Loading...
05/23/1989 - Minutes M �-a MINUTES: Committee of the Whole Tuesday, May 23, 1989 5:00 - 7: 30 p.m. City Council Conference Room City & County Building, 325 451 South State Street In Attendance: Florence Bittner, Wayne Horrocks, Sydney Fonnesbeck, Alan Hardman, Tom Godfrey, Roselyn Kirk, Willie Stoler, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Mike Zuhl, Christine Richman, Lee King, Cam Caldwell, Linda Hamilton, Scott Bond, Roger Cutler, Louis Miller, John Wheat, Steve Fawcett, Jim Lewis, Roger Black, Wally Chan, Dick Buist, Stephanie Loker, Sgt. Larry Thorum, Press 1. Roger Black and Wally Chan, Peat Marwick, briefed the Council on the findings of the recently completed independent study of Charges for Services to Enterprise Funds. Mr. Black indicated that the questions the study was designed to answer were: Is the current cost allocation system used by the City accurate and equitable, and Is there an unfair shifting of the tax burden from users of enterprise fund services to the general taxpayer in the City. Mr. Chan addressed the issues relating to the first question. He indicated that the cost recovery and internal service billings from general fund departments to the enterprise funds is not equitable. He stated that the cost accounting system in the City is inadequate resulting in an inequitable billing system. He stated that other general fund departments are billed based upon estimated usage and enterprise fund departments are billed based upon actual time spent. He indicated that this results in inequities. Mr. Chan indicated that there are additional charges which could be assessed the enterprise funds which currently are not accounted for, such as printing services. He stated that by equalizing the billing system and charging the enterprise funds for all services, the general fund may be able to realize an approximate 10% increase in interfund reimbursements from the Enterprise Funds. Mr. Black addressed the issues relating to the second question. He indicated that the assumptions used in the study are integral to the findings. The assumptions used were: 1. The Enterprise Funds represent activities of government which are equivalent to business enterprises. This results in the assumption that there is a "quid pro quo" relation between the fee and the service. 2. A burden is shifted only when the customers of an enterprise fund are from a different market share than the tax payers. This assumption requires the identification of the various populations which use the services. Mr. Black stated that his firm had found that there is some subsidization of the enterprise funds by the general fund, with limited offsetting subsidization of the general fund by the enterprise funds. Mr. Black then indicated that there were ancillary questions based upon the specific services provided by the different enterprise funds: 1. Would charging the water and sewer utilities a payment in lieu of taxation unfairly burden county residents? Mr. Black stated that the answer to this question is no. He indicated that the Public Service Commission treats tax expenses in utilities as legitimate costs to be passed on to rate payers. 2. Are there legal prohibitions against a payment in lieu of taxation to any of the Enterprise Funds? Mr. Black stated that there is evidence that the FAA prohibits the charging of payments in lieu of taxation to airports. He indicated that this is supported by case law in other jurisdictions. Mr. Black observed that there does not appear to be any legal prohibitions against payment in lieu of taxation charges against any of the City's other Enterprise Funds. In conclusion, Mr. Black indicated that: 1. He estimates that the City is not billing for approximately 10% of the reasonable and allowable costs from the general fund to the Enterprise Funds. 2. There are some examples of inconsistency in the billing practices for some City services. 3. There is evidence of some shifting of the tax burden for public services from the Enterprise Funds to the general fund. Mr. Black stated that the benefits to be derived from the findings of his study are: 1. Increased recovery of administrative costs. 2. Increased collections through the "sale" of services. Mr. Black stated that an ancillary benefit of a more equitable cost recovery system is that user departments will perform more economically. 3. More equitable and accurate method of financing public services. Council Member Fonnesbeck indicated that she was concerned that a new interfund reimbursement program may result in a burdensome accounting system. She asked where the line between efficiency and burden can be drawn. Mr. Chan stated that an efficient system would need to be developed for each type of interfund charge, but that basically there are two methods. The first is an internal service billing for actual time and materials used, this is the type that usually results in excessive record keeping requirements. The second is a cost allocation plan which is based upon a "time" study system, and is billed according to the average amount of time required for a specific project. Council Member Fonnesbeck asked what the start up costs of a new billing system would be. Mr. Chan indicated that the City would have to dedicate . 5 - . 75 of an FTE to documentation in order to substantiate the reimbursement amounts. Council Member Horrocks asked what sort of impact a new billing system would have on the budget process. Mr. Chan stated that estimates would be based upon the history of the various departments. He indicated that it is important to keep in mind that the City is a non-profit entity. Council Member Bittner observed that charging the Airport is untenable due to legal ramifications and that the Garbage and Golf funds are subsidized by the General Fund already, therefore the only funds which could be charged based upon the findings of the study are the Water and Sewer funds. She stated that as there is already a proposal to increase water fees, and so a PILOT charged to Public Utilities may not be feasible either. Council Member Fonnesbeck observed that that is true only of the PILOT charge, but there is some possibility that the General Fund could recoup some costs in the area of interfund reimbursements. Cam Caldwell, Council Budget Analyst, reviewed his assessment of the study. A copy of his report is attached. Mr. Caldwell indicated that the Council basically has four options relating to the study at this time. The first is to delay consideration of the findings until after completion of the Fiscal Year 1989-90 budget cycle. The second is to request the staff to meet with representatives of the administration to identify an acceptable amount to transfer from the Enterprise Funds to the General Fund to equitably reimburse the General Fund for services in Fiscal Year 1989-90. The third is for the council to meet formally with representatives of the Public Utilities Advisory Committee and the Airport Authority to negotiate a mutually agreeable amount to transfer to the General Fund, based upon staff input and the recommendations of the Peat Marwick study. The fourth is to request the staff to meet with the Mayor's Office to gather further information and outline specific proposals for the Council's consideration. Council Member Kirk stated that she felt comfortable pursuing additional charges to the Enterprise Funds immediately. The remaining Members of the Council indicated that they would feel more comfortable after additional review of the findings by Council and Administrative Staff. The City Council unanimously directed staff to pursue options one and four combined. 2. Lee King, Council Budget Analyst/Auditor, distributed revised information on the proposed Fiscal Year 1989-90 Capital Improvement Program. He stated that none of the General Fund projects had changed since the Council's last discussion. Council Member Bittner observed that there is not really a capital improvement program anymore because a majority of the approximately $5,000,000 dedicated to capital improvements is used for bond payments on the City & County Building and replacement fire stations. Council Member Horrocks asked why the property owner's portion of the extension of California Avenue had increased. Mr. King stated that the property owner who originally was going to build his portion of the road himself had asked to be included in the Special Improvement District, and so the budget had increased accordingly. Council Member Hardman asked for an update on the financing plans for the Sunnyside Recreation Center. Scott Bond, Director of the Office of Planning and Budget, indicated that he had met with City Treasurer Buzz Hunt to review the bond process. During the meeting various options were discussed, but the package has not yet been established. Mr. King stated that the City's portion of the bond would be the $450,000 left of the City's original $700,000 promise. Council Member Bittner asked if the bond for the Sunnyside Recreation Center would be similar to the type used to fund low- income elderly housing through the Housing Development Corporation. Mr. Bond indicated that the type of bond had not yet been decided. He stated that there will be a second meeting of all those involved in the bond issue on June 2, and he will brief the Council following that meeting. Council Member Hardman stated that he was not aware until two or three weeks ago that a bond issue was being discussed. Council Member Godfrey observed that the City had never considered giving their full $700,000 contribution upfront, and therefore it was assumed that everyone understood that some sort of financing would be required. Council Member Bittner indicated that she is uncomfortable with the concept of bonding for other agencies. Council Member Kirk stated that there is no way to increase the Capital Improvement Program budget to accommodate all of the projects and fully fund the Sunnyside Recreation Center without increasing property taxes. Council Member Bittner asked if the new fire station number 10 would be constructed in Fiscal Year 1989/90. Council Member Kirk indicated that the City had made a commitment to the neighborhood that the new station would be built as quickly as possible. She stated that the Citizen's Committee which had been reviewing the issue for months had narrowed the site options down and were actively pursuing finalization of a site in order to begin construction in July of 1989. Council Member Hardman asked if a portion of the money for the construction of fire station number 10 could be used to fulfill the City's total obligation to the Sunnyside Recreation Center. He indicated that this might be desirable since there is a history of property acquisition problems with the fire station and chances are that the construction will not start on schedule. Council Member Kirk expressed concern that the neighborhood impacted by the fire station might perceive the decision to delay funding of the new fire station as a breaking of the promise made by the Council during last year's budget consideration process. Council Member Godfrey asked what sort of guarantees the neighborhood would have if that full funding would occur in Fiscal Year 1990/91. Council Member Kirk stated that the City had promised the neighborhood that construction would begin on July 1, 1989. She said the problem of selection of a site is not as complicated as some of the Council Members may think. The problem is occurring because the Committee's first choice for a site is not available, but there are options which are available immediately. On site in particular is a site in Sunnyside Park, which the Fire Department says is not preferred, but would be suitable. The issue for the neighborhood is that they do not want the City to have to pay for a site, therefore they would like to continue negotiations with the federal government and the University for the two top sites while still reserving the right to use the two City owned sites under consideration. Council Member Stoler asked the length of the anticipated construction period. Council Member Kirk indicated that it is anticipated that construction will take approximately 6 months. Council Member Bittner reiterated that she is uncomfortable bonding for the construction of the Sunnyside Recreation Center and would like to explore options to fulfilling the City's obligation to the Center up-front. Council Member Hardman indicated that his concern is that if the City is the bonding agency, and the other agencies involved failed to fulfill their obligation to pay their share of the bond, the City will be left with the responsibility of making the entire bond payment. Council Member Kirk indicated that the City, School Board, and the private, non-profit foundation will be obligated to make their share of the bond payment. Mr. Bond stated that the City, School Board, and foundation will enter into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement guaranteeing that the each entity will pay its share. Council Member Hardman suggested that funding be borrowed from the fire station fund to fully fund the Recreation Center. Council Member Kirk stated that there was a strong commitment made by the Council to fund the fire station in Fiscal Year 1989- 90. She would feel uncomfortable reneging on that commitment at this time. Council Member Fonnesbeck suggested that the City bond for the construction of the fire station rather than the Recreation Center. Mr. Bond indicated that he would explore all of the options with his committee on June 2, and would return to the Council with an assessment of those options. Council Member Stoler suggested delaying construction of the fire station for six months and funding the project out of two fiscal years. Mayor Palmer DePaulis indicated that a construction contract cannot be let until full funding is available. Council Member Kirk stated that if she had to make a choice between projects, she would have to support the fire station over the Recreation Center. Council Member Hardman indicated that he is not trying to get out of funding the Recreation Center, he is simply trying to avoid debt service. Council Member Stoler indicated that the Council should continue the discussion of the Capital Improvements Program after Scott Bond meets with the bonding people on June 2. Council Member Godfrey indicated that he would like information on the bonding, the possibility of phasing the fire station, and the option of funding the fire station through certificates of participation. Council Member Fonnesbeck indicated that she would also like information on the types of guarantees the City would receive if the bonding package for the Recreation Center were put together. af W. M. "Willi Stoler, Chair ATTEST: (/�.,. Cit •ecor •r • Peat Marwick Study Executive Summary * The. Peat Marwick study evaluating charges between funds identifies opportunities for the City to equitably reimburse the General Fund for administrative and other services provided to the enterprise ,funds. The study indicates that it is possible that the current ' cost allocation method understates current administrative service charges by as much as 10 percent. This estimate is based upon the past experience of Peat Marwick and is • not a firm figure. The approximate additional revenue, assuming that the conclusions of the study are correct, equates to an additional $190,000. * The study indicates that the City may impose a payment in lieu of taxation (PILOT) to the Public Utilities, Golf and Refuse'. Collection programs, as well as direct billing charges to the Airport. A PILOT would not be possible to assess to the Airport due to= FAA, bond holder, and airport use agreement requirements. Charges assessed to the Airport must be based upon actual services • provided and approved by the FAA. • * This report identifies four approaches to compensate the General Fund for services provided to the enterprise funds. They include i) establishing a charge for specific services, 2) implementing a ' PILOT charge, 3) reducing enterprise fund charges to the General Fund, and 4) agreeing upon a mutually acceptable dollar amount. * Council staff recognizes the potentially difficult decision facing the Council regarding the implementation of this study. Council may wish to formally ask the Administration to respond to the Peat Marwick study and defer consideration of this issue as part of the FY 89-90 budget discussion, or it may choose to pursue reaching agreement with the Administration regarding budget impact in the current year. Council may wish to formally meet with representatives from the Public Utilities Advisory Committee and the Airport Authority to ask for their input in establishing a mutually agreeable amount to transfer to the General Fund. Finally, Council may wish to ask the staff to work with the Administration to gather more information and come back to the Council with a more specific set of proposals. -1- • Peat Marwick Study Council Staff Analysis Prepared by Cam Caldwell . The Peat Marwick study evaluating charges between funds provides an opportunity for the City to equitably recover revenue from services provided to the Enterprise Funds by General Fund departments. The study concludes that "the City's procedures for allocating administrative service costs and its practices for billing service activities were not consistent with recognized cost principles and were not including all allowable and reasonable costs." As a result, the City's cost allocation method could understate current administrative service charges by as much as 10 percent. -This estimate is based on Peat Marwick's experience with other organizations. In addition, the study indicates that the City may impose a payment in lieu of taxation charge to the Public Utilities, Golf and Refuse Collection programs, and could assess direct billing charges to the Airport, for General Fund services provided. • Cost Allocation System The study is somewhatlimited. in addressing the actual deficiencies of the City's cost allocation system. It identifies specific costs that are not captured under current procedures. It also identifies inconsistencies in the current methodology which are not reasonable measures of benefits `received. Its recommendations regarding the cost allocation system include: - Implementing a step-down method of distributing costs between administrative service departments to assure that all costs are allocated for services provided between these departments. (A step-down process accounts for all charges between administrative and internal service fund departments and thereby increases the total amount of the base of the cost allocation system.) - Analyzing Human Resource Management activities each year to adjust the weighting of benefits received by each department: . - Allocating costs of services provided by the Mayor's Office,. City Council, the City Recorder and the Budget Section based. upon time actually spent on issues involving departments. - Including administrative costs for services provided to outside entities. - Allocating golf related Parks overhead costs to the Golf Course Enterprise Fund. - Directly allocating printing activities based upon actual proportionate use. The primary difficulty in implementing recommendations related to the cost allocation system is that .the findings are somewhat vague about the actual amount of additional revenues that may accrue to the General Fund. Currently about $1.895 million is charged to the enterprise funds for administrative services. The approximate additional revenue, based upon an assumption that -2- • the study is correct, would be .about $190,000 in FX 89-g0. The risk to the City is in forecasting additional revenue to the General Fund and subsequently determining during the year that it has overstated the value of services to be charged to the enterprise funds. • Direct Barges to Enterprise Funds The study opined that the tax exempt status of the Enterprise 'Fund activities shifts the burden for public services. Businesses operating at the Airport, for example, are charged lower costs for services than if they would have to buy those same services from some other source independent from the City's jurisdiction. Peat Marwick also concluded ' that the City's method of assessing Data Processing, Risk 'Management and Fleet charges was not an accurate and reasonable reflection of the services provided to the enterprise funds. They recommend a modification of the billing procedures used by the Internal Service Funds to make those charges more equitable. The study suggests that the City develop a policy for charging the enterprise funds for- services provided by the General Fund departments. The report clearly identifies the establishment of such a policy:as a sensitive policy . decision. • In addition, Peat • Marwick identified services which the General Fund receives from the enterprise funds for which those funds are currently not reimbursed. The study confirms that establishing a payment in lieu of taxes would be consistent with the authorization provided by the Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act . It notes, however, that the City would not be able to assess the Airport a payment in lieu of taxation Vithout jeopardizing the Airport's eligibility to receive Federal grants. In addition, establishing such a charge to the Airport -would mean that the City would face potential legal challenges from bond holders and Airport Use •Agreement signatories:. In identifying the options available to the City, the report states that "it is not necessary for a policy on payments in lieu of taxes to be applied consistently to all enterprise funds." The following are four approaches to compensating the . General Fund for services provide to the enterprise funds: 1) Charge for Specific Services • Modifying the cost allocation plan and forecasting an amount to charge the enterprise funds would result in the establishment of a charge to be assessed to each fund. This charge could be subject to refinement during. the year as additional information is available. Although the Peat Marwick study was useful in identifying opportunities for the General Fund to be compensated for services provided, the study was not specific in forecasting a specific dollar amount by which the General Fund would benefit. A possible danger in this option is that the forecast of the amount to be charged may be inaccurate, and the General Fund budget revenues may be overstated. - -3- ' • 2) Implement a Payment in Lieu of Taxation (PILOT) The implementation of a payment .in lieu of taxation may be perceived as a viable -option for the Public Utility Department.. • However, it is not possible to establish a PILOT for the Airport and/ the Golf and Refuse Collection Funds may find a PILOT difficult to .pay for. The Public Utilities Advisory Committee and • administration were uncomfortable with the City establishing a PILOT and are a rocess of completi identifying their objections to this option. • 3) Reduce Enterprise Fund Charges to the General Fund There are a number of charges which the General Fund receives from the enterprise funds, particularly Public Utilities. The General Fund currently is billed $126,400 for hydrant maintenance and water used •in fighting structural fires city-wide. Public Utilities also charges 'the Refuse Collection Fund $140,000 for printing • and mailing the monthly utility bills. This amount is ultimately paid for by a General Fund subsidy. It may be possible to reduce or eliminate these charges as an equitable adjustment of costs. Although this method would work for the Public Utilities, it would not apply for the Airport which does not currently assess the General Fund for services which it provides to the City. • • 4) Mutually Agreeing Upon a Dollar Amount Establishing an agreed upon estimate of the charges to be assessed the enterprise funds could occur, with input . from the Administration and after Council discussion with. the Public Utilities Advisory Committee and the Airport Authority Board. An. advantage of this option is that it establishes a dollar amount to include in FY 89-90 General Fund revenues. A disadvantage is that the City would have to adjust the agreed upon charge at the end of • the fiscal year if the amount charged exceeded the reasonable value of the actual services provided. In the case of the Airport, this method of charging would have to be approved by the FAA to confirm that it complied with their regulations regarding appropriate charges assessed to airports. The Peat Marwick estimate of Net Public Services provided to the enterprise funds by the General Fund is $548,000 per year. - Difficulty of Reaching a Decision Council staff is sensitive to the resistance which may be expressed relating to this issue and to the need to move judiciously. The policy decision . facing the Council may take several weeks or even longer to resolve , notwithstanding the Peat Marwick study. Council may prefer to defer this decision rather than determining a charge to assess the enterprise funds in FY 89-90. • Staff Recommendations 1) Council may wish to formally ask the Administration to respond to the Peat Marwick study and may defer the issue for the FY 89-90 budget process. 2) Council may wish to request the staff to meet with the representatives of the Mayor's Office and the enterprise fund • -4- departments to propose an acceptable amount to transfer from these funds to. the General Fund to equitably reimburse the General Fund for services provided in FY 89-90. 3) Council may wish to formally meet with representatives from the Public Utilities Advisory Committee and the Airport Authority to ask for their input in establishing a mutually agreeable amount to transfer to the General Fund, based upon staff input and the recommendations of the Peat Marwick study. 4) Council may wish to request the staff to meet with the Mayor's Office to gather further information and outline specific proposals for the Council 's consideration.. • • • • • • • -5- *gar WiC OPT 9.M.2gupg DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAtG E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7777 May 23 , 1989 ' TO: Lee Kin , Council Staff FROM: Rosem�f avis Director Ca ital .Plannin and Programming Y��� ►�- P g g g �� RE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING 1989-90 CIP SCHEDULES Attached is a memo and the latest copy of the 1989-90 CIP Schedule from the Engineering Department, which explains certain refinements to the schedule. These changes do not effect the General Fund budget. The changes recommended all relate to property owner assessments or the RDA funded portion of the projects . The budget lines that have been changed are highlighted in bold. Please consider these changes to the CIP budget presented to you previously. If you have any questions concerning these changes please call Stephanie Loker at 535-7115 . • SALT' r�� � ITiYG RPORATION DEPARTMENT. OF PUBLIC.WORKS- PALMER DEPAULIS City Engineering Division MAX G. PETERSON, P.E. MAYOR 444 SOUTH STATE STREET; CITY ENGINEER SALT LAKE C1T_Y, UTAH 84111 535-7871 TO : STEPHANIE LOKER FROM : RICK JOHNSTON kaj - - DATE : MAY 23 , 1989 SUBJECT: CHANGES. TO 89/90 CIP • • Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation , several changes are being requested to the -89/90 CIP scheduled for approval by City Council . These changes are incorporated in the attached 89/90 CIP Projected Schedule . Explanation of these changes is as follows : 1 . California Avenue SID - The property owners portion has been increased to $ 1 , 000 , 000 with a total project cost of $1 , 250 , 000 . There is no change to the City portion of $250, 000 . This change is due to a request by the property owner on the south side of California Avenue , Rex Dahlberg , to be added to the Special Improvement District. Included in this addition will be two lanes of roadway, curb and gutter , water and sewer work. 2 . South Temple/State Street Beautification - In the beginning of the preliminary stages of this project, it was anticipated that all work would be accomplished under one project. Pursuant to additional discussions the project has been broken down into separate projects . All of these projects are to be funded 50% from property owners and 50% from Redevelopment Agency funds . a . South Temple (Main to West Temple ) south side - Total Cost $200, 000. Since all of the abutting property at this location is owned by Zions Security Corporation and since there are numerous conflicts with undergroud vaults , this will be treated as a separate project. • Page 2 Stephanie Loker May 23 , 1989 b . South Temple Street Lights ( State to 300 West) - $270 , 000 . This project to be bid separately due to the nature of the work. c . State Street Beautification ( South Temple to 200 South ) $800 , 000 - To be bid under a separate special improvement district. d . Temple Square/Main Street Sidewalk Rehabilitation - $20 , 000 . This involves replacing some sidewalk , curb and gutter on Main Street between South Temple and 50 North . 3 . State Street/400 South Beautification ( CFS - Plandome - Main) - Total cost $330 , 000 . As a result of the Plandome renovation , Mike Chitwood of RDA has requested we look at a project to improve the sidewalk in the area . Subsequently we determined a project extending to Main on 4th South and to CFS on State Street would complete the needed sidewalk beautification for the area . If you have any questions regarding these changes , please feel free to contact me . RAJ:po Attachment cc : Max Peterson Joe Anderson Salt Lake City • CIP PROJECTED SCHEDULES 5/23/89 1989-1990 (dollars in thousands ) FEDERAL PROPERTY GENERAL STATE, COUNTY OWNER PROJECT TOTAL FUND CDBG SOURCES ASSESSMENTS OTHER COMMENTS STREET IMPROVEMENTS • Sidewalk SID 210 105 105 Rosepark Local Streets SID Westside 990 490 500 4th/5th South Connector Rdwd . Rd . to Surplus Canal 1 ,000 1 ,000 Class "C" California Avenue SID 1,250 250 1,000 Class "C" Pioneer to Redwood Rd . CBD Beautification So. Temple/Main-W. Temple 200 100 100 RDA So. Temple Indian Head St. Lts . 270 135 135 RDA State St./So. Temple-200 So. 800 400 400 RDA State St. & 400 S ./CFS to Main 330 165 165 RDA Temple Sq./Main St. 20 10 10 RDA Traffic System Management 60 60 Street Light Replacement Fund 135 135 Argyle-Edmonds Block Redesign 300 No . , 640 West 85 85 Euclid Street Improvements 1000 W. , No . to So . Temple 60 60 East Central Street Improvements 500 So . , 700 to 900 East 480 480 Median Island Design 25 $ 25 Future Street/Block Designs 15 15 Central City Street Design Denver St . (440 East ) 500/600 S . 5 5 East Central Street Design Lake St . (750 East ) 800/900 S . 8 8 Sugarhouse Street Construction Roberts and Warnock 35 35 • 100% Sidewalk Replacement 200 200 SUB-TOTAL $6,178 $ 790 $ 913 $12,250 $2, 515 $ 810 Salt Lake City Page 2 CIP Projected Schedules (1989-90) FEDERAL PROPERTY GENERAL STATE, COUNTY OWNER PROJECT TOTAL FUND CDBG SOURCES ASSESSMENTS OTHER COMMENTS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS State Street 100 South - 400 South 425 425 RDA Main Street South Temple - 300 South 395 395 RDA N . E. Central Storm Drainage So . Temple , M - 0 St . 250 250 Guad/Jackson Drainage Design Ditch Cover, 500 West 9 9 SUB-TOTAL $1 ,079 $ -0- $ 259 $ -0- $ -0- $ 820 PARKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS City/County Bldg . Debt Service 3 , 366 . 5 2, 726 . 865 ' 639 . 635 Cty. Lease Misc. Facilities Repair 150 150 Earthquake Hazard Imp . 100 100 Sunnyside Rec . Center 1 ,950 100 1 ,850 Sch, Priv . Tracy Aviary 150 150 Fire Station #10 Const . 825 825 Parks Capital Projects Fund 143 . 5 143 . 5 Lease Rev . Jordan Park Irrigation 95 95 900 W. , 1000 So . Athletic Park-Phase II 50 50 1300 So . , 700 E. Poplar Grove Park Irrigation 73 73 1050 W. , 800 So. • . .. . Fairmont Park Imp . -Design 10 10 2400 So . , 900-1100 E. Urban Forestry Mgt . /Planting 50 50 Marmalade Hill Ctr .Rehab 47 47 150 W. , 500 N . Glendale Youth Center 25 25 1300 So. , 900 W. Canterbury Apartments Sec . 108 Loan Int . Payback 60 60 SUB-TOTAL $7,095 $4,051 .865 $ 410 $639.635 $ -0- $1,993. 5 Salt Lake City Page 3 , CIP Projected Schedules (1989-90) FEDERAL PROPERTY GENERAL • STATE, COUNTY OWNER PROJECT TOTAL FUND CDBG SOURCES ASSESSMENTS OTHER COMMENTS PERCENT FOR ART 16 .4 8. 25 2 . 150 6 RDA CONTINGENCY 212 .885 129 . 885 83 GRAND TOTAL (89-90) $14,581 .285 $4,190.790 $1 ,667. 150 $1,889.635 $2,415 $3,029. 5