The URL can be used to link to this page

06/08/1989 - Minutes M3:9 MINUTES: Committee of the Whole Thursday, June 8, 1989 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. City Council Conference Room City & County Building, Room 325 451 South State Street In Attendance: Florence Bittner, Wayne Horrocks, Sydney Fonnesbeck, Alan Hardman, Tom G0dfr0y, Roselyn Kirk, Willie Stoler, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Mike Zuhl, Linda Hamilton, Christine Richman, Lee King, Cam Caldwell, Scott Bond, LeRoy Hooton, Jim Lewis, Kimball Young, Steve Lowe, Rosemary Davis, Buzz Hunt, John Gust, Joe Anderson, Major Ed Johnson, Officer John Dunn, Press 1. The City Council discussed the proposed rate increase for the water utility. Council Member Bittner stated that she felt that a 10% increase imposed at one time was too large a burden for the City's residents. Jim Lewis, Budget Officer for Public Utilities, reviewed the various options to the 10% increase, a copy of briefing is attached. Mr. Lewis stated that under any of the scenarios, the result will be decreased revenues with which to begin the water utility's capital improvements program. Council Member Fonnesbeck asked what justification there is for delaying the increase when it is obvious that the full 10% increase will need to be in place prior to commencing with the improvements. She observed that if residents will be concerned about the increase in July, they would be as concerned in January. She stated that she feared that City residents would see the delay simply as an election year game. She indicated that the water utility must be self- sufficient, and the only way for the utility to meet its goals to remain cost efficient is to implement the increase. Council Member Horrocks asked what impact the loss of the approximately $300,000 would have on the Utility. LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities, indicated that the ideal situation for a utility is to use a minimum of two percent of annual revenues for capital improvements. He stated that the Utility needs to keep up with its schedule capital improvements because delaying replacement of outdated pipes costs more in emergency repair. Council Member Horrocks asked when the utility would require another rate increase if the entire 10% were approved for July 1. Mr. Lewis indicated that, according to the Utility's estimates, they could meet operating costs and perform necessary capital improvements for the next five years without requiring another rate increase. However, Mr. Lewis indicated that if the Federal Government imposes additional water standards on the Utility before the five years is up they will need to increase water rates again to accommodate the increased standards. Mr. Hooton observed that if the Utility allows itself to get behind on its capital improvement program and then the federal government imposes new water standards, the necessary rate increase would be even higher. Council Member Bittner indicated that her greatest concern is the minimum payment imposed on water users who use very little water and are primarily elderly. Mr. Hooton stated that if the minimum is removed, he would have no way to guarantee revenues. He indicated that 80% of his costs are fixed, and the only area where he could make up the difference is in capital improvements. Mr. Hooton observed that whether or not a user exceed the minimum depends not on age, but on the size of the home and yard. Council Member Horrocks asked if the Utility was planning on bonding for the improvements and using the rate increase to pay the bonds. Mr. Hooton indicated that the capital improvement program is a pay-as-you-go program. Council Member Bittner asked if it would be possible to borrow fund from the sewer utility's fund balance to fund the capital improvements in the water utility. Mr. Hooton indicated that this wouldn't be wise in a business sense because the sewer fund needs the money in case the federal government imposes additional regulations. Council Member Bittner asked if it would be feasible th lower the minimum payment amount and offset lost revenue by increasing overall water rates. Council Member Hardman suggested that the water utility implement an abatement program similar to that used by the trash collection fund. He indicated that the program in the trash fund does not require residents to submit an application to the City, it simply appropriates the approved abatement properties from the County property tax rolls and automatically implements an abatement. Mr. Lewis stated that it may be costly but, could be accomplished. Council Member Bittner asked if the abatement program could be implemented so that the residents would see no net increase in their bottom line billing. Mr. Hooton indicated that if the Council wished to implement an abatement program for City residents, the same program would have to be offered to County residents because the City legally cannot treat customers differently. Mr. Lewis indicated that his estimate for the total loss to the City through an abatement program would be $24,000. Council Member Kirk stated that she could go along with the abatement program, but she is unwilling to delay the rate increase because the residents will complain about the rates no matter when the Council chooses to implement them. Council Member Hardman asked if any of the Council Members had a problem with implementing the 10% increase and an abatement program. No Council Member voiced objections. 2. The City Council discussed the Capital Improvement Program/Sunnyside Recreation Center project. Scott Bond, Manager of Policy and Budget, indicated that the Administration has been working on the Recreation Center issue and has come up with some recommendations pertaining to the project. He distributed a list of the issues and possible solutions to the Council, a copy of which is attached. Mr. Bond indicated that some of the figures had changed since he had developed the information memo for the Council. He indicated that the architect had revised the plans and the estimated cost of the project for everything except City Engineering fees is now $2, 100,000. He stated that City Engineer had requested $70,000 for the inspections through his office, and that the Administration had agreed that this money should come from City resources. Mr. Bond indicated that the Administration had identified two possible funding sources for the $70,000. The first is from the Parks Department Capital Improvements Program/Softball Park Project. The second is from the Parks Department Special fund for Parks Capital Improvements. Council Members indicated that the first source is unacceptable because it would entail taking funding from a westside project for an eastside project. Lee King, Council Budget Analyst/Auditor, stated that as of Wednesday afternoon the Parks Department had not identified a use for the funding in the Parks Department Special fund. Sheryl Gillilan stated that the Parks Department had contacted her earlier in the afternoon to advise her that they now have a proposal for using the funding to renovate the Memorial House. Linda Hamilton stated that the Parks Department is not planning on using the funding for the softball park for approximately 2 years and had stated that they were willing to fund the engineering fees from that money. Council Member Godfrey stated that the problem with using the softball park money is the question of when the City would be able to reimburse the project. The Council directed staff to identify funding sources for the $70,000, including the possibility of funding it from the delayed Firestation No. 10 project. Mr. Bond stated that the Sunnyside Recreation Center project now includes a 5% contingency fund which is more than originally budgeted, but less than the City Engineer's Office feels is adequate. Council Member Kirk stated that from the outset of development of the project, the City has taken the lead and cannot backout at this point. She observed that the residents have demonstrated a great deal of commitment to the project by coming up with an additional $200,000 over and above the required $700,000. Steve Lowe, Sunnyside Recreation Citizens Committee, indicated that although the residents have demonstrated a great deal of tenacity in promoting the project, the City is still the ultimate backstop for any operating shortfalls or ongoing problems. Mr. Bond indicated that because of the City's role as the ultimate backstop, the Administration recommends that the City own the facility. He indicated that in order to receive the land from the Bureau of Land Management for free, the entity receiving title must be a government entity. Mr. Lowe indicated that there are no public swimming facilities on the eastside of the City. He stated that the residents of the area have been asking for a swimming facility for years, and then decided that the best way to get one was to enter into a private/public partnership to help the City out. Council Member Bittner indicated that it is not her intention to "kill" the project, but that she would like to understand all of the ramifications before funding the project. Council Member Horrocks asked if there was any way to ensure that the residents will remain active in the project and construction is complete. Mr. Lowe stated that there is always a risk that the residents would withdraw their support from the project, but the track record of similar facilities is that the neighborhoods demonstrate strong support and utilization for a number of years. Mr. Bond stated that in addition to using the facilities, two neighborhood representatives would be included on the Board. 3. The City Council reviewed final staff recommendations for the Fiscal Year 1989-90 budgets. Cindy Gust-Jenson stated that the budget is currently $8,000 out of balance. She indicated that staff had identified a number of possible areas through which the additional funding may be acquired. The Council voted 6-1 in favor of funding the $8,000 through a delay in hiring of the Parks Recreation Manager if the Department did not find that such a delay would seriously jeopardize their program. Council Member Kirk indicated that she wished to change her vote on the funding of the Internal Auditor if the Finance Department. The Council conducted a straw poll on the Internal Auditor and voted 4-3 to deny funding. The Council then conducted a straw poll on the issue of eliminating funding for one dispatcher and voted 6-1 to maintain funding. Council Member Hardman presented information on one way to privatize the neighborhood trash pickup. Council Member Hardman indicated that although the program isn't exactly what he was asking for, he would like to submit a legislative intent for the Council's consideration asking that the Administration investigate the possibility of privatizing the neighborhood trash pickup without changing the service level. W. M. "Wi lie" Stoler, air ATTEST: Cit ec • • OFFICE-OF -THE --CITY, COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 • May 16, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members FROM: Lee King RE: Public Utilities.Rate .Structure • • At the request of a Council Member, Public Utilities has prepared a comparison of different water and sewer rate increase scenarios. In Providing this information to us, the Public Utilities staff stressed that the Public Utilities Department's official position is still in support of the Mayor's recommendation. They are providing this documentation as information to the Council. Attachment A is a spreadsheet showing these comparisons and the impact on the small residential user. There are seven options shown. The Proposed Rate Increase line reflects the rate submitted by the Administration and discussed by Council on April 17. This is a 10% increase in water and a 6% decrease in sewer. As you'll recall, the purpose of the proposed rate increase is to fund major capital improvements needed by the Water Utility Fund. Any changes to the proposed rate structure will have an impact on the number of capital projects that can be completed in a given year. Rates were established to generate $2,000,000 each year for the life of the 5 Year Capital Improvement Program. Option 1 is a 10% increase in water and a 12% decrease in sewer. Option 2 is a 5% increase in water and a 6% decrease in sewer. Option 3 is a 5% increase in water and a 6% decrease in sewer. This is the same as the previous option except that minimum and usage rates are changed. Option 4 is a 3% increase in water and a 6% decrease in sewer. Option 5 is a 7% increase in water and a 6% decrease in sewer. motion 6 is a phased option, with a 7% increase in water rates on July 1, 1989 and an additional 3% on January 1, 1990. Sewer is a 6% decrease. The net impact of this option is a decrease of $300,000 in the Water Utility Fund for the first year. In succeeding years, $2,000,000 is available for capital improvements In addition to the impact that each of these scenarios would have on the Capital Improvement Program, there are additional factors that will eventually impact the total dollars available for capital improvements in Public Utilities. Not included are the latest salary projections, costs for Parley's Treatment Plant, or estimated dollars for payment-in-lieu-of-taxes. Payment- in-lieu-of-taxes is addressed in the Peat Marwick study provided to you under separate cover. Any one or combination of these factors would reduce the amount available for capital improvements Attachments B and C are the proposed Capital Improvement Programs for Water and Sewer. Those line items that are highlighted cannot be reduced due to contractual obligations. Reductions would come from the remaining projects. Attachments D and E are projected cash flows assuming the Administration's proposed rate increase. If you would like more information on this, let me or Cindy know. Attachments CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson Jim Lewis • LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. (�I WATERS SUPPLY SUPERINTENDENT &WAATEFNVORKS ""' �.�_�� j �\r ,+►��i,�`.Mi� E. TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE& ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, RE. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER May 12, 1989 TO: City Council FROM: LeRoy Hooton, Jr. 114• SUBJECT: Rate Increase Options Per your request, attached are schedules which might assist you in the budget process. Attachment A - Different Rate ,Increase Options Attachment B - Water Capital Improvement Budget Attachment C - Sewer Capital Improvement Budget Attachment D - Water Cash Flow Under Current Proposed Budget Attachment E - Sewer Cash Flow Under Current Proposed Budget Attachment F - Sewer Cash Flow Under Proposed Sewer Rate Decrease of 12% Please be aware that with each option the Capital Improvement Budget would require adjustment. Plus any additional pay offer above the mayors proposed budget or in lieu of property tax charge would also require adjustment to the Water and Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program. If you should have question please call my office at 483-6768. D1-LETTERS-169 RUM UTILITIES ATTACHMENT A WATER AND SEINER RAZE INCREASE CCUPARISON •, SMALL MALL • AVERAGE AVERAGE BASE USA RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL FW S PERCENT • CPTICNS RAZE RATE USER Il3CREA.5~ USER IlICREAS; GENERATED RATE 1NCREASE WATER RATES CIJE RENT RATES 5.70 0.33 63.40 135.23 PRCPOSED RAID INCREASE 6.70 0.42 80.40 12.00 154.32 19.04 2,000,000 10 PERCENT 1.00 min & .04 usage ceucei CNE 6.70 0.42 80.40 12.00 154.32 19.04 2,000,000 10 PERCENT 1.00 min & .04 umge CPTICN '1W) 6.70 0.33 80.40 12.00 147.23 12.00 1,000,000 5 PEAT 1.00 min & .0 usage . CPTICN ¶IUREE 6.20 0.40 74.40 • . 6.00 144.80 9.52 1,000,000 5 PERCENT .50 min & .02 usage CPTICN ECLR2 6.20 0.33 74.40 6.00 141.23 6.00 5C0,000 3 PERCENT .50 min & .0 usage CPTICN FIVE 6.10 0.42 73.20 4.80 147.12 11.84 1,400,030 7 PERCENT .40 min & .04 usage CPTICN SIX .40 min & .04 usage 7/1/89 6.10 0.42 36.60 73.56 .60 min 1/1/90 6.70 0.42 40.20 8.40 77.16 15.44 1,700,000 7 PERCENT 7/1/89 3 PERCENT 12/1/90 SEINER RAZES CIWENT RATES 0.85 81.60 91.80 P RATE 1N]EA.% 0.80 • 76.80 -4.80 86.40 -5.40 -700,000 6 PERCENT CPTICN CNE 0.75 72.00 -9.60 81.00 -10.80 -1,400,000 12 PERCENT CPTICN TWO 0.80 76.80 -4.80 86.40 -5.40 -700,030 6 PERCENT CPTICN ITEM 0.80 76.80 -4.80 86.40 -5.40 -700,030 6 PERCEI\IC CPTICN ECUR 0.80 76.80 -4.80 86.40 -5.40 -700,000 6 PERCENT CPTICN FIVE 0.80 76.80 -4.80 86.40 -5.40 -7C0,000 6 PERCENT CPTICN SIX 0.80 76.80 -4.80 86.40 -5.40 -700,000 6 PERCENT NET DIEPVCE CURRENT RATES 0.00 PER YEAR 0.00 PER YEAR PROPOSED RATE INCRFAffi 7.20 PER YEAR 13.64 PER YEAR CPTICN CNE 2.40 PER YEAR 8.24 PER YEAR CPTICN TWO 7.20 PER YEAR 6.60 PER YEAR CPTICN 'THREE 1.20 PER YEAR 4.12 PER YEAR CPTICN RIR2 1.20 PER YEAR 0.60 PER YEAR CPTICN FIVE 0.00 PER YEAR 6.44 PER YEAR CPTICN SIX FIRST MAR 3.60 PER YEAR 10.04 PER YEAR SECOND YEAR 7.3) PER YEAR 13.64 PFR YEAR ATTACHMENT B ITEMS HIGHLIGHTED CANNOT BE REDUCED DUE TO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS WATER UTILITY FUND ND. 51 G.A.KE7 ,I TENTATIVE CAPITAL RTr P D1-ELDGET CPTLQV#2/RAJE JN1FAsE FORME ETS;AL YEAR ErDIM3 J[.rE 30, 1990 05/03/89 .PAGE 1 CF 5 RESERVE FCR RF,gRVOIR ONIRIEUrxa1S (MST CEJECP Cl2RENT AND SPPLY LINES IN AID TO RATE RESGRVE FOR SEDER TOTAL CENTER amp DE912IPTICII FARNIN3S Cray Q]VTR( QiVSIRUr1TCN IN2RFASE INFROVENENIS LOAN CAPITAL 51-01301-2710.10 LAND 51-033D1-2710.10 LAND RECH S S 111550,Z31 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONO 1,500,000 51-01331-2710.30 WI1R RIGHTS& SPPLY 51-OT'111-2710.30 VrAIER alai(H1 H1 S 30,000 33,000 30,COD 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 51-01301-2720.20 ThEA€ENP PLANTS 51-(7CF101-2720.20 ENB. ffilSaC C1 RRIC1IQ s-PARLEYS e al 2C0,000 0 0 0 0 0 t :.o 1 0 200,000 51-01301-2720.35 FLNPIN>;PLANTS AND HIP HZUSES _W 51-01401-2720.35 6200 Scum HMD SPATICN I OQOJ 60,000 L'0021 0 0 0 0 0 0 E0,000 51-01301-2730.02 CULVERTS, FTI?ES, AND BRIDGES 51-00101-1/.53.02 REHIIID 03ENT IRRIGATIad EIE ES 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 51-01301-2730.04 DEEP HPP HELLS 51-00301-273104 mum LAWN HELL [56.447 50,000 g t04 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,00D 4 MIER UTILITY HID D. 51 G.A.KENYL.L • TENTATIVE CAPITAL RIY.FT pi-BDC£C CPTICN#2/RATE IN1ZFASE FQ THE FTSAL YEAR ENDINI JUE 30, 1990 C6/O3/89 PPM2CF5 RESERVE FUR RESERVOIR C NTRIRUIT(NS CLASP OBJECT CURRENT AND SPPLY LINES IN AID TO RATE RESERVE FUR ES'R TOTAL CTNIER Rrri DESCRIPTTCN F7IEIIfI,S criy IINIRY CII14f[UJCTICN INCPEASE IIIPROVENENIS LOAN CAPITAL 51-01101-2730.05 alum& SJPPLY LIES TANNER RESERVOIR CLISlTP 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 51-01301-2730.07 DISIBIBJIICN RESERVOIRS CAKHILLS RESERVOIR&LINE 350,000 350,000 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 350,000 51-01'111-2730.03 DISIRIEUTECN MAINS&R)YCRPN1S PUELIC NLRICS PROTRACT 450AC0, 50,COD WATER MAIN REPLP IPS(9-FL7+SE) 9C0 NEST-2100 TO 2300 SCUM 140,C00 140,000 2500 SZUTH-800 TO 900 NEST 42,000 42,C00 303 EAST- 1700 TO 2100 SXAH 360,000 360,000 E1YNTPLE ROAD- 1600 TO 210 N.71IH 145,000 145,020 700 NEST- 1300 TO 21C0 32JIH 26,000 236,000 1320 NEST ILLINOIS TO WAD AVE. 48,000 48,020 CATHERINE sr.-1000N TO CCCL IIN AVE. 33,000 33,000 BECK STREET-900 TO 1320 NUM 163,000 1E8,O20 CAKE(smog-1220 NORM TO CURNT AVE. 35,000 35,00) FIRE HYLRPNT REP[ACIIgNIS 30,000 30,000 NEW M IILDIE VALVES 20,00D 20,003 'SEATED LINES €100,020y 100,O30 VARIOUS LINES 25,133 6,300 '2DA00' 52,433 CARRY OVER PROTECTS: ;..... 900 NEST- 2303 ID 2500 37U11I 150.0001 150,000 2500 331H 800 TO 900 NEST , 33s 33,000 EA.41NEM DR. 3680 TO 3750 EAST . 4' 4,000 FI4RR RD&WASP,TCH BEM)TO PERE y 33,000 270U FAST NORA LR TO MILD,NAY '75i000 75,000 1,399,133 6,333 20,000 100,000 0 300,C00 0 1,915,433 5 DATER UTILITY FUND NA. 51 G.A.KFN LL TINTATIVE CAPITAL HDGET DI-HJIIEP CITCN#2/RAIE INCREASE FLR THE FIS^AL YEAR ENDING JUDE 3D, 1990 06/03/89 PFGE30F5 RESERVE FLR RESERVOIR QNIRIHTPIC3S COST C8JKIT CURRENT PND SJPPLY LIDS IN AID TO RUE RESERVE ECR SEAR TOTAL ' (ENTER R7lP CMCRIPrrCN FAFNIS>S CITY OXNIRY CCNS1TOZCICN INREASE I!'1R EMEN1'S CLAN CAPITA[. WATER SERVICE CCNNECTICNS 51-01701-2730.09 LARGE hETR REPIA(BEN[S 165;500 65,500 51-02201-2730.09 SIRVTO;LINE REP[ACENEITS 22240 �2 0142 500,000 51-02401-2730.09 SMALL NEIER ERDRFM 421;240, 421,200 51-03301-2730.C9 NO4J SERVICE CCNNE TRIIS 14#14 135,000 716,430 0 0 135,000 270,220 0 0 1,121,700 51-013C1-2750.10 PUE DEJIIES&TRUCKS 51-02301-2750.10 2-3/4 ICE 4 X 4 25,000 25,030 51-02301-2750.10 1-1 10N WELDER HA'15F113/4 4X4 12,500 12,500 51-02301-2750.10 3-10-FHE L ELMS 193,000 198,000 51-02301-2150.10 2-1'MN V&H 84,000 84,000 51-02301-2750.10 2-1 7CDJ ELMS 30,000 30,000 349,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 349,500 51-01 W-2750.3D FIE D PAINT EQUI Ear-PIITTVE 51-02301-2750.30 1-MCKI v 50,500 50,500 50,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,500 5 1-01 3 01-2 7 60.10 PITIND PLUS EQUIPMENT 51-03401-27E0.10 2- SOLID 3I PA7 ERSQ A/C MJ1CR(IIINCYLERS 2,000 2,000 51-00401-2760.10 1-2 0HP AD7 FIlE2 DRIVE NDICR Q.NBt LE R 18,OOD 18,000 51-00401-27E0.10 1- 2J0HP SLID STATE RFUXFD VOLTAM NDTCR STPRISR 6,00) 6,000 52,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 52,000 6 WATER OPILIlY FIND D. 51 G.A. SZA L TENTATIVE CAPITAL EEDCEP DI-IIDOE' CPTILN#2/RATE ECREASE FCR THE FT3 L YEAR ENDING JUE 30, 1990 05/01/89 RUE 4 CF 5 RESERVE FCR RFS4NOIR COWRIE/ISM Q.OSP CEDE= CURRENT AND SUPPLY LINES IN AID TO RAIIE RESERVE FOR SENOR MEAL L CEVIER COW DESCRIPTION] EARNINGS CITY cw 1E?C CCUSTRIETICN IN2REASE DEROVEMEN2S LOAN CAPITAL 51-01301-2760.20 TREATMENT PLANT EIIJIPtENT 51-CC801-2760.20 FARLEY.'S(FDILR REPAIR) 5,000 5,000 51-00801-2760.2O PARLEY'S(EEATIIm S 8 EM TA ATS) 1,003 1,000 51-0D01-27E0.20 1-PH bEIER 1,800 1,800 51-M901-27E0.20 8-FILTER 023SCLES&VALVCPERATDO 07NTRLS 40,000 40,000 47,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 47,800 51-0M-27E0.3D TELE E1W B2JIP[ NT 51-01501-2760.30'IES1Tffi1IIC .'/P j 15,000 kaa 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,003 51-01301-2760.50 OFFICE FUFNMRE& LGUIPKNT 51-01301-2760.50 1-PER 4L cum N/ASSY 7,000 7,000 51-02210-27E0.50 1-PER43VAL.03NPUTrpS WASSE 7,000 7,000 51-02701-2760.50 1-LAZER PRIMER 5AO0 5,000 51-02301-2760.50 1-CASH REGISTER-MICRO 0 U1ER&PRINTER 7,4C0 7,400 51-02901-27E0.50 1-PERSONAL COMPUTERS Fy/ASSC 7,000 7,000 51-03201-2760.50 2-SOFAS(ETR ERE4LC ROW) 1,039 1,089 34,499 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,439 7 WATER UPILP1Y FUND N0. 51 G.A.KEN LL, TENTATIVE CAPITAL BU:GET D1-HDEET OPTION#2/RATE INCREASE FOR THE FPrrAF YEAR QDIN3 JCIE 30, 1990 05/03/89 PACE 5 CR 5 RESERVE FOR RESERVOIR QIVIRIHIPIQSS COST OBJECT QIRRIINP AND SPPLY LIES IN AID TO RATE RESERVE FCR SEWER TOTAL CENTER RY1R DF53RIPIiCN EIRIEN3S CITY CCCNIRY 031SIR)CTTCN DERFA,E IPPRJ✓I NIS LCBN CAPITAL 51-01301-2760.90 OTHER NON-MOTIVE Q01IPNENP V W- 51-C101-2760.90 1- 1R13 54(BRSH CTI R-H13:WARNA#39R-3 34500 FOS) 550 550 51-0)101-2760.90 1- EFd.U41 CLIPPER 18,0O0 1B4OO0 51-00101-2760.90 1-EDE CIMP 2 FIT CN E(CVISR TO LET TREE MPS FI L H127N 2,950 2,950 51-CO101-2760.90 2- PR)IMF,M.'S 2,935 2,935 51-00101-2760.90 1- 12,000 LB. WARN H& HFPER KIT 1,075 1,075 51-00101-2760.90 1-3,000 BYU FCRTABLE HEATER GZAI 3E 393 1,255 1,255 51-00301-2760.90 1-ElBaRIC VALVE ACIUAICR 12 INCH 1,700 1,700 51-00E01-2750.90 1- 12,000 LB.WARN KNOB&ar4?R KIT 1,CO0 1,CO0 51-00901-2750.90 1-ELEOLRIC VALVE CPERA9 R 36 INCH 9,000 9,000 51-01301-2760.90 1-WINIW AIR CCSDITIDER(D.ANJER.SrN OFFICE) 1,000 1,000 51-01401-2760.90 1-AIR MASK I/ASSY 1,605 1,605 51-01401-2760.90 1-HELIELEX M1/22tETTC UA1CR 725 725 51-01601-2) ).90 2-PETAL DELFCICRS 1,400 1,400 51-01701-2760.90 7- CASE DECEL S 2 VIPERS 11,865 11,865 51-01701-27E0.90 2-MICROIIEKIII 220 LCKPECRS 990 990 51-01701-2760.90 5-filEZZIE EE;1503 GDERATORS 3,3C0 3,300 51-01701-27E0.90 2-TAR3EC CUT CEF SAWS 1,32) 1,32) 51-01701-27E0.90 1-H-500 B PAVER(BASIC) 11,500 11,500 51-02101-27E0.90 3-tEPAL SUCRACE CABINETS 2,100 2,100 51-02201-2760.90 1-(I3'RIN)MUTER SA4 DE WALT 1701 Q I1T1'ER 525 525 51-02201-2760.90 1-METAL OTITTN3 HID SAM MODES.#S-20 12 IIVOE 7,500 7,500 51-02201-2760.90 1-TWIST TRILL GRINDER MEEL EN 1/8 TO 2 1/2 Err SITE 2,7(0 2,700 51-02401-27E0.90 1-WATER METER TEST BENQ-E 1 1/2&2 INCH 6,500 6,500 51-02401-27E0.90 1-WATER METER iiWT B1NOE 5/8& 3/4 IN31 5,500 5,500 51-02401-2760.90 1-OVERHEAD CRANE(EtECIRIC WIRE ROE CRANE) 1,7C0 1,700 51-02501-27E0.90 2-EIZIIRICAL 1rs1'II181R ENIS 1,200 1,20) 51-03201-27E0.90 1-(2CPN13DFDER 1,500 1,500 51-03M1-2750.90 1-25 INCH TELEVISION ?CO 700 102,095 0 r- 0 0 0 0 0 102,095 TOTAL CAPITAL 3,426,997 6,303 20,000 235,000 270,220 533,000 1,530,0G0 5,958,517 8 ITEMS HIGHLIGHTED CANNOT BE REDUCED DUE TO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. ATTACHMENT C SEWER UTILITY FUND 02-17-89 CAPITAL REQUEST SUMMARY PAGE 1 OF 6 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-1990 201 TOTAL COST OBJECT CURRENT RESERVE FOR 1981 IMPLEMENTATION CAPITAL CENTER CODE DESCRIPTION EARNINGS IMPROVEMENTS RATE INCREASE RATE INCREASE BUDGET BUILDINGS 52-11701 2720 ADMINISTRATION BLDG. ADDITION $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 LIFT STATIONS 52-10101 2720.05 BILLY MITCHELL STATION UPGRADE $50r900 $50,000 52-10101 2720.05 PIONEER ROAD UPGRADE OOdd' 50,000 52-10101 2720.05 AIRPORT STAT. 4000 W.N.TEMPLE t8','000' 25,000 52-10101 2720.05 BONNEVILLE STAT. UPGRADE V6c0061 20,000 52-10101 2720.05 1805 INDEPENDENCE BLVD. ROSE PARK( CARRY OVER) ,-207000A 20,000 52-10101 2720.05 NORTHWEST QUADRANT LIFT STATION (CARRY OVERY) ,.5'�d'Od0 500,000 52-10101 2720.05 4130 SOUTH & CENTENNIAL PARK (CARRY OVER) '1'TAW). 50,000 52-10101 2720.05 350 NORTH & 4800 WEST (CARRY OVER) '5,07000 50,000 $0 $765,000 $0 $0 $765,000 . 9 • SEWER UTILITY FUND 02-1i-a9 CAPITAL REQUEST SUMMARY PAGE 2 OF 6 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-1990 201 TOTAL COST OBJECT CURRENT RESERVE FOR 1981 IMPLEMENTATION CAPITAL CENTER CODE DESCRIPTION EARNINGS IMPROVEMENTS RATE INCREASE RATE INCREASE BUDGET TREATMENT PLANT 52-11201 2720.30 MODIFICATION CHLORINATION SYS. $5O OOOj $50,000 52-11201 2720.30 SERVICE WATER FILTRATION 10'i00d 10,000 52-11201 2720.30 FREEWAY IRRIGATION DEMO. 1W:6604 125,000 52-11201 2720.30 IMPROV. PRIMARY SCUM REMOVAL abbd' 50,000 52-11201 2720.30 IMPROVEMENTS TO INFLUENT GATE AT PRETREATMENT PLANT `25i000? 25,000 52-11201 2720.30 REPLACE GRIT SCREW-MAIN PLANT - 00o 25,000 52-11201 2720.30 CORRECT ROOF TIE PROBLEMS FOR SEISMIC PROTECTION 100 000l 100,000 52-11201 2720.30 EARTHQUAKE LIQUEFATION STUDY 1500001 50,000 52-11201 2720.30 IMPROVEMENT TO PROTECT FACILITY FROM EARTHQUAKE 50,000 50,000 52-11201 2720.30 PRETREATMENT PLANT FUEL TANK ?00,000; 200,000 MODIFICATIONS 10,000 10,000 52-11201 2720.30 FUEL SYSTEM CONTROL FOR ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEM - UPGRADE 20,000 20,000 52-11201 2720.30 SLUDGE DRYING BEDS IMPROVEMENTS (20000W 2,000,000 52-11201 2720.30 WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT 300,000 300,000 52-11201 2720.30 EXPANDING SLUDGE MANAGE. PROGRAM 10,000 10,000 52-11201 2720.30 ODOR CONTROL FOR SLUDGE THICKENERS 4,000 96,000 100,000 52-11201 2720.30 DIGESTER MODIFICATIONS 10,000 10,000 52-11201 2720.30 SITE CURBING 15,000 15,000 52-11201 2720.30 EMERGENCY BYPASS PUMPING 200,000 200,000 52-11201 2720.30 RAG DEWATERING PRETREAT. PLANT 30,000 30,000 52-11201 2720.30 ENGINEERING FOR SLUDGE BEDS (CARRY OVER) (120,0W 120,000 52-11201 2720.30 ENGINEERING FOR MAINT. BLDG. (CARRY OVER) V30,OOd 30,000 52-11201 2720.30 REHAB MAINT. STOREHOUSE AND ADDITION TO LABORATORY (CARRY OVER) ;500000 500,000 52-11201 2720.30 SITE CURBING (CARRY OVER ) 0.5y000' 15,000 52-11201 2720.30 DIGESTER VENTILATION (CARRY OVER) t25,bQO 25,000 52-11201 2720.30 COVER GRIT CHANNEL (CARRY OVER) 50j00Q 50,000 52-11201 2720.30 INFLUENT GATE MODIFICATION (CARRY OVER) ?•25,o0Q 25,000 52-11201 2720.30 FIBERGLASS GRATING 15,000 15,000 52-11201 2720.30 FAN HOUSE RADIATOR 10,000 10,000 $0 $2,019,000 $0 $2,151,000 $4,170,000 10 SEWER UTILITY FUND 02-17-89 CAPITAL REQUEST SUMMARY PAGE 3 OF 6 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-1990 201 TOTAL COST OBJECT CURRENT RESERVE FOR 1981 IMPLEMENTATION CAPITAL CENTER CODE DESCRIPTION EARNINGS IMPROVEMENTS RATE INCREASE RATE INCREASE BUDGET SEWER COLLECTION LINES 52-10401 2730.14 1100 E 300-400 S. 790 FT 8 INCH LINE 45,000 $45,000 52-10401 2730.14 400 W 225-300 S 650 FT 8 INCH LINE 45,000 45,000 52-10401 2730.14 LAKE ST LOVELAND AVE 1000 FT 8 INCH LINE 55,000 55,000 52-10401 2730.14 MEAD AVE EMERY ST 300 FT 12 INCH LINE 40,000 40,000 52-10401 2730.14 ALLEY 900 S 700-800 W 780 FT 10 INCH LINE 50,000 50,000 52-10401 2730.14 200 W FAYETTE,BROOKLINE WASHINGTON 1300 FT 10 INCH LINE 20,300 59,700 80,000 52-10401 2730.14 ALPINE PLACE,GILMER DR. 350 FT 8 INCH LINE 35,000 35,000 52-10401 2730.14 ALLEY 100 S EUCLID 100-1100 W 800 FT 15 INCH LINE 65,000 65,000 52-10401 2730.14 700 S I-15 700 FT 15 INCH LINE 55,000 55,000 52-10401 2730.14 500 S I-15 600 W 1100 FT 24 INCH LINE 115,000 115,000 52-10401 2730.14 800 S 300-400 W 8900 FT 24 INCH LINE 75,000 75,000 52-10401 2730.14 600 S 800-900 W 800 FT 30 INCH LINE 95,000 95,000 52-10401 2730.14 BALTIC COURT 360 FT 8 INCH LINE 45,000 45,000 52-10401 2730.14 300 WEST (EAST SIDE) 442 TO 500 NORTH (CARRY OVER) t35,000 35,000 52-10401 2730.14 WEST TEMPLE,1080 TO 1180 SOUTH (CARRY OVER) 45000 45,000 52-10401 2730.14 MAIN STREET (EAST SIDE) 200 TO 300 NORTH (CARRY OVER) 45';000' 45,000 52-10401 2730.14 500 NORTH (NO. SIDE) 240 TO 295 WEST (CARRY OVER) 35y00 35,000 52-10401 2730.14 600 WEST, 700 TO 800 SOUTH 24 INCH LINE (CARRY OVER) 60;a00 60,000 52-10401 2730.14 600 SOUTH, 100 WEST TO 1100 WEST 21 INCH LINE (CARRY OVER) h175 0001 75,000 52-10401 2730.14 600 SOUTH, 1100 WEST TO 1170 WEST 21 INCH LINE (CARRY OVER) 50;000 50,000 52-10401 2730.14 EMERY STREET, 700 SOUTH TO 1000 SOUTH 15 INCH LINE (CARRY OVER 75,00q 75,000 52-10401 2730.14 VARIOUS COLL. LINES REPLACEMENTS 200,000 200,000 $0 $1,125,300 $294,700 $0 $1,420,000 11 SEWER UTILITY FUND 02-17-89 CAPITAL REQUEST SUMMARY PAGE 4 OF 6 ' FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-1990 201 TOTAL COST OBJECT CURRENT RESERVE FOR 1981 IMPLEMENTATION CAPITAL CENTER CODE DESCRIPTION EARNINGS IMPROVEMENTS RATE INCREASE RATE INCREASE BUDGET SEWER TRUNK LINES 52-10401 2730.16 1400 N BECK ST 600 FT 64 INCH LINE 200,000 $200,000 52-10401 2730.16 800 N 1000-1200 W 1600 FT 42 INCH LINE 350,000 350,000 52-10401 2730.16 800-700 S 500 W I-15 2400 FT 24 INCH LINE 225,000 225,000 52-10401 2730.16 4800 W 700-1300 S 4500 FT 24 INCH LINE 500,000 500,000 52-10401 2730.16 NORTHWEST QUADRANT TRUNK LINES 1,000,000 1,000,000 52-10401 2730.16 5600 WEST, 2100 SOUTH EXT 50-1370 (CARRY OVER) ay80O;006 1,800,000 52-10401 2730.16 3500 WEST, 1800 SOUTH TO 5TH SOUTH EXT 50-1371 (CARRY OVER) `IL800,00d 1,800,000 52-10401 2730.16 5TH SOUTH TO PUMP STATION 1,480,000 1,480,000 $0 $5,080,000 $0 $2,275,000 $7,355,000 AUTOMOBILES AND TRUCKS 52-11001 2750.10 (2) TWO TON HIGH PRESSURE TRUCKS $136,000 $136,000 52-11001 2750.10 (2) 3/4 TON PICKUPS 22,000 22,000 $158,000 $0 $0 $0 $158,000 FIELD MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 52-11001 2750.30 FRONT END WADER $74,000 $74,000 $74,000 $74,000 12 . SEWER UTILITY FUND 02-17-89 CAPITAL REQUEST SUMMARY PAGE 5 OF 6 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-1990 201 TOTAL COST OBJECT CURRENT RESERVE FOR 1981 IMPLEMENTATION CAPITAL CENTER CODE DESCRIPTION EARNINGS IMPROVEMENTS RATE INCREASE RATE INCREASE BUDGET TREATMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT 52-11201 2760.20 PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMPS REPLACEMENT $19,994 $20,006 $40,000 52-11201 2760.20 REPLACEMENT OF SERV.WATER PUMPS 25,000 25,000 52-11201 2760.20 FLOW MEASURING DEVICE & SEWER INTERCEPTOR SAMPLES 50,000 50,000 52-11201 2760.20 INFLUENT PUMP HOIST (CARRY OVER) 20000" 20,000 52-11201 2760.20 SLUDGE TRANSFER PUMP (CARRY OVER) 20000 20,000 52-11201 2760.20 PARTS FOR INFLUENT PUMPS (CARRY OVER) 250000 125,000 52-11201 2760.20 GATE OPERATORS - CLARIFIERS 10,000 10,000 $0 $175,000 $0 $0 $175,000 TELEMETERING EQUIPMENT 52-10101 2760.30 TELEMETERING EQUIPMENT FOR LIFT STATIONS $202000) $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 52-11100 2760.50 COPY MACHINE $1,500 $1,500 TYPEWRITER 1,000 1,000 MICROCASSETTE RECORDER AND ADAPTORS (2) 500 500 OFFICE FURNITURE (2 OFFICES) 10,000 10,000 $13,000 $0 $0 $0 $13,000 13 SEWER UTILITY FUND 02-17-89 CAPITAL REQUEST SUMMARY PAGE 6 OF 6 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-1990 201 TOTAL COST OBJECT CURRENT RESERVE FOR 1981 IMPLEMENTATION CAPITAL CENTER CODE DESCRIPTION EARNINGS IMPROVEMENTS RATE INCREASE RATE INCREASE BUDGET OTHER MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 52-10101 2760.90 GENERATOR UPGRADE LIFT STATION $13,000 $13,000 52-11100 2760.90 IN LINE CONDUCTIVITY & PH METER 2,000 2,000 52-11100 2760.90 WALK-IN INCUBATOR FOR BOD STORAGE 12,000 12,000 52-11100 2760.90 WALL SIZED REFRIDGERATOR 8,000 8,000 52-11100 2760.90 COLIFORM INCUBATOR 1,000 1,000 52-11100 2760.90 ADAPTOR & CAMERA FOR MICROSCOPE 1,000 1,000 52-11100 2760.90 MILL,GRINDER,VENTILATOR SYSTEM FOR SOILS 8,000 8,000 52-11100 2760.90 AA LAMPS & ULTRASONIC CLEANER 3,000 3,000 52-11100 2760.90 DRYING OVEN FOR SOILS 2,050 2,050 52-11100 2760.90 SAMPLERS 2,488 2,012 4,500 52-11101 2760.90 RADIO & BASE 500 500 52-11101 2760.90 FIRE PROOF DOCUMENT STORAGE 5,000 5,000 52-11101 2760.90 SAFETY EQUIPMENT (NON-SPARKING) 1,500 1,500 52-11101 2760.90 DRYING OVEN 1,000 1,000 52-11101 2760.90 BALANCE,METTLER AE 260 2,500 2,500 52-11101 2760.90 AMPEROUTRIC TITRATOR 1,500 1,500 52-11101 2760.90 CLASS S CERTIFIED WEIGHT 1,500 1,500 52-11101 2760.90 NBS CERTIFIED THERMOMETER 600 600 52-11101 2760.90 CULTURE INCUBATOR 500 500 52-11201 2760.90 POWER CONDITIONERS 9,500 9,500 52-11201 2760.90 PORTABLE PERSONNEL LIFT 12,000 12,000 52-11201 2760.90 CARPENTRY SHOP TOOLS 17,000 17,000 52-11201 2760.90 INSTRUMENTATION EQUIPMENT 4,000 4,000 $52,538 $59,112 $0 $0 $111,650 TOTAL CAPITAL $337,532 $9,818,418 $294,700 $4,426,000 $14,876,650 14 • ATTACHMENT D WATER U11LY FUN) U/ 3 (PFIQ4 p2 YN11R RAZE INCREASE CE 2 MI11.I04 CA91 F1AJ R21 YENS 1935-2073 O4IRI8)IID FINS PEINED RATE CHARMS FM PE)/ICED 1UrAL (85 4(IEG ECM CAPITAL 01Pr1AL ECN) 10FPL YEARLY INIFRES1 (L93 LATHE YEARS SG1F.S 1977449;FCR 3SNIO 06YELPE4 87EDE/S914 RE7FNE EQ'8N)rl17E•5 PAYMNr 82JIF14Nr 1149A77ETII•BS 41604175 E4,E4DITU4 10rAL INI7E 10rAL 2 8 2 8 2 8 58 534Y.P1NN 30 3% 62 MINIM)8pANCE 1,530,319 193586* 14,654,196 3,03,573 70,439 856,E3 1,457,26 23,636,636 12,735,756 2,691,714 651,416 2,962,4E9 1,457,26 23,433,560 188,126 843,116 2,567,561 1936-87* 14,747,947 3,126,210 793,353 1,327,067 1,015,526 21,015,103 13,520, 13 2,344,547 533,053 3,203,798 1,015,525 23,682,223 332,875 1,234,673 4,135,103 1967-38* 15,535,506 3,142,812 2,039,437 933,185 1,O'8,665 22,746,605 15,271,136 2,641,165 545,767 3,743,89 1,013,665 23,250,622 -524,018 918,437 4,513,523 1988-83**16,250,000 3,1O,C0 972,00 945,60 1,556,355 22,824,955 15,231,199 2,634,800 1,533886 5,025,534 1,555,355 26,036,774 -3,211,819 655,00 1,942,70 1 90•**17,50,00 3,162AO 972,0) 3)1,37)1,50,00 23,435,30 15,425p33 2,901,230 651,334 3,807,133 1,50,003 24,05,30 -850A0 30,00 1,432,7C9 193091 17,850,00 3,225,240 931,444 235,000 22,301,60 15,887,753 2,895,00 665,000 3,365,332 22,813,055 -511,375 74,221 1,055,555 1931-92 18,227,C0 3,233,745 1,011,260 235,CO 22,743,014 16,364,336 2,895A00 615,40 3,418,224 23,232,610 -543,336 46,845 552,804 1992-93 19,571,140 3,355,540 1,031,434 235,00 23,193,174 16,855,317 2,895,00 765,03) 3,174,033 23,633,355 -436,181 18,23 74,9:5 1693-94 18,942,563 3,422,650 1,52,124 235,00 23,652,337 17,30,977 2,895A00 615A03 3,346,614 24,217,31 -565,253 -12,463 -542,811 1934-95 19,321,414 3,491,1O 1,073,167 235,000 24,123,634 17,881,806 2,895,00 633,450 3,447,012 24,857,263 -736,584 -52,266 -1,291,662 1995-96 19,707,842 3,50,926 1,034,633 235,03 24,933,3E 18A18,20 2,895,00 652,459 3,553,473 25,516,337 -917,733 -105,032 -2,314,433 1996-97 20,101,999 3,632,144 1,116,522 235,0) 25,155,666 18,970,803 2,895,000 672,027 3,655,935 26,194,771 -1,10,105 -172,133 -3,595,677 1997-93 21,504,033 3,701,737 1,133,853 235,00 25,932,679 19,533,932 2,835,03 6)2,189 3,766,641 26,893,764 -1,311,185 -255,073 -5,161,834 1993-93 21,914,121 3,78,883 1,161,633 235,00 26,09,633 21,12,130 2,895,00 712,954 3,873,643 27,613,727 -1,524,034 -355,433 -7,041,361 1933-00 21,332,432 3,854,4E0 1,194,8E3 235,00 26,606,7E 0,723,914 2,835,00 734,342 3,936,032 23,355,233 -1,74,563 -474,93 -9,261,863 00U001 21,7993,050 3,931,550 1,203,50 235,003 27,134,10 21,351,812 2,895,033 756,372 4,115,913 23,119,037 -1,934,937 -615,440 -11,865,240 2J01-002 22,194,231 4,010,181 1,232,731 235,00 27,672,143 21,9)2,366 2,895,03 773,064 4,233,340 23,605,823 -2,233,677 -723,925 -14,877,842 27k 2D3 22,633,116 4,030,334 1,257,336 2350)) 2,22,886 22,652,137 2,895,03 302,436 4,365,572 33,716,145 -2,495,293 -67,523 -18,340,6E 013-0)4 23,0)0,87 4,172,192 1,22,533 235,033 2,7O,604 23,331,231 2,695,0)) 826,5C9 4,437,563 31,550,773 -2,770,175 -1,1113,543 -22,297,3E 2137-336 23,552,696 4,255,636 1,313,184 235,00 29,351,516 2,031,652 2,695,033 851,304 4,632,436 32,410,452 -3A58,937 -1,423A23 -26,782,713 *RD03'YEARS 1955-1938 AI£ACIUAL NE MS QIl21ID **1988-1939 ARE CIPRENr EMCEED)N•UI4IS 14113 PICPCEYD EUl£r AO]ISMENT FCR 1941 WER ERDIEITS. .a*1939-90 PR1L9D IIiIE.r 1.CFFPAT=REYINE,RA•1E IICREA ,MD 01913E5 ICR SERVICES APE E5111441ID T)0734 B7 1%TER1 1939-2C6. 2.CP 4511(43 A14)CAPITAL Ef9EDD11LRE5 ARE E497CIED 1U 1N0FA26 at 34 PER YEAR SW 1969-2J05. 3.OF131 33MCE IS ME 7C11A1,1NIENEIr DIPFEEE APD I92IPII1411 PAYP NT F33,7UN D CN 1LE REFUTED 1937 ECNDS. 4.1111134M IS F)CIM51ID BASL)CN 69 CN PRIOR YEARS 5 15860E PAD 3%04 11E YEARLY PEP TOTAL FCR 11E EMCEE WASS 1939-205. 15 ATTACHMENT E 03/0Y83 a-.ie.-i., RNIY.LECRE SE OF'6 6 F R.7 M awn UPILI'Y FuE 01-9-4kr CA91 FFLW RE YEARS 1932-2105 D09E11G IA`D RI6i433 61423 EMU' OIFRATIEG 2)1 PATE 02t43CIO4 B34) 58131 MAR GERAT1O6 CAPITAL OF77E 33NI1£ PLANE Nd) 8 EDEIE M34 YEARLY FEP RAt1E YEN/ NEWER 1N0EAg FDS 00:NE, 0193352E S MAIM' DEP84)EIU+E BIDS M7DLFICATIO4 MAKR 63ER 16 MD KANE 1017,L 11-118E9E CA91 FLOW 18 1% 1% 3% 31 31 LIME QN9'. 321 ESE(O6P 6.0 6 883114163 CA91 BALANCE 2,503,03) 1.03'1992-83 6,793,230 1,463,113 435,830 1,367,161 5,453,495 2,034,1,9 275,995 53,375 2,254,330 4)3,62) 5,193,000 1.CB'1983-84 6,330,025 5,710,43E3 735,632 4,427,733 5,025,332 2,219,144 864,917 718,1E0 8,437,365 665,135 14,2E0,5:0 1.03'1984-85 6,335,433 5,707,845 1,172,951 954,743 4,933,634 2,339,654 854,955 371,83) 5,665,925 1,532,562 21,459,9137 • .90'1985-86 6,855,864 5,327,882 7E19,145 5,170,357 1,015,831 852,6A 7,723,723 2,655,13) -4,444,82) 1,521,564 18,535,731 .90'1936-87 6,967,925 4,612,113 1,017,653 79I,000 5,3993,602 1,434,626 425,007 5,314,694 84,793 950,000 33,370,50) .90'197-88 6,9113,73 4,841,745 336,555 5,513,763 1,228,474 1335,922 4,595,723 53,156 1,519,631 18,774,750 .85"1933-89 5,796,000 3,600,OCO 1,302,370 100,OCO 5,757,333 4,093,616 A1,300 4,530,000 50J,OCO -4,809,955 1,674,000 15,633,795 E0"'1999-90 5,796,000 3,100,OID 1,302,30) 107,000 6,107,110 3,376,6% 701,300 4,145,030 7,355,000 -11,596,7E0 1,674,000 5,726,035 .80 1990-91 5,853,963 3,131A37 1,315,323 103,00) 6,290,323 1,8C0,000 E99,587 1,365,000 2,OCO,000 -1,965,627 234,533 4,015,031 130 1991-92 5,912,500 3,162,310 1,323,476 106,030 6,479,033 1,959,000 731,764 1,500,000 -421,601 230,052 3,853,452 60 1992-93 5,971,625 3,193,933 1,341,761 103,273 6,673,434 2,C84,CO) 697,070 1,033,0A -96,42 223,314 3,585,333 .80 1993-94 6,031,341 3,225,872 1,355,179 112,551 6,873,606 1,734,000 697,316 950,OCO 274,919 247,333 4,527,625 60 1994-95 6,031,654 3,259,131 1,363,730 115,927 7,09,814 3,1I0,000 639,941 2,OJ0,030 -2,237,167 201,842 2,422,30) .80 1935-96 6,152,571 3,290,712 1,332,418 119,405 7,232,39 3,303,330 700,219 -49,432 133,655 2,063,523 60 1996-97 6,214,037 3,323,63) 1,336,242 122,987 7,510,975 3,233,339 1339,035 -636,49 102,857 1,467,891 60 1997-98 6,276,237 3,356,856 1,410,201 118,677 8,322,716 3,338,331 7C0,933 1,505A03 42,911 5,333 60 1993-99 6,333,000 3,390,424 1,424,306 130,477 8,572,347 3,500,332 336,863 2,007,000 -3,636,340 -1C8,767 -3,733,714 60 1939-2020 6,402,330 3,424,393 1,43,543 134,332 8,823,5E0 3325,342 94,404 -1,839,433 -211,036 -5,99,1739 130 330-301 6,4E6,414 3,45,572 1,452,935 133,423 9,034,455 3,713,503 504,401 -2,152,866 -419,137 -8,431,192 .80 3731-2312 6,531,078 3,493,193 1,467,464 142,576 9,367,230 3,824,9C8 935,423 -2,4.33,502 -331,727 -11,431,421 60 2232-3 33 6,596,39 3,523,039 1,432,33 146,853 9,643,303 3,933,655 588,472 -2,716,673 -770,985 -14,97,073 .80 2303-234 6,652,353 3,553,370 1,496,963 151,2.9 9,937,79 4,057,845 938,09 2,003,000 -5,012,258 -1,O1,112 -21,043,443 60 2334-235 6,723,976 3,339,301 1,511,930 155,797 11,235,891 4,179,930 599,079 52,891,124 -57,210,561 -2,978,744 -81,223,754 146353,795 84,983,539 2,376,033 7,540,693 2,115,639 166,533,444 65,194,389 15,073,703 32,434,505 18,510,13) 52,891,124 -85,790,813 5,219,600 -80,561,234 ' 131XtT YEARS 11E2 15443 1938 ARE FERAL CA61 AON15 0916L1ED. •• 1988-1989 PRE CUIRENr HACEIED A^AN15. 143lu3D REST RR 1939-90 1.O38YITIIG R891N,E,231 RA1E INREAM,AK)C3±FTTIa%FEES APE®E11M'IID 10 OLW EH 1%D+11 DE IIECEE YEARS 1999-3105. 2.C 992371 G A)CAPITAL EXPEN)ID3ES NE EN(18)10 1MREA' EH 3%PER YEAR DRl DE 150341 YEARS 1939-2305. 3.f:FRE 33NICE IS DiE PC5RAL INIF71F5E WEN%AD FRAME PAYFEA E43371RED 04 DE REFUNDED 1937 87433. 4.INIFIESE IS E31'1MTIE])RASE)04 6%04 PR1CR YEAS BAL/71E AD 3%04 11E YEARLY 14.1'10EAL RR DE 1114FT YEN2S 1939-315. 5.1110E YDN3 2704-275 CFEPAPP35 PM)M416091'3:11(E9I5 FNVE I7)34 119:0133)IH 1,3),000'10 ADM'FOR SARTIP CE PFYI PINE. 6.6333361)N14 PLANE 1S LS11M41FD AE 033716)321 IN 14373 COLLARS 4011.191167 KR IN-Vlrrai AP 38 TIE 079E A[AFASS 70$52,831,124. • 16 a • SAL ' 4AMNCORPO ° e IOi �{ OFFICE 0F1 THE CITY''COUNCIL SUITE 3OO CITY HALL 324'SOUTH STATE STREET'':', SALT LAKE;.CIIY.. UTAH 841111_. ' June 7, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CINDY GUST-JENSON RE: BUDGET FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION We have attached a list which outlines those items that a majority of the Council voted in favor of on the Tuesday, June 6 straw polls. Also attached is a new copy of the budget reduction list, the order of which has been revised based upon those straw polls. We did not attempt to re- prioritize the items that the Council did not vote in favor of, but we have provided the entire list again in the event you elect to make further cuts. One additional reduction item has been added to the list. It is "Council Salary Correction." This is to correct an oversight. A COLA for Council Member salaries was inadvertently included in the budget but shouldn't have been, since the Council Member salary is set by ordinance. We promised clarification on three figures from the reduction list : 1 . HRM Section 89 Rollback: It was noted on Tuesday that part of the funding from this (possibly about 25 percent) comes not from the general fund, but from risk. The Finance staff is working on determining the exact figure, and we will let you know as soon as we receive it. For now, we have left the figure at $20,000. 2. Business District Maintenance: The Business District Maintenance budget has increased $75,033 due largely to a $32, 100 increase in personal services, a $10,400 increase in Fleet Management charges, and a $23,500 increase in capital expenditures. After reviewing this program carefully with the Public Works and Finance staff, we do not recommend you consider it as a reduction. 3. Employee Appreciation Day: We have confirmed that the cost to the City for appreciation day includes a $6,000 allotment billed directly out of Human Resources, and additional costs billed to the respective departments based upon the number of employees and family members who attend Raging Waters. Last year the additional cost amounted to $17,000. The figure of $23,000 we originally used is apparently correct. Assuming the Council wishes to fund the neighborhood trash pickup ($277,000) ; the Weed & Demolition fund ($5,000) ; League of Cities dues amount correction ($10,000) ; and Administrative Services election costs ($30,000--top be offset by State revenue) the dollar from this list you need to arrive at is $292,000. Also attached is a new draft of the Legislative Intents. Based upon our review of the minutes we added a few on the second page for your consideration. We are in the process of preparing all of the motions for Tuesday night 's budget adoption. We will prepare motions for all items on the 'potential reduction list. If you have last-minute motions you would like to have prepared, please let us know by 11 :00 a.m. on Friday. DRAFT Initial Staff Recommendations & Other Potential Budget Reductions As of June 6, 1989 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE PRIORITY PROGRAM SAVINGS SAVINGS A Finance-Land Rentals $27, 540 $27, 540 A Finance-Employee Parking $2, 610 $30, 150 A Public Works Travel $3, 109 $33, 259 A Admin Svc FTE ' s ( 2. 5 FTE ) $85, 106 $118, 365 A Admin Oth/Chg & Sys $10, 047 $128, 412 A Admin Svc Travel $2, 674 $131, 086 A Admin Svc Auto Allowance $3, 600 $134, 686 A HRM Section 89 Rollback $20, 000 $154, 686 B Internal Auditor-Finance $36, 900 $191, 586 C Fleet Replacement $100, 000 $291, 586 • DRAFT Initial Staff Recommendations & Other Potential Budget Reductions As of June 6, 1989 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE PRIORITY PROGRAM SAVINGS SAVINGS • ******************************************************** A Finance-Land Rentals $27, 540 $27, 540 A Finance-Employee Parking $2, 610 $30, 150 A Public Works Travel $3, 109 $33, 259 A Admin Svc FTE 's ( 2 FTE ) $85, 106 $118, 365 A Admin Oth/Chg & Sys $10, 047 $128, 412 A Admin Svc Travel $2, 674 $131, 086 A Admin Svc Auto Allowance $3, 600 $134, 686 A HRM Section 89 Rollback $20, 000 $154, 686 B Internal Auditor-Finance $36, 900 $191, 586 C Fleet Replacement $100, 000 $291, 586 A Council Salary Correction $1, 512 $293, 098 B Urban Forestry $20, 000 $313, 098 B Employee Newspaper $9, 000 $322, 098 . B Veteran's Cemetery $10, 000 $332, 098 B Chamber Dues Increase $10, 000 $342, 098 B Utah League of Cities $10, 000 $352, 098 B Employee Appreciation Day $23, 000 $375, 098 B Auto Allowance $20, 781 $395, 879 B Business Dist Maint $75, 000 $470, 879 B Finance Travel $2, 224 $473, 103 B Police Travel $6, 200 $479, 303 B Attorney Travel $4, 887 $484, 190 B Retiree Gifts $25, 000 $509, 190 B Eliminate Dispatcher $20, 000 $529, 190 B Sister City $10, 000 $539, 190 B UEDC Reduce Contribution $20, 000 $559, 190 C Eliminate Dispatcher $20, 000 $579, 190 C Parks Recreation Manager $35, 660 $614, 850 C Add Fire Inspector $15, 000 $629, 850 C Burglar Alarm Fees $32, 000 $661, 850 C Fire Dept False Alarm $661, 850 Items related to the Enterprise Fund Study ********************************************* Eliminate Hydrant Charge $126, 000 Airport Structural Fire $25, 000 Airport Police $43, 600 DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 LEGISLATIVE INTENTS It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration formalize a coordinated plan for the joint economic development of the Northwest Quadrant and the Airport. That plan should define the role of the Airport in the process. It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration conduct a vehicle utilization study to determine if the number of vehicles in each department is fully justified. It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration develop a long- range funding plan to accommodate the extension of California Avenue all the way to 40th West with the eventual goal of connecting into the West Valley Highway. It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration work with the Sugar House Park Authority to increase the public usage of the park through promotion of additional outdoor events. It is also the Council 's intent that maintenance costs be reviewed to ensure that funds budgeted for the Sugar House Park Authority are used in the most efficient manner. It is the intent of the City Council that the Parks Department study the policy of charging sports leagues for maintenance of baseball and soccer fields, with approval of the Council prior to the implementation of the policy. It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration begin negotiations with Salt Lake County to resolve the questions of reimbursements for City property owners paying property taxes for Emergency Medical Services to both the City and County. It is the intent of the City Council that the Fire Department complete a study of the feasibility of establishing user fees for Paramedic services. It is the intent of the City Council that a study be conducted to evaluate the Fire Department 's consolidated dispatch operations, with funding to come from the Council 's Auditing Budget. It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration develop a policy discouraging the of hiring personnel on a contractual basis beyond a 12 month period. It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration review the ordinance of police false alarm fees and report back to the Council with proposed solutions. It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration put out to bid and CDAC review the Security Lock Program and make a recommendation to the Council as to the most appropriate organization to administer the program. DRAFT It is the intent of the City Council that any slippage from prior year CDBG projects which becomes available during 1989-90 be applied towards the Community Development Corporation. It is the intent of the City Council that funding for SLACC staffing be allocated but not appropriated until the issues regarding the SLACC recognition ordinance, new projects, and SLACC staffing are resolved. It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration report to the Council on its process of reviewing requests for school crossing guards. It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration report to the Council the cost to the City associated with those employee groups who have opted out of social security. It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration develop a plan for funding the Refuse Collection Fund on a self-sustaining basis, for presentation to the City Council by February 1990. It is the intent of the City Council that a quarterly report of the status of the legislative intent statements be provided. • It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration continue to lay the foundation for a performance based compensation system and be prepared to implement such a plan, or pilot program in the 1990-91 fiscal year. It is the further intent of the Council that the Administration report to the Council prior to the implementation of such a plan or pilot program. It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration approach the School Board about assisting with payment on the construction of 500 South between 700 and 900 East. ,f ' rz�J s I • • :t• . -- r _. .N_a OFFICE OF;THE:tiTY COU NCIL su ITE Soo CIT`( HALL , 324 SOU.TH.STATE STREET SALL LAKE-cFV ;UTAH;84.1 1� June 8, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS / FROM: CINDY GUST-JENSON(, J RE: BUDGET FIGURE -- \\I HRM SECTION 89 CONSULTANT • We now have more specific information about the general fund dollar amount for the "HRM Section 89 Rollback" item that was included on the list of potential reductions. You'll recall the staff indicated you can cut this because for the time being the federal government has put the benefit testing requirements on hold. The total amount budgeted for that consulting was $20,000, but it turns out that the general fund portion of this item is only $11,200. Attached is a new reduction list which reflects this change. We will need to identify $8,800 additional in order fund the programs you have supported in straw polls. To do this, you can of course elect to cut additional items from the list of possible reductions, or you could: Reduce Urban Forestry by $8,800, rather than the $20,000 on the list Reduce fleet by an additional $8,800 Reduce the dollar amount limit on retiree gifts from $300 to about $200 Other combinations of "small" reductions from items on the list Delay hiring the Parks Recreation Manager by two or three months This is a decision the Council will, of course, have to make in weighing its priorities. These items are provided only for your information. SAT"1 r \ )`°e'lJ� 1iP. e�ire �lTKI'1'��1�/MIO, \ OFFI.CE::OFJHE;CITY,;COUNCIL 0 SUITE-3O0„C1TY`PALL ; .324 SOUTH STATE STREET,''.'‘t SALT L,AKE-G1-1. ,.0 TA H 4 Till, ' MEMORANDUM To: Alan Hardman Date: June 8, 1989 From: Cam Caldwell Subject: Neighborhood Trash Pickup As you had requested, we have contacted a national refuse collection firm to provide information about alternatives to our current neighborhood trash pickup program. One option that seems worthy of experimenting with is to place large refuse containers throughout the community, with the refuse firm responsible for moving them from location to location and disposing of the refuse. This is a proposal which Duane Fuller had proposed during the Public Works policy meeting. It was not an attractive option at that time. You may remember that a disadvantage of pursuing this option was that Public Works would have a large capital outlay which would increase the net cost of the Refuse Collection Program. That cost was a result of the need to purchase a proposed 1, 500 containers plus the vehicles required to move them. The "quote" from the national refuse company was that their firm could deliver ), and collect large forty yard capacity refuse containers at a cost to the City of about $85 dollars per container, plus a $6 per ton tipping fee. Their proposal was that 30 of these forty yard containers be moved around from neighborhood to neighborhood. As part of their proposal, the containers would be left in a neighborhood from Monday to Monday. Council may wish to consider experimenting with this option, or a variety of other options in addition to this, in a couple of selected neighborhoods. The purpose of such an experiment would be to determine 1) how the alternative neighborhood trash pickup is perceived, and 2) the difference in service level and cost compared to the present system. Although I do not recommend that we make any wholesale changes in our neighborhood trash pickup program for FY 89- 90, the opportunity to experiment in selected neighborhoods may make sense to you. In addition, it is consistent with Council's ongoing interest in reducing the budget. -1- n-' If this idea is attractive to you, perhaps you may wish to propose the following Legislative Intent: "It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration experiment with alternative methods of providing Neighborhood Trash Pickup in the neighborhoods over the next year, in an effort to identify cost-effective options to the current program. " Please get back to me if you would like me to provide you with additional information. If you wish, I would be willing to explain the proposal which has been prepared by the national refuse collection company to the other members of Council. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson • • • -2- SUNNYSIDE RECREATION CENTER ISSUE: FACILITY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION: o The pool facility was designed with self-sufficiency as its operations and management goal . o The City would create an administrative control board with seven members, three appointed by the City, two by the school district and perhaps two from the citizens group. o This board would determine management of the facility. The board could choose to use a private contractor or the City Parks and Recreation Department to manage the facility. With proper promotion and administration, all parties involved in the development of the project believe that the facility can be self supporting. o The creation of a voluntary assessment district would generate additional revenues which could be applied to operations and maintenance costs . This mechanism enables property owners to voluntarily have a special assessment levied against their property for the purpose of supporting the facility. In return, they would receive special consideration in using the facility. o While the City would not have a legal responsibility to fund operating deficits , on a practical level there would be considerable pressure to provide financial assistance . ISSUE: INCREASED PROJECTED COSTS : o Projected costs have escalated from $2 , 100 , 000 to $2, 675 ,000 for the following three reasons : ( 1 ) Architects now estimate the actual construction to be $2, 455 million rather than $2 . 1 million. ( 2 ) City Engineering believes that the contingency is too small and should be increased by $150, 000 . ( 3 ) City Engineering costs of $70, 000 were never budgeted and cannot be absorbed by the Department. RECOMMENDATION: o The complex could be constructed for the desired $2 ,300 , 000 cost by doing one, more, or all three of the following: A. Reduce the scope of project, bidding some items as alternates which would be awarded as part of the contract if low construction bids are received or additional private funds become available. B. Separately budgeting the $70, 000 City Engineering cost to administer the construction contract and inspection of the work. Funds may be taken from CIP contingency identified for a softball complex by the Parks Department or the special fund established for capital improvements in parks . C. Reducing the contingency to 3%, leaving open the possibility that more funds may be needed at time of bid opening if bids and needed construction contingency exceed the available construction budget . o Total project funding is a follows : 1 . City $ 700, 000 2 . School District 700, 000 3 . Private 900, 000 TOTAL $2 ;300, 000 ISSUE: DEBT FINANCING STRATEGY RECOMMENDATION: o City takes lead, structures lea se revenue obligation for total amount; Contracts with School District and citizen group for reimbursement of their portions. o Financing structured as annual appropriation/lease revenue debt via Municipal Building authority; o Contract agreements executed with School District and private nonprofit to obligate respective commitments; o School District and private nonprofit agree to share cost of issuance and interest expense proportionate to their share of debt; o Terms of the issue fLLxu 5 to 7 years; o MBA mechanism al ready in place, financing costs can be kept to minimum. ISSUE: VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (VAD) AND/OR MEMBERSHIP SALES: o Creation of VAD and/or membership sales campaign provides important backstop to operations and maintenance deficits. RECOMMENDATION: o A memberships sales campaign offers ease of implementation, does not require lengthy and elaborate legal process of creating district; Market acceptance, easier to sell annual membership than to commit property to ongoing annual assessment and priority lien. o Creation of a VAD provides for greater safety in terms of coverage of future shortfalls; Flexible in the sense that assessments can be adjusted annually to mcct any operations and maintenance shortfall. o Successful marketing of either approach will require initiation of construction to demonstrate tangible benefits; City should pursue both approaches upon approval of financing and adopt either (or both) if proven feasible. ISSUE: SALT LAKE CITY OWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATION: o Salt Lake City should own the facility. The ELM can convey the parcel at no cost to any political subdivision of the State; however, a private, nonprofit corporation would be required to pay no less than 50% of the property's fair market value.