05/22/2003 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, MAY 22 , 2003
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, May 22,
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, Nancy Saxton, Jill
Remington Love, and Dave Buhler.
Absent: Council Members Dale Lambert and Eric Jergensen.
Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Gary Mumford,
Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Michael Sears, Council Budget &
Policy Analyst; Sylvia Jones, Council Research & Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison;
Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Kevin Bergstrom, Public Services Deputy
Director; Greg Davis, Public Services Finance Director; Steve Fawcett, Management
Services Deputy Director; Gordon Hoskins, Controller; Randy Hillier, CIP Admin/Budget
& Policy Analyst; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Lamont Nelson, Fleet Division
Manager; Debbie Lyons, Public Services Management Analyst for Safety and Risk; Babs De
Lay, Capital Improvement Program Citizen Board Chair; and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy
Recorder.
Council Chair Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.
#1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION
ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
No report was given.
#2. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED FLEET BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2003-2004. View Attachment
Michael Sears, Kevin Bergstrom, Rick Graham, Greg Davis, and Lamont Nelson
briefed the Council. Mr. Sears said Fleet had gone through a full management audit
approximately two years ago. He said the Fleet Division would brief Council with
recommendations made in the audit in the future. He said the main component of the
audit was the Fleet facility.
Councilmember Turner asked if the building recommendations made by the
consultants had worked. Mr. Nelson said Fleet had used the recommendations and were
in the process of completion. Councilmember Turner said the facility looked well kept.
He asked about the amount and price of gasoline Fleet used. Mr. Nelson said the City
did not pay taxes on gas and paid a fleet price which was lower. He said they would
be on track for the coming year.
Councilmember Saxton asked about the increase in maintenance fees for capital
outlay. Mr. Bergstrom said they had allocated fuel and maintenance overhead differently
due to advice from the audit. He said the change reflected moving from one category
to the other. He said three new positions were proposed. A discussion was held
regarding the debt ratio. Mr. Bergstrom said Forestry and Sweeping had been removed
from the refuse fund and placed in the general fund. Councilmember Saxton asked where
the savings were in the refuse fund. Mr. Davis said the refuse fund budget reflected
the savings.
Councilmember Saxton asked about the purchase of electrical vehicles for Parking
Enforcement. Mr. Nelson said electric vehicles were not available but five 3-wheeled
03 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, MAY 22 , 2003
vehicles had been purchased and ran all week on one tank of gas. He said more full
size vehicles would be replaced with the 3-wheeled vehicles. He said his focus had
been on displacement of fuel, right sizing the City fleet and buying the best vehicles
to keep fuel cost down. Councilmember Saxton asked about the price of 3-wheeled
vehicles. Mr. Nelson said the cost was approximately $25, 000.
Councilmember Buhler asked about the number of take home vehicles assigned to
employees. Mr. Nelson said the take home policy had not been revisited but could be.
He said a new justification policy was in effect and nothing was replaced unless
justified within the department. He said new billing procedures would be implemented
for the coming year and departments would bear the costs of their own vehicles.
Councilmember Buhler said the implementation of departments paying for their own
vehicles should be a legislative intent. He asked Mr. Nelson for a list of current
vehicles in the fleet and where they were assigned as compared to last year.
Councilmember Buhler asked what would happen if the three requested positions
were not filled. Mr. Nelson said the positions were for accounting purposes, recovery
and warranty issues. He said the attempt was to bring the City into compliance with
Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) mandates. He said the third position was
for a warehouseman.
Councilmember Christensen asked about the warranty recovery program. Mr. Nelson
said he anticipated recapturing more than $100,000 annually through implementation of
a more aggressive warranty program.
A discussion was held regarding fund balance. Mr. Davis said last year's fund
balance was approximately $2.5 million and the projection for this year was $2.3
million.
Councilmember Saxton asked what the cost per day for a vehicle was and if it
would be better to rent vehicles. Mr. Nelson said he would look at rental vehicles.
He said car pools were now available and would be implemented this year.
#3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED REFUSE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR
2003-2004. View Attachment
Debbie Lyon, Michael Sears, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom and Greg Davis briefed the
Council. Councilmember Turner asked about recycling services from BFI. Mr. Graham
said the City paid for BFI' s services but the program was becoming bigger and paying
for itself more and more. Councilmember Turner asked when the landfill needed to be
replaced. Ms. Lyon said in approximately 20 to 25 years but the figure was hard to
get to because recycling programs were more frequent.
Councilmember Saxton asked if every City facility had recycling abilities. Ms. Lyon
said that was correct. Councilmember Saxton asked if sidewalk snow removal enforcement
was controlled under the snow removal budget. Mr. Graham said enforcement officers
were not part of the streets or sanitation divisions. He said enforcement officers
were part of the compliance division.
Councilmember Christensen asked about cost for recycling vs. taking refuse to the dump.
Ms. Lyon said the cost per ton to throw away was more than the cost per ton to recycle.
Councilmember Christensen asked if BFI recycled everything. Ms. Lyon said BFI reported
13% contamination in the recycling bins. Mr. Bergstrom said an education program would
be starting which would help label bins. Councilmember Christensen said Salt Lake
City should look for other transfer facilities and disposal areas.
03 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, MAY 22 , 2003
Councilmember Buhler asked about recycling for private unit developments (PUD's)
private streets. He said it was $6.50 per month per residence. He asked if the City
could do this for the BFI cost which was approximately $2.57. He asked how Council
Members felt. Mr. Graham said the $2.57 did not include administrative costs or
containers. He said the landfill dividend was included in the $6.50 cost. Council
Members Love and Saxton were in support of including private streets in the program.
Mr. Bergstrom said the recycling program would increase $.50 next year.
#4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED NON-DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004. View Attachment
Gary Mumford and Steve Fawcett briefed the Council. Councilmember Saxton asked what
the benefit for bus passes was. She said employees should be charged a small fee for
bus passes. Mr. Fawcett said analysis of the bus pass benefit and employee use of the
parking structure had been done. He said a bus pass was currently $45 per month and
parking ranged from $25 to $90 per month. He said many downtown employees chose to
park in the new mid-block parking area on 300 South because there was no fee. He said
he would forward the analysis to the Council.
Councilmember Love asked why the City continued to have funds left in the Matching
Grant Program. Mr. Fawcett said the most prevalent use of the program was for private
mid-block streetlights. He said currently the surplus was what was left from fixing
a problem two years ago.
Councilmember Love asked about the request for two new positions in Management Services.
Mr. Mumford said one was a network support position. He said recommended standards
said one support position per every 100 computers. Councilmember Love said the other
request was for a web site developer position. He said a briefing was scheduled for
next week.
A discussion was held regarding the Washington DC consultant increase.
Councilmember Christensen asked about induction ceremony costs for City Council and
Mayor. Mr. Fawcett said there was an annual $20, 000 appropriation which was used for
gifts and dignitary events. Mr. Fluhart said they would check to see if an
appropriation had been made. Councilmember Buhler said half of the amount for induction
should be set aside every year. A discussion was held.
#5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR
2003-2004. View Attachment
Michael Sears, Randy Hillier, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, and Babs De Lay briefed
the Council. Mr. Sears reviewed potential matters of issue. He said Tim Harpst was
in attendance to speak about Rose Park and Sugarhouse Business District street lighting
projects. He said the Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) 5-year plan held the
intermodel hub project. (See file M 03-4 for attachments) . He said this project
seemed to grow and needed a separate briefing. He said $33, 936,465 was a large amount
and would have an impact on other areas.
Mr. Sears suggested a separate cost center for allocation of the CIP Coordinator and
the Traffic Calming Coordinator' s salary and benefits.
Mr. Sears reviewed the handout with regard to 9% of General Fund revenue going
to CIP Fund. (See M 03-1 for the handout) . He suggested adopting a 5-year plan
03 - 3
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, MAY 22 , 2003
realizing the debt service and pay-as-you-go funding. He said it would be a straight
allocation to the project and a more intensive capital review by citizens.
A discussion was held regarding Liberty Park, 1300 East/Sugarhouse Park street
crossing and the CIP. Mr. Hillier said a design competition would be held in the
summer.
A discussion was held regarding funding the emergency operation center training
center (EOC) . Mr. Fluhart said the City had presented a congressional delegation with
the EOC. He said the Red Cross and the City were still in the fundraising stage for
the center.
Councilmember Turner spoke regarding the Jordan River trail security lighting.
He said the trail was used more with the lighting.
A discussion was held regarding impact fee eligibility. Mr. Sears explained
when impact fees were collected they were set aside in a revenue only account and the
expenditure account was set up when a project was ready to fund. He said there were
six years to spend the funds and 20 years to collect funds. He said loans would go
back and forth between types of impact funds. He said because of the economic down-
turn the Administration anticipated receiving $425, 000 in impact fees for 2003. He
said in the past estimates had been as high as $700,000. He said the Administration
recommended using accumulated impact fees for the Municipal Building Authority (MBA)
debt service for the Pioneer Precinct, Sugarhouse Rails With Trails, North Brickyard
Park, and Plaza 349 Emergency Operation Center construction.
Councilmember Buhler referred to the Potential Matters at Issue. He asked of the
$34 million for the intermodal hub, how much was expected to come from Federal or other
sources. Mr. Hillier said he would get the information for the Council.
Councilmember Christensen asked if all Special Improvement Districts (SID) would
be combined as lights were replaced. Mr. Harpst said the Rose Park area SID would
remain one district. He said other funding sources had been explored and by cost
sharing and combining conduit with Utopia for electrical wire and fiber optics the
project would save the City six figures.
Councilmember Saxton suggested combining all street lighting into one department.
Mr. Hoskins commented on funding for the intermodel hub. He said the amount was
$6.2 million and the intention was to pay back with grant funding.
#6. DISCUSS POLICY DIRECTION REGARDING THE BUDGET.
Ms. Gust-Jenson said at another meeting Council staff would be prepared to discuss an
early retirement program. Councilmember Saxton said there were models regarding early
retirement. She said the City should take advantage of this. Ms. Gust-Jenson said
the administration was working on the project.
Councilmember Buhler asked staff to list expansions in service or new full time
employees (FTE) for easier use.
Councilmember Love requested a discussion covering the 9% of on-going General Fund
revenue to CIP Fund and having two different options.
#7. DISCUSS OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE BUDGET.
03 - 4
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, MAY 22 , 2003
Ms. Gust-Jenson scheduled times for discussion with Council Members regarding budget.
Councilmember Christensen concurred with Mr. Sears with regard to 9% of on-going General
Fund revenue going to the CIP Fund. Mr. Sears suggested that beginning next year a
new 6-year plan, and a new 20 year plan be developed.
Mr. Fluhart said 9% was a good goal. He said looking at needs through a comprehensive
evaluation and how to fund was a rational way to look at it.
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
cm
03 - 5
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
• BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2003-04
DATE: May 20, 2003
SUBJECT: FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears
CC: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom,
Lamont Nelson, Greg Davis, Steve Fawcett, Laurie Dillon,
DJ Baxter
The City's Fleet Management Internal Service Fund provides vehicles, fuel and vehicle
maintenance for the City except for the Airport, which provides its own fleet services.
General Fund departments and enterprise funds reimburse the Fleet Management
Fund for these services. Vehicle purchases for general fund departments are funded
by a transfer from the Non-departmental budget. The budget for fiscal year 2003-
2004 is proposed to increase by $478,326 or 4.3% over fiscal year 2002-2003.
Over the next several years, the Fleet Division will be addressing deficiencies in their
stockroom, light and heavy shops, fuel operation and fleet pool and replacement
program. With an unlimited source of revenue the changes to the operations at the
Fleet Division could happen within the year, but given the budget constraints of the
• City, it is anticipated that the changes will take at least six years. The Fleet Division
will soon be coming before the City Council to review their proposed building
remodeling, operating plans and propose a funding program to address the
deficiencies in the division.
FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND
PROPOSED BUDGET
Adopted Proposed Difference Percent
20024003 ;2003-2004 Change
Revenue &other sources
Maintenance fees $ 4,196,469 $4,663,122 $466,653 12.0%
Fuel fees 1,947,965 1,258,160 (689,805) (35.4)%
Sale of vehicles 624,600 474,000 (150,600) (24.1%)
General Fund transfer 3,949,537 4,568,960 619,423 15.7%
Other revenue 235,000 91,070 (143,930) (76.1%)
Use of reserves 220,265 596,850 .376,585 171.0%
Total revenue &other sources $11,173,836 $11,652,162 $478,326 4.3%
Expenses &other uses
Personal services $ 2,250,404 $2,529,224 $278,820 13.6%
Parts and supplies 3,889,621 3,296,288 (593,333) (15.8)%
Charges for services 666,759 689,941 23,182 3.5%
Debt and interest 3,285,452 4,106,709 821,257 25.0%
Capital outlay 1,081,600 1,030,000 (1,600) (4.8%)
• Total expenses&other uses $11,173,836 $11,652,162 $478,326 4.3%
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE
The major changes reflected in the proposed budgets for the Fleet Management Fund •
include:
• Replacement of vehicles -The Department of Public Services is recommending that
the Fleet Division use Fleet Management Fund fund balance to purchase the
replacement of a ladder truck for the Fire Department.
• Lease-Purchase Payments - The Fleet Division is recommending that the funding
for lease-purchase payments increase by $821,257 to $4,106,709. The majority of
this increase comes from the additional responsibility for making purchases for
the forestry and sweeping programs, recently added to the General Fund. The Fleet
Division uses the lease-purchase financing to fund the purchase of replacement
vehicles for each of the departments that the Division serves. The ideal funding
level for replacement of vehicles is between $4.9 million and $5.6 million annually
from the General Fund according to the recent fleet study. The Fleet Division can
reduce the overall cost the fleet operation by adhering to a more aggressive
replacement schedule. If a longer replacement schedule is followed, more
expensive maintenance costs could cause overall fleet operations expenses to
increase.
• Additional Staff- The Fleet Division is proposing the addition of an accountant, a
parts warehouse operator, and a US Department of Transportation Compliance.
Manager. The accountant position will handle the monthly maintenance and fuel
billing process and assist with warranty recovery (see business plan). The Division
anticipates additional recapture of more than $100,000 due to a more aggressive
411/
warranty program.
• USDOT Compliance - The Fleet Division will be centralizing the City's USDOT
compliance program and providing this service to City departments, including to
those which do not have a lot of vehicles in this program.
Capital Improvement Budget
The budget proposes appropriations for capital expenditures of $1,030,000 for fiscal
year 2003-2004.
Proposed Capital Expenditures
Fiscal year 2003-2004
Type of Project 2003-2004
Equipment- Cash purchases for Fleet $80,000
Maintenance
Equipment- Replacement of Fire ladder $825,000
truck
Equipment- Cash purchases for Fleet 100,000
Replacement
Total Capital Expenditures $1,030,000
•
2
•
• Additional Information
FIVE-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN
The Department of Public Services prepared a five-year business plan for the Fleet
Management Fund in 2001 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 targets through fiscal year 2008-
2009. In order to assist the Council in evaluating progress, Council staff has
attached the Fleet Division portion of the Administration's 6 Year Business Plan.
The Fleet Division has six main operations that they oversee for the Fleet
Management Fund. They are Fleet Administration, Stockroom (Parts Warehouse),
Fuel and Wash Rack Operations, Maintenance Light and Heavy Shops, Fleet .
Replacement and the Fleet Facility. The Division has noted in the Business Plan
the activities of each of the six operations and what plans the division has for
these areas.
• FLEET MANAGEMENT AUDIT
The Council's audit of Fleet Management contained many recommendations for the
414 improved operation and efficiency of the division. The division has reported to the
Council as required by the Council and is following the recommendations of the Fleet
Audit. In the future, the division will be updating the Council on proposed future
plans for the Fleet Facility.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
No legislative intent statements are outstanding for the Fleet Management Fund.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Fleet Management Fund.
•
3
11111
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Department of Public Services, Fleet Division
• Fleet Administration
• Fleet Stockroom
• Fleet Heavy Shop
• Fleet Light Shop
• Fleet Fuel Operations
• Fleet Replacement
Lamont Nelson, Fleet Division Manager
Mission Statement
We will provide and maintain quality vehicles and equipment, and the fuel necessary for City departments to efficiently and effectively serve the
citizens and visitors of Salt Lake City.
Goals and Objectives
Excel in Municipal Services and 1. Survey Results: Customer service 92% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95%
Continuously Improve Service Delivery: satisfaction survey ratings.
Promote well-being of the public by
continuously improving municipal service
delivery.
Protect and Enhance the Environment: 1. Increase the amount of alternative fuel used 20% 25% 30% 30% 30% 30%
Conserve resources and proactively manage by Fleet by 30%by FY05-06.
environmental issues.
• • •
*Lake City Corporation • •
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives-continued
Budget Responsibly:Revenue 1. Actual revenue to be equal to or greater than 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
projections are based on conservative, revenue projections.
yet realistic,assumptions. Expenditure
estimates are derived from a zero-based
budgeting approach and linked to
effective performance goals.
2. Actual expenditures to be equal or less than 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
expenditure projections.
3. Implementation of zero-based/activity-based N/A 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
costing approach to budgeting.
4.Percent of achieved"Goals and Objectives" 85% 90% 95% 100% 100% 100%
established during the five-year business planning
process.
Maintain Financial Stability:Ensure 1. Fleet Fund will build up retained earnings by +1% +1% +1% +1% +1% +1%
each Salt Lake City fund is financially adding at least 1%of revenues per year to their
secure. retained earnings.
2.Perform quarterly analysis of Division actuals to 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
budgeted expenditures and revenues.
111111
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives- continued
Create High Performance 1. Parts Warehouse:Number of Inventory Turns per 4 4 4 4 4 4
Services: Provide customers year
with best-in-class services.
2. Parts Warehouse: Stock Effectiveness-percentage 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%
of parts filled from stocked inventory .
3. Heavy Equipment Shop: Equipment Availability 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
Rate
4. Heavy Equipment Shop: Scheduled vs. 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/50
Unscheduled Work
5. Heavy Equipment Shop: Repeat Work/Rework <2.5% <2.5% <2.5% <2.5% <2.5% <2.5%
6. Heavy Equipment Shop: Shop labor rate;%below 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
local rates
7. Light Equipment Shop: Percent of PM's completed 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
according to schedule
8. Light Equipment Shop:Equipment Availability 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
Rate
9. Light Equipment Shop: Scheduled vs. Unscheduled 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/50
Work
10. Light Equipment Shop: Repeat Work/Rework <2.5% <2.5% <2.5% <2.5% <2.5% <2.5%
•
11. Light Equipment Shop: Shop Labor Rate 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
12. Fuel Operations: Fuel Rate(amount over cost) <$0.30 <$0.30 <$0.30 <$0.30 <$0.30 <$0.30
• • 111
IILake City Corporation • •
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives—continued
Create High Performance 13. Vehicle Replacement: Percent of 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
Services: Provide customers with Vehicles Replaced According to Schedule
best-in-class services.
14. Maintenance Expenditures per vehicle <$2,000 <$2,000 <$2,000 <$2,000 <$2,000 <$2,000
(ICMA mean for FY01 was$2,916; SLC
expended$2,200 per vehicle in FY01)
15. Percentage of vehicles that exceed Establish 2.5% 5% 7.5% 10% 10%
replacement criteria by type of vehicle Baseline reduction reduction reduction reduction reduction
(Establish baseline via ICMA CPM,then .
reduce by 10%by FY08)
16. Identify and benchmark 1 significant N/A 1 1 1 1 1
process against best-in-class per year.
17. Implement process improvement teams N/A 1 1 1 1 1
and continuously improve the process.
18. Implement 2 environmental 2 2 3 3 4 4
improvement tasks per year from the
Environmental Management System (EMS)
priorities. .
Promote Professional Customer 1.Train 1/3 of division employees in 67% 100% 33% 67% 100% 33%
Interactions: Provide city customer service skills yearly.
employees with customer service
training to raise customer
satisfaction level.
2. Improve upon the baseline for customer +1% +2% +3% +4% +5% +5%
satisfaction by 5%over five years.
SafiCity Lake Corporation • •
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
A list has been prepared,based on the life cycle analysis as expects proceeds from sales to increase as the value of equipment
recommended within a recent audit, identifying each vehicle and sold increases.
piece of equipment that needs to be replaced in the next five years.
To accomplish the replacement of these vehicles without reducing It is anticipated that federal funds for security and terrorism response
the size of the fleet, will require between$4.9 million and$5.6 will provide an increase in the replacement and acquisition of public
million annually from the General Fund. This level of replacement safety vehicles. This would mean more equipment and possibly
will contribute an average of 2%to the Fleet fund balance, from different classes of equipment. These vehicles will not impact the
which the Fund will draw heavily in Fiscal Years 2006-07 and 2007- City's ability to purchase other necessary vehicles for the Police
08. The Fleet Division's Balanced Scorecard requires that the Fleet Department or other City departments.
program contribute at least 1%to the Fleet fund balance each year.
The current General Fund replacement funding is at approximately
$4.5 million. The Fleet Division can minimize the overall cost of Fleet Facility
fleet operation by adhering to the replacement list. If available
replacement funding requires that the Fleet Division increase the life The Fleet Division is currently participating in a process
span of vehicles beyond calculated life cycle, maintenance costs will improvement team with members of the Streets Division to identify
increase. how the current facility and yard at the present Fleet location can be
better utilized to improve efficiencies and address environmental and
The Fleet Division will continue to finance vehicle purchases safety issues within the Division. The Division's intent is to address
through the lease purchase program. The Division must balance the issues addressed in a recent audit of the fleet operation. Once a
lease purchases with cash purchases to avoid lean purchase years, as design for the facility is prepared by the Engineering Division, a
this creates a challenge for the Division in terms of efficiently proposal for funding the necessary improvements will be prepared.
utilizing staff. Revenue from the sale of General Fund vehicles
being replaced will be used towards purchases. The Division
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Fleet Stockroom Fuel Operations
The more parts that are available for immediate installation,the less It can be expected that world events will continue to significantly
time a repair or preventive maintenance process takes. Faster repairs impact the price of fuel. Best estimates within the fleet industry
lead to lower downtime. Based on the recommendations of the audit anticipate fuel prices fluctuating as much as 25%over the next six
conducted of the Fleet Division in 2001,Fleet Management has set a years. Salt Lake City is able to continue to be competitive in its
performance target of maintaining a stock efficiency of 85%that provision of fuel due to its tax-exempt status. The Fleet Division
allows a 95%equipment availability to be achieved. intends to continue to provide fuel at a price at least$0.20 less than
the market rate.
The size and configuration of the current parts operation is
inadequate to maintain this level of stock efficiency. The current Fuel consumption within the City's fleet is beginning to decrease due
warehouse also presents some safety challenges. The Fleet Division to the acquisition of smaller vehicles. Several city departments were
is currently developing a long range plan for addressing these needs able to decrease their budgeted fleet expenditures in the Fiscal Year
by expanding and improving the parts warehouse facility. The 2003-04. It is anticipated that fuel consumption will decrease 10%
alternative is to stock less and risk longer repair times and greater over the next five years,which is estimated to decrease fuel
vehicle and equipment downtime. expenditures by$60,000 over the same period.
Fleet Management is evaluating the potential, within a larger parts The Fleet Division continues to work toward its objectives in
facility, for the Fleet Division to stock non-motive items for other providing alternative fuel vehicles for City use. The alternative fuel
divisions and provide those items at a reduced cost. The Fleet vehicle industry is rapidly changing and the available financial
Division would offer other divisions the knowledge, facility, incentives are not yet significant enough to provide the City with
software, processes and training necessary to efficiently order, adequate resources for its targeted conversion.
receive, store and dispense materials and equipment.
Fleet Replacement
Fleet Light and Heavy Shops
A continuing area of focus during the next five years will be the
As has been discussed in the Fleet Five Year Improvement Plan and reduction of the size of the fleet. The average age of the fleet is
previous Fleet Five Year Business Plans, as the City's fleet ages slowly declining, due to recent efforts on the part of the City to
general maintenance on the fleet will be more expensive. Major replace vehicles and equipment according to a replacement schedule
repairs will also increase in number and cost. Any reduction in the based on life cycle analysis. As the average age of the fleet
proposed amount of annual fleet replacement will result in increases decreases, it is possible to remove equipment held as reserve or
in maintenance expenditures which will require the use of existing "spare" equipment. The fleet pool concept is also intended to
fleet fund balance(cash reserves). contribute to the fleet reduction effort.
• . •
falt Lake City Corporation oration •
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
dollars annually through implementation of a more aggressive
Narrative warranty program. In Fiscal Year 2003-04,the Fleet Division has
budgeted for an additional accountant position. In addition to
The Fleet Division operates as an internal service fund, providing handling monthly billings,this position will allow the Division to
vehicle maintenance and replacement services for Salt Lake City's proactively recover warranty revenue, more than offsetting its cost.
1,356 light vehicles and 720 heavy vehicles and equipment in a time
efficient and cost effective manner and according to industry USDOT regulations require inspections,training and record keeping
standards. for all employees operating heavy equipment. Divisions operating
only a few heavy units are not able to most efficiently ensure
A complete cost center-by-cost center look-ahead addressing the compliance with these regulations. Because Fleet Management is
questions below follows: involved in operation of all city heavy equipment, and because the
• What anticipated changes in demand, customers, and/or Fleet Director has extensive experience in DOT compliance
services are expected? programming, Fleet Management is a logical site to house the City's
• What is the relationship between the services provided by compliance program. Centralizing compliance will help ensure
this division and other programs, either within or outside of availability, quality and consistency of product. The Division
the City? intends to work with other City departments in the near future to
• What is the anticipated increase or decrease in funding, centralize this program.
staffing, and/or expenses, and what is causing the change?
• What assumptions have been made and what sources of Fleet Administration intends to continue developing its pooled motor
information are used? vehicle program over the next six years. Motor pool purchases must
• What comparisons to national/local standards and other compete with other vehicle and equipment needs each year, which
benchmarks are used? results in a slower build up to the desired size pool. However,
• Is there any additional information that explains what is vehicles from City departments that are being underutilized have
anticipated, and why it is reasonable to expect that change? been reclaimed and are being used within the motor pool. Other
challenges include scheduling vehicles, transporting vehicles for
cleaning and fueling, and identifying a location to park the pool
Fleet Administration vehicles that will be readily available to all users. Fleet
Administration intends to have the motor pool program fully
Budget restrictions are placing an increased demand upon Fleet functional within the six year planning period.
Administration to identify additional ways to reduce fleet
maintenance costs. Collecting as much warranty reimbursement as
possible provides a great opportunity to reduce overall cost. Fleet
Administration anticipates that it can recapture more than$100,000
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives—continued
Increase Diversity:Increase diversity 2. Increase total percentage of female +1% +1% +1% +1% +1% +1%
of the City's workforce to match or employees within the department(FY02 total
exceed the labor force of the Wasatch was 18.1%).
Front.
3. Increase outreach and recruitment of +.25% +.25% +.25% +.25% +.25% +.25%
disabled individuals.Establish baseline and
improvement goals.
Educate Employees Regarding 1. Increase participation in diversity training 40% 60% 80% 100% 100% 100%
Diversity:Provide training for all at all levels of the organization. Train all
managers,supervisors and employees employees within five years.
regarding the value of a diverse
workforce.
Involve Employees in Performance 1. Update Employee Performance Plans 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Planning&Goal Setting:Involve annually.
employees in performance planning and
goal setting to establish clear job related
expectations,link employee's goals to
corporate goals and improve
communication.
Measure and Evaluate Employee's 1.Evaluate full time employees semi- 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Performance:Conduct semi-annual annually.
performance evaluations.
• • •
9
Lake City Corporation • •
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives- continued
Attract and Retain Qualified 1.Maintain employee satisfaction survey 80% 80% 85% 85% 85% 85%
Employees:Attract and retain qualified ratings of at least 80%.
employees to ensure effective delivery
of municipal services in a cost-effective
manner.
•
2.Ensure 90%of new hires are rated 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
satisfactory or above on their five-month new
employee performance appraisal.
3.Ensure that the ratio of applicants remains 25 25 25 25 25 25
higher than ICMA's benchmark per year.(25
applicants per job)
4.Maintain turnover rate below 10%per year. <10% <10% <10% <10% <10% <10%
Improve Employee Job Skills and 1. Completion of employee training as set forth 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95%
Knowledge:Identify organizational- in the strategic training plan.
wide training priorities for the next two
years to sharply focus training resources
on skills and competencies required to
excel at providing municipal services.
2. Percent of division training and technology 80% 80% 85% 85% 85% 85%
targets met.
Increase Diversity: Increase diversity 1. Increase total percentage of minority +1% +1% +1% +1% +1% +1%
of the City's workforce to match or employees within the department(FY02 total
exceed the labor force of the Wasatch was 14.93%).
Front.
1111
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Promote Community-Based Problem 1. Improve upon the baseline for +5% +10% +15% +10% +25% +25%
Solving:Increase participation in community participation by 25%over five
municipal activities and decision- years.
making processes.
Improve Infrastructure Condition: 1. Golf and Sanitation will make capital 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Balance between new opportunities and investments in accordance with their five-
` maintenance of existing infrastructure-- year CIP.
transportation,utilities,building&
parks and recreation facilities.
• • •
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
• BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2003-04
DATE: May 20, 2003
SUBJECT: REFUSE COLLECTION FUND
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears
CC: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom,
Craig Posselli, Greg Davis, Steve Fawcett, Laurie Dillon,
DJ Baxter
Salt Lake City provides a refuse program of weekly trash collection, curbside
recycling, annual neighborhood cleanup, Christmas tree pickup, and leaf removal
(bags are funded by the Stormwater Fund). The Refuse Fund operates as an
enterprise fund, so the General Fund does not subsidize these services. The budget
for fiscal year 2003-2004 is proposed to increase by $255,038 or 3.31% over fiscal
year 2002-2003.
REFUSE FUND
PROPOSED BUDGET
Adopted Proposed Difference Percent
• 2002-2003 2003-2004 Change
Revenue&other sources
Refuse fees $4,911,470 $5,811,780 $900,310 18.3%
Landfill dividends 1,241,711 1,232,998 (8,713) (0.7%)
Interfund reimbursements 327,000 374,000 47,000 14.4%
Sale of vehicles 264,000 151,000 (113,000) (42.8%)
Interest income 153,000 92,000 (61,000) (39.9%)
Appropriation of reserves 817,634 308,074 (509,560) (62.3%)
Total revenue&other sources $7,714,815 $7,969,852 $255,037 3.3%
Expenses&other uses
Admin&Weekly trash collection $4,931,276 $4,931,205 ($71) 0.00%
Recycling 972,766 1,336,891 $364,125 37.43%
Annual neighborhood cleanup 1,810,773 1,701,757 ($109,016) (6.02%)
Total expenses& other uses $7,714,815 $7,969,853 $255,038 3.31%
A weekly trash pickup service is provided to the residents of Salt Lake City.
Additionally, residents receive an annual curb side pickup designed for large or
oversized debris as well as leaf bag removal, street sweeping, urban forestry services,
and weekly curbside recycling pickup. During fiscal year 2002-2003, the City
expanded the curbside recycling program to include multi-family properties. Also
during fiscal year 2002-2003 the City changed the funding source for the street
sweeping and urban forestry programs from the Refuse Collection Fund to the
General Fund. No fee increase is planned for the upcoming fiscal year.
The Salt Lake City Council reviews and adopts the budget for the Solid Waste
Facility. The Solid Waste Facility administers the Landfill, coordinates the transfer
station and the long range planning for future landfill sites. The decisions made in •
the operating budget of the Solid Waste Facility affect the revenue and expenditures
of the Refuse Fund. For instance, an increase in material collection through the
curbside recycling program will result in less garbage collection and lower tipping fee
expenditures in the refuse fund.
Council staff did not identify any major changes to the proposed Refuse Fund
budget.
Council Member Buhler has indicated that he may be interested in asking the
Council to consider an addition to the program wherein the recycling services are
available at a fee to individuals who live in planned unit developments and have
their trash picked up by a private business. He has had initial conversations with
the Public Services Department Director.
Additional Information
FIVE-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN (Goals and measurable results)
The Department of Public Services prepared a five-year business plan for the
Refuse Fund in fiscal 1997-1998. The Refuse Fund specific plan was included in •
the Department plan that was prepared in fiscal year 2000-2001 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
targets through fiscal year 2008-2009. In order to assist the Council in
evaluating progress, Council staff has attached the Refuse Fund portion of the
Administration's 6 Year Business Plan.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
No legislative intent statements are outstanding for the Refuse Fund.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Refuse Fund.
During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or
functions to be added to the Council's list for future audits.
•
2
• SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL_STAFF REPORT
A BG` 1�Y S—FISCAL YEAR 2003-04
DATE: May 20, 2003
BUDGET FOR: NON-DEPARTMENTAL (General Fund)
STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford
cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, DJ Baxter
The Non-Departmental budget provides a means to account for General Fund
moneys transferred to other funds, contingency funds, and disbursements to civic
organizations that provide a service on behalf of Salt Lake City but which are not
legal entities of the City. Salt Lake City also uses Non-Departmental to account for
special revenue funds, debt services funds and the Capital Projects Fund.
However, only the General Fund portion of the budget that is accounted for in Non-
Departmental is discussed below.
The proposed budget for Non-Departmental for fiscal year 2003-2004 decreases by
$2,245,516 or 5.7%.
• >►CIJ►!1J8J1,71 Mind M':\M MOW131:7\MIDUJCI ofi 11. 11
Programs ABudgett Difference Percent
2002-2003 _ Y " Change
u
Municipal Contributions/Civic Support $ 1,743,626 ����� $ (57,483) (3.3/o)
fpCZ
Other Programs 1,724 200 � '' 179,900 10.4/0 y a
Interest on Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes 670,000 � � 135 000 20.1%
Win � � �_. ��: ( � ) ( )
City (2 232 933) (6.4%)
Transfers to other funds 34,911,490 � � ,
Contingencies 278,500
TOTAL $39,327,816 i $(2,245,516) (5.7%)
A complete list of the budget proposed for each contribution or proposed
expenditure is shown on the next page.
•
D
PROPOSED NON-DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET
Amended Proposed Percent
Programs Budget Budget Difference ChangeIII
2002-2003 I1 004
Sal::
Civic Opportunities Fund $ 15,000 ,$ 15,000 $ -
Community Emergency Winter Housing 63,000 63,500 500 0.8%
East Valley Chamber of Commerce 2,000 2,000 -
Gifts/Receptions 20,600 _,A 20, -
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 1,500 1,500 -
ICMA Performance Review Program 5,200 100 1.9%
Legal Defenders 295,139 371 83,912 28.4%
National League of Cities 8,900 9,860 960 10.8%
Sales Taxes Rebate 162,000 ,, 15 (4,000) (2.5%)
Salt Lake City Arts Council 223,600 _ 22300
-
Sister Cities 5,000 -
SL Area Chamber of Commerce 29,527 1 1 i 473 1.6%
SL Valley Conference of Mayors 350 -` 175 (175) (50.0%)
Salt Lake Council of Governments 28,898 291165 267 0.9%
Sugarhouse Park Authority 192,600 1 i,600 5,000 2.6%
Tracy Aviary 200,000 . :' -
Transitional Housing 103,000 , Irmo 4,500 4.4%
U.S.Conference of Mayors 7,320 ,...^.,.19; 2,980 40.7%
Utah Economic Development Corp. 132,992 *•: -
Utah League of Cities and Towns 90,000 `��� � i�;� 5,000 5.6%
YouthCity Program 150,000 _ - (150,000) (100.0%)
Youth City Government Program 7,000 -N=y `- 4 (7,000) (100.0%)
c>Total Munici'al Contributions/Civic S le s 1,743,626 .,-'f'.i-� .143 57,483 3.3%
r�.>_3>xc3x..:&:vim >,. ..�.,�� �>e .4m k.`��a���-.��. . i -1^ +,aW } ,•.�.'f�`*t4VAZTt
'.
Accounting System Maintenance Agreement 63,000 ` 2,000 3.2%
'''�- ;,.
Animal Services 805,200 " .,:;::.: z< 12,900 1.6% 4111
Election Processing - ��-.1/ �' '' 175,000
Geographic Information System 25,000E r"ti. w ;00k.. -
�i-;s;-tea:r
Non CDBG Mailings 6,000 ,:' ,„,-., . '" -
Retirement payments 650 000I?,° -
P ym tl' r'.,.
SLCC Community Television 15,000 - (15,000) (100.0%)
u?r,n< E x.
Tuition aid p i y 110,000 I -
%mot.
Washington DC Consultant 50,000 '';-:..,:r, ' 5,000 10.0%
S'
Total Other , 1,724,200 79,900 10.4%
Y s fig a. Yfif `ir' '1' ,"fit fi �3 5 N' r .1
'Cf- t ' `Y { 1. v %
�¢ � � t'rk...i.;���� 1 '�i��. ., j, c '.�.a4� .., aCt 3a. �F�� zp��.��Y;�`-���'�.- t:� .�. `.. v���': e:�t� �`t�.t? �.��U
Interest Expense on Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes 625,000 :' I '''' - (125,000) (20.0%)
Bonding/Note Expense 45,000 , };•1;. .s i i r (10,000) (22.2%)
Total Debt Service 670,000 a- {' 11 135,000 (20.1%
Debt Service-Library Bonds(CIP Fund) 6,817,883 -' ; ,,�� 0 $132,676 1.9%
,«
Debt Service-Other Projects(CIP Fund) 7,354,315 ;: .r.OH (732,304) (10.0%)
Impact Fees(OP Fund) 650,000 '-.,, =F : (225,000) (34.6%)
Capital Improvement Projects-Ongoing revenue 5,806,317 - , >a' : (1,549,597) (26.7%)
Capital Improvement Projects-One-time revenue 1,520,806 1+ : 1,481,738 97.4%
Fleet Replacement Fund 4,518,481 - 44,000 1.0%
Information Management Services 4,886,786 5 42_` 146,456 3.0%
Insurance&Risk Management Fund 1,553,902 " i ' 1 46,098 3.0%
,__. :c x =
Bus pass program 61,000 :- :• � ..! 35,000 57.4%
Governmental Immunity Fund 1,500,000 J ` - (1,500,000) (100.0%)
Neighborhood Matching Grants Program 117,000 ' :' - (117,000) (100.0%)
Street Lighting Fund 125,000 4 *0,u T 5,000 4.0%
Total Transfers 34 911,490 "- T�.
p
Fehrt ... to da .. V-1-:' '4',�4+ � 1p.3 _t 4 "€� °-i Q= ! i t q;; -, s*40- 144ti.
TOTAL $39,327,816 107,002,3011 $(2,245,516) (5.7%) •
2
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE
• The following are some of the changes proposed to the Nondepartmental budget.
The Council may wish to discuss some of these changes or other items listed on
page 2.
1. Accounting System Maintenance Agreement ($2,000 increase) -The City
has traditionally accounted for the maintenance agreement on the
accounting system within the Non-Departmental budget under the
assumption that the system benefits all departments. The total cost of
the maintenance agreement is anticipated to be $65,000.
2. Animal control services ($12,900 increase) -The proposed $818,100
budget represents a 1.6%increase from fiscal year 2002-03. Salt Lake
County has been providing animal control services for Salt Lake City for
several years by contract. Some time ago, the Administration contacted
local animal control organizations, security providers, kennels and
veterinarians to determine if any other entities were interested in
providing animal control services for Salt Lake City. No other entity
expressed interest in providing these services for Salt Lake City. The
Administration also reviewed the County's cost records and determined
that Salt Lake City is not paying more than what the actual expenses are
for animal control services. The cost for FY04-05 will be$842,600 or an
increase of$24,500 from FY03-04. In some cases Council Members have
expressed interest in a higher service level. Is the Council interested in
expanding or providing additional resources for this contract?
3. Bus pass program ($35,000 increase) -The budget for fiscal year 2002-
03 was the second half of the biennial budget. Actual costs of the pass
program have been exceeding the budget. Costs for fiscal year 2002-03
were $83,937. The Administration is anticipating a charge of
approximately$96,000 for the bus pass program in fiscal year 2003-04.
The City instituted the bus pass program to encourage the use of mass
transit. The discount is only available under a special program with UTA
that is based on the total number of employees, so the cost cannot be
reduced by specifying a certain number of employees who would like the
passes.
4. Community television services ($15,000 elimination of funding to Salt
Lake Community College)-In fiscal year 2003-04, the City budgeted to
participate in a one-time countywide project to provide community
information to the public and visitors at hotels/motels. These funds have
not yet been expended. The Council may wish to ask the Administration
about the status of this project.
•
5. Election Processing($1.75,0001-Every other year, funds must be
budgeted for local elections. The City contracts with Salt Lake County for
election services. Actual election costs in fiscal year 2001-02 were
$118,207. The Council may wish to request an explanation from the
Administration for the increase in election costs. The Council may wish to
consider a legislative intent that the budget during non-election years
• include the use of these funds for one-time projects or an additional
'transfer to the CIP Fund so that the election funding is available for election
years without having to make other budget cuts.
3
6. Fleet replacement ($44,000 increase) -The budget increases funding for
fleet replacement from $4,518,481 to $4,562,481. Council staff will
prepare a separate staff report on the proposed budget for the Fleet
Management Fund. (Note: There is a slight discrepancy between the
amount budgeted in Non-Departmental to be transferred to the Fleet
Management Fund and the amount budgeted in the Fleet Management
Fund shown as a revenue from the General Fund.)
7. Gifts and Receptions-The budget for gifts and receptions is proposed to
remain at$20,600. Induction ceremony expenses are traditionally
budgeted in this account. Since the budget isn't proposed to increase, the
Council may wish to verify with the Administration that the budget includes
the induction ceremony expenses for both mayor and council.
8. Impact fees ($225,000 decrease) -Impact fee revenue is projected to
decrease because of less construction due to the economy. Impact fee
revenue of$425,000 is anticipated with a corresponding transfer to the
CIP Fund.
9. Legal Defenders ($83,912 increase) -The City is required to provide
counsel indigent defendants where jail time is a possibility. The City
contracts this responsibility to Salt Lake Legal Defenders. The budget
proposes an increase of 28.4%for fiscal year 2003-2004. A portion of the
increase, $55,100, represents the costs to cover the additional cases
taken over from the district attorney. Salt Lake City funds 5 of the 33
attorneys employed by Legal Defenders. The increase in costs without
considering the cases from the district attorney is 7.6%. The requested
increase will help keep salary consistent with the Salt Lake City •
Prosecutor's Office. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to
provide more written details relating to the cost increase for the contract
with Legal Defenders.
10.National League of Cities ($960 increase) -For fiscal year 2003-04, the
City's dues will be $9,860.
11.Neighborhood Matching Grants Program (one-time elimination of on-
going funding) -In fiscal year 1995-1996, the Council appropriated
$50,000 for a pilot Neighborhood Matching Grants Program. Funding
was increased to $250,000 in the next fiscal year and continued until
2000-2001 when it was increased to $350,000. In fiscal year 2002-2003,
the funding was reduced to $117,000 to use some of the unspent
accumulated amounts. The Administration recommends maintaining the
Neighborhood Matching Grant Program in fiscal year 2003-2004 by
utilizing the accumulated balance of$266,000 (no new funding). This in
effect will be a one-time savings, since an appropriate from the General
Fund will probably be necessary for fiscal year 2004-2005.
12.Sales tax rebates ($4,000 decrease) -The City is contractually obligated
for sales tax rebates relating to incentives for two retail businesses-
Hermes (Fred Meyer) and Sutherlands. The Administration projects the
rebates, which are based on a portion of actual sales taxes collected by
the two retail stores, to decrease to a total of$158,000.
4
13.Sugarhouse Park Authority ($5,000 increase)-The City and County
equally share the costs of operating the Sugarhouse Park. The City's
50% share for fiscal year 2003-04 will be $197,600.
14.Tax&Revenue Anticipation Notes ($125,000 decrease in interest
expense) -As is customary, each year the City borrows funds to help
support General Fund operations until property taxes are received. The
proposed budget represents preliminary cost estimates of a 2% interest
rate on$25 million. More precise calculations will be available before the
Council adopts the budget. The City Treasurer plans to sell the notes on
July 10, 2003. Council staff will prepare a separate staff report on Tax&
Revenue Anticipation Notes. The City Treasurer is also proposing a
decrease of$10,000 in the budget for issuing costs.
15.Transfer of on-going revenue to Capital Improvement Projects Fund
($1,549,597 decrease excluding debt service) -The Administration is
proposing to transfer$3,002,544 from fund balance to the CIP Fund to
bring the transfer to 9% of General Fund revenue. The total transfer to
the CIP Fund including debt service and one-time revenue is proposed to
decrease by$667,487. A portion of this decrease is due to a decline in
General Fund revenue resulting in a corresponding decrease in the 9%
amount of General Fund revenue. The transfer to CIP with ongoing
revenue (excluding the portion required for debt service) is proposed to
decrease from $5,806,317 to $4,256,720.
16.Transfer to Governmental Immunity Fund ($1,500,000 decrease) -The
• budget proposes a separate levy for the Governmental Immunity Fund
with an offsetting reduction to the General Fund levy. Property tax
revenue from the separate tax levy is estimated to be $1,300,000. The
original adopted budget for the transfer to Governmental Immunity for
fiscal year 2002-03 was$1,300,000. The budget was increased by
$200,000 during the year by amendment to meet the claims needs.
Council staff will prepare a separate staff report on the proposed budget
for the Governmental Immunity Fund.
17.Transfer to Information Management Services Fund ($146,456 increase)
The City's Information Management Services Division maintains the City
computer infrastructure. The General Fund's portion of major systems is
funded by a direct transfer from the General Fund. The Administration is
requesting the addition of two full-time positions. One position is to
continue the ratio of one network administrator for every 100 computers
(which was established during fiscal year 1995-96). The other position is
to keep the Division on track for placing applications for City on-line
services on the Internet. Council staff will prepare a separate staff report
on the budget for the Information Management Services Fund.
18.Transfer to Insurance &Risk Management Fund ($46,098 increase)
The Administration recommends a 3%increase in the transfer to the
Insurance & Risk Management Fund. Council staff will prepare a
separate staff report on the budget for the Insurance &Risk Management
Fund.
19.Transfer to Street Lighting Special Assessment Fund ($5,000 increase)
The City pays 25% of street lighting costs of special districts since the
5
City would have provided some lighting within the district. The total
budget proposed for fiscal year 2003-04 is $130,000.
20.Transitional housing ($4,500 increase)-The proposed budget includes
payments in lieu of taxes from the Housing Authority of$107,500.
Federal regulations allow housing authorities to make payments from
federal funds to cities in lieu of property taxes. The proposed budget
includes a contribution of these funds back to the Housing Authority as a
match for a federal grant used for maintaining existing transitional
housing. The City has traditionally made these transfers over the past
several years.
21.U.S. Conference of Mayors ($2,980 increase) -For fiscal year 2003-04,
the City's dues are anticipated to be $10,300.
22.Utah League of Cities 8s Towns ($5,000 increase) -Salt Lake City's
membership dues for the Utah League of Cities and Towns were $90,000
in fiscal year 2002-03. For the coming fiscal year, the City's dues are
calculated to be $95,000 based on the League's formula.
23.Washington DC consultant ($5,000 increase) -The Administration is
anticipating an increase of funding for the Washington DC consultant
from$50,000 to $55,000.
24.Youth City Government-The budget proposes continuation the $7,500
appropriation for Youth City Government but transfers the function to
the Department of Public Services.
25.YouthCity programs-The budget proposes continuation of the $150,000
appropriation for YouthCity programs but transfers the program to the
Department of Public Services.
Additional Information
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENT
The Council issued the following legislative intent statements in June 2000 that
relate to the Non-Departmental budget.
Economic Development Promotion - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration coordinate 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. •
Results/Steps Taken:
6
The Department works closely with other economic development organizations in
Salt Lake City, with staff serving on the boards of the EDCU, Chamber of
40 Commerce and the Downtown Alliance. The Economic Development program
within the Department of Community 8s Economic Development just completed
an audit, requested by the City Council, which addresses many of these
concerns. (The Council has not yet received the audit report. Council staff
anticipates that it will be available within the next two weeks.) 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.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Nondepartmental budget.
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
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
• BUDGET ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2003-04
DATE: May 20, 2003
BUDGET FOR: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUND
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears
cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, Randy
Hillier, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, Max Peterson, Rick Johnston,
Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, Kevin Young, Parviz Rokhva, Dell Cook, .
John Vuyk,Jerry Burton, Laurie Dillon, DJ Baxter
The proposed budget for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund for fiscal year
2003-2004 is $27,601,997. The CIP Fund does not include capital projects of
enterprise funds since those projects are budgeted within the enterprise funds.
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
PROPOSED BUDGET
Adopted Proposed Difference Percent
2002-2003 2003-2004 Change
•
Sources of funds
Transfer from the General Fund $18,949,321 $21,256,834 $2,307,513 12.2%
Class C Road funds 2,250,000 1,400,000 (850,000) (37.8%)
CDBG 2,120,258 1,968,000 (152,258) (7.2%)
Other sources 1,219,225 2,199,003 979,778 80.4%
Impact Fees 0 778,160 778,160
Total funds available $24,538,804 $27,601,997 $3,063,193 12.5%
Uses of funds
Transfer to debt service $14,741,423 $14,137,003 $(604,420) (4.1%)
Capital outlay 9,797,381 13,464,994 3,667,613 37.4%
Total uses of funds $24,538,804 $27,601,997 $3,063,193 12.5%
The Capital Improvement Program is a multiyear planning program that uses three
main planning documents: a 20-Year Inventory of Capital Needs, a 6 Year Capital
Improvement Plan, and each fiscal year's capital budget. Attached is a schedule of the
proposed capital budgets for fiscal year 2003-04 and the 6 Year Capital Improvement
Plan. This fiscal years 2003-2004 schedule identifies all of the projects that were
submitted for funding with the Mayor's recommendations and the priority rankings of
the Citizens Advisory Board and Administrative staff. The City Council makes the final
determination of projects to be funded.
•
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE
Some of the major policies or issues relating to the CIP Fund include: •
• $33,936,465 over 4 years for the Intermodal Hub - Although the Intermodal
Hub is operated as an enterprise fund, the Council may wish to consider the
development activities of the Intermodal Hub as part of the CIP. The capital
planning of the Intermodal Hub is contained in the 6 Year Capital Improvement
Program Plan. The Administration is recommending that the Council adopt a
Capital Operating budget for the Intermodal Hub which includes expenditures of
$33,936,465 between fiscal year 2003-2004 and fiscal year 2006-2007. This
amount is in addition the money that has been spent on viaduct shortening,
property acquisition and track reconfiguring. The Council may wish to consider
the timing of any proposed general commercial developments in the vicinity
immediately adjacent to the Intermodal Hub and whether or not these
developments are proposed as compliments to the Downtown Retail areas and
Gateway retail area. The Council may wish to receive an update on the
construction plans of the Intermodal Hub and determine when the proposed
expenditures need to be made. The Council may also wish to consider whether
or not any development activity at the Intermodal Hub will result in additional
sales or property tax to the City or Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake and if
there are any restrictions on commercial development at the Intermodal Hub.
• Transfer of CIP Coordinator Salary to CIP Fund - The Administration is
recommending that the Council adopt a Capital Operating budget which
includes the salary and benefit costs of the CIP Coordinator. The FTE will still be •
housed in the Finance Division of the Department of Management Services. The
Council may wish to create a cost center within the CIP for CIP Administration.
The Administration is recommending that the allocation of the CIP Coordinator's
salary be distributed to each of the CIP projects in the same manner as
engineering costs are allocated. The total salary and benefits transfer will be
$66,228. This will represent an enhanced staffing allocation to the CIP, since in
the past there has not been a full time staff position fully dedicated to CIP. The
Council may wish to ask about the benefits of the enhanced staffing level.
• 9% of General Fund revenue to CIP Fund - The Council adopted a policy that at
least 9% of on-going General Fund revenue is to be allocated to the CIP Fund.
The 9% calculation excludes library bond property tax and one-time money. The
Administration is proposing that a portion of the 9% allocation to the CIP Fund be
from General Fund fund balance. This approach is not consistent with the
Council's policy but it is consistent with the philosophy of this administration, to
allocate 'an amount equal to 9 percent'to CIP.
•
•
General Fund Transfer to CIP General Fund
Calculation of 9%Minimum Transfer Amount
• 2003-2004
General Fund revenue $ 161,186,949
Less Library Bond (6,950,559)
Less One-time revenue (0)
General Fund revenue for 9%calculation $154,236,390
9%of General Fund revenue $ 13,881,275
On-going allocation (78.4%) $ 10,878,731
General Fund balance allocation (21.6%) $ 3,002,544
The Council may wish to review the 9% policy and consider other funding priorities
for the Capital Improvement Program. Council staff has noted in the staff review of
department reports where revenue and expenditures within the General Fund have
shifted to Special Revenue Funds etc. The net effect of such shifts or transfers is a
reduction (or increase) of General Fund revenue. In many cases the reduction
acknowledges that the revenue that was shown as General Fund revenue is really
grant revenue dedicated to a particular program. An example of such a shift is the
proposed CDBG shift. Because the CDBG grant revenue was passed through the
General Fund, the Administration had to take an amount equal to 9% of the CDBG
grant and transfer it to the Capital Improvement Program. Because the CDBG grant
revenue is allocated to CDBG projects, the 9% allocation ends up being
"subsidized" by the remaining General Fund revenue. The Administration's
• approach of not including CDBG in the calculation of the 9% reduces the total
dollar amount allocated for CIP, but is not inconsistent with basic accounting
approaches and principles.
Council staff has identified two ways to address the allocation to the Capital
Improvement Program and make the allocation more closely match the needs of the
City:
> The first allocation method could be shifting the 9% allocation from General
Fund revenue (total General Fund revenue that includes Intergovernmental
Revenue, Charges for services, Inter fund Transfers, etc.) to General Fund Tax
revenue. The new allocation would be calculated from those sources that are
truly on-going in nature. General Fund tax revenue includes Property Taxes,
Sales and Use Tax, Franchise Taxes and Payment in Lieu of Taxes. As
comparison, total General Fund revenue was $154,236,390 and total General
Fund Tax revenue was $122,337,805. $13,881,275 of$122,337,805 is 11.35%.
> The second allocation method is a straight forward planning approach that
looks at the facilities that the City owns, makes assumptions about the
replacement and repair of the facilities based on historical practices and
allocates enough money to the Capital Improvement Program to accomplish the
goals of the program. Cities with strong multi-year Capital Improvement
Program plans follow this approach. Citizens and City staff gather once every
five or six years to review the CIP plan and recommend funding for the program.
• Debt service that is dedicated to the projects within the CIP is removed from the
funding scenarios and the remaining projects receive funding from a straight
•
•
allocation for Pay-as-you-Go CIP funds. It is understood that projects that are
unforeseen and unexpected are funded with General Fund fund balance and
any contingency funds within the Capital Improvement Program. If the City were •
to follow this approach the Administration would have a line item allocation for
Pay-as-you-Go CIP projects that matches the multi-year adopted CIP Plan. In
fiscal year 2003-2004, the total recommended allocation to the CIP Fund is
$27,601,997; $13,720,722 of that amount is for CDBG, SID, Class C, Impact.
Fee and other governmental revenue CIP projects. $13,881,275 is the General
Fund portion; of that amount$6,791,792 is legally obligated debt service on CIP
projects. Capital Improvement Debt projects include the debt service on the City
8s County Building, the Police/Fire Radio system and MBA projects. $7,089,483
of the General Fund portion is recommended for Pay-as-you-Go projects. If the
Administration were to follow a straight allocation method, they would account
for all of the other governmental revenue going to CIP and the debt service for
CIP projects, then allocate an amount such as $7 million in fiscal year 2003-
2004, $7,140,000 in fiscal year 2004-2005, etc.
• $2,000,000 for the fourth phase of Liberty Park reconstruction - The
Administration is recommending that the Council adopt a Capital Operating
budget which includes $2,000,000 for Liberty Park. This allocation will be the
fourth allocation to the reconstruction of Liberty Park. Depending on what
additional amenities are chosen for the park, an additional $3 to $6 million
could be spent in the park. The Council may wish to receive an update on the
park and hear what additional amenities are planned for the park. The multi-
year reconstruction of the park is the largest component of CIP Pay-as-you-Go •
funding.
• $420,000 for a street crossing at 1300 East and Sugarhouse Park - The
Administration is recommending that the Council adopt a Capital Operating
budget which includes $420,000 for a street crossing at 1300 East and
Sugarhouse Park. It is anticipated that this allocation will be matched with NEA,
UDOT, Federal and Private Grants, etc. The total cost of this project is
anticipated to be $1,720,000. The Council may wish to receive an update on the
fundraising and grant status of this project and determine whether a pedestrian
crossing is necessary this year to complete the Parley's Creek Corridor Trail
project.
• $300,000 for SID street lighting in the Rose Park area - The Administration is
recommending that the Council adopt a Capital Operating budget which
includes $300,000 for SID decorative street lighting in the Rose Park area. The
council may wish to receive an update on the street lighting master plan and
what effect this project will have on the overall street lighting policy of the City.
The Council may wish to determine why this area has been chosen for street
lighting upgrades and confirm that other street lighting areas are being
upgraded also. The Administration has previously indicated that they will not
be able to report back to the Council on their street lighting plans until August
or September.
•
d
• $0 for Traffic Calming - The Administration is recommending that the Council
adopt a Capital Operating budget which does not include money for Traffic
• calming in the City. The Council may wish to consider the amount of funding
remaining in the Traffic Calming cost center and determine if there are sufficient
funds available to continue this program. The Council may also wish to receive
an update on the program and hear what concerns residents have expressed
concerning the program. Council staff has attached a response from the
Administration concerning the traffic calming program. This information was
prepared in March of 2003. The Council initiated an audit of this program; it
will be available after the Audit Committee meets next week. Some initial
information is included in a later section of this report.
Additional Information
BACKGROUND
The Administration accepts applications for capital projects from citizens and City
departments each year for consideration for recommendation by the Mayor to the
Council for funding. All applications are reviewed by the CIP Citizens Board and a
team of City staffers from each department who specialize in capital projects. The
Administration has prepared a booklet for each Council Member. The booklet
• contains all of the applications for fiscal year 2003-2004 and fiscal year 2004-2005
capital projects. A new round of applications will be received during the summer of
' 2003 for consideration in the fiscal year 2004-2005 CIP budget.
The CIP application booklet is attached to this report.
Council staff has also attached the 6 Year Business Plan for the Capital
Improvement Program. The Business Plan is prepared by the CIP Coordinator and
is listed in the CIP Section. The Department of Public Services has CIP related goals
in the Engineering section. It is standard among cities with defined CIP programs
such as Salt Lake City's to have the capital budget administration be located in a
division other than the division responsible for the construction of the capital
projects. Usually the oversight or administration is considered a budget or finance
function.
Council staff has also attached a spreadsheet that shows the funding
recommendations from the CIP Board, City staff and the Mayor. This spreadsheet
will be shown on an overhead during the presentation on the CIP budget.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the CIP Fund.
•
S
•
•
Traffic Management (Traffic Calming)
•
The bulk of the information contained below is taken from a draft of the Traffic
Management Program Audit.
"To date, the program has received $1,500,000 in CIP funds from the City Council.
To date, $562,000 has been spent on construction; approximately $238,000 has
been spent for such items as testing equipment, speed boards, neighborhood
mailings, supplies, temporary employees, Traffic Calming seminars and the Pace
Car Program. An amount of$52,300 is owed for the installation of the testing
equipment. This currently leaves $647,700 in the program. Salary expenses are
allocated in the Division of Transportation budget. Currently, the program is
staffed with one Traffic Calming Coordinator. A graduate student intern is
assisting the Traffic Management Program on a part-time basis. Part-time or other
assistance is utilized on an as needed basis."
"There have been approximately 285 requests for traffic calming made to the
Division of Transportation. To date, the program has completed 32 traffic calming
projects and 3 others are in varying stages of the plan design and implementation
process. Of the 32 completed projects, 24 resulted in the construction of traffic
calming devices and 8 resulted in the closure of the project without the installation
of any traffic calming devices. The causes of project completion without device
construction are generally the result of neighborhoods deciding that they no longer
want the devices, and/or neighborhoods unable to reach a consensus on proposed
measures. There are approximately 105 eligible streets in the project queue
awaiting traffic calming measures. Over 145 streets have been evaluated and
deemed ineligible because they did not meet the threshold necessary to implement
traffic calming measures. Twenty-one streets are scheduled for an initial traffic
calming eligibility study. The Traffic Management Program receives approximately
20 telephone and/or email inquiries per week. Personnel respond to a variety of
inquiries, ranging from general public information inquiries to information requests
from other traffic calming departments. TMP receives 1-2 formal petitions each
month from neighborhoods wishing to enter the Program."
Contained below is a list of streets that the Traffic Management Program is
currently working with.
• 600 South between 900 East and 1300 East- being done in conjunction
with an Engineering reconstruction project.
• 1300 South, Glendale to Montgomery Street-being done in conjunction with
an Engineering reconstruction project.
• 1 i h Ave B Street to I Street-cost is estimated to be approximately $40,000
• 1500 East, 1700 South to 2100 South - cost is estimated to be
approximately $70,000.
• 600 West, North Temple to 600 North - cost is estimated to be approximately .
$80,000.
• 1700 East, 1700 South to 2100 South-Plan is not yet developed.
• 1900 East, 1700 South to 2100 South-Plan is not yet developed.
• • Imperial Street, 2700 South to 3000 South- Plan is not yet developed.
Of the four existing Traffic Calming cost centers, three contain unencumbered cash
and appropriation.
Traffic Calming Cost Centers with Cash and Appropriation Remaining
Remaining Remaining
Cost Center Approp Cash
Traffic Calming 83-99014 $2,073 $2,073
Traffic Calming 83-00014 $45,461 $45,550
Traffic Calming 83-03014 $249,912 $249,912
Total Remaining $297,446 $297,535
•
ID
7
• S • .
Fiscal }ear ll3-0,1 CIP Project;1/1lllirutiun Runkinks
ce a , Fiscal Year FY 2003-2004 CIP Board FY 2003-2004
t o r- .2'
2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Cumulative Total Proposed Cumulative Total Operating
in CO Ct c. CC Title of Project Request - Identifier Estimated Cost Amount Adj Staff Cost Amount Adj Board Cost Budget Impact
MBA&MFET(Class C)CIP Bond Debt Service Debt 1 $4,221,474 $3,787,314 $3,787,314 $3,787,3/4 $3,787,314 Negligible
Debt service for several MBA and MFET bonds used to complete various Portion is Impact Fee Eligible
capital improvements throughout the city.
t City&County Building Debt Service Debt 2 $2,401,967 $2,401,967 $6,189,281 $2,401,967 $8,189,281 Negligible
i Debt service payment on the bond used to rehabilitate and refurbish the
City&County Building. This bond will mature in 2011.
a
O Police/Fire Radio'800 Trunked Radio System Police 2 $540,794 $540,794 $6,730,075 $540,794 $8,730,075 Negligible
V, To pay the lease purchase on radio equipment for Police and Fire. This
is the final payment
Police/Fire Radio'800 Tower Repeater System Police 3 $61,717 $61,717 $6,791,792 $61,717 $8,791,792 Negligible
To pay the lease purchase for the tower repeaters associated with the
800 trunked radio system. Final payment will be in FY 2005.
24 7 1 Rose Park Lighting Project Trans 9 $300,000 $300,000 $7,030,076 $300,000 $7,091,792 Negligible
To remove all existing over head street lighting and install new
decorative poles with underground wiring throughout the Rose Park
Community Council District. An additional$561,000 is being provided
through a special improvement district(SID)bond.
10 10 2 Quayle Avenue from 9th W to 10th W Commun 9 $120,000 $120,000 $7,150,076 $120,000 $7,211,792 Negligible
To design and construct curb,gutter,sidewalk and a roadway on Quayle
Ave near 900 West and 1700 South. $75,000 will be contributed
through an area special improvement district(SID)bond.
14 2 3 Sugar House Rails wl Trails Commun 3 $264,000 Impact Fee Eligible None
To develop a paved bike/pedestrian trail in shared right-of-way with To be maintained
commuter light rail development on the UTA Sugar House spur,500 by the County
East to Highland Drive. Various other improvements will be made as
well.
3 4 4 Liberty Park improvements Parks 1 $2,990,000 $2,000,000 $9,150,075 $2,000,000 $9,211,792 Negligible
To provide for the fourth phase of master planned improvements for the
park. Some of the items included are:the Merry-Go-Round roof;the
Horseshoe Area&Duck Pond;Rice Terrace Pavilioin up-grade;Chase
home fountain rebuild;park-wide culinary water.
23 1 6 13th E Street Crossing Commun 6 $420,000 $420,000 $9,670,076 $420,000 $9,831,792 Negligible
To create a passage across 1300 East Street,south of the 2100 South Estimated that
intersection,connecting Sugar House Park with Hidden Hollow Natural O&M Costs will
Area and the Sugar House Business District. $120,000 of this funding be$1,000 in FY
will cover 100%of the construction design cost 04-05
1 3 6 Irrigation System-Sugar House Park/Phase ill Commun 1 $80,000 $80,000 $9,660,076 $80,000 $9,711,792 None
To partially fund phase III of the Sugar House Park irrigation Park is
refurbishment to bring the entire park irrigation system up to date with a maintained by the
more efficient irrigation equipment. The portion of the irrigation system County
that has not been refurbished is currently
1
ce ,- Fiscal Year FY 2003-2004 CIP Board FY 2003-2004
rs o 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Cumulative Total Proposed CumulatiVe Total Operating
in m rr ct Title of Project Request Identifier Estimated Cost Amount Adj Staff Cost Amount Adj Board Cost Budget Impact
13 5 7 Stratford Park ADA Playground Parks 3 $100,000 $100,000 $9,750,075 $100,000 $9,811,792 Negligible
To replace the existing playground equipment in the park,located at
20th East and 2600 South,which is not ADA accessible. Also,to redo
the existing landscape to be in harmony with the new playground
equipment and layout.
21 6 8 North Brickyard Neighborhood Park Design Commun 6 $30,000 Impact Fee Eligible Negligible
To design a park on a half-acre site owned by Salt Lake City located on Once
the Jordan Canal corridor between Crandall and Zenith Ave,at 1140 constructed,
East 2905 South. Parks O&M costs
will increase
$2,000 to$3,000
25 12 9 Steenblik Mini Park ADA Playground Parks 9 $150,000 $150,000 $9,900,075 $150,000 $9,961,792 Negligible
To replace the existing non-ADA accessible playground equipment in
the park,located at 1069 West and 800 North,as well as up-grades to
the irrigation system.
18 18 10 Pedestrian Safety Devices Trans 6 $150,000 $150,000 $10,050,075 $150,000 $10,111,792 Negligible
To provide for the installation of pedestrian safety devices throughout the
city. These include pedestrian signals with countdown timers,in-
pavement or overhead crosswalk lighting,or improved pavement
markings. These devices are installed throughout t
17 19 11 Jordan River Trail Security Lighting Parks 4 $165,000 $165,000 $10,215,075 $165,000 $10,276,792 Negligible
To add security lighting to the 1300 South to 1700 South portion of the
Jordan River Trailway System. This is a continuation of the lighting
system.
22 20 12 Rosewood Park Master Plan Parks 7 $50,000 $50,000 $10,265,075 $50,000 $10,328,792 Negligible
To create a master plan for Rosewood Park including a plan for use of
the 40 acre parcel to the north of the park. Rosewood Park is located at
1400 North and 1200 West.
28 24 13 Constitution Park ADA Playground 8,Tennis Upgrade Parks 8 $200,000 $200,000 $10,465,076 $200,000 $10,526,792 Negligible
To replace the existing non-ADA accessible playground equipment,
upgrade the tennis courts and modify the irrigation system. Constitution
Park is located at 1300 West 300 North.
4 8 14 ADA Ramps/Corner Repairs Streets 1 $300,000 $300,000 $10,765,076 $250,000 $10,776,792 Negligible
To construct various ADA pedestrian ramps and related repairs to
corners,Including sidewalk,curb and gutter.
16 9 16 Pedestrian Bike Path Development Trans 4 $100,000 $100,000 $10,866,075 $50,000 $10,828,792+ Negligible
To develop,design and construct pedestrian and bike paths,routes,and
facilities throughout the city as opportunities arise.
15 14 16 Local Street Rehabilitation Streets 4 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $12,366,075 $1,000,000 $11,826,792 Negligible
To reconstruct or rehabilitate deteriorated local streets to include
replacement of street pavement,replacement of defective sidewalk,curb
and gutter and improvement to drainage. Streets rehabilitation is done
and an as needed basis according to the pa
• • 4111 2 •
• • r -
..
,rz.
cr
o Fiscal Year FY 2003-2004 CIP Board FY 2003-2004
r c °,c 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Cumulative Total Proposed CumulatiVe Total Operating
rn m Z. Title of Project Request Identifier Estimated Cost Amount Adj Staff Cost Amount Adj Board Cost Budget Impact
6 15 17 Sidewalk Replacement SID Streets 2 $600,000 $600,000 $12,966,076 $400,000 $12,226,792 Negligible
To replace defective sidewalk and remove tripping hazards in the
designated special improvement district(SID)area. This project will also
install ADA pedestrian ramps,provide some tree replacement where
trees have damaged sidewalk,and improve drainag
19 13 18 New and Replacement Streetlights Trans 6 $60,000 $60,000 $13,026,075 $60,000 $12,286,792 Negligible
To replace existing streetlights that are no longer servicable or install
new streetlights on and as needed basis. To be coordinated with other
city projects.
27 11 19 Sugar House Lighting Project Trans 8 $675,000 $675,000 $13,700,076 $675,000 $12,961,792 Negligible
To remove all existing over head street lighting and install new
decorative poles with underground wiring. Street lights would be
replaced on 2100 South from 700 East to 1300 East,and Highland
Drive from Ramona to 1-80 and Wilmington.
11 18 20 Sidewalk Rehabilitation-Concrete Sawing Streets 3 $200,000 $200,000 $13,900,076 $150,000 $13,111,792 Negligible
To provide sidewalk rehabilitation and a reduction of tripping hazards
through a relatively new concrete sawing technique. This process
eliminates existing sidewalk displacements of up to one inch through
use of a specialized saw which slices off the dis
2 17 21 Traffic Signal Upgrade Trans 1 $625,000 $625,000 $14,626,076 $500,000 $13,611,792 Negligible
To remove existing traffic signal equipment and upgrade with mast arm
poles,new signal heads,pedestrian signal heads with countdown
timers,improved loop detection and left turn phasing. Planned
upgrades will take place at 300 West and 1700 South,400
20 21 22 Jordan Park Peace Garden-irrigations System Phase II Parks 6 $190,000 $190,000 $14,716,076 $190,000 $13,301,792 Negligible
To provide for the second phase of Peace Gardens irrigation
construction. The irrigation system is being replaced to maximize water
efficiency and to attach it to the Central Control System. Jordan Park
Peace Garden is located 1000 West 1000 South.
26 23 23 200 S Reconstruction Streets 6 $3,250,000 $3,250,000 $17,966,076 $3,250,000 $16,551,792 Negligible
To reconstruct deteriorated and substandard street on 200 South,from
400 West to 900 West,to include pavement reconstruction,installation
of new curb,gutter and sidewalk,storm drainage,street lighting,street
landscaping and traffic control features
12 22 24 Traffic Calming Trans 3 $250,000 $250,000 $18,215,076 $200,000 $16,751,792 Negligible
To install traffic calming devices such as bulb-outs,speed humps,raised
crosswalks,traffic circles,medians,etc.,on streets where these types of
devices are deemed appropriate in eligible areas of the City.
31 25 Herm Franks Park-Parking and Storage Parks 13 $130,000 $130,000 $18,346,076 $130,000 $16,881,792 Negligible
To plan and construct new landscape along the 700 East frontage.
Also,to make changes to the irrigation system and to add security
lighting. Herm Franks Park is located at 1350 South 700 East.
3
s
c
cc , - .E Fiscal Year FY 2003-2004 CIP Board FY 2003-2004
o = m c 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Cumulative Total Proposed Cumulative Total Operating
rn m o: Title of Project Request Identifier Estimated Cost Amount Adj Staff Cost Amount Adj Board Cost Budget Impact
32 28 EOC/Trelning Center Fire 1 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $26,345,075 $8,000,000 $24,881,792 Unknown
To provide for the completion of a building through a joint venture with
the area Red Cross to build an Emergency Operations Center
(EOC)/Training Center.
30 27 700 E Street Lighting Upgrade Trans 7 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $28,345,075 $2,000,000 $26,881,792 Negligible
To remove all existing over head street lighting on 700 East from South
Temple to 2700 South,and install new decorative poles with
underground wiring.
8 28 ADA Transition Plan Improvements-City Wide Parks 2 $100,000 $100,000 $28,445,075 $/00,000 $26,981,792 Negligible
To design and constuct in parks,city-wide,that have been identified as
accessibility issues as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
6 29 SMCC Chlorine Tank Bldg Sery 1 $70,000 $70,000 $28,615,075 $70,000 $27,051,792 Negligible
To prolong the normal service life of the boiler at the Sorenson Multi-
Cultural Center,the chlorine tank needs to be moved from the room
where the boiler is located,due to the corrosive nature of chlorine fumes.
The Sorenson Center is located at 855 We
33 30 Popperton Park ADA Playground&Master Plan Parks 11 $120,000 $120,000 $28,636,075 $120,000 $27,171,792 Negligible
To replace the existing non-ADA accessible playground equipment as
well as up-grades to the irrigation system.
29 31 Sugar House Ramp and Paver Replacement Streets 5 $400,000 $400,000 $29,035,076 $400,000 $27,571,792 Negligible
To replace substandard ADA pedestrian ramps and sidewalk pavers in
the Sugar House business district.
36 32 CIP Grants Matching Funds Grants 1 $100,000 $100,000 $29,136,076 $100,000 $27,671,792 Negligible
To provide funds to be available for use as CIP grants matching money.
36 33 Lindsey Garden Park-Master Plan Parks 10 $50,000 $50,000 $29,185,076 $50,000 $27,721,792 Negligible
To create a master plan for Lindsey Garden Park to determine the best
future use of the park.
38 34 Main Police Station Police 1 $44,174,300 $44,174,300 $73,359,375 $44,174,300 $71,896,092 Unknown
To provide for the purchase of approximately 1/3 of an acre contiguous
to the existing Public Safety Building,to demolish the existing apartment
building,the Public Safety Building,the parking structure and the
annex,and to construct a new main police
7 35 Traffic Signal Installation Trans 2 $375,000 $375,000 $73,734,375 $375,000 $72,271,092 $270
To install new traffic signals at intersections where they are warranted.
37 36 Westminster ADA Playground&Parking Turn-Around Parks 12 $200,000 $200,000 $73,934,375 $200,000 $72,471,092 Negligible
To replace the existing non-ADA accessible playground equipment,to
up-grade the irrigation system,and to modify the existing parking turn-
around to allow easier access and exit. Westminster Park is located at
990 East 1700 South.
9 37 Fire Station Repairs and Improvements Fire 2 $70,000 $70,000 $74,004,376 $70,000 $72,541,092 Negligible
To provide for necessary repairs to all City fire stations.
34 38 1200 E Street/Median Rehabilitation Streets 11 $805,000 $805,000 $74,809,376 $805,000 $73,346,092 Negligible
To provide street and median island rehabilitation to 1200 East,from
300 South to 500 South,to include replacement of deteriorated street
pavement,curb and gutter,median curb,median irrigation and
landscaping.
. . III 4 -
• • •
Q, Fiscal Year FY 2003-2004 CIP Board FY 2003-2004
52Y 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Cumulative Total Proposed Cumulative Total Operating
o m cc 2 cc Title of Project Request Identifier Estimated Cost Amount Adj Staff Cost Amount Adj Board Cost Budget Impact
Withdrawn Jordan River Trail Railroad Crossing Design Parks 6 $65,000 Withdrawn
To design the railroad crossing and to study the costs associated with
building a bridge over,or a tunnel under the tracks at this section of the
Jordan River Trailway Project.(Request is being withdrawn since
Tran.ortation determined that available fun
* 160 W Quince Street Commun 2 $135,000
To upgrade pavement,and sidewalk,curb and gutter on this section of
street. (Recommended that this street be included in the 2004/2005
CIP Local Streets Reconstruction project,pending funding approval for
the•ro'ect.
Rossalyn Heights•1900 East Street Improvements Commun 10 $364,000
To reconstruct 1900 East between 2100 South and Parley's Way,also
improving sidewalk,curb and gutter,traffic calming,and street lighting.
*CIP Board Members determined that these issues would require going through the Special Improvement District(SID)process in order to replace the curb,gutter and sidewalk on their streets and to
potentially coincide with planned street improvements.
5
Q Y o s Fiscal Year FY 2003-2004 CIP Board FY 2003-2004
2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Cumulative Total Proposed Cumulative Total Operating
in m m 2 cc Title of Project Request Identifier Estimated Cost Amount Adj Staff Cost Amount Adj Board Cost Budget Impact
l•!seal Year (13-04 Impact lee Llinihle Project:1pplicatiuirs
Impact Fee Projects $425,000
Construct various Police,Fire,Park and Street capital improvement
projects identified in the Impact Fee Analysis,Capital Facilities Plan.
MBA Debt Service for Pioneer Precinct Bond Debt 1 $434,160
Debt service for the MBA bond used to complete the Pioneer Precinct.
Impact fees may be used to pay for 19%of the cost of the facility.
14 2 Sugar House Rails w/Trails Corn mun 3 $264,000
To develop a paved bike/pedestrian trail in shared right-of-way with
commuter light rail development on the UTA Sugar House spur,500
East to Highland Drive. Various other improvements will be made as
well.
21 6 North Brickyard Neighborhood Park Commun 6 $30,000
To design a park on a half-acre site owned by Salt Lake City located on
the Jordan Canal corridor between Crandall and Zenith Ave,or 1140
Plaza 349 EOC Construction $50,000
To complete the construction of an Emergency Operations Center in
Plaza 349
6
• • • J
1 • •
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
• 83 Fund
Mission Statement
The Capital Improvement Program(CIP)is a multi-year planning program for capital expenditures needed to replace or expand the public
infrastructure. The construction or rehabilitation of streets, sidewalks,bridges,parks, public buildings, waterworks, and airport facilities
are commonly funded CIP projects.
Goals and Objectives
Efficiency/Effectiveness Measures Cumulative Targets
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06> 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Improve Infrastructure 1. Invest an amount equal to or greater than 9%of on- >9% >9% >9% >9% >9% >9%
Condition: Balance between new going General Fund revenue per year in capital
opportunities and maintenance of improvements.
existing infrastructure.
2. Enterprise funds will make capital investments in 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
accordance with their five year plans.
Narrative
The policies and guidelines associated with the Capital Improvement Program are shown below:
• Allocation of General Fund revenues for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General Fund revenue.
The Council intent that no less than 9%of General Fund monies go to the CIP was reiterated this fiscal year. The FY 2003-04 budget
appropriates 9.0%of on-going General Fund revenue to CIP.
• Credit revenues received from the sale of real property to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Fund and reserve the revenue for future
use. City Administration and the City Council both support funding CIP with one-time monies received from the sale of real property,as well as
CIP funds remaining from projects completed under budget.
• Capital improvement projects financed through the issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service no longer than the useful life of the project.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
• Seek out partnerships for completing capital projects. City Administration is actively seeking contributions to the CIP from other public and
private entities. The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County are currently providing contributions to debt service on CIP
projects. Other government agencies are also providing funding for streets,sidewalks,parks,tennis courts,and other public buildings
A listing of proposed project for fiscal years 2004 through 2009 is included in the document.
• s S
• • •
61'ear ,';" ,',tit trteiit i i ( �t,�afd 'id`4Pdn , . .
genethri.P.,:..8r' '.7,s X qt �' ,,k ¢„r.�y��.'t' ,rr:.,:� ',..,.,.. r:'' �,t
ikirt
14n4` .M�t'• - ,.i.Sx$ .�'r, .i:�.': 7i",�w+MM 3 tr 4'Y.xi ref...ax;' /frt�,d,tM • ' i., ,
STREETS, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
1 ADA'SkieWelliitf s/Comet etiet3 ._'`;''r>;:i+, ' '94'•� ,:lp,,, ;;}',,. , ;1450;000' , 41ffi800;000"'•m,'r ' •6600,000' $800,000• $600,000 . ,'',$800,00O ,-$3,450,000
General Fund $250,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,750,000
CDBG Funding $200,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,700,000
' 2 SIde'iie RR"ptearrifent - ''-- . --"'"_ --.,�,�,,,....- ,.,.-•$1000;000'."' _.. $1,100,000 ' _ $1,1oo,00d "$1,100,000 " $1,400,000 -$1,400,000 $7,100,000
General Fund $400,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $800,000 $800,000 $3,500,000
CDBG Funding $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000
Special Improvement District(SID) $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,400,000
3 Local Sbeef'Ri"onstructlon .. :'- - ... $1,019,483 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,419,483
General Fund $1,019,483 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $7,919,483
CDBG Funding $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000
4 Streets clay='Class C Funding ' ""'-r' '' r$1,500:000_ $1,$00,000 $1;500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $9,000,000
Class C Funding $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $9,000,000
b Quayb lveriue fftim 9th West t0 10th W $195,000 $195,000
General Fund $120,000 $120,000
Special Improvement District(SID) $75,000 $75,000
8 1300 Eiket Street Crossing "_' . .. .. .. '$420,000- $420,000
General Fund $420,000 $420,000
7 Sidewill'Rehabllitetion Concrete Sawing .. - _. ..' • $150,000 $150,000
General Fund $150,000 $150,000
8 900-Soutti(Main Street to900west) ...- .n.'-- . -µ . ' ' ' $1,100,000 $1,100,000
Class C Funding $800,000 $800,000
Special Improvement District(SID) $300,000 $300,000
9 900 South(State t0 700 East) $200,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000
Class C Funding $200,000 $1,650,000 $1,850,000
10 2100 South(900 West to Redwood Road) '. .. . ' ' -. . $8,300,000 $6,300,000
Class C Funding $200,000 $200,000
Federal Funding $6,100,000 $6,100,000
11 700 Solidiat`Jotdan River Bridge.' ' ....,"°-7'_`' ' :$1,106,000,. $1,100,000
Class C Funding $200,000 $200,000
Federal Funding $900,000 $900,000
"12 Prfdait Stroet'C irsion Design"'.. ,$20,000_ . _ $20,000
CDBG Funding $20,000 $20,000
13 'Utelir Ph `'i ile(Reoonstnialiii"~ t777 . `,73 '.. "$486;000„ " ' $465,000
CDBG Funding $485,000 $485,000
14' 'Ufaltna PMie 2 Street Design ' .,1. "„ '$38;000° _ - , , ' ... " - $38,000
CDBG Funding $38,000 $38,000 '
15 1300Soiiifi flee Reconstruction-° ' ,. '.."�,." '_ .'$d25,000'" " . ' - " $525,000'
CDBG Funding $525,000 $525,000
-.., . .,..n�-.. ...-... ,fl.' ..;..
' 18 rifAc tarid-teniiscaping $19,000 $19,000
CDBG Funding $19,000 $19,000
6(Year CapitatimpmveMen6"4D1ro ,am'(CI49 Balanced Plan , . ' .
g' ' epa its a,, x -,. .;.. 4 • ' :
17 200"South(406 West to 900 bleat) °:" ;; $400,000 $2,420,000 $800,000 $3,420,000.
General Fund $150,000 $670,000 $600,000 $1,420,000
Class C Funding $1,750,000 $1,750,000
Special Improvement District(SID) $250,000 $250,000
18 500 East(900'SoUth to 2100 South) ' ' $250,000 $1,450,000 $1,950,000 $1,450,000 $5,100,000
Class C Funding $250,000 $1,450,000 $1,950,000 $1,450,000 $5,100,000
19 Cafifomia Avenue(4800 West to 5600 West) ''''„'.'` - ' $2,500,000 " $2,500,000
Impact Fees $1,700,000 $1,700,000
Special Improvement District(SID) $800,000 $800,000
20 Gon&efiT Street Rehabilitation $400,000 $400,000
General Fund $400,000 $400,000
21 1200'East"(300 South to 500 Sotith) - _,,_..,..,,�,7, -- .,..,_ ,.,_ , . '-'
$400,000 $400,000
General Fund $400,000 $400,000
' 22 .01151Oliafieet'(1f60 South to1700 South) .,' '$2,500,000 '$2,500,000
Impact Fees $900,000 $900,000
Class C Funding $600,000 $600,000
Special Improvement District(SID) $1,000,000 $1,000,000
23 1300'Eeist(Sou i'Tetnple to'S00 South) $3,000,000 $3,000,000
General Fund $300,000 5300,000
Federal Highway Funding $2,700,000 $2,700,000
'24 1300 South Viaduct RehabIlitatiori" ' ,._ 7-7' .. '' ." ' $2,000,000 $1,600,000 $3,600,000
Class C Funding $400,000 $400,000
Federal Highway Funding $1,600,000 $1,600,000 53,200,000
Streets Total $14,521,483 $7,700,000 $9,920,000 $9,050,000 $7,850,000 $14,050,000 $63,091,483
Streets,Summary of Revenue by Source
General Fund $2,359,483 $2,250,000 $2,770,000 $2,700,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $15,279,483
CDBG $1,487,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,487,000
Class C $2,900,000 $3,400,000 $3,250,000 $3,350,000 $3,450,000 $3,550,000 $19,900,000
Special Improvement District $775,000 $650,000 $1,200,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,400,000 $4,825,000
Impact Fee $1,700,000 $900,000 $2,600,000
Federal Highway $7,000,000 $1,800,000 $4,300,000 $12,900,000
Total of All Funding,by Source $14,521,483 $7,300,000 $9,920,000 $9,050,000 $7,450,000 $13,750,000 $61,991,483
• • • >
• III •
6(Year CapitafImprovements Program(CIO Balanced Tian ...,, .
. , .. •genera( undvepartment .., -,,tic:,.„ ,.,?,,z.t,-1,,.0.„,.- ...,‘, .,":,,,,,,,s...,;,,,t,''.;,;--,.. ..,.:,,,,,,.. ., :..r. -.,:, • • ' . . ,
' .
PARKS, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
I -UbettirPerkeerillnuatton Of MestetPlerl".4.tgrIz544.4.,40Re.,`,-.,:•. ;',.'-'- ;"•.;$2,000,1300,'.r's ''g$1000,0001",,.''''-'92,000,000"' -'' 01,000,000 , $1,000,000 - '-',.',12,0013,000 ,' "-"'$9.000,000
General Fund $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 _$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $9,000,000
2 ADA TilikitroWliten CIty-WIde ' " $16:066''. 77066606 '$206:600 ' $200,000' ,' $200,000 :"--,"P$2"06,ito • • • ' $1,10010
General Fund $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
CDBG $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $600,000
3 Jordari'River Trail Improvements- - -,------ -•:-"--.-' " -- 5- "-$500,090 $500,000 - $150,000 $150,000 ' 7-4-150,000 s1,460,000
CDBG $500,000 $500,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $1,450,000
-• 4 Parks ikeitiiioni kiiprovenients CifJr-Wide --..- - "1-- '- - -.5" .- '--'• '-'-5- -$150,000 " - - $150,000 ' $150,000 $150,000 - • 'siso,000 lito,000
General Fund $ $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000
5 Aieefiriventoliaparks • , .; ., -.-7,,,..- ,T.,,T,.._ ,...,,,, .„.„ .,,, „„ „ . ,...,_$12550:000 060 ,,
$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 ''',-$25,000 $125,000General Fund $25,000 $25,000
$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000
8 Jcirdelittlier Pirkiey Securftilighting" -, ' '7.. - ' • '. sfet,doo lioo,boti-'- $100,000 - •$100,000 -" - $100,000 ',---, '" s566,660
General Fund ., $165,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $585,000
7 Acielliltkii1 old*Space forPtitiirebeifekiirif-"T''''''' '7 *6100;000 ' $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 ''''7$100,000 $666,000
General Fund $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
8 Tree Planting blii-WIde 7 ,`.1' ".7.7C..`7.- " -,- $50.600 - ' $50,000 ' $50,000•' $50,000 -Y.'•$tut000 " 056M0
General Fund $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
9 ParkfTreikiSIgiiiie City-Wide ,, ..,,,,.. , ..!,:-...757, ' : - • '---'tiCi,900 7- 5 $10,000' . $10,000 $10,000 ' ,Z,-•siii,000•- 1 - $50,000
General Fund $10,0 ,00 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000
'10 MatithfrifaiiiiiiikriAvallable-PerkiGiiiintii7-77'r,--177-' 7-- -:- --7: " . $100,000 '-$100,000 " $100,000 ' .-'5100,000 • $400,000
General Fund ... $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000
•. , ..„
11 Modiste;Avirelue tornmunIty Park- - -:'---r7-----5'-" .- $75,000 „ $75,000
CDBG 575,000 $75,000
12 Tauter Piiii"Pfacciiound and Perk' 7::' 717:''" 77-',7.7* :77* 7*'* $206,000 " ' . _ ...,., .
$200,000
CDBG $208,000 $208,000
13 Stettin:I Pelf--Atok comiiliiiiee and PlaiditiiiiiiillifetirT'-'•77-7:-5.7-isi 66,066 • •" - - " $icik000
General Fund $100,000 . $190,000
"14 -- iiiblkIiiiierAVAtorlifillircFaidWaieFoiiiiraciiiy7f,•7717.777770-654-056-7.,-: ""-- -"-- 7'''' '':' ' 4166,600
General Fund $150,000 $150,000
"is "trilitilietiaiiisiiirAiikainPita-RgelidtianiTiVitlinitlif Wir," " 912150tiliti '': ' -,••-=',727 :"."'--7-••.:7 "' " . . . . ..
General Fund $200,000 $200,000
-16'-isiatle' WaW2r.'F;5.'5777,-77-7 1-74-40;000' '' 71F: '' '" "•' ' , „ .
General Fund $190,000 $190,000
17 --Ri•Ditiiikiiiiiient Ntitife5PlieW774W17;7171W,.7.-77,110:0-607:77:; ,.::477 ,:,77,.;,7.y.,, ,- --,,---,,..,..', . -.- ...., , - - - . . .,..,, ,., , .. ., ,„. , $....50.„...
,000
General Fund $50,000 $50,000
--'le' intlliiitelist-uailifiiiiiiiertifil5Wis111175R1-7WN*Im,•-c-;44180,000r---••%; - ' •.. 7",'• ' . - ' '"''77 '''- .--$60;000
General Fund $80,000 $80,000
19 Surtit-Weiriatglifiiilli ffilliP-7-75A"'57Y,' ,*'.;,";"7.7,..W17,g,717,77,7,',7.7,Tr.,777,42.6006,7:17-:-.7,..777,7.7- ,7;-,;,r.:,, ..,-•- ;,-. 2- --, ...- ,
08 ,000
Impact Fees $264,000 $264,000
20 NoftitibiaisVFFIgsfitiiifiabillW birtilde7M:77,777-77--77IlittboO'''."7:',7;7r-',."'''''-' :-, "' -' '''' "' '' '-• ' ...., , „. .
$.16,666
Impact Fees $30,000 $30,000
-21 -Rlirlifikliiktilarii(Plaiiiitirki177‘.7:37.:5,5713377Mr.77-77;=.77-sitio.,Ajtc.r;,--.r.: ---, - ;- -„•,, -- . - - - ...
' . , $100,000
CDBG
$100,000 $100,000
22 -west---chigiR fitatpokdornouncei-Tininswirsiiii•witiM'T, ..7f4f?Tf.,C,4,..F.;77-7: '-. 1662,00..n'"'",-, '• ' 7" . . .,„
$itiiobo
',-.%-',W,,,,:-,,',-;..;',..!, -----, -- •.- ,;•''.1.'... ....,„(A,.4.,;,::„.,,--4-e4.,•i.-,•4-tr:.,••,,l', '. '--!,-"•,;',.,-.,..;;-'4`•;-,-3"- -,.'.*,'‘
General Fund $150,000 $150,000
23 VanNeii kiii(=ADA cothjiiieni Kiiiiiii-tiatitity -"7'''''''"7-""- .-"$75,000 ' -- ,
$75,000
. .
6(Year Cdpitarimprovernek' 6 'ftg'ra"-tit-Tem)Baki'nee' iTtan.
• ,. . . .„_. • . " , •, • .,.. •
,„or:-7 ,,'-', .•-_,,,,... ,,•,, 1•!,,,;‘,/,:.--,i,:,A,,;,,3.4.1.4s* ::*;4::::,,i.:',2,:,,:;:1;,,'',.',',"e,'A',:•:` - ..' -'*:`,t• •,„ „:: • •-
genenuvwratweparrmencs ,ap ,, ,:.,,I,,,,..,..,,,,,.n.Y.A' ,1'7';','0','• "''''').''',.. , '.:;:vi.' .';' . - . , , . .
General Fund $75,000 $75,000
"•.24 GgileiirAbA coniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid Aiiii"roithltifitir"'' '7 --"''- :-',' ' '"7$75,00o ' ' ,..
05,000
General Fund $75,000 $75,000
25 Piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii(2100 tiiiiiiiiiikediiobalkokfe. • • 771:": '"":"17W' •."' ;71 '''.7$106,000; ,...
' 3100,000
General Fund $100,000 $100,000
. .„ ... .
tilio,Ott
General Fund $150,000 $150,000
27 0iiiiViWgiiiiii1Siiniitiuif0pgiiiiiiiir-7,77-77 -7.777 '17,..7-77--r,t,-;--:7:-.--73$40.0m0--- ,,,• r -. . .. . „
777 - - ' kdk000
General Fund $400,000 , $400,000
28' Ciiiittiiikiiihdetkiconstriiiiiii177.777-'77,77s 7.77,777-7-7--77-7,,:'',,-,"-:,.,•c ..79itiooti'---.7.- '. - •• - •, "'"7-• -' ' - '----
General Fund $100,000 $100 000
. . . . ....... , _„. . .. .. „„-..„ ,.. „ „ .... .. ,
29 FatitialifitrainfiiiiispiniiitliA11671511117,4N7iii7'175'r7-‘77.-'-' -',7''.''72;'''''''7-7‘",-;":' ''..7tilisti,ii0"0 7"7'' .
General Fund $80,000 $60,000
-39 •uniikefDiiiaifr.Pilibeverofiarolifgt'tt'iticePfiMr"2707777r,,:-Frr.''PTz.T.F7,7---:mllitf,56o7-7,--- --. , ,--- - -.- ,--,-f.-7-- .,
General Fund $80,000 $60,000
31 tiiiitelhilebaiiiiiiiiient7777:777',AFO,PAI:77.W. 7-731-tio-Aiiii7 77 - • ••' •• - '7'- ••777" . '''. '''''''-''• ' ''' $100,090
General Fund $100,000 $100,000
'32. Pliiiiiiiklikbbiiiti9i119i1(7771W":'7,7TUP7172,777-77.F7:7777,1'317777x7 .1410etwii'77,"•.'1••$190,000' '7"050,006. '- ' - • -7,7s.-7,','"- - - '"$4000Atio
General Fund $200,000 $100,000 $700,000 $1,000,000
33 Unifi0'GifitiPAINIik•LADIaltitigNildelinii, .‘, , .7•WP 7:77..,,Z 1744,HHriFf:W 777,...,, 17-77'.157777$160,660';:;';',77;7‘.S.:;7..7.,.'1.47''''r":':'Sr.'r r r r.r‘t'''r"r''..r'''fr r'rr r r rr '''Trr''.2::5::'” 'r ' r' '7; "WO°
Watt;'.?;?.X‘,',I4,1 :., ..i,7,;;..t.,*.:,i ;i,.. 'i,s$1:K*TV'"'";11.,,;: 07•`'N'''''''''"''''i:L'"'''''''V''''''2 '''. 7.
General Fund $100,000 $100,000
• *34 •Faiiiiiiiiiiti-aiffiitiitio-n Aiiiiiiiiiiiiii7"7,;W:Ft777.77,7777,r7-777:77",,, .-„,‘' 177"';,,, "; '''. ' ' • $300,000 • • - ''-'•• • ' - '.'..7:7: Cloo,oin
General Fund $300,000 $300,000
3.5 FiliiiiiitiViiiiiVolfeyball Diiiiiojiiiietil ":777.77477-777.'n,'",5,777,:,,77.."-,;,:1,„:,,i; '" "- ' :' •'''• ' $100,000 ' ''''• ' " $100,090
General Fund $100,000 $100,000
• 98 co6iiiiiiiiiiiitiaPOihouse PiikiliiiiiiiitetiRWEnfiriiM1T:e77 .'r`Tr77:-:"':':7- .‘'' .'"' '..' - 7 :-.•Si oo,000 $ioo,000 $200,000,.,-,,,...,:..... ,,,, ,•?'..; ,-.',7,-.7..?,..,. ‘'.,,,,,,..."!,..• '.1\:,., : ,,,‘,.--...;:, ,: .- ..,.. . . . , .
CDBG $100,000 $100,000 $200,000
••37 • Gtieellilifti-PiiiirithA Cam-filiiiiiieiiiicTOTayirecifattoliff.7727,,,V .- ,,,f7,F:.'4•- ' ' .4 • $150,000 ' •• ''" ' • • $150,000
CDBG $150,000 $150,000
'38•"Lirie**4004-710•FaliiiiiiiiiisiWilitifliKalfattlYPWr,,77t;,^737;7',777,7:-:,7, 7,":7 ''1. . -,, sago.000 • -, , $350,000
• ImpniVoiiiiiii0*W -4.•,i,•,'L.. ,i9;;,i,.;,•,w,4414,42,4,f-., POY6,,: ,.•,-.''.'''•-, ':••':•:::.F,'•'''''. ',' •''',Y •••'•:'...-• .
,
General Fund $350,000 $350,000
-39 FaWeliWeiMifitiiidliviteirsifte-W67,P17477770.747"'"''' 7c.7r,=.77-7---7 ' •"'"•T•' '-'7,' ' ' ' $173,000 $17S,900
CDBG $173,000 $173,000
"-40 -RotilymbliircielettitieidoViiiiiiiirriiiiiiirg7W 777'7 ' 7, -n''""''•'':"" r""' "''. " '. $500,000. c,.... ....
$50000
General Fund $500,000 $500,000
• 41 Weii9361111131tleWkiik-kiAliiiiiiiiRaiiiiiitifi7M54'`.1^77i7",'",'.:: ' '• 7. '. • $50,000 $80,090
General Fund $50,000 $50,000
. . ,„ ,
$60,000 .
*40,000
General Fund $80,000 $60,000
43 kiiiiii-r3iiiiiiiii iniiiiiVeliiiiiiii7777 .77.77-7'7'7 .'.- '""" - -17 "- -- '.---• ' -- $150,000 . ..
$150,000
CDBG $150,000 $150,000
44 RtikfifditfiWrpiiitiiiiifriiiitOvlirtenIiC•77Pr'7""• '' ' ."-'' '"'' '' ' ' . T"':-•'.- -' .
$170,000
CDBG $170,000 $170,000
45 undiiiid , - 'ifiiiiiifOlik Bait Plelds Development ': - *'"'.. ., .
$200,000 $200,000
General Fund $200,000 $200,000
• III III
• . . ,
.. .
6 Fear Caps lmpmvements$r'o am(t IB)BalancedT'Can
genera(cuna Departments y s• . <`, , ,,,;': ,r ,
46 Rotairytlbn#�8t�t Development(Fh!!t a 2)" a ' ' . . , $500,000 $soo 000
General Fund ,C. $500,000 $500,000
47 IJndeejrCeiraAri Park Parking "__ •, ,.._. . .. ........... $106,000 $100,000
General Fund $100,000 5100,000
48 Fa Park Parking $100,000 ." .f100,0oo
General Fund 00 000 1 $100,000
48 Amenities ItepiaoBment or Upgrade(Benue,tlr�nkirg . „^ ,...y_. $25,000 =25,000
Fountains,Etc.), `
General Fund $25,000 $25,000
50 Skate Parka C -Wide • $500,000 $500,000
General Fund $500,000 $500,000
51 Shipp Peirk-Ab Compliance end Playgralfid Safety . " $100,000 $100,000
General Fund $100,000 $100,000
52 Keittlnp Park;ADA Compliance and Playgound Seiety"7".. - . $100,000 sioo,000
General Fund 53 4th Ayanii iS'talrs•Reconstruction , "";: $100,0002
$100,000
$250,000 $250,000
General Fund Y $250,000 $250,000
`54 'Tennis-Cou iliorrements City Wide'"'.,��°°`r7-, r ..F.,„,.•4_. ..,._. ,•_._-..•. - ,, .. • - $100,000
$160,060°
CDBG $100,000 $100,000
f ) _.. .- improve -. ,"... .;,,.,,-.. , $250,000
55 Jordan ivar 1700 South rts Fie ''manta,_ $250,000
CDBG $250,000 $250,000
58 PermWay i ADA CornpAailce and1Pr" ouritl Safety. , $116,000 $116,000
General Fund 1 5 000
. 57 ..:a th rk"=ADA Cam lance indPl.,....,..iiilli, ,.,,"•. , . , , _.. ,
$ 1 $115 000
PcPPaRon pl ay0rou fety"' $150,000 050,000
General Fund $150,000 $150,000
58 Donner ParfilrrlgeNon Automation " " $150,000- $150,000
General Fund $150,000 1
59 T Park irri ation Automation "` •....._ • . . .. _�_ g • $ 50,000
General Fund $150,000 $150,000
60 Sherwood Park ports Field Improvements `$250,0oo $2tt0,000
CDBG $250,000 S250,000
81 fsups1dyParr=ATACornplleiice`ahffP rFwnE'SefeiY` a '7 '''rs1aO,oc' • "$100,060
General Fund $100,000 $100,000
82 -AIeNDictil Ciiiiiiii iii i l6nd f eygiiiiria " '-,, ' .._,� , ...
n $'i°01),000 $1 oo°
General Fund $100,000 $100,000
,.,63 Rs 0iiiNiea lCJf Pahl Rec0iiiiii it tl•,x.,N;mi.7,7"z' N, -" - • " . ", . "1
.'$175;000 $178,0o
General Fund $175,000 $175,000
Parks Total $3,710,000 $3,605,000 $3,935,000 $3,968,000 $4,180,000 $4,225,000 $23,623,000
Parks,Summary of Revenue by Source •
General Fund $2,935,000 $3,005,000 $3,235,000 $3,295,000 $3,510,000 $3,725,000 $19,705,000
CDBG $481,000 $600,000 $700,000 $673,000 $670,000 $750,000 $3,874,000
Impact Fees $294,000 $294,000
Total of All Funding by Source $3,710,000 $3,605,000 $3,935,000 $3,968,000 $4,180,000 $4,475,000 $23,873,000
6 Tear Cirpttat.'"1 mprov'ettien''''''''is''''Ov.'''''''-iktrit. tit-IGO:43(4,w'-id Wan,•,'„a',, ••,'.., , ..••,., , . , . , ,,..
',.,.,i-;•,:-,, . ,
' • . .••
- ,
eneiti•-'-;:t .fii.t.4U.,64,,":':::''' ' '''"-,.'-'1.-,'- '- ''%:§,,,,'"Pi.',.C.,g,,::;i0-'.,'''' ''''`P•'4',it'''44'''''',44, -'••,•,4&.:se•...:, --,,,•&',..-;:.,..;• •,,.,;:,.,••-:,,, ',., ,:',.••. . ••. ,.,:,;,,.' :,;.;',::.:,„ ,... ,,'•,...4,,, .4,4•4••,,., .. .,,•.,.., ,„,,,,„,,•.,
•,---,- ,•-r-,...,71,r,=-,,F,i4vw•-. .,,, . ,.,1 ,..,,,,e,. ..„' ,..:_ „!:'4,1„,,',:••:,.. 4,%,,,,•.1,, ,,,,,:;•4',,,,v.,':,;,:e,••:...,•--,.4...:.e•.'4,--,•,,"'•-•..,,-'" .•';,.•:::..•:„:,,:,-.,,,k:-.,---;!f-i,,q•:•,.',' -,,'Ll• ..,,,,K:' ,,,-;-,..;.-,,•,,,•-•„ ,2,;-,-,.-.•-.;*
MISCELLANEOUS CIP IMPROVEMENTS, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
1' "'PbaraitaeMbelticY•'.*- :."-''"'- ;,:':'4,,:"''Ps"'Y'4441.0'04'44;10.00$50i000',A.•*.;rit61?..z.,,ItWIw;.:'; ' ',.": 4,,',' '.1,.:,'rt'*i..,'V!''-',. .r.g'',':':'"te'<;:.'S,' ".'''''„. •',OV*,`,4',1i,';',: ,!,ri,„",,,r...,q,,,;,..,,,s50,000
Impact Fees $50,000 $50,000
2-FliNSfirdielreStRitiffiiiiifirefftribtliNigel to.1,, ,-,'!7'%'z'''''co'n",','1,717:77,777111366,tiar17.,YIP',3500:00-0-7". ',7$565:06577,7''f:"-,swot ;-,7,?7,535-ooto
General Fund $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000
-3 - RifiliFRiWifigifitig Root 7-77;,,g•F'77.4.7'7;7.07.777,"777741r7-77747-7'717.77--",;(„:'-'''-7-7700:60-777.-- . • ••-•,- 7 7;,-;-.- ,,,,-,
General Fund $120,000 $120,000
-4 ReffilifAlltisifsif In Citiarid:COITritylfalltiticffgr*75.7-P7":1;z7'777°"'r7''''''.."' ''''''''''''''.", ' 'r:7"7•'-'7"': ''''' . $200,000 ' ' ,7060,000 Sigoktkio'
General Fund $200,000 $200,000 $400,000
5 Riiiiltifft**5 Rtior77191W17757-1Wr77,f0,77. ,,,-::,,,,,, -.7. U0,000 ' - ' 7.-- " . -' . '-' . - '-''-',77"'i:,,- '• ''''''''- ''POW
General Fund $40,000 $40,000
'-6 -4-ii1/745"Cgaiiiiiiii1612740:61191Rfer4437177T27777777:.'.'7":'747:::77 ;33:50,000'-';',1"'`',-':"$"49"5();60077:,,,7, .$ 00,000 ,.2.:7V,T)17.;:s-V; --',:' 4800b
-•
General Fund $400,600 $400,000 $800,000
Total S50,000 $620,000 $890,000 $850,000 $1,000,000 $700,000 $3,910,000
CIP Miscellaneous,Summary of Revenue by Source
General Fund $0 $620,000 $940,000 $900,000 $700,000 $700,000 $3,880,000
Impact Fees $50,000 $50,000
Total of All Funding b Source $0 $620 000 $940 000 $900 000 $700 000 S700 000 93,910,000
• ID • .
• • III
6'Year Criiimprovestients !,., ...!;to tit; - , , ..1i0kftceicekitt:„,-,' ,. ,,,,,,,, ,.',,„ :. _ :- , . , ,r r.':- --i.
.,..": ,,, . ...c.',^ • '''''• -34,7' -,,,, ,,i,i,.,m ,'. ,...4,..,..*,.7,!• ,afg_, ..;,", ,C.0. .,..,4+,„,,,.. , .,,,,.:":;:,:.'..... ,-,),%,.,'.4'', .-...".-",J1,."4.:.,„. .,, ,.'4,',.;/\;,..x.
Getleeat4„.2,1!.„1},y!*,,;,,,' 04 , - : , ' 4,,i0.,- ' "M„r•tViiiN',4)A54;1 ,t:',.10'6'"g:;&--"*54'S:'*'.*.q.i,V.,:4;.,'','YE'.;;';', ;:..,;-g&' 4.'4
TRANSPORTATION, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
1 -' RosIsPIKMOSAIProiecg • VIVOLIPtliC. Mie$IOM000,14rot,'''' ''. r..Witt'S',*z.**'";', ..t'''Tk',',''', ..'e,':"'.."A.,,'Flir'-2';'f,,:'- ',.,1;6''' ;'-- -'''' .:/ ,4W10‹.*-FZYCLV,nl'Vettkq.`;','...$300i000
GeneralFund $300,000 $300,000
7-2'-liiMEXIVEMVadi ei1Aijitr'7W,'W',--,,s7,:$gtTrfrit.RFW4745.tWiotrT.TTif,WYS;tfor.YT'.•:"rr':,','r''-'-'':7T:'•77.r.''''"''7'7'Sir0096777 7- ''''''i'''7.. ZFSSOCdob---' ..'”:"$ujoaktio
General Fund $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,000,000
--3 pidewhh-tRwrjevTceipr,v7,7.r'::.rwK,TP,77!4R-Iq.7r';,"-77SiSo;titiC7'-777'- ' 7.""-$150-;666--''''-7- '''',"-,..-• ' ''`. • Sfsci,000' ' ' *.-.77-','2';', - $45000
General Fund $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000
.. .
4 pTekiritith ciiiiiieftiiiiit 1-.7'.'g',.?Tc77:74-7,175577-:77-77.7-7:04116:titt-7,7.7'77:356,boos7''',"-,',.'stoi3OOo ' ''' '06,i:tooL..- '.' .$50;000 '"5%"'"'-'550,000".-'''' 00000
General Fund $50,000 $50,000 $50,000, $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000
5 NiiiiMieTritticjifitistailaticif etAlVidefr T.:' 7.736(1000.-,7' 2,'-.7$56,1:100y- - $50,000' ' ''''''.7'40,o0o' '-' -010,0150
General Fund $60,000 $50,000 $50'000 $50,000 $210,000
6 SiiiiikiiiiiiStriiet liglithiF7NPS7J,,-..:,---T,T7.47.73,77...;,.7--.77,773-017050.,1,";,', '77. . -•, .,. ^, ... . „ , ......, ,
' Setii;600
General Fund $675,000 $675,000
7 ' Nt Alia Siiiiiitriitstilietiotis7'.;:',-,7•77,77,-57-,7"7-M ..7'.:- '. 050,006* -' -$i 25,800 . .. . . .
$125,000 .-'''• '".T'• '' ' $600,000
General Fund $250,000 $125,000 $125,000 $500,000
8 fraffietiiiidigtkij•Wide' ' ,.7.-',7":77'3`3,,r7- ' ""',''''.7-7 77'7-"-. ' ' ' 7'006,000'' :. ' .$399,900 " $250,000 $300,000 .., -$250,000 ' ' $1,490,000
General Fund . $300,000 $300,000 $250 000 $300,000 $250,000 $1,400,000
. . ... ..„ . . ,
9 UggridiNidblerek-Pedessiiii'Siglials 7-.-...7::- 1 71 :77 757-77 '7-"7"*.' '':"";'`' - - '''.."'$60 .. . ,
,000;: - , 560,000
General Fund $60,000 $60,000
10 Streettlihthilitigirade City..Witte"'''7. --1.7,''''''',-',7-":''." -r"•"-- ---,"".•-" • " '.VVV - $800,000 $400,000 $600,000 ...',':;.!$460,000 " s2,000,000
General Fund $600,000 $400,000 $600,000 $400,000 $2,000,000
it Traigtitforidiatem Managerninf(TSIV)''..-•-17". '''" '-,'•• " "•1- ' - '-:'• •-• '-' - - ---" "' • '.' " ' $100,000 $100,000 ." $100,000 '.• ,r-$ioo,000 - '• $400,0oo
General Fund $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000
Trans..rtation Total $1 735 000 $1 210 000 $1 325 000 $1 350 000 $1 325 000 $1 350 000 $8 295 000
Transportation,Summary of Revenue by Source
General Fund $1,735,000 $1,210,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $8,295,000
Total of All Funding by Source $1,735,000 $1,210,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 58,295,000
i *,.0
B & d &6 Year C $mpmv ridt . a a, neeTti,,.',
r•r +;' qs K,;.4(Mi.;t`Y'%.'�, ..,:�,.
elif! J p�a��7Y . t ,4, q,e'.• �4,. Sig , • :. • "R '«u':y'�:.+• _r��:� C ,.« ,.-re.aem:.•�.• a' Ai�°,M��Oq.:,�fi„rs.>'kr..u' �'LL•�*::�,:' :.•,,, ,. ,•. .e, _ � "s"':' ., o9k.",.H••h" -
POLICE DEPARTMENT, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
1 . 80011481694 Syster►r�,� ,{ a'',' aj 4'd,W-,:t i, ,': n14540,784• - ,.'r; :,r " , „ " - • ,,r1.$750,000 $1,290,794
General Fund $540,794 4
„. •...
,777:-, ^� ,,� $750,000 $1,290,79
2 800,'t'owe"`Fl�epe��erSystem". "�i`;y17 "$8�;000�` $123,717
General Fund $61,717 $62,000 $123,717
__3 .InfoimaitorTSWIins Upgrade""''�`"��,..;;""..°7.,'�."' ""a"c ,_.r_.,.._,..;,,".•, . .- .-$400,000--_ $400,000 $400,000 ' $400,000 -$400,000 ' $2,000,000
General Fund $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 52,000,000
4 Study l'o&Pu6ifc$etety BuildlnjUpgrade 77"`.7 '''77 : .. -.`.'�, - , $200,000 $200,000
General Fund $200,000 $200,000
Police De artment Total $602 511 $662 000 $400 000 $400 000 $400 000 $1 150 000 $3 614 511
Police Department Summary of Revenue by Source
General Fund $602,511 $662,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,150,000 $3,614,511
Total of Ail Fundlnaby Source $602t511 $662,000 $400,000 $400�000 $400,000 $1t150a000 $3,614:511
FIRE DEPARTMENT, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
I Frner `e cServices°r rrrjort. l; is :< :-�,�,"''<.;. r; A;;tr ; :i ,$2y`5;00 ;•.,:,;;$275,000 $275,000,,.'•, .$275,000 = '$273,00O swoop
PUS'e••:;4'',, ry,„:-,1V0;`?ofrc.,;' ,` . . '''', .x w .. . - je .�;. -57.''•- . -." ..
General Fund $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $825,000
Fire Department Total $0 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $825,000
Fire Department Summary of Revenue by Source
General Fund $0 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 5825,000
Total $0 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $825 000
• • •
I • • ,
6 Tear Capita:Improv�ements. 'rogram>' CI�P}..Ba�Cinced'(Plan .
J,:u'�fr' n< m •RF9t: •aa," ,+ s„•+y �;, tn•;"zL;:',>,; . .•„ .r.:,r;;/,., !i''+r. r
�yiu E. .�9� 2r• . f r. r ' vKt
enera6'• a' �l.� ,- i ot, -FrA:•tr 'z�, iiN.",'?,,;1:• wr.y r. r. ''.
G �C.•n. , i'ro,_ „� �k •y �, to 'V ''v• u�.1 'i�l. ra ,.I�h,J� il' ""ii9S/r"^^
BREAKDOWN OF PROPOSED YEARLY GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT CIP EXPENDITURES
Total Yearly Expenditures by Dept(All Funds) 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
Streets Department(Including Class C and Federal Funds) 14,521,483 7,300,000 9,920,000 9,050,000 7,450,000 13,750,000 61,991,483
Parks Department $3,710,000 $3,605,000 $3,935,000 $3,968,000 $4,180,000 $4,475,000 $23,873,000
Miscellaneous Improvements $0 $620,000 $940,000 $900,000 $700,000 $700,000 $3,910,000
Transportation Department $1,735,000 $1,210,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $8,295,000
Police Department $602,511 $662,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,150,000 $3,614,511
Fire Department $0 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $825,000
Total $20 568 994 $13 672 000 $16 795 000 $15,943,000 $14,330 000 $21 700 000 $102 508 994
Total Yearly Expenditures by Dept(General Fund) 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
Streets Department $2,359,483 $2,250,000 $2,770,000 $2,700,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $15,279,483
Parks Department $2,935,000 $3,005,000 $3,235,000 $3,295,000 $3,510,000 $3,725,000 $19,705,000
Miscellaneous Improvements $0 $620,000 $940,000 $900,000 $700,000 $700,000 $3,860,000
Transportation Department $1,735,000 $1,210,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $8,295,000
Police Department $602,511 $662,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,150,000 $3,614,511
Fire Department $0 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $825,000
Total $7 631994 $8 022 000 $8,945,000 $8,920,000 $8,810,000 $9 800 000 $51 578 994
Total Yearly Expenditures by Dept(CDBG) 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
Streets Department $1,487,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,487,000
Parks Department $481,000 $600,000 $700,000 $673,000 $670,000 $750,000 $3,874,000
Miscellaneous Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transportation Department $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Police Department $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Fire Department $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $1,968,000 $1,600 000 $1 700 000 $1 673,000 $1,670 000 $1,750,000 $10,361,000
• III ! ,
6(YearCapitafimprovement 4°ro rat. C14)BalaritetiAut
^i..�?4.." .',� �,'C"'�w+, '�i'�"� 'i� &��u5 #ir 4g + ,� ';!"•'r.,�.
'r 9^' 1.$•.R.r�'>` rn'� .u, dl:,' ,F2;a., t
r s'� 'a. '"+d' � --a +` „l^s�i' '• � -�:. ;g >rr'a
n �' ,„,2,-.,,,,,;4, r.,,..
a
rs��
T `Cr ,
��e7r����.�,rn`.,n.-ro -1-,...nW,..,,,r,. ,✓„ ka .S.R ..� ,3�-•m5 '+'.£':, � ,ao.wXnt, ":rx. 4�`i�,.arc.6, "��.. >.,.a',ar�r.aF �`' .,. ,� �� »�r5;�`�,f u�al „���r..r,.., ..,r,�+,•, ..:�•ia"•��� •.�-"..' '�"' ��`d]iq^`.�'.��v,'r,�;r,,�.
AIRPORT ENTERPRISE FUND, 6 YEAR CIP PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
1 Economic Development Reserve 2,000,000 2,000,000
2 Capital Improvement Program Committee Reserve 1,500,000 1,500,000
3 RAN 16L-34R Storm Drain Improvements (pfc4) 835,600 835,600
4 East Apron Rehabilitation Phase II (aip) 1,400,000 1,400,000
5 SIDA Perimeter Road-Phase I 1,400,000 1,400,000
6 Taxiway P Extension 2,300,000 2,300,000
7 Triturator- Grinder replacement 130,000 130,000
8 Terminal Roadway Security Improvements Phasell 3,687,000 3,687,000
9 Car Rental Lobby Expansion Phase II 100,000 100,000
10 Security Equipment Detection Modifications 725,400 725,400
11 Security Gate Modifications 200,000 200,000
12 TVA AWOS&Taxilane 326,900 326,900
13 Airport II Runway 16/34 Overlay 1,000,000 1,000,000
14 Concourse A Apron Reconstruction Phase I 600,000 600,000
15 T/W H Rehabilitation (H10-12) 2,419,000 2,419,000
16 Crossbar Relocation and Rental Car Access Road 6,065,500 6,065,500
17 Airport Property Security Fencing-Phase I 2,049,000 2,049,000
18 Airport Wide Fire Alarm System Integration 348,000 348,000
19 ALP/Environmental Update-Phase I 400,000 400,000
20 Bag Claim Modifications 6,601,000 6,601,000
21 Concourse A Apron Reconstruction-Phase II 1,505,000 1,505,000
22 East Apron Rehabilitation-Phase III 3,558,000 3,558,000
23 East Side Oil/Water Separator 411,000 411,000
24 Land Acquisit-Ph.II(Noise/Approach Protection) 2,668,000 2,668,000
25 Lighting Upgrade 436,000 436,000
26 Metal Wall Panel Replacement 1,608,000 1,608,000
27 North Support Tunnel Road Rehabilitation 497,000 497,000
28 Runway 16L/34R Overlay 6,898,000 6,898,000
29 SIDA Perimeter Patrol Road-Phase II 1,222,000 1,222,000
30 Taxiway H Pavement Reconstruction(H7-H10) 2,567,000 2,567,000
31 Terminal Modifications for In-line EDS 35,000,000 35,000,000
32 Tooele Valley Airport Land Acquisition 2,176,000 2,176,000
33 TU2 Roof Replacements 714,000 714,000
34 Landside Road Reconfiguration-West 28,811,000 28,811,000
35 Airport Property Security Fencing-Phase II 715,000 715,000
36 ALP/Environmental Update-Phase II 400,000 400,000
37 Apron D Rehabilitation-East 5,379,000 5,379,000
38 Electronic Visual Information Display Systems(EVIDS) 2,405,000 2,405,000
Upgrade
39 Land Acquisition 518,000 518,000
40 North Support Roof Replacement 113,000
113,000
41 Parking Structure Roof Replacement 1,378,000 1,378,000
42 Power and Communication Infrastructure-Phase I 2,404,000 2,404,000
43 System Wide Communication Wiring Upgrade 630,000 630,000
6 Year y mpro erirenC;2 r,t°a»t;(', . . Balanced flan:;, . ' ,
44 Taxiway H Pavement Reconstruction(H2-H4) 3,196,000 3,196,000
45 Taxiway M Reconstruction 1,765,000 1,765,000
46 Landside Road Reconfiguration-East 26,971,000 26,971,000
47 Apron B Reconstruction*(PCI rating 38,52) 4,500,000 4,500,000
48 South(R/W 14/32)Midfield Drainage Improvements 1,750,000 1,750,000
49 West Taxiway Extension 4,000,000 4,000,000
50 Concrete Replacement for Taxiway Centerline Lights 1,000,000 1,000,000
51 Land Acquisition(general) 518,000 518,000
53 Water Main Loop Extension 375,700 375,700
54 Central Plant Upgrade 9,000,000 9,000,000
55 Airport 2 Miscellaneous Project(Non-primary entitlement) 495,000 495,000
56 TVA Miscellaneous Project(Non-primary entitlement) 495,000 495,000
57 Regional Jet Facility/North Concourse 254,892,000 254,892,000
58 Concourse D Apron Rehabilitation-Phase II 3,500,000 3,500,000
59 Reconstruct E and F Taxiway(East Half) 4,100,000 4,100,000
60 Reconstruct Apron between A and B 4,100,000 4,100,000
61 North(T/W S)Midfield Drainage Improvements 2,400,000 2,400,000
62 Land Acquisition 500,000 500,000
64 Runways 14/32 and 17/35 Pavement Overlay 14,000,000 14,000,000
65 Cargo Apron Reconstruction 3,000,000 3,000,000
66 Taxiway S Reconstruction-Phase II 790,000 790,000
67 Taxiway Q Centerline Lighting 780,000 780,000
68 Environmental Update-Phase II 1,655,000 1,655,000
69 Land Acquisition 500,000 500,000
70 Environmental Mitigation 1,130,000 1,130,000
71 Wetland Mitigation 1,130,000 1,130,000
72 Modify 2200 North Street for Runway 16L extension 3,272,500 3,272,500
73 Relocation of North Point Canal 1,663,800 1,663,800
74 Relocation of Utah Power Lines 2,603,500 2,603,500
75 R/W 16L-34R&Associated TM/Extension/BCA 26,000,000 26,000,000
76 Land Acquisition 500,000 500,000
Airport CIP Projects Subtotal 122,158,400 45,874,000 277 025,700 14,600,000 30,524,800 26,500,000 516,682,900
i • i ,
II • S
6(Year Capita Improvement S mm;(CI�P).Ba(anced Tkin
• ;.4,,, ;tip;• '.yi;,1��`::iL�t,i�;.. �,'3y�,�;;,,,,, `^ rya, ,�7,;; f ;', 5,,„
GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND, 6 YEAR CIP PLAN
Recom mended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
1 Capital 300,000 504,000 581,800 566,600 400,000 1,529,300 $1,952,400
2 Debt Service For Capital 1,211,182 1,209,661 1,211,246 1,210,781 1,213,292 232,300 $4,842,870
3 Contingency 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 $400,000
Total Golf Enterprise Fund 1,611,182 1,813,661 1,893,046 1,877,381 1,713,292 1,861,600 $7,195,270
WATER UTILITIES ENTERPRISE FUND, 6 YEAR CIP PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
1 Treatment Plants $13,345,000 $14,000 $500,000 $11,000,000 $6,040,000 $30,899,000
2 Distribution Mains and Hydrants $5,106,831 $5,621,461 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $4,390,000 $9,540,000 $29,458,292
3 Water Service Connections $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $2,450,000 $14,200,000
4 Land Purchases $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000
5 Water Rights and Supply $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $180,000
6 Culverts,Flumes,and Bridges $36,000 $10,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 $396,000
7 Distribution Reservoirs $14,000 $50,000 $13,750,000 $13,814,000
8 Deep Pump Wells $35,000 $26,000 $2,600,000 $7,400,000 $10,061,000
9 Maintenance and Repair Shops $55,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $225,750 $122,875 $523,625
10 Storage Reservoirs $75,000 $50,000 $125,000
11 Pumping Plants $61,000 $145,000 $100,000 $1,100,000 $158,000 $600,000 $2,164,000
12 Landscaping $60,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $310,000
Total Water Utility Enterprise Fund $22,007,831 $9,410,461 $5,556,000 $6,020,000 $20,903,750 $40,732,875 $104,630,917
6 Year Cap (Improvement r gram"` CI29 Balanced Elan ,
I,, ...4r,.r.r.., r .K y, k: -4,,7', .f(i IGy. •A• r 3.'r' ';1;1 .'''
""" i uo M:+.i^i�Y..4i Fi�ni1": . .. . `;T e. 1 ,.�i .. T.
v. w. .. a _ ,. l..ylt'����,t ',.�1'S,"4'•C:r ,
SEWER UTILITIES ENTERPRISE FUND, 6 YEAR CIP PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
1 Shops,Storehouses,and other Buildings $37,000 $140,000 $15,000 $15,000 $207,000
2 Lift Stations $450,000 $115,000 $350,000 $80,000 $150,000 $50,000 $1,195,000
3 Treatment Plant Improvements $29,180,000 $85,000 $3,185,000 $585,000 $2,985,000 $2,935,000 $38,955,000
4 Collection Lines $4,101,500 $3,550,000 $11,300,000 $6,300,000 $2,336,000 $2,300,000 $29,887,500
5 Landscaping $25,000 $15,000 $125,000 $65,000 $25,000 $15,000 $270,000
Total Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund $33,793,500 $3,765,000 $14,960,000 $7,170,000 $5,511,000 $5,315,000 $70,514,500
STORM WATER UTILITIES ENTERPRISE FUND, 6 YEAR CIP PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
1 Stormwater Lift Stations $220,000 $250,000 $720,000 $220,000 $150,000 $100,000 $1,660,000
2 Storm Drain Lines $11,355,000 $8,320,000 $2,320,000 $1,570,000 $1,570,000 $1,570,000 $26,705,000
Total Stormwater Utility Enterprise Fund $11,575,000 $8,570,000 $3,040,000 $1,790,000 $1,720,000 $1,670,000 $28,365,000
INTERMODAL HUB ENTERPRISE FUND, 6 YEAR CIP PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY f Y FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
1 Intermodal Hub Design,Engineering and Construction Costs $12,000,000 $3,205,726 $16,930,739 $1,800,000 $33,936,465
Total Intermodal Hub Enterprise Fund $12,000,000 $3,205,726 $16,930,739 $1,800,000 $0 $0 $33,936,465
•
i • •
• • •
6 wear Imprro�ement'�Pro ram(C12')Ba(anced`Am,
,; -
tetrO xSr„� IfKq{' .ri.ta44:^;k:11'• .. a ,
BREAKDOWN OF PROPOSED YEARLY EXPENDITURES
Total Yearly Expenditures by Enterprise Fund
Airport Enterprise Fund $122,158,400 $45,874,000 $277,025,700 $14,600,000 $30,524,800 $26,500,000 $516,682,900
Golf Enterprise Fund $1,611,182 $1,813,661 $1,893,046 $1,877,381 $1,713,292 $1,861,600 $7,195,270
Water Utilites Enterprise Fund $22,007,831 $9,410,461 $5,556,000 $6,020,000 $20,903,750 $40,732,875 $104,630,917
Sewer Utilities Enterprise Fund $33,793,500 $3,765,000 $14,960,000 $7,170,000 $5,511,000 $5,315,000 $70,514,500
Stormwater Utilities Enterprise Fund $11,575,000 $8,570,000 $3,040,000 $1,790,000 $1,720,000 $1,670,000 $28,365,000
Intermodal Hub Enterprise Fund $12,000,000 $3,205,726 $16,930,739 $1,800,000 $33,936,465
Grand Total All CIP Enterprise Fund 203,145,913 72,638,848 319,405,485 33,257,381 60,372,842 76,079,475 761,325,052
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Department of Public Services, Fleet Division
• Fleet Administration
• Fleet Stockroom
• Fleet Heavy Shop
• Fleet Light Shop
• Fleet Fuel Operations
• Fleet Replacement
Lamont Nelson, Fleet Division Manager
Mission Statement
We will provide and maintain quality vehicles and equipment,and the fuel necessary for City departments to efficiently and effectively serve the
citizens and visitors of Salt Lake City.
Goals and Objectives
y�y wiVt �r•
, 2003-4 - „vvw �...w. ,._. 20064 01-8 20,.a.,... 07„waxa
Excel in Municipal Services and 1. Survey Results: Customer service 92% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95%
Continuously Improve Service Delivery: satisfaction survey ratings.
Promote well-being of the public by
continuously improving municipal service
delivery.
+.s .. n`Ff .L•..,n. �-.w.xx3-s_�6q v .Nt�"Y,-'t'lt',�''�
Protect and Enhance the Environment: 1.Increase the amount of alternative fuel used 20% 25% 30% 30% 30% 30%
Conserve resources and proactively manage by Fleet by 30%by FY05-06.
environmental issues.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives-continued
ative TAN ig
O0 4 - .2006h1...°: . .t i 8, 0 9
Budget Responsibly:Revenue 1.Actual revenue to be equal to or greater than 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
projections are based on conservative, revenue projections.
yet realistic,assumptions. Expenditure
estimates are derived from a zero-based
budgeting approach and linked to
effective performance goals.
2.Actual expenditures to be equal or less than 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
expenditure projections.
3. Implementation of zero-based/activity-based N/A 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
costin:a..roach to bud etin•.
4.Percent of achieved"Goals and Objectives" 85% 90% 95% 100% 100% 100%
established during the five-year business planning
.rocess.
p ''<'.. :.. .,.R p... ,.
Maintain Financial Stability:Ensure 1. Fleet Fund will build up retained earnings by +1% +1% +1% +1% +1% +1%
each Salt Lake City fund is financially adding at least 1%of revenues per year to their
secure. retained earnings.
2.Perform quarterly analysis of Division actuals to 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
budgeted expenditures and revenues.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives-continued
CumutativeTardett
Efficiency and Effectiveness......: . ... ..:.. Meastitt§ ;:<•
rc
Create High Performance 1. Parts Warehouse:Number of Inventory Turns per 4 4 4 4 4 4
Services: Provide customers year
withbest-in-class services. ...:..,.":.. � :��.,r�::��.��;��.,u>..�,._,g�;�;.�.:,;a...:.;;ri�.u�=� ;g� ' '; ,; �:z,�.�;:x Fl::
,„-gym ..�.,:.:.,....,,._._..............._..,,.,..-:•ta •,. .soya.
.;.n, ,,....., . `:'�......: fix
r
°
.-"..v vaoo'o6dx«r:5��'f4,T•: ...a,z.^,
2. Parts Warehouse: Stock Effectiveness-percentage 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%
of.arts filled from stocked invento
- _«.:.<.,_•:",<` 'she. .:_„<:.:-: ........�• c`-' .�,<
3. Heavy Equipment Shop: Equipment Availability 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
Rate
....;:Y'.,4.,}.:,..,,,._�. .... -,.,.- p. ter,. °.,<,..<.<.:`<.F'? P.75 wy:N& .,II ?::d N'J �..<iir:.'s.i' j:.::✓,t:
1,.,.&aye „.x, ,k
<.::.:"�.�xx.�xY1�<<e�a-:.,w�'a Q`.°<..�Y< 'L».ar;r:i�'+»=v`=t<�.;,'�.ae:............ ,.,:..,
4. Heavy Equipment Shop: Scheduled vs. 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/50
Unscheduled Work
:-
5. Heavy Equipment Shop: Repeat Work/Rework <2.5% <2.5% <2.5% <2.5% <_2.5% <2.5%
• , ,. .... ,,. ....14si tie±,;?:^uP aS,Po ,° trli�'R'j?,
6. Heavy Equipment Shop: Shop labor rate;%below 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
local rates
7. Light Equipment Shop: Percent of PM's completed 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
accordin to schedule
8. Light Equipment Shop:Equipment Availability 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
Rate
9. Light Equipment Shop: Scheduled vs.Unscheduled 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/50 50/50
Work
. .,```ae8H ..yrc .yg.,1.. ,er, rc....s"2A,&� 5v. as •Y `A„x`l e arc
10. Light Equipment Shop: Repeat Work/Rework <2.5% <2.5% <2.5% <2.5% <2.5% <2.5%
ate' ,..,, s..•
11. Light Equipment Shop: Shop Labor Rate 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
r e �• a � ,
12. Fuel Operations: Fuel Rate(amount over cost) <_$0.30 <-$0.30 <-$0.30 <$0.30 <$0.30 <$0.30
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives—continued
r<
.c :M 'L`tL4t��"<�'�� ot.,,.., ...... .,....k`.�o..< �y{ �<:. .q'� . .::;r
, w
.. ., wxwms .r .e xmraa<s+n awawm<..;..,, •,... ..,,•,...•••.•••••M•,•'•,..-<.... _ a'°�.
•
Create High Performance 13. Vehicle Replacement: Percent of 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
Services: Provide customers with Vehicles Replaced According to Schedule
best-in-class services.
aye. �W,. :i 43k .tta,
14. Maintenance Expenditures per vehicle <$2,000 <_$2,000 <_$2,000 <$2,000.wM.<$2,000 <$2,000
(ICMA mean for FY01 was$2,916;SLC
ex ended$2,200 .er vehicle in FY01
,,..,. `::sus?.. .r "�:J"'" $"a: M.':'.'<..':.. .a r,:•-,=.:
15. Percentage of vehicles that exceed Establish 2.5% 5% 7.5% 10% 10%
replacement criteria by type of vehicle Baseline reduction reduction reduction reduction reduction
(Establish baseline via ICMA CPM,then
reduce b 10%b FY08
16. Identif
yand benchmark 1 significant N/A 1 1 1 1 1
.rocess a:ainst best-in-class .er ear.
17. Implement process improvement teams N/A 1 1 1 1 1
and continuousl im.rove the .rocess.
•
18. Implement 2 environmental 2 2 3 3 4 4
improvement tasks per year from the
Environmental Management System(EMS)
riorities.
.. ., ..,u,,, ....: .. <,.,....•,"..-.. .. ....'.',.^..x..;....,..",.^., m,a ".... `,.',',,....,:.. _ '£L.,,,w•" "m'<e:`s,i d.ae :�#„. t ,;.:&'•�:>:e� :<.-.. 6y.f.
Promote Professional Customer 1.Train 1/3 of division employees in 67% 100% 33% 67% 100% 33%
Interactions: Provide city customer service skills yearly.
employees with customer service
training to raise customer
satisfaction level.
2.Improve upon the baseline for customer +1% +2% +3% +4% +5% +5%
satisfaction by 5%over five years.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
mas=` . ._„, _. . »+a, «.ue,"
Promote Community-Based Problem 1.Improve upon the baseline for +5% +10% +15% +10% +25% +25%
Solving:Increase participation in community participation by 25%over five
municipal activities and decision- years.
making processes.
K .rv_
Improve Infrastructure Condition: 1. Golf and Sanitation will make capital 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Balance between new opportunities and investments in accordance with their five-
maintenance of existing infrastructure-- year CIP.
transportation,utilities,building&
parks and recreation facilities.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives-continued
Attract and Retain Qualified 1.Maintain employee satisfaction survey 80% 80% 85% 85% 85% 85%
Employees:Attract and retain qualified ratings of at least 80%.
employees to ensure effective delivery
of municipal services in a cost-effective
manner.
..:.}.��, X� a. `;.. Y � .. ,:...;a..:,=.z;-f „•� t � �� �}p yR��"��� x�, :fz�<'� ,�.;� �z"�.. � i z�..
2.Ensure 90%of new hires are rated 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
satisfactory or above on their five-month new
em.lo ee .erformance a..raisal.
3.Ensure that the ratio of applicants remains 25 25 25 25 25 25
higher than ICMA's benchmark per year.(25
applicants .er'ob
4.Maintain turnover rate below 10%per year. <10% <10% <10% <10% <10% <10%
Improve Employee Job Skills and 1.Completion of employee training as set forth 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95%
Knowledge:Identify organizational- in the strategic training plan.
wide training priorities for the next two
years to sharply focus training resources
on skills and competencies required to
excel at providing municipal services.
.
2. Percent of division training and technology 80% 80% 85% 85% 85% 85%
tar.ets met.
,-._w;m,• -:'�, � „ X :,;.::.-. ?^s<,.,a". .. 'y� ..=`�,,u .... ..':v-.•F _µ .. v;..,, ,. ,r...,o .. a �elrY .s>.,,• 7,,�..�. ..<" a`.v,:aiSv „4 , ��`°a"`J`' .£-,.+.
Increase Diversity:Increase diversity 1.Increase total percentage of minority +1% +1% +1% +1% +1% +1%
of the City's workforce to match or employees within the department(FY02 total
exceed the labor force of the Wasatch was 14.93%).
Front.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives—continued
a
:�:u: .v3.�1.wc..: ? ,,• _. ^^,auua ..Z..,:;x,D :w,.��'••,......<PIjJjp2006
Increase Diversity:Increase diversity 2.Increase total percentage of female +1% +1% +1% +1% +1% +1%
of the City's workforce to match or employees within the department(FY02 total
exceed the labor force of the Wasatch was 18.1%).
Front.
3.Increase outreach and recruitment of +.25% +.25% +.25% +.25% +.25% +.25%
disabled individuals.Establish baseline and
imsrovement oals.
.a .. .. .. '••,••,... ., '. .''cam •.,•;. .. •,««,« N ..' -�.......,. ........:.... ':.'.....�„a '.:,..".
Educate Employees Regarding 1.Increase participation in diversity training 40% 60% 80% 100% 100% 100%
Diversity:Provide training for all at all levels of the organization. Train all
managers,supervisors and employees employees within five years.
regarding the value of a diverse
workforce.
••.f'..:kb« ., -..< - ... ,...>sR.f"„ v,`. .. ,�: _-...' ... .,. ........ > H .. .9*l•..y,... .:.w .pc a 5 ... ,, C
Involve Employees in Performance 1.Update Employee Performance Plans 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Planning&Goal Setting:Involve annually.
employees in performance planning and
goal setting to establish clear job related
expectations,link employee's goals to
corporate goals and improve
communication.
.. -_.
Measure and Evaluate Employee's 1.Evaluate full time employees semi- 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Performance:Conduct semi-annual annually.
performance evaluations.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
dollars annually through implementation of a more aggressive
Narrative warranty program. In Fiscal Year 2003-04,the Fleet Division has
budgeted for an additional accountant position. In addition to
The Fleet Division operates as an internal service fund,providing handling monthly billings,this position will allow the Division to
vehicle maintenance and replacement services for Salt Lake City's proactively recover warranty revenue,more than offsetting its cost.
1,356 light vehicles and 720 heavy vehicles and equipment in a time
efficient and cost effective manner and according to industry USDOT regulations require inspections,training and record keeping
standards. for all employees operating heavy equipment. Divisions operating
only a few heavy units are not able to most efficiently ensure
A complete cost center-by-cost center look-ahead addressing the compliance with these regulations. Because Fleet Management is
questions below follows: involved in operation of all city heavy equipment,and because the
• What anticipated changes in demand,customers, and/or Fleet Director has extensive experience in DOT compliance
services are expected? programming,Fleet Management is a logical site to house the City's
• What is the relationship between the services provided by compliance program. Centralizing compliance will help ensure
this division and other programs,either within or outside of availability,quality and consistency of product. The Division
the City? intends to work with other City departments in the near future to
• What is the anticipated increase or decrease in funding, centralize this program.
staffing,and/or expenses,and what is causing the change?
• What assumptions have been made and what sources of Fleet Administration intends to continue developing its pooled motor
information are used? vehicle program over the next six years. Motor pool purchases must
• What comparisons to national/local standards and other compete with other vehicle and equipment needs each year,which
benchmarks are used? results in a slower build up to the desired size pool. However,
• Is there any additional information that explains what is vehicles from City departments that are being underutilized have
anticipated,and why it is reasonable to expect that change? been reclaimed and are being used within the motor pool. Other
challenges include scheduling vehicles,transporting vehicles for
cleaning and fueling,and identifying a location to park the pool
Fleet Administration vehicles that will be readily available to all users. Fleet
Administration intends to have the motor pool program fully
Budget restrictions are placing an increased demand upon Fleet functional within the six year planning period.
Administration to identify additional ways to reduce fleet
maintenance costs. Collecting as much warranty reimbursement as
possible provides a great opportunity to reduce overall cost. Fleet
Administration anticipates that it can recapture more than$100,000
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Fleet Stockroom Fuel Operations
The more parts that are available for immediate installation,the less It can be expected that world events will continue to significantly
time a repair or preventive maintenance process takes. Faster repairs impact the price of fuel. Best estimates within the fleet industry
lead to lower downtime. Based on the recommendations of the audit anticipate fuel prices fluctuating as much as 25%over the next six
conducted of the Fleet Division in 2001,Fleet Management has set a years. Salt Lake City is able to continue to be competitive in its
performance target of maintaining a stock efficiency of 85%that provision of fuel due to its tax-exempt status. The Fleet Division
allows a 95%equipment availability to be achieved. intends to continue to provide fuel at a price at least$0.20 less than
the market rate.
The size and configuration of the current parts operation is
inadequate to maintain this level of stock efficiency. The current Fuel consumption within the City's fleet is beginning to decrease due
warehouse also presents some safety challenges. The Fleet Division to the acquisition of smaller vehicles. Several city departments were
is currently developing a long range plan for addressing these needs able to decrease their budgeted fleet expenditures in the Fiscal Year
by expanding and improving the parts warehouse facility. The 2003-04. It is anticipated that fuel consumption will decrease 10%
alternative is to stock less and risk longer repair times and greater over the next five years,which is estimated to decrease fuel
vehicle and equipment downtime. expenditures by$60,000 over the same period.
Fleet Management is evaluating the potential,within a larger parts The Fleet Division continues to work toward its objectives in
facility,for the Fleet Division to stock non-motive items for other providing alternative fuel vehicles for City use. The alternative fuel
divisions and provide those items at a reduced cost. The Fleet vehicle industry is rapidly changing and the available financial
Division would offer other divisions the knowledge,facility, incentives are not yet significant enough to provide the City with
software,processes and training necessary to efficiently order, adequate resources for its targeted conversion.
receive,store and dispense materials and equipment.
Fleet Replacement
Fleet Light and Heavy Shops
A continuing area of focus during the next five years will be the
As has been discussed in the Fleet Five Year Improvement Plan and reduction of the size of the fleet. The average age of the fleet is
previous Fleet Five Year Business Plans,as the City's fleet ages slowly declining,due to recent efforts on the part of the City to
general maintenance on the fleet will be more expensive. Major replace vehicles and equipment according to a replacement schedule
repairs will also increase in number and cost. Any reduction in the based on life cycle analysis. As the average age of the fleet
proposed amount of annual fleet replacement will result in increases decreases, it is possible to remove equipment held as reserve or
in maintenance expenditures which will require the use of existing "spare"equipment. The fleet pool concept is also intended to
fleet fund balance(cash reserves). contribute to the fleet reduction effort.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
A list has been prepared,based on the life cycle analysis as expects proceeds from sales to increase as the value of equipment
recommended within a recent audit,identifying each vehicle and sold increases.
piece of equipment that needs to be replaced in the next five years.
To accomplish the replacement of these vehicles without reducing It is anticipated that federal funds for security and terrorism response
the size of the fleet,will require between$4.9 million and$5.6 will provide an increase in the replacement and acquisition of public
million annually from the General Fund. This level of replacement safety vehicles. This would mean more equipment and possibly
will contribute an average of 2%to the Fleet fund balance,from different classes of equipment. These vehicles will not impact the
which the Fund will draw heavily in Fiscal Years 2006-07 and 2007- City's ability to purchase other necessary vehicles for the Police
08. The Fleet Division's Balanced Scorecard requires that the Fleet Department or other City departments.
program contribute at least 1%to the Fleet fund balance each year.
The current General Fund replacement funding is at approximately
$4.5 million. The Fleet Division can minimize the overall cost of Fleet Facility
fleet operation by adhering to the replacement list. If available
replacement funding requires that the Fleet Division increase the life The Fleet Division is currently participating in a process
span of vehicles beyond calculated life cycle,maintenance costs will improvement team with members of the Streets Division to identify
increase. how the current facility and yard at the present Fleet location can be
better utilized to improve efficiencies and address environmental and
The Fleet Division will continue to finance vehicle purchases safety issues within the Division. The Division's intent is to address
through the lease purchase program. The Division must balance the issues addressed in a recent audit of the fleet operation. Once a
lease purchases with cash purchases to avoid lean purchase years,as design for the facility is prepared by the Engineering Division, a
this creates a challenge for the Division in terms of efficiently proposal for funding the necessary improvements will be prepared.
utilizing staff. Revenue from the sale of General Fund vehicles
being replaced will be used towards purchases. The Division
Item II
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS—FISCAL YEAR 2003-04
DATE: May 20, 2003
SUBJECT: FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears
CC: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom,
Lamont Nelson, Greg Davis, Steve Fawcett, Laurie Dillon,
DJ Baxter
The City's Fleet Management Internal Service Fund provides vehicles, fuel and vehicle
maintenance for the City except for the Airport, which provides its own fleet services.
General Fund departments and enterprise funds reimburse the Fleet Management
Fund for these services. Vehicle purchases for general fund departments are funded
by a transfer from the Non-departmental budget. The budget for fiscal year 2003-
2004 is proposed to increase by $478,326 or 4.3% over fiscal year 2002-2003.
Over the next several years, the Fleet Division will be addressing deficiencies in their
stockroom, light and heavy shops, fuel operation and fleet pool and replacement
program. With an unlimited source of revenue the changes to the operations at the
Fleet Division could happen within the year, but given the budget constraints of the
City, it is anticipated that the changes will take at least six years. The Fleet Division
will soon be coming before the City Council to review their proposed building
remodeling, operating plans and propose a funding program to address the
deficiencies in the division.
FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND
PROPOSED BUDGET
Ewa°°..>= r.. ,,,
- �. ose " Diff en ;P tt��,
4 s }2-2 "= 4 ✓ °3-20O y:" £, .
Revenue &other sources
Maintenance fees $ 4,196,469 $4,663,122 $466,653 12.0%
Fuel fees 1,947,965 1,258,160 (689,805) (35.4)%
Sale of vehicles 624,600 474,000 (150,600) (24.1%)
General Fund transfer 3,949,537 4,568,960 619,423 15.7%
Other revenue 235,000 91,070 (143,930) (76.1%)
Use of reserves 220,265 596,850 376,585 171.0%
Total revenue & other sources $11,173,836 $11,652,162 $478,326 4.3%
Expenses & other uses
Personal services $ 2,250,404 $2,529,224 $278,820 13.6%
Parts and supplies 3,889,621 3,296,288 (593,333) (15.8)%
Charges for services 666,759 689,941 23,182 3.5%
Debt and interest 3,285,452 4,106,709 821,257 25.0%
Capital outlay 1,081,600 1,030,000 (1,600) (4.8%)
Total expenses &other uses $11,173,836 $11,652,162 $478,326 4.3%
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE
The major changes reflected in the proposed budgets for the Fleet Management Fund
include:
• Replacement of vehicles -The Department of Public Services is recommending that
the Fleet Division use Fleet Management Fund fund balance to purchase the
replacement of a ladder truck for the Fire Department.
• Lease-Purchase Payments - The Fleet Division is recommending that the funding
for lease-purchase payments increase by $821,257 to $4,106,709. The majority of
this increase comes from the additional responsibility for making purchases for the
forestry and sweeping programs, recently added to the General Fund. The Fleet
Division uses the lease-purchase financing to fund the purchase of replacement
vehicles for each of the departments that the Division serves. The ideal funding
level for replacement of vehicles is between $4.9 million and $5.6 million annually
from the General Fund according to the recent fleet study. The Fleet Division can
reduce the overall cost the fleet operation by adhering to a more aggressive
replacement schedule. If a longer replacement schedule is followed, more expensive
maintenance costs could cause overall fleet operations expenses to increase.
• Additional Staff- The Fleet Division is proposing the addition of an accountant, a
parts warehouse operator, and a US Department of Transportation Compliance
Manager. The accountant position will handle the monthly maintenance and fuel
billing process and assist with warranty recovery (see business plan). The Division
anticipates additional recapture of more than $100,000 due to a more aggressive
warranty program.
• USDOT Compliance - The Fleet Division will be centralizing the City's USDOT
compliance program and providing this service to City departments, including to
those which do not have a lot of vehicles in this program.
Capital Improvement Budget
The budget proposes appropriations for capital expenditures of $1,030,000 for fiscal
year 2003-2004.
Proposed Capital Expenditures
Fiscal year 2003-2004
Type of Project 2003-2004
Equipment- Cash purchases for Fleet $80,000
Maintenance
Equipment- Replacement of Fire ladder $825,000
truck
Equipment- Cash purchases for Fleet 100,000
Replacement
Total Capital Expenditures $1,030,000
Additional Information
2
FIVE-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN
The Department of Public Services prepared a five-year business plan for the Fleet
Management Fund in 2001 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 targets through fiscal year 2008-
2009. In order to assist the Council in evaluating progress, Council staff has
attached the Fleet Division portion of the Administration's 6 Year Business Plan.
The Fleet Division has six main operations that they oversee for the Fleet
Management Fund. They are Fleet Administration, Stockroom (Parts Warehouse),
Fuel and Wash Rack Operations, Maintenance Light and Heavy Shops, Fleet
Replacement and the Fleet Facility. The Division has noted in the Business Plan
the activities of each of the six operations and what plans the division has for
these areas.
FLEET MANAGEMENT AUDIT
The Council's audit of Fleet Management contained many recommendations for the
improved operation and efficiency of the division. The division has reported to the
Council as required by the Council and is following the recommendations of the Fleet
Audit. In the future, the division will be updating the Council on proposed future
plans for the Fleet Facility.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
No legislative intent statements are outstanding for the Fleet Management Fund.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Fleet Management Fund.
3
Item III
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2003-04
DATE: May 20, 2003
SUBJECT: REFUSE COLLECTION FUND
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears
CC: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom,
Craig Posselli, Greg Davis, Steve Fawcett, Laurie Dillon,
DJ Baxter
Salt Lake City provides a refuse program of weekly trash collection, curbside
recycling, annual neighborhood cleanup, Christmas tree pickup, and leaf removal
(bags are funded by the Stormwater Fund). The Refuse Fund operates as an
enterprise fund, so the General Fund does not subsidize these services. The budget
for fiscal year 2003-2004 is proposed to increase by $255,038 or 3.31% over fiscal
year 2002-2003.
REFUSE FUND
PROPOSED BUDGET
` ,,,::Ado ted "ffere s j, Pere'
Y;Cs.;r 2 2"2003; z 3--2004 g irks!
Revenue&other sources
Refuse fees $4,911,470 $5,811,780 $900,310 18.3%
Landfill dividends 1,241,711 1,232,998 (8,713) (0.7%)
Interfund reimbursements 327,000 374,000 47,000 14.4%
Sale of vehicles 264,000 151,000 (113,000) (42.8%)
Interest income 153,000 92,000 (61,000) (39.9%)
Appropriation of reserves 817,634 308,074 (509,560) (62.3%)
Total revenue&other sources $7,714,815 $7,969,852 $255,037 3.3%
Expenses&other uses
Admin&Weekly trash collection $4,931,276 $4,931,205 ($71) 0.00%
Recycling 972,766 1,336,891 $364,125 37.43%
Annual neighborhood cleanup 1,810,773 1,701,757 ($109,016) (6.02%)
Total expenses&other uses $7,714,815 $7,969,853 $255,038 3.31%
A weekly trash pickup service is provided to the residents of Salt Lake City.
Additionally, residents receive an annual curb side pickup designed for large or
oversized debris as well as leaf bag removal, street sweeping, urban forestry services,
and weekly curbside recycling pickup. During fiscal year 2002-2003, the City
expanded the curbside recycling program to include multi-family properties. Also
during fiscal year 2002-2003 the City changed the funding source for the street
sweeping and urban forestry programs from the Refuse Collection Fund to the
General Fund. No fee increase is planned for the upcoming fiscal year.
The Salt Lake City Council reviews and adopts the budget for the Solid Waste
Facility. The Solid Waste Facility administers the Landfill, coordinates the transfer
station and the long range planning for future landfill sites. The decisions made in
the operating budget of the Solid Waste Facility affect the revenue and expenditures
of the Refuse Fund. For instance, an increase in material collection through the
curbside recycling program will result in less garbage collection and lower tipping fee
expenditures in the refuse fund.
Council staff did not identify any major changes to the proposed Refuse Fund budget.
Council Member Buhler has indicated that he may be interested in asking the
Council to consider an addition to the program wherein the recycling services are
available at a fee to individuals who live in planned unit developments and have their
trash picked up by a private business. He has had initial conversations with the
Public Services Department Director.
Additional Information
FIVE-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN (Goals and measurable results)
The Department of Public Services prepared a five-year business plan for the
Refuse Fund in fiscal 1997-1998. The Refuse Fund specific plan was included in
the Department plan that was prepared in fiscal year 2000-2001 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 targets through fiscal year 2008-2009. In order to assist the Council in
evaluating progress, Council staff has attached the Refuse Fund portion of the
Administration's 6 Year Business Plan.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS
No legislative intent statements are outstanding for the Refuse Fund.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Refuse Fund.
During the briefing, the Council may wish to identify potential programs or functions
to be added to the Council's list for future audits.
2
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Department of Public Services, Streets Division
• Streets Administration
• Street Maintenance
• Street Preparation
• Street Sweeping
• Snow Removal
• Concrete Replacement
• Traffic Signing
• Traffic Marking
• Traffic Signal Maintenance
• Action Team
• Parking Meter Repair
• Weekly Refuse Pickup
• Recycling
• Neighborhood Cleanup
Craig Posselli,Streets Division Manager
Mission Statement
We will provide a clean and safe environment by establishing responsive and professional service levels in street maintenance,refuse collection,
recycling,snow removal,traffic signals and signs for the people of Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives
Excel in Municipal Services and 1. Survey Results: Customer service satisfaction survey 92% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95%
Continuously Improve Service ratings.
Delivery: Promote well-being of the
public by continuously improving
municipal service delivery.
_ i i.
Protect and Enhance the 1.Increase the amount of alternative fuel used by Fleet 20% 25% 30% 30% 30% 30%
Environment: Conserve resources and by 30%by FY05-06.
proactively manage environmental
issues.
2.Increase the percentage of the waste stream recycled 14% 16% 18% 18% 18% 18%
(measured in tons)generated by city operations and
residents by 18%by FY05-06.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives-continued • ytitu tkkt
, , �.a. ., ;. w.,.!!IIIt
,. , m ��� °y� > :: [� - �... � �.:. 1000� 1'00 �.
Budget Responsibly:Revenue 1.Actual revenue to be equal to or greater than revenue 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
projections are based on conservative, projections.
yet realistic,assumptions. Expenditure
estimates are derived from a zero-based
budgeting approach and linked to
effective performance goals.
2.Actual expenditures to be equal or less than 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
expenditure projections.
3. Implementation of zero-based/activity-based costing 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
a 8 Broach to bud etin. .
4.Percent of achieved"Goals and Objectives" 85% 90% 95% 100% 100% 100%
established during the five-year business planning
rocess.
Maintain Financial Stability:Ensure 1.Perform quarterly analysis of Division actuals to 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
each Salt Lake City fund is financially budgeted expenditures and revenues.
secure.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives-continued
,
Effitielley mi.Effectiveness NireOsurt
y..
Create High Performance 1. Street Maintenance: Percent of scheduled lane miles 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
Services: Provide customers with completed(target is 1,740 lane miles annually)
best-in-class services.
2. Street Maintenance: Percent of requests for service 90% 90% 90% 90%., 90% 90%
corn.leted within 48 hours
-i." °-urti .::n ��.�,,..' e ^� ."'�1`'" �,a�"`� Y�„�'�a M1 �+'. 1�'?i.:•`y�"...;.��.. �A?.i:z,.' ''''" �}A ",�+'�ry.{�}� aB."A�y"�yn.. �ptY}
`'. ... �.�..,. ., w ':`• .w ,.'"'"F.. ( �",xµ , ' �xBSuv Vd'•tV '°i
� dk6k'
,�,n.u,5,iw7 '
3. Sweeping: Street sweeping expenditures per lane mile <$32 <$32 <$32 <$32 <$32 <$32
swe t
4. Sweeping: Percent of scheduled sweeping performed 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
(target is 2,166 lane miles per month,or 26,000 lane miles per
ear)
5. Snow Removal: Percent of lane miles plowed within 36 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
hours of a snowstorm
6. Traffic Signing: Percent of scheduled maintenance 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
com leted 9,000 si ns er year
7. Traffic Signing: Percent of requests for service completed 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
within 24 hours
; s ,. ;
8. Traffic Marking: Percent of scheduled painting completed 90% 90% 90% m'aw 90% 90% 90% �R^
450 miles and 1 400 crosswalks and sto.bars .er year
9. Traffic Signal Maintenance: Percent of scheduled 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
maintenance corn.leted
10. Parking Meter Repair: Percent of scheduled maintenance 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
completed (4700 meters per year)
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives—continued
Ti
Curanintive targets
Efficieno mkt Effectiveness Menstirts
, 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2001-8 2008-9
Create High Performance 11. Weekly Pickup: Annual percent decrease in complaints 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 25%
Services: Provide customers related to weekly pickup
with best-in-class services.
12. Weekly Pickup: Percent of missed pickup complaints 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
res sonded to within 24 hours
13. Weekly Pickup: #of complaints(missed can reports, < 175 < 166 <158 < 150 < 142 <142
ard waste resorts,etc.
Al
14. Weekly Pickup: O&M expenditures per ton of refuse <$20 <$20 <$20 <$20 <$20 <$20
collected
15. Neighborhood Cleanup: Percent of program completed 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
accordin to schedule
4,44 ';14?:7,2PrS4: 411r.*:11 .V.WAWF-SY:.,
16. Recycling: #of complaints Establish 5% 10% 15% 20% 20%
baseline reduction reduction reduction reduction reduction
via
ICMA
17. Recycling: Percent of waste stream diverted due to 16% 18% 19% 20% 20% 21%
rec cling program
0" • A
18. Recycling: Percent of eligible households subscribing to 74% 75% 78% 80% 82% 84%
recyclin ro rarn.„
19. Recycling: Percent of tonnage recycled compared to 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
anticipated tonnage recycled
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives—continued
l ffiieticyah€ Eh�ctettess annotative
Create High Performance 20.Recycling: Percent of contamination in curbside 15% 13% 11% 11% 10% 9%
Services: Provide customers recycling bins.
with best-in-class services.
21. Recycling: O&M expenditures per ton of recycling $117 $116 $115 $114 $113 $112
material(FY02 baseline is$119 per ton;target is to
decrease b $1 er ear .
'4a +4 '.1.%" 'kN,'r''4,r,",,•,f.i.„t, ,... .x.. . v,... ..,.,, 4....r ,.,,mi, t+„a4q;,.jgf„,C
22. Recycling: Tons of recycling material collected per 24% 25% 27% 28% 29% 30%
account compared to tons of refuse collected per account
(FY02 baseline was.29:1.24=23%;target is to increase
tons to 30%b FY09
L x, to ,� 5W0 y fY
23. Identify and benchmark 1 significant process against N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1
best-in-class.
24. Implement process improvement teams and 1 1 1 2 2 1
continuous) im rove the rocess.
25. Implement environmental improvement tasks from the 1 1 2 2 2 2
Environmental Mana ement S stem EMS riorities.
s,
Promote Professional 1.Train 1/3 of division employees in customer service 67% 100% 33% 67% 100% 33%
Customer Interactions: skills yearly.
Provide city employees with
customer service training to
raise customer satisfaction
level.
2.Improve upon the baseline for customer satisfaction by � r
P p +1% +2% +3% +4% +5% +5%
5%over five years.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives—continued
a, Cumulative sF z„
Efficiency nn; Effectiveness8Iea fi, ,
• a � ppgq
08-9
Promote Community-Based 1.Improve upon the baseline for community participation by +5% +10% +15% +10% +25% +25%
Problem Solving:Increase 25%over five years.
participation in municipal
activities and decision-making
•rocesses.
Improve Infrastructure 1. Golf and Sanitation will make capital investments in 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Condition: Balance between accordance with their five-year CIP.
new opportunities and
maintenance of existing
infrastructure--transportation,
utilities,building&parks and
recreation facilities.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives-continued
.
, "''' Cumitititive torgeti • "
Wttkittotte.(pato ' 4104th* - :
1003-4 2004 2006,»1 2007-8 i00
Attract and Retain Qualified 1.Maintain employee satisfaction survey ratings of at 80% 80% 85% 85% 85% 85%
Employees:Attract and retain qualified least 80%.
employees to ensure effective delivery
of municipal services in a cost-effective
manner.
2.Ensure 90%of new hires are rated satisfactory or 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
above on their five-month new employee performance
a,praisal.
\VC
3.Ensure that the ratio of applicants remains higher 25 25 25 25 25 25
than ICMA's benchmark per year.(25 applicants per
'ob)
4.Maintain turnover rate below 10%per year. <10% <10% <10% <10% <10% <10%
Improve Employee Job Skills and 1. Completion of employee training as set forth in the 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95%
Knowledge:Identify organizational- strategic training plan.
wide training priorities for the next two
years to sharply focus training resources
on skills and competencies required to
excel at providing municipal services.
2. Percent of division training and technology targets 80% 80% 85% 85% 85% 85%
met.
„ .
Increase Diversity:Increase diversity 1.Increase total percentage of minority employees +1% +1% +1% +1% +1% +1%
of the City's workforce to match or within the department(FY02 total was 14.93%).
exceed the labor force of the Wasatch
Front.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Goals and Objectives—continued
Increase Diversity:Increase diversity of 2.Increase total percentage of female employees within +1% +1% +1% +1% +1% +1%
the City's workforce to match or exceed the department(FY02 total was 18.1%).
the labor force of the Wasatch Front.
3.Increase outreach and recruitment of disabled +.25% +.25% +.25% +.25% +.25% +.25%
individuals.Establish baseline and im rovement oals.
Educate Employees Regarding 1.Increase participation in diversity training at all levels 40% 60% 80% 100% 100% 100%
Diversity:Provide training for all of the organization. Train all employees within five
managers,supervisors and employees years.
regarding the value of a diverse
workforce.
Involve Employees in Performance 1.Update Employee Performance Plans annually. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Planning&Goal Setting:Involve
employees in performance planning and
goal setting to establish clear job related
expectations,link employee's goals to
corporate goals and improve
communication.
Measure and Evaluate Employee's 1.Evaluate full time employees semi-annually. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Performance:Conduct semi-annual
performance evaluations.
Provide Tools and Technology: 1.Complete 100%of the Infrastructure Replacement 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Provide technology enhanced services to Schedule per year.
the Citizens and the City staff.
2.Complete the identified internal business services via 1 2 2 3 3 3
the web.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Narrative
The Street Maintenance Division provides a wide variety of services Street Maintenance
aimed at providing a clean,attractive, safe and healthy environment, The Street Maintenance program consists of Streets Administration,
including: Street Maintenance, Street Preparation, Street Sweeping, Snow
Street and sidewalk maintenance Removal and Concrete Replacement. The program maintains and/or
• Street marking and signing replaces City-owned streets,curbs,gutters,and sidewalks(including
• Signal maintenance asphalt maintenance activities such as slurry,chip,and crack sealing,
• Snow removal pot-hole repair,etc);provides street sweeping services for
•• Concrete replacement neighborhoods and the business districts, and removes snow from all
• Parking meter repair City streets.
• Refuse collection and disposal
Recycling collection and handling The anticipated service demands required of the street maintenance
•• Neighborhood cleanup program over the next six years include:
• Christmas tree removal •
Providing road maintenance for 1,740 city street lane miles
• Leaf removal annually in accordance with industry standards.
• Public property weed control
• Slurry sealing 148 lane miles of roadway annually.
A complete cost center-by-cost center look-ahead addressing the
questions below follows: • Chip sealing 34 lane miles of roadway annually.
• What anticipated changes in demand,customers, and/or • Crack sealing 250 lane miles of roadway annually.
services are expected?
• What is the relationship between the services provided by • Sweeping 26,000 lane miles and flushing 1,200 lane miles of
this division and other programs,either within or outside of roadway annually.
the City?
• What is the anticipated increase or decrease in funding, • Sweeping all streets within 48 hours after the collection from
staffing, and/or expenses,and what is causing the change? the Neighborhood Cleanup program.
• What assumptions have been made and what sources of
information are used? • Removing all snow from,and salting 50,000 lane miles of
What comparisons to national/local standards and other City streets within 36 hours of a snowstorm.
• benchmarks are used?
• Is there any additional information that explains what is In response to a request to reduce the General Fund budget wherever
anticipated,and why it is reasonable to expect that change? possible,with the least impact on the general public,the Street
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Maintenance Program will be reducing the 50/50 Concrete average sweeping costs per lane mile experienced by other
Replacement program in Fiscal Year 2003-04 by half. Reducing this jurisdictions participating in the ICMA Center for Performance
program,which coordinates with and partially subsidizes the Measurement were$66.00. The Streets Division has set a target of
replacement of City sidewalk in residential areas,will result in a net expending no more than$32.00 per lane mile annually over the next
reduction of$89,000 and the elimination of 5.69 full-time equivalent six years.
positions.While this change will reduce the number of resident
requested sidewalk repairs by about 50%each year(approximately The Streets Division will be implementing improved customer
100 repairs),it will not prevent residents from participating in the service surveys beginning in Fiscal Year 2003-04.
program, although they might have to wait longer to have their
sidewalks repaired. This change will not impact sidewalk repair and
replacement conducted as part of CIP or CDBG funding. Traffic Signing,Marking and Signals
The Street Maintenance program will continue to assist the
Engineering Division in the replacement and construction of ADA The signing,marking and signals program provides street signs,
ramps. Crews from the City's Urban Forestry program will marking, signal maintenance and parking meter repair. This program
supplement on snow removal when necessary to avoid any service maintains crosswalks,lane markings,curb painting,traffic signals,
level decrease. pedestrian signals and flashing school lights,and ensures that they
meet industry standards. The program also ensures that all parking
Other budgetary savings to be realized in Fiscal Years 2003-04 and meters are in working condition and keep accurate time.
2004-05 include:
• A reduction of$187,964 in FY2004 and$140,061 in The anticipated service demands required of the traffic signing,
FY2005 in fleet maintenance and fuel costs resulting from marking and signals program over the next six years include:
newer equipment,efficiencies in the fleet program,decreases • Maintaining 65,000 traffic control signs annually according
in fuel prices and reduced fuel consumption. These amounts to national standards.
are reflective of the savings to be realized by all programs in
the Streets Division,including the Traffic Signing,Marking • Installing 370 red and green LED traffic signal indications
and Signals; and Sanitation programs. annually.
• An annual reduction in the salt budget of$40,000 from
Fiscal Year 2002-03. • Testing and certifying 178 traffic control malfunction
monitors annually.
The Street Maintenance program has begun to aggressively • Cleaning and testing 164 traffic control cabinets annually.
benchmark its performance against national best practices. In Fiscal
Year 2000-01 it cost Salt Lake City$32.76 per lane mile swept. The • Replacing 1,647 traffic signal lamps annually.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
• Manufacturing and installing 3,500 new signs annually as • Provides 24-hour coverage for snow removal
designated by inventory needs and schedules.
Maintaining 9,000 signs annually. A reduction in the clothing allowance for the action team will reduce
• the Division's budget by$1,561 in FY2004 and$1,592 in FY2005.
• Painting 450 lane miles of roadway striping annually.
• Painting 1,400 crosswalks annually. Sanitation
• Replacing 1,850 parking meter batteries annually. The Sanitation program operates as an enterprise fund(the Refuse
Fund),and provides weekly trash collection and disposal,free curb-
This program will be participating in Utah Power's Incentive side recycling for residents of the City,annual neighborhood
Program for Energy Conservation to support efforts to reduce cleanup,public property weed control,and Christmas tree and leaf
greenhouse gasses and other hazardous emissions. The Signals removal services are also provided by this program.
section will continue to replace incandescent signal lamps with red
and green LEDS (light emitting diodes)at 23 intersections each year The anticipated service demands required of the Sanitation program
for the next five years. This light replacement is anticipated to save over the next six years include:
the City$15,525 in energy costs over the next five years. In • Collecting and disposing of residential refuse from 48,000
addition,the City may receive annual incentives from Utah for its residential households each week.
participation in the range of$12,000 to$18,000.
• Collecting curbside recycling from 32,500 residences each
This budget includes$73,850 meter replacement and conversion of week,targeted to increase to 36,500 residences by Fiscal
meter rates. Year 2007-08
• Facilitating the recycling of over 9,500 tons of recyclable
material annually. It is expected that tonnage will increase
Action Team to 12,500 tons by Fiscal Year 2007-08.
The Action Team provides the following services: • Collecting curbside yard debris from 48,000 residences
during a scheduled 28-week period.
• Provides after hour emergency response for Public Service • Collecting leaves and Christmas trees from residential homes
issues from November to February.
• Closes 17 park gates at 10 locations each evening
Tipping fees at the landfill and the transfer station are anticipated to
• Checks and stocks 42 locations with flags 3 times per week increase by$8.00 per ton or 18%between Fiscal Year 2003-04 and
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Fiscal Year 2007-08. Another significant increase in costs for the to 82%, and reducing contamination in the curbside recycling bins to
Refuse Fund will be the proposed$125,985,or 28%increase in the 8%by Fiscal Year 2007-08.
amount charged to the Refuse Fund by the Salt Lake City Public
Utilities Department for billing refuse customers over the next five The city pays a recycling contractor for every recycling container in
years. service in addition to fees assessed to handle the contamination
Equipment required by the Sanitation program has been budgeted to collected in the curbside recycling containers. All fees are expected
be replaced an average of every four years. Four garbage packers to increase by 3%each year.
and two leaf bed trucks must be replaced each year to comply with
the recommended replacement schedule,as well as some additional In the past,the dividend that the city receives as part-owner of the
equipment each year. Acquisition of this equipment assumes the landfill has been earmarked to pay for the recycling program. While
continued participation in the leasing program. Lease payments are the program is operated within the Refuse Fund,which collects a
anticipated to total between$784,765 and$1,054,882 per year. user fee from residents,no part of this user fee has been needed in
the past to recover costs for the recycling program. As Salt Lake
To fund these additional expenses, the monthly fee assessed per City and other municipalities in the county have been diverting more
refuse can is scheduled to increase by$.50 each year commencing in tonnage through curbside recycling, less tipping fees have been paid
Fiscal Year 2004-05. at the landfill,resulting in a lower owner's dividend the landfill pays
to the City. Salt Lake County is initiating a curbside recycling
Salt Lake City improved the efficiency of its recycling program in program this summer,which will lower the dividend even more.
2001 with the implementation of automated collection. The scope of
the recycling program was further expanded in 2002 to include Because of this,the landfill dividend is anticipated to be insufficient
multi-family residences. These improvements and other efforts on to cover the costs of the recycling program,particularly with
the part of the City have resulted in a 60%increase in recycled increased participation and expanded services(i.e., glass drop-off
materials over the last two years,which has dramatically decreased and multi-family recycling),by Fiscal Year 2007-08. At that time,
the amount of waste going to the landfill and saves more than 21,000 the refuse fee is anticipated to need to increase by an amount
tons of equivalent CO2 from being released into the atmosphere each sufficient to address this deficit. This assumes,however,that the
year. Seventy-three percent of eligible households currently Landfill will increase tipping fees by$3.00 in Fiscal Year 2004-05,
participate in this voluntary program. In Fiscal Year 2003-04,the increasing the dividend paid to the City by an amount sufficient to
city will provide glass recycling opportunities for Salt Lake City compensate for the increased costs of the recycling program through
residents by placing convenient drop-off centers in strategic Fiscal Year 2007-08. If the Landfill does not raise the tipping fee as
locations throughout the City. Further program improvement goals expected,the City's refuse fee may need to be increased, over
over the next five years include diverting 18%of the residential currently planned increases,prior to that time.
waste stream through curbside recycling,increasing the percentage
of participation from households in the curbside recycling program The Refuse Fund has begun to aggressively benchmark its
performance against national best practices via the ICMA Center for
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Performance Measurement, and identifying performance targets as Facility Improvements
follows:
The Street Division is currently participating in a process
improvement team with members of the Fleet Division to identify
• In Fiscal Year 2000-01 Salt Lake City reported expending how the current facility and yard at the present Street location can be
$20.00 to collect each ton of refuse, compared to an average better utilized to improve efficiencies and address environmental and
of$50 per ton expended by other jurisdictions. The Streets safety issues within the Division. Once a design for the facility is
Division has set of target to not exceeding the cost of$20 prepared by the Engineering Division,a proposal for funding the
per ton over the next five year period. necessary improvements will be prepared.
• In Fiscal Year 2000-01 Salt Lake City reported expending
$121 per recycling ton. The mean of participating
jurisdictions was$113. Costs per ton in Fiscal Year 2001-02
were$119, and the Streets Division has set a target of
decreasing the cost per recycling ton by$1 per year,to $113
by Fiscal Year 2007-08.
• Although the ICMA project has yet to report on the ratio of
tons of refuse per account compared to tons of recyclables
per account,the Streets Division has indicated its desire to
increase the amount that each household recycles compared
to the amount it sends to the Landfill or transfer station. In
Fiscal Year 2000-01 the ratio of recyclables to refuse was
29:1.24,or 23%. The Division has set a target of achieving a
ratio of 29%by Fiscal Year 2007-08.
• The Division will begin monitoring the number of
complaints it receives regarding the recycling program,
establish a baseline based on data published by the ICMA in
the fall of 2003,and target reducing the number of
complaints by 5%each year over the following four years.
The sanitation program will also be implementing improved
customer service surveys beginning in Fiscal Year 2003-04.
Item IV
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2003-04
DATE: May 20, 2003
BUDGET FOR: NON-DEPARTMENTAL (General Fund)
STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford
cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, DJ Baxter
The Non-Departmental budget provides a means to account for General Fund
moneys transferred to other funds, contingency funds, and disbursements to civic
organizations that provide a service on behalf of Salt Lake City but which are not
legal entities of the City. Salt Lake City also uses Non-Departmental to account for
special revenue funds, debt services funds and the Capital Projects Fund. However,
only the General Fund portion of the budget that is accounted for in Non-
Departmental is discussed below.
The proposed budget for Non-Departmental for fiscal year 2003-2004 decreases by
$2,245,516 or 5.7%.
PROPOSED NON-DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET
Amended Proposed Percent
Programs Budget Budget Difference Change
2002-2003 2003-2004
Municipal Contributions/Civic Support $ 1,743,626 $1,686,143 $ (57,483) (3.3%)
Other Programs 1,724,200 1,904,100 179,900 10.4%
Interest on Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes 670,000 535,000 (135,000) (20.1%)
Transfers to other City funds 34,911,490 32,678,557 (2,232,933) (6.4%)
Contingencies 278,500 278,500
TOTAL $39,327,816 $37,082,300 $(2,245,516) (5.7%)
A complete list of the budget proposed for each contribution or proposed
expenditure is shown on the next page.
PROPOSED NON-DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET
Amended Proposed
Programs Budget Budget Difference Percent
2002-2003 2003-2004 Change
Municipal Contributions/Civic Support
Civic Opportunities Fund $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ -
Community Emergency Winter Housing 63,000 63,500 500 0.8%
East Valley Chamber of Commerce 2,000 2,000 -
Gifts/Receptions 20,600 7 20,600 -
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 1,500 _ 1,500 -
ICMA Performance Review Program 5,200 5,300 100 1.9%
Legal Defenders 295,139 379,051 83,912 28.4%
National League of Cities 8,900 9,860 960 10.8%
Sales Taxes Rebate 162,000 - 158,000 (4,000) (2.5%)
Salt Lake City Arts Council 223,600 223,600' -
Sister Cities 5,000 5,000 -
SL Area Chamber of Commerce 29,527 30,000 473 1.6%
SL Valley Conference of Mayors 350 175 (175) (50.0%)
Salt Lake Council of Governments 28,898 29,165 267 0.9%
Sugarhouse Park Authority 192,600 197,600 5,000 2.6%
Tracy Aviary 200,000 200,000 -
Transitional Housing 103,000 107,500 4,500 4.4%
U.S.Conference of Mayors 7,320 19,300 2,980 40.7%
Utah Economic Development Corp. 132,992 132,992 -
Utah League of Cities and Towns 90,000 95,000 , 5,000 5.6%
YouthCity Program 150,000 - (150,000) (100.0%)
Youth City Government Program 7,000 - (7,000) (100.0%)
Total Municipal Contributions/Civic Support 1,743,626 1,686,143 (57,483) (3.3%)
Other Programs""
Accounting System Maintenance Agreement 63,000 65,000 2,000 3.2%
Animal Services 805,200 818,100 12,900 1.6%
Election Processing - 175,000 175,000
Geographic Information System 25,000 25,000 -
Non CDBG Mailings 6,000 6,000 -
Retirement payments 650,000 650,000 -
SLCC Community Television 15,000 - (15,000) (100.0%)
Tuition aid program 110,000 110,000 -
Washington DC Consultant 50,000 55,000 5,000 10.0%
Total Other Programs 1,724,200 1,904,100 79,900 10.4%
Debt Service-Tax&Revenue Anticipation Notes
Interest Expense on Tax Revenue Anticipation 625,000 500,000 (125,000) (20.0%)
Notes
Bonding/Note Expense 45,000 35,000 (10,000) (22.2%)
Total Debt Service 670,000 535,000 (135,000) (20.1%)
Transfers
Debt Service-Library Bonds(CIP Fund) 6,817,883 6,950,559 $132,676 1.9%
Debt Service-Other Projects(CIP Fund) 7,354,315 6,622,011 (732,304) (10.0%)
Impact Fees(CIP Fund) 650,000 425,000 (225,000) (34.6%)
Capital Improvement Projects-Ongoing revenue 5,806,317 4,256,720 (1,549,597) (26.7%)
Capital Improvement Projects-One-time revenue 1,520,806 3,002,544 1,481,738 97.4%
Fleet Replacement Fund 4,518,481 4,562,481 44,000 1.0%
Information Management Services 4,886,786 5,033,242 146,456 3.0%
Insurance&Risk Management Fund 1,553,902 1,600,000" 46,098 3.0%
Bus pass program 61,000 96,000 35,000 57.4%
Governmental Immunity Fund 1,500,000 (1,500,000) (100.0%)
Neighborhood Matching Grants Program 117,000 - (117,000) (100.0%)
Street Lighting Fund 125,000 130,000 5,000 4.0%
Total Transfers 34,911,490 32,678,557 (2,232,933) (6.4%)
Contingencies 278,500 278,500 - -
TOTAL $39,327,816 $37,082,300 $(2,245,516) (5.7%)
2
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE
The following are some of the changes proposed to the Nondepartmental budget.
The Council may wish to discuss some of these changes or other items listed on
page 2.
1. Accounting System Maintenance Agreement ($2,000 increase) -The City
has traditionally accounted for the maintenance agreement on the
accounting system within the Non-Departmental budget under the
assumption that the system benefits all departments. The total cost of
the maintenance agreement is anticipated to be $65,000.
2. Animal control services ($12,900 increase) -The proposed $818,100
budget represents a 1.6% increase from fiscal year 2002-03. Salt Lake
County has been providing animal control services for Salt Lake City for
several years by contract. Some time ago, the Administration contacted
local animal control organizations, security providers, kennels and
veterinarians to determine if any other entities were interested in
providing animal control services for Salt Lake City. No other entity
expressed interest in providing these services for Salt Lake City. The
Administration also reviewed the County's cost records and determined
that Salt Lake City is not paying more than what the actual expenses are
for animal control services. The cost for FY04-05 will be $842,600 or an
increase of$24,500 from FY03-04. In some cases Council Members have
expressed interest in a higher service level. Is the Council interested in
expanding or providing additional resources for this contract?
3. Bus pass program ($35,000 increase) -The budget for fiscal year 2002-03
was the second half of the biennial budget. Actual costs of the pass
program have been exceeding the budget. Costs for fiscal year 2002-03
were $83,937. The Administration is anticipating a charge of
approximately $96,000 for the bus pass program in fiscal year 2003-04.
The City instituted the bus pass program to encourage the use of mass
transit. The discount is only available under a special program with UTA
that is based on the total number of employees, so the cost cannot be
reduced by specifying a certain number of employees who would like the
passes.
4. Community television services ($15,000 elimination of funding to Salt
Lake Community College) -In fiscal year 2003-04, the City budgeted to
participate in a one-time countywide project to provide community
information to the public and visitors at hotels/motels. These funds have
not yet been expended. The Council may wish to ask the Administration
about the status of this project.
5. Election Processing ($175,000) - Every other year, funds must be
budgeted for local elections. The City contracts with Salt Lake County for
election services. Actual election costs in fiscal year 2001-02 were
$118,207. The Council may wish to request an explanation from the
Administration for the increase in election costs. The Council may wish to
consider a legislative intent that the budget during non-election years include
the use of these funds for one-time projects or an additional transfer to the
CIP Fund so that the election funding is available for election years without
having to make other budget cuts.
3
6. Fleet replacement ($44,000 increase) -The budget increases funding for
fleet replacement from $4,518,481 to $4,562,481. Council staff will
prepare a separate staff report on the proposed budget for the Fleet
Management Fund. (Note: There is a slight discrepancy between the
amount budgeted in Non-Departmental to be transferred to the Fleet
Management Fund and the amount budgeted in the Fleet Management
Fund shown as a revenue from the General Fund.)
7. Gifts and Receptions -The budget for gifts and receptions is proposed to
remain at $20,600. Induction ceremony expenses are traditionally
budgeted in this account. Since the budget isn't proposed to increase, the
Council may wish to verify with the Administration that the budget includes
the induction ceremony expenses for both mayor and council.
8. Impact fees ($225,000 decrease) - Impact fee revenue is projected to
decrease because of less construction due to the economy. Impact fee
revenue of$425,000 is anticipated with a corresponding transfer to the
CIP Fund.
9. Legal Defenders ($83,912 increase) -The City is required to provide
counsel indigent defendants where jail time is a possibility. The City
contracts this responsibility to Salt Lake Legal Defenders. The budget
proposes an increase of 28.4% for fiscal year 2003-2004. A portion of the
increase, $55,100, represents the costs to cover the additional cases
taken over from the district attorney. Salt Lake City funds 5 of the 33
attorneys employed by Legal Defenders. The increase in costs without
considering the cases from the district attorney is 7.6%. The requested
increase will help keep salary consistent with the Salt Lake City
Prosecutor's Office. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to
provide more written details relating to the cost increase for the contract with
Legal Defenders.
10.National League of Cities ($960 increase) - For fiscal year 2003-04, the
City's dues will be $9,860.
11.Neighborhood Matching Grants Program (one-time elimination of on-going
funding) - In fiscal year 1995-1996, the Council appropriated $50,000 for
a pilot Neighborhood Matching Grants Program. Funding was increased
to $250,000 in the next fiscal year and continued until 2000-2001 when
it was increased to $350,000. In fiscal year 2002-2003, the funding was
reduced to $117,000 to use some of the unspent accumulated amounts.
The Administration recommends maintaining the Neighborhood Matching
Grant Program in fiscal year 2003-2004 by utilizing the accumulated
balance of$266,000 (no new funding). This in effect will be a one-time
savings, since an appropriate from the General Fund will probably be
necessary for fiscal year 2004-2005.
12.Sales tax rebates ($4,000 decrease) -The City is contractually obligated
for sales tax rebates relating to incentives for two retail businesses -
Hermes (Fred Meyer) and Sutherlands. The Administration projects the
rebates, which are based on a portion of actual sales taxes collected by
the two retail stores, to decrease to a total of$158,000.
4
13.Sugarhouse Park Authority ($5,000 increase) -The City and County
equally share the costs of operating the Sugarhouse Park. The City's 50%
share for fiscal year 2003-04 will be $197,600.
14.Tax & Revenue Anticipation Notes ($125,000 decrease in interest expense)
-As is customary, each year the City borrows funds to help support
General Fund operations until property taxes are received. The proposed
budget represents preliminary cost estimates of a 2% interest rate on $25
million. More precise calculations will be available before the Council
adopts the budget. The City Treasurer plans to sell the notes on July 10,
2003. Council staff will prepare a separate staff report on Tax & Revenue
Anticipation Notes. The City Treasurer is also proposing a decrease of
$10,000 in the budget for issuing costs.
15.Transfer of on-going revenue to Capital Improvement Projects Fund
($1,549,597 decrease excluding debt service) -The Administration is
proposing to transfer $3,002,544 from fund balance to the CIP Fund to
bring the transfer to 9% of General Fund revenue. The total transfer to
the CIP Fund including debt service and one-time revenue is proposed to
decrease by $667,487. A portion of this decrease is due to a decline in
General Fund revenue resulting in a corresponding decrease in the 9%
amount of General Fund revenue. The transfer to CIP with ongoing
revenue (excluding the portion required for debt service) is proposed to
decrease from $5,806,317 to $4,256,720.
16.Transfer to Governmental Immunity Fund ($1,500,000 decrease) -The
budget proposes a separate levy for the Governmental Immunity Fund
with an offsetting reduction to the General Fund levy. Property tax
revenue from the separate tax levy is estimated to be $1,300,000. The
original adopted budget for the transfer to Governmental Immunity for
fiscal year 2002-03 was $1,300,000. The budget was increased by
$200,000 during the year by amendment to meet the claims needs.
Council staff will prepare a separate staff report on the proposed budget
for the Governmental Immunity Fund.
17.Transfer to Information Management Services Fund ($146,456 increase)
The City's Information Management Services Division maintains the City
computer infrastructure. The General Fund's portion of major systems is
funded by a direct transfer from the General Fund. The Administration is
requesting the addition of two full-time positions. One position is to
continue the ratio of one network administrator for every 100 computers
(which was established during fiscal year 1995-96). The other position is
to keep the Division on track for placing applications for City on-line
services on the Internet. Council staff will prepare a separate staff report
on the budget for the Information Management Services Fund.
18.Transfer to Insurance & Risk Management Fund ($46,098 increase)
The Administration recommends a 3% increase in the transfer to the
Insurance & Risk Management Fund. Council staff will prepare a
separate staff report on the budget for the Insurance & Risk Management
Fund.
5
19.Transfer to Street Lighting Special Assessment Fund ($5,000 increase)
The City pays 25% of street lighting costs of special districts since the
City would have provided some lighting within the district. The total
budget proposed for fiscal year 2003-04 is $130,000.
20.Transitional housing ($4,500 increase) -The proposed budget includes
payments in lieu of taxes from the Housing Authority of$107,500.
Federal regulations allow housing authorities to make payments from
federal funds to cities in lieu of property taxes. The proposed budget
includes a contribution of these funds back to the Housing Authority as a
match for a federal grant used for maintaining existing transitional
housing. The City has traditionally made these transfers over the past
several years.
21.U.S. Conference of Mayors ($2,980 increase) - For fiscal year 2003-04, the
City's dues are anticipated to be $10,300.
22.Utah League of Cities &Towns ($5,000 increase) - Salt Lake City's
membership dues for the Utah League of Cities and Towns were $90,000
in fiscal year 2002-03. For the coming fiscal year, the City's dues are
calculated to be $95,000 based on the League's formula.
23.Washington DC consultant ($5,000 increase) -The Administration is
anticipating an increase of funding for the Washington DC consultant
from $50,000 to $55,000.
24.Youth City Government-The budget proposes continuation the $7,500
appropriation for Youth City Government but transfers the function to the
Department of Public Services.
25.YouthCity programs -The budget proposes continuation of the $150,000
appropriation for YouthCity programs but transfers the program to the
Department of Public Services.
Additional Information
LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENT
The Council issued the following legislative intent statements in June 2000 that
relate to the Non-Departmental budget.
Economic Development Promotion - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration coordinate 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
6
review the funding formula and staffing needs of the EDCU and report the findings
to the Council.
Results/Steps Taken:
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. The Economic Development program
within the Department of Community& Economic Development just completed
an audit, requested by the City Council, which addresses many of these concerns.
(The Council has not yet received the audit report. Council staff anticipates that
it will be available within the next two weeks.) 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.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the Nondepartmental budget.
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
Item V
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2003-04
DATE: May 20, 2003
BUDGET FOR: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUND
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears
cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, Randy
Hillier, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, Max Peterson, Rick Johnston,
Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, Kevin Young, Parviz Rokhva, Dell Cook,
John Vuyk, Jerry Burton, Laurie Dillon, DJ Baxter
The proposed budget for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund for fiscal year
2003-2004 is $27,601,997. The CIP Fund does not include capital projects of
enterprise funds since those projects are budgeted within the enterprise funds.
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
PROPOSED BUDGET
Adopted Proposed Difference Percent
2002-2003 2003-2004 Change
Sources of funds
Transfer from the General Fund $18,949,321 $21,256,834 $2,307,513 12.2%
Class C Road funds 2,250,000 1,400,000 (850,000) (37.8%)
CDBG 2,120,258 1,968,000 (152,258) (7.2%)
Other sources 1,219,225 2,199,003 979,778 80.4%
Impact Fees 0 778,160 778,160
Total funds available $24,538,804 $27,601,997 $3,063,193 12.5%
Uses of funds
Transfer to debt service $14,741,423 $14,137,003 $(604,420) (4.1%)
Capital outlay 9,797,381 13,464,994 3,667,613 37.4%
Total uses of funds $24,538,804 $27,601,997 $3,063,193 12.5%
The Capital Improvement Program is a multiyear planning program that uses three
main planning documents: a 20-Year Inventory of Capital Needs, a 6 Year Capital
Improvement Plan, and each fiscal year's capital budget. Attached is a schedule of the
proposed capital budgets for fiscal year 2003-04 and the 6 Year Capital Improvement
Plan. This fiscal years 2003-2004 schedule identifies all of the projects that were
submitted for funding with the Mayor's recommendations and the priority rankings of
the Citizens Advisory Board and Administrative staff. The City Council makes the final
determination of projects to be funded.
1
Item V
POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE
Some of the major policies or issues relating to the CIP Fund include:
• $33,936,465 over 4 years for the Intermodal Hub - Although the Intermodal
Hub is operated as an enterprise fund, the Council may wish to consider the
development activities of the Intermodal Hub as part of the CIP. The capital
planning of the Intermodal Hub is contained in the 6 Year Capital Improvement
Program Plan. The Administration is recommending that the Council adopt a
Capital Operating budget for the Intermodal Hub which includes expenditures
of $33,936,465 between fiscal year 2003-2004 and fiscal year 2006-2007. This
amount is in addition the money that has been spent on viaduct shortening,
property acquisition and track reconfiguring. The Council may wish to consider
the timing of any proposed general commercial developments in the vicinity
immediately adjacent to the Intermodal Hub and whether or not these
developments are proposed as compliments to the Downtown Retail areas and
Gateway retail area. The Council may wish to receive an update on the
construction plans of the Intermodal Hub and determine when the proposed
expenditures need to be made. The Council may also wish to consider whether
or not any development activity at the Intermodal Hub will result in additional
sales or property tax to the City or Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake and if
there are any restrictions on commercial development at the Intermodal Hub.
• Transfer of CIP Coordinator Salary to CIP Fund - The Administration is
recommending that the Council adopt a Capital Operating budget which
includes the salary and benefit costs of the CIP Coordinator. The FTE will still
be housed in the Finance Division of the Department of Management Services.
The Council may wish to create a cost center within the CIP for CIP
Administration. The Administration is recommending that the allocation of the
CIP Coordinator's salary be distributed to each of the CIP projects in the same
manner as engineering costs are allocated. The total salary and benefits transfer
will be $66,228. This will represent an enhanced staffing allocation to the CIP,
since in the past there has not been a full time staff position fully dedicated to
CIP. The Council may wish to ask about the benefits of the enhanced staffing
level.
• 9% of General Fund revenue to CIP Fund -The Council adopted a policy that at
least 9% of on-going General Fund revenue is to be allocated to the CIP Fund.
The 9% calculation excludes library bond property tax and one-time money. The
Administration is proposing that a portion of the 9% allocation to the CIP Fund be
from General Fund fund balance. This approach is not consistent with the
Council's policy but it is consistent with the philosophy of this administration, to
allocate 'an amount equal to 9 percent'to CIP.
General Fund Transfer to CIP General Fund
2
Item V
Calculation of 9% Minimum Transfer Amount
2003-2004
General Fund revenue $ 161,186,949
Less Library Bond (6,950,559)
Less One-time revenue (0)
General Fund revenue for 9% calculation $154,236,390
9% of General Fund revenue $ 13,881,275
On-going allocation (78.4%) $ 10,878,731
General Fund balance allocation (21.6%) $ 3,002,544
The Council may wish to review the 9% policy and consider other funding priorities
for the Capital Improvement Program. Council staff has noted in the staff review of
department reports where revenue and expenditures within the General Fund have
shifted to Special Revenue Funds etc. The net effect of such shifts or transfers is a
reduction (or increase) of General Fund revenue. In many cases the reduction
acknowledges that the revenue that was shown as General Fund revenue is really
grant revenue dedicated to a particular program. An example of such a shift is the
proposed CDBG shift. Because the CDBG grant revenue was passed through the
General Fund, the Administration had to take an amount equal to 9% of the CDBG
grant and transfer it to the Capital Improvement Program. Because the CDBG grant
revenue is allocated to CDBG projects, the 9% allocation ends up being "subsidized"
by the remaining General Fund revenue. The Administration's approach of not
including CDBG in the calculation of the 9% reduces the total dollar amount
allocated for CIP, but is not inconsistent with basic accounting approaches and
principles.
Council staff has identified two ways to address the allocation to the Capital
Improvement Program and make the allocation more closely match the needs of the
City:
> The first allocation method could be shifting the 9% allocation from General
Fund revenue (total General Fund revenue that includes Intergovernmental
Revenue, Charges for services, Inter fund Transfers, etc.) to General Fund Tax
revenue. The new allocation would be calculated from those sources that are
truly on-going in nature. General Fund tax revenue includes Property Taxes,
Sales and Use Tax, Franchise Taxes and Payment in Lieu of Taxes. As
comparison, total General Fund revenue was $154,236,390 and total General
Fund Tax revenue was $122,337,805. $13,881,275 of$122,337,805 is 11.35%.
> The second allocation method is a straight forward planning approach that looks
at the facilities that the City owns, makes assumptions about the replacement
and repair of the facilities based on historical practices and allocates enough
money to the Capital Improvement Program to accomplish the goals of the
program. Cities with strong multi-year Capital Improvement Program plans
follow this approach. Citizens and City staff gather once every five or six years to
review the CIP plan and recommend funding for the program. Debt service that
is dedicated to the projects within the CIP is removed from the funding scenarios
and the remaining projects receive funding from a straight allocation for Pay-as-
you-Go CIP funds. It is understood that projects that are unforeseen and
unexpected are funded with General Fund fund balance and any contingency
funds within the Capital Improvement Program. If the City were to follow this
3
Item V
approach the Administration would have a line item allocation for Pay-as-you-Go
CIP projects that matches the multi-year adopted CIP Plan. In fiscal year 2003-
2004, the total recommended allocation to the CIP Fund is $27,601,997;
$13,720,722 of that amount is for CDBG, SID, Class C, Impact Fee and other
governmental revenue CIP projects. $13,881,275 is the General Fund portion; of
that amount $6,791,792 is legally obligated debt service on CIP projects. Capital
Improvement Debt projects include the debt service on the City & County
Building, the Police/Fire Radio system and MBA projects. $7,089,483 of the
General Fund portion is recommended for Pay-as-you-Go projects. If the
Administration were to follow a straight allocation method, they would account
for all of the other governmental revenue going to CIP and the debt service for
CIP projects, then allocate an amount such as $7 million in fiscal year 2003-
2004, $7,140,000 in fiscal year 2004-2005, etc.
• $2,000,000 for the fourth phase of Liberty Park reconstruction - The
Administration is recommending that the Council adopt a Capital Operating
budget which includes $2,000,000 for Liberty Park. This allocation will be the
fourth allocation to the reconstruction of Liberty Park. Depending on what
additional amenities are chosen for the park, an additional $3 to $6 million
could be spent in the park. The Council may wish to receive an update on the
park and hear what additional amenities are planned for the park. The multi-
year reconstruction of the park is the largest component of CIP Pay-as-you-Go
funding.
• $420,000 for a street crossing at 1300 East and Sugarhouse Park - The
Administration is recommending that the Council adopt a Capital Operating
budget which includes $420,000 for a street crossing at 1300 East and
Sugarhouse Park. It is anticipated that this allocation will be matched with
NEA, UDOT, Federal and Private Grants, etc. The total cost of this project is
anticipated to be $1,720,000. The Council may wish to receive an update on the
fundraising and grant status of this project and determine whether a pedestrian
crossing is necessary this year to complete the Parley's Creek Corridor Trail
project.
• $300,000 for SID street lighting in the Rose Park area - The Administration is
recommending that the Council adopt a Capital Operating budget which
includes $300,000 for SID decorative street lighting in the Rose Park area. The
council may wish to receive an update on the street lighting master plan and
what effect this project will have on the overall street lighting policy of the City.
The Council may wish to determine why this area has been chosen for street
lighting upgrades and confirm that other street lighting areas are being
upgraded also. The Administration has previously indicated that they will not
be able to report back to the Council on their street lighting plans until August
or September.
• $0 for Traffic Calming - The Administration is recommending that the Council
adopt a Capital Operating budget which does not include money for Traffic
calming in the City. The Council may wish to consider the amount of funding
remaining in the Traffic Calming cost center and determine if there are sufficient
funds available to continue this program. The Council may also wish to receive
4
Item V
an update on the program and hear what concerns residents have expressed
concerning the program. Council staff has attached a response from the
Administration concerning the traffic calming program. This information was
prepared in March of 2003. The Council initiated an audit of this program; it
will be available after the Audit Committee meets next week. Some initial
information is included in a later section of this report.
Additional Information
BACKGROUND
The Administration accepts applications for capital projects from citizens and City
departments each year for consideration for recommendation by the Mayor to the
Council for funding. All applications are reviewed by the CIP Citizens Board and a
team of City staffers from each department who specialize in capital projects. The
Administration has prepared a booklet for each Council Member. The booklet
contains all of the applications for fiscal year 2003-2004 and fiscal year 2004-2005
capital projects. A new round of applications will be received during the summer of
2003 for consideration in the fiscal year 2004-2005 CIP budget.
The CIP application booklet is attached to this report.
Council staff has also attached the 6 Year Business Plan for the Capital
Improvement Program. The Business Plan is prepared by the CIP Coordinator and
is listed in the CIP Section. The Department of Public Services has CIP related goals
in the Engineering section. It is standard among cities with defined CIP programs
such as Salt Lake City's to have the capital budget administration be located in a
division other than the division responsible for the construction of the capital
projects. Usually the oversight or administration is considered a budget or finance
function.
Council staff has also attached a spreadsheet that shows the funding
recommendations from the CIP Board, City staff and the Mayor. This spreadsheet
will be shown on an overhead during the presentation on the CIP budget.
During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify
legislative intents relating to the CIP Fund.
5
Item V
Traffic Management (Traffic Calming)
The bulk of the information contained below is taken from a draft of the Traffic
Management Program Audit.
"To date, the program has received $1,500,000 in CIP funds from the City Council.
To date, $562,000 has been spent on construction; approximately $238,000 has
been spent for such items as testing equipment, speed boards, neighborhood
mailings, supplies, temporary employees, Traffic Calming seminars and the Pace
Car Program. An amount of$52,300 is owed for the installation of the testing
equipment. This currently leaves $647,700 in the program. Salary expenses are
allocated in the Division of Transportation budget. Currently, the program is
staffed with one Traffic Calming Coordinator. A graduate student intern is
assisting the Traffic Management Program on a part-time basis. Part-time or other
assistance is utilized on an as needed basis."
"There have been approximately 285 requests for traffic calming made to the
Division of Transportation. To date, the program has completed 32 traffic calming
projects and 3 others are in varying stages of the plan design and implementation
process. Of the 32 completed projects, 24 resulted in the construction of traffic
calming devices and 8 resulted in the closure of the project without the installation
of any traffic calming devices. The causes of project completion without device
construction are generally the result of neighborhoods deciding that they no longer
want the devices, and/or neighborhoods unable to reach a consensus on proposed
measures. There are approximately 105 eligible streets in the project queue
awaiting traffic calming measures. Over 145 streets have been evaluated and
deemed ineligible because they did not meet the threshold necessary to implement
traffic calming measures. Twenty-one streets are scheduled for an initial traffic
calming eligibility study. The Traffic Management Program receives approximately
20 telephone and/or email inquiries per week. Personnel respond to a variety of
inquiries, ranging from general public information inquiries to information requests
from other traffic calming departments. TMP receives 1-2 formal petitions each
month from neighborhoods wishing to enter the Program."
Contained below is a list of streets that the Traffic Management Program is
currently working with.
• 600 South between 900 East and 1300 East- being done in conjunction
with an Engineering reconstruction project.
• 1300 South, Glendale to Montgomery Street- being done in conjunction with
an Engineering reconstruction project.
• 11th Ave B Street to I Street- cost is estimated to be approximately $40,000
• 1500 East, 1700 South to 2100 South- cost is estimated to be
approximately $70,000.
• 600 West, North Temple to 600 North - cost is estimated to be approximately
$80,000.
• 1700 East, 1700 South to 2100 South- Plan is not yet developed.
• 1900 East, 1700 South to 2100 South- Plan is not yet developed.
6
Item V
• Imperial Street, 2700 South to 3000 South - Plan is not yet developed.
Of the four existing Traffic Calming cost centers, three contain unencumbered cash
and appropriation.
Traffic Calming Cost Centers with Cash and Appropriation Remaining
Remaining Remaining
Cost Center Approp " Cash
Traffic Calming 83-99014 $2,073 $2,073
Traffic Calming 83-00014 $45,461 $45,550
Traffic Calming 83-03014 $249,912 $249,912
Total Remaining $297,446 $297,535
7
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
• 83 Fund
Mission Statement
The Capital Improvement Program(CIP) is a multi-year planning program for capital expenditures needed to replace or expand the public
infrastructure. The construction or rehabilitation of streets,sidewalks,bridges,parks,public buildings,waterworks,and airport facilities
are commonly funded CIP projects.
Goals and Ob'ectives
Efficiency/Effectiveness Measures Cumulative Targets.
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ; 2007-08 2008-09
Improve Infrastructure 1. Invest an amount equal to or greater than 9%of on- >9% >9% >9% >9% >9% >9%
Condition: Balance between going General Fund revenue per year in capital
new opportunities and improvements.
maintenance of existing
infrastructure.
2. Enterprise funds will make capital investments in 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
accordance with their five year plans.
Narrative
The policies and guidelines associated with the Capital Improvement Program are shown below:
• Allocation of General Fund revenues for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General Fund revenue.
The Council intent that no less than 9%of General Fund monies go to the CIP was reiterated this fiscal year. The FY 2003-04 budget
appropriates 9.0%of on-going General Fund revenue to CIP.
• Credit revenues received from the sale of real property to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Fund and reserve the revenue for future use.
City Administration and the City Council both support funding CIP with one-time monies received from the sale of real property,as well as CIP
funds remaining from projects completed under budget.
• Capital improvement projects financed through the issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service no longer than the useful life of the project.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Departmental 6 Year Business Plan
• Seek out partnerships for completing capital projects. City Administration is actively seeking contributions to the CIP from other public and
private entities. The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County are currently providing contributions to debt service on CIP
projects. Other government agencies are also providing funding for streets,sidewalks,parks,tennis courts,and other public buildings
A listing of proposed project for fiscal years 2004 through 2009 is included in the document.
,gym -:- =a }W ,., _.i. ::_: >t; ";� ,:TV7 <, ,:
.'rr: '#•x:'S••' 9 `k': ii!el,p( - rr .r�•°`"r q' .,65,,,,, „ a q r '4�,.x, :-r,,,,u:»„stir;,,, , '°(sC«. a s. Kt 4t,. � '"u, ,,,
.sj(£y:rst.s•-•• ,,,,, F R. .P-. .- b,-,,a -,' q m'`'y R '�s,'&432' s., ...
.. ....<-.___•.•.•b.• :, ..„ m�«w,>: „aae .£�'.�n�e.«w«. "'�..����fYibu '..�'.,�,.:<. ''4....: S:°"w 4;.".i..::;: �
}, rtg' . Y\„,:;';-;:::;L......., "ff......� ro .k:,sb.;...s E.:.';y 5w";'� i} kk�S. '^k„
.........................» -:�;? � .,� ,w ;::.�:.».•.......:z �'.��.�..;.,� .:s.<..,<.,.....--z �z . Aa,,,.:.......,... �^� �-•�" ...,.�.�.�; %';�:�'..is:�"s �- . -'' 3<.-t,t
TiTilrt
STREETS, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
w. .. ...... .:. .... ..._.. 4 .w.,",. .a<r ,e ,; m a'jk?0",,""r,. e a a a •.a <"., x.s,,sYW'e r e:771:77,77777:7M7,77,777
General Fund $250,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,750,000
CDBG Fundin $200,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,700,000
General Fund $400,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $800,000 $800,000 53,500,000
CDBG Funding $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000
• ecial Im rovement District(SID $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,400,000
'„ fit «,1
General Fund 019,483 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
G $1, $1,300,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $7,919,483
CDBG Funding $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000
Class C Fundin. $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $9,000,000
%p'i�........:,;;,,:r• .!!tVi :., ..... s:a... ,.;.&;.;fig•: a::°"..
„�� �,< w ,w 'z�;:;:.. ... .< ...�.�°.%,«a' , �a i^a .r" �� ..., .... ia��i.?i^��. _; ..x;:�;.rs*i.:.---.-- 'S, s� <;�'
General Fund »$120,000 r
$120,000
S ecial Im rovement District SID $75,000 575,000
General Fund $420,000 $420,000
General Fund $150,000 $150,000
Class C Funding $800,000 $800,000
S ecial Improvement District SID $300,000
$300,000
Class C Funding $200,000 $1,650,000 $1,850,000
Class C Funding $200,000 $200,000
Federal Fundin $6,100,000 $6,100,000
Class C Funding $200,000 $200,000
Federal Funding $900,000 $900,000
CDBG Funding ..�� ,„, , w ,_. ,., ,.,, _ �, .$20,000• ,„ ,.,. ,,..,, „ ,., ,.,.,„ „ ,, WON
$
< , „ , , "UMW
CDBG Funding $485,000 $485,000
CDBG Funding $38,000 $38,000
CDBG Funding $525,000 $525,000
CDBG Funding $19,000 $19,000
y} ,u+x `'�}.., �. •' SZ'3• «�"�' ? ti s.:,�i i'�. q 'A'��rta,�.;•;; x «a;��f'�a',i,�yh
.-.......'+a 1 e® PeC,., .'^ ...,;,a'h M. :roR�n„.,• ffi,. �.,0 ra .. � s,,,. .. ",:
�r
General Fund $150,000 $670,000 $600,000 $1,420,000
Class C Funding $1,750,000 $1,750,000
Special Improvement District SID $250,000 $250,000
Class C Funding $250,000 $1,450,000 $1,950,000 $1,450,000 $5,100,000
Impact Fees $1,700,000 $1,700,000
Special Improvement District(SID $800,000 $800,000
General Fund $400,000 $400,000
5
General Fund $400,000 $400,000
Impact Fees $900,000 $900,000
Class C Funding $600,000 $600,000
Special Improvement District SID $1,000,000 $1,000,000
,, , , „ „ ,
ai
General Fund ,„ . . , , », , $300,000 $300 000
Federal Highway Funding $2,700,000 $2,700,000
Class C Funding $400,000 $400,000
Federal Highway Funding $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $3,200,000
Streets Total $14,521,483 $7,700,000 $9,920,000 $9,050,000 $7,850,000 $14,050,000 $63,091,483
Streets,Summary of Revenue by Source
General Fund $2,359,483 $2,250,000 $2,770,000 $2,700,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $15,279,483
CDBG $1,487,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,487,000
Class C $2,900,000 $3,400,000 $3,250,000 $3,350,000 $3,450,000 $3,550,000 $19,900,000
Special Improvement District $775,000 $650,000 $1,200,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,400,000 $4,825,060
Impact Fee $1,700,000 $900,000 $2,600,000
Federal Highway $7,000,000 $1,600,000 $4,300,000 $12,900,000
Total of All Funding by Source $14,521,483 $7,300,000 $9,920,000 $9,050,000 $7,450,000 $13,750,000 $61,991,483
_ .--- _, 0, -,~
PARKS, G YEAR C|P BALANCED PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
r, pv pv pv p/ p,
Project
� e
i
•
Yew
S:•
5r*
61.•
.:^.:fr Jm .'::p`-• "K'.t•_• •m r, �aY '=,73;z:: :": '7ee7.::'<'.' v .wN.
w:a,✓.".t.7e�'6P, gi;74»'� b°,,,,- 'r:.••bi.7t.'i"ri�, ,w:hi , . ` 'as, t � -`'""".,• ",x"' `vr, � 'n9';,',,,
w.d .c#,.f�' a �: rae ;''d{P' ,�.��g,�`°��' A r' f' �,�$c:' '.•"b 'r x � - `�`� � £I"r �,�, "�'�`'. �,� '. ;a..•. .1 ,
�>.�.,..aa.,..:t..,..M.. -�. 2�_,..» «a<,...�....�aa�a,<�. � ., .:.,�>;4tm.«� , �.. .:;x��`•g�.. .�ea,. ".Ka"" � i',<. � a ti::�.��'d.:'£'.,. �. '".
:ate. • t' �,am.,,
,,,,-s-,,.,, .+�,.rm, «.by 4.7,a, r=l'.,•*;•:.. 7�77 ^i»,p�t.A�^•^ 'm'F. _q .NI," ,17.!.=',;,,Zm..x .,;n '.r e,R:..Vrt.t•;7�„"e�. >,rtn
y'Q " +�?'a �.a :.5.. q ...'i„ b �.,"^,. "sae^ .•3��; ^W`�^.�.�'.b•`�•
>dripa Pgad� �s//a •?ft�'•'�" � ° &AitP�': ::::;€^ ,,a," ......, ���.:"�<: ,y .rrs..,.,d.,. .
'4 w+" ,56 < s yF. B p rat: r Sr8 �V'''' , ,: ..4. .4., ,$^a�• 011 ..«,:v' ....':i`°^ ;,.. 72 t3$r
�. .,,........«.m:.i:m�: ,'" ,_»,....,.^-..�...... „.,„.,„,°r^,.�^ ,..w^...tea a.. , «a«...�..�._«...,,: '. «^.«�..«.a..i:• ....»................... M..�.,».. a. ..w..�....w,
General Fund $75,000 S75,000
. ., , ....>..,...,. ,,y..,i�'b.-°',�; <.. ''A� «'.S. ...:«... C&'ice-'�".. '".ky. <.R.,.i ";:.tie e1L�iX8».:.:,,
'�,:::_':^�r`r .., ..,,..�..... ...,..,.. aa.. -....»., .ewArM m� «s.. . e.0,.�..,a ,,,,,,+.,v'<...« . ..r.<�u <.a.a,�. �,.»>r<.`;'.�.��%;`"r:.i a.-«.o's:<.. 'f.2•_ :''':
General Fund $75,000
$75,000
•
General Fund $100,000
$100,000
General Fund 0
<,'„
., ,000 $150,000
General Fund
$400,000 f
. . .. , ern„ . t�i , 5400,000
General Fund $100,000 "r ,._ .. . ,„, ,
$100,000
General Fund
$60,000 $60,000
General Fund _ `00 ` 560,000
General Fund ,. $100,000 .. . ..
$100,000
General Fund .., ee. � . ,.,,,, .„ , -
„`��"l"Fu r' v ;*� «_ . $200,000 $100,000 $700,000 $1,000,000
General Fund $100,000 $100,000
General Fund
$300,000 $300,000
General Fund $100,000
.. < .. � .. 0
0
::iS„ ia» pzr1'V: ; 1 $. .a.. ^"'KI:l ".�N . ,ai'ii vci ilti' D:,. vrs:n,:,.x ,-:':.:; ,;mii
v$. ..... f',Y:L „:e' < Y,,a ."..' < 4 ............................................
^4 .. .. ... .. .W.., _.«..a:.:-«. . w,, ". k, ., ,,m «.,.waS'a.x .'! m.. ,. «.< 'ea.. ,. <.. ': 't, ;::;::"s'',^,;,tz, .. Qa;, ... ._;v,..�< ,.9. :. s 'CDBG
$100,000 $100,000 $200,000
CDBG $150,000 $150,000
.41,„t::' i ri: ,,, igs,.°' ..` ya 4P,;2am f' if .a ed=,:i....................;,,,,; ;: 1 ,;, ii ,i. rv' ': WvK i' <.: ea.•n. e'Forif7 ' ;;. : iom k ' ';6 so ri I.
... . ;,Rk,...s i, ...gK.,:,y .,,. �, a.r:' .._. ..s ; ` u �.> • .: _ ,:;:,,, e y..-. °^ .z ;1r, ,,• .wf,,..,°;� .; :. t ': t�e 4,^ °':„vGeneralFund
$350,000 $350,000
,_ _
CDBG „....,, $173,000
„,
WE . , , , 5173,000
General Fund ,u< ,
$500,000 $500,000
General Fund $50,000 $50,000
General Fund .., ,,.,,,..,, „
$60,000 $60,000
u,, ,
CDBG ^a .Na $150,000,.,._w. i• $150,000
CDBG ,,.c'$17o,000 .. $170,000
4.
General Fund $200,000 $200,000
"5"f�. ».t f,+5,""".�.,„�"'visa ;`�d"7" • 3c''*r`„ '�inr�.:," G' •aww4, ':�..� , ', . ..t"""; "g«'N;, ..,,.-, r ":-^_."a,.,,, ..s•s
s f, i•*a. °° < a a '°4 F ,7�i ' Qa a 'a it r *�, a• ::•a ,1.ss<.s„ .`°,,,:::::,,,",.,��..,::,...::•:3
blr
,;��^;;:&:e � .. "�,a, „� ': �.'''Y�e�:w a,ye: ::�'g �'L4�•t '��v,^�i«' 6i•� ,�r�T���,«ti� .-...i:: �&'x§A'ir°:'i:=;:="s:.X' '�'�nw swo-.
....,,,,,M. ,,,n.a.»--,� ,` ... •'a,,,n-, �r, • .^<'2 .. . r k ,^r p' .r••.,';:,,i> �, ,,,,,` ,..a. .% ' , .., -,,,,,:w,». �.;..:::-::t o #.;s'
......... .. ., 7«'«..aa«a. .:a a �«.. ' . .... < :;3:a> '4','.�•'`�';:.' ��:Y....,,,.a.,, ,.ra,�.9C�S`r+ .a ,,&,�.., . ..a ....,,.�
w ,
General Fund $500,000 $500,000
General Fund $100,000 $100,000
Gen eral Fund
. .e.ss, .,x,.,,",,,,,,� ".,"V s"c`5:...9..S,,a.,<t'z.•,.. .,.., . ......K: .... a ,„,a�, <`. $100,000 $100,000
• a J& :sS sa§' a-4 a 4 g: % ". v ; 44„ > aro + c. £ , te ,c '�� } "pg m P
'''.:A wF., ... - a ... , i , 'Y,^. .,, Qt" :^^,aN ,y,,k1.a .Y . .:l a .,h "k° " .� • -Fw,es. i &ero�,,.. Kt
.ew
General Fund $25,000 $25,000
General Fund,„ ,�".�, . „ , .,, ». .• '$SOQ000 _- _ "_ $500,000
General Fund ,.......,,.,.,, „_,,.,,,,,, .-,-• ""•.,,,,., , H „ ". ':° , -,.. $100,000 ,,,_ $100,000
General Fund
$100,000 $100,000
General Fund •, �, ,. �,'�
$250,000 $250,000
CDBG , ._ $100,000 $100,000
CDBG
.. ..1General
,,• •••" ,. „m,,.,3..a...x,•,,,„.,,.. ............. „ .."`.,",..._ ,ti,a. :k,., ,.,. ..�a. �.,a �.,3•tm.r..".,.a...,.,_ 000
,.. .... � $:'s 250,000a. .. $250�
,
: =4: ,�a y `i '?moF„e ' ' p� 4,. . M " 4A " %a. gi" , -..: _ a 'r s.nr ` £ :: arrti Y `,
s
^ .'" G°spaf. : '' . y e%«rt*j» o�. � .,,, N '.'"� Y. ia.$..'.',1', : i ..*c, ny.,.ry s�:«;�.:.:::� � �r
GeneralFund
$115,000 $115,000
General Fund $150,000 $150,000
,
General Fund
$150,000 $150,000
General Fund ., u $150,000 $150,000
CDBG $250,000 $250,000
General Fund "
$100,000 $100,000
General Fund
$100,000 $100,000
Y
,
'•kt .�,,a •.. ,w. �..a
General Fund $175,000 $175,000
Parks Total $3,710,000 $3,605,000 $3,935,000 $3,968,000 S4,180,000 $4,225,000 $23,623,000
Parks,Summary of Revenue by Source
General Fund $2,935,000 $3,005,000 $3,235,000 $3,295,000 $3,510,000 $3,725,000 $19,705,000
CDBG $481,000 $600,000 $700,000 $673,000 $670,000 $750,000 $3,874,000
Impact Fees $294,000 $294,000
Total of All Funding by Source $3,710,000 $3,605,000 $3,935,000 $3,968,000 $4,180,000 $4,475,000 $23,873,000
�� ��.;�„ o a i r 7-» ), x ��� *%,
w
Spa �e t a & oc 1'
, f� .. . „ 1 x f Vi» 1 ,, ,,Fx stv,,, -. -- , k
MISCELLANEOUS CIP IMPROVEMENTS, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
n
Impact Fees. . ,... $50,000
General Fund $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500 000
General Fund $120,000 $120,000
..,.o •'lit`.`,`+,' ....r .,.. .,... a.
General Fund •,"0
�a ,„
$20Q,00 $200,000 $400,000
General Fund '' `" ' " '�i
4 E40,000
General Fund �. �" aft^"r, „ 444,
'44
$400,000 $400,000 $800,000
Total $50,000 $620,000 $890,000 $850,000 $1,000,000 $700,000 $3,910,000
CIP Miscellaneous,Summary of Revenue by Source
General Fund $0 $620,000 $940,000 $900,000 $700,000 $700,000 $3,860,000
Impact Fees $50,000 $50,000
Total of All Funding by Source $0 $620,000 $940,000 $900,000 $700,000 $700,000 $3,910,000
"".".'•"".".....AMMV.4.1•,',. W,4,,r•,"';>,,,,,,,,,,,.k,. ,,71,V•'"..rr"`‘goirat,MINFtrk..z.•.,,...n,,,^, ,„.,4:00NROMMAr(V"st',',','''''''.'":''0'4. ,=.Z,'''''' '''''''',-'4'.. •,•270,',..i,",'''," -OXIMEMEMPF4V*W44'0''''0 4",',#41MEDPVVFMMENERMENSEMPO Ii414•4:411112:4-• :4,44- ',AT'-,,,:,,,,,,41;g44134,311141,:'afm,.--4.44e4444*:,,.4meit**01iiimbolatiOz-leoteisiningemo*E.AnA,,,.';otmegootowaggimommujeg
--omials„m",r.,.....".,,„„...„0„,„.....,,.:,rAnwomm,WWW1464.,: ''A,''',VM•.'^ifaigninnigh4, ,.w''..z4 AaWylMemoonaw,,0444 wimiNnagmsERMINISAIE',4,w"iffimmagissingemeggramszman
02.17111,30*--44v,oi*.•,,,r 4,,,,,,r„,friimsweimeitogem 44.4 ,v..k4.44minusigumpa.,0.um.7.1,100moseogigt!'.,,,wbgatanzgoleggings ,,COMEfiginmemagagammogs
:1I;idiitiiti.ii';2 !.4...'"'.f.,,;4=i1MINEMENNEMeineft-'!4`;;ONWitiiikiliiiiiiiatMtaigEMEgligliENENCEliiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiMildillEaligna
TRANSPORTATION, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
77:7:77777,':AO;e^:7747,77t. MT,MIMPTA, -!..4 :;':;.:ik 4747713.11,17,4 l'';'"'1::f'4511111.10147MWEEMEttrntri4.-:"!:',1*,:: 7, ,,?,i1P.; 0$7777777t`,;
GeneralFund $300,000 $300,000
General Fund $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,000,000
General Fund $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000
General Fund $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000
General Fund $60,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $210,000
General Fund $675,000 $675,000
General Fund $250,000 $125,000 $125,000 $500,000
600ooftw4t40-074011
General Fund $300,000 $300,000 $250,000 $300,000 $250,000 $1,400,000
General Fund $60,000 $60,000
General Fund $600,000 $400,000 $600,000 $400,000 $2,000,000
-,„,„• , ,„„„,
General Fund $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000
Trans.°dation Total $1,735,000 $1,210,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $8,295,000
Transportation,Summary of Revenue by Source
General Fund $1,735,000 $1,210,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $8,295,000
Total of All Funding by Source $1,735,000 $1,210,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $8,295,000
.:..vNket4di..A a•,r, 4c+N wM. F�
POLICE DEPARTMENT, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
-7:7171 g,,. m ,; e,,,, 7 4 -4,,v= -.k,„a*:v, ii aid /
General Fund $540,794 $750,00
0 $1,290,794
�.� . .-,,,' NMI
General Fund $61,717 $62,000 $123,717
General Fund $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,000,000
General Fund $200,000 $200,000
Police Department Total $602,511 $662,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,150,000 $3,614,511
Police Department Summary of Revenue by Source
General Fund $602,511 $662,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,150,000 $3,614,511
Total of All Funding by Source $602,511 $662,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,150,000 $3,614,511
FIRE DEPARTMENT, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN
Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY FY FY FY FY FY
Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total
.,i,:1 .vy,t,:.. ....... „,,, , s.'.'M [ ...... �• *a:� .".< t7,4..:.. r ,.ram€:••»,+;rye - 4; :s s, z
General Fund $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $825,000
Fire Department Total $0 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $825,000
Fire Department Summary of Revenue by Source
General Fund $0 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $825,000
Total $0 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $825,000
14
FA
lift 2
BREAKDOWN DF PROPOSED YEARLY GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT C|PEXPENDITURES
Total Yearly Expenditures»v Dept(All Funds) 2003m004 2004/2005 2005/2006 zooamoor xoonz000 2008m009 Total
Streets Department(including Class c and Federal Funds) 1*.521.483 7,300,000 9,920,000 9,050,000 7.450.000 13.750.000 61.991.*83
Parks Department *3.710.000 *o.uoo.000 $3,935,000 $3,968,000 m*.180.000 **.475.000 *uo.mn.000
Miscellaneous Improvements *o $620,000 uo*o.000 $900,000 $700,000 $700,000 $3,910,000
Transportation Department o1.735.000 $1.210.000 o1.325.000 u1.350.000 o1.325.000 o1.350.000 *x.uon.000
Police Department u602.511 $662,000 $*uo.000 $400,000 $400.000 o1.150.000 *3.61*.511
Fire Department ou $275,000 $275.000 $275,000 $275,000 *crs.000 $825.000
Total *xo.oxo.00* $13.672'000 *16.795.000 $15.943.000 $14,330,000 $21.700.000 *102,508.e94
Total Yearly Expenditures bv Dept(General Fund) 2003u00* 2004/2005 2005/2006 u000moor 2007/e008 x000/z000 rota/
Streets Department ou.ue.*oo *o.uso.000 $2,770,000 $2,700,000 *e.mm.000 *u.soo.000 m15.279.483
Parks Department $2,935,000 $3,005,000 *o.zxo.00u $3,295,000 o3.510.000 $3,725,000 $19,705,000
Miscellaneous Improvements uo $620,000 o940.000 *000.ouo $700,000 $700,000 $3,860,000
Transportation Department $1.735.000 $1.210.000 $1.325.000 *1.350.000 $1.325.000 $1.350.000 $8,295,000
Police Department o602.511 *oou.000 $400,000 $400,000 o*oo.000 *1.150.000 $3.614,511
Fire Department $o *uro.000 $275.000 $275,000 $275,000 *uro.000 $825,000
Total v7.*31.99* *o.ouu.000 $8,945,000 *o.000.000 $8,810,000 *y.xoo.000 *m.sm.ox*
Total Yearly Expenditures o'Dept(coao) 2003/200* e00*/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 eoou/zooy Total
Streets Department u1.487.000 o1.000.000 *1.000.000 o1.000.000 *1.000.000 $1.000.000 $6,487,000
Parks Department $481.000 $600,000 $700,000 $673,000 *sm.000 $750,000 $u.xr«.000
Miscellaneous Improvements *o *o *» $o *» *o $o
Transportation Department oo oo $» oo *o $o $o
Police Department uo *» o» $o $o $o $»
Fire Department oo oo Po $m uo $o $o
Fiscal Year 03-04 CIP Project Application Rankings
ct
" c Fiscal Year FY 2003-2004 CIP Board FY 2003-2004
c >, 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Cumulative Total Proposed Cumulative Total
in m cc 2 re Title of Project Request Identifier Estimated Cost Amount Adj Staff Cost Amount Adj Board Cost
MBA&MFET(Class C)CIP Bond Debt Service Debt 1 $4,221,474 $3,787,314 $3,787,314 $3,787,314 $3,787,314
Debt service for several MBA and MFET bonds used to complete Portion is Impact Fee Eligible
various capital improvements throughout the city.
c City&County Building Debt Service Debt 2 $2,401,967 $2,401,967 $6,189,281 $2,401,967 $6,189,281
o Debt service payment on the bond used to rehabilitate and refurbish the
rn City&County Building. This bond will mature in 2011.
a
O Police/Fire Radio'800 Trunked Radio System Police 2 $540,794 $540,794 $6,730,075 $540,794 $6,730,075
To pay the lease purchase on radio equipment for Police and Fire. This
0 is the final payment
Police/Fire Radio'800 Tower Repeater System Police 3 $61,717 $61,717 $6,791,792 $61,717 $6,791,792
To pay the lease purchase for the tower repeaters associated with the
800 trunked radio system. Final payment will be in FY 2005.
24 7 1 Rose Park Lighting Project Trans 9 $300,000 $300,000 $7,030,075 $300,000 $7,091,792
To remove all existing over head street lighting and install new
decorative poles with underground wiring throughout the Rose Park
Community Council District. An additional$561,000 is being provided
through a special improvement district(SID)bond.
10 10 2 Quayle Avenue from 9th W to 10th W Commun 9 $120,000 $120,000 $7,150,075 $120,000 $7,211,792
To design and construct curb,gutter,sidewalk and a roadway on
Quayle Ave near 900 West and 1700 South. $75,000 will be
contributed through an area special improvement district(SID)bond.
14 2 3 Sugar House Rails w/Trails Commun 3 $264,000 Impact Fee Eligible
To develop a paved bike/pedestrian trail in shared right-of-way with
commuter light rail development on the UTA Sugar House spur,500
East to Highland Drive. Various other improvements will be made as
well.
3 4 4 Liberty Park Improvements Parks 1 $2,990,000 $2,000,000 $9,150,075 $2,000,000 $9,211,792
To provide for the fourth phase of master planned improvements for the
park. Some of the items included are:the Merry-Go-Round roof;the
Horseshoe Area&Duck Pond;Rice Terrace Pavilioin up-grade;Chase
home fountain rebuild;park-wide culinary water.
23 1 5 13th E Street Crossing Commun 5 $420,000 $420,000 $9,570,075 $420,000 $9,631,792
To create a passage across 1300 East Street,south of the 2100 South
intersection,connecting Sugar House Park with Hidden Hollow Natural
Area and the Sugar House Business District. $120,000 of this funding
will cover 100%of the construction design cost
1 3 6 Irrigation System-Sugar House Park/Phase III Commun 1 $80,000 $80,000 $9,650,075 $80,000 $9,711,792
To partially fund phase III of the Sugar House Park irrigation
refurbishment to bring the entire park irrigation system up to date with a
more efficient irrigation equipment. The portion of the irrigation system
that has not been refurbished is currently
1
Y
C
14 N m
a - E Fiscal Year FY 2003-2004 CIP Board FY 2003-2004
19 C ,c 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Cumulative Total Proposed Cumulative Total
in m CC 2 ce Title of Project Request Identifier Estimated Cost Amount Adj Staff Cost Amount Adj Board Cost
13 5 7 Stratford Park ADA Playground Parks 3 $100,000 $100,000 $9,750,075 $100,000 $9,811,792
To replace the existing playground equipment in the park,located at
20th East and 2600 South,which is not ADA accessible. Also,to redo
the existing landscape to be in harmony with the new playground
equipment and layout.
21 6 8 North Brickyard Neighborhood Park Design Commun 6 $30,000 Impact Fee Eligible
To design a park on a half-acre site owned by Salt Lake City located on
the Jordan Canal corridor between Crandall and Zenith Ave,at 1140
East 2905 South.
25 12 9 Steenblik Mini Park ADA Playground Parks 9 $150,000 $150,000 $9,900,075 $150,000 $9,961,792
To replace the existing non-ADA accessible playground equipment in
the park,located at 1069 West and 800 North,as well as up-grades to
the irrigation system.
18 16 10 Pedestrian Safety Devices Trans 5 $150,000 $150,000 $10,050,075 $150,000 $10,111,792
To provide for the installation of pedestrian safety devices throughout
the city. These include pedestrian signals with countdown timers,in-
pavement or overhead crosswalk lighting,or improved pavement
markings. These devices are installed throughout t
17 19 11 Jordan River Trail Security Lighting Parks 4 $165,000 $165,000 $10,215,075 $165,000 $10,276,792
To add security lighting to the 1300 South to 1700 South portion of the
Jordan River Trailway System. This is a continuation of the lighting
system.
22 20 12 Rosewood Park Master Plan Parks 7 $50,000 $50,000 $10,265,075 $50,000 $10,326,792
To create a master plan for Rosewood Park including a plan for use of
the 40 acre parcel to the north of the park. Rosewood Park is located
at 1400 North and 1200 West.
28 24 13 Constitution Park ADA Playground&Tennis Upgrade Parks 8 $200,000 $200,000 $10,465,075 $200,000 $10,526,792
To replace the existing non-ADA accessible playground equipment,
upgrade the tennis courts and modify the irrigation system. Constitution
Park is located at 1300 West 300 North.
4 8 14 ADA RampslCorner Repairs Streets 1 $300,000 $300,000 $10,765,075 $250,000 $10,776,792
To construct various ADA pedestrian ramps and related repairs to
corners,including sidewalk,curb and gutter.
16 9 15 Pedestrian Bike Path Development Trans 4 $100,000 $100,000 $10,865,075 $50,000 $10,826,792
To develop,design and construct pedestrian and bike paths,routes,
and facilities throughout the city as opportunities arise.
15 14 16 Local Street Rehabilitation Streets 4 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $12,365,075 $1,000,000 $11,826,792
To reconstruct or rehabilitate deteriorated local streets to include
replacement of street pavement,replacement of defective sidewalk,
curb and gutter and improvement to drainage. Streets rehabilitation is
done and an as needed basis according to the pa
2
Y
c
co cx
a -Y.. o s cn
Fiscal Year FY 2003-2004 CIP Board FY 2003-2004
2 c >. c 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Cumulative Total Proposed Cumulative Total
in m cc 2 ix Title of Project Request Identifier Estimated Cost Amount Adj Staff Cost Amount Adj Board Cost
6 15 17 Sidewalk Replacement SID Streets 2 $600,000 $600,000 $12,965,075 $400,000 $12,226,792
To replace defective sidewalk and remove tripping hazards in the
designated special improvement district(SID)area. This project will
also install ADA pedestrian ramps,provide some tree replacement
where trees have damaged sidewalk,and improve drainag
19 13 18 New and Replacement Streetlights Trans 6 $60,000 $60,000 $13,025,075 $60,000 $12,286,792
To replace existing streetlights that are no longer servicable or install
new streetlights on and as needed basis. To be coordinated with other
city projects.
27 11 19 Sugar House Lighting Project Trans 8 $675,000 $675,000 $13,700,075 $675,000 $12,961,792
To remove all existing over head street lighting and install new
decorative poles with underground wiring. Street lights would be
replaced on 2100 South from 700 East to 1300 East,and Highland
Drive from Ramona to 1-80 and Wilmington.
11 18 20 Sidewalk Rehabilitation-Concrete Sawing Streets 3 $200,000 $200,000 $13,900,075 $150,000 $13,111,792
To provide sidewalk rehabilitation and a reduction of tripping hazards
through a relatively new concrete sawing technique. This process
eliminates existing sidewalk displacements of up to one inch through
use of a specialized saw which slices off the dis
2 17 21 Traffic Signal Upgrade Trans 1 $625,000 $625,000 $14,525,075 $500,000 $13,611,792
To remove existing traffic signal equipment and upgrade with mast arm
poles,new signal heads,pedestrian signal heads with countdown
timers,improved loop detection and left turn phasing. Planned
upgrades will take place at 300 West and 1700 South,400
20 21 22 Jordan Park Peace Garden-Irrigations System Phase II Parks 6 $190,000 $190,000 $14,715,075 $190,000 $13,301,792
To provide for the second phase of Peace Gardens irrigation
construction. The irrigation system is being replaced to maximize water
efficiency and to attach it to the Central Control System. Jordan Park
Peace Garden is located 1000 West 1000 South.
26 23 23 200 S Reconstruction Streets 6 $3,250,000 $3,250,000 $17,965,075 $3,250,000 $16,551,792
To reconstruct deteriorated and substandard street on 200 South,from
400 West to 900 West,to include pavement reconstruction,installation
of new curb,gutter and sidewalk,storm drainage,street lighting,street
landscaping and traffic control features
12 22 24 Traffic Calming Trans 3 $250,000 $250,000
$18,215,075 $200,000 $16,751,792
To install traffic calming devices such as bulb-outs,speed humps,
raised crosswalks,traffic circles,medians,etc.,on streets where these
types of devices are deemed appropriate in eligible areas of the City.
31 25 Herm Franks Park-Parking and Storage Parks 13 $130,000 $130,000 $18,345,075 $130,000 $16,881,792
To plan and construct new landscape along the 700 East frontage.
Also,to make changes to the irrigation system and to add security
lighting. Herm Franks Park is located at 1350 South 700 East.
3
Y
14 N en c Fiscal Year FY 2003-2004 CIP Board FY 2003-2004
`m ,:22003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Cumulative Total Proposed Cumulative Total
in cocf 2 ce Title of Project Request Identifier Estimated Cost Amount Adj Staff Cost Amount Adj Board Cost
32 26 EOC/Training Center Fire 1 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $26,345,075 $8,000,000 $24,881,792
To provide for the completion of a building through a joint venture with
the area Red Cross to build an Emergency Operations Center
(EOC)/Training Center.
30 27 700 E Street Lighting Upgrade Trans 7 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $28,345,075 $2,000,000 $26,881,792
To remove all existing over head street lighting on 700 East from South
Temple to 2700 South,and install new decorative poles with
underground wiring.
8 28 ADA Transition Plan Improvements-City Wide Parks 2 $100,000 $100,000 $28,445,075 $/00,000 $26,981,792
To design and constuct in parks,city-wide,that have been identified as
accessibility issues as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
5 29 SMCC Chlorine Tank Bldg Sery 1 $70,000 $70,000 $28,515,075 $70,000 $27,051,792
To prolong the normal service life of the boiler at the Sorenson Multi-
Cultural Center,the chlorine tank needs to be moved from the room
where the boiler is located,due to the corrosive nature of chlorine
fumes. The Sorenson Center is located at 855 We
33 30 Popperton Park ADA Playground&Master Plan Parks 11 $120,000 $120,000 $28,635,075 $120,000 $27,171,792
To replace the existing non-ADA accessible playground equipment as
well as up-grades to the irrigation system.
29 31 Sugar House Ramp and Paver Replacement Streets 5 $400,000 $400,000 $29,035,075 $400,000 $27,571,792
To replace substandard ADA pedestrian ramps and sidewalk pavers in
the Sugar House business district.
35 32 CIP Grants Matching Funds Grants 1 $100,000 $100,000 $29,135,075 $100,000 $27,671,792
To provide funds to be available for use as CIP grants matching money.
36 33 Lindsey Garden Park-Master Plan Parks 10 $50,000 $50,000 $29,185,075 $50,000 $27,721,792
To create a master plan for Lindsey Garden Park to determine the best
future use of the park.
38 34 Main Police Station Police 1 $44,174,300 $44,174,300 $73,359,375 $44,174,300 $71,896,092
To provide for the purchase of approximately 1/3 of an acre contiguous
to the existing Public Safety Building,to demolish the existing
apartment building,the Public Safety Building,the parking structure and
the annex,and to construct a new main police
7 35 Traffic Signal Installation Trans 2 $375,000 $375,000 $73,734,375 $375,000 $72,271,092
To install new traffic signals at intersections where they are warranted.
37 36 Westminster ADA Playground&Parking Turn-Around Parks 12 $200,000 $200,000 $73,934,375 $200,000 $72,471,092
To replace the existing non-ADA accessible playground equipment,to
up-grade the irrigation system,and to modify the existing parking turn-
around to allow easier access and exit. Westminster Park is located at
990 East 1700 South.
9 37 Fire Station Repairs and Improvements Fire 2 $70,000 $70,000 $74,004,375 $70,000 $72,541,092
To provide for necessary repairs to all City fire stations.
34 38 1200 E Street/Median Rehabilitation Streets 11 $805,000 $805,000 $74,809,375 $805,000 $73,346,092
To provide street and median island rehabilitation to 1200 East,from
300 South to 500 South,to include replacement of deteriorated street
pavement,curb and gutter,median curb,median irrigation and
landscaping.
4
N Fiscal Year FY 2003-2004 CIP Board FY 2003-2004
o a > 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Cumulative Total Proposed Cumulative Total
(/) m x 2 Title of Project Request Identifier Estimated Cost Amount Adj Staff Cost Amount Adj Board Cost
Withdrawn Jordan River Trail Railroad Crossing Design Parks 5 $65,000 Withdrawn
To design the railroad crossing and to study the costs associated with
building a bridge over,or a tunnel under the tracks at this section of the
Jordan River Trailway Project.(Request is being withdrawn since
Tran.ortation determined that available fun
150 W Quince Street Commun 2 $135,000
To upgrade pavement,and sidewalk,curb and gutter on this section of
street, (Recommended that this street be included in the 2004/2005
CIP Local Streets Reconstruction project,pending funding approval for
the•ro'ect.
Rossalyn Heights•1900 East Street Improvements Commun 10 $364,000
To reconstruct 1900 East between 2100 South and Parley's Way,also
Improving sidewalk,curb and gutter,traffic calming,and street lighting.
*CIP Board Members determined that these issues would require going through the Special Improvement District(SID)process In order to replace the curb,gutter and sidewalk on their streets and to
,potentially coincide with planned street improvements.
5
N c Fiscal Year FY 2003-2004 CIP Board FY 2003-2004
a C °,C 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Cumulative Total Proposed Cumulative Total
in m CC 2 cc Title of Project Request Identifier Estimated Cost Amount Adj Staff Cost Amount Adj Board Cost
Fiscal Year 03-04 Impact Fee Eligible Project Applications
Impact Fee Projects $425,000
Construct various Police,Fire,Park and Street capital improvement
projects identified in the Impact Fee Analysis,Capital Facilities Plan.
MBA Debt Service for Pioneer Precinct Bond Debt 1 $434,160
Debt service for the MBA bond used to complete the Pioneer Precinct.
Impact fees may be used to pay for 19%of the cost of the facility.
14 2 Sugar House Rails w/Trails Commun 3 $264,000
To develop a paved bike/pedestrian trail in shared right-of-way with
commuter light rail development on the UTA Sugar House spur,500
East to Highland Drive. Various other improvements will be made as
well.
21 6 North Brickyard Neighborhood Park Commun 6 $30,000
To design a park on a half-acre site owned by Salt Lake City located on
the Jordan Canal corridor between Crandall and Zenith Ave,or 1140
Plaza 349 EOC Construction $50,000
To complete the construction of an Emergency Operations Center in
Plaza 349
6
Operating
Budget Impact
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
None
To be maintained
by the County
Negligible
Negligible
Estimated that
O&M Costs will
be$1,000 in FY
04-05
None
Park is
maintained by the
County
7
Operating
Budget Impact
Negligible
Negligible
Once
constructed,
Parks O&M costs
will increase
$2,000 to$3,000
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
8
U
E' Q.d a) a/ al 2 m a) d 2
- E a a a 43 arn a a a a
- rn 'rn a 'rn rn rn rn 'rn
a rn d d m aa) m m aa) aa) m
O Z z z z z Z Z Z Z
n7
O
U
rn a m aE c a ra
m m am
rn rn 'rn
c
c d N d •d G�1 d d C N aTn
) Gal
O 'g D Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
00
U
E'
� a
r.
co —
v d
0-
0
m
N
U
16
N U
Q O
a