA' S RESPONSIBILITIES TO BUILD AND OPERATE A STREETCAR LINE ALONG THE TWO-MILE CORRIDOR • THE OTHER ITEM IS A PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT OT IDENTIFY REVENUE AND ALLOCATE SALT LAKE CITY' S SHARE OF THE PROJECT. PUBLIC HEARING AND FORMAL CONSIDERATION OF THE AGREEMENT WILL OCCUR LATER. DJ Baxter, Russell Weeks, Steve Meyer, Mike Akerlow and Mayor Ralph Becker briefed the Council from the attached handouts and a power point presentation. Mr. Weeks said the Council would set a public hearing date of December 6th tonight . Councilmember Love asked if the Council wanted this item scheduled for further discussion on another work session or if they wanted to hold the public hearing and see where they were at . Council Members were in favor of holding the public hearing. #9 . 5:44 :40 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A GOLF GREEN FEE INCREASE WHICH WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 1, 2012 . THE INCREASE WOULD: 1) SET ASIDE $1. 00 PER 9-HOLE ROUND OF GOLF TO BE USED FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AT THE CITY' S GOLF COURSES, AND 2) DEPENDING ON COURSE, ADD AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR OPERATIONS. View Attachments Rick Graham, David Terry, Karen Halladay and Mike Akerlow briefed the Council from the attached handout . Ms . Halladay said the Council was scheduled to set the date of December 6th for a public hearing tonight with a potential action item on December nth. Councilmember Love said it was the intent of the Council to adopt Option A. #10. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE CITY' S 10 YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND IMPACT FEES. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVOLVE THE CONSTRUCTION, PURCHASE OR RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS, PARKS, STREETS OR OTHER PHYSICAL STRUCTURES. GENERALLY, PROJECTS HAVE A USEFUL LIFE OF FIVE OR MORE YEARS AND COST $50, 000 OR MORE. View Attachments This item was not held. 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2011 #11. 5: 58 : 32 PM INTERVIEW K. MARIE TAYLOR PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Councilmember Love said Ms . Taylor' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for final approval . #12 . 6 : 05: 03 PM INTERVIEW CLARK RUTTINGER PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Councilmember Love said Mr. Ruttinger' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for final approval . #13 . 6 : 08:30 PM INTERVIEW BERNARDO FLORES-SAHAGUN PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Councilmember Love said Mr. Flores-Sahagun' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for final approval . The meeting adjourned at 6 : 14 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR 149(1A( ;1: ( .r?" CI CO ER This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held November 22, 2011 . bj 11 - 5 11.22.2011 Utah Performing Arts Center Financial Q&A—follow-up briefing To:City Council Members From:Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director There have been a few questions raised by Council Members since the last briefing about how the construction and financing of the Theater affects the rest of the City's financial picture. There are a variety of ways to view this question,and a variety of assumptions one must make in attempting to answer this question. The following is a VERY brief list of questions and general answers provided by Council Staff related to this issue. These answers were not provided by the Administration,but were put together by Council Staff based on the proposal presented by the Administration: General Direct Economic Impact-It is very likely that the theater will increase sales tax revenues in the immediate downtown area,which will result in increased revenue to the general fund—which will help with CIP and other general fund expenses. However,this amount is difficult to estimate and would not cover debt service. Sales tax revenue is shared by the City,County,and State. Of the total Sales Tax Rate charged,1%is dedicated to local government. That percentage is then distributed on a 50/50 population/point of sale basis. Because of SLC's point of sale and population in relation to other Utah cities,SLC only keeps about.75 of this 1%. This means for every$100 spent in Salt Lake City,the City keeps about 75 cents. Question 1:If the City did not fund construction of the UPAC would there be more money available for the CIP? • Yes,although it is not money that is currently dedicated towards City CIP projects. • The two main streams of revenue that are proposed to fund the theater are a"CDA"and the "SARR"funds from the payoff of the Energy Solutions Arena bonds. Both of these streams of revenue would otherwise be folded into the general fund for use in any general fund purpose, including CIP. • Note:The"CDA"stream of revenue will likely be greater if a Theater is built,than if no CDA was created and no theater was built,and those funds were to just roll to the general fund as normal. This is assuming that the associated office tower would probably not be built but for the construction of the theater. o The proposed financing of the UPAC calls for pledging 70%of the City's portion of the Block 70 CDA(estimated to be$406,290 when the CDA is fully developed). o This leaves$174,124 of revenue that would be new to the general fund when the CDA is fully developed(note that it is not possible to identify the exact amount of increment available the in the future. The CDA assumptions include an aggressive development schedule and plan for the block). 1 developed, and before SARR revenues are available. The Administration has indicated that this could be covered with fundraising or a loan from the RDA's stream of SARR funds. It is not clear to Council Staff how a loan of that type could be structured, as the RDA would have to loan out of current funds. If neither of these options were viable, the backstop would be the general fund (CIP). o In the best case (county participation, low interest rates), the short-term gap that needs to be covered is$3.9 million in year one, and $3.3 million in year two. o In the worst case (no county participation, high interest rates),the short-term gap that needs to be covered is$6.7 million in year one,and$6 million in year two. The gap then continues through the life of the bond with an average shortfall of$3.3 million per year. • The$2.5 million set aside could also be needed if the County chooses not to participate, or if interest rates increase, in order to cover the gap in debt service. $1.5 million per year in the best case (3.6% interest rate), $3.3 million per year worst case (5.9% interest rate) • If the City elects not to move forward with the theater after design of the facility, the$2.5 million set-aside could also be used to pay off the$15 m bond (payments would be approximately$1.3 million per year). Question 5: Is there any money that is going to the theater that could otherwise go into the City's general fund? • Yes—see bullet points relating to "SARR" and "CDA" in the answers to Question 1. Question 6:What are the shortfalls if the County participates and where would these shortfalls come from? • See first bullet point, Question 4. Question 7: Is the City's basic maintenance of existing capital facilities covered by the current amount in CIP? • No—there were approximately$450 million in identified Capital Improvement needs over the next 10 years (roads, streets, parks, etc). This was constrained down to$150 million to reflect the budget realities of the City. This leaves approximately$300 million in unmet CIP needs over the next 10 years($30 million in un-met needs per year). • Impact of Steiner Ice Sheet Payments-Additionally—a payment that was originally paid for by the RDA will begin coming due in FY 2016 to finish out the bond for the Steiner Ice Sheet. These payments are$5.3 million per year for 6 years, and will have to come out of the general fund. o Originally, the SARR stream of revenue that will be coming to the general fund in FY 2016($3million per year) was planned on offsetting this added payment. o Now that this payment will be largely diverted to the theater,the City will be responsible for paying this debt service within existing revenues. o While this payment is factored into the current, proposed version of the 10 year plan, it significantly hampers the City's ability to cover necessary City projects. If the general fund were to "hold the CIP harmless"the general fund would need to contribute an 3 WITH COUNTY PARTICIPATION Yearly Debt Service Sources and Uses-Interest Rate Scenarios iu1-Low Interest Rate(Current Environment)lour,. 59% l.-5irterert-25 Year So Tee Bond FY 2013 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 203 Uses•Debt Service Bond Anticipation Note($15 M) $ 262,000 $ 262,000 Take-Out Bonds(5110 M) $ 157,500 5 3,766,292 $ 3,606,020 $ 7,151,024 $ 7,152.307 $ 7,1510881 $ 7,148,881 $ 7,150,801 $ 7,151,301 $ 7,153,6,5 $ 7,149,2,0 $ 7,152,315 $ 7,151,045 $ 7,150,418 $ 7,149,778 $ 7,149,389 $ 7,148,899 $ 7,152,786 $ 7,150,112 $ 2,22 Total Debt Service Needs $ 419,500 $ 4,028,252 $ 3,606,024 $ 7,151,024 $ 2,2,52,347 $ 7,151,881 5 7,146.881 $ 7,150,801 $ 7,151,301 $ 7,153.615 $ 7,149,210 $ 7,152,315 $ 7,151,045 $ 7,750,418 $ 7,149,778 $ 7,149,389 $ 7,148,899 $ 7,152,785 $ 7,150,112 $ 7,15 Source SARR Funds Clry(!O%) $ 2,375,000 $ 1,315,000 $ 2,315,000 $ 2.375,000 $ 2,315,000 $ 1,375,000 $ 1,775,000 $ 1,375,000 $ 2,315,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 1,314000 $ 2315,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 5,375,000 $ 2,3, RDA(259-$amount matches City) $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375.000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375.000 $ 22. C4a4rr(100%)• $ 1,,,,,a0 $ 1,sm.° $ 2,500,000 S 000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,00o $ 1,500,000 $ 1,930,003 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,503,000 $ 1,500.000 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,5f Block 70 LDA 17os a,eann.i.vwnwnl•• City '12,697•$ 50786 $' 573 $ 203,115 $ 406290 $ 40f,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 40f,290 $ 406,290 0 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ K School District '17,654 $ 70,615 $ 1,230 $ 282.460 $ 564,920 5 564,920 0 561,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 0 564,920 5 564,920 $ 560,920 0 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564.920 $ 564.920 $ SE County 6,489.. . \ $..\1,911 $ 103,823 0 207.646 0 207,646 $ 207,546 0 207,646 0 207,646 5 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,606 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 2C ' Total All Sources S' 36.839 " ,357 $ 2911J14 $ 6,859A22 $ 7A22,156 $ 7,428,856 $ 7A21,856 $ 7A22,256 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,256 $ 7A28,856 $ 7A28.856 $ 7,438256 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 5 7,42, 7aoi[,ry so�,res 5 12497 $ 50754 5 101572 $ 2,574145 S 1751196 5 2741290 5 2741290 $ 2791290 S 1741290 $ 1n1290 S 279120 5 1791290 $ 1741290 5 2741290 $ 1711290 $ 2,715290 $ 2715290 5 2,715290 5 2,741,29 5 GAP ($382,661) (53,8807935J ($3,311,310) ($311,596) $276,510 $276,976 $279,976 $278,056 $277,556 $275,242 $279,647 $276,542 $277,812 $278,439 $279,079 $279,468 $279,958 $276,071 $278,745 $278, Scenario 2-Medium Interest Rate-Assuming•4.79%interest•25 Year Saks Tax Bond FY 2013 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 203: Uses•Debt Service Bond Anticipation Note($15 M) $ 262,000 $ 262,000 Take-Out Bonds($110 M) {, 5,186,618 $ 4,665,911 $ 8,035,911 $ 8,037,101 $ 8,037,641 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,040,262 $ 8,037,397 $ 8,037,126 $ 3,038,914 $ 8,038,096 $ 8,040,294 $ 8,036,055 $ 8,039,789 $ 8,040,577 $ 8,037,939 $ 8,038,017 $ 8,036,593 $ 8,03 Total Debt Service Needs • \262,000.' ,� 5,448,618 $ ‘iii015,911 $ 8,035,911 $ 8,037,101 $ 8,057,641 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,040,262 $ 8,037,397 $ 8,037,126 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,038,096 $ 8,000,294 $ 8.036,055 $ 8,039,789 $ 8,040,577 $ 8,037,939 $ 8,036,477 $ 6,036,553 $ 4.031 Source SAAR Funds (PmOYY(8 \$ 2,375,000 $ 1,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,379000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ Z375,000 $ 2„375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 237 RDA(25%-$amount matches City) $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2.375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,37 County(10096)• 5 1,500,000 $ 1,530,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1.500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,503,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1.500,000 5 1,500,000 5 1500,000 $ 1,50 Nock 70 CM Rosa.v,en..,cwner. U7 \ 103,145 $ 405,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 0 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 7 406,290 f 40 School District 17.6 2,230 $ 282,460 $ 564,920 5 560,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 560,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 560,920 $ 564,920 $ 56 County 6, 1,912 $ 103,823 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,606 $ 207,606 $ 207,606 $ 207,646 $ 207,616 $ 207,646 $ 207,606 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 20 Total All Sources %A50.\ 714 $ 6,239,428 $ 7,428,256 $ 7,423,856 $ 7,421,856 $ 7,422,856 $ 7,418,226 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,422,256 $ 7,422,356 $ 7,428,256 $ 7,428,156 $ 7,428,356 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,422,856 $ 7,428A56 $ 7,428,856 5 7,42E ram aYsa.•res `{'. 1101 X... .. M1Sll 5 2579.115 $ ;n1290 S zn1.290 S 2741290 5 1n1290 S 2.n129 $ 2711290 $ 2,5290 $ 1715290 $ 2211290 $ 2715290 S 2781290 S 2711,290 S 2791290 $ 2785290 $ 2191no 5 2l GAP (5225,161) ($5,301,261) ($4,67I,197) ($1,196,483) 0608,245)_ 0608,785) ($610,058) ($611,406) ($608,541) ($608,270) ($610,058) ($609,240) 0611,438) ($607,199/ ($610,933) 0611,7211 ($609,083) ($609,561) ($607,737) ($608. maima Scenario 3-High Interest Rate•Aswmin¢-s. Interest zs Year Sales Tax Bond FY 2013 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 712031 Uses-Debt Service Bond Anticipation Note($15 M) $ 262,000 $ 262.000 Take-Out Bonds(5110 M) $ - $ 6,535,566 $ 6.257457 $ 8,987,057 $ 8,986,250 $ 8,987,933 $ 8,988.634 $ 8,987,520 $ 8,989,594 $ 8,991,283 $ 8,986,747 $ 8,986,011 $ 8,990,346 $ 8,988,772 $ 8,990,599 $ 8,989,573 $ 8,989,713 $ 8,987,525 $ 8,986,588 8 8 Total Debt Service Needs ;9,.. 262,000 $ 6,797,266 $ ,6,257,457 $ 8,987,457 $ 8,926,290 5 3.987.933 $ 8,988.634 $ 8,987,520 $ 8,989,594 $ 8,991,283 3 8,986,747 $ 8,986,411 $ 8,990,346 $ 3,988,772 $ 8,990,599 $ 8,939,575 $ 3,939,713 $ 8,987,525 $ 8,986,588 $ 8990 Source SARR Funds Ot2,375,000) \$ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375, $ 2,375,000 $ Z375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ Z375,000 $ Z375,000 $ 2,374000 $ 2,375,000 $ Z375,000 $ Z375,000 $ 2,375.000 $ Z375,000 $ Z375,000 $ ,..., RDA OM-5 amount matches COy) �\ \$ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ ,37 2 ' County(10096)• $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 5 1,503,000 5 1,500,000 $ 1.500,000 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1.500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,503,003 $ 1,503,000 Block 70 OM Da a'es*,w p w„w••�. $ 1.5IX CRY 9 $ 201,145 $ 406,290 4 406,290 8 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 8 406,250 $ 406,290 8 406290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 8 406,290 8 406,290 8 406,290 0 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406 School District 17,654 5„ 70,615 $ .$ 282,460 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 560,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 560,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564 County 6. \\ 6 $� 3-$ 103,823 5 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,696 $ 207,606 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,546 $ 207,616 $ xol Total All Sources \\\\\96\ 1A7,3 57 $, $ 6,839,428 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,928,856 $ 7,428256 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7A28,856 $ 7A28256 $ 7,413,856 $ 7,413,856 $ 7,422,226 $ 7,4E8256 $ 7,923,256 $ 7,428056 $ 7,42s,7aOry00rce, s(H $ 057814 4 2711290 $ 2711290 $ 2711290 5 2.731,290 5 2791,290 S 1741290 S 1791290 $ 17.129 $ 17.120 $ 2711,290 $ 2791290 S 2711210 S 2,291290 $ 1161210 $ 2741290 S 272 GAP 5161J 6,650,204, 01,148,029/ ($1,557,434) ($1,559,077) 01,559,778/ 01,558,661J 01,560,738J ($1,562,427) ($1,557,891) ($1,557,555) ($1,561,490) /$1,559,916/ 01,561,7431 _01,560,717J 01,560,857J ($1,558,669) ($1,557,732) 01,561,7 POTENTIAL FUNDS TO FRE GAP RDA SARR FUNDS $0 $0 $0 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 96,"3,500 $6,623A00 54,625,006 44 A94,000 $6.625,000 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 $4625,000 $4026,000 $6,625,000 ","5000 9E5626,000 $6,625,000 $6,625 OP PLACEHOLDER `SSST601M6 FOR S.N015SE MEMOIR-$3,ms.$270K/YE4a) - SO $2,230.000 $2,250,000 $2,230,000 $4230.000 $2,234000 $t230,000 0,2*040 5430000 $2,230,000 $.24000 $2.230,000 $2230,000 $2,230,000 $2,235,000 $2,230,000 $2.250,000 $2,230000 $2,230,000 $ 70.1 Notaa/AtnmpdaH •Note:County commitment to SARR Funds and CDA has not yet been appnmed. **Assumption:Council staff assumed a 5 year ramp-up to full Lou potential increment 1 : 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 $ 7,152,347 $ 7,151,881 $ 7.148881 $ 7,150,803 $ 7,151,301 $ 7,153,615 $ 7,149,210 $ 7,152,315 $ 7,151,045 $ 7,150,418 $ 7,149,718 $ 7,149,389 $ 7,148,899 $ 7,152,786 $ 7,150,112 j 7,150,326 $ 7,152,347 $ 7,151,881 $ 7,148,881 $ 7,150,801 $ 7,151,301 $ 7,153,615 $ 7,149,210 $ 7,152,315 $ 7,151,045 $ 7,150,418 $ 7,149,778 $ 7,149,389 $ 7,148,899 0 7,152,786 0 7,150,112 5 7,149,099 5 7,151,3197,151,319 $ ),151719 $ 7,150,889 $ ,148,916 $ 7,150,392 $ 7,150,326 $ 7,149,099 $ $ 7,151,719 $ 7,150,889 $ 7,148,916 $ 7,150,294 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 4375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 4375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 j 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ $ 2,375,000 9 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 0 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 0 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 1,375,000 $ 2,315,000 $ 2,3)5,000 $ 23]5,000 $ 2,375,004 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 5 1,500600 5 1,500,000 5 1,503,000 5 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 1 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2.375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,3]5,000 $ 2,375,00( 5 1,503,000 5 3,500,000 $ 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,00( $ 406,290 $ 406,210 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 S 406,290 S 106,I90 $ 564,920 $ 564,320 5 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 1 564,320 5 564,920 5 564,920 5 564,920 5 564,920 0 564,920 5 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,320 $ � 0 406.190 $ 406,230 $ 406,290 $ 406,29L 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 S 207,646 1 207,646 1 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 5 207,646 1 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 5 207,646 1 207,646 1 207,646 5 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,422,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,422,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,422,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,256 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,128,856 $ Zn1290 $ 2,781,290 2 2711297 t Z7LL290 t 0n1,290 t 1,n1,290 0 2781.290 $ 2711.290 0 2,741,2s0 $ 2711,290 S 2,781290 $ 2n1,290 5 2,711,190 5 2741290 3 2n12s0 5 z741 28, $ 7A28,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 ,290 5 ,290 5 27*1290 5 2781,290 $ 2,61,290 5 2,731290 5 2741294 $276,510 $276,976 $279,976 $278,056 $277,556 $275,242 $279,647 $276,542 $277,822 $278,439 $279,079 $279,468 $279,958 $276,071 $278,745 $278,531 $279,758 $277,538 $277,138 $277,968 $279,940 $278,560 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 $ 8,037,101 $ 8,037,641 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,040,262 5 8,037,397 5 8,037,126 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,038,096 $ 8,040,294 $ 8,036,055 $ 8,039,789 5 8,040,577 5 8,037,939 5 8,038,417 $ 8036,593 $ 8,037,101 $ 8,037,641 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,040,262 $ 8,037,397 $ 8,037,126 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,038,096 $ 8,040,294 $ 8,036,055 $ 8,039,789 $ 8,040,577 $ 8,037,939 0 8,038,417 $ 8,036,593 $ 8,036,966 5 8,038,782 $ 8,036,288 $ 8,039,351 $ 8,040,069 $ 8,037,b52 $ 8,036,313 $ 8,036,966 $ 8,038,782 $ 8,036,288 $ 8,039,351 $ 8,040,069 $ 8,037,652 $ 8,036,313 $ 2375,000 $ 4375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 _ 2,375,000 $ 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375000 $ 2,375000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 2,375,080 5 2,375,000 3 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500,030 5 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 5 1,530,000 0 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 5 1,500).0 5 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 1 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 2.375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,3)5,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,3)5,000 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 404290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 j 106,290 5 406,190 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,190 $ 406,290 $ 404290 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,320 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 207,646 0 207,646 5 207,64E 5 207,646 5 207,64E 5 207,64E 1 207,646 0 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 5 207,640 5 207,646 $ 207,646 0 207,646 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,356 $ 7A28,856 $ 7,423,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,429,856 $ 7,623,356 $ 7A28,856 $ 7,423,856 $ 7,428,356 $ 7,423,856 $ 7,128,856 $ 7,428056 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,356 $ 7,428,85E $ 2,711,290 5 2781290 $ 2n1,290 $ z781,290 S 2n1280 3 2n1,290 $ 27.1290 0 2711,290 8 1n1290 $ 27.1,20 5 2,711,210 S 2711230 3 2n1290 $ 2781290 $ Ln229C 5 2741.290 s 2711 $ 7AL,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,45E ,290 s 27g29u $ 27.1290 S 2731222 $ 272;730 5 7722790 ($608,245) ($608,785) ($610,058) ($611,406) ($608,541) ($608,270) ($610,058) ($609,240) ($611,438) ($607,199) ($610,933) 15611,721) ($609,083) ($609,561) ($607,737) ($608,110) (5609,926) ($607,432) ($610,495) ($611,213) ($608,796) ($607,457) 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 1 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2085 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 $ 6,966,290 $ 8,987,933 $ 8,988,634 $ 8,987,520 $ 8,989,594 $ 8,991,283 $ 8,386,747 $ 8,986,411 $ 8,990,346 $ 8,988,772 $ 8,990,599 5 8.989,573 $ 8,989,713 5 8,987,525 5 8,986,588 $ 8,986,290 $ 8,987,933 $ 8,988,634 $ 8,987,520 $ 8,989,594 $ 8,991,263 $ 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 5 8,988,150 $ 8,988,150 $ 8,989,453 $ 8,987,590 $ 8,985,925 5 8,987,493 $ 8,990,650 $ 8,988,150 $ 8,988,150 $ 8,969,153 5 8,987,590 $ 8,985,925 $ 8,987,493 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 5 2,375,030 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 1 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,3]5,000 $ 2,3]5,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,030 $ 1,500,030 5 1,503,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,003 $ 1,503,003 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,3]5,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,3]5,000 $ 2,3]5,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,3]5,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 006,290 $ 406,230 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ � $ 406.290 $ 406,290 $ $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 504,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 404,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 106.290 1 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,606 $ 207,646 $ 207,640 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 0 207,646 0 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 561.920 $ 561,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,930 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 7,423,656 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,423,356 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,85E $ 7,428,85E $ 7,428,886 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,423,856 $ 7,128056 $ 7,426,356 $ 7,428856 $ 7,428,85E f 2711290 $ 2n1230 $ 0n1290 2 2781290 $ Ln1190 $ 2n1290 3 2081,290 $ 2781190 3 2781290 8 2711290 $ 2n1n0 5 z7422t0 5 2781290 $ zn1290 0 2A6bo $ 7,428,356 $ 7479185E $ 7A28,t56 $ 7,428.85E $ 7,428,85E $ 7,428,85E $ 7,428,65E 3 271320 5 2702.290 $ 2781230 $ 2781290 S 2791290 5 2781290 $ 221,280 I ($1,557,434) ($1,559,077) ($1,559,778) ($1,558,664) ($1,560,738) ($1,562,427) ($1,557,891) ($1,557,555) ($1,561,490) ($1,559,916) (51,561,743) ($1,560,717) _01,560,857) ($1,558,669) 01,557,732/ ($1,561,794) 01,559,194) 01,559,294J ($1,560,597) ($1,558,734) ($1,557,069) ($1,558,637) $6,625,000 $6,623,000 $6,625,000 56,625,000 56,625,004 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 $6525,000 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 $6628880 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 $6.625,000 $6,625,000 $6625o00 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 .-- $2.230,000 $2,230,000 $2,230000 922301000 32,230000 $2,230,000 $2,230,000 $2,230,000 $2,237000 $2,230,000 $2230,000 22,230,000 $2210000 $2,230,000 $9,'!000 $2230000 82230000 e9 m000 $2,230,000 82,230000 $2,230,000 $2.234000 SPREADSHEET#2 NO COUNTY PARTICIPATION Yearly Debt Service Sources and Uses-Interest Rate Scenarios -^,to 1-Low Interest Rate(Current Environment)Assuming Interest 5 Bo. T 2 Year Sales a,Bo FY 2013 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 Us05-Debt Service - Bond Anticipation Note($15 M( $ 262,900 5 262,000 Take-O2t Bonds($110 M) $ 157,500 5 3,766,292 $ 3,606,024 $ 7,151,024 $ 7,152,347 $ 7,151,801 $ 7,148,881 5 7,250,801 $ 7,151,301 $ 7,153,615 $ 7,109,210 $ 7,152,315 $ 7,151,045 $ 7,150,418 $ 7,149,7/8 $ 7,199,389 $ 7,148,899 $ 7,152,786 $ 7,150,112 $ Total Debt Service Needs 429,500 4,021g 024 $ 7,151,024 $ 7,152,347 $ 7,151,361 $ 7,148,381 $ 7,150,801 $ 7,151,301 $ 7,153,615 $ 7,149,210 $ 7,152,315 $ 7,151,045 $ 7,150,418 $ 7,149,778 $ 7,149,389 $ 7,148,899 $ 7,152,786 $ 7,150,112 $ Source SARR Funds Chy(80%) Ns Z375,000 $ 2,375.000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ Z375,000 $ Z375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ Z375,000 $ Z375,000 5 1,375,000 $ Z375.000 $ 2,375,000 $ Z375,000 $ Z375,000 $ Z375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ RDA(25%•$amount matches City)\ $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 0 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 0 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 0 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 0 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 0 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ County ;�� Block 70 CDA Ira.or„swtt�.,np,..,.ml" City 11, -�� ,573,$ 203,145 $ 405200 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406� $ 406,200 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 404290 $ 406,290 $ 404290 5 406,290 $ School D,strict a�\\\\,,17,65k 70,615� ,.1,23D;$ 282,460 $ 564,920 5 560,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 561,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ County \\- . Total All YSources 38.350 $ 121,401 t\ 803 $ 5,235,605 $ 5,721,210 $ 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 $ \ 7 97 S 5010 $'. 201,572 $ 1571145 $ 2742190 $ 2742190 $ 2141.10 $ 2325260 $ 2002290 $ 2.77210 $ 276290 $ 2722200 $ 2782290 $ 27.1.290 $ 0785210 $ 214210 $ 2742190 $ 074219 S 2742240 $ GAP !.906,8901 (53,363,222) ($1,915,419) ($1,431,137) ($1,430,671) ($1,427,671) ($1,429,591) ($1,430,091) ($1,432,405) ($1,428,000) ($1,431,105) ($1,429,835) ($1,429,208) ($1,428,568) ($1,428,179) ($1,427,689) ($2,431,576) ($2,428,902) 7 Scenario 2-Medium Interest Rate-Assuming-4.794 Interest•25 Year Saks Tax Bond _ FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Ft 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 - Uses-Debt Service Bond Anticipation Note($15 Ml �262,000 $ 262,000 Take-Out Bonds($110 Ml $ 5,186,618 $ 4,965,911 $ 8,035,911 $ 8,037,101 $ 8,037,641 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,040,262 $ 8,037,357 $ 8,037,126 $ 6,038,91a $ 8,038,096 $ 8,040,294 $ 8,036,055 $ 8,039,789 $ 8,04077 $ 8,037,939 5 8,038,417 $ 8,036,593 $ Total Debt Service Needs 000 $ 5,448,618 $ 0,965,911 $ 8,035,911 $ 8,037,101 $ 8,037,641 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,040,262 $ 8,037,397 $ 8,037,126 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,038,096 $ 8,040,294 $ 8,036,055 $ 3,039,789 $ 8,040,577 $ 8,037,939 $ 8,038,417 $ 8,036,593 $ Source �•\`�: ". SARR Funds \aty(80%J $ 2,375,000 $ 2.375,000 $ 2315,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ Z375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375000 $ 2,375,000 $ 1,375,000 $ Z375,000 $ RDA(25%-$amount matches City) $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2.375,000 $ 2,375,600 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,325,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ County \ Bo .a.eu�Block]0 CDA 17oaa.. .i .nrnl•• \ '31y \ r341 $ 54390' 54.f 203,145 $ 404290 $ 405290 $ 404280 $ 406,290 $ 406290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 486,250 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 464290 $ 406.290 $ 406,290 $ 405290 $ 106,290 $ 4rool District , 17654 $ 70,615 $. 41,230 5 282,460 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 560,920 $ 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 $ Total All SOWWNS "30,390 ;401 $"VA`.42,803; S 5,235,605 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,220 $ 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 $ roar City Seam, f 2207 $' $0,786 $ 10250.'$ 2574145 s V.V. S 4.1.2. $ 7.762290 $ 2742290 $ 2742H0 $ 2742190 $ 0742290 $ 2742290 $ 2742290 $ 2741,290 $ 27..290 S 2N1.2% $ 2781.290 $ 2742290 $ 2742290 s GAP ',Crr:6,C, . 7.'7,226) (54,723,108) ($2,800,306) (52,315,8911 (52,316,431) ($2,317,704) ($2,319,052) ($2,316,187) ($2,315,916) ($2,317,704) (52,316,886) (52,314,084) (52,314,845) ($2,318,579) ($2,319,367) ($2,316,729) ($2,317,207) ($2,315,383) �4 Scenario 3-High Interest Rate-Assn g S interest 25 Year es I.Bond _ FY 2013 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 Uses-Debt Servke Bond Anticipation Note($15 M( $ 262,000 $ 262,000 Take-Out Bonds($110 M( $ - $ 6,535,566 $ 6,257,457 $ 8,987,457 $ 8,986,290 $ 8,987,933 5 8,988,634 $ 8,987,520 $ 8,989,594 $ 8,991,283 $ 8,986,747 $ 8,986,411 $ 8,990,346 $ 8,986,772 $ 8,990,599 $ 8,989,573 $ 8,989,713 $ 8,987,525 $ 8,986,588 $ Total Debt Seroke 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 $ 8,988,772 $ 8,990,599 $ 8,989,573 $ 8,989,713 $ 8,987,525 $ 8,986,586 5 Source „ SARR Funds Cloy Max) \\N 8 1375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,W0 $ 2,375,000 $ RDA(15%-$amount matches Cly) $ 2,375,000 $ 2,3]5,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375.000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ Block 70 CDA pan a r.w.er..ee.,i.., 0ty \ \\� $ 26814s $ 405,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406.290 $ 406.290 $ 404250 5 406,290 $ School District ` 41,23P`$ 262,460 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 0 564,920 $ 564920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 544,920 $ \� Total All Sources 803 $ 5,235,605 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 5 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 S 0,721,210 $ 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 $ into,m5nurrn �\y\\\ N`\\\� Al $ z57a,14s $ 274L290 s 2 1,0 s z711.290 s z74t2w s 27.L290 s 274La0 s z1gn0 $ z7FLM0 $ zn5,M0 $ zlµm $ znz29a $ z1422s0 s zn2290 $ 21.1,2s1h s 07*1,2 l $ GAP \ 7' N r•4,655) (53,751,852) ($3,265,080) ($3,266,723) (53,267,424) (53,266,370) ($3,268,384) ($3,270,073) ($3,265,537) ($3,265,201) ($3,269,136) ($3,267,562) ($3,269,389) ($3,268,363) (53,268,503) ($3,266,315) ($3,265,378) ($ POTENTIAL FUNDS 70 FILL GAP RDA SARR FUNDS $0 $0 $0 $6,625000 $6623,000 $4,525,000 $6,6625,000 $6,623,000 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 445000 $6,625,000 $4,424,000 $6,625,000 $8,625,000 $4,625,000 $44625000 $6,325,000 56,625,000 OP PlACEHOLDER (LESS ST 60N05 FOR SNOUSE 72E67C4R.53.241-$27011MAR) $0 $2,230,000 $2,230,080 $2,230,000 32,230,000 $2230,000 52,23(,000 52,230000 $2,230,000 $2,230,000 82,230,000 $2,230,000 $2,234000 82,230,000 82.24000 $5,250,000 $2434000 57,230000 $2,280000 /Assumptions •Note:County commitment to SARR Funds and CDA has not yet been approved. ...Assumption:Council Staff assumed a 5 year ramp-up to full CDA potential increment. 11 11/12 l 1 : 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] $ 7,152,347 $ 7,151,881 $ 7,148,881 $ 7,150,801 $ 7,151,301 $ 7,153,615 $ 7,149,210 $ 7,152,315 $ 7,151,045 $ 7,150.418 $ 7,149,778 $ 7,149,389 $ 7,148,899 $ 7,152,786 $ 7,150,112 $ 7,150,326 $ 7,149,099 $ 7,151,319 $ ],151,]39 $ 7,150,889 $ 7,148,916 5 $ 7,152,347 $ 7,151,881 $ 7,148,881 $ 7,150,801 $ 7,151,301 $ 7,153,615 $ 7,109,210 $ 7,152,315 $ 7,151.045 $ 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 $ 7,150,889 $ 7,148,916 $ ], $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 5 0375,000 $ Z375,000 $ 4375,000 $ 2,375.000 5 2,314000 $ 2375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375A10 $ Z375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,020 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 404290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 404290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 560,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 1 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 524,920 5 560,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,722,220 $ 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 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5, S 2781,290 s 2782250 $ 2781,290 $ 2nim 5 znzm $ 2781290 $ znzm 5 znzm $ Lnzm $ Lnzm $ 2n1210 $ Lnzm 5 2781290 $ Lnzm $ znzm s ;nim S 2,782290 5 znim 5 2781m s 27 82290 5 2781290 5 ($1,431,137) ($1,430,671) ($1,427,671) ($1,429,59I1 ($1,430,091) ($1,432,405) (51,428,000) ($1,431,105) ($1,429,835) ($1,429,208) ($1,428,5681 ($1,428,179) ($1,427,689) 01,431,5761 ($1,428,902) ($1,429,116) ($1,427,889) ($1,430,109) ($1,430,509) ($1,429,679) ($1,427,706) ($1,4: 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 21 $ 8,037,101 $ 8,037,641 5 8,038,914 5 8,040,262 $ 8,037,397 5 8,037,126 $ 8,038,910 $ 8,038,096 $ 8,040,294 $ 8,036,055 5 8,039,789 $ 8,040,577 $ 8,037,939 $ 8,038,417 $ 8,036,593 5 8,036,966 $ 8,038,782 $ 8,036,288 $ 8,039,351 5 8,040,069 5 8,037,652 $ 8 $ 8,037,101 $ 8,037,641 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,000,262 $ 8,037,397 $ 8,037,126 $ 8,038,914 $ 8,038,096 $ 8,040,294 $ 8,036,055 $ 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,, $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,000 $ Z375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,000 S 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 1,375.000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2315,000 $ 1,375,000 $ 1,375,000 $ 2315,000 $ 2 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2 $ 404290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 5 406,290 5 406,290 5 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 5 206,290 $ 406,290 $ $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 0 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ $ 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 5,721,210 $ 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,', $ 2781,290 5 2781290 $ 2,782290 5 2781.290 5 2781,290 s 2,731,290 5 2781,290 5 2781290 s 2786250 5 2781290 $ 2782290 5 2,7•1,290 5 2n1,220 $ 2782250 5 2782290 $ 2741.290 5 2742294 3 278y L29zm 5 Lnzm S Lnzm 5 m 5 ($2,315,891) ($2,316,431) ($2,317,704) ($2,319,052) ($2,316,187) ($2,315,916) ($2,317,704) ($2,316,886) ($2,319,084) ($2,314,845) ($2,318,579) ($2,319,367) ($2,316,729) ($2,317,207) ($2,315,383) 02,315,756J ($2,317,572) ($2,315,078) ($2,318,141) ($2,318,859) ($2,316,442) ($2,31 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 2( I $ 8,986,290 $ 8.987,933 $ 8,988,634 $ 8,982,520 $ 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 $ 8,9E5,925 $ 8, $ 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 $ 8,988,772 $ 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 $ 8,3 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375000 5 2375,000 $ Z375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2374000 $ 2374000 $ 2.374000 $ 4375,800 $ 2 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 0 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,575,000 5 2, $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 404290 $ 404290 $ 404290 $ 406,290 $ 404290 $ 406290 $ $ 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 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 566920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 S 564,920 $ $ 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 $ 5,721,710 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,722,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,731,310 $ 5,721,210 $ 5,7 3 2785290 $ znzm s 2784m $ znzm $ roam $ 2,742290 5 znzm 5 2781.290 $ 2.782210 s Lnzm $ Ln.m $ z767.290 $ znzm $ znzm $ znzm f znzm 5 znzm $ znzm $ Lnzm 5 znzm $ znzm s ($3,265,080) ($3,266,723) ($3,267,424) ($3,266,310) ($3,268,384) ($3,270,073) ($3,265,537) ($3,265,201) ($3,269,136) ($3,267,562) ($3,269,389) 03,268,365) 03268,5031 ($3,266,315) ($3,265,378) ($7,269,400) ($3,266,940) ($3,266940) ($3,268,243) ($3,266,380) 03264,715) ($3,26 6 54834000 $e5+5000 84..5000 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 88,625A00 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 As'S000 54f:S000 $4624000 26,624000 26625,000 24625,000 $5,625400 $6.625,000 $6,45,000 56.625,000 $6,625,000 $6,625,000 $6,614000 546 $2230,000 $7:90400 57)95000 $2,2301000 52,230A00 $2,230,000 $2,230,000 62230,000 $2,230,000 $2,230,000 52290.000 5,230000 $2,290,000 $2,210,00 $2,230000 $2.230,000 52.250,000 82,234000 $2,230,000 $7770,000 $2230,000 $2,2 I 11/12 8 i IM FY2013 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 )ebt Service ,\\\\\\\\',\\\\\\ ..,.,\\ Bond Anticipation Note 1$15 All $ 262,000 $ 262,000 Take-Out Bonds($110 M) ,�$a� 157500 $ 3,766,292 0 $ 7,151,024 $ 7,152,347 $ 7.151,881 $ 7,168,881 $ 7,150,801 3 7.151,301 $ 7,153,615 $ 7,149,220 $ 7,152,315 $ -7��.,�151,0�45...r�5 7,15.0�,418 $ 7,149,778 $ 7,149,389 $ 7,148,899 5 7,152,786 1 7,t54111 $ Utah Theater($30m) a 42,525 16,899 $ 1,930,776 $ 1,931,134 $ 1,931,008 $ 1590,198 $ 1..93,,716 $ 1,930,851 $ 1,931,47E $ araaarl 0,613 $ 1,8 ,.,., $ 1,930,203 $ - Total Debt ServiceNeeds \ 462,025 045,190 $ •4,579 $ 9,081,800 0 9,083,480 $ 9,082,888 $ 9,079,078 $ 9,081,517 $ 9,082,152 0 9,085,090 $ 5,075,456 $ 9,883.439 $ 3,081,827 $ 9,081,030 $ 9,080,217 $ 9,029,723 $ 9,079,101 $ 3,084,038 $ 9,086M2 $ Source SAPP Funds Clry(80%) $ 1,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,007 $ 2,375,000 $ 2.375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2.375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ CB RDA(25%-$amount matches y) \ . $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 Coto./1100%)' \ $ $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,003 5 1,500,000 $ 1,503,000 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,5110,000 $ 1,500,0. 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 $ Block 70 CDA 1704 or mammy.imianenl•• City 697 $ 7 \192,923 $ 203,145 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,190 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,210 $ School District 7,654 $ 70,615 $ 141,230 5 282,060 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 5 560,920 County 6,489 $ 25,956 $ 51,912 $ 103,823 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,606 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 5 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,606 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 5 207,646 $ Total All Sources ,839 $ 147,357 $ 294,714 $ 6,839,428 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,356 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428.856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,426,856 $ Total 00y0oarer 1259, 5 50.72e 5 101533 $ 2578245 $ 2781,21.0 $ 27812917 $ 2781290 $ 2,7e1290 $ 2781290 $ 2711290 $ 2,781110 $ Z781290 $ 1781294 $ 2,7e1290 $ 2.201290 S 2781290 $ 2781,290 $ 2781290 $ 2781110 5 GAP .,35) ($2,242,372) ($1,654,624) ($1,654,032) ($1,650,222) ($1,652,661) ($1,653,296) ($1,656,234) ($1,650,640) ($1,654,583) ($1,652,971) (51,652,174) ($1,651,361) ($1,650,867) (51,650,245) ($1,655,182) ($1,651,786) "7'(y; Scenario 2-Medium Interest Rate-Assuming-11.39%111teren-25 Year sales Tax Bond FY 2013 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 F' Uses-Debt Service �'�\\\�\\\` Bond Anticipation Note l$15MI $ 361,800 $ 262,000 Take-Out Bonds(5 110 MI $ 5,186,693 $ 4,965,911 $ 8,035,911 $ 8,037,101 $ 8,037641 $ 8,038,914 5 8,040,262 5 6,032,392 $ 8,037,126 $ 8,038.914 $ 8039096 5 8,040.294 $ 8036.055 $ 8,039,789 $ 18040,572 $ 8,037,939 $ 8,038,417 $ 8,036,593 $ U90I57M00e($3041) - 8 6 1,400,387.j. 1,346 ,$ 2,169,696 $ 0430,017 $ 2170,163 $ 2,,}A,507 9 2,170371 $ 2,170,097., 570,024 $ 2,170,507 $ 2,170,286 $ 2120333 $ 2,169,7$5 $ 2.320.249 $ $ 4170244 $ 2,170,373 $ 2,160,880 $ Total Debt Service Needs ",849,008 6,306,7$ 10,205,606 $ 10,207,118 $ 10,207,805 $ 10,209,421 $ 10,211,133 $ 10,207,495 $ 10,207.150 $ 10.209,421 $ 10,208,381 $ 10,211,174 $ 10,205,790 $ 10,210,532 $ 10,211,533 $ 10,208,183 $ 10,208,790 $ 10,206,473 5 1 Source SAPP Funds aty RON) $ z$75,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 1,375,000 $ 2325,000 $ 2375,000 $ 1,375,000 $ 2375,009 $ 2,325,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375,000 $ 2375000 $ Z3,5.000 $ RDA(255•$0mount AR.d.air) $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,083 5 2,375,000 $ 2.375,000 5 2,375.000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ County(100%)• $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500.000 $ 1,500,009 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500000 $ 1,500007 $ 1,503,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 5 1.500.000 5 Block 70 CDA 170s of m.pem.e imeaeq^ by \ 69] 5.•, $ 203,145 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 5 406,290 $ 405,190 $ 406290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 3 .C9001 Disnitt '654 5 70,615 $ 141,230 $ 282,460 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 5 County 4,489 5 25,956 $ 51,912 $ 103,823 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ Total All Sources9,039 $ 147,357 $ 294,714 5 6,639,428 7,428,87,428,856$ 7,428,656 $ 7,428,856 $ 7, ,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,425,856 $ 7,423,856 $ 7, ,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7y428,856 $ 7.428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7 Total Cary Sources \Y22 2 54784 $ 10150 3 2574143 $ 2781210 $ 2781290 3 1781,210 $ 2781296 $ 27e1290 $ 2781290 $ 2781190 $ 2781290 S 2781290 $ 2782290 S 4781111 $ 27862% 0 2781190 $ 1781250 $ 2781290 3 GAP .f 7q f7i`� Q . ($3,366,179) ($2,778,262) ($2,778,949) ($2,780,565) ($2,782,277) - ($2,778,639) ($2,778,294) ($2,780,565) ($2,779,525) ($2,782,318) ($2,776,934) f$1,781,676) ($I,782,677) ($2,779,327) ($2,779,934) ($2,777,6171 ($2,7 mio Scenario 3-High Interest Rate-Assuming-5.98%Interest•25 Year Saks Tax Bond FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2029 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2 Uses-Debt Service Bond Anticipation Note(515 MI $ 262,000 $ 262,000 71,e-023 Bonds(5110M) $ - $ 6,535,566 $ 6,257,457 $ 8,982,457 $ 8,986,290 $ 8.987,933 $ 8,988,634 $ 8,987,520 5 6,969.594 $ 8,991,283 $ 8,986,747 $ 8,986,411 5 8,990,346 5 8,988,772 $ 8,990,599 $ 8,989,573 $ 8,989,713 $ 5,987,525 $ 8,986.51S $ $ Utah Theater(5301n) $ - $ 1,764,603 $ 1,689,513 5 2,426,613 5 2,426,298 $ 2,426,742 $ 2,426,931 $ 2,426,630 $ 2,427,190 $ 2,427,646 $ 2,426,422 $ 2,426,331 $ 2,427,393 $ 2,426,968 $ 2,427,462 $ 2,427,185 5 2,427,222 $ 2,426,632 $ 2,4$ $ 2 Total Debt Service Needs 9. $ 11,414,070 $ 11,912,535 $ 11,914,674 $ 11,415,565 $ 11,414,150 $ 11,416,780 $ 11,418,929 $ 11,413,169 $ 11,412,742 $ 11,417,739 $ 11,415,740 $ 11,918,060 $ 11,416,757 $ 11,416,935 $ 11,414,157 $ 11,412,966 $ 11,, Source \\ SARR Funds WV $ 1,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2315000 f 1,375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375,000 $ 1,375,000 $ 1,375,000 $ 2,3]6000 $ 2,375,000 f 23]6000 $ 2315000 $ 2375,000 $ 5,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 1,315,000 $ 2,_ RDA 12516-$amount matchesalid $ \ $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375.000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 5 2,375,000 $ 2,375.000 5 2,375,002 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2. County(10091)' \ 5 1,500,030 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,003 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500r000 5 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 5 1,500,000 $ 1,! mm.Block 70 CDA m.o.renvwwP CO \ 697 $ 50,7\ $ 203,115 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 5 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 4 School District 7,654 $ 70,6 x 141,2601$ 282,060 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 5 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564.920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 0 5E4,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ x County 4,489 \ 25,95 51,912 5 103,823 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 5 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 2 Total All Sources \-,839 \'147,357 '5 294,714 $ 6,839,426 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,656 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,423,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,4, Taal Coy sauan '12497 sp7e4 S 101173 9 1574145 $ 2781290 $ 2786211 $ 1781290 $ 27812% $ 2781290 $ 2781290 $ 07e1280 $ 2,781290 $ 2781210 $ 2781290 $ 2,781,110 $ 1781,280 $ 2,781210 $ 2,781,290 $ 2781.290 S 1 GAP - ($4,574,642) ($3,983,732) ($3,985,818/ ($3,986,709) ($3,985,294) ($3,987,928) ($3,990,073) ($3,984,313) ($3,983,886) 03,988,8834 ($3,986,884) ($3,989,204) ($3,987,901) ($3,988,079) ($3,985,301) ($3,984,110) ($3,989 POTENTIAL FUNDS TO FILL GAP RDA SARII FUNDS $0 _ 50 0 $4006000 $4624000 54624000 $4625,000 $6,625,000 $4624000 $4625,000 56,625000 $4825,000 $6625,003 $6423,000 $4424000 $6,625,000 $4624000 $.6,000 K0!480 $6621 COP PtN7HOLDER IS ST BONDS FOS S 2 FO U 52 SAGA-$3.2M-$279699AR) $0 52,230,000 $2,230000 92,9m000 $5180,400 52,2344 0 $2,256000 $5250.000 $3.294008 $5230,000 $2,256040 $4230000 52,236000 92,2*0000 0,230000 52230400 54234000 0,290,000 $2,1MA000 (9,5% Plows/Assumptio s 'Note:County commitment to SARR Funds and CDA has rot yet been approved. "Assumption:Council Stall assumed a 5 year ramp-up to full CDA potential Increment. I sCA€ME D TO: SCANNED BY: RICHARD GRAHAM vw�t A\ c� eRami •TE ��/// RALPH BECKER P LJBLIC SE RVIC E6 pIRECTpR MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTORS OFFICE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL I g T - Tii i covED NOV 0 1 2011 Date Received: unnammomera'a�_ ay. Everitt, of of Staff Date sent to Council : maw Si c TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 2, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Rick Graham fY Public Services Director SUBJECT: Salt Lake Valley Landfill Fiscal (Calendar) Year 2012 Budget STAFF CONTACT: Greg Davis Salt Lake City Department of Public Services 801.535.6123 Larry Hansen Salt Lake County Landfill Operations 801.974.6909 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt the proposed budget. BUDGET IMPACT: User fees collected and managed by Salt Lake County. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The FY2012 budget reflects changes to the ongoing operation of the Landfill. No fee increases are projected in this budget. The proposed budget is scheduled to be reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake Valley Landfill Council on Friday November 19, 2011. The Salt Lake County Council is scheduled to hold its public hearing and to adopt this budget on Tuesday December 13, 2011. PUBLIC PROCESS: Review by the Salt Lake Landfill Board, and public hearings held by Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 138, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 641 1 1.31 04 MAILING ADDRESS: P❑ BOX 145469, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 14-5469 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: 801-535-7963 (WWW.BLGGOV.COM (�RECYCLED PAPER Initiative Name: SLVSWMF Landfill 2012 Budget Initiative Number: Blank (Gordon will number) Initiative Type: Type of Initiative (enter on first tab) Initiative Discussion: Each year the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility (SLVSWMF), which is jointly owned by Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City, submits its budget to Salt Lake City for its approval. Salt Lake City last provided its approval of the SLVSWMF budget in Dec 2010 and June 2011 for fiscal(calendar)year 2011. SLVSWMF has submitted its 2012 budget to Salt Lake County for approval. SLVSWMF is also seeking the approval of the 2012 budget from Salt Lake City. Traditional types of midyear adjustments have been combined with the approved 2011 budget to form the 2011 amended SLVSWMF budget. The major changes to revenue and expense will now be reviewed. All comparisons are made to the amended 2011 budget. The projected December 31,2012 cash balance for the SLVSWMF is$38,752,564.The projected cash balances by type are: Closure/Post Closure $15,624,899, Designated $22,421,210 and Undesignated $706,455. The cash balance includes the impact of the annual landfill dividend to the joint owners.The annual dividend is projected to be$1,575,000. Revenue is projected to be$17,484,982.This is a year-to-year revenue increase of$2,210,084.The proposed budget for expense is$14,195,827.This is a year-to-year increase of$375,185. Explanations for these changes follow. SLVSWMF tipping fee revenue is budgeted to increase by$484,150. Ongoing tonnage is proposed to stay relatively flat. The$2/ton July 2011 fee increase will be in effect for the entire budget year. No new fee structures have been added.There are no changes to the DEQ or the Health Department per ton assessments. Tipping fees for green waste are now tracked separately by the SLVSWMF. Based on increased tonnage, green waste tipping fees will increase by$93,000. No change in interest income revenue is projected. PTIF interest rates Aug 10 to Aug 11 changed from 0.6331% to 0.6214%.This is a .0117%decrease. Three new shredders were delivered in 2011 and became fully functional in August 2011. They are projected to bring in an additional$1,097,934 in revenue.The bulk of this revenue will be metal recovery. Compost sales have been soft for the last three years and have not met budgeted levels. Hence compost sales will be opened up to commercial customers.With that change it is anticipated that the revenue budget for compost sales will be met. Initiative# The one-time revenue of$30,000 from Quickcrete for the Transfer Station intersection has been removed.The project is complete.Sale of vehicle revenue has been increased by$565,000 to reflect the sale of two grinders and one scraper. Personal services is projected to decrease by $67,767. No changes are being made to either full time or temporary headcount. Adjustments to base are a reduction of$65,769. Other changes net to a decrease of$1,998. In addition there was a mid year 2011 increase of$6,067 to personal services which was not reviewed by Salt Lake City. Materials and supplies are projected to increase by$25,998.The radios currently used are obsolete and will be replaced at a cost of$20,000. Scale software and Waste Wizard hardware will be upgraded for$15,998.Three or four new computers are needed and the total cost will be $5,000. Fewer tons are going to the face of the landfill so purchases of posi-shells will decrease by$15,000. It is proposed that the charges and services budget increase by$191,384. Fleet fuel is increasing$226,800 with gallons remaining flat and the price of diesel fuel assumed to be $3.85/gallon. Road paving budget has increased $150,000 which equals 2009 budget. Contract hauling has been increased by $62,035 to cover the anticipated fuel surcharge impact. Maintenance expense for facilities and ground, office equipment and software will increase $60,000 because delays in repairs are no longer feasible. Fleet maintenance will increase$19,010. Utilities expense is projected to increase by$7,000 and promotion of recycling is increasing $6,000. With projected increases in green waste tonnage fewer tons find their way to the face.This reduces the GASB18 required closure expense by$282,461. Reduced face tonnage reduces DEQ fees by $33,000, even though the DEQ fee structure did not change. The one-time Quickcrete expense of $30,000 has been removed because the project is complete.Other adjustments net to a$6,000 increase. Capital expense is projected to be$3,230,000. This is a budget-to-budget increase of$218,042. Scheduled replacement capital includes $1,300,000 for two industrial shredders and $280,000 for a front-end loader. The significant increase in green waste tonnage is the driver behind the purchase of a trommel screen for$450,000. Routine maintenance which will be capitalized includes $250,000 in equipment repairs and $50,000 in solid rubber tires. Regulatory capital includes$350,000 for gas lines and $100,000 in OSHA related lighting for the transfer station. Safety capital includes $100,000 in concrete work at the scale entry and $250,000 for a diesel packer to be used at the citizen unloading area. Planning expense of $100,000,for the citizen unloading area is proposed to be rolled from 2011 to 2012. Transfers from the SLVSWMF to other funds in Salt Lake County funds increased $7,528. Mid year 2011 reductions to transfers totaling$49,214 were not previously reviewed by the Salt Lake City. Based on changes in tonnage,the owners dividend is budgeted to increase by$10,500. It is recommended that the Council approve the SLVSWMF budget. Initiative# • SLVSWMF Landfill 2012 Budaet Initiative Name Blank(Gordon will number) Calendar 2012 Initiative Number � i _ _ Fiscal Year Public Services Department _ __ Type of Initiative(enter on first tab) Department - _ Type of Initiative Grea Davis _ 801.535.6123 Prepared By ' Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total) $0 $0 Enterprise Fund ' SLVSWMF 17,484,982 17,484,982 Total $17,484,982 $17,484,982 Other Fund Total $0 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of FTE's: 0 0 Position Title: No changes to staffing.The following is currently approved staffing: FTEs: Full time _ 50.00 Seasonal 2.16 - Total 52.16 Initiative#-a SLVSWMF _ - - -. - Fee Comparison - i - - - - - - -- - _ 2011 and proposed 2012 - - - -- -- 1 . - - possible 2013-2018 - _ _ - -- 1 - - - - - _ assllmptiolls' - - -_ - - __ - - - - - - - ^o change to reeuested that Landfilltaff tud cost recove in ry proposedbudget y and fee structure individually for Transfer Station,Green Waste Compostin_g,Landfill Tipping Face Customer Unloading Station etc ! Based on study fee thanes will be proposed ETA=July 2012 price change budget Hansen i In the interim,using$2/tonyearbeginning Fund Commercial F P and Refuse Transfer Station Class i $2.0.01 $2.00 per 18 Oct 11 conversation with Larry P nsen fee change each be innin in Jul 2012 for the Refuse Pick-Up Truck Single Axle Trailers Double Axle Trailers Station Commercial Transfer 1 Transfer !commercial I most Commercial I Transfer Commercial' wove Commercial Transfer - --- - Ton Commercial satin 2011 i 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 i 2012 1 2012 I 2012 2013 I 2013 _ 2014 2014 2015 2015 , 2016 2016 2017 2017 Flat Rate Flat Rate Flat Rate 30.00 $26.00 ByI Ton$26.00 $28.00 $26.00 1, $28.00I $30.00 $30.00 $32.001 $32.001 $34.001 $36.00 I $36.00} $38.00. $38.00� $40.00 household trash $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $30.00 $30.00 1 , I $34.00� n/a i , -- I - $16.00I n/a 0 $36.001 36 $38.001 $38.00 clean gr enrwas SLCity and SLCoun[y 5.00 0 5.00 1 5.0 0 .00 1! n/a.00 n/a. $16 00 $26.00 I $26.00 $26.00 $28.00 n/a 00_ $16.00 n/a OOi $16 00 $32.00 $16.00 n/a $16.001 $n .001 $16.00 n/a c construction green debts I $0.00 I $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $30.00 j $30.00 $26.00 $26.00 n/a n/a 1 -$28.00 n/a $30.00 n/a $32.00 n/a $34.00 n/a $36.00 n/a $38.00 clean soil n clean sod $5.00 $5.00 i $5.00 $5.00 $15.00 $15.00 $5.00 $5.00 n/a I n/a n/a I $5.001 n/a $5.00 n/a ss$5.00l n/aa_ $5.00 n/a $5.00 n/a $5.00],1 n/a n/a 1 � leaves, asphalt n concrete $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $15.00 00 $15.00 00 $5.00 $5.00 I n/a _ 1 - } $3.00_ n/a leaves,deba ed $5.00 $5.00 I $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 1 $5.00 $3.00 $3.00 n/a n/a $3.00 n/a $3.00� n/a $3.00 n/a $3.00 n/a $3.00_ n/a BB / n a n a n/a I! n/a $100 75 1_ $100 75 1 {� n/a n/a $100.75 n/a $100.75 n/a $100.75-__n/a 1 $100.75. n/a $100.75 n/a $100_751 n/a deceasedanimals n/a n/a / /a special/medical waste - n/a n/a n/a ', n/a n/a n/a ' $100.75 ' $100.75 I n/a n/a i I $100.75 n/a $100.75 n/a I $100.75 n/a $100.75 n/a $300.75� n/a $100.751 n/a 1 - 1 - 75 n/a $500.75 n/a $500 75 n/a $500.751 n/a 1 $500 75 n/a $500.75, n/a asbestos friable n/a } n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $500.75 $500.75 n/a n/a $100.75. asbestos non-friable � 1 n/a n/aI n/a n/e I � n/a n/a :.�_$100J 5 $100.75 I n/a n/a $100._I-. n/a _. $100.751 n/a � $100.75 n/a � $100.75 n/a � ;100.75, n/a $100.75 n/a household hazardous waste n/a I n/a n/a -n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a I n/a n/a n/a J _n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $30.00 li n a n/a $30.00 � n/a $30.00� {I r { / I / $ compost sale-per scoop(green waste ground to mulch like product) $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 1 $30.001 $30.00 $30.00 / n/a $30.00 n/a $30.00 n/a $30.00 n/a 30.001 n/a SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROPOSED BUDGET Amended Proposed Dollar Percent 2011 2012 Change Change Revenue and other sources Landfill fees 11,420,850 11,905,000 484,150 4.2% Green waste tipping fees 357,000 450,000 93,000 26.1% Compost sales 425,000 425,000 - 0.0% Salvage sales 2,579,548 3,677,482 1,097,934 42.6% Interest income 155,000 155,000 - 0.0% Sale of vehicle revenue - 565,000 565,000 - Other sources 337,500 307,500 (30,000) -8.9% Total revenue&other sources 15,274,898 17,484,982 2,210,084 14.5% Expenditures and other uses Salaries, wages, benefits 3,551,015 3,483,248 (67,767) -1.9% Materials and supplies 247,252 273,250 25,998 10.5% Charges and services 6,590,334 6,781,718 191,384 2.9% Total operating expenses 10,388,601 10,538,216 149,615 1.4% Capital outlay 3,011,958 3,230,000 218,042 7.2% Transfers 420,083 427,611 7,528 1.8% Total expenses and other uses 13,820,642 14,195,827 375,185 2.7% Net before dividends&distrib. 1,454,256 3,289,155 1,834,899 126.2% Dividends&distributions Ongoing dividends 1,564,500 1,575,000 10,500 0.7% One-time distribution - - - - Total dividends&distributions 1,564,500 1,575,000 10,500 0.7% Net after dividends&distributions (110,244) 1,714,155 1,824,399 -1654.9% SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROPOSED BUDGET Amended Proposed Dollar Percent 2011 2012 Change Change CONVERSION FROM COUNTY TO CITY County Revenue 15,274,898 17,484,982 2,210,084 14.5% Expense 13,017,759 13,191,827 174,068 1.3% Net 2,257,139 4,293,155 2,036,016 90.2% City Revenue per County 15,274,898 17,484,982 2,210,084 14.5% Remove gain on sale of equip - - - Add proceeds from sale of equip - - - - Revenue per City 15,274,898 17,484,982 2,210,084 14.5% Expense per County 13,017,759 13,191,827 174,068 1.3% Remove depreciation (2,000,000) (2,225,000) (225,000) 11.3% Remove loss on sale of equip (1,000) (1,000) - 0.0% Add capital outlay 2,803,883 3,230,000 426,117 15.2% Expense per City 13,820,642 14,195,827 375,185 2.7% Dividends&distributions - Ongoing dividends 1,564,500 1,575,000 10,500 0.7% One-time distribution - - - Total dividends&distributions 1,564,500 1,575,000 10,500 0.7% Net after dividends&distrib. (110,244) 1,714,155 1,824,399 -1654.9% Difference from Overview - - - SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MAN FROM ADOPTED TO AMENDED BUDGETS PROPOSED BUDGET Original Amended Dollar Percent 2011 2011 Change Change Revenue and other sources Landfill fees 10,973,850 11,420,850 447,000 4.1% Green waste tipping fees - 357,000 357,000 - Compost sales 425,000 425,000 - 0.0% Salvage sales 2,579,548 2,579,548 - 0.0% Interest income 155,000 155,000 - 0.0% Sale of vehicle revenue - - - - Other sources 337,500 337,500 - 0.0% Total revenue&other sources 14,470,898 15,274,898 804,000 5.6% Expenditures and other uses Salaries, wages, benefits 3,521,826 3,551,015 29,189 0.8% Materials and supplies 247,252 247,252 - 0.0% Charges and services 6,438,334 6,590,334 152,000 2.4% Total operating expenses 10,207,412 10,388,601 181,189 1.8% Capital outlay 2,803,883 3,011,958 208,075 7.4% Transfers 469,297 420,083 (49,214) -10.5% Total expenses and other uses 13,480,592 13,820,642 340,050 2.5% Net before dividends&distrib. 990,306 1,454,256 463,950 46.8% Dividends&distributions Ongoing dividends 1,564,500 1,564,500 - 0.0% One-time distribution - - - - Total dividends&distributions 1,564,500 1,564,500 - 0.0% Net after dividends&distributions (574,194) (110,244) 463,950 -80.8% SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MAN FROM ADOPTED TO AMENDED BUDGETS PROPOSED BUDGET Original Amended Dollar Percent 2011 2011 Change Change CONVERSION FROM COUNTY TO CITY County Revenue 14,470,898 15,274,898 804,000 5.6% Expense 12,677,709 13,017,759 340,050 2.7% Net 1,793,189 2,257,139 463,950 25.9% City Revenue per County 14,470,898 15,274,898 804,000 5.6% Remove gain on sale of equip - - - - Add proceeds from sale of equip - - - - Revenue per City 14,470,898 15,274,898 804,000 5.6% Expense per County 12,677,709 13,017,759 340,050 2.7% Remove depreciation (2,000,000) (2,000,000) - 0.0% Remove loss on sale of equip (1,000) (1,000) - 0.0% Add capital outlay 2,803,883 2,803,883 - 0.0% Expense per City 13,480,592 13,820,642 340,050 2.5% Dividends&distributions Ongoing dividends 1,564,500 1,564,500 - 0.0% One-time distribution - - Total dividends&distributions 1,564,500 1,564,500 - 0.0% Net after dividends&distrib. (574,194) (110,244) 463,950 -80.8% Difference from Overview - - - SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. (Adopting the Solid Waste Management Facility budget for calendar year 2012) An ordinance adopting the Solid Waste Management Facility budget, as prepared and submitted by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council for the Calendar Year 2012. PREAMBLE On November 14, 2000, Salt Lake City (the "City") and Salt Lake County (the "County") entered into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (as amended on October 7, 2009, the "Agreement"), pursuant to Title 11, Chapter 13 of the Utah Code Annotated, regarding the joint management and operation of a Solid Waste Management Facility. The Agreement established the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council (the "Management Council") and provided it with authority and responsibility relating to the operation and management of the Solid Waste Management Facility. Pursuant to the Agreement, all actions by the Management Council constitute recommendations to the City and the County and the City and the County have the power to review, ratify, modify, or veto any action of the Management Council. The Management Council has prepared the attached Solid Waste Management Facility budget for calendar year 2012 (the "2012 Budget") and has submitted it to the City Council for its approval. The City Council has authority relating to budgets and appropriation of funds and, therefore, must approve, on behalf of the City, the 2012 Budget. The 2012 Budget has been available for public inspection in the Office of the City Recorder for at least 10 days. The City Council fixed the time and place for a public hearing to be held on November 22, 2011 to consider the adoption of the 2012 Budget and ordered notice thereof be published at least seven days before the hearing. Notice of said public hearing was duly published as required herein. A public hearing to consider adoption of the 2012 Budget was held on November 22, 2011,in accordance with said notice,at which hearing all interested persons were heard for and against the estimates of revenue and expenditures in the 2012 Budget. The City Council wants to adopt the 2012 Budget submitted by the Management Council. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt the 2012 Budget, prepared and submitted by the Management Council. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF BUDGET. The 2012 Budget is hereby adopted,subject to similar approval by the County. SECTION 3. RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND. The City reserves the right to amend the 2012 Budget at any time,consistent with the Agreement. SECTION 4. PUBLIC INSPECTION. Copies of the 2012 Budget shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2011. CHAIRPERSON 2 ATTEST: CITY RECORDER • Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM (SEAL) Salt Lake City Attorneys Office Fjy Bill No. of 2011. Published: • 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 17,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Actions Pertaining to the Establishment of a Local Building Authority to Issue Bonds for the Glendale Branch Library CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Deborah Ehrman,Dan Mule, Ed Rutan,Neil Lindberg, Gina Chamness,Helen Langan,Luann Clark,Jennifer Bruno,Gordon Hoskins,Marina Scott,Boyd Ferguson,Karen Halladay,Kay Christensen This memorandum pertains to City Council consideration of motions that would create the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City and a resolution adopting a tentative budget for the Authority.The Authority and the tentative budget would be the financial mechanisms to finance construction of the planned Glendale Branch Library. A local building authority is a mechanism to issue lease revenue bonds for public projects. One future public project that the Local Building Authority would address is the construction of a second branch library in the Marmalade-West Capitol Hill neighborhood. The City Council heard a briefing on the creation of the Local Building Authority and its use as the mechanism to finance building the Glendale Branch Library at the Council's October 4 work session. The City Council then on October 25 adopted Resolution No. 37 of 2011.The resolution was the first step in establishing a local building authority. • The City Council is scheduled to hear a briefing November 22 at its work session on the next steps in organizing the Salt Lake City Local Building Authority and adopting a tentative budget for the Authority. Both items will appear again in the Unfinished Business section of the City Council's formal agenda.Motions in the Unfinished Business section include motions to convene as the Local Building Authority Board of Directors to adopt the motions pertaining to the work of the Building Authority.The work session is scheduled to start at 2 p.m. in Room 326 of the City&County Building,426 South State Street.The Council's formal meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chamber in the same building. POTENTIAL MOTIONS PERTAINING TO THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY The Administration has provided a series of suggested motions pertaining to establishing the Local Building Authority.The motions have been copied from the Administration transmittal and are attached to this memo.The suggested motions are in italics. The City Council always has recourse to this motion—"I move the City Council consider the next item on the agenda."—if it does not want to establish the Building Authority. 1 o While establishing a Local Building Authority would protect Salt Lake City's capacity to issue sales tax bonds for projects,including potentially a new performing arts center downtown,the City's residents and businesses ultimately would pay for both kinds of bonds. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION o The City's financial advisor recommends that the City Council consider a Local Building Authority to finance the Glendale Branch Library because"the LBA structure is most useful for`essential purpose,'stand alone facilities while sales tax bonds are useful without regard to the nature of the project."' o Lease-revenue bonds carry a higher interest rate than sales tax revenue bonds. o What other facilities might be financed through a Local Building Authority? o Does Salt Lake City have the financial capacity to address all pending projects? o What is in the best interest of Salt Lake City residents and businesses? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION BRANCH LIBRARIES The City Council in June 2009 adopted a motion to increase property tax revenue by$560,000 a year for the Salt Lake City Library Fund to pay for: • General operations of the Salt Lake City Public Library System. • Building one new branch library with a sales tax bond. • Funding planning for the Glendale Branch Library. • Funding a planning process for the Marmalade Branch Library. The motion included a legislative intent statement indicating the City Council's intention to fund, plan and build the Glendale and Marmalade branch libraries. 110 The City Council in June 2011 adopted a budget for the Library Fund that also included a property tax increase that was projected to raise$645,000 a year.The increase was targeted to be used to pay annual debt service for bonds issued to build the Marmalade Branch Library.The City Council deferred a decision for a year on increasing property taxes again to pay the operating costs for the Glendale and Marmalade branch libraries. The property tax increases in 2009 and 2011 were adopted based on a projected estimate that it would cost about$8.2 million to build and stock the Glendale Branch Library and about$8.9 million to build and stock the Marmalade Branch Library. The projected cost of the Glendale Branch Library was lower because in June 2009 it was assumed that the branch library would be built on a site on California Avenue that the Salt Lake City Public Library System had bought a few years earlier.However,after an extensive public process a larger site south of California Avenue was chosen for the branch library.If a Local Building Authority is established,the$615,000 recommended by the Administration would be used to purchase the site for the Glendale Branch Library. III 3 M It should be noted that capacity to preserve credit ratings or meet state laws is not the same as an ability to pay.Both kinds of bonds require a municipality to find money"in a budget or a revenue increase to pay debt service,"according to the City's fmancial advisor.5 Authorized by the Legislature for a decade,sales tax revenue bonds are relatively new tools to finance municipal projects.In previous years Salt Lake City issued lease revenue bonds through its Municipal Building Authority for a variety of projects including building the Spring Mobile baseball stadium,two golf courses,the Justice Court Building at 333 South 200 East,Plaza 349,the Steiner Aquatic Center and Steiner Ice Sheet on Guardsman Way,the Park Blocks project in the Gateway,fire stations,a fire training tower and several other projects.'The City refunded outstanding bonds authorized under the Municipal Building Authority,and the Authority's registration with the state lapsed.In the meantime,the Legislature amended the state law to create Local Building Authorities for use by municipalities. Transmittal Letter,David Everitt and Gina Chamness,September 21,2011,page 2. 2 Transmittal Letter,David Everitt and Gina Chamness,September 21,2011,page 2. 5 Ibid.Page 3. 4 Salt Lake City Debt Coverage and Analysis,Dale M.Okerlund,June 14,2011. 5 Salt Lake City Debt Coverage and Analysis,Dale M.Okerlund,June 14,2011. 6 Transmittal Letter,Dan Mule,September 21,2011,page 1. 5 SUGGESTED RESOLUTION AND MOTION LANGUAGE ITEM B BE IT RESOLVED: That the normal rules of order be, and the same hereby are, waived and that the following persons be, and they hereby are, appointed to serve as officers of this Authority until their successors are duly appointed and qualified: Jill Remington Love President Stan Penfold Vice President Daniel Mule Treasurer Christine Meeker Secretary/Clerk Gina Chamness Budget Officer Motion: I move that we suspend the normal rules of order and appoint the persons to the indicated offices, as further set forth in the first resolution in the proceedings before the Board. ITEM C BE IT RESOLVED: That the form of Bylaws submitted at this meeting be and hereby is adopted as the official Bylaws of this Authority. Motion: I move that we adopt the Bylaws presented to the Board at this meeting as the Bylaws of the Authority, as further set forth in the second resolution in the proceedings before the Board and a copy of which is annexed thereto as Exhibit B. ITEM D BE IT RESOLVED: That the President, any Vice President, the Secretary'Clerk and the Treasurer be, and they are hereby, authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority any and all employment agreements, deeds, leases, contracts, purchase orders, assignments, notes, bonds, mortgages, deeds of trust and Motion: I move that that the regular meetings of the Board be held and notice of the annual meeting schedule of the Board be given as stated and as further provided in the fourth resolution in the proceedings before the Board. ITEM F BE IT RESOLVED: That the Board, the Budget Officer, and any other officers or employees of the Authority shall take any and all necessary actions required by the Fiscal Procedures for Local Districts Act, including actions relating to the preparation and adoption of the annual budgets of the Authority. Motion: I move 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 further set forth in the fifth resolution in the proceedings before the Board. ITEM G BE IT RESOLVED: That the Authority and its directors, officers, and employees, may acquire real and personal property, and services, using any purchasing or procurement procedures that are in the best interest of the Authority. Motion: I move that the Authority and its directors, officers and employees be authorized to acquire property and services using procurement procedures that are in the best interest of the Authority, as further provided in the sixth resolution in the proceedings before the Board. ITEM H BE IT RESOLVED: That any and all actions taken by the officers of the Authority prior to the date of this Organizational Meeting that are within the authority conferred in this Organizational Meeting are hereby ratified, confirmed, and approved as the act and deed of the Authority, including but not limited to all actions as have heretofore been taken in connection with the organization of the Authority. Motion: I move that the actions of the officers taken prior to the date of this Organizational Meeting that are within the authority conferred in this Organizational Meeting be ratified, confirmed and approved, as further described in the seventh resolution in the proceedings before the Board. RALPHBoECKER S (' �� TiY�c„��RP@°A' 110.141 woRI: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL E 1� 1 , F D Date Received: II /g!Zd I( ' D ''d Everitt, C ief of Staff , ; CC � ✓;f_Pate sent to Council: ,l k'iot t TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 8, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Local Building Authority: Summary of Recommended Actions Regarding the Creation of a Local Building Authority to Issue Bonds for Library Construction STAFF CONTACT: Gina Chamness, Budget Director (801) 535-7766 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing and Resolution RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the City Council consider dissolving the existing Municipal Building Authority and creating a local building authority for the purpose of issuing bonds for a previously approved library location in the Glendale neighborhood. Since the City last used the Municipal Building Authority, Utah state statute has changed and this authority is now a local building authority. The Administration further recommends that, once created, the local building authority adopt a tentative budget and set the date for a public hearing regarding that tentative budget. BUDGET IMPACT: The Administration anticipates that this action will have no impact on the City's General Fund and will not require an amendment to the budget of the Library Fund. Once created, we recommend the Local Building Authority adopt an initial budget of$615,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Local Building Authority vs. Sales Tax Bonds for Glendale Library In June of 2009, the City Council approved the increase of the City' Library's property tax rate to fund the construction of a Glendale library in order to service debt on planned sales tax bonds to be issued by the City for this purpose. The City's library system is funded almost entirely by property taxes. In this scenario envisioned by the City Council 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com ®wE.«Eo P,PEa in 2009, although the property tax increase increment would be available to make debt service payments, the sales tax bonds would count toward the overall sales tax debt capacity of the City. At the same time, the City is considering a number of other major capital projects that may ultimately lead to a decision to issue sales tax bonds for one or all of these projects. The City's financial advisor, Dale Okerlund of Lewis, Young Robertson and Burningham has recommended to both the Administration and the City Council that the City consider issuing bonds through a local building authority (LBA) , a tool that is outlined in state statute. Lewis Young recommends the City consider an LBA bond structure rather than the sales tax bond mechanism in order to preserve sales tax bond capacity for transactions which either cannot be done using the other methods or which could only be done by other methods at a substantially greater interest expense. According to Lewis Young, the LBA structure is most useful for"essential purpose" stand alone facilities, such as the libraries, while sales tax bonds are useful without regard to the nature of the project. Consequently, projects suitable for LBA financing (all of which could be done with sales tax bonds) should be considered for that type of financing in order to decrease the overall demands on the City's "go to" mechanism of sales tax bonds. LBA bonds are slightly more costly than sales tax bonds. The additional cost in interest is expected to be approximately 20 - 25 basis points in the shorter maturities, rising to 30 - 40 basis points for longer maturities. In August, assuming a bond issuance of approximately $6,000,000, the difference between issuing lease revenue or LBA bonds and sales tax bonds was calculated at approximately $30,000 annually and about $400,000 over an estimated life of 20 years. This option would leave the City greater borrowing flexibility for the future. Both annual estimated debt service amounts for the LBA and sales tax bonds are well within the property tax increment amount of approximately $556,000 approved by the City Council in 2009. To preserve borrowing flexibility, the Administration recommends dissolving the existing Municipal Building Authority, creating a Local Building Authority, and then, acting as the Local Building Authority, creating a budget for the project to spend bond proceeds on the Glendale Library project. A separate transmittal addresses steps necessary to create the LBA. A possible proposed timeline is also included in that transmittal. Glendale Library Project and Budget As originally approved by the City Council, the Glendale Library was estimated to cost approximately $8.2 million. This is a very general estimate, and at the time, didn't include either bond issuance costs or the cost of land for the project. The Library previously purchased a lot that has not been selected as the location for the Glendale branch. The budget for the project presented below represents current estimates for the project, adjusted for both anticipated property purchase and issuance costs, adds approximately $715,000 to the overall cost of the project. Glendale Library Project Budget Uses: Land purchase 615,000 Construction 4,700,000 2 Collection 2,000,000 3 Furnishings 700,000 a Consulting 376,000 Technology 250,000 6 Cost of Issuance 100,000 Art, Landscaping, Misc. 210,000 8,951,000 Sources: Property Tax collected to date dedicated to Glendale 823,994 Glendale property tax to be collected in CY 2011 556,466 Designated Reserve Fund Balance 1,500,000 Rental Income - " 12 Donations - Existing Land Sales - '3 2,880,460 Difference (6,070,540) Anticipated sales price of North property. Property will be purchased by the Local Building Authority. Assumes construction cost C S235 for a 20,000 sf library. 20,000 sf is current industry standard,and many SLC library locations are smaller. Includes standard construction items including lighting,electrical, HVAC,etc. Additional detail on construction costs is not currently available and will be developed once a project manager is hired for the project. 'Assumes collection of 100,000 items Id S20 per item. Depending on programming,collection could be smaller,requiring less square footage for the collection. a Assumes furnishing cost S35 for a 20,000 sf library. This cost includes chairs,desks,tables,movable fixtures, shelving,service desks,seating and employee cubicles. Maximum life-span for many furnishings is 7-10 years,with some items having a considerably shorter life span. Assumes consulting services,including project manager and architectural sere ices,% 8°o of construction line item. 6 Includes cost of hardware and software in the building,as well as the cost of connecting to fiber network to connect to existing library network. Costs associated with issuing bonds. Includes 1%for Art, landscaping costs for new building and some contingency. 9 Includes property tax collected in CY 09, 10,and 11 for Glendale library project. 10 Assumes use of S l.5 million of dedicated reserve fund balance,as previously directed by City Council. Placeholder for potential rental income at Glendale Library. Current programming suggests that some portion of library may include modular spaces that can be utilized by non-profits or retail,generating income. Community has also expressed interest in kitchen space,which may produce income. Rental income may be used for capital project, or may be used for operations. Placeholder for potential revenue from donations,including potential naming rights donations. Income may be used for capital project,or may be used for operations. Placeholder for potential revenue for existing land sale. Income may be used for capital project,or may be used for operations. Several policy questions related to the budget remain, including whether the sale of the existing property in Glendale should be used for this or another capital project, whether potential donations, including naming rights, should be pursued for the capital project, and whether any potential rental income from the completed project should be included in the overall budget of the capital project or for branch operations. For these reasons, the Administration proposes a budget amendment that would include the purchase price of the land. Once more detail is available on the project, we recommend that the LBA Board convene again and approve the overall Library project and bond proceeds budget. As part of that approval, the LBA Board and the City Council will likely need to consider combining the project into one entity, rather than reflecting some expenses in the budget of the Library and the majority in the LBA. For financial reporting and budgeting, we will likely need to reflect all transactions in one entity, and because the Local Building Authority will be the bond issuer, this may be the LBA. If the Council chooses to issue sales tax bonds rather than bonds through the LBA, the need to combine transactions into one entity would remain, and a budget for sales tax bond proceeds may need to be created in the City's CIP fund. City and Library staff will continue to explore bond proceed and financial reporting requirements to ensure the Authority or the City complies with all pertinent rules. This technical adjustment does not affect the expectation that this project will be managed entirely by Library staff. Based on property taxes collected to date, as well as the use of the previously recommended S 1.5 million from the Library's designated reserve fund balance, we estimate that the LBA would issue bonds for approximately $6,070,000. Due to tax restrictions, we currently anticipate property taxes already collected for this project and the designated reserve fund balance amount totaling approximately S2.9 million would be used to fund the purchase of the collection as well as the furnishings, and bond proceeds would be used to fund the remainder of the project. The Administration recommends that, once created, the LBA purchase the North property for the Glendale Library. The LBA will lease the property for the term of the bonds. Resolution No. of 201 1 (Adopting the Tentative Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City. Utah for Fiscal Year 2011-2012) A Resolution Adopting the Tentative Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah, for remainder of the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1. 2011 and Ending June 30, 2012. PREAMBLE \W'I-IEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has created the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Building Authority"), and has appointed as the Budget Officer of the Building Authority (the "Budget Officer"); WHEREAS, the Budget Officer has filed with the Board of Directors (the "Board") of the Building Authority a tentative budget for the capital projects fund of the Building Authority; and WHEREAS, the Board is required to review, consider and tentatively adopt the tentative budget in a regular or special meeting called for that purpose; and WIIEREAS. the tentative budget adopted by the Board and all supporting schedules and data shall be a public record in the office of the Secretary of the Building Authority'. available for public inspection for a period of at least ten days before the adoption of the final budget; and WHEREAS, at the meeting in which the tentative budget for the capital projects fund is adopted. the Board shall establish the time and place of a public hearing to consider the adoption and shall order that notice thereof be published at least seven days before the hearing (a) in at least one issue of a newspaper of general circulation published in Salt Lake County. Utah and (b) on the Utah Public Notice Website created in Utah Code Section 63F-1-701. NOW.. THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah. as follows: 1. The tentative budget for the capital projects fund of the Building Authority for remainder of the fiscal year 2011-2012, filed by the Budget Officer with the Board. is hereby adopted as the Building Authority's tentative budget for the capital projects fund and is ordered to be filed and maintained as a public record, available for public inspection in the office of the Secretary of the Building Authority. City and County Building. 45 l South State Street, Room , Salt Lake City. Utah, until adoption of the final budget. The Board shall hold a public hearing on the budget tentatively adopted. The public hearing shall be held at 7:00 p.m. on , 2011 at the Cite Council Chambers. City& County Building, 451 South State Street, Room 315, Salt Lake City, Utah. Notice of the public hearing shall be published at least seven days before the hearing (a) in at least one issue of a newspaper of general circulation published in Salt Lake County, Utah and (b) on the Utah Public Notice Website created in Utah Code Section 63F-I-701. At the public hearing the Board shall give all interested persons in attendance an opportunity to be heard on the estimates of revenues and expenditures or any item in the tentative budget of the capital projects fund. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its approval and adoption. 2 m t r 01a Gc„ ly ,Q ° LION( DANIEL A. MULE' '^"�'� `.�J `t `��:�.► RALPH BECKER CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MAYOR TREASURER'S DIVISION CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL f Date Received: David Ev ritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 8, 201 1 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer !, ,,,,,,..--- SUBJECT: Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City — Organizing Resolution STAFF CONTACT: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer 801-535-6411 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that on November 22, 2011. the City Council convene as the Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "LBA") and proceed through an organizational meeting, resulting in the adoption of various resolutions for the organization of the LBA, including appointing and authorizing officers to execute documents on behalf of the Authority, adopting. Bylaws, setting regular meetings of the Board of Directors, providing for fiscal procedures and procurement and related matters. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Due to a lapse in the registration of and the administrative dissolution of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City (the "MBA") following the refunding of all of the outstanding lease revenue bonds of the Municipal Building Authority, it was necessary for the City Council to consider the organization of a new Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City if it wished to fund additional projects using lease revenue bonds. On October 25, 2011. a resolution was passed by the City Council creating the LBA. This alternative financing approach will enable the City to preserve bonding capacity in the sales tax revenue bond arena. In 2001 the legislature allowed the use of sales tax revenue bonds as an acceptable financing mechanism for governments. Prior to this legislative action, the City used lease revenue bonds issued through the MBA extensively. The City financed the baseball stadium, the current public safety building, Wingpointe Golf Course and an additional 18 holes at Mountain Dell Golf Course, the Justice Court. Plaza 349, Steiner Aquatic Center, Steiner 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 Page 2 of 3 • Ice Sheet, the Parks Block project at Gateway, fire stations, the fire training tower, and numerous other smaller projects all with lease revenue bonds issued through the MBA. In 2008 the Utah Legislature repealed the Municipal Building Authority Act and replaced it with the Local Building Authority Act (Utah Code Title 17D, Chapter 2). The new statute not only changed the name of building authorities, but also added new substantive requirements that are reflected in the creation documents for the City's new local building authority (LBA). Most importantly, the new statute made LBAs subject to the Fiscal Procedures for Local District Act (Utah Code Title 17B, Chapter 1, Part 6) and the Local District Personnel Management Act (Utah Code Chapter 17B, Chapter 1, Part 8). The Fiscal Procedures Act requires a LBA to do the follow ing: 1. appoint a clerk, 2. appoint a treasurer, 3. appoint a budget officer, 4. have a financial officer, 5. adopt purchasing procedures for the LBA, 6. adopt an annual budget using a multistep process (including a public hearing) similar to the one required for a city's budget, 7. prepare detailed quarterly financial reports and an annual financial report. 8. have an annual audit from an independent auditor, and 9. get the approval of the LBA's board of directors for all significant expenditures of the LBA. Also, at least quarterly, the board of directors must review all expenditure authorized by the LBA's financial officer. The following are the steps that need to be taken by the Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority and the suggested dates when these steps should occur: STEP 1. November 22, 2011: Organizational Meeting of the Local Building Authority The City Council would need to convene as the Board of Directors of the LBA and proceed through an organizational meeting, resulting in the adoption of various resolutions for the organization of the LBA, including appointing and authorizing officers to execute documents on behalf of the Authority, adopting Bylaws, setting regular meetings of the Board of Directors, providing for fiscal procedures and procurement and related matters. See attached Organizing Resolution and Bylaws. .,=. ,,; The Suggested LBA Agenda Language, including Staff Recommendation, as well as Suggested Resolution and Motion Language are attached for STEP 1. STEP 2. November 22, 2011: LBA Board of Directors adopts tentative budget and sets the date for the public hearing for the budget. H\Treas`.DansDo. \Council Cover Letters\Local Building Authority Organizational Nleetui g doc MINUTES OF ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY Salt Lake City, Utah November 22, 2011 The Organizational Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah, a Utah nonprofit corporation (hereinafter the "Authority"), was held at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, at a meeting that began at or around 7:00 p.m., on November 22, 2011. Each of the Directors, by affixing his or her signature to the minutes of this meeting, hereby waives any and all notice of the time, place and purpose of this meeting to which he or she may be entitled and hereby consents to the transaction of all items of business set forth herein. The following Directors were determined present: Director Jill Remington Love Director Stan Penfold Director Carlton Christensen Director Van Turner Director Luke Garrott Director JT Martin Director Soren Simonsen ABSENT: constituting all of the Directors of the Authority. Also present were Ralph Becker, Mayor, Edwin P. Rutan, II, City Attorney, and Christine Meeker, City Recorder of Salt Lake 3062 7 37.02.066.d„c 8704U$2 RDB'mo LB:A Organizing:Resolution STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) 1, the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), do hereby certify, according to the records of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Authority"), in my official possession until the Board of Directors (the "Board") has appointed a Secretary for the Authority, 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 November 22, 2011 Organizational Meeting held by the Board by: (a) causing a Notice of Public Meeting in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be posted at the principal office of the Board at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah. on November _, 2011, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting, the Notice of Public Meeting having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection during the regular office hours of the Board until the convening of the meeting; (b) causing a copy of the Notice of Public Meeting in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be provided on November , 2011, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting, to The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the City and the Authority, and to each local media correspondent, newspaper, radio station or television station that has requested notification of meetings of the Board; and (c) causing a Notice of Public Meeting to be posted on November _, 2011, on the Utah Public Notice Website at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting. - 3 - LBA Or inizin«Resolution The Chair stated that the first item of business involved the election of officers of the Authority. After due consideration of the resolution by the Board, thereupon moved, and seconded the motion, and the Board unanimously approved and adopted the following resolution: RESOLVED: That the normal rules of order be, and the same hereby are, waived and that the following persons be, and they hereby are, appointed to serve as officers of this Authority until their successors are duly appointed and qualified: Jill Remington Love President Stan Penfold Vice President Daniel Mule Treasurer Christine Meeker Secretary/Clerk Gina Chamness Budget Officer The Treasurer, Secretary/Clerk, and Budget Officer shall perform the functions and duties assigned to them under Utah law, including the Fiscal Procedures Act for Local Districts, Utah Code Title 17B,Chapter 1, Part 6, as amended (the "Fiscal Procedures Act"). The Chair stated that the next item of business to be transacted involved the adoption by the Board of Directors of a proposed set of Bylaws for the regulation and management of the affairs of the Authority. The Chair explained that these Bylaws had been reviewed and approved by the City Council of Salt Lake City at its meeting held on October 25, 2011, and have previously been reviewed by each of the Directors prior to this meeting. After due consideration of the resolution by the Board, thereupon moved, and seconded the motion, and the Board unanimously approved and adopted the following resolution: - j - LB.\Org anizint Resolution RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Secretary/Clerk of the Authority is hereby directed to give public notice of the annual meeting schedule of the Board of Directors for the balance of the 2011-2012 fiscal year by: (a) causing a notice of the annual meeting schedule for the Board of Directors to be posted at the principal office of the Board of Directors at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, as soon as reasonably practicable hereafter, that notice to remain so posted and available for public inspection during the regular office hours of the Board of Directors until at least June 30,2012; (b) causing a copy of the notice of annual meeting schedule for the Board of Directors to be provided as soon as reasonably practicable hereafter to The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of Salt Lake City, Utah, and the Authority, and to each local media correspondent, newspaper, radio station or television station that has requested notification of meetings of the Board of Directors; and (c) causing a copy of the notice of annual meeting schedule to be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website. The Chair then stated that the next item of business was to provide for compliance with the budgeting requirements and procedures set forth in the Fiscal Procedures Act. After due consideration of the resolution by the Board, thereupon moved, and seconded the motion, and the Board unanimously approved and adopted the following resolution: RESOLVED: That the Board, the Budget Officer, and any other officers or employees of the Authority shall take any and all necessary actions required by the Fiscal Procedures for Local Districts Act, including actions relating to the preparation and adoption of the annual budgets of the Authority. The Chair then stated that the next item of business was to establish purchasing and procurement procedures for the Authority, as required by the Fiscal Procedures Act. - 7 - LBA Or:uuzine.Resolution BYLAWS OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH THESE BYLAWS have been adopted for the regulation and management of the affairs of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Corporation"), subject to the provisions of its Articles of Incorporation and the laws of the State of Utah, at a meeting of the Board of Directors (the "Board of Directors") of the Corporation held in Salt Lake City, Utah. on November 22, 20 l l,duly called for that purpose. ARTICLE I PROPERTY INTEREST AND NON-LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS.AND OFFICERS Section 1.1. Nonprofit Character and Property Interest. The Corporation is organized and shall operate as a nonprofit corporation that does not distribute any part of its income to its directors or officers. No director or officer of the Corporation shall have any right, title or interest in or to any property, assets or income of the Corporation either prior to or at the time of the dissolution of the Corporation, all of which properties, assets and income shall at the time of dissolution be transferred to Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), as provided in the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation. The property, assets and income of the Corporation shall not inure to the benefit of any private person or private corporation. No earnings of the Corporation may inure to the benefit of anyone other than the City. Section 1.2. Non-Liability. No member of the Board of Directors or officer of the Corporation shall be individually liable upon any indebtedness or liability incurred by the Corporation. Section 1.3. Activities. The Corporation shall engage only in activities that are essentially public in character and that are consistent with the purposes for which the Corporation was organized as provided in its Articles of Incorporation. ARTICLE II MEETINGS Section 2.1. Regular Meetings. The Board of Directors may provide for the holding of regular meetings of the Board of Directors, following such notice to the directors and to the public as may be required by Section 2.3 hereof, at the regular meeting place of the City Council of the City (the "City Council") as shall be designated in the notice of the meeting. Any regular meeting of the Board of Directors may be held on the same or a different day as the clay on which regular meetings of the City Council are held. Section 2.2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called upon a written order signed by any four directors or by the President of the Corporation, and it 3062730.0I.1 )doc 8704082/RDB mo Section 3.2. Number, Appointment, Tenure of Office and Removal. The number of directors of the Corporation shall be seven (7); provided that the number of directors of the Corporation shall be increased or decreased automatically and without any further action of the Board of Directors of the Corporation or of the City Council (including, but not limited to, any action to amend these Bylaws or the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation) to equal the number of members of the City Council at any time as the number of the members of the City Council shall be increased or decreased as provided by law. The members of the City Council shall act as the members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation and, upon taking office as members of the City Council, shall be considered as appointed to the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The term of office of each director shall be the period during which such director serves as a member of the City Council. Each director shall hold office for the term for which he or she is appointed and until his or her successor shall have been appointed and qualified or until his or her earlier death, resignation or removal from office. No director shall take office unless and until he or she is a duly elected or appointed member of the City Council. Any director who ceases to be a member of the City Council shall simultaneously cease to be a director. To the extent provided by law, members of the Board of Directors may be removed and replaced by the City Council at any time in its discretion, upon the filing with the Secretary of the Corporation of a certified copy of a resolution directing such removal and replacement adopted by the City Council, a copy of which resolution shall be recorded in the corporate records of the Corporation; provided, however, that only a member of the City Council may be appointed to replace any director so removed. Section 3.3. Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring in the Board of Directors, including any directorship to be filled by reason of an increase in the number of directors as provided in Section 3.2 hereof, shall be filled by the member of the City Council who has succeeded or been appointed to a position as a member of the City Council as a result of a vacancy on the City Council or as a result of the increase in the number of members of the City Council, such appointment as a director to be effective upon such successor taking office as a member of the City Council. Any such vacancy in the Board of Directors shall remain unfilled until the election or appointment of a new member to the City Council who shall be considered as appointed to the Board of Directors in the manner provided in Section 3.2 hereof. Section 3.4. Compensation. Neither directors nor officers shall receive any salary for their services rendered to the Corporation except that, by resolution of the Board of Directors, actual expenses of attendance, if any, may be allowed for attendance at meetings of the Board of Directors. No director or officer shall receive compensation for serving the Corporation in any other capacity, nor shall any close relative (as hereinafter defined) of a director or officer receive compensation for serving the Corporation. The term "close relative" as used herein shall mean any brother or sister of any director or officer, the forebears and descendants of a director or officer or of any such brother or sister, and any spouse of a director or officer or any aforesaid person. Section 3.5. Accounting and Audits. The Board of Directors shall establish and maintain an appropriate accounting system. Pursuant to the Fiscal Procedures Act for Local Districts, Utah Code Title 17B, Chapter 1, Part 6, as amended (the "Fiscal Procedures Act"), the Secretary/Clerk shall prepare and present to the Board of Directors detailed quarterly financial - 3 - Section 4.3. Removal of Officers and Agents by Board of Directors. Any officer or agent of the Corporation may be removed by the Board of Directors whenever in its judgment the best interests of the Corporation will be served thereby. Section 4.4. President. The President: (a) shall be the principal executive officer of the Corporation and, unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors, shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors; (b) may sign any deeds, mortgages, deeds of trust, notes, bonds, contracts, leases, assignments or other instruments authorized by the Board of Directors to be executed, except in cases in which the signing and execution thereof shall be expressly delegated by the Board of Directors or by these Bylaws to some other officer or agent of the Corporation,or shall be required by law to be otherwise signed or executed; and (c) shall in general perform all duties incident to the office of President and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him or her by the Board of Directors. Section 4.5. Vice President. In the absence of the President, or in the event of his or her inability or refusal to act, the Vice President shall perform the duties of the President, and, when so acting, shall have all the powers of, and be subject to all the restrictions upon, the President. The Vice President shall also perform such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him or her by the Board of Directors. Section 4.6. Secretary/Clerk. The Secretary/Clerk shall: (a) keep the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors in one or more books provided for that purpose; (b) see that all notices are duly given in accordance with these Bylaws or as required by law; (c) be custodian of the corporate records and of the seal of the Corporation and affix the seal of the Corporation to documents, the execution of which on behalf of the Corporation under its seal is duly authorized in accordance with the provisions of these Bylaws; (d) keep a register of the names and post office addresses of all members of the Board of Directors; (e) have general charge of the books of the Corporation; (f) keep on file at all times a complete copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation containing all amendments thereto (which copy shall - 5 - ARTICLE V NONPROFIT OPERATION The Corporation shall at all times be operated on a nonprofit basis. No dividend shall be paid or payable by the Corporation, and no part of the income of the Corporation shall be distributed by the Corporation, to any director or officer of the Corporation. ARTICLE VI ACCOMPLISHMENT OF PURPOSE The Corporation is a public entity and an instrumentality of the State of Utah performing essential governmental functions on behalf of the City, and has been organized solely for the purpose of accomplishing the public purposes for which the City exists by acquiring, improving or extending any improvement, facility, property or appurtenance to property that the City is permitted under law to own or acquire, including, but not limited to, a public building or other structure of any kind or a joint or partial interest in the same, which improvement, facility, property or appurtenance may be located inside or outside the boundaries of the City, and financing the costs of any such improvement, facility, property or appurtenance on behalf of the City. To fulfill its purpose, the Corporation intends to issue its bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness (collectively, the "Bonds") to acquire funds to pay the costs of acquiring, improving or extending any such improvement, facility, property or appurtenance to property and to pay all costs incidental thereto to the extent permitted by law. Upon payment in full of all Bonds issued to acquire, improve or extend a particular project, title to such project shall vest in the City as provided by law, and the Corporation shall forthwith tender by gift, or otherwise transfer. as provided by law, all of the Corporation's right, title and interest in and to such project to the City. ARTICLE VII DISSOLUTION Section 7.1. Voluntary Dissolution. (a) Subject to the limitations hereinafter provided, the Corporation shall be dissolved upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board of Directors voting upon a motion to dissolve, at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors, in the manner provided by law; provided, however, that no such vote shall take effect, and no dissolution of the Corporation shall occur, until the filing with the Secretary of the Corporation of a certified copy of a resolution ordering such dissolution adopted by the City Council. a copy of which resolution shall be recorded in the corporate records of the Corporation. The dissolution must be done in accordance with applicable law, including the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act, as amended. - 7 - authorized by the Board of Directors in the adopted budget of the Corporation. At least quarterly the Board of Directors shall review all expenditures authorized by the financial officer. ARTICLE IX INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS To the extent allowed by the Articles of Incorporation and law, each director and officer of the Corporation, whether or not then in office, and his or her personal representatives, shall be indemnified by the Corporation against all expenses actually and necessarily incurred by him or her in connection with the defense of any action, suit or proceeding in which he or she was made a party by reason of being or having been such director or officer, if a) the director or officer's conduct was in good faith; b) the director or officer reasonably believed that his or her conduct was in, or not opposed to, the Corporation's best interests; and c) in the case of any criminal proceeding, the director or officer had no reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was unlawful. The termination of a proceeding by judgment, order, settlement, conviction, or upon a plea of nolo contendere or its equivalent is not,of itself,determinative that the director or officer did not meet the standard of conduct described above. To the extent permitted by law, each director, officer, employee or agent of the Corporation shall have all rights provided to employees in the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, Title 63G, Chapter 7, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and in Title 63G, Chapter 8, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. ARTICLE X AMENDMENT These Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed by the affirmative vote of a majority of the directors present at any regular or special meeting,provided a quorum as provided in these Bylaws be present and provided the waiver or notice of such meeting shall have contained a copy of the proposed alteration, amendment or repeal. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no such alteration, amendment or repeal of any or all of these Bylaws shall take effect until a certified copy of a resolution or other proceeding approving such alteration, amendment or repeal adopted by the City shall have been filed with the Secretary of the Corporation. ARTICLE XI • MISCELLANEOUS Section 11.1. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Corporation shall be the same as the annual accounting period of the City as from time to time in effect, being initially a period commencing on July I of each calendar year and ending on the next succeeding June 30. Section 11.2. Rules and Regulations. The Board of Directors shall have the power to make and adopt such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, the Articles of - 9 - SUGGESTED RESOLUTION AND MOTION LANGUAGE ITEM B BE IT RESOLVED: That the normal rules of order be, and the same hereby are, waived and that the following persons be. and they hereby are, appointed to serve as officers of this Authority until their successors are duly appointed and qualified: Jill Remington Love President Stan Penfold Vice President Daniel Mule Treasurer Christine Meeker Secretary/Clerk Gina Chamness Budget Officer Motion: I move that we suspend the normal rules of order and appoint the persons to the indicated offices, as further set forth in the first resolution in the proceedings before the Board. ITEM C BE IT RESOLVED: That the form of Bylaws submitted at this meeting be and hereby is adopted as the official Bylaws of this Authority. Motion: I move that we adopt the Bylaws presented to the Board at this meeting as the Bylaws of the Authority, as further set forth in the second resolution in the proceedings before the Board and a copy of which is annexed thereto as Exhibit B. ITEM D BE IT RESOLVED: That the President, any Vice President, the Secretary'Clerk and the Treasurer be, and they are hereby, authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority any and all employment agreements, deeds, leases, contracts, purchase orders, assignments, notes, bonds, mortgages, deeds of trust and Motion: I move that that the regular meetings of the Board be held and notice of the annual meeting schedule of the Board be given as stated and as further provided in the fourth resolution in the proceedings before the Board. ITEM F BE IT RESOLVED: That the Board, the Budget Officer, and any other officers or employees of the Authority shall take any and all necessary actions required by the Fiscal Procedures for Local Districts Act, including actions relating to the preparation and adoption of the annual budgets of the Authority. Motion: [ move 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 further set forth in the fifth resolution in the proceedings before the Board. ITEM G BE IT RESOLVED: That the Authority and its directors, officers, and employees, may acquire real and personal property, and services, using any purchasing or procurement procedures that are in the best interest of the Authority. Motion: I move that the Authority and its directors, officers and employees be authorized to acquire property and services using procurement procedures that are in the best interest of the Authority, as further provided in the sixth resolution in the proceedings before the Board. ITEM H BE IT RESOLVED: That any and all actions taken by the officers of the Authority prior to the date of this Organizational Meeting that are within the authority conferred in this Organizational Meeting are hereby ratified, confirmed, and approved as the act and deed of the Authority, including but not limited to all actions as have heretofore been taken in connection with the organization of the Authority. Motion: I move that the actions of the officers taken prior to the date of this Organizational Meeting that are within the authority conferred in this Organizational Meeting be ratified, confirmed and approved, as further described in the seventh resolution in the proceedings before the Board. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT NO.2-FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: November 22,2011 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No.2-Follow-up Briefing STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Russell Weeks,Karen Halladay,Lehua Weaver 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 During the November 1st briefing on Budget Amendment No.2,the Council requested additional information on way finding signage and parking pay stations. Way Finding Signage- At the City Council's discussion of potential funding to improve the existing way finding system, the Council indicated that it would like to use$200,000 to fix the existing system,$70,000 to replace aging cloth banners,and$200,000 to prepare a master plan for installation of a long-term way finding system. According to a response by Infinite Scale Design Group to Downtown Affiance Executive Director Jason Mathis,if$200,000 were allocated to fix the existing system,"the signs will essentially look as they• now."However,the signs would have accurate information on them,and the"most visible defects"on the signs would be repaired,if it were cost effective to do so.Except for a few signs beyond reasonable repair, most signs would remain. Infinite Scale recommended that if the$200,000 were allocated,The Downtown Alliance and Salt Lake City solicit pricing for updating all signs as needed,including: o Updating messages o Replacing missing or damaged panels o Removing graffiti,stickers and other items o Touching up signs with aerosol paint to match existing sign colors o Repairing signs as necessary. If The Downtown Alliance and the City moved quickly,the update could be done by early March 2002.If a budget with a sign fabricator is more than$200,000,"it's typical to work with the fabricator to refine the scope to meet the desired budget,"according to Infinite Scale. Infinite also suggested the following timeline for preparing a wayfinding program master plan,if $200,000 were allocated for a master plan.The master plan would be a phased process. Phase 1-Programming[4 weeks] Goal:To define project scope in relation to signage+graphics,general specifications,messages and ° locations. • Page 1 • The Administration's recommended options resulted in$45,995 over the annual debt service and ongoing costs.If the Council changed the enforcement hours per the constituent's suggestion,the revenues would be$178,305 less than the expected expenses. It should be noted that the revenue projections for parking enforcement are not currently being met. Therefore it may be beneficial to select an option that is higher than expected expenses. Next Steps--As Council Members have ideas about which options you prefer,Council staff could draft motions for review.The public hearing for the budget amendment will be held November 22nd and potential action is scheduled on December 6. Action on the budget amendment would dedicate the expense budgets for purchase and implementation of the pay stations(among the other items on the amendment). If the Council elects to make any changes to enforced parking hours,rates or other related items, additional ordinance amendments may be required.The Council may also wish to provide direction on soliciting additional public notice on parking enforcement changes. I I I Page 3 FAQ for Parking Pay Stations November 14, 2011 1. What is the contract status? The Administration is currently working on the contract that we hope to complete by December 6,2011. In is important to note that if the contract is not completed by the 21!of December, the amount of$292,770 will not be applied to the overall costs of the system. 2. What is the current ratio of revenue received by the test parking meters? Currently it is 45%credit card 55%Coins. 3. What is the minimum amount that you can charge on a Credit Card? The minimum amount that can be charge on a Credit Card is$.50 with an incremental increase of $.50. 4. There have been concerns with seeing the display at night; is there a way to improve visibility? Currently,if you touch any button on the machine the display will light up,but the touchpad itself isn't always very visible. One possible solution is to insert a bulb being in an unused button that would light up the front panel,but this could cause the battery supply to diminish the life of the battery. 5. Do drivers have to display the receipt from the parking station? Not now,but in the final testing stage the receipt will notify customers that they do not have to display the receipt. 6. What is replacing the merchant token program? The merchant token program will be replaced by a system where merchants can pay for the customer's meter when they arrive at the merchant's place of business. 7. What is the"smart card"? The primary use of a smart card is to provide select groups to have come to the downtown area either a discounted rate or a frequent visitor pass.City would manage the smart cards through an operations group. 8. How does a merchant sign up for the merchant validation program? The merchant would sign up with the Downtown Alliance. The merchant would then be trained both in a group and on site. The proposed cost from Aparc is$1,200/year along with the per hour fee. The annual costs will be invoiced to the city and then allocated back to the merchant. When the customer parks,either a grace period can be given or the customer uses a credit card or coin to put a minimum amount on the parking stall. The customer can then walk up to the merchant tell them the stall number. The merchant will log on to a web based application and pay for the stall for that customer. 9. How does a customer know that a merchant will validate parking? It is the responsibility of the merchant to advertise that they are participating in the merchant validation program. 10. How do you pay parking tickets online? Go to slcgov.com,then to online payments,then to parking and traffic citations and follow the prompt. 11. How do you find a vacant stall with your cell phone? At the present time this is not available. If the council makes the recommendation to complete the program with sensors,this feature will be available in a free downloadable application to a smart phone. 12. How is the process of coin collection being accomplished? Each pay station keeps track of the amount of coins it has collected. Once the coin vault reaches a pre-determined amount,the machine sends an email notification stating that the vault needs to be replaced. With this new technology the need for collection staff should be reduced. 13. What is the capital and ongoing costs per in-street sensor? Parking Meter System Upgrade In Current Can be added Quantity Proposal Later cost to add later On going Costs Siemens Prisma Pay Stations 344 Pay by Space Yes Pay by License Plate No Yes $221,970.00 Citation Payment at Pay Station Yes Salt Lake City Smart Card Yes Pay by Phone Yes Contactless Devises(ISIS technology) No Yes Unknown Real-time communication with Enforcement Yes System TicketManager"Enforcement System 20 Enforcement Handhelds Yes Interface with Parking Ticket computer system Yes Vehicle Parking Registration System(Merchant Yes Validation) Mobile License Plate Recognition Vehicle 2 Enforcement Efficiency Yes Overstay Enforcement with AutoChalk Yes Citywide Vehicle Hotlist Yes Electric Vehicle Charging Stations'• S Yes Street Sensors(aka pucks) $300 each $300 each/year Parker Space Location Smartphone App No Yes Parking Space Zero-Out No Yes Enforcement No Yes Turnover through Efficient Enforcement No Yes Length of Stay Statistics No Yes "Does not include installation Sensor Technology Magnetometer Radar Pole Puck Sensor Sensor Successfully installed in North America Yes No Proven Technology Yes No Easy Installation Yes Yes November 4, 2011 Ms. Jill Remington Love Council Chair Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Ms. Love: The Center for Documentary Expression and Art(CDEA) respectfully requests a one- time $25,000 appropriation from Salt Lake City Corporation to support an extensive education outreach program being carried out alongside our recently opened exhibit, This Light of Ours: Activist Photographers of the Civil Rights Movement. Four years in the making, This Light of Ours is a major, new exhibit that presents the Civil Rights Movement(also called the Southern Freedom Movement) through the work and voices of nine activist photographers—men and women who chose to document the national struggle against segregation and other forms of race-based disenfranchisement from within the movement. The core of the exhibition is a selection of 157 black-and-white photographs, representing the work of Bob Adelman, George Ballis, Bob Fitch,Bob Fletcher, Matt Herron, David Prince, Herbert Randall, Maria Varela, and Tamio Wakayama. Images are grouped around four movement themes and convey the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee's organizing strategies, resolve in the face of violence, and impact on the nation's politics and consciousness. In addition, photographers' eye witness accounts of life inside the movement—their descriptions of how and why photos were taken and their personal revelations of the movement's impact on their own lives—are incorporated into audio guides prepared for adults and children. These guides are presented through the actual voices of the photographers and enable exhibit visitors to understand how activists experienced a quest for social justice that transformed American life. Education outreach efforts for This Light of Ours began prior to the exhibit's October 8 opening in The Leonardo's Human Rights Gallery and are designed to reach a variety of audiences. Initially, to launch the exhibit, CDEA partnered with local schools to convene a symposium on four Utah campuses in the month of September. Movement scholars, SNCC veterans, movement filmmakers, and activist photographers presented at UVU, SLCC, Westminster College, and the University of Utah, exploring such subjects as the New Movement Scholarship, Art and Activism, Community Organizing, and Teaching the Movement. The symposium utilized exhibit content to catalyze student dialogue about the movement and its legacies. In many ways, this was a natural educational development, because exhibit content is based on new scholarship that presents a broader movement, one that emphasizes the roles of student activists and"ordinary"people in confronting and dismantling segregation and expanding the nation's democracy. Finally, in the words of movement veteran and historian Dr. Vincent Harding, we believe that when the movement is seen as more than a contest for legal rights, when it is"understood as a Black-led, multiracial quest for democracy in America, for the healing of the nation, for the freeing of our spirits, then the story belongs to every one of us." Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Leslie Kelen Executive Director Center for Documentary Expression and Art 243 East 400 South, Suite 301 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Tel: 801.355.3903 Fax: 8-1.355.8998 SCANNED TO' RALPH BECKER l�e�i , f, A � !1ji�jl�(�`� D T� SCANNED BYE MAYOR `>�.OF+�E OF THE �� o r1,VF � OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ®ATE: ��f /p 0. CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL L ( (� ocr I z zo�i Date Receive David eritt,Chief of Staff Date sent to Coun 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 � necrc�co a.vcn 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, 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. 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 /49—!O CITY RECORDER Sy (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: HB_ATTY-#15990-v I-Budget_Amendment_FYI 1-12.DOC 3 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#2 Expenditure 'Revenue On-going or One Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount • Amount time FTEs Section'E Grants l equiring»Ng Ne Staff Resources.``? ,,' , .. _ %w.x. ._. ' ` ' eS. "' r 'y ,...tr c.l. a�: 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 SectionF: Oonationg ''.1'.::''.`: t - :,,:-�:•° .,. , ., . , "..':',',':',..", ,:"1'.::.,__ . , .::.._ ..-., _�.. C----. ... ._.. 10_._.. Section G: Council.Consent Agenda--Grant Awards .- ., •, ,. ,-. . » c..,,,, _ . ..... .. .... »»_»_. ...» , ..., Section t: Cou'nc11 Addetl Items '^� ^` t'" '"'' Total of Budget Amendment Items 36,310,873.08 Total by Fund''BudgetAriiendrnent#2:, ; ..;_..... . ,._ . w. _.. „ i " .....,. 3 .� 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 COBG Operating Fund 1,791,102.44 Total of Budget Amendment items 36,310,873.08 Current Year Budget Summary,provided for information only Fr 2011-12 Budget,Including Budget Amendments FY 2011-12 Adopted Budget BA Ill Total BA ti2 Total BA#3 Total BA#4Total 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 $2,524,861 289,000.00 $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 Salt Lake Cit FY 2011-12 Budget Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 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 dty 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 Vehide 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 assodated with these vehides,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 CIF 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 indude 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 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 FY 2011-12 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 vehide 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 vehide. 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 Cit FY 2011-12 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 induding 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 Cit FY 2011-12 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 Sustalnability 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 Cit FY2011-12 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 Antidpation 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 suffident to cover the additional interest expense. Section Ec.Grants Re'`` � ;� a..,..,�; :v: _qui'ring;No N'�w.Staff Resaurcesg ...- .1s.. .....Nu< _ .-v✓='ka}swa.•.+.w....v..;-u4.uvaa'aLOQ/i2+.u.lYllw�'.i.w.F- 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, CCIJ, 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 dtizens 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 COI 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 • 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 financing 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 find 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.coni/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 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 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 CAPITAUZATION 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 IP 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 MI WON 3:7 YEAR TERM RATE AS OF 9/28/11 IS 2.145% $697,928 $585,535 51,283,463 $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 5585,535 $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 $77,307 SEMI ANNUAL PAYMENT PER MILLION PAY STATIONS FUNDING OPTIONS venue Implications: Policy Options: Annual Amounts Additional half year on$.50 increase effectiveY/1/12(Already passed t 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 8 to 10 P.M. 160,000 Expanded hours from 10 P.M.to 2 A.(Monday thru Thursday) 115,000 Expanded hours Saturday 8 AM.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 goln 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 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.✓ 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 ....irence 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 MIWON AND USE CIP FOR$2.7 MILLION 2ND RECOMMENDATION: 5-B TEN YEAR LEASE PURCHASE$1.8 MIWON AND USE CIP FOR$2.7 MILUON MEMORANDUM DATE: November 17,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks and Jennifer Bruno RE: Briefing: Proposed Interlocal Agreement for Planned Sugar House/South Salt Lake Street Car Line and Revenue Sources and Uses for Salt Lake City's Share of the Project CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Neil Lindberg,Rusty Vetter, DJ Baxter,Frank Gray, Tim Harpst,Jennifer Bruno,Gina Chamness,Gordon Hoskins,Robert Farrington,Ed Butterfield, Karen Halladay This memorandum pertains to a briefing November 22 by Mayor Ralph Becker's Administration on two items involving a planned two-mile street car line running from McClelland Street(1050 East 2200 South)in Salt Lake City to the Utah Transit Authority's Central Pointe TRAX Station at 221 West 2100 South in the City of South Salt Lake. It should be noted that the line in Salt Lake City runs from McClelland Street to 500 East Street.West of 500 East Street the line runs through South Salt Lake. The first item is a proposed interlocal agreement among Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake and the Transit Authority outlining each party's responsibilities,financial and otherwise, in the construction and operation of the street car line.The second item is a budget amendment that would set up the necessary accounts to pay Salt Lake City's share of the project. The briefing is scheduled to be held during the November 22 City Council work session.The work session is scheduled to start at 2 p.m. in Room 326 of the City&County Building,451 South State Street. The City Council also is scheduled to set a December 6,2011,date for a public hearing on the proposed interlocal agreement and for a public hearing on Budget Amendment No. 4,which is related to the project. Setting dates for public hearings usually is accomplished by City Council adoption of the Consent Agenda portion of the formal meeting agenda. KEY POINTS o The proposed interlocal agreement addresses only expenditures to build and operate a project that is"physically capable of initially providing a minimally acceptable level of streetcar service ... and meeting the commitments made by the Parties in the Tiger II Grant,at the lowest possible cost.s1 That level and that cost would create a two-mile line with ballasted(coarse gravel)track bed, overhead wires, seven station locations,and equipment and material needed to operate a street car line.2 o Improvements beyond the base level and cost would be additional expenditures not addressed by the agreement. 1 • If South Salt Lake does not participate,then the City will issue$5.5 million in Sales Tax Bonds. • In either scenario,the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency will contribute $2.25 million towards the repayment of the bonds. • Total debt service for these bonds would be about$537,000 per year. • Debt service not covered by the RDA or South Salt Lake is proposed to come from the"Capital Asset Management Placeholder"in the CIP Budget. Depending on the debt service schedule(equalized payments versus delayed payments)debt service could range from$244,000 per year to$537,000 per year. OPTIONS o Adopt the proposed interlocal agreement. o Do not adopt the proposed interlocal agreement. o Amend the proposed interlocal agreement. POTENTIAL MOTIONS Motions will be prepared after the December 6,2011,public hearing. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION o The Administration projects that improvements beyond the base project—improvements such as including a trail along the corridor,embedding the track,and other items—could respectively cost an additional$5.4 million and$2.1 million,possibly more for other items.The figures likely will change after design and other considerations, and the Administration indicates it will have a clearer gauge of costs in spring 2012. • The Council may wish to discuss which improvements are desired in the near term, and which can be completed as natural development occurs along the corridor. • The Council may wish to ask the Administration what the status is of a proposed Special Assessment Area (SAA)along the corridor. o Recommendations by consultants Ron Straka and Marilee Utter at the November 15 Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency meeting included a recommendation that UTA agree that a trail be part of the corridor street cars will travel through. One part of the proposed agreement reads,"The underlying goals for the Management Policies will include the expectation of the Parties to create an overall integrated area of development that will facilitate the use of the Sugar House Spur by users of the Project,a bike and walking trail (Italics City Council staf}),residential areas, and commercial areas, and enhance the overall redevelopment of neighboring areas within the each City."9 Does the sentence fulfill the recommendation made by the consultants at the RDA meeting? o Another recommendation was to extend the streetcar line to Highland Drive(1100 East) in the first phase of the project.Does the Administration have plans to extend the line eastward to Highland Drive in the first phase of construction? 3 prioritizing improvements for the corridor,establishing costs for the improvements, and identifying potential funding sources for them. o Concerning Salt Lake City's and South Salt Lake's contributions toward operations and maintenance, one section of the proposed agreement says: "The Cities' obligation ... shall terminate on the"Cessation of O&M Funding Date,"which shall be the earlier of: (i)December 315`of the year in which a referendum is held by Salt Lake County voters approve a[1/4] cent sale tax increase dedicated to transit purpose,or(ii)two years after the Revenue Operations Date. Upon the cessation of the Cities' O&M funding obligation hereunder,UTA shall assume full responsibility to fund the O&M Costs."16 Is the quarter-cent increase an appropriate level of increase to end the two cities'operation and maintenance payment, or should the level be any increase in sales tax revenue to UTA?Are there other events that should be considered, such as a general improvement in the economy, that results in increased sales tax revenues for UTA? POTENTIAL LOAN TO SOUTH SALT LAKE One of the main parts of the proposed agreement calls for potentially lending$2.5 million to South Salt Lake to help that city meet its obligations in the project.The Administration notes that South Salt Lake has a general fund budget one-tenth the size of Salt Lake City's general fund. In August 2009 both cities adopted resolutions in which each city pledged$2.5 million to meet the estimated local share of matching funds to obtain the federal grant. Since then, each city also has been asked to pledge another $2.5 million.According to the Administration, South Salt Lake has determined that a$5 million contribution toward construction is its limit. If South Salt Lake needs to invest an additional$2.5 million in the initial construction phase of the project, it may ask Salt Lake City's help in financing South Salt Lake's share." The Administration has indicated that it would prefer South Salt Lake seek fmancing in other ways than to request Salt Lake City's help. It should be noted that the proposed agreement says if South Salt Lake cannot secure financing for the additional$2.5 million by June 1,2012,it must notify Salt Lake City that fmancing has not been secured. South Salt Lake plans to refinance some bonds in the near future,and would use savings realized from a lower level of debt service as a revenue source to repay Salt Lake City.The repayment period would be"not less than ten(10)years." 8 The Administration indicates that the City would structure any loan agreement with South Salt Lake to ensure that Salt Lake City is not subsidizing the commitment from South Salt Lake.Any potential agreement probably would include charging additional points on the loan to pay administrative costs. ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCES Again,to bear the City's share of the project,the Administration proposes to issue up to $8.02 million in sales tax bonds payable over 20 years.The figure includes a potential loan to South Salt Lake of$2.5 million.19 Potential revenue sources for Salt Lake City's share include a projected$3.27 million from the Capital Asset Management portion of the Capital Improvement Program in future fiscal years (depending on the debt service arrangement annual payments could range from$244,000 to$537,000); $2.25 million in capital improvement funds from the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency; and$2.5 million repaid by the City of South Salt Lake. And again,there is$6 million in contingency funds in the project budget.According to the Administration,"UTA believes the nature of the project and the current construction climate may present an opportunity to construct the project for less than the full budgeted cost."However,"If the project does 5 I Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Sugar House Streetcar Project,Page 4,Section 3.1. 2 Administration transmittal,November 8,2011,Page 7. 3 Ibid.Page 3. 4 Ibid.Page 1. 5 Ibid.Page 2. Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Sugar House Streetcar Project,Page 13,Section 13.2. Ibid,Page 14,Section 13.3. Administration transmittal,November 8,2011,Page 4. Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Sugar House Streetcar Project,Page 15,Section 16.1. 1°Ibid.Page 13,Section 11.2. 11 Ibid.Pages 8 and 9,Sections 6.4.7 and 6.4.11. 12 Ibid.Page 7.Section 6.3. 13 Ibid.Page 10.Section 6.4.16. 14 Ibid.Page 10.Section 6.4.18.1. 15 Ibid.Page 14.Section 13.5. 16Ibid.Pages 12 and 13.Section 13.3. 17 Administration transmittal,November 8,2011,Pages 2 and 3. 1s Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Sugar House Streetcar Project,Pages 10 and 11,Section 6.4.18.3. 19Ibid.Page 1. 20 Administration transmittal,November 8,2011,Page 4. 21 Ibid.Page 4. 7 ' Resolution 33 of 2008 Page 1 of 3 2008 Resolutions Resolution 33 of 2008 Click here to view entire resolution JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 33 OF 2008 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR ADOPTING A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY(UTA)TO EXTEND TRANSIT OPTIONS WITHIN THE SUGAR HOUSE TRANSIT CORRIDOR WHEREAS,the Utah Transit Authority("UTA")is a public transit district,which presently owns and operates a high capacity rail fixed guideway system serving portions of the Salt Lake Valley; and WHEREAS,this rail fixed guideway system has been a major success with ridership substantially exceeding pre- construction projections and public sentiment strongly supporting rapid expansion of high capacity fixed guideway systems;and WHEREAS,UTA proposes to expand fixed guideway systems to include,among other things,a 3-mile rail fixed guideway system from the Sugar House community of Salt Lake City to the City of South Salt Lake,as more particularly described herein(the"Sugar House Transit Corridor");and WHEREAS,UTA purchased an existing railroad right of way within the Sugar House Transit Corridor from Union Pacific in 2002,anticipating the future need for light rail transit expansion within Salt Lake City;and WHEREAS,Salt Lake City's Sugar House Community Master Plan(adopted December 13, 2005, Ordinance 89 of 2005)explicitly identifies in its'Business District Goals and Objectives'the theme of"directing development to be transit and pedestrian oriented"; and WHEREAS,the Sugar House Community Master Plan explicitly states in its'Multi- modal Priorities'that future land use patterns in Sugar House should support the implementation of mass transit throughout the community; and WHEREAS,the Sugar House Community Master Plan explicitly states support for the construction of"rail along the Sugar House rail corridor and determine locations for future transit stations and park and ride facilities within the Sugar House Business District"; and WHEREAS,current planning efforts within the Sugar House Transit Corridor such as the Market Station Development(South Salt Lake)and the Granite Block(Salt Lake City) development area have anticipated the extension of rail transit along the existing UTA owned right of way; and WHEREAS,the Sugar House residential and business communities have demonstrated interest and grass roots support for a surface rail alternative to improve mobility and enhance economic opportunities within the area;and WHEREAS,the expansion of transit alternatives via the UTA right of way in the Sugar http://www.slcinfobase.com/Resolutions_1982-2010/WordDocuments/reso... 11/16/2011 Resolution 33 of 2008 Page 3 of 3 Transportation Advisory Board approved a motion supporting the findings and recommendations of the Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis for a modern rail streetcar along the existing UTA-owned right of way within Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City, and WHEREAS,at its meeting on Wednesday 13 February 2008,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission approved a motion supporting the findings and recommendations of the Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis for a modern rail streetcar along the existing UTA-owned right of way within Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS,at its meeting on January 23, 2008,the City Council of South Salt Lake City approved a motion supporting the findings and recommendations of the Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis for a modern rail streetcar along the existing UTA owned right of way within Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City. THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor as follows: 1. Locally Preferred Alternative.That the proposed construction of the rail fixed guideway system for purposes of operating a modern rail streetcar along the existing UTA owned right of way within Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City, identified in the Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Study Final Report,dated January 2008,is endorsed and approved by the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor as the Locally Preferred Alternative. 2. Effective Date.This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage. Passed and Adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this 22nd day of July, 2008. http://www.slcinfobase.com/Resolutions_1982-2010/W ordDocuments/reso... 11/16/2011 a) the City continue to implement ways to lower the downtown speed limit to a target of 20 miles per hour with flexibility not to exceed 25 mph so that speeds on streets are compatible with pedestrian and bicycle activity and community and economic development; b) walking remain the primary means of travel on sidewalks and that bicycles yield to pedestrians without exception and travel at speeds compatible with pedestrians; c) the City renew its effort to work with the Utah Transit Authority to provide more covered shelters for passengers at bus stops;and d) the City and any other agency or organization studying the implementation of the parking management recommendations in the Downtown in Motion plan work quickly toward implementing the recommendations. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this 11th day of November,2008. Bill No.84 of 2008. Published:December 22,2008. • Resolution 44 of 2009 Page 2 of 2 1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following: First Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Among Salt Lake City Corporation, Utah Transit Authority and South Salt Lake City Regarding the Sugar House Transit Corridor Finance Plan,Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Analysis. 2. Ralph E. Becker, Mayor of Salt Lake City,Utah,or his designee,is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation,subject to such minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, his execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this 18th day of August, 2009. http://www.slcinfobase.com/Resolutions 1982-2010/WordDocuments/reso... 11/15/2011 • Resolution 45 of 2009 Page 2 of 2 to fund one-half of the local match in an amount not to exceed$2,500,000 in the event that the joint application of the Cities and UTA for TIGER Grant funding proves successful. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this 18th day of August, 2009. http://www.slcinfobase.com/Resolutions 1982-2010/WordDocuments/reso... 11/15/2011 ECE!VED RALPH BECKER REDEVELOPM CIS C)A ' I' RECEI V R CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF S A L T LAKE CITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MAR182011 Salt Lake City Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL / Date Received: [Z-e // Davi veritt, C ief of Staff Date Sent to City Council: hs / 2 l ( TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 17, 2 11 Jill Love, Chair FROM: D.J. Baxter Redevelopment Agency Director SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Streetcar Projects Update STAFF CONTACT: D.J. Baxter, at 801-535-7735 or dj.baxter@slcgov.com ACTION REQUIRED: None—briefing only. DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing. BUDGET IMPACT: To be determined. Minimum $4,500,000 DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: This will be a verbal update by the Administration regarding the Downtown and Sugar House streetcar projects. Additional detail will be provided in the presentation(copy attached) regarding next ste s and funding needs for_the Sugar Hous_e_stretc roject. The project partner —Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, and Utah Transit Authority are meeting regularly to resolve ou s an ing issue e roject, negotiate an Interlocal ment, and prepare the project for construction. The project w. matching funds from both cities, both for construction and for ongoing operating costs, which UTA is currently unable to cover with its existing revenues. It is also important to note that the funding contemplated thus far, including the federal TIGER II award of$26 million, will cover only the streetcar line itself. The two cities are preparing to launch a public visioning process to identify any improvements needed in the entirety of the corridor to facilitate the PRATT trail and other public activity, and to provide an amenity that will help to stimulate private investment along the corridor. The cities and UTA will need to develop a separate budget for the construction and maintenance of these improvements. �I, � � l� 451 SOUTH STATE, ROOM 41 B SCANNED 70. PO Box 14551 B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 SCANNED BY. TELEPHONE: B01-535-7240 FAX: 801-535-7245 WWW.SLCRDA.COM DATE: 0 ' 16 I' acvceo a.vEa 3/17/2011 Salt Lake City SALT LAKE CITY STATE OF STREETCARS March 2011 Salt Lake City STREETCARS then... SALTLAKEC1TY !7,.•••••• I_ T;;;;35 -4E3 • --LifFv-W! BiaSpisammees,1:1 . „.. . _ = 444 • 1 3/17/2011 Salt Lake City SOUTH DAVIS STREETCAR • • Imo' Salt Lake Gity .2, SOUTH DAVIS STREETCAR *Salt Lake City to Centerville ,; •Planning process lead by UTA •Salt Lake City participated through the process— alignment is planned for 400 West connecting to the Intermodal Hub •Alternatives Analysis complete in soot •Draft State Environmental Impact Statement completed in solo .... •Community sentiments are mixed •Timeline is unknown;not a'fast-track"project y • = 3 3/17/2011 +; Salt Lake City DOWNTOWN STREETCAR process • City Streetcar Committee guided the feasibility study,with UTA participation. • Extensive outreach and discussion with the following groups: • University of Utah • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints • Granary District Business Owners • Downtown Alliance • Salt Lake City Planning Commission • Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board • Community Councils • Study Area Stakeholders-Focus Groups • Wasatch Front Regional Council • Transportation Agencies(UDOT,UTA) • RDA Advisory Committee interim and final presentations • RDA Board interim and final presentations Salt crake CitX_ r }` DOWNTOWN STREETCAR alignments considered ei — .711:;. •..::' :.:, : ts Eli a lie -.i 4 rt, .,i 'Ar..".' 4411011 ;..; 114 *Q �. "n 5 3/17/2011 Salt Lake,City DOWNTOWN STREETCAR near term recommendation d i i • Serve established areas of .0 .5' .e ;:. •downtown to create immediate �'� � ,,.t •. ridership "P, ' • Serve Depot District to catalyze . y' n I-• redevelopment a.- • Plan for extension into Granary M - ' •q!" 1-.•••r"i•?E t• District i" t- ? .-® '>,.: • Re-evaluate and verify during AA P { • Range ofcost44-6oM ,'•, t,• 4..e •+ • -- • .'arid s. ,?•-... 41 Salt. ke City DOWNTOWN STREETCAR longer term recommendation r . T 9 • Extend to the Granary District on " '�` 400 West ,,, ' _ t ... } • ' • Connection to goo South TRAX � � • Use signalized intersections at Son ► sty r t ' and 600 South • Re-evaluate and verify during AA u '' 'c.l • Range of cost 1.5-3o M i f.�r` ' - t`s s .s 7 3/17/2011 Salt Lake City STREETCARS in the future...... I •1100,.. cs t 141, 11114 — '17t,),....011111 I -ak— , • a *'41MMIII • .,„' 4 oolyestrznyer, zw,.;;;*;4,y- Salt Lake City SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR 11111"Pr' • - . . 41114 .fftei 9 3/17/2011 , Salt Lake City SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR development 7 , r +.r€ 1, eI;} -- ,-.-z [ , ° 1r A *-gfi Ym ---- Y 44 LT-��.�� v_ ✓r �pYYOIadIY"'yam. yypy :. AA q�mp� may..:. V ' i A A EE l � �$ . a Y°R G'� y pJ• „yAfiD EL PLANS; � ..., .�, ,. ,,, m .✓/ANDACTIVItTYCNTERS: z t_ Salt Lake City. SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR public concern ibm • Noise and vibration impacts • Crime in Fairmont Park • Secondary impacts such as on-street { parking • Bus routing(many comments unrelated to streetcar) '.w • Why not bus? 11 3/17/2011 Salt Lake City • Annual Operating Costs: Total Operating/Maintenance Cost: $1,500,000 Potential Sources of Funds Farebox Revenue $375,000 Salt Lake City $375,000 South Salt Lake $375,000 UTA $375,000 Salt take City • Annual Operating Costs, p. 2 Vehicle Lease from UTA $800,000 Potential Sources Salt Lake City $400,000 South Salt Lake $400,000 Total Annual Funds Needed City Share O&M $375,000 City Share Vehicle Lease $400,000 Total Annual City Funds Needed $775,000 13 3/17/2011 Salt Lake City • Sources and Funding Gap: USDOT TIGER II Grant $26,000,000 Salt Lake City-Cash Commitment $2,500,000 South Salt Lake-Cash Commitment $2,500,000 UTA Vehicles $12,000,000 UTA Rail Corridor $6,300,000 Total Sources: $49,300,000 Streetcar Gap to be covered: $6,180,000 sr Salt Lake City • Responsibility for Gap: Gap to be covered: $6,180,000 Salt Lake City $2,060,000 South Salt Lake $2,060,000 UTA $2,060,000 15 LUANN CLARK "..wrAR AM,gait '*+► .c+'+*i.`++4 w41 RALPH BECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR DIVISION OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT To: David Everitt,Chief of Staff From: Mike Akerlow, Deputy Director, Housing and Neighborhood Development Date: November 4, 2011 Re: Golf Task Force Recommendation on Proposed Fee Increase The City's Golf Task Force has met over the past two months to discuss the City's golf program, proposed capital improvement projects,and proposed funding of those projects. As part of this discussion,the Golf Task Force has briefly discussed the current proposal before the City Council to raise golf fees by$1. From its discussions the Task Force recommends the following concerning the fee increase: • The City Council approve a$2 increase on average to each nine-hole round of golf played for Capital Improvement Projects in addition to the operations fee increase; • That the fee increase of$2 be on average and not across the board; • According to number of golfers as given by the Golf Division,the$2 increase on the approximately 447,000 rounds of golf played annually will provide the City with approximately$862,000 after tax and at stabilization; • That additional fee should be captured into a Capital Improvements Reserve account used for future improvement projects in the City's golf courses; • That the funds be pooled for use across all courses rather than retained and used at the course at which they are paid; • The Capital Improvements Reserve account cannot be accessed by any other department or division or used by Public Services for any other purpose other than for the improvement projects in the City's courses; • Any funds to be used must go through a process including City Council approval. The Golf Task Force has not been able to completely vet its recommendation, however it does see this as an opportunity to start building a reserves account for future projects not listed on the Golf Division's proposed CIP list. The Task Force has not had the opportunity yet to evaluate how this increase might impact courses that still need an adjustment in green fees for operations. While the majority of the members of the Golf Task Force support this recommendation, there are two members not in favor of the proposed$2 golf fee increase. The concern is that the increase is too high and will price some of the City's courses out of the market. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, P.D. BOX 145488, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 14.5488 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7902 TOD:801.536-62SO FAX:S01.535.6078 ««ruin P,PER 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 f %,%46 rc • , > : 414. r : I 'Igi I I1f 0%1 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 officials. 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 Sap IMvrv.peakbemocrecy.com1088 Page 2 of21 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 htlp:tt000e peakdemocracycom//88 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 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 players 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 hap/rwww peakbemocracy 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 $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 fees 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) is more than operating the space as a golf course(which does generate revenue-even if it is not Pubf¢comments as of October 27,2011,1:22 PM hop.Ilwww.Peakdemocracy.com/]88 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 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 A 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 Golf Galaxy?.Are all employees seasonal or are they paid in the average 5 months closures?It is Public comments as of October 21,2011,1:22 PM buff:llwww.peakdemocrecycomf188 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 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 would 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.peakdemocracycom/788 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 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 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 example,Bonneville gets far more play than Wingpointe.Bonneville badly needs a watering system.I Pubec Comments as of October 27,2011,1'.22 PM hap't w oc peak0em00mcy com116s 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 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 bltp:1fwaoepeakdemocragcomr188 Page 180121 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 top'.I0oww.peekdemocracy.com(768 Page 20 o121 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 22, 2011 SUBJECT: 10 YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN • Initial Briefing—May 31,2011 • Briefing—September 6,2011 • Retreat—September 9,2011 —Council Priorities Discussion • Briefing—October 4,2011 —Capital Management Policies Discussion • Briefing—October 25,2011 —Debt Policies and Policy Question Discussion STAFF REPORT BY: KAREN HALLADAY,BUDGET AND POLICY ANALYST AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: ALL The Council will continue its discussion of the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan. The following additional information(See Attached)has been prepared for the discussion: • Park Project Costs-Summary and Details by Park(Two Spreadsheets)-Attached • Capital and Debt Management Policies-Edited-Attachment 1 • Additional Policy Questions for Council Consideration • Possible Legislative Intents for Council Consideration The 2011 Council Priorities included for your reference: • Arts and Culture • Economic Health of the City • Local/Neighborhood Business • Neighborhood Schools • Parks and Open Space • Sustainability • Transportation and Mobility Additional Policy Questions: 1. In FY2015-16 SARR debt service of$5.3 million for the Steiner Ice Sheet transfers from the RDA to the City's General Fund tightening funds available for annual Capital Improvement Projects. Does the Council wish to discuss the possibility of not transferring the SARRs debt to the CIP Fund? 2. Is the Council interested in allocating either a certain percent or a fixed amount of the CIP allocation for certain CIP categories? For example,percentage for art,$2.0 million per year for sidewalk replacement,etc. 3. Is the Council interested in exploring increasing the Stormwater Fund and/or recommending that the Mosquito Abatement program be expanded as appropriate to address the curb and gutter repair 1 5. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration develops a CIP and CFP strategy which would allow the City to address the repair,maintenance,and replacement of City assets that meet the City's existing and desired level of service for City residents. Additionally,the strategy should take advantage of current economics,including possible lower financing and construction costs,and projects that could result in reduced operating and/or energy costs. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration explores the feasibility of a General Obligation Bond for components of the Capital Facilities Plan,such as, Parks,Streets,etc. 6. It is the intent of the Council to encourage,support and facilitate residents and organizations in their desires to make donations to the City. It is the Council's intent that donors and donations are welcomed,and that the City Administration will work in collaboration with potential donors to streamline opportunities for donations of materials,funds,and/or labor for City projects. The Administration is requested to indentify and seek solutions to existing barriers. 7. It is the intent of the Council to continue to use all tools available,including Special Assessment Areas and the 50/50 program,to repair,maintain,and replace City concrete infrastructure, including streets,sidewalks,and curb and gutter. The Administration should continue to improve its processes to ensure strong public involvement and competitive pricing. 8. It is the intent of the Council to set aside annual operating and maintenance costs any time new assets are added to the City's capital asset inventory. 9. It is the intent of the Council to work with the Administration in identifying streets needing pedestrian safety devices,including adding Hawk signals throughout the City. 10. It is the intent of the Council to place a high priority on projects that relate to the Council's indentified priorities. 3 Attachment 1 -------{Foenattad:Tab stops:Ur,Left -� Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management Policies Pages 22-24-Salt Lake City Council Policy Manual A.25 GENERAL BUDGET POLICY a.When possible,Capital Improvement Projects are not delayed nor eliminated in order to balance the budget The Council also avoids using one time revenues to balance the budget. A.26 CAPITAL AND DEBT MANAGEMENT(1/04) On December 14,1999,the Council adopted a resolution relating to capital and debt management policies.The resolution states: THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City: Capital Policies I. The Council intends to define a capital project as follows:"Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings,parks,streets or other physical structures.A capital improvement must have a useful life of five or mom years.A capital project must also have a cost of$50,000 or more unless its significant functionality can be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project A capital improvement is not a recurring capital outlay item(such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine(unless the fire apparatus is Impact Fee eligible))or a maintenance expense(such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches).Acquisition of equipment is not a capital project unless it is an integral part of the cost of a capital project" 2. The Council requests that the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the current 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan Five-YearC pHe4Pleaand be submitted to the City Council for tentative approval no later than 114arek- it 301 of each fiscal year.NOTE:For consistency and clarity sake.the Council could state'with the Mayor's annual budget' ►Would the Council be interested in developing a process with the Administration that allows a portion of the(annual or biennial)CIP budget to be allocated on a preliminary basis until the final annual budget for the CIP allocation has been determined?Once determined,the CIP allocations would be finalized.Another option is to receive the CIP budget with the Mayor's Recommended Annual Budget. 3. The Council requests that the Administration prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts which correspond to the capital program period as well as an analysis of the City's financial condition and capacity to finance future capital projects,and present this information to the Council with the presentation of each biennial budget 4. The Council intends that no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. ►poes the Council wish to change this Policy since the plan being considered by the Council does not metS this policy?Would the Council like to change this to an aspiradpnal statement.such as:It is the Comrades long-term goal to dedicate no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues annually in the Capital Improvement Fund It is the Council's intent to increase the investment by X until that goal Is reached 3. The Council requests that,when borrowing is recommended by the Administration,the source of funds to cover the debt service requirements be identified. 14. The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the effect of any proposed bond issue on the City's ability to finance future projects of equal or higher priority. I5. The Council requests that the Administration analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and coordinate this analysis with the budget development process. I6. The Council requests that the Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed,including an indication of requirements or circumstances that the Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue. 7. The Council does not intend to issue debt that would cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the municipal bond rating industry. 8. The Council does not intend to issue debt if such debt will damage the City's current AAA general obligation bond rating or cause the City's lease revenue bond ratings to fall below current ratings. 9. The Council requests that the Administration fully diseleseoutline and the Council intends to consider the impact of all debt funded projects that haves a net negative fiscal impact on the City's operating budget. 10. The Council requests that the Administration structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the issue unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or if the useful life of the financed project(s)suggests a different maturity schedule. Salt Lake City Corporation 10 Year Capital Facilities Plan sorted by Park Projects Prepared By:Council Staff Ilt Note: The below information contains the projects/components by park. Items highlighted in yellow are those under$50,000. Please note that the Administration has indicated that the irrigation costs are likely to be underestimated based on recent projects. E , ledas of 9/1/11 =_- Growth Growth Cost I I Asphalt 4 10th E Senior 1 $ 105,000 $ 105,000 1 $ 105,000 Irrigation 10th E Senior 2.80 $ 7,500 $ 21,000 1 $ 21,000 Landscaping 10th E Senior 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Irrigation 10th E.Islands 0.86 $ 7,500 $ 6,450 1 $ 6,450 Landscaping 10th East Islands 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 Subtotal-10th E Senior and Islands $ 140,450 Landscaping 1 11th Avenue 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000 logging/Walking Paths 7 11th Avenue 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 1 $ 4,000 Tennis Courts 8 11th Avenue 8 $ 175,000 $ 1,400,000 8 $ 1,400,000 Asphalt 11 11th Avenue 1 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 Drinking Fountains 11th Avenue 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Irrigation 11th Avenue 25.00 $ 7,500 $ 187,500 1 $ 187,500 Picnic Tables 11th Avenue 2 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 2 $ 4,000 Subtotal-11th Avenue $ 1,664,000 $ 1,664,000 Irrigation 3 12 East(S Temple-5S) 2.46 $ 7,500 $ 18,450 1 $ 18,450 Landscaping 12th East/South Temple 1 $ 500 $ 500 1 $ 500 Subtotal-12th East South Temple $ 18,950 Irrigation 1300 East Parking 1.75 $ 7,500 $ 13,125 1 $ 13,125 Irrigation 13th East 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 ` Subtotal-13th East $ 15,000 Irrigation 13th Ave.&J 0.06 $ 7,500 $ 450 1 $ 450 Landscaping 13th Avenue andl 1 $ 500 $ 500 1 $ 500 Subtotal-13th Avenue and 1 $ 950 Irrigation 1300 South 1500 East 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Irrigation 13th South Island 1.03 $ 7,500 $ 7,725 1 $ 7,725 Subtotal-1300 South $ 9,600 logging/Walking Paths 4 17th 5 RiverPark 1 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 1 $ 16,000 Irrigation 17th South Retention 0.75 $ 7,500 $ 5,625 1 $ 5,625 Subtotal-17th South Park and Retention $ 21,625 Irrigation 2 West(6N-Wall) 1.60 $ 7,500 $ 12,000 1 $ 12,000 11/17/2011 Irrigation Artesian Well 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Subtotal-Artesian Well $ 230,375 Irrigation Beatrice Evans Park 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 f Subtotal-Beatrice Evans Park $ 1,875 Signage 7 Bend-In-The-River 4 $ 3,000 $ 12,000 1 $ 12,000 Earthen Trail 9 Bend-In-The-River 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 Irrigation 10 Bend-In-The-River 4.25 $ 7,500 $ 31,875 1 $ 31,875 Landscaping Bend-In-The-River 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 Subtotal-Bend in the River $ 45,875 Earthen Trail 5 Bonneville Shoreline Preserve 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 1 $ 4,000 Landscaping Bonneville Shoreline Preserve 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 Signage Bonneville Shoreline Preserve 1 $ 8,600 $ 8,600 1 $ 8,600 Signage 8 Bonneville Shoreline Trail 1 $ 26,000 $ 26,000 1 $ 26,000 Subtotal-Bonneville Shoreline Preserve&Trail $ 58,600 Plaza 3 City Creek 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 Drinking Fountains City Creek 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Irrigation City Creek 4.00 $ 7,500 $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000 Irrigation City Creek 5.00 $ 7,500 $ 37,500 1 $ 37,500 Landscaping City Creek 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 250,000 Signage City Creek 1 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 1 $ 11,000 Jogging/Walking Paths 5 City Creek Park 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 Subtotal-City Creek and Park $ 432,000 Drinking Fountains Cotton 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Lighting Cotton 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Picnic Tables Cotton 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 Playgrounds 6 Cotton 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Irrigation Cotton Park 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Subtotal-Cotton $ 162,375 Irrigation 1 Cottonwood 25.00 $ 7,500 $ 187,500 1 $ 187,500 Pavilions 4 Cottonwood 4 $ 400,000 $ 1,600,000 4 $ 1,600,000 Jogging/Walking Paths 6 Cottonwood 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 1 $ 4,000 Restrooms 7 Cottonwood 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 Drinking fountains Cottonwood 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Picnic Tables Cottonwood 4 $ 2,000 $ 8,000 4 $ 8,000 Subtotal-Cottonwood $ 2,103,000 Irrigation Court Building 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Subtotal-Court Building $ 1,875 Drinking Fountains Curtis 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 11/17/2011 Irrigation Ensign Peak Nature Park and Trailhead 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Landscaping Ensign Peak Nature Park and Trailhead 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 Subtotal-Ensign Peak,Nature Park&Trailhead $ 1,143,300 Multipurpose Fields 1 Fairmont 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Multipurpose Fields 2 Fairmont 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Playgrounds 2 Fairmont 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Multipurpose Fields 3 Fairmont 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Tennis Courts 3 Fairmont 5 $ 175,000 $ 875,000 5 $ 875,000 Bridges 4 Fairmont 2 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 2 $ 10,000 Multipurpose Fields 4 Fairmont 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Restrooms 10 Fairmont 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 Playgrounds 15 Fairmont 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Restrooms 20 Fairmont 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 Drinking Fountains Fairmont 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 2 $ 7,000 Landscaping Fairmont 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Picnic Tables Fairmont 36 $ 2,000 $ 72,000 36 $ 72,000 Skate Park Fairmont 1 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 1 $ 700,000 Water Feature Fairmont 1 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 1 $ 400,000 Lighting 1 Fairmont 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 1 $ 100,000 Subtotal-Fairmont $ 3,779,000 Landscaping 4 Faultline 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Drinking Fountains Faultline 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Irrigation Faultline 1.00 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 1 $ 7,500 Lighting Faultline 1 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 1 $ 60,000 Picnic Tables Faultline 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 Subtotal-Faultline $ 88,000 $ 88,000 it Irrigation Federal Heights Islands 0.63 $ 7,500 $ 4,725 1 $ 4,725 ♦,: Subtotal-Federal Heights Islands $ 4,725 Tennis Courts 5 Fire Station 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 Subtotal-Fire Station $ 350,000 Lighting 2 First Encampment 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 Plaza 5 First Encampment 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 Landscaping First Encampment 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 Subtotal-First Encampment $ 71,000 Landscaping Foothill Islands 1 $ 500 $ 500 1 $ 500 Irrigation Foothills Islands 0.67 $ 7,500 $ 5,025 1 $ 5,025 Subtotal-Foothill Islands $ 5,525 11/17/2011 Fencing H-Rock 1 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 1 $ 8,000 Irrigation H-Rock 50.20 $ 7,500 $ 376,500 1 $ 376,500 Landscaping H-Rock 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Subtotal-H-Rock $ 397,650 Playgrounds 25 Inglewood 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Drinking Fountains Inglewood 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Subtotal-Inglewood $ 153,500 Drinking Fountains Intl Peace Gardens 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Subtotal-Intl Peace Gardens $ 3,500 Lighting Jackson 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 Picnic Tables Jackson 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 Irrigation Jackson Park 1.00 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 1 $ 7,500 Subtotal-Jackson $ 29,500 Playgrounds 11 Jefferson 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Benches Jefferson 2 $ 3,000 $ 6,000 2 $ 6,000 Irrigation Jefferson Circle 2.00 $ 7,500 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Subtotal-Jefferson $ 171,000 Pavilions 2 Jordan 2 $ 400,000 $ 800,000 2 $ 800,000 Volleyball Courts 3 Jordan 1 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 Multipurpose Fields 5 Jordan 2 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 2 $ 200,000 Irrigation 7 Jordan 33.50 $ 7,500 $ 251,250 1 $ 251,250 Playgrounds 9 Jordan 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Restrooms 11 Jordan 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 Tennis Courts 11 Jordan 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 Playgrounds 13 Jordan 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Playgrounds 17 Jordan 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 if Restrooms 18 Jordan 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 Drinking Fountains Jordan 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 2 $ 7,000 Horseshoes Jordan 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Picnic Tables Jordan 30 $ 2,000 $ 60,000 30 $ 60,000 Skate Park Jordan 1 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 1 $ 700,000 Off-Leash Dog Area 5 Jordan 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 25,000 $ 225,000 Asphalt 7 Jordan 1 $ 356,000 $ 356,000 1 $ 356,000 Lighting Jordan Park 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 Subtotal-Jordan $ 4,299,250 Signage 4 Jordan River Parkway 1 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 1 $ 68,000 Fencing 6 Jordan River Parkway 1 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 1 $ 800,000 Irrigation Jordan River Parkway 74.44 $ 7,500 $ 558,300 1 $ 558,300 11/17/2011 Irrigation Memory Grove 8.75 $ 7,500 $ 65,625 1 $ 65,625 Picnic Tables Memory Grove 4 $ 2,000 $ 8,000 4 $ 8,000 Water Feature Memory Grove 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Restrooms 24 Memory Grove Pavillion 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 Subtotal-Memory Grove $ 1,353,625 Lighting Miami 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Subtotal-Miami $ 5,000 Earthen Trail 4 Miller Bird Refuge 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 Fencing 4 Miller Bird Refuge 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Landscaping 5 Miller Bird Refuge 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 250,000 Signage 5 Miller Bird Refuge 1 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 1 $ 11,000 Irrigation Miller Bird Refuge 8.68 $ 7,500 $ 65,100 1 $ 65,100 Subtotal-Miller Bird Refuge $ 416,100 Signage 6 Modesto Park 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 Fencing Modesto Park 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Irrigation Modesto Park 4.70 $ 7,500 $ 35,250 1 $ 35,250 Landscaping Modesto Park 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Subtotal-Modesto Park $ 48,250 Irrigation Mountain Dell 10.00 $ 20,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Subtotal-Mountain Dell $ 200,000 Plaza 4 Nelli Jack 1 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 Benches Nelli Jack 2 $ 3,000 $ 6,000 2 $ 6,000 Irrigation Nelli Jack Park 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Subtotal-Nelli Jack $ 32,875 Irrigation Normandy 0.04 $ 7,500 $ 300 1 $ 300 Subtotal-Normandy $ 300 Lighting North Gateway Park 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 Subtotal-North Gateway Park $ 50,000 Bleachers 1 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds 2 $ 8,000 $ 16,000 2 $ 16,000 Concessions 3 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds 1 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 1 $ 125,000 Landscaping Oak Hills Ball Diamonds 1 $ 500 $ 500 1 $ 500 Subtotal-Oak Hills Ball Diamonds $ 141,500 Irrigation Oneida 0.75 $ 7,500 $ 5,625 1 $ 5,625 Subtotal-Oneida $ 5,625 Restrooms 3 Parley's Historic Nature 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 Earthen Trail 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 140,000 $ 140,000 1 $ 140,000 Fencing 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 265,000 $ 265,000 1 $ 265,000 Off-Leash Dog Area 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 25,000 $ 225,000 11/17/2011 r- Benches Post Street Tot Lot 3 $ 3,000 $ 9,000 3 $ 9,000 Drinking Fountains Post Street Tot Lot 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Irrigation Post Street Tot Lot 0.50 $ 7,500 $ 3,750 1 $ 3,750 Subtotal-Post Street Tot Lot $ 166,250 Irrigation Prison Island 0.50 $ 7,500 $ 3,750 1 $ 3,750 Subtotal-Prison Island $ 3,750 Drinking Fountains Puglsey Ouray 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Lighting Pugsley Ouray 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000 Playgrounds 12 Pugsley Ouray 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Subtotal-Pugsley Ouray $ 163,500 Lighting Redwood 1 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 1 $ 40,000 Playgrounds 23 Redwood Meadows 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Benches Redwood Meadows 3 $ 3,000 $ 9,000 3 $ 9,000 Irrigation Redwood Meadows 1.25 $ 7,500 $ 9,375 1 $ 9,375 Subtotal-Redwood $ 208,375 Irrigation Regional Athletic Complex 26.85 $ 7,500 $ 201,375 1 $ 201,375 Subtotal-Regional Athletic Complex $ 201,375 Irrigation Research Park Islands 8.47 $ 7,500 $ 63,525 1 $ 63,525 Landscaping Research Parks Islands 1 $ 500 $ 500 1 $ 500 Subtotal-Research Park Islands $ 64,025 Tennis Courts 12 Reservoir 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 Drinking Fountains Reservoir 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Irrigation Reservoir 6.50 $ 7,500 $ 48,750 1 $ 48,750 Landscaping Reservoir 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Picnic Tables Reservoir 4 $ 2,000 $ 8,000 4 $ 8,000 Subtotal-Reservoir $ 415,250 $ 415,250 ( Volleyball Courts 2 Richmond 1 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 ` Playgrounds 24 Richmond 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Benches Richmond 5 $ 3,000 $ 15,000 5 $ 15,000 Drinking Fountains Richmond 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Landscaping Richmond 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 Lighting Richmond 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000 Picnic Tables Richmond 8 $ 2,000 $ 16,000 8 $ 16,000 Subtotal-Richmond $ 252,500 Concessions 1 Riverside 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 250,000 Pavilions 3 Riverside 1 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 1 $ 400,000 Softball Fields 3 Riverside 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Bleachers 6 Riverside 4 $ 8,000 $ 32,000 4 $ 32,000 11/17/2011 II Salt Lake City Corporation 10 Year Capital Facilities Plan sorted by Park Projects OPrepared By: Council Staff Note: The below information is a summary of projects/components by park. Items highlighted in yellow are those under$50,000. Please note that the Administration has indicated that the irrigation costs are likely to be underestimated based on recent projects. Replacement; Impact Fee Other Funds as of 9/1/11 Unit Cost Total Cost Growth Growth Cost Repair R&R Cost % % Normandy $ 300 13th Avenue and J $ 950 4th Ave.Stairs $ 1,000 200 West $ 1,275 2nd South Islands $ 1,350 349 Plaza $ 1,875 Beatrice Evans Park $ 1,875 Court Building $ 1,875 Skyline Island $ 1,875 Stanton $ 1,875 Weseman $ 1,875 Harvard Islands $ 2,775 Alan Parsons BST $ 3,000 Intl Peace Gardens $ 3,500 Prison Island $ 3,750 Rotary Park $ 4,500 • Twin Peaks $ 4,500 Federal Heights Islands $ 4,725 Miami $ 5,000 Foothill Islands $ 5,525 Oneida $ 5,625 Roberta LaConia $ 6,875 Davis $ 8,250 1300 South $ 9,600 Gilgal $ 10,125 Almond $ 11,750 2 West $ 12,000 11/17/2011 r Cotton $ 162,375 Pugsley Ouray $ 163,500 e Washington Square $ 164,500 Donner Trail $ 165,000 Post Street Tot Lot $ 166,250 Galagher Tot Lot $ 168,000 Jefferson $ 171,000 6th East&Park $ 173,875 5th Ave.&C Street $ 177,775 Taufer $ 184,500 Mountain Dell $ 200,000 Regional Athletic Complex $ 201,375 Redwood $ 208,375 Liberty $ 224,000 Artesian Well $ 230,375 Richmond $ 252,500 Washington Park $ 256,000 Swede Town $ 259,625 Laird $ 259,875 Stratford $ 276,000 Fire Station $ 350,000 Steiner Aquatics $ 352,000 Victory $ 359,000 • 9th South $ 387,500 Library Square $ 395,000 H-Rock $ 397,650 Popperton $ 399,200 Reservoir $ 415,250 Miller Bird Refuge $ 416,100 City Creek and Park $ 432,000 Sherwood $ 512,000 Sorenson $ 524,000 Ensign Downs $ 561,500 Dilworth $ 694,750 11/17/2011 Landscaping Rotary Glen 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Picnic Tables Rotary Glen 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 Subtotal-Rotary Glen $ 1,430,250 Earthen Trail 8 Rotary Park 1 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 1 $ 1,500 Signage Rotary Park 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 Subtotal-Rotary Park $ 4,500 Volleyball Courts 1 Sherwood 1 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 Bleachers 3 Sherwood 6 $ 8,000 $ 48,000 6 $ 48,000 Asphalt 8 Sherwood 1 $ 94,000 $ 94,000 1 $ 94,000 Fencing Sherwood 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Picnic Tables Sherwood 15 $ 2,000 $ 30,000 15 $ 30,000 Restrooms 14 Sherwood Park 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 Subtotal-Sherwood $ 512,000 Asphalt 9 Silver 1 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 1 $ 11,000 Lighting Silver 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 Irrigation Silver Park 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Subtotal-Silver $ 32,875 Irrigation Skyline Island 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Subtotal-Skyline Island $ 1,875 Fencing Sorensen 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Baseball Fields 5 Sorenson 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Multipurpose Fields 7 Sorenson 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 1 $ 100,000 Playgrounds 21 Sorenson 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Benches Sorenson 4 $ 3,000 $ 12,000 4 $ 12,000 Landscaping Sorenson 1 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 1 $ 7,000 Subtotal-Sorenson $ 524,000 Irrigation Stanton 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Subtotal-Stanton $ 1,875 Lighting Steenblik 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000 Irrigation Steenblik Park 2.00 $ 7,500 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Subtotal-Steenblik $ 45,000 Asphalt 14 Steiner Aquatics 1 $ 352,000 $ 352,000 1 $ 352,000 Subtotal-Steiner Aquatics $ 352,000 Playgrounds 7 Stratford 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Multipurpose Fields 9 Stratford 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 1 $ 100,000 Drinking Fountains Stratford 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Irrigation Stratford 2.00 $ 7,500 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Landscaping Stratford 1 $ 500 $ 500 1 $ 500 11/17/2011 Restrooms 6 Wasatch Hollow 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 Playgrounds 14 Wasatch Hollow 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Benches Wasatch Hollow 3 $ 3,000 $ 9,000 3 $ 9,000 Irrigation Wasatch Hollow 3.55 $ 7,500 $ 26,625 1 $ 26,625 Bridges 1 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 250,000 logging/Walking Paths 2 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 Landscaping 2 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 675,000 $ 675,000 1 $ 675,000 Earthen Trail 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 Fencing 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 Signage 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 31,000 $ 31,000 1 $ 31,000 Irrigation 6 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 10.00 $ 7,500 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 Landscaping Wasatch Hollow Park 1 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 1 $ 8,000 Lighting Wasatch Hollow Park 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 Subtotal-Wasatch Hollow Park and Open Space $ 1,719,625 Picnic Tables Washington Park 28 $ 2,000 $ 56,000 28 $ 56,000 Irrigation Washington Park Parleys 10.00 $ 20,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Subtotal-Washington Park $ 256,000 Irrigation 9 Washington Square 11.00 $ 7,500 $ 82,500 1 $ 82,500 Benches Washington Square 25 $ 3,000 $ 75,000 25 $ 75,000 Drinking Fountains Washington Square 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 2 $ 7,000 Subtotal-Washington Square $ 164,500 Irrigation Weseman 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Subtotal-Weseman $ 1,875 Lighting Westminster 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Subtotal-Westminster $ 15,000 Baseball Fields 7 Westpointe 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Bleachers 9 Westpointe 3 $ 8,000 $ 24,000 3 $ 24,000 Multipurpose Fields 10 Westpointe 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Tennis Courts 14 Westpointe 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 Restrooms 17 Westpointe 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 Playgrounds 27 Westpointe 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 Drinking Fountains Westpointe 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 2 $ 7,000 Lighting Westpointe 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 Picnic Tables Westpointe 6 $ 2,000 $ 12,000 6 $ 12,000 Subtotal-Westpointe $ 1,268,000 $ 1,268,000 Irrigation Westside Senior 2.00 $ 7,500 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Subtotal-Westside Senior $ 15,000 11/17/2011 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT No.2-FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: November 22,2011 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No.2-Follow-up Briefing-additional information STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Russell Weeks,Karen Halladay,Lehua Weaver 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 In addition to the information in the packets,staff has listed some additional questions/information items for the Council's review. ih, • Center for Documentary Expression and Arts-the Council may wish to indicate support for adding funding that was requested from the Center for Documentary Expression and Arts. • Highlight some of the Parking Pay Stations Frequently Asked Questions o This budget amendment includes funding to purchase five new electric vehide charging stations. However,it does not include the funding to install the charging stations or for the ongoing electricity usage. • The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a reminder of the costs to install the electric vehicle charging stations that were purchased in the past year or so. • The Council may also wish to ask how much those existing charging stations have been used,and what to estimate the ongoing monthly electricity cost. o The current program will provide an option for merchants to provide a validation program to their customers.The cost for the software and capability is$1,200 per year plus the per hour fees. Although this would be initially included in the bill to the City,the current proposal is to bill those costs back to the individual merchants. • The Council may wish to discuss the impact of this to local businesses,and whether the system would be affordable. • The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether there are any options available that would be compatible with the Pay Stations. o A few other informational items: • The minimum amount that can be charged to a credit card is$0.50 for the initial amount and increments added. • Until the street sensors or"pucks"are purchased and installed,the cell phone application to find empty stall will not work. C Page 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: November I,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 digestible way,Council 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 Staffs 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- Webb Management Services(commissioned by Salt Lake County) •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 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 (for budget or calendar reasons),and"backfilling"those freed up dates with more appropriately-scaled events to those venues. Without a more thorough analysis,it is not possible for staff to guess whether these backfilled dates will be sufficient to keep all existing venues operating as they are today. However,using case studies of 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 Lenox' 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 percent-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 22nd. 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 6th.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 wit 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 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 FY2016-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 Afts 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 a 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. 1110 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 C1P 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. rl• 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 11111 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 ANN 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? 12 ADMINISTRATION RESPONSES TO COUNCIL STAFF QUESTIONS 10/26/2011 Finance-related questions- 1- Debt service in the memo is mentioned to be$7.1.m 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? eRESPONSE: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. 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 o 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$1.179 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. • 0 Yea Debt Service Sources and Uses-Interest Rate Scenarios I I j• I 1 1 Scenario 1-Low Merest Pate(Current Environment)Assn.n Imes - vn, s a.o I I I 1 I Fr2013 FY2014'.359%FY201515• FY2016e' F03027 BY2018 872e50 ! A2020 80 tW1 , 877022 872028 , W671 ry2075 FY2W6 FY m27 ' FY2028 I 352029 : FY2030 1 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034 • FY2035 FY2036 FY2037 I 112030 • 176W IM-Debt sorb I .. Anddpstlon Note($1557) $ 262,000.5 262003 -0ut600.151101A $ 29J,500 $ 3,766,252 $ 3,606,024 $ 7,152024 $ 7,152347 $ 7,151,881 $ 7.110,g62 $ 7,Z50,601 $ 7,151303 $ 7,153,615 $ 7,302,n2 $ 7,352373 5 1152045 5 7,1s446•$ 7,240778 5 ,.149,389 5 7,148039 $ 7,152736 $ 2150,112 $ 7,150,326 $ 7,149,099 ).15$ 1,319 5 7,151,719 $ 7,150.889 $ 7,156,6Mf M 8 7,150,26 Total Debt$ervice .04 N6 $ 411300'$ 4,026,292 $3,MW,021 $7,151024•$7452,347 $7,151081 $7.148081 $7,150001 $7,151,301 $7,153015 $704016 I$7,152,315 $7.151015 $7,150418 $ 7,149,778 5 7,119,389 $ 7,143.859 $ 7,1$2,786 i$7,150,112 $ 7,150,326 $ 7,149099:$7,151,319 $ 7,151,719 $ 7,150089 $ 7,148,16 i$ 7,150,296 '$971,38111,172 Some SARRFunds ' _ COJ(ar6) $ - $ - $ • :8 265.9m $ R+76m9 $ 2OS.2% f -- - - - -- 804(23%.$amountmatdnsa7(5 - $ - $ - -$ Ij7k=:$ 70152% $ 060�'$ Ws" $ a975.2%1$ 2,gleI$ 7A752%.5 7.575,mo $ 2,375, 0 $ LR06:$ 2,90461$ 2,04w 1$ 2,31sp00 $ z376,o00 $ 2375,00o $ 2LJ10m0 $ ;Mow $ 2yiai)$ 0!7S,w $ 2,67$,Om $ 2d7s,o001$ 2,975A00 COunn(107%(• $ $ - $ I$ ;MAT. f 'ADAM t i073,06.$ 3373.000 $ ..$22 o0:3.it70000 $ 237606 $ 297606 $ 02700m $ 2 T782% $ 2,03,®i$ $.1$1100$ $ L.00. $ z375,000 5 m01$ 7 .m0 $ ;�® f. 1,1040m $ ;s040W $ 13040m,$ 1007% Ls4®;S 1.5mmo S I.SB0.672.f L�4m•f 17noam $ 1so0,000 S 1,so4m I f ,$ Zsno.LDO:S isrl4Boo $ 1�6m 5 1$B4®�S.�7�?t6oi $ 1S4mo $ 1.sm.aao $ Lsm.aoB $ isc4�•S 2.205.030.5 2��'b 2r27A_ $ 2.77$,000 $ z?�s000 $ L$04am L794996 BIoci.7ocoA0Ma,mwn6..,e,e..eer• I j _. _ . ._ Sdrool DbtM $s. ion,{ 141.49 _ $ 2QIe'$ 200m 5 100280'$ 100210'$ $06.200 $ 8062M.$ 404290 $ 024223 $ 4B02Yo'$ 406,290 $ 842% $ 460s0 f - -_ - ._-_ _ -p4m 3 �26290 $ 406,210 $ ay2so $ 466210'$ 6626I.$ .30{a5I$. 366130 $ _8p4m $ 564.m 5 100,'0 UR'S 7006 $ 52992 $ 1R891 $ wino.$ 207,620:$ 2 4,646 $ 566.660 $ $6S�',$ 207,46 $ 207.YID $ $60696,$ %877,926 $ 5.281,640 $ $60� 9 ..[{59p I 8PUP87m$,$ 207,641 $ 560001$ yK646 $ 3 141 I.$ 9�!9 .16106 $ f04640 $ 56e,9M $ 3f70D conn $ 0�•$ 8476 5 16.378 $ 1m,®I$ m7,416 5 ]W,w•$ )6,66 t 2W,66:S 217A9! $ 307,646 $ 707,w f ]m,946:'$ ]O7,H6 $ 110,6a6 5 m7.f10 $ w.N/l i 2mw $ 7o7,w $ 207,010.$ 20/,646 5 2aA19 5 727,w 1 f ..:o7,w $ 2D7,06 $ 26,616 $ ]Yi.Mf.'i r. _ _ .- _ -._. . .._. Total An Skunks $ -- _._ M•$ $0rs2'$ 814014'$60395,E $707060 $7,428A56 $7Aa,156 $7,08.896 $7A2061'$.7,96,60 $7,422.E6 5 7A2{.60'$7A$666 $7A2105$ $ 7A28A6 $7A756/1$7.66A6 $ 7A$40_50'$ 7A2060 $ 7424856 $7,40656:,$7.423056'$7.9?466 $7A75a6$'$ 7,42066 $ 7A22,1♦6' $WRIA,7o Toreary.uoes $ A�1'$ KW t lots.J son..J zr13m S inns s ',run f i7µm 3 7.8Li/$ 1ALlc$ 3N5210'J S71 110•t 426W$ 27.12m J smay,.f vane's i78im t Z74T0 $ ir4s0$ 2,1,3 $ zr6Wo 5 ZMm $ loins$ ;,also $ 2311Y0 0 616600 ._ . GAP 1).00 461J 1 (80. 4651'JM 199 11171 (f331,,1 $276510 mum: $279,320 $275,056 $277,556e3 5875,41 3270647 i 020542 I 8277.822 1 $274439 3279,079: $27926 5179,951 5276,071 5278745 $270531 $279,758' 5277538 $277,138• $257,568 S2753M I $1704118 I I 3120117,1101) Scenario•MMlum Interest Rene-AsruMM-FLY.Inter.-25 Ysr Ulm TeeBone : I 1 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2035 ' FY 2016 ' Fe 2017 1 R266 FY 2019 Fe 2020 • FY MI ' FY 2022 FY 2023 i FY 2024 I FY 2025 / FY i6 FY 2027 ' FY 2028 FY2022 I 1Y 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY2038 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 I FY2087 I FY 268 TOW Uses-Debt Service • 1 I I Bond Anticipation Not.151$3a1 $ 262,1200.$ 262,000 I I • Take out Boston($I30 MI S s.186,618 $ 4,96,s80 $ 6035,910 $ 6037,101 $ 46036 $ $ 606294 $ 4036,055 $ 80357e9 5 8,040571 $ 5037939 $ 403e,417 5 5036,593 5 80325e6 $ 6,188,781 5 5036,188 $ 8039,351 $ 8,010,06 f 606A32 $ 0086013 . Total Debt SetYly NeMs 5,440,6111$4A60111$84,35,911 $8W7301;$WW1!$8030911 $0040.262•$067,387 $8037,126 $8031,914:$8038096' i$6006.0S'$ Bp39,789•$ a060fn'8 80$7,601 8 0,033A17 $ 1,036,593 $ 0036,9661$ 8038,712 $ 8,036.28$ $6.OD051 $A,0140N 1$WAR $06001$: f1/Ji0O6 Source I 1 ...I $ 263,000;$ $6,046094 • .. ... 5663 Fund, •_. . I .__ _.. ' • • ... -.__ .. .. .. __. _ CMMS)201 $ - $ f - .:$ 465066 $ 200,000 $ 23700021$ 2,378.6.!$,7,175060:3 29700004 VFW'S 086,w $ 2.775,000-$ 07A.0001 f 2077106,$ 2.t71.001 f ;n59001 f 2pf1000 $ 7,3A,090 $ z37s,000 $ ;n00o01 3.Asamm!$ .4 00 i$ ;370W0 $ 2m0 1 0 ;00®1$ 2,15a0' RM(25%-$am_opn7.elNa.94.J.S - It s - H5 2375bre 3 2375,06 5 WWDIt i6706W.$ W$A0 $ ;3750m $ WW $ 237006I5 z770m0,s WW9;$ WWF,1$ 2,ns.000 $ 2,"(FP $ 0f/1000 $ z3mme $ z315.000 $ mu.spo.f 0670omi$..4moce 5 img* S 7,9 Om�3 ws,g6 S wsgp . ... ---...4 - 1$ s • !$ 5,0,0 0 $ 3504000 $ 1.504mw$ 1,964601 f 1f00000's L504000'$ 1 0800'$ 1,SW000.S 1500000.$ 136,®'$ 1.$0400I S 7,mA6'$ 1.s04000'$ 03W000 5 L7040m:5 1s00.60 $ 100S00I$ 0950901$ }00;®1$ 13046m $ MCA $ 136400 i$ ia4561 • .. Block 70CMtnn.I.!rea,ea.B_ • 1 • • • . .n 'f. Ain 13 s476 $ 100573 $ 203,145 $ 406,257 $ 4042m 1 S *M.'$ 4 80. $ 406m $ 004 33'$ 014230I$ �04a0'$ 016 2!$ -40000.'$ 106m S ,04w $ 210 $ 4064901 3 66,m $ 4011m,'$ 404ao I$ qs6'$ 494210 $ 4?e m $ 164a61 f , _ • Sr800/060N :.$ 0760,_$ 70.6ss $ 1aL230 $ 29256 $ 711 26 $ 336®1$ 396® $ 564,820 5 56920;$ $e4920 $ s400 S 9µ019'S 564®I f- 716w 1$ , 4'6Q 1 S 31.520D f 924sm $ 5663a6'S 96.3.320 $ 9$492$ $ 60m I$_. I$ u46o S 7969m:$ 11536I$ 66m'.. Can •$ 046 5 25,956 $ 51,9. $ 103,e.3 $ 207,646 $ 2ID.w'$ m,66 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,66 5 207Ar I$ 207.646-$ m w I$ 70Lw 1$ Az!"•S.. 2m,6K,$ ]W,646 $ 207.6161$ 207.646 5 2m,086I$ ;FAN! $ 0044401$ 927,w $ 207,6i8'$ 207,883 $ 2a,4M' �s1.r $ f476•s 14784 i9420 $ sram$ zmm _'_ ... __....- ._.__ . __ :.$ I Ted1N59a11a $ - VA*, 3..A6,661 S 7,� 3 7A?0 0 7Anl5f $ ]A206f'S 7Aa,6s0'$ MAW S 6,66I$ 11 I S 7_ - � A� ,W.ff $7R�,gs $ 7 ..... reareVrne $ J SM.$ 21Y2as$ anise s i7e;sa f i7400!i 8a3m't 2.73229310 i7e4ae S i76Y0 S Sm2r0'! Z7rL1M f i74W:t i7e4W f ;7Rs1f 2Je4s1S 1)R16•F ;We$ i7eyM0 f a,6s0'S 7 s1]0.75l,36 -. U.66 S 11]057 $ 290.]u $60395,21 S 7A20656 $7,4L,66 S 7,Q006 $]A70056 $7A2566 S 7A26,856 $],170,60 1 S MAW S 7 7 _ W 0224164 (55,30L261J 1($4$711$72I f$1�r 0075 : ($g6,76J': ($610W3J' ($6184061 8�58$1I ($608,270) ($610,6Q I 041479,24(01 ($61I,17m' 133) 0610933) 002,721J' (5609,010) (800562)I 0107,7577 1 8601,11021 (j49,926)I 0507,432). 0510,401 (56102175: f$600736)I 0607,4571: •0247906651 Ido 3•High Interest Pate-0..*31-s94%wrest-73 Year Sales Tee Bone 1 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 7011 FY2019 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 Ft 2036 FY 2037 FY 268 TOW LW-Debt Sersk. _ Bond 0NdpstbnPlotsIS15M) $ 2o,6m1$ 263,601 ' 9.60.00 60106($110 011 $ - $ 0336,46 $ 0737417 $ 6597.457 $ 85186,290 $ 8,987,933 $ 8,988,828 $ 8.987520 $ 8,989594 5 8,932283 $ 8,986747 $ 2.4411 $ 2.6,346 5 0,906772 $ 8,990593 5 6,0.9,573 $ 6.989,70 $ 667,523 $ 8,986,588 5 5990,650 5 5988,150 $ 8.96500 $ 5989053 $ 5987,590 $ 8,985,925 $ 8.987,093 Total Debt Service Needs $ 260000 r$ 0787.60)$8,257,437 $1987,157 $8.986,290 $8,987,933 $6,988,634 5 8,987,520 5 3,919,594 $8,99026'$6,96,717.$8,96,411 I$0990,346 $8,96,772'5 8,990,599 $ 8,989.573 $ 8,985,713 I$0907,5701$ 8,986,588 $ 8,990,650 $ 8,988,150 $ 8,988050 $ 8,989,453 $ 8,987,590 $ 8,985,925 $ 8,987093 5220049,414 Seas ce City $ S $ ' 11$ 0Ds.6m:$ 0WWs060 $ 1.375086 $ z375.000 $ WLFIP•.$ 0676a66,f.. w I$ UMW:$ z37 2!f.27100m $ z37s,0001£_*986 $ 2375.000 5 2,37s•000 5 2.77060'$ 237500•$ 087s0m'$ 0671g6 • - _ - 1364®.$ 2$7$4 01$ i964® 4S75Om1$ L56469 1 7315,q'1$ 2375.mo $ 2373,000 $ z$7$,60 $ 2,lR06i 06 $ 7.3AL9m'$ 2376om'$ 29006'$ 4.v04,0I$ 2370®',$ 1.375.000 $ 236,06 $ 4$02022 $ 1.0006' RM msg.$emounlmotd.n Ckyl$ _$ ':$ $ 2,3ri,- :$ 237;aoo $ 23)5,000 $ 2375,000 $ 7,+7$16$0i$ iP0® f ... ..; ..__.•�'. ._.....1 ___. __.__:... -� $ 1,375,__ $ 23Ti3Om _.._..�. Yad.70CMOvaonsryelwbe��tY•at, .. ...1 ......'. S 7.004000 $ 23641m:S 1,20406 $ LSOO,o00 $ 10040m'$ ]064606 =Counnllmxl• •$ - $ 'S 5 L26.691$ L40io00 $ L40406 $ L404a6 1.0466 $ $4%261$ 1• °D $ 94 '$ p94210'$ ntmn $ s6W6.S....,., $ i$. fyo4_91$ Hine.1$ L m'$ m _ 8d, $ _ $ 3995* $ 464a6.$ �66m f $ 964m 1$ !04110$ 066m $ 506m $ 564 a0 i$ 36W' ..._ 10L0'$ 2 7.646 5 m,M6 1 ._.41 ___.' $ 34006 $.. 14 7 $ !$7f 1$ 1$ 260141$ 406m $ 566m $ $6wm $ F4x.P.4. W.1120 $ - 'TAWS ..S r$6 _!1�{_ RAND $ $s5.5m $ 560061$ 3K0D: SdooFDatM S O $ >4w $ .._..._ $ M1.Om $ 561,930 $ S64m, __ .._._.! _.. _. _.. _ __ __._ ._..___ _-__... ... 1 s 2a7,66 s,- 2mA61$ a7,46 $ 26,66 $ 162A4$i 3 66.1a :Total 44a $ 2. t$ PAWS 000730 $ ,619428 $7,00060.$7,420611$,,C066 $7,42466,$77,4066 $7,420661$$X$G$$11$MAW $7,Q560$7$47$.1 9-$75*9561$_7"$$$.!.$7.9t5661$7A28e60I$740r61$7A20856 $ ----j 1.nil 6 7 ; J_ane..Q _ I '$7A�� 1 ..i7142$$ $ z7uz90 $ z76.ti$ anus* $vo,7s3,vo GAF sal A31 source •$l522 8 $ .11111J�J .16341Ig isr4+.8 J. 8186io'S Z75Lq J_.1iRNto'S Z7rW t...17FLn^S ;7ai81BT5 2741R rJ- Y4>+o rce J_.BFRIF[I J_._iNILFto1I i7J11e1 f. 2.7Rip IJ 17WM'J l7$R18P'J i7rtna $ 87Rip.J i16>!IF t I )uw aysa,r., t $;1nMO*$ A6.66 $ )5,28056 $ 7A27rW j.7e.0a,66 I I i : I i 1 I I I I (K650,20)1($0960743)J$2,228,W9(I($1,557,44,'($255$,077)1($1,5907775 fs1,5546641E($45$0738):01,564477P($0557.091/101,507,555J ($1A107O)7($3960717/1($7.56467J: ($1,550669(1 ($0�792). ($1%1�794)I I 1($1,559,I91f l ($1,55l,2W 1 fl1.RR671.R1064724J (s1,597,6631 R�eRae71: . 2361 melJ4ttampdant ' �, , : ' : : *N ote:County commitment to SAM Funds and CM has notyet been approved. **Assumption:Council Scuff assumed rs full Id Increment. , ...y..rnmp-wm wclm 1 el Yearly Debt Service Sources and Uses-Interest Rate Scenarios • 7 I I L ! I I • Soma.1-low Nterer Rote(Current Environment)d,um n n m a toe.. / I I I N u ,- 1 I ry 2913 ry A34 3S9x172015 6 Y fY 2016�° FY 201] h A4 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 re 2023 . FY 2024 91 2025 FY 2026 ! FY 2027 FY 2022 FY 2029 FY 2038 1 FY 031 FY 2032 FY 2033 ' FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 7936 FY 2037 FY 2038 Total Ur Debt 5arvk. I It�ondA40d o,N0te 15ss rq $ 26;000'.S 262,009 -, ut bonds l$110 M) $ 157,500 $ 3,766,393 $ 3,608,034 $ 7,051,024 $ 7,15;347 $ 7,131,881 $ 7,14A81 5 7,150,611 5 7,151,301 5 7151,615 $ 7149,210 5 7,15;315 $ 7,151045 $ 7.130A16 8 7,149,776 $ 7.199,389 $ 1.148.E99 $ 7152,785 $ 7,150,122 $ 7,150,328 $ 7,149099 $ 7.151,3,9 $ ],151,7,3 S 715084 5 7,148,916 5 7,154295 fTatRS Gbt 5arviw Need. $ 419,500 $ 4,021,192'$3,606,024 $7,151,024 $7,152,347 $7,151,181 S 7,146,661 $],150,601 $7351301 $7,153,625 $7,144210 $2,15L325 $7351,045 $7,150,40I$ 7,149,776 $ 7,149929 $ ],14399 $ 7,152,716'f 7,150112 $ 7,150,326 $ 7,149999 $7,151,319 $ 7.151,719 $ 7,150,889 $ 7,143,916 $ 7,150,296 5172,520,272 Some ! 1ARR Funds : _......I. .__.....I... _._..- I fltl'7a0F1 - $ $ :Amami$ *moo $ 475P09 $ 2,378Am $ 2.315,9U0 $ 2,9i0M 1$_ 010.01$ 144M3 $ 71F40C!$ 2,38 l$ 2371om S ;375A00 $ 'MAAs S 7,05,000 $ 2,DS30 $ 7a746o $ 7,9/Sp00 $ 2375,00'$ 2.375A90 $ 237ssm $ 2,175.000 $ 4175,000 $ 7300, 0 R.(259•5°modnt m3Mat9/$ - $ - $ $ 1fA,0!a 1?13.000-$ I,S13.OD1 $ 2l7199?:.$ 1375ko00 $ ;p4om 13 46A®I$.i!1S,®�f 7,6Fl650:$ 18710:S 2,575,00 $ 1375.06 A.7,171j®'f .Zo, 30 $ 2375.999 $ ;715.30 a 2.93.W0 $ ;375.000 S 2.375.000 $ ;3'R.OW $ ],AVOW'a _2r.- "..a 2,m..,�. feunn(UMW -$ - s - $ - I S 164®I$;599..m9 $ 1594970 $ 1.00='$ 13 30 $ 1SF46m'$ 1. 9m I$ 48448 $ 2,0W91$ 1,SmmO'$ 4.4100 $ 459493,$ LAR0 f 1!D_4900 5 1,90g000 $ 1500000 $ 1320201 S 6.0Q990 $ 7,r90,® $ 1525000 $ 7,100000$ 1920909I$ 110Q000 Mork AC0A0wa,xrnOn�_ s51r 1 i I db._._ '$. 5;®7 $ 50,7$6 $ 101971 IS. zSib i$ loon,_ $ 404710 a p440 $ _.. - 6?4ao $ 4047m 13. 604m $ "PR $ �sOI$ 406,790 $ I06390 $ 42(s I S�..p1216 S. 6?4a9 $ 404E0'$ 404230 S 406,90'$ 1042w I$ 4Mm $ 496m9 $ 40470 S. 196910l! !?4169 ttl,sa/OWiss $ 17,664 $ 70,615 $ 141,701$ mno,$ 56151?''$ *UPI$ '$ 1646?9 5 $f40I$. MIJm I$. 'Roo I$ S6 0 i$ 564220 5 066.920 $ 55882919 169291$ SAW $ 564920,$ 524920$ 564.1p I S 5686?15 3661A'5 568920 $ s646m'$ 6619au i$ sumo__ 9asal0'.. - .8 _.... MAWS .7O.m _- _.._.:I __ __" ..: I S-.. __"I . $ ,$ 1W,W,$ mAg,S XI7.616's m,64.'s 7 e,p6'$ m,666 co. $ 16956 $ MAWS I a mA4f $ 2W.66f,$ W.M,S m646 5 mA9 WA.$'$ 21.401.4for _ _ ... _: ' ..,sr $ - 04446 $7, i6 I$7re46r 1$7.V/,K6 $2,427,636 $ 7,4�i,4/,M9 $ 14$0.. $ »8.7U,8 S .f 7rgS4s S VMS.c$?e 73930$TAW! $�,67san a-7_ i $ z7cA't 170.21614 UM.,$ ziase$ zma9 ' I$7,6if fs6 ... mA46 imp6 $ m 64 TeblM4sne4a $ f,7.SMe061.$MAPS 7A36.66 $ 7A240i..f 7,4246s:;7 'S ],/71,0f_l.7,6M,66 $ 7AM.M6 $7.6L.1f SiA.753.1A mrwwvs 8 r:a7 s sa7s s a71ys 1 t zsafw•r z7aye$ z7aim$ z7uNe i s7az1'6 s z7nm'r 17.z>+°s Rm..7 iul,»e r z7Dao s z74rm$ z7n.7a $ s7yaa f zw,>79:r z7nm r ;MUM s z>apo r 416ip9 -4. ($384634I. (53,/l0335JIJ0Y4_411$1 j$911,53$611 $274519 $226376 $279976 $279056. $27],556-• $275,242 $279. ,647 1 $2K54 $277f12 $779439 I $279.079 $279.40 1 $279?58 $276,071 i �74! $2745f1 I $279,70 1 $277,538' $277,138 7; $27 ..566' $179,90 f27{50 I ($4767I,004 Scenario 2-Medium 6rt/vat Nato-,M.mtln-4m Meta-45 Yew vl.T.o ease I I I I I i I I FY 2013 FY MaFY 2015 FY 2016 I FY 2017 FY 2011 FY 2013 71 2020 I 172021 FY 2922 FY 2073 , 112024 FY 2025 FY 026 I FT 2027 FY 2028 ) FY 2029 11 2030 , FY2031 ' FY 2032 I FY20 I FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 1 NUN I Total Uses-Debt Serval I I I 1 I , _. Bond Anticipation Note($15 MI ,$ 267.000 $ 261,0001 ' I i Take-Om 30 Bond,(5110M) S 5,1616 $ 4,9d,911 $ 8,035.311 $ 407,101 5 8,037,641 $ 8.03g914 $ 3,040,262 $ 1ot7,V1 $ 8®7,116 $ 1Mg914 $ 248,300 $ 294,294 $ 8,036,f65 $ 4®9,726 $ 8,01452/ $ 037,939 $ 1(06,417 5 8,06,59 $ es 5 2 $ e 4 5 8,039,351 $ 8,000,069 5 $,037,652 $ 8036313 e, 8,036,9 8N8,76 036,3 Tote,Debt Service Need. $ 262000 $ 5A4,611I$4,965,911 $1935911 $1917901'$4037,641'5 9702,924 $8,040262,$407397'$6,637,126,$1936.11141$140$3,096 $1,00391 5 3336,055 $ 409,70 $ 0040563 $ 6037,9591$ 9,038,417 $ 2,036,593 $ 6936966 $ 3.038,782 5 3,0333U 31.039351 5 8,040,069 $ 6,037,652 $ 8,236313 8195,552976 Source I I $ARR Fund, .. .. -._- R.525N-Samoan)matchesar4)$ 5 $ ''$ ;375,001 S 2,679,009 $ 23/5,® C2t WV $ - $ - $ • $ 2,37.00'$ 7A5Am $ 1n4666 $ 2,615.0V $.,2.935.000 $.Z264600$ Lo3.0.1$ 1D9,00 $ 23191 0I$ Z621.000 $ 13710001$ 7e61460 S 2375,0E0 $ 2.D6,000 5 2377.06 $ 230530 $ ,...,.,$ 4p100 I$. 7.375.00 $-_- -$ ;675m00 $ 23)SSD0 5 2.„.. - - - , $ 1»4mo,.S 137s.659 $ 19n.®1{.AI1s0�i s ;375.00o $ 3.375.0001 a 7,6/1000 $ 2,115.Y0,a ].f_74®'s ;375.90o $ .2114Y0 $ ;314666's 1>�m0•s 2,05,000'$ 13k0901 s 2375.00 s.,;{17�� a L073,00 $ ;375.000 $ 2,375,OOo c.a.,(100%). $ - 5 - $ - :5 1,5040001 8 1.300,00•$ 1.500240 5 159400 $ 3537970 5 159498 $._15S4 4'$ 150,00 5 1504m31 8 1.500.90 $ 1334666 $ 2,50,30$ 140400 5 15640031 5 4504000•$ 1s640'$ :Ammo 1$ 1304996)$ 130400.$ 1a0400 5 L704= 5 1,504000 $ 15400 BIMOACDA_9ar,reenl.,, _ --.. _ 1 -" _44a9$ 604290 s 3030$ 40110 5 $ 1;�7 $ s47e6 $ 101fn'$ 20,145 5 464310 $ 404m'.$ 47426o $ 464190'.$ 406,390 $ 364250 $ 464620 $ 484a6'$ 484190 $ 40610.$ I $ 5_ ,:$ 404210 $ 'O'Dea i 5 A04>•6 $ .10420'5 /04]0'$ 404170 $ 406,20 50404.5 6A f- _ gs.$. $ 7,,615 $ 154122 5 18;4E0 $ 56466D f 6N®;$ � S amt.? $ 568,9ID $. OM $ su,9A $ $64,6801$ 56t,6z1 $ s0 366,$ !6{10 $ '$ 9M6161$ 04$41.S s 7,019 $ 30466 i$ sbt9691 f._ !MOON I S ..s646A 564,926 $ w4$29 $ su,9A .-. . I$ Ks,. $ 218646.$ 10,of'S 2pA61 I$ M7A6$ S 2m.6r 1 S. .mr s46 5 Z9,64 $ A7... 5 .70' 5 m,9u.!$. m/M 1 f m/6161$ rimmA l f m/69:$ mpg $ m7A66:s m fa,$ !gipA l s .1w,6.6 $ 20,64 $ m sa $ 20,646 N??ry S 466 5 2s,9w S s191x 1445A366Mv f . 66k07 $ 147,357:$ 234716-1 5.450,674 $7924858 $7976.66:8 3.4444 $7.4*356 $7924886 $70121366 $4422256 $7,41466:$4414556 $7,44E8 $ 7A2406_$7,2R956.'$7"._ I 8 7 '-- 4184866 AM... .03030'$ 7,veg..$$ 7AR.02,$ 7 48538,$7,Q4i611 1.40f36 S 7A21,66 9 ],6 3.30 S 7,.83s6 $1)0,]53,170 8.M4rTa r r4t7 f S67a'S atl,N 1 f ZDa1O•$ zn4a0 J 27470-! 2742s°$ Z7aCa9 J 3741,1sa.J zmi9'S ;)ap01 r 4N0.af9! L7a •f ;7Ra9$ 27µap'S ;7RSO18 ,418{ae'7 2A¢ao ! ;79W9:! ;791a6 f inR2a'f ;JN{s'f. 17rL70p r z7u,m 5 z74m f z7u7s7 6A3 ' r1_..._' L. 1.,24--El I tom_....::_I L.y;245 r.:• .I -1,, . E..-..J! t -4 I -.:.-145 I :a,,,,,, t.::.v I -:_.::. ' 1 ::..... ...._22 i ",0$I )--,•,561) ($607 - ' ram..._ )._..J I .::i I - 9.:`' 796 1 607 7 $2479.806 ara 3-nigh interest Rate.na..Nry-$3f3 interest-ss Yen al.TI8 Wei I I 1 I 1 _ FY2013 FY2014 1120015 ' 11016 FY2017 172011 FY2019 0500 892021 112022 FY2023 ' 312024 I 11025 ' re2026 312027 612026 FY2029 . FY2030 032031 3e2032 FY2033 FY2034 FY200 ' FY20 FY 2037 FY2038 Total Una-Debt Se.ske • Bond A,nl4pation Note l$15 MI $ 261000 $ 26100 , T66e-021 Bonds I$110 MI $ - $ 6535,504 $ 4357,457 $ 8,987,457 $ 8,986,290 $ 8,987,933 $ 8988630 5 8387510 5 3.333,534 S 8891283 $ 8936,747 $ 5.586.431 5 899434 5 6556.7,5 s 6556,565 5 566657, $ 8,989,72 $ 8,97335 $ 36,586 $ 2992,,650 5 1364150 $ 1668150 $ 2926453 $ 2,927,90 $ 2935,925 $ 8,987,493 Taal Debt 5er020e 5ee4, $ 262,200 $ 6,797,66 $6,257,457 $3,987,457 $8,926,20 $8,987,933 5 8,988,634 $8,987,520 $5,989,594 $3,891,233 $8,926,767 $8,986.6111$6,990,345 $8,988,772 $ 8,990,539 $ 8,989,573 $ 8,939,713 $ 8,987.525 $ 8386,518 $ 8,990,601$1,90,150'$ 8,988,150 $ 8,989,453 $ 8,987,50 $ 8,365,9255 $ 8,987A93 $220,049,414 1ou,08 1 SARR run. ..3 ____ CUM.) 5 $ - S ;375.6M'! 23300S15000 $ ;375A0 5 2375,mo'S 1.31s000 $ 37s90 $ 23s05 1375A0 $ ;3>90 $ 306,f7A 3i 52500 2315A0 3 0 $ h� $ 23330m'S261600'$ 2S560i$ ?1AM1 $ 137s90 $ 2375990 5 2375p0 R.( amount morAe OW 1 8 $ $ 80 .> $75 p4001$ 01 73R®$ 1.17490 $ 3100 135,900 Co n 9091 - S S I$ 1030 $ 1300 $ 1040 $ 15000 5 19400 $ 194900 $ 13000 $ 1.50430 $ 194301S 3M0 $ ;040 $ 1T400 $ 1A430 $ 504000 1 1394®I$ 10400 $ 15000 $ 1943015 2456401$ 3940 $ 5.560.660 S UMW'S 1949A NOa70ewowr,e,.0»H,6„e4r __ i. alb $ 11p2•$ 54726 $ 119'$ 24945 i$ 494260 $ 406,AG'5 406,90 $ 498,290 $ 48630 S609 $ 604200 l S 604a6:S 403 5 404mDS .64mf 40439 $ 401290 $ 40470I a 664269 $ 4o1ao $ 44SD!S 606>o I S R> 'S 64aDS 4410S -.. 406,290 54491044 $ 17654 $ 74615 $ ,44.1,1 S 281,496'$ 5549A $ 564,0'$ 544.3m $ 564,9A $ 5430 $ 364s_A 1$ 7c4500;$ 564001_$ !woo $ 564301$ $__" $6W9,$ 565w0 5 $65m'$ 366,30$ $6492? $ 5440)8 ..564p31! _1120$ _.1646Q0 $ 564A0 S 5$4s00' rrw 5 64$5 $ 21956 5 51621$ mot I$ m,646 $ m,646 $ m,646 5 m,64 $ m,646•$ m,64'$ m,641$ m.6401$ me46 5 m,666!$ 3A6 $ 2?7,666'$ m,646 $ m,6M $ 200;40-$ 207.646 $ 20161f i$ m/M6)$ m,646 $ m,w $ mf41$ m,646 I 81a{Ra'$.. 0PVAR.f MAW 5 47ALa13$ i754Al1$ ,z697 __I _. _ _" $7A17,26 $7A91936'a 792446 $1424256 $16z4a6I f TA74S6 $2Auati�.$1 $?"458 $7A M*I f.MAW_$TAMP 74046{ $ 7,47 31 i$WWII:$7 I$MAIM $"MVO s.7--- . " $ 112357 $ 7947M I S 6339A2/ $ z7am$ s7:17s,a :nu0's z7rzm s zma9 8_.4m#o s 8134�.7 a?6rs 16..xD52r9$ z7f9m rN6.66 $ 2At4.66'$ 7•aM•ac'$ 7Ait,0s fp0.7Y,p� GAP ' ($7'S441i 'r 29ne,47 i r 4492I 2($1511734$$45sa,294J s r 5$2341$ 57Woo l$ u,071' . Total NSe6FY 36A39 Z7.1 2. xe O,Yrw $ r Sg7es I 1 754630.2691'(5S l617aN�($7,148i029 ($L55].4241'($'Sono]])!($15sA77p ($;ss1,s64),(51,51471Q��1 S67A721!jf$1.653A91/I/f27$$7,555/ ($1562A79/'($1557.911/'/51,511.74/_I1DJI dL$6711 152,5546011 rj1,SS773211 71' ($7,5.3$2311• /52,552A6911 /$1.5546371 1$4.256,244/ notes/Assumptions j ! 1 •Nate CounncommIOnenta SAM Fonds and CDA M6 aatF9tbaa0 approved. i ' ••Assumpt on,Cound154Ra9aaa k'Krr yb Mamold.daSn► MICA potential - %Ile, s Year( Debt Service Sources and Uses-NO COUNTY PARTICIPATION-Interest Rate Scenarios I I i i 1 scenario1 Low alterm Rate(Current Environment)A,.umirt-339%Intwet-25 VeerLle iu eon4 I II I I ' I I re2013 FY2014 Ft'2015 FY'2016 FY2017 FYM32 FY2019 I P► I MNi1 FY2022 retail I R2021 I %IOtS FY20M I FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2090 I FY 2031 A % FY2035y I FY2036 I FY2037 1 FINN iToni uses-Debt$ervb I ML I FY • meA tleal U3I(ftsM $ M20m!3 26z000 ' L4BN 1�,ON $ ].ss13492. .$ ]130,69 Total Pat Sande.IMeY f f 4,Oz8,292 $3,606,024 $7.152024-$7334.60 $],ISI,B81 $],148,881 $7,SSO,b1 $7.15U01 $7,153,615 $7,119,t30_ $7aa%a.e $7,751,06 $7.1$0A1t $ ],1447n $ ],169369 $ 7,140,r0 I ..--.. 1 ka-Ou[Bonds($1104 $ $$$„$$ $ 061 0 7,154881 $ 21f2301 $ 7,153,615 $ 7,149.210 $ 2352315 $ 7,351069'$ 7,154418 5 7,149720 $ 2,149,389 $ 7, $ $.1547M $ 7,194112 $ 7,150,336 $ 7, $ 5 7,1441316 $ 7,184101 _.. $7,143/I f.7,t6pv1 $ ],1sB,626 ;7366AM $7,u1,$I9:$ 7351,7M S 7,15o,6N S ],1Y,916 ;7,Isg7691 $27Aog27t _. _.._.. .. ... .. I _...1. �I(JO6-$.v1eMltAwdlae $ $ $ $ 7,371,019 $ ti374000 $ 23773,000 $ �5,000 5 2,32375p00I .... I .. - _... ... $4Blt Fealr _ - - --- { ;n�,1m $ 1?25.000 s 2.a79.000 f 4�A00 $ ;t3, -.. _- _ ' 2,(2400D ?,6ic,0b, $ 2,329050 $ 2.574/00I$ $.51.580 $ 2,7SN00 $ 7,!A40.5 A074000I$ 0f34000 $ A3/4000 2475,900 $ 2.3A.000 $ t/fr®I . . _.-__ _ .. "rt/ - - $ ' $ 2.51;.000 $ 15A000�$ Lf13,000 s t3>5,000 $ 7,575.0001$ }.575.000'$ - Z274® $ Znsom $ 29A,000:S. 23Amb2J-!S,Ooo $ Z9fl,�!; ZlA0o01$ 7JSs.000.$ 2j/4000 $ ?.f13A0D:$ Z37so001; _ - • �f11�A�6P!!r+a,ew_r�r -... 566,920 5 561.9ID $ 1Km _ - -i I II i • �R{OW ... } 1t i7 $ _$4n6'$ ]OZ573 $ 2331as $ 406m $ 406,m $ 604290 $ 406.1101$ �A261 $ 4m $ 406m $ 404m $ 606,230 $ 404290 $ 406,2q'$ 404A0 $ 406m 5 406m $ 4Obm $ 4067N $ I _41.40P.0 I; P336•$ 740f0I$ 34Zm $ 2az460 $ I$ 564110!3 $ 5643m $ 564,910 $ 884.8. $ 58080 $ ✓r41ro $ s44,920 $ 5649283 '$ 434a/f $ $66m .. 1_$49ID $ 808.5$0 $ 8649I0 $ SB6920 $ 56406�$ SO4t0D I S 364m $ $ 116�1 $ 564,9M1 $ SM,920 .' 1a173$ z.m14$$ Z7u,m$ 2N9Do$ 1184m I3 47t4041$9a7Lr $3,17484a•I;1'1we $- $s -$ $ $ $ s72*0.12oao$ s, 30 $ s� $ s.» IS f i$s 72�'$a,;Maw Total lu;.mas I$ Kw.1$ 12,601 5 242,303 5 5,235,605 $5,721,210 $4721310 $5,721 $ $ $ 5,721,210 $ 5,721,210 $ s,n1,210 $134196,779 yaws. *.4+Dtr,s.se ; IZp I; ao1..s7 12eZ309 s Z7.1naI I z7aZa9 - 6AP I 031415011 ($43661901 ($7,364222)'.($4915A89)F($4133337)I($1A30,6711I(s4427.6711 ($442A5$111!$1A944$ '5L4gbf)1(f/A2Ra9MI I(51.421835)i($4429,2081'. ($1,424560) ($2474175)! ($4427,6 011($44923791I f51.4mon1$$$... 147 (54mWtlN ($].434109)1 ($14345N)I($1A7y679)I ($4$247oui 1$442;a9A l$2A23,193) ftanarb2-MMlum Interest pate-•%,un4rt 4.)•IFtlarar 38 Year ..I..eeM I I ' I I • FY 2013 I FY 2016 FY 2015 FY 2056 ' FY$917 n 2011 g7019 i FY 2020 I 95 2021 N'2022 I FY 20M I FY 2024 I FYI FY MM i FY 2027 FY 20211 FY 2029 FY 2030 1 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 I FY 2034 FY 2035 I FT 2036 I FY 2037 I FY 21160 Tad Iia.-Debt Servke - Bone Anlldp.Oon Note(51$MI $ 26Zo00 I$ 282000 - I - '742-020 809eal51101511 $ 3,1B6,618 $ $ 4035,397 $ 4�,12$ 5 4®8.994 $ 8038,056 $ 4070,1M 5 8,036055 $ 8,039,785 $ 8,036577 $ 8,167,939 $ B) 17 $ 9,06393 5 8,06,9. $ 8,00772 5 4006,288 5 8,03951 $ 40010,69 $ 8,07.52 4,965,911 $ 8,035,911 $ 40l7,101 $ 603),NI $ 8,0343N $ BDW 362 Total Debt Service Needs •$ 162..'',$ 5A.8,618 $$ ,$65,911 $4N5,911 $4567,101 $w$,$$1 $1ASB.114I$$0$$$262 $Lo$7,397'$1.077,1ti $4®49101$1.036P36 $0A10,iN'$4506.0$$ $8p33,789 $ 040,5n ,36,966 $ ,3367B2 $ ,36 288 $ ,039,351 $ ,40,069 $ ,37,652 $ 0$4,313 'lame I 4 $ 8,03),939 $ .. .. - $0.024313 $195.SSz}71 SARR vane( - -. I _ _ _ - _ a4731%) ._. $ - I$ - $ - $ 2.119,000•f s575.000 $ 2,=Jf,OO,f A9A9M I$ 2324000 $ 2.R,000 $ 2,3'710N'$ UMW,$ 2375A00 6 4375A00 8 -' - -- $ AO7.CB3f 2d25AB0 $ ;315,atn $ Z324D0.0 $ Ao6Aa1 $ ].A6,0 0 3 ZDEiOPp.�..f 3,1)SA00 $ 73i4ao/ $ 2,315,000 $ 2375,000 $ 3,375,000 $ i174.99 6(23%•$aateattmaelw ay)$ - $ - $ - $ z375,010 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,f)l,® f $47lm0 I; 2375,000 $ Z375.005 5 Z9749m I$ Z$5$,C0Y I$ E375.005 $ 2,325,010 $ 2374m0$ z375,000 $ z37s,am $ z376am 1; Zr76am $ 7�75,690 $ LY7S1®;f 2.315,000 $ 212400° $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2373800 • $ 206, -OCIO A0a411wMI�Faea.Iv...,n7- .._} 4m•$ �64m 1-$ 404m $ 406290 $ 42N'$ 406m $ 40411D'S *04m $ 64190 $ 4200 $ 404010 f f 406,290 $ cum $ .. CIO ... $ 1Z6g! $ 50,>B6 $ 1Oz573 $ 2[B,IlS $ 406m $ 40470041Ba$ 5 404,m $ 406,m ; 4 $ 406,290 5 40439p ..Schoo7Oldskt $ 17,654 $ 70815 $ 131,m $ 20Z3W•$ 564,920 $ 58405 $ N40011$ 364,92U'$ 564920 $ 561921 $ 5849201$ 560,9ID $ s64,920 $ 564,310 $ 544,920 $ 564010I$ 564,9M $ 3f4910 $ 51N?0 $ $649m 1$ l64,920 $ $K$20 $ $67.62a $ $64,920 $ 560,920 $ $$k$20 • T Soil� '$ $ 0350,$ 021A01 J 242,N.3 $$ '$4 2.$$$ $5.71,220,'$s.F1.2101$3,711j10'$5.n�'$5,721.210'$5,7t�'$532�'$5,71 10$5,7 5 5,721,210 $ 5.721,210 $ S,n4210 $5 n1,210 $ 5,7L,130!$ $,721.230 i$3.7$14101$675A210 $ 5,721,230 $ s,n1,210 $ 5,n1.210 $ 5,724210 $151,496,11 -- 33• 171,20 s 27gm$ 27µna$ 2723a0 $ 11811se'$ 4 $$$1$ .,....$•$ 2,$$$ 0 5 2730.96 3 27e1,210 $ 22a(1se I$ $„..$$o' ($234630) ($55327,2161,0.723,1N)'($2,800,306) 5f,315,191)'(5,316431)'($2l17,7N)1($4.$$$$57)i(543341871 Mk-Wig,1(431470811(54341811'($2,319.004)!f$2,314,048)I 02,318,5)9) (32,339,367) (52,316,729)' (52,317,2071' (Sz315308)!f$241 75171 07,317375)I($4.315,075)1 (f7L311$141)1 A314859)' ($2,316,442)I ($2315,11 I($64954197) srlo 3-Nigh interest Rate A...m..sae%I,0o 7 Yrr sales T..nom ' I 1 I FY 2023 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 201 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2023 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FT7032 I FY 2033 ' FY2034 FYM55 I FY 2036 1 FY 2037 FY 2030 Total Uses-Debt Service ' - Band Anticipation NeY($1lM) i$ 26z000 $ 262,000 I I 1 Take-Out Bonds q $ - $ 6535.586 $ ,267,467 $ ,9 7,457 $ ,9 6,790 $ 431� ,9 8,411 $ ,59034$ $ , $ 2,990,593 $ ,%9 57 3•$ 0,969,73$ $ 8 987,525 5 8,9865018,990000 _- $;N rg,.$$.988.1N I f �•$ 4667,$00.I$ $4.3,'A3' 8,492,455 $ 8,988634 $ 4987,520 $ 9989,594 $ 9991,283 $ 49.6747 $ Total Debt SaIN10 Mee4 ; 161,60p I; 6,7n3g i$4237R7:;4117A57 $8,986�90 $8,987,933 $8,988,634 $8987920 $8,989,594 $8,99130'f___ 71) $8,986A33 $8,990,346 $,-, 371 $ 8,990.60 $ 49N.3'l0 $ 494m $ 4010AY $ 49V3B0 $ 46.9E $1,90]A93 $720,IM9,U4 Source 804(23%$aenrts,NMa M12,074 2.37505 $ ig40001 000 $ 2575tao _ .. AC5,000 $ 2323A90 $ UMW!I$ 37374 $ 2375,00D • SAR8 Funds Oty(107F) f - $ - $ - -$ Zv4999 $ t314000 $ 2,3R,(p0 $ 23nA00 $ 2375,gp $ 232s,00o $ 2375,000 $ z37sAaa $ 231sp00'$ 7.726.110 $ -"" - - ; - $ - $ - -$ 2324000 $ 277�RB0 $ z3)5,000 $ z376000 $ z,3)s,000 $ z375,000 $ z3'75,000 $ ;116000�.$ z,375,O0p $ ;�'� $ 23AA00'�$ ;obm01 f z3751a0 $ ... -.. .. -.- 2374.oB�5 2.614000 $ z375,00D $ z3]s,000 $ 000 $ $ 2 423>s, 3.6131000:$ '$ 25741N'f ;A� I$ 49AOW f ;A�;O7' 37 000 $ $ 00D J f elad7amll(10w-e.sa.Is,�r 1$ $04600 $ 3640L'$ 5/4000I5 66620 $ .94m $ 664920 $_664om $ 5639 20 $ $ N4630'$ N4fi9!$ 14N,0 $ 226 30 $ $f4910 $ 1B493D 1 5 40I}. 4a0 $ Q3290 $ 476.m $ 961601 s_ I Sde6FODbY I 1289.•$ 76615•$ 101.5A'$ 106100 $ 0204. $ .... 5ORm ap ; >;,tl1',$ Km $ 142m'$ 16Z4s9 $ I 564 -. ?64629; 40(703 $ 443tD ___. 5N� $ $ a64>m f _s9462D i$. 5646?a ' _.__I ._. I _avt.a. F -- $ 742.Oa3'f sssas.t f32A1$9 f 9,7111-111 f TyTL�>r!$,6,acl,:lp $:.711j10't67a2.n9 s;71f.2t61 t S,m.2201$3.711310!8.8.728.230:8 5,721210 5 s,7±4:M $47i47w'.$ 47f1�10 $ 5,711 21I f R72Au6I$1:721.210'$33a1310'$ 5.721aL!$s,R1j1f'0 s,723d5�l f 47l{7101 I liu,�asrf Tell Al;ww 1 11.10'S 1tiA01 33447; m7.11 =WS•$ I 47146I1 I;. :$ .4;R1•i; 4>.rA '; ;An*.•$. ;yaw..; 27Y,no $. 2a4si; 3,..$ ,..$,, $ Znas_y ..iNrysl$. -3....;1 2,$$$s sl6is; $.?'0.(•;f 11Y,t�P-5. ..4?et>•' _ 6AP I 53231,6303; ($6,676,165),($6,014,6s5)1(53751,152)-($.$265, ,OBOf�_34264722/1${J7ptl1 $1 13q_( ,264'9851'(53,234073):($1.263,53711($4265�/1'($3 3 6 93 3 31.($336 s$62)1 ($3,2693891 ($4 264 3613,($3,26$503)�' 1 _ 1 ' 1 I ($4zsaaul!lS.4ae.ppL6ttar,lw �}ss,9eo11 I53,zet9ali(£frsbwll /ft�s43p11 ltizf67u m - ■ lLfSSf4' 1 i 0145s263s1 0 (�•. I�>T'.. RALPH BECKER v VYL wPfMAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED Date Received: 10 20 /I Davi veritt,Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: SLC COUNCIL OFFICE 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 hote 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 IAKE CRY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE B01-535-7 FAX:801-535-6331 wwwslcgov.com 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. .0404 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 "M" 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. A 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 Amok 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 w "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/k201_.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 Amok 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 ,,,.o • 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: oritik • 10/11/11 - Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Yr 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." • 1/11/11 -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 AG% 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 hh ...:1..P SCANNED TO: XF---' �[; �' ( SCANNED a : RALPHBECKER R LAC�� .1 `��v �:.ij�� ! DATE. OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 7,s/ CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL D I ( I Q UI T RECEIVED OCT 20 2011 E d Date Received g �j Davi veritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 1 I SLC COUNCIL OFFICE 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 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,incbiting 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 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,Uthh,this day of ,2011. CHAIRPERSON A'1'1 SST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR A'1ThST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney'$ Office Date to""- CITY RECORDER BY (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: HB ATi'Y-#15990-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 Initiative Number/Name Fund Expenditure Revenue or xpE t R On-going np 'r 2 ,/ Amount Amount One time FTEs Section A;;;NrW items � F i ° � ` p f h e t 5 W S X ¢ 1 3Fdp }d rt a r c P P" 7 , 1 UPAC Short Term Financing: Project Design OP 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 one-time 0 Section Bt:,Granti for Existing Steff Reso"Orces " ; + .:x , e u Section C:,.Grants trot.NewSteff Resource* • ,r Section D: Housekeeping y,:>'- , ' . {r., -„ .. :';;• 3` xa3 Section E; Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources: p Section F. Donetions,,,� ,..� " a°�ri ` „¢ ' ,t�:' � �� .�.� Section.GD CoufcilConsent Agenda Giant Awart�fY ",t Section s:.Coundl ddded item3 ,. ,r,,;.,., d k..v- �' st,.i'!. �.�;., ..�'. .E� s ¢ s x. a �.e�,dl?"Se:a � '% �,,:am **� r?��d•Y-r,*�'4',_.�3,�x'�< e`'�2 :v`�d .,� Vic+ ,.•�:., , Total of Budget Amendment Items 15,000,000.00 Total by l:und BUdgCt 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 01 Total BA t12 Total BA 113 Total BA t;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 12011 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 Sources&Uses 2 SLC UPAC BAN,Series 2011 I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/18/2011 I 5:02 PM $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(MCI 1.4994948% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.5000000% Weighted Average Maturity 1.083 Years SLC UPAC BAN,Series 2011 I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 10/182011 I 5:02 PM g. $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 Pageullllllll 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 I 5:04 PM $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 03/152013 - - - - _ 10/012013 - - 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 - 04/012015 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,606 024.00 10/01/2015 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/012016 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 - 04/012017 3,580,000.00 1.270% 1,786,17325 5,366,173.25 7,152,3,16.50 10/01/2017 - - 1,763.440.25 1,763 440.25 - 04/01/2018 3,625,000.00 1.600% 1,763,44025 5,388,440.25 7,151,880.50 10/01/2018 - - 1,734,440.25 1,734,440.25 - 04/012019 3,680,000.00 1.850% 1,734,440.25 5,414,440.25 7,148,880.50 10/012619 - - 1,700,400.25 1,700,400.25 - 04/01/2020 3,750,000.00 2.120% 1,700,400.25 5450,40025 7,150,800.50 10/01/2020 - - 1,660,65025 1,660,650.25 - 04/012021 3,830,000.00 2.420% 1,660,650.25 5,490,650.25 7,151,300.50 10/012021 - - 1,614,307.25 1,614,307.25 - 04/012022 3,925,000.00 2.660% 1,614,307.25 5,539,307.25 7,153,614.50 10/012022 - - 1,562,104.75 _1,562104_75 - 04/012023 4,025,000.00 2.780% 1,562,104.75 5,587,104.75 7,149,209.50 10/012023 - - 1,506,157.25 1,506,157.25 - 04/012024 4,140,000.00 3.050% 1,506,157.25 5,646,157.25 7,152,314.50 10/012024 - - 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 10/012025 - - 1,375,208.75 1,375,208.75 - 04/012026 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 - 04/012027 4,545,000.00 3.420% 1,302,388.75 5,847,388.75 7,149,777.50 10/012027 - - 1,224,669.25 1,224 669.25 - 04/012028 4,700,000.00 3.520% 1,224,66925 5,924,669.25 7,149,338.50 10/012028 - - 1,141,94925 1,141,949.25 - 04/012029 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 - _04/012030 __-5 045 000.00 3.720% 1,053,892.75 6,Q 8 892.75 7,152,785.50 10/01/2030 - - 960,055.75 960,055.75 - 04/012031 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 - 04/012032 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 - 04/012033 5,640,000.00 3.950% 754,549.25 6,394,549.25 7,149,098.50 10/01/2033 - - 643,159.25 643,159.25 - 041012034 5,865,000.00 4.000% 643,159.25 6,508,159.25 7,151,318.50 10/012034 - - 525,85925 525,859.25 - 04/012035 6,100,000.00 4.030% 525 85925 6,625885925 7,151,718.50 10/012035 - - 402,944.25 402,944.25 - 04/012036 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 - 04/012037 6,600,000.00 4.070% 274,458.00 6,874,458.00 7,148,916.00 10/012037_-_ - - 140,148.00 140 148.00 - 04/012038 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 - Yald Statistics Bond Year Dollars $1,697,728.89 Average Life --_-_-15.434 Years Average Co pon ---_�----------- 3.6424321% Net Interest CostiNICZ- --------...___--- ----------......----___.--- 3.8424321% True Interest Cost[TIC) 3.5872619% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes _-- ------ __-- ---. _.. -... 3.5872619% AN Inclusive Cost oICZ_-_--_------------__-- ---....------.....- _-'----3.5872819% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 3.6424321% Weighted Average Maturity 15.434 Years SLC!AMC S1I011.RDA]5 v I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 10I1SIZ011 15:04 PM glllill Pagel $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 irrrrril 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 - 04/012015 - 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 1,893,012.00 5 348,012.00 7,151,024.00 10/01/2016 - 1,786,173.25 1,786,173.25 - 04/012017 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 - 04/012018 3,625,000.00 1,763,440.25 5,388,440.25 7,151,880.50 10/012018 - 1,734,440.25 1�734 440.25 - 04/012019 3,680,000.00 1,734,440.25 5,414,440.25 7,148,880.50 10/012019 - 1,700,400.25 1,700,400.25 - 04/012020 3,750,000.00 1,700,400.25 5,450,400.25 7,150,800.50 10/012020 - 1,660,650.25 1,660,650.25 - 04/01/2021 _._ 3,830,000.00 1,660,550.25 5,490 650.25 7,151,300.50 10/01/2021 - 1,614,307.25 1,614,307.25 - 04/012022 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 - 04/012023 4,025,000.00 1,562,104.75 5,587,104.75 7,149,209.50 10/012023 1 506,157.25 1 506 157.25 - 04/012024 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 - 04/012025 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 - 04/012027 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 - 04/012028 4,700,000.00 1,224,669.25 5,924,669.25 7,149,338.50 10/01/2028 - 1141949.25 1141,949.25 - 04/012029 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 - 04/012030 5,045,000.00 1,053,892.75 6,098,892.75 7,152,785.50 10/012030 - 960,055.75 960,055.75 - 04/012031 5 230 000.00-__ 960 055.75 6,190,055.75 715p 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 - 04/012033 5,640,000.00 754,549.25 6,394,549.25 7,149,098.50 10/01/2033 - 643,159.25 643159.25 - 04/012034 5,865,000.00 643,159.25 6,508,159.25 7,151,318.50 10/012034 - 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 - 04/012036 6 345 000.00 402,944.25 66747 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 - 04/012038 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 - Per Amounts Of Selected Issues Series 2012 Notes — -- 18,090,000 00 Series 2013 Bonds ---- 110,000,000.00 TOTAL 128,000,000.00 pimple 110'1d]D11 1394PN ., Page 3 FY 2011-12 Variance Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total General Fund 195,114,853 194,569,704 (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 `scussion: 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: lnterfund Reimbursement 9,907,993 9,907,993 0 Discussion: Transfers 3,535,420 3,535,420 0 liscussion: RALPH BECKER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY D.J. BAXTER CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF SALT LAKE CITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR yp� 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") Amok 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 2)Pass a motion to adopt the Resolution with revisions 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. 1 481 SOUTH STATE,ROOM 4131 PO Box 148818,SALT LAKE CITY UTAH$4114 , TELEPHONE&801.63E-7P40 FAXI 801.88E-7R48 W W W.6IARDA.DDM 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 finalised 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 , .... P' i ' 4•At iq • or .1111 har4 , , ' • '. ''''' ' 1- '''' t • , 1. T .W . • , . , e i , ... . '' askill •, rm...,..,,, .._.. m.f...: . ,7 [ , a" it Pti,"1"w, ,.. 11IM! , .Ar . , .,.. =r bri. v ••''' . 04:',-4.r,-..7-fy , ,.., t ; •,, P f 1 7. ' ri/•, r 1--, Nr- '4 ' . f•:.! '• ^.-',11 = .+.1 , -— - arirtimmameas Proposed UPAC CDA • Project Area , - 4 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 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 EXIBBIT 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 A"'M+ 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 Interlocal 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, Aoki 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 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 Errors 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 financing 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 finds 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 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 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 fmancing 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 fmancing costs incurred by the City or to refmance 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 organised 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." WITNES SETH: 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 fmance [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 fmance the UPAC Project, and if requested by the City, to issue its own debt obligations, to the extent possible, to refmance 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 fmancing [design costs with respect to the UPAC Project]. 3. Covenant with Respect to Reimbursement/Refmancing. 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 refinance 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. Ask 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. oft 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: ooltik 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 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. Defmitions. 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 fmance 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 fmance 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 Refinancing of City Debt Obligations. The financing 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 fmance 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 .00* 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 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 fmancing 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 , 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 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 fmancing 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 fmancing 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 fmance 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, 04* 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 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 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 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 fmal 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 RESOLUTION NO._OF 2011 A Resolution providing for the publication of a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Issue Subordinate Excise Tax Revenue Notes and holding of a public hearing relative to the City's subordinate excise tax revenue notes; expressing official intent regarding certain capital expenditures to be reimbursed from proceeds of such notes; and providing for related matters. *** *** *** WHEREAS,the City Council(the "City Council') of Salt Lake City,Utah(the "City') considers it desirable and necessary and for the benefit of the City and its residents to issue its subordinate excise tax revenue notes, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $18,000,000 (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 paying all related costs authorized by law pursuant to authority contained in the Local Government Bonding Act,Chapter 14 of Title 11 (the "Act"), of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and other applicable provisions of law; WHEREAS,pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Act,the City has the authority to issue its subordinate excise tax revenue notes for the foregoing purposes; WHEREAS, Section 11-14-318 of the Act requires that a public hearing be held to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Notes and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector, and that notice of such public hearing be given, and, ,, in satisfaction of such requirement,the City desires to publish a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Issue Subordinate Excise Tax Revenue Notes (the "Notice of Public Hearing') pursuant hereto; WHEREAS, Section 11-14-307(7)of the Act requires the City to submit the question of whether or not to issue the Notes to voters for their approval or rejection if,within 30 calendar days after the publication of the Notice of Public Hearing, a written petition requesting an election and signed by at least 20%of the registered voters in the City is filed with the City; WHEREAS, a portion of the expenditures relating to the initial phase of the Project(the "Expenditures') (i)have been paid from one, both or either of the City's capital improvement program fund or the central business district project fund of the Redevelopment Authority of the City(collectively,the "Funds') within the sixty days prior to the passage of this Resolution or (ii) will be paid from one,both or either of the Funds on or after the passage of this Resolution and prior to the issuance of the Notes; and WHEREAS,the City desires to provide for the holding of a public hearing, as required by law; 3088126.01.03.doc 8704074/RDB/mo UPAC Public Hearing Resolution Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 10/18/11 NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, as follows: •• 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 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 fmal 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 000,„ 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 fmancial 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. .0 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 ()raft 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 mow 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 al " ,�,, .•' SCANNED TO: �[ t [� , �}� ( SCANNED BY: RALPH BECKER I,.al r\ J ITiV `. `a�1�1P�:�►,[IAYE�® DATE. /I MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 7°//1 1 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL D 11g 1 Q 1 RECEIVED OCT 2 0 2011 Date Receive(g Davi veritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 1 1 SLC COUNCIL OFFICE 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 IA SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the Final Bridget 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,incbrtling 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. 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 Annotate. 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. • 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'$ Ott"ioe Date la CITY RECORDER B (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: HB ATTY-415990-v2 Budget Amendment FY11-12.D0C 3 Salt Lake Ci FY2011-12 Bud•et Amendment#3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Section Af 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$3.7 million annually. 1 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#3 Expenditure Revenue On-going or Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Amount One time FTEs Section At.,New 3 di a A r" x vPhg is,5 gE ¢ax pr �7s�� a y a 1 UPAC Short Term Financing: Project Design CIP 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 one-time 0 Section IY':'=Grants fat Exlitlng$trtH ftefotirCes Section. :,Grari4s St•ile'W,;$00 ResoUrceiF, fir �; �'` ,Section D:.HdUSeifeilpirlg a'„;„ ., r+ •t+ �4 '� P� .9's < ,o-,V, �,,w �, sr x. ,m w� r e Section E:Grpni:lt.Raquiting NO New Section F; Do118t10t1f:, .,w SectionGiCoUfdttenSeht'Agends.. ...,.. Section Added Item!...., ..,a,.. E f 5 i 'e.1 to f ..t'.• * Total of Budget Amendment Items 15,000,000.00 Total by hind, udgjMn,efldmeht ;. t� xw > tt? r u 4+r�7*FA CIP Fund 15,000,000.00 � Total of Budget Amendment Items 15,000,000.00 Current Year Budget Summary,provided for information only FY 2011-12 Budget,Including Budget Amendments FY 2011-12 Adopted Budget BA ttl Total BA 112 Total BA 113 Total BA 113 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 12011 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 !cif" $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 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 1 5:02 PM a 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$110M,RDA 25-yr I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/18/2011 I 5:04 PM $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 - - - - - 10/012013 - - 1,963,279.73 1,963,279.73 - 04/012014 - - 1,1303,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,766,291.73 10/012014 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/01/2015 - 1803012.00 1,803,012.003,606024_00_ 10/01/2015 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/012016 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 - 04/012017 3,580,000.00 1.270% 1,786,173.25 5,366,173.25 7,152,346.50 10/01/2017---- -_.-_.__..-_ 176341025------..__1.,763.440.25 _-,--._--_ 04/01/2018 3,625,000.00 1.600% 1,763,440.25 5,388,44025 7,151,880.50 10/01/2018 - - 1,734,440.25 1,734,44025 - 04/012019 3,680,000.00 1.850% 1,734,440.25 5,414,440.25 7,148,880.50 10/012019 - - 1,700,400.25 1,700,400.25 - 04/01/2020 3 750 000.00 2.120% 1,700 400.25 5 450,40025 7,150,800.50 10/01/2020 - - 1,660,650.25 1,660,650.25 - 04/012021 3,830,000.00 2.420% 1,660,650.25 5,490,650.25 7,151,300.50 10/012021 - - 1,614,307.25 1,614,307.25 - 04/012022 3,925,000.00 2.660% 1,614,307.25 5,539,307.25 7,153,614.50 10/012022 - - 1,562,104.75 1,562,104.75 - 04/012023 4,025,000.00 2.780% 1,562,104.75 5,587,104.75 7,149,209.50 10/012023 - - 1,506,157.25 1,506,157.25 - 04/012024 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 5,708,02225 7 151 044.50. 10/01/2025 - - 1,375,208.75 1,375,208.75 - 04/012026 4,400,000.00 3.310% 1,375,208.75 5,775,208.75 7,150,417.50 10/012026 - - 1,302,388.75 1,302,388.75 - 04/012027 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 - 04/012028 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 - 04/012029 4,865,000.00 3.620% 1,141,949.25 6,006,94925 7,148,898.50 10/01/2029 - - 1,053,892.75 1,053,892.75 - 04/012030 5,045 000.00 3.720% 1 0533,892_75 6 098 892_75 7 152 785.50 10/01/2030 - - 960,055.75 960,055.75 - 04/012031 5,230,000.00 3.820% 960,055.75 6,190,055.75 7,150,111.50 10/012031 - - 860,162.75 860,162.75 - 04/012032 5,430,000.00 3.890% 860,162.75 6,290,162.75 7,150,325.50 10/012032 - - 754,54925 --- 754 54925 ------.-_ 04/01/2033 5,640,000.00 3.950% 754,549.25 6,394,549.25 7,149,098.50 10/012033 - - 643,159.25 643,15925 - 04/012034 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 - 04/012035 6,100,000.00 4.030% 525,859.25 6,625,859.25 7,151 718_50 10/012035 - - 402,944.25 402,944.25 - 04/012036 6,345,000.00 4.050% 402,944.25 6,747,94425 7,150,888.50 10/012036 - - 274,458.00 274,458.00 - 04/012037 6,600,000.00 4.070% 274,458.00 6,874,458.00 7,148,916.00 10/01/2037 - 140148.00__. 140 148.00 - 04/012038 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-----_-__-__-- __---_-- 15.434 Years Average Coffin _ 3.6424321% Net Interest Cost(Nig 3.6424321% True Interest Cost[f1CL .-_ 3_5872619% Bond)ield for Arbitrage Purposes _.. 3.5872619% All InclusiveCost1AIQ) 3.5872619% IRS Form 8098 Net Interest Cost ----------...._.....-------------------------------.._.....------3_6424321% Weighted Average Maturity 15.434 Years SIC UPAC s11oM.RDA25yr I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 10/182011 I 5,04 PM M« Pape 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 iff1 f rill Pa e�2 9 $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 Flscat Total 02/15/2012 - - - - 09/152012 - 157,500.00 157,500.00 - 03/15/2013 - - - - 04/012013 - - - 157,500.00 ._..10/01/2013_—_ - 1,963,279.73 1,963279.73 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 - 04/012015 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,606,024.00 10/012015 - 1,803,012.00 1,809,012.00 - _ 04/01/2016 3545,000.00 1 803 72.00 _--5,3413,01200,-, 7,151,024.00 10/01/2016 - 1,786,173.25 1,786,173.25 - 04/012017 3,580,000.00 1,786,173.25 5,366,173.25 7,152,346.50 10/012017 - 1,763,440.25 1,763,440.25 - 04/012018 3,625,000.00 1,763,440.25 5,388,440.25 7,151,880.50 10/01/2018 _...__ 1,734,440.25 1,734440.25 - 04/012019 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 - 04/012020 3,750,000.00 1,700,400.25 5,450,400.25 7,159800.50 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 7,151,390.50 10/01/2021 - 1,614,307.25 1,614,307.25 04/012022 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 - 04/012023 4,025,000.00 1,562,104.75 5,587,104.75 7,149,209.50 __.10/01/2023 __...-..__ 1 596,157.25 1,506157.25. 04/012024 4,140,000.00 1,506,157.25 5,646,157.25 7,152,31450 10/012024 - 1,443,022.25 1,443,022.25 04/012025 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 440900000__. 1,375,208.75. 5,775,2087_5_--_ 7,150,417_50 10/01/2026 - 1,302,388.75 1,302,3138.75 - 04/012027 4,545,000.00 1,302,388.75 5,847,3138.75 7,149,77750 10/01/2027 - 1,224,669.25 1,224,669.25 - 04/012028 4,700,030.00 1,224,669.25 5,924,669.25 7,149,336.50 10/01/2026 —.. 7,141,94925 1141.94925. - 04/01/2029 4,865,000.00 1,141,949.25 6,006,949.25 7,148,898.50 10/012029 - 1,053,892.75 1,053,892.75 - 04/012030 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 03000 9600y55.75 6y99 55.75 7,1501111.50 1/ .—.__ __-- 10/01/2031 - 860,162.75 860,162.75 04/012032 5,430,030.00 860,162.75 6,290,162.75 7,150,325.50 10/01/2032 - 754,549.25 754.549.25 04212033 5,640,000,00 754,549.25 6,394,549.25 7,149,098.50 10/012033 643,159.25 643,159.25 04/01/2034 5,665,000.00 643,159.25 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 - 04/012036 _---_6,345,000.00._____402944.25,_, 6,747944.25 7,1508_68.50 10/012036 - 274,458.00 274,458.00 - 04/012037 6,600,000.00 274,458.00 6,874,458.00 7,148,916.00 10/012037 - 140,148.00 140,148.00 04/012038 6,870,000.00 140,148.00 7,010,148,00 7,150,296.00 Total 3110,000.00000 061,996,12173 S171,996121.73 - Par Amounts Of Selected Isom* Series 2012 Notes _...__.._-_ __._. .....___.._18,000,00000 Series 2013 Bones 110W0000.00 TOTAL 128,000,000.00 4I1111 Pa9e3.. 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: .nterest 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: Inferfund Reimbursement 9,907,993 9,907,993 0 Discussion: Transfers 3,535,420 3,535,420 0 Discussion: Item A ~ 4 See Item A ~ 6 From 10 / 11 / 11 • • • Bar .. cif it,,, !TAW REPORT Bt r ANAL 9IB- 6 DA :YEAR 2012 DATE: November 22,2011 BUDGET FOR: Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility-Proposed 2012 Calendar Year Budget STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Jennifer Bruno,David Everitt,Rick Graham, Gina Charmless,Greg Davis,Nancy Sanders,Vicki Bennett,Patrick Leary,John Ioannou,and Larry Hansen The Solid Waste Management Council has forwarded the proposed 2012 Solid Waste Management Facility ("Landfill") budget for the City Council's review. (As a reminder, the fiscal year for the Landfill is the calendar year,therefore the Landfill budget is prepared for the calendar year rather than a July-June fiscal year.)The public hearing is scheduled for December 6,2011,and potential action on December 13,2011. The Landfill facility is jointly owned by Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County and operated with County employees. The Landfill and the City's Refuse Fund(the Enterprise Fund responsible for providing waste collection services)are distinct entities with a direct relationship-as the City is successful in ` efforts to divert recyclable items and yard waste from the general garbage collection,less garbage will be taken to the Landfill,and therefore tipping fee revenue at the Landfill will decrease.In turn,the annual dividend paid to the City,which is calculated based on the Landfill revenues,will also decrease and reduce the amount of revenue the City's Refuse Fund receives. HIGHLIGHTS: The proposed budget includes total budgeted revenue of$17,484,982,which is an increase over last year. On the expense side,the budget includes$10,538,216 million in operating expenses and$3.6 million in capital outlay and transfers.In addition to these expenses,the Landfill budget anticipates paying$1,575,000 in dividend payments to the City and County ($787,500 each), which is a slight increase over what was expected for fiscal year 2011. These expenses and distributions total $15,770,827. According to this budget,revenues will exceed expenditures and result in a transfer to fund balance of$1,714,155.Last year,some funds were taken from fund balance. • Revenue from Compost Sales:Sales of compost to residential customers have not been as high as expected.As a result,actual sales have been$163,367 through October 2011,which is not on pace to meet the$425,000 budgeted. It is projected that the full year may reach 175,000. To increase sales, the proposed 2012 budget includes allowing sales to commercial customers, which is expected to meet the$425,000 sales target. 1 • $484,150 Increase to Landfill Tipping Fee revenue: the tonnage expected at the Landfill is stable.The increase reflects budgeting for the tipping fee increase that was adopted mid- ""` year 2011.This will be a full year of tipping fee revenue at the higher rate. • $93,000 Increase to Green Waste tipping fees:The Landfill budget tracks tipping fees for green waste separately from general waste. Due to the increased amount of green waste being collected,the revenues are expected to increase by$93,000 to$450,000. - • ($30,000) Decrease in Other revenue sources has an offsetting decrease in expenditures all related to the intersection at the Transfer Station.This 2012 budget reflects the expectation that the intersection would be completed during 2011.Quikrete was to contribute to the cost of the project.So the revenue from their contribution and the expense for the project has been reduced on the budget.If the project is not completed during 2011 the related budgets will be rolled forward to 2012. The Council may wish to ask about the increase proposed to revenue from salvage sales. For the 2011 budget year, the budget was increased substantially due to anticipated impact of the shredders recovering metal.However,the shredders were implemented in August,and the 2011 budget numbers were not met. The Council could consider whether it is too early to further increase the budget numbers for this revenue category. Operating Expenses:The operating expenses for the Landfill are budgeted at$10,538,216.This is an increase of$149,615 overall.The major changes in the operating expenses are: • $245,810 increase to fleet fuel and maintenance-due to the'per-gallon cost for diesel fuel and other fleet increases • $150,000 increase to the budget for road paving • $62,035 increase to the contract for hauling from the Transfer Station will be increased due to a fuel surcharge • $60,000 increase to facilities maintenance and office equipment • $6,000 increase related to the promotion of recycling • ($67,767)overall decrease to Salaries&Wages(Personal Services):no changes are proposed to the number of employees.The reduction is related to turnover and represents the difference in pay between employees with more experience who have left,and the entry-level salary for newer employees. • ($282,461) reduced closure expense - the amount transferred to the post-closure account is based on a formula using the amount of tonnage received at the Landfill.Since the amount of tonnage is continuing to decrease,the closure expense budget is also reduced. Other Expenses: • The Capital Outlay budget is set at$3,230,000,which is an increase of$218,042 over the 2011 budget. $1,300,000 two industrial shredders 450,000 "trommel"screen to separate types and sizes of green waste 350,000 Methane gas lines 300,000 Equipment repairs and tires 280,000 front-end loader 250,000 diesel packer for the citizen unloading area 100,000 Lighting for the Transfer Station �1 3 Waste Management Council. The Management Council appoints the Director of the Solid Waste Management Facility,who supervises and manages the day-to-day activities of the Facility. The Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council worked with the Facility's Director to develop the proposed 2012 budget before the Council for review.The Landfill Council will review and vote on the proposed budget on November 19,2011,and has forwarded this for review and approval by both the City and County councils. According to the agreement both the City Council and the County Council must approve a budget for the landfill. Although the Landfill is a separate entity from the City's Refuse Fund,a direct relationship exists between the Landfill and the City's waste collection services-as the City is successful in efforts to divert recyclable items and yard waste from the general garbage collection,tipping fee revenue at the Landfill will decrease.In turn,the annual dividend paid to the City will also decrease.Previously,this annual dividend was used to offset the recycling service provided to City residents at no-charge. However,in the 2009-10 City Refuse Fund budget, the dividend revenue was moved to the newly formed Environmental and Energy Fund for sustainability projects. As a reminder, the City received a one-time$7 million disbursement from the Landfill's Post- Closure account early in 2011.As adopted,$1.5 million was budgeted in the Operations and Recycling Fund for immediate use,and$5.5 million was budgeted in the Environmental and Energy Fund for use toward sustainability projects,once presented and approved by the Council. 5 Planning Commission: Board Appointment: K. Marie Taylor INTRODUCTION: Mayor Becker is recommending K. Marie Taylor be appointed to serve on the Planning Commission, if appointed Mrs. Taylor will replace Babs DeLay representing District Four, and will serve the term through July 1, 2015. APPLICANT INFORMATION: K. Marie Taylor has been a resident of District Four for 16 years. She is currently employed as a Property manager and is interning as an architect. Mrs. Taylor has a desire to be involved in the community and help with responsible evolution of Salt Lake City and to be aware of issues impacting the City. She often attends lectures and movies on design, urban planning, and social issues. • RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Mellisa know by November 17, 2010. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission consists of eleven voting members who are appointed to four-year terms, and must reside in Salt Lake City. Current members include: Emily Drown, District 6; Charlie Luke, District 6; Angela Dean, District 3; Michael Fife, District 3; Michael Gallegos, District 1; Kathleen Hill, District 4; Matthew Wirthlin, District 7; Mary Woodhead, District 2. BOARD STRUCTURE: The Planning Commission's mission is to initiate and propose amendments to the zoning ordinance and zoning maps; prepare general plan relating to the growth and development of City lands; prepare surveys and studies of existing conditions and trends of growth and probable future requirements of the City; hear and decide appeals of administrative decisions; and hear and decide application for conditional uses, planned developments and subdivision amendments. According to City Ordinance, combined expertise of the Planning Commission members should include experience in banking, development, contracting, engineering, geology and seismology, law, ecology, the behavioral sciences, historical preservation, architecture and landscape architecture, should not be limited to professionals only, but represent a cross-section of the community. RECEIVED APPLICATION Salt Lake City Boards&Commissions y JUL 13}20111OFFICE { F THE MAYOR 451 S.STATE STREET,ROOM 306 Salt Lake CityiviaJ or SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 SCANNED TO:nay'- NOTE: PLEASE ATTACH YOUR RESUME. SCANNED BY:jT Name: . l"tocle, 1a I`UY DATE:743/4 c 1 / Home `1 UJ J. 1O Address: Street (xl-E-La .e C,iy 341tD2 City �/ Zip Council District Phone: (. J+��J.1/0'3 5`i <'O i.-7 50.0005 Home Work Cellular# E-Mail Address rosari�leac r Incshmai�.cot-1 Occupation: \V Olr'(,hl r LL c''r t + pros�J rr1rod fp.r Committee(s),Board(s),Commission(s)or Authority in which you are interested: f 15)(1 C, ._.4,1v,,,Vv,3{k- Reason for your interest in this particular committee/board/commission or authority: (�.XOld(rA (; P.-ti be.tinvOlV ,o v t nit\/ cr-i h* vy/ Si i1 i up_ t-x/D[Att, rr S taicP P.I . /asp 1 jpe. f1r,1.1'a aw (� 151)P.S iVV1p(c>{i rr c:: et Are you currently serving on any other City committees? If so,which committee(s)/boa rd(s)/com mission(s)/authority? 'WO Have you had previous contact with the committee/board/commission/authority for which you are making application? 1.10 If so,when,and the circumstances? 'OVER) s kqi(e) ajkr CGsht rklitec{) Community Service/Activities(past and present): Ivt)AfAii mpuilorin how-- Pro essioual Activities: i /y� - (AAPAA/i1 VnLV., l°� M \I IG�.S II thAtt'Y\./LVl�/ t h jy) .,&i An()i a0 tJ.TP.tt 1),0 / ,�(-ACt. Q4.,(.( S. 1 \l Civic/Professional Organization Memberships: 1,T717 (ar&iel'AVVik ini ) Ethnic Group(to assure fair and equal representation—answer optional): 111Spcil'.1L (iJ'1(IilVGt/ ScgMS11) As• Other Pertinent Information: halo. home. 1,e) U.f�vP,)1,6�ol cy. (( Years. (`�(ovfot. -6 �11�Q1<t 111�I � fitne, . A - 4�oVv�Qom. l2°. iernw (i h-h-7 I Scrvv�i, I�f'4 Y /2 (0 n0 ilA.(G'. n 4 ilto(�L1 k. go—7v44Ack 2/ cy 1Vl-Clko LA; "efi\t/IV7)Y1h LL 7 LVI. -Ltom/U1/41N lo( &,-e, See,czr,vec ,1 - e.) P se list three references and phone numbers: irk �w 7()v-1 to ( -% „• I) �,C(( (101 9.4(1V�_- )t.904, 59i t��t1 �- 2) 11rI I \ �i V 1 ( .6D . 515. 22ia 1 t___3) ai.viei OA! ,601, ss+,. 9.1,fb DATE: Tit 13t-WI I SI6'Gn o1/00 I K.Marie Pate Taylor 176 South 1100 East,Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 rosaritobeach@hotmail.com h 801.363.6859 c 801.750.5003 OBJECTIVE: Obtain a full-time position as an Intern Architect,with the intent of developing the skills to become a licensed architect and eventually a revenue-generating project manager. SKILLS Bi-lingual Spanish Strong Communicator Microsoft Word,Excel&PowerPoint Highly Organized Detail Oriented Professionally Friendly AutoCAD IDP Registered EDUCATION NewSchool of Architecture and Design San Diego,CA Master of Architecture(minor in Technology) 8/00 to 8102: Graduated with an accredited Master of Architecture degree. Coursework included a concentration on a thesis project involving a year of study on Urban Planning and the US—Mexican Border. University of Utah Salt Lake City,UT Bachelor of Science In Architectural Studies 3/94 to 12/98: Coursework included Liberal Arts,Spanish Language,Computer Drafting,Static Engineering,and Architectural History and Design. EXPERIENCE Harris&Associates Salt Lake City,UT 11/06 to 06/07;Intern Architect Responsible for producing construction documents in AutoCAD(both new construction and tenant improvement),assisting project managers with detail refinement,parking layouts,and researching city history for master plan projects. Timmerman&Associates Salt Lake City,UT 06105 to 01106:Intern Architect Duties included layout of construction documents in AutoCAD for tenant improvement projects,finishing selections,and construction management of small projects. K.Marie Pate Taylor,EXPERIENCE(continued) NSA Design Lab San Diego,CA 9/00 to 8/02: Computer Lab Technician In this work-study position,I was responsible for general maintenance of computers,teaching software, assisting students with research,and maintaining inventory. Naylor Wentworth Architects Salt Lake City,UT 3/99 to 1/00: Draftsperson Duties included layout of construction documents in AutoCAD,assisting project managers with schedules, researching products,and coordinating construction documents for reproduction. Edwards Daniels Architects Salt Lake City,UT 8/97 to 12/98: Student Intend Runner Responsible for reproducing drawings,assisting front office with construction document distribution(bid lists and addenda),maintaining project archive list and storage area,as well as duplicating shop drawing corrections. Teltrust Salt Lake City,UT 3/93 to 8/95: Telephone Operator(bilingual Spanish) Responsible for processing collect and credit card telephone calls for Spanish speaking customers. Mormon Church Uruguay,South America ..ork 8/91 to 2/93: Missionary(Spanish speaking) Responsible for teaching lesson presentations in Spanish,coordinating church services,and assisting local people with various service projects,including construction. Supplemental Experience-We have owned rental properties for 16 years,in Salt Lake City. This has required that I organize renovation projects,manage budgets,interview potential tenants,and negotiate many interpersonal situations. While living in Mexico,I also managed and assisted out of town owners with renovations to their properties,as well as assisted with vacation rentals. PERSONAL INTEREST-Traveling,meeting new friends,reading,watching movies,studying history, exploring ruins,visiting historic buildings,gardening,re-modeling,hiking,cyding,and especially alpine skiing. SPECIAL EDUCATION-Various Franklin.Covey Workshops(with topics for time management and time focusing)and a Robert Ito Management Training Series. TRAVEL EXPERIENCE-includes Scandinavia,Europe,Asia,Central,South and North America. We have lived in the US cities of Los Angeles,Philadelphia,Washington DC,and Salt Lake. And overseas in the countries of Uruguay,Germany,France,the Netherlands,Panama,and Mexico. Planning Commission: Board Appointment: Bernardo Flores- Sahagun INTRODUCTION: Mayor Becker is recommending Bernardo Flores-Sahagun be appointed to serve on the Planning Commission, if appointed Mr. Flores-Sahagun will be filling a vacancy, and will serve the term through July 1, 2015. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Bernardo Flores-Sahagun resides in Salt Lake City, District Six. Mr. Flores- Sahagun is currently the President of Flores-Sahagun and Associates, specializing in residential design, architectural development, furniture design, interior design and graphics. He is interested in participating with the Planning Commission because he would like to offer his expertise in planning and architecture to the community that has provided much for him. He finds Salt Lake City to be in a progressive changing climate and would like to participate in shaping its new future. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Mellisa know by November 17, 2010. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission consists of eleven voting members who are appointed to four-year terms, and must reside in Salt Lake City. Current members include: Emily Drown, District 6; Charlie Luke, District 6; Angela Dean, District 3; Michael Fife, District 3; Michael Gallegos, District 1; Kathleen Hill, District 4; Matthew Wirthlin, District 7; Mary Woodhead, District 2. BOARD STRUCTURE: The Planning Commission's mission is to initiate and propose amendments to the zoning ordinance and zoning maps; prepare general plan relating to the growth and development of City lands; prepare surveys and studies of existing conditions and trends of growth and probable future requirements of the City; hear and decide appeals of administrative decisions; and hear and decide application for conditional uses, planned developments and subdivision amendments. According to City Ordinance, combined expertise of the Planning Commission members should include experience in banking, development, contracting, engineering, geology and seismology, law, ecology, the behavioral sciences, historical preservation, architecture and landscape architecture, should not be limited to professionals only, but represent a cross-section of the community. APPLICATION Salt Lake City Boards&Commissions OFFICE OF TEM MAYOR 451 S.STATE STREET,ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 NOTE: PLEASE ATTACH YOUR RESUME. Name: Bernardo Flores-Sahagun Home 1589 South 1500 East Address: Street Salt Lake City 84105 #6 City Zip Council District Phone: (801) 350-0136 (801) 414-0136 fsarchCa clear.net Home Work Cellular# E-Mail Address Occupation: Architect Committee(s),Board(s),Commission(s)or Authority in which you are interested: 4 fanning Commission Reason for your interest in this particular committee/board/commission or authority: I am interested in participating with the Planning Commission because I would like to offer my expertise in planning and architecture to the community that has provided so much to me. I find Salt Lake City to be in a progressive changing climate that I would like to participate in shaping it's new future. Are you currently serving on any other City committees? If so,which com m ittee(s)/boa rd(s)/comm ission(s)/authority? No Have you had previous contact with the committee/board/commission/authority for which you are making application? No If so,when,and the circumstances? i (OVER) B. BUSINESS INTERESTS Section 2.44.o5o,Salt Lake City Code,requires that all substantial interests you may have in any(non-city)business entity be disclosed. Please fill out only if separate from the above employment information,unless self-employed. I. Do you engage in a business in which you are the sole proprietor(owner)? X Yes No 2. Do you,your spouse or your children own stock in any corporation which,when considered in any combination,comprises ten percent (mo%)ownership of the outstanding shares of said corporation? X Yes No 3. Do you,your spouse,or your children have any interests in any limited partnerships or other business entity which,when considered in any combination,exceeds a ten percent(Io%) interest in such business? Yes X No 4. Do you own any interest in any business for which Salt Lake City issues a business license, i.e.,a restaurant,an apartment building with three or more units,tavern,etc.? X Yes No 5. If you answered"yes"to question 4,does the business entity have a Salt Lake City Business License? X Yes No If you have answered"yes"to any of the above questions,please state for each business interest: a. Name of the business: Flores-Sahagun + Associates, P.C. b. Address of the business: 171 West Pierpont Ave. , SLC, UT c. The principal activity engaged in by the business: Architecture d. The nature of your interest in the business: Owner, Principal Architect e. The length of time associated with the business: 15 years f. If you answered"yes" to question 4 above,state whether the value of your interest is: Under$25,00o X Over$25,00o (attach additional sheets if necessary) I certify that no conflicts of interest exist or that all conflicts have been disclosed in writing on this statement. t Dated this I 1 G ..J day of V V t ,zo { t " (Signature o App icant or Board Member) STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) Subscribedi� and sworn to(or affirmed)before me by t o VI/Ufa° 1(ores-54 h t ( V`day of awly ,20 li (Applicant or Board Member) Aeltr- s/�•, SONYA K. KINTARO -- � �. �. NOTAHYPUI3UC-STATEOFUTAH (N tary Pu.I,residingi Salt Lake Count Utah My Comm.Exp.10/11/2012 y° Commission*576016 (This is a conflict of interest disclosure statement only. Additional disclosures or restrictions may apply if your financial,business,or professional activities conflict with your city responsibilities.) + pc FLORES - SAHAGUN ASSOCIATES FLORES-SAHAGUN ASSOCIATES 171 WEST PIERPONT AVENUE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101 801-350-0136 BERNARDO FLORES-SAHAGUN A.I. A EDUCATION & PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS FACULTAD DE ARQUITECTURA UNIVERSIDAD DE GUADALAJARA Guadalajara, Mexico Professional Degree in Architecture ARCHITECTURAL LICENSE, STATE OF UTAH AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS NCIDQ (National Council for Interior Design Qualification) NCIDQ Certified #8597 OTHER STUDIES Summer, 1986 HARVARD UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF DESIGN Boston, Massachusetts Studied Senior Citizen housing. Summer, 1982 HARVARD UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF DESIGN Boston, Massachusetts Studied human behavior and housing design. 1979-1980 ROYAL DANISH ACADEMY Copenhagen, Denmark Received a fellowship sponsored by the Danish government to study public housing and urban design. Completed thesis on public spaces. EXPERIENCE 1996-present FLORES-SAHAGUN & ASSOCIATES Salt Lake City, UT Principal Specialize in residential design, architectural development, furniture design, interior design and graphics 1 171 WEST PIERPONT AVENUE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101 801 350.0136 fsarchIgwest net www.flores•sahagun corn 1990-1996 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, ENGINEERING DEPT. ARCHITECTURAL SECTION See Addendum I for project list 1989-1990 SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DEPT. OF MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING See Addendum II for project list 1984-1989 FLORES-SAHAGUN AND ASSOCIATES Salt Lake City, Utah Principal In charge of architectural design, marketing, development and graphic design. 1981-1984 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake City, Utah Deputy Director of Development Coordinated developers and architects involved in Housing Authority projects; supervised office staff; performed a variety of managerial duties. 1980-1983 MAX J. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES Salt Lake City, Utah Architectural Consultant Designed commercial and residential projects. 1979-1980 ROYAL DANISH ACADEMY Copenhagen, Denmark Received a fellowship sponsored by the Danish government to study public housing and urban design. Completed thesis on public spaces. 1977-1979 SALT LAKE CITY DEPT:OF PLANNING AND ZONING Salt Lake City, Utah Junior Planner Designed demonstration blocks for Central City; gathered data for west airport master plan; participated in dept. presentations. 1975-1976 JUNTA GENERAL DE URBANIZACION Y PLANIFICACION DEL ESTADO DE JALISCO State Planning and Zoning Guadalajara, Mexico Architect's Assistant Engaged in demographic investigation, analysis, regional and city planning; drafted proposals and gave presentations. 004, 2 _ w O,.Y. »> .��«-., -" ... ....,�-..... Planning Commission: Board Appointment: Clark Ruttinger INTRODUCTION: Mayor Becker is recommending Clark Ruttinger be appointed to serve on the Planning Commission, if appointed Mr. Ruttinger will be filling a vacancy on the board representing District Five, and will serve the term through July 1, 2015. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Clark Ruttinger resides in Salt Lake City, District Five. He is currently employed as a Research Consultant for Utah Medical Education. Mr. Ruttinger has a desire to be involved in the community and has previously been a Mediator for the Community Action Program regarding Landlord/Tenant issues, and was a Care Coordinator for the Wasatch Homeless Healthcare 4th Street Clinic. He is a Grant Reviewer for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA) and is a mentor for a community based program, Valley Mental Health Respite Program, where he mentors child clients of Valley Mental Health. He also has a Masters degree in Public Administration and has experience gathering summarizing and analyzing data for the purpose of presentation and making recommendations for action to a deciding body RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Mellisa know by November 17, 2010. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission consists of eleven voting members who are appointed to four-year terms, and must reside in Salt Lake City. Current members include: Emily Drown, District 6; Charlie Luke, District 6; Angela Dean, District 3; Michael Fife, District 3; Michael Gallegos, District 1; Kathleen Hill, District 4; Matthew Wirthlin, District 7; Mary Woodhead, District 2. BOARD STRUCTURE: The Planning Commission's mission is to initiate and propose amendments to the zoning ordinance and zoning maps; prepare general plan relating to the growth and development of City lands; prepare surveys and studies of existing conditions and trends of growth and probable future requirements of the City; hear and decide appeals of administrative decisions; and hear and decide application for conditional uses, planned developments and subdivision amendments. According to City Ordinance, combined expertise of the Planning Commission members should include experience in banking, development, contracting, engineering, geology and seismology, law, ecology, the behavioral sciences, historical preservation, architecture and landscape architecture, should not be limited to professionals only, but represent a cross-section of the community. APPLICATION Salt Lake City Boards & Commissions OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 451 S. STATE STREET,ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114-5474 NOTE: PLEASE ATTACH YOUR RESUME. Name: Clark Ruttinger Home 1435 South 200 East Address: Street Salt Lake City 84115 5 City Zip Council District Phone: (801)215-1514 (801)526-4564 cruttingAutah.gov Primary Secondary E-Mail Address Occupation: Research Consultant—Utah Medical Education Committee(s), Board(s), Commission(s) or Authority in which you are interested: Planning Commission Reason for your interest in this particular committee/board/commission or authority: I have a desire to be involved in my community. I had applied to volunteer on the re-districting board and was asked to submit an application for the planning commission also. Are you currently serving on any other City committees? If so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? No Have you had previous contact with the committee/board/commission/authority for which you are applying? 10 If so,when, and the circumstances? (OVER) Community Service/Activities (past and present): Previous Community Action Program Landlord/Tenant Mediator: mediated between landlords and tenants in pre and Amook post eviction filing processes in issues of repairs and maintenance, late rent, lease violations, utilities, privacy issues, etc. Previous Americorps member: Care Coordinator for eth Wasatch Homeless Health Care 4`h Street Clinic Professional Activities: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Heath Resources and Service Administration (HRSA) Grant Reviewer Valley Mental Health Respite Program Provider: Community based program providing mentoring, activities and Growth experience to child clients of Valley Mental Health Civic/Professional Organization Memberships: University of Utah Master of Public Administration Alumni Association Amok Ethnic Group (to assure fair and equal representation—answer optional): Other Pertinent Information: Masters degree in Public Administration from University of Utah I have ample professional experience gathering, summarizing and analyzing data for the purpose of presentation and Making recommendations for action to a deciding body. Please list three references and phone numbers: 1) David Squire (801)526-4553 2) Cathleen Zick (801)581-31 3) Wilson Martin (801)661-8685 poikk DATE: 09/15/2011 1435 S 200 E Phone 801-205-1514 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 E-mail cruttinger@gmail.com Clark Ruttinger Objective To continually develop and refine expertise through education and work experience in order to make a positive difference in the world and the lives of others. Education University of Utah 2005—2007 Master of Public Administration • Emphasis in Public Budgeting and Policy Analysis University of Utah 1998—2002 BA,Spanish/BA, Political Science • Certificate in International Relations Utah Dispute Resolution-Utah State Bar September 2008 Basic Mediation Training Work experience State of Utah- Utah Medical Education Council Salt Lake City, UT Research Consultant January 2010- Present • Primary Research Consultant for a currently ongoing comprehensive study of the state's Advanced Practice Nurse workforce. Responsibilities Include: -Creation and coordination of advisory committee consisting of directors of state nursing schools, presidents of state nursing associations, directors of advanced practice nursing from local hospitals and insurance agencies -Design of survey instrument -Design of Microsoft Access database for survey data collection -Statistical analysis of survey data using SPSS -Preparation and presentation of final report to the council-consisting of the dean of the State's medical school and chief officers from the State's major hospital and insurance organizations. • Responsible for maintaining the state of Utah's Physician Resident Rotation Database; Allowing for resident training hospitals to assure maximum reimbursement from Medicare for graduate medical education training hours provided. • Responsible for tracking, reporting and reconciliation of state Medicare demonstration project cost report submitted annually to Medicare. • Responsible for annual calculation of funding for medical residency program expansion agreement between the State of Utah and residency training programs identified in demand for expansion. • Completed final data analysis and writing of recently published report on the condition of Utah's Physician Assistant workforce for 2010. • Responsible for ongoing consulting, research and analysis of all categories of the Utah medical workforce i.e.: physicians, dentists, PAs,APRNs, etc... in response to data inquiries from the Utah legislature, academia and the healthcare industry. Amok Valley Mental Health Salt Lake City, Utah Respite Care Provider June 2009—Present • Providing weekly mentoring and activities for youth diagnosed with behavioral disorders. State of Utah- Department of Workforce Services Salt Lake City, UT Administrative Hearing Specialist March 2008—December 2009 • Acted as presiding officer in the review and representation of the State in administrative action against an individual, who has incurred a public assistance overpayment through either their own fault or the agency's mistake. • Reviewed the work of an Overpayment Calculation Analyst for accuracy, correct administrative legal classification and proper supporting evidence to order an overpayment of welfare benefits. • Explained complex welfare policies to overpaid individuals along with the reason that overpaid benefits must be repaid, during an administrative hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge. Eligibility Specialist July 2005—February 2008 • Interpreted federal and state welfare policies including TANF, Food Stamps and Child Care to approve application for benefits. • Coordinated with local community organizations and social service providers in an ongoing Homeless Pathways Committee to end chronic homelessness. • Member of Quality Control Committee responsible for Training 15 team members on a monthly basis in review of policy and techniques for more accurate administration of benefits in order to reduce administration errors. The Road Home Salt Lake City, UT Grants Coordinator October 2003—January 2005 • Researched, wrote, submitted and reported on over 150 established grants per year from foundations, corporations and government(including HUD Continuum of Care, SL County HOME, Community Development Block Grant, Social Services Block Grant and Emergency Services Grant applications). • Tracked the receipt and recognition of grant and donation monies through donor database software. • Assisted Development staff with the planning of all yearly fundraisers, direct mailings, volunteer coordination, updating agency website and education of the public through tours and speaking engagements. • Maintained relations with donors and community partners to effectively accomplish agency mission. Housing Case Manager October 2002—October 2003 • Provided Case management services to between 20 and 30 clients at any time • Assisted clients with referrals to any community assistance programs Ago"" available • Coordination with community agencies to assure clients receipt of services Americorps/Wasatch Homeless Health Care Salt Lake City, UT Care Coordinator-Fourth Street Clinic March 2002-Oct 2002 • Interviewed patients to assess eligibility for private clinic and public health care programs • Developed and implemented procedures for care coordination. • Assisted clients in arranging to receive medical services at no cost through local medical providers who were willing to voluntarily donate their professional services. Skills Proficient in Microsoft Word, Excel. Powerpoint and Access, statistical software- STATA, SPSS and SAS, Apple OSX, Adobe Photoshop and Acrobat Professional, Fluent in Spanish Volunteer Experience U.S. Department of Health And Human Services Health Resources and Services Division(HRSA) Grant Reviewer January 2011-Present • Objectively evaluate and score grant applications against published evaluation criteria in order to advise the federal government on selecting the best programs for funding from a competitive group of applicants. Community Action Program Salt Lake City, UT Landlord/Tenant Mediator April 2009- December 2009 • Mediated between landlord's and tenant's in pre and post eviction filing processes in issues of repairs and maintenance, late rent, lease violations, utilities, privacy issues etc... Master of Public Administration Student Association Board Member Fall 2005-Fall 2007 • Promoted the mission of the MPASA to assist in the Professional, Academic and Social development of students in the MPA program. • Maintained the MPASA website Chasqui Humanitarian Cuzco, Peru Intern May 2000-August 2000 • Assisted with development and implementation of humanitarian aid projects such as health and hygiene clinics, construction of modern restroom facilities, and micro-credit loan programs for small businesses. • Supervised and managed volunteer work groups from the U.S. who came to Peru to assist in aid projects the organization had developed. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Missionary Feb 1996- Feb 1998 Roseville California, Spanish Speaking Mission Publications Chappel,Boyd,Sri Koduri,and Clark Ruttinger.Utah's Physician Assistant Workforce 2010.Rep.Salt Lake City:Utah Medical Education Council,2010. Web.<http://www.utahmec.orq/uploads/UMEC%20Utah%20Physician%20Assistant% 20Report%202010.pdf>. "Chronic Homelessness."Utah's Health:An Annual Review XI(2006): 111. Web.<http://www.matheson.utah.edu/Annual Review/UHReview/archivesNo111Comp lete.pdf>. References David Squire-Executive Director, Utah Medical Education Council dfsquireutah.gov 801-526-4553 Cathleen Zick- Professor and Director of the Masters program in Public Policy, University of Utah zickfcs.utah.edu 801-581-3147 B. BUSINESS INTERESTS Section 2.44.050,Salt Lake City Code,requires that all substantial interests you may have in any(non-city)business entity be disclosed. Please fill out only if separate from the above employment information,unless self-employed. i. Do you engage in a business in which you are the sole proprietor(owner)? Yes No 2. Do you,your spouse or your children own stock in any corporation which,when considered in any combination,comprises ten percent (z0%)ownership of the outstanding shares of said corporation? Yes X No 3. Do you,your spouse,or your children have any interests in any limited partnerships or other business entity which,when considered in any combination,exceeds a ten percent(zo%) interest in such business? Yes X No 4. Do you own any interest in any business for which Salt Lake City issues a business license, i.e.,a restaurant, an apartment building with three or more units,tavern,etc.? Yes X No 5. If you answered"yes"to question 4,does the business entity have a Salt Lake City Business License? N/A Yes No If you have answered"yes"to any of the above questions,please state for each business interest: /4/A a. Name of the business: b. Address of the business: c. The principal activity engaged in by the business: d. The nature of your interest in the business: e. The length of time associated with the business: f. If you answered"yes"to question 4 above, state whether the value of your in rest is: Under s25,000 Over$25,00o (attach additional sheets if necessary) I certify that no conflicts of interest exist or that all conflicts have been disclosed in writing on this statement. �"� Dated this 1/ day of / t%er- ,20 (Signature of Applicant or B ember) STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )Subscribed and sworn to(or affirmed)before me by C 1RQk R OH-U) t,2 on this I (Applicant or Bo. Member) day of ©4°b 02 ,20 BEVERLY JONES t� •' • .• ' •- NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF UTAH (Notary P •llc,`siding in Salt Lake County,Utah • My Comm.Exp.10/01/2013 , Commission#580422 (This is a conflict of interest disclosure statement only. Additional disclosures or restrictions may apply if your financial, business, or professional activities conflict with your city responsibilities.) BOARDS & COMMISSIONS CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ,.a, This statement is to be filed by all applicants for positions on regular or special committees, boards, authorities, and commissions of Salt Lake City. I, ('/4AJ< /w7T"4/`1 eJ-- (Name),being first duly sworn, certify that I am applying to serve on the amimt55 i DI4 (List Board or Commission) and that the following statements of my financial interests are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. A. EMPLOYMENT Section z.44.050, Salt Lake City Code,requires that every person holding any position with Salt Lake City Corporation who is also an officer,director,or employee of any other (non-city) business entity disclose such position and the nature of such position or employment. A "business entity" means a sole proprietorship,partnership, association,joint venture,corporation, firm,trust, foundation, or other organization or entity used in carrying on a business. The following questions refer to your primary non-city job: i. Are you presently employed? Yes No If you answered"yes" to the above question,please list each of your employment interests: a. The name of the business entity: 54 4e• D-c U'-aA Ecluccflioek �t w4C i I b. The address of the business entity: Z3& 5. 500 r'`. Su' e- Z 10 , S LG, U/ ?y/D Z c. The principal activity engaged in by the business entity: A//eIC4l l.ki* occc Artc,/y/515 d. Your job title in the business entity: Je.SefnI Coh5u 0-44 e. The length of time employed by the business entity: 10. ye.ats5 If you answered "no" to the above question,please state if you are retired, unemployed, etc: A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING WORLD AIDS DAY IN SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS, according to estimates from the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, there are now over 33 million people throughout the world living with HIV, including 2.5 million children;and WHEREAS, HIV is a threat to men, women and children throughout the world and is the leading cause of mortality among women of reproductive age; and WHEREAS, this year marks the 30`h anniversary of the first reported cases of HIV/AIDS; and WHEREAS, HIV infections remain on the rise in Utah with over 65 percent of all new HIV infections in 2010 occurring in residents of Salt Lake County; and WHEREAS, there are currently over 3,200 people who are reported to be living with HIV in Utah; and WHEREAS, the highest proportion of people newly diagnosed with HIV in Utah each year are individuals ages 20-29 years old; and WHEREAS, according to the Utah Department of Health, Latino people make up only 12 percent of Utah's population, yet in 2010 Latino men comprised 29 percent of new HIV Infections; and WHEREAS, World AIDS Day was established in 1988 after a summit of health ministers from around the world called for a spirit of social tolerance of and a greater exchange of information regarding HIV/AIDS;and WHEREAS, World AIDS Day is observed every year on December 1 to provide an opportunity for individuals and communities to take action and help educate for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care;and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has joined other cities around the world in an effort to increase awareness,provide education about HIV/AIDS, and demonstrate compassion for those affected by HIV. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The Salt Lake City Mayor and the Salt Lake City Council hereby recognize December 1, 2011 as World AIDS Day in Salt Lake City and encourage all residents to become educated about HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care, and to be conscious of the need of support and commitment to those who are affected. Ralph Becker Jill Remington Love,District Five Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member,Chair Stan Penfold,District Three Carlton Christensen,District One Salt Lake City Council Member, Vice Chair Salt Lake City Council Member Van Turner,District Two Luke Garrott,District Four Salt Lake City Council Member Salt Lake City Council Member JT Martin,District Six Soren D.Simonsen,District Seven Salt Lake City Council Member Salt Lake City Council Member