05/20/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2003
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, May 20,
2003, 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, and Dave Buhler.
Absent: Councilmember Dale Lambert
Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Diana Karrenberg,
Community Affairs Manager; Kay Christensen, Budget Analyst; Gordon Hoskins, Controller;
Police Chief Rick Dinse; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Roger Evans,
Building Services and Licensing Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior
Legislative Auditor; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Tim Harpst,
Transportation Director; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director;
Bob Gore, Economic Development/Initiative Grants Administrator; Lehua Weaver, Council
Constituent Liaison; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative
Officer; Alison Weyher, Community and Economic Development Director; Susi Kontgis,
Budget Analyst; David Dobbins, Business Services Director; Louis Zunguze, Planning
Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Kevin Bergstrom, Public Services
Deputy Director; Gwen Springmeyer, Community Affairs Analyst - District 3 and 4; Brent
Wilde, Planning Deputy Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky"
Anderson; Scott Vaterlaus, City Traffic Engineer; David Nimkin, Mayor's Chief of Staff;
Greg Davis, Public Services Finance Director; John Carman, Metropolitan Water District
Executive Director; Reed Jensen, Metropolitan Water District Finance Director; Leland
Myers, Metropolitan Water District Board Member; Police Captain Scott Atkinson;
Assistant Chief Don Llewellyn; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder.
Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION
ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Cindy Gust-Jenson said the Mayor had withdrawn Item 0, the parking meter rate increase.
She said Item No. 1, A thru P and Item No. 2, public hearings, all related directly or
indirectly to the budget.
Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Administration had identified a net combined revenue increase
of $844, 900. She said they had changed their recommendation to add additional funding
to the City Attorney's Office and to drop the parking meter rate increase.
See File M 03-5 for announcements.
#2. INTERVIEW HELENE FAIRCHILD PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS
COUNCIL.
Ms. Fairchild said she worked for the Federal Government and for military intelligence.
She said she had been retired for a number of years. She said she was active on the
Library Board. She said she had conducted tours at the Museum of Fine Arts for 20
years.
#3. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING PARKING METERS SPECIAL USE CONDITIONS,
03 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2003
REMOVAL AND FEES. View Attachment
Tim Harpst, Scott Vaterlaus, and Gary Mumford briefed the Council from the attached
handout. Mr. Mumford said requested changes to the proposed ordinance had been made.
Councilmember Buhler said he had received e-mails from people involved in the film
industry. He said the industry had suggested the City go back to a cost of $10 for
bagging meters. Mr. Mumford said the proposed ordinance did reduce bagging a meter to
$10 per day for the film industry.
Councilmember Saxton said a bagging fee of $50 per day per meter would have an impact
on the desirability to hold major conventions and functions downtown. She asked if
the City exempted areas around the Convention and Visitors Bureau when conventions
were held. Mr. Vauterlaus said currently when conventions were held the Convention
Bureau paid the bagging fees. Councilmember Saxton asked what the bagged meters were
used for. Mr. Vauterlaus said the Convention Center used bagged meters for tour buses,
buses taking people to and from the convention and for drop off areas.
#4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE PROPOSED BUDGET OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY. View Attachment
Gary Mumford, John Carman, Reed Jensen, and Leland Myers briefed the Council from the
attached handout. Mr. Carman said a master plan was completed in 1988. He said the
plan had a number of projected projects with costs estimates. He said the Metropolitan
Water District (MWD) was approximately 6% over the budget listed in 1998.
Councilmember Jergensen said overall review of the budget showed a 6.3% tax revenue.
He said the largest amount came from Salt Lake City property taxpayers. He said the
Council was concerned the City would not see the same revenue rate from property taxes
this fiscal year. Mr. Reed said they had made an estimate based on prior years. He
said when figures were received from the Salt Lake County Auditor, the budget would be
adjusted accordingly.
Mr. Carmen said operation and maintenance costs were going up 3% or 4% a year.
Councilmember Christensen asked if County tax figures were not what MWD anticipated
based on prior years, would they ask the Board to raise taxes or accommodate the
revenue loss some other way. Mr. Carman said they were trying to cover the cost of
services. He said taxes were one form of revenue.
Councilmember Saxton asked about replacement of the aqua duct and how long money could
be held for deferred maintenance. Mr. Carman said they had never had a maintenance
project the size and scale of the aqua duct. He said there was no schedule or
replacement cost. He said a report was prepared which identified the need to do some
repairs, but no work would start until 2010 because they did not have the cash flow.
Mr. Myers said reserves could be earmarked for projects like the aqua duct.
Councilmember Turner said the handout showed that Salt Lake City was going to purchase
34,000 acre feet of water from MWD for $5.1 million. He said the City would then need
to treat the water at a cost of $500,000. He asked if these were measures to protect
the water reserves the City already had. Mr. Carman said that was correct. He said
the allotment from the Provo River would be about 50% of normal this year. He said in
a normal year they would expect about 61,000 acre feet but due to the drought it would
more likely be 30,000. Councilmember Buhler said it made more sense to change rates
instead of property taxes. Council Members Jergensen and Christensen agreed.
#5. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SMALL BUSINESS
REVOLVING LOAN FUND AND APPROVING A GRANT TO THE MICROENTERPRISE LOAN FUND. View
03 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2003
Attachment
Gary Mumford, Alison Weyher and LuAnn Clark briefed the Council from the attached
handout. Ms. Weyher said current prime interest rate was 4.25%. Ms. Clark said banks
were tightening their credit requirements on collateral, credit scores and credit card
debt.
A discussion was held on refinancing businesses credit card debts. Councilmember Saxton
said if there were clear guidelines, she would be willing to consider credit card loans
because that would help small businesses.
Councilmember Buhler said Item No.4, Refinancing of an Existing Business Debt, the
Council should not specify credit card but if the business had existing business debt
they would need to document that. He said that debt should be eligible for refinancing.
He said the collateral requirement could be waived under circumstances to be defined
by the Administration.
Councilmember Jergensen said he agreed with Councilmember Buhler. He asked what the
definition of completion of construction was. Ms. Weyher said the first payment on a
loan was not due for three to six months after the street was fully completed.
Councilmember Love said she wanted to raise construction loan amounts to $20,000. She
said she agreed with Councilmember Buhler on refinancing existing business debt and
collateral. She said she felt current interest rates were good. All Council Members
were in favor of refinancing existing business debt and collateral.
#6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004, INCLUDING REVIEW OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
OVERTIME REPORT. View Attachment
Gary Mumford, Police Chief Rick Dinse, Jerry Burton, Scott Folsom, Don Llewellyn, and
Scott Atkinson briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler
said one reduction was $326,000 of one-time savings. He said if a one-time cut was
done this year, next year an additional $326,000 would need to be found.
Mr. Burton said $200,000 of attrition savings was considered one-time because the bulk
of that savings was anticipated from police officers currently on military leave. He
said if the officers came back soon, the attrition savings would not be as substantial
as expected in the next budget year.
Councilmember Jergensen asked about a $440, 000 Administrative cut. Mr. Burton said
there was a $409, 000 basic plug figure they had put in the Administration' s budget to
keep track of it. He said when the Council considered the proposed budget for Fiscal
Year 2004, that $400,000 was not there so it was not a reduction in terms of
administrative costs.
Councilmember Jergensen said two reductions were the elimination of one vacant Victim
Advocate position and one vacant Youth and Family Specialist position. He said last
year a discussion was held about how important those positions were. He said the
Council found monies to retain the positions which were never filled. Chief Dinse
said the positions were filled, but vacancies had been created again. He said when it
became apparent they had potential budget problems this year, they had not filled the
vacancies. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the department was looking at a critical
reduction in services in those areas. Chief Dinse said fewer people would receive
services.
03 - 3
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 20 , 2003
Councilmember Jergensen said the Police Department had tried using retired officers to
move speed boards around. He said that was unsuccessful so the department went back
to using officers. Chief Folsom said last year the Council provided the department
with resources to: 1) provide someone to help with the Mobile Watch Program on a
regular basis, and 2) make sure there were people to move speed boards. He said they
found that retired officers were not interested in spending their retirement depositing
boards around the valley. Chief Folsom said a staffing plan allowed for a combination
of on-duty and overtime hours to move boards. Councilmember Jergensen suggested moving
speed boards to the Transportation Department. He said this might be an area to
consider because speed was a core function of Transportation.
Councilmember Buhler said when he proposed $50,000 last year for speed boards, he
thought the department would hire someone to move the boards. He said the boards
seemed to be in his district more, but they were not there during morning rush hour.
Chief Folsom said the boards were loaded up between 6:00 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. , but he
did not know what order the boards were placed. Ms. Gust-Jenson said it was her
understanding the Police Department had arranged with the Fire Department to store
some boards at the east side fire station. Chief Dinse said there would not be a
problem working with the Fire Department.
Councilmember Turner said the Victim Advocate and the Youth and Family Specialist
positions were needed in his neighborhood. He said speed boards were out more and in
areas where they normally were not placed such as industrial areas. He said when he
called for a speed board at a school, the board was there the next day. He said these
issues were critical.
Councilmember Saxton asked about positions eliminated by the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) . She said one of the positions was for community police. Chief
Dinse said Community Action Teams (CAT) and the members that support the teams were
among the most important contacts in the community. He said if they were not responding
appropriately then the Police Department needed to fix the problem. He said he needed
to understand if the problems were individual or system problems.
Councilmember Love asked if both civilians and sworn officers served on CAT teams.
Chief Llewellyn said that was correct. Councilmember Love asked what the caseload was
now that there was three Youth and Family Specialists instead of four. Chief Llewellyn
said he did not have that information, but he would get the number.
Councilmember Love asked about the School Resource Officer (SRO) grant. Chief Llewellyn
said every year the U.S. Department of Justice through the COPS program offered a
variety of hiring programs. He said they would provide up to $125, 000 spread over a
three year period to hire officers to work in schools as resource officers or to
replace officers assigned to SRO programs. He said the City Police Department and the
School Board currently participated in a cost sharing program to provide SRO' s in
schools. He said the grant would allow the department to add three additional SRO's.
He said a proposal to the School Board would be made so costs not covered by the grant
would be absorbed by the school board. Chief Llewellyn said a preliminary discussion
with the school superintendent had been held. He said the superintendent wanted a
written proposal to be presented to the School Board.
Councilmember Christensen asked how much the department currently paid for cell phones,
pagers, etc. Chief Dinse said between $125,000 and $130,000 per year. He said that
was in addition to the police radio system. Councilmember Christensen asked if there
was technology to put a private band of communications on equipment the department
already had. Chief Dinse said they would still have to purchase cell phones and
services.
03 - 4
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2003
Councilmember Saxton asked about the cost increase of the SRO grant. Chief Dinse said
the total cost for an officer for three years was approximately $195,000. He said it
cost approximately $85, 000 the first year to hire, train and equip an officer. He
said the salary was approximately $55, 000 a year. He said they were working with the
school district to pick up the additional $70,000 over three years.
Councilmember Saxton said it looked like the department had a reduction in overtime.
Chief Folsom said as part of the expenses of the overtime budget, court appearances
paid approximately $300, 000. Councilmember Saxton asked if overtime hours could be
eliminated or minimized by hiring another position. Chief Dinse said there could be
some savings. He said most of the overtime came from working unplanned operations and
special events.
#7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR PUBLIC SERVICES
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE
SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO PARKS AND RECREATION FEES. View Attachment
Greg Davis, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom and Michael Sears briefed the Council from
the attached handout. Councilmember Turner said the Administration recommended that
the Youth Services program at the Sorenson Center be put under Public Services instead
of the Mayor' s Office. He asked if this was a positive thing for their department.
Mr. Graham said it was a positive thing for the department and for the City. He said
it gave them an opportunity to consolidate all programs which involved youth and other
family activities.
Councilmember Saxton said a lot of Public Services costs were maintenance fees. She
asked if there would be any benefit to the City to send out a Request For Proposal
(RFP) for mowing grass and maintaining parks. Mr. Graham said in the past they had
sent out RFP' s for contractors to cut grass in the City cemetery. He said they had
also hired contractors to maintain and cut grass on island work. He said in both cases
the contractors had come back to the department and said they could not do the work.
He said they outsourced janitorial services for City buildings, maintenance functions
at Franklin Covey Field and tree maintenance.
Councilmember Love asked what the Community Events Division would do. Mr. Graham said
they would deal with the process of accepting applications, running them through the
review process, approving them and providing coordination and follow-up for all special
events.
Councilmember Love asked about proposed new language regarding special event fees. Mr.
Graham said fees were charged for certain events held every year. He said they wanted
to group all special event fees with a ceiling of $25.
Councilmember Jergensen said there was an 8% cut in Urban Forestry. He said in an
effort to create green space, he did not understand why there was a cut. Mr. Graham
said that cut was actually a shifting of money and was not a service cut of any kind.
He said capital replacement costs for the department' s fleet budget were put in general
fund. He said they were moving that budget out and placing it in the non-departmental
fund.
Councilmember Buhler asked about the addition of 9.85 full-time employees (FTE) . He
said 5.35 FTE' s were for increased weekend and nighttime supervision at the Sorenson
Center and seasonal park employees. Mr. Graham said the remaining 3.19 were seasonal
park employees and 1.15 were seasonal hourly employees. He said the positions would
be used to maintain programs at the Sorenson Center. He said the hours at the center
03 - 5
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2003
would be expanded and the center would now open on Sundays.
Councilmember Buhler asked about tennis fee increases at Dee Smith and Liberty Parks.
He asked where those fees went. Mr. Graham said the fees went to the concessionaire
that ran the operation. Councilmember Buhler complimented the department for
differentiating between residents and non-residents for tennis fees. He said he was
concerned because fee increases were large.
Mr. Graham said it had been 15 or 20 years since park pavilion fees were increased to
where they felt the market was. He said they had adjusted fees to help recover costs
to clean the facilities. Councilmember Christensen asked if there would be an advantage
to requiring a cleaning deposit. Mr. Graham said included in the proposed ordinance
was a penalty of $35 if an organization did not clean up the facility.
Councilmember Christensen asked about the 50/50 program for curb replacement. He asked
if people who performed the 50/50 work would be laid off. Mr. Graham said they looked
at 50/50 fees on an annual basis and adjusted to where they were needed. He said the
effect of reducing 50% from the 50/50 program was that they would do less 50/50
projects.
#8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004. View Attachment
Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, Tim Harpst, Roger Evans, Louis Zunguze and Sylvia Jones
briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler asked if additional
parking meters would be added to City streets. Mr. Harpst said additional meters would
be placed on 300 South. He said additional parking would be established on 300 East
and meters would be added. Councilmember Buhler asked if the budget was sufficient to
cover the number of proposed meters. Mr. Harpst said Public Services currently had
funding in their budget for meters. He said they should be able to acquire the
necessary meters for approximately $50,000.
Councilmember Buhler asked about building inspectors being cross trained. Mr. Evans
said they had 11 construction inspectors and one supervisor. He said of that 11, six
of them had more than one certification. Councilmember Buhler asked if inspectors had
to be certified by the State. Mr. Evans said each inspector had to take a National
Certification Test.
Councilmember Christensen asked if residential rehabilitation was sufficient to
maintain the inspectors. Mr. Evans said commercial building was down, but residential
building had stayed up. He said not only were people building new homes, a large
amount of remodeling was being done because of favorable interest rates. Councilmember
Christensen asked how much of their total business was residential. Mr. Evans said
for years they had been at 60% commercial and 40% residential. He said right now they
were 60% residential and 40% commercial.
Councilmember Love asked if speed bumps were totally funded from traffic calming. Mr.
Harpst said there was a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funded account that funded
traffic calming. He said there was approximately $620, 000 left in the account.
Councilmember Love said she wanted to place a moratorium on speed bumps on the east
side. She said until the City could come up with less expensive traffic calming
measures, a moratorium was needed. She said other options needed to be explored.
Councilmember Saxton asked if $89,000 was for the vacant Research Analyst position in
Planning. Ms. Weyher said that amount was for two vacant positions. Councilmember
Saxton said a number of positions had been eliminated in Planning over the years. She
03 - 6
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 20 , 2003
asked who was picking up the extra work. Mr. Zunguze said planners were. Councilmember
Saxton asked about the inspector position. Mr. Dobbins said they had planned to
eliminate the position in the next fiscal year but because of the current year situation
it was eliminated in the last budget opening. Councilmember Saxton asked for
information to make sure service to the public was not being sacrificed.
#9. DISCUSS POLICY DIRECTION REGARDING THE BUDGET. View Attachment
Michael Sears, Sylvia Jones and Gary Mumford briefed the Council from the attached
handout. Ms. Gust-Jenson referred to the handout and said the bullet points were items
that had most commonly been talked about. She said Item No. 1 supported programs that
encouraged activity in downtown, in keeping with the Council's policy statement
relating to downtown. She said that item related to CED and Public Services budgets.
She said they would not be budget additions but would be related to the continuation
of things the Administration had within their budgets.
Councilmember Jergensen asked what had been the philosophy in the past. Ms. Gust-
Jenson said to have a minimum of 10% in fund balance. She said the 10% had an
inconsistent definition. She said some people viewed the amount as 10% beyond the 5%
required by law. She said other people viewed it as a total of 10%.
Ms. Gust-Jenson referred to the handout for Items 4, 5 and 6. She said all ongoing
expenses would be funded with ongoing revenue. She said that would limit one-time
revenue use to one-time expenses. She said argument could be made that each capital
improvement project was a one-time expense so one-time money could be used for that
purpose.
Councilmember Buhler said he was concerned that if the City had uncertain revenue
sources or if revenue was down more than expected, the City would start using that
cushion. He said fund balance had grown in the last few years because the Council had
resisted several proposals by the Mayor to take one-time money and put it into ongoing
programs. Ms. Gust-Jenson said there were a number of occasions where at the end of
the year the Council had allowed money to lapse into fund balance. Councilmember
Jergensen said one argument in favor of spending the money now would be that the
economy would rebound in the next few years.
Councilmember Buhler said there were times when the Council needed to use fund balance.
He suggested that Council ask staff to prepare some options based on these principals.
Ms. Gust-Jenson asked if the Council defined funding as a total of 10% including the
5%. Council Members said they had always thought of it as 10% total.
#10. DISCUSS OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE BUDGET.
No discussion was held.
The meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m.
bj
03 - 7
•
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 16,2003
SUBJECT: Fees to Bag Parking Meters&Reserve Restricted Curb Space
AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide and specifically Council District 4
STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community&Economic Development
AND CONTACT PERSON: Tim Harpst,Transportation Director
The proposed parking meter special use ordinance that the Administration presented to the
Council in March 2003 provided for fee waivers for 501(c)3 non-profit organizations(up to 60
days annually). Organizations for religious,charitable,or educational purposes are examples
of 501(c)3 organizations. Professional associations that hold seminars and conferences for
members may also be 501(c)3 organizations. At the briefing on April 1st,the Council requested
that the Administration modify the proposed ordinance to limit the waiver to charitable and
religious organizations and to limit these organizations to no more than 30 days annually
instead of 60 days. These two changes have been made to the proposed ordinance. (See
attached).
At the April 1st briefing,the Council asked that the Salt Palace Convention Center and the
Utah Film Commission be contacted to get their feedback. The modified ordinance was sent to
these organizations. The director of convention services at the Salt Palace responded: "... the
proposed ordinance is fair and will work well for our convention clients. I hope it passes as
you have presented it." The executive director of the Utah Film Commission said: "... this
looks great,and we appreciate what you have done." The president of Larry H.Miller Sport&
Entertainment(Delta Center)also responded favorably to the proposed ordinance.
POTENTIAL MOTIONS:
• ["I move that the Council'] Adopt the ordinance amending Salt Lake City code 12.56.210,
12.56.325,and 14.12.130 relating to parking meters special use conditions and fees.
• ["I move that the Council'] Adopt the ordinance with additional modifications
(depending on comments at the public hearing).
• ["I move that the Council'] Refer the ordinance to a Council work session for additional
discussion.
The following information was provided to the Council previously.
It is provided again for your reference.
• Upon presenting a valid request, the City will reserve parking meters by placing a bag over
meters and by issuing dash board permits for authorized vehicles. Prior to July 2002,the fee
for reserving each parking space was$10 per day for the first day,$5 per day for the next
fourteen days,and$3 per day thereafter. Perhaps because of the low fee structure,some curb
space may have been reserved for extended periods of time beyond actual needs. To provide
an incentive to keep parking spaces in service to the public,the City implemented a$50 per
day fee in July 2002. The larger fee has been successful in decreasing the amount of requests
and number of days that parking spaces have been taken out of service.
The Administration noted in its transmittal that the increase in the fees has caused
considerable hardship in certain instances. The$50 per day fee may also have a detrimental
impact on the desirability to hold major conventions and functions. The Administration
proposes that a$25 per day fee may be more appropriate while continuing to provide the
incentive to keep parking spaces available to the public.
The Administration developed a revised proposed fee schedule in consultation with
representatives of the Downtown Affiance,Delta Center and the Visitors&Convention
Bureau. Other entities,such as the Utah Film Commission,have requested that the City
reconsider the fee structure. A$25 fee adequately recoups the City's costs to process permits
and bag the meters according to the Administration's transmittal.
In addition to adjusting the fee,the proposed ordinance includes some incentives to encourage
filming within the City and hosting large scale conferences and other events downtown.
• The proposed ordinance sets a$10 per space per day for requests from movie,
television and commercial filming companies.
• The proposed ordinance sets a reduced fee of$10 per space per day for major events of
at least three days in duration and with an expected attendance of at least 5,000 people.
•
The proposed ordinance also provides for fee waivers for 501(c)3 non-profit organizations(up
to 60 days annually) [now revised to 30 days]or for City-sponsored events. Organizations for
religious,charitable,or educational purposes are examples of 501(c)3 organizations.
Professional associations that hold seminars and conferences for members may also be 501(c)3
organizations. [The modified ordinance now limits the 501(c)3 organizations to those that are
either charitable or religious.]
No additional fee is proposed for closing an entire street. If there are parking meters located
on the street to be closed,the fee for reserving the curb-side parking will still apply. Most of
the street closures are related to City events or parades. The Council may wish to discuss the
option of establishing street closure fees with the Administration.
cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Tim Harpst,Scott Vaterlaus,JD Baxter
•
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 16, 2003
SUBJECT: BUDGET FOR THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY
STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford
CC: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin,John Carman, Reed
Jensen, LeRoy Hooton, DJ Baxter
The Council has traditionally received a briefing on the proposed budget for the
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy. Verbal feedback can be
provided to representatives of the District at the briefing. The Council has on
occasion also provided written comments to Board members representing Salt Lake
City. Salt Lake City appoints five of the seven members of the Metropolitan Water
District. Sandy City appoints the remaining two Board members.
• Utah Code Annotated, §17A-1-502, provides that constituent entities of a special
district can request a meeting with representatives of a district to discuss the
budget. The law does not prevent the board of a special district from approving and
implementing a budget over protests or objections of constituent entities.
The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy is proposing an operating
budget of $7,922,172 for fiscal year 2003-04. The proposed operating budget
represents an increase of $236,692 or 3.1%. In addition, the Metropolitan Water
District is proposing a budget for debt service of $4,690,488 and a budget for
capital improvements of$37,100,366.
OPTIONS
Salt Lake City, as a constituent entity of the District, can provide input regarding
the proposed budget to District management and/or the Board of Trustees. The
City Council is not required to take any official action regarding the District's
proposed budget. On June 12, 2003, the Metropolitan Water District will hold a
public hearing on its budget. The Members of the Board are scheduled to consider
adoption of the budget immediately following the public hearing.
I
•
•
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake 86 Sandy
Tentative Bud:et
• 2003-2004 •
2002-2003 Proposed Difference Percent
Bud et Budget CJian e
Water sales&other operating revenue $ 8,721 300 " =k
Pe g ?+ 49110 $ 175,210 2.0%
Revenue for CUP water(placed in
reserve account to be paid in 2005) i1 1,425,100
Pass through costs of purchasing spot SHAM. 814,400
market water ,
Tax revenue 4,299,852 ;. : :" gg 271,148 6.3%
Interest revenue 375,000 ` ,., (35,000) (9.3%)
Lab Fees, power and miscellaneous 132,000 1 4=, 2,000 1.5%
Equalizing assessment (Sandy City) = I . ax 1,000,000
Bondproceeds '5 1.( ,:
� 15,000,000
Use of reserves/prior bond proceeds 24,248,778 (6,113,012) ( ° )
25.2/o
Total sources of funds $37,776,930 b $12,539,846 33.2%
Operations $ 7,685,480 1 ,# = $ 236,692 3.1%
Spot market water purchases °
(paid$314,400 in fiscal year 2002-03) 2,000,000 ,= ;; 6 ,,,' : + (1,500,000) (75.0%)
Transport fee to Bureau of Reclamation 'k F . { ;-# 46,750
Property tax reimbursement(White City) 50,000 `,_ " .. . 7,000 14.0%
,34
Debt service •
Interest expense 1,821,600 " .r 1,521,100 83.5%
Principal 1,120,388 - 227,400 20.3%
-:�_°_:'"=fr � �._.,::
Capital improvements `....:.: .....:. ...:
Equipment purchases 420,480 .r w�r� 3. (283,740) (67.5%)
Operating 8s maintenance projects 375,500 "
:� �` � � $� (325,750) (86.8%)
Capital projects under construction 13,950,000 8,620,000 61.8%
New capital improvement projects 5,150,000 r i �:' �`� 4,285,000 83.2%
Engineering 766,755 "✓ ti 936,295 122.1%
Land 85 reservoir/canal title transfer 560,250 ` ' z=; ;`k s-_ � j jet (185,250) (33.1%)
Jordan Valley Plant (28.6%owner) 1,109,219 : .. - 7:, (188,872) (17.0%)
Jordan Aqueduct (28.6%owner) 857,258 ` -3 - (660,259) (77.0%)
Contingency (5%of capital projects) 1,910,000 . (19,6,520) (10.3%)
Total uses of funds $37,776,930 _ Iw $12,539,846 33.2%
-
Some of the issues regarding the Metropolitan Water District or major changes
reflected in the District's proposed budget include:
1. Capital improvement master plan — Fiscal year 2003-04 will be the fifth year of
the District's $237 million capital improvement master plan. The District
secured a$34 million revenue bond in 1999 to partially fund the initial phase of
the master plan. The major project is a new water treatment plant near the
Point of the Mountain at 300 West 15000 South (east of I-15) in Draper. The
plant is expected to open in 2006. Additional bonding is anticipated in each of •
the next four fiscal years. The Council may wish to ask representatives of the
District for an update on the status of the master plan improvements.
2
• 2. Water rate increases - The Metropolitan Water District increased wholesale
water rates from $85 to $105 per acre-foot in February 1999, from$105 to$125
in July 2001, and from $125 to $150 per acre-foot in July 2002. In response to
these wholesale water rate increases, the Salt Lake City Council approved four
retail water rate increases (4% on July 1, 2002; 3% on July 1, 2003; 3% on July
1, 2004; and 3% on July 1, 2005). The July 1, 2003 increase has now been
included in the water conservation rate restructure. The future rate increases
for July 2004 and July 2005 previously contemplated by the City are no longer
in the City's ordinance; the City's Department of Public Utilities desires to
analyze the results of the new rate structure before recommending future
increases in the City's retail water rates. The Salt Lake City Department of
Public Utilities is not planning on another rate increase from the Metropolitan
Water District until 2006. The Council may wish to ask representatives of the
District regarding the timing of future rate increases and estimated amounts.
3. Salt Lake City water purchases - According to the District's budget, Salt Lake
City will purchase 34,000 acre feet of water from the Metropolitan Water District
at a cost of$5,100,000. Salt Lake City will also purchase 5,000 acre feet of spot
market water at a cost of $500,000 plus treatments costs of $523,900. Salt
Lake City will purchase 8,000 acre-feet of water from the Central Utah Project
(CUP) at a cost of$1,140,080 plus treatment costs by the District of$838,240.
Council staffs understanding is that the CUP water is an advance of future
allotments. The Metropolitan Water District projects that total revenue of
$8,102,220 will come from Salt Lake City. At the time that the Department of
• Public Utilities prepared its budget, an expense of $9,050,000 was projected.
The Council may wish to ask about whether there are disadvantages for receiving
an advance of CUP water.
4. Annual assessments to member cities - In 2004-05, Salt Lake City's
Department of Public Utilities will be assessed $3.5 million for capital
improvements of the Metropolitan Water District. In 2005-06 the assessment
will be $7 million and will continue at that level for 30 years with the exception
of the last assessment in fiscal year 2034-35, which will be $3.5 million. Sandy
City will also be making assessment payments.
5. Zoning for Point-of-the-Mountain Water Treatment Plant - After the District
obtained the land for the Point-of-the-Mountain Water Treatment Plant, Draper
City would not rezone the land because Draper had hoped the land would be
part of a commercial development with about $3 million a year in potential tax
revenue. The District filed a lawsuit against Draper City in November 2002
saying the site is the only place in the Salt Lake Valley suitable for a new water
plant (based upon engineering, location needs, etc.). Draper City officials and
the District agreed in February to an out-of-court settlement to allow the
District to construct the Point-of-the-Mountain Water Treatment Plant. The
agreement provides that Draper will receive more than $10 million in benefits
from the District including fill material for a new road, a 5-acre landing site for
hang gliders, landscaping along Highland Drive and Minuteman Drive, a $1.2
million trail system, $2.4 million in savings on a new water storage tank, and
• new transportation and general plans for the area. The proposed budget for
fiscal year 2003-04 includes $1 million to begin these off-site improvements.
3
6. Provo River Water Users Association assessment ($125,362 increase) - Over half •
of the increase in the Metropolitan Water District's operating costs is due to
budgeting for a 4% increase in operating and maintenance costs of the Provo
River Water Users Association and a $1 per share increase for capital
improvements of the Association. This increase is an estimate since the fiscal
year of the Association doesn't begin until November 1st. The Metropolitan
Water District is a 61.7% owner of the Provo River Water Users Association.
7. Salary and benefit increases ($56,090 increase) - The budget proposes a 3%
increase for salaries and wages. Staffing is proposed to remain the same with
no new positions.
8. Medical insurance premiums ($22,170 increase) - Employee health insurances
is budgeted to increase 4.47%.
9. Professional and contract services 086,930 decrease)-The operating budget for
professional services is proposed to decrease by$86,930 because some contract
services will now be included in construction costs.
10. Property and liability insurance ($38,840 increase) - Property and liability
insurance premiums are expected to increase.
11. Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant ($35,000 increase) - An increase to the
budget is proposed to pay for water treated at the Jordan Valley Water
Treatment Plant. The Metropolitan Water District is a 28.6% owner of the •
Jordan Valley Plant.
12. Utilities ($21,600 increase) - A new maintenance building has been completed
at the Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant. The budget includes costs for
natural gas and other utilities.
13. Chemicals ($40,000 decrease) -The amount of chemicals needed is projected to
decrease since less water will be treated due to the drought and conservation.
14. Computer hardware 8s other supplies ($60,200 increase) -The budget proposes
$12,000 for geographical information system (GIS) software; $11,000 for a
purchasing inventory system that will be integrated into the District's financial
system; a$20,000 increase for replacement of desktop computers; and $17,200
for other hardware and software upgrades. The Council may wish to ask
whether the Metropolitan Water District now shares its relevant GIS information
with Salt Lake City or is willing to do so in the future.
15. Equalizing assessment to Sandy City - The District is proposing a $1 million
assessment to Sandy City to equalize the revenue from member cities for master
plan improvements. About 75% of the District's revenue comes from Salt Lake
City and about 25% from Sandy City. Sandy City will receive 371/2% of the
benefits of the master plan improvements and Salt Lake City will receive 621/2%
of the benefits. The proposed assessment to Sandy City is to equalize payments
for master plan improvements. •
4
•
• 16. New capital improvement projects:
• $2,600,000-Point of the Mountain aqueduct
• $1,000,000-Point of the Mountain Treatment Plant raw water supply
• $1,000,000-Point of the Mountain Treatment Plant raw water reservoir
• $1,000,000 - Point of the Mountain Treatment Plant finished water reservoir
and pump station
• $1,000,000-Point of the Mountain Treatment Plant off-site improvements
• $ 150,000-Point of the Mountain Treatment Plant raw water pump station
• $1,500,000-Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant on-site improvements
• $ 400,000 - Upgrade of district-wide computer systems (PCA/SCADA) that
monitor water treatment and movement
• $ 250,000-Landscaping master plan 8s implementation
• $ 200,000- 15000 South pump station
• $ 150,000-Vulnerability assessment/risk reduction
• $ 100,000- Southeast pipeline 8s pump station
• $ 85,000-UTA bridge project
BACKGROUND
In 1935, the voters of Salt Lake City formed the Metropolitan Water District in
order to enter into long-term agreements to build the Provo River Project including
Deer Creek Reservoir. The Bureau of Reclamation built the project, and it was
necessary to enter into repayment contracts to reimburse the federal government
4111 for the construction costs plus interest. The Metropolitan Water District is a 61.7%
owner of the Provo River Project. The water rights for the Provo River Project
consist of water diverted from the Duchesne and Weber Rivers conveyed through a
tunnel and canal system from the two basins to the Provo River for use by the
Metropolitan Water District and others. In order to reimburse the Federal
Government for the cost of the Provo River Project and Deer Creek Reservoir, the
residents of Salt Lake City have paid property taxes since 1935. The Metropolitan
Water District continues to build dams and facilities such as Little Dell Reservoir.
Sandy City became the second member of the District on February 22, 1990.
In 1998, the Metropolitan Water District updated its capital improvement master
plan and identified $236 million in improvements and expansion of water capacity.
The major project is a new water treatment plant near the Point of the Mountain in
the Draper area. The Metropolitan Water District owns additional water from the
Provo River Project but hasn't been able to treat and convey the water to users.
Additional water will also be available from the Central Utah Bonneville Unit
(Jordanelle Reservoir) beginning in the year 2005.
The master plan improves redundancy in the event of a water treatment plant or
aqueduct failure. Improvements include pipeline connections between the Little
Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant, the Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant, and
the Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant. This will allow flexibilities in
shifting water between major north-south pipelines.
•
5
•
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY
2003-2004 BUDGET
REVENUE COMPARISON
2002-2003 2003-2004
Adopted Tentative
REVENUES Budget Budget
Operating Revenues
Water Sales
Salt Lake City $6,750,000 $6,462,140
(34,000 a.f. @$150.00/a.f.)
(13,000 a.f. @$104.78/a.f.)
Sandy City 1,941,000 2,360,120
(12,940 a.f. @$150.00/a.f.)
(4,000 a.f. @$104.78/a.f)
Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District 0 0
Treatment Charges
• Taylorsville- Bennion/West Jordan 12,000 15,000
(100 a.f. @$150.00/a.f.)
Aqueduct Transportation Charges 18,300 59,250
Total Operating Revenues $8,721,300 $8,896,510
Other Revenues
Tax Revenues $4,154,852 $4,436,000
Assume .5%growth
Prior Years'Tax Revenue 145,000 135,000
Interest(2%) 375,000 340,000
Laboratory Fees 12,000 14,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 120,000 120,000
JSSD Spot Water(5,000 a.f. x 100.00) u"' 500,000
Restricted funds for CUP water(10,000 a.f x 142.51) 1,425,100
JVWCD Spot Water(2,000 a.f.x 157.20) 314,400
Equalizing Assessment(Sandy City) 1,000,000
Total Other Revenues $4,806,852 $8,284,500
Total Revenue $13,528,152 $17,181,010
WRJ/rc
• 4/25/2003
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
2003-2004 BUDGET
EXPENDITURE COMPARISON SUMMARY
Nine Actuals at 4th Qtr. FY03 Est. Actuals 2002-03 ,,,,, ,2� ,:, $
Month 75%of Estimated Estimated as a %of Adopted 0, : '
Actuals Budget Actuals Actuals FY03 Budget Budget . m Change Change
Little Cottonwood Plant " E
General $371,805 82.0% $105,000 $476,805 105.2% $453,200 �°�l ', c $31,800 7.02
Laboratory 391,483 66.4% 150,000 541,483 91.9% 589,300 y,,, s� e.w'' <8,800> <1.49>
Operations 759,112 56.6% 390,000 1,149,112 85.6% 1,342,220 'il):. ,;.10 gt <24,870> <1.85>
Maintenance 906,537 76.9% 270,000 1,176,537 99.8% 1,178,640 ' 4 <22,940> <1.95>
Information Systems 157,586 56.2% 95,000 252,586 90.0% 280,630m-y»�' 84,050 29.95
Pilot Plant 11,214 29.1% 16,000 27,214 70.6% 38,550 :44`` ,i. 0 0
ems !
Administration 993,003 80.2% 250,000 1,243,003 100.4% 1,238,400 ; - 9 µ►° <39,800> <3.21>
PRWUA 713,149 73.9% 251,430 964,579 100.0% 965,000 #:" » 125,362 12.99
Jordan Valley Plant 439,922 83.8% 90,000 529,922 100.9% 525,000 r i w-, 45,000 8.57
Jordan Narrows 216,454 53.3% 170,000 386,454 95.1% 406,200 „�,; = 0 22,650 5.58
Sys 1,,.
S.L. Aqueduct 152,343 57.0% 95,000 247,343 92.5% 267,380 3, '°» 19,300 7.22
s a��«o
Provo Reservoir Canal 39,000 78.0% 15,000 54,000 108.0% 50,000 „� i eOg 5,000 10.00
Deer Creek Intake Station 74,154 71.1% 25,000 99,154 95.1% 104,300 ; » Aa:. <5,800> <5.56>
e y1
Jordan Aqueduct 114,000 77.6% 36,000 150,000 102.0% 147,000 ap a0 7,000 4.76
Terminal Reservoir 20,768 59.0% 21,000 41,768 118.7% 35,200 s', 1i ;'0 <4,900> <13.92>
`t.N
Deer Creek Reservoir 39,904 92.8% 0 39,904 92.8% 43,000 KI - a��o°" 9,000 20.93
10 MG Reservoir 6,423 29.9% 4,000 10,423 48.6% 21,460 �'`'- „ •r <5,360> <24.98>
TOTAL O&M EXPENSES $5,406,857 70.4% $1,983,430 $7,390,287 96.2% $7,685,480 ; 2f $236,692 3.08%
Spot Water 913,449 45.3% 314,400 1,227,849 61.4% 2,000,000 1 ,1,500,000> <75.00>
Transport Fee to BOR on 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 „ : 6, 46,750 100.00
Foreign Water ,
F
Interest Expense (see Admin) 1,319,524 72.4% 650,000 1,969,524 108.1% 1,821,600 ; M, ,, s. 'aF 1,521,100 83.50
Prope ax Reimb. (White City) 0 0.0% 56,974 56,974 113.9% 50,000 �``f „- d' ,, 7,0 14.00
TOTA ENSES $7,639,830 66.1% $3,004,804.0,644,634 92.1% $11,557,080 1 ! 2.70%
i • S
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
TOTAL DISTRICT
Operating Budget
ACTUALS 4TH EST.
F
NINE AT 75% FY03 ACTUALS ,
QUARTER , _ ,° °
Description MONTH OF ESTIMATED AS A%OF FY2002-03 '.;�,
ESTIMATED
ACTUALS BUDGET ACTUALS FY03 ADOPTED , i 1 $ %
ACTUALS �, �°
YR. BUDGET BUDGET ,,;;,= t CHANGE CHANGE
Salary&Wages(42 employees) 1,269,828 69.85 468,000 1,737,828 95.60 1,817,850 ' , 56,090 3.09
as.. 'a� r
Vacation, Sick, Holiday, Personal Leave 200,520 68.10 76,000 276,520 93.91 294,450 4;• 421, 650 .002
Employee Benefits 297,656 73.87 99,000 396,656 98.44 402,930 .
Medical Insurance Premiums 396,587 79.90 119,000 515,587 103.87 496,380 0 22,170 4.47
Seminars, Training &Travel 46,387 43.47 25,000 71,387 66.90 106,700 rya`101 0 0
Professional &Contract Services 474,925 70.16 150,000 624,924 92.32 676,900 m . : , -86,930 -12.84
Utilities 449,212 69.81 210,000 659,212 102.45 643,450 21,600 3.36
Repairs&Maintenance 361,890 65.58 156,000 517,890 93.85 551,800 a "_ /,r 0, 17,300 3.14
Chemicals&Supplies 392,664 49.43 250,000 642,664 80.90 794,350 r° . - -38,000 -4.78
Computer& Instrumentation Supplies 24,533 71.94 9,000 33,533 98.34 34,100 A 50,260 147.39
Property& Liability Ins. Premiums 231,587 75.18 77,500 309,087 100.33 308,060 x $ `$. 38,840 12.61
PRWUA Assessments 713,149 73.90 251,430 964,579 99.96 965,000 'fr• � « 125,362 12.99
Treatment Costs at JVWTP 329,999 101.54 45,000 374,999 115.38 325,000 ,, 1.111, 35,000 10.77
Contributions and Events 72,500 98.51 500 73,000 99.18 73,600 a "' , "r 15,500 21.06
Associated Canals Assessment 32,831 102.60 9,000 41,831 130.72 32,000 a °�: 23,000 71.88
Other Expenses 112,589 69.11 38,000 150,589 92.44 162,910 ,4 "t -57,120 -35.06
Total Operating Expense 5,406,857 70.35 1,983,430 7,390,287 96.16 7,685,4804' ; 236,692_ 3.08
Spot Water 913,449 45.27 314,400 1,227,849 61.39 2,000,000 °,44515 M -1,500,000' -75.00
Transport Fee to BOR on Foreign Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 t# .t ,# 46,750 100.00
Property Tax Reimburseemnt(White City) 0 0 56,974 56,974 113.95 50,000y‘, '4,134
7,000 14.00
Interest Expense 1,319,524 72.44 650,000 1,969,524 108.12 1,821,600li', - < ,. 1,521,100 83.50
Total District Ex•ense 7,639,830 66.11 3,004,804 10,644,634 92.10 11,557,080 WI.86.;« 311,542 2.70%
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY •
2003-04 CAPITAL BUDGET
Annual Long-Term Debt Payments
PRWUA $112,788
Series 2002B Bonds 665,000
Series A-3 Bonds(2002) 200,000
Series 2003 A 370,000
$1,347,788
Engineering Department 1,703,050
Title Transfer(SLA&Provo Reservoir Canal) 375,000
O & M Projects
Aqueduct Structure Lid Replacement $25,500
Jordan Narrows Pump Repairs 24,250
49,750
Equipment Purchases
Ion Chromatograph $30,000
DO-009 Modicon Spare PLC 8,000
Replace Blue Stakes Vehicle 24,600
Replace Field Service Vehicle 30,600
Service Bed with Welder&Crane 22,400III
Auto Cad-Buzz Saw 10,000
Solomon Purchasing/Inventory Software 11,140
136,740
Ongoing Capital Projects
POMWTP 7,100,000
LCWTP Expansion 9,050,000
Jordan Narrows Pump Station 1,200,000
Salt Lake Aqueduct 600,000
Plant Water System Modifications 350,000
LCWTP-Seismic Predesign 70,000
LCWTP-Drainage Separation Project 200,000
Land Acquisitions 4,000,000
22,570,000
New Capital Projects
POM-Aqueduct 2,600,000
LCWTP On-Site Improvements 1,500,000
PCS/SCADA 400,000
POMWTP Raw Water Reservoir 1,000,000
POMWTP Off-Site Improvements 1,000,000
SE Pipeline&Pump Station 100,000
UTA Bridge Project 85,000
POMWTP Finished Water Reservoir and Pump Station 1,000,000
15000 So. Pump Station 200,000 •
Vulnerability Assessment-Risk Reduction 150,000
ID Landscaping Master Plan & Implementation 250,000
POMWTP Raw Water Pump Station 150,000
POMWTP Raw Water Supply 1,000,000
9,435,000
5% Contingency for MWD Capital 1,713,480
Jordan Aqueduct
Transmission Pipelines-small parts 26,714
Pigging Design &Construction-JA-1, JA-4, AA-3 108,857
JA-2 Main Line Value Modifications 42,857
JA-1 Cathodic Protection -Assessment/Design 18,571
196,999
JVWTP
Painting Project 37,950
Monofill Phase I Const., Raw Water Pond Repair
&Sludge Lagoon Clean & Repair 154,049
Seismic Equipment Restraint 85,714
Fluoride Feed System 253,233
New SCADA System 201,600
Landscaping 108,429
Review of Treatment Plant Process Enhancements 17,143
New Zone B Pumps& Pipelines 62,229
920,347•
Total $38,448,154
•
Draft
2003 Master Plan
Update Report
I
Prepared jiff:
( HW4TFR
it °<sA
35
a�
A�TLAKE&`
Metropolitan Water District
of Salt Lake a Sandy
t
I
Prepared by:
i
OLLINS
OWEN
I
�Associates,Inc.
Considting Engineers
I
May 2003
i
Draft
2003 Plan
� UPdate Report
I
I
b
I
I
I
Prepared for:
Metropolitan Water District
of Salt Lake & Sandy
3430 East Danish Road
Sandy, Utah 84093
Prepared by:
Bowen, Collins &Associates, Inc.
756 East 12200 South
Draper, Utah 84020
f' May 2003
1
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1111
PAGE
I INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose 1
DISTRICT BACKGROUND 1
I District Water Supply 2
District Source Capacity 3
MWDSLS Existing Water System 5
I Raw Water Storage 5
Raw Water Conveyance Systems 5
Finished Water Storage 6
I Finished Water Aqueducts 6
PREVIOUS AND ONGOING STUDIES 7
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PROJECT 9
I Capital Improvements 9
Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant and Aqueduct 10
15000 South Pipeline 10
ILittle Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant Expansion 10
Non-Capacity Improvements 11
Changes Since The 1998 Master Plan Update 13
11, POMA Routing 13
LCWTP Ozone 14
Draper City Agreement 14
ILCWTP On Site Improvements 14
Provo Reservoir Canal 14
Jordan Narrows Pump Station 15
ITerminal Reservoir 15
Salt Lake Aqueduct 15
Vulnerability Assessment 15
IINVOLVEMENT OF OTHER AGENCIES 15
Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District 16
I Central Utah Water Conservancy District 16
Draper City 17
Sandy City 18
I PROJECT COST ESTIMATE 19
PROJECT SCHEDULE 23
ALLOCATION OF COSTS TO MEMBER CITIES 24
I PROJECTED CASH FLOW AND FINANCING REQUIREMENTS 26
Cash Flow Analysis 26
Financing Requirements 35
I MEMBER CITY RATE IMPACTS 36
Water Rates 36
1111 Capital Assessment 36
I
Table of Contents (continued)
OTHER POTENTIAL IMPACTS 37
Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project 37
Salt Lake Aqueduct Study Recommendations 37
Salt Lake Aqueduct Title Transfer 37
EPA Regulations 37
Vulnerability Assessment 38
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY 38
Water Supply 38
Conservation 3 8
Master Plan Update 38
11)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF ii BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
SALT LAKE&SANDY
Table of Contents (continued)
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page No.
1 Water Supply—2015 (ac-ft) 2
2 Present Source Capacities (MGD) 3
3 Phase 1 Master Plan (2007-2015) Source Capacities 3
4 Phase 2 Master Plan (2015-2025) Source Capacities 4
5 Capacity Improvements 19
6 Non Capacity Improvements 20
7 Summary of Costs Compared to Budgets 22
8 Allocation Basis—Capacity Improvement Projects 25
9 Summary of Allocation of Costs—Capacity Improvement Projects 26
10 Projected Cash Flow 2003-2046, No Projected Tax Rate Increase 28
11 Cash Flow Analysis Assumptions 30
LIST OF FIGURES
(Figures are at the end of report.)
No. Title
1 MWDSL&S Water Supply System
2 Capacity Improvement Projects
3 proposed Master Plan Schedule
4 Projected Master Plan Expenditures -June 2007 Completion Date
5 Member City Equivalent Water Rates
I
I
1
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF iii BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (MWDSLS or District) is a water
wholesaler who provides raw and treated water to agencies in Salt Lake County.
Its customers include member cities Salt Lake City and Sandy City, and the Jordan
Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD), who MWDSLS delivers water to on a
surplus basis. MWDSLS initiated a 1998 update to its Master Plan because its member
cities, Salt Lake City and Sandy City, had recently completed master plans that identified
their long-term water conveyance and treatment needs from MWDSLS. The District's
member cities showed a long-term need for more water treatment and conveyance
capacity than MWDSLS's system could deliver. MWDSLS's 1998 Master Plan Update
detailed the necessity for MWDSLS to provide an additional 70 MGD in conveyance and
water treatment capacity to provide for future water requirements of its customers
through the year 2025.
Purpose
Since the completion of MWDSLS's Master Plan Update in 1998, MWDSLS has been
involved in its implementation. Activities have included:
• Completion of many studies, preliminary designs, and preliminary planning
activities related to the Master Plan.
b
• Developing an agreement amongst the member cities and MWDSLS covering
how project costs are to be allocated and paid for.
• Developing agreements with participating agencies in the project including
JVWCD and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD)
• Obtaining lands and rights of way for project facilities.
I . Working with Draper City to obtain planning and zoning approval for the
Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant (POMWTP), a key project
component.
Since 1998 there has been no one document that has detailed all aspects of the Master
Plan. The purpose of this document is bring together in one document the results of
the last five years of planning for the Master Plan, including the detailed project
plan, schedule, budget, and the Master Plan's impacts to the long-term finances of
MWDSLS and its member cities.
DISTRICT BACKGROUND
This section of the report summarizes MWDSLS water supply, source capacities
(now and in the future), and the existing MWDSLS water system.
1'
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 1 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
IDRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
)10
District Water Supply
MWDSLS has water supplies in Deer Creek Reservoir through shares in the Provo River
Water Users Association (PRWUA), Little Cottonwood Creek through member cities'
I water rights, and Jordanelle Reservoir through contracts with the CUWCD for storage.
In addition, the District has petitioned for water in the Utah Lake System Project (ULS)
which is projected to deliver water from Strawberry Reservoir to the Wasatch Front in
I 2015. Projected water supply for the year 2015 and beyond for wet, average, and dry
years, are shown in Table 1 below.
I Table 1
Water Supply—2015 (ac-ft)
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy
I
Water Year Type
I Water Source Date Available Wet Average Dryl
Deer Creek Reservoir Present 61,700 61,700 30,850
Little Cottonwood Creek Present 38,000 31,500 18,000
IJordanelle Reservoir 2005-2009 20,000 20,000 24,000
Utah Lake System3 2015 10,000 10,000 12,000
110 Total 129,700 123,200 84,850
I 1. Assumes 50 percent allotment from PRWUA, dry year flows in LCC, and
20 percent additional dry year amounts from Jordanelle and Strawberry Reservoir.
1 2. Water will become available in 2005 in 4,000 acre-feet increments through 2009.
3. Assumes 10,000 acre-feet of the 30,000 acre-feet presently designated from ULS
Ifor Salt Lake County delivered to MWDSLS.
Salt Lake City and Sandy have a projected water demand of 65,000 acre-feet and
I 28,000 acre-feet respectively, from MWDSLS at build out. This total water demand of
93,000 acre-feet cannot be met through MWDSLS water supplies alone. Sandy City's
rights to MWDSLS water are surplus beyond 7,940 acre-feet. Sandy City will have to
aggressively pump their groundwater supplies during periods of extended drought to
meet their water needs. With that, the MWDSLS water supply should be adequate to
meet the member cities needs well into the future. Sandy City is pursuing additional
Iwater supplies. As deemed appropriate, the District may play a role in obtaining this new
supply.
I
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 2 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
IOF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
111) District Source Capacity
Existing Source Capacity. Table 2 includes the present source capacity of the
MWDSLS system. Sources include a maximum capacity of 113 mgd from the Little
Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant (LCWTP), and a maximum capacity of 45.35 mgd
from the Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant (JVWTP) through Reaches No. 2 and 3 of
the Jordan Aqueduct (JA). Flows from JVWTP are based upon MWDSLS ownership of
2/7ths of the total treatment plant capacity of 180 mgd (51.43 mgd). The 6.08 mgd
difference between 51.43 mgd and 45.35 mgd is referred to as MWDSLS's "stranded
capacity" in JVWTP, and is caused by flow limitations in the JA (Reach 1 & 2).
This stranded capacity will be available to MWDSLS in the future following the
construction of the proposed Southwest Aqueduct by JVWCD and MWDSLS.
Table 2
Present Source Capacities (MGD)
SLC Sandy Total
LCWTP 88 25 113
_..JVWTP 45.35 -�-----..__ 45.35 ._.._.
Total 133.35 25 158.35
110 Phase 1 Master Plan Source Capacities. Table 3 includes the Phase 1 Master Plan
source capacities of the MWDSLS system. Sources include a potential maximum
capacity of 150 mgd from LCWTP following expansion of the plant, a maximum
capacity of 51.43 mgd from JVWTP following completion of the Southwest Aqueduct,
and an initial capacity of 70 mgd from the new POMWTP. MWDSLS capacity in the
JVWTP will be divided between Salt Lake City and Sandy as follows: (1) 45.35 mgd
will be conveyed north to Salt Lake City through the JA system, and (2) 6.08 mgd
(formerly stranded capacity in JVWTP) will be conveyed to Sandy City through the
15000 South Pipeline and/or JVWCD's 11400 South Pipeline.
In this initial phase of the project, JVWCD will have a firm fixed capacity of 9 mgd and
may utilize surplus to serve Draper City and other areas of the valley. This capacity will
allow JVWCD to meet increasing demands in its service area. The surplus capacity will
be reduced over time to the firm fixed capacity of 9 mgd as JVWCD develops other
sources to meet their demands, and demands on the MWDSLS system increase in the
future from its member cities.
11'
I
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 3 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
IDRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
Table 3
1111
Phase 1 Master Plan (2007—2015) Source Capacities
SLC Sandy JVWCD2 CUWCD Total
LCWTP 88 25 - - 113
IJVWTP(3) 54.35 - - - 54.35
LCWTP Expansion 1 13 - - - 13
IPOMWTP—Phase 1 34.75 26.25 9 - 70
15000 South Pipeline - 6.08 - - 6.08
111 Total 190.10 57.33 9 0 256.43
1. Total LCWTP Expansion to 150 mgd (37 mgd increase) of which 13 mgd is
Iavailable from Little Cottonwood Creek during dry year scenarios.
2. Includes firm fixed exchange of 9 mgd and surplus capacity in the POMWTP.
I 3. Includes firm fixed exchange of 9 mgd and surplus capacity in JVWTP and JA
Reaches No. 1 and No. 2
IPhase 2 Master Plan Source Capacities. Table 4 includes the Phase 2 Master Plan
source capacities of the MWDSLS system. Capacity increases in this phase results from
an expansion of the POMWTP from 70 mgd to 100 mgd. JVWCD will no longer be
110 utilizing surplus water from POMWTP in Phase 2 of the project. MWDSLS will convey
61 mgd from POMWTP to Salt Lake City and Sandy, JVWCD will convey 9 mgd to
their system, and the remaining 30 mgd plant capacity is expected to be utilized by I
CUWCD. The costs for the Phase 2 improvements are anticipated to be paid for by
CUWCD.
ITable 4
Phase 2 Master Plan (2015—2025) Source Capacities
ISLC Sandy JVWCD CUWCD Total
LCWTP 88 25 - - 113
IJVWTP(1) 54.35 - - - 54.35
LCWTP Expansion (2) 13 - - - 13
IPOMWTP—Phase 2 34.75 26.25 9 30 100
15000 S. Pipeline - 6.08 - - 6.08
ITotal 190.10 57.33 9 30 286.43
1. Includes firm fixed exchange of 9 mgd and surplus capacity in JVWTP and JA
Reaches No. 1 and No. 2.I
2. Total LCWTP Expansion to 150 mgd (37 mgd increase) of which 13 mgd is
Pavailable from Little Cottonwood Creek during dry year scenarios.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 4 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
iOF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
11) Ultimate Capacity. It is difficult to project demands on the system beyond 2025
because of the many unknowns related to population growth in the valley, water use
trends, and future relationships between water districts. At this time, the ultimate
capacity of the new treatment and conveyance system is based upon the District's
capacity right of 121 mgd in the Provo Reservoir Canal (PRC) plus 30 mgd of capacity
for CUWCD for a total ultimate capacity of 151 mgd.
IMWDSLS Existing Water System
MWDSLS project facilities discussed below are shown on Figure 1.
Raw Water Storage
Deer Creek Dam. MWDSLS has water storage in Deer Creek Reservoir of
61,700 acre-feet during an average water year through its shares in the PRWUA.
Deer Creek Reservoir is a PRWUA facility. This raw water storage is subject to
reductions in allotments during long term dry periods.
Jordanelle Reservoir. MWDSLS has petitioned for 20,000 acre-feet in Jordanelle
Reservoir, which is owned by the CUWCD.
Strawberry Reservoir. MWDSLS is also working with CUWCD for ULS water from
1110 Strawberry Reservoir. This water is estimated to be 10,000 acre-feet with initial
deliveries estimated for 2015.
Raw Water Conveyance Systems
Upper Salt Lake Aqueduct (SLA). The SLA commences immediately below Deer
Creek Dam. The primary purpose of the aqueduct is to convey storage from Deer Creek
Reservoir to the LCWTP in the Salt Lake Valley. The aqueduct was originally designed
for 150 cfs (97 mgd). Recent hydraulic calibration on the aqueduct indicates its current
capacity is 175 cfs (113 mgd). Conveyance is entirely by gravity flow. The section of
the aqueduct upstream from the LCWTP is termed the"upper" SLA.
The inlet structure for the aqueduct is located in a stilling basin directly below the Deer
Creek Dam. The total length of the aqueduct, as originally designed is 220,810.7 ft
(41.8 miles). The pipeline is principally constructed of 69-inch nominal inside diameter
reinforced concrete pipe with steel sections in some of the inverted siphons.
Provo Reservoir Canal (Murdock Canal). The Provo Reservoir Canal, operated by
PRWUA, is an open channel canal which diverts water at the Murdock Diversion near
the mouth of Provo Canyon and delivers water to water users in northern Utah and Salt
Lake Counties. MWDSLS and JVWCD each plan to use the canal in the future to
convey raw water supplies to their respective water treatment plants.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 5 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
1111 The design capacity of the canal at the Murdock Diversion is approximately 550 cfs
(350 mgd) which decreases to 350 cfs (226 mgd) as the canal approaches the Jordan
Narrows area. Long-term plans are to enclose the canal and provide full capacity rights
at the end of the canal, 550 cfs (350 mgd). At the Jordan Narrows the canal enters two
aqueducts from which water is delivered to the west side of the Salt Lake Valley.
MWDSLS by virtue of capacity rights in the canal owns 187 cfs (121 mgd) of the canal
capacity at the end of the canal and 207 cfs (134 mgd) at the head of the canal.
Reach 1 & Reach 4 of the Jordan Aqueduct. The JA reaches 1 & 4 were constructed
as part of the Central Utah Project (CUP). Reach 4 extends from just east of the Utah
Valley Water Treatment Plant at the mouth of Provo Canyon to the Point of the
Mountain. Reach 1 runs from the Point of the Mountain to the JVWTP in Bluffdale.
The nominal capacity of the aqueduct is 270 cfs (175) mgd.
Reach No. 1 is 72-inch and 66-inch diameter pipeline that parallels the PRC to the Point
of the Mountain. At the Point of the Mountain, a pressure reduction facility bleeds off
excess pressure before flows enter Reach No. 1 which is a 78-inch diameter aqueduct that
supplies water from the Point of the Mountain to the JVWTP.
Both the JA and the JVWTP are presently owned by CUWCD, but operated by JVWCD.
MWDSLS has a 2/7ths interest in each of the facilities. The distribution is based on
MWDSLS 20,000 ac-ft/year portion of the 70,000 ac-ft/year delivery of CUP water
110 through the facility. This split provides MWDSLS with a capacity interest of 50 mgd
design capacity in the aqueducts and 51.4 mgd in the JVWTP.
Finished Water Storage
10 MG Reservoir. To provide system storage, MWDSLS in 1993 installed a 10 MG
finished water storage facility at the high point on the hydraulic grade line of the lower
SLA. This facility is located at approximately 7400 South and 3200 East.
Terminal Reservoir. The 40 mg terminal reservoir provides storage at the end of the
SLA for deliveries to Salt Lake City. This facility is located at approximately 3300 South
and I-215. The reservoir, which was built as part of the original aqueduct construction, is
scheduled to be replaced as part of the master plan.
Finished Water Aqueducts
Lower Salt Lake Aqueduct. The "lower" section of the SLA conveys treated water
from the LCWTP to Salt Lake City. Treated water is conveyed into the aqueduct from
the north end of the effluent discharge channel of the LCWTP. Capacity in the aqueduct
under peak operating conditions is approximately 110 mgd. The lower SLA has a
number of turnouts that service Salt Lake City and JVWCD.
Little Cottonwood Conduit. The Little Cottonwood Conduit conveys flows from the
LCWTP to the Big Cottonwood Conduit at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 6 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
1 OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
The facility is a 36-inch by 40-inch oval gravity pipeline installed in 1931. Originally the
facility was used to convey untreated water from Little Cottonwood Creek to the Big
Cottonwood Conduit (pre-dating the SLA). After construction of the LCWTP, gravity
flow directly to the pipeline was no longer possible. A series of pumps are installed at
LCWTP to lift water up into the conduit in order to continue use of the conduit.
Sandy City Connection.The Sandy City connection to the LCWTP was constructed in
1990 to provide water supplies to Sandy City after the City's annexation into MWDSLS.
The connection into the treatment plant is on the south end of the effluent discharge
channel. At this point water enters a 36-inch siphon crossing Little Cottonwood Creek to
the Sandy City Metro Booster Station on the south side of the creek. The booster station
delivers 20 mgd to Sandy City Zone 3 and an additional 5 mgd to Sandy City Zone 2,
resulting in an overall capacity of the booster station of 25 mgd.
West Side Pipeline. This is an 8-inch connection from the LCWTP supplying the nearby
neighborhoods that are JVWCD customers.
Quail Hollow Pipeline. The Quail Hollow Pipeline is a 16-inch connection for JVWCD.
The turnout is located in a shared valve box with Sandy City located on the south side of
Little Cottonwood Creek. The Quail Hollow Pipeline feeds west from the junction box
whereas the Sandy Connection continues on to the south. The capacity of the connection
is approximately 10 mgd.
Reach 2 and Reach 3 of the Jordan Aqueduct. Reach 2 and Reach 3 of the JA convey
treated water supplies from the JVWTP in Bluffdale, to the customers on the west side of
the Salt Lake Valley and on to Salt Lake City through a connection at 2100 South Street.
The aqueduct has a capacity of 175 mgd which is shared by JVWCD and MWDSLS
according to the same 2/7ts, 5/7ths distribution of CUP water. This results in a 125 mgd
JVWCD capacity and a 50 mgd MWDSLS capacity. The aqueduct alignment extends
approximately due north from the JVWTP along 4000 West in the Salt Lake Valley. The
capacity of Reach No. 2 is limited to 245 cfs (158 mgd) based on recent flow tests after
cleaning of the aqueduct. This results in a MWDSLS actual capacity of 45.35 mgd.
PREVIOUS AND ONGOING STUDIES
The following studies have been completed since 1998 and the results of these studies
have been used to develop the information presented in this document.
( 1998 Master Plan Update. The 1998 Master Plan Update replaced sections of a 1987
Master Plan completed by MWDSLS. It specifically examined 22 alternatives to deliver
additional water treatment and conveyance capacity to MWDSLS's member cities.
1998 Further Evaluation of Selected Alternatives. This study examined the three
' shortlisted alternatives from the 1998 Master Plan Update. It examined an alternative for
developing groundwater within the Sandy City area which proved to be unfeasible.
It also examined an alternative to bring additional raw water supplies to an expanded
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 7 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
%Os LCWTP and this was the least expensive option. The third alternative, and the one
chosen by MWDSLS, was construction of a new water treatment plant near the end of the
PRC with an aqueduct connecting the new water treatment plant to the LCWTP.
This more expensive alternative was chosen because of the redundancy added to
MWDSLS's system from having a second water treatment plant.
Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant Pilot Study. Based on the selected
alternative from the Further Evaluation of Selected Alternatives report, MWDSLS
performed a pilot study for water treatment processes for the new POMWTP. This study
examined water from the PRC and from Reach No. 4 of the JA, both potential water
sources for the new water treatment plant. It also examined different processes for
1 treating water from each of these sources including conventional and membrane process
trains.
Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant Pre Design Report. Based on the
results of the piloting study and further planning for the project, MWDSLS developed a
pre-design for the POMWTP. This project developed 30 percent drawings for the project
and developed refined cost estimates.
Point of the Mountain Transmission System Conceptual Design Report.
The Conceptual Design Phase of the project was initiated in 2001 for the purpose of
defining the transmission system facilities required to support the new POMWTP and
associated facilities identified in the 1998 Master Plan. The POMTSF Project includes
11) the infrastructure required to convey raw water to the POMWTP, and to convey finished
water from the POMWTP to the LCWTP and to a number of points in between.
Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant Seismic Retrofit Pre-design. The 1998
Master Plan examined needed seismic improvements to the LCWTP. This pre-design
' was undertaken in order to identify the needed improvements and their impact to other
projects underway at the plant. The project also updated the cost estimate for these
improvements.
Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project Technical Memorandums. PRWUA is
developing a project to enclose the PRC from the diversion at the mouth of Provo
Canyon to the Point of the Mountain. The technical memorandums describe various
aspects of the project including expected costs, schedule, and impacts to shareholders and
capacity right holders in the PRC.
Little Cottonwood Expansion Project Preliminary Design. MWDSLS is planning on
expanding the headworks of the LCWTP to expand the capacity from 113 mgd to
' 150 mgd. Improvements include a new diversion from Little Cottonwood Creek, a grit
basin, screening facilities, ozone facilities to provide for disinfection and taste and odor
control, new flash mix, and various hydraulic improvements. This project developed
' 30 percent drawings for the project and developed refined cost estimates.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 8 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
IDRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
ill Instrumentation and Telemetry Master Plan. MWDSLS has completed a master plan
for instrumentation and telemetry for their entire system including the new facilities to be
I completed as part of the master plan improvements and upgrades to existing facilities.
This master plan was undertaken to ensure compatibility between the existing control
system and the various new facilities constructed as part of the master plan.
IJordan Narrows Pump Station Evaluation Study. The Jordan Narrows Pump Station
pumps water from the Jordan River into the Utah Lake Distributing Canal. This allows
I MWDSLS to exchange water rights in the PRC for Jordan River water rights.
As a result, it is important for this pump station to operate at all times or MWDSLS
would have to use its higher quality Provo River water to satisfy this exchange.
IMWDSLS commissioned a study to examine needed improvements to the pump station.
Salt Lake Aqueduct Evaluation Study. The SLA runs approximately 42 miles from
I Deer Creek Dam to a terminal reservoir at 3300 South in Salt Lake City. The aqueduct
was constructed in the 1940's. MWDSLS completed this study to identify any needed
improvements to the aqueduct, alternatives for expanding its capacity, and long-term
Ireplacement options.
Member Cities Master Plan Updates. The agreement between the member cities, Salt
I Lake and Sandy, and MWDSLS was signed in 2001 for completion of the master plan
project. Since that time, Sandy City has updated its master plan and has confirmed its
need for additional water supply and capacity from MWDSLS. Salt Lake City has also
lbstudied its water needs and has confirmed the need for the master plan improvements.
Terminal Reservoir Study. A study was undertaken of the 40 MG Terminal Reservoir.
IThis study identified a long term need to replace the reservoir due to seismic concerns.
An interim project was completed that removed the soil from the roof of the reservoir and
Irepair the roof joints. The reservoir replacement is not scheduled until sometime after the
year 2010.
IDESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MASTER PLAN PROJECT
The master plan project consists of both capacity improvement and non-capacity
I improvement projects. The capacity improvement projects include those projects that
will provide for the additional water treatment and conveyance capacity needs identified
in the 1998 Master Plan. The non-capacity improvement projects include upgrades or
I rehabilitation of existing MWDSLS systems. Each group of projects is discussed in the
following sections.
ICapacity Improvements
The capacity improvement projects can be grouped in three distinct areas, projects
I associated with the new POMWTP and conveyance of water to and from the plant,
projects associated with the 15000 South Pipeline connection to the JA, and projects to
i" enlarge the existing LCWTP. These projects are shown on Figure 2.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 9 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
111)
Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant and Aqueduct
These projects will be designed to convey water from the PRC or the JA to the
POMWTP, from the POMWTP to the LCWTP, and to a number of delivery points
between these locations. The system will operate both south to north from the
POMWTP, or north to south from the LCWTP. The capacity of the system is expected to
grow over the next 25 years from an initial capacity of 70 mgd to an ultimate capacity of
151 mgd (121 mgd MWDSLS, 30 mgd CUWCD).
15000 South Pipeline
These projects provide a connection between the JA, of which MWDSLS has 2/7ths
capacity, to the POMA. This connection will allow water to flow east or west from each
aqueduct. The projects include the recently completed 15000 South Pipeline, the
15000 South Pump Station, and the 15000 South Pipeline Extension to the POMWTP.
jLittle Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant Expansion
MWDSLS is planning on expanding the headworks of the LCWTP to expand the
capacity from 113 mgd to 150 mgd. Improvements include a new diversion from Little
Cottonwood Creek, a grit basin, screening facilities, ozone facilities to provide for
disinfection and taste and odor control, new flash mix, and various hydraulic
improvements.
The infrastructure recommended for the capacity improvement projects include the
following:
e — Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant and Aqueduct
• A Raw Water Intake on the PRC
• A Raw Water Connection to the JA
• A Raw Water Pipeline to connect the two raw water sources to the POMWTP
• A future Raw Water Pump Station (RWP) at the POMWTP site
• A Raw Water Reservoir (RWR) at the POMWTP site
• The Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant
• A Finished Water Reservoir(FWR) at the POMWTP site
• A Finished Water Pump Station (FWP) and Flow Control Facility at the
POMWTP site
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 10 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
1111)
• A finished water pipeline from the POMWTP to the existing LCWTP,
referred to as the Point of the Mountain Aqueduct(POMA)
• A finished water pipeline and pump station connecting the POMA to the
Southeast Reservoir in Sandy City,referred to as the Southeast Pipeline
• On-site improvements at the LCWTP including a FWR, a FWP on the SLA, a
Post-Treatment Chemical Building, pigging facility, and extensive yard piping
improvements to connect the POMA to the LCWTP.
' - 15000 South Pipeline
• A FWP on the 15000 South Pipeline
• Participation with JVWCD in the construction of the Southwest Aqueduct
from the Point of the Mountain to the 15000 South Pipeline to allow for
capture of the"stranded capacity" of MWDSLS in the JVWTP.
• The recently completed 15000 South Pipeline, a 48-inch pipeline from the JA
to the new POMA.
pipeline i eline extension of the 15000 South Pipeline to connect to the POMWTP.
• P
— LCWTP Expansion Project
' • An expansion of the LCWTP from 113 mgd to 150 mgd including addition of
ozone treatment.
eNon-Capacity Improvements
The non-capacity improvements include various projects to either rehabilitate or replace
existing MWDSLS facilities. These projects were identified in the 1998 Master Plan
Update and in subsequent studies since 1998.. These projects are shown in the table
below.
Project Description
LCWTP Pilot Plant A pilot plant at LCWTP used to study process
1 improvements. Project is completed.
Replace Flash Mixers Upgrade the chemical addition process,project to be
completed as part of the LCWTP expansion project
Deer Creek Reservoir Project expanded intake capacity and installed new screens.
Intake Structure Project is completed.
Backwash Water Tank Project will remove backwash tank from top floor of
LCWTP administration building. To be completed as part
of the LCWTP on site improvements project.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 11 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
' OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
IDRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
ill Project (continued) Description
Administration Building Project consolidated project staff at LCWTP site. Project
Iis completed.
Maintenance Building Project consolidated maintenance staff and equipment in
Inew building on LCWTP site. Project is completed.
Chemical Storage Upgrade to chemical addition, project is completed.
Facility
ILCWTP HVAC Replacement of HVAC system at the LCWTP. Project is
Improvements completed.
I LCWTP Grit Chamber Upgrades to headworks of LCWTP. Project to be
and Screen House completed as part of the LCWTP expansion project.
I Sedimentation Basins- Improvements to the existing sedimentation basins.
Replace Weirs and
Collection Troughs
I Aeration Basins-Replace Project completed, aeration basins will be converted to
Diffusers ozone contact chambers as part of the LCWTP expansion
project.
ITerminal Reservoir- Project included removal of earth on top of reservoir and
Seismic Upgrade Study sealing of roof joints. Project has been completed.
110 Filter Building-Replace Project would upgrade valving in filter building.
Effluent Valves and Flow
Meters
IConstruct New Post Project will house post treatment chemical addition. To be
Treatment Building completed as part of the LCWTP on site improvements
I
project.
Flocculation Basins- Project would replace moving equipment in flocculators.
Replace Flocculators
IFilter Building-Seismic Seismic improvements to existing LCWTP facility.
Upgrade
I Old Admin. Building- Seismic improvements to existing LCWTP facility.
Seismic Upgrade
Old Chemical Building- Seismic improvements to existing LCWTP facility.
ISeismic Upgrade
Aeration Basins-Seismic Seismic improvements to existing LCWTP facility. To be
I Upgrade completed as part of the LCWTP Expansion Project.
Coag, Sed Basins- Seismic improvements to existing LCWTP facility.
Seismic Upgrade
ILCWTP Seismic Retrofit Seismic improvements to existing LCWTP facility. Study
I' Pre-design is complete.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 12 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
IOF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
16 Project (continued) Description
Terminal Reservoir Prior study identified need to replace reservoirs long term.
IReplacement
Salt Lake Aqueduct Study examined long term operations, maintenance, and
IReplacement Study replacement options for SLA. Study is complete.
Jordan Narrows Pump Study identified needed improvements to pump station.
Station Study Study is complete.
IJordan Narrows Pump Project will implement recommended improvements from
Station Improvements evaluation study.
I Fluoride Regulations required installation of fluoride facilities at
LCWTP.
I Drainage Separation Project examines options for disposal of drainage water
from LCWTP.
LCWTP Plant Water Project plans replacement and upgrade of plant water
ISystem Modifications system at LCWTP.
PCS/SCADA Master Study examined existing control system and recommended
I Plan improvements to be completed as part of the new facility
construction. Project is complete.
LCWTP Solids Residuals Project installed meters and to measure flow from the
ID LCWTP process to solids drying beds. Project is
complete.
LCWTP Interim Flow Project provided for temporary diversion from Murray City
IDiversion Project tailrace to LCWTP. Project is complete.
Instrumentation and Project will upgrade existing control system to match new
I Telemetry Upgrade to controls for new capacity projects.
Existing Facilities
1 Changes Since The 1998 Master Plan Update
There have been various changes to the 1998 Master Plan as a result of the last five years
Iof additional study and planning efforts. Substantive changes are described in the
paragraphs below.
IPOMA Routing
IThe 1998 Master Plan identified a routing for the POMA from the POMWTP along
Minuteman Drive in Draper to 13800 South, from there to 300 East, along 300 East to
12300 South, along 12300 South to 700 East, along 700 East to Sego Lily Drive, along
l
Sego Lily Drive to the Highland Drive corridor, along Highland Drive to Newcastle
Drive, and along Newcastle Drive to Sandy's 53 acre park adjacent to the LCWTP.
The present routing for the POMA, shown in Figure 2, follows the Draper Irrigation
11)
Canal and Highland Drive corridors through Draper and Sandy City. Also, the sizing of
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 13 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
IOF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
111) the aqueduct has been reduced from 72-inch diameter at the beginning of the aqueduct
and 48-inch diameter at the end of the aqueduct to 60-inch diameter throughout the
alignment. This routing is east of the 1998 Master Plan routing and is a much more direct
route between the two plant sites. This and the reduced sizing have resulted in major cost
savings. The new alignment also resulted in the relocation of pumping facilities from
10200 South 700 East to the new POMWTP site.
LCWTP Ozone
The 1998 Master Plan Update identified ozone as a potential project required at the
LCWTP based on future regulatory requirements. The Little Cottonwood WTP
' Expansion Project as presently being designed includes ozone for disinfection and taste
and odor control. The two member cities in the piloting efforts for the POMWTP
identified taste and odor control as a priority. Several taste and odor events have
occurred at the LCWTP in the past few years. The enhanced surface water treatment
rule, which regulates chlorine addition and the formation of disinfection byproducts, also
results in the need for ozone to provide disinfection to avoid chlorine addition at the head
of the plant.
Draper City Agreement
MWDSLS began the process of obtaining planning and zoning approval for the
POMWTP from the Draper City Planning and Zoning Commission in January 2002.
There was much controversy and resistance from Draper City to the siting of the plant in
Draper. As a result, as part of a settlement agreement, MWDSLS agreed to
' approximately $12.0 in improvements in exchange for planning and zoning approval.
Not all of the $12.0 million in costs are additional costs to the project. Some of these
costs result from the project naturally. Additional costs to the project are estimated at
about$4.0 million.
LCWTP On Site Improvements
This project originally included only the connection of the POMA to the LCWTP. As the
project has been studied for the past few years it has become clear that there needs to be
storage at the LCWTP site. The project has moved part of the storage intended for the
POMWTP site to LCWTP to allow for storage at the discharge of the plant. This 5 MG
of storage will be used for regulating flows from LCWTP both north into the SLA and
south into the POMA. The reservoir requires construction of a pump station to the SLA
to be used during high flows when there is not head available to utilize the reservoir.
' Provo Reservoir Canal
PRWUA is presently working with its shareholders, including MWDSLS, to develop a
plan for enclosing the PRC. This project is estimated to cost between $90 and
$120 million. MWDSLS as a major shareholder in PRWUA and holder of capacity
rights in the PRC will contribute from $15-$25 million of the project costs. The project
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 14 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
1110 schedule calls for this project to be completed by 2010. This project will affect the
overall cash flow of MWDSLS. Although this project was not identified in the 1998
Master Plan (it is a PRWUA project; not a MWDSLS project), the costs were included in
cash flow projections at the time.
Jordan Narrows Pump Station
The Jordan Narrows Pump Station pumps water from the Jordan River into the Utah Lake
' Distributing Canal. This allows MWDSLS to exchange water rights in the PRC for
Jordan River water rights. As a result, it is important for this pump station to operate at
all times or MWDSLS would have to use its higher quality Provo River water to satisfy
this exchange. MWDSLS commissioned a study to examine needed improvements to the
pump station. The study recommended $1.2 million in improvements to the pump station
that were not identified in the 1998 Master Plan Update.
Terminal Reservoir
The 1998 Master Plan Update recommended removal of the soil from the roof of the
terminal reservoir to increase its seismic performance. This has been completed.
Further analysis indicated a need to replace the reservoir in order to meet existing seismic
standards. A study estimated the replacement of this reservoir at $20 million. This cost
of replacement was not originally included in the 1998 Master Plan Update.
Salt Lake Aqueduct
' MWDSLS completed a study to identify any needed improvements to the aqueduct,
alternatives for expanding its capacity, and long-term replacement options. The study
concluded that there are significant long-term improvements required to the aqueduct.
These costs were not included in the 1998 Master Plan.
Vulnerability Assessment
' MWDSLS completed a vulnerability assessment for their system with funding from the
federal government as part of the homeland security legislation. The report identifies
improvements to MWDSLS's system based on security needs. These costs were not
included in the 1998 master plan
' INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER AGENCIES
MWDSLS has been working with several other agencies that will either be participating
in construction of facilities or be impacted by their construction. Each of these agencies'
involvement in the project is discussed in the paragraphs below.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 15 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
' OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
1 DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
IDJordan Valley Water Conservancy District
I MWDSLS and JVWCD have been working together for more than two years to develop
an overall cooperation agreement that covers a wide range of topics defining the
relationship between the two Districts. Several of these topics relate to the proposed
Icapital improvements, these are summarized below.
• JVWCD will have a firm fixed capacity of 9 mgd total in the new POMWTP,
IPOMA, and the SLA north to 3300 South.
• MWDSLS will receive 9 mgd of firm fixed capacity in the JVWTP and the JA
Isystem to 2100 South.
• MWDSLS will provide for 6 mg of finished water storage in the new
I POMWTP finished water storage reservoir for Bluffdale and Draper Cities,
both JVWCD customer agencies.
I • JVWCD will share equally in the costs of the 15000 South Pump Station and
the 15000 South Pipeline Extension to the POMWTP.
I • JVWCD will have rights to surplus capacity in the POMWTP as part of the
exchange of surplus capacity between the two Districts for their entire
systems.
ID
• MWDSLS will participate with JVWCD in the Southwest Aqueduct, which
will parallel the JA to provide for capacity for the "stranded capacity" of
IMWDSLS in JVWTP. MWDSLS will receive 6.08 mgd of capacity in the
raw and finished water sections of the Southwest Aqueduct to 15000 South.
IAs a result of the agreement, which is presently being drafted, JVWCD will be a partner
in the construction of the POMWTP, POMA, and associated facilities. JVWCD's firm
I fixed exchange and surplus capacity in MWDSLS's system will ensure long-term
participation by JVWCD with MWDSLS.
ICentral Utah Water Conservancy District
CUWCD desires to reserve 30 mgd of capacity in the POMWTP to deliver treated water
to cities in northern Utah County. CUWCD would construct additional treatment
capacity, a pump station, and pipeline from the POMWTP plant site and deliver water
south into Utah County. This capacity would be needed in the future, estimated to be
I sometime between 2015 and 2025. CUWCD has agreed in principal to pay for its share
of costs in the POMWTP based on a ratio of 30/151, or the ratio of CUWCD's ultimate
capacity in the POMWTP to the total capacity of MWDSLS and CUWCD in the
I POMWTP. In order to "reserve" this capacity for the future, CUWCD would pay for
their share of the following costs.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 16 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
IOF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
• Land for the POMWTP site
• Raw water delivery facilities
' • Any other facilities that require upsizing to reserve CUWCD's future
capacity.
' By paying for their share of costs at this time, CUWCD would reserve the right to expand
the POMWTP in the future, at their cost. CUWCD's total initial contribution to the
construction costs of the plant are estimated to be $8-$10 million and are outlined in
detail in the section on cost allocation that follows.
Draper City
Draper City reached a settlement agreement with MWDSLS to allow for planning and
zoning approval. As part of the settlement agreement discussed earlier, Draper City
agreed to pay MWDSLS $2.0 million for 5 MG of storage in the POMWTP finished
water storage reservoir. This storage will be connected to Draper City's system through
the 15000 South Pipeline Extension. JVWCD will pay for ih the cost of the extension.
The settlement agreement points are outlined below. MWDSLS will:
• Provide access road improvements from Highland Drive to the MWDSLS site
with a limit of$500,000 in costs from MWDSLS.
• Provide for a 66-foot wide separated grade crossing (bridge) connecting the
110 MWDSLS site under the UTA tracks to Minuteman Drive.
• Provide a bicycle lane along Minuteman Drive from the Utah County line to
' the Draper Irrigation Canal. Costs will be limited to $175,000 from
MWDSLS.
' • Provide for roadway improvements as it relates to constructing the POMA
through Draper City streets.
• Provide 300,000 cubic yards of fill material for Draper City's Highland Drive
to Bangerter Highway roadway extension.
• Provide for construction of Southpointe area utilities as part of extension of
said utilities to the plant site.
• Provide staff assistance in terms of paying for the salaries for a planner,
engineer, and engineering inspector during various periods of the project.
' • Provide $107,500 for the City to update the Southpointe area plan and
transportation plan.
• Provide landscaping along Highland Drive and the intersection of Highland
Drive and Minuteman Drive at a cost not to exceed$150,000.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 17 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
• Construct for Draper City 5 MG of storage in the new FWR at the POMWTP.
Draper City will pay MWDSLS $2.0 million for this storage.
• Provide for $500,000 for an easement for the Draper Irrigation Canal for use
Iof the canal for the POMA.
• Provide $1,200,000 for grading, earthwork, hard surfacing for an 8-foot wide
Ipublic trail, storm swale, and low flow storm drain pipeline in the Draper
Irrigation Canal right of way.
ISandy City
ISandy City, besides being a member city who will receive new capacity from the project,
will be affected by the POMA routing along 1700 East, Wasatch Boulevard, Highland
Drive, Newcastle Drive, and the City's 53 acre park adjacent to the LCWTP. Sandy City
1 is concerned about the following issues related to the routing of the POMA through their
City.
I • The POMA will have a significant impact on Sandy City residents during
construction. We are working with Sandy City to establish a public relations
program to provide information on project impacts to the local residents
Nobefore and during construction.
• The section of POMA alignment from Wasatch Boulevard and Highland
I Drive north to Dimple Dell Park has a reserved corridor for the eventual
construction of Highland Drive. However, this right of way for the corridor
has not been obtained. We will have to work with the local landowners to
I
obtain right of way for our project.
• On this same section of the alignment, Sandy City has not yet established final
I grades for the proposed Highland Drive. We are working with the City to
perform a preliminary study of the roadway to determine final grades.
This should allow us to establish the centerline elevation of the POMA.
I • Sandy City is attempting to establish a utility corridor across Dimple Dell
Park. Sandy City has been working with Utah Power to cross the park in the
I same corridor as the POMA. We are working with Sandy City to expedite
this corridor.
I • The final route of the POMA crosses Sandy City's 53 acre park next to the
LCWTP. An easement will need to be established for POMA across the park.
I
P
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 18 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
I
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Table 5 shows the total estimated costs by project for the capacity improvement projects
as of March 2003. These projects include all facilities associated with either increasing
water treatment or conveyance capacity in the MWDSLS system. These projects include
the POMWTP, POMTSF projects, and the LCWTP expansion project. The total
estimated cost of the capacity improvement projects is $237,032,700. The net cost to
MWDSLS for these projects is $218,618,859.
Table 6 shows the total estimated costs by project for the non-capacity improvement
P Y P
projects as of March 2003. These projects include all facilities associated with
Lrehabilitation or betterment of existing facilities in the MWDSLS system. These projects
include the replacement of the terminal reservoir, and the needed seismic improvements
at LCWTP. These projects also include the completed projects that MWDSLS has been
' working on the last several years including the new intake for the SLA at Deer Creek
Dam, the new chemical building at LCWTP, office building, maintenance building, and
' the LCWTP HVAC improvements. The total estimated cost of the non-capacity
improvement projects is $64,033,028.
Table 7 shows the summary of project costs as compared to various budgets for the
capacity and non-capacity projects. The total capacity improvement projects budget is
$201,298,221 based on the 1998 Master Plan with escalation from November 1998 with
the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index. The cost estimate as
compared to budget shown is within the accuracy of the various cost estimates and
therefore,we feel the project is essentially on budget.
iThe 2001 agreement between the member cities and MWDSLS establishes a
$125 million limit for certain project components. These project components are shown
' below.
• Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant (POMWTP)
• Provo Reservoir Canal Diversion Structure
• Raw Water Pipeline—Canal to POMWTP
• Connection to JA
I . Raw Water Pipeline—JA Connection
• Land Acquisition for POMWTP
• POMWTP Raw Water Storage
' • POMWTP Finished Water Storage
The agreement details the need for MWDSLS to ask the cities for permission to proceed
' with the project if the limit is exceeded. The agreement also calls for the $125 million
dollar limit to be escalated based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost
Index from September 1, 2001. Table 3 shows this escalated limit at $133,093,670 as of
March 2003. The total costs of the facilities described above are well under the limit.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 19 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
— I II all I I r
IIIII NM MP UN NM NM N
Table 5
Capacity Improvements
2003 Master Plan Update Cost Estimate
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy
Last Update, May 13, 2003
Contribution
From
Participating March 2003
March 2003 Cost Agency or Project MWDSLS Share
Item Description Estimate Deferred of Cost $125 Million Limit
1 Raw Water Facilities
PRC Intake Structure $ 738,000 $ 146,623 $ 591,377 $ 591,377
JA-4 Connection and 54-inch Pipeline $ 1,223,000 $ 242,980 $ 980,020 $ 980,020
84-inch Raw Water Pipeline $ 11,038,000 $ 2,192,980 $ 8,845,020 $ 8,845,020
Raw Water Storage(40 MG) $ 8,911,000 $ 1,770,397 $ 7,140,603 $ 7,140,603
Raw Water Pump Stations $ 2,724,000 $ - $ -
2 Land Acquisition for POMWTP $ 18,000,000 $ 3,576,159 $ 14,423,841 $ 14,423,841
3 Draper Permitting Issues $ 4,000,000 $ 794,702 $ 3,205,298 $ 3,205,298
c, 4 Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant-70 MGD $ 78,237,000 $ 78,237,000 $ 78,237,000
5 Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant-Offsite Improvements $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
co 6 Finished Water Storage(20 MG) $ 7,600,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 5,200,000 $ 5,200,000
7 POMA Reach No. 1 POMWTP to Southeast Pipeline(Includes mainline vault) $ 22,952,000 $ 22,952,000
8 POMA Reach No.2 Southeast Pipeline to 9800 South $ 7,162,000 $ 7,162,000
9 POMA Reach No.3 9800 South to LCWTP $ 11,252,000 $ 11,252,000
10 Southeast Pipeline $ 1,086,000 $ 1,086,000
11 POMA Pump Station and Flow Control Structure $ 11,583,000 $ 11,583,000
12 LCWTP On Site POMA Improvements(Includes 5 MG storage and SLA pump station) $ 15,235,700 $ 15,235,700
13 LCWTP Expansion(includes new intake screens and grit chamber) $ 18,365,000 $ 18,365,000
14 15000 South Pipeline $ 8,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000
15 15000 South Pump Station1 $ 5,466,000 $ 2,733,000 $ 2,733,000
16 15000 South Pipeline Extension $ 1,114,000 $ 557,000 $ 557,000
17 Southwest Aqueduct $ 2,070,000 $ 2,070,000
18 UTA Bridge Crossing $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
Totals $ 237,032,700 $ 21,137,841 $ 218,618,859 $ 121,623,159
Notes:
1. Project will be deferred. Raw water pump station will not need to be built until raw water capacity exceeds 121 mgd.
15000 South Pump Station scheduled for 2012 based on needs of MWDSLS and JVWCD. Preliminary design will be completed at this time
but final design and construction will be deferred until some future date.
— NIS MN N — On I a — II MN V Me — 1111111 — INV= —
Table 6
Non Capacity Improvements
2003 Master Plan Update Cost Estimate
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy
Last Update,May 13,2003
Mar-03
1998 Cost Estimate or
Item No. PROJECT Estimate Final Cost Comments
1 LCWTP Pilot Plant $ 421,000 $ 595,714 Project Complete
2 Replace Flash Mixers $ 86,000 Included in LCWTP Expansion Project
3 Deer Creek Reservoir Intake Structure $ 2,113,000 $ 3,750,168 Project Complete
Engineering costs for prior design efforts,project to be redesigned and
4 Backwash Water Tank $ 1,079,000 $ 437,292 completed as part of LCWTP on site improvements
5 Administration Building $ 1,464,000 $ 2,303,273 Project Complete
6 Maintenance Building $ 2,119,000 $ 2,600,000 Estimate at Complete
7 Chemical Storage Facility $ 2,567,000 $ 4,875,753 Project Complete
8 LCWTP HVAC Improvements $ 2,300,000 $ 2,479,371 Estimate at Complete
9 LCWTP Grit Chamber and Screen House $ 2,443,000 Included in LCWTP Expansion Project
10 Sedimentation Basins-Replace Weirs and Collection Troughs $ 863,000 $ 863,000
11 Aeration Basins-Replace Diffusers $ 244,000 Project Complete
12 Terminal Reservoir-Seismic Upgrade Study and Soil Removal2 $ 1,704,000 $ 505,853 Project Complete
13 Filter Building-Replace Effluent Valves and Flow Meters $ 1,294,000 $ 1,294,000 •
14 Construct New Post Treatment Building $ 727,000 To Be Completed As Part of LCWTP on site improvements
i 15 Flocculation Basins-Replace Flocculators' $ 3,919,000 $ 2,570,000 Partly Included in LCWTP Expansion Project
16 Filter Building-Seismic Upgrade $ 427,000 Included in Item 21
w 17 Administration Building-Seismic Upgrade $ 1,090,000 $ 1,090,000
co 18 Chemical Building-Seismic Upgrade $ 762,000 $ 762,000
19 Aeration Basins-Seismic Upgrade $ 30,000 Included in Item 21
20 Construct 10 MG CT Reservoir $ 6,760,000 5 MG of storage built as part of LCWTP On Site Improvements
21 Coag,Sed Basins-Seismic Upgrade $ 11,386,000 $ 13,242,520 Includes all LCWTP Seismic Improvements Except 17&18
22 LCWTP Seismic Retrofit Predesign $ 459,375 Engineering for predesign of project 21
Subtotal 1998 Master Plan Identified Improvements w/o POMWTP&POMA $43,798,000 $ 37,828,319
Projects Added to Capital Improvement Plan Since 1998 Master Plan
23 Terminal Reservoir Replacement3 $ 20,000,000 Project identified as part of Project No.12
24 Salt Lake Aqueduct Replacement Study $ 327,387 Engineering Underway
25 Jordan Narrows Pump Station Study $ 96,899 Project Complete
26 Jordan Narrows Pump Station Improvements $ 1,188,250 Identified Improvements as part of Project No.24
27 Fluoride $ 225,000 Estimate at Complete
28 Drainage Separation $ 150,000 Engineering Underway
29 LCWTP Plant Water System Modifications $ 300,000 Engineering Underway
30 SCADA Master Plan $ 250,000 Engineering Underway
31 LCWTP Solids Residuals $ 35,139 Project Complete
32. LCWTP Interim Flow Diversion Project $ 200,034 Project Complete
33 Instrumentation and Telemetry Upgrade to Existing Facilities $ 3,432,000 Identified Improvements as part of Project No.30
Subtotal of Projects Identified Since 1998 Master Plan $ 26,204,709
Total Estimated Costs $ 64,033,028
Notes:
1.Part of this project will be completed as part of the LCWTP Expansion Project,$2,570,000 budget remaining for new flocculators.
2.This project resulted in the development of a plan for replacement of Terminal Reservoir,Project No.23.
3.Project was identified in 1998 Master Plan but full replacement cost was not budgeted.
— alb NM MINI M IIIIIII r el as NM I MI MI MIN _. MIN
Table 7
Summary of Costs Compared to Budgets
2003 Master Plan Update Cost Estimate
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy
Last Update, May 13, 2003
Conveyance and Treatment Costs. Percentage
Total Capacity Improvements Cost to District(see Table 5 $218,618,859
1998 Master Plan Capacity Improvements Budget $ 181,920,000
Escalated Budget(ENR6627/5995) (March 2003/November 1998) $201,098,222
Capacity Improvements Costs(Over)/Under Budget $ (17,520,637) 8.71%
Non Capacity 1998 Projects
Non Capacity Improvements Budget(see Table 6) .$ 37,828,319
1998 Non Capacity Improvements Budget(see Table 6) $ 43,798,000
Escalated Budget(ENR6627/5995)(March 2003/November 1998) $ 48,415,237
Non Capacity Improvement Costs(Over)/Under Budget $ 10,586,918 -21.87%
Total Project Costs Over/Under Budget Compared to 1998 Non Capacity Projects
Total Project Budget(Capacity plus Non Capacity) $249,513,459
Total Master Plan Costs $256,447,178
-11
Total Costs(Over)/Under Budget $ (6,933,719) 2.78%
Non Capacity Projects Identified Since 1998
Non Capacity Improvements Budget(see Table 6) $ 26,204,709
Total Master Plan Costs Including Recent Projects - $282,651,887
$125 Million Agreement Limit
Costs Allocated to$125 million Agreement Limit $ 121,623,159
Escalated$125 million Limit(ENR6627/6224)(March 2003/September 2000)2 $ 133,093,670
$125 Million Agreement Limit Costs(Over)/Under Budget $ 11,470,511 -8.62%
Notes:
1. Master plan budget for New Water Treatment Plant and Water Delivery System,Table ES-2, $171,915,000,
plus items 13-LCWTP Expansion Project$4,140,000, 14-15000 South Pipeline$3,795,000, and 17-Southwest Aqueduct$2,070,000
1998 Master Plan Budget Estimate Summary,for New Water Treatment Plant and Water Delivery System
New Water Treatment Plant and Water Delivery System $ 171,915,000
LCWTP Expansion Project $ 4,140,000
15000 South Pipeline $ 3,795,000
Southwest Aqueduct $ 2,070,000
Total $ 181,920,000
2. Agreement between member cities and District signed in April 2001, $125 million limit calculated from September 2000 based on agreement language
IDRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
ID PROJECT SCHEDULE
I The POMWTP and associated facilities were originally scheduled to be completed by
June 1, 2006. The project schedule was originally established in 1998 based on the needs
of Sandy City for additional conveyance capacity with the expiration of their contract
I with JVWCD in 2001. In addition, JVWCD, with contracts for surplus capacity in the
POMWTP, wanted the plant completed by 2006 in order to avoid having to fund the
expansion of the JVWTP. Sandy's contract with JVWCD did expire at the end of 2001
Iand they need additional capacity to serve their system. JVWCD has been assisting
MWDSLS for the past two years in delivering MWDSLS water to Sandy City from the
Southeast Water Treatment Plant and through pumping from the JA into the 11400 South
IPipeline and ultimately into Sandy City's system. These temporary solutions have helped
Sandy meet their demands for the last two years and JVWCD has agreed to continue this
I assistance until POMWTP is completed. JVWCD's need for capacity in the POMWTP
by 2006 has been delayed by several years due to their conservation program and
decreased peak flows in the JA system.
IObtaining Draper City's planning and zoning approval has also delayed the project due to
the length of the approval process. To try and complete the project by June 1, 2006
I would result in additional costs to MWDSLS and the member cities because of the need
to accelerate final design and construction for the project.
110
Because the need for the June 1, 2006 deadline has relaxed somewhat, and because of the
added cost to attempt to meet this schedule, the final completion date of the POMWTP
has been delayed until June 1, 2007. We have conferred with the member cities about the
I one-year delay in the completion of the POMWTP and they agree with the decision to
delay.
I The schedule has been revised to reflect the following key dates for completion of the
project. These dates are:
I • June 1, 2003. The initial construction at the POMWTP site will begin with
the issuance of a mass excavation permit for the site. This will be the first
capacity improvement project to begin construction.
I • April 1, 2005. The LCWTP Expansion Project is scheduled to be completed
by this date in order to be able to supply more capacity to Salt Lake City and
I Sandy City from the LCWTP. The plant will be expanded to 150 mgd.
Spring flows of 2005 will be able to be treated and delivered to both cities
through the expanded plant.
I • April 1, 2006. The POMA will be completed from the LCWTP to Sandy
City's Southeast Reservoir. This will allow delivery of expanded LCWTP
I water to Sandy City for the runoff season of 2006 and should allow Sandy
City to utilize more Little Cottonwood Creek water and LCWTP surplus
ircapacity during the 2006 water delivery seasons.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 23 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
IOF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
• February 1, 2007. The POMWTP is scheduled to be completed by this date.
Raw water and finished water facilities taking water to and from the plant will
be completed in the Fall of 2006. Startup of the plant will occur from this
date.
• June 1, 2007. The startupof the POMWTP will be completed and the entire
P
POMWTP and POMA system will be ready for use during the 2007 water
year.
The project schedule is shown in Figure 3. Each of the capacity and non-capacity
projects to be completed over the next several fiscal years are shown through fiscal year
2008-2009. Major project expenditures will be completed by June 1, 2007.
tALLOCATION OF COSTS TO MEMBER CITIES
1 The agreement on cost sharing between the member cities and MWDSLS that was
approved in 2001 defined the means to identify the cost allocation amongst the member
cities for the capacity improvement projects. The raw water supply facilities, POMWTP,
the FWR and pump station, POMA, and improvements at LCWTP were all to be based
on the capacity of each member city in each facility. As an example, Salt Lake City has
62.5 percent of the capacity in the POMWTP. As such, Salt Lake City will pay for
62.5 percent of the cost of the POMWTP. If projects benefited MWDSLS as a whole, or
could not be allocated to one member city, or by agreement were not allocated to member
cities, then the costs of that project were assigned to MWDSLS as a whole and not
considered costs that would be allocated to member cities. Table 8 shows the cost
allocation between the member cities and MWDSLS for each of the capacity
improvement projects.
Since that time, agreements with other agencies have been made to help pay for various
parts of the project. These include:
• Central Utah Water Conservancy District. Tentative agreements call for
CUWCD to pay for 30/151 of the land costs and raw water facility costs in
' order to reserve their future 30 mgd capacity in the POMWTP.
• Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. JVWCD participated with
MWDSLS in paying for 1/2 the cost of the 15000 South Pipeline. They will
also pay for 1/2 the price of the 15000 South Pipeline Extension to POMWTP,
lh the cost of the 15000 South Pump Station, and has assisted in gaining
' cooperation from Draper City and Bluffdale in participating in the FWR at the
POMWTP. JVWCD member cities are also participating as shown below.
- Draper City. Draper City desires to have 5 mgd of storage in the FWR at
the POMWTP. Draper City will pay for this storage amount.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 24 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
' OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
lio
Table 8
Allocation Basis-Capacity Improvement Projects
I2003 Master Plan Update Cost Estimate
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy
Last Update,May 13,2003
•
Cost Allocation-Based on Water Treatment Capacity Cost Allocation-Based on Aqueduct Capacity
No. SLC SANDY JVWCD DRAPER CUWCD MWDSLS—Total SLC SANDY CUWCD JVWCD MWDSLS Total
1 Water Treatment-Phase 1 Requested Capacities 43.75 26.25 • 0 0 70 ,
I 2 Water Treatment-Phase 2 Requested Capacities 43.75 26.25 0 30' 51 151'
3 Raw Water Facilities 43.75 26.25 30 51 151
4 Land 43.75 26.25 30 51 151
5 Finished Water Storage(Based on Storage Volume in MG) 9.375- 5.625 1 5 0 _ 21 70
6 POMA Reach No.1 POMWTP to Southeast Pipeline _ 43.75 32.33 76.08
I 7 POMA Reach No.2 Southeast Pipeline to 9800 South _ 43.75 11.33 55.08
8 POMA Reach No.3 9800 South to LCWTP 43.75 43.75
9 Southeast Pipeline 21 21
10 15000 South Pipeline 6.08 19.02 25.1
' 1 t LCWTP Expansion 13 13
12 Southwest Aqueduct 6.08 6.08
13 CUWCD Facilities 30 30
Item Description Cost Allocation Basis 1. — -
Raw WaterFecilities
PRC Intake Structure 3 $ $ 213,825 $ 128,295—$ 146,623 $ 249,258 $ 738,000
JA-4 Connection and 54-inch Pipeline 3 • $ 354,346 $ 212,608 $ 242,980 $ 413,066 $ 1,223,000
84-inch Raw Water Pipeline 3 '
Raw Water Storage(40 MG) 3 _ $3,198,096 $ 1,918,858 $2,192,980 $ 3,728,066 $ 11,038,000
Raw Water Pump Station' 3 _ $2,581,829 $1,549,098-$1,770,397 $ 3,009.675 $ 8.911,000
2 Land Acquisition for POMWTP 2 $5,215,232 $3,129,139 $ 3,576,159 $6,079,470 $ 18.000,000
3 Draper Permitting Issues 2 $ 1,158,940 $ 695,364 $ 794,702 $1,350,983 $ 4,000,000
4 Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant-70 MGD 1 $48,898,125 $29,338,875 $ 78,237,000
5 Point of the Mountain Water Treatment.Plant-Offsite Improvements 1 $ 937,500 $ 562,500 $ 1,500,000
6 Finished Water Storage(20 MG) 5 "$3,250,000 $ 1,950,000 $400,000—$2,000,000 — $ 7,600,000
i 7 POMA Reach No.1 POMWTP to Southeast Pipeline(Includes mainline vault) 6 - $13,198,607 $9,753,393 $ 22,952,000
8 POMA Reach No.2 Southeast Pipeline to 9800 South 7 _ $5,688,771 $ 1,473,229 $ 7,162,000
9 POMA Reach No.3 98D0 South to LCWTP g $11,252,000 $ - $ 11,252,000
10 Southeast Pipeline 9 $ 1,086,000 $ 1,086.000
11 POMA Pump Station and Flow Control Structure • 6 $6,660,834 $4,922,166 $ 11,583,000
1 12 LCWTP On Site POMA Improvements(Includes 5 MG storage and SLA pump station) 11. $15,235.700 $ 15,235,700
13 LCWTP Expansion(includes new intake screens and grit chamber) 11 - $18,365,000 $ 18,365.000
14 15000 South Pipeline 10 $ 968,924 $4,000,000 $ 3,031,076 $ 8,000,000
15 15000 South Pump Station' 10 - $ 662,018 $2,733,000 $ 2,070,982 $• 5,466,000
16 15000 South Pipeline Extension 10 $ 134,923 $ 557,000 $ 422,077 $ 1,114,000
ii17 Southwest Aqueduct 12 $2,070,000 $ 2,070,000
18 UTA Bridge Crossing 1 $ 937,500' $ 562,500 $ 1,500,000
$60,397,297 I$36,238,378 I$400,000 I$2,000,000 I$ 4,370,861 I$7,430,464 I$- I$43,148,308 I$24,879,511 I$4,352,9801$7,290,000 I$46,524,902 I$237,032,700 I
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 25 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
- Bluffdale City. Bluffdale City desires to have 1 mg of storage in the
' FWR at the POMWTP. Bluffdale City will pay for this storage amount.
The total initial value of these contributions is estimated at approximately $18 million.
' Table 8 shows the value of each of these contributions from participating agencies by
each capacity improvement project.
Costs allocated to each member city will be the basis of their capital improvement
assessment. This capital improvement assessment will be paid by each member city
during the financing period for the bonds that will fund the projects. Table 9 summarizes
the contributions from each member city, MWDSLS, and each participating agency and
also shows the approximate capital assessment to be paid by each member city.
PROJECTED CASH FLOW AND FINANCING REQUIREMENTS
Cash Flow Analysis
The proposed cash flow for MWDSLS reflecting the schedule and project costs discussed
above is attached as Table 10. This cash flow examines MWDSLS expenditures from
' 2003-2046. Complete assumptions are attached in Table 11. This cash flow analysis
allows MWDSLS to meet the financing requirements for the project based on the water
rates and capital assessments shown for each member city. There have been several
1110 changes to the cash flow presented in February 2001 to the member cities and the Board
of Trustees. These include:
• Reduced estimate of tax receipts from Salt Lake City due to impacts of
redevelopment agencies and general economic conditions
• Reduced Sandy City water sales due to drought
' • Reduced JVWCD water sales due to change in JVWCD/MWDSLS general
agreement language and drought
• Reduced capital assessments for Salt Lake City and Sandy City due to latest
cost allocation discussed above
1 • Increase in bonding for the Master Plan projects from $170 million to $200
million,primarily because of inflation
• Increased O&M expenses for the District
• Increased debt payments as a result of the increased bonding
1
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 26 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
' OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
— — r ilk — — — r MI r — — _. —
v
� o
� D
Table 9
o 0 Summary of Allocation of Costs
Capacity Improvement Projects
p Y p 1
2003 Master Plan Update Cost Estimate
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy •
Last Update, May 13, 2003
Percentage of Annual
Participant Total Costs Total Cost Payment'
Salt Lake City $ 103,545,605 43.68% ($6,735,790)
Sandy City $ 61,117,889 25.78% ($3,975,806)
Central Utah Water Conservancy District $ 8,723,841 3.68%
JVWCD $ 7,690,000 3.24%
Draper City $ 2,000,000 0.84%
MWDSLS $ 53,955,365 22.76% 33
$ 237,032,700 100%
m Notes:
1. Annual payment based on 30 years at 5.0% interest rate
F �
z z
y C
Re
I
a
m
0
I
lipetropoble10litan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy
rojected Cash Flow 2003-2046,No Projected Tax Rate Increase
' Last Update,May 13,2003
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (a) _ (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (16) (19) (20) (21) (22)
I
Fiscal MWDSLS
Veer Salt Lake City Jordan Sea Lake City Sandy City Current Long Water Bonding
Ending Salt Lake City Sandy City Water Sandy City Valley WCD Miss Capital Capital Bond Total Operating Capital Term Debt CUWCD Master Plan Total Yearly Interest Reserve Bond Fund Rate Coverage
Jun30 Taxes Taxes Setae Water Sales Water Sales Revenues Assessment Assessment Proceeds Revenues Expenses Expenditures Payments Water Bond Payments Expenditures Net Total income Balance Balance Per AF Ratio
$ 3,550,000 $ 975,000
$ 20,650,000
I 2003 $ 3,567,750 $ 979,875 $ 5,964,000'$ 1,941,000 $ $ 135,000 $ 20,000,000 332,567,625 $ 7,736.190 $ 13,995,000 $ 2,659,327 - 8 24,390,517 $ 8,197,108 8 413,000 $ 29260,108 $ 150 1.98
2004 $ 3,585,589 $ 984,774 $ 6,465,000 $ 2,541,000 $ $ 4,370,881 $ 1,020,000 $ 30,000,000 $ 48,967,224 $ 8,011,181 $ 33,263,086 $ 2,714,T07 - $ 2,867,266 $ 46,655,839 $ 2,311,585 $ 877,803 $ 32,449,496 $ 15,000,000 $ 150- 220
2005 $ 3,603,517 $ 989,698 $ 6,975,000 $ 2,586,000 $ 300,000 8 135,000 $ 3,367,895 $ 1,987,903 $ 60,000,000$ 79,945,013 8 8,292,453 $ 87,096,348 $ L699,654 3 600,000 $ 6,033,576 $ 104,722,030 $ (24,777,017)$ 1,423,485 $ 9,095,984 $ 25,000,000 $ 150 1.43
2006 $ 3,621,534 $ 994,647 $ 7,637,500 $ 2,850250 $ 300,000 $ 4,352,980 $ 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 $ 60,000,000 3 90,468,507 $ 8,580,194 $ 66,786275 $ 2,692,901$ 1,200,000 $ 9,590,471 $ 88,849,841 3 1,618,666 $ 1,363.839 $ 12,078,489 $ 20,000,000 $ 163 1.80
2007 $ 3,639,642 $ 999,620 $ 8,312,500 $ 3,122,000 $ 856,000 $ 135,000 $ 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 $ 30,000,000 $ 57)778,358-$ 9,872,335 $ 26,982,880$ 2,685,274 $ 1,800,00D $ 11,739,847 $ 53,080336 $ 4,696,022 $ 1,603623 $ 18,378,414 $ 20,000.000 $ 175 1.23
I 2008 $ 3,657,840 $1,004,618 $ 9,000,000 $ 3,401,250 $ 1,209,000 $ 135,000 $ 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 $ 29,119,304 $ 10,201,673 $ 2,400,178 $ 2,678,168 $ 2,400,000 $ 11,739,847-$ 29,419,866 $ (300.562) $ 1,918,921 $ 19.996.T73 $ 188 1.28
2009 $ 3,676,129 $1,009,641 5 9,800.000 $ 3,688,000 5 1,412,000 5 135,000 $ 6,735,790'$ 3,975,806 3 30,432,367$ 11,225,115 $ 6,107,181 $ 2,683,676 $ 3,000,000 $ 11,739,847 3 33,755,819 $ (3,323,453)$ 999,839 $ 17,673,158 $ 200 1.19
2010 $ 3,694,510 5 1,014,689 $ 10.625,000 $ 3,982,250$ 1,712,000 0 135.000 5 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 '$ 31,875,045 3 11,508,794 $ 5,872,905 5 2,675,124 $ 3,000,000 5 11,739,847$ 34,796,670 5 (2,921,625)$ 883,658 $ 15,635,192 $ 213 1.27
2011 $ 3,712,983 $1,019,763 $ 11,162,625 $ 4,167,380 $ 1,712,000 $ 135,000 $ 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 $ 32,621,346$ 11,800,851 $ 5,990,363 $ 2,682,876 $ 3,006000 $ 11,739,847$ 35213,938 $ (2,592,591)$ 781,760 $ 13,824.360 $ 219 1.29
2012 $ 3,731,547 $1,024,862 $ 11,722.945 $ 4,360,034 $ 1,712,000 $ 135.000 $ 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 $ 33,397,984$ 12,101,537 $ 6,110,170 $ 2,678,127 $ 3,000,000-$ 11,739,847 $ 35,629,681 $ (2,231,697)$ 891218 $ 12283,881 $ 225 1.32
2013 5 3,750,205 5 1,029,986 $ 12,306,838 5 4,560,496 $ 1,712,000 $ 135,000 5 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 $ 36,206.121$ 12,411,106 $ 6,232,374 $ 2,860,361 $ 3.000.000 $ 11,739,847 $ 36,043,688 $ (1,837,567) $ B14,194 $ 11.060,508 $ 232
I
2014 $ 3,768,956 5 1,035,138 $ 12,915.214 5 4,769,062 $ 1,712,000 $ 135,000 5 6,735.790 $ 3,975,806 $ 35,046,964 $ 12,729,822 $ 6,357,021 5 2,650,945 $ 3,000,000 0 11,739.847 $ 36,477,636 5 (1,430,672) 5 553,025 $ 10,182,862 5 239 1.35
1.38
2015 5 3,787,801 5 1,040,312 $ 13.549,016 $ 4,986,038 $ 1,712.000 $ 135,000 5 6,735.790 $ 3,975,806 $ 35,921,762$ 13,057,959 $ 6,484,162 $ 2,642,041 0 3,000,000$ 11,739,847 $ 36,924,008 $ (1,002,246) $ 509,143 $ 9,689,759 8 246 1.42
2016 $ 3,806,740 $1,045,513 $ 14,209,222 $ 5,211,740 $ 1,509,000 $ 135,000'$ 6,735,790 $ 3,975.806 3 36,628,811 $ 13,395,793 $ 6,613,845 $ 2,653,312 $ 3,000,000 $ 11,739,847 $ 37,402,797 $ (773,985) $ 484,488 $ 9,400,262 $ 254 1.44
2017 $ 3,825,774 $1,050,741 $ 14,896.847 $ 5,446,496 $ 1,306,000 $ 135,000 $ 0,735,790 $ 3,975,806 $ 37,372,454 $ 13,743,614 $ 6,746,122 $ 2,619,258 $ 3,000,000 $ 11,739,847 $ 37,848,841 $ (476,387) $ 470,013 $ 9,393,888 $ 261 1.47
2018 $ 3,844,903 8 1,055,994 $ 15,612,941 $ 5,690,648 $ 1,006,000 8 135,000 5 6,735,790 $ 3,975.806 $ 38,057,062 $ 14,101,719 $ 6,881,044 $ 2,609,341 $ 3.000,000 $ 11.739.847 $ 38,331,952 $ (274,870)$ 469,694 $ 9,588,712 $ 269 (.49
I
2019 $ 3,864,127 5 1,061,274 $ 16.358,594 $ 5,944,547 $ 1,006,000 $ 135,000 $ 6,735.790 $ 3.975.806 $ 39,081,138$ 14,470.414 $ 7,018,665 5 2,595200 5 3,000,000-3 11,739,847 5 38,824,126 $ 257,012 $ 479,436 8 10,325,160 $ 277 1.54
2020 5 3,883,448 0 1,066,581 $ 17,134,934 5 6,208,558 $ 706.000 $ 135,000 $ 6,735.790 $ 3.975,806 $ 39,846,116 $ 14,850,012 $ 7,159,038 $ 2,681,998 $ 3,000,000 $ 11,739,847 5 39,430,895 $ 415221 $ 516258 $ 11,256,639 $ 286 1.56
2021 $ 3,902.865 $1,071,914 $ 17,943.132 $ 6,483,05�$ 706,000 $ 135,000 $ 6,735.790 $ 3,975.806 $ 40,953,565$ 15240,837 3 7,302,219 $ 2,687,418 8 3.000,000� 11,739,847$ 39,944,320 $ 1,009,248 $ 562,832 $ 12,828,717 $ 294 1.62
2022 $ 3,922,379 $1,077,273 $ 18,784,400 $ 6,768,443 $ 706,000 $ 135,000 $ 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 3 42,105.092$ 15,643,224$ 7,448,264$ 2,647,511 $ 3,000,000 $ 11,739,847$ 40,478,846 $ 1,626,246 $ 641,436 $ 15,096,398 $ 303 1.68
2023 $ 3,941,991 $1,082,660 $ 19,659,995 $ 7,065,116 $ - $ 135,000 $ 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 $ 42,596,358$ 16,057,516 $ 7,597,22E$ 2,629,717 $ 3,000,000 $ 11,739,847$ 41,024,309$ 1,572,049 $ 754,820 $ 17,423,267 $ 312 1.69
ID2024 5 3,961,701 5 1,088,073 5 20,571220 $ 7,373,497 $ - $ 135,000 $ 6,735,790 0 3,975,806 3 43,84f,087 3 1Fg84,066 $ T,749,173$ 2,275,896 $ 3,000,000 $ 11,739,847$ 41248,983$ 2,592,104 $ 871,163 $ 20,886,535 $ 321 1.80
2025 $ 3,981,510 $1,093,513 $ 21,519,425 $ 7,694,022 $ _ 3 135=0 $ 6,735,790 $ 3,975.806- 3 45,185,0.h$ 16,923,239 $ 7,904,157$ 2,309,738$ 3,000,000 $ 11,739,847$ 41.876,982$ 3,258.084$ 1,044.327 $ 25,188,946 5 331 1.87
2026 $ 4,001,417 $1,098,981 $ 22,165,008 $ 8,027,143$ 3 135,000$ 6,735,790$ 3,975,806 $ 46,139,144$ 17,375,411 $ 8,062,240 $ 2,339,739$ 3,000,000$ 11,739,847-$ 42617,237-1 3,821.9077$ 1,59,447-$ 30,070,300 $ 341 1.92
2027 $ 4,021,424_$1,104,476 $ 22,829,958 8 8,373,326 0 - 5 135,000 $ 6.735,790 $ 3,975,806 3 47,175;780$ 17,840,967 $ 8223385-$ 2295,850 3 3,000,000 5 11,739,847"5 43,100,149 3 4,075,631 3 1,503,515 $ 35,649,446 $ 351 1.98
2028 $ 4,041,53) $1,109,998 $ 23,514,857 $ 8,733,056 $ • $ 135,000$ 6,735.790 $ 3,975,806 3 48,246,038 3 18,320,306 $ 8,387,954-0 2291,981 3 3,000,000 S 11,739,847 $ 43,740,089 $ 4,505,949 $ 1,782,472 $ 41,937,888 $ 362 2.05
I 2029 $ 4,061,739 $1,115,548 $ 24,220,302 $ 9,106,834 $ - $ 135,000 3 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 $ 49,351,019 3 18,813,837 3 8,555,714 3 2,414,186 3 3,000,000$ 11,739,847 8 44,523,584 $ 4,827,435 5 2.098,893 5 48,882,196 $ 373 2.09
2030 $ 4,082.045 $1,121,126 $ 24,946,911 $ 9,495,178 $ $ 135,000 $ 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 $ 50,491,859 $ 19,321,983 $ 8,726,828 3 128,632 $ 3,000,000 $ 11,739,847 $ 42,917,290 $ 7,574,569 $ 2,443,110 $ 58,879,875 $ 384 2.58
2031 $ 4,102.458 $1,126,7�$ 25.695,319 $ 9,898.627 $ $ 135,000 $ 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 $ 51,669,732 $ 19,895,177 $ 8,901,364 $ 128,632 $ 3,000,000 $ 11,739,847 $ 43,616,021 $ 8,054,711 $ 2,943,994 5 69,878,580 $ 395 2.68
2032 $ 4,122,970 $1,132,365 $ 26,466,178 $10,317,738 3 135,000 $ 6,7-35,790 $ 3,975,806' $ 52,885,848 3 20,383,868 $ 9,079,392 $ (28,632 $ 6000,000$ 11,739,847 5 44,331,739 $ 8,554,108 $ 3,493,929 $ 81,926,617 $ 407 2.78
2033 $ 4,143,585 $1,138,027 $ 27,260,164 $10,753,086 3 135,000 $ 8,735,790 $ 3,975,806 3 54,141,458 3 20,938,517 $ 9,260,979 $ 028,631f'$ 3,000,000 $ 8,131,429 $ 41,459,567 $ 12,681,901'$ 4,098,331 $ 98,704.848 $ 419 4.15
I 2034 $ 4,164,303 $1,143,717 $ 28.077,969 $11,205,269 3 135,000 $ 6,735,790 $ 3,975,806 $ 55,437,854 3 21,505.597 $ 9,446,199 3 T28,8321$ 3.000,000$ 3252,572 5 37,337,000 $ 18.100,854 $ 4,935242 $ 121,740,844 $ 432 10.81
2035 $ 4,185.125 $1,149,436 $ 28,920,308 $11,674,906 3 135,000 $ -3,257,895$ t,987,903 $ 51,420,572 3 22,097,599 3 9,635,123 9 728,632 $ 3,000,000 5 34,887,354 $ 16,569,218 $ 8,087,047 $ 144,38720E $ 445 251.96
2036 $ 4,206.050 $1,155,183 $ 29,787,917 $12,162,636 $ 135.000 3 47,446,785$ 22,703,025"$ 9,827,826 3 128 $ 3,005,000 $ 35,659,482 $ 11,787,303 $ 7,219,360 $ 163,393,873 $ 458 225.16
2037 $ 4,227,080 $1,160,950 $ 30,681,554 $12,869,122' $ 135,000 $ 48,873,715$ 23,326,393 5 10,024,382$ - $ 3,000,000 3 36,350,775 $ 12,522,940 $ 8,169,694 $ 184,086,507 $ 472
2038 $ 4,248,216 $1,166,764 $ 31,602,001 $13,195,051 $ 135,000 $ 50,347,031 $ 23,968238 $ 10,224,870 $ - $ 3,000,000 $ 37,193,108 $ 13,153,923 $ 9,204,325 $ 206,444,755 $ 486
I 2039 $ 4,269,457 $1,172,597 $ 32,550,061 $13,741,133 $ 135,000 J $ 51,868.249_$ 24,629,110 $ 10,429,367 $ - $ 3.000,000 $ 38,058,477 $ 13.809.772 $ 70,322.236 $ 230,576,765 $ 501
2040 $ 4,290,804 $1,178,460 $ 33,526,563 $14,308.105 $ 135.000 $ 53,438,933 $ 25,309.574 $ 10,637,954 $ $ 3,000,000 $ 38,947,529 $ 14,491,404 $ 11,528.836 $ 258,597,007 $ 516
2041 $ 4,312258 $1,184,353 $ 34,532,360 $14,896,729 $ 135,000 $ 55,060,699 $ 26,010,214 $ 10,850,714 $ $ 3,000,000 $ 39,660,928 $ 15.199.772 $ 12,829,850 $ 284,626,629 $ 531
2042 $ 4,333,820 $1,190,274 $ 35,568,331 $15,507,792 $ 135,000 $ 56,735,217 $ 26,731,631 $ 11,067,728 $ - 3 3,000,000 $ 40,799,358 $ 15.935,858 $ 14,231,331 $ 314,793,819 $ 547
2043 $ 4.355,489 $1,196,226 $ 36,635,380 $16,142.112 $ 135,000 $ 58,464,207 $ 27,474,441 $ 11289,082 $ - 3 3,000,000 $ 41,763,524 $ 16,700.683 $ 15,739,691 $ 347234,193 $ 564
I 2044 $ 4,377,266 $1,202,207 $ 37,734,442 $16,800,535 $ 735,000 $ 60249,449 $ 28239284 $ 11,514,864 3 - 3 3,000,D00 $ 42,754,148 $ 17,495.302 $ 17,361,710 $ 382A91204 $ 581
2045 5 4.399,152 $1,206,218 $ 38,866,475 $17,483,934 $ 135,000 9 62,092,780 $ 29,026,814 $ 11,745,161 5 3 3,000,000 3 43,771,975 $ 18,320,805 5 19.104,560 $ 419,616,569 $ 598
2046 $ 4,421,148 $1,214,259 $ 40,032,469 $18,193218 $ 135,000 $ 63,996,094 $ 29,837,707 $ 11,980,06d�$ $ 3,000,000 $ 44,817,771 $ 19,178,323 $ 20,975,828 $ 459,670,721 $ 016
I
1
I' ,
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 28 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
IOF SALT LAKE&SANDY
1
ITable 10(continued)
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy
•Projected Cash Flow 2003-2046,No Projected Tax Rate Increase
ILast Update,May 13,2003
(23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) -
(34) -
(35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49)
bandys
I
ottonwo
LKIle Jordan Jordan
Central Cc Little c Jordan Jordan Valley Valley Treatment
Utah Sandy dand Valley Valley WCD WCD Salt Lake Sea Lake Sandy City Spot Cost for
Fiscal Project Preferred MWDSLS Sandy's WCD Raw WCD Raw Treated Treated Sea Lake PRWUA City Sandy City City Capital Capital Market Spot Routine Capital Master Plan
I
Year Water MWDSLS Water Surplus Total Water Water Water Water Water City Water Deer Creak Regular Capital Equivalent Assessment Assessment Water Market Capital Expenditures Capital
Ending Price or Volume Rate Per Right Water Water Purchases Sales Rate Sales Rate Needs Project 2002 A- 2002 A-4 20028 Operedng PRWUA O&M Improw:ment Water Equivalent Equivalent Purchases Water Expenditures at JVWTP Expenditures
30 CUP water Acre Feet Acre Feet Acre Feet Acre Feet Acre Feat Acre Feet$/Acre Feel Acre Feet Vitus Feet Acre Feet Payments Bonds Bonds Bonds Expenses Assessment Fund Rates Rates Water Rate Water Rate
I 20.3 150 7.940 5,000 12,940 150 36,000 112,761 36,rr 557,669 1,.7,896 6,`0,480 5:.110 43.'i0 • 150 15r - 6rr0 94 425.740 1,97r,000 11,600,00r
200d $ 150 7,940 9.000 16,940 - 150 $ 203 34,000$ 112,761 0 421,664'$ 557,720$ 1,621,938$ 6,922,094-$ 595,486 $ 493,600 $ 150 $ 210' - 5 60 13000$ 105 $ 545.740 $ 1,117,346 531,600,000
2005 $ 150 4,000 $ 150 7,940 9,300 17,240 2,000 $ 150 $ 203 46,500 4 112.761 $ 413,886 $ 557,669 $ 1,615,338 $ 7,129,757 $ 607,396 $ 555,300 $ 222 $ 285 $ 72 $ 115 $ 556,655 $ 1,139,693 085.400,000
:,r0r 163 7,940 9,800 17,540 2,rrr 150 203 . .000 • 112,761 . 406,108 55,869 . ,616,363 7,343,650 •• 619,5•x 617,00r 306 89 143 s• 56,788 1,62,487 65,056,000
r07 r irr 1 7,940 9,900 17,840 3,rrr r 2,000 203 .-,r0 112,761 398,331 557,669 ,•16,513 8,500,..0 631,93 740,40r-, 317 3'1 142 79,144 1,18,737 '25,218,000
2008 $ 150 16,000 $ 1647 7,940 10,200 18,140 4,000$ T50 3,000 $ 203 48,000 $ 112,761-$ 390,574 $ 557,720 $ 1,617,113 $ 8,755,000!$ 644,573 $ 802,100$ 328 $ 407 $ 140 $ 219 $ 590,727 $ 1,209,451 $ 600,000
00' 15r r,r r0 10 ,940 10,500 18,440 4,000 _r 4,000 203 49...0 128,632 382,775 557,669 ,•4,600 9,017,•0 657,465 $ 1,550,000 337 4• 1 7 $ 21• •r2,541 1,233,640 3,271,000
I 10 15 0, 0 13 ,940 10,800 18,740 6,000 50 4,000 203 50,000 $ 128,632 $ 374,998 $ 557,669 $ 1,673,825-$ 9288,180 $ 670,614 r$ 1.550,000 $ 347 $ 425 $ 135 $ 212 $ 4T4,592 1,25,313 '•4,000,000
2011 150 2 9 /,940 11,100 19,040 6,000 $ 150 4,000 $ 203 51,000 $ 128,632 $ 467,220 $ 470,549 $ 1,616,475 $ 9,566,825 $ 684,026 1,550,000 $ 351 $ 428 $ 132 209 6 ,884 1,2 ,479 $4,080,000
2012 $ 150 20,000 $ 225 7,940 11,400 19,340 6,000 $ 150 4,000 $ 203 52,000 $ 128,632 $ 456,570 $ 470,600 $ 1,622,325_$ 9,653.830 8 697,707 $ 1,550,000$ 355 0 431 $ 130 $ 206 $ 639,421 0 1,309,149 5 4,161,600
2013 $ 150 20,000 $ 232 7,940 11,700 19,640 6,000 $ 150 4,0-00 $ 203 53,000 $ 128,632 $ 443,886 $ 470,549 $ 1,617294 10,149,445 $ 711,661 $ 1,550,000 $ 359 - 435$ 127 $ 202 $ 652210 $ 1,335,332 $4,244,8329
I
2014 $ 150 20,000 $ 239 7,940 12,000 19,940 6,000 $ 150 4,000 $ 203 54,000 $ 128,632 $ 432,220 $ 470,549 $ 1,619,544Ili 10,453,928 $ 725,894 $ 7,550,000 $ 364 $ 439 9 125 9 199 $ 665254 $ 1,362,039 $4,329,723
2015 $ 150 20,000 246 TOSS 12,300 20240 6,000 150 4,0b 1�$ 203 55,000"$ 1 $95,632 $ 420,554 470,549 6 1,622-206 10,767,546$ 740,412 $ 1,550,000 $ 369 $ 443 $ 122 $ 196 $ 678,559 $ 1,389,279 $4,416.32
2016 $ 150 20,000 254 7,940 12,600 20,540 6,000 $ 150 3,000 $ 203 56,000 $ 128,632 $ 406,899 $ 470,600 $ 1,647,181 $ 11,090,572 $ 755,220 $ 1,550,000 $ 374 $ 447 $ 120 194 $ 69,130 $ 1,417,065 $4,504,650
2017 150 20,000 261 7,940 12,900 20,840 6,000 150 2, $ 203 57,000 1 8,632 397,221 70,549 1,6 ,856 11,423289 770,325 1,55,000 0 452 118 191 705,973 1,445,40 8 4,594,743
2018 $ 150 20,000 $ 269 7,941T- 13,200 21,140 4,000 $ 150 2,000 $ 203 58,000 $ 128,632 $ 385,554 $ 470,549 $ 1,624,606 $ 11,765.988 785,731 1,550,000 $ 385 $ 457 $ 116 $ 188 $ 720,092 $ 1,474,314 $4,666,638
I
$2019 $ 150 20,000 277 7,940 13,500 21.440 4,000$ 750 2,000 $ 203 59,000$ 128.632$ 373,888$ 470.549$ 1,622,131 $ 12,118,968$ 801,446$ 1,550.000 $ 391 $ 463 $ 114 5 165 $ 734,494 $ 1,503,801 $4,780,370
2020 150 2,0 0 286 4 13,800 21,740 2,000 150 2,000 $ 203 60,000 $ 128,632 $ 462,228 9 470,600 $ 1,620,538 $ 12,482,537 $ 817,475 $ 1,550,000 9 398 $ 488 $ 112 $ 183 --$ 749.184 $ 1,533.1s/ $4.875,578
2021 $ 150 20,000 $ 294 7,940 14,100 22,040 2,000 $ 150 4000 $ 203 61,000 $ 128,632 $ 446,666 $ 470,549 5 1,fi15,569 $ 12,857,013 $ 833,824 $ 1,550.000 0 405 $ 475 5 110 0 180 $ 764,168 $ 1,564,554 $4,973.497
2022 $ 150 20,000 $ 303 7,940 14,400 22,340 2,000 $ 150 2,000 $ 203 62,000 $ 128,632 $ 431,111 $ 470,549 $ 1,617,219 $ 13,242,723 $ B50,501 $ 1550,000 $ 412 3 481 -$ 109 $ 178 $ 779,451 $ 1,595,845 $5,072,967
2023 $ 150 20,000 $ 312 7,940 14,700 22,840 63,000 $ 128,632 $ 415,555 $1,070,549 $ 1,014,981 $ 13,640,005 $ 867,511 $ 1,550,000 $ 419 $ 488 $ 107 $20 176 $ 795,040 $ 1,627,762 $5,174,427
2 ,0 36-0 -6 $ 321 7,940 15,000 22,940 64,000 $ 128,632 $2,147,264 $ 14,049205 $ 884,861 $ 1,550,000 $ 427 $ 495 $ 105 173 8 ,941 1,660,317 $5,277,915
2025 $ T50 20,000 $ 331 7,940 15,300 23,240 65,000 $ 128,632 $2,181,106 $ 14,470,681 $ 902,559 $ 1,550,000 5 435 $ 502$ 104-$ 171 $ 827,160 $ 1,693,524 $5,363,473
2026 150 20,000 7,940_ 15,600 23,540 _ 65,000 $ 128,632 5 2211,107 $ 14,904,801 $ 920,610 $ 1.550,000 $ 445 $ 510 $ 104 169 ,70 1, ,394 5,491,143
2027 $ 150 20,000$ 351 7.940 15,900 23,840 60,000 1 128,632 $2,167,218 $ 15,351,945$ 939,022 $ 1,550,000 $ 455 $ 518 $ 104 $ 167 $ 860,577 $ 1,761,942 $5,600,966
2028 $ 150 20,000 $ 362 7,940 16,200 24,140 65,000 $ 128.632 $2,163,349 $ 15,813,304 9 957,1302 $ 1,550,000 $ 465 $ 520 $ 104 $ 165 $ 877,789 $ 1,797,181 $5,712,985
I
2029 150 20.000 373 7,940 18,500 24,440 5,000 $ 128,832 $2,285,554_ $ 16286,879 $ 97fi,958 $ 1,550.000 $ 478 $ 535 $ 104 $ 163 913254 1,833,125 $5,943,245
2030 $ 150 20,000$ 384 7,940 16,800 24,740 65,000$ 128,832 $ 16,775,485$ 996,457 $ 1,550,000 $ 487 $ 545 $ 104 $ 161 $ 913251 $ 1,669,787 $5,943,790
2031 $ 150 20,000 $ 395 7,940 17,100 25,040 65,000 $ 128,632 $ 17,275,750 $ 1,01fi,427 $ 1,550,000 $ 499 $ 854 $ 104 $ 159 $ 931,516 $ 1,907,193 $6,062,665
2032 $ 150 20,000 $ 407 7,940 17,400 25,340 65,000 $ 128,632 $ 17,797,112 $ 1,036,766 $ 1,550,000 $ 511 $ 594 $ 104 $ 157$ 950,147 $ 1945,326 $6,183,919
2033 150 20,000 419 7,940 17,700 25,64 65,000 $ 128,632 $ 18,331,026 $ 1,057,491 $ 1,550.000 $ 523 $ 574 $ 104 $ 155 $ 969.149 $ 1.984233 66,307,9(
I
2034 2035 750 20,500 432 7,940 18,000 25,940 65,000 128,632 1,8 ,957 6,078,641 1,550,0 $ 538 5 5 008502 ,023,918 6, .7
150 20,000 445 7,940 18,300 2624 65,000 128,632 ,447,385 1,100, 4 1,550,00 497 21 8.303 2,064,396 6,562562, 4
2036 $ 150 20,000 458 7,940 18,600 26,540 65,000 $ 128,632 $ 20,030,807 $ 1,122218 $ 1,550,000$ 458 $ 458 $ 76 1,00$1,028.469 $ 2,105,684 $6,693,672
-
2037 $ 150 20,500 $ 472 7,940 18,900 26,840 65,000 •
$ 20,631,731 $ 1,144,662 $ 1,550,000 $ 472 $ 472 $ $ $1,049,039 $ 2,147,798 $6,827,546
$21250,683 $ 1,550,000 $ 488 $ 486 $ - 9 $1,070,019 $ 2,190,754 $6,964,097
®r :III 0.000 ���_ -- --- - - $1,091,420 $ 2,234,569 $7,103.379
I 2039 $ 150 20.000 $ 501 7,940 19,500 27,440 65,000 $21,888,203 ':'r $ 1,550,000 $ 501 $ 501 $ $ ,
2040 $ 150 20.000 9 $16 7.940 19,800 27,740 65,000 $ 22,544,850 $ 1,550,000 $ 518 $ 5161�It� III_E
2041 $ 150 20 000 $ 531 7 940 20 100 28 040 65,000 EI
$23221 195 $ 1,550,000 $ 531 $ 531"'71���- $ $1,135,513 $ 2,324,845 $7,390.355
2042 $ 150 20,000 $ 547 7,940 20,400 28,340 65,000 23,917,631 $ 1,263,800 61,550,000 0 $1.158223 $ 2,371,342 $7,538,162
2043 $ 150 20,000 $ 564 7,940 20,700 28,640 65,000 $ 24,635,366 $ 1,289,076 $ 1,550,000 $ 564 $ 564 $ - $ $1,181,388 $ 2,418,769 $7,688.926
I 2044 $ 150 20.000 $ 581 7,940 21,000 28,940 65,000 $25,374,427 $ 1,314,857 $ 1,550,000 $ 581 $ 581 $ - $ - $1,205,016 $ 2,467,144 $7,642,704
2045 5 150 20,000 $ 598 7,940 21.300 29,240 65,000 $26,135,660 $ 1,341,154 $ 1.550,000 $ 598 0 598 $ $ $1,229,116 $ 2,516,407 $7,999,558
2046 $ 150 20,000 $ 616 7,940 21,600 29,540 65,000
$ 26,919,729 $ 1,367,977 $ 1,550,000 $ 616 $ 616 $ $ $1,253,698 $ 2,566,817 $8.159,549
I
I
I
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 29 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
IOF SALT LAKE&SANDY
1
TABLE 11
11 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE & SANDY
CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
5/13/03
1. Salt Lake City Taxes: 0.5% increase per year
2. Sandy City Taxes: 0.5% increase per year
1 3. Salt Lake City Water Sales: 47,000 a.f.per year increasing to
65,000 a.f.per year in 2025
1 4. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District:
JVWCD water sales are shown in column 29 and 31. These water sales are assumed to
Ihave both a raw and treated water component.
5. Sandy City Water Sales: 16,940 a.f. in 2004
I
23,240 a.f. per year in 2025
6. Miscellaneous Revenues:
IPrior year tax collections 100,000
Treatment of Other Agencies' Water 19,000
I Laboratory Fees 10,000
Miscellaneous 6,000
$ 135,000
I2004-CUWCD—Share of POM Land 4,370,861
2006-CUWCD—Share of POM Land 4,352,980
I7. SLC—Capital Assessment
Based on SLC's share of capacity in the
Inew treatment plant &pipeline
8. Sandy City—Capital Assessment
I
Based on SC's share of capacity in the
new treatment plant &pipeline
I
9. Bond Proceeds
Proceeds from various bond issues
111
10. Total Revenues
Columns 1-9
1
1111
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 30 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
I
TABLE 11
111 (CONTINUED)
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE & SANDY
CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
5/13/03
11. Operating Expenses
Column 38, 39,40
LCWTP - Regular Expenses—3% increase per year
I
2002-2003 $6,720,480
PRWUA—O&M—2% increase per year
2002-2003 $583,810
I PRWUA—Capital Improvement Fund
2002-2003 7.00/share
2003-2004 8.00/share
I 2004-2005 9.00/share
2005-2006 10.00/share
2006-2007 11.00/share
I 2007-2008 12.00/share
2009-Future 25.00/share
POMWTP- Regular Expenses - 3% increase per year
IStart 2006-2007 additional $936,000
12. Capital Expenditures
lb Route Capital Expenditures
2003-2004 $545,740
2% increase each year thereafter
I Capital Expenditures at JVWCD
2003-2004 $1,117,346
2% increase each year thereafter
I Master Plan Capital Expenditures
2003-2004 $32,000,000
2004-2005 $85,400,000
I 2005-2006 $65,056,000
2006-2007 $25,218,000
2007-2008 $600,000
I 2008-2009 $3,271,000
2009-2010 Forward $4,000,000
with 3% increase after 2010
I13. Long-term Debt: Includes Columns 34-37
Column 34: Deer Creek Project, 2003-2008 $112,761
I ($285,000— 102,243) x 61.7%
2009-Future, ($285,000—76,520) x 61.7% 128,632
Column 35: 2002 A-3 Bonds 421,688 l
Column 36: 2002 A-4 Bonds 557,720
Column 37: 2002 B Bonds 1,621,938
The above payments represent the FY04 bond payments.
These payments vary each year
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 31 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
1
1111 TABLE 11
(CONTINUED)
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE & SANDY
CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
5/13/03
14. CUP Water: Beginning in 2005 —4,000 a.f. per year to 20,000 a.f. at $150.00/a.f.
(Assumes repayment obligation remains at $508,908,000)
15. Master Plan: New Bond Payments
Payment on new bonds to construct new facilities based on 5% interest for 30
years on 1/2 of the bonds and variable rate financing for 1/z of the bonds.
Variable rates start at 1.5% and rise by 2007 to 3.2%.
16. Total Expenditures
Columns 11-15
17. Yearly Net Total
Column 10 less column 16
18. Interest Income: Calculated at 2%per annum in FY03 &04;
3% in FY05; 4% in FY06; 5% thereafter
19. Reserve Balance: Year-end cash position
20. Bond Fund Balance: Estimated bond funds available at year-end.
21. Price per A.F: Price to Salt Lake City and Sandy City per
a.f. of treated water. Does not include capital assessment costs.
22. Bonding Coverage Ratio: Column 10, plus column 18, minus column 11, minus
column 14. This sum divided by the sum of column 13 and column 15.
' 23. Price to purchase CUP. Starts in 2005.
24. CUP water taken each year in acre-feet.
25. Price per A.F: Price to Salt Lake City and Sandy City per a.f. of treated water.
26. Sandy City water in a.f.per Sandy/Salt Lake Agreement.
' 27. Additional water Sandy City is now using and their projected needs in the future.
Includes Sandy's Little Cottonwood Creek water plus surplus Deer Creek water.
28. Sandy's total water purchases each year. Column 26 plus 27.
29. Raw Water Sales to JVWCD
30. Rate to JVWCD for raw water. $150.00
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 32 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
1
TABLE 11
(CONTINUED)
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE & SANDY
CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
5/13/03
31. Treated water sales to JVWCD
32. Rate to JVWCD for treated water. $150.00 raw water rate with added treatment
charge(estimated at $53.00 per acre-foot).
33. Salt Lake City projected water needs from MWD to 2025.
34. Deer Creek Project Payments
' 35. 2002 A-3 Bond Payments
36. 2002 A-4 Bond Payments
37. 2002 B Bond Payments
38. Regular 0 & M expenses at LCWTP and at POMWTP (beginning in 2006- 2007)
with a 3% increase each year.
1110
39. PRWUA annual 0 &M assessment with a 2% increase each year.
' 40. PRWUA annual capital assessment
PRWUA—Capital Improvement Fund
2002-2003 7.00/share
2003-2004 8.00/share
2004-2005 9.00/share
2005-2006 10.00/share
2006-2007 11.00/share
' 2007-2008 12.00/share
2009-Future 25.00/share
' 41. Equivalent water rates for Salt Lake based on column 25 (base water rate),plus
column 7 (capital assessment) divided by column 33 (annual water purchased)
42. Equivalent water rates for Sandy based on column 25 (base water rate),plus
column 8 (capital assessment) divided by column 28 (annual water purchased)
' 43. Equivalent water rates for capital assessment for Salt Lake based on column 7
(capital assessment) divided by column 33 (annual water purchased)
44. Equivalent water rates for capital assessment for Sandy based on column 8
(capital assessment).divided by column 28 (annual water purchased)
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 33 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
IDRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
111
TABLE 11
I (CONTINUED)
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE & SANDY
I CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
5/13/03
1 45. Spot market water purchases for member cities.
46. Treatment cost for spot market water
I47. Routine Capital Expenditures. Based on FY04 budget with a 2% increase each year
thereafter.
I48. Capital Expenditures at JVWCD. Based on FY04 budget with a 2% increase each
year thereafter.
I49. Master Plan Capital Expenditures
b
2004-2009 Estimated expenditure on master plan projects
2010-Forward Estimated $4,000,000/yr with 2% annual increase
I
I
I
I
I
11)
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 34 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
I
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
111 • Increased water rates, note column 21. Rates would increase from $150 to
$213 by Fiscal year ending 2010. From that point on rates increase at
3 percent.
A preliminary list of suggested options for increasing MWDSLS revenues and thus
decreasing MWDSLS rates to the member cities are discussed below:
• Increasing the tax rate. This could effectively flatten any needed water rate
increases.
• Deferring some project costs. Scaling back the size of the water treatment
plant, as an example.
• Providing for variable rate financing for the debt. Providing variable rate
financing for one half of the $200 million dollar bond could effectively reduce
the annual bond payment by$2.0 million.
• Doing some combination of all of the above.
1 Financing Requirements
Based on the assumptions of MWDSLS's cash flow presented above, the District will
have to bond for a total of $200 million. This amount includes the recent $20 million
dollar bond that was approved by the Board in the 2002-2003 fiscal year. The projected
bond amounts for each fiscal year through 2006-2007 are shown below.
Fiscal Year Bond Amount($)
2002-2003 20,000,000
2003-2004 30,000,000
2004-2005 75,000,000
2005-2006 45,000,000
2006-2007 30,000,000
Total $200,000,000
Figure 4 shows the projected expenditures for the capital projects through fiscal year
2008-2009. The figure shows projected monthly and cumulative project expenditures
based on the project schedule and cost estimates presented above.
Monthly expenditures during fiscal years 2004-2006 approach $7 million per month.
The peak fiscal year expenditure is projected to be 2004-2005 with a total of$85 million
in expenditures.
I
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 35 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
MEMBER CITY RATE IMPACTS
In the future, each member city will pay not only water rates charged by the District each
year based on the amount of water used, but will also pay a capital assessment for their
allocated share of the capacity improvement projects as defined in the section above.
The equivalent member city rate will be the total water purchased at the normal water
rate plus the capital assessment, divided by the total water used by each member city each
year. Each component of the member city rates is described in the paragraphs below.
' Water Rates
tProjected water rates for actual water purchased are shown in Table 10 for the next
several years. These rates are expected to increase from $150 per acre-foot in fiscal year
2003-2004 to $213 per acre-foot in fiscal year 2009-2010. After that time, water rates
were assumed to increase by 3 percent per year.
Capital Assessment
Table 10 shows the detailed projected cash flow for MWDLS, and uses the projected
capital assessment for each member city as shown below.
Fiscal Year Salt Lake City Sandy City
b
2003-2004 0 $1,020,000
2004-2005 $3,367,895 $1,987,903
' 2005-2006 and beyond $6,735,790 $3,975,806
These capital assessments are based on the cost allocation discussed in a previous section
1 and financing that cost allocation for 30 years at 5.0 percent interest. This assessment
will allow for each member city to repay the District for specific capacity derived as part
of the master plan. Sandy City will pay a capital assessment in fiscal year 2003-2004.
This assessment is based on the need for Sandy City to pay for their allocated share of
costs for bonding for the projects completed through fiscal year 2003-2004. Revenues to
pay for the bonding that has and will occur before the end of fiscal year 2003-2004 has
i and will be paid for by general District revenues. These revenues are allocated, based on
the last few years of data, 76 percent to Salt Lake City and 24 percent to Sandy City.
Sandy City's cost allocation for many of the capacity improvement projects is
' approximately 37.5 percent. The fiscal year 2003-2004 capital assessment for Sandy
allows them to pay for their fair share of costs until regular capital assessments begin in
2004-2005.
Figure 5 shows projected equivalent water rates including the capital assessment and the
capital assessment portion of those rates for the next several years for each member city.
These rates assume water purchases from the two member cities as shown in Table 10.
As can be seen, water rates for Salt Lake City increase from $150 per acre-foot in fiscal
year 2003-2004 to $350 per acre-foot by 2009-2010. Sandy City's rates increase from
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 36 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
' OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
$223 per acre-foot in 2003-2004, including their 2003-2004 capital assessment, to $425
per acre-foot in 2009-2010.
Water rates without the capital assessment are expected to increase from $150 per
acre-foot in fiscal year 2003-2004 to $213 per acre-foot in fiscal year 2009-2010.
After that time base water rates were assumed to increase at 3 percent per year.
OTHER POTENTIAL IMPACTS
There are otherpotential impacts to the long-term financial viabilityof MWDSLS.
P g
Several of these are discussed below.
Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project
' PRWUA is presently working with its shareholders, including MWDSLS, to develop a
plan for enclosing the PRC. This project is estimated to cost between $90 and
$120 million. MWDSLS as a major shareholder in PRWUA and holder of capacity
rights in the PRC will contribute from $15-$25 million of the project costs. The project
schedule calls for this project to be completed by 2010. This project will affect the
overall cash flow of MWDSLS. Increases to Capital Assessments from PRWUA
anticipate this project.
10 Salt Lake Aqueduct Study Recommendations
MWDSLS has just completed (May 2003) a study of the SLA that identified needed
improvements to the aqueduct, alternatives for expanding its capacity, and long-term
replacement options. The study concluded that there are significant long-term
improvements required to the aqueduct. These costs could have a continuing impact on
the cash flow of the District and were not included in the cash flow analysis for the next
ten years.
Salt Lake Aqueduct Title Transfer
MWDSLS desires to transfer the title of the SLA from the federal government to the
District. This would assist the District in obtaining tax exempt funding for any needed
improvements or long-term replacement of the aqueduct. This title transfer process will
require MWDSLS to repay the loan from the federal government. The schedule calls for
title transfer to occur before the end of calendar year 2005.
EPA Regulations
The Environmental Protection Agency continues to write new regulations on the
treatment and conveyance of drinking water. There will likely be new regulations
requiring new treatment processes in the future. This would require new facilities to
provide further water treatment processes at MWDSLS water treatment plants.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 37 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
OF SALT LAKE&SANDY
1 DRAFT-2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT
11111 Vulnerability Assessment
MWDSLS completed a vulnerability assessment for their system with funding from the
federal government as part of the homeland security legislation. The report identifies
improvements to MWDSLS's system based on security needs. Some of these costs are
111
budgeted for the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Continuing focus on homeland security and its
effects on MWDSLS facilities and staffing are unknown. The federal government could
potentially mandate higher levels of security in the future with associated costs to the
IDistrict.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
I MWDSLS needs to consider additional studies to assist them in their long-term planning
P g
efforts. Some of these are summarized below.
I
Water Supply
PP Y
IAs the drought of the last few years has shown, MWDSLS needs to firm up its water
supplies. CUP water rights (10,000 acre-feet) in Jordanelle Reservoir were used in 2003
to help supplement water supplies for the District. MWDSLS is also pursing Utah Lake
System water from CUWCD. MWDSLS can potentially acquire 10,000 acre-feet of
water supply from the ULS project. In addition to these water supplies, MWDSLS needs
I. to examine ways to firm up its dry year water supplies during periods of extended
drought.
•
IConservation
MWDSLS completed a conservation plan in March 2000. The latest drought and
I conservation efforts by the member cities and all water users in Utah result in a need to
update the conservation plan. MWDSLS should plan on updating the conservation plan
in the next several years.
IMaster Plan Update
I MWDSLS last completed a full update to its master plan in 1987. The 1998 Master Plan
Update only examined certain aspects of the District, focusing on the long-term water
treatment and conveyance capacity needs of their member cities. MWDSLS needs to
Iperform a regular update to its master plan.
I
I
1"
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 38 OF 38 BOWEN,COLLINS&ASSOCIATES
IOF SALT LAKE&SANDY
:111
1
1
i
FIGURES
I
I
It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
OM NV_ N M = MI OM E r MI M I — n — =WM r
1
GREAT )
SALT LAKE I
\-..\ --__/---' ., ,
11 .
/yn
ru city
v
ROCKPoR
wSoma city , c
\0 ' 40MG 6
:I TERMINAL at
JORDAN • F RESERVOIRS
AQUEDUCTWrl $ -
/ '1
SALT LAKE
WISP. IN, AQUEDUCT , Pyrk City - _
TERMINAL-4\ \
RESERVOIR t - ��� �r
CE \ _
•t '3 70 MG
F u.o�ew � JORDANELLE`'
�, y / RESERVOIRlb
RESERVOIR
LITRE COTTONWOOD ��
LITRE COTTONWOOD
\ 1"• CREEK INTAKE - /
JORDAN 11400 •UTH • MURRAY
AQUEDUCT PI' E `; POWER PLANT
REACH 2 INTAKE -- a3
�� e..;,clpy SOUTHEAST
J REGIONAL WTP
.mu-.. < 1 POINTOFTHE MQU,JITNN- r""`
c3 AQUEDUCT(PROPOSED)
3 p t900;• TH T ALPINE DRAPER TUNNEL
SOUTHWES AQU.•UCT .+• Ilrbr
'•
AQUEDUCT •4:
(PROPOSED) POINT OF THE MOUNTAIN
Doper\\ WTP(PROPOSED)
JORDAN
VALLEY WTP - \\\
Do SALT VINE DEER CREEK
�... ' AQUEDUCT
JORDAN •. JORDAN RESERVOIR
AQUEDUCT NARROWS SIPHON
REACH 1 ••.• INTAKE SCREENS
1
JORDAN NARROWS \\ b3 ,
PUMPING PLANT _
JORDANIii,t
MARRO
SIPHON i \_..
LAKE
AM1-• / DEER CREEK DAM
D
aH 4 I/
g m 4\ REEAADCHN AQUEDUCT
itil �..1 P �RESERVOIR -az• �� /,
itii
\
.e � MURDOCK �,..0�,
DIVERSION T'
J
UTAH LAKE � OLMSTED TUNNEL
AND SIPHON
N\ 01. /
i .
et
1111‘.
G
20000 0 20000 Feet
KEY
III Structure
• Reservoir
A Pump Station
Diversion
■ WTP
❑ POMWTP(Proposed) r p4 FIGURE 1
A/ MWDSL&S WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
' MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake&Sandy
No MO Mil al.
noM./ lin Nil IIIIII MIN
gli MI
plmetro water disMct sl0pm003transmission system conceptual designlgolproleets\180101-01_Capacity_Improv.apr
F.
y`\ LCWTP
l_ Con L71i7
W
w SandyIt
m W City I
9400 S
m
v
w / 0Sego Lily Dr - - /!9800 S J _ a
o
/y/
iosao R°en.tyro, / / `
1 ^< rtlerF'r'ara/
f
± Hi :
vi
}II
S
v 4• p
11400 8 11400 S
w e
xa
Sand
S x y
Sesehvost
1 a a i}fig �. Reservoir
30.ech outheas
= Motion ValleyPr. line
pi
I
Of pet Phvri v
12300 S
- _ j �..as
ft
cm..,as • _//
-- Draper
`'....1 h City To
"' t 0 N Legend
Q / //�V�
- - p`' ((( w /POMA Preferred Alignment
® - 132oo S 'V City Boundaries
_ I I POMA Alignment Corridor
w _ �HyMa^4 nr
l a
`° 0 3500 Feet
Q ��
`arcs / '�
`1
F�c /, o
POMP c.
/ n
�$
I-Existing 15000 South ,! N '
48-inch PlpeGrre New 15000 South
/ Pipeline Extension
'r POMA Pomp Station - ---
Proposed -
15000 South
Pump Station Site / • Proposed - -
m POMWTP
3 00 3,rushed Water Raw Water
IReservoir Reservoir
e
PRC Intake
�svt. Structure
'`< FIGURE 2
Provo e CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Reservoir _ _ A 2003 MASTER PLAN UPDATE
d Jordan Aqueduct ' ` Canal �r�"'w� Metropolitan Water DisMd of Salt Lake 8 Sandy
,I Connection Pipeline o -..
Figure 3-2003 Master Plan Update
Proposed Master Plan Schedule
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City
IIPoint of Mountain Water Treatment Plant and Transmission System Facilities
Last Update March 26,2003
ID Task Name Fixed Cool Z002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002 2000 2009 2010 ROtt 2012 2013 2014 2015
$0 01 102 103 104 1 01 102 1 03 104 101 102 103 f QC 101 102 103 104 10,1 02 103 104 101 1 02 I Q3 I CN 101 102 103 104 101 102 103 I Qa Q1 1 Q2 1 Q3 1 iN 01 102 1 03 I Oa 01 1 02 103 104 01 1 02 1 03 104 101 I Q2 103 I Ca II4
1 Little Cottonwood WTP Expansion(LCO11)
2 Design S1.300.000 I_ 1.
3 Construction $16.000.000
4 Constructor.Management Services $1.065.000 '
6 Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant(PM005) $0
6 Design $5..773.605 E__."
7 Mass Excavation 32.500.000 I
$ Belding arts Aware 50
9 Construction of POMWTP 565,000,003 I 1
10 I Construction Management Services 54,000880 I
Float 50
12 Startup on POMWTP 50
13 Begin Operation W POMWTP 50
.611
14 Point of the Mountain Aqueduct(PM009) so
• 15 Pre Design so i
16 Final Design 53800.000
17 Bidding and Award S0
18 Construction 538.000.000 __-- )
i19 Cpmlmclion Management Services $2.000.000 f�'� -- "�
20 Startup Reece283 50 1 RI.
21 POMA•South East Completion(Reach 2 8 3) $0 .IYt
22 Startup Reach 3 50 •
Il 23 POMA.Completion(Reach 3) SO :Bn
24 POMA.POMWTP(Reach t) 50 .1L2Y
25 LCWTP Plant Water(LC015) so
10 26 Design 525.000 tL
27 ConsaucOm $310.000 Ly i
28 Construction Management Services $25,000 I
39 District Instrumentation and Telemetry(AD013) SO
30 Design S23R.000 C_______1
Jt Construction $3.100.000 I
32 Conslruclion Management Services 5100,000 I )
I 33 LCWTP Drainage Separation(LC014) so
34 Design $25.000 •
L.
35 Construction $203,000 +71
36 Construction Management Services 525,000 I
t 3] UTA Bridge Crossing(PM006) SO$)5
30 Pre-Design C
39 Final Design 5200.000 ---1_
1 40 Construction $1,100.000 • I
41 Construction Management Services 5125.000 I
42 POMWTP Finished Water Reservoir(Net)(PM007) $0
43 Pre-Design 5109000 t.
44 Final Design 5200.000 1. I�
45 Construction S5.100.000
1 46 I Construction Management Services 5200.000 .•. I
•
4] LCWTP On Site Improvements(LCO20) so
I 48 Pre-Design 5400.000
�__}l
09 Final Design $1.000.000 L
50 construction $13.435.200
51 Construction Management Services 5400,000 I I
52 POMWTP Finished Water Pump Station(PM008) SO
53 Pre-Design $200.000
54 Final Design 5600,000
PI55 Construction 510.503.000 — —1
56 Construction Management Services 5200000
Task Progress IIM Summary ^ Rolled Up Split Rolled Up Progress Project Summary yy External Milestone IS Deadline
Dale.Tue 5/20/03
Overall Blaster Plan Schedule March Sate Milestone . Rolled Up Task I I Rolled UP Milestone O External Tasks Exlemal Milestone . Enema!Milestone
Page 1
I
Figure 3-2003 Master Plan Update
' Proposed Master Plan Schedule
• Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City
Point of Mountain Water Treatment Plant and Transmission System Facilities
Last Update March 26,2003
I ID Task Name Fine Cost apt Izm3 12004 12005 12006 1200] 12008 I2009 1201 2011 2012 2013 I2o14 I2015
01 1 Q2 1 Q3 1 04 01 1 02 1 03 1 04 01 1 02 1 03 1 04 01 1 02 1 03 1 04 01 1 02 103 104 01 1 02 103 104 01 1 02 103 1 04 01 102 1 03 1 04 0101 02 1 03 1 04 01 1 02 1 03 1 04 CO 1 02 1 03 1 04 01 1 02 103 I 04 Ot 02 1 03 1 04 01 1 02 1 03 1 04
62 POMWTP Offsite Improvements( ) so I
58 Pre-Design 5100.000 I
59 Final Des,gn 52W.000 I_
60 Construction 51,200.000 ----1
61 Construction Management Services 5100.000 I I • I
I 62 POMWTP Raw Water Reservoir(PM011) 50
63 Pre-Design S265.000 C_
64 Final Design $500,000 I I_
65 Construction 57,646.000 -I '
66 Construction Management Services 5500.000
] POMWTP Raw Water Supply(PM010) 50
fie Pre-6014 004,3 5530.000 C
69 Final Design S600.000
70 Construction $11.530.000
71 Construction Management Services S400.000 L I
22 Draper Permitting Issues(PM005) so
73 Permitting Issues 54p60860 C I
1 ]° 15000 South Pump Station(Net)(PM004) so L ---
75 Pre-Design $150.000 C11-.
76 Final Des,gn $300,000
4
I
]] Construction 52.850.000 • 1 I
78 Construction Management Services 5166.000
79 Jordan Narrows Pump Station(JN001) $0
80 Des, 5138.250 1---1-
is81 Construction 51.000.000 � _�
02 Construction Management Services $50.000
63 POMWTP Land Acquisition(PM001) so
04 Land Acams,10,, 54010.000 ♦1211
' 85 Terminal Reservoir(TR002) so
86 Terminal Reservoir Replacement 50
87 Design $1,500.000
8B Construction S17.000.000 •
i 89 Constructor Management Services S1.500.000 I
eo Salt Lake Aqueduct Relocation(SA003) $o _
91 Design S50A20 I J 1
92 LCWTP Seismic Retrofit Project(LC018) so
' 93 Demon S1.000.000 6
aw
94 Constnct0n 513,094.520 I •
95 I Construction Management Services S1,000.000 I —
—
I efi Southwest Aqueduct( ) 50
97 Design $200.OW I
90 Construction 51.770.000
99 Construction Management Services $ om°
I 10D Replace Flocculation at LCWTP( ) so
101 Design S50,000 I_:
102 Construction S2,470.000
I 1
103 Construction Management Services $50,000 i
I 100 LCWTP Filter Valves and Meter( ) so
105 Design S100,000 I
106 Conswa6n S1.100,000 ---1
107 Construction Management Services S94.000 I'' I
I 1g0 LCWTP Sedimentation Basin Weir and Trough( ) so
109 Design S100.000 r-'-__
11 Construction 5700.000 1
111 m Comriclion Management Services S63.000 I
Task L i Progress Summary Rdled Up so, RM.Up Progress - Project Summary 6 .11 External Milestone Deed.
Date.Tue 5I20103
Overall Master Plan Schedule Ma, Split Milestone Rolled Up Task I Rol,Up Milestone Extent Tasks External Milestone Eider.N$lesba'
Page 2
I
Figure 4
IP 2003 Master Plan Update
Projected Master Plan Expenditures -June 2007 Completion Date
I Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake& Sandy
April 14, 2003
$350,000,000 - $12,000,000
I
I ❑Cumulative Cost
$300,000,000 -
❑Monthly Cost' $10,000,000
1
$250,000,000
' 3 Period Total Expenditures($) $8,000,000
- _ Jan 1, 2003-June 2003 2,882,000_
I N - - _ Fisca 3-2084
O $200,000,000 F' al Year 2004-2005 85,410,000 v
_ - Fiscal Year 2005-2006 65,056,000 V
> - Fiscal Year 2006-2007 25,218,000 $6,000,000 >,
I - _ _ Fiscal Year 2007-2008 613,686 a$150,000,000 . - Fiscal Year 2008-2009 3,271,000 G
I - -�� 2
V / - $4,000,000
$100,000,000 //
I 11
I $50,000,000 n // $2,000,000
/
I II - -
illihnnll
$0 , fl fL.- 'I- t rinnnnn nvinnn $0
N M M V V co CO f� h ! I !
IP
OO O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O NN N N N N N N N N N (. N
I TMonths
111111 ONO_ — NE EN I — 0 r — NE ! — ON M NE
Figure 5
Member City Equivalent Water Rates
2003 Master Plan Update
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy
$450
$400 -
$350 -
E
b
m
$300 Salt Lake City Equivalent Water Rate
—II—Sandy City Equivalent Water Rate
A
—A—Salt Lake City Capital Assessment Water Rate
d $250 - - ---- - - -- -
—°, f Sandy City Capital Assessment Water Rate
C. • • •
$200
$150 -
• ♦ ♦ ♦
$100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
•
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 16,2003
SUBJECT•. Changes to the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund Criteria
and a grant to the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund
AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide
STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Department of Community&Economic Development
AND CONTACT PERSON: Alison Weyher,CED Director
LuAnn Clark,HAND Director
At the public hearing on May 13th,comments primarily focused on the following:
• Loan amount
• Collateral requirements
• Interest rates
• Refinancing of existing business debt
• • Closing costs
OPTIONS:
Some options that Council Members have mentioned and may wish to consider indude:
1. Loan amount-The proposed maximum on construction loans is$15,000. The Council may
wish to consider increasing the maximum to provide greater assistance to businesses
negatively impacted by road construction.
2. Collateral-Collateral equal to at least 25% of the loan is proposed to be required.
Collateral can be provided through a lien on property,equipment,inventory,other
business assets or personal assets. The Council may wish to provide more flexibility by
setting a decreased collateral requirement specifically for construction loans or for all
business loans. The Council could opt to give the Administration the authority to make
loans without collateral in some circumstances and request that the Administration
develop criteria to be used for those circumstances.
3. Interest rates-The proposed interest rate for loans is the current prime rate at the time the
loan is approved. The rate that was given in the past for businesses impacted by light-rail
construction was 5%. The Council may wish to consider a lower interest rate for business
impacted by road construction.
4. Refinancing of existing business debt-The proposed criteria doesn't allow the loan
proceed to be used to pay off business debt. The Council may wish to consider allowing
. the consolidation of business debt to be an allowed use of loan proceeds where the
borrower provides documentation that the debt was incurred for business purposes.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The loan program requires a 1%loan origination fee for the regular small business loan program to •
reimburse the City for administrative costs of the program. In addition,the borrower pays costs
for closing the loan at a title company. The propose loan program for businesses impacted by road
construction require that only the costs of the title company are to be paid from loan proceeds;not
the loan origination fee.
The proposed loan program for businesses impacted by road construction provide for deferral of
loan repayments until the construction is complete. The Council may wish to confirm whether interest
accrues during the construction period.
In 1998,the Council approved a loan program for businesses along the Main Street light rail
corridor.
• Number of loans granted: 15
• Maximum loan amount: $10,000
• Interest rate: 5%
• Repayment period: 48 months following completion of construction
• The loans were unsecured.
• To date,three of the fifteen loans have been written off.
In 2000,the Council approved a loan program for businesses along the 400 South construction
corridor. -,
• Number of loans granted: 19
• Maximum loan amount: $15,000 •
• Interest rate: 5%
• Repayment period: 60 months following completion of construction
• The loans were unsecured.
• To date,two loans have been written off,one is likely to be written off,one business closed,
(but the owner is paying off the loan)and an additional business closed and the owner has
left the state. In addition,three loans are chronically one to two months delinquent.
cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,LuAnn Clark,DJ Baxter
•
a,
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
• MIDGET ANALYSIS-- FISCAL-YEAR 2003-04
DATE: May 16, 2003
BUDGET FOR: POLICE DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford
cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Chief Dinse, Jerry Burton,
Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, DJ Baxter
The Police Department made cuts to its 2002-03 adopted budget of $533,170 by
budget amendment. Additional reductions of $528,430 are proposed for fiscal
year 2003-04 for a total of a 2.5% reduction from the adopted budget before salary
adjustments. These reductions include $326,000 of one-time savings. Proposed
salary adjustments including increases to pension and health insurance rates
total $1,855,900. Therefore, the Police Department's budget for fiscal year 2003-
04 is proposed to increase by $794,300 over the 2002-03 adopted budget and
$1,327,500 over the amended budget.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
S
PROPOSED BUDGETS
`�+ `+£. .. '3 -t ;,'�' { i�<s k i 7 t t
+r e7y a��, $ s- .'z `+�'4V ' �. � Gs3zf 1 ;. t k� � #,C 3� � E'.F eg,r t � ,&'� ,..�„ '� ��..,�`�zf� r rz:�y,�� '`tp�,�'*,� -t ,,,,� ,� .""
;� ..,.33��. �`
Administrative Bureau Y << ; j
Administration $2,003,078 $2,040,578 (21.6%)
Management Services
includes dispatch,records, 5,874,860 5,958,393 r .` 422,259 7.1%
technical su...rt 3�
Support Services 1,114,393 1,155,434 - 54,066 4.7%
includes es trainin. &internal affairs � .w
General Services 3,548,645 2,427,527 388,972 16.0%)
Total Administrative Bureau 12,540,976 11,581,932 ' ` > , (353,78 MEM
2
Investi•ative Bureau :-�_„� •. ,,
Detective includes crime lab&evidence unit 6,308,274 6,512,659 ,„ • . 214,748 3.3%
Special Investigations €§�
includes traffic unit(accident 6,575,803 6,811,241 ��r 529,948 7.8%
invest*.atom moto «- -'uad
Total Investi•ative Bureau 12,884,077 13,323,900 _ }s 744,696 5.6%
Operations Bureau
-
�- -�-
Pioneer Patrol 8,637,119 8,416,693 Ellit ° r 582,270 6.9%
` �_
Libe Patrol 8,362,897 8,569,371 ��� � f r� 354,319 4.1%
Total O•-rations Bureau 17,000,016 16,986,064 936,589 5.5%
Total Police Department $42,425,069 $41,891,896 °Ty=r $1,327,503 3.2%
•
1
I
Major reductions to the proposed budget:
• Eliminate one vacant Victim Advocate position ($52,308 savings) - The Victim
Advocate program began under a federal grant to assist victims of crime and has •
been funded in the General Fund for the last three or four years. There are four
full-time Victim Advocate positions; one is vacant. There is also one coordinator
position that was never grant funded. One part-time position remains funded
under a grant. Victim Advocates assist victims and witnesses by providing crisis
intervention, assisting victims in obtaining protective orders, evaluating needs and
making referrals for counseling, housing, legal assistance and other services.
Victim Advocates serve as a liaison for victims with law enforcement and
prosecutors. When determined necessary, Victim Advocates will attend court
proceeding to support victims.
• Eliminate one vacant Youth 85 Family Specialist position ($49,596 savings) - The
Youth and Family program began under a federal grant to help combat the
potential for at-risk youth to become involved in criminal activity. There are
currently four full-time Youth & Family Specialist positions in the Police
Department, one being vacant. The Youth and Family Specialists receive referrals
from various agencies including the City's Police Department and from concerned
individuals within the community. Once a referral is received, a Specialist meets
with the family for a formal assessment. A treatment or referral plan is developed.
Case management includes monitoring academic performance at school, weekly
meetings in the home to monitor the family's progress, crisis intervention,
parenting skills, anger management, and problem solving skills. If the case is
referred to other agencies for services, the Specialist monitors compliance with
those referrals. Youth and Family Specialists also establish an intervention •
program with juveniles who have committed a second legal offense in the
community. The goal of the program is to reduce recidivism, provide resources to
families, and protect the community by improving parental skills and supervision.
The Youth and Family Specialists serve as members of Community Action Teams
(CAT). The Youth and Family Specialist program also monitors cases relating to
the City's parental responsibility ordinance that was a City Council initiative
several years ago.
• Attrition savings ($200,000) - The Police Department realizes some salary savings
for two reasons: (1) timing between when employees leave and when they are
replaced, (2) salary differential between a senior officer and new recruit. The Police
Department uses part of the savings from vacant positions to fund some additional
overtime and to fund retirement payouts. The Police Department is projecting an
additional savings in attrition because several employees are on military leave and
because the department will not need as much attrition savings to supplement
overtime. The actual savings will depend on when those on military leave return
and on how well the Department is able to manage overtime. Most of the savings
will be one-time because of employees on military leave.
• Replacement of officer laptop computers ($94,000 one-time savings) - Laptop
computers in police cars were purchased over a three-year period with the
intent to replace these computers every three years. Because the price of •
laptops came down, the Department was able to upgrade sooner. Since the
computers are all of the new variety, the Department has determined to skip
one year's replacement funding.
2
• Speed board deployment ($39,000 savings) - For fiscal year 2002-03, the Council
funded $50,000 for the Police Department to hire retired officers to deploy the
• speed boards. The Department stated that it was unable to fill these part-time
position because of the shifts required. The Department currently deploys 5
boards in the winter months (due to lack of charging from solar panels) and
approximately 6 boards during other times. Police officers spend 31/a hours
deploying boards during their regular shifts and 31/2 hours on an overtime
basis retrieving the boards. On Saturdays, both shifts are covered on overtime
with no coverage on Sundays. The difference between the $50,000 and
$39,000 remains in the Department's budget to help fund the overtime. The
Council may wish to discuss this method of deployment with representatives of
the Police Department, and confirm that the deployment will continue with the
reduced finding. In addition, the Council Office still receives comments that the
signs are sometimes placed after rush-hour traffic, at mid-morning. The Council
may wish to confirm with the Police whether the signs are in place long enough to
gather adequate data and achieve the desired speed reduction at peak times.
• Vehicle fuel ($50,000 decrease' - The Department is reducing its budget for fuel
based on an analysis of actual usage.
• Delay replacing equipment ($32,000 one-time savings) -The Department proposes
to delay the replacement of copy machines, pedal bikes and other equipment.
• Cell phone and pager costs ($35,000 savings) -The Department will research cell
• phone plans for cost savings opportunities and reduce the number of pagers where
an officer has both a pager and cell phone.
• Shift CDBG salary to CDBG Fund ($40,000 decrease) - In the past, salary
expense for positions within the General Fund that were funded by Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) revenue were recorded as general fund
expenditures and general fund revenue. The Administration proposes budgeting
for these positions directly within the CDBG Fund thereby eliminating the
expenditures within the general fund and the offsetting interfund revenue. The
effect of this accounting change is a reduction in the Police Department of$40,000
relating to partial funding of a Community Mobilization Specialist position and
operating supplies for the Mobile Watch program. This funding will continue but
be accounted for in a special revenue fund.
• State 85 County data processing services ($34,000 savings) - The Department
determined that information that was obtained in the past from the state and
county is now available on the Internet.
• Communication equipment maintenance contract ($149,000 savings) - After
analysis, the Department determined that it would be less expensive to pay for
repairs of communication equipment on a time and material basis than
through a maintenance contract.
• • Office equipment maintenance contract ($21,000 savings) - The Department
will pay for repairs of office equipment on a time and material basis rather
than carry a maintenance contract.
3
• Telephones ($28,000 savings) - The Department has determined that it can
reduce the number of desk telephones and telephone lines.
Increase to revenue: •
• E911 interfund transfers ($346,000 additional revenue): The Police
Department has justified a larger transfer from the E911 Fund to reimburse
the General Fund for the costs of answering emergency calls. State code
requires telephone users to pay a monthly fee of 53 cents for the E911 service.
The City records this revenue to a special revenue fund. The E911 revenue is
restricted to reimburse the City for the cost of answering emergency calls and
related equipment. Dispatching expenses are not eligible for reimbursement.
Major increases to the proposed budget:
• Salary & benefits adjustments ($1,386,448 increase) -The proposed budget funds
the third year of the memorandum of understanding agreed to by the City and the
International Union of Police Associations in June 2001. The term of the
agreement is from July 2001 to June 2004. For fiscal year 2003-04, the
agreement calls for an average increase beginning June 22, 2003 of 2.9%. Merit
pay increases for police officers average 1.26% on the employee's employment
anniversary date unless the employee is already at the top of the pay scale.
Pay adjustments for police sergeants, lieutenants and captains are not negotiated
with a bargaining unit. However, the Administration does work with a group of
employee representatives to review the proposed changes. The budget proposes a
3.5% cost-of-living increase. Merit increase will average only .04% because most •
sergeants, lieutenants and captains are topped out.
Civilian employee in the 200 pay series (e.g., dispatchers, secretaries, crime lab
technicians) are proposed to receive a 2.75% average increase plus merit pay
increases averaging 1.02% according to the memorandum of understanding with
the American Federation of State County 8s Municipal Employees.
Civilian professional employees (e.g., managers & supervisors of civilian positions,
information specialists, youth & family specialists, community mobilization
specialists, victim advocates) are proposed to receive 2.7% general percentage pay
increased that is applied by determining whether each employee is below the
midpoint or above the midpoint. Those below the midpoint will receive a greater
increase and those above the midpoint receive a smaller increase. Since most City
employees in the professional pay plan are below midpoint, the total average
estimated cost for the City is 3.7%.
• Pension rate change ($407,580 increase) - Pension rates for police officers will
increase from 29.24% to 31.35%. Pension rates for civilian positions will increase
from 8.69% to 9.62%. Police officers are eligible for retirement after 20 years
compared to the retirement plan for civilians, which generally requires 30 years of
employment. Police officers are not covered under Social Security. The City
. doesn't need to make FICA contributions for police officers (except for the medical
portion of FICA).
• Health insurance rate change ($61,896 increase'-Health insurance premiums are •
increasing 2%.
4
•
• Long-term disability premiums ($167,000 increase) - By state law the City must
provide long-term disability coverage for police officers. Other city employees have
• the option of obtaining long-term disability insurance by paying the full amount of
the premium. The City is self insured for this coverage, which is administered by a
third party. Police officers are in a separate self-insured pool. The third party
administrator's analysis indicates that there need to be a major increase to
premiums of the Police Department because of increased utilization over the past
several years.
• Fund Community Mobilization Specialists position that was cut from CDBG
funding with General Fund resources ($40,000 increase) - In fiscal year 2002-03
there were four Community Mobiti7ation Specialists, one being partially funded
with CDBG (total cost of the position is $52,000). The Council redirected CDBG
funding for this position for fiscal year 2003-04. The Police Department proposes
retaining the position by funding it with General Fund resources. All four of the
positions are filled; there are no vacancies. The specialists work with the
community/neighborhood councils and Community Action Teams to determine
issues, problems and concerns. The specialists investigate and help resolve these
concerns. The Community Mobilization Specialists provide training in crime
prevention and assist neighborhoods in implementing Neighborhood Watch. Some
Council Districts share a Community Mobilization Specialist. The Council Office
has previously requested data from the Police Department on the functions being
performed by these positions, but has not received specific information. Without
that data and just based upon observation and response to Council Office requests
for meetings with and assistance for constituents, it appears that the degree to
which outreach work is performed by this unit is significantly less than in the past.
• In adopting the CDBG budget, the Council expressed its intent to eliminate one
position that was CDBG funded, and to eliminate another position during the general
fund budget review. This would leave two specialists-one for the eastern area of the
City and one for the western area. The Council may wish to ask for clarification on
the division of duties between the sworn officers assigned to the community outreach
and these civilian positions and determine whether the function could be adequately
addressed by the sworn officer positions with some additional clerical support.
Other items:
• School resource officer grant - The Police Department would like to discuss with
the Council the option of applying for a grant to fund three additional school
resource officers in high schools. If awarded, the grant would pay for actual costs,
up to $125,000 over three years. The total cost over three years would be about
$195,000. The Police Department has made a tentative inquiry with the School
District superintendent, and he is interested in a written proposal. The Police
Department's proposal to the School District will be for the District to fund the
difference between the grant and actual cost. If the school board elects not to
participate at the expected contribution level, the Police Department would return
to the Council for a decision as to whether the proposal warrants general fund use.
The deadline for grant submission is June 2. The grant requires, as is usual in
hiring grants, that the positions be retained for at least one budget cycle beyond
the conclusion of federal funding. General Fund participation would be required in
fiscal year 2006-07. The Council may wish to discuss the option of applying for this
• grant with representatives of the Police Department, and may wish to express a
position on whether the Council would consider the funding if the School Board elects
not to do so.
5
• Overtime - On May 15th, the Council Office received a written report on police use
of overtime (see attached). Actual overtime expense for the first 10 months of the
current fiscal year is $1,035,000 compared to an annual budget for fiscal year
2002-03 of$1,068,100 including court appearance pay. According to the report,
the Police Department has achieved a dramatic reduction in the amount of
overtime. The report states that the Police Chief has committed to pay strict
attention to the use of overtime. Division managers are required to provide a
justification for the use of overtime. Council staff's understanding is that pension
contributions (30%) do not apply to overtime pay. The Council may wish to ask
representatives of the Police Department to further explain changes in the
management of overtime. Please note that because the report was just provided,
Council staff has not had time to review the report in any detail to determine
whether it fully addresses the Council's Legislative Intent Statement.
• Mobile Watch Coordinator-Last year the Police Department proposed to eliminate
the full-time Mobile Watch Coordinator position. The Council funded $23,500 for
a civilian part-time Mobile Watch Coordinator. After additional analysis, the Police
Department transferred one patrol officer to coordinate the mobile watch efforts.
The $23,500 savings is part of the "attrition" savings. The Council may wish to ask
representatives of the Police Department about the need for a full-time officer to
coordinate mobile watch.
• Transfers of costs between bureaus and divisions: The Department realigned
certain costs or functions during the year resulting in transfers of costs between
divisions and bureaus. These transfers include personnel moved to better meet
the changing nature of police service requirements. Periodically, the Police
Administration makes changes to the organization to better meet service demands
and priorities.
• Pioneer Police Precinct Building - Pioneer Patrol and the Training Unit will move
into the new police precinct station at the end of June. The memorial will be
completed in late July or early August.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
The Council issued the following legislative intent statements in June 2002
that relate to the Police Departmental budget.
Overtime within the Police Department - It is the intent of the City Council that
the Police Department make every effort to keep within its overtime budget and
submit a written report to the Council quarterly on actual overtime incurred and
steps taken to reduce reliance on overtime. Specifically, the Council requests that
the Administration complete a detailed analysis on approaches to reduce overtime.
This analysis should include but not be limited to:
• All options to reduce the number of vacant positions (i.e. hiring officers more
frequently;
• All options of workforce scheduling; •
6
• Opportunities to anticipate and accommodate the natural and consistent level
of turnover that occurs in the initial months after hiring (including the
• potential to train more officers than the actual number of positions available);
• Ways in which the Legislative Branch could help address the issue, including
the potential of adding positions to allow the Police Department to take
approaches as outlined in item "c" above.
• The extent to which the Police Department believes it is beneficial to use
overtime in place of regular full time employees in order to manage costs
(expenses for cars, equipment, benefits vs. overtime pay)
• The extent to which holding positions open and using overtime could have a
service level impact or policy impact.
Results/Steps Taken: On May 15th, the Council Office was provided with a
written analysis on police overtime (see attached).
Speed Boards - It is the intent of the City Council that all seven speed boards be
placed on City streets at least five days per week from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
(except when boards are out of service waiting for parts or otherwise not
available). It is the intent of the Council that the Administration consider
contracting for this service.
Results/Steps Taken: The Department proposed in fiscal year 2002-03 to use
hourly retired police officers to deploy the boards. The Council funded $50,000 to
support this effort. The Department was unable to fill shifts required due to work
• schedule required. The Department currently maintains approximately 5 speed
boards during the winter months (due to lack of charging from solar panels) and
approximately 6 during the other times. Three and half hours are spent on duty
deploying and three and half hours of overtime on retrieval per weekday. On
Saturday, both shifts are covered on overtime with no coverage currently provided
on Sunday.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Police Department.
During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or functions
to be added to the Council's list for future audits.
•
7
• ANALYSIS OF POLICE USE OF OVERTIME
Scope
This report will examine the policies and practices which govern the
use of overtime in the Salt Lake City Police Department. It will consider the
basic philosophy and the actual use of overtime, including the percent of
overtime routinely used for each activity. The report will answer the
following questions:
Is overtime used because it is in the budget or because it is
necessary?
Is the Department adequately funded for overtime?
What are the criteria for approving overtime in each division or
squad?
Is there a planned delay in hiring to create attrition saving
which can be used for overtime?
What is the point at which it is more cost effective to hire
additional officers rather than pay overtime to existing officers?
Is the authorized hiring level adequate for the routine service
• needs of the Depai tment?
This report is a response to following legislative intent request
of the City Council:
Overtime within the Police Department-It is the intent of the City Council that the Police
Department make every effort to keep within its overtime budget($716,000 for fiscal year
2002-2003)and submit a written report to the Council quarterly on actual overtime incurred
and steps taken to reduce reliance on overtime. Specifically,the Council requests that the
Administration complete a detailed analysis on approaches to reduce overtime. This analysis
should include but not be limited to:
a. All options to reduce the number of vacant positions(i.e.hiring officers more
frequently);
b. All options of workforce scheduling;
c. Opportunities to anticipate and accommodate the natural and consistent level of
turnover that occurs in the initial months after hiring(including the potential to
train more officers than the actual number of positions available);
d. Ways in which the Legislative Branch could help address the issue,including the
potential of adding positions to allow the Police Depaitiiient to take approaches
as outlined in item"c"above;
e. The extent to which the Police Department believes it is beneficial to use
overtime in place of regular full time employees in order to manage costs
(expenses for cars,equipment,benefits vs. overtime pay);
1111 f. The extent to which holding positions open and using overtime could have a
service level impact or policy impact.
Basic Overtime Philosophy
1111
The Depar tiirent strives to maintain staffing as close as possible to the
authorized level to provide basic police services as well as provide a pool
from which officers are available to work overtime. The Department is
staffed for regular routine service with the philosophy that it is more cost
effective to pay officers to work overtime than to keep additional officers on
the payroll to be available for emergencies or other unusual circumstances.
There is also a saving involved in using overtime rather than increasing
staffing levels because of the additional costs for benefits, equipment and
training. Experience over several years allows the Department to estimate
the amount of overtime that will be required on an annual basis. Basic patrol
functions are not filled using overtime. Short term, emergency or
extraordinary circumstances are a better fit for the use of overtime.
The philosophy of overtime in general is that the job required is
important enough to warrant the payment of premium time to accomplish a
task which cannot otherwise be done in a timely manner. The importance of
a task is determined by division/unit commanders. Chief Dinse has
refocused attention on the definition of"important" in light of budget
constraints. •
Some circumstances may not seem at first glance to rise to the level
of importance to require the use of overtime. For example, when a vacancy
occurs in the dispatch center because of illness or other unplanned leave, the
console must be staffed. Dispatch has determined minimum required
staffing levels and will use overtime when necessary to maintain that
standard.
The Depar tinent is committed to maintaining the optimum balance
between staffing levels and use of overtime. The goal is to use overtime in
the most cost-effective manner, while still meeting the safety needs of the
community. Should it become apparent that there is a more general and
ongoing increase in the need for service, it would then be appropriate to seek
an increase in the authorized level of staffing. The balance is a fine one
between needs and resources.
Actual Overtime Activities
Overtime pay includes extended shifts, special assignments, court •
2
• appearances, special events assistance and other duties not performed during
regular duty hours. A study of overtime use was conducted from April to
November 2002. Each Division was asked to provide information on their
use of overtime. For example, the practice is to use overtime for special
event coverage because, otherwise, officers are being diverted from their
regular duties (such as traffic enforcement). When regular duty officers are
taken off that duty to handle special events, the City losses not only their
support for traffic enforcement, but the related revenue (the motor squad
issues more than 35,000 citations each year generating approximately
$3,000,000 to the General Fund).
The goal of the study was to develop a history of the use of overtime.
In summary, it was determined that, as a percentage of the total spent during
the time period, use was allocated to:
4% Administration
Meetings (internal and external)
2% Training
•
Investigative
21% Follow up (includes kidnap case)
8% Proactive investigations
Operations
13% Field operations
4% Special projects
9% Civilian support
8% Court appearances
21% Special Events (including funerals, parades, summer
community activities)
4% Secondary employment (regular not reimbursed,
reimbursed by the City, reimbursed by outside sources)
6% Meter collection
• 100%
3
"Administration" includes Internal Affairs meetings, Sergeants 4110
meetings, and other functions an officer must attend during his time off.
Parking meter collections are continuing to be made by police officers
while the City does a search for a service contractor. However, the #1
response to the RFP proposed a fee higher than the cost of collection by the
Police Depaitiiient. The Department fee is currently approximately $60,000
per year to collect meters twice a week (see further details in the report from
Dan Mule' in response to the Council's legislative intent on parking meter
collections).
Actual Overtime Costs
Average overtime pay is $30 an hour. A junior officer receives $22
an hour and a senior officer $39. Attachment A details the actual overtime
expenses from 2002 through April of 2003 and the projected expense to the
end of the fiscal year. Police officers are paid overtime rates for secondary
employment. Secondary employment activities are handled by the Police
Department, but 99% of all secondary work is reimbursed to the City. In
some cases it is paid by other City departments for activities such as •
patrolling the impound lot or policing games at Franklin Covey Field or
events at the Gallivan Center. FLSA requires the City to pay overtime rates
because the service the officers are providing is the same service they
provide in their official capacity.
Impact of Authorized Staff Levels and Vacancies on Use of Overtime
Timely police officer hiring is a key element of the Department's
strategy to maintain appropriate levels of service. The Depai tiiient hired up
to authorized strength as of December 2002. Hiring in June, 2003 will return
the Department to authorized levels (see Attachment B- Officer Hiring
History). The national standard for officers to population is 2 per 1000. Our
ratio is currently 1.53 per thousand, based on a weighted average of 268,000
service population (Salt Lake City's resident population is 182,000 and our
daytime service population is 382,000). The Department's six year plan
includes a proposal to maintain the 1.53 ratio over the next 6 years. Using
the Salt Lake County and City census as a model, they project that Salt Lake
City's service population in 2010 will be 326,000. Therefore, the
Department will plan to increase by 87 officers over that period at the rate of •
4
• 9 officers per year, beginning in FY2005 (including 1 sergeant position, 8
officers and 2 civilian support staff). The Department plans to meet national
standards for officer to population ratios over the next six years if the budget
allows.
The Police Depai tiiient contends that you must hire five additional
officers to have one more officer on the street at all times. That statistic is
arrived at in the following manner:
24 hours
x 365 days
8,760 hours
That figure is divided by the 2080, the number of hours a year for each FTE.
At that rate we would need 4.2 officers to give constant coverage. Then we
must subtract hours for vacation, holidays, sick leave and training, arriving
at 1824 hours per officer. Therefore, constant coverage would require 4.8
officers to maintain one additional authorized position 24 hours a day, seven
days a week, and would result in a cost of$425,000 the first year due to the
• need to supply a car and other equipment. That cost would drop in the
second year and then begin to increase with longevity and replacement
equipment costs.
Conclusion
The Police Department is constantly reviewing the use of overtime in
each division. Managers in each division are required to report the use of
overtime and to justify their use of overtime. The Depaitiiient has managed
to achieve a dramatic reduction in FYO3 in the amount of overtime used
beyond that budgeted. The Department does not, by policy or practice, delay
hiring up to authorized strength to achieve savings which can be used to
fund overtime. The timing of retirements or openings for other reasons may
result in some attrition savings. When that happens, the savings may be
used to offset overtime expense, such as that experienced by the Records
Unit (see Attachment C).
Chief Dinse has committed to pay strict attention to the use of
overtime and to the relationship between overtime and the authorized staff
410 level. It is a balance that cannot be viewed as a straight target, but is open to
various interpretations. It is difficult to identify the exact point at which it
5
would be more cost effective to raise the authorized staffing level and pay
less overtime. The Department has tied that decision to population .
increases. It might also be tied to increases in certain types of crime or a
decision to target a specific area or crime. The Department's business plan
describes the formula they intend to use to increase the number of sworn
officers and support staff(referenced on page 4 of this report).
•
•
ATTACHMENTA
FY 03 Overtime Budget Allocation
General Fund
as of April 2003
10 month
difference-
FY 02 Budget Budget vrs May-Jun YTD Budget
Allocation FY 03 Budget Jul-Apr Budget Jul-Apr Expense Actual Projected Total Expense less expense
Administration (Includes Intell,Admin Svs) 26,000.00 27,000.00 22,500.00 43,908.00 (21,408.001 8,781.60 52,689.60 (25,689.60)
Management Services 4,000.00 4,000.00 3,333.33 6,114.00 (2,780.67) 1,222.80 7,336.80 (3,336.80)
Communications(Includes Tech Support) 97,000.00 141,000.00 117,500.00 103,350.00 14,150.00 20,670.00 124,020.00 16,980.00
Records 16,000.00 16,000.00 13,333.33 16,454.00 (3,120.67) 3,290.80 19,744.80
(3,744.80)
Special Investigations 103,000.00 106,000.00 88,333.33 152,728.00 (64,394.67) 30,545.60 183,273.60 (77,273.60)
Detective(Includes Evidence, Crime Lab) 64,000.00 66,000.00 55,000.00 89,806.00 (34,806.00) 17,961.20 107,767.20 (41,767.20)
Pioneer 52,000.00 61,000.00 50,833.33 50,530.00� 303.33 10,106.00 60,636.00 364.00
Liberty 69,000.00 50,000.00 41,666.67 64,934.00 (23,267.33) 12,986.80 77,920.80
Training/Internal Affairs(Includes FTO) 18,000.00 12,000.00 10,000.00 11,603.00 (27,920.80)1
Field Training Officer (1,603.00), 2,320.60 13,923.60 ( ,923.60)
Special - 20,000.00 16,666.67_ 19,176.00 (2,509.33) 3,835.20 23,011.20
Employment
less (3,011.20)
events/Secondary
reimbursed amounts 247,000.00 254,000.00 211,666.67 236,811.00 (25,144.33) 17,189.00 254,000.00
Court Appearance Pay 300,000.00 311,100.00 259,250.00 239,830.00 19,420.00 47,966.00 287,796.00 23,304.00
Total 996,000.00 1,068,100.00 890,083.33 1,035,244.00 (145,160.67) 176,875.60 1,212,119.60 (144,019.60)
YTD Budget for Spec Evts in question
Divisional YTD expenses are reduced by
reimbursements received to date
meter collection OT is reduced from Pioneer
Items billed out for S.ecial Investigations funds not received
OCEDEFT Lab-yrinth 10,068.80
• • •
ATTACHMENT B POLICE OFFICER HIRING HISTORY
updated 5-3-03
Calendar Year Sworn III
Month In Out Net Actual
Existing Filled/Vacancy 414 18 396 396
January-00 7 5 2 398
February-00 0 1 -1 397
March-00 0 1 -1 396
April-00 15 1 14 410
May-00 0 0 0 410
June-00 0 _ 1 -1 409 Authorized 414
July-00 1 2 -1 408 Avg,Actual 404
August-00 1 3 -2 406 Vacancies 10
September-00 0 4 -4 402
October-00 0 0 0 402
November-00 0 4 -4 398
December-00 14 0 14 412
Yr-Total 38 22 16
January-01 0 2 -2 410
February-01, 0 4 -4 406
March-01 1 1 0 406
April-01 0 1 -1 405
May-01 1 2 -1 404
June-01 1 0 1 405 Authorized 414 _
July-01 2 5 -3 402 Avg,Actual 405
August-01 1 1 0 402 Vacancies 9 •
September-01 11 5 6 408
October-01 0 3 -3 405
November-01 1 2 -1 404
December-01 0 1 -1 403
Yr-Total 18 27 -9
January-02 0 3 -3 400
February-02 0 0 0 400
March-02 0 0 0 400
April-02 1 2 -1 399
May-02 0 0 0 399
Add 2 HIDTA grant positions 401
June-02 0 5 -5 396 Authorized 413 _
Transfer 1 Airport Chief position 395 Avg,Actual 401
Delete 1 Police Officer position 394 Vacancies 12
July-02 0 1 -1 393
August-02 15 3 12 405
September-02 1 3_ -2 403
October-02 1 1 0 403
November-02 1 1 404
December-02 4 2 2 406
Yr-Total 23 20 3
•
• January-03 6 3 3 409
February-03 1 4 -3 407
March-03 0 3 -3 404
April-03 0 6 -6 398
May-03 4 3 1 399
June-03 0 0 0 399
July-03 0 0 0 399 Authorized 412
August-03 0 0 0 399 Avg,Actual 401
September-03 0 0 0 399 Vacancies 11
October-03 0 0 0 399
November-03 0 0 0 399
December-03 0 0 0 399
Yr-Total 11 19 -8
•
A -f-+C1/4.C. wtevtT a
CI; �,.
POLICE DEPARTMENT ,nut •
CHART-ES F. "RICK" OINSE ROB C. "ROCKY" ANDEReDt
CHILL'De POL.IGC MAYOR
January 16,2003
EC I
VE4
Chief Charles Dinse 01, a�Imo
Administration
Salt Lake City Police DepartmentS.
p
wr�r
Reference; Request for overtime funding for Ticket Entry &t/' (JM ��' F' �r
Dear Chief Dinse:
The Records Unit has historically experienced an on-going backlog for the traffic ticket data entry. Overtime funding has
been used in on effort to remain current with the data entry. Best efforts to remain within the budgeted'funding,
apportioned on a monthly basis, have been unsuccessful. While overtime has been posted specifically for ticket entry
when the need arose and funding was, at that point in time, available,other overtime demands such as shift coverage and
working out of class has placed the Unit in a status of"over budget"for the July to December 2002 timeframe.
There is funding remaining in the Records Unit budget;however,it is not sufficient to carry through to the end of the year,
especially, if overtime were 10 be used for traffic ticket entry.
The philosophy and commitment made by the Records Unit was to provide one time data entry and to remain current with
the ticket data entry. The one time entry was for the benefit of the Justice Court in the avoidance of a re-keying
requirement by Court personnel into the Court system. The steady reduction in the authorized staffing level of the Unit an
the normal attrition of personnel from the Records Unit has left the Unit without the necessary personnel resources to address
the traffic ticket workload. The unsuccessful pilot of electronic ticket generation further compounded the issue negatively.
During the second quarter of this fiscal year, 133 hours of overtime was used specifically for the entry of traffic ticket data. In
the first quarter, the Unit was not up to staffing level. During the second quarter,the training of new employees further
impacted the staffing of the Unit_ Whenever a new employee is in training,the Unit is,in essence,reduced either by one full
position or partial position depending on the new employee's point in the training program. During October,there were
two new employees in training,in November,three, and in December,there were four. Thus a comparable staffing loss for
data entry as well as other responsibilities of the Records Unit existed during that timeframe and continues as of this date.
The overtime expense for the Records Unit as of December 31,2002,was 6,335.36. This expenditure covered the backlog,
shift coverage, training and working out of class funding needs. The current unexpended budget funding is$2769.00,
Based on the first half of the fiscal year expenditure.the projection for funding needed for the remaining half of the fiscal
year is approximately$3561.00. This amount would include funding to cover shift coverage,training, working out of class
and a modicum of overtime funding to be dedicated to the traffic ticket data entry backlog.
It is respectfully requested that consideration be made for increasing the funding for the Records Unit to be able to meet
the general commitments as well as funding specifically for the entry of the traffic ticket data.
Sincerely,(
Acsa1ind'y.;N'wf1
R cod rb it tor"
larrryyduront.S'rr'vioos(Division
Sall l:akg`City('mce Department
•
315 EAST 200 SOUTH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 11
1'I LEPHONir: 801-799.3000 FAX: 801-799.3s57
�� nc_.aav oerc«
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
• BUDGET ANALYSIS—FISCAL YEAR 2003-04
DATE: May 16, 2003
BUDGET FOR: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears
cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom,
Greg Davis, Nancy Sanders, Steve Fawcett, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter
The budget for the Department of Public Services for fiscal year 2003-2004 is
proposed to be $34,063,834. This proposed budget represents an increase of
4.52% or $1,474,613.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
PROPOSED BUDGETS
Adopted Proposed Difference Percent Change
2002-2003 2003-2004
Office of the Director $1,883,951 $2,072,994 $189,043 10.03%
(budget,planning,training,safety,
. communications,contract management)
Streets 8,673,947 7,890,222 ($783,725) (9.04%)
(maintenance of streets,sidewalks&
signals;snow removal;signing and marking;
street sweeping)
Parks 6,313,465 6,712,021 $398,556 6.31%
(maintenance includes City Cemetery and
Graffiti Removal program)
Engineering 4,580,445 n 4,560,828 ($19,617) (0.43%)
(engineering,surveying,mapping,design of
City-owned facilities,oversight of work in the
public way,review of private development
projects,)
Facility Management 4,934,602 5,650,883 $716,281 14.52%
(maintenance of City-owned buildings,
Franklin Covey Field,downtown and
Sugarhouse business districts)
Compliance 1,621,569 2,147,899 $526,330 32.46%
(parking enforcement,crossing guards,
impound lot)
Gallivan Utah Center 1,200,319 1,233,491 $33,172 2.76%
(reimbursed by Redevelopment Agency)
Youth&Family Programs 1,095,556 1,484,444 $388,888 35.50%
(provides intervention activities and
assistance for at-risk youth and families
primarily at the Sorenson Multi-Cultural
Center)
Urban Forestry 1911875 1764395 ($147,480) (7.71%)
(protects and maintains City-owned trees.)
Community Events 373,492 546,657 $173,165 46.36%
(including activities at the Gallivan Utah
Center,Celtic Festival,SLC Class,24th of
•
July celebration)
• Total $32,589,221 $34,063,834 $1,474,613 4.52%
•
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE
Some of the major changes reflected in the proposed budgets include:
4111
• Elimination of positions - The Department of Public Services is recommending
the elimination of 6.96 FTE. The reduction of clerical support in Forestry
accounts for 0.37 of this. This is offset by a 0.10 increase for the general fund
portion of a fleet accountant. A vacant engineering survey party chief accounts
for 1.00 FTE of the total and the remaining 5.69 FTE is a result of the proposed
reduction in the 50/50 concrete program.
• Addition of positions - The Department is recommending the addition of 9.85
FTE. A new safety position to assist in reducing department worker
compensation and third party liability costs, increased weekend and night-time
supervision at the Sorenson Center and seasonal park employees represent
5.35 FTE of the total 9.85 increase. The remaining 4.51 FTE increase to
Department staffing is a result of a proposed transfer of employees from the
Mayor's Office and from Community and Economic Development. As noted in
the budget book there were 2.27 FTE added during fiscal year 2002-2003
budget amendments.
• Attrition - The Department is showing attrition expense reduction of 68,446.
Attrition is a gradual, natural reduction of personnel through retirement,
resignation or termination.
• Park and Tennis, Special Event Fee Increases - The Department is
recommending several changes to the Parks and Recreation Fee Ordinance.
The Council may wish to review the Administration's Park Use Policy as
they review the proposed revisions to the ordinance. The Department is
recommending fee increases in park rental fees and tennis court rental fees.
A. The Department is recommending city owned athletic facility rates be
revised, that staff time for cleaning be charged and that park facility fees
and recreation kit fees be increased. The Council may wish to include
maintenance or repair of property in the section that discusses staff
time for cleaning. There may be instances where damage to the
athletic facility occurs, rather than just the need to clean the facilities.
The Council might also wish to review the recreation kit fees and
choose fees that are whole dollar amounts. There are separate charges
proposed for residents and non-residents. These rates were the result of
activity based costing and were set to recoup the full cost of providing these
services. The desire to provide a financial benefit to residents resulted in a
separate fee structure for residents and non-residents. This is consistent
with previous Council statements. A market study of surrounding
municipalities and other capital cities showed city charges comparable to
most local municipalities (though not all) but lower than all capital cities.
B. The department is recommending an increase in tennis court fees. Fees are
only charged at the Dee Smith Tennis facility and Liberty Park Tennis •
Center. The fee at Dee Smith Tennis courts is proposed to increase from four
dollars per hour, per court, to five dollars. This fee would apply every day, all
day, from facility open to close. During non-operation hours, when facility
supervision is not present, tennis play is free. The fee at Liberty park Tennis
• Center is proposed to increase from two dollars to three dollars, per hour,
per court, on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM and four
dollars to five dollars, per hour, per court, between the hours of 5:00 PM to
close. On weekends and holidays at Liberty Park, the fee is proposed to
increase from four dollars to five dollars per hour per court all day from
open to close. During non-operation hours, when supervision is not present,
tennis play is free at Liberty Park. Except for Dee Smith and Liberty Park
Tennis centers, play on any other tennis court owned by the City is provided
free of charge. The fees charged at Liberty Park are to remain different than
fees charged at Dee Smith Tennis courts because Liberty Park functions as
a community park that serves a community constituency with a lower and
more diverse economic demographic. The Council may wish to confirm
the court rental policy of the City and determine if the courts should
be charged the same rate. Previously there was a differential between
fees at the Steiner Aquatic Center on Foothill and the aquatic center
associated with the Sorenson center. Since the facilities have been
moved to County management, the fees have been standardized.
C. The department is recommending changes to the section of the Parks and
Recreations Fees Ordinance that deals with Special Events entrance fees. As
noted on the revised ordinance some Salt Lake City produced or sponsored
events are to be free to the public, other City special events are to have no
• more than a $25 entrance fee. Other City special events are proposed to
have entrance fees set by outside private companies.
• Parking Meter - The Department is showing and added expense of$92,700 in
the recommended budget to pay for the installation of parking meters on 300
South, 300 East and 400 West. The Department of Public Services is
responsible for the installation, maintenance and enforcement of the parking
meters. Planning for the location of the meters is handled by the Transportation
Division. Parking meter revenue collection is handled by the Police Department
and expenses for the collection are paid by the Department of Management
Services. The revenue from parking meters is received by the Treasurer's Office.
It is estimated that 350 parking meters will be installed. The cost to install one
meter is $450. The Council may wish to confirm that there are sufficient funds
available to install the necessary meters. The Council may wish to ask the
Administration whether maximum efficiency can be maintained with the
involvement of 4 different City Departments in issues associated with parking
meters. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration what level of use
the estimated revenue is based upon; for example, has the Administration
considered whether the use rates could drop due to the increase in the hourly
rate? In addition, the Council may wish to ask how the Administration is
estimating ticket revenue - will the same number of parking enforcement
officers be able to monitor an expanded area and is it anticipated that ticket
• revenue be increased?
• Pension/Insurance rate changes - The Department is recommending increases
to the pension rate and insurance rate expenditure categories due to higher •
costs to the City. Health insurance is projected to increase by 2%. Pension
expenses are expected to increase 8.7% and 10.7%.
• Increase Maintenance Expenses - The Department is now responsible for the
maintenance of additional buildings and City facilities that have came "online"
during fiscal year 2002-2003. The maintenance and utility expenses at Plaza
349 result in a $290,000 increase to the Department budget. The West Side
Police Precinct adds $123,000 and the Library Square Plaza area $60,400.
There is also a transfer from Management Services of$82,000 for maintenance
expenses at the Courts Building. There will be an additional increase in the
Library Square expenses next year as the east side of the block is completed.
• Youth Services - The Department is recommending the addition of the Youth
Services program from the Mayor's Office. The addition of the program and the
corresponding staff increase results in a department reorganization. Staff
transferred from the Mayor's Office will now manage the Youth and Family
Programs division. The division now has Global Artways, Sorenson Multi-
cultural Center and Youth Programming/Youth City Government. With the
proposed transfer, $157,000 in youth services budget will come from non-
departmental and $161,474 from the Mayor's Office.
• Events Program - The Department is recommending the addition of the Events
Programming from the Community and Economic Development Department.
The proposed addition of the program and the corresponding staff increase will 111
result in a consolidation of the City's events programming. The proposed
transfer increases the Department budget by $189,992.
• Salary Increases - The Department is recommending an increase of $502,518
in salary expenses. This increase is approximately one third of the department
budget increase. The proposed personal service cost increase assumes a 3%
increase in base salaries plus merit increases for employees covered by union
contracts.
• Fleet - The Department is recommending that $568,944 in fleet replacement
costs be transferred to the Non-Departmental Fund. There is an additional
savings of$208,999 in fleet maintenance and fuel savings. The transfer to Non-
Departmental is a result of the prior year transfer of Forestry and Street
Sweeping from the Refuse Fund to the General Fund. The amount reflects the
ongoing fleet replacement costs of these programs and it should be
consolidated with the other General Fund fleet replacement budget which is in
Non-Departmental rather than in the Department budget. The Department
fleet savings is a result of newer vehicles and equipment, better fleet
maintenance practices, more efficient use of vehicles, and lower fuel costs.
This staff report is only for the Public Services Department. Additional briefings on
the Fleet Internal Service Fund, Refuse Fund and Golf Fund will occur in the
coming weeks. •
d
Additional Information
•
BACKGROUND
The Public Services Department provides many of the direct, day-to-day services
Salt Lake City residents and visitors receive. They repair streets, maintain parks
and public open spaces, operate golf courses, provide culture, education &
recreation activities for at-risk youth and families, remove snow, remove graffiti,
trim trees, dispose of refuse, sweep streets, maintain traffic signs and signals,
enforce parking ordinances, and many other activities. The department also
provides services which are more indirect, or long-term, in nature such as
managing the City's vehicle fleet, and maintaining public buildings.
FIVE-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN (Goals and measurable results)
The Department of Public Services prepared a five-year business plan in fiscal year
2000-01 to help guide the budgeting process and provide a means for
management to better evaluate overall Department performance. The business
plan identifies goals and objectives of the Department. The plan was updated for
fiscal year 2003-2004 to include department targets through fiscal year 2008-
2009. In order to assist the Council in evaluating progress, Council staff has
attached the Administration's responses to the measures.
• The Department has the following six service guidelines that they follow as they
interact with their customers:
• Professionalism
• Responsiveness
• Partnership
• Stewardship
• Cost Effectiveness
• Creativity
The following core values are examples of the statements that make up the
Department's guidelines:
• We perform accurate, complete and fully planned work.
• We attempt to satisfy every customer we serve.
• Our activities are done at customer convenience.
• We make every attempt to cut through "red tape."
• We provide timely response to questions and timely resolution of problems.
• We seek input from and listen to our customers and employees.
• . We provide safe conditions for ourselves and our customers.
•
a
BALANCED SCORECARD PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance Measurement 2003 Target Mar •
2003
Customer Service
Mean score of at least 6.5 out of 7
Citywide(Dan Jones)Survey:Customer Satisfaction with City Services Pow_ %satisfaction
n/a
Division Customer Service Surveys: Percent Satisfied with Service >_92%satisfied With the service o
Provided provided95/o
Mean score of at least 6.0 out of 7
Citywide(Dan Jones)Survey:Perceived Park Safety During Day points=>_85%feel safe to very n/a
safe in the day
Mean score of at least 3.5 out of 7
Citywide(Dan Jones)Survey:Perceived Park Safety During Night points=>50%feel safe at night n/a
Mean score of at least 6.0 out of 7
Citywide(Dan Jones)Survey:Overall Quality of Life Rating points=>_85%(high to very high n/a
rating)
Percent Reduction in Amount of Energy Used by City >8% n/a
Increase in Amount of Alternate Fuel Used by City >10% n/a
Increase in Percentage of Waste Stream Recycled(in tons)from City and >12% n/a •
Residents
Reduction in Amount of Water Used for City Landscaping >_12% n/a
Financial Health
Year to date actual revenues as compared to year to date budgeted >100%of budgeted revenue 97%
revenues
Year to date actual expenditures as compared to year to date budgeted
<_100%of budgeted expenditures 92%
expenditures
Implementation of Zero-Based/Activity-Based Costing Approach to °
Budgeting(100%of department over 5 years) >_20/o of department n/a
Percent of Goals and Objectives Established During 5-Year Business >85%
Planning Process n/a
Fleet Fund will Maintain Adequate Retained Earnings by Adding at Least >1% n/a
1%of Revenues Per Year to their Retained Earnings
Department will Perform a Quarterly Analysis of their Actuals to 100% 100%
Budgeted Expenditures and Revenues •
Efficiency&Effectiveness •
6
Percent of performance measurement targets addressing program >90%of division performance 70%
• efficiency and effectiveness met measurement targets met
Identify and Benchmark 1 Significant Process Against Best-in-Class >1 n/a
Implement Process Improvement Teams and Continuously Improve the >2 n/a
Process
Implement 2 Environmental Improvement Tasks per year from the >2 n/a
Environmental Management System(EMS)Priorities
Train 1/3 of Department Employees in Customer Service Skills Yearly >_33% n/a
Establish a Baseline for Customer Satisfaction and Improve Upon Baseline establish baseline(see customer
by 5%over 5 Years service) n/a
Establish a Baseline for Community Participation and Improve Upon establish baseline n/a
Baseline by 25%over 5 Years
Golf and Sanitation will Make Capital Investments in Accordance with
their 5-Year CIP '-100% n/a
Workforce Quality
Employee survey results >_80%of employees satisfied with
position as a whole n/a
• Ensure 90%of new hires are rated satisfactory or above on their five- >90% n/a
month new employee performance appraisal
Ensure that the ratio of applicants remains higher than the ICMA's >25 n/a
benchmark per year
Maintain a turnover rate below 10%per year <10% n/a
Develop a strategic training plan by June 2003 and have employees
complete required training 90%of the time and improve by 5%over 5 establish baseline n/a
Years
Percent of division training and technology targets met >_80% 100%
Increase percentage of minority employees hired per year >+1% n/a
Increase percentage of female employees hired per year >+1% n/a
Increase outreach and recruitment of disabled individuals. Establish establish baseline n/a
baseline and improvement goals
Increase participation in diversity training at all levels of the organization.
Train all managers and supervisors in FY03 and all employees within five 20% n/a
years
Complete Employee Performance Plans by June 2003 100% n/a
Evaluate full-time employees semi-annually 100% n/a
•
Complete 100%of the Infrastructure Replacement Schedule per year 100% n/a
Complete 20%of the identified internal business services via the web per 20% n/a
year
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
The Council issued the following legislative intent statements in June 2002 that
relate to the Department of Public Services. The Council may wish to consider
both of these Legislative Intents complete and close them.
Privatization of the City's Impound Lot Operations - It is the intent of the City
Council that the request for proposals to privatize the impound lot operations be
broad enough to allow the existing employees to bid as a group, if they so desire.
Results/Steps Taken: An RFP was prepared that was consistent with the
Council's intent. No employee groups bid on the contract. Services were ultimately
kept in-house. The Council was briefed on this topic November 21. A budget
amendment was approved on December 10 increasing fees to a level that would
fully recover the costs of the program.
Engineering Costs - It is the intent of the City Council that the cost of engineers •
and architects within the Department of Public Services be more fully allocated to
capital improvement projects. The Council requests that the Administration
provide a quarterly report to the Council regarding the costs that were allocated
compared to total costs.
ResultsjSteps Taken: The Public Services Department performed a review of
engineering fees billed to the CIP Fund and have adopted new engineering fee
policies to ensure that fees are billed to the CIP Fund in a manner consistent with
Council intent. The engineering fee policies as adopted by the department are
attached.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Department of Public Services.
During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or functions
to be added to the Council's list for future audits.
R
SA LA igerkY-COUNG "ST: lI ORT•
ET ANAUSIS=Fish: EAR 2003- 4
DATE: May 16, 2003
BUDGET FOR: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones
cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Alison Weyher, David Dobbins,
Steve Fawcett, Laurie Dillon, DJ Baxter, and Michael Sears
The proposed budget for the Department of Community and Economic
Development (CED) for fiscal year 2003-2004 is $8,561,426, representing a
decrease in expenditures of$968,008 or 10.16%, as compared to FY 2002-2003.
1 • •,. - • '+r 1 ' ' •1' 1 ' • ' • II 1 ' $ '
PROPOSED BUDGETS
2 ask ar i Z. s
Office of the Director $ 452,891 $ 430,987 95.16%
Transportation(planning&design,parking permit program,traffic
S
controls,issues permits for use of right-of-way,traffic calming program, 2,420,358 23,247 .96%
street li.hts
Building Services&Licensing(construction code enforcement, : `>
business licensing) 2,139,190 :5 21,980 1.03%
Planning
(master plans,zoning,environmental reviews of proposed development 1,550,410Vt7Y.:4,4*)f-' 1,240,830 80.03%
projects,support to Historic Landmark Commission and Planning
Commission Ag
Housing&Neighborhood Development(housing inspection,
residential rehabilitation&first-time 2,494,663I (2,169,170) (86.95)%
homebuyer's assistance programs,
administers&monitors various grants, TN
support to Community Development :xE
Advisory Committee and the Housing
Adviso &A..eals Board
Business Services
(recruiting new businesses,special event permits,Arts Council,small 471,922
business revolvin.loan fund,su..ort to Business Adviso Board f" ;;;;.,,;7
Total $9,529,434 e , $(968,008) (10.16)%
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE
The major matters of issue reflected in the proposed budgets include:
• Elimination of positions -
The Planning Division's budget is decreasing in the amount of$89,062
resulting from the elimination of a vacant research analyst position from
Planning Administration, and the elimination of a vacant zoning inspector
• position from Housing and Zoning. Both positions were cut by budget
amendment. (Currently, a 15-day grace period exists, allowing property
owners to respond after the inspector's initial visit. With the elimination of the
zoning inspector, the Administration is proposing that the 15-day grace period
be eliminated, and that nuisance letters be generated after the zoning
inspector's initial visit. The letter allows property owners 30 days to respond
before fines begin to accrue.) •
There is a $69,640 decrease in the Building Services and Licensing Division's
budget resulting from the elimination of a vacant building inspector position
and a vacant development review planner (unit legalization). Both positions
were eliminated by budget amendment. (The request for daily building
inspections has decreased to approximately 100-120 per day. In 2001, the
request for inspections was 140-165 per day.)
In this proposed budget, Business Services will be eliminated, with the
division's Arts Council and Economic Development programs merging into the
CED Office of the Director, and the Special Events programming and
permitting functions being transferred to the Public Services Department. The
specific changes are:
❖ Special Events Administrator position (1 FTE) transferred to Public Services.
❖ Special Events Administrative Assistant seasonal position (changed from a
full-time position in FY 03 to seasonal) transferred to Public Services.
❖ Economic Development Manager position (1 FFE) in the Business Services
Division will become part of the CED Office of the Director.
❖ The Arts Council (4 Kr Es) will rollup into the CED Office of the Director's
budget.
•
Additionally, the Events Manager position (1 FTE) in the CED Office of the
Director will be transferred to Public Services.
These changes result in a budget transfer of 2 1+'1'Es and a seasonal position,
and $189,988 in budget to the Public Services Department. The CED Office of
the Director budget will increase by approximately 95% as a result of
absorbing the Arts Council and Economic Development functions.
• CDBG Reallocation-The Mayor's Budget recommends that all of the CDBG
salary and operations funding in the CED division be moved from the General
Fund to the Special Revenue Fund. This move contributes to an overall
reduction in the CED budget.
In order to remain consistent with this approach, the Council may wish to
consider moving salary and operational costs and funding for ESG, HOME, and
HOPWA to the Special Revenue Fund.
• Traffic Control Center-A portion of the maintenance and staffing of the Traffic
Control Center is currently being covered by federal funds. These funds will
not be available after fiscal year 2003-04. The City will be responsible for the
costs which are estimated at $175,000 in 2004-05. The Council was made
aware of this situation previously and had elected to take advantage of the •
2
availability of the federal funds, and had planned on this shift to the General
411 Fund.
• Reduced Electricity Rates for Street lighting- It is anticipated that the annual
cost of providing electricity to the City's streetlights will be $25,000 less than
what was previously budgeted. (Utility rates did not increase as expected.)
The Council may wish to consider transferring this utility cost to Non-
Departmental in order to remain consistent with the way the City's share of
electrical costs for special assessment district street lighting is accounted for.
Given that Utah Power this week asked the Utah Public Service Commission
for permission to raise rates 12.5 percent, the Council may wish to confirm
whether this reduction is still realistic.
• Salary and health insurance increases - Personal service costs assumes
increases in base salaries plus merit increases for employees covered by union
contracts. Health insurance is projected to increase by 2%. Pension costs by
will increase by 8.7 and 10.7%.
• Travel and Training Budget-The travel and training budget is very limited in
this department due to previous reductions. This could potentially affect the
Department's ability to provide training for new board members, particularly
• members of the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission.
In previous years, Council Members have expressed concern that this
department employs a high percentage of certified professionals who require
ongoing education and training to maintain their certification. If budget
reductions are necessary, the CED Administration would prefer to retain staff
rather than maintain the travel and training budget.
• Council Member Initiatives -There are two initiatives that Council Members
have expressed interest in relating to this Department. Those will be
scheduled for discussion on an evening when all Council Members are in
attendance. Written information will be provided in advance. The initiatives
are:
Council Member Jergensen: Fund development of a design review process
and/or design guidelines.
Council Members Lambert and Love: Fund open space trust and establish
open space trust board.
III
Additional Information
FIVE-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN (Goals and measurable results) III
In 2001, the Administration provided the City Council with a five-year business
plan for each department to help guide the budgeting process and provide a
means for management to better evaluate overall Department performance. The
business plan identified goals and objectives of the Department of Community and
Economic Development. The Administration has updated the plan to include
measures and targets through FY 2004-2009.
Council Staff has asked the Administration to provide the Council with a summary
of goals/objectives, and the results/steps taken for FY 2002-2003. In order to
assist the Council in evaluating progress, the goals and steps taken by the
Department during FY 2002-2003 are summarized below.
Goal/Objective: Implement internet applications that allow department business
to be conducted over the internet. Target: One every six months.
Results/steps taken: The department is working with IMS to create computer
programs for many of its functions (business licenses, permits, etc...). Once these
programs are in place, the next step will be to place the programs on the Internet,
thereby allowing customers to conduct business on-line.
Goal/Objective: Building inspections response time target: 90% of building
inspections are to be conducted within 24 hours of the request. III
Results/steps taken: 95% of building inspections were conducted within 24
hours of the request as of March, 2003.
Goal/Objective: Modify or create master plans that implement planning policies
and regulations promoting quality neighborhoods: Target: > 1 plan completed per
year.
Results/steps taken: The Central City master Plan is ready for City Council
review.
Goal/Objective: Annual actual operating expenses compared to budget. Target:
actual expense < (is less than or equal to) the budget.
Results/steps taken: As of March, 2003, the department's annual operating
expenses were within 98% of the budget.
Goal/Objective: Annual actual revenue compared to budget. Target: actual
revenue > (is greater than or equal to) the adopted budget.
Results/steps taken: As of March, 2003, the department's annual revenue was
92% of the adopted budget. ID
4
• Goal/Objective: Homes taken into ownership through the first time homebuyers
program. Target: 30 homes annually.
Results/steps taken: During the nine month time period of July, 2002 through
March, 2003, 20 homes were purchased via first time homebuyers program.
Goal/Objective: Travel delay at the fifty highest volume intersections. Target:
Reduce delay by 10% over 5 years (2% per year).
Results/steps taken: Travel delay was reduced by 2% at the fifty highest volume
intersections as of March, 2003.
Goal/Objective: Building inspectors with multiple certifications. Target: 100% of
building inspectors to have multiple certifications by July 2004.
Results/steps taken: 50% of building inspectors have multiple certifications as of
March, 2003. Council Members may wish to note the actual verbiage of the
above-mentioned objective is "cross-train inspectors in multiple disciplines so one
inspector can complete all required inspections at one site". The Council has
expressed significant interest in reducing the number of employees that need to
visit a site for an inspection. The number of 4-way certified inspectors in the
Division of Building and Housing currently is 1. If the Administration were to
pursue this initiative as the Council has previously urged, it could result in either
an increased service level or a reduction in staff costs or both. Currently it does
not appear that certification of 4-way inspectors is being actively pursued by the
Division.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
The Council issued the following legislative intent statements in June 2002
that relate to the Department of Community and Economic Development. The
Administration's response will be transmitted to the Council and a follow-up
briefing is tentatively scheduled for June 5, 2003. During the briefing, the
legislative intent statements will be discussed in further detail.
Economic Development Promotion - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration coordinates economic promotion with other entities that provide
these services. The Council requests a written report on the overall economic
development activities including the Economic Development Corporation of Utah
(EDCU), the State Department of Community and Economic Development, the Salt
Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Alliance and the City's Department of
Community and Economic Development. The Council urges the Administration to
• review the funding formula and staffing needs of the EDCU and report the
findings to the Council.
5
•
Results/Steps Taken: Department Response - The department works closely with
other economic development organizations in Salt Lake City, with staff serving on
the boards of the EDCU, Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Alliance. We
have just completed an audit, requested by the City Council, which addresses many
of these concerns. (The Council has not yet received the audit report.) Over the last
year, the Chamber of Commerce has begun to focus more effort on the downtown
area, culminating in a merger with the Downtown Alliance. As mentioned above,
closer ties are also being established between the Economic Development
Corporation of Utah and the Downtown Alliance/Chamber of Commerce. The
current funding formula used by EDCU is based on population and tax revenues.
As the second largest contributor to the EDCU, we are very concerned about the
benefits we receive and are working to develop performance standards and
measurements to justify our continued level of support. One component currently
being discussed is hiring a retail recruitment specialist to work on bringing new
retailers into the Salt Lake City market.
Street Lighting Districts - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration briefs the Council regarding the possibility of using accumulated
reserves in the street lighting districts for converting assessment districts to the
privately-owned streetlight program (at the option of the neighborhood), for
upgrading streetlights to more decorative residential oriented lighting or for
reducing assessments to property owners.
Results/Steps Taken: Department Response - The scope of the legislative intent 411
was somewhat specifically defined as Special Improvement Districts (SIDs) and as
the expansion of the private streetlight program. In studying the current City
policies and practice of street lighting it became clear that the City should
consider how all the streetlights in the City are managed. Transportation staff
obtained extensive public input and developed a draft Street Lighting Master Plan.
From this process the City has administratively adopted the following
recommendations from the master plan:
•All new streetlights will be energy efficiency
•All new streetlights will be "dark sky" friendly
•All new streetlights will require underground wiring
•All new streetlights will use proper photometric to minimize glare
•All new streetlights will be designed to minimize light trespass
•All new lights will be decorative and match the neighborhood standards.
The City Council has further asked City staff to adjust the City matching fund
program to allow for homeowner associations, SID's, and other neighborhood
groups. Additional recommendations being developed are the administrative
adoption of the street lighting plan, creating a new maintenance arrangement, and
long term prioritizing and funding of streetlight projects. The City is currently in
the process of formally adopting the Street Lighting Master Plan administratively.
•
Economic Development Corporation of Utah - It is the intent of the City Council
that the Administration coordinates with the Economic Development Corporation
of Utah to provide semiannual written information to the Council regarding the
accomplishments of EDCU that benefit Salt Lake City.
Results/Steps Taken: Department Response - The Department will continue to
forward to the Council the semi-annual reports it receives from the EDCU. In
addition, once the Council receives the audit of the City's economic development
efforts (conducted by Deloitte &Touche at the request of the Council), we would be
pleased to discuss those findings and our recommendations concerning the EDCU
with the Council. One component of the merger between the Downtown Alliance
and the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce is an increased emphasis on
business recruitment to the Downtown. EDCU has committed to working with
these organizations and Salt Lake City to enhance their focus on activities in the
City. Salt Lake City will work with EDCU to quantify the results we receive for our
contribution as a part of this process. This commitment, when finalized, will be
presented to the Council and should help clarify the benefits the City receives for
their investment dollars.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Community and Economic Development Department
During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or functions
to be added to the Council's list for future audits.
•
• MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 20, 2003
TO: Council Members
FROM: Michael Sears, Sylvia Jones, and Gary Mumford
RE: COUNCIL BUDGET PRIORITIES
COUNCIL BUDGET POLICIES
The Council has expressed an interest in considering internal policies that
relate to the Council's consideration of the budget and related matters. The
Council has adopted several policies in previous fiscal years.
Council staff has summarized the policies and listed them below. Further
• budget policy information is attached.
1. Support programs that encourage activity in the downtown, in
keeping with the Council's policy statement relating to
downtown.
2. Support programs that facilitate housing for all income levels,
in keeping with the Council's policy priority.
3. Balance the budget without a tax increase.
4. Ensure that all on-going expenses are funded with on-going
revenue; do not balance the budget with one-time revenue.
5. Limit use of one-time revenue to one-time expenses.
6. Allocate 9 percent of on-going general fund revenue to capital
improvements.
7. Identify potential areas of duplication.
• 8. Identify potential areas for increased efficiency.
•
Background and additional information of Council Budget •
Policies:
1. Police statement on the future economic development of downtown.
In January 2003, the Council issued a police statement relating to downtown.
2. Housing
During the Council retreat, the Council identified housing for all income levels
as the Council number one priority.
3. Balance the budget without a tax increase.
The Salt Lake City Council has stated that they support, to the extent
practical, adopting a budget that funds necessary programs and services
without an increase in property tax. If a property tax increase is proposed by
the Administration, a review of what services level increases or programs are
responsible for the recommended tax increase should be provided by the
Administration with the recommended budget so that the Council can readily
determine the reason for the property tax increase.
4. Ensure that all on-going expenses are funded with on-going revenue;
do not balance the budget with one-time revenue.
Council staff has summarized Council Member comments in the following
statements:
• The Salt Lake City Council supports, to the extent practical, funding City
services that provide private benefits with revenue from fees and charges in
order to provide maximum flexibility in the use of general City taxes to
meet the cost of services of broader public benefit.
• The Salt Lake City Council supports, to the extent practical, recovering full
costs for charges for services that benefit specific users, including all direct
costs and overhead. The Council supports periodically updating cost-of-
service studies to further this policy.
• The Salt Lake City Council supports, to the extent practical, annually
comparing costs for services with current fees and charges for services,
including Salt Lake City's costs for services to other government or private
entities.
• The Salt Lake City Council supports, to the extent practical, receiving
internal City studies relating to proposed fee or tax increases at the same
time that the fee or tax increase is transmitted to the Council for
consideration.
•
2
. 5. Limit use of one-time revenue to one-time expenses.
As a best practice, one-time money should be spent on one-time projects.
When one-time money is used to balance a budget by paying for ongoing
services, the following year's budget will likely start out in a deficit because
one-time money is likely no longer available. One-time revenues cannot be
relied on in future budget periods. A policy on the use of one-time revenues
provides guidance to minimize disruptive effects on services due to non-
recurrence of these sources. Examples of one-time revenues include:
infrequent sales of government assets, bond refunding savings, infrequent
revenues from development, and grants.
A balanced budget is required by law to ensure that a government does not
spend beyond its means. The Council may wish to go beyond the legal
requirement by setting a policy that the City will maintain a balance between
operating expenditures and operating revenues over the long term, not just
during the current operating period. This balance is generally referred to as
structural balance.
Council staff has summarized Council Member comments in to the following
statements:
• The Salt Lake City Council supports, to the extent practical, maintaining a
balance between operating expenditures and operating revenues over the
long term, not just during the current operating period. In addition to a
statutory budget balance, a structural balance between revenues and
expenditures over the long term should be achieved. One-time revenue
should not be used to balance the budget, and maintenance and
equipment replacement should be included as operating items to ensure
their inclusion in operating budget decisions.
• The Salt Lake City Council supports, to the extent practical, applying one-
time cash transfers and non-recurring revenue to reserves or to fund one-
time expenditures such as startup costs, early debt retirement, and capital
improvements, rather than using this revenue to fund on-going programs.
• The Salt Lake City Council supports, to the extent practical, avoiding the
use of grants to meet ongoing service delivery needs. Where grants are
used to hire employees, it is the Council's intent that these positions
terminate when funding is terminated.
6. Allocate 9 percent of on-going general fund revenue to capital
improvements.
For several years the Council has had a policy of allocating 9% of general fund
on-going revenue to capital improvement projects. The proposed budget for
fiscal year 2003-04 includes a portion of the 9% to come from one-time
• sources (fund balance).
3
7. Identify potential areas of duplication
•
Several times in past years the Council has requested that the Administration
reduce the budget by eliminating duplication of services. Two examples are
included in the Mayor's Recommended Budget for fiscal year 2003-04.
Youth and family related programs -The budget includes a plan to move
YouthCity from the Mayor's Office to the Department of Public Services,
Division of Youth and Family Programs. The budget book explains: "this
change will allow us to mange more effectively and efficiently all of our youth
related programs with no duplication in administration."
Special events -The budget includes a plan to relocate the special events
program from the Department of Community and Economic Development to
the Public Services Department, Gallivan and Events Division. "It will allow
us to more efficiently and effectively organize large-scale public events, as well
as neighborhood and ethnic events."
8. Identify potential areas for increased efficiency.
Historically, the Council has "pre-approved" Class C CIP projects before the
adoption of the CIP budget as Class C funded projects are not ranked with
and do not compete with General Fund monies within the budget process. In •
addition, this pre-approval allows the City to take advantage of the full
construction season and obtain the lowest bids possible.
The Airport has historically requested a budget amendment during mid year
for certain capital projects so that contracts can be awarded to take advantage
of the construction season.
During fiscal year 1999-2000 (September 1999), the Council requested that
the Administration attempt, to the extent possible, to budget in advance for
local match requirements associated with grants for which the City has
applied. This request is mainly for CIP projects. The Council requested that
the Administration submit CIP applications for all grant-funded CIP projects,
within the cycle that the grant would be awarded, regardless of notification of
award. This would allow the Administration to establish a budget for the local
match rather than request funds for the match in a mid-year budget
amendment.
Since Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the Council has indicated that the City's
General Fund balance is not as strong as the Council would desire. In fiscal
year 2000-2001 the Council discussed a 10% level as a minimum acceptable
level. Analyzing fund balance can be misleading unless the following details
are taken into consideration:
•
4
• Fund balance equals assets minus liabilities. Each type of a fund within
• •
the City may have a fund balance. The fund balance for enterprise or
internal service funds is referred to as retained earnings.
• The State has set guidelines for cities and towns in order to ensure that
these municipalities are adequately prepared to address natural disasters
or other emergencies, but are not "stockpiling" fund balance to the
detriment of taxpayers. General Fund balance may not exceed 18% of
General Fund revenues. However, total fund balance appropriations are
not supposed to drop below 5% of General Fund revenues. Other funds,
such as capital projects or enterprise funds have no limitations on the size
of their fund balances.
• A portion of fund balance or retained earnings may be set aside. If the
amount set aside is required to be set aside by law or some other external
requirements, such as bond covenants, the portion set aside is referred to
as restricted funds. It is then called restricted fund balance. If the amount
set aside is set aside by the City Council, such as a provision for
emergencies, it is an internal decision and the portion set aside is referred
to as designated funds. It is then called designated fund balance. There is
a significant difference between the two. A restricted portion of the fund
balance does not count against the balance's legal maximum, but a
designated portion of the balance does. That is because a designated
1. portion of the balance may be changed or completely done away with by
r • the City Council, whereas the City Council has no such power over a
restricted portion of a fund balance.
• Since the primary objective of fund balance is to accrue funds adequate to
respond to a disaster or emergency, the Council may wish to analyze the
extent to which the City's fund balance is encumbered versus actually
available to address an emergency.
With this in mind, the Council may wish to review the General Fund
balance as provided with in the Mayor's Recommended Budget for fiscal
year 2003-2004:
• Total fund balance, minus outstanding contracts, restricted assets and
appropriations (which do not count toward the legal limitations) is 15.95%
of General Fund revenues. If a natural disaster or other emergency of any
magnitude were to affect Salt Lake City, $19,702,556 would be available
(based on 6/30/03 balances).
•
5
•
Available Fund Balance •
GENERAL FUND
June 30, 2003
(General Fund revenues = $161,186,949)
Total Anticipated General Fund balance - $26,050,000
June 30, 2003
Less: Restricted for outstanding contracts (2,500,000)
and purchase orders
Less: Appropriations to the 2003-2004 (3,847,444)
budget
Less: Required for emergencies (5% of
revenue) (8,059,347)
Available fund balance (X% of revenue) $11,643,209
Council staff has summarized Council Member comments in to the following
statements:
• The Salt Lake City Council supports maintaining a prudent level of
financial resources to protect against reductions in service levels or
increases in taxes and fees because of temporary revenue shortfalls or 11111
unpredicted one-time expenditures.
• The Salt Lake City Council supports, to the extent practical, allowing
additional surplus revenue (revenue which was received but was not
budgeted) to fall to fund balance to increase the reserves rather than be
appropriated to mid-year funding requests. This would apply to new
programs, not programs that are operated on a reimbursement basis.
• The Salt Lake City Council recognizes that:
• The City is self-ensured to a significant extent;
• Funding for the City's governmental immunity program is limited,
and is being proposed at a lower rate this year than in previous
• years;
• The City does not establish reserves in the same manner in which a
private insurance company would.
Given these factors, maintaining a healthy General Fund Balance is one way
for the City to preserve options to address potential problems.
• Estimates should anticipate contingencies that are reasonably predictable.
•
6
• • It is the Council's intent that a comprehensive General Fund five-year
revenue forecast will be prepared annually by the Administration by
accumulating the forecasts prepared by each department and presented to
the Council.
• It is the intent of the Council that the Mayor's Recommended Budget
contains five-year financial forecasts for the General Fund and enterprise
funds.
0
cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins
•
r
• BALANCED SCORECARD PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance Measurement 2003 Target Mar
2003
Customer Service
Citywide(Dan Jones)Survey:Customer Satisfaction with City Services Mean score of at°least 6.5 out of7 n/a
points= >92/o satisfaction
Division Customer Service Surveys: Percent Satisfied with Service >92%satisfied with the service 95%
Provided provided
Mean score of at least 6.0 out of 7
Citywide(Dan Jones)Survey:Perceived Park Safety During Day points=>85%feel safe to very n/a
safe in the day
Citywide(Dan Jones)Survey:Perceived Park Safety During Night Mean score of at least 3.5 out of 7 n/a
points=>50%feel safe at night
Mean score of at least 6.0 out of 7
Citywide(Dan Jones)Survey:Overall Quality of Life Rating points=>85%(high to very high n/a
rating)
Percent Reduction in Amount of Energy Used by City >8% n/a
• Increase in Amount of Alternate Fuel Used by City >10% n/a
Increase in Percentage of Waste Stream Recycled(in tons)from City and >12% 8%
Residents
Reduction in Amount of Water Used for City Landscaping >12% n/a
Financial Health
Year to date actual revenues as compared to year to date budgeted >100%of budgeted revenue 97%
revenues
Year to date actual expenditures as compared to year to date budgeted <100%of budgeted expenditures 92%
expenditures
Implementation of Zero-Based/Activity-Based Costing Approach to >20%of department 30%
Budgeting(100%of department over 5 years)
Percent of Goals and Objectives Established During 5-Year Business >85% n/a
Planning Process
1Fleet Fund will Maintain Adequate Retained Earnings by Adding at bast >1% n/a
/o of Revenues Per Year to their Retained Earnings
Department will Perform a Quarterly Analysis of their Actuals to• Budgeted Expenditures and Revenues 100% 100%
Efficiency& Effectiveness
Percent of performance measurement targets addressing program >90%of division performance o
efficiency and effectiveness met measurement targets met 70/o
Identify and Benchmark 1 Significant Process Against Best-in-Class >l 1
Implement Process Improvement Teams and Continuously Improve the >2 2
Process
Implement 2 Environmental Improvement Tasks per year from the >2 4
Environmental Management System(EMS)Priorities
Train 1/3 of Department Employees in Customer Service Skills Yearly >33% 31%
Establish a Baseline for Customer Satisfaction and Improve Upon Baseline establish baseline(see customer n/a
by 5%over 5 Years service)
Establish a Baseline for Community Participation and Improve Upon establish baseline n/a
Baseline by 25%over 5 Years
Golf and Sanitation will Make Capital Investments in Accordance with >100% n/a
their 5-Year CIP
Workforce Quality
Employee survey results >80%of employees satisfied with 700/u •
position as a whole
Ensure 90%of new hires are rated satisfactory or above on their five- >90% n/a
month new employee performance appraisal
Ensure that the ratio of applicants remains higher than the ICMA's >23 56
benchmark per year
Maintain a turnover rate below 10%per year <10% 4%
Develop a strategic training plan by June 2003 and have employees
complete required training 90%of the time and improve by 5%over 5 establish baseline n/a
Years
Percent of division training and technology targets met >_80% 100%
Increase percentage of minority employees hired per year >+1% 1.46%
Increase percentage of female employees hired per year >_+1% -.25%
Increase outreach and recruitment of disabled individuals. Establish establish baseline n/a
baseline and improvement goals
Increase participation in diversity training at all levels of the organization.
Train all managers and supervisors in FY03 and all employees within five 20% 25% •
years
Complete Employee Performance Plans by June 2003 100% 18%
•
Evaluate full-time employees semi-annually 100% n/a
Complete 100%of the Infrastructure Replacement Schedule per year 100% n/a
Complete 20%of the identified internal business services via the web per 20% n/a
year
•
•
2