Loading...
06/06/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen; Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Larry Spendlove, Senior City Attorney; Rusty Vetter, Appointed Senior City Attorney; Lamont Nelson, Fleet Division Manager; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Alison McFarlane, Senior Advisor for Economic Development; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Sylvia Jones, Council Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; David Terry, Golf Manager; Kevin Bergstrom, Public Services Deputy Director, Jan Aramaki, Council Constituent Liaison/Research and Policy Analyst; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Dan Mule, City Treasurer; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; Chris Burbank, Chief of Police; Jerry Burton, Police Administrative Manager; Charles Querry, Fire Chief; Rocky Fluhart, Mayor' s Chief Administrative Officer; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Gaylord Smith Engineering Project Manager Consultant; Mike Freeland, Information Management Deputy Director; Kay Christensen, Budget Analyst; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst;and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 34 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS 5 : 34 : 44 PM #1 . 5 : 38 : 03 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE SALE OF THE CITY' S TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES . See Attachments Dan Mule and Gary Mumford briefed the Council with the attached handouts . #2 . DISCUSS UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 . 5 : 53 : 01 PM 5 : 40 : 59 PM Budget Amendment No. 5 . See Attachments Gary Mumford briefed the Council with the attached handouts . He said the Police Officers modems could be funded with one time funds . 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006 A straw poll was taken and all Council Members were in favor of one time funding. Councilmember Buhler asked the Council if they wanted to appropriate $10, 000 for the Real Estate Professionals for Economic Growth (RE-PEG group) to match what the County, the State and other entities had appropriated. Alison McFarlane briefed the Council she said her recommendation was to not fund the report. Gary Mumford said the EPA grant was for the Department of Public Utilities for $350, 000 to hire an independent consultant to study water usage in single family homes . Mr. Mumford said the construction mitigation Ombudsman may be included in the Budget Amendment and then taken from the annual budget so the Ombudsman could begin immediately. A discussion was held regarding take-home vehicles . Ms . Gust- Jensen said a policy or an ordinance which allowed employees already in the City to run errands within the City without limitation was needed. She said an incidental personal use policy was also needed. Take-home Vehicles : A straw poll was taken regarding using 18 , 000 allowable miles each year. Most Council Members were in favor of using 18, 000 miles . A straw poll was taken regarding using I-80 and Redwood Road for the measurement of distance . Most Council Members were in favor of using I-80 and Redwood Road. A straw poll was taken regarding using the measurement of a 40 mile limit from 1-80 and Redwood Road for take-home vehicle use. Most Council Members were not in favor of the 40 mile limit. A straw poll was taken regarding using the measurement of a 35 mile limit from 1-80 and Redwood Road for take-home vehicle use . Most Council Members were in favor of the 35 mile limit. A straw poll was taken regarding grandfathering the take-home car issue for those employees living outside of the 35 mile limit for the first year and increasing 25% per year for four years . Most Council Members were opposed. A straw poll was taken regarding grandfathering the take-home car issue for those employees living outside of the 35 mile limit for five years . Most Council Members were opposed. 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006 A straw poll was taken regarding grandfathering the take-home car issue for those employees living outside of the 35 mile limit increasing for five years only. Most Council Members were opposed. A straw poll was taken regarding grandfathering the take-home car issue for those employees living outside of the 35 mile limit paying the actual cost as determined by Fleet Management increasing 25% per year for four years . Most Council Members were opposed. A straw poll was taken regarding grandfathering the take-home vehicle for those employees living outside of the 35 mile limit for 5 years, no increase in cost for 3 years, then an increase of 50% in the 4th year and 50% increase in the 5th year. Most Council Members were opposed. A straw poll was taken regarding grandfathering the take-home vehicle for those employees living outside of the 35 mile limit for 2 years, then an increase of 20% in the 3rd year an additional 20% increase in the 4th year and an additional 20% increase in the 5th year. Most Council Members were in favor of the proposal . 8 : 53 : 16 PM Secondary Employment: The Administration believes that is reasonable to assess a vehicle use fee to the hourly wage charged to secondary employers . Councilmember Christensen suggested beginning in October 2007 a $3 per hour surcharge fee be charged to a secondary employer. Most Council Members were in favor the proposal . 9 : 05 : 27 PM Employee Reimbursement Schedule: The recommendation that a reimbursement schedule based on recovering 35% of the cost for employees commuting in City owned vehicles be assessed to each employee regardless of City residency. View Attachments Councilmember Saxton proposed all City employees living within the City be treated the same with regard to charges of take-home vehicles . Most Council Members were in favor of the proposal . A straw poll was taken regarding City employees living outside of the City using City take-home vehicle and being charged an escalating rate per mile. Most Council Members were in favor . A straw poll was taken regarding Fleet Management managing employee' s take-home vehicles vs . individual departments managing employee' s take-home vehicles . Most Council Members were in favor of individual departments managing employee' s take-home vehicles . 06 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006 Councilmember Saxton asked staff for information regarding the number of accidents involving personal use, the amount of those claims and when the accidents happened. Councilmember Buhler suggested that the vehicle take-home policy be in effect after August 1, 2006 . Most Council Members were in favor. 9 : 30 : 20 PM Golf: David Terry and Rick Graham briefed the Council with attached handout. See Attachments Mr. Terry said the object was to fund capital improvements for the next 10 years . He said the projection was for an investment of approximately $7 million. 10 : 00 : 41 PM General Fund, Revenue and Other Sources : Gary Mumford, Lehua Weaver and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the attached spread sheet. Councilmember Simonsen spoke about the judgment levy. Councilmember Christensen said Salt Lake City should raise a judgment levy. This would be on-going funding. Councilmember Saxton said going through truth and taxation would give the Council an opportunity to find out the needs of citizens . Councilmember Buhler asked for a straw poll regarding Councilmember Simonsen' s request of raising the judgment levy to $650, 000, and exploring additional funding from the RDA, most Council Members were opposed. Councilmember Buhler asked for a straw poll regarding keeping the judgment levy the same as the previous year at approximately $978, 000 . Most Council Members were opposed. Councilmember Saxton proposed that business license base fees be raised by $10 per business not per employee fee . Most Council Members were opposed. Gary Mumford, Lehua Weaver and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the Mayor' s recommend budget. (Spread sheet) . Most Council Members were in favor of the Mayor' s recommended budge for the following: 10 : 40 : 53 PM Fire 10 : 42 : 41 PM Mayor' s Office 10 : 43 : 06 PM Police 10 : 47 : 08 PM Attorney' s Office 10 : 47 : 42 PM City Council 06 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006 10 : 47 : 51 PM Community Development 10 : 49 : 16 PM Management Services 10 : 51 : 06 PM Public Services 10 : 54 : 51 PM Non Departmental 10 : 56 : 29 PM Councilmember Simonsen said suggested intent language regarding negotiations with the County Animal Services contract. #3 . ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 52-4-204 AND 52-4-205 (1) (b) . This issue was not discussed. #4 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS . No announcements and no report were given. The meeting adjourned at 11 : 03 p.m. Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held June 6, 2006 . cm 06 - 5 (P/le/ YM eX- t SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2,2006 SUBJECT: TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford REQUESTED ACTION: Salt Lake City issues Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes each year to assist with cash flow needs of the General Fund. Property taxes, one of the City's major sources of revenue, are primarily received in December. The City normally borrows funds for General Fund operations in anticipation of receiving property taxes. The federal government restricts the amount of borrowing (at the lower tax-exempt rates) to actual needs as determined by a formula. Based on the formula, the City Treasurer is proposing to issue $20 million for fiscal year 2006-07. The sale of the notes is scheduled for June 15. The closing and receipt of funds is scheduled to take place in July 2006. The notes mature and will be repaid on June 29, 2007. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: By issuing Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, the City can typically earn a significant amount of additional interest income. However, the overall interest rate environment during the period that the notes are outstanding is a key factor in determining the effectiveness of the borrowing. The notes will be sold using the competitive method of sale, whereby the notes are awarded to the firm offering the lowest interest rate bid. Bids are scheduled to be opened on June 15, 2006. That evening, the Administration will ask the Council to authorize the award of the sale of the notes to the lowest bidder. The City Treasurer will provide the Council with a summary of the results of the sale including the number of bids received and the net effective interest rate of the low bid. The Mayor's proposed budget includes $1,062,500 of interest expense for the Tax Notes, which assumed that the City would borrow several million more than $20,000,000. Since the City Treasurer is recommending borrowing $20,000,000, interest expense will be approximately $850,000. With the lower amount of tax notes to invest, forecasted interest income should also be reduced, probably by a similar amount as the reduction of interest expense. The exact amount to be budgeted for interest expense will not be known until the notes are sold on June 15, 2006. Council staff can include these adjustments on your budget motion sheets for your formal consideration when adopting the annual budget. Page 1 MAY a SALT ®, C.!CITY CORPO°'A IO DANIEL A. MULE _ - �� .� �.� . .,. ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR TREASURER TO: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: May 30, 2006 FROM: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer SUBJECT: Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 2006 (the Tax Notes) STAFF CONTACT: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer TELEPHONE NUMBER: 535-6411 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a discussion on June 6, 2006 and schedule the adoption of a resolution on June 15, 2006 authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale of$20 million in Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes for fiscal year 2007. DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Discussion BUDGET IMPACT: Current estimates provided by the City's financial advisor indicate that the City should expect a coupon of about 4.25%. Issuing $20 million in Tax Notes would translate into interest expense for the General Fund of$850,000. The Mayor's Recommended Budget includes a budget of$1,062,500 for interest expense. Once the actual coupon is known, the budgets for interest expense and interest income will be adjusted accordingly. DISCUSSION: Tax Notes are short-term borrowing instruments (debt) issued for one year or less in anticipation of future tax collections. The purpose of the borrowing is to provide financial assistance to the City's General Fund during its "cash-poor" period until the major portion of property taxes are received, usually in December. The exact amount to be budgeted for interest expense will not be known until the Notes are sold on June 15, 2006 at which time the actual coupon will be determined. To assure compliance with applicable federal and state regulations, sizing restrictions are adhered to when determining an allowable principal amount, and actual cash flows relative to spend down requirements are regularly monitored to avoid rebate. Sizing restrictions allow for a maximum amount of $21.5 million of Tax Notes to be issued. However, after a prudent analysis of the timing of expected receipts and disbursements included in the Mayor's Recommended Budget, I am recommending that only $20 million of Tax Notes be issued. H:\Treas\DansDocs\Council Cover Letters\TRAN's 2006 Briefing.doc 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 226, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7946 FAX: B01-535-6082 RICHARD GRAHAM SILT! Q�v ��i 00 W-0_, A �j� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: David Buhler, Chair Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rick Graham, Director Public Services Department DATE: June 5, 2006 RE: City Administration Response—Take-Home Vehicle Policy Based on the Council's discussion on June 1, 2006, and the follow-up written material prepared by Council staff dated June 6, 2006, I have been directed by the City Administration to provide additional information for the Council's consideration. In a letter to the Council dated May 31, 2006,Mayor Anderson urged the Council to consider the Administration's objectives in proposing a change to the ordinance. To repeat them, they are: (1) cut the enormous cost of the take-home vehicle program to the taxpayers of Salt Lake City, (2)provide greater equity among City employees, and(3) encourage practices that will conserve fuel and cut down on pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Further on in the Mayors letter he advised the Council to consider the matter of liability and insurance on take-home vehicles when driven off-duty and for purely personal purposes. The liability is an exposure that may place the City in considerable risk. The Administration urges the Council to consider the public value of the policy over and above the personal value to the employee. Having said this, the Administration urges the Council to consider the following points: 1. Vehicle Miles Vehicles that are assigned and used on a regular basis average 16,000 miles of use per year. Currently, 39 vehicles average between 18,000 and 20,000 miles of use per year, and 63 average over 20,000 miles per year. In total, 102 of the 413 police vehicles taken home average more than 18,000 use miles per year. If the Council establishes an annual base of 18,000 miles per year, that decision may encourage employees that are currently below that limit to use their vehicles more, resulting in more annual miles, greater fuel consumption and greater maintenance costs. On the other hand, those employees who are currently above the 18,000 mile limit will need to change their behavior and 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 14B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: 801-535-7789 1 WWW.SLCGOV.COM RECYCLEo rgRCR cut back on their usage resulting in some savings. Time has not allowed for an analysis of the extra use vs. reduced use data, so it is not possible to calculate cost vs. savings. However, such a policy allows for the shifting of cars between employees so that balance can be maintained. It stands to reason that if employees are permitted to drive more miles (16,000 to 18,000) for work, commute,personal use and secondary employment, they may do just that. The potential extra cost of adjusting the average up 2,000 miles per vehicle would be $214,760 annually. Over the five year life-cycle of the vehicles that cost will increase to $1,073,800. If a mileage limit is established the Administration recommends that the departments using the vehicle establish their own process of control and enforcement. 2. Distance to Employee's Residence The Administration still recommends that the City and County Building serves as the City base point for all distance calculations. Though not the geographical center of the City it is a point that is well defined and will not change if and when the geographical boundaries of the City change. If the Council believes that a geographical center point is critical to the policy, that official point should be determined, or the address should be moved to a fixed site near the I-80 and Redwood Road point suggested in the alternative Police Association proposal. The Administration suggests the site of the new fleet complex which is 1954 West 500 South. This site is approximately three (3)blocks away from the I-80 location. If the Council chose a geographical center point, it will need to change that point over time as the geographic boundaries of the City change. 3. Actual Mileage Calculation The Administration agrees with the Council's decision to use a commercial software program to calculate "actual road and highway miles". The individual department assigning vehicle use should manage and monitor this process, and coordinate the calculation with the City's Accounting and Fleet Divisions. 4. Maximum Distance The Administration reaffirms that the mileage limit should be 25 miles from the established base point. If the Council decides that the limit should be 40 miles it must consider that, based on 18,000 allowable miles each year, 82% of the miles will be used for commuting purposes. The remaining 18%, or 3,200 miles, will be available for work, personal use and secondary employment purposes. When spaced over a 185 day annual work period, it results in an average of 17 miles per day. If the Council adopts the 2 Administration's 25 mile limit, an additional 5,000 miles per vehicle per year will be available for non-commute purposes. 5. Personal Use The Administration will support the use of City vehicles for personal use, but only under the following conditions: (a) Only an employee living within the boundaries of the City may use a vehicle for personal use, and the use is restricted to the City limits. (b) The employee must provide his/her department director proof of insurance in the amount that will be established by the Administration, and the insurance must be maintained as long as the employee uses the vehicle. (As primary insurer,the City's insurance is used first and the employee's insurance becomes secondary coverage.) (c) If a City resident employee chooses not to have the insurance a take-home vehicle will be issued, but it cannot be used for personal use. The Administration asks the Council to consider that allowing City vehicles to be used for personal purposes without adequate insurance coverage places the City, employee and other individuals involved in an accident at risk. It would be irresponsible for the City to place its vehicles on the road without demonstrating to the public that proper insurance is in place. By way of example, consider this scenario. An employee has family members in the vehicle and is going to the grocery store to shop. The employee causes an accident that results in a major head and brain injury to a passenger in another vehicle. The City's insurance will cover a maximum of$265,000. Because of the extent of the injury that amount will be used up quickly. The injured party may file a law suit and go after the assets of the employee, and or the City to have future and long-term medical expenses covered. In making this recommendation the Administration realizes that the requirement for extra insurance may place a financial burden on the employees who wish to use the vehicle for personal purposes. It understands that not all insurance companies offer the endorsement that allows for secondary coverage on a"non-owned"vehicle. Some employees may need to shop for the insurance, or choose not to participate in the personal use option. Even with these impacts the Administration believes that the public is protected and insured, and that the value to the employee out weighs the costs. Please refer to Mayor Anderson's Memorandum dated May 31, 2006, and a Deseret Morning news article dated June 5, 2006. (Both attached.) 3 6. Secondary Employment The Administration believes that it is reasonable to assess a vehicle use fee to the hourly wage charged to secondary employers. Absent data, and the time to conduct a thorough analysis of the cost and how to apply it fairly, the Administration will support the recommendation of a$1 per hour fee as proposed in the alternative proposal submitted by the Police Association. 7. Employee Reimbursement Schedule The Administration re-affirms its recommendation that a reimbursement schedule based on recovering 50% of the cost for the employees commuting in City owned vehicles be assessed to each employee regardless of City residency. The administration further recommends that the rates be adjusted annually. The Administration asks the Council to consider the City resident value of a city vehicle being parked in another community as far as 40 miles away. Also, the Council should remember that 233 vehicles that are taken home are unmarked with no clear markings identifying them as City public safety vehicles. 8. Grandfathering The Administration recommends that a 5-year grandfathering clause be extended to employees that currently live within the 35 mile boundary. If the Council chooses a boundary beyond 35 miles the grandfathering issue becomes moot. 9. Appeal Process If the Council establishes an appeal process relative to actual commute mileage calculations the Administration recommends that the process should be conducted and administered by the vehicle user department, and that it should be done on the employee's personal time. The Council should consider the cost and time required to conduct the process. cc: Mayor Anderson Rocky Fluhart Chief Chris Burbank Chief Chuck Querry Cindy Gust-Jensen Lehua Weaver Lamont Nelson 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Salt Lake City Council FROM: Mayor Ross C. Anderson DATE: May 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Information for your deliberations regarding the proposed revisions to the City's take-home vehicle ordinance As you conclude your deliberations on the proposed revisions to the take- home car ordinance, I urge you to consider the following points: 1. The Administration is proposing a change in the ordinance (1) to cut the enormous cost of the take-home car program to the taxpayers of Salt Lake City, (2) to provide greater equity among City employees, and (3) to encourage practices that will conserve fuel and cut down on pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal would change the distance an employee can live from the City and still take home a City-owned vehicle to 25 miles from the City and County Building. This limitation would be phased in over 5 years for those who currently live from 25 to 35 miles from the City. It would also prohibit personal use of the vehicle, except for secondary employment if the employer reimburses the City. 2. Today, 446 vehicles are taken home by City employees, 413 by police, 21 by Fire Department personnel and 12 from other departments. Currently, Police Department take-home vehicles accumulate an astounding total of 14,380 round trip miles per day commuting to and from home. Of the 413 police take-home cars, only 104 are driven by officers who live within the City limits. Total take-home car expense for all employees is $736,162 per year. Of that total, $295,181 is reimbursed to the City by the employees. The remaining $440,981 is covered by City taxpayers through the General Fund. The vast majority of those taxpayers do not drive cars paid for by their employers, nor do their employers pay for their gasoline and car maintenance costs. 3. Representatives from the Police Department and the Fire Department have been consulted about the proposed changes over the last several weeks as the recommendations have been developed. 4. The take-home program was started primarily because of the substantial benefit to Salt Lake City taxpayers from having patrol cars on the road or parked at residences or businesses. The potential crime deterrent benefit is obvious for the 104 cars driven by officers who live in neighborhoods all around the City. However, there is no benefit to Salt Lake City taxpayers, and the cost to the taxpayers is far less defensible, when the vehicles are driven outside City limits. One must ask if it is fair for Salt Lake City taxpayers to pay to have police cars commute every day to and from Grantsville, Wanship or Roy, with little or no benefit to Salt Lake City. 5. Another reason for providing take-home cars is to enable the driver to respond quickly in an emergency and to have on hand all necessary equipment. Obviously, this benefit diminishes in direct proportion to the distance the employee must drive to respond. If it takes 45 minutes for an officer to drive from a far-away home, that cannot be credibly considered an "emergency response." 6. The City has made an extraordinary effort to conserve valuable resources and reduce pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in every aspect of municipal operations. Major strides have been made in that regard, yet the current take home car policy rewards those who drive the greatest distance, use the most fuel, and pollute the most. The City's policy on take-home cars should be consistent with the goal of minimizing our negative impacts on the environment and compensating employees in the most equitable manner. The current take-home car policy works in the reverse, actually providing a greater benefit for every additional mile traveled. 7. The Council should also consider the matter of insurance on take-home cars when the car is driven off-duty and for purely personal purposes. In an accident involving a City owned vehicle under such circumstances, the City would cover the first $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident for bodily injury and $15,000 for property damage (the statutory minimums listed in Utah Code Annotated 31A-22-304), plus, in addition, a minimum of $200,000 per accident added by City ordinance (Salt Lake City Code 2.54.030 C2). This Code Section states, "The mayor shall, by written policy, set forth liability coverage to such employees, which coverage shall be not less than two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) per incident, shall cover bodily injury, death and property damage." If, for example, a City employee were responsible for an accident which resulted in serious, life altering injury to five people and serious property damage, the City would pay $265,000. Under the terms of the City Code, the Mayor could, by policy, increase that coverage to whatever limit he or she might choose. This places the City in the position of facing very significant liability claims because we offer take-home cars to one-sixth of our employees. It is also obvious that the more off-duty miles driven, the greater the likelihood accidents will occur. 8. I urge the Council to make a decision without delay on the take-home car issue. The City is currently negotiating the police contract. Take-home cars are not subject to contract negotiation and are not considered a benefit. It is important that the contract negotiation process and the decision on take- home cars are clearly separate and distinct issues and that will be easier to accomplish if the take-home care decision is made quickly. deseretnews.com I Court faces crash case I Deseret Morning News Web edition Page 1 of 2 . deseretnews.com Deseret Morning News, Monday, June 05, 2006 Court faces crash case Was S.L. officer on duty at time of her acciden.? By Geoffrey Fattah Deseret Morning News Was she on duty or not? A case involving a Salt Lake City police officer is going before the Utah Supreme Court for a second time on Tuesday to determine if officer Michelle Ross was on duty or not when she got into a car accident while driving her patrol vehicle as part of Salt Lake's Take Home Car Program. The case is coming before Utah's highest court at a time when Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson has called for a review of the program in which Salt Lake officers pay the city for the privilege of using their patrol vehicles during off hours. Officers must agree to have their radio scanners on in the vehicle and be willing to respond to crimes in progress or emergency situations if needed. The program has thrown into question an officer's status while on their own time when it comes to the "going and coming" standard set by Utah law.The standard states an employee is considered on their own time while "going and coming"to and from work. The standard is used to determine if a person should be compensated by their employer for injuries and vehicle damage. Michelle Ross had the day off on Feb. 24, 2000,but was required to travel to Salt Lake City from her home in Tooele County to attend a one-hour field training officers meeting.Although she was off, Ross was paid for three hours overtime for her attendance. Ross took her patrol vehicle,which court documents show she paid the city $34.62 every two weeks for her personal use. She also brought her 14-month-old son with her to the meeting and wore civilian clothes. After the meeting, Ross was driving home when her car crossed the center line and hit a tractor-trailer and three other vehicles heading in the opposite direction on U-36 near Adobe Rock. Some motorists, including Ross, suffered injuries. One injured couple sued Ross and Salt Lake City for negligence, and a district judge ruled in their favor. In February 2003 the Utah Supreme Court reversed that decision,finding that Ross was on her own time and therefore Salt Lake City was not liable. After that ruling,however, Ross filed for worker's compensation with the Utah Labor Commission in the fall of 2004. In January 2005,the commission issued an order that found Ross' accident"arose out of and in the course of employment"with Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City appealed the decision,but the commission denied the city's request to review the decision. Now the Utah Supreme Court is faced with two conflicting decisions. http://www.deseretnews.com/do/print/1,1442,635213008,00.html 6/5/2006 deseretnews.com I Court faces crash case I Deseret Morning News Web edition Page 2 of 2 Ross'attorney, Gary Atkin, said his client suffered some serious injuries in the accident,which has resulted in thousands of dollars in medical bills, including ongoing treatment for a spinal injury in her neck. The court's decision will determine if Ross will get help to pay off those bills,plus lost wages for work she missed. "It's a matter of worker's compensation being there for her or not,"Atkin said. The resulting ruling could have an impact on other police officers in the state who might be involved in a traffic accident in theirpatrol cars while going to or coming from work. Attorneys for Salt Lake City argue that the high court should remain consistent with its prior ruling that Ross was not on duty at the time of the accident. "Although traveling in her police vehicle at the time of injury, Ms. Ross,like typical commuters, was simply traveling home,"wrote attorney Thomas Sturdy in his brief to the court. "Ross was outside of work hours, outside of the Salt Lake City limits, had no ability to independently issue citations at the location of the accident,was not in police uniform,was not responding to any police emergency or on any active assignment, did not have the ability to properly hear police dispatch on her radio given spotty conditions,was not required to be in the place of danger in the street where the accident occurred, was not paid travel time,was not required to travel in her police vehicle and, even if called to an emergency, could not immediately respond given that her infant son was traveling with her in the car." Atkin said he believes the legal fight in this case has prompted the city to consider doing away with the program. Currently the Salt Lake City Council is considering how to modify the 20-year-old take-home car program.Anderson has proposed to limit the policy to officers who live within 25 miles of the city's offices at 451 S. State and to prohibit personal use of cars. E-mail: gflattah@desnews.com ©2006 Deseret News Publishing Company http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,635213008,00.html 6/5/2006 • ,�Nof,,, '. Salt Lake Police Association ia''•��//h���� 550CIAT�jO International Union of Police Associations, Local 75, AFL-CIO '•....... P N !NI•oacnrvtco qa S�iui Liij p�iEE v O� �P� TO: Salt Lake City Council FROM: Lee Dobrowolski, President SLPA SUBJECT: Take Home Vehicles DATE: June 6, 2006 The documents attached to my email to Lehua Weaver on 6/5/2006 were at least a beginning attempt to achieve what the Council discussed at the last meeting involving the car program. I calculated the distances to the officers' residences using MapQuest, shortest route, From I-80 and Redwood Road. After determining the distribution of officers in the distance categories, I placed officers who will be hired in July in various categories based on that distribution. I placed those officers in the categories to calculate what the projected revenue from them would be . I have been under the impression that the amount required from the Police Department vehicle users was approximately $370, 000 . Based on that understanding, I propose the attached fee schedule coupled with the revenue from part-time employers . This raises the required amount of revenue. The use restriction placed on the cars as per the Council' s discussion should not be forgotten. Fleet has suggested that a 10% decrease in off- duty use would save $150, 000 . Although that number is an estimate, the restriction of use will most likely result in at least a 10% reduction in off-duty use . If that reduction is realized, no fee increase would be required. The Association however, is under no illusion that the fee structure will not be amended. The Association does request the Council to consider the impact of the use restriction when considering a new fee structure . The proposed fee structure is based on discussions at the last Council meeting of exploring a flat rate per mile charge . Based on a flat rate, users who live closer to the City will pay less for their privilege of using a take-home vehicle . There is also no charge for City residents as an incentive for those who reside in the City. The Association feels this fee structure, part-time fees, and use restriction will more that achieve the Council' s desired financial goals . If the estimates are correct, the previously listed conditions would result in positive revenue of approximately $230, 000 . As $80, 000 was the target number of increase, this is more than the Council seems to require . Salt Lake Police Association • 142 E. 200 S. Suite 303 • Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111 • (801)531-4904 •FAX (801)328-4103 As one can see by looking at the increasing rate, there is a noticeable disincentive the farther an officer resides from the City. The Council briefly discussed a mileage limit for take-home car use. The discussion began with a limit of 40 miles . The Association would take that one step further and suggest a 35 mile limit . That would be miles driven, not "as the crow flies" . The Association thanks the Council for the ability to contribute to this discussion. • Salt Lake Police Association • 142 E. 200 S. Suite 303 • Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111 • (801)531-4904 •FAX (801)328-4103 Within Bi-weekly Annual Users Dist Revenue New Hires Poten Rev CITY $0.00 0 60 15.31% $0.00 4 $0.00 5 $7.25 $188.50 1 0.26% $188.50 1 $188.50 10 $14.50 $377.00 51 13.01% $19,227.00 3 $1,131.00 15 $21.75 $565.50 86 21.94% $48,633.00 6 $3,393.00 ' 20 $29.00 $754.00 86 21.94% $64,844.00 6 $4,524.00 25 $36.25 $942.50 37 9.44% $34,872.50 3 $2,827.50 30 $43.50 $1,131.00 31 7.91% $35,061.00 2 $2,262.00 35 $50.75 $1,319.50 35 8.93% $46,182.50 2 $2,639.00 40 $58.00 $1,508.00 3 0.77% $4,524.00 1 $1,508.00 45 $65.25 $1,696.50 2 0.51% $3,393.00 0 $0.00 392 $256,925.50 28 $18,473.00 Incumbents $256,925.50 New Hires $18,473.00 Part-time $100,000.00 Revenue Total Revenue $375,398.50 D33-00-00.00 POLICE VEHICLES D33-01-00.00 OPERATION AND USE OF DEPARTMENT VEHICLES D33-01-01.00 DRIVING HABITS Employees shall operate police vehicles in a careful and prudent manner and shall set a proper example in driving habits. D33-02-00.00 TAKE HOME CAR PROGRAM A. Program Requirements 1. Vehicle assignment All employees assigned a police vehicle under this program will submit an AGREEMENT FOR USE OF POLICE VEHICLE form to the Chief of Police. This foiin shall act as an agreement between the employee and the Department authorizing the vehicle's use and providing for personal use reimbursement if required. All employees assigned a Department vehicle must complete an updated AGREEMENT FOR USE OF POLICE VEHICLE whenever they have a change of addresses or assigned vehicle. The authorization may be revoked at any time by the Chief of Police. An injured employee on light duty must forfeit the police vehicle upon request of the Chief of Police. An unmarked vehicle may be provided, if possible. Employees who are sick, injured or on a leave of absence and not able to return to work for a period of more than one month will turn their police vehicle into the shops. Once the vehicle has been turned into Fleet Management, the monthly charge for take-home privileges will be stopped. The vehicle will be returned to the employee upon their return to work and a new payroll deduction form and AGREEMENT FOR USE OF POLICE VEHICLE form will be completed and submitted. Officers on administrative leave shall turn their assigned vehicle into their Division Commander. The vehicle will be returned to the employee upon their return to work and a new payroll deduction form and AGREEMENT FOR USE OF POLICE VEHICLE form will be completed and submitted. a. Generally, assigned vehicles will stay with the originally issued employee. b. Exceptions are: 1. Transfer from a uniform to plainclothes division or vice versa. In this case, officers coming into the respective division will be assigned any available vehicle as their take-home vehicle. 2. Review of traffic accidents or other damage that totally destroys a vehicle will be based on a review of the case or facts of the incident by the Chief of Police. Based on the findings of that review, either a new or fleet vehicle will be issued to the employee. 3. Loaner vehicles, both marked and unmarked, are maintained and coordinated via the Fleet Management shop. 2. Residency Requirements a. Assignment of take-home police vehicles shall be determined by the location of the employee's residence. The take home car program is governed by Salt Lake City Police Department policy and procedure and Salt Lake City ordinance. b "_ Employees must reside within miles of the 200 South(I-80) Redwood Road. Distance will be determined by actual driving distance. 3. Forfeiture of Participation Any employee who chooses to change the location of their residence to anywhere outside the established limit will forfeit participation in the Take Home`Car program• 4. Exceptions Employees hired prior to July 31, 2006,who maintain their current residence will not be subject to the mile restriction1h1 . 5. Vehicle Use Restrictions Off-duty use will be reasonable and incidental to domestic usage. Off- duty use of the vehicles within the established boundaries of Salt Lake City shall be unrestricted, except as provided in subparagraphs B and C of this policy. Off-duty use of vehicles outside of Salt Lake City must be incidental to travel to-and-from Salt Lake City. B. Rules and Regulations 1. Each employee shall be responsible for the care and security of an assigned police vehicle. , 2. Division/Unit Commanders shall make periodic inspections of vehicles assigned to their division personnel, which will include off-duty use and activity, to ensure that employees are complying with the intent of this policy. 3. Officers shall carry the following equipment with them in the vehicle at all times: a. An authorized gun b Police Radio c. Proper identification, includes Department pictured ID card d. A flashlight e. Ticket books f. Necessary report forms g. Flares 4. Civilian employees will carry the following equipment with them in the vehicle at all times. a. Proper identification, includes Department pictured ID card b. A flashlight c. Flares 5. Window decals, ornaments hanging from the windshield mirror, bumper stickers or other signs, pictures or ornaments visible to the public and attached to a police vehicle are prohibited. 6. When off-duty, employees may dress appropriate for their activities. When in contact with the public, dress should be suitable to represent the Department. 7. When using the vehicle off-duty, employees must keep the police radio on and, if necessary, be available to respond to emergency calls. If in the vicinity, the officer should respond to in-progress crimes or other major calls. The officer shall notify the dispatcher of the response and should continue to assist until relieved or until the problem is concluded. Passengers should not be in police vehicles while responding to emergencies or dangerous calls. They should be left in a safe place prior to arrival at the scene. 8. If an off-duty employee responds to a dispatched call or performs other police-related services as discussed in paragraph 7 above, the employee will be compensated pursuant to the overtime policy consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act. 9. Except when responding to an emergency call, employees shall park police vehicles legally and will be responsible for any citation received. 10. Unattended vehicles will be locked at all times. 11. City-owned vehicles will not be utilized for carrying heavy or excessive loads and will not have objects protruding from the trunks or windows. 12. Under no circumstances will police vehicles be operated by employees who have a measurable amount of alcohol in their system. 13. Officers shall secure all weapons while the vehicle is unattended. All weapons will be removed from the vehicle while it is being serviced. 14. Employees may use the vehicle to drive to-and-from secondary employment within Salt Lake City limits. 15. All Department employees shall ensure all passengers the use of the seat belts installed by the vehicle manufacturer in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner when operating or riding in any Department vehicle. The driver of the vehicle is responsible for ensuring compliance with State Law(41-6-182 U.C.A.), by all occupants of the vehicle they are operating. Approved child safety restraints shall be used for all children of age, size or weight, for which such restraints are prescribed by law. Ref. 41-6- 148.20 U.C.A. The above applies any time the Department vehicle is being operated either on or off duty. No employee shall allow any person to modify, remove, deactivate or otherwise tamper with the vehicle seat belts except for vehicle maintenance and repair, or without the express written authorization of the Chief of Police. Any person(s) in custody and being transported in a Department vehicle, is required to be secured in the vehicle by the use of the seat belt that is provided by the vehicle manufacturer. Officers arriving at a call or making a traffic stop, may remove the seat belt for a quick vehicle exit,just prior to stopping. Caution should be exercised to ensure that during a traffic stop the violator is indeed stopping before the seat belt is removed. 16. Only Department employees may operate City-owned vehicles. 17. Police vehicles exceeding 0,000 miles [b2]annually will be reviewed by Police Administration to determine if mileage accumulation is in compliance with this policy. C. Maintenance Requirements Employees are responsible for the appearance and cleanliness of their vehicles, both interior and exterior. Employees assigned take-home vehicles will wash, vacuum, and clean their vehicles on duty. Employees are also fully responsible for the general maintenance and proper care of their vehicles and will: 1. Use fuel, lubricants or additives in the vehicle that are provided by the City or approved by the Department. 2. Only use the City shops or other facility authorized by the Department for repairs. 3. It is the employee's duty to maintain an inflated spare tire and necessary tire changing tools in their vehicle. Employees are responsible to change any flat tires on their assigned vehicle. 4. Obtain express written permission from the Support Services Division Commander for the addition or deletion of auxiliary equipment to police vehicles. Auxiliary equipment may include, but is not limited to, scanners, stereos, etc. a. Any such equipment must be purchased, installed and maintained at the employee's personal expense. The employee as per the agreement must retain any standard equipment removed from the vehicle. b. When the vehicle is no longer assigned to the employee, it must be restored to a condition acceptable to Fleet Management. The City shops will then complete the final disposition portion of the agreement form. The form will be returned to the Support Services Division Commander. D33-03-00.00 FLEET/LOANER VEHICLES—EMPLOYEES NOT TAKING PART IN THE TAKE HOME CAR PROGRAM AND TEMPORARY USE VEHICLES A. FLEET VEHICLES For those employees who do not participate in the Take-Home Car program, a vehicle will be assigned to their division for them to check out at the beginning of each shift. B. LOANER VEHICLES A number of vehicles designated as loaner vehicles are available for temporary use. The vehicles can be checked out via the Fleet Management shops. Before returning a loaner vehicle it will be fueled and cleaned. The vehicle will be returned to the Fleet Management shop's parking lot and the keys returned to the Fleet Management shop the same day the employee regains the use of their assigned vehicle. Officers who do not participate in the take home car program may obtain a loaner vehicle, if available, for secondary employment assignments. All employees using fleet or loaner vehicles are responsible for completing work orders for cars needing repairs. D33-04-00.00 VEHICLE REPAIRS OR MAINTENANCE It is the responsibility of the employee assigned a Police Department vehicle to keep the vehicle in good repair. The following procedures outline the approved methods of turning a vehicle into the shops for repairs. A. Non-emergency and Non-safety Repairs Contact the Fleet Management Shops, 535-6924 and make an appointment to leave the vehicle. If possible obtain a loaner vehicle from the shops. B. Emergency Repairs When repairs are of an emergency nature, take the vehicle to the shops or if needed, have the vehicle towed to the shops. No appointment is needed. If possible obtain a loaner vehicle from the shops. C. Interior Detailing of Vehicles The detailing service is for biohazards and soil that cannot be removed through the course of normal maintenance. Employees requiring their vehicle's interior to be;detailed can turn their vehicle into Fleet Management's shop, who will make the necessary arrangements. Fleet personnel needs to be notified if the cleaning relates to a BIOHAZARD problem and the specific type of biohazard involved. Fleet Maintenance has a contract with an auto dealer who is certified in handling such instances. D33-05-00.00 REPORTING DAMAGE TO VEHICLES As soon as practical, the employee will notify an on duty supervisor. The employee must complete a G.O. report of the incident that resulted in the damage. The employee must also complete a Damaged City Equipment Form. A memo detailing the incident and copies of the report and Damaged City Equipment Form are sent through the chain of command to the employee's Division/Unit Commander, who forwards them to the Internal Affairs Unit for appropriate dissemination. It is the responsibility of the Management Services Division to maintain the Police Vehicle Accident File (Also see D90-04-00.00). The Damaged Police Vehicle File contains reports of damage to police vehicles resulting from any means other than reported police car accidents. This file is maintained by the Planning and Research Unit. Requests for vehicle repairs may be made by submitting a completed Request For Repairs form and leaving it with the vehicle at Fleet Management Shop Office. Repair personnel will notify the employee when the repairs have been completed. D33-06-00.00 REFUELING OF POLICE VEHICLES A. Fueling Facilities The primary fuel facility for police vehicles is the Fleet Shops located at 326 West 900 South. Alternative facilities are located at the Water Department (1530 South West Temple), Water Reclamation (1850 North Redwood Road), and Parks and Recreation (1965 West 500 South). Alternative facilities shall be used only when the primary facility is closed due to malfunction or shutdown. Refueling should be done on duty. D33-07-00.00 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE Each police vehicle must have a lube and oil change every 4,000 miles as prescribed by Fleet Management. Employees will take their vehicles to the facility specified by Fleet Management for lube and oil change service. No appointment is necessary. Fleet Management will notify employees when A&C, P&M and state inspections are overdue. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: June 1, 2006 BUDGET FOR: Amendments to the City's Take-Home Vehicle Policy STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Chief Burbank, Chief Querry, Scott Atkinson, Jerry Burton, Rick Graham, Lamont Nelson, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter, Gary Mumford, Sylvia Jones, Lehua Weaver, Jennifer Bruno The Administration is proposing to make changes to the practice and procedure regarding City take-home vehicles. The City's take-home vehicle program is governed by City Code, and changes would be made in the form of an ordinance amendment. The need to review the existing ordinance and practice arose from questions about the cost of the program, primarily due to concerns about fuel, maintenance, and replacement costs for the vehicles. Currently, the cars are used for City business while the employees are at work or on-duty, for commuting, and within the County for unrestricted personal use. Changes would affect approximately 413 employees in the Police Department (not counting vacant positions), 21 in the Fire Department and up to 12 total employees in Public Services and Community Development. Council staff has outlined the current ordinance and the Administration's proposal. In addition, staff has noted information from a proposal unofficially shared with Council staff by a representative of the Police Union. Council staff has also provided options, building upon the current program, Administrative proposal, union outline, and comments received. The policy concepts the staff uses as a foundation are: • The take-home car program provides significant value for City taxpayers due to enhance emergency response opportunities, efficient deployment of City personnel, and visibility of marked police cars within Salt Lake City. • The take-home car program is not designed as a benefit to employees; it is therefore not a negotiable item in terms of union contracts. • It is advantageous to City taxpayers to have marked police cars in City neighborhoods. • Salt Lake City has long sought to encourage and provide incentives for police officers to live within the City. • It is in the City's interest to maximize the life of the cars as assets purchased by the taxpayers; it is the responsibility of and within the authority of the City Administration to manage auto mileage and vehicle use, including establishing guidelines and / or a cap on use. • All City employees are responsible to fund their own transportation to and from their employment. The City provides a transit pass for each employee in order to encourage the use of mass transit. One could argue that the City charges the Page 1 4. employees with take-home vehicles a portion of their commuting costs, rather than the full cost, due to the benefit the program provides to taxpayers. ■ The value of the take-home vehicle program for the City taxpayers is in direct proportion to the degree to which officers and others with take-home vehicles live within the City, or very close to the City. The value of the program to City residents diminishes as the distance increases. The greatest benefit to the take-home vehicle program to City neighborhoods is the presence of marked police vehicles in the neighborhoods. KEY ELEMENTS: The Council may wish to discuss the major policy premises for the take-home vehicle program. As established in previous Council discussions, current City ordinance, department policy documents, and in the transmittal by the Administration, the principal policy goal of the take-home vehicle program has been to provide City residents the maximum benefit for their tax dollars. Residents receive the greatest benefit through timely emergency response by law enforcement personnel in the event of a widespread emergency, and having the additional vehicles present and circulating throughout the City. This policy has been achieved by developing take-home vehicle program criteria, adopted by ordinance, such as commuting distance limits and terms of personal use. As a matter of policy, the Council has never viewed the take-home car as a benefit of City employment. As noted, the program is designed to benefit City taxpayers. The Administration's proposal includes the following parts: a. Distance between the City and the employee's residence. Current: The ordinance states, "Under no circumstances shall a city-owned vehicle be authorized for take-home use for an employee who resides farther than thirty five (35) miles from the corporate limits of Salt Lake City, regardless of the department in which the employee is employed." Proposed: 1) Use one central location within the City from which to measure the distance to an employee's home. According to the transmittal, the Administration proposes using the City & County building as the point from which to measure. 2) Shorten the allowable distance from 35 miles to 25 miles. (The Administration used "Mapquest" driving directions to measure these distances.) 3) Allow current employees who exceed the 25-mile limit a 5-year grandfathering period. The Administration has included this in the ordinance amendment. Council's Options: i. Adopt the Administration's recommendation of 25 miles from the City and County Building, or amend the ordinance to establish a new location(s) from which to measure, or leave the measurement point as the City limits. Council staff has received an alternate proposal to make Page 2 w the central measurement point the geographic center of the City- at Redwood Road and I-80. ii. Adopt the Administration's recommendation of 25 miles as the maximum allowable distance from the measuring point to the employee's residence, or leave the maximum as 35-miles. iii. Adopt the Administration's recommendation to establish the grandfathering period for employees who exceed any new measurement methods; elect to grandfather only those employees who meet a specific interpretation of the ordinance and live within 35 road miles of the City limits, or do not address the grandfathering issue in City ordinance. Not addressing grandfathering would eliminate use of City vehicles for employees who live a greater distance than is allowed by the ordinance ultimately adopted by the Council. iv. The Council may also wish to consider establishing by ordinance whether the measurement method should be driving distance or 'as the crow flies'. Matters at Issue: a) Currently, there is a discrepancy between the City Ordinance and department policy manuals. The ordinance states, "Under no circumstances shall a city-owned vehicle be authorized for take-home use for an employee who resides farther than thirty five (35) miles from the corporate limits of Salt Lake City, regardless of the department in which the employee is employed." (emphasis added) The Police Manual, states in section D33-02-00.00 A-2-b, "Employees who reside in locations beyond the 35 miles limit and who have received approval through a special agreement between the employee and the Chief of Police, may have take-home use of the police vehicle; however, they must meet any requirements concerning use and security of the vehicle." And A-3 reads, "Any employee who chooses to change the location of their residence to anywhere outside the established 35 mile limit will forfeit participation in the Take Home Car program unless a special agreement is entered into between the employee and the Chief as provided in subparagraph 2 above." (emphasis added) The Council may wish to ask the Attorney's Office for advice on whether this special agreement is allowed under the ordinance or whether there is additional ordinance language that could clarify this intention. b) The Council may wish to ask whether the City & County Building is the most central point within the City, or whether there are some other alternatives. Alternatives could include: 1) continuing to use City limits, 2) using the employee's reporting office (more work to administrate), 3) choosing a geographical center of the City from which to measure - Redwood Road and I-80 has been suggested, or 4) the center of the population base. Issues have been raised about whether employees are all departing from their shift from the downtown area. Also, questions have been raised about whether an emergency that employees would need to respond to would be downtown or anywhere throughout the City. Page 3 Farthest Distance Comparisons Distance from I-80 / Approx. C&C Redwood City Residence Building Road Limit Tooele 36.24 33.24 24.80 Grantsville 37.47 34.47 26.03 Pleasant Grove 35.32 36.76 32.61 Lindon 36.57 38.01 33.85 Orem 38.46 39.90 35.74 Ogden 38.05 37.81 33.07 Wanship 39.75 43.43 35.17 Kamas 41.68 45.37 37.10 Francis 42.28 45.96 37.70 Oakley 44.46 48.14 39.88 (Using shortest distance on Mapquest) c) According to information provided by the Administration, using the proposed change of the City & County building as a measurement location and using "Mapquest" to estimate driving distances, there are: (i) 79 employees between 25 and 35 miles of the City and County building, and (ii) 21 additional employees beyond the 35-mile limit (between 36 and 45 miles) of the City and County building. d) Administrative staffs in the Police Department, Management Services and Public Services are all involved with various aspects of the program - from collection of vehicle forms, payroll, vehicle maintenance, etc. To update information, confirm employee residences and distance from the City measuring point, and other related issues. For example, in the past there has been discussion about where the City limit is on different routes out of the City, but confusion about who should enforce the issue. The Council may wish to ask who would manage these aspects of the program in order to comply with the ordinance. e) The method of measuring distance from a city location to employee residences has caused some disagreement. One could use an internet- based mapping program or other software to identify reasonably accurate driving miles, or, as the Police Department has been doing, one could set up a map with radius boundaries of the 5, 10, 15, plus miles from the City's measuring point. Due to differing opinions on the matter, the Council may wish to consider establishing the measurement method by ordinance. f) As established in the ordinance and reiterated in the Administration's transmittal, a primary purpose for the take-home car program is to provide sworn officers and law enforcement personnel the ability to immediately and quickly respond to emergency situations. In fact, the City Ordinance outlines four criteria, one of which must be met, for an Page 4 employee to be eligible for the take-home program. Two of the four criteria address either the need to respond to emergency call-back situations or "The nature of the employee's work requires immediate response to emergency situations, regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or emergency equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's personal vehicle." The policy paper provided by the Administration states, "Anything further than 25 miles would result in a response time that would not be a benefit to the city for first response capabilities." The Council may wish to weigh their decisions with regard to measuring method and distances in comparison to the goal of prompt emergency response. g) The Council may wish to consider the length of the grandfathering period. For employees deemed ineligible based on new measurement methods, the changes to the program may cause unintended hardships. The Administration proposes a 5-year grandfathering period to allow the employee to make any alternate arrangements. h) Approximately half of the take-home vehicles are not marked to identify City ownership or department. The Council may wish to consider whether unmarked vehicles may be treated differently, because their value to the residents (of having more police cars throughout the City) is diminished. b. Personal Use. (Secondary employment use is addressed in Section `c'below.) Current: For sworn officers and law enforcement personnel, the ordinance states, "off-duty use of the vehicle is unrestricted while within the Salt Lake county boundaries." Proposed: The Administration suggests that all personal use of the take- home vehicles be prohibited. (Use for secondary employment is addressed below in Section `c'.) Council's Options: i. Adopt the Administration's recommendation to eliminate personal use, or amend the ordinance to restrict personal use of take-home vehicles based on a) city limits, b) number of maximum miles allowed (difficult to monitor and establish an amount), or c) maintain the status quo by continuing to allow unrestricted use within Salt Lake County, or the Council could consider eliminating personal use. ii. Amend the ordinance to clarify whether the personal use of vehicles is allowed only for those employees living within Salt Lake City / County boundaries, or for any officer while within Salt Lake City / County. Matters at Issue: a) The current policy allows unrestricted use within Salt Lake County, because of the benefit of increased presence of marked police cars and resulting safety perceptions and accessibility of police officers. b) Although there are benefits to the public for officers being allowed to use vehicles for personal use, there are some situations under which this Page 5 might significantly increase the number of miles put on a vehicle, even for officers living within the City limits. For example, according to the policy paper provided by the Administration, "46 police vehicles exceeded 20,000 [total] miles in one year. 17 police vehicles exceeded 25,000 [total] miles in a year. Many of these high-mileage vehicles belong to employees who live within city limits and took advantage of the `unrestricted off- duty use."' According to the Administration, for vehicles that are assigned and used on a regular basis, the average number of miles per vehicle per year is 16,000. However, as a maximum number of allowable miles, various numbers have been suggested. The Council may wish to ask whether the Administration would suggest a viable number. c) The Council may wish to ask whether a maximum number of miles per car would be feasible to monitor and enforce. d) Some vehicles are used by officers on regular patrol cycles, and some are used by employees who do not drive as frequently. e) The vehicles are on a 5-year replacement cycle. According to the Administration, in order to maximize resale value, the cars should have less than 100,000 miles at the end of the 5-year period (20,000 per year). While mileage is more heavily weighed, the condition of the car is also a factor in the resale value, and overall reports indicate that the cars are better taken care of when assigned to a specific employee. c. Secondary Employment. Current: Sworn officers and law enforcement officers are allowed to use vehicles to drive to and from secondary employment. Proposed: According to the policy paper, the Administration recommends that the secondary employer should reimburse "the City directly for the full cost of the vehicle while traveling to, from, and during secondary employment." According to the proposed ordinance, use of a city vehicle would be prohibited unless a reimbursement method is established for the secondary employer to reimburse the City. Council's Options: i. Adopt the Administration's recommendation to allow use of take-home vehicles for secondary employment only if the employer reimburses Salt Lake City for all costs related to the employment, or amend the ordinance to identify other terms of allowable use for secondary employment. ii. Specify in the ordinance what method of reimbursement will be applied to secondary employers. (It is not proposed to clarify the reimbursement terms in the ordinance. However, the Council may wish to do so.) Page 6 Matters at Issue: a) According to the policy paper, the costs to be reimbursed would include any costs incurred during secondary employment- including driving the car and use of the car during employment duties. For example, at the Delta Center, the officers will use their cars when conducting traffic control following large events, or various employers that allow officers to take persons who have been arrested to jail during secondary employment hours. b) It could be considered a benefit to the City that these secondary employers are paying for these services, because on-duty officers may otherwise be called to fulfill the function. c) The Council may wish to ask if the Administration has a method to propose to collect all related vehicle costs from secondary employers and how this would be administered. d) According to information provided by the Administration if secondary employers were to pay $1.00 per hour worked per officer, this would yield approximately $100,000. However, the Council may wish to consider that this possible reimbursement schedule will cover less of the costs for employees who live farther away from the City. e) Generally, officers will find secondary employment in a security related field, and the presence of a police car is beneficial. d. Amount of employee reimbursement to the City. Current: The reimbursement schedule is not adopted by ordinance, rather the ordinance refers to the "written fee schedule adopted by the mayor or mayor's designee. Such fee schedule shall include a policy favoring those employees who live within the city. The fee required shall be no greater than the total actual costs incurred by the city for such voluntary use, including depreciation and capital costs." (The official "City Policy" section related to the take-home vehicle reimbursement schedule is outdated. The information provided here was otherwise provided by the Administration.) As outlined in the "Reimbursement Schedule" below, reimbursement rates vary based upon distance from the City limits. Proposed: The review committee evaluated several scenarios and is recommending a reimbursement schedule based on recovering 50% of the cost for the employees commuting in city owned vehicles (estimated at $740,000). These proposed reimbursement rates would apply to every employee with a take-home vehicle, regardless of resident city. The Administration further proposes that these rates would be adjusted annually. Page 7 Reimbursement Schedule Bi-weekly rates (ea. Pay period) Admin. Police Assoc. Current Proposal Proposal Measurement Point: City Limits Cit Bld I-80/Rdwd Police/Fire w/in City $ - $ 8.00 Others w/in City 6.92 8.00 Within 5 miles 25.38 $ 9.25 23.50 Within 10 miles 27.69 18.50 25.50 Within 15 miles 30.00 27.75 27.50 Within 20 miles 32.31 37.00 29.50 Within 25 miles 34.62 46.25 31.50 Within 30 miles 34.62 55.50 33.50 Within 35 miles 34.62 64.75 35.50 Estimated Annual $ 295,181 $375,000 $ 290,422 Revenue: *Please Note: n/a indicates that in the Administration's Proposal, charges would apply to all employees based on their distance from the City&County Building, and so distinguishing whether they are within City boundaries has no bearing on the reimbursement rate. Secondary Note:All three versions assume roughly 445 employees participating. Council's Options: i. Currently the specific reimbursement fees are not adopted by ordinance. The Council could consider including the fee schedule in the ordinance rather than by City policy. ii. The Council could specify whether the employees (or specifically officers) living within the City should pay any amount, or whether, as proposed, they should pay a reduced rate. Matters at Issue: Budget Impact Admin. Police Assoc. Current Proposal Proposal Estimated Cost* $ 740,000 $ 740,000 $ 740,000 Reimbursement $ 295,181 $ 375,000 $ 290,422 Personal Use Elimination $ 150,000 Secondary Employment unknown $ 100,000 reimbursement General Fund subsidy $ 444,819 $ 215,000 $ 349,578 *Please Note: the estimated cost is based solely on the commuting miles information available. It does not account for the cost of miles driven in relation to personal use, secondary employment or on-duty use. Page 8 a) Historically, the fees for employees living within the City have been either significantly reduced or eliminated, because of the intention to encourage employees to live closer in order to be able to respond quickly to emergency events, and for additional police visibility throughout the City and in neighborhoods. The Council may wish to consider whether this policy is still a priority, and whether charging the City residents supports this previous policy. Perhaps the Council may wish to consider a fee schedule that charges City residents no fee or a lesser amount and more steeply increases the fee for employees who live farther away. This could be easily calculated to generate a revenue target once the Council identifies the distance limits and location from which to measure. b) The $740,000 cost for the program is calculated by estimating the number of commuting miles for each car in the program, averaging the number of shifts per employee, and using a "Cost per Mile" calculation taking into account fuel, maintenance, repair, insurance and claims. It is difficult to estimate the number of miles attributable to personal use, secondary employment, or on-duty use. c) The $150,000 savings from eliminating personal use in the Administration's proposal is estimated based on a 10 percent reduction of the total miles put on the vehicles. i) If personal use were restricted, and the change resulted in a 20 percent reduction in total miles, the savings would be $314,800. ii) And for a 40 percent reduction, the savings would be $629,600. Page 9 • Salt Lake City Take-Home Vehicle Policy Review . April 25, 2006 BACKGROUND Take-home use of city-owned motor vehicles is governed by City Ordinance 2.54. The ordinance identifies four criteria that allow employees to take-home a city vehicle.on a regular basis: 1. Department Director. . 2. Sworn and certified law enforcement officer. . 3. Five emergency situations or callbacks are responded to per month. 4. The nature of an employee's work requires immediate response to emergency situations, regardless of frequency, and requires the use of specific safety or emergency equipmentlhat cannot be reasonably carried in the empl,oyee's personal vehicle. Accompanying these criteria are:some restrictions..: 1. Under no circumstances shall:a pity-owned vehicle be.authorized;for take; home use for an employee who resides farther than thirty five.(35).miles , from the corporate limits of Salt Lake City, regardless of the department.in which the employee is employed: • 2. For all but sworn officers, under no circumstances shall a city vehicle,be used for any purpose other than city business,to promote a city interest or for any use other than authorized by the mayor or the mayor's designee. 3. For.sworn officers and certified law enforcement`officers, off-duty use of the vehicle is unrestricted while within the Salt Lake County boundaries, including travel to and from approved secondary employment; and approved for use outside of the county limits while going to and from work. Employees who are authorized VC, take-home city-owned vehicles are then assessed the following fees adopted by the Mayor but not spelled out in the ordinance: Current Reimbursement Policy Bi Weekly•Rate Chart Police/Fire.within city limits All others within city limits :6.92 Within 5 miles 25.38 Within lQ miles 27.69 Within J.5 miles ; 30.00 Within 20:Miles 32,31 Within 25 miles 34.62 Within 30 miles 34.62 Within 35 miles 34,62 PURPOSE OF STUDY Since the adoption of the ordinance in FY 2000-01 there has been an increased emphasis on reducing the number of vehicles to eliminate additional costs and to lessen the use of fossil fuels. In addition gas prices are at all-time highs which have made the costs of the take-home vehicle program increase dramatically. Fuel prices are not predicted to decrease in the foreseeable future, For these.reasons the ordinance and policies have been reviewed by a city team to look at'more cost-effective alternatives and opportunities-to the current program while weighing in the benefits and efficiency of response time from off duty staff. FACTS 1, Current number of vehicles taken home by city staff: • :Police.Department 41 • Fire Department • 21 • Other City Departments . 12 Note: Since the police department has the vast majority of take-home vehicles, much of the data that fallows.concerns them. 2; Of these take4homevehicles,'104 belong to police employees living within the city limits;' 3. Average cost of personal use and commuting.for the take-home fleet is $.26/mile. 4. .Police Department take-home vehicles accumulate 14,380 rounds.trip miles per day commuting to and from home. 5. Total take-home vehicle expense is $736,162 per year. Of that total`, $295,.181 is reimbursed to the city by employees. The remaining $440,981 is absorbed by the General Fund: 6, In 2005, Police Officers responded to 233,000 calls. This does not include traffic`stops and issues they respond:to that are not given a case number. .• 10,0.00 of.these were responses by off-duty staff, 7,. Non-city public•safety agency take-home vehicle-policies: • Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office - No cost to employee - Must live within the County to have take-home; - Can be used for personal reasons including 2nd job - Family members can ride in vehicle- :• Davis County Sheriff's Office - No cost to the`employee - •• • • . - Must live within 10 miles of County limits•but policy isn't enforced - Officers can use the vehicle for 2nd job 2 • Utah County Sheriff's Office • = No cost to employee - Must live within the county to have take-home vehicle - No personal, social or unofficial use - No family or friends Sandy City - No cost to employee - Muss live within Salt Lake County or not more than 20 miles south - Take-home vehicle can only be used for commuting except if living in Sandy.City limits Murray City - No cost to employee -- Must live within Salt Lake County - No personal use Provo City - No cost to employee - Off-duty use allowed within Utah County for on-call employees Layton.City -- No cost to.employee - Must,live within 15 miles of Layton City limits, - : Family members may ride'in vehicles in city limits Ogden City - No cost to employee if they live'within the city or no further than 13 miles from the Public Safety building - Standard IRS rate is applied if outside limits -- Off-duty use all• owed within OgdenCity limits '- Part-time use allowed if benefits to Ogden City are validated - Vehicles cannot exceed 18,000 miles per vear No family or friends allowed to ride in vehicle West Valley City - No cost to employees living within West Valley City limits - Outside city limits employees are charged $1.00/mile one way No personal use outside West Valley City limits. _ No family or friends allowed to ride in vehicle EMI 1. The current City ordinance dictates that personal commuting mileage for reimbursement purposes is calculated by measuring from the city boundary. This Is difficult to calculate and enforce because there is no standard point to calculate from nor can technology be.Used to automate the process. 2. Vehicle manufacturing costs continue to skyrocket and vehicle replacement • funds allocated for replacement are not increasing at the same rate. 3 • 3. Fuel costs have increased 83% over the last three years and they are expected to continue to rise. 4. The average take-home vehicle accumulates 35 miles/day in mileage, or 6,475 miles per year: There are many take-home vehicles that exceed 60 miles/day in off-duty miles, 5. The rising cost of vehicles, fuel, oil and maintenance items have caused our vehicle cost-per-mile (CPM) to rise from $.18/mile to the current $.26/mile. 6. 46 police vehicles exceeded 20,000 miles In one year. 17 police vehicles exceeded 25,000 miles in a year. Many of these high mileage vehicles belong to employees who live within city limits and took advantage of the "unrestricted off-duty use." This will result in vehicles needing replacement sooner than the budgeted 5 year replacement cycle. 7. The city absorbs the $440,981 non-reimbursed cost of take-home vehicles. 8. Vehicle life is extended by having'a car per officer program because the vehicle is not being used 24/7 as would be the case if officers used a "shared pool" concept of vehicle assignment. Most agencies that do not have a lake- home program utilize the "shared poor concept. 9. Vehicle condition is shown to be better when employees feel ownership by being assigned to them. 10,.Parking space can remain at minimum levels with a take-home car per officer program since officers drive their vehicles home. Otherwise, sufficient parking would have to be constructed to accommodate the influx of personal vehicles as well as police pool vehicles, Recommendations Status Quo After analyzing the costs, considering the policies of other municipal agencies, and evaluating possible options,the committee does not recommend that the city accept a status quo option with take-home vehicles. Status quo would result in the city continuing to subsidize take-home vehicles out Of the General Fund in the amount of $440,981 'and increasing each year. Employees would continue to use vehicles in the current manner which would require earlier replacement and increased costs in future years as the vehicles wear out. The committee does not believe that the benefit of take-home vehicles by off-duty employees is cost- effective for the City to subsidize fully. Elimination of Ail Take-Home Vehicles The committee does recognize.that some benefit:is•.gained by public safety employees taking a vehicle home within certain limitations. The main reason for this is response'time to emergency situations for first responders, This benefit diminishes the further away from the city an employee lives. Additionally if the ordinance eliminated all take-home vehicles there would be operational and cost concerns. The City would need to provide parking for the City vehicles which 4 • would require a parking lot to be constructed at an estimated cost of $960,000. The only location currently available to the City that would accommodate the number of cars in the take-home program would be adjacent to the parks facility. The rough engineering estimate is that the parking lot would need to accommodate 800 cars which would require 5 acres. Parking lot costs are estimated at $1,200 per stall, This does not include securityor other operational changes if the City were to Implement a "shared pool" concept with vehicles. Further extensive research would be needed to evaluate if this would be beneficial operationally or financially. The benefits of reducing fossil fuel use would be negated or worse under this condition since employees would need to drive their personal vehicles to work and home and in many cases this parking facility would require a longer commute. Eliminating personal use would potentially be more beneficial to the environment than eliminating take home vehicles. It must be recognized that data does indicate there is a trend among large metropolitan agencies across the country to eliminate takeyhome vehicle programs and operate fleet needs through the use of"shared pool"programs. Employees are on their own to commute and are assigned a pool vehicle upon reporting to work. Police department representatives from San Diego, Las Vegas and Rend gave the following reasons-for eliminating their take-home programs: • Ability to reduce:'the number of fleet 'vehicles as much as50%0. To do this those agencies operationally changed to 12 hour shifts. This would be a major change to Salt Lake City's operation and more extensive research and analysis would be needed to evaluate this before it were implemented. • Increased vehicle control since theY would be located at a City facility during off-duty time. • Decreased vehicle expense due to the elimination of personal use. While this program has the benefits indicated above, the cities also pointed out. there are some drawbacks and costs associated with this type of program as follows: • Vehicles do not last as long and are usually kept in a much worse condition due to employees not assuming ownership of them: With good policies and monitoring in place this usually becomes a short term situation that improves over time. • Vehicles under the "shared pool"concept would have to be replaced at 3- year rather than 5-year Intervals. • Adequate parking is needed to accommodate the vehicles as well as employees vehicles: This would have to be a secure facility to prevent vandalism and theft. • Lockers would need to be constructed at facilities to accommodate overnight storage of weapons and specialized equipment, 5 •` The responses made by off-duty employees would need to be absorbed by on-duty employees. • Employees called back from off-duty would not be able to respond as quickly. • If a"shared pool" concept were implemented the total number of vehicles that could respond in an emergency situation would be reduced.. • Decrease in employee morale. • Standard Point of Reference The committee believes that adopting a standard point of reference that will not change over time will allow a take-home vehicle program to be more easily administered and implemented. The recommendation is to use the City& County Building as that standard measuring point The City can then use automated programs that will calculate the residence of employees and provide the mileage from that standard point to their home. 'This will allow the City to calculate and charge employees the appropriate fee for take-home use and can easily be verified and audited when necessary. Personal Use Restrictions The committee recommends that there should be further restrictions in personal use of city vehicles. Currently the ordinance allows unrestricted personal use of its vehicles in Salt Lake County for sworn officers and certified law enforcement officers. This includes travel to approved secondary employment. The current ordinance also prohibits employees from taking a•vehicle home if they live 35 miles from the corporate limits. The committee recommends that all personal use of.city vehicles be prohibited. This would include prohibiting travel to and from secondary employment unless the secondary employer reimburses the City directly for the full cost of the vehicle while traveling to, from, and during secondary employment. The committee also recommends that the City'prohibit any employee from taking a City vehicle home if they live further than 25 miles from the standard point of reference; the City & County Building. Since we are changing both the mileage restriction and the point of reference for calculating commuter miles, it is: recommended that all employees currently authorized.to take home vehicles be grandfathered from their current residence if they exceed the 25 mile: limit. No additional employees, current or new, would be allowed to take home a vehicle if they lived outside of this restriction. The 25,mile limit was derived from. calculating response time to the city.. Anything further than;25 miles would result In a response time that would not be a.benefit to the city for first response capabilities. Data is not kept on personal,mileage..so the savings of these two recommendations can only be estimated to be approximately$150,004 a year,. • Reimbursement for Commuting Costs Employees currently reimburse the city for commuting anywhere from $0 to $34.63 per pay period based on their mileage from their home to the corporate 6 • limits, This same fee structure is not stated in the City Ordinance but required to be adopted by the Mayor or designee and to favor employees living within the city, • The City could:adopt the policy that all commuting costs be recovered from employees taking vehicles home. To implement this policy the City would be saying;thatthere is,no benefit to the.taxpayer for quick and convenient response from off-duty employees therefore;all commuting:costs would be reimbursed. There would,be a different'reimbur-sement schedule for a 4-day work week and a 5-day but for purposes of illustration.,. the 4-day workweek policy change would be as follows: Full Cost Recovery Ri-Weekly'Rate Chart Police/Fire within city limits' 14.80 All others within citylimits 14.80 Within 5•miles 18'.50 Within 10 miles 37.00 Within 15 miles 55.50 ' Within 20 miles 74,00 Within 25 miles 92.50 Within 30 miles 111.00 Within 35 miles, . 129..50, This reimbursement policy would collect the full $740,0.00 cost of commuting in city vehicles and would double to quadruple the bi-weekly costs to the employees. Public Safety Staff involved in this discussion reviewed their policies and have proposed a reimbursement schedule that charges those in the city limits $25 and then adds 15% to the other existing rates, Public SafetvProposal Ri-Weekly Rate Chart Police/Fire within city limits 25:00 All others within city limits 25,00 Within 5 miles 29.19 ` Within 10 miles 31.84 Within.15 miles 34.50 Within 20 miles 37.16 'Within 25 Miles 39,81 Within 30 miles' 3981 Within 35 miles 39.81 • This proposal would collect approximately $378;000 of the $740,000 cost of commuting in city vehicles. This is approximately 50% of the cost of commuting and is an increase of $83,000 over thecurrent reimbursement schedule,'.This' • .proposal°does not make changes to the.personal use,Of vehicles or 1n the miles out'bf the city one can commute with a`City vehicle. The ordinance requires'a fee schedule"favoring those employees who live within,the city.". This:proposal does charge less for-those who live In the city but one could`argue that'wlth only a $15 • difference per pay period between those who live in the city and one who lives 35 miles out is not very favorable. The committee recommends that the city recognize there are benefits to quick and.convenient response from off-duty employees•who live within 25 miles of the City & County Building and that with the restrictions recommended above, the City should share 50% in the cost of the take-home program. Additionally the committee felt that those living within the city should reimburse a minimal but still favorable amount for the use of the vehicle to commute to and from their residence. The reimbursement schedule for a 4-day work week with a 50% participation would be as follows: 50% Cost Recovery Hi-Weekly Rate Chart ' Police/lire`within city limits 9.25 All others within city limits 9;25 Within 5 miles 9,25 Within i0 miles . 18,50 Within 15 miles ' 27.75` Within 20 miles 37.00 • Within 25.miles 46.25 Within 30 miles .. 55,50. Within 35 miles 64,75;:; • This reimbursement policy would collect approximately$375,000 of the $740,000 cost of commuting In city vehicles but would only increase the bl-weekly costs to the employees anywhere from $9 if you live in the city to double the current reimbursement for those that live at the maximum distance,: If eliminating personal use results in a savings of $150,000, the General Fund subsidy for take-home vehicles would be $225,000. The take-home vehicle committee recommendatIons are as follows: 1. Establish the City & County Building as the standard point of reference to calculate the commuter:distance to employees'-homes;: 2. Non-commuting personal use of city vehicles•prohibited. 8 • 3. Secondary employment commuting and use prohibited unless business reimburses City directly for vehicle costs. 4. No take-home vehicle allowed if employee lives farther than 25 miles from the.City & County Building. (Existing employees not complying would be grandfathered for their current residence for a period of 5 years.) 5. Employees reimburse the city for commuting mileage at 50% of the vehicle operational costs. Adjust these costs annually. 6. Employees with an automobile allowance can be reimbursed for mileage on business trips in excess of 100 miles each way. 9 r JUN 0 1 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Salt Lake City Council FROM: Mayor Ross C. Anderson G7 DATE: May 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Information for your deliberations regarding the proposed revisions to the City's take-home vehicle ordinance As you conclude your deliberations on the proposed revisions to the take- home car ordinance, I urge you to consider the following points: 1. The Administration is proposing a change in the ordinance (1) to cut the enormous cost of the take-home car program to the taxpayers of Salt Lake City, (2) to provide greater equity among City employees, and(3)to encourage practices that will conserve fuel and cut down on pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal would change the distance an employee can live from the City and still take home a City-owned vehicle to 25 miles from the City and County Building. This limitation would be phased in over 5 years for those who currently live from 25 to 35 miles from the City. It would also prohibit personal use of the vehicle, except for secondary employment if the employer reimburses the City. 2. Today, 446 vehicles are taken home by City employees, 413 by police, 21 by Fire Department personnel and 12 from other departments. Currently, Police Department take-home vehicles accumulate an astounding total of 14,380 round trip miles per day commuting to and from home. Of the 413 police take-home cars, only 104 are driven by officers who live within the City limits. Total take-home car expense for all employees is $736,162 per year. Of that total, $295,181 is reimbursed to the City by the employees. The remaining $440,981 is covered by City taxpayers through the General. Fund. • 3. Representatives from the Police Department and the Fire Department have been consulted about the proposed changes over the last several weeks as the recommendations have been developed. 4. The take-home program was started primarily because of the substantial benefit to Salt Lake City taxpayers from having patrol cars on the road or parked at residences or businesses. The potential crime deterrent benefit is obvious for the 104 cars driven by officers who live in neighborhoods all around the City. However, there is no benefit to Salt Lake City taxpayers, and the cost to the taxpayers is far less defensible, when the vehicles are driven outside City limits. One must ask if it is fair for Salt Lake City taxpayers to pay to have police cars commute every day to and from Grantsville, Wanship or Roy, with little or no benefit to Salt Lake City. 5. Another reason for providing take-home cars is to enable the driver to respond quickly in an emergency and to have on hand all necessary equipment. Obviously, this benefit diminishes in direct proportion to the distance the employee must drive to respond. If it takes 45 minutes for an officer to drive from a far-away home, that cannot be credibly considered an "emergency response." 6. The City has made an extraordinary effort to conserve valuable resources and reduce pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in every aspect of municipal operations. Major strides have been made in that regard, yet the current take home car policy rewards those who drive the greatest distance, use the most fuel, and pollute the most. The City's policy on take-home cars should be consistent with the goal of minimizing our negative impacts on the environment and compensating employees in the most equitable manner. The current take-home car policy works in the reverse, actually providing a greater benefit for every additional mile traveled. 7. The Council should also consider the matter of insurance on take-home cars when the car is driven off-duty for commuting purposes. In an accident involving a City owned vehicle under such circumstances, the City would cover the first$25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident for bodily injury and $15,000 for property damage (the statutory minimums listed in Utah Code Annotated 31A-22-304), plus, in addition, a minimum of$200,000 per accident added by City ordinance (Salt Lake City Code 2.54.030 C2). This Code Section states, "The mayor shall, by written policy, set forth liability coverage to such employees, which coverage shall be not less than two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00)per incident, shall cover bodily injury, death and property damage." If, for example, a City employee were responsible for an accident which resulted in serious, life altering injury to five people and serious property damage, the City would pay $265,000. 11 would pay $265,000. Under the terms of the City Code, the Mayor could, by policy, increase that coverage to whatever limit he or she might choose. This places the City in the position of facing very significant liability claims because we offer take-home cars to one-sixth of our employees. It is also obvious that the more off-duty miles driven, the greater the likelihood serious accidents will occur. 8. I urge the Council to make a decision without delay on the take-home car issue. The City is currently negotiating the police contract. Take-home cars are not subject to contract negotiation and are not considered a benefit. It is important that the contract negotiation process and the decision on take- home cars are clearly separate and distinct issues and that will be easier to accomplish if the take-home care decision is made quickly. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: June 1, 2006 BUDGET FOR: Proposed staff option for take-home vehicle program STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Chief Burbank, Chief Querry, Scott Atkinson, Jerry Burton, Rick Graham, Lamont Nelson, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter, Gary Mumford, Sylvia Jones, Lehua Weaver, Jennifer Bruno Consistent with policy statements identified in the Council staff report, below is a potential staff option. POTENTIAL STAFF OPTION: a. Distance to Employee's Residence: • shorten distance to 30 miles calculated with a generally accepted internet mapping program(s) using the most direct route • measure from an established central location-based on Council preference (from the City & County building, geographic center, population center, other). b. Personal Use: Semi-unrestricted personal use within the City for police employees (sworn officers) living within the City. Flagrant abuses of the personal use allowance could be monitored by Police Department administration. As a general rule, cars could be limited to 18,000 total miles per year (tracked at routine maintenance visits by Fleet personnel) with violations resulting in disciplinary action by Police Administration. c. Secondary Employment: reimbursement of$1.00 per hour per officer. This could yield approximately$100,000 in addition to the estimated annual revenue identified in the Reimbursement Schedule below. d. Employee Reimbursement schedule: staff has prepared two alternatives. Neither alternative charges for employees living within the City, and both escalate reimbursements rates for those living farther away. (The first three columns, `current'`Admin proposal'and `Police Assoc. proposal'were provided on page 8 of the staff report.) Page 1 Reimbursement Schedule Bi-weekly rates(ea. Payperiod) Admin. Police Assoc. Proposal Proposal from C&C from I- Alternative A Alternative B Current Bldg 80/Redwood from C&C Bldg from C&C bldg Police/Fire w/in City $ - $ 8.00 $ - $ - Others w/in City 6.92 8.00 5.00 6.25 Within 5 miles 25.38 $ 9.25 23.50 5.00 6.25 Within 10 miles 27.69 18.50 25.50 11.20 13.00 Within 15 miles 30.00 27.75 27.50 18.75 20.25 r Within 20 miles 32.31 37.00 29.50 27.40 28.00 Within 25 miles 34.62 46.25 31.50 37.50 36.25 Within 30 milts 34.62 55.50 33.50 48.60 45.001 Within 35 miles 34.62 64.75 35.50 61.25 56.00 Within 40 miles 37.50 74.80 68.00 Within 45 miles 39.50 90.00 81.00 'Estimated Annual Revenue: $ 295,181 $ 375,000 $ 290,422 $ 322,105 315,218 Staff generated `Alternative A'and `Alternative B'using an escalating amount per mile of distance from the employee's residence to the measuring point. By way of comparison, the current reimbursement schedule decreases in cost per mile as the distance increases ($5.08 per mile within 5 miles incrementally decreasing to $0.99 per mile within 35 miles) the Administration's proposal uses a constant cost per mile across the board ($1.85 per mile regardless of distance) the Police Association proposal also uses a decreasing scale ($4.70 per mile within 5 miles incrementally decreasing to $0.88 per mile within 45 miles) Reimbursement Schedule Per Mile Charge Police Assoc. Admin. Proposal Alter A Alter B Proposal from I- per mile per mile Current from C&C Bldg 80/Redwood charge charge Police/Fire w/in City $ - $ 8.00 Others with City 6.92 8.00 Within 5 miles 5.08 $ 1.85 4.70 $ 1.00 $ 1.25 Within 10 miles 2.77 1.85 2.55 1.12 1.30' Within 15 miles 2.00 1.85 1.83 1.25 1.35 Within 20 miles 1.62 1.85 1.48 1.37 1.40 Within 25 miles 1.38 1.85 1.26 1.50 1.45 Within 30 miles 1.15 1.85 1.12 1.62 1.50 Within 35 miles 0.99 1.85 1.01 1.75 1.60 Within 40 miles 0.94 1.87 1.70 Within 45 miles 0.88 2.00 1.80 Page 2 e. The Council may wish to consider phasing in new rates over a two-year period rather than all in one amendment. f. The Council may wish to consider how these rates could be routinely re- evaluated to take into account rising fuel rates and other costs. g. Retain language "Under no circumstances shall a city-owned vehicle be authorized for take-home use for an employee who resides farther than thirty five (35) miles. . ." and request that the Administration enforce this restriction and update related policy documents for compliance. h. Allow four years (rather than the proposed five) for the grand-fathering period of those current employees living farther than 30 miles from the City & County Building. i. The Council may wish to consider eliminating all take-home vehicles that exceed the current ordinance. j. Clarify that the Chief of Police and Fire Chief have take-home vehicles in lieu of the $400 per month auto allowance provided to City Department Directors and are not subject to driving restrictions and reimbursements required by this ordinance. Page 3 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS— FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: June 1, 2006 .1 BUDGET FOR: Proposal for Mounted Police Patrol STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Chief Burbank, Jerry Burton, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter Council Member Saxton has proposed to the Council and Police Administration a pilot program to place mounted horse patrols in Pioneer Park, to be shared with Liberty Park on a to-be-determined schedule. The following is a proposed budget for this program: Mounted Patrol-Council Member Saxton's Information Proposed 5-month test Budget Trial Budget 5 months Assumptions Revenue 8s other sources -6 horses / 6 officers Donations-toward officers time $ 50,000 Donations -toward equipment, support $ 7,500 needs Total revenue 83 other sources $ 57,500 Operating Expenses Patrol -Personal Services (Salaries, $ 75,833 - $35/hour, 10-hour shifts, Wages 8s Benefits) - 2-officers/day, 5-days per week One-time Initial Officer Training- $ - accreditation Ongoing Training- Personal Services $ 2,100 - 2 hours per horse once per month reed 8s Care (feed,shoes, hauling, stable, $ 10,181 -$10 per day per horse for etc.) feed -$65 for shoes 6.5 times / year Equipment for horse-training(one- $ 6,600 time),tack Professional Services (VET) $ 500 - $200 annually per horse Uniform / Clothing $ 4,980 Liability $ - -City self-insured -replacement of officer- owned equipment if damaged -vet bills for horse if injured, -replacement of horse if damaged Total Operating Expenses $ 100,195 Page 1 KEY ELEMENTS: According to Council Member Saxton's proposal, • The program would be initiated on a pilot or test basis for two-years with regular evaluation of the program's success. • The program would begin as soon as possible and no later than July 1, 2006 and be conducted through October. • The intent for the program is to bring more visitors to the Park by making it safer, more attractive, and more enjoyable through: o Enhanced presence of police officers in the park, o Value of using horses as an attraction and a novelty to bring more visitors to the park. • Officers would be scheduled on an over-time basis, and the hourly rates used in calculations reflect an over-time rate. • Six horses and six officers would participate in the program. Details of the Costs: All of the costs listed in the budget chart above are calculated for a five-month period (probable time for the remainder of the year), except for the upfront costs including horse and officer equipment. $75,833 in Patrol Personal Services - assumes 2 officers per 10 hour shift, 5-days per week using the Police Department's standard overtime rate of$35/hour. $2,100 in Ongoing Training Personal Services - assumes 2 hours per horse (6 horses) per month using the standard over-time rate of$35/hour for the officers time to conduct the training. $10,181 in Feed 8s Care - assumes $10 per day per horse for feed, and $65 for horseshoes on average 6.5 per year. $6,600 in Horse Equipment-training equipment for the horse, tack, etc. $500 in Vet services- assumes an average of$200 per horse in annual veterinarian needs. $4,980 in Officer Equipment-uniform, clothing, boots, helmet, etc. Police Department Response Council Member Saxton consulted with the Police Department Administration for feedback on the feasibility of this pilot program. Attached is a memo from the Police Department on their research and findings. Included in the memo are: • Cost estimates for one-time training, ongoing training, patrol/operations, feed 8s care costs, officer and horse equipment and needs. (Please note, the costs in the Police memo are annualized and not a direct comparison to a 5-month budget proposal.) Page 2 • Conclusions regarding use of mounted horse units in other cities. • Conclusions regarding the optimum use of Salt Lake City resources. For your reference, a comparison of 5-month costs between Council Member Saxton's estimates and estimates provided by the Police Department is on page 4,, MATTERS AT ISSUE: One item raised during discussions with the Police Chief included the need for accredited training for officers prior to beginning a mounted horse patrol program. Based on information from other cities, officers go through either a 5-week or 10-week training course. The cost for this type of upfront training was not included in the original budget. Council Member Saxton has asked staff to check with the Ogden City Police Department about their training practices. That request for information has been made, but a response was not available before completion of the staff report. Page 3 v ^s N I I I O GJ �) c 0 �] I Q1 8 In CV 00 N 1Q O IA �iJ yr O Iy N n N o p tos h t { A ss •rig 34 3r3 t>R} 34 -(& as i 34 ff3 t[4 ir4 �(��i k11 ri tr ci it- ` 17 -,a t I 1 I 1,1 1 I �,83 #+i,.,,„-, iII ,to rr M�N I I k 14• t 10- r31 t • [ j l.-�ref �I .t •tt rt�r k!4 ,II { h I r"`l a�d:� III f tij' F ° i , t t'G1 ty i 7t r I I {tr i ',) I Ay:,,,: i 5 1 s c 1,`i°}t•ip S • " '3p i is : L t r. —r f,r .•i`, ,r{ t .+ 411 ', i'.'�{I11 1�`ht � r.till',!11 ,•,. ., II t 11 • I. t1 1f ; I� 1 I I ' Ip Y'_F 3 3 I a. ig , • i t 11 ! :i`e;1 t w {, 'f ('s f" 1 4 y r 3 v 1 iNI i�� Iy.:.I 1 �., I �!' ,,,IF �i� i . I � i' t 31 tit W€ ,'.,-,,•,,!.,; 1i i I { 1i �� I f '4 �- 1 i, 1 r I3 t f r P 1 371, r r i1 I ' r1 1 �.,. It i al,i. ,I I s 1 :� - 1 It I 1 _W t K , 1.r r r"' 1 '` s 1. C:. I 4 Z I }t�I�(t i y 1 I I ��.� �I j�I � I I I r � 1 t. �. 1 I I f � , .� IC:rkI I J,A I f 1 � -, I tom, r 1 9 i-I T'.a tit i re'q 1, I it d I I ' 31 I a I I III Ir ;e r• I VA, L, t i l } I G f I.— K , , I I I t. I 1 tf 1 � 5. I I t I ,.I 1I.•) 'r 'r : "' 1 i a I t_ I L 'I I;, { L t I . 1' I it t, 1 { 1I�.' r' f •t!t I' Ift if'7 r4 it '"' IV-I ' I (� 1 I • �1 ' SIt ' q 1 17 Ik t I tIL 1 7 I 11 1.1 1 I v1A�:11 I ,t s 1 I 11 I to Aj Y 2'�I k I r1 I f S :I 11• ..§•i�Yt�.�tik t I I I i I 1 '� � I .+ (/� gi :-., ; F .! a r 1, t /.N t tA1 .� Its I X rt+1 s y 7 v ++ •7 r �' ! I Y t I t'.VihIV '�-¢tIG1��k , I B t 'V1 -, I < ., 1 .11 l,ir f f f r,,443tF Df i", f 3 i 'f .3 IFr S F. , .t i i [ r t-,-F ° 1 a r ri�lP t 4..� J'i iIt --- 13 I .I I r ,t p 1:, .. .�'__IP".1, L-. :_:.:��_rt—ht.'. }S�u4.ay�'J �•!L _ _.._. � _�! _ ` ��QY "', v 4 ,� �a E04 C 0-im . I3 Uw 0 o I•t,w ' 4 v o A o 5 yp[ o LO 4-I p e 1 to m 4 b o W .q O a ' q p ; 0 w 4r 0 w 0 0 0 to 5 in 0 m C0 u~ M 0 0 40 N 4' Cy P. 4.+ P. , &4 U 5 p E0. F[ /" G b3 cv C Q is{}FI .O 0 , I a I I I I I I IU � , O O O in in ��� O OO pN co O W W O 00 ObI 7 Oi � a r- .-1= II in C O t0 d 8d , N yinp rg as bsr rg .s as r�r ®�V r4 I v .a e T.-) k t k g .73 1 bk G co- c°) rn d d q rn o. o o o o M {. k Li • ° Elo a• CO IIP i U 4. DI ° o wo I cn a naa � �� q In Iza co • 17 ;A O a. A O 0 ? 0 • ti�e�r ypLT Lf I I11► +" Salt Lake City Police Department th �oitice Memorandum To: Council Member Nancy Saxton Date: 30 May 2006 Re: Mounted Horse Patrol Review From: Chief Chris Burbank Issues • Verify the financial commitment to fund a productive and successful mounted horse patrol. • Review the time commitment to train and certify mounted horse patrol officers. • Determine a selection process and training program for horses. • Considerations of the continuing time commitment for in-service training. • Equipment needs to properly out-fit a mounted horse patrol unit. • Salt Lake City Corporation "Use Contracts" for privately owned horses defining compensation,veterinarian and transporting fees. Summary The proceeding paper outlines research and input from various law enforcement agencies that have established mounted horse patrol units across the country. These agencies provided information concerning officer training, horse selection and training, equipment requirements, and other related costs and needs of a mounted horse patrol unit. Officer Training Most law enforcement agencies require officers to attend a ten-week (400 hour) certifying training course.' One agency required officers to attend a five-week certifying training course (200 hours).2 To obtRin this training, there would be a cost to either bring a certified instructor here to Salt Lake City (one instructor quoted$500.00 per week plus expenses) or the cost of sending our officers out of state, with all related travel expenses for officers and horses. Houston Police Deparnnent,Metropolitan Police Department Washington,DC,United States Park Service 2 Los Angeles Police Department There are currently six Salt Lake City Police officers interested in the mounted horse patrol unit. In an attempt to affix a cost for certifying officers, the Department has used the average new hire officer rate of $43.00 per hour for calculating the time loss of replacing these officers for either the ten or five week course. Ten-Week Course 6 Officers 400 hours $43.00/hour $ 103,200.00 Five-Week Course 6 officers 200 hours $43.00/hour $ 51,600.00 To maintain the training of both the horse and rider, most departments conduct weekly in-service training. This is held one day each week when the unit works on various aspects of mounted horse patrol and tactics. This could be done by allowing officers to train every other week for a ten-hour shift. The cost for this in-service training would be calculated at the rate of$43.00/hour as previously listed. Annual Training 6 officers 20 hrs/month $43.00/hour $ 67,080.00 Horse Selection Processes Selecting a horse that is compatible for police work in an urban environment is extremely critical. These horses are tasked with doing things that are very unnatural to their basic instincts. For this reason, horse selection and training is vital for a successful and safe mounted horse unit. Houston Police Department evaluates their horses for a 30 —60 day period, assessing the horse to ensure it is compatible for police service. They also screen their horses with a full veterinarian evaluation to make sure the horse is physically capable for the strenuous conditions of this work. Once a horse has passed these tests, it is continuously evaluated and for liability reasons, a diary/history is maintained of the training accomplishments and failures. Metropolitan Police Department Washington, DC has a 90-day evaluation period for their horses. Concerning horse selection, Los Angeles Police Department states one out of each 100 horses reviewed is selected to be a member of LAPD's mounted horse patrol unit. Operational Funds To determine the operational costs of deploying mounted horse units, the Department is using the average overtime rate of$35.00 per hour. If two mounted units were deployed Saturday and Sunday for a ten-hour shift,the following indicates the costs for one year: 2 Annual Operational Funds 2 units Saturday 10 hours $35.00/hour $36,400.00 2 units Sunday 10 hours $35.00/hour $36,400.00 Total $ 72,800.00 Note - On average, there is a time span of 90 minutes at the beginning and end of each shift necessary to care for the horse and equipment needs. A ten-hour shift would net seven hours of horse patrol time. Salt Lake City"Use Contracts"for Horses Salt Lake City requires a "use contract" on all privately owned animals, which includes K-9 dogs and presumably horses. These contracts specifically list the responsibilities and financial requirements for both the City and the owner. In the case of K-9 service dogs, the Police Department compensates the handlers 20 hours per month off-duty for the care of the dogs. The City also pays for food and veterinarian care. The City would most likely compensate horse,owners in the same manner: Annual "Use Contracts" Costs 6 officers 20 hours/month $35.00/hour $ 50,400.00 6 horses 150.00 for shoeing every six weeks $ 1,275.00 Horses would have to trailered to and from their work assignments. This would involve the use of two vehicles, the truck and trailer, for which the owner would have to be reimbursed is as follows: .445 per mile (2)vehicles Sat. & Sun. $ 1,851.20 Note-For calculation purposes the average round trip is estimated at 10 miles. Officer and Horse Equipment Needs. Officers and horses need specific equipment for mounted horse patrol, i.e. boots, pants, helmets, saddles, etc. Most agencies contacted indicate the annual costs are approximately $2,000.00 to properly outfit an officer and approximately $1,000.00 to outfit the horse. 6 officers $2,000.00 $ 12,000.00 6 horses $1,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Total $ 18,000.00 3 Summary of Financial Requirements Officer Training $ 103,200.00 In-Service Training 67,080.00 Operational Funds 72,800.00 ., "Use Contracts"for Horses 53,526.20 Equipment Needs 18.000.00 Total $314,606.20 Conclusion Many of the agencies contacted about mounted horse patrols state the mounted horse patrol units are a great resource for crowd control and special events. They are however, demanding in resources, staffing and budget commitments. Chiefs across the country have stated they are not an effective patrol method. Given the current staffing levels and budget constraints of the Salt Lake City Police Department,the Department can use the available resources to better serve the citizens of Salt Lake City in a more efficient manner. Chief Chris Burbank 4 Take-home car — quick info sheet Policies (from June 1 staff report) • The take-home car program provides significant value for City taxpayers due to enhance emergency response opportunities, efficient deployment of City personnel, and visibility of marked police cars within Salt Lake City. • The take-home car program is not designed as a benefit to employees; it is therefore not a negotiable item in terms of union contracts. • It is advantageous to City taxpayers to have marked police cars in City neighborhoods. • Salt Lake City has long sought to encourage and provide incentives for police officers to live within the City. • It is in the City's interest to maximize the life of the cars as assets purchased by the taxpayers; it is the responsibility of and within the authority of the City Administration to manage auto mileage and vehicle use, including establishing guidelines and / or a cap on use. • All City employees are responsible to fund their own transportation to and from their employment. The City provides a transit pass for each employee in order to encourage the use of mass transit. One could argue that the City charges the employees with take-home vehicles a portion of their commuting costs, rather than the full cost, due to the benefit the program provides to taxpayers. ■ The value of the take-home vehicle program for the City taxpayers is in direct proportion to the degree to which officers and others with take-home vehicles live within the City, or very close to the City. The value of the program to City residents diminishes as the distance increases. The greatest benefit to the take-home vehicle program to City neighborhoods is the presence of marked police vehicles in the neighborhoods. Straw polled decisions: 1. Vehicle miles: 18,000 2. Measurement point: use I-80/Redwood Road 3. Measurement method: actual road and highway miles 4. Personal use: a. for officers who live within the city for use within the city b. for non-city-resident officers while in the city in the city on official business Salt Lake City Golf Division Marketing Initiative Overview June 5, 2006 Current Marketing Programs at SLC Golf Courses The following is a summary of the Golf Division's current marketing/player development programs developed and conducted by the combined efforts of our PGA Professionals and our Golf Division Marketing Manager, Matt Kammeyer. Jordan River Par 3—Steve Elliott: The State of Utah who previously operated the Par-3 had tried and failed with a number of promotional offers at the Par-3 in the past. They had targeted their efforts at the surrounding community with only marginal interest. They had consistently lost money with the course and sought to hand the course off to another entity that would be interested in continuing to maintain the site as a golf course or public access park, which is a required use of the site based on how the State obtained the property with improvements funded by a Federal Land Grant in connection with improving the area around the Jordan River. The site was originally built as a fee-based Frisbee golf course. When that project failed, the State modified the site into a Par-3 golf course. The City was aware of the challenges of operating the course when it agreed to assume ownership and operational responsibility in 2003. Our customer survey results indicated that the type of golfer that frequented the Par-3 fit an entirely different profile than golfers who currently played our other courses. Most of the golfers were coming from within a 15 mile radius of the course. The only shared golfing traits were that they played little golf elsewhere and enjoyed the fact that the course was not crowded and they could play golf at their own pace with little pressure from other golfers. Most of these players did not consider themselves good golfers, but liked to get out and walk the course and "hit the ball around". Most play was singles or twosomes. The plan was to try and market the course as a both a great place to introduce someone to the game of golf and an excellent place to work on your short game. Additionally, the course provided the City a place to attempt to run a number of golf introduction programs from, including the First Tee. The first year of operation was spent improving the condition of the course, which was considered poor when the City took over operations. Within 6 months the course saw major improvements in a number of areas. JRP3 Rate Discounting: Saturdays and Sundays after 6 p.m. up to three juniors golf free with each adult paying full price ($6.00). 2004-2005 All-day green fee pass at the Par-3 —Monday-Thursday between 9:00-4:00. Regular golfers $12, Senior and Junior golfers $10. 10-round punch pads at the Par-3: Regular golfers $54, Senior and Junior golfers $45. Frequent Player Discount Card Holder prices for the Par-3: Regular: $4.20 Senior: $3.50 Junior: $3.50 The Marketing Manager has a standing offer with a number of entities to pay for the course time at the Par-3 if these entities would host an event there, e.g. customer appreciation day, corporate event, local celebrity tournament. This offer has yet to be accepted. Other Promotions: Designed a new logo for the course in 2003. The logo was to reflect a family-friendly theme. 1111 .16 i s i ..N V PAR-3 GOLF COURSE Designed a new scorecard and placed new tee markers and benches on the course in 2004. Distributed 3,600 coupon books to Frequent Player Discount Card members (our most loyal and frequent customers) between November, 2004 and September 2005 with an expiration date of 12/31/05. Coupon books contained a coupon for one free 9-hole round at the Par-3 course. Only 99 coupons were redeemed. Ran a half page ad in Fairways Magazine, which is also distributed to every UGA member in the state. Ad included an offer of buy one 9-hole round at $6 and up to three others in your foursome golf free. 38 coupons were redeemed last year. Ran a half page ad in the Envirocare Utah Classic Tournament Program advertising the Par-3 as the best place to fix your short game. In 2004, the Par-3 was a sponsor for the morning sports radio talk show on 1320 KFAN. The Par-3 sponsored a segment called "Hole in one, my Ace", where the hosts tracked down people in the paper who had claimed hole-in-one shots at various courses and had them answer questions about their hole-in-one. The interviewee received four free rounds to the Par-3 as well as the 12th caller during the segment. This promotion ran weekly throughout the summer. The promo also had several on-air mentions of the course including a course report by the show host. This promotion was also supported by 80, 60 second radio spots about the course. 160 vouchers were issued, 28 were redeemed. Currently running a full page ad on the Par-3 in the Utah Section of the PGA Book of Golf. Junior Golf Instruction: Over the last few years the constant concern at Jordan River has been getting the word out. The following ideas and events are or have been followed. 1-The First Tee of Salt Lake City: This group has been functioning with us for junior lessons. The last two years has included not only neighborhood youth, but also: Boys and Girls Club Neighborhood House The facility was a sight for a golf ball drop last year which many dignitaries including Councilperson Christensen. This program tries to reach 150 to 200 juniors. Pat Shea our FTSLC president has been a big key along with Dan Johnson a representative of Texaco Chevron (a Rose Park Neighbor) in promoting the Jordan River Course. Of course this association has brought us the grant from the USGA of$150,000 which improved and established our practice facility at the JRP3. 2-Spring and fall brings clinics with local schools. Lisa, Derek and I have taught these with Washington Elementary, Newman Elementary and Horizonte School. The Jordan facility is part of the experience with each group. 3-Lisa Imamura has established women's clinics which introduce or reintroduce golf to approximately 30 women yearly. These clinics make great use of the par 3 and the practice area. Many women have begun playing at the JRP3 have joined the RP ladies league due to this program. Lisa also has her Thursday afternoon Jr. Clinics which utilize the JRP3. Her clinics are full at 30 juniors for 8 weeks. 4-Advertising using the radio has been pushed the past two years. KDYL has a shopping show every weekday at noon. I visited with these folks a year ago and we have for the past two seasons used rounds of golf which are auctioned off by the station in trade for advertising time. Also last year a package for JRP3 and RP were used in conjunction with the Bees baseball team. This year we put an individual ad in the Utah Book of Golf for JRP3 along with the standard SLC Golf ad. Matt I'm sure has even more information of magazines and radio which we have tried to use to push the JRP3. 5-We have utilized the facility for everything from fund raising for the Pete Suazo Foundation and weddings to Lisa organizing a Ute Little League Football fund raiser (Hoping for 100 players minimum). Lisa also hosts a Family and Friends Golf Tournament there in early October with about 80 players. 6- Various church groups and family reunions have used JRP3. This also includes staff (Lisa and Mark Dixon) and admin. (Greg Davis yearly) 7-The staff at RP have taught many lessons in package form. Part of this package is to visit JRP3 for short game lessons. If anyone is interested, the practice greens are in constant use and new folks are being introduced daily to the practice area. The idea is to push the experience forward of playing the par 3. 8-We have a punch pass already in progress for anyone interested and they are always being sold. Ten rounds for $54.00 for regular, $45.00 for JR and SR. A pass for Students of all kinds including university age would be wonderful! 8-We are trying to initiate a parent child league this year with the first round at the JRP3. Some interest so far but not much. 9-Fencing is a big issue. I would propose going out and raising funds for this fence so we can increase revenue by using the driving range. My role at JRP3 has been to be an ambassador for a wonderful facility and I never have stopped representing it. I wish we had one clubhouse for the 27 holes here. That would really help in directing traffic and promoting all of the courses involved. Wingpointe—Lynn Landgren: I've done a lot of walking the range lately and giving quick tips which has followed up with increased lessons. Did my monthly free lesson day had four people, did two launch monitor fittings at no charge to frequent buyers probably will make a sell later this week. My normal rate for this program is $75, if they decide to buy the club I give them back $50 of that fee towards the purchase price of the club (I don't discount the price of the club I give part of my fee back to them). Our men's league we charge $25 to sign up and then $7 pr/week entry fee, they have 1 senior 8 man team which I captain and 2 regular 8 man teams which Kury and Jeremy captain. We have been very successful with these teams and have won the state title 9 times also 5 time 4 man team champions. I truly believe that because of these titles Wingpointe has become the golf course known as "The Players Choice". I'm very proud of this promotion and think that it has paid off. We also host a number to outstanding statewide tournament each year including the Burton Lumber Salt Lake City Open. Finally, providing a well-stocked pro shop with desirable hard and soft goods has paid off directly through sales and indirectly through the reputation Wingpointe has as a full-service golf facility. Bonneville & Forest Dale—Mack Christensen: Bonneville Men's Assn. afternoons Weds. (large and active group) Forest Dale Men's Assn. afternoons Tues. ( ) Bonneville Women's Assn. 9 & 18 hole groups Tues. mornings Forest Dale Women's Assn. Mon. runs much of the day (very large & friendly group) Junior golf clinics (scheduled weekly throughout the summer) Junior Golf League (every Tuesday throughout the summer) Women's clinics hopefully beginning 2nd week of June Parent/Child clinics " Sunday late afternoon couples (planning near completion) Women's/Men's Assn.instructional sessions (informal, no charge, primarily putting green area) Touring the range & course offering instruction, advice, appreciation and offering thanks Hosting the Salt Lake City Amateur and Salt Lake City Open, two of the premier golf tournaments in the state. Mountain Dell—Mike Brimley: Golf promotional programs - Mostly trying to get more play from the Park City Area. We have been filmed for commercials and other T.V. spots for the Park City Information channel. We offer reduced rates in the PGA book for Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays (slower days of the week). We have a promotional program going with the Park City Miner's Club. This has been successful in bringing golf tourists to Mountain Dell. The start of Golf Lab is a unique new lesson program at Mountain Dell. Golf Lab brings a high level of technology teaching to the course, as well as helping us bring groups in to play the course. Junior Golf will be back next year. Staff trying to teach as much as time allows us. Associations - Men's Association every Thursday from May thru September, 10.00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.. Three weekend tournaments. Tuesday morning Ladies Day group. Thursday Ladies Moosette League; a ladies association for low handicappers. Executive Women's League; a 9 hole league on Monday nights. Corporate tournament organization and operation is a major part of our effort to promote Mountain Dell. We hold multiple corporate events weekly during the summer months. If we had our own banquet facility, instead of relying on the pavilion at Washington Park which is often unavailable, we would immediately double the number of groups using Mountain Dell for their summer golf event. These corporate events generate green fees, cart fees, merchandise sales, and food & beverage rent revenue. Glendale and Nibley Park—David Carter: Glendale: Glendale Junior Program for At-Risk Youth: This program has remained steady since its inception about 8 years ago. Last year we added a third class which increased the size of the program by 20%. This has been a good program for introducing the game of golf to those who normally would not get the opportunity. This program is in conjunction with the Sorenson Center Summer Programs. Glendale Men's Association: Our Men's Association has grown considerably with over 100 members playing each week. The Head Pro and Assistant Pro are in charge of all marketing for this league. We send out a flyer, schedule of events, and application form to all members who have signed up over the past few years. This league is very profitable to the golf operation. Glendale Ladies League: This league has grown from zero members 4 years ago to an estimated 80 members this year. We have seen an increase of over 15% from last year alone. This is really helping to stabilize our revenue on Tuesday's, which in the past have been one of our slowest days of the week. Judy Hollberg is primarily responsible for the marketing of this league, including maintaining a current mailing list and distributing all pertinent information to its members. Glendale Couples League: This league has remained steady with about 10 to 15 couples each year and helps stabilize revenues for Friday evenings. This league is more volatile week to week in it's attendance due to people on vacations, etc. Glendale Corporate Leagues: Our DGA (Diversified Golf Association) league on Wednesday afternoons and a Lumpy's League on Thursday afternoons are very important revenue generators for the golf course. We work very hard to make sure all of these folks have a pleasant experience and want to choose our course for the next season. I really feel that Corporate Leagues are going to be a key marketing strategy to building regular golfers in our future. Glendale Adult Golf Lessons: Our Professional Staff at Glendale give a large number of adult lessons throughout the season to try and promote the game of golf and build new players. We teach individual lessons, adult clinics, and golf instructional classes (through Salt Lake Community College). Together, it is estimated that over 300 adults are taught the game of golf each year at Glendale. Nibley Park: Nibley Park Junior Golf: We have 4 programs we are involved with in this area: 1- Jr. Clinics (beginner instruction) 2- Jr. Camps (intermediate to advanced instruction, including 9 holes of golf each day) 3- Jr. Golf Connection (in conjunction with the Utah Section PGA)—a grass roots tournament series that keeps growing every year. 4- Nibley Jr. League—This league was formed 3 years ago, and the kids love it. We plan to have about 60 members this year. They play every Tuesday morning during non peak times throughout the summer. Junior golf plays a big role throughout the summer at Nibley. The Head Pro is responsible for the marketing of all junior golf programs, including maintaining an active mailing list, sending out all pertinent forms each spring, and actively trying to make these programs stronger each year. The Assistant Pro helps deliver flyers to schools, libraries, etc. each spring. Both the Head Pro and Assistant Pro must work together to keep this program organized and successful. Nibley Park Men's Association: This is one of the smaller Men's Leagues in the City, but has remained steady in its numbers over the years. The Head Pro and Club President are responsible for the marketing of this league each year, including sending out all necessary forms to those signed up over the past few years. Nibley Park Ladies League: This is the biggest Ladies League in the City, with about 170 members. We consistently bring in over 100 members playing every week. The Head Pro works with the Ladies League officers to promote this league each year. We work very hard to keep this league strong and its members happy. They are a key ingredient to financial stability of Nibley. The Assistant Pro is responsible for getting all of these women out on the golf course each week and to get to know each of them by name. He does a great job at this and the women really enjoy working with him. Nibley Park Golf Lessons: We provide individual and group instruction. Most of our adult clinics are funneled to Glendale through Judy Hollberg, since most are women and prefer an LPGA Professional working with them. We are aggressive in capturing this market and keep Judy plenty busy throughout the summer. Rose Park—Steve Elliott: 1. Lady's league: RP has two leagues, a Monday evening league with over 100 members and over 60 players every week. Entry fees of 1 to &2.00 a head for account redemption. A Tuesday league of retirees which play nine holes in the morning. Members of about 25 with 16 players weekly 2. Men's League: Once again, over 100 members with 70 to 75 weekly. Play of the day and skins entry fees $7.00 a head, back to shop for redemption. Four Saturdays a year, 18 hole events ranging from 20 to 40 players. Demo days scheduled on Wednesdays throughout the year to try out new equipment. 3. Ladies Clinics; conducted by Lisa Imamura with able help from Derek Schmehl Derek Schmehl. 14 to 16 ladies every Monday for 16 total weeks, four weeks per session. 4. Junior Clinics: Conducted by Lisa Imamura over 30 kids per year through the summer utilizing JRP3 and Rose Park. 5. The First Tee Salt Lake City: Staff participates in instruction with TFTSLC. Majority conducted at JRP3. Programs, fund raisers, education, begin at Rose Park. Derek Schmehl has been instrumental in reviewing and teaching other teachers on Life Skills, and First Swing plus helping to arrange schedules. Mike Behle has been a teacher this pas season and will continue in 2006. 6. Rose Park Open and Rose Park Classic: Two events per year with statewide interest. Our Open has one of the largest professional fields of the year (55-60) over 150 am. players and sponsor participation from Les Olson Company, Kim Hardy of Plumb Realty and an anonymous Rose Park native who loves participating with no fanfare. 7. Special State Events; Rose Park has over the years been a partner with the Utah State Women's Golf Association and their Four-Ball event. The USGA has utilized Rose Park for Pub-Links qualifying. As has the UGA for Sr. qualifying for match play. 8. Corporate: A fast round for a shotgun on a pretty course is our key in getting corporate events, in 2005 22 corp. or group events were played. The Utah PGA has scheduled PAT events one per year for the past 4 years. 9. High School/Jr: Three regions have held events at Rose Park over the years. Seventy two players is the norm for afternoon shotguns. The Utah PGA has its girls high school program once here in the spring. Also the Pepsi Jr tour has scheduled one event per year at both courses. 10. Special Events: For the past two years the RP and JRP3 have hosted the Utah Special Olympics Challenge. Athletes from across the state participate in skill from putting to playing. Executive J.D. Donnelly told us that the 2005 version was the best setting for local event he has seen. 11. Drive Chip and Putt: In conjunction with the FTSLC, this event will bring approx. 200 youth to our courses for skills events promoted by The Golf Channel. 12. Women's Golf Week: New this year Lisa has psyched us up for programs ranging from closest to the hole to a Demo Day with Mizuno, Callaway, Cobra Taylor Made and Ping. 13. Lessons: offered every day, four instructors are able to book at customer's schedule. Golf Digest Free Lesson Month was offered by Derek and Steve. Group lessons and series packages are offered and both facilities are utilized. Some charities are given lessons as donation by the staff throughout the year to promote teaching and the golf course. 14. Participation in golf; throughout the years this staff has promoted the City and Rose Park in outside programs. Lessons with elementary schools such as Washington Elementary and Newman Elementary on a spring/fall basis 20 kids over four weeks. Horizonte has established a program with Derek to teach those students who have excelled in school programs. Rules officiating, Section promotion and USWGA events (Lisa is a past champion of the Women's State Am) have kept the staff busy and hopefully respected (in five years, one Superintendent of the Year, One Professional of the Year, One Assistant of the Year awarded by the Utah PGA). ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Marketing Initiative In The Golf Division 2006 Strategic Plan Over 60% of the 179 action plans featured in the Golf Division's Strategic Plan focus on marketing, customer service, or player development. Many of these programs will be or have already been implemented in 2006. The balance will be implemented in 2007. The following is a summary of those action plans: Section #1—Workforce Quality/Personnel/Leadership Effective personnel training and policies are key to developing the teamwork needed to provide our customers with an exceptional public golf experience. AP 1A: Adding one Head Professional. AP 1 E: Implementing a large-scale on-course volunteer program. AP 1 G: Make sure supervisors are assigned to the facility best suited to their skills. AP 3A: Develop an evaluation for seasonal employees including customer service. AP 6A: Encourage participation in PGA and GCSAA certification programs. AP 8A: Modify comp golf policy to provide better service to paying customers. AP 9A: Implement dress code for all golf employees. AP1OB: Develop superintendent/head professional communication requirements. AP1OC: Superintendent/head professional weekly report with marketing component. AP11A: Supt/pro communication process regarding winter course openings. AP15A: Delegate lead responsibilities to Asst. Pros and Asst. Supts. AP16D: Train Asst. Pros and Asst. Supts on financial, marketing, and operational goals. Section #2—Finance/Budget/Pricing Any action plan in this section dealing with marketing is described in more detail in another section of this strategic plan. Section #3—Customer Service/Pro Shop/Merchandising Along with the action plans listed in this section,the word-of-mouth advertising that comes from providing consistent, quality customer service is essential in our efforts to build rounds and revenue. AP 1A: Develop a Golf Division-specific customer service training program. AP 2A: Limit number of hours Head Professionals spend behind counter. AP 2B: Head Professional regular tours of golf course. AP 3A: Customer welcome and thanks procedure. AP 4A: Restructure current customer service questionnaire and process. AP 4B: Implement secret shopper program. AP 5A: Investigate upgrade to the current pro shop computer operating system. AP 6A: Pace-of-play program. AP 7C: Study feasibility of using computer tee time system during winter months. AP 8A: Regular study of merchandise prices at off-course golf retailers. AC 9A: Evaluate all aspects of our pro shop merchandising process. AC 9B: Stimulate demand for merchandise through cross promotions and packaging. AC10A: 120 day merchandise discount policy. AC10B: December combined pro shop inventory clearance sale. AC10C: Liquidate merchandise via E-Bay. AC12A: Replace cart batteries at Mountain Dell and Bonneville. AC12B: In 2007, replace batteries at most other facilities. AC 14A: Increase seasonal pro shop staffing levels as needed. Section #4—Facility Conditions/Maintenance/Improvements The number one reason people chose a golf facility is the condition of the course. Our facilities provide the number one marketing tool to develop new customers, more loyalty from existing customers, and the additional revenue derived from these satisfied patrons. AP 1A: Conduct USGA Turf Grass Visits annually. AP 1B: Fund long-term facility improvement program. AP 2A: Fund timely equipment replacement program. AP 4A: Investigate reconfiguring Mountain Dell Canyon Course to allow 9-hole rounds. AP 5A: Investigate widening new holes on Mountain Dell Canyon Course. AP 5B: Consider building new tees on Mountain Dell Canyon Course #14. AP 6A: Reconfigure Bonneville to improve pace of play. AP 7A: Keep golf course properly marked in accordance with Rules of Golf. AP 8A: Conduct quarterly facility conditions review. AP 9A: Organize and publish a coordinated schedule for greens aerification. AP l 0A: Never let rough grow to higher than 2 inches. AP 11 A: Remedy goose dropping issue. AP 14A: Improve condition of practice areas. AP15A: Update mowing style on fairways. AP16A: Implement recommended tee program. AP 17A: Increase yardage markers on all courses. AP17B: Implement upgraded 150 marker program at Wingpointe and Mountain Dell. AP 18A: At Glendale, test the "Pro-Style Practice System" on a trial basis. AP19A: Investigate possibility of purchasing the private homes between RP and JRP3. AP20A: Investigate construction of a practice net at Forest Dale. AP21 A: Investigate potential of leveling and expanding Mountain Dell practice tee. AP23A: Investigate potential of expanding Nibley Park driving range. AP23B: Investigate potential of adding a miniature golf course at Nibley Park. Section #5—Marketing/Promotions/Public Relations Every action plan in the marketing section of the strategic plan is included. The marketing section starts on page 33. The marketing section includes a total of 41 action plans. An electronic copy of the strategic plan is attached to this e-mail. Section #6—Junior Golf& Player Development Every action plan in the junior golf/player development section of the strategic plan is included. The junior golf/player development section starts on page 42. The junior golf/player development section includes a total of 15 action plans. An electronic copy of the strategic plan is attached to this e-mail. Section #7—Food & Beverage Every action plan in the food& beverage section of the strategic plan is included. The food& beverage section starts on page 46. The food & beverage section includes a total of 14 action plans. An electronic copy of the strategic plan is attached to this e-mail. Summary Although the focus of our discussions with City Council has been on the proposed modification to our staffing structure; a topic relating to the expense side of the budget equation, we recognize that the only we to solve our budget problems is to build revenues. Revenue growth in a competitive market comes from increasing market share and expanding the market. We are confident that the marketing, customer service, and player development programs we will implement over the next two years will enable us to make advancements in both these areas. But, as we have discussed in both meetings with the City Council, our number one marketing tool is facility conditions. We must begin investing a significant amount of money annually into capital improvements and the replacement of golf course maintenance equipment if we are to properly position our golf facilities in this crowded public golf market. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Page 1 of 1 Hardman, Ellie From: Gust-Jenson, Cindy Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 3:01 PM To: Hardman, Ellie Subject: FW: Response on REPEG Categories: Program/Policy Please print for Council. From: McFarlane, Alison Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 12:42 PM To: Gust-Jenson, Cindy Subject: Response on REPEG Hi, I am still waiting to talk to Jeff Edwards but I discussed the REPEG request with Rocky this morning. Here is his response. "We need all the resources we can get for execution, not studies. If this needs to be done, it should come from EDCU." Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Alison Alison McFarlane Senior Advisor for Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Room 306 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 801.535.6306 801.535.6005(fax) 6/6/71)()6 APR 2 ? ROSS C. "ROCKYY"ANDERSON .. ` 11 amon•�.l .i coji ��i b1'!I!i©`{s�( `OQ6 MAYOFFICE OF THE MAYOR April 25, zoo6 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Petition 400-06-08 Avenues and Capitol Hill Compatible Residential Infill Ordinance I am writing in regard to the proposed Compatible Residential Infill Regulations for City Council District 3, including the properties within the Avenues and Capitol Hill neighborhoods currently zoned Special Residential Pattern-1 (SR-i). After receiving a briefing by City staff and meeting with representatives of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils to discuss the regulations proposed by them, I have concluded that the regulations proposed by the community councils relating to accessory structures are appropriate and should be adopted in order to ensure compatible infill development in these unique historic neighborhoods of the City. These recommendations are workable and will better achieve the goals of the new ordinance. The Planning Commission's recommendation relating to accessory structures differs from the original proposal from the Community Councils in the following respects: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com Regulation Planning Community Commission Councils' Recommendation recommendation Height of Accessory 15 feet 14 feet Structures with Pitched Roof Height of Flat Roof io feet 9 feet Accessory Structures for over the counter permit Wall Height of io feet 9 feet accessory Structure for over the counter permit Maximum footprint 5o% of the building 48o square feet for of accessory footprint of the accessory structure structure for over principal structure up plus an additional 12o the counter permit. to a maximum of 600 square feet for a square feet secondary accessory structure After consultation with Orion Goff, Building Official, it appears that, contrary to earlier information, the mechanics of the automatic door and required joists for a flat roof can be accommodated within the nine foot maximum wall height. I am also convinced that the other regulations proposed by the Community Councils relating to accessory structures are reasonable and should be adopted. I appreciate the time and efforts of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Council members, who have carefully surveyed and analyzed the existing conditions of their neighborhoods and the options for improvements in our ordinances. The information they gathered has allowed them to develop reasonable standards that allow development accommodating the needs of property owners while ensuring compatibility with adjacent properties. In addition, the tiered review process for approval of proposals that do not conform to these regulations will allow deviation from the standards, where appropriate, while ensuring compatible development. I appreciate you considering my recommendations in your deliberations on this important matter. I will have forwarded to you a proposed ordinance that reflects my recommendations. Sincerely os nderson Mayor cc: Alex Ikafuna Brent Wilde Joel Patterson Cheri Coffey Jim Jenkins Peter von Sievers Shane Carlson Page 1 of 2 Pacheco, Vicki From: Jardine, Janice Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9:00 AM To: Pacheco, Vicki; Hardman, Ellie; Mascaro, Mary; City Council Liaisons Cc: Gust-Jenson, Cindy; Mumford, Gary Subject: FW: Follow-up on Infill Clarification Categories: Program/Policy From: Gust-Jenson, Cindy Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 5:14 PM To: City Council Members Cc: Jardine, Janice; Weaver, Lehua; Harvey, Marge; Aramaki, Jan; Jones, Sylvia Subject: FW: Follow-up on Infill Clarification Below is the information Alex promised in advance of Tuesday's Council Meeting on infill. From: Ikefuna, Alexander Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 6:15 PM To: Gust-Jenson, Cindy Cc: Wilde, Brent; Wheelwright, Doug; Coffey, Cheri; Paterson, Joel; Jardine, Janice; Zunguze, Louis Subject: RE: Follow-up on Infill Clarification Cindy: Your thinking regarding the interpretation is correct; we have the ability now. Per the Council meeting yesterday, I would like to provide clarification pertaining to how we are implementing the Infill Ordinance. When the Infill Ordinance was adopted by the City Council, it was the intent of the Council to have as many applications approved through the over the counter and administrative process as possible. That was the reason why the three tier system was created. (over the county permit, block face averaging and special exception). Currently we have the ability to make the interpretations; however, what we don't have are the standards to make findings. The proposed standards are what we are bringing to the City Council next week. In terms of the proposed procedural amendment, what I was saying was that the amendment would create standards that would be incorporated into the ordinance. This would provide for more flexibility so that more applications would be approved through administrative process, which is the ultimate goal Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Alex From: Gust-Jenson, Cindy Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 1:06 AM To: Zunguze, Louis; Ikefuna, Alexander Cc: Wilde, Brent; Wheelwright, Doug; Coffey, Cheri; Paterson, Joel; Jardine, Janice Subject: Follow-up on Infill discussion 6/6/2006 Page 2 of 2 Hi, I was somewhat confused at the briefing on the interpretation of the current ordinance as it relates to height. I thought it was possible to interpret that additional height is possible even if there isn't additional height on the block face, as long as the applicant presented a VERY sound case to the hearing officer that they had addressed compatibility in many ways (my wording). Joel seemed to be articulating the strict interpretation of the existing ordinance, and Alex did indicate more of what Louis, Alex, Brent and I had discussed but toward the end of the discussion I wasn't sure if Alex was saying that the interpretation would be possible after the amendment. Alex agreed that a written (email is fine) clarification would be provided by Tuesday. Also,just as a heads up, they are anxious to have follow-up information from that meeting held with Jill, Eric and Dave. Alex indicated we would receive something next week. The Council Members had the impression at the City Council Committee of the Whole meeting held in District Three the first week of May that the information would be provided the week following that meeting. I'm assuming that it is on is way, but I just wanted to make you aware of their strong interest. Thanks, Cindy 6/6/2006 Draft Council Budget Option 1. Does not include a property tax increase 2. Does not charge taxpayers a judgment levy 3. Does not assess taxpayers a tort liability tax to cover claims associated with governmental immunity claims-these claims are funded with general fund dollars, in keeping with the practice of recent years. 4. Increases business license fees at a lesser level than recommended by the Mayor. 5. Funds additional city prosecutor and office technician for the prosecutor's office 6. Fund a contract to assist with plan review relating to downtown renovation from $100,000 of one-time revenue 7. Converts a fire captain position to a deputy fire chief position ($24,000) 8. Funds a deputy treasurer position 9. Funds a new police sergeant position and three additional police officer positions 10. Funds two police civilian positions to free up two police officers from desk work 11. Funds two additional crime lab field positions 12. Funds radio/laptop modems replacements (budget amendment#5) 13. Funds facilities energy efficiency project coordinator position (on-going funds) 14. Adds a new engineering office tech position 15. Adds a Unity Center program coordinator once the center is open next spring 16. Increases the 50/50 concrete replacement program by$28,500, which is a $15,400 increase over the mayor's proposal (total of 30% increase over the previous year) 17. Funds $30,000 for a part-time open space coordinator(from one-time revenue) 18. Converts the computer clubhouse staff(one coordinator and one part-time assistant from grant funded to ongoing general fund) 19. Provides $124,500 for the city's animal services contract ($991,500 total) 20. Funds $200,000 from one-time revenue for GIS interdepartmental coordination 21. Revises the take-home car approach, but with a lower fee schedule than the Mayor proposed. Reinforces the City's policy to encourage officers to live within the City. 22. Increases City budgets to address increased fuel and utility costs. 23. Provides funding to establish a one-stop permit program to improve services to the general public, developers and contractors (includes 4 additional positions). 24. In collaboration with the Chamber of Commerce, funds a downtown ombudsman to address construction issues (budget amendment#5) 25. Funds an additional City planner to assist neighborhoods with issues relating to infill housing. 26. Funds salary increases consistent with the Mayor's recommendations, as well as union enhancements negotiated by the Administration. 27. Funds part-time open space coordinator(one-time revenue) 28. Provides one-time assistance for the Human Resources Division to improve their filing system ($25,000) 29. Holds off on funding the Justice Court positions, pending the outcome of a study 30. Repair pavers in the central business district crosswalks and sidewalks 31. Assist with the cost of special events at City property by adding $25,000 to the Public'. Services budget 32. CIP- Bond for new fleet facility 33. CIP- Pay for the completion of the Grant Tower railroad re-alignment 34. CIP- Pay for the seeding of the corridors along 900 South and Folsom with the intent of starting a planning process to have a future park/trail SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: June 2, 2006 SUBJECT: Unresolved issues - Mayor's Recommended Budget FY 06-07 STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford cc: Sam Guevara, Rocky Fluhart, Ed Rutan, Rick Graham, Louis Zunguze, Chief Chuck Querry, Chief Chris Burbank, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter Unresolved budget issues: 1. Sales tax- Council staff analyzed sales tax and found that actual receipts during the past 12 months (May 2005 -April 2006) was $41,015,000, which is $15,000 greater than the proposed budget. Growth in sales tax revenue over the past year was 9.8%, although April 2006 receipts showed only a 2% growth over April 2005. If the Council wished to project a 2% growth in sales tax revenue, an additional $835,500 of general fund revenue could be budgeted. Some Council Members have indicated an interest increasing the budget projection for sales tax by an additional one percent. This would generate $417,750. Sales tax revenue does fluctuate based of course on the economy. It is also subject to action by the Legislature. The growth is strong at this time. 2. Fire check plan fees-The Administration is withdrawing its request for an ordinance establishing fire check plan fees because the fees are already included in the building permit fees. The Administration requests that the Council offset the related revenue of$126,000 with expected additional interest earnings. 3. Interest revenue - Council staff analyzed interest revenue and found that actual receipts during the past 12 months (May 2005 - April 2006) was $3,982,000. The Administration is forecasting $4,226,000 of interest revenue in fiscal year 2006-07, which is a 6.1% growth. (This forecast includes the addition of $126,000 in interest revenue to replace the cut outlined in item 2 above.) Growth in interest revenue over the past year was 50.1% with April 2006 receipts showing 97% growth over April 2005. If the Council wished to project a 15% growth in interest revenue, an additional $353,000 of general fund revenue could be budgeted. 4. Parking meter revenue - The Administration's latest revenue forecast for the current fiscal year (2005-06) projects that revenue from parking meter coin and from bagging of parking meters is $1,486,600. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2006-07 is $1,464,000. The Council may wish to budget for an additional $22,600 in general fund revenue to bring the budget for fiscal year 2006-07 up to forecasted actual revenue for fiscal year 2005-06 5. Concrete 50/50 program -The Mayor's Recommended Budget included a request for $13,100 of additional material costs for the concrete 50/50 program. Residents pay 50% of both materials and labor under this program. No additional revenue was included to the proposed budgeted. The Council may wish to include some additional revenue from this program. 6. Business license fees -The Administration proposed adjustments to business licenses fees resulting in the following increases: (1) $374,000 increase to the base license fee, (2) $533,000 increase to the per-employee fee, and (3) $243,000 increase to regulator or disproportionate fees. The Council tentatively decided to refer the business license fee ordinance to a Council subcommittee and allow the Administration to obtain feedback from the business community. However, a few regulatory license fees are in excess of costs and probably should be adjusted at this time. This will result in an estimated decrease in general fund revenue of$55,500. The Council may wish to increase the base fee slightly at this time rather than a major increase all at once. A $5 increase to the base fee (from $70 to $75) will result in $53,000 of additional revenue (not including home-based businesses). A $1 increase to the per-employee fee (from $10 to $11) will result in $128,000 of expected additional revenue. 7. Fire inspection fees ($276,224 increase) -A discussion of the proposed ordinance on fire inspection fees was included in the staff report on business license fees. However, this part of the staff report was overshadowed by the Council's discussions of the proposed increases to the business license fees. The Council may wish to discuss the attached schedule of proposed fire inspection fees, which also shows current fees and the costs per the recent study. The Council may wish to keep the document fee for Utah Fire Incident Report at the current $15 fee rather than the proposed $95 (total revenue reductions of$5,360). While the business license fee approach is in keeping with a previous Council's policy not to increase any fee by more than double in any one year, the fire fees were not calculated in that same manner. A number of fees are proposed to increase significantly. The Council may wish to review these fees. 8. Insurance subrogation collections -The City funds a loss prevention program in the Insurance & Risk Management Fund from money collected from third party insurance companies relating to prior year General Fund claims. When employees are injured or City property is damaged due to third party negligence, the City departments pay for repairs, medical expenses and salaries while injured employees are recovering. The Attorney's Office collects from third parties and their insurance companies (subrogation reimbursements) and then reimburses the departments. Subrogation payments collected in the same fiscal year are reimbursed to the departments. Subrogation relating to enterprise funds is also reimbursed to the enterprise funds. However, subrogation relating to a prior-year General Fund claim is retained to support the safety program because budgets are closed out each year in the General Fund. This approach has been taken to fund the loss prevention program since 1999. Actual subrogation revenue for fiscal year 2004-05 was $106,386 while actual safety expenditures were $13,460. Actual subrogation revenue 2 exceeded costs for the first 11-months of the current fiscal year by $92,750. Accumulated cash in this program is $342,000. The Council may wish to use excess on-going subrogation collections to offset some administrative costs. The proposed budget includes a transfer from the general fund to the Insurance & Risk Management fund to pay for administrative costs. 9. Interest earned by the Insurance & Risk Management Fund-The Finance Division allocates interest revenue to each fund based on the average daily balance of cash in the City's pooled account, which the City Treasurer invests. The Insurance & Risk Management Fund has earned $141,450 of interest revenue in the first 10 months of the current fiscal year. The proposed fiscal year 2006-07 budget for interest revenue in the Insurance & Risk Management Fund is $54,276. The interest revenue budget could be increased by about $100,000. The Council may wish to reduce the amount of general fund support for administration by this additional interest revenue. 10. Airport Parking License Tax-The City charges a license fee of 2% of gross revenue to airport parking lots (Airport lot plus three offsite parking lots that shuttle customers to the airport). The Administration is proposing to change the fee to 50 cents per vehicle and extend the fee to other parking lots built with public funds that primarily serve public facilities. The Administration forecasted $1,000,000 of revenue relating for this fee. Council staff obtained vehicle counts from the Airport for calendar year 2005. Total cars parked at the lots on Airport property were 1,413,829 excluding vehicles that parked free (i.e. first 30 minutes, etc.). By comparing the current license fee for the Airport parking lot to the license fees paid by the three offsite parking lots, Council staff estimated a total number of cars to be 1,637,000. If the Council decides to assess the license fee to only the four airport lots and not the downtown lots, Council staff projects revenue of$818,500. If the Council wishes to recover the projected one million dollars in revenue, the fee could be increased to 61 cents per vehicle. The revenue increases by $164,000 for each ten cents added. 11. Rent from old health clinic -The old occupational health clinic on Redwood Road is maintained (utilities, etc.) by the City's Facility Support Services Division and is leased out under the direction of the City's Property Management office. Both of these are general fund supported work groups. The lease revenue has been receipted into the Insurance & Risk Management Fund since the clinic used to be administered by this separate fund. The lease revenue of$18,000 should probably be considered general fund revenue and used to help balance the budget. 12. Gifts and receptions -A Nondepartmental budget is traditionally established for the Mayor's employee holiday luncheon, the induction ceremony, and some dignitary gifts presented by the Mayor. The Administration proposes an increase from $20,600 to $25,000 for gifts and receptions. Actual expenditures for the first 11 months of the current fiscal year are $17,145 including $12,920 for the employees'holiday luncheon and $3,000 for the induction ceremony. Gifts given by Council Members are not purchased from this budget but from the Council Office budget. Since there 3 isn't an induction ceremony in fiscal year 2006-07, the Council may wish to reduce the budget for gifts and receptions by about $10,000. This account still has $3,680 in the current-year budget for the Mayor's Office to purchase dignitary gifts for future events by the end of this fiscal year. 13. Animal services ($100,000 increase) -The County's original request for the Animal Services contract renewal was $124,457, which includes a 3% increase in the contract of$26,010, as well as $3,400 for fuel costs, $92,547 for dispatch services provided by the Sherriff's Office, and $2,500 for utilities related to the shelter. The Administration indicated that the $100,000 figure included in the Mayor's Recommended Budget would fulfill the City's share of the costs, even though it is $24,457 less than requested by the County. The Council may wish to appropriate $50,000 for a six month contract extension with Salt Lake County Animal Services with the understanding that the Administration will negotiate with the County regarding dispatch services. Council staff has included a legislative intent statement regarding this issue. 14. Fund Balance -The following table is a forecast of fund balance assuming the Council appropriates $2,700,000 for the Grant Tower project. The percent of general fund revenue depends upon whether the Council adopts all of the proposed tax and fee increases proposed by the Administration. The following calculation assumes that general fund revenue excludes the proposed on-going property tax increase of$2,090,000 since the Council, by straw poll, is not supportive of this tax increase. The business license fee increase has also been excluded, although some Council Members have asked about the possibility of a minor increase rather than the proposed increase. For this calculation, total general fund revenue includes additional sales tax revenue of$835,500 and interest revenue of$353,000. Fund Balance General Fund Fund balance -June 30, 2005 $26,631,000 Less use of last year's lapsed appropriations for one-time (887,000) costs in fiscal year 2006 Less appropriation of fund balance by budget amendment (6,632,000) Less proposed use of fund balance in budget (210,000) amendment #5 Less proposed use of fund balance in Mayor's (3,725,000) Recommended Budget for fiscal year 2007 Plus forecasted excess revenue in fiscal year 2006 3,531,000 Plus approximate expenditure savings in fiscal year 2006 400,000 Less appropriation for the Grant Tower project (2,700,000) Estimatedo Fund balance -June 30, 2006 $16,408,000 (8.9% of proposed general fund revenue of$184,930,000) 16. The Leonardo addition to the Old Main Library Building -The Mayor is proposing to fund a $1.5 million request from the Leonardo for an annex/seismic solution to the old library building. The proposed funding is to come from fund balance. Depending upon on one's approach, the primary source of funds is a judgment levy for $1.3 million, or fund balance. 4 17. Property tax judgment levy for the Library and general obligation debt service -A judgment levy in the amount of$1,304,779 is proposed to offset a shortfall stemming from Tax Commission or court decisions that reduced the current year's taxes. The amount of next year's judgments is not known, but in recent past years the amount has been much less than the current judgments. The Administration plans to use the judgment levy for one-time expenditures. In addition to the Council's decision as to whether to levy this one-time property tax, the Council will need to decide if it will authorize a judgment levy for general obligation debt service or for the Library. A judgment levy requires a truth-in-taxation hearing in August. 18. Golf Budget-At the briefing on June 1st, the Council tentatively decided to retain the full-time golf course positions. 19. Take-Home Vehicles - The Council held a discussion on June 1st and requested some additional information. 20. Additional positions and other proposed budget increases -The Council may wish to straw poll the additional positions proposed by the Administration and other proposed adjustments in the Mayor's Recommended Budget. Council staff will provide you a list of the new positions and other adjustments at your work session. 5 Proposed Fire Prevention Fees Actual ' Annual Cost per Current Fees Number of Business per Bus. Proposed Business Type '' Inspections (Ceiling) (Fire) fees General - minimal use and/or storage 256 $391 $125 $390 Storage Sites-warehouses, fuel storage for generators 97 $440 $125 $440 Tank Inspections 21 $587 $250 $585 Gas Stations 102 $367 $175 $365 Large Dispensing Sites-wholesale gas &oil. 26 $587 $175 $585 Production 26 $685 $250 $685 Fireworks Public Display Outdoor 30 $685 $350 $685 Fireworks Public Display Indoor 13 $489 $150 $485 Fireworks Public Display Delta Center 1 $685 $100 $685 State Licence Health Care 82 $489 $50 $485 Hospitals 4 $685 $400 $685 Lock Box-small 16 $130 $30 $130 Lock Box- large 16 $230 $130 $230 UFIR - Utah Fire Incident Report 67 $98 $15 $95 Re-Inspections 430 $245 $0 $240 Blasting 2 $587 $500 $585 High Rise 34 $880 $350 $880 Open Burning New $391 $390 Flame effects before an Audience New $293 $290 Temporary structures, tents, canopies New $400 Place of assembly (fee based on square feet) New $300-$1250 Exhibit and trade shows (fee based on square feet) New $175-$700 Suppression, alarm or detection system installation New 10% of system cost Hot works operations New $300 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS- FzscAz YEAR 2006-07 DATE: June 6, 2006 BUDGET FOR: Unresolved Budget Issues -Take Home Vehicle Program STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Chief Chris Burbank, Chief Querry, Scott Atkinson, Jerry Burton, Lee Dobrowolski, Rick Graham, Lamont Nelson, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, Susi Kontgis, Lisa McCarver, DJ Baxter, Gary Mumford, Sylvia Jones, Lehua Weaver, Jennifer Bruno Based on the Council's discussion on June 1, below is a list of the issues addressed, and a summary of staffs understanding of the direction provided by the Council. Calculations to meet the revenue target will be finalized prior to the June 6 briefing. The Administration may also provide additional information for the Council's consideration. TENTATIVE COUNCIL DECISION: a. Vehicle miles: limit the total number of miles per vehicle to 18,000 -to include on-duty use, commute, and allowed personal use. b. Distance to Employee's Residence: • Use I-80 and Redwood Road as the point from which to measure. • Use "actual road and highway miles" to calculate the distance. • Maximum distance: to be determined As mentioned during the June 1sL briefing, the Council may wish to consider that a 40-mile one-way commute would generate 14,800 commuting miles on vehicles per year, based on an estimate of 185 shifts per year. This would not include commute miles to and from secondary employment. Council staff has requested information about the average number of on-duty miles accrued each year on patrol vehicles. c. Personal Use: • For law enforcement and sworn officers who live within the City, personal use would be allowed within the City. • For non-city resident law enforcement and sworn officers, personal use within the City would be allowed while the officer is in the City in conjunction with official business. The Council may wish to clarify this issue related to personal use within the City for City residents vs. non-City residents. There may be some confusion about whether non-City residents would be able to drive into the City in order to utilize their vehicles for personal use. Page 1 d. Secondary Employment: more information needs to be gathered about the potential unintended consequences of charging employers a rate per hour for the use of City vehicles. The Council may wish to consider an alternate proposal for recouping some of the costs associated with secondary employment. A Council Member suggested the use of a fuel surcharge per "engagement" or "shift". Charging per hour may cause employers to reduce the number of hours the officers are employed. e. Employee Reimbursement schedule: this information will be forthcoming after the data is gathered about the distances of employee residences from the I-80 & Redwood Road measuring point. Options will include: • Generating a total of$375,000 in employee reimbursements - an increase of$80,000 over what is currently collected. $375,000 is the amount currently budgeted in the Mayor's Recommended Budget. • No charge to law enforcement and sworn officers living within the City. • Using 1) a rate that escalates per distance mile and 2) a set rate. • Varying maximum allowable distance. f. Grandfathering: The Council may wish to continue discussing whether or not to implement a grandfathering period. At a minimum, the Council could specify that the new terms of the program would apply to all employees who are hired or become a part of the take-home vehicle program after July 1, 2006. ADDITIONAL OPTIONS 1. The Council may wish to consider implementing an appeal process for employees who disagree with the road mile calculation of distance to their homes. The appeal process could include a requirement for the employee to provide documentation of the discrepancy to their Department director and the Fleet director. This information could be subject to audits as deemed necessary. 2. The Council may wish to consider how these rates could be routinely re- evaluated to take into account rising fuel rates and other costs. Page 2 Hardman, Ellie Subject: Calls in support of Trap, Neuter, Return Jamie Ines, 296-1230 Trap Neuter return It's a great program. It helps the neighborhoods, and the animals. Just in the 2 years I have been involved we have neutered over 1000 cats. Maryann Rogers, 252-9630 Trap Neuter return, totally support it Judith Fell, 706-8737 Trap Neuter Return, support Kimberly Howard, 328-9250 Trap Neuter Return, she has trapped over 100 cats in her neighborhood. Total support. Shannon Hines, 296-1230 Support for TNR, veterinarian, she has spayed many and finds a great improvement in areas, it also helps place tame cats that have been abandoned. Ann Marie Faucher, 486-1718 Support TNR Craig Wirth, 979-4476 Support feral cat and TNR, it has been a great program Susan Allred called 538-1032 cell 859-4808 no need to call back (lives in the Avenues); Ms. Allred wanted to let the Council know that this system works because West Valley City has invested in it and it has reduced the need to euthanize the animals. You will not hear from the people who cause the problem so please pass this. These people have called to support the "Feral Fix Program" Wendy Jenkins — 274-3867 Kelly Olsen — 518-8187 Jenny — 414-3580 Kathy Ruffus — 284-0237 Elizabeth Miller, 598-7484 , Lindsey Evans, 58505724 1 0A 11. ! i I 1 1 I I i I I i , I I I I T r m 5 m = a m m 'Wm tNx NNNNNNNN,' Nm >< 2. 1 o N O(Q 00 V O)VI A W N y 00CD m m V m N A y W N> O w Oo V T ch A W N - Imj1 IOC. • 0 ZOU 9C)u' 0 co mm m ow m vvvmm-omm .ZI m 41 T m fl5F dm I mmms!llfltiim> n m . . K mmm mm mmm5cm m 3rm woomoo. 3 ° cm CDm,<. m g.c1w ����-1'D L,'0 nm m m m o o a vo om mae 7 n 0 D Miym OOO O+ OO - C Z rm = m iy7 ym 0 yH I ? I i 0.toc la d '0 .< A m -lN4' r dy 3 � O ° dxa mo OT �C -.0 ' :o = > C Si M • I fg -I Im F..'o Z. 3o' 0 m o = c Imp 3 3 1" I M d .Im m CD l .p1. i I m 3 0 Im I m 3 ! i p" I O Io d I 3 I 1,ii m I ! D m' i c I I I i 1 I l ! II1 ! II III ; , I ! Ilii III it I 1 K Ii ; I N IiII IIIIi1 ! wo IWI yi I I IA1 A 0 "' A N A V-+V .Aa ol >. 41 A� I y>�I J.01 I Uf yf, 0 CO O W (D W T O V to ^ C '� WI v DI A CO C_fOffl CO A CO w A N OI CO 0 0 0 fD (O - CO CO O V CO CO 0 0 0 0 A N 9 lw OI I I "I VIW OW In O AO W NI CDO fD 00000 n E 0 ,0 ..0 CO ,0 W OD ,0 V CO 0 0 0 f71 iD Oi ! IO 000 000I 0 V O CO CO W O N 000O V N I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I l I I ! 1 I IrN '' .. I N I y iy Jo I ly y N tD UI CJ N A A I ly-+0�p W r` is,,: j �! N A N .+ I V N V O T N A (11 OI V it N OI A O I I ,V 10 N VIw* PI 01 O! N O W N OD A N 'CO W N O O A ''''' .-.,=, 101 I jol I o W O o o O it CO N W O V CO o O CO W O O 101 I ;01 I O OD10 O O 0 I mil O N you V N A N O O O tD O O V O 0 O ACOOtD Dl v yO CO . o . . tD OO fD . x. A , Il lliII � I I � i Ij ' III1 � 1 I ! 1 I , III � I1 ! IIIIII I o co N of 1 I101 I IAi I , iA I V y y UI A+ WI IA V yIW y y? A y5~ A ; ! O N A mi V N(�O W N CO CO O A W T W 1D W W :4 y y _1D COii I iD I I N V tNDIW VI 0) N V A O N W V CO 0 A 0 0 0 O A N AO CD - I- 1. W,OCOO W O .+ N O DC O W OO/DO O A N C IAI I !O ( N VI CO CU (W CO N 01 O W W 10 O O to CO O O O A O O rp;D.r'j' 0 0 0 0 0 V CO N N O V C W CO O V CO O O O U O O V fD Y 0! I O . . O 0 0 0 0 DI COA NI O iD Art T CO00 N OOI00 T 00 fD N , 1i I - 1 I WI l n i . I c - _ • n iN ID)i 1 I Iis WI I I I TI r N • Vt 0 I j i i t N O O A ' I IT N !O 1 01 N W I ! Io! I io- 110 , Oi. II I I. I , O1, I' Io o . !, 10 . ! I. I. . I, IOIO O fvVD . I I ! ! II � IIIIIIIi I I ! l ii II II ' I ; II II i I z wl i i� I I I I I ICI ! I?� V Ot A W A V y O III I !. I O) NIAIwi Iv I N OJ N W T CO A W W OJ(D W J !N ' 'CO (n. J uCI AI O.-I C) V N W CO W A CO O O O p� co � I C) 19)1 , O V N W'V, I O Q)W Q)O N_VI O O W O O fT N `74 :0, i O !NN1)I O CO O O I O! I V N (T UI OI W CO CO CT I N N O O WCO co CO O O O 0NJ1 ID CO!1 i CO1 ( IOIi I, IW OO OIv)1 IU'I I' - ) OIpI�I C) COO CO N IO OIO O O) N , III ! III IIIII IIII llli 1 1 1 11i i111 III II I III I i i i 7 li IlII II 'II I I I I I i r I , II II I1 1iii I ! I I . . II 1 ID I I 1 1 II I T .. E D. 7 N C NIN y U1 A A A 3 A A A,y�A A A W O W W W 61 W 4.;W W 3 i'D O 1WiN OCDOOV W WDAWN 0oo 0V N AWN= K TTTTT� ` EIVEI -I-4-10. CD z DItD; 3 3 •O a s O.C.0.n , 7 7 7 0 7 0 7 :-.. co T c O 3•3; •.d. !D O co Q 77S SN :,FP-yi,in 2'° er Fo"y,u, r� O.0 C�a•. CD »3 ti D) d d v tv A : rn _`z ° ._N. T N A N `.,'I.-„-C, M M-C,N 8 aavaavdazA = d W 7 O D o.g CD 3 7 W =1mmmCOOCm 33333333 ni�c°c m10mn 307 0 1n n�c�= DCl C c �� » -„3 3' m di 3 CD IO O O O 0 S.53 N'D O 0-• a A N i O Q— m M1°j6orr3 c -„o -, Er amm dNc3CO do m d P, mOz0 Soy°13:c• 94333 S Hca » 3 Dl 3 3 N W 0-o 2 T f+ 3 > coo d 3 u as' C O `• 2 co d D� -riID N o d D m 3 .« ET- 7 O O m 3 o O z o rnmm °am c *ceQoS gg = c_ o' m ' �v7 m 1;I N xx %M:m 'd (C 9I 7 id'� N C w"a a' Vyi .O.-Id 7 d O S 01 3 o g o µ r 0 3 y E!)it. g Nv0 ay y O c O m N o O c m N 13 ''.O m a.co EC 7 ry 01 l !9 7 es 0 c o i 3 e`i ax : F Ico (Ao m 3 0 0 X o o i O 3 e 3 a 8 8 F o O ; O 1 0 r 0 CD CD 0 o d x < 2 N N 0. m m y " O 3 N 7 c c c 0 0' m 3 A n N Q_ coco C 0 10 co I 1 ‘.. . I , I .< I I i I 1 N c,,I I yy Iy DJ CA)W NCIO IO G N no W -,CO UI co CC j A J W CDD CD CC .p 0CTV -1 CD N Si N AAA So 0 N V V, O O W W O O O O 0 0) CD V O p to 0• O O O 0 0 . . 0 O O O O O O S O O1 O O V 1 1 1 1 I r I I V ' N I. 0 W 0) N N A W N N j V w`S5 C O U O O V I fD N O W O W,Vp 01 +) A 10000 0 000 00 W CDCD ) N "9 co , (0000 0 0 0 oo-4 0CD4a Ut y. , .m l , l II 1 II I 1 1 ( z Ii 1 I i _ N c..., W A CD N in 0 1 11 - In W A W N 0 - _(Wl1 9Ni 0 o I V 1 I ton O A N, u0i 0 C_.fOi 0 ; ^ co 0 00 w o 00 N)C 'be-0 0 '" 0 0 00 10 0l 000 ao 0 0 I DI W 0 , 0 0 , o 0 0 0 0 ,A 83 0 0 ,.o,aa.•">;.+ i1 I ' - - W _ W O A 0 to CO A O fDN I0O 0 co .., O I • W N 0 O OI ( 'O 0 I I 0 00 NI IO�OI, I. I (ofN I 0 . , I . . . . 0 1 i I I f.. c c D co I o =• pvppp -, NO W W A - 'O A N O O — O V v C J1 W O O 0)CD CAT — G co Cr co I O O co_Co--.191 A N CP V CO V COr isc DO CA0I O! IO OO W O 10 'N.)c W O O V D) 010 O O O o o)co OIO i IOI, Oj010 . , I, . O . 1O O I-b IA WA O O I i II I ijlliII I c. I 1 m W 1 I N ' .1:. A 10. 0 I i 91 C11 1 10 O Ir, O)O)I 10 O N 0 III I III ' I -n _° I a v pp��pp�� ff�� NN f� �, V D A � N ..o w,.D V m f07 . 0 O 771Q N O R 7 `z 0 N g v T A n 0 3 N c T V OOf N µl pp5 _ d 7 7 n d �p d O 7 3 n 3 d g O A d , m IG n fD 01 ,d„ d A 7 W (� O lD d 3 7 -2 N O fD OZ i i E N 7 n 0 7 6, c c Cl N 3 R d y n p O v-0 7 d y n j o 0 x c(C d d c 3 0 —,'7 y 7 01 N N N O A d y mNAO d3N n 0dmog: = 7 0 N if F. -. c a� .�'1D CD O m C. N I is o c N 3. 0. acn • ch D a Qtm c a o, y y 'G H N co C -I N •�I 0 -<I C, rn 0 c Cr a C0. o I m CI E31 r C) d a 0 x o O c C, 3 n N C. I 'CM k N aJ0 C © O. a w A a O V e R7 w a II I a C. w ',a,"4 In p� _ A a' ,c N N A N O N A N O N O O N (vJl i,, r h,' A co A V A fn1 U) aN IJ O W N 4` f' C00O V W 4.00 N 0000 '�� � nd W G d 00 I O C.„ C I tN ;' 'yYF+.,0 T II og I = - I n i 0 _ I 6 W 0 0 S SE 0 N I i O r, F 1 II Il , i l III W ID I I I I I i : I I 1 ( 1 1 ) 1 0; to N Oi010 CD a) 0) tpfD tp 2- 0 (0 a 40o au t"ao t" ao V V V V V V V V V V 0 O O NI+IO tD W VIT NA W N+OO oo V tr to.p W N+OfDm V TtnA W N+000o 1n C S p1a12 ao o a c O-{oo a D a T D v y,m m m n �' o, —m mIo m m OOOOOO(.1ag1.+-+T-+ c c �.m m o c < H m C a. • a > > > > > o m c { to g l an j m T 31garnmm mmmmm 3 0000 _. rn gr 7 to 3 p =A O °'n c m .y, n n n n n a y 3 N co T V 0 N ox ° 0 pPPp =' .N=...5zcdd =coocococg •33333� o3D2.70,—` O * Ol O C O c 'n d 2 H .14 7 7 7 3 F 7 m m m my m N O n 3 3 ° ? 3 co.u", F, ,e'atooHo 0a ,F„ Qgno / mcc..G -tg@m7mm 9. < o o m' g 0 3 o E < a ° o >> 1. » y m 3 o o o 0 o—3 0 m v ' ( 3 o1, s,R3 o ma oa— •.,tc gt�b o S aaaaa2 &8;:m 3 0.. mg.IaoomN —9oca° _ d (9.n33 . . . . � a> ?. '7' „$ W-a, I 1 F ;Igidmd gmc7 3Eo3025A°—Ncccc`mca: ? r+�' & m'. C O O 1,k M b N m F a m v a.m. t<D C O N al g al to N s S > > n ^ oo *ldl0tn > >u g m' o�3o, do33333 ; ': °:2.m i„ , (I mo . m , a ,2 mu, y mmmmm ^' m Nvin va 7 z N m3wmo577m77 U. Pgc1 , Ia; O <( ly d '' 7 < 2. m m a•n O n M g m m O ., o aao3 00 .•0o DD v, is^, m m •3 d 3 0 q 00 ea�. 12 n o 2 fD m m m m m o .`...a. =H F 00•o.mm. to T Ft Im ° o 0 - m 3 o N "d '° n d '° y° o > -{ to w s @ g f 7 f1 m d = N N p a n a co �HI1tIiHI ' ' III lilt! 3 770 mm 0,D a 3 I 1 I 7 o1 '1.1 ; i 4 ' � c I ' sl I j i I 3 a m a o H 1 I m zco ma a 3 too m 3 1 i l I j i N to o i I i H I I I i 1 w °n° a I j i I 1 I I °p I I ' i I a. III I II I N 1 ' ! i i ; -. I jT I O I N I tD U.ao a s W 0 V N N W+A N v W N T Oi j :M p Oi O.A�O�(D 00 O N OC A N O N W O W I W N O A V A o O VD O V . 0'i 1 O OINIO O as(D A ac 0 N N O T Oo O O O co O 1...C.N tD O N :D 1 0 0,0 0 0 0 N 0 A 0 0 0 O O 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 V W ao as O A 0a Co 1 I , . O 0101000 , O W O)D10000CD 0010000 V NONOvN y' i I 1 l i i � •I I . . . 1 1 I I i 1 i I i I I . I I l I I l i I ' ' it I1 1 I ) To W 0 I i ':,1 w 3 i: 1 INi O I I i O 0 A O 121 I O I i i o,o w 11 : i�i 1 1 I 1 1 I ! t i � j I i ! Ilij i 1 I I I ( I I ." II I i n,1 � I i I o g. 1 b cD I i I I i _ ' i I = _� 1 I a 1 V I I m I i 1 1 1 1 I I I j I ! i I i I I I i f IO1 l0 I I ! W rn 1 of co I I N o W I I 1 T III ICI i I I I coo (n I I j I O O I I i i ol. I Io I I I rn o of I I I I I 1 A 0 III m pp _; A W N O D t0 W V W N A W N O (D M V 0 N A W In - C oms-m - mc)c�tnc� zG n n���c�vgT n 3 y .a o�i o GAWi,f �' N c rn a v > > d� �3immE0Z3c`;II ; g1c0qo O n N N A O d O 'O ?� A n : Ei > > W d a W ^ @ A O y .Z C ,Cy d 7 O �,LZ p em o' 3vP .3 n W, t3o y 3 C 77 a a o n m a 7, 'O y y a o a. 3 p. g O m a> 7 l i y u n y(p ao d o w 3 g m T aE g o0 c')ommd tad .cam .000� _m 3 y N m a .zz. o d F m ,-47 3 y o m o u0 05 cyi 3 o ll y o 0. o A A `D m OPi d m m j v o' o S ov c h� IF O f) y O O D) 7 A t01 H C 7 To y a..' a • O O O (A Z y y d N TI 7 I (A C -< -< y O' y C. ' a a Co ^y Co 2 0, p E d o O 6' N WO aC g ao A a in co " o i v a w w III I 1 II I I l N z a t4-Vwc —7.3 �St� Y A n A W O�y N N'A W A.y�ppN T V a0 N O °F'� `� A W A W O) I N N O)W W Co A_ V O W A N T Of Go b' ., T W O W O(A N N)V C O V Oo 0 0 C W Co C j .li V T Oo C W 0 0 0 0 U)0 0 0 V 0 0 0o V O W ,pC W O O N W I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -+N O O O N Of O O)..� .� x I r� I I I `t) p I 1 i .: w I Iv., °c w l to ' :lk ,r w Co ° CO g ( . , • j . ( an jjl r W I p I I C 34 O) co W l -r, I i W I,A N 'I i N O)w W CO l I I too O VV)O I I I • I I I ( I 10 pI plpl I I N 0 IjlliiI ' I I ! II ii ' I 1 ! Ii Ii E m 1O)O)OI TN (J1NN N01 NN'N Ayy A A Ayy��,,AAAA W W W W W W W W W W NNNNN 3 O W N- O t0 O V O)N A W N O t0 M V O)N A W N-t O tO ,V V O)N A W N O 0 O V T N z C Lt-LLLLt_LLLLLLLLLLt_LLLc- c-xa TC')TnT—T tip 7 7 0 e 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 c c e 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 0 e 0 c e t: 0 c c m DI C p m m m m N N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 3•p ;p.D a 3 7 C 0 0 , (T 2 n n 2 2 8 8 2 n 8 2 8 n 2 2 2 2 2 n n 2 2 2 2 2 8 C •p m V O) tD 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 7''�f0 O S m m O 7 ,3.. t) O O O 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O m 0 O 8 t) O O 8 O 8 t) O O O A Cf . y Q 7 7 A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m 3 m m m wo c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c e c c c c c m- m -- m - m 9 tD I I I t 1 I I I t I eto S�' mjmm o' 5 I i jAh � ctnA3hmh3c ?rn � �m (� � t� m � ImG1h � D) OD' m � u'1 0 I��°,� °c3 °ilood .00da� oo ,�oom '� oom3oom � v, o� :vmso � p =I I373• 37 .7•i30 373 .. 37d13mmc m ay7Wy 1 C 7 taD ti.D)1 c Dal'y O) C a N.. m C i . - a) d 0 0) c Dal O m C 7 A 3 .0. m 0 7 .Ni y to d imiiI$ tolga. m oo mis -ctp oO 5omm o00°c.a03 ymt7i ' 1 !� �!m Bpi= zc m7 m3 Zm I i 3V gamID1D kill 0Fil mcoOA? NriP-14 �.m .. Fi I.. 3!m 7 m 3.1'Z,7 m O) t) 7 f 3 N d .1 p 7 %i L1 m 7 y m N 7 N (D N d �lal m m 7 t7 m m 3 C 01 m tp m m 7 m O.H m m m K p m 0 1 I IO O m m e• 7 m N m m 3 m m .m. m O •O 1 ,7 I0 7'm 9.7 fe 7 Re 20 7 m 3 7 d x cmmmo telTlo temp 3p xsig- -oR'mm3 Q° 3 0. C .0_ O � O 1D N F O I ( m Im d IC 7.'O O -.Z O t9 p=1 m O 0 p0 H,O2, m 0 Op t7D S 0£m • 7 Ci 2 31 t0itc3 �Ng�ayf 1o0 3,o'" tg6EY f= oga EO = o i•p I m y 3 3 7 r" 7 101 m m 7 7 A I 7 .T to 1D 7 7 7 `�F c 7 0 7 7 0 E {e O N 1 1 '�I o °_' m10 E' m a 3 O R.m =m ° m-O m $ 3 - m .n M 0 " .a pl 11 o arc olmr`j 0. k ° o o: a 3 3 o 3 '•. .4- d °' ' °, T 1E1 !� gdA03te) = 1e = c03u+ mymm mS o a I :o dim a m IF � . O 3 = `•R m 1 o O ICI 3 *ICIL' 3 D 1-1 & 0 m 3 m 1D 0 0 '; a i a) iv W v�m,x d 0Im Im i r m 0 R..y 0 5 m �. c to D AI m CID 0 g i f 1 1 R. 61 0 3 g m f 0 a O O Cl)1 •m m-1xIN F w �� o d 1jl � F j IIj m ! m j ! I I ! I I 1 1 I 11 I 1 j I j i l l 1 1 i j ! I I j ! III I I I I l I I I I I e IiII II I � I I ay l ! a 1a Il I1 III i 1 1 I i I IT - a liliIIi1iliIiI I r I I iI I I1 ! lli 1 I ! A I a III ' j j j j I J r 0 I i I I ! 1 ! IA IJ O N N - QN� ;{�'�! I$ W V N VIN +IA NI s OI O N N O W N O s N W N O N II1 OD O tND W ON0 V A 'NWWT b• V O V1 NI(O N,O tr (DN Of.(1 t0 W O�tppOT0 Nt0Np�N0ON000 j W 0 V N 7 I W OOOO W O 001D O O W 0000 T OOtD O g g t000000 N p� (E1! N ,. I W!Ol0 Oj.0.010.. m.A O O T W O A O V O O m O V 0 0 0 O O O O T A N A..,0.— ,..w j I 1 .I I . . . . . li it l ; i ! ; j1 I i 1 j 1 1 1 I iii IW1 I j ! I 1 1 I syu ! i ! I 1 ; II � II111 I o I ! i 1 jlI Og IAI I ! I ! I trJ1>I^ N�,-.... i.-. N..-, WiNi I N n 0) 0 V N----leek-I— INI ��O)O N-p`N O p Wpp N O QQ+N t"N 0 V 0 ..m INI ITI 0 O 0 w 0I0!0 00)0 to 0 0 01 t.")0 A 0 V 0 0 00)0 4 0 00)0 0 A I I I j I I l i l l I ; IV i 1 1 1 j 1 11 I I j en I11 I 1 ( 1I � Ii 0 II ! ii - 01 1 i I I G IE. IQI I - ! IM I I ' I1 j 10I illl11 ; 11 11 3. ili l ! j I ! I I I I I I 7 I ! 1 ; i I - w I I I I to co I i I(O 1 11 1 I 1 I, l 1 I t I j 1 1 I jol . ! i ! II : D II II I I -13 o N Co o Co O O OD Co O V V V V V V V V V V O m O)CAC 2, V W N A Ca N 0 Co o V W O A W N O CD DD V O)C A o N c DO()o fn 1373nr*1 T TN(A CI 10 vC)'V5 TT " 411 ,�, m o m D>v o m m'D 7 o m N N 7 7 7 L) 7 O Di A'O S1 O 18 C :I d fn%m A 1 O 7 S 92, o 7 7 0) 1p A = C C) n S N O O CC ei 1 T < "' i N m m f0 W ag0 $ m0 T33.< m -m577,. �do 7•� 7.3 Ern m c m,< m D—) w o'a a m c m a 5 3 0C D0.=,3o0.§ - dm2 2< o 2ad0' C gpme 3m-o3 .34 1DcAooc'Cg0C 7 , o d 3 C.0 o a.n 7 3 W y I CD3 a3jN ' 073d fD3 � `D Nmm7 dE —69..amm37i 2 633S NZ.W 3 `8.m m mm 3z o N 5-t.7, = E1 0 0 a, S K x N N '3 m o 3 . 1 m R. 0-0'g v rn 1 s 0 o,m y d m m a12 , C w —m o o^ °p1 �,a a N to < m N 7 •F w!k o m y y a 3 m � CD rc, W n li, .—d ^x N N m n N 7 A m 7 o m C a W 7 7 to m y n , m 0f F 7)m O 1 9 N 0 O N o C CD . 77 CO 7 y . CD CD CD C C 7 cr am a a8' m° e 7•� .. 7 7 N O m i o m a m a tm v g o x m c CO o I ll I I A w 0 I I N . '7O 1 ao o a I I x� �wr i ass I I I q — — A �.. NC� a D„ Co W A O Co W O DD CC O (Cl CO—CO A W W y N 0 O. O 50 C0 N) Co O) A V s Pc'O N)OD OD V V O Sc' DD ,'.y., O O O O Co O O O O O O O O O O O V W l0 f0 A C Co000 Co O 0000000000V O N O CO00 C) • • • • 0 !� 'C j 3 4 Yp x Co ? ,-4 Co r .0 O. Vt i II a 0 cg n y W , -' (7) I I ,:, 0) w w o i t 141.4 v0 1 ; II I n ocm m 0 — a 1 1 s,, I 1 1 I I I A J Cn I T I 11 OI OI I 10 ( I _. I ; 111. I V ID X Ilil LIIII II I I a I1 ! 1 I II i v v 141 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C 00000p 0 000 CD C)W C 00(p fD 1D- fD OD) —. v O N A W N �O W W V OI N A W N-.O fD W V O1 W A W N-, D1 moomogaCCOm m c c o a= o o a a 0 o < o C.m A °d g o x d o o , o $g1 m o d331000Q �' o '=o5fD 'aQ3a 2mo , 30 d mvca noona ?mWm �.o'mw -m°l— =:<'So° coo A 0�' 3� 0000aoN3 <D3 oodod1° 'o'fp ° mONIB o w o o m m R'� °O<g.3 __N y o o rn o g m CD0CD o mdWgo ,DO 7 •oa1vg -a I I a Q S 0 p O W W W tl1 O fa d 7. d C71 In N a m 7 =0 N 7 oO000I00035< 4.. O.7— Naa777W •05gg4saRTPo ' V. odr° 3oc - 3md N m O G71 d d N N ryS+ C 2 n a n 0 O O_: y l° N 7 3 3 0 dLH Do1° ONCIm3 Nn Aa90 » g.37 wzm A 0 . d O-N N y iC 7 < 3 hUH g 3 I cn x° m iHI0H a 1 mv 3 3 V w .m ° a c d d 0 — a ° T dd 5.. m I3 .-. a o = a3 m a f 3 CD n o =o N .0.. c c o d •D !9 g <7 A; C i d > > a � o Nam° ms a a O G. 7 y A 6 d » c G I d < C o v_CT 3 y 'a CD N O 7 f IN i l I III II II I I it I 11 COe C P 0. 'CY/ r4g. I I - y7 j iI t I ! I N Cu 1 I II , I ! 1II I I I w I ! I 0 i I Ig 1 - Tpf Z,< SIN A fA fD W U1 N pp)1 O1 A Cn yy O O ID fD W N pr1 O1 V O ,n I I O�I V O O W N O O°°O 00 9, 3,O N o A A O O1 00 Of O O W Oi W V 1D y ice' I OIO W OO OZn0ool00000 A W ow-44.00 f.J O-. m ,y 'O I O T T O O C O W O O O 8 O O O O V V V O W 8 O O T W A W N ➢C j OI 100000 W 0000000 W OAONOO°a°OtT.Ioo W ,C 1 . . i j : I i , FBI I I I h I iPI I I ;, : 0 0 m „ CO ' CO II I 7, _ I j, . s !A N O O N NII 0°I 1g COA 8 O O O O N Oo O O O O IVI I 1 I O cn i 5 10y1 — G 0 I� I 11 1 j !, a HH IW O1 A 1 1 O urn I I i t 1 I I I Io. I .o.o 11 i I 1 . I . _— co 0 I l l I i ! II I ! 1 NN N Z1 1 OI1N l NNNNNN1.NC iN jNNAAAAAAAAA W NOf0w ' I I .+O100)V0 O, C Z l a m aw to n N o Z r-n n m� nn37 Cc _ono ' - O - om o Cly°kO mcnrN ym3cDHmo g 0, 2 =m • EH30o ° I alc2'° admm. -m m ° y " 33 pdv+ligdDd I• P- m▪, mdaaomy � -omalomdN o 4As- ma� Wm oI Z te ° 780 � Zm8mm " < mN a ; = cdc5O5x �o ° azg° Na ° d� �� � 3. Ooy . 3 0mm a4 cm. E . m wo v _ , aay ° s -ad st 3, m ,3 0 O I I m.. Q ,z ° m m N d m 0 o , 0@ 6- , O N fD m O ai n a O O N =R O O m ( s ,O' O 3 fD 4 N F �j =3 7 2 C 0 N ;M A-O O v W 2 O al m 00 j I 01'� 3 7-O ° m IO . o O rn O m m 0 m .dc. 2'+M n,u, y m d Oa, I { od1 Qf1 1.m ...c'm7n7 dZdfH0pm < Om *=`'7'm0 mmj i t n �< .C.n A MO Rs O.c +w OI,i'O Om °,m 7 m O d oa m . v I i o o m Im g ° 3 2 V ° .Zmq+mI� °I *.hui1iIPJ fD ° ^� 3 oO° �zcal O 3 '< . f17 3N1� 2j c ° 7� N c3io3Ha��7IEI om do ° oidI'n �, po O. E ,z'v O O co Q0 0 �0 NVV�•-�ppl<�y 2� I ° O1 m o O 00g Z,W Op�O O Dv 3' O 7,- V N F O A£ a : m I co e � 1 II{I C L I HH1 c 0 c v.�m,T co 40 51 U ao' * lA. mmmam m "cco + �131 y y = � y,� WN I o "O OI Id I3,0 j c � 0 I o Z r* {1, y d i .3I loo ol 31 { { o ! aI mo m I°—' `` ! 1 Q 1 »� I I I I ( 1 to ., 0 c .. 0, 1 r `A a I I IiIjIIjI ; i1 1 a � Ill. � ill ICI 1 I IIj I1 1 IAA 11i ! 111I11 1 l il , i I ( r ! I W , 4 N V .'"P j ! I V OO VI°N ONO W Nw OI.-.N OWi ON I I a �.? ii NIOO TON W Nf°O0O W AANNOOOO W co 0) wmA-41 m I I 1 01000IN O)NOON IQ OOGO00000UJ)O V ON 0000 itp OOOA ps * " * O I ` 1I Is I I I O'.q o I i I ! I ! I A.•< Ices NI I I I I ( I ! I I f k c o IWI I I70I i j I ..:' ,.. IIIII I I 11 ! I I C 5. Ijli Fm pl I !N I N.� iN I N A 7.3 N ~ O I I T I N O 0) O 0,5) I I N V i. f.J VI Io Oo O O O o O N O O N 1 liot to otol o 1 I o o I I o m o j I o 0 i .ol I iVi Iolo!9I o 1 0 0 1 I 1 o�1°1 ! ��.I 1 { ! i IV iI ........II I I I 1 j l l ! I I I I 11 ! Iji I 1111 I I � I l I ( o f ICI W I ^ 0 I4 al Co m w1 INI I , i 1 I j I I 1 i I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 f { II I I ! i II o i i 1 17 W I I 1 1 N 10 I I j 10 1 1 (O O I fT gI 1 1 I o to 01 I I lb ICI j o� I I I�I Oi I IO 0