Loading...
01/18/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2011 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, at 3 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street . In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Stan Penfold, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love, JT Martin and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; Neil Lindberg, Council Legal Director; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Nick Tarbet, Council Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Maureen Riley, Airport Executive Director; Larry Bowers, Airport Landside Officer; Gina Chamness, Budget Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Orion Goff, Building Official; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; David Everitt, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Frank Gray, Director of Community and Economic Development, Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Police Chief, Chris Burbank; Bill Rutherford, Urban Forester; Vicki Bennett, Sustainability and Environment Director; Stephanie Duer, Public Utilities Conservation Coordinator; Mike Mickelson and Paul Skeen, Hansen, Bennett & Maxwell, P. C. ; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; Lisa Watts Baskin, Outside Legal Counsel; and Chris Meeker, City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 3 : 05 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 3 : 12 : 24 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See File M 11-5 for announcements . #2 . 3 : 19 : 08 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING: View Attachments a. SALT LAKE CITY' S COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2010, AND b. AUDITOR'S LETTERS REGARDING INTERNAL CONTROLS AND COMPLIANCE. Gordon Hoskins, Mike Mickelson and Paul Skeen briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Skeen said Hansen, Bennett & Maxwell were independent Certified Public Accounts . He said they had provided 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2011 audits for the Airport, Library, RDA and Public Utilities . He said the City audit was very clean. Mr. Hoskins said the fund balance percentage was at 13 . 41 percent . He said a percent was approximately $2 million in the fund balance. He said he was concerned with the Golf fund which lost approximately $300, 000 and the Fleet fund which had some deficits . #3 . 3 : 36 : 54 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE AGE LIMIT PHASE-IN AND APPEARANCE STANDARDS . AN AMENDMENT TO SALT LAKE CITY CODE CHAPTER 5 .71 TO: View Attachments a. ALLOW GROUND TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES OPERATING VEHICLES WITH MORE THAN 350,000 MILES TO REPLACE THOSE VEHICLES OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD; b. INCLUDE VEHICLE APPEARANCE STANDARDS, AND c. CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) VEHICLES. Russell Weeks, Larry Bowers, Maureen Riley and Neil Lindberg briefed the Council with the attached handout . Mr. Weeks said the amendment was based on a discussion draft by Council staff, suggestions by the Department of Airports and Express Shuttle . Councilmember Love asked Council Members to straw poll a mileage limit phase-in which would allow a one-year period to comply with the requirement to operate vehicles driven less than 350, 000 miles . Council Members Christensen, Turner, Penfold and Love voted aye and Councilmember Garrott voted nay. Councilmember Simonsen was not present for the vote. Councilmember Love asked Council Members to straw poll allowing an automatic seventh year of operation for ground transportation vehicles if vehicles had been driven less than 350, 000 miles . All Council Members present were in favor. Councilmember Simonsen entered the meeting at 4 : 00 p.m. Councilmember Love asked Council Members to straw poll adding age and mileage exemption for taxicabs, exempting only taxicabs modified to carry motorized mobility units such as motorized wheelchairs or scooters from age and mileage standards, putting modified taxicabs in same category as buses, minibuses, special transportation vehicles, and limousines, still require application by the company on a case-by- case basis, possibly allow repeal of the paragraph allowing all ground transportation vehicles modified to meet ADA standards to 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2011 operate a total of seven years . Councilmember Garrott proposed adding Marry motorized mobility units such as Illy". .: 'i ' d wheelchairs or scooters from age and mileage standa sos etc. ; )Ft Council Members were in favor . Councilmember Love asked Council _•r s if they were in support of codifying new vehicle staodn,Cn by rdioance . All Council Members were in favor . Councilmember Love asked Council Members if specialty vehicles should require an application for an exemption . All Council Members were in favor . Councilmember Love asked Council Members if they supported omitting automatic seven-year operational allowance . All Council Members were in favor of staying with the original vote . #4 . 4 : 32 : 47 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 3 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 . View 'Attachments Gina Chamness , Gordon Hoskins , Jennifer Bruno, Rick Graham, Police Chief Chris Burbank, Frank Gray, David Everitt and Orion Goff briefed the Council with the attached handout . Councilmember Love asked if approved what Budget Amendment No . 3 would do to the City' s fund balance . Mr. Hoskins said IL. would drop by approximately $500, 000 and with the shortfall of approximately $500, 000 it would equal approximately $1 million. Councilmember Love said Item A.-3, Dog Park fence at Rotary Glen Park would be removed from the list at this time . Councilmember Christensen said he wanted to see the RDA pay for part of the position of Street Car Project Manager . All Council Members were in favor of moving the request to fund costs of outside counsel associated with Regional Athletic Complex': forward except Council Members Turner and Simonsen who were opposed. Councilmember_ Turner asked for more detailed information on the Bike Share Pilot Program. He asked if bikes were more expensive than golf carts . Ms . Bruno said she would come back with bike costs and on-going program costs . Mr . Gray said the project needed approximately months lead Lime. Councilmember Love said staff would come hack to Council w'.th 'tore information on Item A-11 Request for reallocaL La:: of funds fo Small Neighborhood Business . Counci i:n000er_ Christensen asked the administration for more information rrdi_. -gremodelingf the northend of the 5'-1' floor information r� -r"n rl� n the r r CJ._ 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2011 of the City & County building for accommodation of 44 additional employees . #5 . 5 :41 : 22 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A JOINT RESOLUTION WITH MAYOR BECKER ENCOURAGING THE UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT THE IECC 2009 ENERGY CODE FOR HOMES DURING THE 2011 STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. (ITEM B2)View Attachments Vicki Bennett and Orion Goff briefed the Council with attached handouts . #6 . 5 :40 : 53 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE CITY ZONING REGULATION REGARDING WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE URBAN LIVING PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2009-00322 . (WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION) . View Attachment Cheri Coffey, Stephanie Duer, Nick Tarbet and Bill Rutherford briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Penfold asked about requiring replacement of a tree if a tree was removed in single family zones . Councilmember Christensen asked for a list of trees that qualified as specimen trees . #7 . 6 : 08 : 15 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE INTENT STATEMENT FOR THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND THE PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING, DOWNTOWN, GATEWAY AND SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONING DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2009-00173 . (ZONING PURPOSE STATEMENT) . View Attachments Nick Norris, Nick Tarbet and Wilf Sommerkorn briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Garrott asked that the direction of the ordinance be balanced toward pedestrian, bike and car traffic not one over the other. #8 . 6 :28 : 30 PM CONTINUE THE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE CITY' S CONFLICT OF INTEREST ORDINANCE (ETHICS) .View Attachments Karen Halladay, Ed Rutan and Lisa Watts-Baskin briefed the Council with the attached handout . Councilmember Garrott asked that the word "Objectively" in the purpose statement be replaced by the word "ethically" . All Council Members were in favor. All Council Members present were in favor of retaining the Leadership Expense fund and the Legal Defense fund. Ms . Baskin said she would review the language and tighten it . 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2011 All Council Members present were in favor of removing the Personal Interest section. All Council Members were in favor of leaving the Profession Interest in and define it better with regard to fiduciary duty. All Council Members present were in favor of leaving the Waivers section in but remove the wording "pursuant to adopted rules and regulations". All Council Members present were in favor of the wording "in a public meeting" being inserted in the Disclosure and Disqualification section. Councilmember Martin said for the record his father-in-law had not had any business come before the City Council for many years and had no plans for any business to come before the City Council in the future . All Council Members present were in favor of removing the recusal section. All Council Members present were in favor of changing the travel reporting time from 10 days to 30 days . #9 . 6 : 08 : 37 PM INTERVIEW ELENA DICUS PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. (ITEM H1) Councilmember Love said Ms . Dicus' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for approval . #10 . COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE ATTENDED OUT-OF-TOWN CONFERENCES OR SITE VISITS WILL PROVIDE BRIEF REPORTS ON THEIR OBSERVATIONS. This issue was not discussed #11 . CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-204 , FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: (a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §54-2-205 (1) (B) ; (b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (C) ; 11 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2011 (c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; (d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION UNDER THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; (e) A STRATEGY FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §78B-1-137 . This issue was not discussed. s The meeting adjourned at 8 : 05 p.m. �yy?Ctr "4,1/4%\tC4Wki1/4U C3T y ,•i C ncil Chair *= :371w;4;w * ; ity Recorde This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held January 18, 2010 . cm • 11 - 6 .., RECEIVED 1= REC�E�VED afi j `,rt�'.`l ' C t�i SLC COUNCIL OFFICE RALPH BoECKER UI WS MNWAMTN JAN 0 7 2011 MAY OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Salt Lake City Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: n I (O 1' 2010 David eritt,Chie of Staff Date sent to Council: nl' I n 17.010 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:January 7,2010 Jill Remington Love,Chair FROM: David Everitt,Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report(CAFR) STAFF CONTACT: Gordon Hoskins(801)535-6394 Elwin Heilmann(801)535-6424 DOCUMENT TYPE: Financial Statements RECOMMENDATION: None BUDGET IMPACT: NONE BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The financial auditors(Hansen Barnett&Maxwell)will make a presentation to the City Council on January 18,2011. PUBLIC PROCESS: NONE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE 801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 w,w.slcgov.com SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT 1 FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2010 I With w INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'REPORT U I IA It I II II 4 I • II I Prepared by Department of Administrative Services Gordon Hoskins,Finance Director -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION: Page .� Title Page i I Table of Contents ii C Transmittal Letter v t Organizational Structure xi Certificate of Achievement xii FINANCIAL SECTION: t Independent Auditors' Report 2 Management's Discussion and Analysis 4 R Basic Financial Statements Government-wide Financial Statements Statement of Net Assets 14 Statement of Activities 16 Governmental Fund Financial Statements ,, Balance Sheet 20 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Assets 25 Statement of Revenues,Expenditures,and Changes in Fund Balances 26 + Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues,Expenditures,and Changesi. In Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities... 27 Proprietary Fund Financial Statements Statement of Net Assets ... 30 Reconciliation of Proprietary Fund Statement of Net Assets to the Primary Government business-type Statement of Net Assets 34 Statement of Revenues,Expenses,and Changes in Fund Net Assets 36 ift Reconciliation of Proprietary Fund Changes in Net Assets to the Primary Government business-type ' ' Changes in Net Assets 38 •"0 Statement of Cash Flows 40 Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements Statement of Fiduciary Net Assets 46 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Assets 47 Notes to the Financial Statements 50 Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Note 2 - Cash,Cash Equivalents and Investments Note 3 - Loans Receivable Note 4 - Restricted Assets Note 5 - Capital Assets Note 6 - Long-term Obligations �t Note 7 - Reserved Fund Equity Note 8 - Deficit Fund Balances/Net Assets,Expenditures and Other Uses that Exceed Appropriations in Individual Funds Note 9- General Fund Interfund Service Chargesit Note 10- Transfers �1 Note 11 - Risk Management et Note 12- Pension Plans • Note 13 - Other Post-employment Benefits a Note 14- Deferred Compensation Plans Note 15 - Commitments and Contingencies Note 16- Revenue Supported Debt—Enterprise Fund 0 -ii- a a TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Notes to the Financial Statements(continued) Note 17 - Related Party Transactions N Note 18- Joint Venture Note 19- Subsequent Events 1 Required Supplementary Information Budgetary Comparison Schedule—General Fund 82 1 Schedule of Funding Progress-Retiree Heathcare and Life Insurance Plan 83 I 1 Notes to Required Supplementary Information 1 Budgetary—GAAP Reporting Reconciliation 84 1 Supplementary Information—Combining Statements and Individual Fund Statements 1 and Schedules i Governmental Funds 4 Nonmajor Governmental Funds Combining Balance Sheet SI-4 4 Combining Statement of Revenues,Expenditures and Changes in 4 Fund Balance SI-5 4 Combining Balance Sheet—Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds SI-6 4 Combining Statement of Revenues,Expenditures and Changes in # Fund Balance—Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds SI-8 Budgetary Comparison Schedules • Arts Council SI-10 4 Downtown Economic Development SI-11 1, Community Development Operating Fund SI-12 Grants Operating Fund SI-13 Street Lighting SI-14 Demolition,Weed and Forfeiture SI-15 "t Emergency 911 Dispatch SI-16 m► Salt Lake City Donation Fund SI-17 1 Combining Balance Sheet—Nonmajor Debt Service Funds SI-18 Combining Statement of Revenues,Expenditures and Changes in 111 Fund Balance SI-19 "% Budgetary Comparison Schedules 1 Special Improvement Fund SI-20 , Other Improvement Fund SI-21 Major Governmental Funds Budgetary Comparison Schedules Capital Projects Fund SI-24 11 Enterprise Funds 11 Nonmajor Proprietary Funds Combining Statement of Net Assets SI-26 Combining Statement of Revenues,Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets SI-30 '+ Combining Statement of Cash Flows SI-32 Budgetary Comparison Schedules Intermodal Hub SI-36 Storm Water Utility Fund S1-37 Refuse Collection Fund SI-3 8 Golf Fund SI-39 -, -iii- 4 p TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Supplementary Information—Combining Statements and Individual Fund Statements And Schedules(continued) Major Proprietary Funds Budgetary Comparison Schedules Water Utility Fund SI-42 f Department of Airports SI-43 Sewer Utility Fund SI-44 Housing Fund SI-45 Redevelopment Agency Fund SI-46 Internal Service Funds 11 Combining Statement of Net Assets SI-48 Combining Statement of Revenues,Expenses and Changes in t Fund Net Assets SI-50 Combining Statement of Cash Flows SI-52 Budgetary Comparison Schedules Fleet Management Fund SI-54 ' Information Management Services Fund SI-55 41r Risk Management Fund SI-56 . Governmental Immunity Fund SI-57 Municipal Building Authority Fund SI-58 Project Expenditure Schedules Capital Projects Fund SI-60 41( Community Development Operating Fund SI-61i, Grants Operating Fund SI-63 STATISTICAL SECTION: (unaudited) 410 Net Assets by component—Last Nine Fiscal Years S- 1 Change in Net Assets—Last Nine Fiscal Years S- 2 IMF Fund Balance of Governmental Funds—Last Ten Years S- 4 Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds—Last Ten Years S- 6 Governmental Activities Tax Revenues by Source—Last Nine Fiscal Years S- 8 Assessed and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property—Last Ten Fiscal Years S- 9 Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates S-10 Principal Property Tax Payers S-1 1 Property Tax Levies and Collections—Last Ten Years S-12 Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type S-13 0 Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding—Last Ten Fiscal Years S-14 • Computation of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt S-15 Legal Debt Margin Information—Last Ten Fiscal Years S-16 « Pledged-Revenue Coverage—Last Ten Fiscal Years S-17 Demographic and Economic Statistics S-18 Full-time Equivalent City Government by Functions—Last Ten Fiscal Years S-19 Principal Employers S-20 Operating Indicators by Function S-21 Capital Asset Statistics by Function S-22 0 0 Apo 0 -iv- 0 r 0 G' TIYr G.,ORPO° I0 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FINANCE DIVISION December 21,2010 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Salt Lake City Corporation Overview The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of Salt Lake City Corporation ("the City") for the fiscal year NI ended June 30.2010, is submitted herewith. These financial statements have been prepared by the Salt Lake City Department of Finance in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for local governments as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The accuracy of the presented data and the completeness and fairness of the presentations,including all disclosures,are the responsibility of the management of the City. I NI We believe the data, as presented, is accurate in all material respects and is presented in a manner that fairly 6 sets forth the following aspects of the City: (1)the financial position of the governmental activities; (2) the business- type activities; (3) the discretely presented component unit; (4) each major fund; (5) the aggregate remaining fund information; (6) the respective changes in financial position and (7) applicable cash flows. In order to provide a reasonable basis for making these representations,the management of Salt Lake City has established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect the government's assets from loss, theft, or misuse and to compile sufficient reliable information for the preparation of the Salt Lake City Corporation's financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, Salt Lake City b Corporation's comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable rather then absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatement. As management, we assert that to the best of our knowledge and belief,this report is complete and reliable in all material respects. Hansen, Barnett & Maxwell, P.C. an independent firm of Certified Public Accountants, has audited these basic financial statements and related notes. Their report is included herein. The goal of the independent audit was to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements of Salt Lake City Corporation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 are free of material misstatements. This independent audit involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used, and significant estimates made by management. Additionally, Hansen, Barnett & Maxwell P.C. audited the compliance requirements of the City's state and -41 federal grant programs for the year ended June 30, 2010 as part of the federally mandated"Single Audit" designed to meet the special needs of federal grantor agencies. That report is available under a separate cover. LOCATION:451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 248,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111-3102 MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145452,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5452 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7676 FAX: 801-535-7682 °� -v- GAAP require that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basis financial statements in the form of Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to compliment the MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. The City's MD&A can be found immediately following the report of the independent auditors. Profile of Salt Lake City Salt Lake City lies between the Wasatch Mountains and the Great Salt Lake at an altitude of 4,200 4 feet. Permanent settlement of the City began on July 24, 1847, when Brigham Young with a party of 148 1 Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley after a 1,500-mile trek westward. Salt Lake City was incorporated on January 6, 1851 and soon became a major center for trade and commerce with the wagon r trains carrying settlers and miners westward. Within a few years of the pioneers' arrival, other communities were settled throughout the Salt Lake Valley. Due to continuous economic and population growth, most of these cities in the valley survived and prospered, and have grown into a single large metropolitan area of over 900,000 people. Salt Lake City is the commercial center of this metropolis. Salt Lake City is also the center of the scenic intermountain west. Within a day's drive of the City, travelers can visit 70%of the officially designated national parks and monuments of America. The Wasatch Mountains, east of the City, are well known for their ski resorts, which are within a 45-minute drive from downtown Salt Lake City. Over 300,000 out-of-state skiers come to these resorts each year. The scenic Wasatch Front provided an excellent backdrop,as the City hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics. In 2004, Salt Lake City was chosen by the State of Utah as a Quality Growth Community. This designation shows that the community has completed a comprehensive planning process covering economic development, housing, conservation,and infrastructure efficiency. This further shows that Salt Lake City is a leader in the region. Salt Lake City is the international headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1NF or"Mormon" Church. At Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City, 5 million visitors see the famous Salt e Lake Temple,Tabernacle,and visitor centers each year. al The Salt Palace Convention Center (located in downtown Salt Lake City) plays host to many different activities. This facility has a 36,000 square foot ballroom, 365,000 square feet of exhibit space, and a a total of 100,000 square feet of meeting space. It is wired with miles of wire and fiber optic cable for up-to- ek date computer and communications,including satellite uplink capability and includes a wireless network. SP OP Several universities and colleges are located in or near Salt Lake City. The University of Utah is located on the east bench of Salt Lake City. This university was founded in 1850 and is the oldest mainland university west of the Missouri River. Approximately 29,000 full and part-time students are enrolled. The Utah Museum of Fine Arts and the Utah Museum of Natural History are located on the University of Utah campus. The University includes a medical school and hospital. « Westminster College of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake Community College, and LDS Business College a are also located in Salt Lake City. Four other universities—Utah State University, Weber State University, Brigham Young University and Utah Valley University are all located within a two-hour drive from Salt Lake City. These institutions reflect the community's emphasis and dedication to higher education and job skill development. a a Salt Lake City also has many opportunities for recreational and cultural activities. The Energy a Solutions Arena, located three blocks directly west of Temple Square, is the home of the Utah Jazz, the 1997 0 and 1998 Western Conference Champions of the National Basketball Association. Franklin Covey Field,just south of downtown, is the home field of the Salt Lake Bees,a minor league baseball team. 0 -vi- S a Downtown, directly north of the Salt Palace, is Abravanel Hall, home of the Utah Symphony Orchestra. The Salt Lake Art Center with its gallery and art school facilities is located adjacent to Abravanel Hall. A few blocks south of Abravanel Hall, Salt Lake's historic Capitol Theater serves as the home of Ballet West,Repertory Dance Theater,Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company,and the Utah Opera. Nearby,the John W. Gallivan Utah Center is a gathering place for the business and commercial community. The Center's plaza includes an aviary, a 1,000-seat amphitheater, many unique art pieces, and an outdoor pond, which becomes an ice skating rink during the winter. The City also hosts Theater 138,Pioneer Memorial Theater, Utah Civic Opera Company,Clark Planetarium,and the Utah Heritage Foundation. Miller Motorsports Park in nearby Tooele,hosts AMA Superbike and Supermoto races,an American LeMans race,a FIM Superbike World Championship race,and a Grand-Am Rolex Sports Car Series race. In their first year of operation,Miller Motorsports Park was named the"Motorsports Facility of the Year"by the Professional Motorsport World Expo(The Enterprise,Nov 27—Dec 3,2006). Salt Lake City also has a well-developed system of municipal golf courses for the enjoyment of area residents. Two of these golf courses in particular have been recognized for their excellence. Bonneville golf course was chosen by PGA professionals as one of six favorite classic golf courses (golf courses that have green fees less than S125 during peak season). Wingpointe golf course was ranked 22"d by LINKS Magazine among the top 25 airport golf courses in the country. 1 Salt Lake City is a major transportation crossroads in the intermountain west. Three major railroads, nine major airlines, two bus lines and many truck lines serve the area. The City is located at the convergence of four major highways and two interstate highway systems. The Salt Lake International Airport is a major intermountain air transportation hub and a principal hub and reservation center for Delta Air Lines. The Utah Transit Authority operates an outstanding commuter bus, light rail, and heavy commuter rail system in Salt Lake City and throughout neighboring counties. The Utah Transit Authority has been awarded the Outstanding System Achievement Award for being the top transit operation of its size in the country and the John A. Volpe Safety Award for being the safest system in the country. Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority's TRAX light-rail system were also recently honored by Sierra Magazine for the "Biggest Transit Turnaround"(The Salt Lake Tribune, June 28,2006). Ninety percent of Salt Lake City's residents rate their overall quality of life as high or very high(Salt Lake City Resident Survey, 2005). Outside Magazine also recognized this high quality of life when they ranked Salt Lake City as one of the ten Best Towns in the U.S. (August 2005). The criteria for these"Dream Towns"were cities that were "cleaner, greener and smarter". Cities that made the list had a commitment to open space, smart solutions to sprawl and gridlock, a can-do community spirit, and an active embrace of the adventurous life. They also looked for cities using green design, green-thinking mayors, thriving farmers' markets and healthy job markets. "�► The City provides a full range of municipal services including police, fire, recreational activities including eight municipal golf courses, libraries, water, sewer, storm water, airports, public improvements, highways and streets,planning and zoning,and general administrative services. 1 Factors Affecting Financial Condition Summary of Local Economy Salt Lake City is the capital city and commercial and industrial center for the State of Utah. The City Administration aggressively promotes the City as a location for new businesses. In 2008 CNBC ranked Utah third in the U.S. as a Top State for Business for the second consecutive year. In 2010 Utah moved into the top spot on Forbes magazine's list of best states for business and careers. Forbes cited Utah's tax rates, -vii- labor force and utility costs among the factors that pushed Utah to the top as well as continued business growth by companies such as Goldman Sachs,located in Salt Lake City. In 2008,Forbes Magazine named Salt Lake City as the best city for jobs for the second consecutive year. Forbes Magazine compared cities in five areas that included unemployment rate,job growth, income growth, median household income, and cost of living. In 2010 Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine named Salt Lake City as one of the "10 Best Cities for the Next Decade". Criteria for this list included low cost of living, low cost of doing business,and proximity to mountain recreation. t Showing its leadership in preserving the environment, Salt Lake City has received several awards for its Clean Air Challenge which is aimed at improving city livability and the quality of urban life. Salt Lake City has been honored with the 2010 Outstanding Achievement City Livability Award from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Salt Lake was one of five cities that were recognized by the organization. Harvard University's Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation also selected the Clean Air Challenge for • its Bright Ideas program. Additionally, Salt Lake City has been recognized for its smart-growth planning in the Sierra Club's annual "Building Better"report. Salt Lake City is one of 12 American cities the Sierra Club recognized for a • "commitment to vibrant development geared towards mass transit instead of urban sprawl" (The Salt Lake • Tribune,December 1,2005). Salt Lake City's workforce is widely known as being"overwhelmingly enthusiastic"and"the model for high productivity". This praise is well earned—Salt Lake City workers have one of the highest literacy rates in the country, and, additionally, many are fluent in multiple languages—a skill increasingly crucial to • successful international trade. According to a 2005 U.S. Census Bureau report, in Utah 74% of the households own a computer, higher than any other state in the nation. Sixty-three percent of the households • use the Internet, the fifth highest usage in the nation. This wired workforce allows Salt Lake City to continue to be a strong center for technology workers. Metropolitan Salt Lake City is ranked tenth among the most competitive areas in the world in the global knowledge economy (The World Knowledge Competitiveness Index 2002 by United Kingdom's Robert Huggins Associates). The Salt Lake City-Ogden metropolitan area is ranked number 28 among today's hottest cities for business expansion(Expansion Management magazine,January 2003). • Salt Lake City—as a business, cultural, educational, and religious center—faces a number of challenges common to capital cities nationally. While Salt Lake City continues to be a vibrant city, it has felt et the effects of the struggling national economy. Employment Activity Or SP Salt Lake City is the central city to 2.1 million inhabitants residing in four counties within an hour's drive from downtown. The majority of Utah's 2.8 million people live in the Wasatch Front urban corridor stretching from Ogden to Provo. The City's daytime population increases greatly as a significant portion of the state's total work force commutes to jobs located within the city limits. Following national trends, Salt Lake City experienced declining employment. However, Salt Lake 0 City tends to be somewhat insulated from the national trends, posting lower than national unemployment rates. 0 0 00 • 0 -viii- 0 0 Mk Taxable Sales Activity Salt Lake City's total taxable sales have reflected both the national and regional economy. In 2004, taxable retail sales in Salt Lake City grew by 1.4%. In 2005,taxable sales began to show more robust growth of 7% due to increases in construction and car sales and increases in other non-durable goods. In 2006, taxable sales growth continued at 9%.During 2007 the growth slowed down a little to 7.8%. During 2008 the growth in taxable sales was down 1.7%. In 2009 the economic downturn took hold with a decrease in Sales Tax of 8.875%. In 2010 the economic downturn slowed with Sales Tax decreasing 4.52%. The Utah State Tax Commission expects this trend in taxable sales to flatten out in the near future. Other Economic Indicators Salt Lake City's downtown has been projected to see significant growth in the next several years, according to a study commissioned by the Salt Lake City Downtown Alliance(Economic Benchmarks for # Salt Lake City's Central Business District,James A Wood,Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah,June 2005). The study projected that as much as$1.5 billion in new investment could occur in the downtown area-including at least 13 major office,retail and higher education construction projects. With the City Creek project scheduled for completion during the next two years and the new agreement with the County to support continued development of the performing arts district downtown,the City is in a good position just as the economy is recovering from the economic downturn. Summary Outlook While Salt Lake City is feeling the effects of the national economic downturn, it continues to be a vibrant city with optimistic forecasts, especially for its downtown area. Job growth and unemployment figures continue to be better than the national average. Economic and Financial Planning As part of an overall strategic planning process, Salt Lake City developed several goals and objectives designed to keep the City on a firm financial footing. These goals and objectives include the following: Attract and retain small businesses by increasing the number of small business loans issued by at least five a year. Increase the number of businesses relocating to the City or expanding by at least 10 a year. Ensure that each Salt Lake City fund is financially secure by building and then maintaining a fund balance between 10% - 15% in the General Fund,by adding at least 1% of revenues per year to retained earnings in the Internal Service funds, by maintaining cash reserves of 25% of the operating expenses in the Airport Enterprise fund, and by maintain cash reserves of 9-10% in the Utilities Enterprise funds. Maintain Aaa and AAA Moody's and Fitch general obligation bond ratings by maintaining modest debt levels. In response to the recent economic downturns Salt Lake City has generally elected to increase revenues and reduce expenses rather that appropriate fund balance. No significant financial policies have changed that would significantly impact the current financial statements. Internal Control Structure The City utilizes a computerized financial accounting system, which includes a system of internal accounting controls. These controls are designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding: (1) the safeguarding of assets against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, and (2) the reliability of financial records for preparing financial statements and maintaining accountability for assets. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived, and (2) the evaluation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. The City adheres to the above framework for internal controls. We believe that the City's internal accounting controls adequately safeguard assets and provide reasonable assurance of proper recording of financial transactions. -ix- Awards and Acknowledgements The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to Salt Lake City Corporation for its 3 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30,2009. The City has now received this or an equivalent award for over 20 years. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, the City must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the contents of which conform to program t standards. Such reports must satisfy both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and applicable legal « requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current report continues to conform to Certificate of Achievement Program requirements and we are submitting it to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. Ih The preparation of this report on a timely basis could not have been accomplished without the efficient and dedicated services of the staff of the Department of Administrative Services. We appreciate Hansen, Barnett & Maxwell P.C., Certified Public Accountants, for the assistance and guidance they have given us. We also thank the members of the City Council and the Mayor for their interest and support in planning and conducting the financial operations of the City in a responsible and progressive manner. Sincerely, I • oft OA, Gordon Hoskins Finance Director433 Ok S S S S S S S S S • • S S S S -x- S Salt Lake City Corporation Organizational Structure Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Citizens of Salt Lake City Mayor City Council Ralph Becker 1. Carlton Christensen Mayor's Exec. Staff 2. Van Blair Turner Community Affairs 3. Stan Penfold ♦ 4. Luke Garrott 5. Jill Remington Love • Administrative 6. J T Martin Airport 7. Soren Simonsen Services Maureen Riley Gordon Hoskins Executive Director Acting Director City Attorney's Office Public Services Council Staff Edwin P.Rutan Rick Graham Cindy Gust-Jenson City Attorney Director Executive Director Comm. Development Police Frank Gray Chris Burbank Director Chief Fire Public Utilities KI:. CkLiirector ooT.Niermeyer I I -xi- I t� Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial i Reporting Presented to a Salt Lake City Corporation a Utah r I For its Comprehensive Annual a Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009 i A Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting is presented by the Government Finance Officers Ot Association of the United States and Canada to government units and public employee retirement ak systems whose comprehensive annual financial reports(CAFRs)achieve the highest standards in government accounting 11, and financial reporting. 0 ‘ E 0 OFFj� 0 CAW CaPPORATKOI 'ao ° President 40 *Cr Agt.> Executive Director 0 • at 0 0 xii • 0 0 . :', HANSEN,BARNETT&MAXWELL, P.C. Certified Public Accouuaitt 4 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT i 4 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council C Salt Lake City Corporation We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type 111 activities, the discretely presented component unit, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of Salt Lake City Corporation(the "City"),as of and for the year ended June 30, 2010, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express �V opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform • the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and • disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement 5' presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. "" 4 • In our opinion, the basic financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the • respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the discretely presented component unit, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of June 30, 2010, and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, thereof for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. • Management's Discussion and Analysis and Required Supplementary Information listed in the table of contents are not a required part of the basic financial statements, but are supplementary information • required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. This information is the responsibility of management. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of el management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the required supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively • comprise the City's basic financial statements. The supplementary combining and individual statements 0 and schedules listed in the table of contents are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a 0, required part of the basic financial statements. This information is the responsibility of the City's management. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the ;IIIP basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. 0 2 0 0 The introductory and statistical sections, as listed in the table of contents, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements of the City. Such additional information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly,we express no opinion on it. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 21, 2010 on our consideration of the City's internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws,regulations, contracts and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. 1410 , ?anAtidt g >?C N► HANSEN,BARNETT&MAXWELL P.C. I Salt Lake City, Utah N1 December 21,2010 • a a i a a a 0 4 I 3 I SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS JUNE 30,2010 ! I i Salt Lake City Corporation's management presents to the readers of its financial statements this narrative information. It contains an overview and analysis of the financial position and results of operations as of and for the twelve months ended June 30, 2010. As management of the City, we encourage readers to consider information contained in this discussion along with the transmittal letter on pages v-x. FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS 1 The assets of Salt Lake City (the City) exceeded its liabilities at the end of the current fiscal year by f $2,196,503,952 (net assets). Of this amount, $483,101,504 (unrestricted net assets) is available to meet ongoing 11 obligations to citizens and creditors. a, • Net assets increased by $79,642,005. This included an increase in net assets of $24,298,951 in the �I Governmental activities and an increase of$55,343,054 in the business-type activities. During 2010 assets were transferred from business-type activities to governmental activities. The most substantial portion of these transfers was from the Municipal Building Authority to the General Fund. NI Ni The City's Governmental funds reported combined ending fund balance of $125,020,876, an increase of $5,783,654 compared to the prior years' ending amount. Of the combined total fund balance, $41,076,630 is available for spending at the discretion of the City(unreserved and undesignated fund balance). 1� The unreserved and undesignated fund balance of the General Fund at June 30,2010 totaled $23,121,977, is 12 percent of the General Fund total revenues for the year and 56 percent of governmental unreserved and undesignated fund balance. The General Fund, also has approximately $2,972,000 of fund balance reserved for encumbrances that will be expended in the following fiscal year. M During the year, total bonded debt for Salt Lake City increased by $14,387,00. The City issued General Obligation Debt of$25,000,000 to construct a new Public Safety building. The City issued new Special Assessment Bonds of$1,659,000 for sidewalk and road replacement and repairs, and Sewer issued 6,300,000 for capital and infrastructure improvements. OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 410 This discussion and analysis serves as an introduction to Salt Lake City's basic financial statements: (1) Government-wide financial statements, (2)Fund financial statements and(3)Notes to the financial statements. This report also contains information in addition to the basic financial statements that will help the reader to gain a more in-depth understanding of the City. lb Government-wide financial statements give readers a broad overview of the entire City's financial position and changes in financial position, similar to consolidated financial statements in a private sector business. These statements consist of the Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities. a' et The Statement of Net Assets shows Salt Lake City's entire assets and liabilities with the difference shown as net assets. Increases or decreases over time in net assets gives an indicator as to whether the financial condition of Salt Lake City is improving or declining. The Statement of Activities shows the changes to net assets that occurred during the most recent fiscal 0 year. These changes are recorded on an accrual basis when the underlying event that causes the change occurs, regardless of when the cash transaction takes place. One example is the next debt interest payment when the fiscal year ends in between interest payments. The Statement of Activities shows an additional interest expense for the time period between the last interest payment and the end of the fiscal year. • Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish between activities that are largely supported 0 by taxes and intergovernmental revenues(governmental activities)and those whose operations are entirely or largely 00 financed by user charges and fees (business type-activities). The governmental activities for Salt Lake City include generalgovernmental; (Council, Mayor, Attorney, Management Services and Non-departmental); Y � Y� g p ); public safety (Police and Fire), streets and recreation (Public Services); and other development (Community and Economic 0 4 0 0 0 S SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS NNE 30,2010 Development). The business-type activities include water, sewer, storm-water, airport, housing, intermodal hub, refuse collection,golf and redevelopment. The government-wide financial statements include not only Salt Lake City itself(the primary government), but also those of the legally separate Salt Lake City Library. This entity (a component unit) is financially accountable to the City and is presented separately from the primary government itself. Three other entities, the + Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, the Municipal Building Authority and the Arts Council are also legally separate from the City, but for all practical purposes function as a part of the City and are therefore blended as an integral part of the primary government. The government-wide financial statements are found immediately following this discussion and analysis. FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS A fund is a set of closely related accounts that are used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or purposes. Salt Lake City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the City's funds can be categorized into one of three categories: governmental funds,proprietary funds and fiduciary funds. Governmental funds account for essentially the same activities as the governmental activities in the 11 government-wide financial statements, but with a narrower focus. Governmental funds concentrate on near-term inflows and outflows of financial resources and the balances of spendable resources available to the government at the end of the fiscal year. This information can be useful in evaluating the government's short term financing requirements. Comparing similar information presented in the government-wide statements for the governmental activities with that presented in governmental funds statements can provide useful information because of the different focus of the two approaches. With the long-term focus of the government-wide statements, a reader may be able to better understand the long-term effects of the near term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance show reconciliation between the governmental funds statements to the governmental activities in the government-wide statements to aid in the comparison. Salt Lake City uses ten different individual governmental funds. Of this number, information is shown separately for the General and Capital Projects Funds,both of which are deemed major funds. Information from the other eight funds is presented in a single combined column. Individual presentations for these non-major funds are contained in combining information shown after the notes to the financial statements as listed in the table of contents. The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for all its governmental funds. Budgetary comparison schedules have been provided to demonstrate compliance with these budgets. Within the Proprietary funds are two types that Salt Lake City utilizes; enterprise and internal service funds. Enterprise funds report the same functions as the business-type activities in the government-wide financial 1 statements. The Enterprise funds maintained by Salt Lake City are: the water, sewer and storm-water utilities; the transportation Intermodal Hub; the Salt Lake City International Airport; housing loans, refuse collection; golf and redevelopment activities. Internal service funds are used as an accounting device to accumulate and allocate costs among the City's various governmental and enterprise activities. Salt Lake City uses internal service funds to account for its vehicle fleet, information technology, risk management and employee benefits, and tort liability. 1 Because all of these activities support primarily governmental rather than business-type activities, they have been included within the governmental activities column of the government-wide financial statements. Proprietary funds present the same information as in the government-wide statements, except in more detail. The fund statements for proprietary funds provide separate information for the Department of Airports,Water Utility, 14 Sewer Utility, Housing Loans and Redevelopment Agency, all of which are considered to be major funds of Salt * Lake City. Individual presentations for the remaining enterprise funds are contained in the combining information elsewhere in this report. All internal service funds are shown in one single column in the proprietary fund financial statements. Individual fund information can be found in the combining information elsewhere in this report. The 5 1 I SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION o MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS • JUNE 30,2010 City also adopts annual appropriated budgets for all of its proprietary funds. As with the governmental funds, t budgetary comparison statements are included to show compliance with these budgets. Atoh t The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found as listed in the table of contents. I Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held by the City for the benefit of entities outside of the E government. Since these resources cannot be used to support the operations of Salt Lake City,they are not shown in t the government-wide financial statements. The accounting for fiduciary funds is similar to that of proprietary funds. The fiduciary fund financial statements can be found as listed in the table of contents. $ I Notes to the financial statements contain additional information important to a complete understanding t of the information contained in the government-wide and fund financial statements. Notes to the financial • statements are located after the statements for major funds as listed in the table of contents. II GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 11 it SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION'S NET ASSETS(thousands) it Governmental Business-type Activities Activities Total I 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 el Current and other assets $ 248,918 $ 236,584 $ 552,361 $ 516,682 $ 801,279 $ 753,266 0 Capital assets 606,914 566,023 1,293,649 1,269,792 1,900,563 S 1,835,815 Total assets $ 855,832 $ 802,607 $ 1,846,010 $ 1,786,474 $ 2,701,842 $ 2,589,081 Current and other liabilities $ 122,194 $ 110,848 $ 45,858 $ 38,966 $ 168,052 $ 149,814 Long tern liabilities 208,416 190,835 128,870 131,568 337,286 322,403 111" Total liabilities $ 330,610 $ 301,683 $ 174,728 $ 170,534 $ 505,338 $ 472,2177 Net assets: ,0- ,IMr Invested in capital assets, „ 00 net of related debt $ 439,431 $ 385,404 $ 1,235,973 $ 1,218,964 $ 1,675,404 S 1,604,368 Restricted 6,371 7,226 31,628 26,347 37,999 33,573 * Unrestricted 79,420 108,294 403,681 370,628 483,101 478,922 al Total net assets $ 525,222 $ 500,924 $1,671,282 $ 1,615,939 $ 2,196,504 $ 2,116,863 et By far the largest component of Salt Lake it City's net assets is its investment in capital assets. The Net Assets percentage -Current filk 76 percent of total net assets represents the City's Fiscal Year investment in land and land improvements, buildings, • machinery and equipment, roads, streetlights, signals and bridges, less any related outstanding debt that was o unr2s�ctea_N used to acquire these assets. Salt Lake City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens who live, at work, pass through or benefit in other ways from the ©lmested a1 -_�- capital assets, ai City. By their nature, these assets are not available for •Restricted ,Ai net of debt 410 future spending. Further, even though these capital t% 6% assets are reported net of any related debt, resources needed to repay the debt must come from other sources, as the assets themselves cannot be used to 11$ satisfy the related obligations. 0 IP II An additional part of net assets (1 percent) is assets that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be expended (debt reserve funds or unexpended debt proceeds). The remaining 23 percent of net assets ($483,101,000) flo can be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to its creditors and to citizens. ,... 0m 6 SI • 0 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS JUNE 30,2010 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION'S Changes in Net Assets Governmental Business-type Activities Activities Total I 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 Revenues Program revenues Charges for Services $ 56,126,465 $ 64,110,042 $ 266,518,255 $ 266,140,282 $ 322,644,720 $ 330,250,324 1 Operating grants and 1 contributions 16,847.091 10,434,600 - 16,847,091 10,434,600 Capital grants and contributions 25,530,769 6,482,194 26,137,209 21,068,406 51.667,978 27,550,600 i General Revenues i Property taxes 67.575,196 66,608,195 - - 67.575,196 66,608,195 Other taxes 73,063,162 75,650,163 - - 73,063,162 75,650,163 Investment Earnings 2,168,146 4,023,642 4,223,899 8,650,711 6,392,045 12,674,353 Total revenues 241,310.829 227,308,836 296,879,363 295,859,399 538,190,192 523,168,235 it Expenses 1 General Government 9,283,648 13,192,608 9,283,648 13,192,608 111 Council 1,881,402 1,977,462 - - 1,881,402 1,977,462 Mayor 1,995,774 2,197,563 - - 1.995,774 2,197,563 City Attorney 4,558,069 5,189,609 - - 4,5.58,069 5,189,609 il Administrative Services 13,422,516 16,191,903 - - 13,422,516 16,191,903 111 Fire 35,125,523 35,234,297 - - 35,125,523 35,234,297 Police 61,088,156 61,044,917 - - 61,088,156 61,044,917 Community and Economic Development 30,562,283 23,802,339 - - 30,561283 23,802,339 Public Services 43,055,710 46,512,065 - - 43,055,710 46,512,065 Infrastructure depreciation 8.197,042 7,872,073 - - 8,197,042 7,872,073 Interest on long-term debt 8,091,985 7,084,120 - - 8,091,985 7,084,120 Water - 48,120 671 49,718,999 48,120 671 49,718,999 Department of Airports - - 134,374,483 129,917.191 134,374,483 129,917,191 Sewer - - 14,062,796 13,604,216 14,062,796 13,604,216 Housing Loans 3,390,716 2,457,385 3,390,716 2,457,385 Redevelopment Agency 18,482,041 20,038,213 18,482,041 20,038,213 `1, Intermodal Hub 90,651 - 90,651 - ., Storm Water Utility - - 5,983,274 5,906,208 5,983,274 5,903,208 Refuse Collection - - 8,641,400 7,306,352 8,641,400 7,306,352 Golf - - 8,140,047 7,986,665 8,140,047 7,986,665 Total Expenses 217,262,108 220,298,956 241,286,079 236,935,229 458,548,187 457,231,185 4 4, Increase in net assets before transfers 24,048,721 7,009,880 55,593,284 58,924,170 79,642.005 65,937,050 Transfers 250,230 2,306,866 (250,230) (2,306,866) - Increase in net assets 24,298,951 9,316,746 55,343,054 56,620,304 79,642,005 65,937,050 lit Net assets beginning 500,922,981 491,606,235 1,615,938,966 1,559,318,662 2,116,861,947 2,050,924,897 4 Net assets ending $ 525.221,932 $500,922,981 $ 1,671,282,020 $ 1,615,938,966 $2,196,503,952 $ 2,116,861,947 It 44 4 4 44 4 4 7 A i r SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION t MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS JUNE 30,2010 i° tfr ACTIVITIES,GOVERNMENTAL AND BUSINESS-TYPE i Governmental Activities net assets increased by$24,298,951 for the year ended June 30, 2010, which is 31% percent of the total increase in net assets for Salt Lake City Corporation as a whole. The main reason for the increase ' is an increase in grants received and a decrease in expenditures in response to recessionary economic conditions. P' P Governmental Activities- Expenses and Program Revenues-Millions 0Expenses .' ■Program Revenues •' I 70 60 — 4 50 40 4 30 a 0 20 ,f 10 ab Fire Police Community Develop. Public Svs. All Others EP •1 Business-type activities contributed net assets in r M, the amount of $55,343,054 or 69 percent of the total Governmental Revenues by Source 0 increase to net assets. The most significant reason for this increase is the Department of Airports' and the Unrestricted Water's revenues and capital contributions exceeding grants and Charges for contributions OtherServices their expenses. Both entities continue to invest heavily o%° t°%° 23% in capital assets. The Airport is continuing its program al of expanded and improved facilities while the Water gan taxes g Other tarannttss a andd Utility is aggressively replacing the water distribution 30°i° contributions infrastructure. 0 7% 0 Q • Financial Analysis of Salt Lake City's Funds .Capital property grants and ek Salt Lake City's governmental funds provide taxes contributions information on the short-term resource inflows and 28% t t°° 00 outflows and account balances at the end of the fiscal 40 year. The total fund balance is a measure of total available resources and the unreserved portion of this total fund balance is a measure of the available spendable resources at June 30,2009. 40 For the period ended June 30, 2010, the City's governmental funds reported a combined fund balance amount of$125,020,876 with an increase of$5,783,654 compared to the prior fiscal year. Of the total balance at 0 year-end, $41,076,630 is unreserved and undesignated. There is also an amount of $32,711,829 designated for • capital projects which is not considered restricted. The remaining $51,232,417 combined fund balance total is • reserved for the following purposes: (1) encumbrances; (2) loans receivable; and (3) restricted assets, including an amount for the guarantee of special assessment debt. 8 01 • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS JUNE 30,2010 The General Fund is the main operating fund for Salt Lake City Corporation. At June 30, 2010, the General Fund's unreserved fund balance was $23,121,977 while total fund balance equaled $26,292,967. A useful measure of liquidity is to compare the unreserved fund balance and the total fund balance to expenditures (including operating transfers out)for the year. Unreserved fund balance was 12 percent of total expenditures and transfers while total fund balance equaled 14 percent. Business type Activies- Expenses and Program Revenues-Millions 180 OExpenses 160 L■Program Revenues 140 120 100 • 80 60 40 t 20 Water Department of Airports Sewer Housing Loans Redevelopment Agency All Others The fund balance of the General Fund for Salt Lake City increased by $2,034,220. The initial expectation was that fund balance for the 2010 fiscal year would increase by approximately$812,000. Actual revenues collected did not meet expected revenue budgets requiring a reduction in budgeted revenues as well as a corresponding reduction in expenditures. �11 The Capital Projects Fund has a total fund balance of$76,990,917 at June 30, 2010, all of which is either reserved for restricted assets or designated for unfinished projects. The net increase in fund balance for the year amounted to $7,065,739. General Obligation Bonds for the Public Safety building were sold in fiscal year 2010 at a par amount of $25,000,000. These funds will be expended in the next few years rather than in the current year resulting in an increase in fund balance. 9 I SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS JUNE 30,2010 Business-type Revenues by Source The City's proprietary funds provide the same type of Other information found in the government-wide financial 9% statements,but in more detail. Unrestricted net assets of the Operating City's Major proprietary funds totaled $12,660,169 for the grants and contribution Water Fund, $206,562,264 for the Department of Airports, of $41,840,415 for the Sewer Fund, $26,261,538 for the Housing Loan Fund and $79,956,184 for the Redevelopment Agency Fund. Discussions about the finances of these three funds are addressed in the City's ` business-type activities. Charges for I Services 98°/ • General Fund Budgetary Highlights • Differences between the original and final amended budgets amounted to a total decrease in appropriations of$647,131. By department, the changes are: • $79,895 increase for City Council I • $2,145 increase for Mayor I • $443 decrease for City Attorney • $51,316 increase for Administrative Services • S544,389 decrease for Fire • $959,951 decrease for Police • S344,315 increase for Community and Economic Development • • $118,962 increase for Public Services • S261,019 increase for Nondepartmental(including transfers out) Increases to all budgets included $1,954,013 of encumbrances from the prior year. Recessionary economic conditions resulted in a decrease in city revenue. Budget reductions were made proportionately in all general fund departments to compensate for the declining sales tax revenues. Prior year encumbrances were proportionately higher for Council, Mayor, Administrative Services and Community and Economic Development resulting in an 0 overall budget increase. No significant increases to budget were made outside of prior year encumbrances. Capital Asset and Debt Administration Salt Lake City's investment in capital assets for its governmental and business type activities combined totaled $1,900,563,629 (net of$1,048,858,989 accumulated depreciation)at June 30,2010. Types of assets included et in this category are land, land improvements, buildings, machinery and equipment, park and other recreation facilities, roads (including curb and gutter), street lights, traffic signals, parking facilities, water and waste water distribution and collection systems, airport runways and taxiways and bridges. The City's investment in capital assets equals more than 87 percent of total net assets. In comparing capital assets to net assets, the percentages for Governmental activities and Business type activities were 116 percent and 77 percent,respectively. et 0 Major capital asset activities that occurred during the past fiscal year include: (1)the Department of Airports placed into service approximately $20,000,000 of constructed assets related to its development master plan; (2) the Water Utility added $3,700,00 in reservoir improvements and $4,500,000 in distribution lines to the system. (3) The et Water Utility also added $1,165,812 in watershed property for operational expansion requirements in the future. (4) 0 The Sewer Utility added a new Sewer lift station and completed $2,000,000 in completed sewer lines. The Stormwater Utility added$2,000,000 in stormwater lines. • 10 IR • rl SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS JUNE 30,2010 Salt Lake City Corporation's Capital Assets Governmental Business-type Activities Activities Total 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 Land and water rights $ 180,351,914 $ 179,036,321 $ 163,961,581 $ 159,768,679 $ 344,313,495 $ 338,805,000 infrastructure 261,212,278 249,800,326 - - 261,212,278 249,800,326 Buildings 203,592,425 202,981,542 483,461,710 476,204,905 687,054.135 679,186,447 Improvements other than ' buildings 39,186,339 35,491,186 1,172,407,150 1,161,035,616 1,211,593,489 1,196,526,802 Machinery and equipment 91,798,476 86,752,879 189,025,153 181,981,608 280,823,629 268,734,487 I Construction in progress 49,776,493 20,417,543 114,649,099 81,790,522 164,425,592 102,208,065 Accumulated Depreciation (219,003,647) (208,457,181) (829,855,342) (790,989,161) (1,048,858,989) (999,446,342) Net book value $606,914,278 $566,022,616 $ 1,293,649,351 $1,269,792,169 $1,900,563,629 $1,835,814,785 i 1 At June 30, 2010, Salt Lake City's bonded debt amounted to $257,247,530. The portion that is backed by 1 the full faith and credit of the City amounted to $94,588,749, and the portion for which the City is liable in case of It default by assessed property owners amounted to $3,476,000. All other bonded debt is known as revenue bonds and 4 is secured by specific revenue sources. In April 2010 the City issued $25,000,000 in General Obligation bonds to acquire land and for construction 4 of a new Public Safety building. 4 ilk In December 2009 the City issued$1,659,000 in Special Debt for curb and gutter for California Avenue and $ sidewalk improvements for Lyman Court. In November 2009 the City issued$6,300,000 in Revenue Bonds to replace digester covers and walls at the reclamation plant facility. N General obligation debt of the City is limited by statute to 8 percent of the reasonable fair cash value of property. The debt limit for FY 2010 calculates to approximately $1.7 billion, which is well in excess of the City's 1 outstanding general obligation debt. Additional information on Salt Lake City's capital assets and debt can be found 1, in Notes 5 and 6. / Salt Lake City Corporation's Outstanding Debt General Obligation and Revenue Bonds Business-type Governmental Activities Activities Total 0 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 I General obligation bonds $ 94,588,749 $ 76,823,810 $ - $ - $ 94,588.749 $ 76,823,810 Special assessment debt with 1 governmental commitment 3,476,000 2,251,000 - - 3.476,000 2,251,000 Revenue bonds 91,702,000 96,487,781 67,480,781 67,097,954 159,182,781 163,585,735 1 Total $ 189,766,749 $ 175,562,591 $ 67,480,781 $ 67,097,954 $257,247,530 $ 242,660,545 1 It 44 11 It i ft SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS JUNE 30,2010 0` p ,ram e Economic factors and next year's budgets and rates The unemployment rate for the most recent fiscal year available is 6.9 percent, up .4 percent from the prior 0 year's 6.5 percent. The unemployment rate is expected to level off during the next year. Total employment with the City has been reduced slightly but revenues in most areas remain flat. Revenue appears to show only minor increases in the next year and economic factors indicate little improvement in the economy in the upcoming year. These less favorable economic factors were considered in preparing and amending the fiscal year 2011 budget. During the just completed fiscal year, fund balance in the General Fund increased by $2,034,220. The increase was approximately $1,161,801 more than originally budgeted and $2,518,038 more than amended when budgets were decreased as a result of revenue shortfalls. Currently, Salt Lake City is preparing for no growth in revenues or expenses. I Some fee increase occurred during fiscal 2010 to replace declining revenues. The Fire department started I' billing third parties for contaminant spills and parking ticket late fees were increased. Requests for information • This financial report is designed to give its readers a general overview of Salt Lake City's finances. I Questions regarding any information contained in this report or requests for additional financial information should O,' be addressed to the Office of the Finance Director, 451 South State Street Room 248, P.O Box 145451, Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-5451. 100 0 0 S 0 S • • S S S • S 0 0 S S SO 0 • 0 12 0 S dir 0 f t t SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS June 30,2010 Primary Government Component Governmental Business-type Unit M Activities Activities Total Library I ASSETS I Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents(Note 2) Unrestricted $ 105,319,909 $ 339,469,289 $ 444,789,198 $ 825,590 Restricted(Note 2&4) 45,939,114 290.782 46,229,896 - Investments(Note 2) - 8,046,224 8,046,224 8,452,601 I Receivables: Property,franchise and excise taxes 77,687,194 - 77,687,194 13,341,652 Assessments,including$242,722 of delinquent assessments 4,575,746 - 4,575,746 ' Loans and other receivables 8,129,431 10,119.085 18,248,516 67,242 Accounts,less allowance for doubtful accounts of$3,169,055 - 27,61 1,991 27,611,991 - Due from other governments 1,627,591 3,590,390 5,217,981 - Other,principally accrued interest 2,136,652 - 2,136.652 - Prepaid expenses - 1,429 1,429 1,500 Inventories 565,195 3,313,645 3,878,840 - Internal balances 1,109,112 (1.109,112) - - a Total current assets 247,089,944 391.333,723 638,423.667 22,688,585 a a Noncurrent assets: Restricted cash and cash equivalents(Note 2) - 18,307,452 18,307,452 - • a Property and equipment,at cost: ,o Land and water rights(Note 5) 180,351,914 163,961.581 344,313.495 884,609 lot Infrastructure(Note 5) 261,212,278 - 261,212.278 Buildings(Note 5) 203,592,425 483.461,710 687,054,135 8,499,811 Improvements other than buildings(Note 5) 39,186,339 1,172,407,150 1,211,593,489 322,816 II' Machinery and equipment(Note 5) 91,798,476 189,025,153 280,823,629 20,01 1,553 Construction in progress(Note 5) 49,776,493 114,649,099 164,425.592 - al Accumulated depreciation(Note 5) (219,003,647) (829,855,342) (1,048,858,989) (17,632,909) OP Net property and equipment 606,914,278 1,293.649,351 1,900,563,629 12,085,880 Bond issue costs,less accumulated amortization of$1.774,067 1,252,393 654,001 1,906,394 - f Loans and other long-term receivables - 63,436,360 63,436,360 - Ilk Pollution remediation receivable 575,275 - 575,275 Land and buildings held for resale - 37,605,022 37,605.022 - 41110 Investment in joint venture(Note I8) - 22,382,101 22,382,101410 - Deferred charges - 16,799,066 16,799,066 - Other - 1,842,658 1,842,658 - at Total noncurrent assets 608,741,946 1,454,676,011 2,063,417,957 12,085,880 IP IP Total assets $ 855,831,890 $ 1,846,009,734 $ 2,701,841,624 $ 34,774,465 l# 0 II 0 IP it II Ilk SP OPThe accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 14 SALT LAKE CITY('00001RA]ION STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS lame 30,2010 Primary Government C'omPnncnt Governmental Business-type Unit Activities Activities Total Library I LIABILITIES Curren)liabilities. Accounts payable $ 17,171,1108 $ 15,558882 5 32.729,890 3 852518 Accrued liabilities 10,613.504 6,062,205 16,675 709 - I Current portion of long-tern compensated absences 1912.532 1.315.614 3-228.146 51.490 1 Current portion of estimated shots payable 3.156 487 - 3-156487 Current portion portion of long-tern debt. O Payable from unrestricted assets(Note 6) 15.887,052 6,997,976 22,885.028 - ' Payable from restricted assets(Note 6) - 1,277.084 1,277,084 - Special assessment debt with governmental commitment(Note 6) 590,110(1 - 506,000 - O Deferred revenue 65964055 1,526,583 67.510,638 151(71929 Unearned revenue 3,023.673 403,631 4327 304 • Aeeerued interest,payable from unrestricted assets - 5.123 2(1,3 5,123,203 - ' Accrued interest,payable from restricted assets - 1-178.543 1.178.543 - ()ther liabilities payable from restricted assets 360,769 - 360.769 A Current deposits and advance rentals 521.559 5.100.547 5,622.106 - '1 Total current liabilities 120,126,039 44,544,268 164,670,91(7 15,975.937 Noncurrent liabilities_ so Deposits,advance rentals and long tens accruals - 3%631948 3%,63194% • Long-term compensated absences liability(Note 6) 16,167.684 7,524,102 23 692,076 242,228 Pollutionremcdialion liability 575275 101,7511 7(7,025 • Other post employmentbenefits(Note 13) I I,I61 0(81 5,0%5,(I11U 16.246,000 21.5110 Estimated claims payable 4,136.136 - 4,136,136. Bonds I fonds payable(Note 6) 175,350,750 - 175,350,750 - • Notes payable(Note 6) 2,627,867 78,750,356 81,378,223 - Noles payable from restricted assets(Note 6) 464,607 - 464,007 - • Total noncurrent liabilities 210,483,319 130,183446 340,666 765 263.72% Total liabilities 330,609,958 174,727,714 505337,672 16,239,665 NE-1 ASSETS Invested in capital assets,net of i related debt 4394311,893 1219,972507 1,675,403,400 12,085,880 Restricted Ibr: 1 Capital projects 5,734,876 - 5,734,876 - i Debt service 636061 31,628,111 32264,172 - Unrestricted 79.420,102 403,681,402 483,101,504 6,448.920 Total net assets 525,221,932 1,671282,020 2,196,503.952 18,534,800 ..., !Mal liabilities and net assets S S55,831,890 5 1,846,009,734 S 2,701,841,624 S 34,774465 ` 1he accompanying notes arc an integral pan of this statement e 0- t SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION A STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES Ow Year ended June 30,2010 8011. Program Revenues ' Operating Capital i Charges for Grants and Grants and Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions Primary government: Governmental activities: General Government $ 9,283,648 $ 12,057,800 $ 3,000,000 $ 24,679,911 City Council 1,881,402 29,209 - Mayor 1,995,774 209,740 - - • City Attorney 4,558,069 481,182 _ Administrative Services 13,422,516 10,645,578 - Fire 35,125,523 4,721,742 783,608 - Police 61,088,156 6,877,691 4,032,713 Community and Economic Development 30,562,283 16,091,743 6,176,864 - Public Services 43,055,710 5,011,780 2,853,906 850,858 Unallocated infrastructure depreciation 8,197,042 - - - Interest on long-tent debt 8,091,985 - - - I II Total governmental activities 217,262,108 56,126,465 16,847,091 25,530,769 1` if Business-type activities: Water 48,120,671 53,899,678 - 3,590,525 Airport Authority 134,374,483 145,127,062 - 16,148,819 ft Sewer I4,062,796 17,405,676 - 3,541,081 Housing Loans 3,390,716 1,559,067 - 432,169 Ilk Redevelopment Agency 18,482,041 26,205,229 Ilk Intennodal Hub 90,651 Storm Water Utility 5,983,274 6,262,211 2,424,615 - Refuse Collection 8,641,400 8,281,341 - - Golf 8,140,047 7,777,991 - - vo e Total business-type activities 241,286,079 266,518,255 - 26,137,209 It dk Total primary government $ 458,548,187 $ 322,644,720 $ 16,847,091 $ 51,667,978 It Component unitIlk Library $ 14,210,950 $ 542,945 $ 151,148 $ 23,425 Illt S lIP General revenues: Taxes: S Property taxes,levied for general purposes 5 Franchise taxes Sales tax S Investment earnings Transfers at Total general revenues and transfers at Change in net assets Ilk Net Assets July 1,2009 5 Net Assets June 30,2010 it iv OW ow 00 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statementillk 16 s 1 0 Net(Expense)Revenue and Changes in Net Assets .1 Primary Government t Governmental Business-type Component Activities Activities Total Unit 1 i 1 $ 30,454,063 S - $ 30,454,063 $ - (1,852,193) - (1,852,193) - (1,786,034) - (1,786,034) - q (4,076,887) - (4,076,887) - (2.776,938) - (2,776,938) - 1 (29,620,173) - (29,620,173) - (50,177,752) - (50,177,752) - (8,293,676) - (8,293,676) - "1 (34,339,166) - (34,339,166) - 1 (8,197,042) - (8,197,042) - (8,091,985) - (8,091,985) - 1 (118,757,783) - (118,757,783) - 1 1 - 9,369,532 9,369,532 - 26.901,398 26,901,398 i - 6.883,961 6,883,961 - (1,399,480) (1,399,480) - 7,723,188 7,723,188 - (90,651) (90,651) - 2,703,552 2,703,552 - (360,059) (360,059) - (362.056) (362,056) - - 51,369,385 51,369,385 - (118,757,783) 51,369,385 (67,388,398) - (13,493,432) 1 67.575,196 - 67,575,196 12,918,334 26.321,802 - 26,321,802 - 46.741,360 - 46,741,360 1 2,168.146 4.223.899 6,392,045 81,144 250,230 (250,230) - - 1 143,056,734 3.973,669 147,030,403 12,999,478 A 24298,951 55,343,054 79,642,005 (493,954) 1 500,922,981 1,615,938.966 2,116,861,947 19,028,754 $ 525,221,932 S 1,671,282,020 $ 2,196,503,952 $ 18,534,800 1 4 4 1 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 1 17 1 I Major Governmental Fund Financial Statements ,, General Fund - The General Fund is the principal fund of the City and is used to account for resources traditionally associated with governments which are not required to be accounted for in another fund. The General Fund accounts for the normal activities of the City, (i.e. police, fire, public works, parks, communityand economic development, general government, etc.). These activities are funded principally by property taxes, sales and use taxes, franchise taxes, licenses and permits. • Capital Projects Fund - The City's Capital Projects Fund is used to account for resources designated to construct general capital assets which, by their nature, may require more than one budgetary cycle for completion. Project budgets are adopted for lk the Capital Projects Fund. i 19 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BALANCE SHEET GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS June 30,2010 General ASSETS f Assets: Cash and cash equivalents(Note 2) $ 23,967,967 Receivables: Property, franchise and excise taxes 77,169,851 Assessments, including$292,763 of delinquent assessments - Taxes receivable - I Loans,prepaids and other receivables - I Due from other funds for cash overdraft(Notes 2& 19) - Due from other governments - Other,principally accrued interest 1,749,000 Restricted assets: Cash and cash equivalents(Notes 2&4) 198,589 t Total assets $ 103,085,407 1�z • 401. Ok 1► Iw 414 ett et «s S S S The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 20 5 S OP al Other Total Capital Governmental Governmental Projects Funds Funds $ 44,761,274 $ 21,801,399 $ 90,530,640 77,169,851 4,575,746 4,575,746 517,343 517,343 38,049 3,114,995 3,153,044 238,797 - 238,797 69,822 1,557,769 1,627,591 387,652 2,136,652 44,279,088 996,830 45,474,507 $ 89,387,030 $ 32,951,734 $ 225,424,171 4,11 A ir I I I The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 21 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BALANCE SHEET GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS (continued) took- June 30,2010 General LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 2,683,627 Accrued liabilities 10,445,611 Current deposits and advance rentals 521,559 Other liabilities payable from restricted assets - t Deferred revenue 63,141,643 I' Total liabilities 76,792,440 tl tl Fund balances: tl Reserved for encumbrances 2,972,401 0 Reserved for loans receivable and advances - t Reserved for restricted assets 198,589 Unreserved-designated for capital improvements - Unreserved and undesignated 23,121,977 Unreserved,reported in nonmajor Special Revenue Funds - « Debt Service Funds - 0 Total fund balances 26,292,967 Total liabilities and fund balances $ 103,085,407 t bra f 110 04 IPS it 111 it Atr The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 22 Ot S S S Other Total Capital Governmental Governmental Projects Funds Funds $ 12,396,107 $ 2,054,398 $ 17,134,132 6 644 10,446,261 521,559 360,769 360,769 - 8,798,931 71,940,574 12,396,113 11,214,742 100,403,295 2,972,401 3,146,278 3,146,278 44,279,088 636,061 45,113,738 32,711,829 - 32,711,829 - 23,121,977 16,811,454 16,811,454 1,143,199 1,143,199 76,990,917 21,736,992 125,020,876 $ 89,387,030 $ 32,951,734 $ 225,424,171 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 23 A Salt Lake City Corporation Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Statements of Net Assets June 30,2010 Total fund balances for governmental funds $ 125,020,876 Total net assets reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets is different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported in the funds. Those assets consist of: (see Note 5) Land 180,351,914 Infrastructure 261,212,278 Buildings 203,592,425 Improvements other than buildings 39,186,339 Equipment 91,798,476 Construction in progress 49,776,493 Less accumulated depreciation (219,003,647) Total capital assets 606,914,278 Other assets are reported for governmental activities as they are not considered collectible until after year end. These include other receivables that are long-term in nature and bond issue costs less amortizatior Long term note receivable 5.303,950 4 Bond issue costs 1.252,393 6,556,343 Internal services funds are used by the City to charge the costs of the fleet .133, management system,data processing services,insurance for employee health, accident,long-term disability,unemployment and worker's compensation,general liability claims,and acquisition and lease to the City of purchased or constructed property. 14,836,488 Some of the internal service net income is allocable to business-type activities. These amounts are shown in the internal balances in the governmental activities statement. 1,109,112 Recognition of income on the accrual basis of accounting that is deferred on the modified accrual basis of accounting. 2,412,193 Long-teen liabilities applicable to the City's governmental activities are not due and payable in the current period and accordingly are not reported as fund liabilities. Interest on long-term debt is not accrued in governmental funds,but rather as an expenditure when due. Obligation for compensated absence liabilities due within one year arc included in the governmental fund statements in accrued liabilities. All liabilities-both current and long-term are reported in the statement of net assets.(See Note 6) Accrued liabilities (167,243) 10/0 Obligation for compensated absence liabilities due after one yea] (16,167,684) Current portion of long-term debt (18,550,098) Current portion of obligation for compensated absence liabilities (1,912,532) '4 Other post employment benefits (11,161,000) Current portion of estimated claims payable (3.156.487) Estimated claims payable (4,136,136) Bonds payable (173,283,704) Note payable (3,092,474) Total liabilities (231.627,358) Total net assets of governmental activities $ 525,221,932 i The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 25 R SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION O. STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS It Year ended June 30,2010 Other Capital Governmental General Projects Funds Totals t Revenues: 1 General property taxes $ 67,575,196 $ - $ - S 67,575,196 p Sales,use,and excise taxes 44,089,318 - 2,652,042 46,741,360 Franchise taxes 26,321,802 - - 26,321,802 P Licenses 8,076,923 - - 8,076,923 1 Permits 6,708,832 1,603,337 - 8,312,169 Fines and forfeitures 6,700,748 - 30,140 6,730,888 k Assessments - 371,295 1,884,384 2,255,679 Interest 1,189,706 494,556 456,475 2,140,737 E Intergovernmental 4,761,320 25,530,771 14,870,941 45,163,032 P Interfund service charges 9,333,427 - - 9,333,427 Parking meter 2,027,206 - - 2,027,206 $ Parking ticket 3,808,670 - - 3,808,670 Charges for services 3,926,353 - 513,233 4,439,586 Contributions 16,342 - 1,354,823 1,371,165 $ Miscellaneous 855,045 864,802 313,350 2,033,197 Total revenues 185,390,888 28,864,761 22,075,388 236.331,037 Expenditures: $ . Current: City Council 1,740,270 - - 1,740,270 I Mayor 1,770,292 - - 1,770,292 4 , City Attorney 4,237,824 - - 4,237,824 Administrative Services 11,307,473 - 18,178 11.325,651 ` , Fire 31,507,737 - - 31.507,737 f y Police 53,305,931 - 518,485 53,824,416 Community and Economic .4 Development 12,787,152 - 13,790,891 26,578,043 o' Public Services 33,265,127 - 814,128 34.079,255 e Arts Council - - 1,630,434 1,630,434 $A Nondepartmental 15,044,806 - - 15,044,806 Capital improvements - 54,609,635 - 54,609,635 di Debt service: .'a Principal - - 12,699,000 12,699,000 Interest and other fiscal charges - 311,477 8,244,057 8,555,534 Total expenditures 164,966,612 54,921,112 37,715,173 257,602,897 Revenues over(under)expenditures 20,424,276 (26.056,351) (15,639,785) (21,271,860) Other financing sources(uses): PO Issuance of debt - 25,096,109 - 25,096,109 Premiums from issuance of debt - 2,007,015 - 2.007,015 t Proceeds from sale of property 524,810 807,637 - 1,332,447 Transfers in 10,208,409 23,727,108 17,044,377 50,979,894 Transfers out (29,123,275) (18,515,779) (4,720,897) (52,359,951) 4t St Total other financing sources(uses): (18,390,056) 33,122,090 12,323,480 27,055,514 et Net Change in Fund Balances 2,034,220 7,065,739 (3,316,305) 5,783,654 Fund balance July 1,2009 24,258,747 69,925,178 25,053,297 119,237,222 I' Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 26,292,967 $ 76,990,917 $ 21,736,992 S 125,020,876 Sr 45 • The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement * 26 op IP Salt Lake City Corporation Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities Year ended June 30,2010 Net change in fund balances-total governmental funds $ 5,783,654 The change in net assets reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities is different because: Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However,in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. This is the amount by which capital outlay($19,063,351) plus Work in Process reclassifcations ($36,366,753)less Capital Contributions($3,619,776)included as additions exceeded depreciation expense($15,783,844). (See Note 5.) 36,026,484 Repayment of principal is an expenditure in the governmental funds but reduces the liability in the statement of net assets. (See Note 6.) 12,699,000 14 In governmental funds the proceeds from the bonds and notes are considered 11 a source of financing,but in the statement of net assets,the obligation is reported as a liability. (see Note 6.) (27,103,124) Governmental funds do not report infrastructure. Contributions of Infrastructure are reported as contributions in kind in Statement of Activities 3,619,936 Under the modified accrual basis of accounting used in the governmental ,S funds,expenditures are not recognized for transactions that are not normally paid with expendable available financial resources. In the statement of activities,however,which is presented on the accrual basis,expenses and liabilities are reported regardless of when financial resources are available. In addition,interest on long-term debt is not recognized under the modified accrual basis of accounting until due,rather than as it accrues. This adjustment contains the following: Compensated absences and other post employment benefits (3,775,874) Capitalization of bond issue costs (210,076) Amortization of bond issue costs 236,564 Deferred loss and amortization of bond premium and deferred loss 199,966 Accrued interest 200,944 Gain(loss)on sale of capital assets (133,370) (3,481,846) Internal services funds are used by the City to charge the costs of the fleet management system,data processing services,insurance for employee health, accident,long-term disability,unemployment and worker's compensation, general liability claims,acquisition and lease to the City of purchased or constructed property and equipment and photocopying and printing services. 41) The net revenue of internal service funds is allocated between governmental 4I! activities and business-type activities. Internal service fund net loss of $3,512,460 plus amount allocated to business-type activities($267,307). (3,245,153) Change in net assets of governmental activities. $ 24,298,951 I 4 4 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 27 Major Proprietary Fund Financial Statements n Water Utility Fund - This fund is used to account for the activities related to providing water service to the residents of the City and certain residents of Salt Lake County. Department of Airports - This fund is used to account for the activities related to the operation of City airports. Sewer Utility Fund - This fund is used to account for the activities relating to providing sewer service to the residents of the City. Housing Loans Fund - To account for the loan servicing activities of the City's grant and leveraged bank funded loans, except for the Urban Development Action Grant loans. Redevelopment Agency Fund - This fund is used to account for urban redevelopment activities such as acquisition of land sites and sale of such land for development, and loans provided for improvements in existing housing and the repayment of loans and related interest. i a i a s i Sr w SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ig STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS June 30,2010 Astobw Business-type Activities- t Enterprise Funds C Department t Water of Sewer 4 ASSETS Utility Airports Utility t Current assets: t Cash and cash equivalents(Note 2) Unrestricted $ 23,511,719 $ 194,919,020 $ 38,017,185 Restricted - - - t Investments(Note 2) 8,046,224 - - Receivables: Accounts,less allowance for doubtful accounts of$3,363,774 5,607,190 18,600,775 1,830,014 1 Current portion of loans receivable - - 4,540,000 Other 658,772 2,918,727 12,891 Prepaid expenses - - 1,429 ''. Inventory of supplies 2,331,661 - 602,69141, Total current assets 40,155,566 216,438,522 45,004,210 01 01' 00 Noncurrent assets: It Restricted cash and cash equivalents(Notes 2&4) 4,227,671 7,468,152 4,111,244 401* Property and equipment,at cost: SO Land and water rights(Note 5) 45,851,070 91,123,016 4,185,947 ISO Buildings(Note 5) 45,226,962 380,200,638 46,813,235 A Improvements other than buildings(Note 5) 253,536,329 664,030,414 85,716,866ti. Machinery and equipment(Note 5) 23,058,361 116,012,358 28,756,918 St* Construction in progress(Note 5) 16,316,007 33,497,806 52,509,803 110 Work in Progress(Note 5) - - - Accumulated depreciation(Note 5) (96,910,888) (582,262,699) (70,700,059) 410 Iik Net property and equipment 287,077,841 702,601,533 147,282,710 Bond issue costs,less accumulated amortization of$1,774,067 245,030 - 266,520 0 Loans and other long-term receivables - - - Land and buildings held for resale - - - Olt Investment in joint venture(Note 18) - - - 1110 Deferred Charges - 16,799,066 - Other 1,577,962 264,696 - a Total noncurrent assets 293,128,504 727,133,447 151,660,474 Total assets $ 333,284,070 $ 943,571,969 $ 196,664,684 et p liti et • p lit II p SD The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement a 30 e at 4 Business-type Activities 4 Enterprise Funds Governmental 4 Nonmajor Activities- 4 Housing Redevelopment Proprietary Internal i Loans Agency Funds Total Service Funds 4 $ 14.917,461 $ 52,810,114 $ 15,293,790 $ 339,469.289 $ 14,789,269 - 290,782 - 290,782 - 4, - _ - 8,046,224 - 4 _ - 1,574,012 27,611,991 8,915 1 4,181,022 1,398,063 - 10,119,085 - - - 3,590,390 - - - - 1,429 - * - - 379,293 3,313,645 565,195 41 19,098,483 54,498,959 17,247,095 392,442,835 15,363,379 i a qy - - 2,500,385 18.307,452 464,607 14 Ili - 16,436,520 6,365,028 163,961,581 62,741 - 11,220,875 483,461,710 193,097 - 45,954,187 123,169,354 1,172,407,150 , - 104,302 21,093,214 189,025.153 58,005,259 - 7,740,707 4,584,776 114,649,099 - - 959,968 111 - (28,261,588) (51,720,108) (829,855,342) (34,554,494) 44 - 41,974,128 114,713,139 1,293,649,351 24,666,571 '41 1 - 80,310 62,141 654,001 - 36,325,802 27,110,558 - 63,436,360 - 1.243,192 36,361,830 - 37,605,022 a _ - 22,382,101 22.382,101 - / - - - 16,799,066 - - - - 1,842,658 - 11 37,568,994 105,526,826 139,657,766 1,454,676,011 25,131,178 a $ 56,667,477 $ 160,025,785 $ 156,904,861 $ 1,847,118.846 $ 40,494,557 * 44 a a a a 0 4 a The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 31 a 1 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION t STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS t June 30,2010 ,o- Business-type Activities- t Enterprise Funds f Department I Water of Sewer i LIABILITIES Utility Airports Utility E Current liabilities: Accounts payable $ 2,240,355 $ 9,877,056 $ 1,247,366 it Accrued liabilities 203,907 5,652,381 76,049 Current portion of long-term compensated absences(Note 6) 355,161 699,182 59,703 t Current portion of long-term debt: Payable from unrestricted assets(Note 6) 1,055,834 - 556,383 Payable from restricted assets(Note 6) 754,166 - 397,417 t Due to other funds for other than cash overdraft(Note 18) - - Deferred revenue 1,260,923 - 140,169 Current portion of estimated claims payable - - - t' Accrued interest,payable from unrestricted assets - - - Accrued interest,payable from restricted assets 390,766 - 377,716 Current deposits and advance rentals 496,597 3,758,311 - Total current liabilities 6,757,709 19,986,930 2,854,803 Noncurrent liabiltics: fi Deposits,advance rentals and long-term accruals 20,250,866 166,586 - Other liabilities payable from restricted assets - - - Bonds,mortgages,and notes payable(Note 6) 19,950,078 - 25,260,012 I"' Estimated claims liability - - OP Long-term compensated absences liability(Note 6) 2,274,749 4,043,754 463,257 ,w Pollution remediation liability - 191,750 - Other post employment benefits(Note 13) 1,600,000 2,551.000 408,000 Iit Total noncurrent liabilities 44,075,693 6,953,090 26,131,269 a fiti Total liabilities 50,833,402 26,940,020 28,986,072 NET ASSETS all O Invested in capital assets,net of related debt 265,562,808 702,601,533 121,726,953 '' Restricted for debt service and capital acquisition 4,227,691 7,468,152 4,111,244 IP Unrestricted 12,660,169 206,562,264 41,840,415 Olt Total net assets 282,450,668 916,631,949 167,678,612 O` SI Total liabilities and net assets $ 333,284,070 $ 943,571,969 $ 196,664,684 IP 41 4110 41 0 41 Si 0 at ilk The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement al 32 II • 1, A 1 A Business-type Activities Enterprise Funds 4110 Governmental Nonmajor Activities- * Housing Redevelopment Proprietary Internal Loans Agency Funds Total Service Funds 44 Ill $ 208,395 $ 734,877 $ 1,250,833 $ 15,558,882 $ 612,151 - 9,328 120,540 6,062,205 154,544 * 21,584 179,984 1,315,614 197,869 r 821,249 2,770,305 1,794,205 6,997,976 2,067,052 - - 125,501 1,277,084 - 4 403,631 - - 403,631 -10 - 125,491 1,526,583 379,347 - - - 3,156,487 5,123,203 - 5,123,203 11 - 290,782 119,279 1,178,543 - 285.136 44,165 516,338 5,100,547 I 41 1,718.411 8,994,244 4,232,171 44,544,268 6,567,450 I 4 - 18.214,496 - 38.631.948-10 - - 464,607 14,343,764 10,448,014 8,748,488 78,750.356 2,627,867 44 4,136,136 - 111,937 630,695 7,524,392 1,052,237 - - - 191,750 - 0 - 36,000 490,000 5,085.000 526,000 I 14,343,764 28,810,447 9,869,183 130,183,446 8,806,847 I 0 16,062,175 37,804,691 14,101,354 174,727,714 15,374,297 0 41,974,128 104,107,085 1,235,972,507 19,507,045 14.343,764 290,782 1,186,478 31.628,111 - '0 26,261,538 79,956,184 37,509,944 404,790,514 5,613,215 a 40.605,302 122,221,094 142,803,507 1,672,391,132 25,120,260 0 <40 $ 56,667,477 $ 160.025,785 $ 156,904,861 $ 1,847.118,846 $ 40,494,557 I I I 10 9 9 41 4 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement At 33 A 1 Salt Lake City Corporation Reconciliation of the Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Assets to the Primary Government business-type Statement of Net Assets June 30,2010 Total assets for Proprietary Funds S 1,847,118,846 Internal service fund allocation for proprietary funds-prior year (841,805) Internal service fund allocation for proprietary funds-current year (267,307) Total assets for Primary government business-type activities S 1,846,009,734 t Total net assets for Proprietary Funds $ 1,672,391,132 r wk t Internal service fund allocation for proprietary funds-prior year (841,805) Internal service fund allocation for proprietary funds-current year (267,307) tM Total net assets for Primary government business-type activities $ 1,671,282,020 t 1 tb tR a'I 14, 0 40 40 40 0 40 0 0 et 40* The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement S 34 S S SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS ! M PROPRIETARY FUNDS t Year ended June 30,2010 Business-type Activities ,t Enterprise Funds Department ° i, Water of Sewer , w Utility Airports Utility t Operating revenue: Sales and charges for services $ 52,121,963 $ 105,498,210 $ 16,808,524 , t Rental and other 1,780,698 1,999,331 303,734 t Total operating revenue 53,902,661 107,497,541 17,112,258 t t Operating expenses: Personal services 16,117,997 41,330,133 6,574,787 ' t Operating and maintenance 2,742,233 7,691,983 997,767 I` Charges and services 22,042,778 30,920,214 2,625,165 Depreciation and amortization 6,824,427 49,576,610 3,957,809 ` i t tt Total operating expenses 47,727,435 129,518,940 14,155,528 Operating income(loss) 6,175,226 (22,021,399) 2,956,730 P° Nonoperating revenues(expenses):Interest income 434,780 1,723,269 259,117 fP Interest expense(net of amount $ 101. capitalized of 51,662,694) (393,236) - 92,732 f„ Property taxes - - Property tax refunds - tit Equity in joint venture income - - ilit Gain or(loss)on disposition of property and equipment 144,118 (4,855,543) 317,418 At Total nonoperating revenues(expenses) 185,662 (3,132,274) 669,267 O. Capital Contributions Grants and other contributions 3,590,525 16,148,819 3,541,081 110 Passenger facility charges - 37,558,105 alt - 0 Total capital contributions 3,590,525 53,706,924 3,541,081 400 Income before transfers 9,951,413 28,553,251 7,167,078 lit Transfers in - Transfers out (76,349) (68,313) (30,121) Increase in net assets 9,875,064 28,484,938 7,136,957 Net Assets July 1,2009 272,575,604 888,147,011 160,541,655 art Net Assets June 30,2010 $ 282,450,668 $ 916,631,949 $ 167,678,612 it S • et It II S IS St The accompanying notes are integral part of this statementat 36 0 t t 1 Business-type Activities Enterprise Funds Governmental Nonmajor Activities- ) Housing Redevelopment Proprietary Internal '1 Loans Agency Funds Total Service Funds a '# $ 1,384,227 $ - $ 22,440,250 $ 198,253,174 $ 52.427,233 174,840 2,442,292 83,318 6,784,213 - 1,559,067 2,442,292 22,523,568 205,037,387 52,427,233 1 ,•I 851,289 7,983,547 72,857,753 9,533,647 1 12,608 1,202,436 12,647,027 4,768,288 t 2,569,287 12,771,563 9,018,895 79,947,902 38,468,707 - 1,932,188 4,472,313 66,763,347 4,911,074 114 41 2,569,287 15,567,648 22,677,191 232,216,029 57,681,716 411 (1,010,220) (13,125,356) (153,623) (27,178,642) (5,254,483) it) 10 1,168,475 539,236 99,022 4,223,899 27,409 4 lb (821,429) (2,883,393) (192,084) (4,197,410) (173,925) - 23,756,530 - 23,756,530- (31,000) - (31,000) - 0 - - 13,903 13,903 - - - (27,996) (4,422,003) 258,252 347,046 21,381,373 (107,155) 19,343,919 111,736 432,169 - 2,424,615 26,137,209 - - - 37,558,105 - 432,169 - 2,424,615 63,695,314 - (231,005) 8,256,017 2,163,837 55,860,591 (5,142,747) 1,898,258 - - 1,898,258 6,478,904 (1,428,631) (6,661) (538,413) (2,148,488) (4,848,617) 1 238,622 8,249,356 1,625,424 55,610,361 (3,512,460) it 40,366,680 113,971,738 141,178,083 1,616,780,771 28,632,720 I* 4 III $ 40,605,302 $ 122,221,094 $ 142,803,507 $ 1,672,391,132 $ 25,120,260 11 f4 Ilk ,4 41 4 The accompanying notes are integral part of this statement 441. 37 Salt Lake City Corporation Reconciliation of the Proprietary Funds Change in Net Assets to the Primary Government business-type Changes in Net Assets Year ended June 30,2010 Change in net assets for Proprietary Funds S 55,610,361 t Internal service fund allocation for proprietary funds (267,307) Change in net assets for Primary government business-type activities $ 55,343,054 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0' 0 0 0 0 a a 1 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 0 38 0 0 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS Year ended June 30,2010 Department Water of Sewer Utility Airports Utility Cash Flows from Operating Activities Receipts from customers and users $ 53,277,738 $ 107,585,920 $ 16,873,626 Payments to suppliers (25,943,331) (38,312,613) (3,581,606) Payments to employees (15,656,409) (41,730,706) (6,274,759) Loans made Principal received on loans Net cash provided by(used in)operating activities 11,677,998 27,542,601 7,017,261 Cash flows from noncapital and related financing activities: Property taxes received Reimbursed deposits and property tax settlement payment Transfers in Transfers out (76,349) (68,313) (30,121) 0' Net cash provided by(used in)noncapital and related financing activities (76,349) (68,313) (30,121) Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: P Proceeds from issuance of debt t0 (net of discount and issuance costs) - 1,760,000 Proceeds from sale of capital assets 167,370 550,611 313,128 4 Contributions for aid in construction,including passenger facility charges 432,804 50,822,544 541,332 r Payments on long-term obligations,net of capitalized interest (2,496,219) - (1,929,869) Payments for purchase and construction of capital assets, 4 includine capitalized interest (17,773,854) (46,090,294) (6,322,896) 40 Net cash provided by(used in)capital and related financing activities (19,669,899) 5,282,861 (5,638,305) IIIt 0 v. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 at` 0 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 0 40 0 0 a 1 ( 1 1 Governmental Nonmajor Activities- Housing Redevelopment Proprietary Internal Loans Agency Funds Total Service Funds $ 1,228.787 $ 2,421,292 $ 22,376,827 $ 203,764,190 $ 52,398,005 (2,273,843) (12,935,540) (9,724,667) (92,771,600) (43,079,579) (806,477) (7,716,192) (72,184,543) (10,006,412) (4,580,993) (2,262.393) - (6,843,386) - 3,835,232 3,547,693 - 7,382,925 - i (1.790,817) (10,035,425) 4,935,968 39,347,586 (687,986) if 23,756,530 - 23,756,530 - 124.355 124,355 - I, 1,898,258 1,898,258 6,478,904 3 (1,428,631) (6,661) (538,413) (2,148,488) (4,848,617) ti't 469,627 23,874.224 (538,413) 23,630,655 1,630,287 44 4 1,950,803 - 2,056,745 5,767,548 2,524,905 - - 343,140 1,374,249 446,895 432,169 - 384,762 52,613,611 - 4. (2,232,202) (8.781,083) (2,337,881) (17,777,254) (2,624,789) - (11,527,519) (4,313,813) (86,028,376) (6,488,784) 4 150,770 (20,308,602) (3,867,047) (44,050,222) (6,141,773) ft 4 4 4 i 11 I 4 I I I The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement A 41 1 1 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS(continued) PROPRIETARY FUNDS Year ended June 30,2010 - Department Water of Sewer Utility Airports Utility _ Cash Rows from investing activities: Interest received on investments 480,544 1,723,269 259.117 Proceeds from investments 2.138,892 Net cash provided by investing activities 2,619,436 1,723,269 259,117 I Net increase(decrease)in cash and cash equivalents (5,448,814) 34,480,418 1,607,952 6 Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 33,188,2114 167,906,754 411,520,477 Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 27,739,390 $ 202,387,172 $ 42,128,429 Cash and cash equivalent components: Unrestricted $ 23.511,719 $ 194.919,020 S 38,017,185 Restricted 4.227,671 7,468,152 4,111,244 Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 27,739.391) $ 202,387,172 $ 42,128,429 Cash flows from operating activities- Operating income(loss) $ 6,175,226 $ (22.021,399) S 2,956.730 P Adjustments to reconcile operating income(loss)to net cash provided by(used tit)operating activities: P Depreciation and amortisation 6,824,427 49,576.610 3,957,809 I. Recognition of gain on loans • - -Increase(decrease)due to changes in: Account receivable (594,352) 170,621 (249,086)� • Inventory 91,171 - (30,430)� r Other current assets (37,113%) - 5,65() Accounts payable (1,281,268) (183,231) 212,110 St Accrued liabilities affecting operating activities 490,110 - 154,025 . Deferred revenue 9.722 - 10,453 Other liabilities - - - • Long-teen compensation liability - - - 'focal adjustments 5,502,772 49,564,000 4,060,531 • Loans made to resident and businesses - -Principal collected on loans - - • Net cash provided by(used in)operating activities $ 11,677,998 b 27.542,601 b 7,017,261 Non ash transactions affecting financial position: • Contributions of capital assets from other entities $ 2,135,125 $ - S 2,999,749 1111 • s 0 s r s i The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement • 42 r • Governmental Nonmajor Aclivities- I Ilousing Redevelopment Proprietary Internal t Loans Agency Funds Total Service Funds '1 1,168,475 539,236 99,022 4269.663 27,409 2,138,892 - +1 1,1618,475 539,236 99.022 6.408555 27409 1l (1945) (5,930,567) 629530 25,336,574 (5,172063) It I 14,919,406 59,031.463 17,164,645 332,730,949 20,425,939 i+ $ 14 917461 0 53.100 096 $ 17,794,175 S 358,067,523 $ 15,253,876 ilv • $ 14,917 461 S 52 810.114 0 15,293,790 0 339,469,289 $ 14.789,269 It - 290782 2500,385 18,598,234 $ 464,607 * $ 14,917,461 S 53,10(1.896 $ 17,794,175 $ 358,067.523 $ 15,253,876 a a $ (1.010.220) S (13,125,356) S (153,623) S (27.178,642) $ (5254,483) a * - 1968,123 4.472,313 66,799,282 4,911074 ollt - (13,756) - (13,756) - (23,874) - (232,244) (928,935) - (306,406) - - (245665) 93.236 403631 (21000) 41,292 392,535 (8,915) 1 (229,543) (160,529) 469,937 (1,172 524) (15.807) 121,356 - 103,843 869.334 (320,275) 20,175 (213,311) 67,450 67,450 31,793 167,000 198,793 120,495 (34,836) 1,804.631 5,089,591 65 986,689 4,566,497 (4,580,993) (2,262,393) - (6,843.386) 3,835232 3547,693 - 7382,925 - $ (1,790,817) S (10,0354251 0 4935.966 $ 39,347,586 8 1687,986) 1 it $ - S - $ 2,039,853 $ 7,174,727 $ - 4 A a A A 7 The accompanying notes are an integral pan of this statement * 43 a I N` 4 Fiduciary Funds f' f, 44 41' Deferred Compensation Fund - This fund is used to account for amounts deferred under the City's employee deferred compensation plan for which the City acts in a fiduciary capacity as trustee. • 4 • • I • A • • • • • 45 • • I SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET ASSETS FIDUCIARY FUNDS June 30,2010 Deferred Compensation ASSETS Trust I Restricted investments: Utah State Treasurer's Pool $ 1,084,259 i p p ♦ NET ASSETS $ Held in trust for pension benefits • and other purposes $ 1,084,259 • to, ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • • • • • • • 410 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement ♦ 46 ♦ a SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET ASSETS FIDUCIARY FUNDS Year ended June 30,2010 a Deferred Compensation Trust ' Additions: Investment income $ 9,875 Total additions 9,875 i 0 Deductions-benefits 26,000 Total deductions 26,000 Change in Net Assets (16,125) Net Assets July 1,2009 1,100,384 Net Assets June 30,2010 $ 1,084,259 1* 0 0 0 0 9 0 "i The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement 47 I SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Salt Lake City Corporation(the City)was incorporated January 6, 1851. The City operates under a Council-Mayor form of government and provides services to residents and businesses in many areas including police and fire protection,street maintenance,refuse collection,planning and zoning,building construction inspection,parks and recreation,prosecution,water,sewer,storm water,airports,and general administrative services. Reporting Entity For financial reporting purposes,the reporting entity includes all funds,agencies and authorities for which the City holds corporate powers and all component units for which the City is financially accountable. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) in its Statement No. 14, The Financial Reporting Entity and Statement No.39,Determining Whether Certain Organizations Are Component Units has established criteria to consider I in determining financial accountability. The criteria are: appointment of a majority of the voting members of an organization's governing board,and either(1)the City has the ability to impose its will on the organization or(2)there is potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to,or impose specific financial burdens on,the City. I 1 As required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles(GAAP),these financial statements present the City,the primary government,and its component units. The component units are included in the City's reporting entity because of the significance of their operational or financial relationship with the City. The following funds,all with fiscal years ended June 30, 2010, have separately issued financial statements that can be obtained from their f respective administrative offices:(1)The Arts Council(a special revenue fund),(2)the Water,Sewer and Storm Water Utility Funds(enterprise funds)and(3)the Department of Airports(an enterprise fund). Blended Component Units 41 The Municipal Building Authority and the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City arc legally < separate entities from the City,but are part of the City and are blended into the internal service and enterprise funds, ti respectively. The Redevelopment Agency has separately issued financial statements for the year ended June 30,2010, • which are available at the Agency's administrative office. The sole purpose of the Municipal Building Authority is to serve the City as a financing agency for debt financed projects. The sole purpose of the Redevelopment Agency is the ♦ elimination of blight through the process of redevelopment in designated project areas within the boundaries of the City. • The Salt Lake City Council serves as the Board of Directors of both the Municipal Building Authority and the ♦ Redevelopment Agency. ♦ Discretely Presented Component Unit •• The discrete component unit is the Salt Lake City Library. It is legally separate from,but financially 0 accountable to the City,as the City can impose its will on the Library. It is not financially dependent upon another government organization and should not be presented in any other governmental entity's financial statements. The ♦ Library provides services to residents rather than to the City and therefore meets the criteria of a discretely presented component unit. The Salt Lake City Library is a governmental fund and has separately issued financial statements for • the year ended June 30,2010,which are available at the administrative offices of the Library. 4 • Joint Venture ♦ The City is a fifty percent partner with Salt Lake County in a joint venture known as the City/County ♦' Landfill. The purpose of this joint venture is to provide solid waste management and disposal services(see note I8). • ♦ Related Organizations « The City also has activities with three other related organizations,the Metropolitan Water District,the • Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District. City officials appoint members of these three boards,but the City's accountability does not extend beyond making the appointments. • 50 • • • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 Basis of Presentation-Government-wide and fund financial statements 41 Government-wide statements are comprised of the statement of net assets and the statement of activities. They contain information on all of the activities of the primary government and its component units except for fiduciary activities. Most effects of inter-fund activities have been eliminated from these statements. The exceptions are (1) payments-in-lieu-of-taxes the General Fund charges enterprise funds; (2) charges for water, sewer, storm-water and 41 refuse that all customers pay to these enterprise funds and(3)charges for centrally provided services of the General Fund 41 that benefit the receiving fund. Examples are payroll,purchasing,human resources and legal services. The government- wide statements for the primary government are separated based on the predominance of the type of revenues that support them. Governmental activities are normally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, while business- type activities receive a significant portion of revenues from fees and charges for services. Certain entities that are legally separate, but financially accountable to the primary government are reported separately on the government-wide r� statements. The City currently has one of these entities, its discretely presented component unit. The statement of activities is presented to show the extent that program revenues of a given activity support direct expenses. Direct expenses are those that can clearly be associated with a particular activity or program. Program revenues are: (I)charges to customers or others who purchase use or directly benefit from the services or goods • provided by a given activity or segment or (2) grants or other contributions that are restricted to operating or capital needs of a specific activity or segment. General revenues are those revenues like taxes and other items that are not properly reported as program revenues. Separate financial statements are included for governmental funds, proprietary funds and fiduciary 'lA funds. Fiduciary funds, however, are not included in the totals for the government-wide financial statements. Major individual governmental funds are reported in separate columns in the governmental funds statements, as are major individual proprietary funds in the proprietary funds statements. Measurement focus and basis of accounting Measurement focus refers to the types of assets that appear on the statement of net assets and changes to those same assets that appear on the statement of activities. The flow of financial resources measurement focus shows current assets and liabilities on the statement of net assets and changes to net current assets in the statement of activities. The flow of economic resources measurement focus shows total assets and liabilities on the statement of net assets and changes to net assets on the statement of activities. Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures or expenses are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Government-wide,proprietary and fiduciary fund statements use the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they are earned and expenses are recognized in the period incurred, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Unbilled fees for proprietary funds are recorded as receivables at year end. Property taxes are recorded as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar other contributions are recognized as revenue as soon as the eligibility requirements of the provider have been met. The City's major enterprise funds are: (1) Water Utility Fund, (2) The Department of Airports, (3) Sewer Utility Fund, (4) Housing Loans Fund and (5) Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, whose purpose is described previously in the section titled "Blended Component Units". The Water Utility collects or purchases fresh water, then treats it, and delivers the now potable water to nearly all residents and business located in the City and many residents and business located geographically outside the boundaries of the City. The Department of Airports operates the Salt Lake City International Airport, Airport II and the Tooele Valley Airport, the latter two of which are located outside the boundaries of The City. The Housing Loans Fund provides loans to low and moderate-income families and individuals. Resources for these loans are received from a variety of sources including federal government, state government, financial institutions and internally generated sources. The Housing Loans Fund also services these same loans. The Sewer Utility Fund provides treatment and disposition services for waste water. In addition to the major enterprise funds, The City also operates four non-major enterprise funds and five internal service funds. The non-major enterprise funds are the Intermodal Hub, Storm Water Utility, Golf and Refuse. The Intermodal Hub is a fund whose purpose is to provide a central connecting point between the City's inter- 51 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ` NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 F state passenger bus and rail lines to the commuter bus and light rail systems. The Storm Water Utility provides treatment , and disposition services for storm runoff. The Golf Fund operates all City-owned golf courses, while the Refuse Fund provides refuse collection and recycling services for residences and businesses of the City. Internal service funds , provide services to other departments or agencies of the City on a cost reimbursement basis. The internal service funds F are Fleet Management, Information Management, Risk Management, Governmental Immunity and the Municipal Building Authority. The Fleet Management fund owns and services all vehicles of the governmental funds and services r vehicles owned by many of the enterprise funds. Information Management maintains the infrastructure for the hard- t wired telephone system, centralized computer services and the network of personal computers. Risk Management t provides centralized services for the employee benefits of health, life, accident, dental, and long-term disability as well as unemployment, workers' compensation and property insurance needs. The Governmental Immunity Fund manages the City's general liability activities. The Municipal Building Authority's purpose is discussed previously in the section 1 titled"Blended Component Units". The fiduciary fund is the Executive Deferred Compensation Fund. The City is the trustee for this fund and manages it in accordance with provisions of the Utah State Money Management Act and the City's own ordinances, policies and procedures. In the past, city executives could elect to have some or all of their deferred compensation ' It contributed to this fund,but it is now closed to further contributions. °It 4 Proprietary funds separate operating and non-operating revenues and expenses. Operating revenues and expenses normally arise from providing goods and services in connection with the fund's normal ongoing operations. The principal source of operating revenues for the proprietary funds and the internal service funds are charges to customers for goods and services. Operating expenses include the cost of sales and services, administrative 41 overhead expenses and depreciation on capital assets. All other revenues or expenses are recorded as non-operating. The City has adopted GASB Statement No. 20, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Proprietary • Funds and Other Governmental Entities that use Proprietary Fund Accounting. Accordingly, the City has elected to apply all applicable GASB pronouncements as well as Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) pronouncements • 0. and Accounting Principles Board(APB)Opinions issued on or before November 30, 1989,unless those pronouncements , conflict with or contradict GASB pronouncements. Consequently,the City does not apply FASB pronouncements issued after November 30, 1989. art Governmental fund statements use the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual Ilik basis of accounting. Under the modified accrual basis, revenues are recognized when they become measurable and ' available. "Measurable" means that amounts can be reasonably determined within the current period. "Available" means that amounts are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. As a practical matter,the City uses two months as a cutoff for meeting the available criterion. Property taxes are considered"measurable"when levied and available when collected and held by Salt Lake County(the County). * Any amounts not available are recorded as deferred revenue. Franchise taxes are considered "measurable" when 00 collected and held by the utility company,and are recognized as revenue at that time.Other revenues that are determined 1l to be susceptible to accrual include grants-in-aid earned and other intergovernmental revenues, charges for services, 10 interest, assessments, inter-fund service charges, permits, fines, forfeitures, parking ticket and meter fees, and sale of property. Property taxes and assessments are recorded as receivables when levied or assessed; however, they are Ilk reported as deferred revenue until the "available" criterion has been met. Sales and use taxes collected by the state and 00 remitted to the City within the "available" time period are recognized as revenue. Revenues collected in advance are 1 deferred and recognized in the period to which they apply. 1 Revenues that are determined to not be susceptible to accrual because they are either not available soon enough to pay liabilities of the current period (two months) or are not objectively measurable include licenses, Ike contributions,and miscellaneous revenues. These revenues are recognized when cash is received. Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the fund liability is incurred,except for long-term obligations(debt service payments, long term compensated absences and other post employment benefits)and • related interest which are recognized as expenditures when due. Inventories of supplies are expended when purchased. AO' 0 0 52 SA St 0 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 The City has two major governmental funds, the General Fund and the Capital Projects Fund. The General Fund is the main operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except for those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Capital Projects Fund accounts for resources dedicated to the construction or improvement of capital assets, which may take more than one budgetary cycle to complete. These constructed or improved capital assets are for the benefit of any or all governmental funds. In addition to the listed major governmental funds, the City also has a total of ten non-major governmental funds: (1) the Arts Council, (2) Downtown Economic Development, (3) Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Operating, (4) Other Grants Operating, (5) Street Lighting, (6) Demolition, Weed & Forfeiture, (7) Emergency 911 Dispatch, (8) Salt Lake City Donation, (9) Special Improvement Debt Service and(10) Other Improvements Debt Service. As their name implies, the last two are debt service funds while the first eight are special revenue funds. Budgets and budgetary accounting I Budgets are legally required for governmental funds. The City has a policy of budgeting for proprietary funds. Annual budgets are prepared and adopted by the City Council on or before June 15 for the fiscal year commencing the following July 1, in accordance with Utah State law. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the p proposed sources of financing for such expenditures. Prior to June 15, a public hearing is conducted to obtain taxpayer input. Budgets are adopted by ordinance in total for each department. Expenditures cannot exceed appropriations at the department level. For budgetary purposes, the City considers each enterprise fund to be a ift department. Management can move budgeted amounts from one line item to another within a department or decrease appropriations. The City Council can increase appropriations after holding a public hearing. During the year ended June 30,2010,the City Council passed several supplementary appropriations. The General Fund budget is prepared using the modified accrual basis of accounting adjusted for encumbrances, changes in compensated absences and changes in other post employment benefits. Encumbrance accounting is used by the City to assure effective budgetary control and accountability, and to comply with State law. However, only the General Fund budget is prepared under the assumption that actual expenditures will be adjusted for encumbrances. Unencumbered General Fund appropriations lapse at year end. Encumbered amounts carry over to the subsequent year and are shown as a reservation of fund balance. Generally accepted accounting principles require that open encumbrances not be reported with expenditures. However, in the General Fund budget to actual financial statement, the actual amounts are adjusted to include encumbrances. Compensated absences are budgeted on a cash basis. Non-cash changes in the balances of compensated absences are therefore eliminated for budgetary purposes. Capital lease purchases are budgeted in the year payments are due rather than in the year purchased. Budgets for the Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds and the Capital Projects Fund are also prepared using the modified accrual basis of accounting and are adopted on an annual basis. The budget for the Community Development Operating, Grants Operating (special revenue funds), and the Capital Projects Fund are prepared annually for a specific set of projects. The Debt Service Funds' budgets are not prepared by project. By state law only budgets in the Capital Projects Fund do not lapse at year-end. Therefore, any remaining budget in the Grants Operating Fund and the Community Development Operating Fund are re-appropriated by Council action in the following year. State law also requires a budget comparison for all funds for which an annual budget is adopted. In these three funds, the Council adopts the entire amount of the project, even though the project may not be completed in the first year. As a result, the budget comparisons on an annual basis may show large amounts of unexpended appropriations. Budgets for the Downtown Economic Development Fund, Street Lighting Fund, Demolition, Weed Abatement & Forfeiture Fund, and Emergency 911 Fund (special revenue funds) lapse at year end. Encumbrances are not reported as expenditures,but where necessary,are re-appropriated in the ensuing year's budget. Budgets for the proprietary ryfunds are prepared using the accrual basis of accounting except for depreciation, lease amortization, and the changes in compensated absences and other post employment benefits, which are not budgeted. Budgets are adopted for the entire amount of estimated proceeds from the sale of property and equipment rather than on the gain or loss from the sale as is reported in the financial statements. Budgets are also adopted for the entire amount of any debt issued to finance multi-year acquisition and construction projects. Budget comparisons in the proprietary funds may therefore show large amounts of unexpended appropriations for construction projects. These unexpended amounts are re-appropriated the following year. I 53 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 Cash,Cash Equivalents and Investments The City complies with GASB Statement No. 31 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools. The statement requires certain investments to be reported at fair value and the change in fair value to be included in revenues or expenses. The City's policy is to report all investments at fair value except for money market investments and interest-earning investment contracts with a remaining maturity at time of purchase of ninety days or less. These are reported at amortized cost. The City's investment in the State Treasurer's Pool has a fair value equivalent to the value of the pool shares.This pool is administered by the State of Utah and is regulated by the Money Management Council under provisions of the Utah State Money Management Act. In all statements,the City considers all highly liquid investments(including restricted assets)that mature within ninety days or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. Inventories of supplies Inventories of supplies for the proprietary fund types are stated at the lower of cost(using the first-in first-out method)or market. In the proprietary funds,inventory items arc considered expenses when used(consumption b method). p Depreciable capital assets pm Capital assets are valued at historical cost or estimated historical cost for assets where actual historical cost was not available. Donated capital assets arc valued at their estimated fair market value on the date donated. The City has a capitalization threshold of$100,000 for infrastructure in the public right of way and$5,000 for all other assets. The City follows CIAAP by capitalizing a portion of its interest costs(net of any interest earned on related • interest hearing investments acquired with proceeds of related tax-exempt borrowings)as a cost of constructed property and equipment in enterprise funds. Net interest capitalized for the year ended June 30, 2010, was $1,662,694. • Depreciation of capital assets is computed using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives: Buildings 35-60 years • Building improvements 5-40 years . Improvements other than buildings 25-35 years • Machinery and equipment,including leased property under capital leases 3-20 years Infrastructure in public way; Roads, • signals,lights and bridges 20-50 years • Water and sewer lines I3-100 years Construction in Progress is not depreciated •r until the asset is placed into service • Bond Issuance Costs and Amortization • Amortization of bond premiums or discounts are computed on the effective interest or straight-line • method over the life of the related bonds. When the straight-line method is used,it approximates the effective interest • method. Bond issue costs are amortized using the straight line method. « Property taxes • • Ad valorem(based on value)property taxes constitute a major source of General Fund revenue. Taxes • are levied through the passage of an ordinance in June of each year. The levy is applicable to only one year. All taxable • property is required to be assessed and taxcd at a uniform and equal rate on the basis of its fair market value. The State Tax Commission is required to assess certain statutorily specified types of property including public utilities and mining property. The county assessor is required to assess all other taxable property,and both entities are required to assess the respective types of property as of January 1,the assessment date. The County is then required to complete the tax rolls • • 54 • • • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 by May 15. By July 21, the county treasurer is to mail assessed value and tax notices to property owners. Then a taxpayer may petition the county board of equalization between August 1 and August 15 for a revision of the assessed value. Approved changes in assessed value are made by the county auditor by November 1 and on this same date the auditor is to deliver the completed assessment rolls to the county treasurer. Tax notices are mailed with a due date of November 30, and delinquent taxes are subject to a penalty. Unless the delinquent taxes and penalties are paid before January 15, a lien is attached to the property, and the amount of taxes and penalties bear interest from January 1 until paid. If after five years delinquent taxes have not been paid, the County sells the property at a tax sale. Tax collections s are remitted to the City from the County on a monthly basis. With the July 1, 2000 adoption of Governmental Accounting Standards Board(GASB) Statement No. 33,more fully described below, the City changed its accounting for property taxes. 4 GASB Statement No. 33,Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Transactions, defines 4 a non-exchange transaction as one in which"a government either gives value to another party without directly receiving 4 equal value in exchange or receives value from another party without directly giving equal value in exchange." For property taxes, at January 1 of each year (the assessment date), The City has the legal right to collect the taxes, and in accordance with the provisions of the statement, has recorded a receivable and a corresponding deferred revenue for the assessed amount of those property taxes as of January 1,2010. 4 Interfund transactions In the normal course of its operations, the City has various transactions between funds. Various City funds provide a number of services such as administrative, fleet maintenance,and information processing to certain other + City funds. Charges are treated as revenues in the fund providing the service and as operating expenses in the fund receiving the service (see note 9). Transfers are recognized as transfers in and out, respectively, by the funds receiving and providing the transfer. Short-term payables are shown as due to/from other funds. Long-term payables are shown as advances to/from other funds. Long-term liabilities Long-term liabilities that will be financed from governmental funds are accounted for in the governmental activities portion of the government-wide statements,while those of proprietary funds are accounted for in their respective fund. Use of Fund Balance When both restricted and unrestricted fund balance is available to use for expenditure appropriation, the City's policy is to use restricted fund balance first. Net Assets The City's net assets are classified as follows: (1)Invested in capital assets, net of related debt, which consists of the total investment in capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation and reduced by the outstanding debt obligations related to those assets. To the extent debt has been incurred, but not yet expended for capital assets, such amounts are not included as a component of invested in capital assets, net of related debt; (2) Restricted for capital projects are amounts that are restricted by debt covenants to be expended for capital assets; (3) Restricted for debt service consists of that portion of net assets that is restricted by debt covenants for debt service; (4) Unrestricted net assets consist of everything else that does not meet the criteria above. Land and buildings held for resale The cost of land and buildings held for resale in the Housing Loans Fund and Redevelopment Agency (enterprise funds) are capitalized until the related property is subsequently sold. Land and buildings held for resale are carried at the lower of cost, market, or committed sales price. Costs of buildings and improvements that management determines are not recoverable are expensed. Gains and losses on dispositions of land and buildings held for resale are included in the operating statement. 55 �2 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 Use of Estimates in Preparing Financial Statements The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires the management of the City to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities. Estimate use also requires the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. Total columns The total columns shown on the accompanying fund financial statements are mathematical totals only �. and do not eliminate inter-fund transactions or include other entries required to present consolidated financial statements. The government-wide financial statements do,however,eliminate most inter-fund transactions and the double counting of revenues and expenses. They are therefore much closer to the consolidated financial statements presented in private b sector accounting. k 2. Cash,Cash Equivalents and Investments The City maintains a cash pool and an investment pool that are available for use by all funds. Each fund type's portion of these pools is included in the combined balance sheet as "Cash and cash equivalents" and • "Investments". Also included are investments separately held by several of the City's funds. 0 It is the policy of Salt Lake City Corporation to invest public funds in accordance with the principles • of sound treasury management and in compliance with state and local laws,regulations,and other policies governing the investment of public funds,specifically,according to the terms and conditions of the Utah State Money Management Act • of 1974 and Rules of the State Money Management Council as currently amended(the"Act"),and the City's own A. • written investment policy. M; Public Treasurers may use investment advisers to conduct investment transactions on behalf of public • treasurers as permitted by statue,Rules of the Money Management Council and local ordinance or policy. Investment • advisers must be certified by the Director of the Utah State Division of Securities of the Department of Commerce(the • "Director")and meet the requirements of the Utah Money Management Act (Rule 15 of the State Money Management • Council). Broker/dealers and agents who desire to become certified dealers must be certified by the Director and meet • the requirements of the Utah Money Management Act (Rule 16 of the State Money Management Council). Only Qualified Depositories as certified by Utah's Commissioner of Financial Institutions are eligible to receive and hold • deposits of public funds(Rule 12 of the State Money Management Council). The Utah Money Management Council • issues a quarterly list of certified investment advisers,certified dealers,and qualified depositories authorized by state • statute to conduct transactions with public treasurers. Transactions involving authorized deposits or investments of • public funds may be conducted only through issuers of securities authorized by Section 51-7-11(3), qualified • depositories included in the current state list and certified dealers included in the current state list. All securities purchased through a certified investment adviser or certified dealer are required to be delivered to the custody of the City • Treasurer or to the City's safekeeping bank or trust company. • • The City may place public money in investments/deposits authorized by the Money Management Act • (U.C.A.51-7-11). The Treasurer shall ensure that all purchases and sales of securities arc settled within 15 days of the trade date. In general these investments can be any of the following subject to restrictions specified in the Act: (1) • Obligations of the U.S.Treasury and most Government-Sponsored Agencies;(2)Commercial paper that is classified as • "first tier"by two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations,one of which must be Moody's Investors Service • or Standard&Poor's;(3)Bankers'Acceptances;(4)Publicly traded fixed rate corporate obligations rated"A"or higher, • or the equivalent of"A"or higher,by two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations;(5)Certain variable rate • securities and deposits with the same rating requirements as the fixed rate corporate obligations;(6)Utah State Public Treasurer's Investment Pool;(7)Certain fixed rate negotiable deposits with a qualified depository or through a certified dealer;(8)Qualifying repurchase agreements;(9)Open-end managed money market mutual funds;(10)Investments - with deferred compensation plan administrators. • • 56 • • • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 The City did not enter into any reverse repurchase agreements during the year ended June 30, 2010. City policy provides that not more than 25% of total City funds or 25% of the qualified depository's allotment, whichever is less, can be invested in any one qualified depository. Not more than 20% of total City funds may be invested in any one certified out-of-state depository institution. However, there shall be no limitation placed on the amount invested with the Public Treasurers' Investment Fund (State Treasurer's Pool) and other money market 4 mutual funds,provided that the overall standards of investments achieve the City's policy objectives. 4 The City's deposits are insured up to $250,000 per account by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Deposits above the $250,000 per account are exposed to custodial credit risk. Custodial credit risk for 4 deposits is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the City's deposits may not be recovered. The bank balance of the Primary Government's deposits totaled$5,832,909. Of this amount, $874,422 was insured and the remaining$4,958,487 was uninsured and uncollateralized. The bank balance of the Library component unit totaled $146,386, all of it insured by federal depository insurance. The City has no formal policy regarding deposit credit risk. 4 Investments - The City Treasurer may take physical delivery of securities or may use a qualified 4 depository bank for safekeeping securities. An account with a money center bank may be maintained for the purpose of 4 settling investment transactions, safekeeping and collecting those investments. A safekeeping receipt issued by a qualified depository supports repurchase agreements with qualified depositories; otherwise, the securities are held in the custody of the City Treasurer or the City's safekeeping bank or trust company. Online access to accounts and monthly statements support investments in the State Treasurer's Pool. All funds pledged or otherwise dedicated to the payment of interest and principal of bonds issued by the City are invested in accordance with the terms and borrowing instruments 1 applicable to such bonds. City policy also provides that the remaining term to maturity of an investment may not exceed the period of availability of the funds invested. The investment of City funds cannot be of a speculative nature. Custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of a failure of the counter party, the City will not be able to recover the value of the investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. Of the total $513,063,842 invested by the City, $12,277,930 was exposed to custodial credit risk. The entire amount exposed was held in the City's name by the counterparty. The Library Component unit had$686,780 exposed to custodial credit risk with the entire amount held in the City's name by the counter party. The City has no formal policy with respect to investment custodial credit risk. Investment interest rate risk is the risk that changes in interest rates of debt investments will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. The City currently has no policy regarding investment interest rate risk. The table on the following page shows the maturities of the City's investments. `"4 1 I I 1 1 57 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 Fair Investments maturities(in years) ... Value - Less than I I-5 6-10 More than 10 Primary government: Debt Securities U.S.Agency Notes $ 15,438.320 $ 3,023,100 $ 12,415,220 $ - $ - p Money market mutual funds 22,359.873 22,359,873 Repurchase agreements 8,684,525 8,684,525 - - - 46,482,718 $ 34,067,498 S 12,415,220 $ - $ - k Other investments Investment in State Treasurer's Pool 466,581,124 Total investments,primary government $ 513,063,842 Component units: Debt Securities- Repurchase agreements S 686,780 $ 686,780 $ S - $ Other investments Annuity 139,525 p Investment in State Treasurer's Pool 8,313,076 • Total investments,component units $ 9,139,381 r Investment credit risk is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its • obligations. Salt Lake City's policyis to follow the previouslydescribed Utah MoneyManagement Act to reduce g Y' b' exposure to investment credit risk. The City's rated debt investments are shown in the table below using Standard and Poor's rating scale. The Library Component unit did not have any investments subject to investment credit risk. • Fair Quality Ratings ` Value AAAm Am Alm Unrated • Primary government: ` Debt Securities U.S.Agency Notes S 15,438,320 $ 15,438,320 $ - $ - S - • Money market mutual funds 22,359,873 22,359,873 - - - • Repurchase agreements 8,684,525 - - 8,684,525 • Investment in State Treasurer's Pool 466.581,124 - - - 466581,124 • • Concentration of credit risk is the risk of loss attributed to the magnitude of a government's investment • in a single issuer. Salt Lake City's policy is to follow the Rules of the Money Management Council. Rule 17 of the • Money Management Council limits investments in a single issuer of commercial paper and corporate obligations to • between 5%and 10%depending upon the total dollar amount held in the portfolio. The City had no debt securities investments as of June 30,2010 with more than 5%of total investments. • • A summary of restricted and unrestricted cash,gash equivalents and investments at June 30,2010 is on •, the following page. « t • M w 58 • r a SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 Primary Component Government Units * Unrestricted cash and cash equivalents $ 444,789,198 $ 825,590 ► Restricted cash and cash equivalents 64,537,348 - Unrestricted investments 8,046,224 8,452,601 ate Restricted investments 1,084,259 14 Total $ 518,457,029 $ 9,278,191 Deposits(book balance) $ 5,346,833 $ 137,380 Investments 513,063,842 9,139,381 Cash on hand 46,354 1,430 Total $ 518,457,029 $ 9,278,191 a ` 1* Included in both deposits and investments are cash equivalents with an original maturity of ninety days or less. • For statement of cash flows and balance sheet purposes, only those items with maturities of ninety days or less when • purchased are considered cash and cash equivalents. The Primary Government shows a negative balance for deposits. This occurred because of the normal practice of investing bank"collected"balance in an overnight repurchase agreement which shows as an investment rather than a deposit. This collected balance includes amounts invested that show as outstanding checks on the bank reconciliation. a 3. Loans Receivable The Housing Loans Fund (an enterprise fund)provides loans to residents for improvements in existing housing within designated project areas. It also provides mortgage loans to residents within the same designated project areas. Some loans are payable in monthly installments, others are due on sale or transfer of ownership of the related property, and other loan payments are deferred. These loans have interest rates ranging from 0% to 7% and are collateralized by property or a letter of credit. Housing loans receivable as of June 30, 2010 were $40,506,824, net of $3,037,329 estimated as uncollectible. The Grants Operating Fund (a special revenue fund) provides loans for commercial construction. The loans receivable at June 30, 2010 were$3,114,995. Most of these loans are payable in monthly or quarterly installments. One loan has no payment due until the related housing project realizes an operating profit,though interest continues to accrue. These loans have interest rates ranging from 0% to 8.5% and are collateralized by trust deeds on property with the City as a second mortgage holder or by equipment and other assets. The Redevelopment Agency (RDA - an enterprise fund) provides housing loans to homeowners and construction loans to contractors within a designated area of the City. These loans total $28,508,621 at June 30, 2010, are payable in monthly installments, bear interest from 0%to 7.0%and are collateralized by property, letters of credit or restricted cash accounts. '1 4. Restricted Assets I The bond resolutions require all bond proceeds and revenue earned on bond proceeds to be restricted to the payment of bond construction projects specified within the resolutions, the payment of bond principal and interest, and the renewal and replacement of specified property and equipment. Certain Water Utility certificates of deposit are also restricted for consumer deposits and for contributions for reservoir and supply line construction. Restricted assets in the Department of Airports(an enterprise fund)are restricted for construction projects at the Airport under the Passenger Facilities Charges(PFC)Program agreement. Restricted assets in the Redevelopment Agency (an enterprise fund) are restricted by provision of bond resolutions. 59 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 Restricted assets in the Demolition,Weed and Forfeiture special revenue fund are restricted while awaiting the adjudication of Police Department asset seizures related to criminal cases. Restricted assets in the Capital Projects Fund arc restricted debt proceeds to be used for capital construction. Restricted assets in the Water, Sewer and Storm Water Utilities (enterprise funds) are restricted by: Bond resolution or contractual agreement for debt service or completion of debt funded capital construction;Bond resolution ! for renewal and replacement;Customer deposit agreements;And the Utah Impact Fee Act. Restricted assets in the Fleet Management internal service fund are assets held by a trustee and arc restricted for the purchase of capital equipment funded by debt proceeds. M R Restricted assets in the Other Improvement debt service funds are restricted for debt service. 5. Capital Assets M The following table and the one on the following page summarize the changes in capital assets for .! governmental and business-type activities during the year ended June 30,2010: ,S Primary Government Beginning Ending • Balance Increases Decreases Balance • Governmental Elivities: • Capital assets,not being depreciated: Land S 179,036,321 $ 1,384,568 S (68975) $ 180,351,914 Construction in progress 20,417,545 36,366,753 (7,007,805) 49,776,493 Total capital assets.not being depreciated 199,453,866 37,751.321 _ (7,076,780) 230,128,407 Capital assets,being depreciated Buildings 202981,542 620,273 (9,390) 203,592,425 Improvements other than buildings 35,491,186 3,695,153 - 39,186,339 • Machinery and equipment 86,752,879 9,634,668 (4589.071) 91,798,476 • Infrastructure 249,800,326 17,251,149 (5,839,197) 261,212,278 Total capital assets being depreciated 575,025,933 31,201,243 (10,437,658) 595,789,518 • • Less accumulated depreciation: Buildings 41,401,34(1 4.702,104 (4.899) 46,098,545 • Improvements other than buildings 10,332,643 1,204,021 - 11,536,664 Machinery and equipment 55,536,323 6,801,667 (4,304,358) 58,033,632 • Infrastructure 1(11,186,875 7,987,126 (5,839,195) 103,334,806 Total accumulated depreciation 208.457,181 20,694.918 (10,148,452) 219,003.647 ek Total capital assets,being depreciated net 366,568,752 10,506,325 (289,206) 376,785,871 • so Governmental activities capital assets,net $ 566,022,618 $ 48,257,646 $ (7,365,986) $ 606,914,278 10 110. 0 • • • 411, - 0 60 « to i SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 1 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS # June 30,2010 1 4# 5. Capital Assets-Continued 1' Business-type activities Beginning Ending 411# Balance Increases Decreases Balance 11t Capital assets,not being depreciated: 1 Land $ 159,768,679 $ 4,194,692 $ (1,790) $ 163,961,581 4l# Construction in progress 81,790,522 60,372,126 (27,513,548) 114,649,100 IC Total capital assets,not being depreciated 241,559,201 64,566,818 (27,515,338) 278,610,681 * Capital assets,being depreciated ' Buildings 476,204,904 8,749,283 (1,492,478) 483,461,709 4 Improvements other than buildings 1,161,035,615 37,801,212 (26,429,677) 1,172,407,150 • Machinery and equipment 181,981,606 13,451,195 (6,407,648) 189,025,153 11 Total capital assets being depreciated 1,819,222,125 60,001,690 (34,329,803) 1,844,894,012 * Less accumulated depreciation: * Buildings 203,669,889 15,430,271 (1,038,054) 218,062,106 4114 Improvements other than buildings 479,689,053 38,695,691 (21,820,093) 496,564,651 * Machinery and equipment 107,630,218 12,592,400 (4,994,033) 115,228,585 Total accumulated depreciation 790,989,160 66,718,362 (27,852,180) 829,855,342 Total capital assets,being depreciated net 1,028,232,965 6,716,672 " ( ) (6,477,623) 1,015,038,670 Business-type activities capital assets,net $ 1,269,792,166 $ 57,850,146 $ (33,992,961) $ 1,293,649,351 Depreciation expense for the year ended June 30,2010 for governmental and business type activities is shown in the table on the following page. 4 i 1! I 4 1 61 '# 1 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION , NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 .w• Depreciation - Expense r Governmental activities: General Government $ 2,377,637 t City Council 5,757 1 Mayor 5,238 t City Attorney 8,269 Management Services 761,867 I Fire 473,548 1 Police 678,440 0 Community and Economic Development 319,281 0 Public Services 3,166,681 Infrastrnctructure Depreciation 7.987,126 6 Capital assets held by the government's internal service funds are R charged to the various functions based on their usage of the assets 4,911,074 Total depreciation expense-governmental activities S 20,694,918 Business-type activities: Water $ 6,798,502 E Airport Authority 49,576,611 ,, Sewer 3,943322 ill Redevelopment Agency 1,932,188 Other activities 4,467,739 Total depreciation expense-business-type activities $ 66.718362 • • • • P S Capital asset information for the City's component unit,the Salt Lake City Library is as follows: .. 10 Component Unit-Library Beginning Ending 0 Balance Increases Decreases Balance 0 Capital assets,not being depreciated: • Land $ 770.689 $ 113,920 $ - $ 884,609 Total capital assets,not being depreciated 770,689 113,920 - 884,609 • 0 Capital assets,being depreciated IP Buildings 8,424,391 75,420 - 8,499,811 0 Improvements other than buildings 317,116 5,700 - 322.816 . Machinery and equipment 19,527,054 1,836,510 (1.352,011) 20,011,553 Total capital assets being depreciated 28,268,561 1,917,630 (1,352,011) 28,834,180 ilk 0 Less accumulated depreciation: • Buildings 4.091,467 381,215 - 4,472,682 .1111 Improvements other than buildings 301,231 12,122 - 313,353 Machinery and equipment 11,883,470 2,315,415 (1,352,011) 12,846,874 • Total accumulated depreciation 16,276,168 2,708,752 (1,352,011) 17,632,909 • M Total capital assets,being depreciated net 11,992,393 (791,122) - 11,201,271 . • Component unit capital assets,net $ 12,763,082 $ (677,202) $ - $ 12,085,880 tM 6. Long-term obligations • r Changes in long-term obligations Revenue bonds and other long-term liabilities directly related to and intended to be paid from • M 62 • • r SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 proprietary funds are included in the accounts of such funds.All other long-term obligations of the City are accounted for in the Governmental Activities of the government-wide statements. The table below summarizes changes in long- term obligations for the year ended June 30,2010. Amount of Balance Balance Ortgionl Issue Jung 30, lone 30, Due Within Lang Tenn Debt (bonds only 2(1(9 Additions Retirements 2010 One Ycar 11 , (kw ernmenm I Activities 1 General obligation bards-1999 $ 61.0000(I(1 S 4,135.000 S - $ 3.8933(01 S 240000$ 211.0011 1, General obhgat ion bonds-2001 22,650.000 5440000 - 2,650000 2.700_000 =790000 1- General obhgauon btm(1-2002 46 8771)W 47,026,042 - 190.599 46.826.443 4,255.000 f1 General 1lhligat1ne hoods-2(104 11.100.000 9,141,151 - 483,81% 8,657,333 485.000 * General obligation hinds-2009A 8001100 800000 - 5001X1 750.000 70.0011 General rbhgatlon bonds-21X1911 I(0200.0Iq 10.281,617 - 381.124 9,900,293 17511)0 General obligation hood,-2(110A 2510(10.000 - 25,444.124 I9.444 25.424.660 800,1801 ✓ Special imprnv ememm holds 5,159000 222.251000 1059.000 434,000 3.470,000 596.000 * Sales la x revenue hoods-20(4 17.1)1(131(X1 86191148 - 1.405.174 7-433,674 1.461/000 • Sales tl.a revenue bonds-2005 47.355,000 41730780 - 1,004,8(4 39-625922 1960.10) • Sales 4x avenue bonds-2007 8,590.000 7007609 - 358,339 7,440470 375,000 O Saks Lis revenue bonds-2009 36224(1.000 38,110,10% . 1.117.2I4 00.992.934 1210.0(10 General canpensa leer absences 16_75,12 8,618.321 81613.333 16.630,110 1,I14 63 Internal Service Ptnd Debt_ ISF Bank of Aiwa lea Note 5056,2332 2,5224,005 2,421.611 5.159,526 2,067,052 ISt coln0en,sated absences 12(.8 549 590.661 6114,1(4 1.250,106 197,869 l otul Governmental long-term debt $ 198,162,494 5 38837.011 S 21093014 $ 213006491 S 18395,584 is * 10s1c,s-type Acov0lc, lb Senor 2004 Sone, $ 23,525,81/0 $ 2(1.914,744 $ - S 1,000,932 $ 19,913,812 S 953,80(1 i Storm 2004 Series 7,429.200 6,610,656 - 316.084 6,268.572 301.200 A Water 2005 Series 11.1175010 9195774 - 819.032 8,546,742 1,065.11110 Water 2008 Series 14,800000 14,130.247 - 022911 13,213336 745.000 Sewer 2(109 Series 6,3)111,0011 - 6,30000 - 6.300,00)Redevelopment Agency Agency 1990 tax Inel'Cn0e111 24.266 008 0,346,751 - I,85N 952 7,487.799 1.730,305 Redevelopment Agency 2002A nx lrlcam0nt 16,190,000 6,609,782 - 969,262 5,730520 1.040,000 Enterprise Bank of America Nu, 1,960.100 22,056,746 1.637232 4,379,623 1,618.506 Loon 0011701044 notes 1462,1,983 1950,803 1,410,773 15.165,013 821.249 A I:ntei1r ise compensated absences 8,629,148 5,410,705 5,200,047 8,840,006 1,315,614 ,, Total l3uxiness-t}pe long-term debt 04312394 15,718,254 14,165225 05,665,4223 9,590.674 1'owl long-term debt $ 292474,888 $ 54.555.265 5 38,158239 $ 306.871914$ 27986,258 1 7 Component Units Library conlpnlsanot Nab dity S 283.518 S 10,200 S - $ 293.718$ 51.490 Taal component unit long-term debt S 283,518 S 10,200 S - $ 293.718 5 51,490 I 1 1 I 63 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 r- The annual debt requirements to maturity,including principal and interest,as of June 30,2010 are listed in the following tables for debt with regularly scheduled payments: I Year Revenue Bonds General Obli0tion Bonds t Ending Governmental Activities Business Activities Governmental Activ idea t June 30 Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest r, 2011 S 5,025,000 S 4.053,704 $ 5,835,305 $ 8,041,049 $ 8,795,00(1 $ 4,766,504 r 2012 5250,000 3,831,626 6,205,595 7,969,193 6,390,000 4,184,519 t. 2013 5,480,000 3,598,670 6,278,203 7,892,531 6,690,000 3,869,552 2014 5,710,000 3,363.354 6,409,887 7,814,493 6,995,000 3,534,772 2015 5,960,000 3,112,704 6,583,809 11.848,794 7,330.000 3,183,143 k 2016-2020 34,425,000 10,887,050 17,195,000 1,923,758 35,245,000 10,145.836 k 2021-2025 17,870.000 4,135.052 15,255,000 - 12,455,000 4,50,049 k 2026-2030 10,805.000 1,065,687 1.575,1010 - 10,495,000 1583,828 k 2031-2035 - - 315,000ilb - - - Subtotal 90525,000 34.047,847 65,652.799 45,489,818 94,395,000 35,618,203 k Less discount and P deferent loss (1,177,1100) - (1,827,982) - (193,749) - ;* Net debt $ 91,702000 S 34,047,847 $ 67,480,781 0 45,489,818 S 94588,749 $ 35,618,203 lk • • Year Spacial Assessment Bonds Other Debt Ending Governmental Acivities Crovernmmtal Activities Business Activities • June 30 Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest 2011 S 596,000 S 134,056 5 2,067,052 $ 119,479 $ 2,439,755 $ 912,630 • 2012 619,000 109,890 1,654,734 60,486 1,953.536 764,649 $ 2013 559,000 86,119 944,550 20,960 1,905,613 738,896 46 2014 299,0)01 65,658 493,190 7,76% 1,571,509 659,430 • 2015 311,000 53,190 - - 1,005,639 591,106 • 2016-2020 1,092,000 100,19% - - 5,293,986 2,097,258 • 2021-2025 - - - - 3,547,566 850,109 • 2026-2030 - - - - 1.752,204 192,436 2031-2035 - - - - 67,910 1,669 • • Thereafter - - - 6918 - • Total $ 3,476,000 S 549,111 S 5.159,526 $ 208,693 S 19.544,636 $ 6,808,183 • 40 4110 Compensation Liabilities(Compensated Absences) S • Vacation leave,compensatory leave, and the portion of sick leave that will eventually be paid are « recognized as liabilities as they are earned. In the event of termination or retirement,an employee is reimbursed for unused accumulated vacation. Employees participating in Plan A are reimbursed for 25%of unused accumulated sick • leave upon retirement,while those employees participating in Plan B arc reimbursed for 50%of the earned balance of 0 personal leave upon separation or retirement. Upon retirement any unused severance account balance is reimbursed at • 100%.The liability for accumulated compensated absences at June 30,2010 is reported in the individual funds except for • the long term portion relating to the governmental funds,which is recorded in the Governmental Activities column of the .ems Government-wide Statements. Compensated absence liabilities in the enterprise and internal service funds have • • 64 w at • itt SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 traditionally been liquidated by the specific enterprise or internal service fund to which the employee's salary is charged. For governmental funds,any compensated absence liability has typically been liquidated by the General Fund. ,t General Obligation Bonds On October 1, 1999, The City issued general obligation bonds in the amount of$81,000,000 at interest rates of 5.00 to 5.75 percent and a final maturity date in fiscal 2019. The bonds were issued to demolish vacant courts +fit and jail complexes, construct a new 200,000 square foot main library building, an adjacent plaza and an underground parking garage, make related improvements on the same block and replace a boiler system that serves current and future buildings on the block and on the block directly east. Part of the proceeds were used to defease a portion of the MBA Series 1993A bonds that were used to improve part of the demolished facilities (see below for a more detailed description of the defeasance). The bonds maturing on or prior to June 15, 2010 are not subject to optional redemption a prior to maturity, while those maturing on or after June 15, 2011 are subject to redemption at the election of the City on June 15, 2010 and on any date thereafter, prior to maturity. The redemption price is equal to 100% of the principal 410 amount plus accrued interest on the bonds redeemed. As noted below a portion of the 1999 bonds were defeased on August 7,2002. The remaining balance of the defeased bonds at June 30,2010 was$43,355,000. 4 II On March 1, 2001, The City issued $22,650,000 in General Obligation Refunding Bonds Series 2001 with a final maturity in fiscal year 2011 and interest rates of 4.00 to 5.50 percent. The bonds were issued to fully pay all 1111 1986 General Obligation bonds, including accrued interest, with maturity dates after June 15, 2001. The bond proceeds, including premium and accrued interest totaled $23,770,390. The Series 2001 bonds are not subject to call and redemption prior to maturity. On August 7, 2002, The City issued General Obligation Bonds, Series 2002 with a par amount of $48,855,000, an original issue premium amount of$5,236,688 and issuance cost of$312,670, netting to $53,779,018. The proceeds of this bond were used for: (1) $3,106,376 for City construction and (2) $50,672,642 deposited in an irrevocable escrow account with an escrow agent to provide for all future debt service payments on the affected $45,355,000 portion of the 1999 bonds. As a result, $45,355,000 is considered to be defeased and the liability for those bonds was removed from the balance sheet. The advance refunding resulted in a difference between the reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of the old debt of$5,317,642. This difference, reported as a reduction in bonds payable is charged as interest expense through June 30, 2019 using the effective interest method. The Series 2002 General Obligation Bonds maturing on or prior to June 15,2017,are not subject to call and redemption prior to maturity. Those maturing on or after June 15,2018 are subject to redemption at the option of the City on or any date after June 15, 2012. The redemption price is 100%plus accrued interest to the redemption date. On April 22, 2004, the City issued General Obligation Bonds Series 2004A (Series 2004A) with a par amount of$11,300,000. The bonds were issued with a premium of$98,956 and the City paid $169,463 in issue costs, resulting in net proceeds of$11,229,493. The purpose of the bonds is to make improvements at Hogle Zoo and Tracey Aviary. The improvements at the zoo include an expansion of the elephant and rhinoceros exhibit along with the expansion and renovation of the feline building. The Tracey Aviary project consists of the acquisition and construction of an outdoor exhibit that includes yards, an enclosed walk-through flight cage, holding spaces and viewing areas. Bonds maturing on or prior to June 15,2014 are not subject to call and redemption prior to maturity. Bonds maturing on or after June 15, 2015 are subject to redemption at the option of the City on June 15, 2014 or on any date thereafter, in whole or in part, as selected by the City at the redemption price of 100% of the principal amount plus any accrued interest to the redemption date. On January 20, 2009, the City issued General Obligation Bonds Series 2009A (Series 2009A) in the amount of$800,000. The bonds were issued at par and the City paid$31,200 in issuance costs resulting in net proceeds of$768,800. The bonds were issued at interest rates of 2.81% to 5.67% and have a final maturity in fiscal 2018. The purpose of the bonds is to acquire land and easements in order to create or preserve open space within the boundaries of the City. On June 24, 2009, the City issued General Obligation Bonds Series 2009B (Series 2009B) in the amount of $10,200,000. The bonds were issued with a premium of$81,804 and the City incurred issuance costs of $151,550, resulting in net proceeds of$10,130,254. The bonds carry coupon rates of 2.0% to 4.375% and have a final maturity date in fiscal year 2029. The bonds were issued to renovate a building that houses the Leonardo Arts Center. 65 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 On April 29,2010 the City issued General Obligation Bonds Series 2010A(Series 2010A)in the amount of$25,000,000. The bonds were sold with a premium of$444,124. The City incurred issuance costs in the amount of$208,364 with resulting net proceeds totaling 25,235,760. The bonds carry interest rates from 2.25%to 5.52%. Of the total par amount,$19,155,000 was issued as taxable bonds under the Federal Government's"Build America Bonds"program. Under this program,for eligible projects,the Federal Government will rebate back to the City 35%of the interest costs which results in an overall lower cost of borrowing than issuing tax exempt bonds. The bonds were issued to begin the$125,000,000 Public Safety Building and Command Center construction. Special Improvement Bonds with Governmental Commitment Principal and interest on special improvement bonds are paid from special assessment collections. A separate fund,the Special Improvement Debt Service Fund,has been established to contain the receipts derived by the City from the special assessments levied upon the property included in the special improvement districts together with interest on the assessments and if necessary additional funds transferred by the City to the debt service fund. Under the P terms of the special improvement bond resol Mons and state law,the City has agreed to maintain a special improvement ! guaranty account for the benefit of the bond'olders. This account is to receive a tax levy of.0002,unless the account is equal to or greater than 10%of all outstanding special improvement bonds issued after April I, 1990. The special improvement guaranty account is$422,342 at June 30,2010. The City is legally obligated to transfer funds from the ♦ guaranty account if sufficient debt service finds are not available. The City is also committed to assume responsibility • for the debt in the event of default. These bonds bear rates between 1.75 and 4.77 percent and have a final maturity in • fiscal year 2017. • Sales Tax Revenue Bonds a For all of the series of the Sales Tax Revenue bonds,the City has pledged sales tax revenues as collateral for the bonds. • On September 2,2004,the City issued the Series 2004 Adjustable Rate Sales Tax Revenue Refunding ~ Bonds in the par amount of$17,300,000. The bonds have a final maturity date in fiscal 2015 and bear interest at a • variable rate with a maximum of 15 percent. There was no original issue premium or discount associated with the sale. • The purposes of the sale were to defease and fully refund the then$16,42(1,000 outstanding balance of the Series 1993A • Municipal Building Authority Lease Revenue Bonds. Proceeds of the Series 2004 sales tax bonds also paid accrued • interest on the lease revenue bonds and$253,222 in costs related to the issuance of the 2004 sales tax bonds. The City incurred a deferred loss of$380,810 that w he amortized over what would have been the remaining life of the Series • 1993 lease revenue bonds. • • On June 21,2005,the Ci,y issued the Series 2005A Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds in the par • amount of$47,355,000 with interest rates of 3.00%to 5.00%and a final maturity date in fiscal 2021. The bonds were sold at a premium of$4,011,338. The proceeds were used to defease the remaining outstanding principal balances of the • Series 1999A, 1999B and 2001 Lease Revenue Bonds and to pay issuance costs of$580,120. The City recognized a • deferred loss of$4,227,826 that will be amortized over the remaining life of the Series 2005A bonds. At June 30,2010, • the remaining outstanding balances of the Series 1999A, 1999B and 2001 lease revenue bonds are $8,780,000, • $22,010,000 and$9,950,000 respectively. • On July 10, 2007,the City issued the Series 2007 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds at a par amount of • $8,590,000 with interest rates of 3.60%to 4.60%and a final maturity date of October 1,2026.The bonds were sold at a • discount of$19,451. The proceeds paid issuance costs in the amount of$160,155 and the remainder will finance • infrastructure improvements associated with the realignment of railroad tracks and the extension of light rail within the • City. • On February 19,2009,the City issued the series 2009A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds at a par value of .. ♦ $36,240,000 with a final maturity date of October 1,2028. The bonds sold at a premium of$1,925,211 and the City , incurred issuance costs in the amount of$316,132 which resulted in net proceeds of$37,849,079. The bonds were • • 66 • • • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 issued to purchase land and construct a maintenance facility complex on the acquired land and to purchase a bank building for conversion to additional office space. 4 Water, Sewer and Stormwater Utility Bonds h The bond resolution approved in conjunction with the issuance of the Salt Lake City Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds provides,among other things,that certain funds be established and that certain accounting procedures be followed. Under the terms of the resolution, the City irrevocably pledged the net revenues of the Water and Sewer Utilities to the payment of the bonds and covenanted that rates will be established to yield net revenues,as defined,equal to at least 1.25 times the debt service to become due in the next fiscal year. The Series 1993 Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds' (rates from 2.90 to 5.70 percent and • final maturity in fiscal 2013) principal purpose was to refund a portion of the Series 1986 Bonds in the amount of $9,635,000, maturing on or after February 1, 2001 through February 1, 2005,with an average interest rate of 7.5%. The Series 1993 bonds were defeased on May 1,2005(see below). • • On July 19, 1994, the Utilities issued $14,000,000 in Water, Sewer, and Storm Water Improvement Revenue Bonds with interest rates from 3.50%to 3.65 percent and a final maturity in fiscal 2015. The principal purpose of these bonds is to finance construction of Water Utility capital improvement projects. The bonds were discounted by $134,399 and incurred bond issue costs of$235,634 resulting in net proceeds of$13,629,967. A portion of the 1994 bonds was defeased on November 1, 1997. The defeased amount of$4,050,000 was outstanding on June 30, 2010. On November 1, 1997,the Water Utility issued$24,515,000 in Revenue Bonds. The principal purpose of the Series 1997 bonds was to defease a portion of the 1991 and 1994 Series Bonds and to finance the acquisition of certain improvements to the water, sewer, and storm water system. The bonds have rates from 4.00 to 5.25 percent and a final maturity during fiscal 2017. Net proceeds (net of discount of $135,465 and payment of bond issue costs of $267,188) amounted to S24,112,347. In addition to the remaining balance of the defeased 1994 bonds noted above, the defeased 1991 bonds had a June 30,2010 outstanding balance of$405,000. On May 1,2005,a portion($7,805,000)and on February, 27, 2008 the then remaining balance of$9,925,000 the 1997 bonds was defeased. On June 30, 2010, $8,175,000 of the defeased bonds was outstanding. On February 1, 2004, the Sewer and Stormwater Utilities issued $30,955,000 in Revenue Bonds. The principal purpose of the Series 2004 bonds is to finance a major upgrade at the Sewer Treatment Plant and a new storm system trunk line. Net proceeds (after payment of bond issue costs of $381,233) were $32,963,247, including a $2,389,480 premium. On May 1, 2005, the Water Utility issued $11,075,000 in revenue bonds that bear interest at 3.50 — 5.00 percent and have a final maturity date in Fiscal 2017. The sole purpose of the Series 2005 bonds is to fully defease the remaining balance of the Series 1993 Water and Sewer bonds and a portion of the Series 1997 Water Utility bonds. The Series 2005 revenue bonds include a deferred loss of$366,980 on the refunding and an original issue premium of $752,133. The defeased 1993 bonds had a remaining balance of$555,000 at June 30,2010. On February 27, 2008, the Water Utility issued the Series 2008 Revenue Bonds at a par amount of $14,800,000. The net proceeds were used to defease the remaining balance of the Series 1997 Revenue Bonds. The Series 2008 Bonds were issued with a premium of$543,400,resulting in a net average interest rate of 3.79%. As a result of the defeasance,the Water Utility incurred a deferred loss of$476,867. On November 17, 2009,the Sewer Utility issued$6,300,000 in Revenue Bonds. The Series 2009 bond was issued as part of economic stimulus funding through the State of Utah. The Sewer Utility will use the funds to replace the digester cover and walls at the reclamation plant facility. These bonds mature 2012 through 2031 with annual principal payments of$315,000 beginning February 2012 and the average interest of 0%. The Sewer Utility incurred issuance costs of$69,740 related to the 2009 series bonds. The issuance cost will be amortized commensurate with the debt service payments beginning February 2012. As of June 30, 2010, the Utilities had only drawn $1,760,000 and I 67 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 recorded a receivable of$4,540,000 from State's Treasurer where the funds are being held.The Utilities draws the proceeds of the bonds as the project works progress. Redevelopment Agency Bonds The master indenture approved in conjunction with the issuance of Tax Increment Revenue Bonds provides,among other things,that certain funds arc established and certain accounting procedures be followed. Under the terms of this indenture,the Redevelopment Agency irrevocably pledged the incremental property tax revenues and investment income of the Agency to the payment of the bonds and covenanted that the estimated annual tax increment revenues will be equal to at least 1.25 times the debt service to become due in the next fiscal year. In December of 1990,the Redevelopment Agency as a participating member,remarketed$24,268,008 of Utah Municipal Finance Cooperative Local Government Revenue Bonds(Senior Lien Obligation)at rates from 6.10 to 7.35 percent. The bonds were remarketed as$10,735,000 current interest serial bonds due between March I,1994 and March 1,2005 and$13,533,008 capital appreciation bonds due March 1,2006 to March 1, 2015. The bonds are 0 collateralized by and will be repaid with incremental property taxes received by the Redevelopment Agency. The serial bonds are subject to redemption on interest dates beginning March 1,2001 in inverse order of maturity at 100%of the ► principal amount plus accrued interest. The capital appreciation bonds are not subject to redemption. On June 3,2002, the outstanding balance of the serial bonds was fully refunded. The capita]appreciation bonds have imputed interest as • there was no payment of interest on any of the maturities until March I,2006. The amount accreted in fiscal 2010 totaled$2,126,954 and the amount paid in fiscal 2010 but formerly accreted amounted to$5,182,360. • • On April 1,2002 the Redevelopment Agency issued$16,190,000 principal amount Central Business • District Neighborhood Redevelopment Junior Lien Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2002A at rates of • 3.75 to 5.25 percent and a final maturity during fiscal year 2015. The agency received net proceeds of$16,513,371, including accrued interest.original issue premium and issuance costs. The bonds were issued solely to fully refund the • serial portion of the Series 1990 bonds and fully refund the remaining outstanding balance of the Series 1992 bonds. Other • The various financing notes payable bear interest at 3.98 to 7.57 percent. Tax anticipation notes totaling$19,000,000 were issued and repaid during fiscal 2010. The tax notes were issued to provide cash to the General • Fund until property taxes were received from Salt Lake County. • • 7. Reserved Fund Equity • Amounts reserved for restricted assets represent that portion of fund balance or net assets that is legally • restricted for the payment of debt service, operations and maintenance, renewal and replacement of property and • equipment. • Amounts reserved for encumbrances represent that portion of fund balance that has been segregated pending • vendor performance on purchase commitments or contracts outstanding at June 30,2010. • • Amounts reserved for loans receivable represent the unpaid portion of the loan principal that is not related to • offsetting obligations. • 8. Deficit Fund Balances/Net Assets,Expenditures and Other Uses that Exceed Appropriations in Individual Funds • • At June 30,2010 no fund or department had a negative fund balance or negative net assets. For the year ended • June 30,2010,there was one fund,the Arts Council Fund(a special revenue fund)where expenditures and other uses • exceeded appropriations. These over budget expenditures occurred as a result of higher than anticipated costs in the • artists'fees,production costs and administrative expenses like equipment rental,insurance,office and building supplies, utilities and phone services. • • • 68 • • • 1 t SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ► NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS t June 30,2010 9. General Fund Interfund Service Charges zb The General Fund charges certain proprietary and special revenue funds, the Capital Projects Fund and the Library component unit for various services. These transactions have been recorded as revenue and expenses or expenditures to the funds as if they involved organizations external to the City, which are generally eliminated for the a ' government wide statements. The amounts of the charges to those funds for the year ended June 30, 2010, are as shown 5 in the table as follows: i+ 1, General Fund charges for: Fire Police Engineering 41, Administrative protection protection and other services services services services Total Enterprise funds: 4` Water Utility $ 692,633 $ - $ - $ 244 $ 692,877 litk Sewer Utility 160,832 - - - 160,832 l Storm Water Utility 64,716 - - 134,010 198,726 • Airport 1,144,555 3,986,493 120,000 - 5,251,048 Refuse Collection 109,644 - 159,085 268,729 110 Golf 156,185 - - 121,466 277,651 Redevelopment Agency 209,449 209,449 40 Internal service funds: 46 Fleet Management 146,173 - - 126,277 272,450 4 Information Management 174,082 - - - 174,082 4 Governmental Immunity 32,590 - - - 32,590 Risk Management 142,293 - - - 142,293 Special revenue funds E 911 Dispatch 4,613 - - - 4,613 Capital Projects Fund - - - 1,622,439 1,622,439 Subtotal,primary government 3,037,765 3,986,493 120,000 2,163,521 9,307,779 Component unit- Library 25,648 - 25,648 .,, Total reporting entity $ 3,063,413 $ 3,986,493 $ 120,000 $ 2,163,521 $ 9,333,427 10. Transfers • 44 Transfers were made to and from several funds during the course of the year ended June 30, 2010. The I principal reason for operating transfers is to provide the receiving fund resources to carry out the activities for which the 41 receiving fund was created. The more significant examples are transfers from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund, to Fleet Management for the purchase of governmental fund vehicles, and to Governmental Immunity to pay 'A general liability claims. Also, transfers from the Capital Projects Fund to Debt Service Funds provide resources to make 4 scheduled principal and interest payments. The tables on the following page show the detail of transfers. 4 1 1 69 1 4 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30.2010 Transfers in to: Capital Housing General Projects Loans Transfers out from: General Fund $ - $23,502,749 $ - t Capital Projects 3,430,067 Housing Loans - 224,360 - k Water 37,500 - - Airport Sewer Redevelopment Nonmajor Governmental 2,015,632 - 1.898,257 Nonmajor Proprietary 225,210 - - Internal Service 4,500,000 - - k S 10,208.409 S 23,727,109 $ 1,898,257 Transfers in to: Nonmajor Internal �# Governmental Service Total • Transfers out from: • General Fund $ 144,463 S 5,476,063 $ 29,123,275 • Capital Projects 15,085,712 - 18,515,779 Housing Loans 1,204,271 - 1,428,631 • Water - 38,849 76,349 • Airport - 68,313 68,313 " r Sewer - 30,121 30,121 Redevelopment - 6,661 6,661 Nonmajor Governmental 7,008 800,000 4,72(1,897 • Nonmajor Proprietary 291,318 21,885 538,413 • Internal Service 311,605 37,012 4,848,617 $ 17,044,377 $ 6,478,904 $ 59,357,056 •, • 11. Risk Management • The City is self-insured for general liability claims,except for liability incurred at the Airport.The Airport • liability policy has a limit of$500,000,000 with no deductible. The Governmental Immunity Fund(an internal service • fund)has been established to pay liability claims other than those at the Airport along with certain City Attorney • expenses. The City has an all risk property insurance policy that has a limit of$500,000,000 with a$100,000 deductible. • The Policy includes: (1)earthquake coverage of$100,000,000 at the airport and$50,000,000 in the aggregate at other « locations with a deductible of the higher between 3%of the value or$100,000,(2)$100,000,000 in the aggregate in • flood coverage for facilities that are located outside the standard report zone with a$250,000 deductible,and seven identified properties that have a$500,000 deductible,(3)boiler and machine coverage to policy limit with a S25,000 • deductible,(4)fine art coverage of S100,000,000 with a$I00.000 deductible. The City is self insured for property loss • above the limits and below the deductibles. The Treasurer is covered under a$10,000,000 bond with no deductible. • The City also has:(I)public employee dishonesty insurance(an employee blanket bond)with a S1,000,000 • limit per occurrence and a S50,000 deductible(2)a forgery or alteration policy with a$25,000 limit and a deductible of • $500 and(3)a theft,disappearance and destruction policy with a limit of$25,000 and a$500 deductible.The City also • has excess workers'compensation insurance with a S40,000,000 limit and a$1,500,000 self-insured retention. The City • is self insured for loss above the limits and below the deductibles. The operating departments of the General Fund or « funds assume financial responsibility for risk retained bythe Cityfor property damage. Further,the Cityis M proprietary P Y P p Y g � self insured for employee long term disability,unemployment and$1,500,000 retention for workers'compensation. The Risk Management Fund(an internal service fund)has been established to pay these claims along with health insurance • • 70 • • • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 premiums and certain administrative expenses. During the past three fiscal years,there have been no settlements that exceeded insurance coverage. Changes in the estimated claims payable liability carried in the accrued liabilities of the Risk Management Fund since July 1,2008 shows in the table below: A liability is recorded for any claims or judgments when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Incurred but not reported events,if any,arc included in the statements. Current year Beginning of claims and Balance at Lstimated fiscal year changes in Claim fiscal year due in one liability estimates payments end year • 2008-2009 • Long term disability $ 2,467,41 I $ 458,274 $ (99,636) $ 2,826,049 Workers'compensation 2,654,000 2,233,083 (1,875,083) 3,012,000 M Unemployment compensation 34,945 359,303 (323,572) 70,676 • $ 5,156,356 $ 3,050,660 $ (2,298,291) S 5,908,725 2009-2010 Long term disability $ 2,826,049 S 85,626 $ (590,608) S 2,321,067 $ 567,931 • Workers'compensation 3,012,000 1.357,8(12 (1,209,802) 3,160,000 $ 1,719,000 Unemployment compensation 70,676 455,458 (439,578) 86,556 $ 86,556 S 5,9(18,725 $ 1,898,886 $ (2,239,988) $ 5,567,623 $ 2,373,487 12. Pension Plans Identification-The City participates in three cost sharing multiple employer public retirement systems(PERS) and one multiple-employer agent PERS. These are defined benefit retirement plans covering public employees of the State of Utah and employees of participating local governmental entities. The systems are administered under the direction of the Utah State Retirement Board whose members are appointed by the governor of Utah. Plan provisions - City police officers are covered by the Public Safety Contributory and Noncontributory • System(Public Safety System),the one multiple employer-agent system. Firefighters are covered by the Firemen's 1 System and substantially all other permanent City employees arc covered by either the Contributory System or the 1 Noncontributory System. The Noncontributory System was implemented in 1986 as a result of legislation by the State of Utah. The Noncontributory System is mandatory for all new full time employees other than police and firefighters. Current employees were given the opportunity to remain with their present retirement plan or to convert membership to the new Noncontributory system that provides a benefit formula using a three year rather than a five year average salary. 1 Other legislation enhanced death benefits for public employees,removed time limitations on re-deposits in the Firemen's p System,amended the laws on disability within the Public Safety System,and tightened the laws governing refunds.The .w systems are established and governed by the respective sections of Chapter 49 of the Utah Code Annotated 1951 as • amended.The Utah State Retirement Office Act in Chapter 49 provides for the administration of the Utah Retirement Systems and Plans under the direction of the Utah State Retirement Board (Board). The systems issue a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for the Local Governmental Contributory Retirement System,Local Governmental Noncontributory Retirement System,Public Safety Contributory Retirement System, Public Safety Noncontributory Retirement System, and Firefighters Retirement System.A copy of the report may be obtained by writing to the Utah Retirement Systems,540 East 200 South,Salt Lake City,UT 84102 or by calling 1-800-365-8772. A brief summary of eligibility and benefits is presented on the next page. A 1 71 1 1 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 Public Safety Contributory Contributory Noncontributory and Noncontributory and System System Firefighters'Systems Highest average salary Highest 5 years Highest 3 years Highest 3 years Years of service 30 years any age 30 years any age 20 years any age required and/or age 20 years age 60-61 25 years any age 10 years age 60 eligible for benefit (with actuarial reduction) 10 years age 62-64 20 years age 60-61 4 years age 65 4 years age 65 10 years age 62-64 4 years age 65 Benefit percent 1.15%per year to June 1967 2.5%per year up to 20 years per year of 1.25%per year July 1967 to June 1975 2.0%per year over 20 years service 2.00%per year July 1975 to present Beginning July 1,1990 all new retirees a in the Noncontributory system ;11/ are paid 2%per year. u� Cost sharing multiple employer funding policy-The contribution rates,which are actuarially determined at June 30,2010,are: • Employee • contributions City's • paid by City contribution (100%vested) (vested upon retirement) • Contributory 6.00 % 7.65 % • Noncontributory - 11.66 % • Firefighters' System 9.68 % - % • • • The contributions for the current fiscal year and for that of the two previous fiscal years were equal to • the required contributions and are presented on the following page: • • June 30, June 30, June 30, • System 2010 2009 2008 • • Local Government Contributory System: • Employer paid for employee contributions $ 441.934 $ 481,433 $ 486,019 • Employer contributions 563,470 610,620 616,439 • Local Govermnent Noncontributory System 10,224,216 10,327,021 9,656,412 • Firefighters'system: Employer paid for employee contributions 1,891,296 1,969,355 1,863,953 • • • Salt Lake City Public Safety Retirement System-The rate for the Noncontributory was 35.71%.The rates are the • actuarial determined rates,and are authorized by statute and specified by the Utah State Retirement Board. The pension cost for the City's noncontributory public safety system of S9,729,879 for the fiscal year ended June 30,2010 was equal to the City's required and actual contribution.The required contribution was determined as part of the January 1,2009 actuarial valuation using the entry age normal cost method.The actuarial assumptions include:(a)a 7.75%investment rate of return • • 72 • • • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 (net of administrative expenses),(b)yearly salary increases projected at 4.00 to 9.75%,an inflation rate of 3.00%and a post retirement cost of living adjustment of 2.50 to 3.00%.The actuarial value of the Salt Lake City Public Safety Retirement System assets was determined using techniques that smooth the effects of short-term volatility in the fair value of investments over a 5-year period. The Salt Lake City Public Safety Retirement System unfunded actuarial accrued liability is being amortized over an open group,closed period 25-year amortization period from the valuation date.Amortization payments are 1' designed to remain level as a percent of payroll. Trend information and the Schedule of Funding progress over a three-year period for the Salt Lake City Public Safety Retirement System are presented as follows: ' Annual Pension Percentage APC Net pension Year ending Cost(APC) contributed obligation June 30,2010 S 9,729.879 100% S - {, June 30.2009 9,896.143 100% - ,�, June 30,2008 9,565,471 100% - * Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial Accrued VAAL as a valuation value of Liability(AAL) Unfunded Funding Covered %of covered • date assets entry age AAL(UAAL) ratios payroll payroll 4 December 31,2009 $ 188,761,000 S 257,741,000 $68,980,000 73% S 27,781.000 248 January 1,2009 180.841,000 245,433 000 64,592,000 74% 27,413,000 236% January 1,2008 184,578,000 234,139,000 49,561,000 79% 26,114,000 190% Valuation data as of December 3I.2009 are estimates provided by the Utah State Retirement System Historical trend information -Historical trend information for the past 10 years is available in a separately issued financial report issued by the Utah Retirement Systems. These statistical trends provide information about progress made in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due. 13. Other Postemployment Benefits Effective July I,2007 the City implemented GASH Statement No.45.Accounting and Financial Reporting by • Employers jtir Postemployment Benefits Other than Pensions(OPEB). • Plan Description—In addition to the pension benefits described in Note 12,the City provides postemployment health care and life insurance benefits,through a single employer defined benefit plan,to all employees who retire from • the City and qualify to retire front any of the Utah State Retirement Systems. The benefits,benefit levels,employee contributions and employer contributions arc governed by City policy,and can be amended at any time. The plan is not accounted for as a trust fund,as an irrevocable trust has not been established to account for the plan. The plan does not issue a separate report. The activity of the plan is reported in the City's Risk Management Fund,an internal service l fund. Funding PolicyThe Citycurrentlypays for ostem to meat benefits other thanpensions on a"pay-as-you- 1 6PY P P Y go-basis. Annual OPEB and Net OPEB Obligation—The City's annual OPEB cost(expense)is calculated based on the 1employer's annual required contribution(ARC),an amount actuarially determined in accordance with the parameters of GASB Statement No.45. The ARC represents a level of funding that,if paid on an ongoing basis,is projected to cover 1 73 y 1 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 normal cost each year and amortize unfunded actuarial liabilities over a period not to exceed thirty years. For the fiscal year ended June 30,2010,the City's OPEB cost(expense)and ARC were$7,797,000 and$7,744,000 respectively. The following table shows the components of the City's annual OPEN cost the year,the amount actually contributed to the plan,and changes in the City's net OPEN obligation: OPEB Annual required contribution $ 7,744,000 Interest on net OPEB obligation 556,000 Adjustments to annual required contribution (503,000) Annual OPEB cost(expense) 7,797,000 Contributions made (2,661,000) Increase in net OPEB obligation 5,136,000 Net OPEB obligations-beginning of year 11,110,000 Net OPEN obligations-end of year S 16,246,000 F The City's annual OPEB cost,the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plan,and the net OPEN .i obligation for the year ended June 30,2010 is as follows: • • Annual Percentage of OPEB Employer Annual OPEN Net OPEB Obligatio • Fiscal Year Ended Cost Contributions Cost Contributed Fiscal Year Ended ; • June 30,2010 $7,797,0(10 S 2,661,000 34.1% $ 16,246,000 • June 30,2009 8,186.000 2,491,000 30.4% 11,110,000 r Funded status and Funding Progress—The funded status of the City's plan as of June 30,2010 is as follows: OP Actuarial valuation date July I,2009 � Actuarial accrued liability(AAL) $ 85,850,000 • Actuarial value of plan assets • - Unfunded actuarial accrued liability(UAAL) $ 85,850,000 « Funded ratio(actuarial value of plan assets/AAL) 0.0% • Covered payroll(active plan members) $ 139,223,000 « UAAL as a percentage of covered payroll 61.7% • Actuarial valuations of an ongoing plan involve estimates of the value of reported amounts and assumptions • about the probability of occurrence of events far into the future. Examples include assumptions about future N employment,mortality,and the healthcare cost trend. Amounts determined regarding the funded status of the plan and the annual required contributions of the employer are subject to continual revision as actual results arc compared with • past expectations and new estimates arc made about the future. The schedule of funding progress,shown as required supplementary information following the notes to the financial statements,presents the results of OPEB valuations as of « June 30,2010 and looking forward,the schedule will eventually provide another year of about whether the actuarial it values of plan assets arc increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liabilities for benefits. • • Actuarial Methods and Assumptions- Projections of benefits for financial reporting purposes are based on the substantive plan(the plan as understood by the employer and the plan members)and include the types of benefits « provided at the time of each valuation and the historical pattern of sharing of benefit costs between the employer and .. • plan members to that point. The actuarial methods and assumptions used include techniques that are designed to reduce short-term volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial value of assets, consistent with the long-term • perspective of the calculations. • 74 • r SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 In the fiscal year 2010 actuarial valuation,the unit credit method was used. The actuarial assumptions included a 5.0% investment rate of return (net of administrative expenses) and an annual healthcare cost trend rate of 10% initially, reduced by decrements to an ultimate rate of 5.0% after ten years. Covered payroll included a 3.5% inflation assumption. The actuarial value of assets was not determined as the City has not advance funded its obligation. The unfunded actuarial accrued liability(UAAL) is being amortized as a level percentage of payroll over a closed thirty year 8 period. The City also provides health, dental and employee assistance benefits to terminated employees under the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). Substantially all employees are eligible for these benefits upon termination of employment with the City. Depending upon the qualifying event, former employees areeligible for either 18 or 36 months of benefits under this act. The premiums for this coverage plus a 2% administrative charge are paid 100%by the former employee. 4 14. Deferred Compensation Plans 457 Deferred Compensation Plan - The City offers its employees a deferred compensation plan created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. The Plan, available to all City employees,permits them to defer a portion of their salary until future years. Employees are eligible to voluntarily participate from the date of employment and are vested immediately upon participating. The City is not obligated to contribute to the plan and does not 4t contribute. Employees contributed $1,364,663 to the Utah State Retirement administered portion and payments were processed in the amount of $1,361,156 to other administering companies during the fiscal year. All amounts were transferred to the state or administering insurance companies by the due dates. The 457 deferred monies are not available to the City or its general creditors. The 457 resources for which the City has custody and performs all administrative duties, including investment activities,under the Plan are accounted for in a fiduciary fund. Amounts held by entities other than the City do not appear in these financial statements. 401(k) Deferred Compensation Plan - The City also sponsors a deferred compensation plan under Internal Revenue Code Section 401(k) for City employees covered by any of the state retirement plans. The Utah State Retirement Board administers this Plan. The City's total payroll expense in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 was $149,600,338. Of that amount, payroll of$141,839,717 was eligible to participate in this Plan. The City participates at a rate of 2.65% or 1.45% of base payroll only for those current employees who changed from the contributory state retirement plan to the noncontributory retirement plan. The 2.65%applies to current employees who changed at the first opportunity in 1986 and the 1.45% applies to current employees who changed at the second opportunity in 1990. The rate of City participation was established and can be changed by City Council action. During the year ended June 30, 2010, employees contributed $2,842,391 and the City contributed $521,472. All contributions were made by the due dates. The 401(k) deferred compensation monies are not available to the City or its general creditors. Therefore, no assets or liabilities of the 401(k)deferred compensation plan are reflected in these financial statements. IRA (Individual Retirement Accounts) — During fiscal 2006 the City began offering its employees the opportunity to make payroll deductions for contributions to both Traditional and Roth IRA plans. During the year ended June 30,2010,employees contributed$6,242 to the Traditional plan and$102,499 to the Roth plan. I I 75 I SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 15. Commitments and Contingencies Commitments for major construction, capital improvement and other projects at June 30,2010 are shown below. General Fund S 2.009,000 Special-revenue funds 7,459,000 Capital Projects Fund 58,184,000 Internal service funds 192,000 Enterprise funds 62,254,000 Total S 130.098,01)0 t The City is lessee under a number of operating lease agreements,one of which is non-cancelable,involving � land,buildings and equipment. Rent expense during the fiscal year ended June 30,2010 approximated SI,217,000 of • which$655,000 was related to proprietary funds. The schedule of future minimum rental payments required under non- cancellable operating leases as of June 30,2010 is shown below: • • • General • Fund r 410 2011 $ 41,926 2012 41,926 2013 41,926 • 2014 41,926 • 2015 41,926 1110 2016-2020 209,630 • 2021-2025 209,630 • 2026-2030 209,630 • 2031-2035 209,630 2036-2040 209,630 • Thereafter 1,341,632 • Total $ 2,599,412 • • There are sundry claims or lawsuits that have been filed against the City or its employees involving tort and • civil rights matters. The City has evaluated those claims and based upon the advice of counsel, has recorded an • estimated claims payable liability in the Governmental Immunity Fund(an internal service fund)to cover any expected • losses. 4110 Changes in the reported liability carried in the Governmental Immunity Fund since July 1,2008 resulted in the • changes shown in the table on the following page: • • • • • 76 • • • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 Current year n Beginning of claims and Balance at Estimated fiscal year changes in Claim fiscal year due within liability estimates payments end one year ah oh 2008-2009 $1,632,000 $ 819,023 $ (636,023) $ 1,815,000 $ - 2009-2010 1,815,000 641,677 (731,677) 1,725,000 783,000 The City, through the Water Utility Fund,purchased water rights connected to Big Cottonwood Canyon stream �► flows from one of its water exchange customers called Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Irrigation Company in the amount of �I1 $22,764,010. Under this new agreement the City will continue to provide culinary water to the customers of the Big Ij Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Irrigation Company and will provide them with water vouchers which will entitle them to a set amount of water at no charge in return for their ownership in the water rights to the canyon stream. The City also agreed to upgrade the water system to meet current water system standards and to take ownership of the system. The financial 11) statements show the increase in water rights and the value of the system purchased. In addition a new liability account called revenue collected in advance was required to show the value of the water vouchers issued in the amount of$20,250,866 longterm and$1,260,923 in current liabilities. Pollution remediation: 4 The City reported a future liability and receivable of $575,275 for pollution remediation expenses associated with the Chevron Red Butte oil spill. The pipeline,which runs along the eastern edge of the city, leaked into Red Butte Creek and the Liberty Park Lake which acts as a storm water detention basin. Although not on City property, the Mayor and Council of the City felt compelled to take action because of an imminent danger to public welfare and the environment. The estimate covers expected expenses for clean-up, water and air quality evaluation and other related costs and is based on existing contracts and city employee's time and material. Chevron Oil Company is expected to cover all costs of clean-up and mitigation and reimburse the city for any of its costs associated with the spill. The potential exists for changes in these estimates and will be adjusted in future time periods. The City's Department of Airports (an enterprise fund) recorded operating expenses and a future liability obligation of$191,750 associated with two pollution remediation sites, both associated with leaking underground fuel tanks. Two replacements of storage tanks are expected to be required at a cost of$20,000 each,one replacement to be completed in FY2011, and another expected within 5 years. The remainder of the cost is for future years' ground water monitoring at the sites. Estimates of the expenses and liability were based on the costs of the replacement fuel tanks as well as a cost of a contract negotiated with an outside contractor for future monitoring. The potential exists for changes in these estimates, and both costs and future liabilities will be adjusted if necessary in future periods. The Airport is self-insured for incidents of this magnitude,and no insurance or other recoveries are anticipated. In the normal course of operations, the City receives grant funds from various Federal Agencies. The grant programs are subject to audit by agents of the granting authority, the purpose of which is to ensure compliance with conditions precedent to the granting of funds. Any liability for reimbursement that may arise as the result of audits of grant funds is not believed to be material. 77 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 16. Revenue Supported Debt—Enterprise Fund The Storm water Utility fund contains debt funded by operating revenues, is not a major proprietary fund, and does not meet all of the criteria for a segment (it is not externally required to maintain separate accounts). The key ► financial data for the year ended June 30,2010 for the fund are as follows. Stormwater Utility p Operating revenue $ 6,239,616 Operating expenses: Depreciation and amortization 2,349,776 Other 3,548,832 Total operating expenses 5,898,608 p Operating income $ 341,008 # Net transfers out $ (177,274) Net asset increase 2,571,646 0.0 Total assets 104,455,360 Long term liabilities 6,172,077 Net Assets 97,097,088ISP Acquisitions of property and equipment 4,805,142 ,,r- • Disposal proceeds of property and equipment 24,175 Net working capital 8,921,102 11111 A condensed statement of cash flows for the Stormwater Utility fund is as follows; Stormwater Utility Sh Cash flows from: Operating activities $ 2,879,625 r Non-capital and related 0 financing activities (177,274) Capital and related financing activities (2,938,007) Investing activities 55,842 Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents (179,814) Cash and cash equivalents-begin 10,720,066 Cash and cash equivalents-end $10,540,252 0 r 17. Related Party Transactions To meet the water supply needs of Salt Lake City and Sandy through the year 2035, the Metropolitan Water District Board, a related entity, completed a new treatment plant. The new treatment plant is located at the Point of the r Mountain in Draper City and includes a conveyance pipeline connecting the new plant to the District's Little Cottonwood a 78 I a a ° SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 Water Treatment Plant. The cost of the treatment plant and conveyance system totaled over $300 million, and the Utilities' share of the cost is over$200 million. The 70 million gallon per day plant is funded by an assessment paid by the two cities. Salt Lake City has 62.5 percent of the capacity and cost assessment in the new treatment plant. Following are the future minimum payments due from the Water Utility through 2035: Year Ending June 30, 2011 $ 7,021,892 2012 7,021,892 2013 7,021,892 2014 7,021,892 2015-2019 35,109,460 2020-2024 35,109,460 2025-2029 35,109,460 2030-2034 35,109,460 2035 3,510,946 Total $ 172,036,354 18. Joint Venture The City is a member of a joint venture known as the City/County landfill in which the City and Salt Lake County (through its Municipal Affairs Fund and the remainder of the County)each have fifty percent interest. The joint venture was created to provide solid waste management and disposal services. The City's equity in the net resources of the landfill at June 30, 2010, was $22,382,101. This equity interest is shown in the City's Refuse Collection Fund (an enterprise fund). The interlocal cooperation agreement created the joint venture and established the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council (the Council). The Council consists of five members: one of the County Commissioners, the Mayor of the City,an elected official designated by the Salt Lake County Council of Governments, a member of the Salt Lake City/County Board of Health and one member with technical expertise in solid waste disposal. The Council's responsibilities are to: (1)appoint or remove,as needed,a landfill manager who reports to the Council;(2)plan,establish and approve all construction projects for solid waste operations; and(3)prepare an annual operating budget that includes expenditures and the means of financing them. All actions by the Council are recommendations to the City Council and the County Commission, which have equal power to review,ratify, modify, or veto any action submitted by the Council. The Council has developed a master plan designed to comply with environmental standards established by the federal government and to meet accounting and financial reporting requirements under GASB Statement No. 18, Accounting,for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Closure and Post-closure Care Costs. In compliance with this standard, the Council has established user fees sufficient to cover all operating costs, including post-closure costs that have been mandated by the federal government. The estimated liability for closure and post closure care was established under the requirement set by the State of Utah's Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)and is based on an engineering study completed during 2005. The estimate totals $25,092,094 at Salt Lake County's fiscal year end and is based on 24.2% filled and estimated total current costs of landfill closure and post-closure care of$48,843,000 The landfill is expected to be filled to capacity in the year 2052. The Landfill is required by state and federal laws and regulation to make annual contributions to finance closure and post closure care. The Landfill is in compliance with these requirements as Salt Lake County's fiscal year end and had deposits of$25,092,094 with the Utah Public Treasurers' Investment Fund. 79 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30,2010 .410 For the year ended June 30, 2010, the City paid the landfill approximately $1,381,000 in user fees. Separately audited financial statements for the City/County landfill may be obtained from Salt Lake County Public Works, 2001 S. State,room N3300 Salt Lake City,Utah 84190. 19. Subsequent Events Subsequent to June 30,2010 the following commitments for major projects were made: 0 1 I General Fund $ 215,000 Special revenue funds 3,879,000 10 Capital Projects Fund 8,698,000 li Enterprise funds 2,904,000 ,,# Total $ 15,696,000 4 4 The following events occurred subsequent to June 30,2010: 4 The City issued $20,000,000 of tax anticipation notes maturing June 30, 2011. These notes bear interest at 1.5%. The notes were sold to provide operating cash in the General Fund until December, 2010, at which time a large percentage of property taxes are remitted to Salt Lake City. On September 14, 2010, the Sewer Utility issued $12 million in Revenue Bonds at an interest rate of 2.73%. 000 The Series 2010 Bonds were issued by direct purchase through JPMorgan Chase Bank and will be used for the purchase, acquisition and construction of improvements, facilities and properties including the sewer Orange Street trunk line or other various improvements. These bonds have a final maturity of February 1,2031. • On November 18, 2010 the City issued $100,000,000 in General Obligation bonds Series 2010B. The bonds were issued at par and incurred issuance costs of$160,680 which resulted in net proceeds of$99,839,320. The bonds 0 have an interest rate of 3.02% and a final maturity of June 15, 2031. The bonds were issued, along with the General 0 Obligation series 2010A to finance the construction of a new Public Safety Building and Command Center. ***** 0 0 0 w a a a a a 0 0 0 80 a a SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE GENERAL,FUND Year ended June 30,2010 General Fund Adjustment Actual on 1 to budgetary budgetary Budgeted Amounts Actual basis basis Ongmal Final 1 (GAAP basis) (Note In RSI I) (non-GAAP) Budget Budget Variance i Revenues: General properly lazes $ 67,575,196 $ - $ 67.575,196 5 69,541.930 $ 69,541.930 $ (1,966.734) t Sales,use and excise taxes 44,089,3113 - 44.089318 48,293.122 43-393,122 696.19(s Franchise taxes 26,321,002 - 26,321..802 27,535,772 27,535772 (1.213,970) Licenses 8.076.923 - 8.076,923 8,673070 8.617978 (541055) Permits 6,708,832 - 6,708.832 6,179,150 6,210.050 498.782 Fines and forfeitures 6,700.748 - 6,700.748 6,189,675 6.189.675 511.073 k Interest 1.189.706 - 1.189.706 2.211,545 1,511.545 (321.839) Intergovernmental 4,761.321) - 4.761320 5,1169,959 4.818959 (57,639) M Interfund.service charges 9,333,427 - 9.333427 9,886847 9986.846 (653,419) Parking meter 2,1127,206 - 2.027206 1,529363 1,539.363 487,843 It Parking nickel 31308,670 - 3_808,670 4,716,365 4.716,165 (9(17.695) Charges for servneen 3926,353 - 3926.353 4,128.034 4,393.548 (467,1951 Contnbutionx 16,342 - 16.342 11,650 34,0(10 (17.658) Miscellaneous 855.(145 - 8551145 588.842 573.707 281.338 Told revenues 185 390.888 - 185,3911.880 194.556.132 189.062.86(1 (3,67)972) ` Expenditures'. Current: City Council 1.740,270 104,765 1,845,035 1.767,190 1,847.085 2,050 Mayor 1,77(1.292 (5.439) 1764.853 1.880,469 1,882.614 117.761 ('ily Attorney 4237.824 9,107 4,246.931 451 925 4.51.1482 266,551 Admim.slralivc Scry ices 11.307473 126933 11434.406 11„534.468 11,585784 151378 ,r Fire 31,507,737 56345 31.564,082 32,501776 32017.387 453.305 Pollee 53305931 308,666 53,614,597 54.626,761 53,666.810 52,213 Community and Economic I. Development 12787,152 274,812 13061,964 13018.5111 13.162,825 300,861 N Puhhc Services 33.265.127 2.1116385 3537/.512 35 957.856 16.076.818 705,306 Nondopanmcnlal 15,044,806 169,429 15214,235 15885,408 16,1(11.327 887,192 0 Fowl cspendilures 164966612 3,I51.003 168.117.615 171746,363 171054,232 2936,617 • kerosene over(under)expenditures 2(1.424,276 (3,151003) 17.273,273 22.809,769 18.008.628 (735,355) • Other finarterng sources l usen): • Proceeds limn sa lc of property 524,810 . 524,810 418.1511 418.150 106,660 Transfers in 10,2(184(19 . 1(1,200409 6722775 1(1,212679 (4,270) 0 1rans)neat 1229.123,275) - (29,123,275) (29,078,275) (29,123275) Total other tinancing sources(uses): (I8,390,056) - (18,190O56) (21,937350) 118492446) 102.390 • • Not Change in Fund Balance 203422(1 (3,151,003) (1,116,783) 872.419 (483,818) (632,965) . Fund balance July 1,2009 24,258747 3318,839 27,577,586 27,577.586 27,577.586 Prior year nrhrances appropriated M in current year - 1,931,020 1,931,020 1931020 1,931020 - Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 26.292,967 $ 2098,856 S 28391,823 $ 30,381025 $ 29,024,788 0 (632,965) • • • • • a a Ili 110 M a a See note to Required Supplementary information- a 82 i • a SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS RETIREE HEALTHCARE AND LIFE INSURANCE PLAN Year ended June 30,2010 Unfunded UAAL as Actuarial Actuarial Accrued Actuarial Annualized a percent of Actuarial value of Accrued Liability Funded Ratio Covered covered t Valuation date Assets(a) Liability(b) UAAL(a-b) (a/b) Payroll payroll July 01,2008 $ - $ 88,848,000 $ 88,848,000 0.0% 137,540,000 64.6% July 01,2009 - 85,850,000 85,850,000 0.0% 139,223,000 61.7% 1 I • �A I I I 83 t r Note to Required Supplementary • • Information • r r • • • s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 84 • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTE TO REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION June 30,2010 1. Budgetary-GAAP Reporting Reconciliation The City Council can amend the budget to any extent, provided the budgeted expenditures do not exceed revenues and appropriated fund balance. During the year ended June 30, 2010, General Fund appropriations decreased by a net$647,000. There was an increase of$1,977,000 to accommodate prior year encumbrances that occurred early in the fiscal year. Offsetting this initial increase were subsequent net decreases totaling $2,624,000. These net decreases were enacted to manage the effects of another year of decreasing actual and projected revenues compared to initially budgeted revenues. The Schedules of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual include comparisons of the legally adopted budget(more fully described in Note 1 of the Notes to the Financial Statements)with actual data on a budgetary basis for the General Fund and proprietary funds that have a budgetary basis that differs from GAAP. Accounting principles applied for purposes of developing data on a budgetary basis differ from those used to present financial statements in conformity with GAAP. The difference in expenditures between GAAP and budgetary basis for the General Fund is reconciled in the following table. General Fund Expenditures Plus Actual on encumbrances Change in Actual on reporting as of compensation budgetary basis June 30,2010 obligations basis City Council $ 1,740,270 $ 100,816 $ 3,949 $ 1,845,035 Mayor 1,770,292 1,942 (7,381) 1,764,853City Attorney 4,237,824 22,917 (13,810) 4,246,931 Management Services 11,307,473 38,801 88,132 11,434,406 Fire 31,507,737 162,532 (106,187) 31,564,082 Police 53,305,931 112,521 196,145 53,614,597 Community and Economic Development 12,787,152 283,385 (8,573) 13,061,964 Public Services 33,265,127 2,080,058 26,327 35,371,512 Nondepartmental 15,044,806 169,429 - 15,214,235 Total expenditures 164,966,612 2,972,401 178,602 168,117,615 Transfers out 29,123,275 - - 29,123,275 Total $ 194,089,887 $2,972,401 $ 178,602 $ 197,240,890 1 I 85 Nonmajor Governmental Funds Arts Council Fund-To account for activities of the Arts Council and the purchase or construction of art in City owned facilities. Downtown Economic Development Fund - To account for special assessments which are restricted for downtown projects or improvements. Community Development Operating Fund - To account for monies received by the City as grantee participant in the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)program, except for CDBG monies to be used for capital improvements which are accounted for in the Capital Projects Fund. Grants Operating Fund - To account for monies received by the City under the Comprehensive Community Program, Community Oriented Policing Services, Home Program, Emergency Medical Services, Emergency Shelter Grants, Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, Salt Lake Area Gang Projects, Historic Resource Grants,and other studies and grants. Street Lighting Fund -To account for the operation of additional street lights,the cost of which is paid by the City and by property owners who benefit from these improvements. Demolition, Weed and Forfeiture Fund - To account for City mandated demolition, weed abatement activities and certain police forfeiture activities. Emergency 911 Dispatch Fund - To account for the City's portion of the County-wide emergency dispatch system. Salt Lake Donation Fund - This fund was established to account for individual private and intergovernmental contributions held in trust by the City for the Tracy Aviary, Late Night Basketball, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Freedom Trail, Indigent Services, and other contributions received to be held for a specific purpose 411 Special Improvement Fund - This fund is used to account for the cost of servicing the debt created by financing the construction of public improvements deemed to benefit the properties against which special assessments are levied. Other Improvements Fund - This fund is used to account for the cost of servicing the debt created by financing projects other than Special Improvements. I I ' SI-3 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING BALANCE SHEET , NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS • r June 30,2010 Total Special Debt Nonmajor Revenue Service Governmental ASSETS Funds Funds Funds 1 1 Cash and cash equivalents S 20,637,658 $ 1,163,741 S 21,801,399 Assessments,including$292,763 of delinquent assessments 1,961,092 2,614,654 4,575,746 Taxes receivable 517,343 - 517,343 Loans and notes receivable 3,114,995 - 3,114,995 Due from other governments 1,557,769 - 1,557,769 Other receivables 111,542 276,110 387,652 • Restricted assets: Cash and cash equivalents 360,769 636,061 996,830 •M -0 "Fotal assets $ 28,261,168 $ 4,690,566 $ 32,951,734 4 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES • 00 Liabilities: Accounts payable S 2,033,856 $ 20,542 S 2,054,398 Accrued liabilities 644 - 644 • Other liabilities payable from t• restricted assets 360,769 - 360,769 Deferred revenue 5,908,167 2,89(1,764 8,798,931 Att„ tF Total liabilities 8,303,436 2,911,306 11,214,742 * • Fund balances: • Reserved for loans and advances 3,146,278 - 3,146,278 Reserved for restricted assets - 636,061 636,061 • Unreserved and undesignated 16,811,454 1,143,199 17,954,653 • Total fund balances 19,957,732 1,779,260 21,736,992 Total liabilities and fund balance $ 28,261,168 $ 4,690,566 $ 32,951,734 • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • SI-4 • • • i 9 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENDITURES AND ,, CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Year ended June 30,2010 It "11 Total Special Debt Nonmajor Revenue Service Governmental II Funds Funds Funds ALI Revenues: 11 Sales,use and excise taxes $ 2,652,042 $ - S 2,652,042 t Fines and forfeitures 30,140 - 30,140 * Assessments 1,312,269 572,115 1,884,384 Ai Interest 287,957 168,518 456,475 Intergovernmental 10,289,855 4,581,086 14,870,941 Charges for services 513,233 - 513,233 it Contributions 1,354,823 - 1,354,823 41 Miscellaneous 313,337 13 313,350 i1 Total revenues 16,753,656 5,321,732 22,075,388 4 4 I It Expenditures: Administrative Services - 18,178 18,178 Police 518,485 518,485 ` Community and Economic Development 13,790,891 - 13,790,891 Public Services 814,128 - 814,128 Arts Council Services 1,630,434 - 1,630,434 Debt Service: ' Principal - 12,699,000 12,699,000 Interest and other fiscal charges - 8,244,057 8,244,057 Total expenditures 16,753,938 20,961,235 37,715,173 Expenditures over revenues (282) (15,639,503) (15,639,785) Other financing sources(uses): Transfers in 1,355,742 15,688,635 17,044,377 Transfers out (4,720,897) - (4,720,897) Total other financing sources(uses): (3,365,155) 15,688,635 12,323,480 1 Net change in fund balance (3,365,437) (3,316,305) 1 g 49,132 1 Fund balance July 1,2009 23,323,169 1,730,128 25,053,297 'I Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 19,957,732 $ 1,779,260 S 21,736,992 i 1 1 1 4. SI-5 f SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 4 COMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS June 30,2010 tt Downtown Community f t Arts Economic Development t ASSETS Council Development Operating t ti Cash and cash equivalents $ 97,983 $ 714,770 $ 147,344 t # Assessments receivable - 1,814,467 - # Taxes receivable - - - t # Loans and notes receivable - - - Due from other governments - - 179,272 Other receivables 111,542 - - t Restricted assets: t p Cash and cash equivalents - - - t• tN Total assets $ 209,525 $ 2,529,237 $ 326,616 t t ft t* LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES 61, Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 73,883 $ - $ 188,787 Accrued liabilities - 293 - ,04 Other liabilities payable from 4 restricted assets - - - t Deferred revenue 40,500 1,814,467 - Total liabilities 114,383 1,814,760 188,787 Fund balances: 000 Reserved for loans and advances 31,283 - - 1p Unreserved and undesignated 63,859 714,477 137,829 4111, Total fund balances 95,142 714,477 137,829 Total liabilities and fund balance $ 209,525 $ 2,529,237 $ 326,616 S A S S S S S S • sl-6 S S Nonmajor Demolition, Emergency Salt Lake City Special Grants Street Weed and 911 Donations Revenue Operating Lighting Forfeiture Dispatch Fund Total $ 13,190,645 S 1,095,749 $ 794,870 $ 2,725,558 $ 1,870,739 $ 20,637,658 - 142,970 - 3,655 - 1,961,092 517,343 - 517,343 3,114,995 - - - - 3,114,995 1,378,497 - - - - 1,557,769 - - - 111,542 360,769 - - 360,769 $ 17,684,137 $ 1,238,719 $ 1,155,639 $ 3,246,556 $ 1,870,739 $ 28,261,168 $ 1,682,028 S 2,024 $ 23,930 $ 37,877 $ 25,327 $ 2,033,856 313 - - 16 22 644 360,769 - - 360,769 3,910,230 142,970 - - - 5,908,167 5,592,571 144,994 384,699 37,893 25,349 8,303,436 3,114,995 - - - - 3,146,278 8,976,571 1,093,725 770,940 3,208,663 1,845,390 16,811,454 12,091,566 1,093,725 770,940 3,208,663 1,845,390 19,957,732 $ 17,684,137 $ 1,238,719 $ 1,155,639 $ 3,246,556 $ 1,870,739 $ 28,261,168 I I I I I I I SI-7 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 4 COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENDITURES AND 4 MI CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 4 to Year ended June 30,2010 ,. 44 4r Downtown Community 410 Arts Economic Development 4► Council Development Operating !0 Revenues: F 0 Sales,use and excise taxes $ - $ - $ - t Assessments - 985,620 - Fines and forteitures - - - 1t0 Interest 1,406 2,890 - 0* Intergovernmental - - 3,483,365 Charges for services 468,587 - - Contributions 1,073,546 - - Miscellaneous - - - M* Total revenues 1,543,539 988,510 3,483,365 0` 040 00 * Expenditures: 0* Police - - - Community and Economic Development - 846,695 3,182,247 0 Public Services - - - 4110 Arts Council Services 1,630,434 - - Total expenditures 1,630,434 846,695 3,182,247 e• Y Revenues over(under)expenditures (86,895) 141,815 301,118 0 Other financing sources(uses): 0 Transfers in - - 1,179.272 Transfers out - - (1,898,258) 0 0 Total other financing sources(uses): - - (718,986) S Net change in fund balance (86,895) 141,815 (417,868) • Fund balance July 1,2009 182,037 572,662 555,697 5 Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 95,142 $ 714,477 $ 137,829 0 0 al litt S ili 0 4 0 S SI-8 0 0 s 1 Nonmajor Demolition, Emergency Salt Lake City Special Ili Grants Street Weed and 911 Donation Revenue y Operating Lighting Forfeiture Dispatch Fund Total "t $ - $ - $ - $ 2,652,042 $ - $ 2,652,042 - 316,158 10,491 - - 1,312,269 - 30,140 - - 30,140 "• 212,409 12,037 3,381 19,935 35,899 287,957 ,', 6,803,990 - - - 2,500 10,289,855 - 44,596 - 50 513,233 - - - - 281,277 1,354,823 ., 151,170 3 93,640 (1) 68,525 313,337 a 7,167,569 328,198 182,248 2,671,976 388,251 16,753,656 4 - - - 518,485 - 518,485 111) 9,210,641 - 551,308 - - 13,790,891 '0 - 588,474 - - 225,654 814,128 - - - - - 1,630,434 9,210,641 588,474 551,308 518,485 225,654 16,753,938 (2,043,072) (260,276) (369,060) 2,153,491 162,597 (282) 4 27,500 117,963 26,500 - 4,507 1,355,742 (941,628) - - (1,874,004) (7,007) (4,720,897) (914,128) 117,963 26,500 (1,874,004) (2,500) (3,365,155) 444 (2,957,200) (142,313) (342,560) 279,487 160,097 (3,365,437) 15,048,766 1,236,038 1,113,500 2,929,176 1,685,293 23,323,169 $ 12,091,566 $ 1,093,725 $ 770,940 $ 3,208,663 $ 1,845,390 $ 19,957,732 i 1 1 4 i '11 9 4 43 Sl-9 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 1 5 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE ARTS COUNCIL ,,,,, Year ended June 30,2010 ff 6 � M i f � Budgeted Amounts k Actual ►+ (GAAP basis) Original Final Variance Revenues: Interest $ 1,406 $ 3,500 $ 1,250 $ 156 Charges for services 468,587 515,750 504,800 (36,213) o Contributions 1,073,546 887,750 1,041,100 32,446 ►11 Total revenues 1,543,539 1,407,000 1,547,150 (3,611) se Expenditures: k Arts Council 1,630,434 1,565,585 1,618,953 (11,481) 040 I. Total expenditures 1,630,434 1,565,585 1,618,953 (11,481) Net change in fund balance (86,895) (158,585) (71,803) (15,092) 0 M► Fund balance July 1, 2009 182,037 182,037 182,037 - li Fund balance June 30, 2010 $ 95,142 $ 23,452 $ 110,234 $ (15,092) 4110 ek • S1- 10 a S SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Year ended June 30,2010 41 41 41 Budgeted Amounts Actual • (GAAP basis) Original Final Variance 4 Revenues: Assessments $ 985,620 $ 193,729 $ 247,632 $ 737,988 • Interest 2,890 - - 2,890 4 41. Total revenues 988,510 193,729 247,632 740,878 4 Expenditures: Community and Economic Development 846,695 792,817 846,720 25 4 40,4 Total expenditures 846,695 792,817 846,720 25 Net change in fund balance 141,815 (599,088) (599,088) 740,903 Fund balance July 1,2009 572,662 572,662 572,662 - Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 714,477 $ (26,426) $ (26,426) $ 740,903 I I I I I I i I SI- 11 4 6 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION r " BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE r +� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPERATING FUND „,o, Year ended June 30,2010 tt eE Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis) Original Final Variance l Revenues: Intergovernmental $ 3,483,365 $ 2,792,068 $ 4,152,118 $ (668,753) K11 Total revenues 3,483,365 2,792,068 4,152,118 (668,753) to Expenditures: t Community and Economic Development 3,182,247 2,792,068 3,926,012 743,765 Total expenditures 3,182,247 2,792,068 3,926,012 743,765 Revenues under expenditures 301,118 - 226,106 75,012 Other financing sources(uses): Transfers in 1,179,272 672,620 1,898,258 (718,986) Transfers out (1,898,258) (672,620) (1,898,258) - �► Total other financing sources: (718,986) - - (718,986) Net change in fund balance (417,868) - 226,106 (643,974) 0 Fund balance July 1,2009 555,697 555,697 555,697 - Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 137,829 $ 555,697 $ 781,803 $ (643,974) eV 0 0 0 0 0 0 el 0 0 SI- 12 SI i SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE GRANTS OPERATING FUND Year ended June 30,2010 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis) Original Final Variance Revenues: Interest $ 212,409 $ - $ - $ 212,409 Intergovernmental 6,803,990 2,313,975 28,727,640 (21,923,650) Contributions - - 80,422 (80,422) '0 Miscellaneous 151,170 6,845,000 6,865,000 (6,713,830) Total revenues 7,167,569 9,158,975 35,673,062 (28,505,493) Expenditures: Community and Economic Development 9,210,641 9,158,975 37,616,388 28,405,747 Total expenditures 9,210,641 9,158,975 37,616,388 28,405,747 Revenues under expenditures (2,043,072) - (1,943,326) (99,746) Other financing sources(uses): Transfers in 27,500 - 27,500 Transfers out (941,628) - (941,628) - Total other financing sources: (914,128) - (941,628) 27,500 Net change in fund balance (2,957,200) - (2,884,954) (72,246) Fund balance July 1,2009 15,048,766 15,048,766 15,048,766 - Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 12,091,566 $ 15,048,766 $ 12,163,812 $ (72,246) I I I I I I I I SI- 13 I ( t ' SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE 1 t STREET LIGHTING ,,,,,,,; Year ended June 30,2010 1 � t f � 1 F0 P Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis) Original Final Variance t i t0 Revenues: a Assessments $ 316,158 $ 353,880 $ 353,880 $ (37,722) Interest 12,037 - - 12,037 t4 Miscellaneous 3 - - 3 Total revenues 328,198 353,880 353,880 (25,682) Expenditures: 0 Public Services 588,474 1,981,103 1,981,103 1,392,629 Total expenditures 588,474 1,981,103 1,981,103 1,392,629OV Revenues over(under)expenditures (260,276) (1,627,223) (1,627,223) 1,366,947 iso Other financing sources: 0 Transfers in 117,963 117,963 117,963 - Total other financing sources: 117,963 117,963 117,963 - at ett Net change in fund balance (142,313) (1,509,260) (1,509,260) 1,366,947 0 Fund balance July 1,2009 1,236,038 1,236,038 1,236,038 - OP Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 1,093,725 $ (273,222) $ (273,222) $ 1,366,947 ♦ 111. 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 M 0 SI- 14 0 0 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE DEMOLITION, WEED AND FORFEITURE Year ended June 30,2010 I Budgeted Amounts �l! Actual (GAAP basis) Original Final Variance Revenues: Assessments $ 10,491 $ - $ - S 10,491 Fines and forfeitures 30,140 - - 30,140 Interest 3,381 - - 3,381 Charges for services 44,596 - - 44,596 Miscellaneous 93,640 - - 93,640 Total revenues 182,248 - - 182,248 Expenditures: Community and Economic Development 551,308 26,500 1,140,692 589,384 Total expenditures 551,308 26,500 1,140,692 589,384 1 Revenues over(under)expenditures (369,060) (26,500) (1,140,692) 771,632 Other financing sources: Transfers in 26,500 26,500 26,500 - Total other financing sources: 26,500 26,500 26,500 - Net change in fund balance (342,560) - (1,114,192) 771,632 Fund balance July 1, 2009 1,113,500 1,113,500 1,113,500 - Fund balance June 30, 2010 $ 770,940 $ 1,113,500 $ (692) $ 771,632 SI- 15 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION I BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE EMERGENCY 911 DISPATCH .000. Year ended June 30,2010 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis) Original Final Variance Revenues: Sales,use and excise taxes $ 2,652,042 $ 2,400,000 S 2,400,000 $ 252,042 0 Interest 19,934 80,000 80,000 (60,066) , 1 Total revenues 2,671,976 2,480,000 2,480,000 191,976 tg Expenditures: t Police 518,485 576,376 684,376 165,891 0 t ! Total expenditures 518,485 576,376 684,376 165,891 It Revenues over expenditures 2,153,491 1,903,624 1,795,624 357,867 00 Other financing uses: .. Transfers out (1,874,004) (1,874,004) (1,874,004) 00 - Total other financing uses: (1,874,004) (1,874,004) (1,874,004) - ` • Net change in fund balance 279,487 29,620 (78,380) 357,867 Fund balance July 1,2009 2,929,176 2,929,176 2,929,176 - * ftiit Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 3,208,663 $ 2,958,796 $ 2,850,796 $ 357,867 110 101 10 1, 4* S 04 S • S Alk et 0 SI- 16 St 0 4 j SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE t SALT LAKE CITY DONATION FUND Year ended June 30,2010 Il 014 Budgeted Amounts 1) Actual 0,1 (GAAP basis) Original Final Variance 04 Revenues: 04 Interest $ 35,899 $ - $ - $ 35,899 Intergovernmental 2,500 - - 2,500 Charges for services 50 - - 50 10 Contributions 281,277 100,000 593,000 (311,723) 11 Miscellaneous 68,525 - - 68,525 *I 04 Total revenues 388,251 100,000 593,000 (204,749) 11 It Expenditures: 14 Public Services 225,654 100,000 1,708,433 1,482,779 Total expenditures 225,654 100,000 1,708,433 1,482,779 Revenues over(under)expenditures 162,597 - (1,115,433) 1,278,030 41 Other financing sources: Transfers in 4,507 - - (4,507) Transfers out (7,007) - (496,113) 489,106 x.. Total other financing sources: (2,500) - (496,113) 484,599 0, Net change in fund balance 160,097 - (1,61 1,546) 793,431 '1 Fund balance July 1,2009 1,685,293 1,685,293 1,685,293 - 41 Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 1,845,390 $ 1,685,293 $ 73,747 $ 793,431 40 i 1 I ', A 1 SI- 17 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS June 30,2010 Debt Special Other Service ASSETS Improvement Improvement Total Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,070,165 $ 93,576 $ 1,163,741 Assessments, including$292,763 of delinquent assessments 2,614,654 - 2,614,654 Other receivables 276,110 - 276,110 Restricted assets: Cash and cash equivalents - 636,061 636,061 Total assets $ 3,960,929 $ 729,637 S 4,690,566 , M LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES I Liabilities: Accounts payable $ - $ 20,542 $ 20,542 Deferred revenue 2,890,764 - 2,890,764 , Total liabilities 2,890,764 20,542 2,911,306 tt Fund balances: t Reserved for restricted assets - 636,061 636,061 !r Unreserved and undesignated 1,070,165 73,034 1,143,199 Total fund balances 1,070,165 709,095 1,779,260 110 I, Total liabilities and fund balance $ 3,960,929 $ 729,637 $ 4,690,566 eV IMF 4 0 00 0 0 0 410 0 0 40 MI- 0 0 SI-18 et 0 0 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Year ended June 30,2010 I Debt Special Other Service Improvement Improvement Total �111 Revenues: Assessments $ 572,115 $ - S 572,115 Intergovernmental - 4,581,086 4,581,086 Interest 142,372 26,146 168,518 Miscellaneous 13 - 13 a Total revenues 714,500 4,607,232 5,321,732 411 Expenditures: Administrative Services 12,678 5,500 18,178 Debt Service: Principal 434,000 12,265,000 12,699,000 Interest and other fiscal charges 105,869 8,138,188 8,244,057 III A Total expenditures 552,547 20,408,688 20,961,235 Revenues over(under)expenditures 161,953 (15,801,456) (15,639,503) Other financing sources: Transfers in - 15,688,635 15,688,635 Transfers out - - - Total other financing sources: - 15,688,635 15,688,635 Net change in fund balance 161,953 (112,821) 49,132 Fund balance July 1,2009 908,212 821,916 1,730,128 Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 1,070,165 S 709,095 S 1,779,260 11 SI- 19 1 • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Year ended June 30,2010 Budgeted Amounts rt Actual (GAAP basis) Original Final Variance Revenues: Assessments $ 572,115 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 122,115 F Interest 142,372 150,000 150,000 (7,628) P Miscellaneous 13 - - 13 ' Total revenues 714,500 600,000 600,000 114,500 d V tit ajt Expenditures: K Administrative Services 12,678 64,800 49,800 37,122 Debt service: Principal 434,000 434,000 434,000fitt - Interest 105,869 91,353 106,353 484 60 Total expenditures 552,547 590,153 590,153 37,606 " Net change in fund balance 161,953 9,847 9,847 152,106 4 4 Fund balance July 1,2009 908,212 908,212 908,212 - Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 1,070,165 $ 918,059 $ 918,059 $ 152,106 4 r 0 0 i 0 0 et IP 0 M 4 rtu • i 0 SI-20 4 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE OTHER IMPROVEMENT FUND Year ended June 30,2010 Budgeted Amounts Actual (GAAP basis) Original Final Variance Revenues: Intergovernmental $ 4,581,086 $ 4,581,086 $ 4,581,086 $ Interest 26,146 - 26,146 Total revenues 4,607,232 4,581,086 4,581,086 26,146 • Expenditures: * Administrative Services 5,500 4,050 5,550 50 Debt service: Principal 12,265,000 12,265,000 12,265,000 - Interest 8,138,188 8,454,501 8,453,001 314,813 a Total expenditures 20,408,688 20,723,551 20,723,551 314,863 Revenues under expenditures (15,801,456) (16,142,465) (16,142,465) 341,009 Other financing sources: Transfers in 15,688,635 15,556,789 15,556,789 131,846 Total other financing sources: 15,688,635 15,556,789 15,556,789 131,846 Net change in fund balance g (112,821) (585,676) (585,676) 472,855 Fund balance July 1,2009 821,916 821,916 821,916 - Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 709,095 $ 236,240 $ 236,240 $ 472,855 I I I 1 SI-21 , SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION t 4 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Year ended June 30,2010 tt t Budgeted Amounts b Actual Original Final t (GAAP basis) Budget Budget Variance Revenues: Permits $ 1,603,337 $ - $ - $ 1,603,337 M Assessments 371,295 - 5,350,000 (4,978,705) Interest 494,556 - 281,815 212,741 0 Intergovernmental 25,530,771 6,361,540 37,569,159 (12,038,388) r b Miscellaneous 864,802 - 833,000 31,802 E 0 Contributions - - 7,500,000 (7,500,000) Total revenues 28,864,761 6,361,540 51,533,974 (22,669,213) Expenditures: . 10 Capital improvements 54,921,112 15,321,697 171,106,927 116,185,815 f E Total expenditures 54,921,112 15,321,697 171,106,927 116,185,815 Revenues under expenditures (26,056,351) (8,960,157) (119,572,953) 93,516,602 t Other financing sources(uses): Proceeds from bond issuance 25,096,109 - 155,810,924 (130,714,815) Proceeds from premium 2,007,015 2,007,015 Proceeds from sale of property 807,637 - - 807,637 Transfers in 23,727,108 23,502,749 23,502,749 224,359 .00. Transfers out (18,515,779) (14,235,988) (18,768,572) 252,793 Total other financing sources(uses): 33,122,090 9,266,761 160,545,101 (127,423,011) 4 • Net Change in Fund Balance 7,065,739 306,604 40,972,148 (33,906,409) Fund balance July 1,2009 69,925,178 69,925,178 69,925,178 - Fund balance June 30,2010 $ 76,990,917 $ 70,231,782 $ 110,897,326 $ (33,906,409) *r 0 0 ilk 0 0 0 0 0 0 Of 0 0 elk .00G . to sk SI-24 «F 0 ' Nonmajor Enterprise Funds )14 Intermodal Hub Fund - This fund is used to account for the activities related to providing transportation facilities for the light rail, bus system (other than the commuter system), passenger light rail and passenger heavy rail. Storm Water Utility - This fund is used to account for the activities associated with the collection and disposition of storm water runoff. 4111 • Refuse Collection Fund - This fund is used to account for the operations and activities related to garbage collection and disposal. • 4 Golf Fund - This fund is used to account for the operation of golf courses for use by the general public. 4 i 4 SI-25 "I SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS-NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS June 30,2010 Intermodal ASSETS Hub Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents Unrestricted $ 39,350 Receivables: Accounts, less allowance for doubtful accounts of$14,360 - Other - Prepaid expenses - Inventory of supplies - r. Total current assets 39,350 ap Noncurrent Assets: r Restricted cash and cash equivalents - e th Property and equipment,at cost: t Land and water rights - '"- Buildings - Improvements other than buildings - t,M Machinery and equipment - Construction in progress - 00 Accumulated depreciation - w► 00 Net property and equipment - MI! 0 Bond issue costs, less accumulated amortization of$29,355 - 00 Investment in joint venture00 - Total noncurrent assets - 011 00 Total assets $ 39,350 0 let S S S M SI-26 S Storm Water Refuse Utility Collection Golf Total 4 $ 9,353,774 $ 4,720,176 $ 1,180,490 $ 15,293,790 753,523 815,414 5,075 1,574,012 379,293 379,293 AIM 10,107,297 5,535,590 1,564,858 17,247,095 111 0 1,186,478 1,167,017 146,890 2,500,385 0 1,387,919 - 4,977,109 6,365,028 6,952,656 - 4,268,219 11,220,875 113,593,483 - 9,575,871 123,169,354 2,880,787 12,406,994 5,805,433 21,093,214 4,454,554 122,164 8,058 4,584,776 (36,169,955) (6,241,700) (9,308,453) (51,720,108) 93,099,444 6,287,458 15,326,237 114,713,139 62,141 - - 62,141 - 22,382,101 - 22,382,101 94,348,063 29,836,576 15,473,127 139,657,766 $ 104,455,360 S 35,372,166 $ 17,037,985 $ 156,904,861 11 -14 SI-27 a SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ,,,MP. COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS-NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS June 30,2010 Intermodal LIABILITIES Hub Current liabilities: Accounts payable $ - Accrued liabilities - Current portion of long-term compensated absences liability - Current portion of long-term debt: Payable from unrestricted assets - c Payable from restricted assets - r Deferred revenue - p Accrued interest,payable from restricted assets - Current deposits and advance rentals - t Total current liabilities - r $ 0Nt Noncurrent liabilities: Bonds,mortgages,and notes payable - f Long-term compensated absences liability - Other post employment benefits - Total noncurrent liabilities - Total liabilities - 0 0 NET ASSETS Invested in capital asssets,net of related debt - Restricted for debt service Unrestricted 39,350 * INllh Total net assets 39,350 Oil Total liabilities and net assets $ 39,350 1, 4, 4* SI-28 Nt i, 1 9 Storm Water Refuse 1 Utility Collection Golf Total 4 $ 663,037 $ 420,040 $ 167,756 $ 1,250,833 Ai 23,939 39,919 56,682 120,540 18,080 20,471 141,433 179,984 i 175,699 916,174 702,332 1,794,205 0 125,501 - - 125,501 60,660 64,831 - 125,491 �r f 119,279 - - 119,279 - 516,338 516,338 1,186,195 1,461,435 1,584,541 4,232,171 ii Itt 5,987,372 1,547,341 1,213,775 8,748,488 68,705 179,810 382,180 630,695 116,000 100,000 274,000 490,000 14 6,172,077 1,827,151 1,869,955 9,869,183 1 1 7,358,272 3,288,586 3,454,496 14,101,354 A I 1 86,873,012 3,823,943 13,410,130 104,107,085 1,186,478 - - 1,186,478 9,037,598 28,259,637 173,359 37,509,944 4 'I 97,097,088 32,083,580 13,583,489 142,803,507 I 1 $ 104,455,360 $ 35,372,166 $ 17,037,985 $ 156,904,861 1 I 1 I 1 1 I SI-29 1 1 • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS �4 Year ended June 30,2010 Intermodal Hub 1 Operating revenue: • Sales and charges for services4 $ - Rental and other - f ; Total operating revenue - 4 f � Operating expenses: ` Personal services - Operating and maintenance - Charges and services 90,651 t Depreciation and amortization - I t 1 ► Total operating expenses 90,651 1t Operating income(loss) (90,651) 1 ft Nonoperating revenues(expenses): 1 Interest income - Interest expense(net of capitalized amount of$180,684) - tJ► Equity in joint venture income - Gain(loss)on disposition of property,equipment k and investments40* - Total nonoperating revenues(expenses) - 1m► 00 Capital Contributions 111 Grants and other contributions - Total Capital Contributions - illr M Income before transfers (90,651) 0 1Mf� Transfers out (49,839) Net income(loss) (140,490) Mt 1! Net Assets July 1,2009 179,840 Net Assets June 30,2010 $ 39,350 0 0 0 • 0 0 SI-30 ep ek 0 A Storm Water Refuse $ Utility Collection Golf Total t ,t $ 6,220,499 $ 8,511,359 $ 7,708,392 $ 22,440,250 19,117 12,170 52,031 83,318 i i 6,239,616 8,523,529 7,760,423 22,523,568 1 t 1,718,653 2,626,318 3,638,576 7,983,547 78,987 69,721 1,053,728 1,202,436 1 1,751,192 4,730,060 2,446,992 9,018,895 ° 2,349,776 1,170,435 952,102 4,472,313 I1 5,898,608 8,596,534 8,091,398 22,677,191 4 341,008 (73,005) (330,975) (153,623) 4 A 4 55,842 33,317 9,863 99,022 (84,666) (58,769) (48,649) (192,084) 13,903 - 13,903 4 12,121 (55,781) 15,664 (27,996) * (16,703) (67,330) (23,122) (107,155) 2,424,615 - - 2,424,615 4i 2,424,615 - - 2,424,615 1 * 2,748,920 (140,335) (354,097) 2,163,837 (177,274) (295,124) (16,176) (538,413) 1 2,571,646 (435,459) (370,273) 1,625,424 1 0 oft 94,525,442 32,519,039 13,953,762 141,178,083 $ 97,097,088 $ 32,083,580 $ 13,583,489 $ 142,803,507 I 1 is 1 '", SI-31 1 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS 1 Year ended June 30,2010 Intermodal Hub Cash Flows from Operating Activities Receipts from customers and users $ - Payments to suppliers (90,651) Payments to employees - Net cash provided by(used in)operating activities (90,651) I Cash flows from noncapital and related financing activities: t Transfers in - ( pp Transfers out (49,839) Id Net cash used in noncapital and related financing activities (49,839) t W fla Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Proceeds from issuance of debt t t (net of discount and issuance costs) - t i Proceeds from sale of equipment - t Contributions for aid in construction - Payment on long-term obligations,net of capitalized interest - t Payments for purchase and construction of fixed assets, - I including capitalized interest Net cash used in capital and related financing activities - 410 fi '4 0 M MIS M! Mlt AM N 0 0 N 0, 0 0 I, 40 0 0 0 K K SI-32 ak elk Storm Water Refuse Utility Collection Golf Total $ 5,997,369 S 8,569,994 $ 7,809,464 $ 22,376,827 (1,475,970) (4,646,022) (3,512,024) (9,724,667) (1,641,774) (2,493,855) (3,580,563) (7,716,192) 2,879,625 1,430,117 716,877 4,935,968 1 (177,274) (295,124) (16,176) (538,413) (177,274) (295,124) (16,176) (538,413) 1,373,779 682,966 2,056,745 1 24,175 45,202 273,763 343,140 384,762 - - 384,762 (581,655) (1,238,680) (517,546) (2,337,881) ,1 xil (2.765,289) (677,159) (871,365) (4,313,813) „1 1 (2,938,007) (496,858) (432,182) (3,867,047) I 'a SI-33 I ` SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION t COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS Year ended June 30,2010 (continued) Intermodal Hub 4 Cash flows from investing activities: t Interest received on investments and loans $ - t f is Net cash provided by investing activities - t Net increase(decrease)in cash and cash equivalents (140,490) t t + Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 179,840 tt Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 39,350 t tk Cash and cash equivalent components: Unrestricted $ 39,350 • t Restricted - I t ! Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 39,350 1t Cash flows from operating activities- ! 1 Operating income(loss) $ (90,651) it* 10+k Adjustments to reconcile operating income(loss)to net cash provided by(used in)operating activities: 04 At- Depreciation and amortization - Increase(decrease)due to changes in: t,4 Accounts receivable - Other current assets - 0+ Accounts payable - 00 Accrued liabilities affecting operating activities - 00 Other liabilities - Compensation liability - 00 Total adjustments - Net cash provided by(used in)operating activities $ (90,651) NR 00 Noncash transactions affecting financial position: 00 Contributions of fixed assets from(to)other entities0101 $ - 00 00 N N 00 alk tflfr N 0 0 SI-34 elk N N A Storm Water Refuse Utility Collection Golf Total �4 $ 55,842 $ 33,317 $ 9,863 $ 99,022 mi 55,842 33,317 9,863 99,022 `01 (179,814) 671,452 278,382 629,530 t 10,720,066 5,215,741 1,048,998 17,164,645 Ui $ 10,540,252 S 5,887,193 $ 1,327,380 $ 17,794,175 $ 9,353,774 S 4,720,176 $ 1,180,490 $ 15,293,790 *' 1,186,478 1,167,017 146,890 2,500,3 85 ft 11 $ 10,540,252 S 5,887,193 $ 1,327,380 $ 17,794,175 $ 341,008 S (73,005) $ (330,975) $ (153,623) 2,349,776 1,170,435 952,102 4,472,313 (260,300) 32,049 (3,993) (232,244) 26,868 - 14,424 41,292 341,906 153,759 (25,728) 469,937 80.367 7,017 16,459 103,843 14,416 53,034 67,450 125,446 41,554 167,000 2,538,617 1,503,122 1,047,852 5,089,591 $ 2,879,625 $ 1,430,117 $ 716,877 $ 4,935,968 $ 2,039,853 S - $ - $ 2,039,853 I I TA SI-35 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE INTERMODAL HUB FUND Year ended June 30,2010 Budgetary Basis Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts GAAP budgetary basis basis Original Final Variance Expenses and other uses: Charges and services $ 90,651 $ 90,651 $ - $ 130,000 $ 39,349 Transfers out 49,839 49,839 49,839 49,839 - Total expenses and other uses 140,490 140,490 49,839 179,839 39,349 Change in net assets $ (140,490) $ (140,490) $ (49,839) $ (179,839) $ 39,349 Olt st tt f t tk t,rP 0* 0* 0* 0* TT 0* 0* e OP 1110 SI-36 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE STORM WATER UTILITY FUND Year ended June 30,2010 9 0 0 t 1 Budgetary Basis t Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts GAAP budgetary basis basis Original Final Variance 1 Revenues and other sources: Operating revenue-sales and charges t for current services $ 6,239,616 $ 6,239,616 $ 5,245,000 $ 5,245,000 $ 994,616 A Gain on sale of assets 12,121 - - - - Equipment disposition proceeds - 24,175 10,000 10,000 14,175 A Interest income 55,842 55,842 150.000 150,000 (94,158) Impact fees 384,762 384,762 200,000 200,000 184,762 Contributions and nonoperating grants 2,039,853 228,829 516,000 516,000 (287,171) 1 Total revenues and other sources 8,732,194 6,933,224 6,121,000 6,121,000 812,224 4 Expenses and other uses: Personal services 1,662,225 1,662,225 1,777,096 1,777,096 114,871 Accrued compensated absences and other post employement benefits 56,428 - - - Operating and maintenance 78,987 78,987 112,700 112,700 33,713 *. Charges and services 1,751,192 1,751,192 1,758,099 1,758,099 6,907 • Depreciation and amortization 2,349,776 - - - - Transfers out 177,274 177,274 177,274 177,274 - 44 * Expenses before debt service 6,075,882 3,669,678 3,825,169 3,825,169 155,491 and capital outlay 44 lh Debt service: Principal - 286,800 290,000 290,000 3,200 Interest 265,350 265,350 310,000 310,000 44,650 Capitalized interest (180,684) - - - - Capital outlay: Land - 1,600 250,000 250,000 248,400 Buildings - 417,437 100,000 490,000 72,563 Improvements other than buildings - 4,733,852 3,940,000 9,749,866 5,016,014 Equipment - 16,535 102,000 102,000 85,465 4 # Total expenses and other uses 6,160,548 9,391,252 8,817,169 15,017,035 5,625,783 4 ,A Change in net assets $ 2,571,646 $ (2,458,028) $ (2,696,169) $ (8,896,035) $ 6,438,007 4 "A 4 4 4 '!A "$, SI-37 f F SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION t BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE REFUSE COLLECTION FUND t Year ended June 30,2010 0 t k Budgetary Basis f 1 , Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts GAAP budgetary II basis basis Original Final Variance d Revenues and other sources: I r Refuse collection fees $ 8,511,359 $ 8,511,359 $ 15,586,514 $ 15.586,514 $ (7,075,155) E Fixed asset disposition proceeds - 45,202 35,000 35,000 10,202 Gain on fixed asset disposition (55,781) - - - - I vt Rental and other 12,170 12,170 - - 12,170 I Proceeds from debt - 1,373,779 1,562,400 1,562,400 (188,621) Interest income 33,317 33,317 172,500 172,500 (139,183) I4 Equity in joint venture income 13,903 - - - - t* Total revenues and other sources 8,514,968 9,975,827 17,356,414 17,356,414 (7,380,587) t 4 Ilk 14 Expenses and other uses: PO Personal services 2,500,872 2,500,872 2,677,728 2,677,728 176,856 Accrued compensated absences and other post employement benefits 125,446 - - - - # Operating and maintenance 69,721 69,721 197,652 158,372 88,651 I Charges and services 4,730,060 4,730,060 4,898,361 4,944,234 214,174 ,t Depreciation 1,170,435 - - - - Transfers out 295,124 295,124 294,318 295,124 - ,000 Total expenses before debt service 4'I and capital outlay 8,891,658 7,595,777 8,068,059 8.075,458 479,681 t4 Debt service: SOP Principal - 1,179,911 1,447,138 1,447,138 267,227 0 Interest 58,769 58,769 90,654 90,654 31,885 01/0 Capital outlay-purchase of equipment - 677,159 1,856,290 1,877,499 1,200,340 0 Total expenses and other uses 8,950,427 9,511,616 11,462,141 11,490,749 1,979,133 H Change in net assets $ (435,459) $ 464,211 $ 5,894,273 $ 5,865,665 $ (5,401,454) D H I H II III SO H H I H 0 it SI-38 a. a • IN 5 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE li GOLF FUND Year ended June 30,2010 w4 41 AI 44 Budgetary Basis Actual on Actual on GAAP budgetary basis basis Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources: Admissions and fees S 5,012,124 $ 5,012,124 $ 5,445,200 $ 5,445,200 S (433,076) Equipment and facility rental 1,907,960 1,907,960 2,156,378 2,156,378 (248,418) Retail sales and concessions 838,514 838,514 1,000,800 1.000,800 (162,286) ' Interest income 9,863 9,863 30,000 30,000 (20,137) Loss on sale of assets 15,664 - - - Fixed asset disposition proceeds - 4,207 4,207 - Lease proceeds - 591,985 - 767,000 (I75,015) Other revenue 1,825 1,825 - - 1,825 A Total revenues and other sources 7,785,950 8,366,478 8,632,378 9,399,378 (1,032,900) t Expenses and other uses: AA Personal services 3,591,048 3,591,048 3,718,062 3,718,062 127,014 Accrued compensated absences and other post employement benefits 47,528 - - Operating and maintenance 1,053,728 1,053,728 1,267,285 1,267,285 213,557 Charges and services 2,446,992 2,446,992 2,518,846 2,558,846 1 1 1,854 - Depreciation 952,102 - - Transfers out 16,176 16,176 16,176 16,176 - Total expenses before debt service and capital outlay 8,107,574 7,107,944 7,520,369 7,560,369 452,425 Debt Service: Principal - 468,897 482,807 482,807 13,910 Interest 48,649 48,649 33,891 33,891 (14,758) Capital outlay-purchase of equipment - 871,365 300,000 1,046,760 175,395 Total expenses and other uses 8,156,223 8,496,855 8,337,067 9,123,827 626,972 Change in net assets $ (370,273) $ (130,377) $ 295,311 $ 275,551 S (405,928) SI-39 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE t WATER UTILITY FUND F Year ended June 30,2010 P t t Budgetary Basis 6 I Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts GAAP budgetary f basis basis Original Final Variance ! Revenues and other sources: { Operating revenue-sales and charges 11 for current services $ 53,902,661 $ 53,902,661 $ 52,446,450 $ 52,446,450 $ 1,456,211 f Equipment disposition proceeds - 167,370 50,000 50,000 117,370 Gain on sale of assets 144,118 - - - - f Interest income 434,780 434,780 370,000 370,000 64,780 M 1 Contributions and nonoperating grants 2,668,231 533,106 905,000 905,000 (371,894) • '' Impact fees 922,294 922,294 500,000 500,000 422,294 it Total revenues and other sources 58,072,084 55,960,211 54,271,450 54,271,450 1,688,761 .it Expenses and other uses: 1 IS Personal services 15,627,887 15,627,887 16,313,790 16,313.790 685,903 10 Accrued compensated absences and other post employment benefits 490,110 - - - - 40 Operating and maintenance 2,742,233 2,742,233 2,702,495 2,702,495 (39,738) 04 Charges and services 22,042,778 22,042,778 24,416,894 24,379,545 2,336,767 Depreciation and amortization 6,824,427 - - - - Transfers out 76,349 76,349 39,000 76,349 - W It MM Expenses before debt service Mk and capital outlay 47,803,784 40,489,247 43,472,179 43,472,179 2,982,932 I4 Debt service: Mk Principal - 1,735,000 1,740,000 1,740,000 5,000 * Interest 942,238 942,238 1,010,000 1,010,000 67,762 Capitalized interest (549,002) - - - - Capital outlay: 100 Land and water rights - 1,180,459 1,030,000 1,245.000 64,541 4110 Buildings - 942,656 1,635,000 1,667,000 724,344 00 Improvements other than buildings - 16,207,270 19,711,160 21,006,160 4,798,890 100 Equipment - 2,445,339 1,993,300 2.695,300 249,961 lik Total expenses and other uses 48,197,020 63,942,209 70,591,639 72,835,639 8,893,430 Change in net assets $ 9,875,064 $ (7,981,998) $ (16,320,189) $ (18,564,189) $ 10,582,191 44 44 4* lik I, 0. Ilk 4* SI-42 • 0 4* a, SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Year ended June 30,2010 Budgetary Basis Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts GAAP budgetary basis basis Original Final Variance 1 Revenues and other sources: Airfields $ 17,830,842 $ 17,830,842 $ 19,199,200 $ 19,199,200 $ (1,368,358) It Terminals 39,333,123 39,333,123 39,907,900 39,907,900 (574,777) "I Landside 39,106,339 39,106,339 41,818,400 41,818,400 (2,712,061) Auxiliary airports 595,416 595,416 627,200 627,200 (31,784) AN General aviation 1,792,187 1,792,187 1,959,300 1,959,300 (167,113) do Support areas 6,840,304 6,840,304 6,779,700 6,779,700 60,604 Other revenue 1,999,331 1,999,331 1,828,000 1,828,000 171,331 • Equipment disposition proceeds - 550,611 - - 550,611 Ai Interest income 1,723,269 1,723,269 5,500.000 5,500,000 (3,776,731) Passenger facility charges 37,558,105 37,558,105 118,947,500 118,947,500 (81,389,395) 41 Contributions for aid in constniction 16,148,819 16,148,819 65,953,000 65,953,000 (49,804,181) it 0 Total revenues and other sources 162,927,735 163,478,346 302,520,200 302,520,200 (139,041,854) Ai *A Expenses and other uses: Personal services 42,830,594 42,830,594 45.292,800 45,292,800 2,462,206 n Accrued compensated absences and other post employment benefits 207,051 - - - - Capitalized personal services (1,707,511) - - - - Operating and maintenance 7,691,983 7,691,983 8,263,200 8,263,200 571,217 Charges and services 30,920,214 30,920,214 33,431,400 33,431,300 2,51 1,086 Depreciation and amortization 49,576,610 - - - - Loss on capital asset disposition 4,855,543 - - - - Transfers out 68,313 68,313 68,300 68,400 87 Total expenses before capital outlay 134,442,797 81,511,104 87,055.700 87,055.700 5,544,596 Capital outlay Land - 5,006,067 13,000,000 13,000,000 7,993,933 Equipment - 7,622,019 7,302,800 7.302,800 (319,219) Construction,including multi- year projects - 41,781,722 167.040,000 167,040,000 125,258,278 Total expenses and other uses 134,442,797 135,920,912 274,398,500 274,398,500 138,477,588 Change in net assets $ 28,484,938 $ 27,557,434 $ 28,121,700 $ 28,121,700 $ (564,266) SI-43 4 1 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION I BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE SEWER UTILITY FUND 1 Year ended June 30,2010 i , Atio Budgetary Basis Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts GAAP budgetary basis basis Original Final Variance , i Revenues and other sources: Operating revenue-sales and charges ' for current services $ 17,112,258 $ 17,112,258 $ 16,720,000 $ 16,720,000 $ 392,258 4 Equipment disposition proceeds - 313,128 10,000 10,000 303,128 Gain on sale of assets 317,418 - - - - 1 Interest income 259,117 259,117 250,000 250,000 9,117 Impact fees 541,332 541,332 350,000 350,000 191,332 ' k Bond proceeds - 1,760,000 - 6,300,000 (4,540,000) Contributions and non-operating grants 2,999,749 - 500,000 500,000 (500,000) tE Total revenues and other sources 21,229,874 19,985,835 17,830,000 24,130,000 (4,144,165) t II t(F Expenses and other uses: Personal services 6,420,762 6,420,762 6,764,583 6,764,583 343,821 44 Accrued compensated absences and other post employement benefits 154,025 - - - 4 Operating and maintenance 997,767 997,767 1,221,310 1,221,310 223,543 Charges and services 2,625,165 2,625,165 3,508.947 3,508,947 883,782 1411 Depreciation and amortization 3,957,809 - - - 4 Transfers out 30,121 30,121 31,000 31,000 879 , r Expenses before debt service '1' and capital outlay 14,185,649 10,073,815 11,525,840 11,525,840 1,452,025 • Debt service: 410 Principal - 908,200 910.000 910,000 1,800 Interest 840,276 840,276 1,025,000 1,025,000 184,724 I* Capitalized interest (933,008) - - - - Ilk Capital outlay: Buildings - 2,926,890 5,925,000 11,054,100 8,127,210 ilik Improvements other than buildings - 7,290,281 7,165,000 10,891,000 3,600,719 Equipment - 770,784 2,399,100 2,499,100 1,728,316 410 Total expenses and other uses 14,092,917 22,810,246 28,949.940 37,905,040 15,094,794 IP Change in net assets $ 7,136,957 $ (2,824,411) $ (11,119,940) $ (13,775,040) $ 10,950,629 0 0 0 S S et 04 0 • S ittii 0 SI-44 4` 0 0 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE HOUSING FUND Year ended June 30,2010 Budgetary Basis Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts GAAP budgetary basis basis Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources: Operating revenue-sales and charges for current services $ 1,559,067 $ 1,559,067 $ 9,932,763 $ 9,932,763 $ (8,373,696) Equipment disposition proceeds - - 997,309 997,309 (997,309) Interest income 1,168,475 1,168,475 1.180,264 1,180,264 (11,789) Contributions and non-operating grants 432,169 1,929,222 695,524 1,703,402 22.5,820 Transfers In 1,898,258 1,898,258 672,620 1,674.248 224,010 Total revenues and other sources 5,057,969 6,555,022 13,478,480 15,487,986 (8,932,964) I Expenses and other uses: Charges and services 2,569,287 2,569,287 12,015.423 13,752,155 11,182,868 Transfers out 1,428,631 1,428,631 672,620 2,207.620 778,989 Expenses before debt service and capital outlay 3,997,918 3,997,918 12,688,043 15,959.775 11,961,857 I Debt service: Principal - 1,410,773 - - (1,410,773) Interest 821,429 821,429 790,437 790,437 (30,992) Total expenses and other uses 4,819,347 6,230,120 13,478,480 16,750,212 10,520,092 Change in net assets $ 238,622 $ 324,902 $ - $ (1,262,226) $ 1,587,128 4. 4. SI-45 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND Year ended June 30,2010 Budgetary Basis Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts GAAP budgetary basis basis Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources: Operating income-rental and other $ 2,442,292 $ 2,442,292 $ 1,416,436 $ 1,587,050 $ 855,242 ' Property taxes 23,756,530 23,756,530 35,694,000 23,756,530 - Interest income 539,236 539,236 1,115,000 744,900 (205,664) Principal received on loans - 3,547,693 546,000 546,000 3,001,693 t k Total revenues and other sources 26,738,058 30,285,751 38,771,436 26,634,480 3,651,271 ` o , r Expenses and other uses: Personal services 819,496 819,496 777,856 777,856 (41,640) 1 Accrued compensated absences k and other post employement benefits 31,793 - - - - Operating and maintenance 12,608 12,608 12,447,452 11,462,435 11,449,827 1 Charges and services 12,771,563 12,771,563 29,684,452 19,031,122 6,259,559 , 0. Property tax refund 31,000 31,000 98,800 31,000 - r Loans made to residents and businesses - 2,262,393 5,844,062 6,136,520 3,874,127 04 Depreciation and amortization 1,932,188 - - - - Transfers Out 6,661 6,661 6,661 6,661 - Total expenses before debt service 15,605,309 15,903,721 48,859,283 37,445,594 21,541,873 •0 1 Debt service: Oil Principal 2,828,214 2,863,952 2,863,952 35,738 v. Interest and fiscal charges 5,938,798 5,952,869 6,112,071 6,112,071 159,202 Accrued interest on capital appreciation Mik bonds (3,055,405) - - - - MO Capital outlay- 4 Other improvements - 7,475,687 7,500,000 7,500,000 24,313 Land purchases - 4,051,832 10,077,043 16,851,642 12,799,810 10 Total expenses and other uses 18,488,702 36,212,323 75,412,349 70,773,259 34,560,936 * 40 Change in net assets $ 8,249,356 $ (5,926,572) $ (36,640,913) $ (44,138,779) $ 38,212,207 a 1110 Ot 40, Mr ew 04 ak SI-46 it at et Internal Service Funds Fleet Management Fund - This fund is used to account for the costs of the fleet management system which provides vehicles for use by City departments, and which provides vehicle maintenance on a cost-reimbursement basis. I Information Management Services Fund - This fund is used to account for the costs of providing data processing services to City departments. Costs are recovered by charges to user departments. I I Risk Management Fund - This fund is used to account for the costs of providing insurance for employee health, accident, long-term disability, unemployment and worker's compensation. It also accounts for costs of the City's property damage insurance. I l Governmental Immunity Fund - This fund is used to account for payment of general liability claims against the City. Municipal Building Authority Fund - This fund is used to account for the acquisition and lease to the City of purchased or constructed property and equipment. This fund accounts for the bonds which were issued to purchase or construct the property and equipment and also accounts for the retirement of those bonds. SI-47 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS-INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS June 30,2010 Information ,06,- Fleet Management ASSETS Management Services Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents $ 508,862 $ 1,631,929 Receivables: Other receivables 267 8,648 Other assets Inventories of supplies,at cost 565,195 - Total current assets 1,074,324 1,640,577 Restricted assets-cash and cash equivalents 464,607 - Property and equipment,at cost: t Land - Buildings 5,302 60,411 i Machinery and equipment 52,423,122 5,559,670 I,Work in progress 948,510 11,458 Accumulated depreciation and amortization (29,821,154) (4,669,475) , I Net property and equipment 23,555,780 962,064 ' p. Total assets $ 25.094,711 $ 2,602,641 r k LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS t O. rlk Current liabilities: Accounts payable $ 325,859 S 90,280 kik Accrued liabilities 75,704 59,232 Deferred revenue - 13,443 Current portion of estimated claims payable - - Current portion of long-term compensated absences 32,814 162,508 "" Current portion of long-term debt 2,067,052 - Total current liabilities 2,501,429 325,4634140 Long-term liabilities: 40 Notes payable 2,627,867 - * Notes payable from restricted assets 464,607 - Estimated claims liability - - 0 Compensated absences 266,338 744,147 0 Other post employment benefits 224,000 302,000 Total long-term liabilities 3,582,812 1,046,147 Total liabilities 6,084,241 1,371,610 0 Net Assets: Invested in capital assets 18,396,254 962,064 O6 Unrestricted 614,216 268,967 Total net assets 19,010,470 1,231,031 • Total liabilities and net assets $ 25,094,711 S 2,602,641 * 0 • 0 0 0 SI-48 ibi IP • 0 Municipal Risk Governmental Building Management Immunity Authority Total i $ 7,931,540 $ 4,569,497 $ 147,441 $ 14,789,269 ' ) - - - 8,915 - - - 565,195 7,931,540 4,569,497 147,441 15,363,379 vh - - - 464,607 ,P 1 62,741 - - 62,741 127,384 - - 193,097 22,467 - - 58,005,259 - 959,968 (63,865) - - (34,554,494) of 148,727 - - 24,666,57 1 «t $ 8,080,267 $ 4,569,497 $ 147,441 $ 40,494,557 $ 182,407 $ 13,605 $ - $ 612,151 16,907 2,701 - 154,544 365,904 - - 379,347 2,373,487 783,000 - 3,156,487 2,547 - - 197,869 - - 2,067,052 A 2,941,252 799,306 - 6,567,450 - - - 2,627,867 - - - 464,607 3,194,136 942,000 - 4,136,136 41,752 - - 1,052,237 - - - 526,000 3,235,888 942,000 - 8,806,847 6,177,140 1,741,306 - 15,374,297 148,727 - - 19,507,045 1,754,400 2,828,191 147,441 5,613,215 1,903,127 2,828,191 147,441 25,120,260 $ 8,080,267 $ 4,569,497 $ 147,441 $ 40,494,557 SI-49 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENSES,AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Year ended June 30,2010 Information Fleet Management Management Services Operating revenue-charges for services $ 8,025,380 $ 7,995,430 Operating expenses: Personal services 3,075,141 5,833,753 Operating and maintenance 4,642,920 114,536 Charges and services including change in reserves 981,243 1,744,527 Depreciation and amortization 4,356,321 550,029 Total operating expenses 13,055,625 8,242,845 Operating income(loss) (5,030,245) (247,415) Nonoperating revenues(expenses): Interest income 123 21,247 Interest expense (173,925) - • Gain(loss)on property and equipment dispostion 264,699 (6,447) tt • 40 Total nonoperating revenues(expenses) 90,897 14,800 Income(loss)before operating transfers (4,939,348) (232,615) Transfers in 5,170,381 359,597 /Pk Transfers out (338,642) - • Change in net assets (107,609) 126,982 M1� Net Assets July 1,2009 19,118,079 1,104,049 10 • Net Assets June 30,2010 $ 19,010,470 $ 1,231,031 • SIP 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 • 0 sl-50 St 0 II Govern- Municipal A Risk mental Building Management Immunity Authority Total $ 36,196,672 $ 209,751 $ - $ 52,427,233 377,565 247,188 - 9,533,647 1,284 9,548 - 4,768,288 35,071,815 671,122 - 38,468,707 "h 4,724 - - 4,911,074 l! 35,455,388 927,858 - 57,681,716 741,284 (718,107) (5,254,483) 14 6,039 - - 27,409 - - - (173,925) - - - 258,252 1 A6,039 - - 111,736 747,323 (718,107) - (5,142,747) * 48,926 900,000 - 6,478,904 (509,975) (500,000) (3,500,000) (4,848,617) 1. 286,274 (318,107) (3,500,000) (3,512,460) 1,616,853 3,146,298 3,647,441 28,632,720 $ 1,903,127 $ 2,828,191 $ 147,441 $ 25,120,260 1 1 h SI-51 1 i SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS I INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Year ended June 30,2010 , Information Fleet Management Management Services Increase(decrease)in cash and cash equivalents: Cash flows from operating activities- Receipts from customers and users $ 8,025,113 $ 7,966,469 Payments to suppliers (5,625,939) (1,870,923) Payments to employees (2,997,973) (5,682,783) Net cash provided by(used in)operating activities (598,799) 412,763 Cash flows from noncapital financing activities: Transfers in 5,170,381 359,597 Transfers out (338,642) - , Net cash provided by(used in) t noncapital financing activities 4,831,739 359,597 b Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: It Proceeds from issuance of debt net of discount and issuance costs 2,524,905 - « Proceeds from sale of equipment 436,989 9,906 Payments on long-term obligations (2,624,789) - Payments for purchase of fixed assets (6,083,165) (405,619) t Net cash used in capital financing activities (5,746,060) (395,713) t(t Cash flows from investing activities: Interest received on investments 123 21.247 t Net cash provided by investing activities 123 21.247 Molt t Net increase(decrease)in cash and cash equivalents (1,512,997) 397,894 Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 2,486,466 1.234.035 '` fr Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 973,469 $ 1,631,929 F Cash and cash equivalent components: Unrestricted $ 508,862 $ 1,631,929 Restricted 464,607 10 Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 973,469 $ 1,631,929 0 Reconciliation of operating income to net cash 0 provided by(used in)operating activities: alk Operating income(loss) $ (5,030,245) $ (247,415) 4110 Adjustments to reconcile operating income(loss)to net cash provided by(used in)operating activities: at Depreciation and amortization 4,356,321 550,029 Increase(decrease)due to change in: Ili Inventories of supplies 93,236 - Other current assets (267) (8,648) Accounts payable (95,012) (11,860) . Accrued liabilities affecting operating income 68,782 35.938 Deferred revenue - (20,313) • Compensation obligations 8,386 115,032 Total adjustments 4,431,446 660,178 • Net cash provided by(used in)operating activities $ (598,799) $ 412,763004 Noncash transactions affecting financial position 04 Equipment acquired through debt issuance $ 717,231 $ - ilk 0 0 0 0 51-52 a • CP Govern- Municipal Risk mental Building Management Immunity Authority Total e 1 $ 36,196,672 S 209,751 $ - $ 52,398,005 (34,807,808) (774,909) - (43,079,579) 1 (1,078.468) (247,188) - (10,006,412) i 310.396 (812.346) (687,986) 48.926 900,000 - 6,478,904 i (509.975) (500,000) (3,500,000) (4,848,617) (461,049) 400,000 (3,500,000) 1,630,287 111 # - - - 2,524,905 0 - - - 446,895 - - (2,624,789) 4 - - - (6,488,784) I - - - (6,141,773) I 11 6,039 - - 27,409 i 6,039 - - 27,409 II % (144,614) (412,346) (3,500,000) (5,172,063) 8,076,154 4,981,843 3,647,441 20,425,939 $ 7,931,540 S 4.569,497 $ 147,441 $ 15,253,876 S $ 7,931,540 S 4.569,497 $ 147,441 $ 14,789,269 464,607 $ 7,931.540 S 4,569,497 $ 147,441 $ 15,253,876 $ 741.284 $ (718,107) $ - $ (5,254,483) 4.724 - - 4,911,074 111 - - 93,236 - - (8,915) ,», 98.000 (6,935) - (15,807) (337.691) (87,304) - (320,275) »* (192,998) - - (213,311) (2,923) - - 120,495 (430,888) (94,239) - 4,566,497 $ 310,396 S (812,346) $ - $ (687,986) A ., $ - S - $ - $ 717,231 SI-53 ft i r SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 0 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND Year ended June 30,2010 '" `" t t t Budgetary Basis e 1- Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts GAAP budgetary basis basis Original Final Variance r t Revenues and other sources: # Charges for maintenance $ 8,025,380 $ 8,025,380 $ 8,852,291 $ 8,852,291 $ (826,911) ft Interest income 123 123 5,000 5,000 (4,877) Gain on sale of equipment 264,699 - - - - # Proceeds from note - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 (3,000,000) # ' Proceeds from sale of equipment - 436,989 550,000 550,000 (113,011) #,. Transfers in 5,170,381 5,170,381 4,370,381 5,170,381 - #,, 1, Total revenues and other sources 13,460,583 13,632,873 16,777,672 17,577,672 (3,944,799) ''" •I" #1 Expenses and other uses: Personal services 3,035,154 3,035,154 3,232,942 3,232,942 197,788 Accrued compensated absences IMr and other post employement benefits 39,987 - - - - ' ` Operating and maintenance 4,642,920 4,642,920 5,373,050 5,513,494 870,574 JNr Charges and services 981,243 981,243 755,091 864,269 (116,974) Depreciation 4,356,321 - - - - Transfers out 338,642 338,642 338,642 338,642 - 1116 40 Total expenses before debt service M and capital outlay 13,394,267 8,997,959 9,699,725 9,949,347 951,388 40 40 Debt service: Principal - 2,450,864 2,270,032 2,270,032 (180,832) 0 Interest 173,925 173,925 151,695 151,695 (22,230) al ifr Capital outlay - 6,083,165 5,480,000 6,476,070 392,905 Total expenses and other uses 13,568,192 17,705,913 17,601,452 18,847,144 1,141,231 0 St 0 Change in net assets $ (107,609) $ (4,073,040) $ (823,780) $ (1,269,472) $ (2,803,568) ek St 0 SO 40 elk SI-54 40 0 0 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FUND Year ended June 30,2010 1 1 4 b k Budgetary Basis 1 Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts A GAAP budgetary ii# basis basis Original Final Variance R k Revenue: Charges for services $ 7,979,065 $ 7,979,065 $ 8,417,448 $ 8,297,448 $ (318,383) k Interest income 21,247 21,247 - - 21,247 "' Proceeds from sale of equipment - 9,906 10,000 10,000 (94) Loss on equipment disposition (6,447) - - - - Miscellaneous revenue 16,365 16,365 18,000 18,000 (1,635) Transfers in 359,597 359,597 314,597 359,597 - Total revenues and other sources 8,369,827 8,386,180 8,760,045 8,685,045 (298,865) Expenses and other uses: Personal services 5,695,369 5,695,369 5,848,853 5,848,853 153,484 Accrued compensated absences and other post employement benefits 138,384 - - - - Operating and maintenance 114,536 114,536 150,850 150,850 36,314 Charges and services 1,744,527 1,744,527 2,245,342 2,245,342 500,815 Depreciation 550,029 - - - - Total expenses before capital outlay 8,242,845 7,554,432 8,245,045 8,245,045 690,613 Capital outlay - 405,619 515,000 560,000 154,381 kli Total expenses and other uses 8,242,845 7,960,051 8,760,045 8,805,045 844,994 Change in net assets $ 126,982 $ 426,129 $ - $ (120,000) $ 546,129 N SI-55 1 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Year ended June 30,2010 t 1 Budgetary Basis Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts GAAP budgetary 0 basis basis Original Final Variance e Revenues and other sources: Charges for services $35,855,974 $35,855,974 $36,957,204 $36,957,204 $ (1,101,230) ♦'r Interest income 6,039 6,039 22,392 22,392 (16,353) ♦, Miscellaneous 235,698 235,698 302,926 302,926 (67,228) as( Transfers in 48,926 48,926 48,926 48,926 - ' Total revenues and other sources 36,251,637 36,251,637 37,331,448 37,331,448 (1,079,811) ! 000 Expenses and other uses: Personal services 378,380 378,380 786,452 786,452 408,072 4 Accrued compensated absences and other post employement benefits (815) - - - - Operating and maintenance 1,284 1,284 16,252 16,252 14,968 Premiums and other charges for services 34,624,833 34,624,833 36,528,744 36,518,769 1,893,936 Change in reserves 446,982 - - - - Depreciation 4,724 - - - - ► Transfers out 509,975 509,975 500,000 509,975 - Total expenses 35,965,363 35,514,472 37,831,448 37,831.448 2,316,976 Change in net assets $ 286,274 $ 737,165 $ (500,000) $ (500,000) $ 1,237,165 `► a a a a a • a SI-56 a a SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FUND Year ended June 30,2010 Budgetary Basis Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts GAAP budgetary basis basis Original Final Variance Revenues and other sources- Interfund service charges $ 209,751 $ 209,751 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 189,751 Interest income - - - - - Transfers in 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 - Total revenues 1,109,751 1,109,751 920,000 920,000 189,751 Expenses: Personal services 247,188 247,188 246,888 246,888 (300) Operating and maintenance 9,548 9,548 10,000 10,000 452 Claims,charges and services 819,122 819,122 763,112 888,112 68,990 Change in reserves (148,000) - - - - Transfers out 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 - Total expenses 1,427,858 1,575,858 1,520,000 1,645,000 69,142 Change in net assets $ (318,107) $ (466,107) $ (600,000) $ (725,000) $ 258,893 I SI-57 IP SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY FUND Year ended June 30,2010 ~ Budgetary Basis 1 Actual on Actual on Budgeted Amounts GAAP budgetary basis basis Original Final Variance E Revenues and other sources: Interest income $ $ $ $ $ Total revenues and other sourcesirk - - - - Transfers out 3,500,000 3,500,000 1,800,000 3,500,000 - Total expenses and other uses 3,500,000 3,500,000 1,800,000 3,500,000 - Change in net assets $ (3,500,000) $ (3,500,000) $ (1,800,000) $ (3.500.000) $ - p 0" Irk Ps 40 Ps Ps 410 P' 410 Ps Si 0* 0* 0* 0* • 0* 0* 0* 0* • 0* 0* SI-58 0, 0* 0* et SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ° SCHEDULE OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES « CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND « As of June 30,2010 t Prior years' Current year Total „,«a,. Project expenditures expenditures project Project budget and transfers and transfers expenditures balance t 1300 East Reconstruction $ 889,918 $ 387,299 $ 458,167 $ 845,466 $ 44,452 0 1300 South Reconstruction 1,129,380 905,462 134,457 1,039,919 89,461 4th Avenue 512,000 37,740 29,644 67,384 444,616 500 East Reconstruction 591,777 541,777 739 542,516 49,261 t 700 South Reconstruction 2,499,485 36,915 778,869 815,784 1,683,701 p 800 South Reconstruction 1,282,625 147,432 974,317 1,121,749 160,876 900 East Reconstruction 214,400 4,502 - 4,502 209,898 t 900 South Reconstruction 1,420,791 1,155,445 9,459 1,164,904 255,887 t ADA Modifications-Parks 395,000 143,171 111,453 254,624 140,376 • ADA Modifications-Ramp/Corner Repairs 3,342,325 2,365,512 698,880 3,064,392 277,933 Bicycle Facilities 1,259,132 417,256 314,541 731,797 527,335 R Bridge Rehabilitation 670,000 657,530 - 657,530 12,470 ! California Avenue 7,275,000 4,162,288 98,447 4,260,735 3,014,265 oor City/County Landfill 9,210,760 6,000,337 619,106 6,619,443 2,591,317 City Facility Improvements 122,328,947 21,150,877 38,399,444 59,550,321 62,778,626 IF' Concrete Replacement 8,373,484 5,195,210 877,896 6,073,106 2,300,378 4 Contingency 1,118,135 - - - 1,118,135 Debt Service-City/County Building 5,285,038 2,362,438 2,922,600 5,285,038 - Debt Service-Library GO Bond 6,855,357 - 6,855,357 6,855,357 - 11« Debt Service-Justice Court 150,693 - 150,693 150,693 - 00 Debt Service-Pioneer Precinct 53,343 - - - 53,343 Debt Service-Sales Tax 6,155,489 2,816,932 3,333,978 6,150,910 4,579 " Debt Service-Zoo&Aviary Bond 866,788 - 866,788 866,788 - OK Gladiola Street Reconstruction 700,000 484,690 - 484,690 215,310 00 Grant Towers Railroad Realignment 13,821,318 11,727,335 148,010 11,875,345 1,945,973 Human Resource Information System 185,500 168,319 - 168,319 17,181 00 IFAS Implementation 2,290,906 1,989,887 - 1,989,887 301,01°F «o. Impact Fees 6,799,836 49,119 - 49,119 6,750,71'1 s Jordan River Parkway 3,516,361 1,148,520 518,376 1,666,896 1,849,465 Leonardo 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 IN Liberty Park Improvements 6,697,614 6,089,355 31,931 6,121,286 576,328 04 Liberty Wells 250,000 - - - 250,000 41101, Local Street Reconstruction 7,300,869 4,769,082 1,582,798 6,351,880 948,989 Lyman Court Reconstruction 190,000 166,932 7,236 174,168 15,832 0' Neighborhood Legacy Project 100,001 40,611 - 40,611 59,390 North Temple Boulevard 24,300,000 - 8,755,233 8,755,233 15,544,767 Open Space 5,712,943 2,316,218 66,172 2,382,390 3,330,553 Wr Park Improvements 5,893,128 3,836,805 1,201,793 5,038,598 854,530 M Percent for Art 430,952 71,356 26,867 98,223 332,729 • Pedestrian Safety Devices 620,000 388,277 94,799 483,076 136,924 Property Management 769,996 678,529 58,605 737,134 32,862 IF Public Safety Radio Communication System 3,000,000 2,779,157 - 2,779,157 220,843 0 Rosewood Park Improvements 899,146 802,118 89,648 891,766 7,380 ,, Sidewalk Replacement 8,206,585 5,099,580 1,247,774 6,347,354 1,859,231 South Temple Reconstruction 2,435,000 2,306,536 1,490 2,308,026 126,974 IF Speed Boards 90,000 87,500 2,500 90,000 - 40 Street Improvements-Miscellaneous Street 3,869,297 170,488 559,350 729,838 3,139,459 $0 Street Lighting Improvements 605,002 238,516 232,890 471,406 133,596 SugarHouse Rails to Trails 210,000 - 210,000 210,000 - it Tracy Aviary 325,000 105,632 207,143 312,775 12,225 0 Traffic Island Landscaping 205,431 112,931 - 112,931 92,500 et Traffic Signal Improvements 3,473,001 2,299,926 753,959 3,053,884 419,117 Tree Replacement 119,609 109,560 5,482 115,042 4,567 at Yale Avenue 3,250 - - - 3,250 • 0 �M Total Projects $ 286,400,611 $ 96,525,102 $ 73,436,891 $ 169,961,992 $ 116,438,61',, et i SI-60 0 A SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPERATING FUND As of June 30,2010 Prior years' Current year Total Project expenditures expenditures project Project budget and transfers and transfers expenditures balance 211 Information Bank $ 15,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 15,000 $ - t Administrative Support-35th Year 702,721 - 863,881 724,768 6,556 Alliance House 75,177 14,820 26,617 41,437 33,740 t Bad Dog Rediscovers America 25,000 8,500 10,343 18,843 6,157 t Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah 20,000 13,502 5,488 18,990 1,010 t CAP Head Start 145,773 127,001 18,772 145,773 - Capitol West 51,500 50,861 639 51,500 - 4 Capitol West Boys&Girls Club 216,429 105,591 70,001 175,592 40,837 h Cleaning/Securing Vacant Property 219,435 156,539 10,217 166,756 52,679 Community Health Center 238,525 163,525 75,000 238,525 - Cost over-run account 434,289 10,000 - 10,000 424,289 t Crossroads Urban Center Food Pantry 48,000 32,000 16,000 48,000 - 4 Emergency Home Repair(ASSIST) 1,281,649 924,676 349,510 1,274,186 7,463 Emergency Repair Fund SLC HAND 40,000 23,009 2,300 25,309 14,691 English Skills Learning Center 31,500 24,500 6,596 31,096 404 Entro Civico Mexicano 19,000 - - - 19,000 ,,, Family Support Center Improvements 45,000 35,000 5,000 40,000 5,000 Fourth Street Clinic 63,847 20,401 36,824 57,225 6,622 Guadalupe Early Learning Center 105,000 75,000 30,000 105,000 0% Historic Preservation Plan 70,000 51,050 18,950 70,000 - '# Housing Match-Capital Planning 559,486 290,161 269,325 559,486 - Housing Outreach Rental Program 80,000 50,000 30,000 80,000 - Housing Rehabilitation 5,283,447 2,785,189 2,546,054 5,331,243 (47,796) 14 Kostopulos Dream Foundation 15,000 10,000 5,000 15,000 - % Legal Aid Society of Utah 45,000 35,000 10,000 45,000 - Lion Club-Boys&Girls Club Improvements 3,500 - - - 3,500 Literacy Action Center 5,000 - - - 5,000 Multi-cultural Legal Center 21,990 12,932 3,341 16,273 5,717 Multi-Ethnic Development Corp 6,667 1,667 5,000 6,667 - 44 Neighborhood House 57,819 21,819 15,000 36,819 21,000 `� Neighborworks Revolving Loan 399,999 299,999 99,900 399,899 100 Neighborhood Self-Help Grants 20,000 8,607 1,802 10,409 9,591 Northwest Food Bank 75,000 50,000 25,000 75,000 - Odessey House 101,610 71,610 28,928 100,538 1,072 People Helping People 20,000 15,000 - 15,000 5,000 Rape Recovery Center 109,980 70,173 39,807 109,980 Road Home 346,893 235,000 111,893 346,893 - Salt Lake Community Development Corp. 377,709 307,709 70,000 377,709 - Salt Lake Donated Dental Program 119,533 89,533 30,000 119,533 - Salt Lake Peer Court 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 - Salvation Army 248,163 136,033 - 136,033 112,130 Sarah Daft House 2,940 - - - 2,940 Services for Seniors 243,768 158,768 56,265 215,033 28,735 „4 St. Mary's Home for Men 30,107 19,356 10,751 30,107 - Tenant Home Maintenance Training 30,000 20,000 10,000 30,000 - University Neighborhood Partnerships 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 44 Utah Alcoholism Foundation 119,499 66,249 12,765 79,014 40,485 Utah Health and Human Rights 34,710 20,000 14,710 34,710 - Utah Heritage Foundation 442,516 343,502 - 343,502 99,014 '4 Utah NonProfit Housing Corporation 17,000 10,000 7,000 17,000 - Valley Mental Health 20,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 - Volunteers of America 50,000 20,000 26,005 46,005 3,995 Wasatch Community Garden 50,000 43,750 6,250 50,000 - Weigand Homeless Day Center 92,790 75,738 17,052 92,790 - YMCA-After School Project 28,066 18,066 8,180 26,246 1,820 YWCA-Crisis Shelter 110,000 75,000 35,000 110,000 - SI-61 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPERATING FUND(cont.) As of June 30,2010 Prior years' Current year Total tait. Project expenditures expenditures project Project budget and transfers and transfers expenditures balance (continued) d Youth with a Voice $ 45,000 $ 29,931 $ 14,339 $ 44,270 $ 730 Total Projects: $ 13,071,037 $ 7,246,767 $ 5,080,505 $ 12,188,159 $ 911,481 d I p p M p 41• 01 IMF 11 1p Np OP S S M S S S SI-62 i SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES GRANTS OPERATING FUND As of June 30,2010 Prior years' Current year Total Project expenditures expenditures project Project budget and transfers and transfers expenditures balance '1 21st Century Community Learning $ 122,895 $ 23,952 $ 41,196 S 65,148 $ 57,747 I Adobe Youth Voices 2,500 - 314 314 2,186 Anti Human-trafficking Grant 450,000 34,287 14,152 48,439 401,561 >t Art in Education 2,500 - 2,500 2,500 - % Art Works for Kids 5,000 - - - 5,000 % Asset Forfeiture Grant 20,000 - 8,539 8,539 11,461 Assistance to Firefighters Grant 133,000 - - - 133,000 1 Bicycle Safety Project 12,876 - 7,960 7,960 4,916 li Buffer Zone Grant 551,679 - 236,906 236,906 314,773 Certified Local Government 26,065 11,844 12,577 24,421 1,644 Citizen Corp Council 32,636 13,147 7,092 20,239 12,397 1 City Center Loan Fund 17,528 - 70 70 17,458 i Clean Cities Program 27,955 27,951 4 27,959 - Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice 20,000 4,315 15,685 20,000 - Community Action Program 140,000 12,009 127,991 140,000 - '1$ Community Development Corp 478,591 68,500 217,646 286,146 192,445 * Community Oriented Policing 2,183,010 - 721,468 721,468 1,461,542 1 Crisis Intervention Training 125,000 39,581 85,419 125,000 Critical Land Inventory 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 - I Crossroads Urban Center 27,000 - - - 27,000 A Dee Foundation 1,000 - - - 1,000 Drug Free Communities 260,440 66,592 105,357 171,949 88,491 11/ EDGAR Grant 107,910 91,305 7,421 98,726 9,184 ") Emergency Medical Services 371,489 142,110 84,760 226,870 144,619 Emergency Preparedness Grant 64,491 20,000 24,178 44,178 20,313 Emergency Shelter Grant 320,911 110,603 174,276 284,879 36,032 iergy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant 2,116,500 - 250,935 250,935 1,865,565 .,rant to Encourage Arrest Policies 398,516 79,173 248,167 327,340 71,176 Hazardous Materials Mitigation Grant 2,500 - - - 2,500 Heartland HODAG loan fund 2,874,272 - - - 2,874,272 ' High Intensity Drug Trafficking Grant 225,550 31,309 66,985 98,294 127,256 Historic Planning and Preservation 67,521 9,100 5,521 14,621 52,900 Home 1,215,902 86,361 140,628 226,989 988,913 Homeland Security Grant 946,983 543,988 234,915 778,903 168,080 Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program 1,680,347 - 396,058 396,058 1,284,289 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS 755,491 254,074 326,128 580,202 175,289 Imagination Celebration 4,550 2,275 - 2,275 2,275 Improving Crime Data Crime Analysis 50,710 27,799 22,911 50,710 - Intel Computer Clubhouse 30,000 21,226 6 21,232 8,768 Interagency Outreach Training Initiative 25,000 - 25,000 25,000 - Invasive Species Mitigation 15,000 - - - 15,000 101 Justice Assistance Grant 6,226,879 614,532 2,220,782 2,835,314 3,391,565 A9 Land and Water Conservation 1,455,043 - 654,905 654,905 800,138 Lead Based Paint Program 503,300 308,548 16,135 324,683 178,617 LifeSkills Grant 57,532 13,494 19,134 32,628 24,904 4,! Meth Enforcement and Cleanup Grant 447,136 81,909 175,178 257,087 190,049 + Metropolitan Medical Response System 1,358,929 436,983 337,865 774,848 584,081 Microsoft Unlimited Potential 96,000 42,464 12,610 55,074 40,926 Neighborworks 1,575,961 548,477 753,587 1,302,064 273,897 "! One Million Trees for One Million People 1,000 - - - 1,000 Parkview Plaza - - 68,767 68,767 (68,767) Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act Formula Grant 125,000 - 4,862 4,862 120,138 1 Pharmaceutical Drug Crime Project Public Awareness 250,000 - - - 250,000 Police Car Technology Grant 40,000 - - - 40,000 evolving Loan Fund-UDAG 10,345,970 3,500,970 173,981 3,674,951 6,671,019 :oadHome 100,000 - 90,195 90,195 9,805 Social Services Block Grant 50,000 29,159 - 29,159 20,841 Solar Energy 203,339 147,909 23,844 171,753 31,586 SI-63 p Solar Market Transformation Grant 273,500 - 33,415 33,415 240,085 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES GRANTS OPERATING FUND(cont.) As of June 30,2010 ,,ram Prior years' Current year Total Project expenditures expenditures project Project budget and transfers and transfers expenditures balance t (continued) Staffing for Adequate Fire&Emergency Response grant $ 969,638 $ - $ - S - $ 969,638 State Trails and Pathways 255,000 - 5,000 5,000 250,000 Sustainable Transportation for a Sustainable Future 368,554 - 20,377 20,377 348,177 t Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Program 3,791,400 16,403 1,463,573 1,479,976 2,311,424 Utah Non-profit Housing 190,763 - 190,763 190,763 - Victim of Crime 84,030 31,495 42,535 74,030 10,000 t. Violence Against Women 211,832 31,636 83,057 114,693 97,139 (' Water Efficiency 530,000 463,631 27,316 490,947 39,053 0 Youth Connections 122,000 - 120,623 120,624 1,376 1 Total Projects: $ 45,547,123 $ 7,989,115 $ 10,152,269 S 18,141,385 $ 27,405,738 Mt4 IM �oE Olt itt$ et 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • ,0010. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SI-64 0 0 p STATISTICAL SECTION (unaudited) This part of the Salt Lake City Corporation's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says t about the City's overall financial health. Contents • Financial Trends S-1 These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City's financial performance and well-being have changed over 1� time. S • Revenue Capacity S-9 S These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City's 1� most significant local revenue source, the property tax. P 0.4 Debt Capacity S-13 0.1t These schedules present information to help the reader assess the 1►► affordability of the City's current levels of outstanding debt and the City's ability to issue additional debt in the future Demographic and Economic Information S-18 This schedule offers demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the City's financial activities take place. 10, Operating Information S-19 These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the City's financial report relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs. a • a Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the a Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for the relevant year. The City implemented GASB 34 in 2002; schedules presenting government-wide information include M information beginning in that year. Ilk • a a s r s pit 4 .i, P - i 4 ' 4 of • d1 s 4 i 0 a: a :,: ,i .: ,a 4 .... s ._ r Salt Lake City Corporation Net Assets by Component Lust Nine Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) Fiscal Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Governmental Activities Investment in capital assets,net of related debt $ 290,429 $ 335,869 $ 323,869 $ 358,064 $ 382,648 $ 398,306 $ 400,787 $ 385,403 $ 439,430 Restricted 5,414 7,720 9,194 7,756 7,730 8,572 9,956 7,226 6,371 Unrestnctcd 194,236 87,794 119,281 126,234 77,575 79,083 80,864 108,295 79,421 Total governmental activities net assets $ 490,079 $ 431,383 $ 452,344 $ 492,054 $ 467,953 $ 485,961 $ 491,606 $ 500,923 $ 525,222 Business-type activities Invested in capital assets,net of related debt $ 828,734 $ 820,939 $ 907,775 $ 982,029 $ 1.049,032 $ 1,100,180 $ 1,198.299 $ 1,218 964 $ 1,235,973 Restricted 42,863 61,146 54,288 23,327 39,294 39,865 26,357 26,347 31,628 Unrestricted 206,151 264,419 248,632 281,695 314,737 374,505 334.663 370,628 403,681 Total business-type activities net assets $ 1,077,748 $ 1,146,504 $ 1,210,695 $ 1,287,051 $ 1,403,063 $ 1.514,550 $ 1,559,319 $ 1,615939 5 I.671,282 Primary Government Invested in capital assets,net of related debt $ 1,119,163 $ 1,156,808 $ 1,231,644 $ 1,340,093 $ 1.431,680 $ 1,498,486 $ 1,599,086 $ 1,604,367 $ 1,675,402 Restricted 48,277 68,866 63,482 31,083 47,025 48,437 36,312 33,572 37,999 Unrestricted 400,387 352,213 367,913 407,929 392,311 453,587 415,526 478,923 483,103 Total primary government net assets $ 1,567,827 $ 1,577,887 $ 1,663,039 $ 1,779,105 $ 1,871,016 $ 2,000,510 $ 2,050,924 $ 2,116,862 $ 2,196,504 S-1 Salt Lake City Corporation Change in Net Assets Last Nine Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) Fiscal Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Expenses Governmental Activities: General Government $ 740 $ 1,105 $ 2,013 $ 1,821 $ 13,426 $ 15,778 $ 14,541 $ 13,193 $ 9,284 City Council 1,311 1,563 1,338 1,546 1,605 1,659 2,263 1,977 1,881 Mayor 1,557 1,524 1,408 1,470 1,694 1,614 2,021 2,198 1,996 City Attorney 2,749 3,713 3,441 3,572 4,318 5,108 5,307 5,190 4,558 Management Services 13,358 12,997 11,020 10,644 10,647 10,418 23,741 16,192 13,423 Fire 27,594 26,930 27,506 27,894 30,688 32,580 34,636 35,234 35,126 Police 47,059 44,768 46,482 48,720 51,487 57,759 61,022 61,045 61,088 Community and Economic Development 20,923 19,990 17,910 17,367 28,094 19,363 22,883 23,802 30,562 Public Services 36,277 37,622 33,500 38,931 47,110 50,018 48,206 46,512 43,056 Nondepartmental 9.784 11,451 10,504 12,291 - - - - - Unallocated infrastructure depreciation 6,047 5,610 6,461 7,032 5,116 7,472 7,459 7,872 8,197 Interest on long-term debt 1 1,205 8.953 10,618 11,329 7,854 7,554 7,312 7,084 8,092 Total governmental activities expenses $ 178,604 $ 176,226 $ 172,201 $ 182,617 $ 202,039 $ 209,323 $ 229,391 $ 220,299 $ 217,262 Business-type activities: Water $ 35,314 $ 34,830 $ 35,574 $ 38,001 $ 44,384 $ 44,613 $ 48,244 $ 49,718 $ 48,120 Airport Authority 94,684 104,468 110,013 104,371 113,981 119,059 134,574 129,917 134,374 Sewer(2) - - - 12,641 12,646 12,816 13,565 13,604 14,063 Housing(3) - - - - 1,003 877 907 2,457 3,391 Redevelopment Agency 16,497 18,340 13,403 17,168 15,942 16,891 18,728 20,038 18,482 Intermodal Hub(4) - - - - 2,116 128 - - 91 Storm Water(4) - - - - 4,442 4,619 5,067 5,903 5,983 Refuse(4) - - - - 11,322 5,193 9,209 7,306 8,641 Golf(4) - - - - 8,476 8,370 8,178 7,987 8,140 Other activities(4) 33,047 32,538 31,357 19,221 - - - - - Total business-type activities expenses 179,542 190,176 190,347 191,402 214,312 212,565 238,472 236,931 241,285 Total primary government expenses $ 358,146 $ 366,402 $ 362,548 $ 374,019 $ 416,351 $ 421,888 $ 467,863 $ 457,230 $ 458,547 Program Revenues Charges for Services General Government $ 2,367 $ 2,082 $ 2,117 $ 21,290 $ 9,410 $ 10,141 $ 13,896 $ 18,023 $ 12,058 City Council 81 81 46 55 68 52 48 29 Mayor 286 286 279 279 215 367 190 232 210 City Attorney 570 400 416 320 1,092 781 713 814 481 Administrative Services 290 9,162 10,517 9,989 9,270 7,655 11,357 12,373 10,646 Fire 5,734 4,162 4,198 4,646 5,171 6,103 5,339 5,952 4,722 Police 12,097 5,001 4,791 4,511 4,906 4,955 5,391 5,405 6,878 Community and Economic Development 15,021 11,451 10,189 11,893 13,531 11,721 14,285 17,416 16,092 Public Services 5,694 4,079 5,815 8,936 6,074 7,359 4,695 3,847 5,012 Operating Grants and Contributions 9,945 10,741 17,492 14,424 17,798 11,705 14,297 10,435 16,847 Capital Grants and Contributions 6,487 8,075 7,724 5,796 4,805 14,598 11,900 6,482 25,531 Total governmental activities program revenues $ 58,572 $ 55,520 $ 63,584 $ 82,139 $ 72,272 $ 75,454 $ 82,115 $ 81,027 $ 98,504 S-2 Business-type activities: Charges for Services: Water $ 42,733 $ 40,222 $ 46,137 $ 43,667 $ 52,082 $ 56,330 $ 55,136 $ 57,118 $ 53,900 Airport Authority 125,702 126,076 115,954 129,709 136,863 146,425 150,813 144,281 145,127 Sewer(2) - - - 15,893 16,847 17,983 17,715 17,444 17,406 Housing(3) - - - - 1,284 177 330 1,257 1,559 Redevelopment Agency 26,190 24,746 24,093 22,885 23,055 24,106 24,447 25,335 26,205 lnlermodal I lub(4) - - - - 1,878 1,646 - - - Storm Water(4) - - - - 5,410 5,521 5,417 5,329 6,262 Refuse(4) - - - - 7,241 7,872 7,634 7,768 8,281 Golf(4) - - - - 7,794 8,252 8,071 7,609 7,778 Other activities(4) 39,009 36,289 34,850 19,960 - - - - - Operating grants and contributions 25,464 18,976 28,928 29,395 29,017 39,076 - - - Capital grants and contributions - - - - - - 21,886 21,068 26,137 Total business-type activities program revenues 259,098 246,309 249,962 261,509 281,471 307,388 291,449 287,209 292,655 Total primary government program revenues $ 317,670 $ 3(11,829 $ 313,546 $ 343,648 $ 353,743 $ 382,841 $ 373,564 $ 368,236 $ 391,160 Net(expense)/revenue Governmental activities $ (120,032) $ (120,706) $ (108,617) $ (100,478) $ (129,767) $ (133,870) $ (147,276) $ (139,272) $ (118,758) Business-type activities 79,556 56,133 59,615 70,107 67,159 94,823 52,977 50,277 51,370 Total primary government net expense $ (40,476) $ (64,573) $ (49,002) $ (30,371) $ (62,608) $ (39,047) $ (94,299) $ (88,995) $ (67,387) General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Assets Governmental activities Taxes Property taxes,levied for general purposes $ 64,161 $ 59,723 $ 63,243 $ 66,696 $ 64,341 $ 65,850 $ 65,935 $ 66,608 $ 67,575 Franchise taxes 20,832 20,679 21,532 23,194 23,929 25,959 28,079 26,318 26,322 Sales tax 45,602 41,889 41,097 44,999 48,933 52,056 53,828 49,332 46,741 Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs 3,661 (I) - - - - - - - - Investmentearnings 8,548 4,298 3,608 5,091 5,360 6,876 5,764 4,024 2,168 Transfers - 102 96 211 (16,313) 1,136 (685) 2,307 250 Total governmental activities 142,804 126,691 129,576 140,191 126,250 151,878 152,921 148,589 143,057 Business-type activities: Investment earnings $ 6,958 $ 5,648 $ 4,673 $ 6,462 $ 12,003 $ 17,799 $ 16,629 $ 8,651 $ 4,224 Intermodal Hub Contribution to UTA - - - - - - (21,994) - - Transfers - (102) (96) (211) 16,313 (1,136) 685 (2,307) (250) Total business-type activities: 6,958 5,546 4,577 6,251 28,316 16,663 (4,680) 6,344 3,974 Total primary government $ 149,762 $ 132,237 $ 134,153 $ 146,442 $ 154,566 $ 168,540 $ 148,241 $ 154,933 $ 147,030 Change in Net Assets Governmental activities $ 22,772 $ 5,985 $ 20,959 $ 39,710 $ (3,516) $ 18,008 $ 5,645 $ 9,317 $ 24,299 Business-type activities 86,514 61,679 64,192 76,356 95,475 111,486 48,297 56,621 55,344 Total primary government $ 109,286 $ 67,664 $ 85,151 $ 116,066 $ 91,959 $ 129,494 $ 53,942 $ 65,938 $ 79,643 (1) Grants received for the 2002 Winter Olympics (2) The Sewer Utility became a major fund in 2005 (3) The Housing Fund was classified as a business-type activity in 2006 (4) The nonmajor business-type activities were shown in detail rather than in total in 2006 S-3 Salt Lake City Corporation Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Last Ten Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 General Fund Reserved $ 4,058 $ 2,552 $ 1,095 $ 1,443 $ 2,527 $ 2,818 $ 3,587 $ 4,543 $ 2,212 $ 3,171 Unreserved 21,431 28,600 22,012 19,972 26,631 28,761 28,973 23,595 22,045 23,121 Total General Fund $ 25,489 $ 31,152 (1) $ 23,107 $ 21,415 $ 29,158 $ 31,579 $ 32,560 $ 28,138 $ 24,258 $ 26,292 All other governmental funds Reserved $ 28,339 $ 28,101 $ 26,683 $ 41,830 $ 37,444 $ 7,193 $ 5,022 $ 9,782 $ 47,740 $ 48,061 Unreserved,reported in: Capital projects funds 90,163 (2) 50,554 27,842 29,642 27,234 27,140 26,094 34,600 25,289 32,713 Special revenue funds 18,239 20,742 20,501 23,795 23,444 17,852 19,041 49,657 20,245 16,811 Debt service funds - 97 349 341 869 1,013 378 (937) 1,706 1,143 Total all other governmental funds $ 136,741 $ 99,494 $ 75,375 $ 95,608 $ 88,991 $ 53,198 $ 50,535 $ 93,102 $ 94,979 $ 98,729 (I)-Increase due to 2002 Winter Olympics (2)-Increase due to bonding for new Downtown library S-4 Salt Lake City Corporation Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Last Ten Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Revenues: General property taxes $ 56,262 $ 58,584 $ 59,724 $ 63,243 $ 64,473 $ 63,305 $ 65,790 $ 67,447 $ 66,237 $ 67,575 Sales,Use and excise taxes 42,731 45,602 41,889 41,097 44,999 48,933 52,053 53,828 49,332 46,741 Franchise taxes 19,432 20,832 20,679 21,532 23,194 23,929 25,959 28,079 26,318 26,322 Licenses 5,327 5,969 5,430 5,540 5,505 5,779 6,578 7,326 7,831 8,077 Permits 6,347 4,395 3,751 4,460 6,881 9,940 9,891 13,874 12,964 8,312 Fines and forfeitures 3,885 3,447 5,564 5,744 5,656 6,268 6,059 5,705 6,632 6,731 Assessments 1,453 1,266 1,543 2,100 19,046 1,597 2,064 1,806 1,747 2,256 Interest 9,892 7,720 3,833 3,296 4,685 4,834 6,202 5,122 3,585 2,141 Intergovernmental 25,733 22,130 21,726 20,326 20,479 21,175 21,570 21,747 19,533 45,163 Interfund service charges 6,761 9,053 8,057 8,158 8,689 8,864 9,542 9,448 9,509 9,333 Parking meter 1,257 1,171 1,160 1,197 1,288 1,454 1,540 1,664 1,646 2,027 Parking ticket 3,374 2,813 3,445 3,913 3,669 3,135 2,909 3,103 3,969 3,809 Charges for services 3,160 6,105 3.993 3,710 3,633 3,574 4,151 4,124 4,878 4,440 Contributions 367 4,899 1,261 5,732 1,502 3,082 1,550 3,148 1,271 1,371 Miscellaneous 1,632 2,462 2,283 2,361 1,560 3,326 4,292 1,317 1,764 2.033 Total Revenues 187,613 196,448 184,338 192,409 215,259 209,195 220,150 227,738 217,246 236,329 Expenditures City Council 1,220 1,289 1,513 1,328 1,541 1,519 1,686 2,174 1,777 1,740 Mayor 1,443 1,549 1,486 1,414 1,460 1,558 1,617 1,768 1,911 1,770 City Attorney 2,082 2,500 2,565 2,757 2,925 3,285 3,943 4,310 4,662 4,238 Management Services 7,453 13,400 8,820 8,920 9,278 9,589 10,355 11,027 11,837 11,326 Fire 24,962 26,924 26,136 27,526 27,322 29,154 30,466 32,587 33,033 31,508 Police 40,144 44,051 42,602 44,055 46,057 47,712 50,955 55,130 54,623 53,824 Community and Economic Development 16,705 19,854 18,419 17,101 16,197 18,174 17,606 20,409 21,862 26,578 Public Services 28,060 31,975 32,844 34,610 34,902 36,784 41,787 39,740 37,641 34,079 Intemal Audit 281 - - - - - - - - _ Arts Council 287 813 824 840 1,052 1,226 1,191 1,406 1,600 1,630 Nondepartmental 8,782 9,787 11,449 10,509 12,291 12,725 13,554 14,832 16,480 15,045 Capital Improvement 37,760 58,292 52,550 32,858 22,847 33,275 27,024 26,475 32,881 54,610 Debt service: Principal 5,718 5,686 58,332 6,313 29,829 9,991 10,289 11,363 11,519 12,699 Interest and other fiscal charges 5,641 6,613 5,421 6,602 8,332 7,188 7,410 7,134 6,965 8,556 Total expenditures 180,538 222,733 262,961 194,833 214,033 212,180 217,883 228,355 236,791 257,603 Excess of revenues over(under)expenditures 7,075 (26,285) (78,623) (2,424) 1,226 (2,985) 2,267 (617) (19,545) (21,273) S-6 IP 4 t .4 ... i .,i ,.i J ,ii F . a - _ - - - - .. .. .V go .4. .. -. -r 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Other financing sources(uses): Issuance of debt 65 705 54,216 30,179 68,666 472 686 9,341 47,620 25,096 Premiums from issuance of debt - - - 99 - - - - 2,007 2,007 Proceeds from sale of property 723 982 920 561 1,705 579 751 6,225 2,279 1,332 Operating transfers in 38,696 37,454 45,625 36,616 35,844 51,160 45,745 42,706 44,892 50,980 Operating transfers out (56,168) (45,474) (54,302) (46,492) (106,314) (62,013) (51,131) (50,232) (44,535) (52,360) Total other financing sources(uses) (16,684) (6,333) 46,459 20,963 (99) (9,802) (3,949) 8,041 48,263 27,056 Net change in fund balances $ (9,609) $ (32,618) $ (32,164) $ 18,539 $ 1,127 $ (12,787) $ (1,682) $ 7,423 $ 28,719 $ 5,783 Debt service as a percentage of 8.85% 7.72% 29.17% 8.04% 19.96"/0 15.16% 9.95% 9.61% 9.47/0 10.51% noncapital expenditures Debt service as a percentage of 6.29% 5.52% 24.24% 6.63% 17.83` 8.10% 8.I2% 8.10% 7.81"/o 8.25% total expenditures S-7 Salt Lake City Corporation Governmental Activities Tax Revenues By Source Last Nine Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) Property Property Property Fiscal Tax Tax Tax Franchise Sales Year (Real) (Personal) Motor Vehicle Tax Tax Total 2002 $ 46,772 $ 7,211 $ 4,601 $ 20,832 $ 43,614 $ 123,030 2003 48,551 7,436 3,737 20,678 41,899 122,301 2004 52,018 6,918 4,307 21,533 41,097 125,873 2005 55,499 6,998 4,199 23,194 44,999 134,889 2006 53,432 6,710 4,199 23,929 48,933 137,203 2007 55,919 6,004 3,927 25,959 52,056 143,865 2008 55,774 5,930 4,231 28,079 53,828 147,842 2009 56,869 5,972 3,767 26,318 49,332 142,258 2010 57,836 5,972 3,767 26,322 46,741 140,638 Business Type Activities fax Revenues By Source Department of Airports Last 10 Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) Terminal Other Auto Total Fiscal Landing Space Airline Car Parking Other Operating Year Fees Rentals Revenues Rental Facilities Terminal Revenues Revenue 2001 17,090 21,609 4,153 11,007 18,909 15,250 6,671 94,689 2002 15,908 23,946 4,903 10,385 15,640 17,952 2,962 91,696 2003 18,153 24,141 5,742 9,777 15,245 15,457 3,449 91,964 2004 10,921 18,769 5,431 12,055 16,009 15,559 3,129 81,873 2005 11,259 20,459 6,742 12,963 18,984 16,994 3,748 91,149 2006 11,214 22,157 6,622 14,550 20,196 18,619 3,425 96,783 2007 12,352 23,482 6,632 15,350 22,409 21,069 4,134 105,428 2008 12,888 23,645 7,099 16,314 24,817 22,955 3,007 110,725 2009 13,528 22,277 7,048 14,149 25,714 22,698 2,827 108,241 2010 13,541 22,934 6,918 14,505 23,811 22,497 3,291 107,497 Source:Salt Lake City Department of Airports Audited Financial Statements S-8 It N Salt Lake City Corporation ASSESSED AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY Last ten fiscal years (dollars are expressed in thousands) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Taxable value* $12,130,282 $12,654,482 $12,726,186 $12,561,679 $12,543,350 $13,302,064 $15,190,797 $17,779,862 $18,761,325 $16,844,181 Estimated actual value $17,356,457 $18,075,984 $18,480,005 $17,945,256 $17,996,198 $17,516,077 $20,116,508 $23,698,992 $24,893,820 $22,803,067 Ratio of assessed value to estimated actual value 69.9% 70.0"/0 68.9°/" 70.0"/0 69.7% 75.9% 75.5% 75.0% 75.4% 73.9% Total Direct Tax Rate 0.004131 0.004296 0.004457 0.004681 0.004681 0.004488 0.003927 0.0(13383 0.003299 0.003879 Source: Salt Lake County Auditor's Office * Note: All taxable property is assessed and taxed on the basis of its fair market value.Utah law requires that the fair market value of property that is assessed by county assessors using a comparable sales or a cost appraisal method exclude expenses related to property sales transactions. For tax purposes,the fair market value of primary residential property is reduced by 45%under present law.Taxable value is net of Redevelopment Agency value. S-9 Salt Lake City Corporation Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates Last Ten Fiscal Years (rates per$1 of assessed value) Overlapping Rates Mosquito Central Utah Metropolitan Fiscal Total Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake Abatement Water Water Year Direct Library Schools County District Conservation District 2001 0.004131 0.000785 0.005741 0.002904 0.000073 0.000377 0.000271 2002 0.004296 0.000773 0.005585 0.003025 0.000072 0.003690 0.000267 2003 0.004457 0.000755 0.005528 0.002939 0.000070 0.000358 0.000261 2004 0.004681 0.000777 0.006018 0.002868 (1.000072 0.000358 0.000269 2005 0.004580 0.000887 0.005992 0.002816 0.000138 0.000353 0.000264 2006 0.004488 0.000869 0.006040 0.002682 0.000060 0.000400 - 2007 0.003927 0.000762 0.005695 0.002346 0.000118 0.000357 0.000350 2008 0.003383 0.006570 0.005071 0.001994 0.000102 0.000302 0.000350 2009 0.003299 0.000618 0.004910 0.001916 0.000097 0.000286 0.000350 2010 0.003879 0.000618 0.005376 0.002271 0.000126 0.000400 0.000398 Source: Salt Lake County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report s-10 8, Salt Lake City Corporation Principal Property Tax Payers Current Year and Nine Years Ago December 31,2009 taxable valuation December 31,2000 taxable value Percentage Percentage of Total City of Total City Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Assessed Assessed Assessed Assessed Taxpayer Value Rank Value Value Rank Value Pacificorp $ 338,000,799 1 1.8 % $ 237,861,106 4 2.0 % Sky West Airlines 204,668,637 2 1.1 316,007,150 3 2.6 Delta Airlines 168,705,720 3 0.9 124,027,510 7 1.0 Qwest Corporation 153,360,606 4 0.8 498,172,386 1 4.1 LDS Church(Deseret Title,Etc.) 136,564,975 5 0.7 340,941,030 2 2.8 Wasatch Plaza Holding 124,804,900 6 0.7 78,500,000 9 0.6 Inland Western Salt City Gateway 120,748,800 7 0.6 Gateway Associates LTD 88,619,100 8 0.5 Questar 80,733,299 9 0.4 78,167,141 10 0.6 Grand America Hotel Company 77,728,400 10 0.4 MCI Worldcom 170,287,576 5 1.4 Little America Hotel Corporation 134,376,600 6 1.1 Boyer Company 103,236,200 8 0.9 $ 1,493,935,236 $ 2,081,576,699 Taxable Value $ 18,761,324,934 $ 12,130,282,000 Source: State of Utah and Salt Lake County S-I1 Salt Lake City Corporation Property Tax Levies and Collections Last Ten Years (amounts expressed in thousands) Fiscal Collected within the Year Total Tax Fiscal Year of the Levy Total Collections to Date Ended Levy for Percentage Collection in Percentage June 30, Fiscal Year(1) Amount of Levy Subsequent Years Amount of Levy 2001 54,743 53,665 98.0 811 54,476 99.5 2002 61,395 60,027 97.8 1,123 61,150 99.6 2003 58,779 56,734 96.5 1,735 58,469 99.5 2004 61,434 60,281 98.1 710 60,991 99.3 2005 63,40I 62,516 98.6 555 63,071 99.5 2006 64,017 62,019 96.9 1,658 63,677 99.5 2007 64,647 63,880 98.8 674 64,554 99.9 2008 64,971 64,138 98.7 571 64,709 99.6 2009 66,355 65,221 98.4 519 65,740 99.1 2010 69,542 68,081 97.9 - 68,081 97.9 (1) Property taxes are assessed Janury 1 and due by November 30. Payments are not considered delinquent until after November 30. S-12 a _, .0 s 4 a% ,,,s r ifi al, ai ai a at, al, a a, e e -a .0 e - __ Salt Lake City Corporation Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type Last Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands except per capita amount) Fiscal Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Year General Special Total Percentage Ended Obligation Assessment Revenue Notes Revenue Notes Primary of Personal Personal Per June 30, Bonds Bonds Bonds Payable Bonds Payable Government Income Income Capita 2001 97,660 1,095 66,340 12,104 208,017 2,968 388,184 5.52% 7,027,043 2,136 2002 93,360 993 74,488 18,968 206,988 2,318 397,115 5.89% 6,741,062 2,169 2003 91,355 808 69,784 18,857 189,630 3,046 373,480 5.51% 6,775,885 2,063 2004 97,561 19,054 66,985 18,213 161,604 2,915 366,332 5.18% 7,075,096 2,036 2005 91,755 1,404 65,500 17,320 149,843 1,887 327,709 4.44% 7,387,520 1,835 2006 85,661 1,565 61,877 6,834 137,771 13,372 307,080 3.98% 7,713,740 1,724 2007 79,305 1,949 58,203 6,257 128,205 15,089 289,008 3.70% 7,805,389 1,616 2008 72,649 2,300 62,609 6,801 77,779 17,696 239,834 2.79% 8,603,388 1,328 2009 76,824 2,251 96,488 5,056 67,098 18,585 266,302 2.83% 9,404,633 1,466 2010 94,589 3,476 91,702 5,159 67,480 19,544 281,950 3.17% 8,882,513 1,540 Note: Details regarding the city's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. 5-13 Salt Lake City Corporation Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding Last Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands except per capita amount) Percentage of Fiscal Estimated Year General Less: Amounts Actual Taxable Ended Obligation Available In Debt Value of Per June 30, Bonds Service Fund Total Property Capita 2001 97,660 1,758 95,902 0.55% 528 2002 93,360 1,487 91,873 0.51% 502 2003 91,355 615 90,740 0.49% 501 2004 97,561 612 96,949 0.54% 533 2005 91,755 644 91,111 0.51% 510 2006 85,661 816 84,845 0.48% 476 2007 79,305 820 78,485 0.39% 439 2008 72,649 924 71,725 0.30% 397 2009 76,824 822 76,002 0.31% 418 2010 94,589 709 93,880 0.41% 513 S-14 r 0 .3 4 ti 4 I t 4 00 i 4 .4 J ai 4 i 40 is EP AO AP 4. Salt Lake City Corporation COMPUTATION OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING BONDED DEBT June 30,2010 Total debt Applicable to City Debt ratios To taxable To fair market Per capita- value of value of population of Percentage Amount $ 16,844,180,600 $22,803,066,998 183,102(est.) Direct general obligation debt $94,588,749 100.00% $94,588,749 0.56% 0.41% $516.59 Overlapping debt: Salt Lake County 259,800,000 32.50% 84,435,000 Salt Lake City School District 121,055,722 100.00% 121,055,722 Total Overlapping debt 380,855,722 2(15,490,722 Total applicable to the City $475,444,471 $300,079,471 I.78 1.32% $ 1,638.87 Note: The State of Utah general obligation debt is not included in the debt ratios because the State of Utah currently levies no ad valorem tax for payment of general obligation bonds. Source: Salt Lake City Management Services Department S-15 Salt Lake City Corporation Legal Debt Margin Information Last Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 General Purposes-4% Debt Limit $ 694,258 $ 723,039 $ 739,200 $ 717,810 $ 718,648 $ 700,643 $' 804,660 $ 947,960 $ 995,753 $912,123 Total net debt applicable to limit (97,660) (93,360) (91,355) (97,561) (91,111) (86,477) (80,125) (73,573) (76,002) (93,880)(I) Legal Debt Margin $ 596,598 $ 629,679 $ 647,845 $ 620,249 $ 627,537 $ 614,166 $ 724,535 $ 874,387 $ 919,751 $ 818,243 Total net debt applicable to the limit as a percentage of debt limit Water,sewer and lighting 4% Debt limit $ 694,258 $ 723,039 $ 739,200 $ 717,810 $ 718,648 $ 70(1,643 $ 8(14,66(1 $ 947,960 $ 995,753 $912,123 Total net debt applicable to limit - - - - - - Legal Debt Margin $ 694,258 $ 723,039 $ 739,200 $ 717,810 $ 718,648 $ 700,643 $ 804,660 $ 947,960 $ 995,753 $ 912,123 Total net debt applicable to the limit as a percentage of debt limit Totals 8% Debt Limit $ 1,388,516 $ 1,446,078 $ 1,478,400 $ 1,435,620 $ 1,437,296 $ 1,401,286 $ 1,609,320 $ 1,895,920 $ 1,991,506 $ 1,824,246 Total net debt applicable to limit (97,660) (93,360) (91,355) (97,561) (91,111) (86,477) (80,125) (73,573) (76,002) (93,880) Legal Debt Margin $ 1,290,856 $ 1,352,718 $ 1,387,045 $ 1,338,059 $ 1,346,185 $ 1,314,809 $ 1,529,195 $ 1,822,347 $ 1,915,504 $ 1,730,366 Total net debt applicable to the limit Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year 2010 as a percentage of debt limit Total assessed value $22,803,067 Debt limit(8%of total assessed value) 1,824,245 The general obligation bonded debt of the City is limited by statute to 8%of the"reasonable fair cas Debt applicable to limit: property.Of this amount, a maximum of 4%may be used for general purposes. The remaining 4% General obligation bonds 94,589 unused portion of the 4%available for general purposes up to the maximum 8%may be utilized for: Less: Amount set aside for repayment of and/or water purposes. general obligation debt (709) Total net debt applicable to limit 93,880 (1) -Starting in 2005 the total net debt applicable to limit is netted with the Fund Balance in the Del Legal debt margin $ 1,730,366 Salt Lake City Corporation Pledged-Revenue Coverage last Ten Fiscal Years (amounts expressed in thousands) Revenue Bonds Special Assessment Bonds Fiscal Year Less: Net Special Ended Gross Operating Available Debt Service(6) Assessments Debt Service June 30, Revenues(1) Expenses(3) Revenues Principal Interest Coverage Collections Principal Interest Coverage Revenue Bonds-Governmental Activities 2001 8,014 - 8,014 3,257 3,074 1.27% 400 408 70 0.84% 2002 8,356 43 8,313 612 3,899 I.84% 302 276 58 0.90% 2003 9,029 467 8,562 4,719 3,670 1.02% 1,060 309 47 2.98% 2004 9,257 14 9,243 2,807 3,778 1.40% 1,765 633 987 1.09% 2005 50,790 (2) 3 50,787 65,577 (2) 2,869 0.74% 17,741 (7) 17,650 1,397 0.93% 2006 53,094 - 53,094 3,625 2,303 8.96°% 1,547 311 47 4.32% 2007 53,252 - 53,252 3,673 2,708 8.35% 4,080 302 70 10.97% 2008 57,876 - 57,876 4,164 2,898 8.20% 847 400 90 1.73% 2009 53,135 - 53,135 4,215 2,826 7.55% 943 429 99 1.79% 2010 49,570 - 49,570 4,645 4,436 5.46% 5,077 434 106 9.40% Fiscal Year Less: Net Ended Gross Operating Available Debt Service June 30, Revenues(4) Expenses(5) Revenues Principal Interest Coverage Revenue Bonds-Business-type activities 2001 216,997 115,398 101,599 46,926 14,224 1.66% 2002 226,833 (31,207) 258,040 36,204 12,440 5.30% 2003 225,431 121,254 104,177 17,840 10,242 3.71% 2004 223,047 119,891 103,156 15,445 9,695 4.10% 2005 233,447 133,622 99,825 14,564 4,950 5.12% 2006 229,337 144,627 84,710 12,397 6,157 4.57/ 2007 240,995 197,440 43,555 10,944 5,737 2.61% 2008 246,174 158,227 87,947 70,639 4,883 1.16% 2009 243,147 166,589 76,558 10,678 4,883 1.01% 2010 238,173 165,453 72,721 5,917 5,793 6.21% (I) Gross revenue includes rental income from MBA fund,Class C Funds (2) In 2005 all MBA fund revenue bonds were repaid and new Sales tax revenue bonds were issued Sales tax is included in gross income (3) Excludes depreciation and amortization (4) Gross revenues include operating revenues,property taxes,and gain on sale of property and equipment Beginning in fiscal 1997,gross revenues also includes passenger facility charges at the airport (5) Excludes depreciation and amortization (6) Beginning in fiscal 2000,principal payments are net of any defeased or refinanced amounts. (7) Special Assessment of$17,350 was refunded in the fiscal year 2005 S-17 Salt Lake City Corporation Demographic and Economic Statistics Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Personal Per Average Year Income Capita Daily Ended (amounts expressed Personal Number of residents High School School Unemployment June 30, Population(1) in thousands)(2) Income 18 years and older(1) Graduates(3) Membership(3) Rate(4) 2001 181,743 7,027,043 38,665 138,773 1,277 24,696 5.0% 2002 183,056 6,741,062 36,825 138,773 1,202 23,976 7.3% 2003 181,027 6,775,808 37,430 138,773 1,368 24,190 6.7% 2004 179,894 6,841,042 38,028 138,773 1,176 23,623 5.4% 2005 178,605 6,906,825 38,671 138,773 1,288 23,310 4.9% 2006 178,097 7,075,096 39,726 138,773 1,015 23,283 4.4% 2007 178,858 7,805,389 43,640 138,773 1,036 23,548 2.9% 2008 180,651 8,603,388 47,624 138,773 1,075 23,250 2.6% 2009 181,698 9,404,633 51,760 140,130 1,118 23,880 3.3% 2010 183,102 8,882,513 48,511 140,959 1,181 24,177 6.9% (1)U.S.Census Bureau (2)Utah State Tax Commission (3)Salt Lake City School District (4)State of Utah Work Force Services-annualized from prior calendar year S-18 r * ; A .,3 .6 ti a .k a_i a I I I i a I 0 a a a e I of .'a i A i i ... - - .e ww a Salt Lake City Corporation Full-time Equivalent City Government by Functions Last Ten Fiscal Years 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Department General Fund Attorney's Office 28.59 30.29 30.29 34.29 36.29 41.22 45.64 47.50 54.50 52.50 City Council 18.60 19.00 19.00 18.60 18.60 18.60 18.60 19.60 22.13 22.13 Community and Economic Development 192.00 130.00 129.00 118.40 116.00 121.00 128.00 138.00 175.51 166.01 Fire 366.00 366.00 365.00 359.00 359.00 362.00 362.00 369.00 365.75 356.00 Management Services 90.39 126.81 119.81 118.96 117.46 119.46 120.46 123.66 127.66 127.66 Mayor's Office 20.00 21.00 21.00 19.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 19.00 Office of Internal Audit 4.00 2.00 - - - - - - - - Police 578.78 581.28 586.65 577.18 574.57 585.07 594.00 595.00 594.00 587.00 Public Services 355.47 427.68 429.04 451.01 448.83 435.29 440.04 324.84 294.71 288.21 General Fund Total 1,653.83 1,7114.06 1,099.79 1,696.44 1,687.75 1,699.64 1,725.74 1,635.60 1,653.26 1,618.51 Enterprise Funds Airport 529.80 559.80 563.80 575.80 575.80 575.80 567.80 568.80 597.80 597.80 Golf 89.59 90.92 90.92 94.50 96.93 94.92 93.84 42.40 40.40 40.40 Public Utilites 401.80 400.10 400.10 397.60 395.70 394.70 390.40 382.00 382.00 379.00 Refuse 59.86 60.88 60.88 42.16 39.72 39.72 39.72 27.05 27.05 32.05 Enterprise Fund Total 1,081.05 1,111.70 1,115.70 1,110.06 1,108.15 1,105.14 1,091.76 1,020.25 1,047.25 1,049.25 Internal Service Funds Information Management Services 55.90 57.90 57.90 59.00 59.00 60.00 60.00 62.00 60.00 59.00 Fleet Management 50.00 41.00 40.00 42.90 42.90 43.00 43.00 43.60 48.60 46.60 Risk Management 6.09 6.09 6.09 6.34 6.34 6.64 6.64 6.34 6.34 6.34 Governmental Immunity 5.35 4.65 4.65 4.65 4.65 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Internal Service Fund Total 117.34 109.64 108.64 112.89 112.89 111.81 109.64 111.94 114.94 111.94 Weed Abatement Special Revenue Fund Total 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Total Positions 2,853.30 2,926.48 2,925.21 2,920.47 2,909.87 2,917.67 2,928.22 2,768.87 2,816.53 2,780.78 S-I 9 Salt Lake City Corporation Principal Employers June 30, 2010 Percent Number of of all Employer Employees Rank Employees University of Utah * 12,000- 15,000 1 6.68%- 7.95% State of Utah * 7,000-9,000 2 3.90%-4.77% Intermountain Health Care * 5,000-7,000 3 2.78%-3.71% Salt Lake City School District* 4,000-5,000 5 2.21%-2.63% L3 Communication Systems West 2,700-3,200 4 1.50%- 1.70% Salt Lake City Corporation 2,700-2,800 6 1.50%- 1.54% U.S. Post Office * 2,400-2,600 7 1.34%- 1.38% Skywest Airlines 2,200-2,400 8 1.22°A)- 1.27% A R U P 2,100-2,300 9 1.17%- 1.22% O C Tanner 1,300- 1,500 10 .72%- .80% Total Employees of Principal Employers 41,400-40,800 22.37%-26.74% * Workforce Services-based on yearly averages Information from The City's Business Licensing Division Prior nine year period Principal Employer information unavailable S-20 8 3 # # # .i -; e.J a .,d 3 adi J 41# 41# 40 AN 5,, 5i fl _9 .., v AP s 40 41# a v Salt Lake City Corporation Operating Indicators by Function Last Ten Fiscal Years 2001 2002 2003 _ 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Function Fire Medical Calls 18,867 19,782 18,497 18,598 19,956 20,590 21,792 22,175 21,142 n/a (I) Fire Calls 6,354 6,426 5,51)8 5.704 5,1 14 5,481 5,754 5,900 5,71 1 ma (I) Percent of life threatening calls within 120 seconds - - - - - - - - 65 6% 90 I% Average time responsmg to life treatenmg emergencies - - - - - - - - 4:18 4:58 Police(calendar year) Median Priority I Response Time(in minutes) 633 5:57 5:51 5:35 5:36 5:43 5:47 5 40 6:00 TBD Cumulative average increase innarcotics arrest - - - - - - - -19 7% 43.0% TE3D Total Part One Index(crime against person(s)) - 18,366 18,346 17,285 18,110 17,146 16,695 17,754 n/a n/a (1) Narcotic Arrest Offenses - 1,090 1,169 1,178 1,078 1,336 1,550 n/a n/a II) n/a (I) Community Development Percent of business license inspections conducted within 30 days - - - - 58% 61/a 65% 99% 100% 100% Number of building inspections conducted per day - - - - 117 113 123 112 110 115 Percent of transporation service requests completed within 10 working days - - - - 98% 97.8% 100% 99% 99% 98% Public Services Parks-Percent of park maintenance completed - - - - - - - - 90% 911°-L Forestry-Number of trees pnined mer month(average) - 646 1,113 919 998 946 756 473 551 587 Water Total million gallons water delivered 35,830 34,072 30,079 31,150 28,775 31,812 32,588 31,737 31,665 29.654 Per capita delivered-gallons per day 304 286 252 261 241 266 280 272 255 252 Airport Total enplanned passengers(in thousands) 9,778 9,165 9,298 9,137 10,212 10,909 10,928 10,950 9,994 10,276 Cargo pounds(in thousands) 387,509 420,560 181,337 467,034 435,715 382,826 385,126 371,322 302,989 298,972 Sewer Total Plant Flow(million gallons) 12,857 - 10,582 11,557 12,182 12,408 12,095 12,044 11,941 11,632 Total influent(TBOD)biochemical oxygen demand(in thousand pounds) 24,099 - 24,178 24,638 24,232 22,979 22,119 23,185 21,393 21,294 Housing Rehab Loans 103 88 134 155 142 109 44 85 96 85 Rehab units 72 55 39 34 31 51 44 152 183 183 First Time Home Buyer projects 19 23 30 24 28 20 14 18 20 15 Storm Water Utility Line Installation (Linear Feet) 22,351 22,464 22,308 17,163 32,767 18,594 28,243 29,052 25,877 29,254 Refuse Collection Percent of contamination in curbside reclying bins - - - 13% 18% 23% 18% 23% 26% 22% Golf Percent of Golf maintenance completed as scheduled - 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 98% 98% 97% (I)-Indicator no longer measured S-21 Salt Lake City Corporation Capital Asset Statistics by Function Last Ten Fiscal Years 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Function Fire Nutnber of stations 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Sworn/fire fighters 331 331 312 322 323 330 335 330 325 325 Non-sworn civilian employees. 31 31 28 37 39 32 34 35 34 31 Police protection: Number of officers with power of arrest 415 415 399 409 409 424 409 432 427 434 Number of other police employees 165 165 151 158 158 173 179 163 160 153 Community Development Number of Street Lights 11,818 12,545 13,899 12,931 14,590 14,377 14,762 14,835 15,096 15,223 Public Services Recreation and culture: Number of municipal parks 126 126 134 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Number of municipal playgrounds 58 58 50 59 59 59 59 60 60 60 Number of municipal golf courses 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Number of municipal swimming pools(I) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 Lane miles of city owned streets 1,743 1.741 1,754 1,7711 1,776 1,776 1,825 1,823 1,843 1,859 Municipal water plants: Number of service connections 90,766 91,283 91,751 92,055 92,344 77,817 78,008 90,920 90,976 90,958 City 56,699 57,078 57,355 57,492 57,646 52,991 53,220 56,753 57,315 58,751 County 34,067 34,205 34,396 34,563 34,698 24,826 24,788 34,167 33,661 32,207 Water supplied to conduits(gallons/year) per thousand 35,868,100 34,072,720 30,078,800 31,149,640 28,774,670 31,812,140 32,588,000 31,736,570 31,664,660 29,654,020 Watershed managed(square miles) 250 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 Number of fire hydrants 8,972 8,903 8,967 9,044 9,143 9,351 9,654 9,796 9,931 10,022 City 5,983 5,925 5,885 5,935 5,912 6,029 6,078 6,203 6,241 6,302 County 2,989 2,978 3,082 3,109 3,231 3,322 3,576 3,593 3,690 3,720 Sewer Utility Number of sewer connections 48,019 48,192 48,325 48,421 48,466 49,191 49,340 49,370 49,430 49,481 Miles of sanitary sewer lines 627 633 634 636 636 636 640 642 645 651 Storm Water Utility: Miles of storm water lines 434 437 444 441 445 445 461 460 465 476 Public Libraries 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 (I) City owns 4 but they are operated by County Miscellaneous Statistics-Most current information only Date of Incorporation January 5,1851 Form of government(adopted January 7,1980) Council/Mayor Area(square miles) 112 Election data (Mayoral Election) Registered(active voters),November 2007 95,528 Number of votes cast in 2007 local election 43,209 Percentage of registered voters voting 45.23% 82 H B M HANSEN,BARNETT&MAXWELL,P.C. Certified Public Accountants INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON STATE LEGAL COMPLIANCE The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Salt Lake City Corporation We have audited the basic financial statements of Salt Lake City Corporation (the City), for the year ended June 30, 2010, and have issued our report thereon dated December 21, 2010. As part of our audit, we have audited the City's compliance with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed; eligibility; matching, level of effort, or earmarking;reporting; and special tests and provisions as applicable to each of its major State assistance programs as required by the State of Utah Legal Compliance Audit Guide for the year ended June 30, 2010. The City received the following major assistance programs from the State of Utah: • B & C Road Funds(Department of Transportation) • Liquor Law Enforcement(State Tax Commission) The City also received the following nonmajor grants which are not required to be audited for specific compliance requirements: (However, these programs were subject to testwork as part of the audit of the City's financial statements.) • Emergency Medical Services(Bureau of Emergency Services) • Asset Forfeiture CCJJ(Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice) • Violence Against Women Act(Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice) • Historic Preservation(Department of Community and Economic Development) • Intensive Level Survey—Historic Preservation(Department of Community Culture) • Tooele Valley Airport Apron Expansion(Department of Transportation/Division of Aeronautics) • Taxiway Seal Coat(Department of Transportation/Division of Aeronautics) • Wasatch Touring—Permeable Pavement Demonstration Project(Division of Forestry) • Critical Land Inventory(Governor's Office of Planning and Budget) • Crisis Intervention Team(Health and Human Services) • Interagency Outreach Training Initiative—Crisis Intervention Team(Utah State University) 5 Triad Center,Suite 750,Salt Lake City,Utah 84180-1128 BAKER T 1 L LY Registered with the Public Company INTERNATIONAL Accounting Oversight Board TEL 801-532-2200 FAX 801-532-7944 www.hbmcpas.com ADDING VALUE I NOT COMPLEXITY Our audit also included testwork on the City's compliance with the following general compliance requirements identified in the State of Utah Legal Compliance Audit Guide: • Public Debt • B & C Road Funds • Cash Management • Other General Compliance Issues • Purchasing Requirements • Uniform Building Code Standards • Budgetary Compliance • Impact Fees • Truth in Taxation and Property Tax • Asset Forfeiture Limitations • Utah Retirement System Compliance • Liquor Law Enforcement • Fund Balance Limitation • Justice Court The management of the City is responsible for the City's compliance with all compliance requirements identified above. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with those requirements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the requirements referred to above occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City's compliance with those requirements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination on the city's compliance with these requirements. The results of our audit procedures disclosed an immaterial instance of noncompliance with requirements referred to above, which is described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses. We considered these instances of noncompliance in forming our opinion on compliance, which is expressed in the following paragraph. In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the general compliance requirements identified above and the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed; eligibility; matching, level of effort, or earmarking; reporting; and special tests and provisions that are applicable to each of its major State assistance programs for the year ended June 30, 2010. The City's written response to the finding identified in our audit is described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses. We did not audit the city's response and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City's management and State funding agencies, as well as the Utah State Auditor's Office and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. However, the report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. *140f) ?a/00kt 7614,012)?e. HANSEN,BARNETT&MAXWELL,P.C. Salt Lake City, Utah December 21, 2010 Salt Lake City,Utah Schedule of Findings and Responses—State Compliance For the Year Ended June 30,2010 Current Year Findings: 1. Budgeting Expenditures in excess of appropriations Criteria: Utah Code,Section 10-6 requires budget integrity for each separate activity in total for special revenue funds.Therefore,special revenue funds shall not incur expenditures or encumbrances in excess of the total appropriation for that fund. Condition: In examining the Arts Council Fund records and financial reports for the year ended June 30, 2010 it was determined the expenditures exceeded the amounts appropriated in the final adopted budget by$11,481. Cause: For the year ended June 30, 2010, the Arts Council Fund incurred expenditures in excess of appropriations because of higher than anticipated costs in the artists' fees and production costs for Twilight Concert Series and Living Traditions Festival,and administrative expenses such as equipment rental,insurance,office and building supplies,utilities and phone services. Effect: For the year ended June 30,2010,the City is not compliant with the above criteria for the Arts Council Fund. Recommendations: We recommend that the City review its budgeting procedures for this fund and determine how it can more effectively budget for this fund in the future. Management Response:The Arts Council is a non-profit organization[IRS code 501(c)(3)].Even though it is a blended component unit of Salt Lake City,the Arts Council has its own financial system.To avoid future over budget conditions, The Arts Council, along with the Department of Community and Development, will: (A) Turn on a system feature called budget controls; (B) Provide the Finance Department with quarterly reports;and(C)Evaluate the Arts Council's accounting system for possible replacement. Status of Prior Year Findings: 1. Accounting Remittance of building fee surcharges Criteria: Utah Code, Section 58-56-9(4) mandates that each compliance agency shall charge a 1% surcharge on all building permits issued and shall remit 80% of the surcharge collected to the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) to be deposited into the General Fund as a dedicated credit to be utilized by the division to provide inspectors with the necessary training, education, and testing in order to meet the minimum qualifications to become licensed as building inspectors. Condition: We are unable to determine whether the City is compliant with the above criteria for the year ended June 30, 2009. Cause: During our testing of the above criteria we noted that the City was unable to reconcile payments remitted to DOPL during the year with its accounting records. This lack of reconciling indicates a change from effective internal control over the quarterly payment calculation. Further, we noted that the City's cash register system and newly installed software (Accela) does not consistently segregate the five types of building permit fees and the associated surcharges from other permit fees collected by the City. We conclude from our testing that this issue is limited to the time period extending from July 2008 through the present as a result of implementing Accela software in July 2008 and that it does not extend to earlier accounting periods. Effect: The City is currently unable to determine the actual amount of building permit surcharges collected during the year ended June 30, 2009. However, we conclude from our testing that total fee revenue has been properly accounted for in the City's financial statements and that any amount due to or from DOPL is immaterial to the City's financial statements. Recommendations: We recommend that the City determine the actual amount of building permit surcharges collected for the year ended June 30, 2009 and through the present, calculate any under or overpayment, and resolve this issue with DOPL. Going forward, we recommend that the City correct its accounting controls such that building permit fees and surcharges are properly segregated in its accounting system. Further, we recommend that the City update its internal controls over the preparation of quarterly reports and the calculation of amounts to be remitted to DOPL. Management Response: The problem of inconsistent posting of data from this new software to the general ledger was discovered to be data transfer protocols from the cash register system and Accela when handling negative adjustments. After discussions between Community and Economic Development, Information Management and Finance and then subsequent inquiries of representatives from the software company, a solution was developed and tested. The "fix" was implemented in the live production environment on December 14, 2009. Two employees, one from Finance and one from Community and Economic Development are reviewing the daily postings to the general ledger. Finance has completed its analysis of data from software implementation date to present and determined that the City overpaid the State $279.63 for fiscal 2009. Finally, a supervisory person will be calculating the quarterly payment and either Community and Economic Development or Finance will contact DOPL to resolve this issue. Current Year Status: The City has now implemented a procedure to reconcile its DOPL quarterly reports to its accounting system,IFAS. This previous compliance finding is not an issue in the current year. H B M HANSEN,BARNETT&MAXWELL,P.C. Certified Public Accountants December 21, 2010 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Salt Lake City Corporation We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) for the year ended June 30, 2010. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, and OMB Circular A-133, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated September 20, 2010. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit. Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during 2010. We noted no transactions entered into by the governmental unit during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management's knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the City's financial statements were as follows: • Useful lives of capital assets used to calculate depreciation expense • Fair value of the City's investments • Collectability of accounts receivable used to estimate the allowance for doubtful accounts • Valuation of Other Post Employment Benefits • Valuation of Environmental Remediation Liability We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the financial statements are the disclosures of �e 5 Tnad Center,Sulte 750.Salt Lake City.Utah 841B0-1 128 BAKER T l L LY Registered with the Public Company INTERNATIONAL Accounting Oversight Board TEL 801-532-2200 FAX 801-532.7444 vom.hbrrtCpgS.Com ADDING VALUE I NOT COMPLEXITY HANSEN,BARNETT&MAXWELL,P.C. Page 2 Long-Term Obligations and Other Post Employment Benefits in Notes 6 and 13, respectively, to the financial statements. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit. Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Management has corrected all such misstatements. Professional standards also require us to accumulate all material, corrected misstatements that were brought to the attention of management as a result of audit procedures. We are pleased to report there were no material adjustments needed during the course of our audit. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor's report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated December 21,2010. Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a "second opinion" on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the governmental unit's fmancial statements or a determination of the type of auditor's opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts.To our knowledge,there were no such consultations with other accountants. Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the governmental unit's auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. Conclusion This information is intended solely for the use of the Mayor and Members of the City Council and management of the City and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Sincerely, HANSEN,BARNETT&MAXWELL,P.C. ri Iry Paul O. Skeen, CPA I I I I I I I i I i I I � II SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION REPORT IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT REPORTING STANDARDS AND OMB CIRCULAR A-133 June 30,2010 H B M HANSEN,BARNETT&MAXWELL,P.C. Certified Public Accountants SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION REPORT IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT REPORTING STANDARDS AND OMB CIRCULAR A-133 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pane Independent Auditors' Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 1 Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with Requirements That Could Have a Direct and Material Effect on Each Major Program and Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance With OMB Circular A-133 3 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 5 Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 9 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs—OMB Circular A-133 10 H B M HANSEN,BARNETT&MAXWELL,P.C. Certified Public Accountants INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD HAVE A DIRECT AND MATERIAL EFFECT ON EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CIRCULAR A-133 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Salt Lake City Corporation Compliance We have audited the compliance of Salt Lake City Corporation(the City)with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Circular A-I33 Compliance Supplement,that could have a direct and material effect on each of the City's major programs for the year ended June 30,2010. The City's major federal programs are identified in the summary of audit results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to its major federal programs is the responsibility of management of the City. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the compliance of the City based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America;the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred.An audit includes examining, on a test basis,evidence about the City's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.Our audit does not provide a legal determination on compliance of the City with those requirements. In our opinion,the City complied,in all material respects,with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30,2010. Internal Control Over Compliance The management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to federal programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City's internal control over compliance with requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program to '� "'""°"`" "" Registered,rirh the Public Company 5 Trod Center,Slate 750,Salt Lake City.Utah 84180-1128 BAKR AT ONA AcroaourR aersi ht Board TEL 801-532-2200 FAX 801.532-7944 weee.hbmclas.corn INTERNATIONAL R ADDING VALUE NOT COMPLEXITY 3 determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133,but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance.Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over compliance. A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees,in the normal course of performing their assigned functions,to prevent, or detect and correct,noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis.A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency,or combination of deficiencies,in internal control over compliance,such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected,on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be deficiencies,significant deficiencies,or material weaknesses.We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses,as defined above. Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities,the business-type activities,and discretely presented component unit,each major fund,and the aggregate remaining fund information of Salt Lake City Corporation as of and for the year ended June 30,2010,and have issued our report thereon dated December 21, 2010. Our audit was performed for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements that collectively comprise the basic financial statements of Salt Lake City Corporation.The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by OMB Circular A-133 and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and,in our opinion,is fairly stated,in all material respects,in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Mayor,City Council,management of the City,and federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. ?a/Mat g ?e' HANSEN,BARNETT&MAXWELL,P.C. December 21,2010 Salt Lake City,Utah 4 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2010 FEDERAL GRANTOR AGENCY Federal Pass-Through Grantor CFDA Project Program Title Number Number Expenditures U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Direct Programs Cooperative Forestry Assistance 10664 38-G-99-030 S 10,000 US.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Parsed Through Utah Department of Pudic Safety Public Safety lnteroperable Communications Gant Program 11.555 2007-HLS-PSIC-009 5 39,443 US.DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Direct Programs-Entitlement Grants Class ter Comm,nity Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 B-07.M C-49-0004 5 683,091 Community Development Block Crants!Fntitlement Grants 14.218 B-08-MC-49-0004 4.045,953 Corrmnnity Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14218 B-09-MCd9-0004 137,064 Community Development Block Gains/Entitlement Gents 14218 Program locooe 1,672,620 6,538,728 ARRA-C nmvnity Development Block Gain Entitlement Gams(CDBGR) 14.253 8.09-h1Y-09-0004 697,520 Direct Programs Emergency Shelter Grants Program 14.231 S08-MC-49-0002 9,397 Emergency Slicker-Grants Program 14.231 S09MC-49-0002 164.879 174,276 HOME Investments Partnership Program 14239 MOS-MC-49.0208 28,809 HOME Investments Pan ners hip Program 14239 M06-MC-49-0208 42,853 HOME Investments Partnership Program 14.239 M07-MC-09-0208 190,507 HOME Investments Partnership Program 14.239 M08-MC-49.0208 973,347 HOME Investments Partnership Program 14.239 M09-MC-49-0208 638,993 HOME Investments Partnership Program 14.239 Program Income 1,184,017 3,058,526 Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS 14.241 H07UT05F001 15,750 Housing Opportunities for Persons Wok AIDS 14241 lIlHO8F001 6,974 Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS 14.241 LT H09F001 303,404 326,128 ARRA-Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program 14257 S-09-MY-49-0002 396,058 Passed Through Salt Lake County Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control in Privately-Owned Housing 14.900 CO LHCP-03 16.135 Total U.S.Depanement of Housing and Urban Development 1 11,207,371 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF MITER/OR Direct Programs Historic Preservation Fund Grants-In-Aid 15.904 1 4037 Passed Through Utah Department of Environmental Quality W'aterSMART 15.507 SLC-CLGgrmt 292,244 Passed Through Utah Department of Energy Historic Reservation Fund Gaols-In-Aid 15904 SLC-CLC grant 9,421 Total U.S.Depanernent oflnterior 1 305,702 US.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Direct Programs ARRA-Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Gant(JAG) Program/Grants To Units Of Local Government 16804 2009-SB-B9-I411 S 1,650,328 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice As sistaace Ceara Program 16.738 2007-DJ-BX-0626 203,316 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Gant Program 16.738 2008-DJ-BX-0638 36250 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Gant Program 16.738 2009-DJ-BX-0246 267,958 507,524 (Continued) 5 FEDERAL GRANTOR AGENCY Federal Pass-Through Grantor CFDA Project Program Tide Number Number Expenditures Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants 16710 2007CKWX0215 $ 175,178 Public Safety Partnership and Community Policmg Grants 16 710 2008CKWX0775 88,633 Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants 16710 2008ULWX00007 55,631 ARRA-Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants 16 710 2009-RJ-W X-0084 577,204 896,646 Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders 16.590 2008-WE-AX-0017 248,167 Services for Trafficking Victims 16.320 2006-VT-BX-0002 14,152 Crime Victim Assistance 16.575 09-VOCA-44 38,989 Crime Victim Assistance/Discretionary Grants 16.582 10-127 3,546 Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program 16.742 2009-CD-BX-0063 4,862 Passed Through Commission on Criminal and Jinenile Justice Violence Against Women Fomula Grants 16.588 08-VAWA-23 8,045 Passed Through Salt Lake County Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program 16.738 2006-DJBX1 1 16 62,930 Passed Through Utah Office of Crime Victim Reparations Violence Against Women For ula Grants 16.588 09-VAWA-22 8,588 Violence Against Women Formula Grants 16.588 09-VA WA-23 7,744 Violence Against Women Formula Grants 16.588 14,262 Violence Against Women Formula Grants 16.588 08-VAWA-24 31,320 61,914 Total U.S.Departement ofJustice $ 3,497,103 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Direct Programs Airport Improvement Program 20.106 3-49-0033-93 $ 1,059,606 Airport Improvement Program 20.106 3-49-0033-89 285,404 Airport Improvement Program 20.106 3-49-0033-94 4,295,647 Airport Improvement Program 20.106 3-49-0033-95 1,247,820 Airport Improvement Program 20.106 3-49-0033-91 579,589 ARRA-Airport Improvement Program 20.106 3-49-0033-92 6,262,383 Airport Improvement Program 20.106 3-49-0033-17 2,252,613 15,983,062 Passed Through Utah Department of Natural Resources Recreational Trails Program 20.219 Contract 101531 10,858 Recreational Trails Program 20.219 Contract 091277 22,563 33,421 Passed Through Utah Department of Public Safety State and Community Highway Safety 20.600 PS 100703 7,960 Interagency Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning Grants 20.703 HLS 2010-LFPC-SLC 12,418 Total U.S.Departement of Transportation $ 16,036,861 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THWARTS Passed Through the Utah Arts Council Promotion of the Arts-Grants to Organizations and Individuals 45.024 Contract 101202 $ 2,500 U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Direct Programs Climate Showcase Commrnities Gant Program 66.041 AF-83452101-0 $ 20,377 Water Quality Cooperative Agreements 66.463 CP-83285601-0 8,700 Passed Through Utah Department of Environmental Quality ARRA-Capitalization Grants for Clean Water State Revolving Funds 66.458 2W-97882501 341,803 ARRA-Capitalization Grants for Clean Water State Revolving Funds 66.458 2W-97882501 865,487 Capitalization Grants for Clean Water State Revolving Funds 66.458 CS-49000110 247,734 1,455,024 Total U.S.Environmental Agency $ 1,484,101 (Continued) 6 FEDERAL GRANTOR AGENCY Federal Pass-Through Grantor CFDA Project Program Tide Number Number Expenditures U.S.DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Direct Programs ARRA-Renewable Energy Research and Development 81.087 DE-EE0002073 $ 31,415 Solar America Initiative 81117 DEPS3607GO17067 23,844 ARRA-Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program(EECBG) 81 128 DEEE0000892 250,934 Passed Through Utah Department of Natural Resources-Utah Energy Office State Energy Program 81.041 070798 18,935 State Energy Program 81.041 81041 (20,391) (1,456) Total U S.Departement of Energy $ 304,737 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Passed Through Salt Lake City School District Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers 84.287 41,196 Passed Through Leonardo Center Department of Education 84.xxx U215K050469 7,421 Passed Through Georgia University Department of Education 84.xxx 22,911 Total U S Departement of Education $ 71,528 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Direct Programs Drug-Free Conanunities Support Program 93.276 1H79SP012433-06 $ 37,915 Drug-Free Communities Support Program 93.276 5H79SP012433-07 63,862 101,777 Passed Through Utah Department of Workforce Services Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 090985 19,134 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93 575 100160 30,500 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 100161 29,719 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 100162 30,500 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93 575 100163 29,906 139,759 Passed Through Utah Department of Health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- Investigations and Technical Assistance 93.283 100508 3,580 Passed Through Utah Department of Human Services Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services 93.958 61546 75,000 Total U.S.Departement of Health and Human Services $ 320,116 EXECUI7vE OFFICE OF THE PRES ID8NT Direct Programs High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program 95.001 G09RM0032A $ 34,199 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program 95.001 G10RM0032A 32,786 Total bcutive Office ofthe President $ 66,985 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Direct Programs-Homeland Security Cluster Homeland Security Grant Program 97.067 07-LIFT-MMRS-001 $ 161,581 Homeland Security Grant Program 97.067 DES-2006-LETP-002-DES-2006-SHFP-002 640 Homeland Security Grant Program 97.067 UAS 9-FY09 530,785 693,006 Metropolitan Medical Response System 97.071 08-SHSP-MMRS-001 164,152 Direct Programs 2007 Pre Disaster Mitigation Grant 97.017 PDMC-PJ-08-UT-2007-003 705,316 National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program 97.072 HSTS0208HCAN454 250,500 (Continued) 7 FEDERAL GRANTOR AGENCY Federal Pass-Through Grantor CFDA Project Program Title Number Number Expenditures Buffer Zone Protection Program(BZPP) 97.078 BZPP-2007-003 $ 236,906 Law Enforcement Personnel Reimbursement Agreement 97090 HSTS0208HSLR264 467,385 Passed Through Utah Department of Public Safety-Homeland Security Cluster Citizen Corps 97.053 DES-2005-CIT-008 5,097 Citizen Corps 97.053 SUPPLEMENTAL-2002-CITCORP-2 1,995 7,092 Homeland Security Gant Program 97 067 07 SHSP&LETPP 175,912 Homeland Security Gant Program 97 067 DES-2008-UASI-001 932,788 1,108,700 Metropolitan Medical Response System 97.071 STATE 2005-MMRS-001 11,540 Metropolitan Medical Response System 97.071 STATE-2006-MMRS-001 592 12,132 Passed Through Utah Department of Public Safety Emergency Management Performance Grants 97.042 EMPG.2010-1-IS-101 9,670 Emergency Management Performance Grants 97.042 2008 EMPG (492) Emergency Management Performance Grants 97.042 2009 EMPG 15,000 24,178 Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program 97.040 CSEPP O&M 6,502 Total U.S.Departement of Homeland Security $ 3,675,869 Total Expenditures of Federal Awards $ 37,022,316 8 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION NOTES TO THE SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DUNE 30,2010 1. General—The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards presents the activity of all federal awards of Salt Lake City Corporation (the City). Federal awards received directly from federal agencies as well as federal awards passed through other government agencies are included on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 2. Basis of Accounting—The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is presented using the modified accrual basis of accounting for governmental fund types and the accrual basis of accounting for proprietary fund types. The information presented in this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular A-133,Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations. Therefore, some of the amounts presented in this schedule may differ from their presentation in the financial statements. 3. Subrecipients—Amounts of federal awards which have been passed through the City to subrecipients for the year ended June 30,2010 are as follows: CFDA Grant Name Amount 14.231 Emergency Shelter Grants Program $ 164,879 14.239 HOME Investments Partnership Program 636,485 14.241 Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS 303,404 14.257 Homeless Prevention Rapid Re-Housing Program 395,419 16.590 Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders 181,604 16.738 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program 292,276 20.219 Recreational Trails Program 10,858 66.458 Capitalization Grants for Clean Water State Revolving Funds 341,394 81.087 Renewable Energy Research and Development 29,818 81.128 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program(EECBG) 18,670 93.276 Drug-Free Communities Support Program 8,640 97.067 Homeland Security Grant Program 61,196 97.071 Metropolitan Medical Response System 21,935 Total Amount Passed Through $ 2,466,578 9 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2010 A. SUMMARY OF AUDIT RESULTS 1. The independent auditors' report on the basic financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion. 2. No significant deficiencies or material weaknesses with regard to internal control over financial reporting were identified. 3. No instances of noncompliance material to the financial statements of Salt Lake City Corporation were disclosed as a result of the audit. 4. No significant deficiencies with regard to internal control over major federal programs were identified. 5. The independent auditors' report on compliance over the major federal award program expresses an unqualified report. 6. The major programs of the City for the year ended June 30, 2010 are as follows: Prog ram CFDA# CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 ARRA-Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants (CDBGR) 14.253 ARRA-Homeless Prevention Rapid Re-Housing Program 14.257 ARRA-Recovery Act-Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 16.804 Airport Improvement Program 20.106 ARRA-Capitalization Grants for Clean Water State Revolving Funds 66.458 ARRA-Public Safety&Community Policing Grants 16.710 7. A threshold of $1,110,669 was used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs, as those terms are defined in OMB Circular A-133. 8. For the year ended June 30, 2010, the City qualified as a low-risk auditee as that term is defined in OMB Circular A-133. B. FINDINGS-FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AUDIT No findings to report. C. FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS No findings to report. D.PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS—FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT 09-1 Capitalization of Assets 10 Criteria: The City's capital asset policy states that all purchases over $3,500 should be capitalized. Additionally, the City capitalizes bulk purchases of assets which individually fall under this threshold, but which have a combined value over the threshold. Condition: The golf department purchased a fleet of golf carts which had an individual unit price of$3,223 for a total cost of$1,567,878. The golf carts were not capitalized causing assets to be understated by $1,567,878. Cause: Because each golf cart individually fell below the City's capitalization threshold the golf cart additions were incorrectly expensed. Recommendation: We recommend that the City insure that all bulk purchases are reviewed to insure that they are properly capitalized. Effect: Assets were understated by$1,567,878. Status: This is not a current year finding. 09-2 Capital Improvements Criteria: The City's policy is to not capitalize improvements made to assets that do not significantly extend the estimated useful life of the assets. Condition: The City originally capitalized two roof projects on City buildings, contrary to the City's capitalization policy. When these items were selected for testing, the City recognized the error of capitalizing these amounts and has subsequently prepared an adjusting entry to correct the misstatement. Cause: Failure to comply with policy and failure to review WIP additions for appropriateness. Recommendation: We recommend that the City review additions to verify compliance with the fixed asset policy. Effect: Assets were overstated by$545,723. Status: This is not a current year finding. 09-3 Airport Improvement Program Criteria: It is the Airport's policy that Airport Improvement Program (ALP) expenditures, revenue and receivables are recorded on an accrual basis in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Statement of Condition: The Airport records allowable AIP expenditures on an accrual basis which are reported on the Schedule of Federal Expenditures as the reimbursement for those expenditures is submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration. At June 30, 2009, the Airport had incurred allowable AlP expenditures that had not been identified as such and had recorded the related revenue and receivables for the qualifying expenditures in the incorrect fiscal year. Therefore, the amount reported on the Schedule of Federal Expenditures was understated as of June 30, 2009. Cause: Controls were not sufficient,to prevent or detect the error. 11 Recommendation: We recommend that the Airport take additional measures to ensure that amounts to be reported on the Schedule of Federal Expenditures are recorded in the proper period. Effect: If this type of error goes undetected, expenditures reported on the Schedule of Federal Expenditures could be under-stated or over-stated each year, but ultimately all expenditures would be reported through the life of the multi-year grant. Status: This is not a current year finding. D. PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS No findings were reported in the prior year. 12 o Do not exempt taxicabs modified to meet age and mileage standards,and let requirements for the kinds of vehicles serving the disabled community be worked out in the request for proposals. (Department of Airports suggestion; also suggested by Ray Mundy in a January 17 electronic mail.) CODIFY SOME VEHICLE STANDARDS Include requiring State of Utah Vehicle Safety Standard and minimum interior and exterior appearance standards in ordinance for evaluating buses,minibuses, special transportation vehicles and limousines. The minimum standards would be in addition to any rules and regulations the Department of Airports may set administratively.However,the minimum standards and rules and regulations would not conflict with each other.(City Council staff suggestion) SPECIALTY VEHICLES EXEMPTIONS o Allow automatic exemptions from age,mileage and salvage title restrictions for specialty vehicles such as classic cars and seasonal vehicles modified as four-wheel-drive vehicles to transport people to ski resorts. (City Council staff suggestion) o Keep the current ordinance as is to require an application for an exemption that would be determined on a case-by-case basis. (Department of Airports suggestion) OMIT AUTOMATIC SEVEN-YEAR OPERATIONAL ALLOWANCE Omit the paragraph that says,"Ground transportation vehicle that have been modified to meet ADA requirements may be operated for a total of seven years."(City Council staff suggestion)The paragraph could be omitted only if the City Council exempts all taxicabs modified to meet ADA standards from age and mileage limitations. POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 5.71 MILEAGE LIMIT PHASE-IN o Allow a six-month phase-in period to comply with requirement to operate vehicles driven less than 350,000 miles. (Suggested by Department of Airports) o Allow phase-in period to mirror vehicle age requirements in ordinance: one-year to have 75 percent of a company's fleet to have vehicles driven less than 350,000 miles, and two years to have 100 percent of a company's fleet to have vehicles driven less than 350,000 miles. (Suggested by Express Shuttle) o Allow phase-in period to replace vehicles with salvage titles to mirror vehicle age requirements in ordinance. (Suggested by Express Shuttle) AUTOMATIC SEVENTH YEAR OF OPERATION o Allow an automatic seventh year of operation for ground transportation vehicles if vehicles have been driven less than 350,000 miles(City Council staff suggestion) o Retain current ordinance requiring application to Department of Airports for seventh year of operation and include re-inspecting the vehicle as part of the application. (Department of Airports suggestion) ADD AGE AND MILEAGE EXEMPTION FOR TAXICABS o Exempt taxicabs modified to meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards from age and mileage standards—would put modified taxicabs in same category as buses,mini- buses, special transportation vehicles,and limousines.(City Council staff suggestion; would still require application by company on a case-by-case basis;possibly would allow repeal of paragraph allowing all ground transportation vehicles modified to mee .ADA,k �) standards to operate a total of seven years.) ; l l,' -.' t ` .I. o Exempt only taxicabs modified to carry motorized mobility unitsluch Amotorized wheelchairs or scooters from age and mileage standards—would put modified taxicabs in same category as buses,mini-buses, special transportation vehicles, and limousines. (City Council staff suggestion);would still require application by company on a case-by-case basis;probably would require retaining paragraph allowing all ground transportation vehicles modified to meet ADA standards to operate a total of seven years.) Page 1 of 1 c i 1.'' )....,-ti-P,I ':- .4 ' - ' '- - ' - . ';'.t:',',..' ''',..,1:,,i,,,. ,, ,, ;1,,,,, ay Sz< • y1 4 �� http://www.dodgeautosinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/20 1 0/08/Dodge-Grand... 1/18/2011 offering regular sedan taxicab services. In other words, the accessible vehicle takes in no additional revenue unless it is used in contract services, whereby a more equitable rate can be negotiated. The accessible vehicle used to serve wheelchair users typically brings in less money than the regular trips provided by sedan taxicab vehicles. The driver must engage the lift or ramp operation for boarding, then secure the passenger and wheelchair, then disengage the lift or ramp, and upon arriving at the destination, the driver must reengage the lift or ramp, release the securements, assist the passenger in disembarking, and disengage the lift or ramp. All these actions require a significant amount of the driver's time. As stated by TLPA's Alfred LaGasse, "These time costs result in approximately 20% fewer trips per day for a wheelchair accessible taxicab. The driver's income gets affected as an effect of time costs, thus producing driver resistance to service such trips. In effect, every unsubsidized accessible trip taken by a taxicab driver results in some revenue lost by the driver and the related taxicab company. When all these amounts are multiplied on a large scale, the effect is a loss of thousands of dollars per year. So, the more unsubsidized wheelchair accessible taxicab service the taxicab industry provides, the greater the losses will be." ADA Requirements for the Taxicab Industry While "automotive body type" taxicabs are exempt, the following are requirements by the Americans with Disabilities Act for ADA compliant vehicles if utilized by taxi companies. These requirements are based on the publication, The Americans with Disabilities Act and You: Frequently Asked Questions on Taxicab Service, presented by Easter Seals Project ACTION and the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association: • For vehicles in excess of twenty-two feet in length, the overhead clearance between the top of the door opening and the raised lift platform, or highest point of a ramp, shall be a minimum of 68 inches. • For vehicles of twenty-two feet in length or less, the overhead clearance between the top of the door opening and the raised lift platform, and the highest point of a ramp, shall be a minimum of 56 inches. • Accessible taxicabs must have a two-part securement system: (1) to secure the common wheelchair, and (2) a seatbelt and shoulder harness for the customer using a wheelchair. The securement aids should move no more than 2 inches in any direction during normal driving operations. If the vehicle is more than 22 feet in length, then the vehicle must have securement devices for two wheelchairs. • • • There must be enough room inside the vehicle so the customer using a mobility aide can reach the securement location. • Side-facing securement is not permitted in vehicles 22 feet or less in length. • Lift or ramp must be 30 inches minimum and hold a capacity of at least 600 lbs. • Lift or ramp surfaces, securement locations, and all places where people walk must have continuous and slip-resistant surfaces. • Ramp slope shall not exceed 1:4 when deployed to ground level. • There shall be a minimum of 30 inches by 48 inches for a floor clearance area. • Vehicles 22 feet in length or less must have only forward or rear seating only. • Ramp stowage should be safe and non-hazardous to people. The categories of ADA complementary paratransit eligibility mentioned by the ADA are related to the nature of the disability of the person and his or her ability to access the fixed routes transportation system. These following categories are utilized to help analyze the public necessity for accessible taxicabs. Category 1: "Any individual with a disability who is unable, as the result of a physical or mental impairment (including a vision impairment), and without the assistance of another individual (except the operator of a wheelchair lift or other boarding assistance device), to board, ride, or disembark from any vehicle on the system which is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities."[37.123(e) (1)J This category refers to persons who are totally unable to navigate through the public transportation system because of mental or visual impairment (inability to board the right bus for example), physical disability (inability to stand up in a crowd for instance), and/or wheelchair users that cannot board because of the absence of a lift. Category 2: "Any individual with a disability who needs the assistance of a wheelchair lift or other boarding assistance device and is able, with such assistance, to board, ride, and disembark from any vehicle which is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities if the individual wants to travel on a route of the system during the hours of operation of the system at a time, or within a reasonable period of such time, when such a vehicle is not being used to provide designated public transportation on the route."[37.123(e)(2)J This category relates -Co people who, despite their disability, are able to use the public transportation system provided that it is equipped with devices to make it accessible to them. The people in this category are therefore eligible if the route they intend to use is not fully accessible, even if some other part of the transportation system is accessible. Category 3: "Any individual with a disability who has a specific impairment-related condition which prevents such individual from traveling to a boarding location or from a disembarking location on such system"[37.123(e) (3)] Two important qualifiers to this category are included in the regulations. First, environmental conditions and architectural barriers not under the control of the public entity do not, when considered alone, confer eligibility. If, however, travel to or from a boarding location is prevented when these factors are combined with the person's specific impairment-related condition, paratransit service must be provided. Examples of architectural and environmental factors that, in combination with certain disabilities, could prevent travel include: a lack of curb-cuts, the distance from the stop/station to the trip origin or destination, steep terrain, snow and/or ice, extremes in temperature (hot or cold), major intersections or other difficult to negotiate architectural barriers, temporary construction projects, and severe air pollution MEMOR AND u DATE: January 13,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Ground Transportation:Proposed Revisions to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.71 CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Maureen Riley,Ed Rutan,Neil Lindberg,Karen Hale,Lisa Harrison-Smith,Bianca Shreeve,Kay Christensen,Randy Berg,Jennifer Bruno,Marco Kunz,Larry Bowers,John Buckner,Dave Korzep,Frank Young,Quin Card This memorandum pertains to proposed amendments to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.71.The proposed revisions are the result of requests made to the City Council by some members of the ground transportation industry in December. The proposed amendments are scheduled for a briefing at the City Council work session January 18.The City Council tentatively is scheduled to determine whether to forward the proposed amendments for formal consideration at later meeting. OPTIONS o Adopt the proposed amendments. o Do not adopt the proposed amendments. o Suggest additional amendments for formal consideration. POTENTIAL MOTIONS City Council staff will prepare motions after the January 18 work session briefing. KEY POINTS If adopted,the proposed amendments would: o Provide a phase-in period to replace ground transportation vehicles that have 350,000 miles or more on their odometers.(This item was requested by some members of the ground transportation industry.) o Remove a potential ambiguity on how long some ground transportation vehicles that have been modified to meet federal Americans with Disabilities Act standards for passengers may operate. o Clarify that the number of years and miles ground transportation vehicles that have been modified to meet federal Americans with Disabilities Act standards for passengers can operate within Salt Lake City are conditioned upon meeting Utah vehicle safety standards and vehicle interior and exterior standards. 1 o Include taxicabs modified to meet federal Americans with Disabilities Act standards for passengers with other vehicles that receive mileage and age exemptions in Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.71 —provided that they meet Utah vehicle safety standards and vehicle interior and exterior standards. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION o City Council staff understands that that an appeals committee has been formed by the Department of Airports to addresses issues involving enforcing ordinances and businesses that are subject to enforcement. o The City Council may wish to inquire about progress the Administration has made to form the informal discussion group established in the ordinance. The discussion group is intended to provide a forum for the Administration about issues relating to ground transportation for the next two years. o The City Council may wish to direct recommendations and concerns from those involved in the ground transportation industry to the Administration so ideas can be addressed first by processes established in amendments pertaining to ground transportation adopted in November 2010. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION This portion of the memorandum is divided into two sections: issues involving mileage limits on ground transportation vehicles and issues involving interior and exterior standards for ground transportation vehicles. MILEAGE LIMITS In December,the owners and drivers of some ground transportation company owners and drivers asked the City Council to delay implementation of the December 3 effective date to retire vehicles with more than 350,000 miles in their fleets. Part of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.71 —5.71.120—limits the operation of ground transportation vehicles that carry passengers in Salt Lake City to vehicles that are no older than six model years in age and have less than 350,000 miles of accumulated mileage. However,the section allows vehicles to operate for a seventh model year if the vehicle has less than 350,000 miles"so long as the vehicle meets or exceeds inspection requirements"set forth in Chapter 5.71.Vehicles with salvage titles are prohibited from operating as of the December 3 effective date of the ordinance. However, Section 5.71.120 exempts—on a case by case basis by the department charged with enforcing the ordinance—the following vehicles from age and mileage restrictions: buses, mini-buses, special transportation vehicles and limousines. It should be noted that special transportation vehicles are vehicles that are designed, equipped and used for the transportation of people with disabilities. Special transportation vehicles generally are considered to be vehicles that fall in size between ambulances and taxicabs, although the markets for ambulances, special transportation vehicles, and taxicabs sometimes overlap, and companies that operate 1 special transportation vehicles and ambulances still must obtain certificates of public convenience and 2 necessity under Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.76. It should be noted that ambulances, as well as vehicles licensed by a governmental agency or operated by university or school district,or the Utah Transit Authority, are exempt from City Code Chapter 5.71. When the City Council adopted the mileage amendments as part of revisions to Chapter 5.71, it did so based on information from City Council consultant Ray Mundy and the practices of other cities. Mr. Mundy wrote in September that extending a vehicle the age limit to six model years would permit a taxicab fleet owner to purchase new or rental fleet vehicles in the current model year, run them for three years, redo the drive train and interior if needed, and run them for another two or three years before they reached a 300,000 mile limit. Taxicabs typically travel between 40,000 and 50,000 miles per year so the extra year will permit companies to keep vehicl costs as low as possible before a vehicle becomes more expensive to maintain than the cost of new acquisition. This also permits the taxi company to offer a lower lease rate to drivers.' During the City Council's discussion of the age and mileage of vehicles,the City Council settled on a 350,000 mile limit and a seventh year of operation if a vehicle's mileage was below 350,000 and met or exceeded inspection requirements. • Here are some vehicle age requirements of other cities listed in the study for the Los Angeles Department of Transportation: • Anaheim—Vehicles may not be older than five model years. • Austin—Vehicles may not be older than eight model years,and they can only be six years old if they already are on line for use in years seven and eight. In other words, new or newer cars can only operate until they are six years old. • Chicago—A regular sedan must be four years old. For an owner operator, it is allowed to be five years old.Wheelchair-accessible vehicles or alternative fuel vehicles are allowed to be eight years old. • Denver—Vehicles must not be older than 10 years old. • • Houston—Vehicles may not be more than six years old. • San Diego—There is no age limit,but to receive an airport permit, a vehicle cannot be more than seven model years old. • Seattle—Vehicles must be no more than seven model years old at the date of licensing.2 Owners of some ground transportation businesses asked the City Council during public comments on December 7 and December 14 to delay implementing the 350,000-mile limit for ground transportation businesses. The majority of comments at the December 14 meeting involved requesting the Council to give the companies the same two-year latitude to meet the mileage limit as the ordinance gives to companies to meet the age limit. Section 5.71.120 gives ground transportation companies one year from the December 3 effective date of the ordinance to have 75 percent of their vehicles to meet the six-year age limit. It gives ground transportation companies two years to have 100 percent of their vehicles to meet the six-year age limit. Here is the full section: 5.71.120: VEHICLE AGE AND CONDITION: A.No vehicle shall be authorized by the City to operate as a ground transportation vehicle that is more than six(6)model years in age,has a salvage title,or has accumulated three hundred fifty thousand (350,000)miles or more. The following exemptions to the foregoing limitations may be approved by the department on a case-by-case basis upon application to the department director. 3 1. A ground transportation vehicle that is more than six(6)model years in age,but has accumulated less than three hundred fifty thousand(350,000)miles may be operated for a total of seven(7) model years so long as the vehicle meets or exceeds inspection requirements set forth in Section 5.71.150 of this chapter and has not accumulated three hundred fifty thousand(350,000)miles or more. 2.Busses,mini-busses,special transportation vehicles,and limousines may be exempted from these age and mileage restrictions,but not from the salvage title restriction. 3. Specialty vehicles may be exempted from these age,mileage,and salvage restrictions. 4. Ground transportation vehicles that have been modified to meet ADA requirements may be operated for a total of seven(7)years. B. Seventy five percent(75%)of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet this vehicle age restriction within twelve(12)months after the effective date of this ordinance. C.One hundred percent(100%)of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet this age restriction within twenty-four(24)months after the effective date of this ordinance. D.One hundred percent(100%)of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet these mileage and salvage title restrictions upon the effective date of this ordinance. E.No new vehicle shall be approved as a ground transportation vehicle that does not meet these restrictions. EXPRESS SHUTTLE PROPOSAL Randy Curtis, owner of the ground transportation company Express Shuttle,has suggested the following amendments to the Section 5.71.120: • Amend Paragraph B to read: "Seventy five percent(75%)of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet these vehicle age and mileage and salvage title restrictions within twelve(12)months after the effective date of this ordinance." • Amend Paragraph C to read: "One hundred percent(100%)of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet these age and mileage and salvage title restrictions within twenty-four(24)months after the effective date of this ordinance." • Eliminate Paragraph D,which reads: "One hundred percent(100%)of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet these mileage and salvage title restrictions upon the effective date of this ordinance." CITY COUNCIL STAFF PROPOSAL In the proposal attached to this memorandum the City Council staff has suggested the following amendments to Section 5.71.120: o Amend Paragraph A to remove the requirement that that a ground transportation vehicle owner must apply to the department director to operate a vehicle for a seventh year—if it has been driven less than 350,000 miles and"meets or exceeds inspection requirements (vehicle) inspection requirements"in another section of Chapter 5.71. o Continue to require in a new paragraph that exemptions to age and mileage restrictions in • Paragraph A for buses,mini-buses, special transportation vehicles and limousines be reviewed on a case-by-case basis after a vehicle owner applies to the department director for the exemption. o Amend the new paragraph to include"any taxicab which has been modified to meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards"as a vehicle that could be exempted from age and mileage restrictions in Paragraph A on a case-by-case basis after a vehicle owner applies to the department director for the exemption. 4 11 o Amend the new paragraph to include state vehicle safety standards and exterior and interior appearance standards in City ordinance as well as department rules and regulations as criteria for evaluating whether a taxicab modified to meet ADA standards or buses, mini-buses, special transportation vehicles, and limousines might receive an exemption to age and mileage restrictions. o Amend two sections and add a new section to make clear minimum standards for the interior and exterior appearance of ground transportation vehicles. o Allow"specialty vehicles"—vehicles such as classic automobiles or seasonal vehicles such as vans modified to operate as four-wheel-drive units for transportation to ski resorts to receive automatic exemptions if the vehicles meet state vehicle safety standards required for exemptions for buses,mini-buses, special transportation vehicles, and taxicabs modified to meet ADA standards. o Eliminate section No.4 of the current ordinance's Paragraph B which reads: "Ground • transportation vehicles that that been modified to meet ADA requirements may be operated for a total of seven(7)years. o Amend the current ordinance's Paragraph B to read: "Seventy five percent (75%)of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet these vehicle age and mileage restrictions within twelve(12)months after the effective date of this ordinance." o Amend the current ordinance's Paragraph C to read: "One hundred percent(100%) of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet these age and mileage restrictions within twenty-four(24)months after the effective date of this ordinance." o Add a new paragraph that would read: "One hundred percent(100%)of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet the salvage title restrictions upon the effective date of this ordinance(December 3, 2010). DISCUSSION It should be noted that all reasons given in this section must be balanced against what kind of customer service the City Council expects the ground transportation industry to provide. The City Council staff proposal would address a phase-in period to replace vehicles that have been driven more than 350,000 miles as requested by the ground transportation company owners and drivers at the December City Council meetings.However, it would not include the phase-in period to replace salvage vehicles suggested in the Express Shuttle proposal. The amendment to Paragraph A to remove the requirement that operators of ground transportation vehicles that have been driven less than 350,000 must apply to the department director to drive the vehicle a seventh year is open to City Council discussion. It should be noted that the department probably would have to inspect a vehicle to determine if it"meets or exceeds inspection requirements (vehicle)inspection requirements"even if a seventh year was granted automatically.The question for the City Council,then,might be:Is applying to the department for an exemption for a seventh year easy or onerous? Council staff has suggested adding taxicabs modified to meet ADA standards to the list of vehicles that might receive exemptions from age and mileage restrictions for the two reasons. First, estimates by taxicab company owners and an owner of a special transportation vehicle either to purchase taxicabs modified to meet ADA standards or to replace special transportation vehicles seem to be roughly the same—about$40,000. Second, under the current ordinance special transportation vehicles already may be exempted from age and mileage requirements upon application to the Department of Airports. Given the goal of a level playing field for all ground transportation companies, including taxicabs 5 modified to meet ADA standards might be consistent with that goal.It might be noted that staff research indicates that prices for ADA accessible vehicles appear to range from about$25,000 to$60,000. In concert with the proposal above,Council staff has suggested language to include state vehicle safety standards and exterior and interior appearance standards in City ordinance as well as department rules and regulations for all ground transportation vehicles.The language would make clear the minimum standards for the interiors and exteriors of ground transportation vehicles.Rules and regulations adopted by the department charged with regulating ground transportation in the City could not conflict with the minimum standards. The suggestion to allow"specialty vehicles"such as classic automobiles or seasonal vehicles • such as vans modified to operate as four-wheel-drive units for transportation to ski resorts to receive automatic exemptions as long as they meet state safety standards is aimed more at classic automobiles than at other vehicles.Even classic automobiles in mint condition probably would exceed a six-year age limit.They might exceed the 350,000-mile mileage limit,and classic automobiles might be restored or reconditioned vehicles found in scrap yards or other places where vehicles are left.Again,it probably would be necessary for the City to inspect the vehicles to see if they met state safety standards. The City Council staff proposal does not include vehicles with salvage titles for any phased-in replacement period because it is staffs opinion that vehicles with salvage titles pose safety and insurance liability concerns. DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS PROPOSAL III In reviewing the City Council staff proposal,the Department of Airports has suggested the following: • In Paragraph A,continue to require that a ground transportation vehicle owner apply to the department director to operate a vehicle for a seventh year—if it has been driven less than 350,000 miles and"meets or exceeds inspection requirements(vehicle)inspection requirements."The department suggests the vehicle be re-inspected by the department to see if it meets or exceeds inspection requirements. • Do not include taxicabs modified to meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards among vehicles eligible to be considered for exemptions by the department on a case-by- case basis. • Do not allow automatic exemptions for specialty vehicles such as classic such as classic automobiles or seasonal vehicles such as vans modified to operate as four-wheel-drive units for transportation to ski resorts and require the vehicles to meet City appearance standards as well as state safety standards. • Retain the 24-month phase-in period for vehicle age restrictions but require ground transportation businesses to meet the mileage restrictions within six months of the December 3,2010,effective date of the ordinance. DISCUSSION bIn electronic mail and a brief telephone discussion,the Department of Airports gave the following reasons for its suggestions: 6 From a safety and service perspective it would be preferable to give no extensions for mileage requirements. High mileage vehicles are the most likely to have problems that could arise without warning and compromise the safety and convenience of the travelling public. However, if there is an interest in extending the time for companies to comply with the mileage requirement,a six-month window from the December 3, 2010, effective date might be better. The six- month window would give ground transportation companies the winter to comply with the ordinance, and the department could issue a request for proposals for taxicab services with all ground transportation vehicles meeting the higher standard for age and mileage. Exempting taxicabs modified to meet ADA standards from age and mileage restrictions might be better handled through the request for proposals and subsequent contracts instead of through ordinance. No exemption should be automatic, and no ground transportation vehicle should be exempt from appearance standards. It should be noted that appearance standards for vehicle interiors and exteriors have been part of Chapter 5.71 since 1999 and have been unchanged since then. City Council staff understands that an appeals committee has been formed by the Department of Airports to addresses issues between enforcing the ordinance and businesses that are subject to enforcement. The City Council may wish to inquire about progress the Administration has made to form the informal discussion group established in the ordinance. The discussion group is intended to provide a forum for the Administration about issues relating to ground transportation for the next two years. Electronic mail,Ray Mundy,PhD.,September 29,2010. 2 Taxicab Refranchising Plan Peer Review,pages 4,7,13,20,24,29,36. C,„ DISCUSSION DRAFT 01-13-11 • 1 5.71.120: VEHICLE AGE AND CONDITION: 2 A. No vehicle shall be authorized by the City to operate as a ground transportation 3 vehicle thatif the vehicle is more than six (6)model years in age,has a salvage title, or has 4 accumulated three hundred fifty thousand (350,000)miles or more. The f llewing wemptions-to 5 6 7 b4 Notwithstanding the foregoing, a ground transportation vehicle that is more than six 8 (6) model years in age,but has accumulated less than three hundred fifty thousand (350,000) 9 miles,may be operated for a total of seven (7)model years so long as the vehicle meets or 10 exceeds inspection requirements set forth in Section 5.71.150 of this chapter and has not 11 accumulated three hundred fifty thousand (350,000)miles or more. i2 2. BusseGB. The following exemptions to the foregoing limitations may be approved by 13 the department on a case-by-case basis upon application to the department director: 14 1. Any taxicab which has been modified to meet ADA accessibility requirements, 15 bus, mini-bussesbus, special transportation vehislesvehicle, and hmettaineslimousine may 16 be exempted from these age and mileage restrictions,but not from the salvage title 17 restriction..-, if the vehicle meets: 18 a. Safety standards set forth in the vehicle safety 19 inspection manual promulgated by the Utah Department of Public Safety pursuant 20 to Utah Administrative Rule 714-158-8, or its successor, and 21 b. Exterior and interior appearance standards set forth in Section 5.71. of 22 this chapter and department rules and regulations. DISCUSSION DRAFT 01-13-11 23 2. A specialty vehicle shall be exempted from these age, mileage, and salvage title 24 restrictions if the vehicle meets safety standards set forth in the vehicle safety inspection 25 manual referenced in Subsection B 1 of this section. 26 Gr t r .v uivvt-z--mTi rt t; h i th t h b - di f d A D n � c 27 28 BC. Seventy five percent (75%) of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet 29 thisthese vehicle age restpietionand mileage restrictions within twelve(12) 30 effective a f th d 31 0 32 )months after the effective date of this ordinance. 33 D. One hundred percent (100%) of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet 34 these vehicle age and mileage and salvage title restrictions tipetiwithin twenty-four(24)months 35 after the effective date of this ordinance. 36 &E. One hundred percent(100%) of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall 37 meet the salvage title restrictions by upon the effective date of this ordinance(December 3, 38 2010). 39 F. No new vehicle shall be approved as a ground transportation vehicle that does not meet 40 these restrictions. 41 5.71.125: VEHICLE APPEARANCE STANDARDS: 42 A. All ground transportation vehicles shall meet the following vehicle exterior 43 appearance standards: 44 1. All vehicles shall be maintained as required by any state law or city ordinance 45 or statute, whether or not a part of this chapter. DISCUSSION DRAFT 01-13-11 46 2. Vehicle exteriors shall be clean except during the first twenty four(24) hours 47 following a snow, rain, or dust storm in Salt Lake or surrounding counties. 48 3. Vehicles, including bumpers and body molding, shall be free of all exterior 49 damage except for dents no larger than six inches (6") in diameter and rust spots no larger 50 than one inch (1") in diameter. Bumpers shall be straight and aligned, as designed by the 51 vehicle manufacturer. 52 4. Windshields shall be free of cracks and chips larger than six inches (6") in 53 diameter or length. All other glass and mirrors shall be free of cracks and chips larger 54 than one inch (1") in diameter or length. 55 5. Exterior paint shall be maintained in good condition and repair, with no faded, 56 oxidized, or nonmatching paint. Signs, graphics, door handles, antennas, and other J7 equipment used for the ease and convenience of drivers and passengers shall be 58 maintained in a good and operable condition. 59 6. Exterior tires,brakes, exhaust pipes, lights, wipers, turn signals, horns and 60 other safety equipment shall be maintained in a good and operable condition. 61 7. Wheels shall have wheel covers, or be equipped with custom wheels. 62 8. All fluid leaks shall be repaired immediately. 63 B. All ground transportation vehicles shall meet the following vehicle interior appearance 64 standards: 65 1. Vehicle interiors shall be clean and sanitary, and free of dirt, oil, litter, or other 66 similar material, or offensive odors. 67 2. Seats and other interior surfaces shall be in good repair and free of tears and 3 sharp objects. Dashboard covers may be used, but shall be professionally manufactured. DISCUSSION DRAFT 01-13-11 ` a 69 3. Trunks and luggage storage compartments shall at all times be maintained free 70 of oil, dirt, debris, and personal property except for property used by the driver in 71 connection with operating a ground transportation vehicle. 72 4. All equipment in the interior of the vehicle used for the ease and convenience 73 of drivers and passengers, including, but not limited to, doors, windows, carpets, door 74 and window handles, ashtrays, heaters, air conditioners, and radios, shall be maintained 75 in a good and operable condition. 76 5. Ashtrays shall be emptied after use and washed each day. 77 6. Seat belts shall be provided for the driver and for each passenger as required by 78 law for such vehicle. Seat belts and all other safety equipment inside the vehicles 79 including child safety restraint devices or seats, shall be maintained in a good and 80 operable condition as may be required by Utah and federal law. " 81 5.71.150: INSPECTIONS: 82 A. All authorized ground transportation vehicles shall be registered with the department 83 I and at all times shall meet or exceed standards established by this chapter and by the department 84 rules and regulations in order to meet the interests of Salt Lake City. 85 B. No vehicle may operate as a ground transportation vehicle within the City without first 86 having been inspected by the department and found to be meeting all requirements of the 87 department Inspection as established by department rules and regulations for the category of 88 vehicle being inspected. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a ground transportation company that 89 purchases a new ground transportation vehicle may, in lieu of an inspection of such vehicle: 90 1. Certify to the department that the vehicle is new and conforms to the standards 91 and requirements established by this section and department rules and regulations, and DISCUSSION DRAFT 01-13-11 92 2. Provide proof of insurance as provided in Subsection 5.71.140A. 93 3. Installation of an AVI and taximeter shall be subject to inspection by the 94 department. 95 C. Vehicles meeting the requirements of the department inspection shall have a unique 96 department inspection seal affixed to the rear of the vehicle signifying that the vehicle has passed 97 the department inspection and may be operated as a ground transportation vehicle. The 98 department seal is non-transferable and no vehicle may be used as a ground transportation 99 vehicle without the department inspection seal in place. 100 D. All ground transportation vehicles meeting the requirements of the department 101 inspection shall be issued a department automated vehicle identification (AVI) tag, which the 102 department shall install on the vehicle. These tags are non-transferable and may not be removed 103 or modified without authorization from the department. 104 E. The department may perform vehicle inspections at any time any ground 105 transportation vehicle is operating within the corporate limits of the City in order to administer 106 and enforce applicable vehicle standards. 107 F. No ground transportation vehicle may be operated within the City unless it is 108 I maintained to the standards and requirements established by this chapter and department rules 109 and regulations, including without limitation department inspection requirements. DISCUSSION DRAFT 01-13-11 1 5.71.120: VEHICLE AGE AND CONDITION: 2 A. No vehicle shall be authorized by the City to operate as a ground transportation 3 vehicle if the vehicle is more than six (6)model years in age,has a salvage title, or has 4 accumulated three hundred fifty thousand (350,000)miles or more. Notwithstanding the 5 foregoing, a ground transportation vehicle that is more than six (6) model years in age, but has 6 accumulated less than three hundred fifty thousand (350,000)miles,may be operated for a total 7 of seven (7)model years so long as the vehicle meets or exceeds inspection requirements set 8 forth in Section 5.71.150 of this chapter and has not accumulated three hundred fifty thousand 9 (350,000) miles or more. 10 B. The following exemptions to the foregoing limitations may be approved by the 11 department on a case-by-case basis upon application to the department director: t2 1. Any taxicab which has been modified to meet ADA accessibility requirements, 13 bus,mini-bus, special transportation vehicle, and limousine may be exempted from these 14 age and mileage restrictions,but not from the salvage title restriction, if the vehicle 15 meets: 16 a. Safety standards set forth in the vehicle safety inspection manual 17 promulgated by the Utah Department of Public Safety pursuant to Utah 18 Administrative Rule 714-158-8, or its successor, and 19 b. Exterior and interior appearance standards set forth in Section 5.71. of 20 this chapter and depaitinent rules and regulations. 21 2. A specialty vehicle shall be exempted from these age, mileage, and salvage title 22 restrictions if the vehicle meets safety standards set forth in the vehicle safety inspection ?3 manual referenced in Subsection B 1 of this section. • DISCUSSION DRAFT 01-13-11 24 C. Seventy five percent (75%) of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet 25 these vehicle age and mileage restrictions within twelve(12) months after the effective date of 26 this ordinance. 27 D. One hundred percent (100%) of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet 28 these vehicle age and mileage restrictions within twenty-four(24) months after the effective date 29 of this ordinance. 30 E. One hundred percent(100%) of a business's ground transportation vehicles shall meet 31 the salvage title restrictions by upon the effective date of this ordinance (December 3, 2010). 32 F. No new vehicle shall be approved as a ground transportation vehicle that does not meet 33 these restrictions. 34 5.71.125: VEHICLE APPEARANCE STANDARDS: 35 A. All ground transportation vehicles shall meet the following vehicle exterior 36 appearance standards: 37 1. All vehicles shall be maintained as required by any state law or city ordinance 38 or statute, whether or not a part of this chapter. 39 2. Vehicle exteriors shall be clean except during the first twenty four(24) hours 40 following a snow, rain, or dust storm in Salt Lake or surrounding counties. 41 3. Vehicles, including bumpers and body molding, shall be free of all exterior 42 damage except for dents no larger than six inches (6") in diameter and rust spots no larger 43 than one inch (1") in diameter. Bumpers shall be straight and aligned, as designed by the 44 vehicle manufacturer. DISCUSSION DRAFT 01-13-11 45 4. Windshields shall be free of cracks and chips larger than six inches (6") in 46 diameter or length. All other glass and mirrors shall be free of cracks and chips larger 47 than one inch (1") in diameter or length. 48 5. Exterior paint shall be maintained in good condition and repair, with no faded, 49 oxidized, or nonmatching paint. Signs, graphics, door handles, antennas, and other 50 equipment used for the ease and convenience of drivers and passengers shall be 51 maintained in a good and operable condition. 52 6. Exterior tires,brakes, exhaust pipes, lights, wipers, turn signals, horns and 53 other safety equipment shall be maintained in a good and operable condition. 54 7. Wheels shall have wheel covers, or be equipped with custom wheels. 55 8. All fluid leaks shall be repaired immediately. 56 B. All ground transportation vehicles shall meet the following vehicle interior appearance 57 standards: 58 1. Vehicle interiors shall be clean and sanitary, and free of dirt, oil, litter, or other 59 similar material, or offensive odors. 60 2. Seats and other interior surfaces shall be in good repair and free of tears and 61 sharp objects. Dashboard covers may be used,but shall be professionally manufactured. 62 3. Trunks and luggage storage compartments shall at all times be maintained free 63 of oil,dirt, debris, and personal property except for property used by the driver in 64 connection with operating a ground transportation vehicle. • DISCUSSION DRAFT 01-13-11 Awykk 65 4. All equipment in the interior of the vehicle used for the ease and convenience 66 of drivers and passengers, including,but not limited to, doors, windows, carpets, door 67 and window handles, ashtrays, heaters, air conditioners, and radios, shall be maintained 68 in a good and operable condition. 69 5. Ashtrays shall be emptied after use and washed each day. 70 6. Seat belts shall be provided for the driver and for each passenger as required by 71 law for such vehicle. Seat belts and all other safety equipment inside the vehicle, 72 including child safety restraint devices or seats, shall be maintained in a good and 73 operable condition as may be required by Utah and federal law. 74 5.71.150: INSPECTIONS: 75 A. All authorized ground transportation vehicles shall be registered with the department sk 76 and at all times shall meet or exceed standards established by this chapter and by the department '' 77 rules and regulations in order to meet the interests of Salt Lake City. 78 B. No vehicle may operate as a ground transportation vehicle within the City without first 79 having been inspected by the department and found to be meeting all requirements of the 80 department Inspection as established by department rules and regulations for the category of 81 vehicle being inspected. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a ground transportation company that 82 purchases a new ground transportation vehicle may, in lieu of an inspection of such vehicle: 83 1. Certify to the department that the vehicle is new and conforms to the standards 84 and requirements established by this section and department rules and regulations, and 85 2. Provide proof of insurance as provided in Subsection 5.71.140A. 86 3. Installation of an AVI and taximeter shall be subject to inspection by the 87 department. DISCUSSION DRAFT 01-13-11 88 C. Vehicles meeting the requirements of the department inspection shall have a unique 89 department inspection seal affixed to the rear of the vehicle signifying that the vehicle has passed 90 the department inspection and may be operated as a ground transportation vehicle. The 91 department seal is non-transferable and no vehicle may be used as a ground transportation 92 vehicle without the department inspection seal in place. 93 D. All ground transportation vehicles meeting the requirements of the department 94 inspection shall be issued a department automated vehicle identification (AVI)tag, which the 95 department shall install on the vehicle. These tags are non-transferable and may not be removed 96 or modified without authorization from the department. 97 E. The department may perform vehicle inspections at any time any ground 98 transportation vehicle is operating within the corporate limits of the City in order to administer 99 and enforce applicable vehicle standards. 100 F. No ground transportation vehicle may be operated within the City unless it is 101 maintained to the standards and requirements established by this chapter and department rules 102 and regulations, including without limitation department inspection requirements. 1 March 2011 HAND DELIVERED Mrs.Jill Remington Love, Chair Salt Lake City Council 450 S. State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Re: FOIA Request for CRSA Architectural Report Dear Councilwomen Love, On Wednesday,February 23, 2011 —the Poplar Grove Community Council held its monthly meeting in which we received a report from Councilman Turner on the progress of the Glendale library selection. It was brought to our attention by members of the community council that the selection process may contain some deficiency. We request that the City Council allow the release of the CRSA Architectural report as it pertains to the 900 South property, designated as letter L in the site map attached to the January 27,2011 briefing report by Russell Weeks. It appears that that out of 12 locations under consideration,the Glendale Library Steering Committee narrowed the potential site for a branch library down to two locations. We are receiving reports that the 900 S. location was not properly vetted.We ask that the Council rectify that situation and allow the selection committee to thoroughly explore the 900 S. site, allow the CRSA Architectural report to be open for inspection and allow stake holders in the potentially new service area to participate in this selection process. Sincerely, Andrew Johnst Poplar Grove mmunity ouncil A MINUTES AND SWORN STATEMENT FOR CLOSED MEETINGS � r I� who having been first duly sworn upon oath, ate as follows : A. I presided at a closed meeting of the Salt Lake City Council, held on the /4- day ot:011116/14 ---, 20 . B. The meeting was close for the following purpose (s) : 1 . discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; 2 . V discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices or systems; 3 . strategy session to discuss collective bargaining; 4 . strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; 5 . strategy session to discuss' the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property if public discussion of the transaction would: disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; 6 . strategy session to discuss the sale of real property as permitted by the Open and Public Meetings Act; 7 . investigate proceeding regarding allegations of criminal misconduct; or 8 . s other, described as follows : C . I certify that : 1 . If the meeting was closed for any reason identified in paragraph B. 1 or B. 2, above, this document constitutes the record and minutes of said meeting, as required by Section 52-4-206 Utah Code Ann. , 1953, as amended (Repl . Vol . 5B) . 2 . If the said closed meeting was held for a purpose identified in paragraphs B. 3 through B. 8, above, a recording was made of tlye' closed portion of the meeting; and there ( were �/ were not) detailed written minutes taken that disclose the content of the closed portion of the meeting. These recordings and minutes have been directed by me to be filed, held and maintained consistent with the Open and Public Meetings Act. D. The said closed meeting was held at 4. ' clock in Room . l of the Salt Lake City and County Building, 451 South State Street or at The members of the Salt Lake City Council present and absent were as follows . Present Absent Carlton Christensen Van glair Turner Stan Penfold Luke Garrott Jill Remington Love JT Martin ✓ Soren Simonsen E. The names of all other persons present at said closed meeting (except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidence necessary to fill the original purpose of the closed meeting) are as follows : Signe on thi da of , 20 ( I . Atti/67/L 447417/MA/L_ AJI/\4p1/4-01_,— (Name) Presiding person for closed meeting . JURAT STATE Or UTAH } COUNTY OF SALT LAKE} On this day of , 20 personally appeared before me the above identified presiding person, who having been first duly sworn, and affirmed that the statements in the foregoing Minutes and Sworn Statement regarding a Closed Meeting are true and accurate and that he/she signed the statement . NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County My Commission Expires : aipWil& SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION trAtT tdkite TELEP,iONE (801 I 535-7736 PAGE 10F2 (Use additional sheets if needed.) NOTICE OF CLAIM FORM PLEASE COMPLETE ONE NOTICE FOR EACH CLAIMANT Claimant Information Last Name: , First Name: Address: City: State. X Zip Code: 1: Work Phone Number: 777 Home Phone Number: thr NuMber: Social Security Number: — - „ Date of Incident: — Time of incident: Location: Vehicle Information (if applicable): (Year) (Make) (Model) Police Case Law Enforcement Number fif Agency: City Department/Employee Involved (if known): ( City Vehicle (if applicable): flllear) (Make) (Model) (License No.) Brief Statement of facts: ;F,; * ,; 1`q- • , )14 ;i,A • , :I -1,1 IMPORIANILil This information is provided as a service to the citizens of Salt Lake City and is not intended to substitute for legal advice„ You are responsible for compliance with the current requirements of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. Salt Lake City makes no warranty as to the correctness or completeness of this information. This information is not to be construed as a waiver of any provision of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act§.63G-7-101 9/2008 • Page 2 of 2 Nature of the claim asserted. : .4_ • r.., It Damages incurred so far as they are known: It „ r Injuries Incurred: 1 , It (Claimant's Signature) (Date Signed) IMPORTANT!!! This information is provided as a service to the citizens of Salt Lake City and is not intended to substitute for legal advice. You are responsible for compliance with the current requirements of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. Salt Lake City makes no warranty as to the correctness or completeness of this information. This information is not to be construed as a waiver of any provision of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, § 63G-7-101. 912008 g - . Customer Service Center /-800-835-2257 s. L .,. i.i.a .... 300 ..° ,- ; t.,h.'4,'i ,..lit.-';-1/41 '--r:.,...:;1-1 I. 1 .-'• Ui«. • ''':'TT : :' - ' ',•"'I ,0 . •,4 I. LE. '1;..if..:Yi , ,: ,, rrit ,. f.‘., 1. 70 ,,"I!.•-"- : ".": ". , ;'i= FT, ,,! , ,li. :,',-.. . ,.'.-r..• . . ....',v;. '...,, t^i;.1,.',^3'1 1•:' r i•-• '; i•1'.• ,.. ', :,..2• "-' ..'' ,:.:.:',7, 1 '.', .',, ...- i;:;1,.;." :'1.•. '' 7-7, i :'' - ,.• . ,. 1.--f;1,n. i*, IT ,•... ,.-I --,-.----;--- ', : ",',. 7i:. 1.4-0- ,, ,„;-:, - "r•-•:.; '7 : flci-:. 1.:::!T r: ' '.'1'1.:4'f:A •.' ii,7-;‘.-.13.2.:;:- '1 1 -1 -,'-qiie01.,1°., • - -• . ---- - WO F.1'. 0 R J....E i, i `...-4 8:- .4''.7--.11 1' ' ''.."---•' '' -'-- -- -''''''','''''''''' -,,,,,,, 111:C'!:` P114:''''' i'r,T'T , ' '--- ' • ': '' ...• ,.• •11jf"). '..R.,i,CI' i 1;1 Hji :. 1 ' • 440-7 Z?0 ii,77- . ) ,tr..."1-c:(7....1.!-- :1' 1-4 i .,\ 1 r... .."--.;." . . A • IA , ' ,,,,..„ ' C 'ir-` 22,r l' '..,.! ,..; ,! .- .. . {,:“:!:- ,, •,,,;-rzt- --f.:".'11-7\1''' '...CP,'. - .',. .,-,.,2•°.;--.4.r..-<' !. F. il-64 '°".• -.7-:. ...,r. !•,, , --, ; ...• - : • .., -; ,, -.. „ rh, . :.i 1 !,..:.-,.. ' . Hal, 2 rirr 4 :F1.1241611 MI..PO.V.2.4,::955. LOCt'114DR4iiik.5-E'. .,.DP, 1',,,Er=: fk:IF -r,:,-,.a,;,,,),-1,-,1 D,,'..r.A.P: c .m.... ) c ... c . )i . ,,1 , , , I . ,, i),:-If'7 --7,:.ii.'. .(.:'!"1'-'41 ,•.'„,.114, 74 5 7T.,-.,°, 2 C ••,.!..°..ir"'. ''-.-: •11,1"....,OR A W..E T 0'1 AL 515. :-'7 -'--r---'"--' '--- = '.. ---=- LI i'-':'• .;:i ' ...:_r 1r-fIPrIly1"1,-n.: , -.-f, I ! I: r-V-.1-A 7-.--- —''-'-''' '''' 1'11 Tr...Wr (--',:.:..--0., -, ,:y.-1 ,ocir:- 1 t:I.,;,.--%(-1;•-: ;,qi'' '.. I 01:-:. 17/'C'.,0.0,,,? ' ‘,-.1f_:1, rir!, i''. 2:- ° , - °;)1 V, ;.° , l INDSH I ELL Rif112:1 I- -:,..: '..12 I 1. ..L. . •::: : '. '1...V7T TITL „ „ bilquQi F.,=,-titot T..:i°, !'.•.• ..• : ., !tiv..-- -t- -.:4-.iri--irsi•-••:'1.::o-41E '. ,,-i,:iti= .Ti'l .'::v'•-,-..rt°-!-„,f,,! ,--; Tpli, Elfij ,- ,„-,,t-ist,2 mots that af•\akq,)1.;..-..!:,,r!-.6 b :,,,t-t-,,,..... !,.;,.-4 -,. , ,' •.,.,,01 ,,, ,.'' iorkl : k8.:.: ,'Ifi,,.,r 14- ,' ,5-;', ',t,',".i 1 t t 1 '€'',..--r', lft,4 ',•.,3:?)f:l1:,:, 11,, IS:StiolACT Col'On'i te, pa- ir, Sa-4.,:°T.1-teatisivilf. L . *!),..?°•:" 4.,.-. I.: -,-f.j ,t.,,T,° - ..' , • „ ', : ,.• ; . -- '',..r: :',,v,)::•;r1'. I .1,1..:'.,' tO f.,4:: a5--. liapirid . bvi4T-t....f. I h:-...-,..P ,-;10 .7..;)c°,..i-id;- f.:.,.!.....• °i----.- = ( ,-, '..?...- ,,, -• - , , - . ; .;, '•; . = .,-,;. C .itn' -=.41Ptiirt- ../.._ ...._:" If 7gue r_treaj 1:3 qn dit4 rot, '!1',.,-,ifF,,,,-i'.nf ..-,;• -!•?-1f,:p1: 7,,,„,....:j = i(-;0,-.-:. ,--,-,' *.:•' -.',7,-..-,-.P1-:.-,:f1:‘• .13..,,b-..° ,---x ,:....', ,.,,u' 'E.,..' tii; fri ipe,,,DA ,,,!}.).;„!1,,,i, / iitittt:ra iiihi i• 7,it:..i-tt ':-.• :i-, ;:,•,-,,,•.-t• :::, f•-, •,. .‘-•. ! t. ,-- . • 0 seti Estinte i :-. MOUNT TO COLLECT r ROt,i CUSTOMER:. /6 0,.. 00 TfilUT _ ,, ...., . ....._.— 6 Til Dr 1VE: cvls.'i--i I r2: ":- Pir TER . . . ,.. . _PM POI .- .;; ,_ ',':>a• ¥ •ter- ''fx: «fit..,, w It ^•ww»». ".,:,,:.• ,:,.yS, t r,, ..,g,. n}�'a • ( :-fib.... ` ,'•°.^ � > ,. Px e,:- .( yk tl,.— 'tYj '>e F'"'a�F�4 c�'is: - a. * ry�xri€'y' ., s; "w • ,. • •'sro • w t3K. ':,.,:...3:=,4,.°wr .-_ w �t>' A'+ az,: J'``Yj• r�i+�ij �i`% -44 6YQ.lf =we.y ' $" a ... '':- s ..... d:• ; � —' .: , • s a ,.-, _Y • 5 >yn .-� F �' .t,q ` • .n., .A y "F 2 p3i t. a. k' ass `l �'^ "qa. *,•. - F. ';,,t. I a i 4 tri r ,s > ii y. avalet ts4P44r, gffb .F> - .7f• i " 4. .t.' a. :E-T, ~ eR $Ai.x ' pp+3yz1 L°: -,;z c ' 1': _`' x — yam. -' '" ' >- ;� � �y. r> Vie:_ .. . ",. :71.,,..,,.,,,,..1,,,,1;-.:,1,t•,:sk ::',,1,‘0,,,,,.L*4..:(.4t;,;,; ,it,,:,.'',ei.-,', -`-t . 'a.I ":,'4,14 .: ':' ram - ;' • .. ",a ry�'" "' "< xr„ &L„x,'. ""."5.,, .,,jam " i x ? ° - _ $ ,. i. :"'-'D.'bnZ' ,•y ` ,�"', .. •;,• ^� i rye • •� ' �. F • } m" nmE-..� ., .., `S. ,,' t = : N : <. ''..T...:k'arc„' .- '"k. ......s • �$, f,_ a(.- ems s •N .y a` .°<-. <K. 'p x ens ':.°. .«.< e tt a -..4,4,,,f4 „'-i,...,... r ., ..,.,,..:„.„,„,,,„:.‘.;:l 4 m r£ ,,.4....11,f1:;:g r'''' ': ' ' i. a ..,, • s4,�� `: ,,w� . ros r .x ' f5." ' x c. '::::',"r5 — ' *4 •"I ...71Sv t';':::...''':.•,.ii!:;:!:':,;•:•7? .14, '2z14 ,, <--7.,?r,;' .ea".' °k z:' r w��. . • A. fig ' a " � .�� . ' q ;�/� , ,.' ` :; : ,. 'are a" ' fie' r I.: € ii. ,' , M s I i ff Sid . •-•-::. A il y, u. � " *.1 • .- ,ems 7; .J: 9.: fir . y sax« X"«_ t i � ^ .. „ y ''- ; 4.ir. „', i... Sig I, aN ^ k/µ'_x- I `.„,`}':Nr�'e`N Nx; „ 4. 's;y ^:. ,,, e,.r a It ,`a Y x-fib;• r 'e .1 ; .-t es p, f �y" y . ' am. 4:* 3, _ �^ <JY^�i'%" _ < h,.t, x Via. 'c€�. '✓ ,., i /,�.y „° ^' �: '� .fifx"""°fey^„/ „` • 1'� �.°"'2' _ fir` i i '9/, .,' -' k°vHr` ,t 'y' x "� 3se..ar%, '<y#y�.:;�.✓G <` .zr�,z £, a' . ' -� \ <: zz -iffy :+rr H" a s.g '..y-Ni s,.,',,, go-,s.Nr t ,Arre,r4Arette 5 erteg- Org. gr4a.1.4 Sot-'.5115°A;'-ftrifigiS SALT LAKE CITY GOLF COURSE DAMAGE REPORT -.z Date: I Location: --kf.5 City Employee Verifying incident: - - f Person(s) Involved: f--[ Address: c>>c City: \.:1 Phone: - I -- Description of Incident: t cY A _I Damages Incurred: C Injuries Incurred: (.9 Safelite AutoGlass Stan Gaillard no v;5rw s l'tL Ciy. .J- IL l I of. To the best of my knowledge, the information a The damage resulting from this accident was inspected by me on the date below in the presence of the involved party. c UAl L 4-\ / Signature of Employee Date L-1 Signature of PatIgri. Date White-Patron's Copy Yellow-Golf Division Copy Pink-Attorney's Copy • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT#3-FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: January 18,2011 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment#3 STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Richards,Lehua Weaver,Karen Halladay and Jennifer Bruno CC: David Everitt,Gina Chamness,Gordon Hoskins,Frank Gray,LuAnn Clark,Chief Chris Burbank,Chief Kurt Cook,Rick Graham,Kay Christensen,Shannon Ashby,and Sherrie Collins Budget Amendment Number Three contains 33 proposed adjustments,as suggested by the Administration. The amendment recommends using fund balance for ten initiatives for a decrease to fund balance of$1,015,031. Of this amount,the Administration anticipates that$254,260 will be reimbursed back to the City. The Council requests a current-year revenue forecast with each budget amendment. The Administration's forecast shows a deficit of approximately$1 million due to property tax judgments settled last year and a decrease in parking ticket issuance and revenue. Sales tax revenue is stable. The decline is due to a decrease in municipal energy taxes. Franchise taxes are lower than anticipated due to a decrease in revenue received from telecommunication companies. The number of commercial and residential permits is higher as compared to last year;however,the value of the permits is significantly lower. Parking meter revenue is higher than anticipated based on the bagging of meters for the downtown area,including the City Creek project. This budget amendment includes the addition of 4 general fund positions,and 1.5 grant-funded positions. From a policy perspective the Council generally avoids adding positions mid-year. The need for these positions may be an indicator that the budget cuts made over the past two years are not allowing the City to continue operating at the desired level. In an effort to make the review of the budget openings more expedient,the Administration has attempted to categorize budget opening items as follows: A. "New"-those items that are new issues. B. "Grant requiring existing staff resources"--those grants that will require the City's existing staff to complete a specific project. (Employees involved with these projects may have less time to focus on other projects within the scope of their work.) C. "Grant requiring additional staff resources"-those grants that provide additional staff positions and require a City match. These generally have policy Page 1 implications because they may add a new service or create an expectation that the City will fund the position after the grant has expired. D. "Housekeeping"--those items classified by the Administration as strictly accounting actions that do not have policy implications. E. "Grants requiring No New Staff Resources"-those grants that provide funding for costs that are not associated with positions. F. "Donation"--those items that are donations that require Council appropriation to be used,are consistent with previous Council discussions,or do not have policy implications. G. "Council Consent Agenda-Grant Awards"-These items have been previously approved on the Council's Consent Agenda. H. "Follow-up on Previously Approved Items"-those items that were approved in a previous budget amendment but require some additional adjustments. I. "Council Added"-items which have been added by the City Council. 0 MATTERS AT ISSUE The Administration classified the following as: New Items: A-1: Request to expand driving range at Rose Park Golf Course($425,000-Source: 11 Ooif Enterprise Fund) In September of 2010,the Salt Lake City Golf Fund sold 3.01 acres of Rose Park Golf Course land for the Guadalupe Center Education program. The sales proceeds less associated sales costs were$422,782. The Golf Fund plans to use the sales proceeds to expand the driving range. With the addition of the recent property purchase mentioned above,the Rose Park Course would be able to expand the course's driving range. The proposed expansion would extend the driving range to 350 yards and provide a practice tee approximately 125 yards wide by 50 yards deep. This budget amendment would establish the revenue budget of$425,000 for the Guadalupe Center Education Program sales proceeds. In addition,this amendment also establishes the expenditure budget of$425,000 to be used for the Rose Park Golf Course improvements of$422,782 and to cover sales costs of$2,218. Does the Council wish to ask the Administration about the status of the property re-zone-from R-1- 7000(Single Family Residential)to Open Space? Related Information In the Fall of 2009,the Council approved a budget amendment for $800,000. This is a subsidy of the Golf Fund with the General Fund's Surplus Land Account. With the funds the Golf Fund was able to purchase 2.64 acres adjacent to the Rose Park Golf Course driving range. The property purchases of$695,380 were finalized during the summer of 2010.The final purchase price,including associated costs,was $104,620 less than anticipated. According to the Administration,the excess budget will be returned to the Surplus Land Account. Page 2 A-2: Request to establish budgets for cost of utilities at Sorenson Center ($104,260 - Source: fund balance of the City's General Fund -- to be reimbursed by Salt Lake County) The Council will recall that Salt Lake County took over the operation and management of the Sorenson Center last year, and that the City still owns the property. The Administration indicates that the Sorenson Center site is included in the City's energy performance contract. As a result, the City tracks the utility costs (including water, electricity and gas) and bills Salt Lake County for the cost of utilities and the associated debt service the City incurs during the energy performance contract lease. The County benefits from the lower utility costs while the City benefits from new equipment on its property. This request will create expense and revenue budgets to cover initial payment of utility costs and reimbursement from the County. A-3: Request for dog park fence at Rotary Glen Park ($14,000- Source:fund balance of the City's General Fund) The Administration has requested that this item be held open for a later date and not be addressed at this time. The Administration will come back with additional information. A-4: Request for New FTE - Street Cars Project Manager position - to manage Streetcar projects ($52,500 for 6 months; $126,500 annually- Source:fund balance of the City's General Fund) The Administration is requesting to add a Street Cars Project Manager position in Community and Economic Development, to manage the Sugar House Streetcar project, including coordinating with various City departments and outside entities, and to manage potential future street car projects. Salt Lake City received a $26 million federal grant for the Sugar House line. Design and construction for the line is expected to be on a rapid schedule (18 months) and current staffing levels do not allow for a full-time streetcar project manager, nor have they allowed for a full-time staff person to identify and finalize gap funding for the line. The Administration is proposing to add this position to the overall staffing document, because the City will be pursuing additional streetcar lines Downtown. Note: Funding is not yet secure for additional streetcar lines, although the Administration indicates that it will continue to pursue federal funds. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to further define the responsibilities of this position - will the position handle planning/zoning issues adjacent to the line, design and engineering of the line only, or will it have an instrumental role in funding and partnership opportunities. A-5: Request to fund costs of outside counsel associated with Regional Athletic Complex/Jordan River litigation ($25,000 - Source:fund balance of the City's General Fund) The Administration is requesting additional funds to secure outside assistance in handling the various lawsuits that the Jordan River Restoration Network (JRRN) has pending against the City. There are various lawsuits that are currently in progress, and the JRRN has indicated publicly it will pursue additional lawsuits. The lawsuits have been handled so far by the Attorney's Office, but the slow progress of the current lawsuits, and potential for future lawsuits has made it necessary for the Attorney's Office to secure supplemental resources. Page 3 A-6: Request to fund Bike Share Pilot Program($25,000-Source:fund balance of the City's General Fund) The Administration has requested$25,000 towards the creation of an approximately $100,000 bike sharing pilot program which will make 40-50 bikes available to rent in the downtown area. If approved these funds would be used to match private sponsor donations. According to Transportation,the bikes will have multiple gears and the capacity to carry an additional fifty pounds of weight in the front basket. Users would pay with a key card or credit card at a solar-powered kiosk and return the bike after use to the same, or a different kiosk. Kiosks and bikes would be leased by the City from a bike sharing vendor during the pilot program. Kiosk locations would be determined by the vendor,the Transportation Division and the Downtown Alliance. The Administration indicates the cost to rent a bike will depend on usage. Some bike Lsharing programs offer a thirty minute to one hour grace period in which the users are not charged. After the grace period,rental costs are determined by a sliding scale based on the amount of time the bike is rented. An annual rental fee might range from$75 to$100, with monthly and daily rental rates also available. As indicated in the transmittal,user fees typically fund a portion of operating costs,while the investment of bikes and kiosks is typically made using public dollars. The Council may wish to note that some public funding may be necessary to support operation costs. Depending on demand and use of the pilot program,the Administration indicates that expanded sponsorships,advertising and grants may be pursued to fund the future purchase of bikes. The transmittal indicates a tentative`build-out'for bike sharing in the future of approximately 500 bikes at$3,500 to$4,500 per bike for a total cost of$2 million. Assuming user fees defray a portion of costs,annual operating costs are approximately$1,000 per bike,with a total cost of$500,000 for the program. Questions for Consideration: o The Council may wish to ask about other sponsorship contacts or grants the Administration may be pursuing. o The Council may wish to ask about the day-to-day management of the program, asset maintenance,and budget tracking. o The Council may wish to ask about the timeline for the program-if the initial funding is approved,what is the projected timeframe to have bikes ready to rent, and what is the anticipated length of the pilot program? A-7: Request for New FTE-Civil Enforcement Secretary-to assist with new duties of Civil Enforcement (1.0 FTE; $27,000 for 6 months; $54,000 annually - Source: fund balance of the City's General Fund) The Administration is requesting a new FTE for a secretary position to support the Civil Enforcement Unit (CE, formerly known as Zoning Enforcement). The new position would replace a secretary position eliminated during the retirement incentive a few years ago, to support the increasing workload in Civil Enforcement. The Administration indicates that in addition to the continuing zoning enforcement duties, additional responsibilities have been assigned to CE, including enforcement of sidewalk Page 4 artists, the Farmer's Market & entertainers, and sidewalk snow removal. This group will also be responsible for enforcement of the Good Landlord program. According to the Administration, to support CE, the secretary performs letter drafting; preparation of notices, certificates, liens, deficiency lists; HAAB minutes and notices; hearings;as well as assisting with Planning and HAND support as needed. (Although under Building Services organizationally, the staff is still physically located next to Planning and HAND staff.) The number of support staff has been reduced over the past few years from three secretary positions to one. When CE (then HAZE)was organizationally under the Planning Division, there were three secretaries for HAZE,that shared some support for Planning needs.When HAZE was transferred to the Building Services Division,one of the secretary positions was transferred to stay in Planning. Of the remaining two HAZE secretaries, one opted to retire when the City offered the retirement incentive during the 2009-10 fiscal year.This left one secretary to support the CE functions. Typically,the Council has questioned adding new positions mid-year rather than evaluating additions in the context of the annual budget.The Administration has indicated that over the past two years they have employed a temporary secretary to meet the support needs of CE. The Council may wish to ask whether the temporary position could continue to meet the needs until annual budget discussions. The Council might also inquire about whether some incoming complaint phone calls could be handled by an automated system. The Administration may have considered this option and have a recommendation on whether it would provide necessary assistance. A-8: Request for additional funds for Expedited Plan Review Outsourcing Services ($150,000-Source:find balance of the General Fund) This budget item would allocate an additional$150,000 to the Building Services budget for the cost of the outsourcing expedited plan review. When the Council and Administration decided to move forward with providing an option for expedited plan review services,it was determined that those expedited plans would be sent to an outside firm for review. The Council may recall that it was difficult to formulate an estimate of the cost associated with the outside service,because the number of applicants was unknown.According to the Administration,approximately three percent of the plans submitted for review are expedited. The Administration reports that up to October 22,2010,there have been 14 plan reviews this fiscal year.For those expedited reviews,the City paid fees of$36,196 to the outside firm.In addition to those 14 already processed,there are another 10 pending. (Update: through December,$70,000 has been spent on outsourcing expedited plan review.) For each expedited review sent to an outside firm,the City charges double the standard in- house fee.The Administration has estimated that for the expedited reviews submitted through December,$110,000 has been received in double fee revenue from the petitioner. However,with the general fund structure,those revenues are not received directly into the Business Services budget. Page 5 For the Council's reference,the current Turn Around Time(TAT)for plan review is between three and four weeks.Also,as a reminder,plans for LEED certified projects are also expedited without a double-fee as an incentive for seeking LEED certification. If the Council elects to allow expedited plans for other policy reasons it is likely that the funding need will increase. A-9: Request to allocate CDBG funds for construction of Community Learning Center adjacent to Mtn. View Elementary School($233,732-Source:CDBG Fund) In the FY2010 budget process,the Council approved a$233,732 request by the Salt Lake City School District to fund a Community Learning Center adjacent to Mountain View Elementary school. At the time there were a number of questions relating to total cost of the project,location of the project,and fundraising ability,so the Council elected to place the funds in a holding account,subject to future appropriation,pending the School District's response to the Council's various questions. The School District has met with various Council Members over the last few months to answer these questions.This budget amendment request would release these funds. The School District indicates that these 111. funds will be used for project pre-design. The School District has submitted an application for the FY 2012 CDBG process for$500,000. The project is estimated to cost$3.1 million,and the School District would like to begin construction in the Summer of 2011. The funding sources are as follows: Salt Lake City CDBG-FY 2011 $ 233,732 Salt Lake City CDBG-FY 2012 $ 500,000 (request pending) Salt Lake City School District $ 200,000 Salt Lake Education Foundation $2,200,000 (state and national grants) Total Sources $3,133,732 If the Council approves the FY 2012 CDBG request,the City's total contribution will be$733,732. Because these funds are from the federal CDBG program,there are various requirements that the project must follow. The project must follow the Davis Bacon wage schedule(for design as well). The Administration is confirming with the school district if the current estimates includes this wage assumption. Also,HUD states that the City cannot have more than 50%of the total CDBG grant award for that year listed as"pending" in the financial system. Because the total request from the school district would make up a larger portion of the City's total grant award than other projects,the City would need to require the school district to spend these funds in one year. A-10: Request for Impact Fee Waivers($429,809-Source:fund balance of the General Fund) The City's Impact Fee ordinance states that a 100 percent waiver shall be granted for low- income housing(rental or non rental). Low-income is defined in the ordinance as housing for which the payment does not exceed 30%of the annual income of a family that is at 80% of Area Median Income(AMI),as determined by HUD. State Impact Fee statute requires that any"waived"Impact Fees must still be paid by the municipality into the appropriate Impact Fee fund. Therefore the City general fund must reimburse the Impact Fee fund for these waivers. The following projects received waivers: Page 6 Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development-5 single family $ 7,575 homes(1019 North Colorado St.,1259 West Gillespie Ave,1011 South 1400 West,553 South 1000 West,1019 South 1400 West). Housing Authority of Salt Lake City-Taylor Springs Apartments(1812 S. $ 143,925 West Temple). _ Young Women's Christian Association(YWCA)Crisis Shelter(325 South 300 $ 72,750 East) Road Home-Palmer Court(999 South Main St) $205,589 Total Exemptions(to be reimbursed by general fund) $429,809 A-1l: Request for reallocate funds for Small Neighborhood Business Petition ($55,000-Source:fund balance of the General Fund) The Administration has performed foundation work to set up the Small Business Resource Guide including: inventory of businesses located within neighborhood districts,conducted a survey,and document preparation for public input. Of the$75,000 initially budgeted for the project,$10,000 has been used.The$65,000 dropped to fund balance at the end of 2009-10. In order to complete the remainder of the project,the Administration estimates that $55,000 will be needed and is requesting that be reallocated to the CED budget. The next steps include noticing affected property owners,two public processes,and publication of the Salt Lake City Small Business Guide. A-12: Request for three New FTE's associated with the Public Services Department Reorganization($132,462 for 6 months;$317,910 annually-Source:fund balance of the General Fund) The Administration is proposing organizational changes to the Public Services Department, which includes ten(10)divisions,two(2)Enterprise Funds-the Refuse and Golf Funds, and one(1)Internal Service Fund-Fleet. The reorganization involves 1)elimination of the Deputy Director position,2)creating four divisions,and 3)adding two new positions in the department. In addition to flattening the organizational structure,the departmental changes will distribute administrative and day-to-day duties,program oversight,and management to four(4)newly created Division Directors. Three existing department employees will become Division Directors. The fourth one,the Operations Division,is a newly created division that will require recruiting and hiring of an employee to fill this position. • Page 7 The following table presents additional detail about the proposed reorganization: Division Employee Grade FY 2011 Future Additional Information Impact -Partial Year Year Annual Cost Cost (Note:This assumes a Feb 1 hire date.) 1 FTE- 31 $41,562 $99,750 This position,as proposed, Special will work for the Director. Projects Duties include,but are not Analyst limited to managing and coordinating:large scale projects;new initiatives, public policy issues,inter- governmental relations, and public relations. In addition,this position will serve as a liaison with other City departments. This position will also work on several projects currently in the development and implementation stage. Administrative Services Existing 35 $0 $0 This division would include Division:Policy department some functions currently development,Strategic employee performed in the Office of Planning,Program will become the Director. In addition, Performance,Contracts, the this Division would be Technology,Safety, Division responsible for the Emergency Management Director. Gallivan Center operations and Event Planning. and other event planning functions. According to the Administration,the personnel services budget from the elimination of the Deputy Director position will be used for the Administrative Services Division Director. Finance and Accounting Existing 35 $0 $0 Division: Budget, department accounting,fiscal employee analysis,revenue will become projections,purchasing, the payroll,auditing,fund Division allocation,risk Director. management,grants,and forecasting. Page 8 1 FTE- 26 $29,015 $69,632 This position, as proposed, Financial would support the daily Reporting demands of managing Accountant financial records and systems within the Public Services Department, which has an annual budget of$75 million. Operations Division: 1 FTE- 37 $61,885 $148,528 The Operations Division is Facilities, Compliance, Operations a new division. An YouthCity, Golf, Park and Division employee will have to be Public Lands, Director recruited and hired. Streets/Concrete and Fleet. Sustainability- Existing 35 $0 $0 Sanitation is a new Environment Services department responsibility for this Division; Sustainability, employee division. energy, environment will become management and the compliance, recycling, Division outreach, and sanitation. Director. This budget amendment would establish an expenditure budget of$132,462 for FY 2011 for the partial year cost of adding three (3) FTEs in the Public Services Department. According to information provided by the Administration, the future annual cost for the reorganization is $317,910. The funding for this budget amendment would come from the City's General Fund - Fund Balance. • ►Does the Council wish to ask the Administration if additional technology could assist the Department in their service, organizational, management, and oversight roles? This is suggested in addition to any staffing changes approved, rather than in lieu of A-13: Requested Changes to City's Appointed Positions (fiscal impact is discussed in more detail in Item A-12) Pending the Council's action on item A-12, the chart for appointed positions will change. The following positions will be deleted- Public Services Deputy Director (Grade 39), Capital Asset Management Director (Grade 39), Sustainability Environment Division Director (Grade 35), Fleet Division Manager (Grade 33). The following positions will be added - Labor Relations Director/Senior City Attorney (Grade 39), Operations Division Director, Public Services (Grade 37), Finance and Accounting Division Director, Public Services (Grade 35), Sustainability/Environment Division Director, Public Services (Grade 35), Administrative Service Division Director, Public Services (Grade 35), Fleet Management Program Director, Public Services (Grade 33), Parks and Public Lands Program Director (Grade 33), Special Projects Analyst (Grade 31). Costs associated with these changes are detailed in item A-12. Additional Changes- Due to the Council Staff equity/compensations issues that have previously been recognized by the Council and were funded in the FY 2011 budget process, a reorganization of certain positions on the pay grade chart is also part of this budget amendment (see attached chart). Some changes within the office have been made, and some Page 9 will need to be addressed over a two year period as funds are available. Staff will present -� further options as a part of the FY 2012 budget. Attachment A is the rationale used by the 2010 Council Chair,Vice Chair and Director. A-14: Request to establish cost centers for North Temple Boulevard Improvements ($8,017,200-Source:CIP Fund) The Administration is requesting the Council approve this budget item to recognize various revenue and expenditure sources relating to the North Temple Boulevard project. The chart below summarizes sources and uses,based on the most current cost estimates. Note that the current cost estimate of$22.5 million is significantly lower than the original cost estimate of approximately$30 million. The net effect is that the City can complete the project with a lower sales tax bond than originally expected($3 million instead of the originally anticipated$10 million). Cost reductions came from a favorable bidding climate, as well as a slight reduction in scope for some elements. Scope reduction includes not funding certain improvements west of Redwood Road,such as street lights,pedestrian lights,and landscaping. Other scope reductions are in the process of being confirmed by Council staff and will be made available on Tuesday. The budget authorization includes a final sales tax bond amount of$3 million. Staff estimates the debt service on this amount is approximately$250,000 per year(assuming a 20 year bond). Final debt service payments will be determined at the time of sale. 7 Page 10 C tLnding Sources Alliance Fund $ 10,000,000 FY 2010 CIP Budget $ 2,884 000 FY 2010 Non-Departmental Budget $ 150,000 FY 2010 Class C $ 375,000 Property Owner Assessment(East of Redwood Raod) $ 1,181,800 State contribution in lieu of property assessment $ 386,200 Alliance Fund increase as a result of decision to only partially embed track on Airport $ 781,496 State Contribution per HB XXX $ 3,500,000 12.5%UTA portion of new street light system $ 261,000 City Sales Tax Bond-Pending Council Approval $ 3,000,000 Total Funding as of 2/9/2010 22,519,496 Costs Final Cost Original Estimate UTA Conceptual Urban Design Process $ 300,000 Conceptual and final boulevard contract design cost $ 2,280,384 Saving in conceptual and final design $ (261,238) Design Consultant(Ron Straka&Marilee Utter) $ 224,000 $ 150,000 Business Impact Mitigation budget $ 120,000 $ 150,000 Concrete paved track, 600 W.to 2200 W. $ 4,040,759 $ 6,400,000 Coloring of concrete for the embedded track and all other colored concrete elements on the boulevard and viaduct $ 1,006,913 $ 820,000 Betterment of Jordan River Bridge(enhancements and deck) $ 297,684 $ 375,000 Painted bike path $ 100,000 $ 200,000 Raised medians curbs $ 40,501 $ 225,000 Enhanced bus shelters $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Enhanced station platforms- includes patterned concrete $ 335,238 $ 305,000 Patterned concrete at station platforms $ - $ 95,000 Enhanced OCS poles $ 310,024 $ 195,000 OCS poles reflective element $ 52,845 $ 250,000 Multi-modal Pathway- includes following four items $ 4,205,428 $ 1,960,000 Corner Treatments $ - $ 317,000 I-215 Underpass Enhancement $ - $ 265,000 I-15 Underpass Enhancement $ - $ 265,000 Redwood Road crosswalks and corner treatments $ - $ 130,000 Enhanced parkstrip landscaping-includes following two items $ 3,315,685 $ 3,958,000 Enhanced North Temple medians $ - $ 445,000 I-80 Corridor landscaping $ - $ 45,000 Credit for eliminating landscaping and boulevard elements between Redwood Road and I 215 $ (750,387) Street furnishings $ 50,000 $ 185,000 Neighborhood identification place markers $ 118,224 $ 160,000 Street and pedestrian scale lighting for the boulevard and viaduct $ 1,842,800 $ 4,873,499 Station bollard lighting $ - $ 75,000 Enhanced crosswalks(other than Redwood Road) $ 891,486 $ 136,000 Public Art at Stations $ 250,000 $ 300,000 Bicycle signals $ 38,645 $ 100,000 Right of Way/Acquisition Issues $ 2,775,541 $ 1,960,000 Power Line burial $ 2,490,307 $ 3,500,000 Solar Panels $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Jordan River Parkway enhancements $ 283,037 $ 400,000 Modification to overhaul power system for high load vehicle clearanc $ 135,500 $ 200,000 Cost savings per interlocal agreement in allowing UTA to mill and structurally overlay instead of a complete reconstruction of the North Temple pavements. $ (3,088,529) $ (107,000) Earned Contractor design completion incentive $ (42,750) UTA Program Management Fee $ 457,399 City Engineering Construction Management Costs $ 200,000 Total Revised Costs $ 22,519,496 $ 29,432,499 Page 11 A-15: Request for Barnes Bank Bond Budget Adjustment($4,737,381-Source: Barnes Bank Bond Funds) Several years ago when the Council and Administration decided to purchase the Barnes Bank Building at the corner of 400 South and 300 East,a bond was issued to cover the purchase of the building and the estimated necessary upgrades for occupancy.The City will no longer pursue use of the Barnes Bank Building due to a higher cost for renovations, and to current designs and vision for the Public Safety Building. Use of the bond money is allowed toward other needed City-owned building improvements and remodeling.The amount available is$4.7 million in bond money,plus$37,381 in interest earned since the bond issuance. The Council may wish to schedule this topic for a separate and more thorough briefing due to the number of options to consider.The only step that is currently necessary is that the bond funds be allocated toward improvement and remodeling of a building for use as City offices.The Council could allocate the funds in a general account for that purpose and then hold the conversation for specific project review and approval at a later date. Having said that,the Administration provided some information about possible uses of the money.Facilities Services and the Engineering Division compiled a list of potential projects and estimated costs totaling$13,561,816.The Mayor has provided a recommendation on projects,totaling$5,621,682,as follows: • $3,473,000 To be spent at Plaza 349 on: o spatial reconfigurations of floors 1,4,and 6 o upgrades to the mechanical,electrical and plumbing systems throughout the entire Plaza 349 building • $2,148,682 To be spent at the City 84 County Building on: o remodeling of the north end of the 5th floor, o new office space would accommodate approximately 44 additional employees. • TOTAL of $5,621,682 o This is$884,301 over the available bond and interest money. o The Administration intends to include the rest in a CIP application. One of the items on the list is to repair and maintain the stone on the outside of the City 8s County building,which a few Council Members have inquired about.The estimate for this project would be$1.6 million. There are other systems maintenance,upgrades,and structural projects to existing building space on the list as well. Questions for Consideration: o The Council may wish to review the complete list of proposed projects with the Administration to discuss more of the details and reasoning for the Mayor's recommendations. Page 12 o The Council may wish to weigh the options between building out additional office space or maintaining existing office and building needs. o The Council may wish to ask about the need for additional office space, and how the recommended improvements will address the needs of the City. o The Council may wish to ask whether a comprehensive space needs audit has been completed. o The Council may also wish to ask how the recommended projects will facilitate the One Stop shop, customer access, and the parking issues previously identified as a problem for customers. o The Council may wish to ask whether funding these recommended projects with the bond money would free up money in the CIP account for 2011-12 or 10-year CIP Plan projects. o The Council may also wish to ask whether there are other projects on the CIP 10- year plan that could be considered. o The Council may wish to have the Administration return with a full briefing on the potential future uses of the Barnes Bank Building site. A-16: Request for revenue and expenditure budget authority to implement electronic booting program ($257,250 - revenue neutral) The Administration is requesting both a revenue and expenditure budget be established to implement the recently-approved electronic booting program with Paylock. Paylock and Salt Lake City entered into a contract in December 2010, whereby the City will collect the fee established by ordinance ($147.00) and pass the payment along to Paylock. The Administration classified the following as: Grants Requiring Existing Staff Resources B-1: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs - Cold Cases Grant ($389,200 - Source: Grant Fund) According to paperwork submitted by the Administration, there are 100 violent crime/homicide cold cases that remain unsolved by the Salt Lake City Police Department. In an effort to solve and adjudicate these older cases, the Police Department will use grant funds received from the US Department of Justice, Solving Cold Cases with DNA program. These funds have the potential to return DNA test results within sixteen (16) days. With the current backlog of cases it can take up to 180 days, depending on the nature of the case. Grant funds will be used as follows during the 10/1/2010 to 3/31/2012 grant period: ipoPage 13 Purpose Amount Additional Information Sorenson Forensics LLC- $147,200 •Cold case biological evidence will be analyzed by Case Consultation Contract Sorenson Forensics,a private entity,to determine which cold cases are suitable for further DNA testing. Sorenson Forensics will advise on whether cases needing further analysis and testing should be assigned to the State Crime Lab (SCL)or to themselves. According to the Administration's paperwork,Sorenson Forensics can provide a wide range of DNA testing. In addition,their turn-around time for testing is 16 days. •Sorenson Forensics will provide training and workshops for SLCPD personnel,including sworn law enforcement,civilian crime lab technicians, and analysts from the SCL. Utah Bureau of Forensic $103,000 •DNA test kits(1000)will be purchased for 24 Services(State Crime Lab)- cold cases that have been screened and assigned DNA test kits and Professional to the SCL. Services •According to the Police Department,the SCL workload queue for cold cases can be over six months. In order to mediate some of the backlog currently being experienced,the Police Department proposes to use grant funds to pay SCL analysts for DNA testing during off hours. Travel $60,000 Travel budget for detectives needing to travel outside the state to interview witnesses. Training $9,000 Homicide/Cold Case Training for 4 detectives. Overtime $70,000 Overtime paid for 6 detectives and 1 Sergeant when the regular workload does not allow time to work on cold cases durin• their re: ' shift work. This budget request establishes the revenue and expenditure budgets for this grant. B-2:State of Utah,Dept.of Public Safety,Division of Homeland Security 2010 Urb. Area Security Initiative Grant(UASI)Program Grant($730,000-Source:Grant Fund) The 2010 Homeland Security Grant under the Urban Area Security Initiative(UASI)is intended to continue local law enforcement efforts in planning and preparing for events, such as,natural disasters or terrorist attacks. Details of how the$730,000 grant funds are proposed to be used are included along with related item C-2. Page 14 This budget amendment establishes the revenue and expenditure budgets of$730,000 for the UASI grant. The Administration classified the following as: Grants Requiring Additional Staff Resources C-1: Request for part-time employee - U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women - Community Defined Solutions to Violence Against Women Program Grant($399,077- Source: Grant Fund) The Police Department received a $399,077 continuation grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. This grant falls under their FY 2010 Community Defined Solutions to Violence Against Women Program. This grant project addresses working with partners from the community to improve the quality and quantity of services available to victims of domestic violence at the Salt Lake Area Family Justice Center (SLAFJC). Partners/Stakeholders include the SLC Prosecutors Office, SLC Police Department, Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) of SLC, Legal Aid Society of SLC, Utah Department of Workforce Services, Utah Third District Court, SL Legal Defenders Office, SL County Criminal Justice Services, SL County Sheriffs Office, Utah Division of Child and Family Services, and Gonzalez &Tran-Layton, LLC, a SLC law firm. The SLAFJC, currently located at the Lolie Eccles Center, coordinates the community's response to domestic violence in the Salt Lake area. The following information is how the grant funds will be used: Cier Purpose Amount Additional Information YWCA- Management Contract, $269,587 The contract includes office space for the including office location, grant program, grant program management, program management, meals, meals, utilities, and telephone. utilities, and telephone. YWCA - National Family Justice $25,000 The contract is for the up-coming Center Alliance- Strategic transition and expansion of the SLAFJC. Planning YWCA - Foreign and Sign $10,920 Language Interpreters for clients SLCPD - Detective Overtime $35,000 The labor cost is to pay detectives who serve warrants on violations of protective orders. SLCPD - Part-time Victim $42,000 This request is for a part-time employee. Advocate (co-located at the The paperwork submitted by the SLAFJC) Administration, indicates that the position would be eliminated at the end of the grant. The paperwork also indicates this grant has the potential to be continued. Travel $15,570 This travel budget allows SLAFJC stakeholders to attend technical assistance and grant management training. C Office Supplies $1,000 Total;. ...... $399,077 Page 15 This budget amendment reimbursements the grant holding account for$150,000,which had been approved earlier in FY 2011 on the Council's consent agenda. In addition,the remaining budget of$249,077 will be established. C-2:Request for one FTE-State of Utah,Dept. of Public Safety,Division of Homeland Security, Urban Area Security Initiative Grant(UASI)Program Grant ($2,170,078-Source:Grant Fund) The 2010 Homeland Security Grant under the Urban Area Security Initiative(UASI)was awarded to allow for the purchase of equipment and materials needed in planning and preparing for events,such as,natural disasters or terrorist attacks. The following table presents how the UASI grant funds for both UASI budget amendment items,B-2 and B-3, will be used. (Note: Although item C-2 includes a new position,it is for a Training and Exercise Coordinator,and not the Infrastructure Protection Specialist which was discussed during the last budget opening. According to the Administration,the Training and Exercise Coordinator position will be funded by this grant for three years,unless other grant funding is secured. The addition of this position may be of less concern to the Council,since funding for a full three years has been identified - and no grant amendment will be needed to accomplish this proposal.) The acronym ACIP is not commonly used,but it is listed below. The Asynchronous Critical Infrastructure Program is a program developed in Utah that is designed to facilitate the evaluation of risk. It helps standardize the evaluation of risks. It is particularly specific and increases the likelihood that various users are able to come to the same types of conclusions when evaluating risk. Grant- Agency or Item Amount Additional Information Budget Department Amendmen Receiving t Item Funding B-2 Salt Lake City- Data Fusion/Synthesis, $480,000 System allows collection of data Emergency Crime Database Software from various intelligence sources. Management This data can then be accessed System-Urban and used for further analysis and Area Security study. Initiative (SLC-EMS-UASI) B-2 (SLC-EMS-UASI) Asynchronous Critical $250,000 This tool facilitates gathering of Infrastructure Program data,including critical (ACIP) infrastructure from various sources. Local police,fire,and communities provide data to be included in a centralized database. Subtotal of Item B-2 $730,000 C-2 State of Utah $30,000 The State of Utah will use their funds to purchase a trailer that could be used to care for the needs of animals during a natural disaster or other event. The Community Animal Response trailer will be the responsibility of the State. Page 16 C-2 Valley Emergency $122,000 The Valley Emergency Communication Communication Center will use Center(VECC) their funds for a Voice Over Internet Protocol system. C-2 Salt Lake County $167,360 Salt Lake County will use their funds to acquire interoperable communication tools,including a go kit,which allows the communication tools to be transferred from one location to another. C-2 (SLC-EMS-UASI( New Position-1 FTE-Full- $286,448 This position would be responsible time Training and Exercise to coordinate trainings and Coordinator includes salary exercise development for UASI. In and benefits for 3 years. addition,the Coordinator would (Note: This position is not ensure that all Salt Lake Urban related to the Area(SLUA)jurisdictions Infrastructure Protection participate in on-going training Specialist FTE that had and exercises provided by federal been requested during the and state agencies. The grant previous budget funds this position for the three amendment.) year grant period. According to the Administration,the position would be eliminated if this grant funding does not continue. C-2 (SLC-EMS-UASI) Training,Travel,and $13,552 Supplies C-2 (SLC-EMS-UASI( Contract with BDR $309,977 Develop a SLUA training and exercise program that includes and ensures that all jurisdictions in the SLUA meet a minimum standard of training and exercise. C-2 (SLC-EMS-UASI) Public Outreach $20,000 Develop and produce DVD's for distribution to the community. Individuals,families,businesses and community organizations would be encouraged to: 1) participate in available training,2) learn about available training opportunities,and 3)support on- going community preparedness activities and opportunities. C-2 (SLC-EMS-UASI) Contract-Capacity $151,382 The funds would be used to Development develop program protocols, including identifying and assessing various risks,such as, economic,hazard,and the potential of disasters. C-2 (SLC-EMS-UASI( 10 Channel Intelligence $750,000 Backup system to the City's Repeater Truck existing fixed repeater sites. C-2 (SLC-EMS-UASI) Training for Mayors and $319,359 Councils and Purchase of Remaining Equipment for two MITS trucks Subtotal-Item C-2 $2,170,078 41 Total-Items B-2 and C-2 $2,900,078 Page t7 • This budget amendment establishes the revenue budget of$2,170,078,the expenditure budget of$2,024,541 and reimburses the grant holding account for$145,537,which had been previously approved on the Council's consent agenda. The Administration classified the following as: Housekeeping D-1: Public Utilities Storm Water Carryover ($168,000) and Two New Projects ($1.035,000)for a Total of$1,203,000(Source:Storm Water Fund) This amount represents the amount requested to be carried over for storm water fund capital projects, specifically the storm water line on 4000 West and 700 South, and two new projects related to the City's other street improvement projects: 500 South to 700 South from the Surplus Canal to Gladiola(current SAA before the Council on January 11) in the amount of$650,000,and 1700 East Yalecrest Avenue in the amount of$385,000. Since the fiscal year ends on June 30th of each year in the middle of a normal summer construction period, it is common for funding to be split between budget years. This is a normal practice of carrying over funding for construction projects which are in progress. On June 30, 2010,unexpended appropriations lapsed in accordance with State law. The Administration is requesting that the Council bring forward, or "carryover" the appropriations for existing construction projects in progress of$168,000. The Council already processed one carryover for the Storm Water Fund in Budget Amendment No.2 for some of the larger carryover projects. D-2:Public Utilities Water Carryover($1,755,900) and One New Project($650,000) for a Total of$2,405,900(Source:Water Fund) ..., This amount represents the amount requested to be carried over for water fund capital projects, specifically water line projects that were under construction since last fiscal year, plus a new project related to the City's other street improvement projects:500 South to 700 South from the Surplus Canal to Gladiola(current SAA before the Council on January 11) in the amount of$650,000. Since the fiscal year ends on June 30th of each year in the middle of a normal summer construction period, it is common for funding to be split between budget years. This is a normal practice of carrying over funding for construction projects which are in progress. On June 30, 2010, unexpended appropriations lapsed in accordance with State law. The Administration is requesting that the Council bring forward, or "carryover" the appropriations for existing construction projects in progress of$1,755,900. D-3:Public Utilities Sewer Carryover($4,127,200) This amount represents the amount requested to be carried over for sewer fund capital projects and for sewer line and sewer treatment projects that have been under construction since last fiscal year. Since the fiscal year ends on June 30th of each year in the middle of a normal summer construction period, it is common for funding to be split between budget years. This is a normal practice of carrying over funding for construction projects which are in progress. On June 30, 2010, unexpended appropriations lapsed in accordance with State law. The Administration is requesting that the Council bring forward, or "carryover" the appropriations for existing construction projects in progress of$4,127,200. Page 18 The Council already processed one carryover for the Sewer Fund in Budget Amendment No. 2 for two of the major carryover projects such as the 1800 North Sewer Trunk Line and the Sewer Treatment Plant Digester Roof Replacement projects. D-4: Request for increase to Grant Holding Account ($1,000,000) The Administration is requesting the Council increase the grant holding account (currently $1 million), by another million, bringing it to $2 million. This would allow the Administration greater flexibility to spend grant funds more immediately once awarded. In the past 6 months the City has received over $6 million in grant funds. Sometimes the award is made at a time not around a regularly-scheduled budget amendment. The Council may wish to discuss only increasing the grand holding account for grants with no staffing impact and/or no match required. D-5: Request for increase to Donations Fund Holding Account($58,899.16) The Administration utilizes a "master budget" for donation receipts and related interest earned. This allows the Administration to have the necessary appropriation so that as donations or interest income are received, they can have quick access to the funds. The budget is generally kept at $100,000 and restored as donations come in and the appropriation is spent down. In Budget Amendment #2 for FY 2010, the Council replenished the $100,000 allocation for interest on existing and new donations. The appropriation has already been allocated to individual funds. The Administration requests an appropriation of$58,899.16 to replace donations already used. Attached to item D-5 in the transmittal is a list of the current donation amounts and projects. D-6: Grants Carryover Adjustments (-$78,411) The Administration normally requests a carryover for grants that have been started but were not completed by the end of the fiscal year. This step was processed in Budget Amendment No. 2, however the Administration reports that since then some adjustments were made to grant expenditures for the 2009-10 fiscal year. The adjustments require that grant account funds be corrected and reduced. This is a decrease to the budget. The Administration classified the following as: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant($106,000 - Source: Grant Fund) The Salt Lake City Police Department received a grant under the FY 2010 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Program. Funds awarded are to be used to improve the quality and timeliness of forensic science and medical examiner services and/or to eliminate the backlogs experienced in forensic labs. Forensic evidence analysis includes testing related to controlled substances, firearms, pathology, latent prints, toxicology, and trace evidence. The Police Department proposes to use the grant funds as follows: Page 19 Purpose Amount Additional Information Equipment/Training $23,200 Crime-lite-Portable equipment used primarily by forensic investigators to detect evidence from crime scenes. Equipment/Training $62,000 DCS 4-Workstation for recording and enhancement of latent fingerprints. Equipment/Training $20,800 SICAR 6-A system that uses a coding technique to characterize shoe prints and tire treads. This forms the basis for the database search and match operations.The process,which takes no longer than a minute or two,enables the operator to create a coded description of a pattern. This budget request establishes the revenue and expenditure budgets for this grant. E-2: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Community Challenge Planning and Dept. of Transportation TIGER II Planning Grants- TRAX Line Area Plans and Sustainable Zoning($22,620-Source:Grant Fund) The City received a $22,620 Grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) under the TIGER II Planning Grants program, to develop station area plans and specific zoning codes for the three existing light rail stations along the 400 South portion of the University TRAX line (Library Station, Trolley Square Station, 900 East Station). The goal of the plans would be to identify redevelopment opportunities, promote construction of affordable housing, and re-write the zoning to accomplish these goals. The plans will be developed through a public outreach and community visioning process. The grant requires a 20%match,which the City will provide with the dedication of existing staff resources. The expected timeline for the project is 24 months. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for more detail about the Community Visioning process. E-3: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women - Salt Lake Elder Abuse Project Grant($400,000-Source: Grant Fund) The Police Department has received a grant to fund programs for victims of elder abuse,in collaboration with other local and state agencies. The funds provide training, response systems, and enhanced delivery of services to older adult female victims of abuse. The grant will be divided into the following: o $164,739 Utah Adult Protective Services to hire a caseworker to investigate reported incidents,and provide services and support o 129,890 Support outreach and services o 86,841 Salt Lake County DA Office for a part-time victim advocate and counselor o 18,530 Travel and training costs for various agency employees,judges, police department personnel Page 20 - - -- - The majority of this grant was previously approved on the Council's consent agenda. This budget item would receive the balance of the grant funds, and replenish the City's grant holding account. The Administration classified the following as: Donations F-1: Rio Tinto Donation - City's Climate Showcase Communities ($10,000 - Grant Fund) In Budget Amendment No. 2 of 2009-10, the City set the budget for a grant program to implement a Sustainable Transportation for a Sustainable Future program. The STSF program is a partnership with the County, Salt Lake Solutions, UDOT, Utah Clean Cities Coalition and Rio Tinto. This budget item accepts the $10,000 donation from Rio Tinto as their portion to meet the grant match requirement. The program, as a reminder, is a social messaging outreach / education program that will encourage behavioral changes throughout the County to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution through fewer driven miles. In addition to funding travel, grant monitoring, conferences, surveys, and other contracts, $214,055 of the grant is funding a program manager position over three-years. The Administration classified the following as: Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards already approved by Council action G-1: Utah Dept. of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services and Preparedness Grant($30,109- Source: Grant Fund) G-2: Office of National Drug Control, Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Agency Grant ($65,354 -Source: Grant Fund) G-3: U.S. Dept. of Health&Human Services, Drug Free Communities Support Grant($125,000-Source: Grant Fund) G-4: Utah Quality Growth Commission, Jordan River Riverview Open Space Land Acquisition($167,000 -Source: Grant Fund) *This item was previously funded by the grant holding account. This request will reimburse the grant holding account. The Administration classified the following as: Follow-up on Previously Approved Items NONE Council Added Items Approving CDBG funds for Council Budget- In the FY 2011 CDBG Budget process the Council conditionally approved$91,709 in CDBG funds to use in the Council Office budget, similar to administrative funds approved for the Attorney's Office, Mayor's Office, Housing and Neighborhood Development, and Finance. The Council at the time wanted to wait for a Budget Amendment to finalize the approval of these funds. This action would allow these funds to be used for staff as it relates to community outreach and the CDBG process, in CDBG-eligible census tracks. Staff will work with the Administration to ensure that these funds will be used for eligible expenses only. Page 21 Attachment A Council Staff Compensation - Policy Basis Council staff positions should be compensated at least equal to their peers in merit positions in the Administration. The Mayor's staff is not necessarily a direct comparable. Compensation in appointed positions can be assessed based on "risk level" of turnover due to elections. While the Mayor's office typically has 100 percent turnover following an election, and Council Staff turnover might differ, Council Staff members serve at will, and employment is not guaranteed, nor is there a guaranteed dispute resolution process, as there is with merit employees. APPENDIX B Appointed Employees Pay Level Assignment Effective July 1,2010 (Revised 12-17-2010) Grade 43 Grade 42 Grade 41 Grade 39 Executive Director Of Airports City Attorney Chief of Staff Chief Information Officer Redevelopment Director Public Utilities Director Police Chief Communication Director City Council Deputy Director DCED Director Public Services Director Senior Advisor-Mayor Labor Relations Director/Sr City Attorney Fire Chief Finance Director Appointed Sr.City Attorney Deputy City Attorney City Prosecutor City Engineer City Council Office Executive Director Airport Operations Director Public Utilities Deputy Director Airport Maintenance Director Council Leaal Director P.Util.Finance Administrator Airport Finance/Acct Director Director of Airport Information Technology Airport Engineering Director Airport Admin/Comm Director Grade 37 Grade 35 Grade 33 Grade 31 Deputy Police Chief Deputy Director,RDA Finance&Accounting Division Director,PS Chief Procurement Officer Public Policy Analyst Planning Director Justice Court Judge Building Official City Courts Director Const Liaison/Pub Poi Analyst DCED Dep Director-Comm Dev Airport Police Chief HAND Director Airport PR/Marketing Director Community Facilitator DCED Deputy Director-Econ Dev Operations Division Director,Public Services Transportation Engineer City Recorder Downtown Transp Dev Coord City Treasurer Public Utilities Chief Engineer Fleet Management Program Director Emergency Mgt Program Director Human Resource Director Civilian Review Bd Investigator Parks&Public Lands Program Director Special Projects Analyst Deputy Fire Chief Sustalnability/Environment Division Director Senior Public Policy Analyst Airport Plan/Cap Prog Dir Administrative Services Division Director,PS Wtr.Quality/Treat Administrator Dep City Eng/Major Projects Grade 29 Grade 28 Grade 25 Grade 24 Grade 21 Coord For Human Rights/Divers Council Constituent Liaison Appointments Pending Assistant To The Mayor Admin Asst to the Office of the Mayor Assistant Communication Dir Econ Dev Mgr Small Business Administrative Assistant Policy Assistant to the Office of the Mayor Assistant To Chief of Staff Const Liaison/Budget Analyst Staff Assistant Youth City Programs Manager Com Affairs/ADA Analyst Admin Secretary II Planning/Mgt Director—UASI Community Liaison Management Support Coordinator Const Liaison/Public Policy Analyst Coalition Coordinator Executive Office Assistant Communications&Content Manager No position may be removed from or added to this Appointed Employee Pay Plan without approval of the City Council. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT Budgeted fund balance running total for the General Fund For FY11 Beginning fund balance as of June 30, 2010 26,292,967 Budget book: Total budgeted revenue 187,976,374 Total budgeted expenses (188,749,319) Total budget book sources/(uses) of fund balance ($772,945) Budget amendment#1 changes: Total budget amendment#1 changes $0 Budget amendment#2 changes: Initiative Al Downtown Alliance Parking Token Subsidy (45,000) Initiative A8 Space remodel and office furniture (30,000) Initiative D18 Interest Expense reduction 138,333 .w. Initiative D9 Encumbrance carryover (2,972,401) Total budget amendment#2 changes ($2,909,068) Budget amendment#2 changes: Total budget amendment#2 changes $0 Budget amendment#3 changes: Total budget amendment#3 changes $0 Budget amendment#4 changes: Total budget amendment#4 changes $0 Miscellaneous administrative changes to fund balance: Total miscellaneous adminsitrative changes to fund balance $0 Fund balance as of June 30, 2011 $22,610,954 Budgeted revenue total: $188,048,406 Budgeted expenditures total: ($191,730,424) Previous year's ending fund balance: $26,292,967 $22,610,949 r��F{yry' y-r nl,t kf RALPH BEMAYOCKER (�� 1 1 Mr� � l" jOFFICE OF THE MAYORRECEIVED JAN 1 1 2011 CI COUNCIL REVISED TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: • David veritt, Chief o taff Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 11, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Revision of Budget Amendment#3, Fiscal Year 2010-11 STAFF CONTACT: Gina Chamness, Budget Director(801) 535-7766 Gordon Hoskins,Director, Department of Finance (801) 535-6394 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RE'tOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a public hearing date to discuss the budget amendment#3 for Fiscal Year 2010-i 1, and include new item#A-16. BUDGET IMPACT: This new item creates a revenue and expense budget to operate the paylock electronic booting system. There will be no overall increase in the budget, as revenue and expenses net to zero. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: After the transmittal of the budget amendment to the Council,the need to create both a revenue and expense budget in order to implement a recently passed ordinance was identified. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SCANNED TO: t °e-- SCANNED BY: {1bL, . DATE: ai/ I l j 2m,i 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 Initiative Name: Paylock - Vehicle Impound Device Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #A-16 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Paylock is an electronic booting device to impound a vehicle that has outstanding parking tickets. Paylock and Salt Lake City entered into a contractual agreement in December of 2010. Salt Lake City as changed its ordinance to reflect the fee that will be assessed at the time the boot is placed on the vehicle. The fee is $147.00 payable to Paylock the owners and administrators of the Paylock system. Salt Lake City will collect the fee and make payment to Paylock. This budget item will creates both a revenue and expenditure of $257,250.00. Paylock-Vehicle Impound Device Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#A-16 2010-11 Initiative Number j _ Fiscal Year Finance New Item Department Type of Initiative Mary Beth Thompson 801-535-6403 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount 1 General Fund $ 257,250.00 • Total 1 $ 257,250.00 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 I $0 ,, Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 1 Other Fund Total $01 1 $0 1 1 1 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 0 Position Title: I 1 I Initiative#A-1 6-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 105-00022 1514-01 $ 257,250.00 1 i I i i Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 105-00022 2399 $ 257,250.00 II 1 I 1 i � I i I i i I � Additional Accounting Details: I i I I I I I �I I II li 'I I Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? (Yes or No) Is there a potential for grant to continue? (Yes or No) If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? (Yes or No) Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Yes or No) Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? (Yes or No) Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? (Yes or NO) Initiative#A-16-b RALPH rCEIVED ` `� 1efiRWM eV RECEIVEDOFTHEMAYOR DEC' 2 7 2010 DEC 2 3 2010 SLC COUNCIL OFFICE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: • David eritt, C 1 f of Staff Date sent to Council: l 2 p TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 23, 2010 JT Martin, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Budget Opening#3 for Fiscal Year 2010-11 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#3 for Fiscal Year 2010-11. BUDGET IMPACT: General Fund $1,015,031.00 Other Funds $ 13,564,758.28 CIP Fund $ 12,754,581.00 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items There are 15 new items, 10 of which have an impact on the General Fund. SCANNED TO:4` 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 SCANNED BY:.1{ -' TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 DATE: ►Z I 'N Flo www.slcgov.com Item A-2 is a request to establish a budget for utility costs at the Sorenson Center. These costs of $104,260 will be reimbursed by Salt Lake County. Item A-3 a request of$14,000 is for the dog park fence located at Rotary Glen Park. Item A-4 is a request for a full time position to manage the street car project. The amount needed for the current fiscal year is $52,500 and full funding at$126,500. Item A-5 is a request for funding a contract for outside legal counsel on the Regional Athletic Complex and the Jordan River litigation in the amount of$25,000. Item A-6 a request of $25,000 to help fund the bike share program sponsored by the Transportation Division in CED. Item A-7 is a request for funding a full time secretary position in the Civil Enforcement Section. The current fiscal year request is $27,000 with a full year funding of$54,000. Item A-8 is a request for additional appropriation for the out sourcing of the plan reviews. This amount of$150,000 will be recovered by the fees charged to the individuals and companies. Item A-10 is the impact fee waivers that were granted in the amount of$429,809. Item A-11 requests the continued funding of the small neighborhood business petition. An additional funding of$55,000 is requested. Item A-12 the Public Service Department would like to request funding for three new staff positions associated with their reorganization. The request for the current fiscal year is $132,462 with full funding for a fiscal year at$317,910. There are 6 housekeeping items. There are 3 items primarily dealing with carryover of budgets and encumbrances from the prior fiscal year for Public Utilities Department. One item is a request to increase the appropriation for the Grant Holding Account by an additional $1 million. Amok There are 11 grants which require an appropriation, and 4 items with grants that were funded from the grants holding account. These budgets will replenish the holding account. Also attached is a revenue projection for FY 2010-11, prepared by the Department of Finance. The projections are showing a deficit of$1,029,000 due from two sources. The first is $217,000 from property tax judgments, and the second is $735,000 from parking ticket revenues. At this time, we are not anticipating any change to the revenue projections until we can review the revenues from the November and December sales tax and property tax revenue sources. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2010 (Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2010-2011) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. of 2010 Which Adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2010 and Ending June 30, 2011. PREAMBLE On August 10, 2010, 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, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011, 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.67 of 2010. 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 1,2010 and ending June 30, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of , 2010. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: APP:-1OvED^.2 TO FORM Salt Lake City Attartiey's Office Date /Z —Z/ —By (a A 7��---, CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2010. Published: HB_ATTY-#13907-v2-Budget_Amendment_FY10-11.DOC 3 Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Amendment #3 —January General Fund Impact Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative Section A New Items 1. Rose Park Golf Course $425,000.00 Property — Guadalupe 2. Sorenson Center Utilities $104,260.00 $104,260.00 Reimbursement From County 3. I)og Park Fence at $14,000.00 $-14,000.00 $-14,000.00 Rotary Glen Park 4. Street Cars Project $52,500.00 $126,500.00 1 $-52,500.00 $-52,500.00 Manager 5. Outside Counsel $25,000.00 $-25,000.00 $-25,000.00 Associated with Regional Athletic Complex 6. Bike Sharing Pilot $25,000.00 $-25,000.00 $-25,000.00 Program 7. Civil Enforcement $27,000.00 $54,000.00 1 $-27,000.00 $-27,000.00 Secretarial FTE Request 8. Expedited Plan Review $150,000.00 $150,000.00 Outsourcing 9. CDBG SLC School $233,732.00 Comm Learning Center 42 General Fund Impact Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance # Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative 10. Impact Fee Waivers $429,809.00 $-429,809.00 $-429,809.00 11. Small Neighborhood $55,000.00 $-55,000.00 $-55,000.00 Business Amendment 12. Public Service $132,462.00 $317,910.00 3 $-132,462.00 $-132,462.00 Reorganization 13. Changes to City's Appointed Positions 14. North Temple Blvd $8,017,200.00 Improvements 15. Remodel of Plaza 349 and $4,737,381.00 5th Floor of City & County Bldg 16. Paylock—Vehicle $257,250.00 $257,250.00 Impound Device Section B Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1. US Dept of Justice $389,200.00 Solving Cold Cases With DNA 43 General Fund Impact Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative 2. St of Utah Dept of Public $730,000.00 Safety homeland Security UASI Section C Grants For New Staff Resources 1. US Dept of Justice $399,077.00 .5 Violence Against Women 2. St of Utah Dept of Public $2,170,078.00 1 Safety Homeland Security UASI Section D Housekeeping 1. Public Utilities Storm $1,203,000.00 Water Carryover 2. Public Utilities Water $2,405,900.00 Carryover 3. Public Utilities Sewer $4,127,200.00 Carryover 4. Additional Funding to $1,000,000.00 Grant Holding Account 5. Donation Fund Holding $58,899.16 Account Increase 6. Grants Carryover $-78,410.88 Adjustments Section E Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1. US Dept of Justice $106,000.00 Forensic Science Improvement 44 General Fund Impact Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative 2. US Dept of Housing $22,620.00 TRAX Line Area Plans and Sustainable Zoning 3. US Dept of Justice $400,000.00 Violence Against Women —Elder Abuse Project Section F Donations 1. Rio Tinto Donation City's $10,000.00 Climate Showcase Comm Section G Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards 1. Office of National Drug $65,354.00 Control High Intensity Drug Trafficking Agency 2. St of Utah Dept of Health $30,109.00 Emergency Medical Ser and Preparedness 3. US Dept of Health Drug $125,000.00 Free Communities 4. Utah Quality Growth $167,000.00 Comm—Jordan River Open Space Land Acquisition Section I Council Added Items Revenue Forecast Salt Lake City Corporation FY10-11 Variance Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total General Fund 187,976,374 186,947,790 (1,028,584) Selected Discussion Items Total Property Taxes 63,304,511 63,087,434 (217,077) Discussion: A decline in property is due to two judgements that were settled earlier this year. Total Sales and Use Tax 43,493,122 43,488,771 (4,351) Discussion: Reviewing the sales tax trends are stable. The decline is due to Misc Met taxes. Total Franchise Tax 27,953,800 27,853,800 (100,000) Discussion: The decrease is due to a decrease in revenue received from telecomunication companies. License and Permits: 15,640,598 15,711,246 70,648 Discussion: The number of commercial and residential permits are up from last fiscal year, but the values is significantly lower. Total Intergovernmental 5,441,103 5,199,693 (241,410) Discussion: Interest income 480,000 480,000 0 Discussion: Total Fines & Forfeiture 10,551,316 9,609,352 (941,964) Discussion: The issuance of parking tickets are lower on average than in previous years. Parking Meters 1,599,000 1,679,363 80,363 Discussion: Parking meter revenue will come in higher than expected due to the bagging of meters in the down town area Including City Creek. Charges and Services 3,756,784 3,996,935 240,151 Discussion: Miscellaneous Revenue 2,019,136 2,104,463 85,327 Discussion: Other reimbursements have resulted in an increase in revenue. Total lnterfund 9,575,233 9,574,963 (270) Discussion: Transfers 4,161,771 4,161,771 0 Discussion: Revenue Forecast , Salt Lake City Corporation Four Four Variance FY10111 0 Variance Month Month Favorable Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total Property Taxes 1,660,280 1,440,637 (219,643) 62,376,632 62,159,555 (217,077) Total Sales and Use Tax 6,822,012 6,891,071 69,059 43,493,122 43,488,771 (4,351) Total Franchise Tax 5,191,995 5,138,058 (53,937) 27,953,800 27,853,800 (100,000) Total PILOT 0 0 0 927,879 927,879 0 TOTAL TAXES 13,674,287 13,469,766 (204,521) 134,751,433 134,430,005 (321,428) Permits and Licences 3,736,721 3,744,718 7,997 15,640,598 15,711,246 70.648 Total Intergovernmental 252,442 408,448 156,006 5,441,103 5,199,693 (241,410) Charges for Services 941,793 967.087 25,294 3,756.784 3,996,935 240,151 Total Fines&Forfeiture 2,175,691 1,692,881 (482,810) 10,551,316 9,609,352 (941,964) Total Parking Meter 355,481 480,726 125,245 1,599,000 1,679,363 80,363 Interest Income 190,194 350,865 160,671 480,000 480,000 0 Miscellaneous Revenue 578,251 665,088 86,837 2,019,136 2,104,463 85,327 Total lnterfund 1,912,966 1,988,431 75,465 9,575,233 9,574,963 (270) Total Transfers 561,587 698,742 137,155 4,161,771 4,161,771 0 Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $24,379,413 $24,466,752 $87,339 $187,976,374 $186,947,790 ($1,028,584) Initiative Name: Rose Park Golf Course Property - Guadalupe Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #A-1 Initiative Type: New item Initiative Discussion: Salt Lake City Golf Fund sold 3.01 acres of land at Rose Park Golf Course to Guadalupe Center Education Program. The proceed from that sale will be used to expand the driving range at the golf course. This budget request will establish the revenue and expenditure budget for improvements to the Rose Park Golf Course driving range and the closing costs on the sale. Salt Lake City Surplus Land Fund recently purchased the property at the south end of the driving range at Rose Park on Redwood Road to facilitate an expansion of the driving range that will allow golfers to use top quality range balls and practice with all clubs in their bags. This expansion will result in a driving range that is over 350 yards long and a practice tee that is approximately 125 yards wide by 50 yards deep. The proceeds from the land sale to the Guadalupe Center will be used for improvements on the land purchased by Salt lake City Surplus Land Fund Initiative#A-1 Il I I I I Rose Park Golf Course Property- Guadalupe Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#A-1 2010-11 Initiative Number j Fiscal Year � I Public Services New item Department , Type of Initiative Greg Davis S01-535-6123 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount (General Fund I I 1 Total l I $0 $0'' !Internal Service Fund 0 • Total $0 $0' iEnterprise Fund Golf Fund $ 425,000.00 II Total $ 425.000.00 $0' Other Fund ' 01 0 Total) $0 $0 Staffing Impact: !Requested Number of I 0! 10 I Position Title: I n/a � I Initiative#A-1-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount 159-01065 j 1840-Sale of Land $ 425,000.00 I I i I I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 159-01065 2329-Other professional&tech ; $ 2,218.00 59-01065 2731-04-Grounds improvements $ 422,782.00 I i , Additional Accounting Details: !Settlement statement 9/30/10: Selling price $ 425,000.00 !Closing/settlement fees $ (2,218.00) 1 Net proceeds $ 422,782.00 Grant Information: iGrant funds employee positions? i I I Is there a potential for grant to continue? If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? I I !Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? Initiative#A-1-b Initiative Name: Sorenson Center Utilities Reimbursement From County Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011Initiative # A-2 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: This budget amendment places the expense for utilities (water, electrical, gas) back into Facilities' budget due to the need for continued payment for these costs. With Salt Lake City's energy performance contract on this site it is necessary that the City track costs and bill Salt Lake County for not only the utility cost but the associated debt service that the City will incur as a result of the energy performance contract municipal lease. Salt Lake County will pay for utilities and receive the financial benefit from the lower utility costs, while the City receives the benefit of new equipment for it's owned facility. Currently Salt Lake City pays for the utility costs and bills for reimbursement from the County. The City's budget (in Facilities) doesn't currently contain budget for the utility expenses. This budget amendment requests expense and revenue budgets in equal amounts to cover initial payment of utilities and reimbursement from the County. Initiative#A-2 I I I Sorenson Center Utilities Reimbursement From County Initiative Narne BA#3 FY2011Initiative#A-2 2010.11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services New Item Department I Type of Initiative 'Greg Davis 535-6123 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive IGeneral Fund- Fund Balance- NO IMPACT Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount • I General Fund 07-00922 $ 104,260.00 • Total) $ 104,260.00 $0 !Internal Service Fund 0 Total $0' $0 !Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0' Other Fund 0 0 Total $0 $0• Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 01 0, I Position Title: no staffing changes I I i i � I I ii I i � I Initiative#A-2-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 107-00922 Sorenson Multicultural Center 1792-02 Other Utility Reimbursement $ 104,260.00 For reimbursement from Salt Lake County I it I i I ' I 1 i I Expenditure: Cost Center Number 1 Object Code Number Amount I � 107-00922 Sorenson Multicultural Center 2331 Electrical Power $ 48,492.00 107-00922 Sorenson Multicultural Center 2332-01 Natural gas $ 36,612.00 107-00922 Sorenson Multicultural Center 2333 Water $ 19,156.00 Total $ 104,260.00 For initial payment of utilities Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE (Grant funds employee positions? Is there a potential for grant to continue? I I 'If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? i I I Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are !eliminated? (Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? Initiative#A-2-b Initiative Name: Dog Park Fence at Rotary Glen Park Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #A-3 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Rotary Glen Park met the requirements to be designated as a one year probationary site for a dog park. A fence will need to be installed before operating the site as a dog park. The fence must be 550 feet long by four feet high and must run between the park and the stream adjacent to the park to be in compliance with the riparian corridor ordinance. The cost of the fence (including a concrete mow strip under the fence) has been estimated at approximately $14,000, depending on the bids. The fence will need to be installed before the spring of 2011. This request is to use $14,000 from the General Fund Fund Balance. Initiative#A-3 i • Doq Park Fence at Rotary Glen Park Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 initiative#A-3 I 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services New Item j Department j j Type of Initiative Greg Davis 801-535-6123 _--7 Prepared By I Telephone Contact I (Negative) Positive 1General Fund- Fund Balance- $ (14,000.00) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount IGeneral Fund , I i 1 Total $0 $0 !Internal Service Fund 0 Total $0 1 $0' 'Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund I 0' I 0' ' Total I $0 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of ; 01 0 I Position Title: no staffing changes I I Initiative#A-3-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number 1 Amount I I i • Expenditure: Cost Center Number j Object Code Number Amount 04-13200 Parks Maint District II 2730-30 Fences II $ 14,000.00 i I � I I i I i ' I Additional Accounting Details: i i I I Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE Grant funds employee positions? I � I I Is there a potential for grant to continue? If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? IWill grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? IWill grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? (Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? Initiative#A-3-b Initiative Name: Street Cars Project Manager Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #A-4 New Item Initiative Discussion: In October, Salt Lake City, in conjunction with South Salt Lake and the Utah Transit Authority, received a $26 million grant from the US Department of Transportation to develop a two-mile modern streetcar line in Sugar House. The next 18 months will require intensive effort to design and construct a streetcar line along an abandoned railway corridor. Because the scope of the project involves coordinating with with many entities outside the City, as well within the City, and because of the rapid timeframe planned for this project, this project cannot be managed with existing City resources that are fully engaged in the development of other critical capital projects. Therefore, the Administration is requesting approval to create a Streetcars Project Manager position. This position will be housed in CED and ideally, will possess skills that complement both the Engineering and the Tranportation divisions. Because the Administration believes that the Sugar House line is the first of several streetcar lines that will be built eventually in Salt Lake City, we propose to create a position that will offer continuity to subsequent streetcar projects. This position will require considerable technical skill and expertise, but will also require superb community and concensus-building skills. As such, we would tentatively propose this position as a Grade 35, Engineer VII equivalent. We estimate the annual, fully loaded cost of this type of position to be $126,200 and request $52,500 and 1 FTE for the remainder of the fiscal year. initiative #A-4 I i I Street Cars Project Manager Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 initiative#A-4 2011 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services New Item Department Type of Initiative Greg Davis 535-6123 Prepared By Telephone Contact Ne ative ( g ) Positive 'General Fund - Fund Balance- $ (52,500.00)'I Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount [General Fund Total ' $ - $0, lInternal Service Fund Total, $0 $01 'Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0, Other Fund Total! $0' Staffing Impact: Requested Number of FTE's: 1 FTE Position Title: Street Cars $ 52,500.00 $ 126,500.00 Project Manager Initiative#A-4-a i i I I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I i I I � I I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I I 06-00100 2100 $ 52,500.00 j I Additional Accounting Details: i I Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE Grant funds employee positions? Its there a potential for grant to continue?I I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will III be eliminated at the end of the grant? I 'Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? 'Does grant duplicate services provided by private or 1 Non-profit sector? Initiative Name: Outside Counsel Associated with Regional Athletic Complex / Jordan River Litigation Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #A-5 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The City Attorney's Office is incurring additional costs associated with the lawsuit brought by the Jordan River Restoration Network challenging the issuance of bonds for the Regional Athletic Complex as well as the additional litigation that JRRN had publicly said it will file. These costs include retaining outside counsel to supplement our in house staff resources. An additional $25,000 will be needed in FY2010-11 to fund these supplemental resources. Initiative#A-5 I I 1 Outside Counsel Associated with Regional Athletic Complex/Jordan River Litigation Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#A-5 I 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Attornev's Office New item Department Type of Initiative Ed Rutan 535-7628 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive !General Fund-Fund Balance- ; $ (25,000.00) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount (General Fund I I Total 1 $0: $0I !Internal Service Fund I 0,1 1 1 1 Total l $0' $0'1 Enterprise Fund Total: $0' $0 Other Fund I 0 0' r Total $0 $0 1 Staffing Impact: IRequested Number of I 0 0 Position Title: no staffing changes 1 I I I I Initiative#A-5-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number j Object Code Number Amount i j I I I f i I I � I I I II Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 15-01430 2329 $ 25,000.00 II I I I I I � I Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: I NOT APPLICABLE Grant funds employee positions? Its there a potential for grant to continue? IIf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? (Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? � I i !Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are !eliminated? IDoes grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? Initiative#A-5-b Initiative Name: Bike Sharing Pilot Program Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2010-11 Initiative #A-6 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The Salt Lake City Transportation Division is requesting the City Council approve $25,000 towards the funding of an approximately $100,000 bike sharing program. This would be a pilot program with 40-50 bicycles located in the downtown area. This money would be used to match contributions from private sponsorships. Bike sharing programs in other cities in the U.S. and Canada follow a pay-to-rent business model. For a small fee, the user can rent a specially-designed bicycle from a public kiosk, use the bicycle as a means of public transit, and return the bicycle to the same bike-sharing kiosk or to a kiosk in another location. Each bicycle has multiple gears and can carry an additional fifty pounds of weight in the front basket. The locations of each kiosk would be determined by the bike-sharing vendor, the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, and the Downtown Alliance. The kiosks are solar-powered and operate on a key-card or credit card basis. Most bike sharing systems offer a 30 minute to 1 hour grace period in which the customer will not be charged for the bicycle. After the initial grace period, the cost of renting the bicycle varies on a sliding scale which is determined by the amount of time the bicycle is rented. Annual user fees range from $75 to $100, with monthly and daily memberships available. These user fees typically cover only operating costs; the capital investment in the bikes/kiosks is typically made using public dollars. Some additional public funding may be needed to support the operations. In the pilot phase, the bicycles and kiosks would be leased from a bike sharing vendor. Depending on the public reception and use of the pilot bike sharing program, the City will likely pursue expanded sponsorships, advertising, and grants to fund the purchase of bikes. Bike sharing requires a density of bikes I kiosks as well as density in land use / mixed-use development for its ideal implementation. A tentative "build out"for bike sharing in SLC's designated downtown, would be on the order of 500 bikes, with a capital cost of $3,500 to $4,500 per bike, for a total cost around $2 million. Annual operating costs, partly defrayed by user fees, are typically around $1,000 per bike, with a total cost around $500,000 for a downtown program. Initiative#A-6 1 Bike Sharing Pilot Program initiative Name BA#3 FY2010-11 Initiative#A-6 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year CED -Transportation New Item Department Type of Initiative Tim Harpst 535-6630 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive (General Fund - Fund Balance- . $ (25,000.00)1 $ - Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount (General Fund Total] 1 $0 $01 Internal Service Fund Total $01 $0 1 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0' Other Fund Total $0 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of (Position Title: INA I � Initiative#A-6-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I I I I I I � I I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 06-11700 2590 $ 25,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: • II Grant Information: !Grant funds employee positions? NA I Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? I NA !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA !Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? i NA Initiative#A-6-b Initiative Name: Civil Enforcement Secretarial FTE Request Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2010-11 Initiative #A-7 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: In the past, Civil Enforcement, (formely HAZE), has had up to three full time secretaries available to perform various enforcement related functions, we are currently left with only one FTE to perform these functions. Due to the growing responsibilites and workload placed upon Civil Enforcement during the last six months, it is not possible for the secretarial workload to be done by one person. Civil Enforcement has been given additional responsibilities including sidewalk artists, the Farmers Market and entertainer's enforcement, sidewalk snow removal enforcement, and soon to be the good landlord ordinance. These new responsibilities have and will create an increase in the secretarial workload to process additional notices, deficiency lists, additional telephone complaints, increased information requests and inquiries, and certificates that will be required under the Good Landlord program. Theses increased dutuies are on top of the current duties performed by the one secretary which includes but is not limited to preparing notices, certificates, liens, deficiency lists, HAAB minutes and notices, hearings, as well as assisting Planning and HAND with secretarial overflow duties. A permanent employee is needed for long term stability and performance of the secretarial duties mentioned above. Civil Enforcement is requesting half of the funding for this position this fiscal year due to the timing of budget amendment 3. A senior secretary with benefits would call for funding of $54,000, half of the funding for this fiscal year would be 27,000. Initiative#A-7 I I Civil Enforcement Secretarial FTE Request Initiative Name BA#3 FY2010-11 Initiative#A-7 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year CED -Civil Enforcement New Item II Department I I , Type of Initiative Brent Beck 535-7107 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- j $ (27,000.00)! $ - Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund 1 1 Total l $0' $0 Internal Service Fund I i 1 Total' I $0' $0 i Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 !Other Fund Total $0 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of FTE's: 1 Position Title: Civil 27,000 54,000' (Enforcement Senior ;Secretary Initiative#A-7-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 1 1 1 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 106-01400 2199-01 $ 27,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: 'Full Funding of Position is$54,000 ' Grant Information: 'Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA if grant is funding a position is it expected the position will Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant? NA (Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are :eliminated? NA (Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? NA Initiative#A-7-b Initiative Name: Expedited Plan Review Outsourcing Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2010-11 Initiative #A-8 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Effective March 27, 2010, City Council adopted an Ordinance allowing for expedited plan review services. The ordinance allows expediting technical plan review for double the regular permit fee. Due to fairness issues, the ordinance also requires that all plans that are expedited are sent to a private plan review firm under a contract for plan review services for the Salt Lake City Corporation. In a 'General Fund' environment it is difficult for the Department to recoup the funds spent on the outsource review. It is also difficult to budget for this expenditure as there is no known conventional method to estimate the number of plans that will be expedited. It was discussed with City Council during the adoption process that if we did not have sufficient funds budgeted to pay the private firms, then a budget opening could be used, at which time the demand as well as the current expenditures would be considered. From July 1, 2010 to October 22, 2010 we have expedited and charged double-fees on 14 plan reviews for a total expenditure of$36,196 with an additional 10 plan reviews in the queue ready to go out. We are requesting an additional $150,000 to fund this program annually. The program has been a great success with our customers and is seen as a 'value- added' resource for them. Our projection is that the demand will remain high. Initiative#A-8 I Expedited Plan Review Outsourcing , Initiative Name BA#3 FY2010-11 Initiative#A-8 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year CED-Building Services I New Item Department j Type of Initiative • Brent Beck 535-7107 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive IGeneral Fund - Fund Balance- $ - Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund 1 106-00600 $ 150,000.00 I Total) $ 150,000.00 $01 'Internal Service Fund 1 Total, $0 $0 'Enterprise Fund 1 Total', $0 $0 !Other Fund 1 I 1 ! Total', $0 $0 ! ! Staffing Impact: !Requested Number of 1 Position Title: 1 NA Initiative#A-8-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 106-00600 1251-37 $ 150,000.00 I � I I I I � j I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 06-00600 2313-01 $ 150,000.00 i I I Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: (Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA 'If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA 1Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are Ieliminated? NA !Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? I NA Initiative#A-8-b Initiative Name: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), CDBG - Salt Lake City School District Community Learning Center Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #A-9 New Item Initiative Discussion: The Mayor is recommending funding in the amount of $233,732 from Salt Lake City's 2010-11 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, which were placed in a miscellaneous holding account during the CDBG funding process, be allocated to the Salt Lake City School District for the construction of a Community Learning Center adjacent to Mountain View Elementary School located at 1380 South, Navajo Street in Salt Lake City. The SLC School District will have to comply with Davis Bacon wages and Section 3 requirements on construction of the entrie project. These requirement may increas the cost of the project's construction costs and HUD does not allow any waivers of this requirement. In order to meet HUD's public notice requirements, Salt Lake City will be sending out notices of the recommendation to fund the School District's Community Learning Center to those on its Community Development Mailing List. Initiative#A-9 US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD).CDBG -Salt Lake City School District Community Learning Center Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 initiative#A-9 2010-11 Initiative Number i, Fiscal Year CED HAND New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark I Sherrie Collins 535-61361535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive IGeneral Fund - Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount iGeneral Fund Total', $0 $0', 'Internal Service Fund I Total, F $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 'Other Fund Total $ - $0' Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0' FTE's: Position Title: I i � I i Initiative#A-9-a 1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 1 I � !I I I I 1 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount 71-36059 2590 i $ (233,732.00) 183- New Cost Center 2590 $ 233,732.00 I � Additional Accounting Details: I I Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA I � � Is there a potential for grant to continue? i NA I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will • be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA (Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are !eliminated? NA !Does grant duplicate services provided by private or !Non-profit sector? NA Initiative#A-9-b Initiative Name: Impact Fee Waivers Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #A-10 New Item Initiative Discussion: The Community and Economic Development Department has processed 5 requests for impact fee exemptions totaling $429,809 for 349 housing units. Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development received a $7,575 impact fee exemption for the five units (homes) at 5 locations that include 1019 North Colorado Street; 1259 West Gillespie Ave.; 1011 South 1400 West; 553 South 1000 West; and 1019 South 1400 West. The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City received a $143,925 impact fee exemption for 95 units at the Taylor Springs Apartments located at 1812 S. West Temple. The Young Women's' Christian Association (YWCA) received a $72,720 impact fee exemption for 48 shelter units at the YWCA Crisis Shelter located at 325 So. 300 East. The Road Home received a $205,589 impact fee exemption for 201 units at Palmer Court located at 999 So. Main Street. As outlined in the current City Ordinance, a one hundred (100) percent exemption shall be granted for non-rental/rental housing, for which the annualized mortgage/rental payment does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals eighty (80) percent of the median income for Salt Lake City as determined by HUD. Initiative #A-1 0 Impact Fee Waivers Initiative Name J BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#A-10I 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year CEO -HAND New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-61361535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive ;General Fund - Fund Balance- $ (429,809.00) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount 'General Fund I I I Totall $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total, $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund ICIP $ 429,809.00 Total $ 429,809.00 $0' Staffing Impact: Requested Number of j 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#A-10-a I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number j I Object Code Number Amount 184-84001 Police Impact Fee j 1974-01 $ 120,169.00 184-84002 Fire Impact Fee i 1974-01 $ 128,869.00 184-84003 Parks Impact Fee 1974-01 $ 180,771.00 1 I i j � I $ 429,809.00 I i I I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount 109-00700 2910-01 I $ 429,809.00 184-84001 Police Impact Fee 2700 $ 120,169.00 84-84002 Fire Impact Fee 2700 $ 128,869.00 184-84003 Parks Impact Fee I $ 180,771.00 $ 429,809.00 Additional Accounting Details: I Grant Information: 'Grant funds employee positions? 1 NA I I I Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA I I IIf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will 1 be eliminated at the end of the grant? ' NA I Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA (Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ieliminated? NA IDoes grant duplicate services provided by private or 'Non-profit sector? NA Initiative#A-10-b Initiative Name: Small Neighborhood Business Amendment Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2010-11 Initiative #A-11 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The Small Neighborhood Business Amendment Petition was initiated in April of 2009 since that time Planning Staff has been researching issues, preparing documents for public input, conducted an inventory of all business located within neighborhood areas, contracted an extensive survey with the professional services of Dan Jones and Associates, and prepared an analysis of the identified land-uses. Staff has identified approximately 580 businesses city wide for consideration. Additional cost to be incurred include noticing to affected property owners and residents, two public processes requiring noticing, and publication and printing of the Salt Lake City Small Business Guide. This report includes introductory information, proposed amendments, a land use analysis report, maps of each planning district, a summary of the survey, and draft information for the "Small Business Resource Guide". Total estimated costs for this project is $55,000,00 Council allocated $75,000 for this project in the FY09-10 budget, Council directed $10,000 to be used by the Economic Development division at the end of FY09-10, the remainder of these funds were not used, Planning is requesting that these funds be reallocated to this fiscal year, FY10-11, as one time funds. Initiative#A-11 Small Neighborhood Business Amendment Initiative Name BA#3 FY2010-11 Initiative#A-11 j 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year CED-Planning New Item Department j Type of Initiative Brent Beck 535-7107 Prepared By j Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- $ (55,000.00) $ - Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount 'General Fund I Total' $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total l $0 $01 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund • I i Total $0 $0 Staffing Impact: (Requested Number of Position Title: • NA • I I • I i , Initiative#A-11-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number j Object Code Number Amount I it I I � , Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 106-00900 2329 $ 55,000.00 ! I I Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: ;Grant funds employee positions? NA I Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA ilf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? I NA !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA IDoes grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? NA Initiative#A-11-b Initiative Name: Public Services Reorganization Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #A-12 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: In order to function more efficiently, Public Services is proposing to make a number of changes in how the department is organized. Currently, the department is directed and managed by a director and a deputy director, who have divided responsibility for overseeing the 10 divisions that comprise Public Services between them. The proposed changes would make department administration organizational changes to more effectively distribute administrative duties and program oversight/management. This budget amendment proposes a reorganization plan that flattens the organization structure by eliminating the Deputy Director position and creating four (4) appointed department division functions. These division directors would be responsible for managing the day to day operations of their divisions. The new division functions are as follows: Administrative Services Division: Department policy, strategic planning, program performance, contracts, safety, emergency management and event planning. This division would include some functions currently preformed in the Office of Director, and, would also be responsible for the operation of the Gallivan Center and other events planning functions. In addition, this division will engage in policy development, program review and evaluation, and strategic planning, functions that for the most part have not been conducted in the recent past due to resource constraints. Finance and Accounting Division: Budget, accounting, fiscal analysis, revenue projections, purchasing, payroll, auditing, fund allocation, risk management,grants,and forecasting. Operations Division: Oversight of core public service programs; Facilities, Compliance, YouthCity, Golf, Park and Public Lands, Streets/Concrete, Fleet. Sustainability-Environment Services: In addition to the current responsibilities of sustainability,energy,environment management and compliance,recycling, and outreach,this division will assume responsibility for sanitation. Each division would be led by a Division Director. Three of the new division categories either currently exist or will be created from existing programs; Sustainability-Environment, Administrative Services and Finance and Accounting Services, and three existing department employees will be slotted into new division responsibilities. The Operations Division is a new division and we anticipate recruiting for a Division Director for this position. The budget amendment also proposes the creation of two(2)new positions to add support to existing department functions: A Special Projects Analyst to work directly with the Department Director, and an accountant in the Finance and Accounting Division. Initiative#A-1 2 The Special Projects Analyst will work for the Director and manage or coordinate large scale projects, new initiatives, public policy issues, inter-governmental relations, public relations, and be a liaison with City departments. This analyst will function as direct support for the Director in managing the large number of projects, initiatives and issues the department is currently responsible for, including the construction of the Regional Athletic Complex, exploring new off-leash area options, developing a plan for deteriorated concrete, finalizing the Parks , Open Space and Forestry Advisory Board, developing,a master plan for the Salt Lake City Cemetery, and developing a long term plan for the department's capital improvement needs. The accountant will support the daily demands of managing the expansive accounting and financial programs of the department that include seven (7) general fund programs, two (2) enterprise funds, and one (1) internal service fund. Currently, critical oversight of the department's $75,000,000 budget is challenging as existing resources are stretched very thin. The proposed structure will make reporting lines clear, and will relieve the Department Director of the responsibility to address day to day management issues that will now be handled by division directors, freeing up the director's time to concentrate on larger departmental issues and city-wide priorities. The anticipated annual cost and FY2010-11 cost to implement the reorganization is as follows: Operations Division Director: Position Grade Base Benefits Annual Cost FY2010-11 Cost Operations Division Director 37 $ 103,145.00 $ 45,384.00 $ 148,528.00 $ 61,885.00 Special Projects Analyst 31 $ 75,000.00 $ 24,750.00 $ 99,750.00 $ 41,562.00 Financial Reporting Accountant 26 $ 51,200.00 $ 18,432.00 $ 69,632.00 $ 29,015.00 TOTAL $ 317,910.00 $ 132,462.00 Initiative #A-12 Public Services Reorganization Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 initiative#A-12 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services New item Department Type of Initiative Rick Graham 535-7774 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- , $ (132,462.00)1 I $Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund I 'I Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Totall $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total' $0 i $0 Other Fund Total $0 $01 Staffing Impact: !Requested Number of I FTE's: 3 Position Title: Division $ 61,885.00 $ 148,528.00 Director, Operations ,Special Projects Analyst $ 41,562.00 $ 99,750.00 1 Financial Reporting $ 29,015.00 $ 69,632.00 (Accountant Initiative#A-12-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I i I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 03-10200 2100 $ 132,462.00 i I I Additional Accounting Details: 1 I i Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA 'Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA (Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are 'eliminated? NA !Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? NA initiative#A-12-b Initiative Name: Changes to City's Appointed Positions Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #A-13 New Item Initiative Discussion: Changes to the City's Appointed Positions: Delete: Grade#39 Public services Deputy Director Grade#39 Capital Asset Management Director Grade #35 Sustainability Environment Division Director Grade #33 Fleet Division Manager Add: Grade#39 Labor Relations Director/Sr City Attorney Grade#37 Operations Division Director, Public services Grade#35 finance &Accounting Division Director, PS Grade#35 Sustainability/Environment Division Director Grade #35 Administrative Service Division Director, PS Grade #33 Fleet Management Program Director Grade#33 Parks & Public Lands Program Director Grade#31 Special Projects Analyst The costs associated with the Public Service Department are addressed in initiative#A-12 the other position have no additional costs. See revised listing attached. Initiative#A-1 3 I Changes to Citv's Appointed Positions Initiative Name I BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#A-131 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Human Resources New Item Department Type of Initiative David Salazar 535-7906 I Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive 1General Fund - Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund I 1 Total' $0 $0' Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 I Enterprise Fund Total I $0, $0 !Other Fund 1 ' Total, $0 1 $01 1 , Staffing Impact: 1 Requested Number of FTE's: I I I 01 1 Position Title: Initiative#A-1 3-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Ii i I I I I li I I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: 1 Grant funds employee positions? NA I Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant? 1 NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are leliminated? I NA ;Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? NA Initiative#A-13-b Grade 43 Grade 42 _ Grade 41 Grade 39 , Executive Director Of Airports City Attorney Chief of Staff Public Servises_Deputy Girester Airport Engineering Director Public Utilities Director Police Chief Chief Information Officer Airport Admin/Comm Director DCED Director Public Services Director Communication Director Redevelopment Director Fire Chief Senior Advisor-Mayor City Council Deputy Director Deputy City Attorney Finance Director Labor Relations Director/Sr City ttornev City Council Office Executive Director Capital Asset-Management Director Appointed Sr.City Attorney City Prosecutor City Engineer Airport Operations Director Public Utilities Deputy Director Airport Maintenance Director P.Util.Finance Administrator Airport Finance/Acct Director Director of Airport Information Technology Grade 3/ . Grade 35 , Grads 33 Grade 31 Deputy Police Chief Deputy Director,RDA Pam,-Ffn/AdminSew-9irester Chief Procurement Officer Public Policy Analyst Planning Director Justice Court Judge Finance&Accounting Division Director,PS City Courts Director Const Liaison/Pub Pol Analyst DCED Dep Director-Comm Dev Airport Police Chief Building Official Airport PR/Marketing Director Community Facilitator DCED Deputy Director-Econ Dev Operations Division Director,Public Services HAND Director City Recorder Downtown Transp Dev Coord City Treasurer Transportation Engineer Fleet-Division Manager- Emergency Mgt Program Director Human Resource Director Public Utilities Chief Engineer Fleet Management Program Director Special Protects Ana sl Deputy Fire Chief Civilian Review Bd Investigator Parks&Public Lands Program Director Airport Plan/Cap Prop Dir Suetainability-Director Wtr.Quality/Treat Administrator Sustainability/Environment Division Director Dep City Eng/Major Projects Administrative Services Division Director, Grade 29 Grade 26 Grade 25 Grade 24 Grads 21 Coord For Human Rights/Divers Council Constituent Liaison Infrastructure Protection Specialist Assistant To The Mayor Admin Asst to the Office of the Mayor Assistant Communication Dir Econ Dev Mgr Small Business Administrative Assistant Policy Assistant to the Office of the Mayor Assistant To Chief of Staff Const liaison/Budget Analyst Staff Assistant Youth City Programs Manager Corn Affairs/ADA Analyst Admin Secretary II Planning/Mgt Director—UASI Community Liaison Management Support Coordinator Coalition Coordinator Executive Office Assistant Communications&Content Manager No position may be removed from or added to this Appointed Employee Pay Plan without approval of the City Council. Initiative Name: North Temple Boulevard Improvements Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #A-14 New Item Initiative Discussion: This fiscal impact statement addresses four components of funding for the North Temple Boulevard improvements that include County revenue bonds in the amount of$3,500,000; a Special Assessment Area (SAA) in the amount of$1,181,000; the State of Utah's contribution in the amount of $336,200; and the City's North Temple sales tax bond in the amount of$3,000,000. The discussion is as follows. During the 2010 General Session, the State Legislature gave approval for Salt Lake County to issue revenue bonds to finance certain transportation projects including improvements to North Temple. The City and County entered into an Interlocal Agreement which provides for the transfer and City's use of $3,500,000 bond proceeds to pay for all or part of the North Temple Boulevard improvements. The bond proceeds received from the County will be used to fund a portion of design and construct boulevard improvements. The Engineering Department is requesting an SAA budget in the amount of $1,181,000 be established for the property owners abutting North Temple from 600 West to Redwood Road. The SAA will be used to construct a street and pedestrian lighting system as part of the North Temple Improvement project. This request also includes budget in the amount of $336,200 be established to accept the State of Utah's, Department of Facilities and Construction Management (DFCM) contribution for the street and pedestrian lighting system in lieu of an assessment for their properties adjacent to North Temple. Initiative #A-1 4 On January 19, 2010, the City Council approved a parameters resolution authorizing a'not to exceed" $12,000,000 sales tax bond for completion of the North Temple project. With the addition of the $3,500,000 in County revenue bonds and final project costs determined, the amount of sales tax bond funds needed to complete the project has been reduced to $3,000,000. This amount includes all of the items/enhancements determined by the City Council including contingency and admin, plus, future project needs which include solar panels, enhanced bus stops and the Jordan River Trail connection which will be completed after UTA has completed their portion of the project. With this budget opening, all of the funding is in place to build the boulevard and viaduct. The project costs decreased due to the project being scaled back west of Redwood Road by eliminating street lights, pedestrian lights and landscaping. The price of materials and supplies were below estimates and the final design and scope of work is completed that allowed the contractor to give firm bids. This request is to establish four cost centers with budgets totaling $8,017,200. Initiative#A-1 4 North Temple Boulevard Improvements Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#A-141 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year CEO-HAND New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark!Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By I ' Telephone Contact (Negative) ! Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount 1General Fund ' Total $0 $0 I Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund CIP Fund $ 8,017,200.00 83- Total $ 8,017,200.00 $0 Staffing Impact: !Requested Number of 0' FTE's: I Position Title: • Initiative#A-14-a 1 1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-North Temple Blvd-County Revenue (Bond Proceeds i 1890 ! $ 3,500,000.00 183-North Temple Lighting SAA 1890 $ 1,181,000.00 183-DFCM NT Contribution 1370 ' $ 336,200.00 1 I I 183-North Temple Sales Tax Bond Reven'ii 1890 $ 3,000,000.00 Total I $ 8,017,200.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 183-North Temple Blvd-County Revenue! 2700 $ 3,500,000.00 !Bond Proceeds '83-North Temple Lighting SAA 1 2700 $ 1,181,000.00 183-DFCM NT Contribution 2700 $ 336,200.00 83-North Temple Sales Tax Bond Reven, 2700 $ 3,000,000.00 Total $ 8,017,200.00 ' t ' Additional Accounting Details: I Please create 4 new cost centers for the ,above listed NT projects Grant Information: !Grant funds employee positions? I NA I Is there a potential for grant to continue? I NA I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? I NA !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are !eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or !Non-profit sector? NA Initiative#A-14-b Initiative Name: Barnes Bank Bond Budget Adjustment - CIP Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #A-15 New Item Initiative Discussion: The Administration is requesting a change in the use of the unexpended sales tax revenue bond proceeds used for the purchase of the Barnes Bank Building as the project has been redefined. The unexpended proceeds from the Barnes Bank bond is $4,700,000. As per the January 2009 Resolution, the bonds may be used for the cost of acquisition, improvement and remodeling of a building for use as City offices. The cost of renovation for the Barnes Bank building, $8,043,716, exceeded budgets and to accommodate design components of the Public Safety Building, such as parking requirements, the Administration proposes the funds should be used in the improvement and remodeling of current City office space in Plaza 349 and City and County Building. In addition, it is the desire of the Adminstration to bring to market a mixed-use, transit-oriented development on the north side of the Public Safety Building project along 400 South. This project will serve as the catalyst to a renaissance of the 400 South corridor and will set the standard for future development of the area. Considering the change of use of unexpended bond proceeds, the Administration requested proposals for a variety of building improvement projects from Facilities Services and Engineering (see Attachments A, B, and C) for both Plaza 349 and the City and County Building. After careful review, the Administration requests that the funding be used as follows: $3,473,000 for spatial reconfigurations of floors 1, 4, and 6 and upgrades to mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (including accessible restrooms) to floors 1 through 6 of Plaza 349; $2,148,682 for the remodel of 5,600 square feet of the north end of the 5th Floor in the City and County Building for new office space and office furnishings thus creating space for 44 employees. Facilities Services estimates that it will cost approximately$11,516 a year to maintain the new space. The bond proceeds have generated interest as of December 23, 2010 in the amount of $37,381 of which $19,559 has been budgeted in prior budget openings in the CIP cost center. That leaves an additional $17,822 that needs to be budgeted. Initiative#A-1 5 The Administration recognizes that the sum of these items creates a shortfall of approximatel $884,301; however, the difference will be submitted as an application request as part of the 2011/2012 CIP process. Initiative#A-1 5 Barnes Bank Bond Budget Adjustment CIP Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#A-15 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year CED-H.A.N.D. New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Mike Akerlow 535-6136 1 535-7966 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 i I I Total, $0 $0 Other Fund CIP - Interest Income $ 17,822.00 TotalT 17,822.00 $0 I i ; Staffing Impact: Requested Number of ! 0'i FTE's: Position Title: • • Initiative#A-15-a 1 1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 183-09071 1830 ; C $ 17,822.00 I I I i I I i Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 183-09071 2700 $ (4,737,381.00)• 183-New 349 Plaza Remodel 2700 $ 3,473,000.00 83-New C&C Bldg Remodel I 2700 $ 1,264,381.00 • Additional Accounting Details: i I „ Grant Information: !Grant funds employee positions? I NA I Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA IIf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant? NA !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA I Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are „eliminated? NA !Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? I NA Initiative#A-15-b Attachment A: Revenue Bond Proceeds Projects Location Project Project type Estimated Total , Mayor's Project Costs Recommendation Floors 1,4,and 6 spatial reconfiguration for additional employees Plaza 349 and upgrades to mechanical,electrical,and plumbing(including Remodel $3,473,000 $3,473,000 accessible bathrooms)to floors 1-6 Plaza 349 Floors 2,3,5 spatial reconfigurations Remodel I $1,860,000 Remodel of approximately 5,600 square feet in the north end of the , City&County 5th floor to increase office space. The remodel would provide Buildingstructural members and flooring to hold the weight for office space, , Remodel j $2,148,682 $2,148,682 furniture,and files for up to 44 employees in addition to electrical, HVAC,space floor walls and ceiling finishes. Remodel of approximately 2,772 square feet in the the south end of the 5th floor to be used as either a maintenance work area or City&County additional file storage space for City Attorneys. The project would Building include structural members and flooring, HVAC and electrical,floor, Remodel $739,449 walls and ceiling finishes. A secondary hallway would have to be constructed for egress requirements. City&County Window frames scraped to remove existing paint,repair woodwork 3 Building j and repaint to restore Painting $158,100 City&County Building,Stone Upkeep/Replacement: During the restoration of the building in 1986-1989 approximately 30%of the ! City&County Bld stone was treated with a stone strengthener to slow the F Building Shell $1,600,000 g deterioration of the exterior sandstone. Because the sandstone is i weathering,ongoing replacement of stones will be required. City&County Building I Fan Coil Unit Replacement 1st Floor South Half Energy/HVAC $170,292 City&County Building Design and Construction of New Base Isolator System Structural j $1,000,000 City&County Fan Coil Unit Replacement 3rd Floor South Half Energy/HVAC ; $194,620 Building j City&County Building 3rd&5th Floor Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement Flooring $748,907 i ! City&County Fan Coil Unit Replacement 1st Floor North Half Energy/HVAC I $137,176 Building City&County Fan Coil Unit Replacement 3rd Floor North Half Energy/HVAC $182,456 Building ! City&County 2nd Floor,Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement Flooring $561,681 Building City&County Fan Coil Unit Replacement 4th Floor North Half Energy/HVAC $170,292 Building i I City&County Building � 4th Floor Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement Flooring $748,907 ! j City&County Fan Coil Unit Replacement 2nd Floor North Half Energy/HVAC $158,129 Building City&County ; Fan Coil Unit Replacement 4th Floor South Half Energy/HVAC $170,292 Building , City&County Building 1st Floor Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement Energy/HVAC $748,907 City&County Fan Coil Unit Replacement 2nd Floor South Half Energy/HVAC j $137,176 Building i City&County Fan Coil Unit Replacement 5th Floor Energy/HVAC $206,784 Building City and County Replace Main Air-handlers on each floor Energy/HVAC $1,220,000 Bldg i City and County Bld Washington Square Event Power Distribution Electrical $499,966 g , Total of All Projects] $13,561,816 Total of Recommended! ii $5,621,682 Projects; ' Barnes Bank Bondl Unexpended 1 $4,737,381 Proceeds 2011/2012 CIP • Application Request $884,301 J.. Attachment B Plaza 349 Estimates Design West / Architects Preliminary Cost Estimate First Floor 10,500 sf @ $85.00 /sf = $ 892,500.00 Fourth Floor 11,900 sf @ $85.00 /sf = $ 1,011,500.00 Sith Floor 11,400 sf @ $85.00 /sf = $ 969,000.00 Cost Estimate $ 2,873,000.00 *** Please note that other levels in the building will require both plumbing and electrical modifications to bring the building into compliance with current building codes as described in the feasibility study. Cost associated with these changes are estimated to be $600,000.00 bring the total cost estimate for the project to $3,473,000.00 Total propsed construction cost estimate - $3,473,000.00 Attachment C City and County Building Fifth Floor - North Project Summary and Cost Information The following are the costs assembled to provide for the remodel that would allow for the use of unconditioned and unfinished space located on the fifth floor north end of the City and County building. Currently the north area space consists of about 5,600 square feet and currently it is in use as Building Maintenance work area and storage space. This project would provide for the structural members and flooring to hold the weight for office space, furniture, files and up to a projected maximum of 44 employees. In addition this project would provide for needed HVAC and electrical, and space floor walls and ceiling finishes. A secondary hallway would also need to be constructed on the west side of the space to allow for a fire exit from the space. Fifth Floor - North Cost Summary Information - 12/7/2010 Cost Summary Total Project Amount Construction - (CCC cost estimate plus 3% inflation) $ 1,440,338.00 Engineering fees 1.85% $ 26,647.00 Design fees 14% $ 201,647.00 Construction inspection and administration 5% $ 72,016.00 Contingency 10% $ 144,034.00 Total Costs $ 1,884,682.00 Office Furnishings $ 264,000.00 Increase in On Going Maintenance Costs $ 11,516.00 Initiative Name: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs - Solving Cold Cases with DNA Grant Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #B-1 Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received a $389,200 grant from the US Department of Justice, under the Solving Cold Cases with DNA program. This grant is awarded to provide funds and resources needed in solving cold cases. The SLCPD has determined the need to clear more than 100 unsolved, violent crime/homicide cold cases that remain open. The goal and objective of the PD is to assess all cases for biological evidence for DNA testing in order to solve and adjudicate the crimes. To do this, the PD proposes to contract with Sorenson Forensics LLC for case consultation of these 100 cases. $147,200 of grant funds will be used to contract with Sorenson Forensics who will determine which cases require further DNA testing and which are best suited to be tested by either the State Crime Lab (SCL) or Sorenson Forensics with Sorenson taking the cases that need the widest range of DNA testing, with an approximate turn around time of 16 days. Sorenson Forensics also conducts trainings and workshops and will provide this service to SLC sworn law enforcement personnel, 12 civilians crime lab technicians, and 5 analysts at the SCL. The PD will also contract with the Utah Bureau of Forensic Services (State Crime Lab)for$103,000 to purchase and supply 1000 DNA test kits for 24 cold cases that have been screened and assigned to them. The contract will also include paying for Analysts time at the SCL who will do the testing during off hours in order to mediate some of the backlog they currently experience. In addition, $60,000 will be used for travel of 2 Detectives to conduct interviews with witnesses who are out of State and $9,000 will be used to send 4 Detectives to Homicide/Cold Case Training; and $70,000 will be used for overtime paid to 6 Detectives and 1 Sergeants when regular caseload does not allow time to work the cold cases during regular shift work. 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. Initiative#6-1 1 US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs -Solving Cold Cases with DNA Grant Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#B-1 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Staff Police Department Resources Department Type of Initiative Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 799-3265 1535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive (General Fund - Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund I Total $01 $0 Internal Service Fund I i I Total $0 $0 (Enterprise Fund � I Total $0 $0 IOtherFund 72 $ 389,200.00 Total' $ 389,200.00 I $01 Staffing Impact: (Requested Number of I 0 FTE's: Position Title: • Initiative#B-1-a I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 16.560-2010-DN-BX-K006 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 172- 1370 I $ 389,200.00 1 1 I i l I III �I II I , I I I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number ! Object Code Number ' Amount I72- 2590 $ 389,200.00 I I I I Additional Accounting Details: Ii 1 Grant Information: 'Grant funds employee positions? No II i Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes • I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? I NA jWill grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes I Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Yes 1 Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? ' No Initiative#B-1-b Initiative Name: State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security (HLS) , 2010 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant (UASI) Program Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #B-2 Grants for Exisitng Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Emergency Management Division in a joint effort with Salt Lake City Police Department received a $730,000 grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, 2010 Homeland Security Grant, under the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program. This grant was awarded to continue the UASI efforts of local law enforcement agencies to plan and prepare in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Of these funds, $480,000 will be used to continue the Data Fusion/Synthesis, Crime Database Software which utilizes multi-inputs from various intelligence sources to create a correlated set of accessible data and $250,000 will be used for Asynchronous Critical Infrastructure Program (AC1P)for facilitation and participation of planning/exercise activities. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the State Homeland Security UASI grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#B-2 State of Utah,Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security (HLS) ,2010 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant{UASI) Program Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#B-2 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Exisitng Staff Management Services Resources Department Type of Initiative Alicia Johnson I Sherrie Collins 799-7221 1535-6150 Prepared By I Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive (General Fund - Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund I Total $0 $0 !Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 I Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 'Other Fund 72- $ 730,000.00 i Total) $ 730,000.00 $01 ! Staffing Impact: I Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#B-2-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 97.067-STATE-2010-UASI-001 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number I I Amount 72 j 1370 I $ 730,000.00 I I I ! I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- 2590 $ 730,000.00 I i I Additional Accounting Details: Please assign cost center to EMS Division I I I Grant Information: 1Grant funds employee positions? I No !Is there a potential for grant to continue? ' Yes I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? ' NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes 1 Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ieliminated? Yes I Does grant duplicate services provided by private or INon-profit sector? I No Initiative#B-2-b Initiative Name: US Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women - OVW FY 10 Community Defined Solutions to Violence Against Women Program Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #C-1 Grants For New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received a $399,077 continuation grant from the US Department of Justice, under the OVW FY 10 Community Defined Solutions to Violence Against Women Program. The funds were awarded for the continuation and expansion of the Salt Lake Area Family Justice Center (SLAFJC), a multidisciplinary coordinated community response to domestic violence in the Salt Lake Area. Key stakeholders in the SLAFJC include the SLC Prosecutors Office, The SLCPD, the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) Salt Lake City, Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake, Utah Department of Workforce Services, Utah Third District Court, SL Legal Defenders Office, SL County Criminal Justice Services, the SL County Sheriffs Office, Utah Division of Child and Family Services and Gonzalez & Tran-Layton, LLC. This project addresses collaborative partnerships to improve the quality and quantify of services available at the SLAFJC for victims of domestic violence. The SLAFJC is currently located in the garden level of the Lolie Eccles Center. The City will contract with the YWCA to manage the grant activities and house the SLAFJC including meals, utilities and telephone for a cost of $269,587. The City will also contract with the National Family Justice Center Alliance to conduct strategic planning for the up-coming transition and expansion of the SLAFJC at a cost of $25,000. An additional $10,920 contractual element includes foreign and sign language interpreters for clients of the SLAFJC for a total contractual component of $305,507. In addition, $35,000 will be retained by the SLCPD to pay over-time costs to Detectives to serve warrants on violations of protective orders as a partner on the SLAFJC and $42,000 will be retained to hire a part-time victim advocate to be co-located at the SLAFJC. Budgeted travel costs of $15,570 include travel of SLAFJC stakeholders to technical assistance trainings and required grant management trainings and $1,000 for supplies. $150,000 of budget for this grant was brought in on FY2011 Consent Agenda #3. This request establishes the remaining budget of$249,077 for a total budget of $399,077 for this grant. This item replaces the amount taken from the holding account of$150,000. 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. Initiative#C-1 1 I Violence Against Women-OVW FY 10 Community Defined Solutions to Violence Against Women Program 1 Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#C-1 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Grants For New Staff Police Department Resources Department Type of Initiative Krista Dunn I Sherrie Collins 799-3265 i 535-6150 I Prepared By I Telephone Contact I (Negative) Positive !General Fund - Fund Balance- None 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 Total $0 $0' (Other Fund 72 $ 399,077.00 Total1 $ 399,077.00 1 $0 C 1 Staffing Impact: !Requested Number of I 0';I I FTE's: .5 Position Title: Victim 1 Advocate 1 Salary 42,000 Existing Officer OT 1 35,000 Initiative#C-1-a I I i Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA #If Applicable: 16.590-2008-WE-AX-0017 Revenue: Cost Center Number I I Object Code Number I Amount '72-Same Cost Center as established 1360 $ 399,077.00 f during FY 2011 Consent Agenda#3 ' I I I I I I I jl II I I i Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-Same Cost Center as established 2590 I $ 249,077.00 'during FY 2011 Consent Agenda#31 72-99999 2590 $ 150,000.00 i I I Additional Accounting Details: Please increase budget of same cost center that iwas established during the FY2011' 'Consent Agenda#3 I Grant Information: 'Grant funds employee positions? Yes I I I Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes I i I I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes I Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are 'eliminated? Yes I Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative#C-i-b Initiative Name: State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security(HLS) , 2010 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant(UASI) Program Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#C-2 Grants for New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Emergency Management Division in a joint effort with Salt Lake County received a$2,170,078 grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, 2010 Homeland Security Grant, under the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program. This grant was awarded to continue the UASI efforts in purchasing equipment and materials needed to plan and prepare in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. The City is the lead agency and will receive $2,580,718 of the grant funds; the State will receive $30,000; the Valley Emergency Communication Center (VECC) will receive $122,000; and the remainder, or$167,360, will be provided to the County. Of the City's$1,850,718, the Emergency Management Division will expense$300,000 under the national priorities category by hiring a full-time training and exercise coordinator. This position will be responsible to coordinate trainings and exercise development of all UASI training and exercise activities. In addition, the Coordinator will be responsible to ensure all Salt Lake Urban Area (SLUA)jurisdictions are aware of and participate in on-going training and exercises provided by state and federal agencies and to leverage local funds available and reduce duplication of training opportunities. The salary and benefits of the FTE will be $92,705 per year with a grant budget of $286,448 over a three year period. The remaining 13,552 will be used for travel/training and supplies. $309,977 will be used to continue the contract with BDR to develop a SLUA training and exercise program that encompasses all SLUA jurisdictions and ensures all jurisdictions meet a minimum standard of training and exercise. $20,000 will be used for public outreach and to develop and produce DVD's that can be distributed throughout the community to inform and encourage individuals, families, businesses and community organizations to participate in available training and support on-going community preparedness activities and opportunities. $151,382 will be used to develop an area-wide infrastructure protection process using the State Asynchronous Critical Infrastructure Program (ACIP). ACPP will provide a template to develop infrastructure protection programs for significant public and private infrastructure that can be maintained by the local jurisdiction. Emergency Management Services will then contract with a qualified consultant to review the program implemented by the state and develop a model to be used by UASI jurisdictions. The City's Fire Department will receive$1,069,359. Of this amount, $750,000 will be used to purchase a 10 Channel Intelligence Repeater Truck to provide backup to the City's existing fixed repeater sites should they become inoperatable during an incident, $319,359 will be used to provide training to mayors and councils pertaining to the two MITS trucks previously purchased with UASI grant funds and to purchase the remaining equipment needed for the two MITS vehicles. $145,537 of budget for this grant was brought in on FY2011 Consent Agenda #3. This request establishes the remaining budget of$2,024,541 for a total budget of$2,170,078 for this grant. This item will replace the holding account for the$145,537 as well. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the Homeland Security UASI grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#C-2 State of Utah,Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security (HLS) , 2010 Urban Area Security initiative Grant(UASI) Program Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#C-2 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for New Staff Mayor's Office Resources Department Type of Initiative Alicia Johnson /Sherrie Collins 799-7221 /535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount 1General Fund Total $01 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $01 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 'Other Fund 72- ; $ 2,170,078.00 Total $ 2,170,078.00 I $0 Staffing Impact: !Requested Number of 0! FTE's: 1 Position Title: Training iCoordinator Annual Salary $68,000 1 Benefits 24,705 NOTE: Grant funds this ' position for a 3 year period Initiative #C-2-a I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 97.067-HSL-2010-UASI-001 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I72-Same Cost Center as established 1370 $ 2,170,078.00 i during FY 2011 Consent Agenda#3 � I • I I I I I I I J I i I I I , Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount '72- Same Cost Center as established 2590 I $ 2,024,541.00 I during FY 2011 Consent Agenda#3 72-99999 2590 $ 145,537.00 Additional Accounting Details: I Please increase budget within the same Cost Center established 'during FY 2011 Consent Agenda#3 Grant Information: I Grant funds employee positions? Yes I Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Yes Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? No Initiative#C-2-b Initiative Name: Storm Water Carryover Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #D-1 Initiative Type: House Keeping Initiative Discussion: The Storm Water Utility is requesting to amend the 2010-2011 budget for three carry over projects budgeted last year and currently in construction. This budget request is asking to carry over funding for the storm water line on 4000 West and 700 South at a cost of $168,000. In addition the Utility is asking to include two new projects that are both related to street improvement projects that are located on 500 South to 700 South from the Surplus Canal to Gladiola in the amount of$650,000 and 1700 East Yalecrest Avenue in the amount of$385,000. The budget amendment is needed to complete the project that was budgeted last year and is currently under construction and to included the two new projects that are needed in connection with street projects. This is an established process to open the budget for carryover projects for each of the Utility funds. The two new projects are needed to replace the storm water lines prior to the street being reconstructed. The budget amendment will allow the Utility to replace to additional storm water lines in connection with street projects. Initiative#D-1 I I I Storm Water Carryover Initiative Name E BA#3 FY2011 initiative#D-1 1 2010-2011 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Public Utilities House Keeping Department E Type of Initiative Jim Lewis I 801-483-6773 Prepared By ' Telephone Contact (Negative) 1 Positive !General Fund - Fund Balance- I Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount 'General Fund I Total, $0' $0 (Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 !Enterprise Fund • Total $0 $0 (Other Fund Total' $01, $0 1 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 01 ;Position Title: 1 I ! Initiative#D-1-a I I I I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I I I � I I i II � Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 53-10301 2730-18 $ 1,203,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? ' N/A if grant is funding a position is it expected the position will !be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A !Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A IDoes grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative#D-1-b Initiative Name: Public Utilities Water Carryover Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #D-2 Initiative Type: House Keeping Initiative Discussion: The Water Utility is asking to amend the current years budget to include funding for carry over projects that were budgeted last year but are still under construction. The department is requesting $1,755,900 in mostly water line projects that are currently under construction and that were budgeted last year. In addition the Water Utility is asking to include a new project on 500 to 700 South from the Surplus Canal to Gladiola street at a cost of$650,000. This project is required to be constructed due to a street improvement project which is scheduled this next spring season. The budget amendment is needed to complete the projects that were budgeted last year and are currently under construction. This will allow the department to continue to replace the aging infrastructure. The fiscal year ends on June 30th and falls in the middle of our construction season. projects are started in one budget and completed in the next. Initiative#D-2 i Public Utilities Water Carryover Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#D-2 2010-2011 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Utilities ! House Keeping Department Initiative Type Jim Lewis 801-483-6773 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive !General Fund - Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount !General Fund i Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 'Other Fund Total! $0 $01 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 j 0 Position Title: I Initiative#D-2-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount I I I i i I I I I I I I II III i � 1 I I i i I ' Expenditure: Cost Center Number I Amount Object Code Number 1 '51-01301 2720-30 ; $ 225,000.00 '51-01301 2720-35 $ 100,000.00 151-01301 2730-01 $ 8,000.00 51-01301 2730-07 $ 76,000.00 151-01301 2730-08 I $ 1,946,900.00 '51-01301 2730-02 $ 50,000.00 Total $ 2,405,900.00 I � Additional Accounting Details: I I Grant Information: 'Grant funds employee positions? No I Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A !If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant? ' N/A 'Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A IDoes grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative#D-2-b Initiative Name: Public Utilities Sewer Carryover Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #D-3 Initiative Type: House Keeping Initiative Discussion: The Sewer Utility is asking to amend the current years budget to include funding for carry over projects that were budgeted last year but are still under construction. The department is requesting $4,127,200 in mostly sewer line and sewer treatment projects that are currently under construction and were budgeted last year. The budget amendment is needed to complete the projects that were budgeted last year and are currently under construction. This will allow the department to continue construction of projects budgeted and approved last year. The fiscal year ends on June 30th and falls in the middle of our construction season. projects are started in one budget and completed in the next. Initiative#D-3 Public Utilities Sewer Carryover Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#D-3 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Utilities House Keeping Department Initiative Type Jim Lewis 801-483-6773 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount 1General Fund Total, $0 $0, InternalService Fund Total I $0 1 $0' 'Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 IOther Fund • Total] $0 $0 Staffing Impact: (Requested Number of 0 0'1 !Position Title: Initiative 4#D-3-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount ! i I III � II ' ' I j I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 152-11201 2720-10 ; $ 50,000.00 , 52-11201 2720-30 $ 870,000.00 152-10401 ! 2730-14 $ 2,657,200.00 52-11201 2760-20 $ 450,000.00 52-11201 2760-50 , $ 100,000.00 I 'Total $ 4,127,200.00 , I � i II I I I i III j Additional Accounting Details: I � I I j I Grant Information: ' Grant funds employee positions? I No 'Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A 1 1 1 I I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? I N/A 1 Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are leliminated? N/A (Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative#D-3-b Initiative Name: Additional Funding to Grant Holding Account Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #D-4 Initiative Type: House Keeping Initiative Discussion: This request is to increase the grant holding account by$1 million. In the past six month months the City has received over $6 million in grant funding. The USAI grant was about $3 million by itself. There are multiple communities and organizations involved in these grants. Currently there are 23 active interagency and interdisciplinary projects funded by this USAI grant. Due to the nature of the grant schedule determined by Congress and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security it is problematic to meet the scheduled budget openings of the City. The average UAS1 grant program can be between $200,000 up to $3 million. While every dollar allocated via consent agenda is appreciated, allocating less than the average program investment does little to further planned investments and can create long-term damage to established partnerships within the program. Each grant year must be spent within 36 months, postponing projects an average of four months impacts the project timelines and the ability to implement long-term grant-led programs. Add to this timeline the necessary transition from the Department of Homeland Security to the State of Utah and finally to the local Urban Area and the grant performance period decreases to an average of 30 months. For several of our projects that is simply not enough time to establish the program and expend the associated funds through established proposal and contracting processes. Projects are often tied to trainings, exercises (such as the Utah Shakeout 2012) and strategic planning initiatives. Postponing the investments is likely to create a long-term impact on dependent projects. Initiative#D-4 I I ! I 1 Additional Funding to Grant Holding 1 Account Initiative Name I BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#D-4 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Finance House Keeping Department J Initiative Type Gordon Hoskins 801-535-6394 Prepared By Telephone Contact I (Negative) Positive (General Fund - Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount iGeneral Fund I Total $01 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $01 ' Enterprise Fund Total I $0 $0 iOther Fund i Total $0 i $0' Staffing Impact: Requested Number of ' 01I 01 Position Title: I i I I 1 i Initiative#D-4-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount � I I I ' I I ' I i I I � I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount '72-99999 2590 III $ 1,000,000.00 � I I iI I Additional Accounting Details: I I I • i I I Grant Information: 'Grant funds employee positions? No I I I I I 'Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A II j I IIf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will !be eliminated at the end of the grant? ! N/A I Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? • N/A • (Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are • eliminated? • I N/A I I I (Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative#D-4-b Initiative Name: Donations Fund Holding Account Increase Back to $100,000 Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #D-5 Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: Through November 23, 2010, nearly $60,000 has been moved from the Donation Holding Account to the various other donation funds for new donations or interest income or both. This request restores the Holding Account to $100,000. It is recommended that the Council approve this request to restore the Holding Account back to $100,000. Initiative#D-5 Donations Fund Holding Account Increase Back to$100,000 Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#D-5 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Finance Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative Elwin Hellmann 535-6424 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive (General Fund - Fund Balance- 1 Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount 'General Fund Total $0' $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 $0 'Enterprise Fund Total $ - $0 'Other Fund 77 Donation Fund $ 58,899.16 Total $ 58,899.16 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: 1 Position Title: 1 1 Initiative#D-5-a I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: • Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 77-77001 1895 $ 54,975.75 77-77001 1830 $ 3,923.41 $ 58,899.16 See attached spreadsheet for details I I � 1 ! I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I I I 77-77001 2590 $ 58,899.16 I I 1 !See attached spreadsheet for details ' Additional Accounting Details: I I ' Grant Information: (Grant funds employee positions? NA I I Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA I I • I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? I NA • IWill grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA IWill grant impact the community once the grant funds are !eliminated? NA 'Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? NA Initiative#D-5-b As of November 23, 2010 CC# Exp Obj. Fund description Net cash Donations Interest Update budget 7700785 2590 Public Services Recycling Fund - 16,000.00 16,000.00 7700875 2590 Youth City Programs 83,023.68 17,111.00 182.92 _ 100,317.60 7709100 2590 Child Abduction Fund 12,626.15 12,626.15 7777108 2590 PARKS& REC. MAINT.DONATIONS 62,751.03 133.42 62,884.45 7777113 2590 Development agree.Hughs Invst. 66,599.38 141.59 66,740.97 7777119 2590 Unity Technology CenterTrs 15,133.89 32.18 15,166.07 7777121 2590 Rainy Day Gallivan Donations 581,609.31 1,212.88 582,822.19 7777122 2590 SLC Classic Donations 310.68 17.75 328.43 7777123 2590 Salt Lake City Fndation 501-C3 18,316.12 32.64 18,348.76 7777124 2590 SLC Fire training center Donat 91,515.83 194.57 91,710.40 7777126 2590 SLOC Tornado Pins 15,580.12 33.13 15,613.25 7777130 2590 Imagination Celebration 23,897.79 500.00 48.63 24,446.42 7777131 2590 Junior Golf donations 7,777.86 16.54 7,794.40 7777132 2590 SLC Tree Replacemnt Torna 1999 132,902.32 282.56 133,184.88 7777136 2590 Police Equipment Endowment 6,478.65 13.77 6,492.42 7777137 2590 Fire Equipment Endowmnt Hansen 87,625.70 186.30 87,812.00 ------ - ----- ------ 7777139 2590 Anna Palmer Reward Fund 26.08 26.08 7777141 2590 Plaza-Glendale Community Cen 228,136.97 485.03 228,622.00 7777142 2590 Park Plaque 16,192.81 6,594.00 35.75 22,822.56 7777146 2590 Gilgal Garden Donations 15.66 0.04 15.70 7777148 2590 Spotlight of Excellence 4,211.31 8.95 4,220.26 7777150 2590 Memorial House Maintenance 39,601.78 3,055.57 135.75 42,793.10 7777151 2590 Equipment Purchase Donations 99,110.68 25.00 210.73 99,346.41 7777152 2590 Environmental Donations 8,327.49 17.71 8,345.20 7777154 2590 Service dog donations fund 161.93 0.36 162.29 7777159 2590 CIT Scholarship 23,757.61 3,100.00 38.41 26,896.02 7777162 2590 Art Project Maintenance RDA 10,937.59 20.16 10,957.75 7777163 2590 World Changers 10,000.00 4,494.06 14,494.06 7777165 2590 PAX Natura Donation CO2 offset 13.11 13.11 7777166 2590 Gallivan Center Sp. Events 1,676.36 3.58 1,679.94 7777167 2590 WalMart Trust 0.34 0.34 7777168 2590 Drug Free Communities 4,537.94 6.41 4,544.35 7777169 2590 Police High School Scholarship 33,615.52 65.59 33,681.11 7777170 2590 Mayor's sponsorship fund 1,627.28 1,627.28 7777171 2590 Taser/Mobile Neighborhood Wat 359.88 359.88 7777172 2590 Wasatch Hollow Natural Open Sp 421.51 0.90 422.41 7777173 2590 Motors training trust 500.00 500.00 1,000.00 7777174 2590 Rocky Mtn 800 S Tree Planting 25,119.33 53.40 25,172.73 7777175 2590 Solar Salt Lake Trust 14,927.46 31.06 14,958.52 7777176 2590 Police Explorer 630.45 1,280.00 2.46 1,912.91 7777177 2590 Environment Imp. Dist.1& 2 14,607.75 9.10 14,616.85 7777179 2590 Police Officer Relay Team 346.16 346.16 7777180 2590 Historic Preservation Fund 13,001.06 2,316.12 27.54 15,344.72 7777181 2590 Sorensen Center Donations Fund 4,097.02 8.71 4,105.73 7777183 2590 PSB Bond Public Education 1,036.38 2.20 1,038.58 7777184 2590 Cardiac Equipment - (4.96) (4.96) 7777760 2590 STEINER ACQUATIC TRUST 98,008.27 208.37 98,216.64 7777780 2590 NEWSPAPERS FOR TREES 12,831.36 27.28 12,858.64 1,873,985.60 54,975.75 3,923.41 1,932,884.76 -- 58,899.16 Initiative Name: Grants Carryover Adjustments Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #D-6 Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: Since the time the original grants carryover request was created, there has been some adjustments made to grant expenditures for the year ended June 30, 2010. These corrections affect the remaining budget as of June 30th and also the needed carryover budget for fiscal 2011. It is recommended that the Council pass this amendment request that contains an overall decrease in the budget. Initiative#D-6 I 1 I Grants Carryover Adjustments Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 initiative#D-6 2010-11 Initiative Number j Fiscal Year Finance Housekeeping 1 Department j Type of Initiative Elwin Heilmann 535-6424 I Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) 1 Positive (General Fund - Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount !General Fund ' 1 Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund ! Total, $0' $0 Enterprise Fund 1 ' Total $ $0 0, !Other Fund ;72 Grants ' $ (78,410.88)1 I Total! $ (78,410.88) $0 I Staffing Impact: Requested Number of1 1 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#D-6-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number 1 Amount 72-10003 Urban Area Safey Initiative 1360 1 $ (105,856.34)1 1 72-21011 NIJ FY09 Coverdell 1 1360 I $ 55,569.60 I 72-30603 Global Artways-EDGAR Grant 1360 I $ 302.99 72-30904 LifeSkills Grant @ Central City 1360 $ 4,505.35 ! 72-31002 WFS Youth Fairmont Park ! 1360 I $ (9,315.65) 72-31003 WFS Youth Central City 1360 $ (7,296.83)' 72-31004 WFS Youth Ottinger Hall 1360 I $ (4,597.47)1 72-31006 WFS Youth Libery Park 1360 I $ (6,313.89)'1 72-31007 Central City Teen Program j j 1360 $ (3,666.64) 72-60615 EDGAR Grant-Passthrough j 1360 $ (1,742.00)' 1 1 (Total $ (78,410.88)i 1 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount ' 72-10003 Urban Area Safety Initiative 2590 $ (105,856.34)'1 72-21011 NIJ FY09 Coverdell 2590 1 $ 55,569.60 ' 72-30603 Global Artways-EDGAR Grant 2590 $ 302.99 ! 72-30904 LifeSkills Grant @ Central City' 2590 $ 4,505.35 72-31002 WFS Youth Fairmont Park I 2590 $ (9,315.65)1, 72-31003 WFS Youth Central City 2590 $ (7,296.83) 72-31004 WFS Youth Ottinger Hall 1 2590 $ (4,597.47) 72-31006 WFS Youth Libery Park 2590 1 1 $ (6,313.89) 72-31007 Central City Teen Program ' 2590 1 $ (3,666.64) 72-60615 EDGAR Grant-Passthrough 2590 $ (1,742.00), ,Total $ (78,410.88)11 Additional Accounting Details: I 1 1 I ' Grant Information: I !Grant funds employee positions? NA i I ifs there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? , NA I ' !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA !Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are !eliminated? NA !Does grant duplicate services provided by private or (Non-profit sector? NA initiative#D-6-b Initiative Name: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs - FY 2010 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #E-1 Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received a $106,000 grant from the US Department of Justice, under the FY 2010 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science improvement program. This grant is awarded and funds are to be used to improve the quality and timeliness of forensic science and medical examiner services and/or to eliminate backlogs in the analysis of forensic evidence, including controlled substances, firearms examination, forensic pathology, latent prints, questioned documents, toxicology and trace evidence. The $106,000 grant award will be used to purchase four pieces of equipment that include a $17,000 crime-lite 82S/82 full kit and a $6,200 crime-lite 2 full kit which are handheld, high-intensity alternate light source's used primarily by forensic investigators to detect evidence such as fingerprints, bodily fluids and latent evidence from crime scenes, a $62,000 DCS 4 system which is a dedicated workstation for the recording and enhancement of latent fingerprints and a $20,800 SICAR 6 which adopts a simple coding technique to characterize shoe prints and tire treads enabling the operator to create a coded description of a pattern by identifying elemental features such as lines, waves, zigzags, circles, diamonds and blocks etc. in addition, training to forensic technicians is included in the purchase price of each piece of equipment. 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. Initiative#E-1 Justice Programs-FY 2010 Paul Coverdeil Forensic Science improvement Grant Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#E-1 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants Requiring No Police Department New Staff Resources Department Type of Initiative Krista Dunn 1 Sherrie Collins 799-3265/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount IGeneral Fund Total! $0 $0 IInternal Service Fund Total $0 $0 'Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72 $ 106,000.00 Total, $ 106,000.00 ' $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: 1 Position Title: Initiative#E-1-a I , I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 16.742-2010-CD-BX-0075 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- 1360 $ 106,000.00 _ � i I i I I II II I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount '72- 2590 ' $ 106,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: i I I Grant Information: (Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes 1 Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No 'Does grant duplicate services provided by private or i Non-profit sector? No Initiative#E-1-b Initiative Name: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Community Challenge Planning and Department of Transportation TIGER ll Planning Grants - TRAX Line Area Plans and Sustainable Zoning Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #E-2 Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The CED Planning Division applied for and received a $22,620 US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant under the Community Challenge Planning and Department of Transportation TIGER II Planning Grants program. These funds were awarded to create and develop station area plans and zoning codes for three existing light rail stations along 1.75 miles of the 400 So. University TRAX line, that identify redevelopment opportunities; promote construction of new affordable housing; provide choices in mode of transportation, housing location and type with access to employment centers; and implement the city's goals for becoming a more sustainable city. The total project cost is approximately$32,620. The $22,620 of grant funds will be used for public outreach, conducting the public planning process, and disseminating the community vision findings by engaging 200 residents in the public process; development of new or modify existing station area master plans pertaining to land use; and development of new or revision of existing zoning codes that meet the goals of the community visioning process and the city's goal of becoming a more sustainable city with walkable neighborhoods supported by a robust economic base. The grant award requires a 20% match which will be satisfied through the dedication of 400 hours of full-time effort by the project manager and four city planners over a 24-month period. The dedicated time is valued at$10,000 which exceeds the 20% match. 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. Initiative#E-2 ! 1 US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD), Community Challenge Planning and Department of Transportation TIGER 11 Planning Grants-TRAX Line Area Plans and Sustainable Zoning Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#E-2 2010-11 Initiative Number ! Fiscal Year Grants Requiring No CED Planning Division New Staff Resources Department Type of Initiative Nick Norris i Sherrie Collins 535-6173/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount 1General Fund Total $0 $0 ,Internal Service Fund Total, $0'! $0 'Enterprise Fund Total t $0 $01 !Other Fund 172 $ 22,620.00 Total $ 22,620.00 ' $0' Staffing Impact: !Requested Number of 01 j FTE's: Position Title: • Initiative#E-2-a I I 14.704-HUD Community Challenge Planning/DOT TIGER Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: 1i Planning Grants Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- 1360 $ 22,620.00 I I 11 � ! I I I I I i I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- 2590 $ 22,620.00 i I Additional Accounting Details: II � Grant Information: (Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA ' I I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? ' NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? I I No (Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? I No Initiative#E-2-b Initiative Name: US Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) -Salt Lake Elder Abuse Project Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#E-3 Grants For New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received a $400,000 grant from the US Department of Justice, under the Enhanced Training and Services to End Violence and Abuse of Women Later in Life. The City's Elder Abuse Project is a multi-disciplinary collaboration between the SLCPD, the County District Attorney's Office, Adult Protective Services with the Utah Division of Aging and Adult Services and the Young Women's Christian Association of Salt Lake City. The purpose of the grant is to enhance outreach and provide direct services to older adult females and vulnerable adults, who are victims of elder abuse and to initiate systematic improvements to support the expansion of the reporting, investigation and prosecution of elder abuse in Salt Lake County. It is estimated that 3,500 female victims over the age of 50,will receive outreach and direct services from the trained individuals over the 3 year grant period. The grant funds will provide resources for enhanced training programs for law enforcement officers, detectives, prosecutors, judges, protective services workers, and victim advocates; cross training for victim services agencies, governmental agencies, courts, law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies; creation of a multi-disciplinary collaborative community response; and enhanced outreach and delivery of services for older adult female victims of elder abuse. Grant fund expenditures include contractual components that include $164,739 to Utah Adult Protective Services who will hire a caseworker that will investigate abuse, exploitation, and/or neglect referrals, recommend appropriate actions affecting the victim's well being and social functioning, and coordinate and refer direct services of community resources, placement providers and collateral agencies for patients or older adult female victims and attend mandated OVW trainings; $86,841 to the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office for a part-time counselor to assess victims needs, provide crisis counseling and court information, make referrals for services and help the victim understand the court system, attend mandated OVW trainings and Prosecutor's Workshop; $4,773 to the YWCA of Salt Lake City to attend OVW Train the Trainers training; and $3,690 to Matheson Third District Court for 2 judges and $1,845 to West Jordan Third District Court for 1 judge to travel, attend and complete the OVW mandated four-day judicial Institute. The PD will retain $8,222 to attend the Law Enforcement Train the Trainer trainings and as mandated by OVW a 25%set aside of$129,890 to support outreach and services. $317,000 of budget for this grant was brought in on FY2011 Consent Agenda #3. This request establishes the remaining budget of$83,000 for a total budget of$400,000 for this grant. This item will repalce the$317,000 in the holding account as well. 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. Initiative#E-3 I , I US Department of Justice,Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)-Salt Lake Elder Abuse Project Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#E-3 2010-11 Initiative Number i Fiscal Year Grants For New Staff Police Department Resources Department Type of Initiative Krista Dunn!Sherrie Collins 799-3265!535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive !General Fund - Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount IGeneral Fund I I 1 I Total $0 $0 IInternal Service Fund I Total $0 $0 IEnterprise Fund Total $0' $0' lOther Fund ' 72 $ 400,000.00 Total, $ 400,000.00 $0 I � Staffing Impact: IRequested Number of 0 FTE's: . I Position Title: Initiative#E-3-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA #If Applicable: 16.528-2010-EW-AX-K007 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 172-Same Cost Center as established 1360 $ 400,000.00 (during FY 2011 Consent Agenda#3 j i I • i I 1 � � I I i � 1 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount :72-Same Cost Center as established 2590 $ 83,000.00 during FY 2011 Consent Agenda#3! 72-99999 2590 $ 317,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: I Please use same cost center that was established during the FY2011 'Consent Agenda#3 • Grant Information: IGrant funds employee positions? Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant? I Yes !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Yes IDoes grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative#E-3-b Initiative Name: Rio Tinto Donation to the City's Climate Showcase Communities Grant Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #F-1 Donation Initiative Discussion: Rio Tinto Services, Inc., as a partner in the City's Climate Showcase Communities Grant has donated their portion of the grant match requirement of$10,000.00. In FY 2010, the City was awarded an EPA Grant of $386,554. The budget for this grant was established in FY10 budget amendment #2. The City, partnering with Salt Lake County, Salt Lake Solutions, Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Utah Clean Cities Coalition and Rio Tinto proposed to implement a Sustainable Transportation for a Sustainable Future (STSF) program. The initiative of the grant is an extensive community-based social messaging outreach program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution by reducing the vehicle miles traveled in the City and County. The STSF program goal is to create a blueprint for permanent and sustainable changes in driving behavior that will transform the community as well as provide a tool-kit for program replication by other communities. The grant required a $37,042 match. This donation of $10,000 from Rio Tinto will satisfy their commitment to a portion of that match. Initiative#F-1 i 1 Rio Tinto Donation to the City's Climate Showcase Communities Grant j I Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#F-1 I 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year CED HAND Donation I Department Type of Initiative Kate Lilia/Sherrie Collins 535-7755/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) 1 Positive (General Fund - Fund Balance- None j Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total', $0 $0, IInternal Service Fund Total, $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total, $0 $01I Other Fund 72-10001 $ 10,000.00 Total $ 10,000.00 $0 I I Staffing Impact: IRequested Number of 01 FTE's: Position Title: ' 1 Initiative#F-1-a i I I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Donation Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 172-10001 1890 $ 10,000.00 I I I II Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 1 72-10001 2590 $ 10,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: I Grant funds employee positions? NA I Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA 'Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA I Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? NA Initiative#F-1-b Initiative Name: Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services and Preparedness Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #G-1 Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards Initiative Discussion: The Fire Department was awarded $30,109 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services and Preparedness to be used for training purposes for the Fire Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel. More specifically, $10,000 will be used for Paramedic School, $15,000 will be used for trainings associated with State required continuing medical education and $5,109 will be used for program and seminar registrations and travel associated with local trainings. The grant is awarded based on the per capita of certified EMS personnel. The City's Fire Department has 115 certified Paramedics, 169 certified Emergency Medical Technicians and 20 certified dispatchers. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#G-1 Utah Department of Health-Bureau of Emergency Medical Services and Preparedness 1 Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#G-1 2010-11 Initiative Number 1 ! 1 Fiscal Year Council Consent Fire Agenda-Grant Awards Type of Initiative Tom Burchard/Sherrie Collins I 799-4217/535-6150 Prepared By 1 Telephone Contact j (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount (General Fund 1 ' il Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total I $0 $0 Enterprise Fund 1 Total $0 $0 Other Fund 172-99999 $ 30,109.00 ; Total' I $ 30,109.00 $0! Staffing Impact: I Requested Number of I I 0 !FTE's: !Position Title: Initiative#G-1-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number ! Object Code Number Amount 172-99999 1370 $ 30,109.00 II I I� � I I I ! ! I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 172-99999 2590 $ 30,109.00 r II Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: I Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant? NA I Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A !Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative#G-i-b Initiative Name: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control - Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Agency (HIDTA) Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #G-2 Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received a $65,354 Rocky Mountain HIDTA grant from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control. The SLCPD receives this grant on an annual basis and will continue to fund the salary and benefits of one (1) K-9 Law Enforcement Officer assigned to the Metro Narcotics/Drug Enforcement Task Force to address drug issues throughout the Valley. The purpose of this grant is to support the national drug control strategy of reducing drug use in the nation. Specifically, the RMHIDTA's grant funding is allocated to jurisdictions to facilitate cooperation and coordination among federal, state and local drug enforcement efforts to enhance combating drug trafficking organizations locally, regionally and nationally. This is accomplished through intelligence- driven joint multi-agency drug task forces sharing information and working cooperatively with other drug enforcement initiatives. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#G-2 , 1 I i Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control -Rocky Mountain High intensity Drug Trafficking Agency fHIDTA) Initiative Name BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#G-2 2010-11 i Initiative Number 1 I ; Fiscal Year Council Consent Police Agenda-Grant Awards 1 Department I Type of Initiative Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins j 799-3265/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact I (Negative) Positive 'General Fund - Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 IInternal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total, $0 $0 IOther Fund 72-99999 I I $ 65,354.00 Total) $ 65,354.00 I $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of I 0 i FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#G-2-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA #If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-99999 1370 1 $ 65,354.00 I I ! 1 I it i � I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number ! Amount 172-99999 2590 $ 65,354.00 Additional Accounting Details: i 1 Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are !eliminated? N/A !Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative#G-2-b Initiative Name: US Department of Health and Human Services- Drug Free Communities Support Grant Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #G-3 Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards Initiative Discussion: 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 two of the grant which has been awarded for an additional 5 year period. Of these funds, $66,429 will be used 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; $5,368 will fund the Grant Monitors time for the fiscal monitoring and oversight of the grant; $10,473 will be used for travel and training to mandatory conferences; $12,200 will be used for CADCA membership, conference registrations to CADCA Conference, the Youth Leadership Initiative and U of U conference, photocopying of Youth Advisory Boards recruitment brochure and initiative information flyers; and $30,530 will be used for contractual components to include $17,280 for continuation of program evaluation and needs assessment; $450 for a consultant to assist in the facilitation of the annual strategic planning process; $10,000 for stipends paid to five high school teachers who serve as advisors for school based Youth Advisory Boards; $2,000 to Steve James for performances at four Town Hall meetings; and $800 to The Inclusion Center for cultural competency training to coalition members. The grant requires a $222,750 in-kind match which will be met with the Mayor's Office staff, Coalition volunteer time, lMS staff time for Community Forums tapings, a portion of the evaluation services and Community Forum volunteer speakers and performers. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#G-3 US Department of Health and Human Services-Drug Free Communities Support Grant I I Initiative Name I BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#G-3 2010-11 Initiative Number j Fiscal Year Council Consent Mayor Agenda-Grant Awards Department Type of Initiative Abbie Vianes/Sherne Collins 535-7936/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive IGeneral Fund - Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount !General Fund Total' $0 $01 IInternal Service Fund Total, I $0 $0, !Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 !Other Fund 72-99999 $ 125,000.00 I i Total' , $ 125,000.00 $0' I I I I Staffing Impact: I Requested Number of ! 0 IFTE's: Position Title: Initiative#G-3-a I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 172-99999 j 1370 $ 125,000.00 ! I I I f � 1 it I ii Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-99999 I 2590 $ 125,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: I Grant funds employee positions? I N/A I I I Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? I NA I 'Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A IDoes grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative#G-3-b Initiative Name: The Utah Quality Growth Commission - Jordan River Riverview Open Space Land Acquisition Initiative Number: BA#3 FY2011 Initiative #G-4 Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards Initiative Discussion: The Public Services Open Space Division applied for and received a $167,000 grant from The Utah Quality Growth Commission, LeRay McAllister Critical Land Conservation Fund program for the Jordan River Riverview Open Space Land Acquisition. This project includes the restoration of a 9.78 acre site located at approximately 1815 North Catherine Street (1440 West)to a predominantly natural open and undeveloped condition for wildlife habitat, public access, education and/or a nature center. This parcel of land represents the last remaining privately held open land along the Jordan River The total purchase price of the property is $1,250,000. The City contribution is $721,000 toward the property purchase and conservation easement with the City's Open Space Bond with additional funding of$362,000 to be fund raised from the community and collaborative efforts of the City and key stakeholders in the community. Key stakeholders/supporters include local elected officials, Senator Luz Robles and Representative Jen Seelig, Rose Park Community Council, South Shore Community Weed Management Association and the Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Advisory Board. A fee-title appraisal was conducted in May 2010 and the property was valued at $1,080,000. A second appraisal is currently be conducted. The current market price is $1,250,000. The final purchase price is to be determined. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#G-4 li ! I 1 I The Utah Quality Growth Commission - Jordan River Riverview Open Space Land Acquisition 1 I Initiative Name I BA#3 FY2011 Initiative#G-4 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Council Consent Publix Services Agenda-Grant Awards Department 1 Type of Initiative Emy Maloutas/Sherrie Collins 972 7804/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- 1 None 1 • Impact . Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total l $0' $0 1Internal Service Fund Total! $0 $0 lEnterprise Fund Total' $0 $0 Other Fund 72-99999 $ 167,000.00 r Total $ 167,000.00 1 $0 1 Staffing Impact: IRequested Number of I 0! I FTE's: Position Title: • Initiative#G-4-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount 72-99999 J 1370 $ 167,000.00 i I � i I � j I I ' ' I Expenditure: Cost Center Number ! Object Code Number • Amount 172-99999 2590 $ 167,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A I I I Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant? I NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are 'eliminated? N/A 'Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? I N/A Initiative#G-4-b -^1i,•:^ r'^1�e,rr: *='.4iCnS At4AANA-fr ,i^,. ' '�-�,' `,0h^,;^ ^fit-,:\�i.:ti� ;' i. ,.oj. i. SALT LAKE _ T I SALT t •J .i �' (: R✓f (1 •ATIO .•t:•, pA *�ma�yy}� :_`. ' t, RESOLUTION SUPPORTING UTAH'S ADOPTION of the 2009 ),,A. "',i INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE for UTAH HOMES "j. . WHEREAS, Utah's commercial and residential buildings use 42%of Utah's total ,, energy;and ':i WHEREAS, energy efficiency is the cheapest,cleanest,and most plentiful energy ?` resource available today;and ;''t WHEREAS, an extensive technical analysis was recently undertaken to identify the ¢' expected builder costs and energy cost savings if the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code(IECC)were adopted in Utah;and WHEREAS, Utah's commercial buildings are already subject to the requirements of the most up-to-date 2009 energy code;and ?i WHEREAS, Utah's new residential structures are still governed by the outdated 2006 '•-• �a •` energy code;and ' WHEREAS, according to this analysis,adoption of the 2009 IECC is expected to `'s,'i,. improve the energy efficiency of new homes by 10 to 12 percent,while the utility bill savings for Utah families is expected to exceed the incremental cost of implementing the updated code,resulting in a net savings to Utah new homeowners of$175 per year on average;and l`±, WHEREAS, according to the U.S.Department of Energy adoption of the 2009 IECC is expected to improve the energy efficiency of new homes by 10 to 12 5 i it percent and up to 17 percent(or$216 and$265 per year);and '-2 WHEREAS, the IECC is the most widely used model energy code for residential construction in the U.S.,establishing efficiency baselines that are L`` =4 reviewed and updated every three years,and voluntarily adopted by over „., 40 states;and ,'i' WHEREAS, Utah has a history of regularly reviewing and adopting updated versions y,•• of the IECC,to be implemented and enforced by local jurisdictions;and ; WHEREAS, to correct energy inefficiencies after the home is built costs at least 5- 'l'r. t times more than building homes efficiently from the start(and not every problem can be corrected after the fact);and :i• WHEREAS, the 2009 IECC will strongly influence building ractices in thousands of ' ,b j; Utah homes expected to be buil in the Utah until the succeeding 2012 4�!' IECC is adopted in Utah,making the success of adopting the 2009 IECC f`, x f j critical to the long-term energy cost savings for many Utah families;and `_`, Al ,, ' WHEREAS, the state's largest electric utility,PacificCorp,estimates that by 2018 it l f t will be 1,500 megawatts-or two large power plant's worth of energy- short of meeting Utah's electricity needs;and ; �� f 4y :,,, � v,..w.,, VV v.„—.,rV`1,..UvNSU', S u 'U'vU� ✓wv��V L ,'UvUvr s, � � v� vV � � `v' vv c1IJ ' r� ` ' ` kI ZIOR t "' .ez Iutimt ,,.,. WHEREAS, homes that are constructed in-line with the updated 2009 IECC will ? consume less energy,and thus collectively reduce the need for utility r4 companies to build more expensive new power plants and transmission '',`Z lines that all Utahans pay for,therefore helping to keep rates low in Utah ..: for years to come;and 5' WHEREAS, building homes more energy-efficiently helps meet Utah's growing energy demand;and WHEREAS, adoption of the 2009 IECC is consistent with the recommendation by Utah's Uniform Building Code Commission to the Business and Labor • Interim Committee on October 20,2010;and WHEREAS, the Uniform Building Code Commission's favorable recommendation "* "1 included a delayed effective date of anua 2012 to address concerns of Utah's building industry as well as an amendment to make it easier for builders to meet the energy code requirements;and ' t WHEREAS, the U.S.Conference of Mayors,the Utah Housing Coalition,the American Institute of Architects,Rocky Mountain Power,and Questar `•s Gas have supported adoption of strong energy conservation codes as a i' critical strategy to a successful energy policy, NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that Salt Lake City recognizes the important long-term energy and cost- - savings benefits of adopting updated energy codes and urges the adoption `, `` # of the residential provisions of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code by the Utah Legislature during the 2011 General . • Session. • 1 '., Ralph Becker Jill Remington Love,District Five '1.>' Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member,Chair .:,1 is , °s W Stan Penfold,District Three Carlton Christensen,District One y` ,.;£ Salt Lake City Council Member, Vice Chair Salt Lake City Council Member X} : rr Van Turner,District Two Luke Garrott,District Four 1' ., ,'.°4: Salt Lake City Council Member Salt Lake City Council Member `' o'. `-4 JT Martin,District Six Soren D.Simonsen,District Seven � ' i Salt Lake City Council Member Salt Lake City Council Member s{' t;, - qs. v ;1,41,-��; t 0 SCANNED TO: SCANNED BY. CCU�G�L OF D TE_ //5 /Lo" MAYOR :rs ]��' �i `+� r►i D �_`� RALPH BECKER ► 1 1 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR JAN 5 2011 J CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL B _ Date Received: 0 D Zn�l Davi veritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: a 0.112411 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Jan. 5, 2010 Jill Remington-Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: IECC Energy Code Joint Resolution for Legislature STAFF CONTACT: Vicki Bennett, Sustainability Director, 535-6540 (rZekm-V7 DOCUMENT TYPE: Joint Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a joint resolution encouraging the Utah State Legislature to adopt the IECC 2009 Energy Code for homes during their 2011 legislative session. BUDGET IMPACT: No funding required. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In 2010 the Utah State Legislature adopted the more energy efficient IECC 2009 energy code for industrial and commercial buildings, but did not adopt them for homes due to pressure from the Utah Homebuilder's Association. The Utah Uniform Building Code Commission recommended that this more efficient standard be set for homes, but the matter was not acted on by the legislature's Business and Labor Interim Committee. The lifecycle cost savings of this new code is proven,with a payback period of approximately six years. It would be in the best interest of our citizens to as the code would help reduce use of energy, and its resultant pollutants, in the region. Current Utah State Law does not allow Salt Lake City to implement stricter codes without State approval, so a draft resolution is attached for consideration by the Mayor and Council encouraging the legislature to do so. PUBLIC PROCESS: The 2009 code implementation was supported by the Utah Uniform Building Code Commission after significant public input and support from Questar and Rocky Mountain Power. 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 Resolution Supporting Utah's Adoption of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code for Utah Homes WHEREAS, Utah's commercial and residential buildings use 42%of Utah's total energy; and WHEREAS,energy efficiency is the cheapest, cleanest, and most plentiful energy resource available today; and WHEREAS, an extensive technical analysis was recently undertaken to identify the expected builder costs and energy cost savings if the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)were adopted in Utah; and WHEREAS, Utah's commercial buildings are already subject to the requirements of the most up-to-date 2009 energy code; and WHEREAS, Utah's new residential structures are still governed by the outdated 2006 energy code; and WHEREAS, according to this analysis,adoption of the 2009 IECC is expected to improve the energy efficiency of new homes by 10 to 12 percent, while the utility bill savings for Utah families is expected to exceed the incremental cost of implementing the updated code, resulting in a net savings to Utah new homeowners of$175 per year on average;and WHEREAS, according to the U.S. Department of Energy adoption of the 2009 IECC is expected to improve the energy efficiency of new homes by 10 to 12 percent and up to 17 percent (or$216 and $265 per year); and WHEREAS,the IECC is the most widely used model energy code for residential construction in the U.S., establishing efficiency baselines that are reviewed and updated every three years, and voluntarily adopted by over 40 states; and WHEREAS, Utah has a history of regularly reviewing and adopting updated versions of the IECC,to be implemented and enforced by local jurisdictions; and WHEREAS,to correct energy inefficiencies after the home is built costs at least 5-times more than building homes efficiently from the start(and not every problem can be corrected after the fact); and WHEREAS,the 2009 IECC will strongly influence building practices in thousands of Utah homes expected to be built in the Utah until the succeeding 2012 IECC is adopted in Utah, making the success of adopting the 2009 IECC critical to the long-term energy cost savings for many Utah families; and WHEREAS,the state's largest electric utility, PacificCorp, estimates that by 2018 it will be 1,500 megawatts—or two large power plant's worth of energy—short of meeting Utah's electricity needs; and WHEREAS, homes that are constructed in-line with the updated 2009 IECC will consume less energy, and thus collectively reduce the need for utility companies to build more expensive new power plants and transmission lines that all Utahans pay for,therefore helping to keep rates low in Utah for years to come;and WHEREAS, building homes more energy-efficiently helps meet Utah's growing energy demand; and WHEREAS, adoption of the 2009 IECC is consistent with the recommendation by Utah's Uniform Building Code Commission to the Business and Labor Interim Committee on October 20,2010; and WHEREAS,the Uniform Building Code Commission's favorable recommendation included a delayed effective date of January 2012 to address concerns of Utah's building industry as well as an amendment to make it easier for builders to meet the energy code requirements; and WHEREAS,the U.S. Conference of Mayors,the Utah Housing Coalition,the American Institute of Architects, Rocky Mountain Power,and Questar Gas have supported adoption of strong energy conservation codes as a critical strategy to a successful energy policy, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that Salt Lake City recognizes the important long-term energy and cost-savings benefits of adopting updated energy codes and urges the adoption of the residential provisions of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code by the Utah Legislature during the 2011 General Session. SCANNED TO: SCANNED BY. RALPH 1J� 13BECKER SAT � ( ��924 ly�'f�j,�1( l E g a LJ YOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR �1 ! n JAN 5 2011 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL B Date Received: 0 0 Davi veritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: of 07 f?lt!I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Jan. 5, 2010 Jill Remington-Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: IECC Energy Code Joint Resolution for Legislature STAFF CONTACT: Vicki Bennett, Sustainability Director, 535-6540 DOCUMENT TYPE: Joint Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a joint resolution encouraging the Utah State Legislature to adopt the IECC 2009 Energy Code for homes during their 2011 legislative session. BUDGET IMPACT: No funding required. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In 2010 the Utah State Legislature adopted the more energy efficient IECC 2009 energy code for industrial and commercial buildings,but did not adopt them for homes due to pressure from the Utah Homebuilder's Association. The Utah Uniform Building Code Commission recommended that this more efficient standard be set for homes, but the matter was not acted on by the legislature's Business and Labor Interim Committee. The lifecycle cost savings of this new code is proven, with a payback period of approximately six years. It would be in the best interest of our citizens to as the code would help reduce use of energy, and its resultant pollutants, in the region. Current Utah State Law does not allow Salt Lake City to implement stricter codes without State approval, so a draft resolution is attached for consideration by the Mayor and Council encouraging the legislature to do so. PUBLIC PROCESS: The 2009 code implementation was supported by the Utah Uniform Building Code Commission after significant public input and support from Questar and Rocky Mountain Power. 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 Resolution Supporting Utah's Adoption of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code for Utah Homes WHEREAS, Utah's commercial and residential buildings use 42%of Utah's total energy; and WHEREAS, energy efficiency is the cheapest,cleanest,and most plentiful energy resource available today; and WHEREAS, an extensive technical analysis was recently undertaken to identify the expected builder costs and energy cost savings if the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code(IECC)were adopted in Utah; and WHEREAS, Utah's commercial buildings are already subject to the requirements of the most up-to-date 2009 energy code;and WHEREAS, Utah's new residential structures are still governed by the outdated 2006 energy code; and WHEREAS, according to this analysis, adoption of the 2009 IECC is expected to improve the energy efficiency of new homes by 10 to 12 percent,while the utility bill savings for Utah families is expected to exceed the incremental cost of implementing the updated code, resulting in a net savings to Utah new homeowners of$175 per year on average;and WHEREAS, according to the U.S. Department of Energy adoption of the 2009 IECC is expected to improve the energy efficiency of new homes by 10 to 12 percent and up to 17 percent(or$216 and $265 per year); and WHEREAS,the IECC is the most widely used model energy code for residential construction in the U.S., establishing efficiency baselines that are reviewed and updated every three years,and voluntarily adopted by over 40 states;and WHEREAS, Utah has a history of regularly reviewing and adopting updated versions of the IECC,to be implemented and enforced by local jurisdictions; and WHEREAS,to correct energy inefficiencies after the home is built costs at least 5-times more than building homes efficiently from the start(and not every problem can be corrected after the fact);and WHEREAS,the 2009 IECC will strongly influence building practices in thousands of Utah homes expected to be built in the Utah until the succeeding 2012 IECC is adopted in Utah, making the success of adopting the 2009 IECC critical to the long-term energy cost savings for many Utah families; and WHEREAS,the state's largest electric utility, PacificCorp, estimates that by 2018 it will be 1,500 megawatts—or two large power plant's worth of energy—short of meeting Utah's electricity needs; and WHEREAS, homes that are constructed in-line with the updated 2009 IECC will consume less energy, and thus collectively reduce the need for utility companies to build more expensive new power plants and transmission lines that all Utahans pay for,therefore helping to keep rates low in Utah for years to come; and WHEREAS, building homes more energy-efficiently helps meet Utah's growing energy demand;and WHEREAS,adoption of the 2009 IECC is consistent with the recommendation by Utah's Uniform Building Code Commission to the Business and Labor Interim Committee on October 20,2010; and WHEREAS,the Uniform Building Code Commission's favorable recommendation included a delayed effective date of January 2012 to address concerns of Utah's building industry as well as an amendment to make it easier for builders to meet the energy code requirements; and WHEREAS,the U.S. Conference of Mayors,the Utah Housing Coalition,the American Institute of Architects, Rocky Mountain Power,and Questar Gas have supported adoption of strong energy conservation codes as a critical strategy to a successful energy policy, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that Salt Lake City recognizes the important long-term energy and cost-savings benefits of adopting updated energy codes and urges the adoption of the residential provisions of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code by the Utah Legislature during the 2011 General Session. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: January 13, 2011 SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2009-00322-Water efficient landscaping/Tree Protection AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted it would affect Council Districts citywide. STAFF REPORT BY: Nick Tarbet,Janice Jardine ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Doug Dansie, Senior Planner KEY ELEMENTS: A. In November 2009, Mayor Becker initiated a petition for the purpose of amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to encourage practices of sustainable living. The City hired Clarion Associates as a consultant on the project,with the goal of creating appropriate zoning,subdivision and site development regulations that will establish Salt Lake City as a sustainable community. A portion of those regulations pertains to water conserving landscaping and tree protection. B. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration that would change zoning regulations relating to water efficient landscaping and tree protection. A copy of the legislative version of the ordinance has been brought forward and attached at the end of this staff report for Council Member's reference and to provide context.(Attachment A) The proposed changes are fairly extensive. Key elements of the proposed changes are: 1. Reducing water consumption through grouping plants with similar watering needs together and insuring efficiencies in the irrigation system design upon installation. 2. Requiring the protection of existing trees in the landscaping when designing large projects. (This does not affect single-family homes or small projects.) 3. Removing the limitation on vegetable plants over twenty four inches in landscape yards. 4. New definitions will be added specific to the proposed regulations. C. "The Salt Lake City Irrigation and Landscape Design Manual"and the"Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide"are referenced throughout the ordinance. The documents will not be included in the zoning ordinance. (This is similar to the existing plant list used by the City and the Transit Station Area guidelines. They are referenced but not codified in City Code.)Public Utilities has indicated that the Manual and Guide are both incomplete and they are working to finish the manuals, including a public review process. (A draft of the Salt Lake City Irrigation and Landscape Design Manual, along with a draft of the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide are attached at the end of this document. See attachments B and C). D. The Administration has requested an opportunity to conduct peer reviews of the Manual and the Plant List, in order that both documents might reflect the most recent best management practices,methodologies,and technologies. This process could be completed by March 31, 2011. 1 1. This peer review will involve region and national experts in landscape design,plants,turf grasses, irrigation design,and overall maintenance and management aspects.Appropriate city staff will also be included in the peer review. 2. The drafting of these two documents is under the direction of the Department of Public Utilities,in conjunction with the Planning Department and the supervision of Stephanie Duer,Water Conservation Program Coordinator. The Administration indicates: a. The Salt Lake City Irrigation and Landscape Design Manual provides information pertaining to best management practices that enhance the efficiency of water use and reduce or eliminate water waste in the landscape,through accepted and improved practices in landscape design,plant selection and placement,irrigation design,and the installation,maintenance,and management of those processes.The practices and standards range in nature from recommendations to requirements. b. The manual is intended to increase water efficiency and reduce water waste in landscape settings by providing guidance for the planning,execution,and commissioning of landscapes. The Manual identifies best management practices and establishes standards in two distinct aspects of outdoor water use: landscapes and irrigation.Further,the Manual addresses these two aspects through the phases of design,installation,maintenance,and management. c. The Salt Lake City Plant List(currently the Salt Lake City Water-wise Plant List)identifies nearly 300 plants that are ideally suited for the regions summer and winter climate,and provide options for a lower water-demanding plant palette.The current list organizes the plants into six function-based categories: Vines and Groundcovers;Ornamental Grasses;Herbaceous Perennials;Deciduous and Evergreen Shrubs;Deciduous Trees;and Evergreen Trees.This aspect will be continued in the planned revision. E. The Administration's transmittal and planning staff report provides findings of fact that support the criteria established in the City's Zoning Ordinance,Sec.21A.50.050-Standards for General Zoning Amendments. (Please refer to the Planning staff report for specific findings of fact and discussion of compliance with individual standards,pages 3-4.) F. The City's Departments and Divisions have reviewed the request. 1) Public Utilities Division noted a few concerns pertaining to the draft ordinance. Their comments were 111 incorporated into the final draft of the ordinance. 2) Transportation noted the water section indicates no impact to the public transportation corridors and the Tree section notes exemption for Driveways,Roads and Public Safety issues. 3) The Fire Department had no objections. G. Public Process: The project was presented at an open house on September 16,2010.No public comments were received. H. The Planning Commission held a briefing on October 27 and a Public Hearing on November 10,2010. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the Council;the vote was eight in favor,one opposed and one abstention. • One Commissioner expressed concern that the plant list would be too limited and that some plants traditionally grown in Utah might be excluded from the list. o Administrative staff responded that the plant list was developed over a number of years with input from several groups including garden associations like Red Butte Gardens. The list now includes over 56 pages and 20%of the landscape is allowed to have plant types which are not on the list. 2 MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. The Council may wish to delay holding a public hearing until completion of the"Salt Lake City Irrigation and Land and Landscape Design Manual"and the"Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide" by the Administration.(Please see items B and C under Key Elements.) B. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the rational for removing the limitation on vegetable plants to a maximum height of twenty four inches. 1. During the July 6,2007 discussion,Council Member Love requested the ordinance include a provision to limit the height of vegetable plants to a maximum of 24 inches. 2. The Council may wish to clarify whether the City's standard to height regulations will be used in front/corner yard areas. C. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the proposed regulations will necessitate an increase in staffing and resources. The ordinance will require an increase in inspection and enforcement activity. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Administration's paperwork and Planning staff report note: 1. The proposed text changes mirror current trends in community sustainability,by encouraging landscaping practices that are compatible with the semi-arid climate and also protecting mature trees that contribute to the character of the City,provide shade,reduce the heat island effect and reduce the need for the amount of resources used for heating and cooling buildings. 2. The City's Community Master Plans express urban and conservation concepts that promote aesthetic qualities to create a sense of visual unity with urban environments,encourage conservation of natural resources,and the development of tools,strategies and educational programs that facilitate these concepts. • Additional citywide Master Plan and Policy considerations are provided below. B. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,friendly,safe environments and creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses. C. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. D. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. Policy concepts include: 1. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the city. 2. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability. 3. Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character. 3 4. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. 5. Treat building height, scale and character as significant features of a district's image. 6. Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to district character,neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the zoning text amendments. Key dates are listed below. May 24, 2010 Petition initiated. July 13,2010 Petition assigned to Doug Dansie for staff analysis and processing. July/August Refinement of the ordinance with Clarion. September 7,2010 Routed petition for review to applicable Departments and Divisions September 16,2010 Open House. October 27,2010 Briefmg with the Planning Commission. November 10,2010 Planning Commission conducted public hearing and voted to recommend forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council. December 8, 2010 Planning Commission ratified meeting minutes for November 10, 2010. December 10,2010 Received in the Mayor's Office. December 13,2010 Received in the Council Office. cc: David Everitt,,Bianca Shreeve,Karen Hale,Lisa Harrison-Smith,Art Raymond,Holly Hilton,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Paul Nielson,Jeff Niermeyer,Tom Ward,Rick Graham,Vicki Bennett,Emy Maloutas,Frank Gray,Mary De La Mare-Schafer,Orion Goff,Les Koch,Larry Butcher,Craig Spangenberg,Wilf Sommerkom,Cheri Coffey, Joel Paterson,Casey Stewart,City Council Liaisons,Mayors Liaisons File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text Amendment—Water efficient landscaping and tree protection. • Attachment A SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending chapters 48 and 62 of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code concerning water conserving landscaping and tree protection intended to promote sustainable urban living) An ordinance amending sections 21A.48(Zoning:Landscaping and Buffers),and 21 A.62 (Zoning:Definitions)of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2009-00322 to establish land use regulations regarding water conserving landscaping and tree protection in an effort to promote sustainable urban living. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("Planning Commission")held a public hearing on November 10,2010 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor, Ralph Becker(petition no.PLNPCM2009-00322),to amend portions of chapters 48 and 62 of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to establish land use regulations regarding water conserving landscaping and tree protection;and WHEREAS,at its November 10,2010 meeting,the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council("City Council")on said application;and WHEREAS,after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests. NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.62.040. That section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning:Definitions),shall be,and hereby is,amended, in pertinent part,such that each of the following definitions shall be added and inserted alphabetically into that section: 3 i "Backflow Preventer"A mechanical device intended to prevent contamination of a culinary water line that meets the specifications set forth in the Salt Lake City Irrigation and Landscape Design Manual. "Caliper"shall mean the dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk measured at a distance of 4' 6"from the ground. "Ecological restoration project" A project where the site is intentionally altered to establish a defined.indigenous,historic ecosystem. "Evapotranspiration(ET)Rate"The quantity of water evaporated from adjacent soil and other surfaces and transpired by plants during a specified time. Reference ET or ETo is a standard of measurement of environmental parameters that affect the water use of plants. ETo is expressed in inches of water per day,month,or year and-is an estimate of the evapotranspiration of a large field of four-to-seven inch tall cool-season grass that is well-watered. Reference ET is used as a basis for determining the Maximum Applied Water Allowances. Reference ET for the Salt Lake City area is defined in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide. "Hvdrozones"A portion of the landscaped area having plants with similar water needs. A hydrozone may be irrigated or non-irrigated. Hydrozones and applicable plants are further defined in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide. "Irrigation Audit"An in-depth evaluation of the.performance of an irrigation system „ that includes,but is not limited to an on-site.inspection,system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity or emission uniformity,reporting oversprav or runoff that causes overland flow,andpreparation of an irrigation,schedule. "Low-Volume Irrigation"The•application-of irrigation water at low pressure through a system of tubing or lateral lines andlow-volume emitters such as drip,drip lines, and bubblers. Low-volume irrigation systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants. "Maximum extent practicable"shall mean no feasible or practical alternative exists,as determined by the Urban Forester, and all possible efforts to comply with the standards or regulations and minimize potential harmful or adverse impacts have been undertaken by the applicant. Economic considerations may be taken into account but shall not be the overriding factor in determining"maximum extent practicable." "Mulch"Any organic material such as leaves,bark, straw,compost or inorganic mineral materials such as rocks, gravel,and decomposed granite left loose and applied to the soil surface for the beneficial purposes of reducing evaporation,suppressing weeds., moderating soil temperature, and preventing soil erosion. "Oversprav" Irrigation water that is delivered beyond the target landscaped area. "Rainwater harvesting" Collection of rainwater on site that is used or stored for landscape irrigation. "Reuse water"Treated or recycled waste water of a quality suitable for non-potable uses . such as above-ground landscape irrigation and water features. This water is not intended or fit for human consumption. • "Salt Lake City Irrigation and Landscape Design Manual"A manual published and maintained by the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department establishing standards and practices to achieve water-use efficiencies in landscaping. "Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide"A guide published and maintained by the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department setting forth appropriate plants and turf to be utilized in landscape plans and their associated hvdrozones. "Soil amendment"Elements added to the soil,such as compost,peat moss,vermiculite, sand,or fertilizer,to improve its capacity to support plant life. "Specimen tree'shall mean a structurally sound mature tree,native or introduced,that is characteristic of the species:with space and essential requirements for its growth both above and below ground compatible with existing and proposed site conditions;whose future vitality can be reasonably expected and maintained with proper protection and regularly scheduled care;whose contributions to carbon sequestration,shade footprint, soil permeability,and aesthetics is high:and whose absence from the landscape would significantly alter the site's appearance,character or history.See Tree Pi`otection Appendix A for listing of species,sizes,and conditions that are likely specimen trees. "Structured soil"A combination of amended soil and gravel that allows tree root development while providing the structural strength to hold the weight of hard surface treatments such as sidewalks or parking lot pavement. The specific mix of structural soil is determined by Salt Lake City engineering standards. "Temporarily irrigated area"Areas that are irrigated for a limited period only after landscapinginstallation until plantings become established. "Tier 2 Water Target Allowance"The maximum allowed monthly and annual water use for a specific landscaped area based on the square footage of the area,the ETAF,and the reference ETO. "Treasured landscape"Landscapes associated with designated historic structures and sites,public gardens,and other notable sites and institutions as determined by the city that may be allowed a higher volume of water use. "Tree protection area"is the area of a development site that includes the area located within the drip line of specimen trees and also includes the area that supports tree health requirements and interactions as determined by the Urban Forester. "Turf"Grasses planted as a groundcover and mowed and maintained to be used as an area of landscaping. "Water budget"A target amount of water to be used per acre that is established by the public utilities director or his designee each year for each applicant subject to the provisions of this ordinance. The water budget is based on factors including,but not limited to,evapotranspiration rates and efficient water practices.Different target budgets may be established for each month of the year or seasons. "Water feature"A design element with open water that performs an aesthetic or recreational function. Water features include but are not limited toponds,lakes, waterfalls,fountains,artificial streams.spas,and swimming pools where water is artificially supplied. Constructed wetlands used for on-site wastewater treatment or storm water best management practices are not included in this definition. SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.48 to adopt section 21A.48.055. That the Salt Lake City Code shall be,and hereby is,amended to adopt section 21A.48.055 (Zoning: Landscaping and Buffers: Water Efficient Landscaping), which shall read as follows: 21A.48.055: WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING A. APPLICABILITY 1. New Development All new development as specified below requiring approval by the city shall comply with the provisions of this ordinance. 01 Residential j Large subdivisions with 10 or more lots(common and public areas and street landscaping only,not individual single-family lots unless greater than'A acre). .• al Multi-family residential,three units or more. fpl Planned unit developments that include residential units Single-family and twin-family homes on lots greater than 'A acre. Lel Common areas of condominium and/or planned developments al Non-Residential j Industrial (b) Commercial Lel Institutional(including public facilities) L Mixed-use developments including industrial, commercial,or institutional elements (e) Developments utilizing city funds or grants. 2. Existing Development The regulations in this ordinance shall apply to all existing non-residential and multi-family residential development projects that increase the assessed valuation of the site and/or site improvements by 25%or more. 3. exemptions The following developments and uses are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance unless otherwise specified: u New single-and twin-family homes on lots one-half(1/2) acre or less unless part of a subdivision with 10 or more lots; (21 Treasured landscapes. La)Plant collections as part of botanical gardens and arboretums open to the public; EU Community gardens and portions of private gardens dedicated to edible plants. u Cemeteries; j6j Ecological restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system:and Ell Similar uses and activities as determined by the planning director in consultation with the Public Utilities Department. B. SUBMITTAL REOUIREMENTS In addition to the submittal requirements set forth in Section 2IA.48.030,Landscape Plan,the applicant shall complete a water-efficient landscape worksheet. The water- efficient landscape worksheet shall be prepared by a licensed landscaped architect licensed civil engineer, licensed architect, certified irrigation professional,or other landscape professional appropriately licensed or recognized by the State of Utah or Salt Lake City. It shall contain the following information unless specifically waived in writing by the zoning administrator in consultation with the Public Utilities Department Director: I. A hydrozone table that contains the following information: a. A listing of each hydrozone that is contained in the landscape plan. b. For each hvdrozone listed,the table shall set forth: W the plant and turf types to be used as categorized_and defined in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide or other water-efficient plant list approved by the Public Utilities Department. j the location,surface area,and type of water features to be installed in that hvdrozone, i3.)the irrigation methods to be used,and Lill the square footage and percentage of the total landscaped area of the project represented by that hvdrozone. a ems« a 2. Water budget calculations shall: a. Use the formula for water budgets set forth in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide, b. Use the appropriate plant factor from the Salt lake City Plant and Turf Guide. Any plan that mixes plants with different water requirements in a single hydrozone shall use the plant factor for the plant with the highest water use in the hydrozone. c. Include temporarily irrigated areas in the low-water use hydrozone. d. Set forth the type and surface area of all water features including swimming pools shall be included in the high-water use hydrozone as defined in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide. e. Calculate the water usage of exempt landscaped areas as defined in Section 21A.48.055.A.3 above shall be calculated using the formula set forth in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide. 3. The type, location,and size of exempt landscaped areas as defined in Section 21A.48.055.A.3 above. 4. A soil report providing information on soil texture,pH,percent organic matter, and other information as specified by the zoning administrator and with areas proposed for soil amendment identified; 5. A planting plan with delineation of areas to be planted with edible plants and areas to be mulched with type of mulch to be used.location,and application depth; 6. An irrigation plan; 7. A backflow prevention plan indicating the type of device and location on the system; 8. A grading plan;and 9. Other documentation as required in the Salt Lake City Irrigation and Landscape Manual. C. REVIEW PROCEDURES The following review procedures shall be followed for all landscaping plans and irrigation systems subject to this ordinance: 1. Landscapingplans shall be submitted concurrently with a development application and reviewed by the planning department in consultation with other relevant agencies such as the Public Utilities Department. 2. The Public Utilities Department is authorized to coordinate the production., publication, and maintenance of guides and manuals addressing water-efficient irrigation systems and landscape design for non-residential and residential developments subject to this ordinance. These guides and manuals may include, but are not limited to,information on hvdrozones and appropriate vegetation for each,water-wise landscape plant lists,and irrigation system design and components,and landscape design practices that promote water conservation. 3. No certificate of occupancy(COi for a development subiect to this ordinance shall be issued until any required water-efficient landscape plan(including irrigation systems where relevant)hasbeen approved,installed,and fully functioning. An irrigation audit report prepared by an independent certified irrigation auditor shall be required to be submitted to confirm that the irrigation system is functioning as required prior to issuance of a CO. 4. Temporary COs may be issued if seasonal growing conditions are not appropriate for landscape installation provided that the applicant post an acceptable surety with the city as set forth in Section VI to ensure installation within nine months of the issuance of the temporary CO. 5. Backflow prevention plans shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Utilities D. STANDARDS All developments subiect to this ordinance shall comply with the following standards: I. Required Plants All landscapes in developments subject to this ordinance shall use plants identified in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide or plants identified as being water-wise or low-water plants in other guides approved by the Public Utilities Department. Plants not listed in these references shall not exceed ten(10)percent of the total landscaped area. Unlisted plants, water features, and the highest water-demand turf grasses as identified in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide shall collectively not exceed more than twenty(20)percent of the total landscaped area. 2. Plant Substitutions Landscaping shall be installed consistent with the approved planting plans, but plant substitutions may be made provided that the substituted plants are from the same hvdrozone and of similar plant type(grass for grass,tree for tree,etc)as the plant originally specified in the approved►andscapeplan. 3 a 3. Hydrozones a. All landscape plans shall be divided into one or more of hydrozones listed in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide,and all plants shall be grouped in appropriate hydrozones. b. Mixing plants from different hydrozones and with different water demands is strongly discouraged. Landscape areas with a mix of plants from different hydrozones shall be designated as a hyrdrozone of the highest water-demand plant within that hvdrozone c. No more than twenty(20)percent of the landscaped area of any landscape plan shall be devoted to the highest hydrozone or highest water-demand turf species as defined in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide or water features or a combination thereof. 4. Water Budget a. All developments with a total landscaped area one-half(1/2)acre or greater must install an irrigation meter at the expense of the applicant and shall be assigned a water budget by the Public Utilities D- s- ent as set forth in Section 17.16.680 of the City Code(Public Services). b. All developments with a total landscaped area of less than one-half(1/2)acre will not be required to install an irrigation meter, but may do so at their option. If no irrigation meter is installed,the development will be assigned a water budget by the Public Utilities Department based on average winter water usage during the months of November to March. 5. Small Landscaped Areas To prevent overspray and water•waste, landscaped areas eight (8) feet or smaller in any perimeter dimension, including but not limited to parkstrips, parking lot islands, and landscaped areas separated by walkways from other landscaped areas, shall only be irrigated with micro-emitter systems, MP rotator nozzles, or similar low-flow devices identified in the Salt Lake City irrigations and design manual or by the Public Utilities Department. Pop-up spray and rotor heads, impact rotors, gear-driven rotors,large turf rotors,and similar devices are prohibited. 6. Soil Amendment/Preparation Where a soil report documents soil conditions unfavorable for healthy plant growth, soil amendment with organic and/or inorganic materials to provide plant nutrients or a better growing medium shall be required as specified in the Salt Lake City Irrigation and Landscape Design Manual. 7. Mulch Where mulch is required or allowed in a landscape plan by this ordinance, it stall be installed at a minimum depth of three (3) inches. Fiber barriers and plastic sheeting that are not porous to air and water are prohibited. 8. Runoff Irrigation and storm water runoff from a site shall be minimized through the use of swales,rain gardens.terracing,and pervious materials(where approved by the city)and in compliance with existing city regulations,which includes prohibition of storm water runoff crossing property lines or passing over public sidewalks. 9. Preservation of Existing Specimen Trees All specimen trees located within a landscape plan area shall be protected as provided in Chapter 21A.48.135,Tree Protection. 10.Water Features The surface area of a water feature shall be included in the area calculation and assigned the appropriate hvdrozone as specified in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide. Recirculating systems shall be used for all water features such as fountains,ponds,reflecting pools,etc. IL Irrigation Systems a. Irrigation systems shall be designed,installed,and maintained as set forth in the Salt Lake City Irrigation and Landscape Design'Manual. At a minimum such systems shall be designed and calibrated that water delivery during irrigation season(April 1 through October 31)does not exceed 80 percent of reference ET or the current Tier2 Target Budget(City Code Section 17.16.670),whichever is less unless waived by the zoning administrator in consultation with the Public Utilities Department.Such systems must be installed prior to plant materials. b. Smart controllers and rain sensors(e.g..weather-based controllers that limit irrigation if raining)shall be installed on all irrigation systems as specified in the Salt Lake City Irrigation and Landscape Design Manual c. Micro-emitters.MP rotators,or similar low-flow irrigation devices shall be used in landscaped areas eight(8)feet or smaller in any perimeter dimension to avoid oversprav and runoff, d. Irrigation systems with a precipitation rate exceeding 0.75 inches per hour shall be prohibited on steep slope areas(slope greater than 30%)exceeding one thousand(1.000)square feet unless(1)infiltration trenches,vegetated swales,biodetention areas,and similar facilities as approved by the city are employed to reduce runoff or(2)the landscape designer specifies an alternative design or technology that clearly demonstrates to the city's satisfaction no runoff or erosion will occur. Prevention of runoff and erosion must be confirmed during the pre-occupancy irrigation inspection. 12.Backflow Prevention Backflow prevention assemblies shall be designed and installed according to the standards as outlined in the Salt Lake City Irrigation and Landscape Design Manual. 3 „.00.14 i E. INSPECTION. MAINTENANCE,ENFORCEMENT 1. Pre-Occupancy Inspection and Irrigation Audit Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for a development subject to this ordinance, an irrigation audit report shall be submitted to the city as provided in Section 21A.48.055.C.3. Additionally,a backflow prevention inspection report by a certified backflow technician shall be submitted to the Department of Public Utilities, and shall include a verification of compliance to approved submittal packet and an initial test report. 2. Bonds and Security Requirements Where an applicant/developer is required to provide water-efficient landscaping and an irrigation system pursuant to this ordinance, the estimated'cost of such landscaping and facilities, as approved by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the Public Utilities Department, shall be set forth as a separate figure in a security device acceptable to the city..Upon the completion of such landscaping and facilities._and provided that the,.cit).has not received any claims or notices of claim upon the security device, fifty percent (50%) of the money held as security for such facilities shall be returned to the applicant/developer and fifty percent (50%) shall be retained for one (1) growing season to ensure that growth has taken hold and to secure the'applicant/developer's other obligations Ask, under the landscaping plan. All dead vegetation shall be replaced through replanting at the end of the second growing season.At the end of that one (1)year ti period, and provided that the city has not received any claims or notices of claim upon the security device and that the landscaping and irrigation system remains acceptable to the city, the city shall release or consent to the release of the final fifty percent (50%) of.the security device to the applicant/developer All sums, if any, held by the city ,in the form of cash shall be returned to the applicant/developer without interest, the interest on such money being reimbursement to_the city for the costs of supervision of the account. If the security device is a corporate surety bond, copies of the partial release from the city shall be sent to the recorder's office for inclusion with and attachment to the bond. 3. Maintenance a. Responsibility: The owner of the premises shall be responsible for the maintenance.repair and replacement of all landscaping materials and barriers. including refuse disposal areas,as may be required by the provisions of this chapter. b. Landscaping Materials. Landscape materials shall be maintained to ensure water efficiency. A regular maintenance schedule shall maintained and available to be viewed by the city. It shall include but not be limited to aerating and de-thatching turf areas(only if needed),replenishing mulch, fertilizing,pruning,and weeding in landscaped areas:checking. adjusting, and tea. repairing irrigation equipment;removing obstructions to irrigation emission device;and resetting automatic controllers. c. Fences,Walls,And Hedges:Fences,walls and hedges shall be maintained in good repair. d. Irrigation Systems:Irrigation systems shall be maintained in good operating condition to promote the conservation of water. e. Backflow prevention assemblies shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer's standards and state regulations,Annual test reports by a certified backflow technician shall be submitted to the Department of Public Utilities. Failed devices can be replaced with comparable assemblies and require reports as stated in Section 21A.48.055.D.12 of this code.Devices replaced with a different assembly type must meet submittal requirements as stated in Section 21A,48.055.B.7. 4. Enforcement a. General. Theprovisions of this ordinance shall be enforced pursuant to Section 21A.20,Enforcement. Water use that exceeds the water budget may result in an increase in water rates under Section 17.16.670 of the,Municipal Code. c. Failure to comply with regulation pertaining to backflow protection and cross connection control shall result in-the termination of water service.In the case of a contamination or cross connection incident,the Department of Public Utilities may require a backflow prevention and cross connection inspection and take the appropriate measures to ensure utility system integrity and public health and safety. d. Water audits. If a water budget established for a development pursuant to Section 21A.48.055.D.4.a above is exceeded in any billing cycle,the owner may be required by the Public Utilities Department at the owner's expense to undertake an irrigation audit conducted by an independent certified irrigation auditor in a manner consistent with the standards adopted by the Irrigation Association, At the direction of the Public Utilities Department,the owner shall carry out any remedial measures identified in the audit or by the Public Utilities Department to comply with the established water budget. SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.48 to adopt section 21 A.48.135. That the Salt Lake City Code shall be,and hereby is,amended to adopt section 21A.48.135(Zoning:Landscaping and Buffers:Tree Protection),which shall read as follows: 21A.48.135:TREE PROTECTION PURPOSE STATEMENT The purpose of these tree protection provisions is to recggnize and protect the valuable asset embodied in the trees that exist on private lands within the city and ensure that the existing trees of Salt Lake City continue to provide benefit to its citizens. Essential to effective tree protection is the understanding of tree growth requirements having to do with space, water, and soil quality needs, among other qualities. Good, early planning, site design, and construction management practices are key to allowing trees to prosper. Preconstruction planning and mitigation of potential impacts that development may have on trees is necessary and one of the purposes of this section. Numerous community and personal benefits arise from the presence of trees in urbanized areas - both on residential and non-residential lands- and it is the intent of this section through the protection of the trees to: 1. Enhance the quality of life in the city and protect public heath_and.safety: 2. Preserve and enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the city; 3. Enhance public and private property for greater enjoyment and usability due to the shade,cooling, and the aesthetic beauty afforded by trees; 4. Protect and improve the real estate values of the city; 5. Preserve and enhance air and water quality; 6. Reduce noise, glare, dust, and heat, and moderate climate, including urban heat island effect; 7. Increase slope stability, and control erosiomand sediment run-off into streams and waterways; 8. Protect the natural habitat and ecosystems of the city; 9. Conserve energy by reducing heating and cooling costs; and 10. Preserve the function of mature trees to absorb greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. A. APPLICABILITY 1. General The standards in this section shall apply to new development in the city unless exempted in accordance with Section C,Exemptions. The standards in this section shall apply at the time of a development application for"development"as defined in the zoning ordinance. , 2. Other Regulations Ordinance No. 75 of 1988, the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Ordinance,addressing the protection of trees located on public property owned by the city and in rights of way., shall remain in effect. B. EXEMPTIONS The following specimen tree removal activities are exempt from the standards of this section upon confirmation and approval by the Urban Forester: ... 1. The removal of dead.damaged,or naturally fallen trees,or in cases of community emergency; 2. When in conjunction with the construction of a single-or two-family residence not part of a proposed new subdivision; 3. The removal of trees on an existing legal lot when not associated with new development; 4. The removal of trees in such a condition that they pose a threat to structures or natural features on the site,on adjoining properties,or in the public right of way; 5. The removal of diseased trees posing a threat to adjacent trees; 6. The selective and limited removal of trees necessary to obtain clear visibility at driveways or intersections; 7. The removal of trees associated with development at the.Salt Lake City Airport only as necessary to provide safe operations; 8. The removal of trees when required by the Urban Forester for the purposes of conflict with utilities or streets. C DEFINITIONS 1. "Caliper"shall mean the dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk measured at a distance of 4'6"from the ground. 7{. "Maximum extent practicable" shall mean no feasible or practical alternative exists,as determined by the Urban Forester, and all possible efforts to comply with the standards or regulations and minimize potential harmful or adverse impacts have been undertaken by the applicant.Economic considerations may be taken into account but shall not be the overriding factor in determining "maximum extent practicable." 3. "Specimen tree"shall mean a structurally sound mature tree,native or introduced. that is characteristic of the species;with space and essential requirements for its growth both above and below ground compatible with existing and proposed site conditions;whose future vitality can be reasonably expected and maintained with proper protection and regularly scheduled care; whose contributions to carbon sequestration,shade footprint,soil permeability,and aesthetics is high;and whose absence from the landscape would significantly alter the site's appearance, character or history.See Tree Protection Appendix A for listing of species,sizes, and conditions that are likely specimen trees. 4. "Tree protection area" is the area of a development site that includes the area located within the drip line of specimen trees and also includes the area that supports tree health requirements and interactions as determined by the Urban Forester. D. STANDARDS l. Preservation of Specimen Trees Specimen trees shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the Urban Forester, unless exempted pursuant to Section C. Exemptions. In determining if preservation is impracticable, the city shall consider the following criteria, including but not limited to: a. Whether an alternative location or configuration of the development including elements such as parking or structures on the site would be feasible to accomplish tree preservation,without negatively impacting adjacent properties b. Whether preservation of the specimen tree would render all permitted development on the property infeasible,or c. If development of the property will provide significant community benefits that outweigh tree preservation. 2. Cutting, Removal ,or Harm Prohibited Specimen trees shall not be cut,removed,pushed over, killed,or otherwise ,, harmed unless approved to Section D.1,above. • a. Paving,Fill.Excavation,or Soil Compaction Prohibited The tree protection area of any protected specimen tree shall not be subjected to paving, filling, excavation,or soil compaction. 3. Mitigation Where the city determines it is not practicable to preserve a specimen tree on the development site, the following mitigation provisions shall apply. a. Replacement Tree Required Two caliper inches of replacement trees shall be provided for each caliper of specimen tree removed(For example,if a 24"caliper specimen tree is removed, it must be replaced with at least 24 trees of a minimum 2"caliper or eight trees with a 6"caliper). Each replacement tree shall be a minimum of two caliper inches,and shall either be replanted prior to certificate of occupancy or within a conditional timeframe as approved by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the Urban Forester. Replacement trees shall not be used to meet any other landscape requirements,but be in addition to such requirements. Replacement trees shall be planted on the lot or site where the specimen tree was removed except where the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the Urban Forester finds the following: al The site does not provide for adequate landscape surface area to accommodate the total number of replacement trees:or • !_2_)That due to unique soil types,topography, or unusual characteristics of the site, the likelihood of successful tree growth is diminished. In such cases, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of the specimen tree in the form of payment to the city's tree fund as provided below. b. Cash In-Lieu Payment/Tree Fund Contribution Applicants who are permitted to remove a specimen tree but not plant a replacement tree on site shall make a cash in-lieupayment into the city's tree fund. c. Modification by Zoning Administrator The Zoning Administrator may modify any dimensional standard such as setbacks and height limits by up to 20%if such modification will result in preservation of a specimen tree. d. Landscape Credit Provided Any development that preserves a specimen tree shall be granted credit towards any required landscaping tree planting:requirements pursuant to Chapter 2IA.48 of the Zoning Ordinance,the Subdivision Code, and Site Development Ordinance on a 2:1 basis(2 inches of caliper credit for every inch of caliper preserved). E. SPECIMEN TREE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION L'. Owner's Responsibility During construction, the applicant shall be responsible for the ongoing health of specimen trees located on the site. This includes basic tree maintenance and watering throughout the term of construction. The owner shall also ensure the erection of barriers necessary to protect any existing or installed specimen tree from damage during and after construction. 2. Tree Protection Fencing a. When Required Specimen trees shall be fenced in accordance with this subsection before any grading,excavating,or other land-disturbing activity begins on a construction site. Fencing shall protect the tree from excavation, fill, compaction, or other impacts that would threaten tree health. No construction, grading,equipment or material storage,or any other activity shall be allowed within the fenced area except in accordance with the standards in subsection 3,below., Encroachments into Tree Protection Areas and Root Zones. Fencing shall be maintained until the land disturbance activities are complete. The tree protection fencing shall be clearly shown on the required development applications such as a site plan,building permit, or grading permit application. aowia.. a b. Location Fencing shall extend at least one foot in distance from the edge of the drip line of a specimen tree or group of specimen trees. c. Type of Fencing The developer shall erect a plastic mesh or chain link fence a minimum of four feet in height at the drip line around each specimen tree or group of specimen trees. Such fencing shall be secured to withstand construction activity and weather on the site and maintained in a functional condition. d. Inspection All tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the Urban Forester prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities. 3. Encroachments Into Tree Protection Areas and Root Zones Encroachments into a tree protection area or within the rootzones of trees protected in accordance with this subsection shall,occur only.in rare instances. If such encroachment is anticipated,the following•preventative measures shall be employed prior to the action: a. Arborist Report Written verification is prepared by a certified arborist of the tree's condition before and after encroachment,including.preventative measures that shall be employed prior to,during,and after the encroachment to insure the viability of the tree. b. Soil Compaction Where compaction might occur due to planned,temporary traffic through or materials placed within the protection area,the area shall first be mulched with a minimum four-inch laver of wood chips or a six-inch layer of pine straw. Plywood sheet or metal plate coverage of the impacted area may be accepted by the Urban Forester when high moisture conditions warrant. Equipment or materials storage shall not be allowed with the tree protection zone. c. Grade Changes Grade changes that alter existing conditions of soil moisture content:historic drainage patterns: and/or diffusion of atmospheric gases entering and exiting the soil profile can injure and/or kill frees. In the event proposed site development requires soil elevation changes tree protection measures designed to mitigate harm to the tree(s)shall be coordinated with the Zoning Administrator and Urban Forester. d. Construction Debris/Effluent In no instance shall any debris or effluent associated with the construction process, including equipment or vehicle washing,concrete mixing,pouring, or rinsing processes,drain onto lands within tree protection.areas. F. MAINTENANCE Any new trees used to replace specimen trees shall be maintained in a healthy condition and cared for pursuant to the standards of the.CityForester. If in the opinion of the city,replacement trees show signs of decline or'mortality within the first two years of planting,they shall be replaced by the applicant. G. REMOVAL PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT If a specimen tree is removed from a site within twoyears prior to any development application on the site by the applicant or someone associated with the applicant, the applicant shall mitigate for such removal on a 3:1 caliper basis pursuant to the provisions of Section E.3 above. H. ENFORCEMENT These tree protection provisions shall be subject to the zoning and development enforcement codes as adopted by the city. SECTION 4. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.48.090. That section 21A.48.090 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning: Landscaping and Buffers: Landscape Yards), shall be, and hereby is,amended to read as follows: 21A.48.090: LANDSCAPE YARDS: Landscape yards are yards devoted exclusively to landscaping except,however, that driveways and sidewalks needed to serve the use and buildings on the lot may be located within a required landscape yard.As used in this chapter,the term "landscaping"shall be defined as set forth in section 21A.62.040, "Definitions",of this title. No specific improvements are required within landscape yards,except that all landscape areas shall be maintained with at least one-third('/3)of the yard(s)area covered by vegetation, which may include trees, shrubs, grasses, annual or perennial plants and vegetable plants. • 11 Mulches such as organic mulch, gravel,rocks and boulders shall be a minimum depth of three inches(31i) or more,dependent on the material used,to control weeds and erosion in unpianted areas and between plants,and that these aforementioned items at all times coyer any installed weed block barriers that cover the ground surface. SECTION 5. 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 day of . 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: HB ATTY-f115905-v1-Ordinance _5usiainability_landscapin&water trces.DOC Attachment B Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Design Manual Outline/Table of Contents I. Purpose II. Applicability III. Submittal Requirements for New Landscapes or Landscape Rehabilitation Projects IV. Landscape General Design Guidelines Maintenance Management Landscape Design Specifications and Best Management Practices (Table 4.1) V. Irrigation Design Installation Maintenance Management Recommendations/Requirements Table (Table 5.1) VI. Backflow Prevention Design Introduction Culinary Water as Sole Source Culinary water as a supplementary source to other non-potable sources Testing Submittals: Backflow Prevention Plans Review procedure Standards Inspection, Maintenance, Enforcement VII. Definitions VIII. Bibliography Page 1 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review Appendices and Table Listing Appendix A: Submittal Requirements Documentation Packet Checklist Appendix B: Hydrozone Information Table Appendix C: Sample Calculation/Estimated Annual Applied Water Use Appendix D Certification of Design Appendix E Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet Appendix F Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo)Table Appendix G Irrigation Audit Report Appendix H Backflow Preventer Installation Diagrams Diagram 1.1 Diagram1.2 Diagram1.3 Diagram 1.4 Diagram 1.5 .00014 Diagram 1.6 Appendix I Backflow Assembly Test Form Appendix J Winterizing Irrigation Systems and Backflow Preventers Table 4.1: Recommendations/Requirements Table Page 2 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review 3 I. Purpose This manual provides information pertaining to best management practices that enhance the efficiency of water use and reduce or eliminate water waste in the landscape, through accepted and improved practices in landscape design, plant selection and placement, irrigation design, and the installation, maintenance, and management of those processes. The practices contained herein, and the standards that are outlined, range in nature from recommendations to requirements. And while these standards apply to only those landscape installations that are covered under the Water Efficient Landscaping Code (21A.48.055), it is hoped that anyone installing a landscape, will find the information useful and will be inspired to meet those highest possible standards for water efficiency. II. Applicability All new commercial development and specified residential development of a certain size are obligated to meet the standards set forth in this manual. For specific information pertaining to applicability, please review Water Efficient Landscaping(21A.48.055). Ill. Submittal Requirements In addition to the submittal requirements set forth in Section 21A.48.030, Landscape Plan, the applicant shall complete the items identified below and listed on the Submittal Requirements Documentation Packet Checklist(Appendix A). The hydro-zone table and water budget calculations sheet shall be prepared by a licensed landscaped architect, licensed civil engineer, licensed architect, certified irrigation professional, or other landscape professional appropriately licensed or recognized by the State of Utah or Salt Lake City. 1. A hydrozone table (Appendix B) that contains the following information: a. A listing of each hydrozone that is contained in the landscape plan. b. For each hydrozone listed, the table shall set forth: (1) plant and turf types to be used as categorized and defined in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide or other water-efficient plant list approved by the Public Utilities Department. (2) location, surface area, and type of water features to be installed in that hydrozone, (3) irrigation methods to be used, and (4) square footage and percentage of the total landscaped area of the project represented by that hydrozone. Page 3 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review 2. Water budget calculations (Appendix C) shall: a. Use the formula for water budgets set forth in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide, b. Use the appropriate plant factor from the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide. Any plan that mixes plants with different water requirements in a single hydrozone shall use the plant factor for the plant with the highest water use in the hydrozone. c. Include temporarily irrigated areas in the low-water use hydrozone. d. Set forth the type and surface area of all water features including swimming pools shall be included in the high-water use hydrozone as defined in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide. e. Calculate the water usage of exempt landscaped areas as defined in Section 21A.48.055.A.3 above shall be calculated using the formula set forth in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide. 3. The type, location, and size of exempt landscaped areas as defined in Section 21A.48.055.A.3 above. 4. A soil report providing information on soil texture, pH, percent organic matter, and other information as specified by the zoning administrator and with areas proposed for soil amendment identified, as defined in 21A.48.010; 5. A planting plan with delineation of areas to be planted with edible plants and areas to be mulched with type of mulch to be used, location, and application depth, as defined in 21A.48.010; 6. An irrigation plan, as defined in 21A.48.010; 7. A backflow prevention plan indicating the type of device and location on the system, as defined in 21A.48.055, Section V; 8. A grading plan, as defined in 21A.48.010; 9. Irrigation Audit Report, as defined in 21A.48.055, Section IV; and 10. Other documentation as required in the Salt Lake City Irrigation and Landscape Manual. Page 4 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review z IV. Landscape General Conservation Practices It is common knowledge that we live in an arid climate and the irrigation of landscapes will always be part of our urban environment. Shade trees, shrubbery, flowers, and vegetables help to make our homes and communities not only enjoyable, but sustainable. Select Appropriate Plants Select plants with lower water demands, increased disease and pest resistance, salt tolerance, and that are adaptive to our dry summers and winters. Group plants with similar water needs. From a water-conservation standpoint, and a horticultural one, this approach makes sense. When plants need to be watered at the same frequency and for the same length 9of time are grouped together, an irrigation line or valve can be dedicated to that grouping, delivering what the plants need and no more. This is called hydro-zoning. Irrigate Efficiently and Effectively To be most efficient, the type of irrigation delivery method used needs to match the situation, the soil, and the plants. While drip and micro emitters may seem the best choice to lessen water waste, they are not the best solution in every instance. Also, when plants are hydro-zoned, the best delivery method for each plant grouping may be used. Plant trees Plants under trees generally require less water because the shade lowers air and soil temperatures, reducing moisture loss. This is especially true for many turf grasses and groundcovers. People are also cooler under trees, and properly placed trees and reduce air- conditioning costs up to 40 percent(Southern California Edison). Improve soil and add mulch Adding organic material to garden soil improves its texture, enabling water to more through the soil profile but not so fast that plants can't take advantage of available water. 3 to 4 inches worked into the top 12 to 18 inches can make a big difference. And work the entire area to be planted, not just the holes dug for plants. That way, as the plant grows it will be able to take advantage of the improved soil. Maintaining a mulch of 3 to 4 inches helps conserve water by lowering soil temperature, reducing evaporation, and inhibiting weeds. While it is true that many of our Utah native plants prefer poorer soils, most urban sites have soils that are unnaturally compacted due to construction, and loosening the soil for these plants may help them in establishing. Select mulch type for the plant grouping: desert plants prefer small rock or sand, while other plants prefer plant-based mulches Avoid the use of plastic and fiber barriers Placing plastic sheeting under mulch layers, whether rock or plant-based, prevents water and air penetration into the soil and increases run-off and is prohibited. The use of fiber cloth is discouraged as, even though it is designed to allow the transfer of water and air into Page 5 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review the soil, use of such products can slow that movement and negatively affect plant and soil health Installation • Installation of plants shall be in accordance with SLC Planning Guidelines. Other considerations follow: • If soil is to be amended, organic or engineered material should be incorporated into entire planting area, to a depth of 12 inches. • Root balls should be roughed in a manner to encourage roots to grow into indigenous soil. Burlap and wire containments shall be completed removed. • Backfilling shall occur with indigenous soils or indigenous soils mixed with amending medium. • Plants shall be placed in planting holes such that the top of the plant's root ball is above the soil plane. Perennials and other plants in gallon or smaller containers can be up to 'h to 1 inch above grade; shrubs and trees in 1 to 5 gallon containers can be up to 2 inches above grade; plants in containers larger than 5 gallons or BB can be as high as 4 inches above grade. Am* • Mulch shall be placed around plants and in areas between plants to a depth of 4 inches, but not placed against trucks and bases of plants. Maintenance Landscape plants and mulch shall be maintained in a manner that supports and encourages root establishment, optimizes the shape and form of selected plants, discourages diseases and pests, and controls weeds. Management Just as buildings are managed to ensure continued good function and utility, landscapes, too, need to be managed to ensure that they continue to function as intended. Whereas maintenance addresses daily needs such as mowing or pruning, management needs to take the users into consideration. Landscape Design Specifications and Best Management Practices Landscapes can be designed in such a way as to encourage the reduction of water demand and to lessen or even eliminate water waste. These practices might include the size and placement of planting areas; the selection and placement of specific plants; and other practices. gym: Page 6 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review a Table 4.1 Recommendations/Requirements Table Action Minimum/Required Better Best Hydrozone Plants must be grouped Avoid plants ih "oasis" Utilize plants in plants together in distinct zone Zones 1 —3 irrigation zones based on their water demand (ref. SLC Plant List) Mulch 3 to 4 inches Turf Selection Restrict oasis turf grasses to 20% of landscapeable area Water demand Does not exceed ETo Requires only 25%of Requires 50% or less ETo of ETo Plant selection Select plants adaptable Select disease Utilize native plants, to local climate, and resistant and low- or species, geologic and maintenance plants, selections, of native topographic conditions, and provide adequate plants and that appear in SLC spacing for mature Plant list or other size approved list Turf area Utilize turf in larger, Minimize large, non- Utilize turf only in contiguous areas to functional turf areas areas of maximum maximize irrigation human contact efficiencies Turf placement Avoid long, narrow, or No turf in areas with 8 No turf adjacent to irregularly shaped turf feet or less in any sidewalks and areas measurement, and buildings areas between sidewalks and curbs Annual Color Plants not identified in Use annual color Contain annual color Plantings SLC Plant List or other plantings only in high plantings to approved list shall be visibility/impact areas containers in high limited to 20% of impact/visibility areas landscapeable area Overspray and Sprinkler head radius is Pressure Spray heads are not misting selected to minimize compensating adjacent to buildings over-spray and run-off screens/devices shall or non-permeable be specified on all sidewalks to avoid sprayheads over-spray and run- to reduce radius as off needed to prevent overthrow onto hardscape and/or to control high pressure misting. Irrigation Programmable Soil/moisture sensing Soil/weather sensing controller controllers that allow for controllers controllers that make watering schedules that automated daily match water demand of adjustments to hydrozones watering schedule. Sensor placement Page 7 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review reflects site microclimates Rain sensor Time of Day Irrigation occurs during Irrigation occurs coolest part of day for between 10 pm and 8 spray heads am Watering Different hydrozones Schedules are watered on separate schedules Existing Native When appropriate, Plants natural, native vegetation is preserved and incorporated into the landscape design IV. Irrigation Efficiency Typically, half of irrigation water can be wasted as a result of evaporation, wind, improper system design, and overwatering. Selecting efficient irrigation systems, planting vegetation appropriate for site conditions and climate, and using captured rainwater or graywater can reduce water waste and conserve sources of potable water. Irrigation System Design Standards 1)All irrigation systems shall be designed to avoid runoff onto hardscape from low head drainage, overspray, and other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, or structures. 2)The irrigation system shall be automatic, constructed to discourage vandalism, and simple to maintain. 3)All equipment shall be of proven design with local service available. 4) Control valves should be rated at 200 PSI. I5 6)All heads should have a minimum number of wearing pieces with an extended life cycle. 7) Lawn and shrub sprayheads shall be set back from hardscape a minimum of 18 inches. Rotor type heads shall be set back a minimum of 4 feet from hardscape. 8) Design sprayhead and rotor head stations with consideration for worst wind conditions. Close spacing and low-angle nozzles are required in high and frequent wind areas. 9) Spacing of sprinkler heads shall not exceed manufacturer's maximum recommendations for proper coverage. The plan design shall show a minimum of 0.75 (75%)distribution uniformity. 10) Only irrigation heads with matched precipitation rates shall be circuited on the same valve. Page 8 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review 3 11)Valve circuiting shall be designed to be consistent with hydrozones. 12) Sprinklers, drippers, valves, etc., must be operated within manufacturer's specifications. 13)The use of drip, micro-irrigation, pressure compensating (PC) bubblers, or multi- stream/multi-trajectory(MS/MT)sprays is encouraged for all shrubs and trees. Small, narrow (less than 8 feet), irregularly shaped or sloping areas shall be irrigated with drip, micro-spray, PC (pressure-compensating) bubbler heads, or MS/MT. 14)Trees in turf areas shall be on a separate station to provide proper deep watering. 15) Street median irrigation. a) No overhead sprinkler irrigation system shall be installed in median strips or in islands narrower than 8 feet. b) Median strips and islands narrower than eight(8)feet shall be surface drip, subsurface drip, PC bubbler, or MS/MT irrigated. 16) Meter sizing for landscape purposes shall be 40 gpm per planted acre. Maximum design meter flow rates are: 3/4" = 23 gpm, 1" = 37 gpm, 1-1/2" = 80 gpm, 2" = 120 gpm D. Drip Irrigation Design. 1)The drip system must be sized for mature-size plants. 2)The irrigation system should complete all irrigation cycles during peak use in about 12 hours. Normally, each irrigation controller should not have more than four drip stations that operate simultaneously. All drip valves may be operated at any one time during an irrigation cycle provided gpm does not exceed supply. 3) Field installed below ground pipe connections shall be threaded PVC or glued PVC. Surface laid hose and tubing is not allowed. Microtube distribution is not allowed unless emitter/manifold is installed in an access box. Microtubing must be buried at least 6 inches below grade and the end of microtubing must be secured by a stake. The maximum length of microtubing must be specified on the plan to be 10 feet or less. 4) Proportion gallons per day per plant according to plant size. The following sizing chart is for peak water use. The low to high end of the range is according to the relative water requirements of the plants. The low end is for desert natives and the high end is for medium water use type plants. Size of Plant Gallons Per Day Large trees (over 30-foot diameter) 58+ to 97+ Medium trees(about 18-foot diameter) 21 to 35 Small trees/large shrubs (9-foot diameter) 6 to 10 Medium shrubs (3.5-foot diameter) .8 to 1.3 Page 9 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review S Small shrubs/groundcover .5 or less 5) Multiple emitter point sources of water for large shrubs and trees must provide continuous bands of moisture from the root ball out to the mature drip line plus 20 percent of the plant diameter. 6) Most plants require 50 percent or more of the soil volume within the drip line to be wetted by the irrigation system. okilaC Page 10 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review V. Backflow Prevention Backflow preventers are used to protect the culinary water system from contamination hazards inherent in irrigation systems and are required by state regulations (see Utah Plumbing Code- IPC 2009 edition, as amended and Salt Lake City Ordinances Chapter 21A.26). For backflow prevention purposes there are two general categories or types of irrigation systems utilizing backflow prevention devices and assemblies: , first, plans utilizing culinary water only, and second, plans utilizing both culinary and non-potable water for irrigation. Other systems utilizing solely non-potable water require no backflow protection. Culinary water as a sole source: Irrigation systems utilizing culinary water have four options for backflow protection of which three are commonly used. The first and preferred method is to install atmospheric vacuum breakers (AVB), one per zone downstream of the control valve for each zone and at an elevation at least six (6) inches higher than the highest sprinkler head on the system. This is the least expensive backflow preventer of the four but requires one AVB per zone. This type of backflow protection requires no annual testing which is an advantage because of no ongoing costs (See Diagram 1.1). The second option is the pressure vacuum breaker(PVB) installation including another variation called the spill-resistant vacuum breaker(SVB) . The PVB and SVB can be used interchangeably. The PVB or SVB backflow preventer is more expensive than the AVB mentioned above, but can be installed ahead of all zones of the system. However, it must be installed at least twelve (12) inches above the ground and twelve inches above the highest sprinkler head of the entire system. This valve is required to be tested at least annually, or oftener as required by the Department of Public Utilities. (See diagram 1.2). The third option is to install a reduced pressure backflow preventer(RP). An RP can also be installed ahead of all zones of an irrigation system. It must also be installed where it is not subject to flooding and at least twelve (12) inches above the surrounding ground but does not have to be above the highest head of the irrigation system. It is the most expensive of the other three types and is also required to be tested at least annually, or oftener as required by the Department of Public Utilities. . Chemical addition such as fertilizers or pesticides may only be injected or pumped into an irrigation system downstream of an RP. (See diagram 1.3). The fourth option is the installation of an air-gap (AG)tank. Pumping is required because city water pressure is lost through the air-gap. This type of system is one of the most expensive to install and operate since electrical connections must be made and pumps must be maintained. Chemical addition such as fertilizers or pesticides may only be injected or pumped into an irrigation system downstream of the air-gap tank or added to the air-gap tank. This type of backflow prevention is rarely, if ever used for irrigation systems utilizing culinary water as a sole Source (See diagram 1.4 for installation requirements). Culinary water as a supplementary source to other non-potable sources: This type of installation requires either an air-gap tank as outlined in diagram 1.5 or an RP as outlined in diagram 1.6. A disadvantage to the RP installation is the annual or more often testing requirement and the requirement to disconnect the potable water source downstream of the RP whenever the non-potable source is being used. (See Utah Code Annotated 19-4-112, (d)). Page 11 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review Testing: Annual or oftener testing is required for the PVB/SVB and RP types of backflow prevention installations (see section 312.10 of the Utah Plumbing code (IPC 2009 edition, as amended) and in the Utah Public Drinking Water Regulations section 309-105-12 (4). The Department of Public Utilities will usually notify each customer at least annually when testing is due. Testing must be accomplished by a currently certified backflow assembly technician. A list of the currently certified technicians or testers is available from the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality web site (drinkingwater.utah.gov/documents/compliance/backflow technicians_by_name.pdf). Testing costs for testing the two testable types: a). PVB/SVB; and b). RP; currently range anywhere from $50.00 to $150.00 per test. Failure, to complete the required test will require the termination of water service to the premises as stated in the Utah Public Drinking Water Regulations section 309-105-12 (1). Submittals: Backflow Prevention Plans: Irrigation systems utilizing culinary water either alone or in tandem with non-potable water must state the type of system being proposed on the plan documents, including the type of backflow prevention devices, and their location and an outline of the sprinkler zones being supplied water from the backflow prevention devices. Besides the items mentioned in the proposed ordinance the following information should be included on the submittal: a). General site information, including the location of all culinary water services to the property. b). The location of any non-culinary sources of water proposed to be used on the site for irrigation, including rainwater, gray water, other recycled water, non-potable pressurized irrigation water, ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, cisterns, wells, etc. c). The location and elevation of any hills, berms, water features, swales, rain gardens, terracing or other landscaped areas as well as the location of any areas to be temporarily irrigated. d). The location and description of all chemical application apparatus such as fertigation equipment, etc. e). An explanation outlining the reasons for proposing a particular type of backflow preventer f). A drawing of the proposed irrigation and backflow preventer winterization and seasonal shut-down features. Review procedure: Certificate of occupancy: An irrigation system with AVB's will not be approved until the proper installation has been verified by inspection at the completion of the irrigation system installation. An irrigation system with testable backflow preventers such as PVB/SVB's and RP's will not be approved until proper installation, certified testing, and operation has been verified. Standards: Irrigation Systems: (Design and installation of backflow prevention devices & assemblies: ) Backflow preventers shall meet the approval requirements of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality as outlined in the "List of Approved Devices and Assemblies" and in the "State of Utah Cross Connection Guide" as to approved devices and assemblies and their installation. See website below: http://www.drinkinawater.utah.gov/documents/rules ddw version/R309-1 05 9-24-09.pdf I. Irrigation system design should preferentially utilize atmospheric vacuum breakers where potable water is the sole source of water supply(See diagram 1.1 "Landscape and Irrigation - Typical Residential and Commercial Recommended Installation" in Appendix 1). Page 12 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review II. Irrigation systems utilizing non-potable or non-culinary sources in addition to a culinary source shall utilize the air-gap backflow prevention method (diagram 1.5), or the reduced pressure backflow preventer(diagram 1.6), ahead of any connections to the irrigation system. Design shall be in accordance with recognized standards as shown in diagrams 1.5 and diagram 1.6 and shall be in conformance with the provisions of the Utah Plumbing Code (IPC 2009 as amended). III. Installation of backflow preventers for the irrigation system shall be in accordance with manufacturer's requirements and the Utah Plumbing Code. The Utah Public Drinking Water Regulations requirements to protect the drinking water shall prevail in all cases as may be determined by the Department of Public Utilities. (R309-105-12 (1)"The water supplier shall not allow a connection to his system which may jeopardize its quality and integrity") Inspection, Maintenance, Enforcement: I. Pre-occupancy inspection shall be made before final approval of the installation is given. Approval will require a certification from the installer that the system is in compliance with the plans and requirements and shall contain test reports of backflow preventers requiring initial and annual testing. Backflow preventer installations shall be in compliance with the drawings in the appendix. Backflow preventers requiring test shall be tested and certified as properly operating by a currently certified (Utah certified)technician before final approval. Test results shall be reported on test forms approved by the Department of Public Utilities (see appendix). II. Maintenance: shall be performed to correct any deficiencies shown to exist after inspection of installation or after testing of backflow preventers. Test reports shall be submitted annually on approved forms during the anniversary month of the original approval date & other dates as determined by the Department of Public Utilities. Failed test reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Utilities within five (5)days of the failed test. Backflow preventer repair parts shall be manufacturer's original equipment replacement parts. Irrigation system repairs & parts shall be of a quality acceptable to the Department. Backflow preventer installations shall be protected from vandalism, tampering freezing, etc. III. Enforcement: Termination of water service to the premises may result from inability, refusal, neglect, or failure, to correct any deficiencies found during inspections, or reported on annual or oftener required tests of backflow preventers by the Department of Public Utilities. Page 13 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review 3 Definitions and Abbreviations AIR-GAP OR AG: a method of backflow protection requiring the complete physical separation of the water supply line from any downstream uses. Common examples are the common kitchen sink spout or the modern bathtub spout which is at least two (2) pipe diameters of the spout above the top or flood rim of the sink or tub. ANTIDRAIN VALVE or CHECK VALVE -A valve located under/in a sprinkler head to hold water in the system so it eliminates drainage from the lower elevation sprinkler heads. APPLICATION RATE—The depth of water applied to a given area, usually measured in inches per hour. Also known as precipitation rate (sprinklers)or emission rate (drippers/microsprayers) in gallons per hour. APPLIED WATER—The portion of water supplied by the irrigation system to the landscape. ATMOSPHERIC VACUUM BREAKER OR AVB: a type of backflow preventer utilized for back siphonage backflow protection which requires proper height and valve placement to function properly. It must be installed at least six inches above the surrounding ground and above the highest head of the sprinkler system and downstream of the last control or zone valve. No annual testing is required. AUTOMATIC CONTROLLER—A electronic or solid-state timer, capable of operating valve stations to set the days, time and length of time of a water application. " ft BACKFLOW PREVENTOR—A mechanical device or assembly used to prevent pollution or contamination of the water supply due to the reverse flow of water from the irrigation system and that meets the specifications set forth in the Salt Lake City Irrigation and Landscape Design Manual. BENEFICIAL USE—Water used for landscape evapotranspiration. BILLING UNITS—Units of water(100 cubic feet= 1 billing unit= 748 gallons)for billing purposes. To convert gallons per year to 100 cubic feet per year, divide gallons per year by 748. (748 gallons = 100 cubic feet). CALIPER - dimension of the diameter of a tree trunk measured at a distance of 4' 6"from the ground. CONVERSION FACTOR (0.62)—A number that converts the maximum applied water allowance from acre-inches per acre to gallons per square foot. The conversion factor is calculated as follows: (325,851 gallons/43,560 square feet)/12 inches = (0.62) 325,851 gallons = one acre-foot 43,560 square feet= one acre 12 inches = one foot CULINARY WATER as a SOLE SOURCE IRRIGATION SYSTEM: an irrigation system utilizing only culinary water. Page 14 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review CULINARY WATER as a SUPPLEMENTARY SOURCE IRRIGATION SYSTEM: an irrigation system utilizing both culinary and other non-potable sources such as rainwater, grey water, other recycled water, non-potable pressurized irrigation water, ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, cisterns, wells, etc. DESERT LANDSCAPE—A desert landscape using native plants spaced to look like a native habitat. DISTRIBUTION UNIFORMITY—A measure of how evenly sprinklers apply water. The low-quarter measurement method (DULQ) utilized in the irrigation audit procedure is utilized for the purposes of this ordinance. This ordinances assumes an attainable performance level of 75% DULQ for sprayheads, 80% DULQ for rotor heads and 85% DULQ for recreational turfgrass rotor heads. DRIP IRRIGATION —A method of irrigation where the water is applied slowly at the base of plants without watering the open space between plants. ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PROJECT—A project where the site is intentionally altered to establish a defined, indigenous, historic ecosystem. EFFECTIVE PRECIPITATION or USABLE RAINFALL—The portion of total natural precipitation that is used by the plants, usually assumed to be three inches annually. Precipitation or rainfall is not considered a reliable source of water in the desert. ELECTRONIC CONTROLLERS -Time clocks that have the capabilities of multiprogramming, water budgeting and multiple start times. EMISSION UNIFORMITY—A measure of how evenly drip and microspray emitters apply water. The low-quarter measurement method (EULQ) utilized in the landscape irrigation evaluation procedure is utilized for the purposes of this ordinance. This ordinance assumes 90% DULQ for drippers, microsprays and pressure compensating bubblers. EMITTER— Drip irrigation fittings that deliver water slowly from the system to the soil. ESTABLISHED LANDSCAPE—The point at which new plants in the landscape have developed roots into the soil adjacent to the root ball. ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD -The first year after installing the plant in the landscape. ESTIMATED ANNUAL APPLIED WATER USE (By hydrozone)—The portion of the estimated annual total applied water use that is derived from applied water to a specified hydrozone. ESTIMATED ANNUAL TOTAL APPLIED WATER USE (Total of all hydrozones)—The annual total amount of water estimated to be needed by all hydrozones to keep the plants and water features in the landscaped area healthy and visually pleasing. It is based upon such factors as the local evapotranspiration rate, the size of the landscaped area, the size and type of water Page 15 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review 3 ey feature, the types of plants, and the efficiency of the irrigation system. The estimated annual total applied water use shall not exceed the maximum applied water allowance. EVAPOTRANSPIRATION or ET-The quantity of water evaporated from adjacent soil surfaces and transpired by plants expressed in inches during a specific time. The quantity of water evaporated from adjacent soil and other surfaces and transpired by plants during a specified time. Reference ET or ETo is a standard of measurement of environmental parameters that affect the water use of plants. ETo is expressed in inches of water per day, month, or year and is an estimate of the evapotranspiration of a large field of four- to-seven inch tall cool-season grass that is well-watered. Reference ET is used as a basis for determining the Maximum Applied Water Allowances. Reference ET for the Salt Lake City area is defined in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide. ET ADJUSTMENT FACTOR-A factor of 0.6 that, when applied to reference evapotranspiration, adjusts for plant factors and irrigation efficiency, two major influences upon the amount of water that needs to be applied to the landscape. A combined plant mix with a site-wide average 0.45 is the basis of the plant factor portion of this calculation. The irrigation efficiency for purposes of the ET adjustment factor is 0.75. Therefore, the ET adjustment factor (0.6) =(0.45/0.75). FLOW RATE-The rate at which water flows through pipes, valves and meters (gallons per minute or cubic feet per second). HARDSCAPE - Concrete or asphalt areas including streets, parking lots, sidewalks, driveways and patios and decks. HEAD-TO-HEAD COVERAGE - One hundred percent sprinkler coverage of the area to be irrigated, with maximum practical uniformity. HIGH FLOW CHECK VALVE -A valve located under/in a sprinkler head to stop the flow of water if the sprayhead is broken or missing. HYDROZONE -A portion of the landscaped area having plants with similar water needs that are served by a valve or set of valves with the same schedule. A hydrozone may be irrigated or nonirrigated. Hydrozones and applicable plants are further defined in the Salt Lake City Plant and Turf Guide. INFILTRATION RATE -The rate of water entry into the soil expressed as a depth of water per unit of time (inches per hour). IPC - International Plumbing Code 2009 edition, adopted as the Utah Plumbing Code with amendments IRRIGATION AUDIT-An in-depth evaluation of the performance of an irrigation system that includes, but is not limited to an on-site inspection, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity or emission uniformity, reporting overspray or runoff that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. Page 16 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review a IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY-The measurement of the amount of water beneficially used divided by the amount of water applied. Irrigation efficiency is derived from measurements and estimates of irrigation system characteristics and management practices. The minimum irrigation efficiency for purposes of these regulations is 0.75 or 75 percent. Greater irrigation efficiency can be expected from well-designed and maintained systems. LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION AUDIT-A process to perform site inspections, evaluate irrigation systems, and develop efficient irrigation schedules. LANDSCAPED AREA-The entire parcel less the building footprint, driveways, nonirrigated portions of the parking lots, hardscapes such as decks and patios, and other nonporous areas. Water features are included in the calculation of a site's landscaped area. LATERAL LINE -The water delivery pipeline that supplies water to the emitters or sprinklers from a valve. LOW-VOLUME IRRIGATION -The application of irrigation water at low pressure through a system of tubing or lateral lines and low-volume emitters such as drip, drip lines, and bubblers. Low-volume irrigation systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants. MAIN LINE -The pressurized pipeline that delivers water from the water source to a valve or outlet. MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE - based upon the area's reference evapotranspiration, ET adjustment factor, and the size of the landscaped area. The estimated applied water use shall not exceed the maximum applied water allowance. MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE - shall mean no feasible or practical alternative exists, as determined by the Urban Forester, and all possible efforts to comply with the standards or regulations and minimize potential harmful or adverse impacts have been undertaken by the applicant. Economic considerations may be taken into account but shall not be the overriding factor in determining "maximum extent practicable." MICROIRRIGATION - See drip irrigation. MULCH -Any organic material such as leaves, bark, straw, compost, or inorganic material such as pebbles, stones, gravel, decorative sand or decomposed granite left loose and applied to the soil surface for the beneficial purposes of reducing evaporation, suppressing weeds, moderating soil temperature, and preventing soil erosion. NATIVE PLANTS - Native plants are low water using plants that are: 1) indigenous to the Wasatch Mountain Valley area; 2) native to the southwestern United States and northern Mexico or 3) native to other desert regions of the world, but adapted to the Coachella Valley. NON-CULINARY WATER as a SOLE SOURCE IRRIGATION SYSTEM: an irrigation system utilizing only water from other sources which may be rainwater, grey water, other recycled Page 17 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review 3 water, non-potable pressurized irrigation water, ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, cisterns, wells, etc. OPERATING PRESSURE -The pressure at which an irrigation system's sprinklers, bubblers, drippers or microsprays is designed to operate, usually indicated at the base of an irrigation head. OVERHEAD SPRINKLER IRRIGATION STATIONS - Sprinklers with high flow rates (sprayheads, impulse sprinklers, gear rotors, etc.)that are utilized to apply water through the air to large irrigated areas. OVERSPRAY-The water which is delivered beyond the targeted landscaped area onto pavements, walks, structures or other nonlandscape areas. Also known as hardscape applications. PLANT FACTOR-A factor that when multiplied by reference evapotranspiration, estimates the amount of water used by plants. For purposes of this ordinance, the average plant factor of very low water using plants ranges from 0.01 to 0.10, for low water using plants the range is 0.10 to 0.30, for moderate water using plants the range is 0.40 to 0.60 and for high water using plants, the range is 0.70 to 0.90. Reference: Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species III (WUCOLS III). PRESSURE COMPENSATING SCREENS/DEVICES - Small screens/devices inserted in place of standard screens/devices that are used in sprinkler heads for radius and high pressure control. Pressure Vacuum Breaker or PVB: a type of backflow preventer requiring testing annually or more often and is utilized for back siphonage backflow protection. It requires proper height placement of twelve inches above the surrounding ground and above the highest head of the sprinkler system and should be placed where water spillage is not a problem. QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL -A person who has been certified by their professional organization or a person who has demonstrated knowledge and is locally recognized as qualified among landscape architects due to longtime experience. RAIN-SENSING DEVICE—A system which automatically shuts off the irrigation system when it rains. RAINWATER HARVESTING - Collection of rainwater on site that is used or stored for landscape irrigation. Utah State Code allows for subsurface storage of up to 2500 gallons or above-surface storage of up to two (2)-100 gallon containers. For code specifications and registration, visit www.utah.aov/ RECYCLED WATER-Treated or recycled wastewater of a quality suitable for nonpotable uses such as landscape irrigation. Recyled water is not for human consumption. mow, RECORD DRAWING or AS-BUILTS -A set of reproducible drawings which show significant Page 18 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review a changes in the work made during construction and which are usually based on drawings marked up in the field and other data furnished by the contractor. RECREATIONAL AREA-Areas of active play or recreation such as golf courses, sports fields, school yards, picnic grounds, or other areas with intense foot or vehicular traffic. RECREATIONAL TURFGRASS -Turfgrass that serves as a playing surface for sports and recreational activities. Athletic fields, golf courses, parks and school playgrounds are all examples of areas hosting recreational turfgrass. RECREATIONAL TURFGRASS ET ADJUSTMENT FACTOR-A factor of 0.82 that, when applied to reference evapotranspiration, adjusts for the additional stress of high traffic on recreational turfgrass and the higher irrigation efficiencies of long-range rotary sprinklers. These are the two major influences upon the amount of water that needs to be applied to a recreational landscape. A mixed cool/warm season turfgrass with a seasonal average of 0.7 is the basis of the plant factor portion of this calculation. The irrigation efficiency of long-range sprinklers for purposes of the ET adjustment factor is 0.85. Therefore, the ET adjustment factor is 0.82 = 0.7/0.85. REDUCED-PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY or RP or RPBA: a type of backflow preventer requiring annual or oftener testing and which is utilized for back siphonage and backpressure backflow protection which has a height requirement of twelve (12) inches above ground-level and must be placed where it cannot become submerged REFERENCE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION or ETo -A standard measurement of the environmental parameters which affect the water use of plants, using cool season grass as a reference. ETo is expressed in inches per day, month or year and is an estimate of the evapotranspiration of a large field of cool-season grass that is well watered. Reference evapotranspiration is used as a basis of determining the maximum applied water allowances so that regional differences in climate can be accommodated. REHABILITATED LANDSCAPE -Any relandscaping project whose choice of new plant material and/or new irrigation system components is such that the calculation of the site's estimated water use will be significantly changed. The new estimated water use calculation must not exceed the maximum applied water allowance calculated for the site using a 0.6 ET adjustment factor. REUSE WATER-Treated or recycled waste water of a quality suitable for non-potable uses such as above-ground landscape irrigation and water features. This water is not intended or fit for human consumption. RIPARIAN PLANTS - Riparian plants are high water using and water-loving plants that are found growing naturally along flowing rivers and lake shores. They may also be native to wet swampy areas with high water tables or poor drainage. RUNOFF— Irrigation water which is not absorbed by the soil or landscape to which it is applied and flows from the planted area. Page 19 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review SALT LAKE CITY IRRIGATION and LANDSCAPE DESIGN MANUAL -A manual published and maintained by the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department establishing standards and practices to achieve water-use efficiencies in landscaping. SALT LAKE CITY PLANT and TURF GUIDE -A guide published and maintained by the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department setting forth appropriate plants and turf to be utilized in landscape plans and their associated hydrozones. SERVICE LINE-The pressurized pipeline that delivers water from the water source to the water meter. SOIL AMENDMENT- Elements added to the soil, such as compost, peat moss, vermiculite, sand, or fertilizer, to improve its capacity to support plant life. SPECIMEN TREE-shall mean a structurally sound mature tree, native or introduced, that is characteristic of the species; with space and essential requirements for its growth both above and below ground compatible with existing and proposed site conditions; whose future vitality can be reasonably expected and maintained with proper protection and regularly scheduled care; whose contributions to carbon sequestration, shade footprint, soil permeability, and aesthetics is high; and whose absence from the landscape would significantly alter the site's appearance, character or history. See Tree Protection Appendix A for listing of species, sizes, and conditions that are likely specimen trees. SPILL-RESISTANT VACUUM BREAKER or SVB: a type of backflow preventer requiring testing annually or more often and is utilized for back siphonage backflow protection. . It requires proper height placement of twelve inches above the surrounding ground and above the highest head of the sprinkler system but is less likely to spill than the PVB. SOIL MOISTURE-SENSING DEVICE -A device that measures the amount of water in the soil. SOIL TEXTURE-The classification of soil based on the percentage of sand, silt and clay in the soil. SPRINKLER HEAD -A device which sprays water through a nozzle. STATIC WATER PRESSURE -The pipeline or municipal water supply pressure when water is not flowing. STATION -An area served by one valve or by a set of valves that operate simultaneously. STRUCTURED SOIL-A combination of amended soil and gravel that allows tree root development while providing the structural strength to hold the weight of hard surface treatments such as sidewalks or parking lot pavement. The specific mix of structural soil is determined by Salt Lake City engineering standards. SYSTEM -The network of piping, valves and irrigation heads. TEMPORARILY IRRIGATED AREA-Areas that are irrigated for a limited period only after landscaping installation until plantings become established. Page 20 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review a TIER 2 WATER TARGET ALLOWANCE -The maximum allowed monthly and annual water use for a specific landscaped area based on the square footage of the area, the ETAF, and the reference ETO. TREASURED LANDSCAPE - Landscapes associated with designated historic structures and sites, public gardens, and other notable sites and institutions as determined by the city that may be allowed a higher volume of water use. TREE PROTECTION AREA- is the area of a development site that includes the area located within the drip line of specimen trees and also includes the area that supports tree health requirements and interactions as determined by the Urban Forester. TURF—Grasses planted as a groundcover and mowed and maintained to be used as an area of landscaping. UCA: Utah Code Annotated VALVE -A device used to control the flow of water in the irrigation system. WATER BUDGET-A target amount of water to be used per acre that is established by the public utilities director or his designee each year for each applicant subject to the provisions of this ordinance. The water budget is based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration rates and efficient water practices. Different target budgets may be established for each month of the year or seasons. WATER FEATURE - A design element with open water that performs an aesthetic or recreational function. Water features include but are not limited to ponds, lakes, waterfalls, fountains, artificial streams, spas, and swimming pools where water is artificially supplied. Constructed wetlands used for on-site wastewater treatment or storm water best management practices are not included in this definition. For hydrozoning purposes, water features are in Irrigation Zone 7. Page 21 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review 3 -'k Bibliography and Abbreviations UCA (Utah Code Annotated) Chapter 19-4-112, as amended by Chapter 126, 1998 Session "Limit on authority of department and board to control irrigation facilities—Precautions relating to non-potable water systems.(d) Utah Plumbing Code (IPC 2009 as amended, adopted July 1, 2010), (9) section 312.10 Testing; and section 608 Protection of Potable Water Supply& including amendments (20)-(37) Utah Public Drinking Water Regulations, R309-105 General Responsibilities of Public Water Systems, R309-105-12. Cross Connection Control, (1H5) Irrigation Association, Turf and Landscape Irrigation Practices. Falls Church, VA: Irrigation Association, December 2010. Coachella Valley Water District, General Landscaping Guidelines and Irrigation System Design Criteria for Developers, Landscape Architects, Government Agencies, and Property Managers. Coachella Valley, CA: Coachella Valley Water District, June 2003. American Society of Landscape Architects, Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center at the University of Texas at Austin, United States Botanic Center, The Sustainable Sites Initiative: Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks 2009. Wright Waters Engineers, Green Industry Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Conservation and Protection of Water Resources in Colorado: Moving Toward Sustainability. Denver, CO: The Green Industries of Colorado (GreenCo), May 2008. Utah State Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources, Municipal and Industrial Water Use in Utah. Salt Lake City UT: Utah State Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources, December 2010. Utah State Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources, 2009 Residential Water Use: Survey Results and Analysis of Residential Water Use for Seventeen Communities in Utah. Salt Lake City UT: Utah State Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources, November 2010. Page 22 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review Appendix A Submittal RequirementsDocumentation Packet Checklist Elements of the Landscape Documentation Package Checklist *Applicants Name: License or Certificate No.: Email: Phone: Company: Applicant's Address: Site Address: Form or Plan Submitted Status Hydrozone Information Table Water Efficient Landscape Calculations and Alternatives Soil Management Report Landscape Design Plan Irrigation Design Plan Grading Design Plan Certification of Completion Certification of Installation According to Landscape Document Package Irrigation Audit Report Post-Installation Irrigation Scheduling Post-Installation Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Backflow Prevention Water Submittals Source (identify) System Utilized (identify) Assembly Test Form Note:*Signer of landscape design plan,signer of irrigation plan,or a licensed landscape contractor Page 23 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review Appendix B: Hydrozone Information Table Please complete the hydrozone table(s)for each hydrozone. Use as many tables as necessary to provide the square footage of landscape area per hydrozone. Hydrozone* Zone or Irrigation Area %of Valv Method** (Sq.Ft.) Landscape Area Atiow Total 100% *Hydrozones Zone 0=No supplemental water on establishment Zone 1=One irrigation per month Zone 2=Two irrigations per month Zone 3=Three irrigations per month Zone 4=Four irrigation per month Zone 5=Turf grass zones(specify irrigation sub-zone as per SLC Plant List) Zone 6=Tree zone(specify irrigation sub-zone per SLC Plant List) Zone 7=oasis plants and those not listed in SLC Plant List or other list identified in SLC Landscape and Irrigation Manual **Irrigation Method MS=Micro-spray S=Spray R=Rotor B=Bubbler D=Drip SS=sub-surface lNE=in-line emitter tubing(surface placement) MS/MT=Multi-spray/multi-trajectory O=Other Page 24 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review Appendix C WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS Section B1. Maximum Applied Water Allowance(MAWA) The project's Maximum Applied Water Allowance shall be calculated using this equation: MAWA=(ETo)(0.62) [(0.7 x LA)+(0.3 x SLA)] where: MAWA = Maximum Applied Water Allowance(gallons per year) ETo = Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix A(inches per year) 0.7 = ET Adjustment Factor(ETAF) LA = Landscaped Area includes Special Landscape Area(square feet) 0.62 = Conversion factor(to gallons per square foot) SLA = Portion of the landscape area identified as Special Landscape Area(square feet) 0.3 =the additional ET Adjustment Factor for Special Landscape Area(1.0-0.7 =0.3) Maximum Applied Water Allowance = gallons per year Show calculations. Effective Precipitation (Eppt) If considering Effective Precipitation, use 25%of annual precipitation. Use the following equation to calculate Maximum Applied Water Allowance: MAWA=(ETo—Eppt)(0.62) [(0.7 x LA)+(0.3 x SLA)] Maximum Applied Water Allowance= gallons per year Show calculations. Page 25 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review 7 Appendix D CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION This certificate is filled out by the project applicant upon completion of the landscape project. PART 1. PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET Date Project Name Name of Project Applicant Telephone No. Fax No. Title Email Address Company Street Address City State Zip Code Project Address and Location: Street Address Parcel,tract or lot number,if available. City Latitude/Longitude(optional) State Zip Code Property Owner or his/her designee: Name Telephone No. Fax No. Title Email Address Company Street Address City State Zip Code Property Owner "I/we certify that I/we have received copies of all the documents within the Landscape Documentation Package and the Certificate of Completion and that it is our responsibility to see that the project is maintained in accordance with the Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Schedule." Property Owner Signature Date Please answer the questions below: 1. Date the Landscape Documentation Package was submitted to the local agency 2. Date the Landscape Documentation Package was approved by the local agency 3. Date that a copy of the Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet(including the Water Budget Calculation)was submitted to the local water purveyor "` "' Page 26 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review • APPENDIX 1: Backflow Preventer Installation Diagrams DIAGRAM 1.1 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION - PREFERRED INSTALLATION AVB-TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL 'ONE AVB REQUIRED FOR EACH IRRIGATION ZONE NO CONTROL VALVES(ON/OFF VALVE)ALLOWED DOWNSTREAM OF(AFTER)AN AVB. 'EACH AVB MUST BE INSTALLED A MINIMUM OF IX INCHES(6)ABOVE THE HIGHEST POINT OF WATER IN THE ZONE IT SERVES. •NO CHEMICAL OR FERTILIZER MAY BE INTRODUCED INTO AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM EQUIPPED WITH AVB'S. 'NO PUMP OR BACK PRESSURE SOURCE ON DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF(AFTER)AN AVB. 'PIPING FROM THE BACKFLOW PREVENTER TO THE STOP AND WASTE VALVE IS TO SLOPE TOWARDS THE STOP AND WASTE VALVE, EACH SEPARATE ZONE MUST HAVE IT'S OWN ZONE VALVE AND AVB DOWNSTREAM •THIS DEVICE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANNUAL TESTING •INSTALL AVBS CLOSE TO THE BUILDING AND BEHIND A BUSH,ROCK,ETC.FOR SAFETY AND AESTHETIC REASONS PROVISIONS MUST BE MADE FOR FREEZE PROTECTION. AVB(ATMOSPHERIC VACUUM BREAKER) , Z 5 ■ EXISTING GRADE ZONE VALVE NORMAL FLOW RA — 1 STOP AND NO VALVES DOWNSTREAM OF AVB WASTE VALVE DRAIN TO STOP AND WASTE VALVE PROFILE VIEW AUTOMATIC DRAIN VALVE z YTO MORE ZONE,HOUSE,ETC ft f- METER I STOP AND WASTE VALVE ^--ZONE VALVE 1 \ AVB NOTE ZONE VALVE ALL WATER METERS TO BE INSTALLED AVB PER A P W A.STANDARD PI ANS-LATEST EDITION PLEASE CALL cM HILLS @(801)483.6795,OR DUSTIN WHITE 16(801)4814E67 ZONE VALVE PLAN VIEW AVE Page 29 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review • DIAGRAM 1.2 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PVB AND SVB -PRESSURE VACUUM BREAKER ASSEMBLY • ONLY ONE PVB REQUIRED TO SERVE THE WHOLE SYSTEM,CONTROL VALVES CAN BE LOCATED DOWN STREAM OF(AFTER)THE PVB • PVB MUST BE INSTALLED A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT(12')ABOVE THE HIGHEST POINT OF WATER THEY SERVE, • PVB MUST BE TESTED BY A STATE-CERTIFIED BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TESTER WHEN INSTALLED AND THFN INSPECTED ANNUALLY OR MORE OFTEN WHEN MOVED OR REPAIRED • NO CHEMICAL OR FERTIUZER MAY BE INTRODUCED INTO AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM EQUIPPED WITH PVB'S. VENT SCREW • PIPING UPSTREAM FROM PVBISVB AS WELL AS DOWNSTREAM,MUST SLOPE TO DRAINS AND STOP 8 WASTE VALVE. • EACH SEPARATE ZONE MUST HAVE ITS OWN ZONE VALVE. • NO PUMPS OR BACK PRESSURE ON DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF(AFTER)A PVBISVB. • FREEZE PROTECTION.AFTER DRAINING PVB,TURN VALVE HANDLES TO 45° SVB ASSEMBLY PVB ASSEMBLY 12°MIW —lc - ET lr 4. . r-Ti tx\Flow ,. _ i; E l ZONE VALVES STOP AND AUTOMATIC DRAIN WASTE VALVE '--.C" PROFILE VIEW U III a S.LC, METE`R / STOP AND WASTE VALVE c ZONE ALLNO �- Y vAL.vES ALL WATER METERS To BE INSTALLED PER S.L.C.STANDARD PLAN W-4 PVB OR SVB ASSEMBLY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL KIM HILLS Q(801)483-67S5,OR PLAN VIEW DUSTIN WHITE @(SOD483.6867 Page 30 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review a DIAGRAM 1.3 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION RPBA-REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY • ONLY ONE RPBA REQUIRED TO SERVE THE WHOLE SYSTEM;CONTROL VALVES CAN BE LOCATED DOWNSTREAM OF THE RPBA. • RPBA'S MUST BE INSTALLED A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT(IT)ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. • RPBA'S MUST BE TESTED BY A STATE-CERTIFIED BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TESTER WHEN INSTALLED AND THEN INSPECTED ANNUALLY AND/OR WHEN MOVED OR REPAIRED. • IN AN RPBA EQUIPPED SYSTEM,FERTILIZER AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS MAY BE INTRODUCED DOWNSTREAM OF(A)-!tH)THE RPBA. • PIPING UPSTREAM FROM RPBA AS WELL AS DOWNSTREAM MUST SLOP TO DRAINS AND STOP&WASTE VALVE, • EACH SEPARATE ZONE MUST HAVE ITS OWN ZONE VALVE. • FREEZE PROTECTION' AFTER DRAINING RPBA,TURN VALVE HANDLES TO 45°. - 12' MIN. T-Ti FLOW-� - 4(7•OZONE VALVES AUTOMATIC DRAIN ---� PROFILE VIEW \\ t METER f! STOP 8 WASTE VALVE N NOTE' ZONE ALL WATER METERS TO BE INSTALLED PER S.L.C. \ / VALVES STANDARD PLAN W-4. / RPBA IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL KIM HILLS Q(801)483-6795,OR DUSTIN WHITE @(801)4836867 PLAN VIEW Page 31 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review a DIAGRAM 1 .4 LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION CITY WATER SOURCE ONLY- UTILIZING AIR-GAP '.0 tis A j� � � �S A y 1-0 ` ® _. F ACT ) REQUIRED AIR h0 4p ;t1 / REQUIRED GAP-SEE NOTE 1 I _ O i NOTE 5��� I ♦`� r Li 11 �,y1 6 SWVTAAOLS d Ot�-+SIP \ Spk-1. AO* P OQ�ptO?& 44601 F�` 'c^t G NOTES; 1. AN "AIR GAP' OF AT LEAST TWO PIPE DIAMETERS (MINIMUM) MUST EXIST BETWEEN THE MAXIMUM OVERFLOW NOTE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS CAUTIONED THAT THE CATCH BASIN VOLUME UP OF THE CATCH BASIN AND THE END OF THE DOWN AND/OR PUMP SIZE SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO MATCH THE MINIMUM TURNED DISCHARGE PIPE. DISCHARGE RATE FROM THE POTABLE WATER SYSTEM WHEN INDOOR DEMANDS ARE ALSO BEING EXPECTED FROM THE SYSTEM. 2 THE GROUND AWAY FROM THE H CATCH BASIN (BASIN CANNOT BE LOCATED WHERE FLOODING COULD RESULT IN A WATER LEVEL HIGHER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERFLOW LIP OF THE CATCH LEGEND BASIN). ITEM DESCRIPTION PART NUMBER 3. THE STOP & WASTE VALVE MUST BE LOCATED IN AREAS A CONTROL VALVE — I.E. SOLENOID SIZE & TYPE AS PER OWNERS WHERE SUBSURFACE GROUND WATER WILL NOT ACCUMULATE VALVE. MANUAL SHUT OFF VALVE. DESIGN. (SEE NOTE) OR A TUBE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DRAIN HOLE AND BE DRAINED TO DAYLIGHT WITH A #14 MESH OR FINER NON—CORRODIBLE SCREEN OVER THE END. C SUBMERSIBLE PUMP WITH SIZE & TYPE AS PER OWNERS 4. AU. STAND PIPES MUST HAVE PROPER PROVISIONS FOR FLOAT OPERATED CUT OUT SWITCH DESIGN. (SEE NOTE) DRAINING AND FREEZE PROTECTION. D ELBOWS, TEES & PIPE AS REO'D SCREWED OR FLANGED. 5. A SOLENOID OPERATED VALVE MAY BE INSTALLED AT (OR BRAZED ABOVE GROUND ONLY) THIS POINT PROVIDED THE VALVE & HOUSING IS NOT CONATRRUCTED OF PLASTIC (MUST BE BRASS OR FERROUS E CATCH BASIN SI & TYPE(SEE NOTE)PER OWNERS MF ELECTRICAL BOX & CONDUIT AS PER ELECTRICAL CODE. * ALL PARTS OF THE POTABLE WATER SYSTEM FROM THE STOP & WASTE ARE TO THE AIR GAP DROP LEG ABOVE THE CATCH BASIN ARE TO BE COPPER OR GALVANIZED IRON ONLY. BELOW GROUND PARTS ON THE NON-.POTABLE WATER SYSTEM MAY BE CONSTRUCTED OF P.V.0 OR P.E. PIPE AT THE OWNERS DISCRETION. M Page 32 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review a DIAGRAM 1 .5 LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLEMENTED WITH CITY WATER UTILIZING AN AIR-GAP O Sp'4I' o J' 4� I I 1} r/'-- 1 1 SA . ii. k st‘5':% f iI���0 fEE 11 NOTE 1 Ittt- .T .....x) • likl 41,l1V: 5 rtr STOP do GO NNE QQ tL Op g Go" s��� EC- cgt 4`3 NOTES; 1. AN `AIR GAP' OF AT LEAST TWO PIPE DIAMETERS (MINIMUM) MUST EXIST BETWEEN THE MAXIMUM OVERFLOW NOTE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS CAUTIONED THAT THE CATCH BASIN VOLUME LIP OF THE CATCH BASIN AND THE END OF THE DOWN AND/OR PUMP SIZE SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO MATCH THE MINIMUM TURNED DISCHARGE PIPE. DISCHARGE RATE FROM THE POTABLE WATER SYSTEM WHEN INDOOR DEMANDS ARE ALSO BEING EXPECTED FROM THE SYSTEM. 2. THE GROUND SURROUNDING THE CATCH BASIN MUST SLOPE AWAY FROM THE CATCH BASIN (BASIN CANNOT BE LOCATED WHERE FLOODING COULD RESULT IN A WATER LEVEL HIGHER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERFLOW LIP OF THE CATCH LEGEND BASIN). ITEM DESCRIPTION PART NUMBER . 3. THE STOP & WASTE VALVE MUST BE LOCATED IN AREAS A CONTROL VALVE - I.E. SOLENOID SIZE & TYPE AS PER OWNERS WHERE SUBSURFACE GROUND WATER WILL NOT ACCUMULATE VALVE, MANUAL SHUT OFF VALVE. DESIGN. (SEE NOTE) OR A TUBE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DRAIN HOLE AND BE DRAINED TO DAYLIGHT WITH A #14 MESH OR FINER B CHECK VALVE SIZE TO MATCH EXISTING PIPE. NON-CORRODIBLE SCREEN OVER THE END. C SUBMERSIBLE PUMP WITH SIZE & TYPE AS PER OWNERS 4. ALL. STAND PIPES MUST HAVE PROPER PROVISIONS FOR FLOAT OPERATED CUT OUT SWITCH DESIGN. (SEE NOTE) DRAINING AND FREEZE PROTECTION. 5. A SOLENOID OPERATED VALVE MAY BE INSTALLED AT O ELBOWS. TEES ik PIPE AS REC.") SCREWED OR FLANGED. THIS POINT PROVIDED THE VALVE & HOUSING IS NOT (OR BRAZED ABOVE GROUND ONLY) CONSTRUCTED OF PLASTIC (MUST BE BRASS OR FERROUS E CATCH BASIN SIZE It TYPE AS PER OWNERS METAL). DESIGN. (SEE NOTE) F ELECTRICAL BOX & CONDUIT AS PER ELECTRICAL CODE. * ALL PARTS OF THE POTABLE WATER St,IEM FROM THE STOP & WASTE ARE TO THE AIR GAP DROP LEG ABOVE THE CATCH BASIN ARE TO SE COPPER OR GALVANIZED IRON ONLY. BELOW GROUND PARTS ON THE NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM MAY BE CONSTRUCTED OF P.V.0 OR P.E. PIPE AT THE OWNERS DISCRETION. Page 33 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review A DIAGRAM 1 .6 LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLEMENTED WITH CITY WATER UTILIZING REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY lb II AT7ACDNTLY CA1AA.IACLAMPSCiC ittTINGS 2 op..s r wi 2 i .' I R l CONCRETE "'�:,; *01. .s"' PEDESTAL �+.. �St¢r �"/ stop A 4 WASTE .41.4°Ali 000000pp) 10 NOTES , I. NOSE TO BE USED ON ONLY ONE SYSTEM AT A TIME. THE OTHER SYSTEM IS TO REMAIN SEPARATED. THERE SHALL BE NO DIRECT CONNECTIONS BETWEEN POTABLE AND NOTE: THERE MAY BE UP TO 20 psi HEADLOSS THROUGH THE RP ASSEMBLY. NON—POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS WITH THIS IS NORMAL AND THE OWNER SHOULD EXPECT A DECREASE IN AREA OR WITHOUT BACKFLOW PROTECTION. COVERED AND DESIGN OR MODIFY HIS SYSTEM FOR THE LOWER PRESSURE. OPTION ONE IS RECOMMENDED FOR ALL SYSTEMS BUT ESPECIALLY 2. RP REQUIRES TESTING WITHIN TEN (10) EXISTING STStEMS WHERE A MAJOR RETROFIT WOULD BE REQUIRED DAYS OF INITIAL INSTALLATION BY A BECAUSE OF LOWER PRESSURES. DULY LICENSED BACKFLOW DEVICE TESTER AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER LEGEND OR MORE FREQUENTLY AT OWNER'S EXPENSE. WATER DEPARTMENT WILL ITEM DESORPTION PART ISMICS TEST AND REPAIR AT THE OWNERS OPTION AND EXPENSE. A VALVE BALL, RESILIENT SEAT. GATE. OR EO. 3. THE STOP A WASTE VALVE MUST BE LOCATED B FLEXIBLE P.V.C. DISCHARGE HOSE 100 P.S.I. WORKING PRESSURE WHERE SUBSURFACE C+ROIMD WATER WILL NOT 400 P.S.1. BURST PRESSURE ACCUMULATE OR A TUBE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DRAIN HOLE AND BE DRAINED TO DAYLIGHT WITH A 414 MESH OR FINER NON—CORRODIBLE SCREEN OVER THE END. C REDUCED PRESS7URE BACKFLOW FEB 825Y; WATTS 909; 4. RP DEVICE MUST BE ACCORDANCE WITH TILE UTAHPREVENTERLED ABOVE GROUND IN PLUMBING CODE. NOT (SHUTOFFVALVES & TEST COCKS EQUIVALENT ASSEMBLY OR SUSCEPTIBLE TO FLOODING AND MUST BE ACCESSIBLE AT ARE INCLUDED) ALL TIMES FOR TESTING. REPAIR.INSPECTION. ETC. 5. ALL STANDPIPES MUST HAVE PROPER PROVISIONS FOR D ELBOWS AND TEES SCREWED, FLANGED, OR BRAZED DRAINING AND FROST PROTECTION. TO PREVENT ABOVE GROUND ONLY. FREEZE DAMAGE. OPEN ALL TEST COCKS AND BOTH SHUT OFF VALVES COMPLETELY. TURN BALL VALVES HANDLES TO 45' AFTER DRAINING OR PURGING WITH AIR. « ALL ABOVE GROUND PARTS ARE TO BE COPPER OR GALVANIZED A. CAM LOCK FITTINGS HAVE 3/4` LONG MALE INSERT IRON ONLY. FROM STOP & WASTE TO DROP LEG ON DOWNSTREAM ATTACHED TO FLEXIBLE HOSE. SIDE OF LAST GATE VALVE. Page 34 of 40 January 11, 2011 • Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review a . APPENDIX 2 BACKFL.OW ASSEMBLY TEST FORM Serrtiice* Type of Assembly: RP 0 ory 0 PVB ❑ S\13 0 Other: I roealion of Assembly: Address of As Serttbi Owner of Asseutbh: Mailing Address: Make: Motel: Size: Serial Number: Assembly txsurerled to what equipment: Assembly Status: Existing 0 Replacement 0 Ne% ❑ Type ofProteetion: Individual ❑ Zone ❑ Containment `I tah Miser" 0 I err s� 0 or NI' 0 or Ix' 03 CHECK VALVE a t CHECK VALVE# 1 I DP RELIEF VALVE SVB& PVB AIR INLET ,.,,,,txrss -- PSI Aornss — 1 [pear-(fa _ _P`1 Opole d O.! PSI Twigi Closed T 0 C'los..!Tight 0 t C'loseyl Tight 0 (lost el Tight 0 Leaked ❑ I,e•,tt-wl ❑ nil tot ota•rr ❑ 1V1 n.,t ope'tt ❑ Z I Leaked 0 L,'ak,',I 0 Parts-Cleaned Installed Paris-("leaned installed Parts-Cleaned Installed Parts•Cleaned Installed T7on0 - Ihsk 0 ❑ Disk ❑ Q Air Inlet Berne. El [l ciwirt.0 © ❑ 1_?jnpllrugnt ❑ ❑ flat ❑ CI SI,rt7ty ❑ ❑ Sant 0 0 S.•al Q 0 r Q A Arc Inlet Se at O-l:tti,4s 0 O-Iitne7s 0 0 t7-Rttlys Q Q Spinet Q ❑ y l((farts 0 ll!Parts 0 0 • 111 Faris © ❑ x All Parts [il , Other. 0 0 Other 0 0 ; tither_ 0 0 Other. ❑ (] P•ccr r,ll,• I)•'s'rib, T'+e'srt-t i,r Fir•.a.rytN. i j li PSI.1e rvs), ________ PSI,k•rv,ss _ l e-kit.'rte0(c, _PSI O(,.Mul/14, _PSI is t'los,•el Tight 0 Closed Tight 0 j r"Ios,�I Trlht 0 t'I.: t/7 c. tyht 0 7r. 6 4 Leaked 0 Leaked ❑ C Leaked 0 Did not open 0 4 .taserubly: Passed 0 Date: Failed 0 Pate: l't»nneents: Initial Test By: Final Test By: Repaired By: Date: _- ---_— lest bit Muke: .Mille/. Serial a Calibration(kate, 7 ester Signature: I T?ester it: Tester Telephone s: I rrttih•the.thnrr test hr+c hrrn performed Anei I tint,.µelrc of the filth petfnrmtsnre Device Owner Representative: Date: Mail Report to: Sill 1..4.,r cit}P1sa...lliliti,i Fax," (Rol) 18,,6-lice f•moil Wm Inllcte•slrgc.i t..ur Cuss Counetbuu Section Phone t•(8ot) 483 o'=qi dustur.whi tilt s:.gn:.tont it,r.s S'.'ettt Trinrte Pb, clt t ilk i) 18•;-6tvr. Salt Lille City.UT as 115 kesi scd 8 11'a8,Los P.M I January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review APPENDIX J Winterizing Irrigation Systems and Backflow Preventers Winterizing Your Lawn Sprinkler& Irrigation System and Backflow Preventer With proper maintenance, protecting your sprinkler system and backflow preventer from freezing can be relatively easy. Lawn Sprinkler& Irrigation System Winterization Most sprinkling system piping is not below frost levels and therefore a risk of freezing. Even if some water is drained from the system, the remaining water can freeze, expand and crack PVC piping. Even systems with Polyethylene piping, which is more flexible and can expand under pressure, can freeze and rupture the pipe walls when water is left inside the pipe. If water freezes in the backflow preventer or the ball valves it can cause internal damage or possible crack the device or valve. To minimize the risk of freezing, it is almost always necessary to"winterize" your irrigation system and backflow preventer. Below are some steps and methods used to winterizing your system. 1. Shut off the water to system at the main valve or stop-and-waste valve. 2. Depending on your system type and features, there are various methods to winterize the system. a. Automatic Drain Method-This method is used when there are automatic drains located at the end and low points of the irrigation piping. The drains will automatically be activated when the water supply(usually a stop and waste or a valve in the basement)to the system is turned off. The water pressure is what keeps the drains closed; when the pressure drops the drains open and drain water left in the piping. If you have a testable backflow preventer, we recommend you refer to the manufacturers guide to winterizing, but as a general guideline, open the test cocks to drain water within the device. Or, remove backflow all together for winter. We also recommend to keep ball valves turned to a 45 degree angle (when water is off to the valves)to avoid freezing within the ball valve. Depending on the location of the drain valves, there could be some water left in the piping, sprinklers, and backflow preventer b. Manual Drain Method-This method is used when there are manual valves located at the end and low points of the irrigation piping. This systems are drained by shutting off the irrigation supply(usually a stop and waste or a valve in the basement), and opening the manual drain valves. Remember to drain the line between the backflow preventer and the irrigation shut off. If you have a testable backflow preventer, we recommend you refer to the manufacturers guide to winterizing, but as a general guideline, open the test cocks to drain water within the device. Or, remove backflow all together for winter. We also recommend to keep ball valves turned to a 45 degree angle (when water is off to the valves)to avoid freezing within the ball valve. Depending on the location of Page 36 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review the drain valves, there could be some water left in the piping, sprinklers, and backflow preventer. When all water is drained out of system, close all manual drain valves (See Diagram 1-7). c. "Blow Out" Method-The blow out method uses an air compressor to "blow out" the excess water from the system after the main valve to the irrigation system has been shut off. We recommend the shut off ball valves on the backflow preventer be shut off before the compressor is hooked up. Blowing high pressured air through the backflow preventer may cause damage to the device. So, on systems that have a testable backflow preventer assembly, the compressor should be attached downstream of the backflow preventer. Remember to drain or blow out the water between the main shut off and the backflow preventer too though. The"blow out" method is a little bit more comprehensive, so we recommend that a qualified licensed contractor be used with this method. General Backflow Preventer Winterization *For specific types and models, please see the manufacturer's manual for winterizing your backflow preventer. The manufactures manual may give specific instruction on winterizing. 1. Shut off the water to your sprinkler or irrigation system at the main valve or stop-and- waste. 2. Drain the water from the backflow preventer by opening the test cocks. (There are 4 test cocks on the side or top of your backflow preventer), to open them turn the little screw IA of a turn. 3. Turn the shut-off valves on both sides of the assembly to a 45 degree angle ('/ turn) so they are not completely closed or open. This will help from getting water trapped in the shut-off valve and freezing.*Remember to make sure the water between the main shut- off and the backflow preventer are drained. 4. (Optional) If your backflow preventer was installed with unions you can remove it and store it inside for the winter. After you take it off make sure you drain the water from both sides, open the test cocks and close the valves% turn. It may also be good to wrap it in a towel or old blanket. 5. (Optional) You can wrap the backflow preventer with old towels, blankets, or other insulation to further protect it from freezing. If properly winterized your backflow preventer should be able to survive the cold winter months. For more information contact Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Page 37 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review • Appendix J:Winterization Manual Drainage Detail DIAGRAM 1.7 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PVB/SVB/RPBA-INSTALLATION DETAIL FOR MANUAL DRAINAGE ASSEMBLY PRf VENTER TEST COCKS--- \�` SHIN"DAT VA1 vF st.,OFF VALVE SET UNIONS ir ABOVE<TRADE ill) II _f6 VAivE MANNER T ABOVE F IM9NE0 DRADE F WISNSD BRADS \��i/o%oi, yyiili��i z•SDNFD AO P V.0 //iy\�•G���� j/, �y j 0riV.0 lADJUSTABLE j \6 �y�%/�� �1y,,� • SLEEVE \ % . T^„'�P? IAIr_OA,/NIPPLE MAIN y^MANUAI D.u'LONG TO TEE T3 ArvD SUMPS OA V M DATE VIALL ME 'Or TO MAIN LINE ABOVE GROUND SURFACE INSTALLATION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLIES, & PRESSURE AND SPILL RESISTANT VACUUM BREAKERS. Page 38 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review a Types of Backflow Preventers and Components *Ball Valves should be turned to a 45 degree angle when finished winterizing(half open/half closed)to prevent freezing Test Cocks Test Cocks Test Cocks 4, Ball Valves I t :r' .tea. ) ! x • ' ' 9 OT Ball Valvess Ball Valves Atmospheric Vacuum Pressure Vacuum Reduced Pressure Double Check Valve(No longer Breaker Breakers and Spill Principle Backflow allowed,but may be (Recommended for most Resistant Vacuum Preventer maintained if installed under lawn sprinkler systems) Breakers previous code) 1. Does not need to be 1. Must be tested annually by a 1. Must be tested annually by 1. Must be tested annually by a tested annually. certified backflow a certified backflow certified backflow preventer Must have one AVB per preventer tester preventer tester. tester. zone. No valves are 2. Must be installed 12"above 2. Must be installed 12"above 2. Designed to protect against allowed downstream of highest point of water it ground backpressure and AVB. serves 3. Designed to protect against backsiphonage. 3. Must be installed 6"above 3. Designed only to protect backpressure and 3. Only designed for non-health highest sprinkler head. against backsiphonage. backsiphonage. hazards. 4. Not designed to for Not backpressure. 4. Designed to protect against 4. No longer allowed to be installed continual use(should 4. Designed to protect against non-health and health to protect lawn sprinkling not be subjected to non-health and health hazards when applied systems,but may be operating pressure for hazards when applied correctly. maintained if tested annually more than 12 hours correctly. 5. Must be installed where and if it was installed under within a 24 hour period) secondary water is previous code. 5. Designed to protect available for use against non-health and health hazards when applied correctly. (7-;-.,- \\ \ , ,,NZ \, ''' j Fbu.A Ball VWe it hall opevMtl crosaC Ball Valve(Febco) Page 39 of 40 January 11, 2011 Salt Lake City Landscape and Irrigation Manual Draft for Peer Review References: UCA (Utah Code Annotated) Chapter 19-4-112, as amended by Chapter 126, 1998 Session "Limit on authority of department and board to control irrigation facilities—Precautions relating to non-potable water systems.(d) Utah Plumbing Code (IPC 2009 as amended, adopted July 1, 2010), (9)section 312.10 Testing; and section 608 Protection of Potable Water Supply& including amendments (20)-(37) Utah Public Drinking Water Regulations, R309-105 General Responsibilities of Public Water Systems, R309-105-12. Cross Connection Control, (1)-(5) Irrigation Association, Turf and Landscape Irrigation Practices. Falls Church, VA: Irrigation Association, December 2010. Coachella Valley Water District, General Landscaping Guidelines and Irrigation System Design Criteria for Developers, Landscape Architects, Government Agencies, and Property Managers. Coachella Valley, CA: Coachella Valley Water District, June 2003. American Society of Landscape Architects, Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center at the University of Texas at Austin, United States Botanic Center, The Sustainable Sites Initiative: ofook Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks 2009. Wright Waters Engineers, Green Industry Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Conservation and Protection of Water Resources in Colorado: Moving Toward Sustainability. Denver, CO: The Green Industries of Colorado (GreenCo), May 2008. Utah State Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources, Municipal and Industrial Water Use in Utah. Salt Lake City UT: Utah State Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources, December 2010. Utah State Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources, 2009 Residential Water Use: Survey Results and Analysis of Residential Water Use for Seventeen Communities in Utah. Salt Lake City UT: Utah State Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources, November 2010. Page 40 of 40 January 11, 2011 WATER- WISE PLANTS FOR . . SALT LAKE CITY Prepared by Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City,Utah September 1995 Updated April 2004 a3 n 3 CD 0 Acknowledgements The following individuals assisted in the compilation of the original document in 1995, and we wish to offer our thanks. Robert Desmond Utah Chapter,ASLA Richard Hildreth Red Butte Garden and Arboretum Fred Liljegren U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Steve Linde Utah Nursery&Landscape Association Susan Meyer Research Ecologist, USDA Forest Service; Chair of the Board of Directors for the Utah Native Plant Society Larry Rupp Utah State Horticulturist Jan Striefel Landmark Design,Inc. John Swain Salt Lake City Parks Bill Rutherford Salt Lake City Urban Forester Brent Wilde Salt Lake City Planning Cheri Coffey Salt Lake City Planning Doug Dansie Salt Lake City Planning Craig Hinckley Salt Lake City Planning For this update,we are fortunate to have had the assistance of many of the original committee members and we extend our appreciation for their continued involvement. We would also like to thank the following individuals who joined us in this in the 2004 update: Greg Graves,ASLA Bingham Engineering Paula Mohadjer Water Conservation Coordinator,Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District Mandy Self Director of Horticultural Education,Red Butte Garden and Arboretum Stephanie Duer Water Conservation Coordinator, Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities LANDSCAPE PLANTS FOR WATER CONSERVATION Introduction Residential landscapes, as well as commercial, industrial, and public landscapes in Salt Lake City, have been lushly developed with water- intensive plants. Historically,residents and developers have enjoyed a generous water supply,thanks to the foresight of early settlers in the development of irrigation projects, and that water availability, coupled with a cultural predisposition toward a philosophy of landscape design unrestricted by water availability and an increasing population have lead to an increasing demand on the City's water resources. One way to reduce demand is to encourage landscape design that is sensitive to a limited water source and an arid, cool climate. In order to make the transition to more sustainable landscape patterns and still maintain Salt Lake's legacy as an"oasis in the desert", it is important to utilize native, naturalized, and adaptive plants capable of sustaining growth with limited supplementary water. Many of these plants are as aesthetically pleasing as more traditional landscape plants but have not been widely planted in the urban landscape because of limited availability and the public's unfamiliarity with the landscape potential of water-conserving plants. In April of 1995, Salt Lake City adopted a new Zoning Ordinance that established certain standards for landscaping and encouraged the use of"drought tolerant"plants. The intent of the drought-tolerant section of the Zoning Ordinance is to encourage sustainable design in all aspects of landscape planning, from residential and commercial,to public and institutional. The list of drought tolerant plants below is intended to introduce the wide variety of plants suitable for water-wise, sustainable landscapes in Salt Lake City, while fostering creativity in landscape design. In 2003, after five years of continuous drought,best management practices were developed to increase water efficiency in the landscape, incorporating new opportunities in irrigation technology,and identifying measurable water-use goals and practices. The plant list was also updated to reflect current availability and clarify species identification.Additionally, sections were added to create a quick reference guide to enhance ease of use to the consumer and to the planning staff enforcing related ordinances. It is our wish that through this reference guide,homeowners, contractors, developers, and city planners will come to recognize the value of climate-compatible landscapes and plants, encouraging more widespread use, fueling demand in the retail market,reducing the seasonal demand on Salt Lake City's water delivery system, and ensuring supplies of high quality drinking water for the future. Water-wise Plant List Salt Lake City Corp Page 1 of 50 Water-wise Landscape Program Water-wise landscapes begin, not with a plant list, but a comprehensive water-conserving landscape program that includes site analysis and planning, smart design, and efficient irrigation. In "Urban and Community Forestry, a Guide for the Interior Western United States", seven broad, fundamental, elements are described: 1. Analysis,Planning,and Design. The first step in creating a water-wise landscape is site analysis: identifying the specific characteristics of a site that contribute to its ecological nature and create its micro-climates. Site analysis identifies and catalogues such naturally occurring characteristics as sun,wind, and soil, as well as man-made characteristics such as structures and paving. Planning incorporates needs and uses,identifying how as space as a whole and its component areas is used. Design integrates analysis and planning to create a space that is both beautiful and sustainable. Plant selection can then take place, reflecting the ecological and physical realities of a place,along with the needs of those using or acting in the space, creating balance and enhancing our urban environment. 2. Soil Improvement. Urban soils do not always contain all the physical and chemical properties necessary for healthy plant growth and development. Soil improvements are often needed in order to correct poor water infiltration,percolation, and drainage, while still providing adequate water holding capacity and nutritional balance of the soil. When amending the soil, it is best to amend entire areas rather than individual holes. Additionally, when planting trees, it is best to not amend the soil unless the tree in being planted in a contained or confined space. Please note that if you are landscaping with native plants, soil amendments may not be necessary, and in fact, might be detrimental to long-term health of the plants.For many native plants,the only preparation necessary is to loosen the soil. Common soil amendments include compost,decomposed leaves or pine duff,manures, or utelite. 3. Efficient Irrigation. Matching the amount of water supplied to each plant with that plant's water requirement is the most efficient way to irrigate,and it is a good idea to plan the irrigation system at the same time as the landscape design. To eliminate waste from over-watering and runoff,plants should be grouped according to their water needs, and turf should be irrigated separately from other plantings. 4. Limit Turf Areas. Cool season turf grasses, such as Kentucky bluegrass and fescue,typically require 20 to 26 inches of supplemental water during the growing season to sustain a green, lush lawn. Turf should be limited in the landscape to areas consistent with core use patterns and should be irrigated separately from other plantings. In all other areas, drought tolerant or resistant species should be planted. Water use may also be reduced by replacing turf grass in high traffic areas not intended for play with patios, decks, gravel or other appropriate materials. Also,where possible, consider non-traditional turf species such as buffalo or blue grama grass, or non-turf plants such as thyme. Water-wise Plant List Salt Lake City Corp Page 2 of 50 5. Use of Mulch. The function of mulch is to buffer soils against climatic extremes. In summer, mulch reduces soil heating, slows water loss from evaporation, and reduces weed growth. In winter, mulch protects shallow roots from damage by preventing the daily freeze/thaw cycle and drying of soils. 6. Use of Low Water Demand Plants. Many beautiful and functional plants are available that thrive with natural precipitation or only small amounts of supplemental water. The availability of plants with low water requirements permits selecting for function, beauty, and seasonal interest.However, as with all plant selections and planting, care must be taken to match specific needs of plants to the environmental conditions and the intensity of human activity at the planting site. 7. Appropriate Maintenance. Low maintenance is not no-maintenance; a water-wise landscape still requires the extra care required of a more traditional landscape. Once plants fill in and establish, however,maintenance demands decrease,plants require less water, and weeds are crowded out. Many native and low water plants also require less fertilizer, and have fewer pest problems than more traditional landscape plants, adding to the decrease in maintenance demands. Integrating these seven elements in the planning, development, and maintenance of landscapes has been shown to conserve water and reduce annual maintenance costs without sacrificing function or beauty. The Plant List The following list of trees, shrubs,herbaceous perennials, ornamental grasses, vines, groundcovers, and annuals,has been compiled to serve as a guide to the public for selection of landscape plants that have low water requirements. It is also intended to aid Salt Lake City in the evaluation of landscape plans and,specifically,to clarify standards contained in Chapter 24 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. While every effort has been made to make the list as comprehensive as possible, it should not be considered definitive. As additional information becomes available over time it is likely that plants may be added, or removed,from this list. To this end, input from individuals or organizations involved in the landscape industry, as well as members of the general public, is welcomed. Explanation of Column Headings Water Zones identify the minimum amount of water a plant needs in order to survive after it is established in the landscape. It should be understood that,while plants will survive with the amounts of water indicated, some plants may not maintain their best appearance without some additional water.Additionally, during periods of extended droughts, even xeric plants might benefit from periodic supplemental watering. It is assumed that the establishment period will be a minimum of two years during which more frequent supplemental water may be needed. Water zones, as used in this list,are defined as follows: Water-wise Plant List Salt Lake City Corp Page 3 of 50 0 No supplemental water is required after plants are established 1 At least 1 inch of supplemental water per month may be required after plants are established. 2 At least 1 inch of supplemental water every two weeks may be required after plants are established. Plants requiring more than 1 inch of supplemental water every two weeks are not considered"water conserving" or"drought tolerant"plants for the purposes of this list. Botanical name is the scientific name that identifies plants using a system called binomial nomenclature; that is,by grouping plants with more or less similar physical traits together through levels of classifications: genus, species,varieties, and cultivars. Each plant has only one botanical name,making it unique from any other plant, unlike common names,which may vary region to region. Botanical name has been abbreviated to include only the genus, species,and,if necessary,the variety; few cultivars or hybrids are named. The genus followed by • "sp." (singular), or"spp." (plural) indicates that there are several different species of a plant which all have similar characteristics. While a plant has only one botanical name it may have several common names. In compiling this list an attempt has been made to determine the most widely used common names. Mature size is considered to be the average size a plant could be expected to grow with proper care and the amount of water indicated. Actual size of a given plant at a given location may vary. Minimum size at planting is the size required by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, for trees and shrubs that are planted for the purpose of establishing a visual screen. A blank in this column indicates that either there is no specific requirement or that a shrub is not generally used as a hedge or screen. When the terms "pot", "container", or"caliper"are used to describe minimum size at planting,the established American Standard for Nursery Stock shall apply. That is: • "All container grown (deciduous or conifer) shrubs shall be healthy, vigorous,well-rooted and established in the container in which they are sold. They shall have tops which are of good quality and are in a healthy growing condition." "An established container grown(deciduous or conifer) shrub shall be a(deciduous or conifer) shrub transplanted into a container and grown in that container sufficiently long for the new fibrous roots to have developed so that the root mass will retain its shape and hold together when removed from the container." • Container size may be converted to minimum height/spread as follows: Water-wise Plant List Salt Lake City Corp Page 4 of 50 2 gallon = 12"to 15"height or spread 5 gallon = 18"to 24"height or spread • "Caliper", for the purpose of this list, is defined as the diameter of the trunk measured 6 inches above ground level. Area Value is the area of the plant canopy.Using this number, a designer or planner can determine the total area comprised by a single plant grouping or an entire landscape. Specific spacing recommendations were not made on the list to allow for a more creative use of plants and to recognize that a plant might be used differently in various landscapes. If you are in need of guidelines to determine an appropriate average spacing of a plant on the list, consult the Height and Width column. To create a massed effect,place plants closer together so that branches overlap and mingle. For specimen plants, keep plants farther apart so that the plants form becomes distinct. For trees, a standard guide is to plant on centers equaling, or slightly smaller than the diameter. For long term health and sustainability of a landscape, allow plants adequate room to meet full growth without over crowding. The comments column contains qualifying statements and/or unique cultural requirements that affected the determination of water zones. This column has also been used to provide additional general information about a plant. Water-wise Plant List Salt Lake City Corp Page 5 of 50 LIST OF WATER-CONSERVING PLANTS Amended April 2004 AREA WATER BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MATURE SIZE VALUE LIGHT COMMENTS ZONE (sq ft) VINES&GROUND COVERS 0 Juniperus communis Common Juniper 2-4'x 4-6' 20-28' Full sun to light Evergreen. Low growing shade junipers; color and texture varies with cultivar. 0 Mahonia repens Creeping Oregon Grape 2'x 6' 28' Part to full shade Evergreen. Utah native. Dry shade 0 Rhus aromatica'Gro-low' Gro-low Sumac 2'x 6' 28 Sun to shade Glossy green,three-lobed leaves have red fall color. Yellow spring flower followed by fuzzy red berries. 1 Alyssum montanum Mountain Gold Alyssum 4"x 15" 1' Sun to part shade Bright yellow flowers in early spring cover gray green foliage. 1 Anacyclus depressus Mount Atlas Daisy 2"x 18" 1.75' Full sun Silvery green foliage; bright white daisy-like flower mid spring 1 Antennaria parviflora; Pussy Toes 4"x 18" 1.75' Sun to part shade Utah native; silvery foliage, pink or white ball shaped 1 A. rosea Pink Pussy Toes flowers 1 Cerastium tomentosum Snow In Summer 8"x 24" 3' Full sun Mat-forming, silvery white foliage; very white spring flower;will die out in center if over-watered. May be invasive Water-wise Plant List Salt Lake City Corp Page 6 of 50 AREA WATER BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MATURE SIZE VALUE LIGHT COMMENTS ZONE H x W (sq ft) 1 Convallaria majalis Lily-Of-The-Valley 8"x 24" 3' Part to full shade Dark green foliage;white bell shaped, fragrant flowers in early spring. 1 Fragaria sp. Wild Strawberry 2"x 24" 3' Sun to part shade Utah Natives F. vesca and F.virginiana 1 Helianthemum nummularium Sunrose, Rockrose 8"x 36" 7' Sun to light shade Mat forming green to gray foliage. Simple flowers in white, pink,yellow, and reds in early spring. 1 Juniperus horizontalis Creeping Juniper 6-18"x 5-8' 50' Full sun Evergreen. Needle color varies with cultivar. 1 Rhus aromatica'Autumn Autumn Amber Sumac 1'x 3-4' 12.5' Sun to shade Lower growing than Gro- Amber' low; same glossy foliage and good fall color. 1 Sedum sp. Stonecrop 1-6"x 12-24" 1-3' Full to part sun Large group of low growing succulents; leaf color and shape varies with cuftivar. Not tolerant of foot traffic, typically not dense enough to choke out weeds and grass. 1 Stachys byzantina Lamb's Ear 12-18"x 36" 7' Sun to light shade Velvety leaves are silvery white; spires of pink flowers mid summer.Avoid overhead watering. 1 Symphoricarpos x chenaultii Chenault Coralberry 3-4' x 4-6' 20' Sun to part shade Delicate, bluish green foliage; clusters of pinkish flowers followed by colorful purple berries that persist into winter. Water-wise Plant List Salt Lake City Corp Page 7 of 50 AREA WATER BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MATURE SIZE VALUE LIGHT COMMENTS ZONE H x W (sq ft) 1 Teucrium aroanium Gray Creeping Germander 3"x 18" 1.75' Sun to part shade Silver gray leaves;fragrant lavender flowers in early summer. 1 Thymus pseudolanuginosus Woolly Thyme 1-2"x 18" 1.75' Full sun Hairy gray foliage turns plum colored in fall; evergreen. Tolerates moderate foot traffic. 1 Thymus ssp. Creeping Thyme 3-4"x 18" 1.75' Full sun Spring flowers in white, pinks, reds; green foliage; tolerates moderate foot " traffic. 1 Veronica liwanensis Turkish Speedwell 2"x 18" 1.75' Sun to part shade Vigorous perennial; evergreen foliage; violet blue flowers in spring. Needs afternoon shade. 1 Veronica oltensis Thyme-leaf Speedwell 1"x 24" 3' Sun to part shade Tiny dark gray green leaves; azure blue flowers late spring; evergreen. 1 Veronica pectinata Blue Woolly Speedwell 2"x 18" 1.75' Sun to part shade Dense mat of small dark green leaves, covered with tiny blue flowers mid spring 2 Ajuga reptans Ajuga, Bugleweed 2-4"x 12-18" 1.75' Part to full shade Low-growing groundcover with spires of blue or pink flowers. Leave color varies with cultivar, from dark green, to purple, and variegated. Water-wise Plant List Salt Lake City Corp Page 8 of 50 AREA WATER BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MATURE SIZE VALUE LIGHT COMMENTS ZONE H x W (sq ft) 2 Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick 3-6"x 24-36" 7' Part shade(avoid Evergreen. Dark glossy afternoon sun) foliage; pinkish bell shaped flowers in early spring. Intolerant of soils that stay wet. Utah Native.Zone 1 if grown in shade. 2 Cotoneaster horizontalis Rockspray Cotoneaster 2-3' x 10-15' 113' Sun to light shade Stiff angled branches have small round leaves.White flowers followed by red berries. 2 Euonymus fortunei Purple-leaf Winter Creeper 2'x 6' 28' Part shade Evergreen, though sometimes semi-evergreen. Dark green leaves turn deep purple in fall.Will adhere to and climb surfaces. 2 Galium odoratum Sweet Woodruff 4"x 18" 1.75' Part to full