Loading...
05/03/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, May 3 , 2011, at 2 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Stan Penfold, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love, JT Martin and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver; Council Research and Policy Analyst; Russ Week; Council Policy Analyst; Brady Wheeler, Council Staff, Mike Beckstrand, Library Staff, Beth Elder, Library Director, Rick Graham; Public Services Director; Greg Davis; Public Services Finance Director; David Terry; Golf Enterprise Fund Manager; Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Casey Stewart, Planner; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner; Ana Valdemoros, Associate Planner; Nick Norris' Planning Manager; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney; David Everitt, Chief of Staff; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Frank Gray, Director of Community and Economic Development; D J Baxter, RDA Director; Pam Perlich, Ph. D, Senior Research Economist at the University of Utah; Kevin Bell, GIS Specialist; Bill Haight, Chief Information Officer; Vicky Bennett, Environmental Manager; Mike Wilson and John Kirkham, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy; and Chris Meeker, City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 2 : 00 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 2 : 11 : 44 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachments See File M 11-5 for announcements . #2 . 2 : 29 : 46 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDINGAN ORDINANCE, SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING, CHANGING THE CITY' S ZONING REGULATION RELATING TO: View Attachments, View Motions • URBAN FARMS, COMMUNITY GARDENS, SEASONAL FARM STANDS; AND • LARGE RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEMS. 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011 available information found by the census regarding minority populations that would be available to be part of the working group. #4. 4 : 11 : 53 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE LIBRARY OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . View Attachments Beth Elder, Russ Weeks, D J Baxter and Mike Beckstead briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms . Elder said the Library Board had approved the fiscal year 2011-2012 Operating and Capital Budget, determined the timing for the Marmalade Library funding for construction, and approved the final sites for the Glendale and Marmalade Libraries . She said they now needed Council approval . Councilmember Penfold asked Ms . Elder if she would provide the Council with information regarding at what stage of the process would more funding be needed for the new libraries . #5. 5 : 04 : 31 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . View Attachments Lehua Weaver, Mike Wilson and John Kirkham briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Wilson introduced other Metropolitan Water District Board Members; Tom Godfrey, Don Milne, Dave Buhler and Mike De Vries . #6. 5 : 17 : 02 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE GOLF FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . View Attachments Rick Graham, Karen Halladay, David Terry and Greg Davis briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms . Halladay said a fee increase had not been proposed and might be a topic of discussion. Councilmember Martin said fees should be modestly raised. Councilmember Simonsen said the City needed to keep the golf courses up to date . Mr. Graham said a fee increase was proposed for 2014 . #7 . 5 : 53 : 09 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY REFUSE FUND CLASS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . View Attachments Vicky Bennett, Lehua Weaver, Rick Graham and Greg Davis briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Ms . Weaver said some key points of the budget were no rate increases, no major program changes, offering smaller yard waste and recycling cans to residents and the finish of waste stream audit. Councilmember Turner asked that two weeks be given before the annual yard cleanup. 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011 #8. 6 : 12 : 52 PM INTERVIEW PAUL JONES'S PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE CITIZEN'S COMPENSATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE. (ITEM H1) Councilmember Love said Mr. Jones name would be moved to the Consent Agenda for appointment. #9. 6 : 17 : 53 PM INTERVIEW PAULA BROG PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD. (ITEM H2) Councilmember Love said Ms . Brog' s name would be moved to the Consent Agenda for appointment . #10 CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: (a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §54-2-205 (1) (B) ; (b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (C) ; (c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; (d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION UNDER THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; (e) FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78b-1-137; AND (f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (F) . This issue was not addressed. 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011 The meeting adjo ned at 6 : 21 p.m. C ncil Chair f rv,. �fT "+.+ \,1 y Recorder �` ,4 " °� '� �� 5 This document along with the digital r- • •ing constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held May 3, 2011 . cm 11 - 5 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Date:April 28,2011 Subject:Salt Lake City Library System Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Affected Council Districts:All Staff Report By:Russell Weeks Administrative Dept.and Contact Person:Salt Lake City Public Library System,Beth Elder,Mike Beckstead This report pertains to the proposed budget for the Salt Lake City Public Library System for Fiscal Year 2011-2012.The proposed budget projects a$552,802—4 percent—in total revenue and expenditures.However,the projected increase in revenue includes a request for an increase in property taxes to support the construction of the Marmalade Branch Library at a site 300 West Street near 500 North. The request to increase property taxes is based on a City Council motion adopted in June 2009 that increased revenue in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year for library operations then and to "build one new library with a sales tax'rill,lfitisd planning for Glendale library and fund planning process for Marmalade library'at a tax rate of.000057 with the addition of a legislative intent statement indicating the Council's intention to fund,plan and build the libraries." The proposed budget contemplates a property tax increase of.0000383 to generate $645,000 for annual debt service on sales tax bonds for the construction of the Marmalade Branch Library.The proposed increase would add$5.50 per year on a home valued at$260,890 and $38.30 on a business valued at$1 million,according to the transmittal letter from Library System administrators. Although the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 projects a 4 percent increase in expenditures,some portions of the budget have been increased to meet goals in the Library System's strategic plan pertaining to increasing the number of programs"that stimulate and ideas and enhance the fabric of the community,"I and increasing—by 6 percent over the current year— the amount allocated for materials. The Salt Lake City Public Library System Board of Directors adopted a motion to recommend approval of the proposed budget at its April 21 meeting. POTENTIAL OPTIONS: '{ ' o Adopt the proposed budget. o Amend the proposed budget. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: Staff will prepare motions later based on City Council discussions. KEY ELEMENTS: - , The Library System Board of Directors in March affirmed the Marmalade Branch Library Selection Committee's recommendation of a site on 300 West Street currently owned by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency at the location for the Marmalade Branch Library. In April the Board affirmed the Glendale Branch Library Selection Committee's recommendation of the "North"property south of California Avenue as the site for the Glendale Branch Library. If the City Council affirms the Board of Directors decision, it would allow both projects to proceed. The Board's motion on the location for the Glendale Branch Library the Board included a provision that the Chapman Branch Library be evaluated to make sure it will continue to function as an integral part of the Library System. As indicated in a previous section,the Library Board and administrators propose in the budget to increase funding for public ji'rogramming, materials,and the professional development of staff. The proposed budget includes$160,000 for a possible wage or merit increase. According to the proposed budget,using the$160,000 would be considered after a planned salary and benefit study is finished and the final reconciliation of property tax revenue in Fiscal Year 2011- 2012. BUDGET RELATED FACTS: It should be noted that the City Council motion in June 2009 that began the process for building two new branch libraries contained the following assumptions: o Immediate construction of the Glendale Branch Library. o Allocations from Library System reserves of$150,000 for the Glendale Branch Library planning process; $800,000 for the Marmalade Branch Library public process; and$1.5 million to help construct the Glendale Branch Library.2 The proposed budget for FiscaVYear'2011-2012 includes$1.5 million in capital fund balances designated for building the Glendale Branch Library.3 The proposed budget contemplates another property tax increase to operate both new branches in Fiscal Year 2012-2013.4 The Salt Lake City Public Library Independent Auditor's Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2010, indicated that there was about$5.9 million in unreserved fund balances as 2 of the June 30 date. On February 11,2011,the Library Board of Directors adopted a motion to allocate$1 million to the System's capital projects fund. Unreserved fund balances are projected to $3,188,282 by June 30, 2011 —the end of the current fiscal year. Much of the projected decrease is due to the reservation of funds for the Glendale and Marmalade branch library projects in accordance with the June 2009 City Council motion. 31,... MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: BRANCH LIBRARIES Perhaps the greatest number of questions involves the building of the two new branch libraries: how soon they will be built and what the timing should be to enact a property tax increase. Although two sites have been selected,the property for the Glendale Branch Library still has to be acquired, and the goal of incorporating the Marmalade Branch Library into a unique mixed-use development that conveys the spirit of the Marmalade area requires a partnership between the Library System,the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency,and a private sector developer. The partnership has yet to be formed. Opening dates for one or both projects might slip if the next steps involving each project encounter delays. In addition, since construction of the new Main Library,the paradigm has been to increase revenues before construction starts and use at least some of the money raised to stock a new library and pay for operating costs after the building opens. One might remember that after the Main Library opened,Library and,City officials found it necessary to raise property taxes to pay for operating costs. Again,that is the paradigm under consideration for the two branch libraries. if•'1, . There is always a spectrum ofitternatives pertaining to funding the projects. At one end of the spectrum is to not increase property taxes in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The other end of the spectrum is to increase property taxes to fund construction of the Marmalade Branch and the operating costs of that branch and the Glendale Branch in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. Another option would be to adopt a property tax increase large enough to pay to debt service on sales tax bonds to build the Marmalade Branch Library and to pay the Glendale Branch operating costs in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The increase would be followed by a smaller property tax increase after the Marmalade Branch is built to pay the operating costs for that library. The City Council may wish to explore whether the Library System could make more unrestricted fund balances available for the project. But enough money would have to left in fund balances to meet the state's legal requirements,and to address other capital needs with the Library System. It is unknown to City Council staff how much difference assigning more fund balance to the projects would have. OTHER ISSUES o The Library has had•a long-term practice of allowing retired employees to continue to work for.the Library as `substitutes' at the rate of pay that they had when they retired. Given that funds are limited and that substitutes can probably be obtained at a much lower hourly rate,the Council may wish to consider specifying that funds are not authorized for use in a program that allows retired 3 employees to return to work as substitutes.It should be noted that substitutes are paid about$17 an hour.The proposed budget would cut the amount allocated to pay substitutes from$150,000 in the current fiscal year to$61,000 in the next fiscal year.The reason for the decrease is a planned increase in total staff.Again, the Council may wish to consider specifying that no funds should be authorized for the practice. o Council staff has suggested to the Library that they consider using City resources 's fid a If thesuchas CounciltheAttorney is supportiveOf ofcean that Human approachResources,the Councilto couldddress considerissuesas adopting intent language making that offer.There is always natural concern about combining City and Library functions.The Council could include in the statement wording to assure that the current distance in policy would not be impacted. o Given issues raised recently,and the sophistication of the City's Library system, the Council may wish to consider providing more budget flexibility for consulting to free the Board and Library Administration to get professional consulting expertise beyond that which is proposed.The amount proposed is relatively small given the size of the organization. REVIEW OF PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 REVENUE SOURCES Adopted Budget FY Requested Budget Percent Major Category 2010-2011 FY 2010-2011 Difference Change Property Tax $ 13,331,115 $ 14,176,808 $ 845,693 6% Interest Income 45,000 45,000 0 0% Grants/Donations/Rebates 148,425 104,000 -44,425 -30% Fines/Charges/Leases/Events 495,000 485,000 -10,000 -2% Prior Yr Capital Fund Balance �',000,000 1,103,000 103,000 10% Branch Fund Carryover(est.) 450,000 108,534 -341,466 10% TOTAL $ 15,469,540 $ 16,022 342 $ 552,802 4% The table above shows the changes in the proposed budget compared to the adopted budget for the current fiscal year.The projected increase in property tax revenue includes a projected modest increase in property tax under the current tax rate plus delinquent tax collections and motor vehicle fees,and a projected increase in revenue to support construction of the Marmalade Library Branch. Other major changes include a realistic projection of income from grants based on data from the previous four years.The proposed budget estimates revenue from grants at$7,000 instead of$50,000.Library Administrators intend to pursue more grants,but have budgeted based on past returns. 4 • Funds carried over from the Glendale and Marmalade project reflect money spent on both projects during the current fiscal year. EXPENDITURES Adopted Budget FY Requested Budget Percent Major Category 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 Difference Change Buildings and Grounds $ 1,279,300 $ 1,282,800 $ 3,500 0% Materials 1,767,068 1,868,768 101,700 6% Personnel 9,121,281 9,253,349 132,068 1% Services 1,037,000 1,157,425 120,425 12% Operating Contingency 210,000 0 -210,000 -10Q% Capital Projects 2,054,891 2,460,000 405,109 20% TOTAL $ 15,469,540 $ 16,022,342 $ 552,802 4% As indicated in another section,projected spending on materials is aimed at increasing the percentage spent on materials to a target of 15 percent of operating revenue.The proposed budget would bring spending on materials to 13.8 percent of operating revenue. Spending on books and reference sources is projected ti.'thcrease from $735,000 in the current fiscal year to $818,025 in the next fiscal year because"books continue to be in high demand within the community.s5 Nevertheless, spending on downloadable books,music and movies is projected to climb from$31,000 in the current fiscal year to $170,750 in the next one—a reflection of interest in digital resources. Although projected spending on personnel indicates a 1 percent increase, Library System administrators plan to increase the number of employees,particularly part-time help significantly. Full-time equivalent staff levels are projected to rise to 185.7, an increase of 1.6 full-time equivalent positions. However, four full-time equivalent positions have been moved into public services,to allocate more staff to directly serving the public. In addition,the number of part-time positions within the Library System has been increased by 13 to 172 to provide more workers. Again,Library administrators plan to initiate a salary and benefits study. The study may lead to wage and merit increases later in the new fiscal year.6 The largest percentage increase occurs in services. Three areas make up the bulk of the projected increase: programming, professional and technical expenses, and staff training and development. Programming involves preparing, booking, scheduling more programs that benefit the community. The proposed budget would increase current expenditures by$73,425 to $199,425 in the next fiscal year.Increased expenditures for professional and technical resources by $25,000 to $123,000 largely are forltte 94pf the salary and benefits study and for the use of experts who may contribute to the Library"System'.s strategic plan. An additional $12,000 has been budgeted for attorney expenses for review,of further potential refinements of Library System policies, and compliance with state and local regulations and ordinances. The increase would bring the budgeted amount for attorney expenses to $20,000. Finally,the proposed budget would allocate$65,000 instead of the $20,000 allocated in the current year's budget for staff training and development. Increased staff training was one of the recommendations made by an organizational study last year by George Needham, a nationally recognized "library strategist." 5 The 100 percent decline in operating contingency reflects Library System administrators' plans to use a"variety of internal controls and monitoring systems to ensure expenditures do not exceed the budget."' Besides moving forward on the Glendale and Marmalade branch library projects,the proposed budget capital project priorities include: o Replacing computers and servers is required. o Evaluating DVD disperisiri'g alternatives to improve efficiency and productivity. o Evaluating alternatives to the"radio frequency identification"system(the filaments placed in books and DVDs)and automatic material sorting to improve efficiency and productivity in circulation. o Replacing damaged glass panels within the Main Library. o Upgrading lighting within the children's area of the Main Library. o Reupholstering 30 percent of the soft chairs within the Main Library. o Repairing and replacing walkways at the Sweet and Sprague branch libraries. o Replacing heating and air conditioning within the children's area of the Main • Library. Salt Lake City Public Library System Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2011-2012,Page 18. 2 Please see attached document. Salt Lake City Public Library System Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2011-2012,Page 10. °Ibid.Page 10. 5 Ibid.Page 19. 6 Ibid.Page 15. Ibid.Page 6. , ,, 6 "Proposal 5" — Adopted in Council's FY 2010 Budget Motion Description ➢Increase revenue by$560,000 for current library operations. Revenue increase could include: •Stabilize Property Tax Revenue -$134,121 •Adjust budget for new growth revenue-$199,508 (no tax increase needed) 'Increase Property taxes above that by$270,271 >Build one new library with a Sales Tax bond, debt service paid for by an increase in Library property taxes ($7.5 million bond, $556,777/year debt service) >Fund Planning/Public process for Glendale Library-site development/arch planning >Fund Planning process, site selection, potential land/site purchase of Marmalade Library Branch Assumptions >Assumes immediate construction of Glendale Library >Assumes$2.95 million in Library reserves are dedicated to various projects for FY 2010 ($150k for Glendale planning process, $800k for Marmalade public process, $500k for Children's Library Improvements, Other Capital Improvements; $1.5 million for Glendale construction) >This proposal would result in a necessary property tax increase for operations of the new branch (in 3 years) -$900,000- $7.71 per year(residential), $49.99 per year(commercial) Marmalade Branch costs based on general estimates,as follows: Land Acquisition $ 700,000 Construction($235 x 20,000 sf) 4,700,000 Collection($20 x 100,000 items) 2,000,000 Furnishings($35 x 20,000 sf) 700,000 Consulting(8%) 376,000 Technology 250,000 Art,Landscaping,Misc. 210,000 $8,936,000 Additional property tax revenue of$645,000 per year generated by a rate increase of.0000383%($5.50 per home with a taxable value of $260,890 and$38.30 per commercial property valued at$1m)will provide debt service for sale tax bonds.This action is pending approval of Mayor and Council per the City Council's 2009 legislative intent. A tax rate increase to operate both Glendale and Marmalade Libraries will be requested in FY 2012-13. Branch Building Fund Balance 2009-10 Revenue 2009-10 Expenditures Designated Fund Balance Budget Actual i Variance Budget I Actual I Variance Reserve 6/30/2010 Glendale $278,233$271,674 $ (6,559) $278,233 $63,684 $214,549 $1,500,000 $ 1,707,990 Marmalade 278,233 271,674 (6,559) 278,233 _ 278,233 271,674 2010-11 Revenue 2010-11 Expenditures Designated Fund Balance Budget I Actual I Variance Budget I Estimate* I Variance Reserve Est 6/30/2011 Glendale $556,466$552,320 $ (4,146) $782,233 $34,011 $694,222 $1,707,990 $ 2,226,299 Marmalade _ _ _ 278,233 67 278,166 271,674 271,607 2010-11 Expenditure Estimate 27 0 • . Metropolitan Water District • of Salt Lake & Sandy Budget FY 2012 • 010 WA "me a P - � • uKE!.' _' ""�! ; a Kam': © a • ' P 3 r y�g'i Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy �' 3430 East Danish Road,Cottonwood Heights,UT 84093 .�1 Phone:801-942-1391 Fax:801-942-3674 www.mwdsls.org Last update: April 8, 2011 This is an executive summary of the budget information for the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake& Sandy (the"District")for Fiscal Year 2012. The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) budget totals $25,356,520. This represents an overall reduction from the prior budget year of 1.16%. Generally, O&M costs are stable with budget projections being based on 3-year averages. The operation plan anticipates utilization of Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant during summer months,pigging (cleaning)of the Point of the Mountain Aqueduct($65,000), and removal of solids from the drying beds at Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant($105,000). Changes in personnel include a reduction of one (vacant)full time position resulting in a total of 67 positions. A 2.0%merit-based salary increase is proposed along with an increase in salary range structure of 1.0%. An increase in benefit costs is included for retirement, unemployment taxes, health insurance, and dental insurance. New debt service activity is anticipated during the upcoming fiscal year. A new arrangement for variable debt management costs will be put in place in May 2011. Instead of a remarketing agent and the associated liquidity provider, the new arrangement will be a"direct purchase index floater" with a bank. The costs of both approaches are comparable with some savings being salts generated with the new approach. The new approach is intended to last for at least five years and r.rd replaces the annual renewal of remarketing and liquidity providers. In addition, in order to finance the replacement of Terminal Reservoir(explained below), new fixed rate bonds of approximately$12.7 million are anticipated. The District's capital budget includes approximately $2.5 million for costs related to the Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project(PRCEP). This project is currently in the construction phase with completion anticipated in May 2012. The final design of Terminal Reservoir is expected to be completed by July 2011. In an effort to take advantage of the favorable construction climate, the District plans to receive bids for this project in FY 2012. Pending the outcome of the bids, the District will proceed with the project that is expected to cost approximately$30 million over a 6-7 year construction period. The project will replace a 60-year old, 40 million gallon reservoir located at 3300 South and I-215. Another major capital effort will be the participation in the design and construction of the Utah Lake Pumping Plant($2.4 million). The total capital budget is $16,325,663. The budget maintains current tax revenues (no proposed increases to the certified tax rate) and maintains the current water rate structure including peak rates and conveyance fees with a proposed (and anticipated) 3%rate increase. The total budgeted revenue is $36,003,833. Michael L. Wilson General Manager/Budget Officer .� • Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake&Sandy • Fiscal Year 2011 Revenue Projections Last Update:March 31,2011 • Fiscal Year 2011 AchWs as of Estimated Actuate Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted Budget 2282011 6/302011 Budget Operating Revenues Water Sales Salt Lake City(48,333 AF) 19,945,350 57,628,215 $9,147,941 510,379,457 Sandy City(18,444 AF) $3,689,048 $2,267,274 $3,261,714 $3,807,094 Jordanelle Special Service District(JSSD) S0 $200,000 5200,000 $100,000 Raw water sales plus conveyance to non-member entities(500 AF) $97,044 $256,873 S81,745 $37,662 Raw water conveyance for non-member entities(7347 AF) 599,340 S0 $36,629 $101,328 Treatment charge and conveyance for non-member entities(150 AF) $155,376 S0 5247,861 $25,939 Total Operating Revenues S13,986,158 $10,352,361 $12,975,890 $14,451,479 Other Revenues Tax Revenues , Salt Lake City 56,398,444 $5,725,300 $6,397,838 $6,322,500 _ Sandy City 52,225,916 $1,998,595 52,127,538 $2,107,500 Fees in Lieu of Taxes $541,398 $347,712 $516,020 $525,000 Prior Years'Tax Revenue $189,061 $116,488 $229,262 $245,000 Judgment Levies SO $0 SO $0 Subtotal Tax Revenues $9,354,819 $8,188,095 $9,270,658 S9,200,000 Capital Assessments Salt Lake City $7,021,892 $4,681,261 S7,021,892 $7,021,892 Sandy City $4,210,322 __52,806,881 $4,210,322 $4,210,322 Sandy City Ontario Drain Tunnel Assessment(before credit) $834,891 $556,595 $834,891 $958,607 Less:JSSD Revenue(see above) S0 $200,000 $200,000 $100,000 Net Sandy City Ontario Drain Tunnel Assessment $834,891 $356,595 $634,891 $858,607 Subtotal Assessment Revenues $12,067,105 S7,844,737 $11,867,105 $12,090,821 OInterest $220,676 $154,078 $231,117 $184,256 Laboratory Fees $400 S0 $594 $400 Vehicle Sales(1) SO S0 SO $9,100 Cell Phone Tower at Terminal Reservoir $9,000 S0 S11,238 $11,687 Reimbursement for Utah Lake Pumping Station design costs $726,103 $0 SO SO Homeland Security Grant $7,000 S0 S0 $8,089 Licensing program applications S0 $15,400 515,400 S12,000 Miscellaneous Revenue S65,600 $7,494 $8,993 S0 Little Dell S0 $238,311 $238,311 $36,000 Subtotal $1,028,779 5415,283 $505,653 5261,532 Total Other Revenues S22,450,703 $16,448,115 $21,643,416 $21,552,354 Total Revenue $36,436,861 $26,800,477 $34,619,306' $36,003,833 Remaining to receive(Projected less adonis) $7,818,830 • 38 at47 Bate F52012 • ,letrupul r 1.1r.of Le4e&seedy_ I.all wale • Fiu91}'ear 101: 'I7)E5I.(11STRICT - - - drml $�m %om4 rtgma .31 w nom sw.I 5' ,1011 TYTD Sp...�r sped ..erry.avl B.,11e.1Pd. (IYmWMl0c 81,01.1 LWYff BY, Bu91 5170 f>d. vaw 14107 14122 lel. 16,415 1601 x.}n MOO le 781 615M 12 91,. 1I216 sxlb 26.=;►511M1- .. 469/AY _ L1M3M• L64 TM tY49BL L94N9 'NAO% LM4 ''N4/1! 4MMY 4m 17, 5120 Ia..m�Bd.. )numb 111.<1r .4u1 •ura fwau ;uPll 1qm 5 06 f Pf1 ' woan II,111 p$1w ewm6 u6m• w1 1•.. u"rn Of 001,171 •M 53. - 6e.1,...m II,59 1yf7 u1 Iv 60% 1 • IS OM •15lbwie.lb . tin.. l.IMAN -*WC NOA11 2 ' •a;APi rr��� w% -1.w% ,.. I .16.i e1.1 I 1I11.1 1547% ..1 III (6w�<��fl+5 & Bme41.61Y.� Mla 14W NM *NO-. N.7N tam ,a.m. NJN aMA' M/M 1011 ..e..irwel 64747 wau 37. 714 1,1 18,, M. •/VW OW MI 1., r 116.000 167. 60.6VA 7 OM 304831 10,011 bomb CO ;16;w1 1�•m,11f 1,6,17 1wPlb ,Maw v'n1 13510 Dew dIVIAwmBehbmir 19BNB1. I.Mq(. •. JYl�1 1pt�M' flfffY. -Altl% .... IAMfMI _`•�f AANi .10 ff9= iwxar aaa11 1,3%453 + ew1 uau 1,21 1 4MIWf. .ear /AN.B2, . 1rLp1.. Nafl(-:..- , 7.161- nV,..Q 1A11AM Lief 5.0 ole.eae•6. ro) w+a.0,11Ru®. 106,02 196,664 1.16,5 11e131 153103 11.166 1w,9u 1gw1 1e?+u n•w6 1000, 12.4NIA 5410-.• imbae..1.65 rem.. . 111A14 IP,. '1lBIM 1141l4 -YAI3.. ./w0 5LN3770 1 ... .135. dit. 1am6. 1Pam1 17..1 .a.f , II.N. 11.1.1 I. 182,3 4,17 AM ��aaae�.�ei�e� xl,yuwe 1a,0o4o0 taw lan,„ 151e,58 8,11 .40,a, 11 Mt 1551607 nN018 3 ,0 au% wye • '21 '4.4L . UY,MI.• 49MAY IAML7 /AM1M 1.MaA16 1AMW l.Yi ..- .;',I.i 24 ZJllj- 4.W34. .y[Jf{, u 1x17aw 700, 064,561$ 34239 Ifyl 4.149 lfav 44,153 17 751 62.15f4 24.40% 1,763 (41711 wP% 1153. We 886.7411.011611 •w) 4700 MM. Iwa58 101,6% 1 1u Iw,1 10400 w 1. 1w,1.1 (1,4, 205 142 1 1 1,w.T19 6•.14% 9..7 15111,86 loan) 11.731,630 a 61. alb .06 19 1 u tau 11.493 16741 14037 • WA 09078 WA MI U. 12.007 Cue • 6 11.806 M. ffml 141.e 11.76v. Ilm% w s la m n CIO. 1,m Ull •,02 1..w 01R •Mean. 481n 65640 11110 511w 13061 u,ul WOL, 630.014 SI,u 411 33•u NW .m.m may _ .mm g..- n /PA UL. 1901,w 1y4797 162*394 14140 Bawd ALMS 11M441 - 01/41U 1 59449, ,44.6 0.4.1 Expenses 3 17,741,93 21,e10,1I7 141192,741 17,655.016 1 15,100807 3 79.26741 1 15,957895 (1,991.015)'1 2545451. E.c1 19219,560 19,924408 -185% Eacluding Into. 13,39a. .1,436,on ExcludingP mael costa.ea%%real 6,011,611 141.416. e.nx `I max em•MINIIMPa. • Metr9Wut.o Water D)ot0kt 01000 LAM&(MIME.... _-_ . Meal Year2012 ADMINISTRATIVE(10) Last Update: 03/22/11 © A-1'wr _-�%of Total...Rv3 Speee 39 %CYye ree.ge %of ioW 51exYHI a tM BW0,9 Porn Adal (FYOM6- Pedget Aeteal bpb.l YTD 3-year Sped over/P.4er) gadget FY2011 wand DOrrip4M...._ BY2MM PY2M9 PYM30 2010) PY2011 1/14.011 PYS115 .Se0ale FY2011 w2Y2011 PI/M33 e.ge4 s.,ys v.,,.I:.r 366.773 340,300 414440 3.638 413.434 335,716 61.85% 62.37% 411,712 (1.743) 393,755 6.7614. 5120 N/A 0.00% NIA Sib .uim 505 • - 168 - • WA 5132 W/yy 5130 Papal lswYmY Dew • - • - - - • - WA M1emotll/Nq • - • - . 5170 Oa GU Pey - - . 5210 P.3.900.4 2301E 35300 30,131 26,841 33.456 16660 W, 6130% 29,40 (3,04044 .70 fb% g14• `.ad4Wrl 1 . 114.121 1n.4M 44471 494PM 44MM Man 2M " V. %1M(" MOO. - 4W1 411401 .60$98 5120/ 67,010 41,351 61.56% 6667% 62,266 (4.7623 63,110 Promos 06531 73,337 36,154 76003 39,969 45.7056 67.63% 60234 110334 76,693 . A.Prop., - - 065% 3.147 1539 1 /11913I.0.*MOM- MAW 12420 0400 12241E 214.341 114111 "..,..104 '" 1*00 a422 145,02E ..M.M% 5340 134.e..aSea. I 4031 1;3361 9951 4991i ,6931 33,1 63.6 41 67..11%1 43611 P0.1 M.8818M D9d1dr f.40 '1A5y4 �- R%4 ' ' 1tla /R41%•- R0/ . not +N 4 19661 22,446 10,636 24394 36,500 13373 51.31% 61.31% 31,e51 (2,6491 .1430. --- .liunli.- 24.E0 12444 1A444. 24M1 142M /A5M 1211% ION - '21121 14414 l222% 5510 1.0(1 3.49.1110 123313 333360 302665 3 Mom.. 506,31 30631 1520 om.. 14443 13N0 19,r73 17399 n1W 24133 3,935 n3. 93.0% 2;775 43391 34359 21.774 3.77 491E uaa .39.3916 101 35,004 Nip, 00014 WA •)M4Y1/1wWW 229424 4*RM3 124MP 341.429 2MMP.• -2I1.Mf 040% .. SEAM-'.s A421 w.lw 321% 5610 Telephone 1p3 1,044 1,60 i 1.23 9W . 1,071 371 1.530 3630 WA,mmnwum, - WA 000% . niii. - 1411 1441 14M AOT.. 2w•' '.-w 114M% ' . ' '1P1 ' 221 AMP to 5710 e%.aoam . CIfn 14.0 Cm! WA 0.00%, - - WA Ne4�fW%Mr9r:'. 2P4 W4 Orval Saga 20 0,61E 0.645) 5620 mpr 04 S. 16.03E 13.113 13.457 13335 14.400 7,343 51.00% 65 63% 13154 4106) ION -0.206 Chu a%v.Saab WA WA 36 . 0040141dI18420. ''1404 1411E' 144M AM 14434 -4114• - 0241 . - 13.227 (8154/ • 11.M2 41.11% 3903 Ws.Mc. 5904 .m,P.P. Am,. 17.680 14166 1.93 14190 14.393 063M 04,030 5006 Pm%.!RA...e 3,661 31u 4n3 v4, 061 Is 4200 9.m. 50.S 0 14541 19.293 3008 33,000 27129 34,407 (391) 00.02 -436656 5909 emo,.m 026. . - WA 5910 low.Exp. . . . . . . 5911 20.223 • 3.946 1,027 1631 4,000 141 133% 144.0016 141 0.039) 4M0 0.01% LMy .CCan* A . 5913 - WA WA 5914 salvaum ll P,d6vi469 3.6la 1.134 1091 1.980 804 674 III 6.6 6367% 1.1W 363 045 59. 0..een16.1 1306 D30) w ;151 1,444 3.0 0 376 3.379 _ . f...-.e%.da. o 0 .3.25 .Q,43 - 1,414 63U1. 69 1,233047)' Y4MP ,4M% TwlP.apnw 9MSE1 14i74E1 1,060,493 n I,M1w11 14M,665 iM.%9 M.'I7x 140,19P (61'/) 101141 -241% eadaM.g ar..a.d 6«n 69.115 _ rn422 ulx • Metrepath=War POPS agat LW Sway I GEN RAL111E Last Update: 103nvn Pe•See. Y.offal. 19ee b 0 6x9.Yi r 3r Boded • ww A.o1 ) 1WWWWW6 w 2000 rr xfe r9,919 9Yr1r a0I /9,1xf. l,tafial- TY2art average 99.su kill)!MI 99201, NI. . UD 14.514 le)le - 14,10 .0014. 10a72 14307 60}07 30.3 - WA 0.26. MU WA 11m x,lu vy0 fe,.3 v,u I0,1% u,'nl nl W. 5310 Po.7� 1 u A o0/A • .7n16t6./n.+ OA* • I WS/ 0..f• /WC 4M/' 1M/1 1L1e1 0_ ' WS W etr/ uw n® Mb Davy eln v,l a Il Iv.one I0.976 401 S2l9 /15I5( Eai E61( -(Yf 4/a „1/1E U56 -ypj 00% Amos - I .91°YuefiI Sail a1I. io,ol MI,l. LW% e,.*.I 0p0 l 7 Pfial J.M% WA 0 cm sun i+I..iW - f4)ff 1AItll-' A.�.. .: l,,f11 IEIb 9AtlM. AI/IE L,arl '11bl0vYirlie /ICON - W N �wM.. IN9M4 .JIfIR leyx If,. 9y1 61 e .. - 1JA/11 WW1 .1'!/K t.YEfM 1 !/MtI C}11( uee% L/MlM tJY.M S69E MO oWY•ea Bn9®1 .. ....... b •la MI(' TY .IJn. ae /6IWA Off( P4 t,ef aNA 5910 n.nlasor 2.742 - al feu - 0 OM 0 Mt 1e40 - - -I WA �I611W/ltlY. .. 34- . _.'yam - x+i'' Aft( nape- rt.W- 0.411' oaw 60.4E ..MD/' µ02 muff 3.1 13,61 b.d 516,53 2,09.3 517,21 5002 u 4 1.103 efbau 2 143 905 3,63.3. IA1630 011375 11950 v 16 n0 If[a 25353 r 1 IM 04. 11121 1 ) 71031 Ilys If 10 (leap) 6, vxl If 9 (10T) 16 000 Mli. 41Bre 43,3 60.707 flan 0350 513. 13377 - yr I126 11,1104 11 Il.a,f1. 111Mm 1 6e.,ay uu IS41121 IIl IMv 3,601 11y9 54 4914 43 35. vlll liOS 113. 11016 m 1906 909 1340 m 1 Iel ] 5916 Isms.mama. e0,733 60334 14,10/ es e1.1 a 9N eul 310 ei191 5990 9, l21 n II,WifO tM,MX wawa' ,0auw usu.,M %wan.. 'YM 1M1Ma.- O�M/��,,ffi� 'Mani '• i//K Tfbl Eger I 19e)1;139 I 19,161.917I 1U11A11I 1a901s11I 16,fe,119I 11,11;1c9 I 1.1 61%I I 19,1i6,111 I(1,St,,M'7)I 1/.11/.f11 l_ SI% A___ ELad..Pv1atl e6o 06 1f,9lt,t 6,1 11 -.- 161,1M _J.M% 4 • Metropolitan Water DI.11ict of Solt l.ab&S..y ___ FI6ul Year 2012 OPERATIONS(22) Last Update: 03/22/I1 s Avr+ee T X9rr9u1 BpWls Sp,.ttp p.oloea 0q% -%amp ono e Ae6..1 Aetm1 Acl (F1'200 Bodge AeaaSp V. 3-yos 0p6. pfr43a64) 5.%0331 PY 211! Aswo 1lo t W6ea PP nu PY2009 FYa11 Wlall) amass FY2111 swage or Ant rrPY.Tell FY2012 Y 9 5110 Wry,9/e646..5. 417,71 574,209 561, 7 516172 519,176 110,596 63.65% 61.65% 51,111 5,205 519570 2.14 63,966 55,900 61167 56.000 41,761 21 56,595 s% g0 500 1,1% - )% WA 0.00% 51)2 - - - 0.0% • • - Sane • WA 0.0016_ _ - 5140 emau.mu . - - WA &OM - - WA 5170 a GUM ;475 5a59 5101 4,445 5,475 1,4% 63.56% 55.73% 5,9a 929 5,615 0.0016 5190 O. 5210 r9..��� P. � ;109 al - .. WA WA i i=10 .sa ' n'raa,. .V4k5r p4r �MIY. .66 a�iN, uu f�5�19 »f% 6,06 66,912 91,1 1aa61 Paso 111,1u 110,1 127,236 131,664 1121. egna 1 29 _�,nu/) 156.155 16.7216 5330 uitim ALA Nero. WA. 0.00% r 6b,,110eEf .166 5,619 6139 56.11%. »u {{��mmy WA lls�19•3Up11•41t RASH ' 111.1M 1131 T .1931151 -'ISOM (R11% f7I •' aAs� 1a5 1Y{ 5305250 . .ur1a96iwr4 I OI 1824I 1,137 lin_I )1M 4117 1I 2 1511 iil'�, ..-wl1 %yir /1a6a6"i 2,O05 1A19 1,299 1.576 1.500 90O 5999% uo1 1.193 p02) 3,750 150.00% 5430• -Alst.3j 2M1 1,M9 2Jii um •1,11( IM n19% ;19`- ow - i.311 1ni9 55530 560 rm9.0 S.,,,,,,,,. 1,%6 W 659 WA 72 - WA 5610 7113540e 3,152 ;122 1.951 2,612 ;626 1,121 42. 61.10% 2.162 I. 1130 - 56W .. WA ;llf 21L'• 1,.0 5710 %69.au�5aL9:pe�6 1,1n :.1os {I 1s%- 1,1n1 o.W _ 665 a6. 5,xo 9061M 11sno �.rM.`a.tms. • 6111 21M 1,9ff OH .laxllllll. _ - , *MC - Mf. .x5r waurA �e,. I) 11612 WO �Masa spy 1177,•465 1,1m,fn 15,063 11%155 ;Uvan1 1219a62 (I60.669. 11,110 .. . alolq+0 1bil1 - 1,22We 15*591 1JM.1M- 1,1gIQ! 1.M10/ MMIi •nub% • 1.133,325' . num MUSK- .459% 5901 Oa rums 5900 v 5.1 Anew 5904 0p0e. - WA 5905 IA-.s Ex - 59M Conremiss 8 Ercou WA 0..00% - WA 5909 oeaeum Lapse. - . 5010 taal%sow - - - - WA WA 5911 Los. 1as. tan 1.725 1.5% 1696 1,6% N.% 5347% ;669 ns 1,411 5913 9.019 rar6 1.921 20566 1326 1.614 1.722 619 2e.625t 1407. 2,100 W 1,167 161% 5914 6.S0*00.ay.dolm - 6n WA 5916 1 44Allmabip . . Ample.Ow - - - - - - - .5919 WA OM% WA f9% GW4us5RR - - W 6.60% - - WA ::.... •rt.r,. x1wux?;.. ...... T!WP:1,ases 42,',. _} 2.166.165 2.154.411. 2.110.75/ 1 NAM.__ 1.156.754 (155,999) 1.35A95 1.01% IbtYis heated awls 1,151,022 1,131,1111 -123% 411 Metropolitan Water O%trle2 if Sat L.%0&3.$y Fiscal Year 20I3 - MAINTENANCE(23) Last Update: _ 04/12/11 a to O x of Total %COap Averya v.of TOYI Sperm 17oln1881 Ac00 Aetal Anal (FY2014 Badger Spearm Hear rope. over/fader) Bodges FY2011 Ansel Doer.. FE nos FY 2009 FY2010 2010) FY2011 2/1V1011 renal agye PY.a ...V.., .,.. Bad(yg 5110 .311 W.,EA, N e1 959,501 M91 600v 1 N.,N I 033..)4 ,63,.I 5120 Om. m (8)68 20.1,8 18,500 17,477 33,97 4.897 18,500 0.0011. 5130 .mice 1,7111 - - 573 - - WA 5140 emd,3l::a - - WA 5170 yryNmolar u,.r 534 5,,5f 3 440 s..�sm MN- 61.7.x.714 5,72 }�Di e,3�.v 00x 3210 . :4i1Na0180!♦n TJ9 -Yaz,. 1.1zo ./.12498 ;,RR . N3s9 N. A+3� KYl x' 41%i 4n4W .i221%' 129269 131,999 136,e9 151,342 (1,6151 125,96 47.603. e4680. 233237 266099 210118 231,152 276,743 192,801 696. 050% 18,562 12,819 230,279 h40e9••Narlo -H4�M IM,,11 924tb b/µiJ NS"If mt933 8618% e5. 6W.40r- (1,"eh -26% f Jfl.�f1 J44W% 5340 1 ,55 430+I ..t0 1 33095d 73.46%! 07! II293J IllI MN*. lw- 4 0l •48t- lip 4. 'MN 40, .N6o�-� .a;.pr 466% 541010 aa.5K .297 ,,..nd 4,456 ago ;16x WA 7..w.M1W ' '604 • 2Y1 .41f! ' '4239 Afl0' :3.29t• ..d466% 4116 !lb Alb •-2111. 43,581 53,043 113,45, 70,029 0,611 32,4711 55,14 (10.1423 115,7 20016 1..71td.�a/6% . -4 8i- 1416. 1 '. '.5W8 14081'. 22A91 32Mi 44Y/ -"4Mal 1/f219'' ..I'? 5610 nm,.a. 5,027 s 1e1 5,133 5,114 5,019 3,22 68 151i 55.15% 5,673 654 4200 -16.321, ., N/A U118% . _. 3/17f .4141' !✓ll !JN 481� 'Atli'. l4Mg' f/fl. q1 42M ".HAl/ 57. m4,66, 52,220 (6,915) 115,5011 660.5w. wa9A„,n�, 1 10;0 5 N25. 641e 11,98 17,016 58,51 (9,31a2 91 sne W41n1 143.33•344 NIA 0 NX Moths 1n� .. l4,dt 237 11,E4411.l4 . 0 f MIMIC 4192 11,N .M .. 3 TR 9.52% 0 04011 -l1410t( 1842f! •BRIM 5110 ..,mils li.• 8,335 0,220 ,are lu,fee 860 543. 66.23N 9.235 0265) 9,555 5830 Ma.dd. 71,03 », 8 6 13 u3N N, (3,7.5) ae,0 4330, 5. d 3666. 12,85 2,M 4633 7,N1 ;.N 3„5 106.2051. • A, 4M3 ;683 6,10112.3714 sew 08=. WA WrNpiat' ,r. 4{229 -84M1 99'.p% 942// 91JN M11I .sainto.oe1Y Aid1 441% �m 22 5903 .e Ae,w,m,a • . . . we �, 57 Is50 745 N. 2,00 4701 2N.11x 2..4 5,703 3A03 1125 5905 . . WA 0,06, • . 5910 6.4.e.4sen WA 5911 tnmy 4,37 0.979 5,632 1.960 WO 3,239 4129 4179 3527 . 5512 As*r 5915 96. 4157 5,15 5,26 5.409 5739 1421 5.557 (182) 5409 4.1315 5914 5,b...a Poamm. 5915 514id0 Me. • - . - WA 5910 De a Mmbeip . . Aen,num 0m - • . A, 5999 bYr6xetc.a.. . 11tl/. 'l4Mi A511 tA,ltb )2.01� )41rr•..W •.0 4 MMI" 4 .- 21,IMks .t21WA _ Total Expenses 1,649,557 1,922,712 1,851,862 1,808,046 1,829,570 1,143,437 14.20% _•_ 13W64155 _(25,117) 13446 ___af6% Eecludlogper.oaoel coats 293311 431,427 47.44% O MenapdB.e Water District of Salt lake*WAY Huai Year 20I2 INFORMATION SERVICES(2i) Las[Update: - -- - - - 03/22/11 • .e xot io .A of Twat Projected A-1' 50.0 VI. Projected 9 R a et Y.Omar from As*W ASW Ae1e1 ,(FY20. Budget Ae1W bps VTR 3-year Spud ,40100660 Bade PY2011 Aceomt _ exripdoo _ new BYZY9 PY20I1 2011) Fr nu rom11 n3111 aft.... 6YLll ter FY2a11_T'2012 Bad{u 721,607 176pu1 12110,210106 �.wnr�.�. b1255 4290 1eis03 1f3,503 699 552?53 0.4271 5.100 .11.4356 5130 ram 2,7I9 - 906 _— - - - WA, OM% - WA 5132 Beltlee - - _ - • WA - - - WA n.mm%.aa6 v - - WA o11 Pay 5230 4065 5}73 51% 5215 3,237 59.12% 610356 3,316 (139) 5293 047% 3190 Rt., �e6- - moo. (Ill l� . WA 5310 �.1.a1e631,4,, BAB4 65{N�. M,T29 YMY fOJY_ 065 1400( 710.70 u9}n 2,295 Ma ,n,r 169,1120 171211 161,131 16]}117 I65,e0 104213 62 83% 68.15% I%u�a (9,009). 111,53 3350 7l ai w1M 71'A�Y 21R31i ICBM 2/t Ld223 1M.M2 MMY- 2Jf.31i - , �,' iM/I/ 13275t 5410 060a55.45 I I 166 } 1 I ,Sd I 6361 . nehmel31Jd� uSn nAs i3 •i4r321s Itiif u . lim' 1 tem? runt a,ar w 19490 6734 293 19039 2000 60 1.0e% 0,961 (9.1. 20,10 OR% A.Ydrr , /OW IV.. • s 362 um - iv.• x/M 6.uF neat- .15M/ "I ^n2 loot 6553o9}��60 333536�.7 341,673 e23 351.693 05p10 7406 1471 5 (3341 340 A9pilsW,.*.. 1NOM' JlIW1:- ':.BBW Mf,�13�. 19w., 2.6659� ,ddY. p2,).W J;MK nl�bme 6.]e9 5,933 6.13e 6,125 6,830410 6. 63 1.514 4703 111 6230 11013, 11553 9,175 13.0 15}40 12323 N.B. 20431 4555 13,600 •1.706 1BOYs •18„Yf BLYO:' 17.21d *171 20,3)0- Masi- . 9INT • .SON MAY ' 4.304 65420/a�el300 173,3e 166}02 153,e30 16g020 166,e57 111566 677 AAA,, 70% 21001� ee365- 164219 0..1e56 IOBJe.I.SWee�M 255110 08M2. I141 MONO• f4L63/ 111MI L6Y1". .0 OM 10011 '. J14% 4111 5810. 1 s.990e }5e 9 35% 6,251 (1,W11 9 5810 n9N�te3ega .ro39 3830 17.916 m 66}11_ 34052 34093 90271 16,161 3220% .10% e6,36e (1,9n 0.171 08056 580 cl2ub 03666 13,M 33,110 16257 21N5 8,M1 36115%y n% 16A37 (45903 23216 0.1256 5150 CYY6F 6.27 foot l in 10LYf 4241;1 ,YRL5 ta 171.1Y aAlf 5J06%. 21= ' l Mai; '027.6 1MY 5904 e./E.0 •Are - - IN 3906 pm,.a 97a329+6. - -- - 5910 Wan E0920 • . WA 5911 1.2045 1,065 1.0611 4092 4073 1,100 11M IX. 763 IAI2 3636% 3912 Wri `..kaLs H3.714 1156 3, 3,%5 1940 1a51 5114 m S6Omp1a P3/rmur 612 3 710 116 093 536 116 661 (551 693 11306 59. ai:e�1 ke4i 11Ali. Oki- LYE.. •'-4/1t. (I3,I1D _2, 7 ..Lali' .•XAR. ° , .,lam -Si- 484 .1 Ttale9Qeams L013,1M 0W69 1, . 1_..L920,909 a3,116 La.SM �tiM1 =A01 t9 SIAM 1U _ 79 L Q% r. .- _—_ � eaeiral.l peo.w e«n fn,de6 8,1062 -7a9x • Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake&Sandy - Fisal Year 2012 ENGINEERING�25) __- _____ Last Update— —— 03/29/11 • ed (11111111 - 3-Year _Spend Spend%of Total to %Change Average %of Total Spent YTD Projected Budget ' from - Actual Actual Actual (FY 2008- Budget Actual Spent YTD 3-year Spend sived(ander) Budget FY 2011' Account- •. -Description FY 2008 FY 2009 .FY 2010 • 2010) FY 2011 2/28/7.011 FY 2011 average FY 2011 ' for FY 2011 FY 2012 • Budget - 5110 Salary&Wage Exp. 289,513 313,161 327,116 309,930 312,354 191,088 61.18% 62.27% 308,939 (3,415) 505,883 61.96% 5120 Overtime Premium 231 294 28 184 1,000 209 20.85% 84.49% 364 (636)_ 500 5130 Vacuums 397 - - 132 - - WA 0.00% - - - N/A 5131 Sick Leave - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5132 Holiday - - . - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5133 Personal Leave/Funeral Leave - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - WA 5140 Personnel Training - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5160 Vehicle Allowance - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5170 On Call Pay - - . - - - N/A 0.00% - - - WA 5190 Other - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5210 Payroll Taxes 22,331 24,070 24,542. 23,647 24,598 15,179 61.71% 62.86% 24,314 (284) 40,143 63.20% Seladdud Weirs .. • 312,472 -337,525 351,68i .. 333,894 337,952 206,475 , 6L8% - 133,617 • (4,335) 546,526 61.7296 5310 Retirement Plan 43,100 43,013 45,803 43,972 51,296 35,768 69.73% 68.36% 51,999 703 79,049 54.10% 5320 Medical Insurance Premiums 88,125 60,766 64,938 71,276 74,567 41,639 55.84% 70.74% 63,457 (11,110) 121,306 62.68% 5330 Tuition Aid Program _ - _ - - - N/A 0.00% - - - WA 5350 Insurance Premiums 3,017 3,032 2,643 2,897 3,063 1,666 54.39% 66.23% 2,700 (363) 5,269 72.03% ' iftk/lijtaThatibt 134,242 106,812 113,313.. 118146 128926 ' - 79,073. 6133%: .. •118,156 _ 14 288625 ' 5949% 5340 J Meenn?&Seminars I 749I 130 I 952I 610I 950I 472 I 49.72%I 66.23%I 793 I (157)1 2,950 210.53% .. '418l41.81.rlfellft 749 139 952 '. 610 950 472 49.72% . • - 793 (1578 4950 -21L53% 5410 Business Travel 6,932 4,757 6,451 6,046 4,550 2,840 62.41% 62.10% 4,564 14 8,650 90.11% 5430 Vehicle 0&M 1,739 1,584 1,473 1,598 1,850 397 21.47% 71.08% 932 (918) 1,785 -3.51% . "J�yNw6iYuw 1,670 4,346 - 7,924' 7,645 6,400 3,237 50.58% 5510 Legal - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - . - N/A 5520 Accounting - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5530 Contract Services 304,778 169,675 202,985 225,813 175,200 69,795 39.84% 54.65% 149,248 (25,952) 236,200 34.82% 5540 Other - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A • ProjedotalServices 304,778 169,473 202,985; 225,813 175,200 69,795' 3*4811 - .149,241 ;t.-(25,952(• 236,208-.. 3442% 5610 Telephone 3,338 3,163 2,995 3,166 3,000 1,999 66.62% 66.00% 3,019 19 3,840 28.00% 5620 Electricity - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5630 Natural Gas - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5640 Radio Communications - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5650 Water - - - N/A 0.00% - - N/A UMIWss ,3,338 3,163 2,995 ` 3,146 •3,80 1,999 6662%- . 3,910 ' 19. - 3,440 • -2&90% 5710 Bldgs&Grounds - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - 4,000 N/A 5720 Machinery&Equipment - - - - . - N/A 0.00% - - 3,700 N/A 5730 Canal Maintenance - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A "- • Rg d e4a mod - - . .. - - - 5810 General Supplies 1,011 1,163 2,006 1,393 2,500 1,726 69.03% 64.43% 2,615 115 3,600 44.00% 5820 Office Supplies 33 - - I - N/A 0.00% - - N/A 5830 Materiels • - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - 8,300 N/A 5840 Chemicals - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5850 Computer&Instr.Supplies - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - WA .. CheMtke6 and MOON 1,044 1,163 -2,006 - 1,404 2,300• 1,,726 : •.69.43%.... 2,615 .- 115 11,9M '37911,16 5901 General Insurance - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5902 PRWUA/CUP Assessments - - . - - - N/A 0.00% - . _ N/A 5903 Water Stock Assessment - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5904 Rent Exp. - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - 2,000 N/A 5905 Miscellaneous - - - - - 8 N/A 0.00% 8 8 - N/A 5906 Postage&freight Exp. - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - 500 N/A 5907 Contributions&Events - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5909 Depreciation Expense . - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5910 Interest Expen,a - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5911 Laundry 249 308 355 304 500 306 61.18% 46.29% 574 74 1,250 150.00% 5912 Associated Canals - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5913 Safety 390 343 200 294 500 - 0.00% 6.04% 470 (30) 1,800 260.00% 5914 Subscriptions&Publications 892 38 144 358 300 190 63.32% 27.74% 407 107 300 0.00% 5915 Outside Printing - - - - . - N/A 0.00% - - 166 N/A 5916 Dues&Memberships 546_ 854 816 739 1,075 530 49.30% 63.28% 925 (150) 900 -16.28% 5917 Amortization Exp. - - - - - - N/A 0.00% - - - N/A 5999 Treatment Costs/Related Chgs. - - - N/A 0.00% - - WA .. - ONeiBylrs . . 2,027. .-1,543 1,516 _''1,03 -.2,37! 1,034 . •4153%..• 2414 '! 4914 - 19L19% Total Expenses 767,320 626,351 683,446 692,374 657,303- 363,811 5535%, 615,328 (41,072) 1,032,092 57.02% Excluding personnel costs 190,425, - 279,941 47.01% C:11 Metropolitan Water Db1rk9 of Sat Lake a Sandy _.. _ Fiaal Year2tll ldate: SERVICES(10)1,443 03/22/II ® w..w v %05Twr Yr92032 . Frew %R..1e A.nw Aul.l Ada, (FY2000- Bw0a .n.l 2pu2YTD }yew 6q.w o.e+/1me.1 3 3 3Y2011 691.an- Paoli* IsVMI FY20N FYml0 0I1) FY2011 2,242011 FY2011 ...a.pe FY21u Sw ntdatI- FY20D .5,15.5 sw,s•W%a 2,..0 510,193 577.100 470a3 519]45 (36,52.) 462,753 5120 w, 2.117 ell 9b IS% 2,000 3u 973 0.0=n 1.500 5131 461i6e - - - WA 0.00% . - WA 5132 NSW. - - • . . . . 510 ta.611.23. - - - - . WA 5170 On OW Fax . - • - - - I.1. WA 5190 . n10 Tm l9po� f01. 55�s I� N915 pw 12.�b1� NA 103% �5. .2.3% 7r�r%.1. ,1p4YN taint..lpER .MCMl_. xyM. 1n41M ., iiyi( . . Sy1°I{'xbF:: , »=• ,4Mx 79a15 66,543 73,592 80372 77,502 aa64) 81,,90 109,627 100,011 9*..90 116,325 62,921 59 3099 65.31% 109,13... (6.1) 116,111 Asap 71% - - ),.o..2.R..: .:x4�i3 ,ai25 H500 ,f(Mi 2o.�n ui1322 616N6- ni+3 d snin7 :ur Oep=,6 I I ,225 ,wI r I .I :>d 00%! B�y.r 9'�r�+r - - A <S1i i,An 4}as ir' 2.0% krf pdi� 1;'Fr I�,u: 5410 T.eC.w. 16,570 17.3013 1,750 10,0.= .500 , - 14110 111311 40 WM 450 ,4242 11200%. 303 . 4 11 n,50 SLAW 5551100 1�1 - - . 30w .00% N/A A WA ssb Q%. w,2» ,IAn In,61, .,111 Ia,3u .w.s n:.x .m5c Iw,mv oun i0s,2m .z50sx -'010p0a%lYwan • -lust. "n .14402 Mai 1*502 KMF :SW( SWA A0016 _ 1MI0. -al 04N1 .22tl% 5610 n,.,6o. 1,315 1.052 1,51 ( 2,IN 644 I,W3 (.5 11m 56. 4020 fmmunairans - WA a WA 5650 WA 110169 •. - ,wk.- M ei- 4ni '414- 410E ' MC. 54 .- 40i ..' gm mai .luti' 5710 210.At.01 . • . 5,5 - %.mm.xAEVWr®. Is 12,516 9,252 15,7461 v 16,669 1 15,500 ® ` 2600 ... 145M 243M 413t• '14fN - 1�M 4Mi wog• W' Fun . 4,01 14300 • A 5110 a...iswa,. .sw 2,Sm 2,111 b5 ws 25N 52.20 oe..Sumba 0.00% WA .0,557 41,051 47,715 46.0 154,1 46,000 5140 Me4 61.032 55,361 59,214 51,536 62,, 31.395 57,945 (.a55) 62,00 CanwiuAhw spp� bl)% 000% Zi.rbY..,d.9y0.Fr n/,03 ')MSUF 114 32 114195 1140- mai n.0% 1/400. 1M' 11400 t01F 5904 1w2. Am.., - - . • . . . • WA 21611615424 492 591 1,16 700 1r40 3119 2515% 5077% 9. 3501) 1,500 66,565 130.402 57,796 17.511 111,053 60,010 50.19% SI.% 117,151 (NS) 120.142 2]05} 5909 0116w+w Elm - - WA OM% WA 3911 Wti 1/25 1,129 1,071 1p77 2000 2.171 In 2.000 0,0% 5913 a,cwWA 000% WA 5913 Lift i. 3,16 2,506 I,b3 _ 2.329 3.150 99 3.14% 33.67% 0,111 (9612 2,fb 5914 EWeIwm.A0m6um lb 90 525 732 IA00 In n4936 6163% .3 (S00) (1N 0.0014 5915 ...Pat. WA 009% WA - 5916 o..Assr.rly. 5917 Aar..S.. - mWA 1016 - WA - 5.9 ..01 1.4.C6.1 14Mf� lµ1R f9N.f (5,IM' I14161 01 610/A 0;0014 A ToW0apme 1138,563 I,I,111_982,451 1,066,901 1,154,105 65,161 ¢M% O,LM (19,W) I,IM,110 �A% E940 43q Fe.b0003 6093s_. 401,16.5 _- _ - 314127 -ISM 4111 Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy FY 2012 Capital Budget Last Updated: April 1,2011 ,•w CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS None $ - Subtotal $ - ROUTINE NON-CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Owner Controlled Insurance Program(OCIP) -Outstanding Claims $ 100,000 Terminal Reservoir Replacement $ 4,582,180 LCWTP Site Support Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning System: $ 197,400 LCWTP Site Support Drain Separation Project $ 50,000 Salt Lake Aqueduct(SLA)Improvements $ 65,000 Utah Lake Pump Station Replacement Project $ 2,414,243 Systems Project-Ozone Monitor Replacement at LCWTP&POMWTP $ 21,000 Fleet Replacement Program $ 35,000 Little Dell Dam Improvements $ 120,000 Subtotal $ 7,584,823 OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Jordan Aqueduct System and 150th South Pipeline $ 1,220,402 Provo River Project(PRP) Capital $ 3,065,238 Central Utah Project(CUP)Capital $ 2,971,200 3 Subtotal $ 7,256,840 CONTINGENCY 10%Project Contingency $ 1,484,000 TOTAL $ 16,325,663 3 25 of 47 Budget FY2012 © METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY FY 2012 Capital Budget Request Last Updated: 4/8/2011 Account No.: 1834-10 Department: Engineering Location: Master Plan Projects Contact Name: Wayne Winsor Request Type: Non-Capacity Improvement Project Title: Owner Controlled Insurance Program(OCIP)-Outstanding Claims Description: OCIP responsibilities for claims made during the OCIP program but have yet to be closed. District is exposed to any unresloved claims.One unresloved claim remains. Justification: OCIP Program. Budget: Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Amount General Liability 1 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 0 I — — FY 2012 Capital Budget S 100,000.00 • 26 of 47 Budget FY2012 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY FY 2012 Capital Budget Request Last Updated: 3/11/2011 Account No.: 1836-10 Department: Engineering Location: Terminal Reservoir Contact Name: Wayne Winsor Request Type: Non-Capacity Improvement Project Title: Terminal Reservoir Replacement Description: Continuation of the final design of the Terminal Reservoir Replacement project. Justification: Terminal Reservoir is more than 60 years old. There is the need for hydraulic modifications, improved sampling,seismic upgrades,remote disinfection requirements,the addition of a debris basin,and electrical and instrumentation improvements. This project will consider replacement of the Terminal Reservoir while maintaining service to Salt Lake City. Budget: Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Amount Terminal Reservoir Replacement Design 1 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 Construction 1 $ 4,457,180 $ 4,457,180 CI) FY 2011 Capital Budget $ 4,582,180 Fiscal Year Summary: (multi-year projects) Spent Current Budget Proposed Budget Remaining (Prior FY 2011) (FY 2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2012) Total Project $ 104,750 $ 500,000 $ 4,582,180 $ - $ 709,750 Notes: The Total Project amount may not equal the sum of the Spent,Current Budget,Proposed Budget,and Remaining columns. Costs budgeted in FY 2011,but not expected to be spent, are included in Proposed Budget for FY 2012. Total design contract amount is$709,750. There is the possibility of beginning construction in FY2012 but costs and financing strategies have not been fmalized at this time. 3 27 of 47 Budget FY2012 CO METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY FY 2012 Capital Budget Request Last Updated: 3/5/2011 Account No.: 1845-10 Department: Engineering Location: LCWTP Site Contact Name: Wayne Winsor Request Type: Non-Capacity Improvement Project Title: LCWTP Site Support Heating Ventilation,and Air Conditioning Systems Description: Refurbish the ozone system control panel cooling system. Various refurbishments to the administration building HVAC to improve reliability and reduce maintenance costs. Various refurbishments to the laboratory tuum(s)HVAC to stabilize temperature where equipment is temperature dependent. Justification: The ozone system control panels at the Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant are critical to the ozone system and plant disinfection. Existing cooling compressors continue to fail. Corrective actions will improve the longevity of the system. The Administration Building houses the controls for the LCWTP plant. Improvements are to establish a more reliable system. The HVAC for the laboratory rooms in the old administration building are non-controllable with temperatures exceeding either the minimums and maximums of the temperature sensitive equipment.This is a two-year program. Budget: Description Quantitc [nit Price Extended Amount Office Building HVAC Improvements $ 17,400 $ 17,400 Laboratory Improvements(Fan Room) I $ 15,000 $ 15,000 LCWTP Ozone Building HVAC-Study I $ 15,000 $ 15,000 LCWTP Ozone Building HVAC-Install I $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Lab Bldg✓Admin.Bldg.Improvements I $ 50,000 $ 50,000 FY 2012 Capital Budget $ 197,400 Fiscal Year Summary:(multi-year projects) Spent Current Budget Proposed Budget Remaining (Prior FY 2011) (FY 2011) (FY 2012) (Post FY 2012) Total Project $ 150,000 S 197.400 S 200,000 S 547,400 Notes: The total project amount may not equal the sum of the Spent,Current Budget,Proposed Budget,and Remaining columns. Costs budgeted in FY 2011,but not expected to be spent,are included in Proposed Budget for FY 2012. • 28 o147 Budget FY2012 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY FY 2012 Capital Budget Request Last Updated: 3/5/2011 Account No.: 1845-10 Department: Engineering Location: LCWTP Site Contact Name: Wayne Winsor Request Type: Non-Capacity Improvement Project Title: LCWTP Site Support Drain Separation Project Description: Eliminate the potential of a cross-connection at the Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant Effluent Diversion Structure drain. Justification: As a result of improvements from the Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant on-site improvements project a potential cross-connection was identified.The drain pipe from the effluent diversion structure connects downstream to a system that,at times,can be flooded. Although the events to cause a cross connection are rare,removing the potential for a cross connection was deemed the highest priority. Budget: Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Amount Drain Separation Improvmements 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 — $ - FY 2012 Capital Budget $ 50,000 Fiscal Year Summary: (multi-year projects) Spent Current Budget Proposed Budget Remaining (Prior FY 2011) (FY 2011) (FY 2012) (Post FY 2012) Total Project $ 5,890 $ 1,611 $ 50,000 $ 51,611 Notes: The total project amount may not equal the sum of the Spent,Current Budget,Proposed Budget,and Remaining columns. Costs budgeted in FY 2011,but not expected to be spent,are included in Proposed Budget for FY 2012. 29 of 47 Budget FY2012 +air. rry • METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY FY 2012 Capital Budget Request Last Updated: 3/5/2011 Account No.: 1831-10 Department: Engineering Location: SLA Raw Contact Name: Wayne Winsor Request Type: Non-Capacity Improvement Project Title: Salt Lake Aqueduct(SLA)Improvements Description: Cathodic protection installed in Provo canyon but not energized as part of the UDOT relocation in 1995. Blowoffs are impacted by downstream improvements;modifications Justification: Energizing the existing improvements is prudent to protecting the Salt Lake Aqueduct asset. Discharges from blowoffs,as currently configured,along the Salt Lake Aqueduct have a potential to cause damage to downstream improvements. Budget: Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Amount Cathodic Protection-Provo Canyon 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Blowoff Improvements Program 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 C FY 2012 Capital Budget S 65,000 Fiscal Year Summary:(multi-year projects) Spent Current Budget Proposed Budget Remaining (Prior FY 2011) (FY 2011) (FY 2012) (Post FY 2012) Total Project $ - $ - $ 65,000 $ - $ 65,000 Notes: The total project amount may not equal the sum of the Spent,Current Budget,Proposed Budget,and Remaining columns. Costs budgeted in FY 2011,but not expected to be spent, are included in Proposed Budget for FY 2012. • 30 of 47 Budget FY2012 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE& SANDY FY 2012 Capital Budget Request Last Updated: 3/5/2011 Account No.: 1838-10 Department: Engineering Location: Utah Lake Contact Name: Wayne Winsor Request Type: Non-Capacity Improvement Project Title: Utah Lake Pump Station Replacement Project Description: Design and construction related costs for the replacement of the Utah Lake Pump Station. Justification: The Utah Lake Pump Station(Saratoga Pump Station)has more than 96 years of operation and is beyond refurbishment. MWDSLS depends on this facility as part of its Utah Lake Distributing Company exchange agreements. Full design costs anticipated to be approximately$532,118 and full construction cost anticipated to be approximately $8,220,128(subject to change). MWDSLS share of these costs are shown(17.56%of total). MWDSLS share of the equity expense is$877,763. Budget: Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Amount Utah Lake Pump Station Replacement 1 $ 2,414,243.45 $ 2,414,243 $ $ _ FY 2012 Capital Budget $ 2,414,243 Fiscal Year Summary: (multi-year projects) _ Spent Current Budget Proposed Budget Remaining (Prior FY 2011) (FY 2011) (FY 2012) (Post FY 2012) Total Project �$ 1,127,159 $ 2,414,243 $ - $ 2,414,243 Notes: Board of Canal Presidents(BOCP)has agreed with MWDSLS to reimburse design costs less MWDSLS's share. MWDSLS's participation in design anticipated to be$93,414.73 (Assuming 135/769 or 17.56%). Construction to occur in FY 2012 and FY 2013. The total project amount may not equal the sum of the Spent, Current Budget,Proposed Budget,and Remaining columns. Costs budgeted in FY 2011,but not expected to be spent,are included in Proposed Budget for FY 2012. 3 31 of 47 Budget FY2012 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY FY 2012 Capital Budget Request Last Updated: 3/5/2011 Account No.: TBD 1843-10 Department: Information Services Location: LCWTP&POMWTP Site Contact Name: Mike DeVries Request Type: Non-Capacity Improvement Project Title: Systems Project-Ozone Monitor Replacement at LCWTP&POMWTP Description: A high concentration(HC)400 ozone monitor measures the concentration(percent weight)of ozone gas that is produced by an ozone generator. An ozone generator operates utilizing a proportional- integral-derivative(PID)loop that relies upon feedback from a HC 400 ozone monitor(the ozone generators cannot operate without these monitors). Justification: The ozone systems at the LCWTP and POMWTP were originally equipped with HC 500 ozone monitors which perform the same function as HC 400 ozone monitors. The HC 500 units are no longer supported by the manufacturer,and as a result,replacement units and parts are unavailable. Due to HC 500 failures,the District has already purchased two of the HC 400 units for the LCWTP ozone system. There are three more HC 500 units that need to be replaced,one at LCWTP,and two at POMWTP. Bud get: Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Amount ()zone Monitor Replacement 1 $ 21,000 $ 21,000 s _ FY e s s 2012 Ca ital Bud et 21,000 Fiscal Year Summary:(multi-year projects) Spent Current Budget Proposed Budget Remaining (Prior FY 2011) (FY 2011) (FY 2012) (Post FY 2012) Total Project - S - S 21,000 S 21,000 s otes: The total project amount may not equal the sum of the Spent,Current Budget,Proposed Budget,and Remaining columns. Costs budgeted in FY 2011,but not expected to be spent,are included in Proposed Budget for FY 2012. 1111) 32 of 47 Budget FY2012 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY FY 2012 Capital Budget Request Last Updated: 2/8/2011 Account No.: TBD 1848-10 Department: Maintenance Location: Other Contact Name: Steve Stocking Request Type: Other Title: Fleet Replacement Program Description: Replacement of(1)vehicle. Justification: Vehicle#44 currently has approximately 88,670 and has reached its useful life. Repairs have started to increase. This vehicle will be sold for approximately$9,100. Budget: Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Amount Vehicle I $ 35,000 $ 35,000 — $ FY 2012 Capital Budget $ 35,000 Fiscal Year Summary: (multi-year projects) Spent Current Budget Proposed Budget Remaining (Prior FY 2011) (FY 2011) (FY 2012) (Post FY 2012) Total Project $ - S 35,000 $ 35,000 Notes: The total project amount may not equal the sum of the Spent,Current Budget,Proposed Budget,and Remaining columns. Costs budgeted in FY 2011,but not expected to be spent,are included in Proposed Budget for FY 2012. • 33 of 47 Budget FY2012 Q METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY FY 2012 Capital Budget Request Last Updated: 4/12/2011 Account No.: 1840-10 Department: Engineering Location: Little Dell Dam Contact Name: Wayne Winsor Request Type: Salt Lake City Public Utilities Title: Little Dell Dam Improvements Description: Improvements as identified by Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Justification: Based upon current request from Salt Lake City Public Utilities. Budget: b Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Amount Little Dell Darn Improvements New Staff Gauge 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Boat Ramp Repair I $ 45,000 $ 45,000 Ball Valve Assessment/Design 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Air Relief Valve Assessment 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Steel Outlet Pipe Rehabilitation 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 • FY 2012 Capital Budget $ 120,000 Fiscal Year Summary:(multi-year rojects) Spent Current Budget Proposed Budget Remaining 0 (Prior FY 2011) (FY 2011) (FY 2012) (Post FY 2012) Total Project $ - $ - $ 120,000 $ 120,000 Notes: The total project amount may not equal the sum of the Spent,Current Budget,Proposed Budget,and Remaining columns. Costs budgeted in FY 2011,but not expected to be spent, are included in Proposed Budget for FY 2012. By contract,Salt Lake County will reimburse the District for 30%of the costs shown above. 34 of 47 Budget FY2012 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE& SANDY FY 2012 Capital Budget Request Last Updated: 3/5/2011 Account No.: 1599-10 Department: Engineering Location: Other Contact Name: Wayne Winsor Request Type: JA Management Title: Jordan Aqueduct System and 150th South Pipeline Description: Projects begun in prior years were not completed and have been carried over into FY 2012. These projects include JVWTP chlorine dioxide system,JA-3 chlorine feed station, JA-2/3 Pigging Improvements, Electrical Generation Improvements and JVWTP Seismic Improvements Justification: MWDSLS is responsible to pay 2/7ths of JA system improvements which include Jordan Aqueduct Reaches 1 -4, Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant(JVWTP), and the JA Terminal Reservoir. MWDSLS is responsible for 50%of improvements associated to the 150th South Pipeline. Budget: Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Amount oink FY2012 Capital Plan 1 $ 1,220,402.00 $ 1,220,402 „„ue FY 2012 Capital Budget $ 1,220,402 Fiscal Year Summary: (multi-year projects) Current Budget Budget Remaining (FY 2011) (FY 2010) (FY 2013-FY 2020) _Total Project $ 1,678,447 $ 1,220,402 $ 6,033,142 $ 7,253,544 Notes: The Total Project amount may not equal the sum of the Current Budget, Proposed Budget, and Remaining columns. Costs budgeted in FY 2011, but not expected to be spent, are included in Proposed Budget for FY 2012. 3 35 of 47 Budget FY2012 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY FY 2012 Capital Budget Request Last Updated: 4/1/2011 Account No.: 1852-10 Department: Engineering Location: Other Contact Name: Wayne Winsor Request Type: PRP Title: Provo River Project(PRP)Capital Description: This budget item reflects costs paid to Provo River Water Users Association for the construction of Deer Creek Dam,the Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project,and other PRP capital improvements. Justification: Capital improvments. Budget: Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Amount PRWUA capital assessment(per share) 61,700 $ 7.44 $ 459,048 Deer Creek Dam(per share) 61,700 $ 2.085 $ 128,645 PRCEP assessment(cash portion) 1 $ 1,027,727 $ 1,027,727 • PRCEP assessment(debt portion) 1 $ 1,449,818 $ 1,449,818 FY 2012 Capital Budget $ 3,065,238 Fiscal Year Summary:(multi-year projects) Current Budget Budget Remaining (FY 2011) (FY 2010) (FY 2013-FY 2020) Total Project N/A $ 3,065,238 ongoing $ 3,065,238 Notes: The total project amount may not equal the sum of the Spent,Current Budget, Proposed Budget,and Remaining columns. Costs budgeted in FY 2011,but not expected to be spent,are included in Proposed Budget for FY 2012. Capital assessments may vary annually. • 36 of 47 Budget FY2012 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE& SANDY AI%. FY 2012 Capital Budget Request Last Updated: 3/5/2011 Account No.: 1853-10 Department: Engineering Location: Other Contact Name: Wayne Winsor Request Type: CUP Title: Central Utah Project(CUP)Capital Description: This budget item reflects costs paid to Central Utah Water Conservancy District for the construction of Jordanelle Dam and other related improvements for the Bonneville Unit Municipal and Industrial system. Justification: Capital improvments. Budget: Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Amount CUP allotment payment(per acre foot) 20,000 $ 148.56 $ 2,971,200 Ask FY 2012 Capital Budget $ 2,971,200 Fiscal Year Summary: (multi-year projects) Current Budget Budget Remaining (FY 2011) (FY 2010) (FY 2013-FY 2048) Total Project N/A $ 2,971,200 ongoing N/A Notes: N/A 37 of 47 Budget FY2012 Staffing and Compensation Schedule I.Staffing Levels The chart below reflects the historical and projected staffing levels. Department FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Administration 6 6 5 Maintenance Department 33 33 17 Information Services 13 13 14 Environmental Services 10 9 20 Engineering 5 5 9 Temporary/Intem 1 1 1 Seasonal Grounds Worker 1 1 1 Totals 69 68 67 Changes in the Maintenance department(formerly called Operation&Maintenance Department)affected the distribution of staff in the Maintenance,Environmental Services, and Engineering departments. The Operations Department has 10 operators and one supervisor. These employees have been reassigned to the Environmental Services Department,which increased the overall staff level from 9 to 20. The Engineering department increased four FTEs to a total of 9 employees. These additional employees will assist with maintaining and licensing the Salt Lake and Point of the Mountain Aqueduct corridors. The District has determined to reduce the staffing level by one FTE by eliminating the General Office Clerk position in the Administration department.This position has not been filled and the District does not foresee a need for this position. The following organizational chart(Attachment A)represents the proposed staffing levels. Last Updated:4/1/11 Page I Attachment A Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake&Sandy Board of Trustees John Kirkham Chair Proposed Organizational Chart Fiscal Year 2012 Tom Godfrey Vice Chair Lee Kapaloski Secretary Donald Milne Kathy Loveless Patricia Cornwell Dave Buhler General Manager (Treasurer) Mike Wilson Assistant GM/Information Environmental Services Engineering Manager Maintenance Manager Services Manager Manager Wayne Wnsor Steve Stocking Mike DeVries Claudia Wheeler Fred Larsen Fred Strickland I� I Maintenance Supervisor Suppo errvces Administrative Operations Supervisor SupervisorSupervisor(Clerk). Supervisor I&E Supervisor Ammon Allen Duane Mitchell Matt Tietie Annalee Munsey Ryan Nicholas Scot Collier Dellin Ewell Lynn Coon — Joey Luna T Olson Troyoy SimmonsSi Jeremy Williamson Susi Paiz Russell Brunch Gordon Cook Emily Dickey Darel Gagon Steve Slack O&M Tech I O&M Tech Ill Sonya Shepherd Heather Cockrell Ken Fritz Wall Donaldson Brett Goodwin Tom Williamson James Brooks Blake Burch Darin Klemin Mike Hone Iwona Goodley Brice Meier Terry Worley Jerry Kimball Danny Hall Mark Otleaon Bryan Montague Colin Hirayama Orlando Montoya Grounds worker Uzeir Ramulic Jonathan Jeffries Linn Wang Gordon Smith Stan Hoffman Ron Payne • Hall Miller Jeff Matheson Michael Reese 0&M Tech II Zack Oldham Cinnamon Smith Andy Reidling Ed Brown Jonathan Peters Eric Sorensen Mark Servela Jimmy Cappo Dave Roth Nathan Scown Jake McGill Ricky Velez Pat Tom r Filled Open Total Full Time Positions 65 0 65 Temporary/Seasonal 1 I 2 Totals 66 1 67 Last Updar '/03/11 ( ) Staffine and Compensation Schedule II.Benefits The District offers employees a benefits package which requires a significant financial contribution on the part of the District. For more information regarding the specific plans, please refer to the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake&Sandy Policies and Procedures manual. In addition to those mandated by law,the District voluntarily provides the following benefits: • Dental Insurance • Health Insurance • Flex Spending Accounts(Dental,Vision,and Dependent Care Expenses) • Health Savings Accounts • Educational Assistance • Life Insurance • Accidental Death and Dismemberment • Long Term Disability • Long Term Care • Retirement Program(Utah Retirement Systems or URS) • • 401(k),457,and Roth Retirement Savings Plans and Matching Program(via URS) • Sick Leave • Vacation Leave • Personal Leave • Employee Assistance Program • Employee Wellness Program The following table(Attachment B)reflects calendar year 2011 current District benefit facts with projections for calendar year 2012. O Last Updated:4/1/11 Page 3 IMMIF Attachment B District Benefit Facts Total Current Enrollment Medical Single Family Double Enrolled Enrolled Select Health 9 36 20 65 100% Open Positions 0 0 0 0 0% Employees Without 0 0 0 0 0% Total 9 36 20 65 100% Medical Insurance Premiums(monthly) Single Family Double Total Monthly Select Health $ 239.90 $ 671.80 $ 496.70 Multiplied by enrollment status $ 2,159.10 $ 24,184.80 $ 9,934.00 $ 36,277.90 Health Savings Account(monthly) Single Family Double Total Monthly Health Equity $ 254.17 $ 512.50 $ 512.50 Multiplied by enrollment status $ 2,287.50 $ 18,450.00 $ 10,250.00 $ 30,987.50 Total Current Enrollment Dental Single Family Double Enrolled Enrolled Mutual of Omaha 9 37 19 65 100% Open Positions 0 0 0 0 0% Employees Without 0 0 0 0 0% Total 9 37 19 65 100% Dental Premiums(monthly) Single Family Double Total Monthly Mutual of Omaha $ 42.02 $ 78.43 $ 54.24 Multiplied by enrollment status $ 378.18 $ 2,901.91 $ 1,030.56 $ 4,310.65 Life Insurance,AD&D,LTC,LTD,EAP,Other Total Monthly Total Employees 65 Basic Life($50,000) $ 10.00 Basic Life (spouse and dependents) $ 1.36 Basic AD&D($250,000) $ 7.50 Long-term care(average amount) $ 10.24 Long-term disability(average amount) $ 14.64 Flexible Spending Account Fee $ 2.80 Health Savings Account Fee $ 2.25 Monthly Total $ 48.79 Monthly total multiplied by total employees $ 3,171.35 Totals Actual Monthly Totals Medical/HSA/Dental/Other S 74,747.40 Actual Annual Total Medical/HSA/Dental/Other $ 896,968.80 Medical: estimated FY 2012 total increase based on 15%increase on 1/1/12 $ 32,650.11 Health Savings: estimated FY 2012 total increase based on 0%increase on 1/1/12 $ - Dental: estimated FY 2011 total increase based on 7%increase on 1/1/12 $ 1,810.47 Other: estimated FY 2012 total increase based on 0%increase on 1/1/12 $ - FY2012 Estimated Budget $ 931,429.38 3.84% Last Updated: 03/23/11 Page 4 Staffing and Compensation Schedule III.Job Grades&Salary Ranges The attached job grades and salary ranges sheet(Attachment C)incorporates a traditional pay structure with current District positions. The District is proposing a 1.0%salary structure adjustment based on the information compiled from the 37th Annual Salary Budget Survey 2010-2011 by World at Work. The salary adjustment would maintain the District's position to provide competitive compensation. IV. Skill-Based Pay The District continues to support a skill-based pay program to allow for workforce flexibility and cross training. The skill-based pay program encourages employees to learn additional skills in order to increase their productivity and efficiency. Pay increases are given based upon increased knowledge,skill,and ability. O Last Updated:4/1/11 Page 5 Attachment C PROPOSED JOB GRADES AND SALARY RANGES FISCAL YEAR 2011 TRADITIONAL PAY STRUCTURE • - 2e,:1.19tirlisSitlaivpame ... _ ("210 Annual Salary Ranee Range Grade Grade Position Description Spread Increment E/NE Minimum Midpoint Maximum ''F is0: . ::101.6 y iccp 1 Groundsworker 20% 15% NE 19,219 21,134 23,067 94 _ -'J16>II:':_' 1274_� 2 Intern 20% 15% NE 22,090 24,294 26,499 -1'1:•68'« 13.43 15.18. 3 Operations and Maintenance(O&M)Tech I 30% 15% NE 24,294 27,934 31,574 13.43' 15.44^ .17.416 4 Reserved( ) 30% 15% NE 27,934 32,115 36,317 4504t r ._17•76 `--.t.20_Q7 5 O&M Tech II 30% 15% NE 32,115 36,941 41,746 . 20 42 .23.83 6 O&M Tech III 40% 15% NE 35,402 42,474 49,566 Aqueduct Inspector 35,402 42,474 49,566 Lab Technician 35,402 42,474 49,566 7 O&M Tech IV 40% 15% NE 40,706 48,838 56,992 Procurement Analyst 40,706 48,838 56,992 Planner-Scheduler 40,706 48,838 56,992 Control System Tech 40,706 48,838 56,992 Geographical Information System Technician 40,706 48,838 56,992 "_ '.,22;5Q ;, 27.00 315(1`F 8 Information Technology Analyst 40% 15% NE 46,800 56,160 65,520 Journeyman Electrician 46,800 56,160 65,520 Environmental Services Specialist I 46,800 56,160 65,520 :2 , 1 05 " 136.23 9 Maintenance Supervisor 40% 15% E 53,830 64,584 75,358 Operations Supervisor 53,830 64,584 75,358 Systems Administrator 53,830 64,584 75,358 Environmental Services Specialist II 53,830 64,584 75,358 Instrumentation&Electrical Supervisor 53,830 64,584 75,358 Accountant 53,830 64,584 75,358 10 Information Technology Supervisor 50% 15% E 59,426 74,277 89,149 Project Engineer 59,426 74,277 89,149 Support Services Supervisor 59,426 74,277 89,149 Administrative Supervisor 59,426 74,277 89,149 i 32:86 41.07 49.29 11 Maintenance Manager 50% 15% E 68,349 85,426 102,523 Environmental Services Manager 68,349 85,426 102,523 Engineering Manager 68,349 85,426 102,523 _37 7 47.23 :" f. 56 6'7 12 Assistant General Manager/Information Services Manager 50% 15% E 78,582 98,238 117,874 43.45, 54.31,_: Y y65.,18 13 General Manager 50% 15% E 90,376 112,965 135,574 E=Exempt(salaried)/NE=Non-exempt(hourly) 0 Last Upated:3/31/2011 Page 6 vow • Staffing and Compensation Schedule V. Wage and Salary Statistics The FY2012 Budget includes a 2%merit increase. Fiscal Year 2012 Salary Review Comparison 3 year 2010 2011 2012 Date Entity Average Total Total Total Merit COLA Applied Salt Lake CityPublic Utilities 1.37% -1.50% 1.50% 4.10% 2.10% 2.00% Proposed FY 2012 Sandy City 0.67% 0.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Proposed FY 2012 Jordan ValleyWater Conservancy District 1.87% 3.00% 0.00% 2.60% 2.60% 0.00% Proposed FY onservanc Y 2012 Weber Basin Water ConservancyDistrict 2.70% 3.50% 2.60% 2.00% 2.00% 0.00°/ Approved Jan 2011 Provo River Water Users Association 1.67% 3.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% N/A Approved Nov 2010 • Central Utah Water ConservancyDistrict 0.75% 0.00% 0.00% 2.25% 2.25% N/A Proposed FY 2012 Average 1.50% 1.33% 1.02% 2.16% 1.83% 0.50% Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake& 0.67% 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% N/A Proposed FY Sandy 2012 Consumer Price Index Source(Jan.1-Dec.31,2010) The Consumer Price Index measures U.S.City Average(U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics) 1.5% change in prices paid by urban consumer U.S.City Size 50,000-1,500,000(U.S.Bureau of for a representative basket of goods and Labor Statistics) 1.5% services. Zions Bank Wasatch Front(Nov 2009-Nov 2010) 1.0% Employment Cost Index U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics(Jan.1-Dec.31,2010) The Employment Cost Index is a measure State and local government 1.2% in the change in the cost of labor. The West compensation series includes the changes in wages and salaries. 2011 Projected Salary Budget Increases World at Work 37th Annual Salary Budget Survey The projected Salary Budget Increases is a All Employee Categories 2.9% combination of General/COLA,Merit,and Utah 2.9% other increases. Salary Structure Adjustments World at Work 37th Annual Salary Budget Surve All Employee Categories 11.9% Last Updated:4/6/11 Page 7 ICI Staffing and Compensation Schedule VI. Conclusion Based on the proposed 2%merit increase to wages,retirement increases, unemployment tax increases, and projected increases to health and dental benefits,the total District budget increases by$138,695. The various components are broken down as follows: $84,108.00 Wages $1,810.00 Dental Benefit $32,650.00 Health Benefit $6,058.00 Unemployment Tax $14,069.00 Utah Retirement In addition,the elimination of the General Office Clerk position and overall reduction of one FTE is an annual cost savings of$55,000. Based on the above,the net increase in personnel costs to the District is estimated to be $83,695.00 or 0.61%of the overall O&M Budget(excluding interest costs). Last Updated:4/1/11 Page 8 !quo River Project Watersheds and Upper Basin Collection System ' Z � J GREAT SALT LAKE 1 1) l� 1 i J i I I r ' i� (1 1 I nY.9�a�—� w "API E , 1 1 —_- - ^� \; Salt L.Y.City j ,i i Little Ilell Dam �� \IDESIGN CAPACITY: .lord:in Aqueduct lieoh INo.a� It FACILRIEr�S:OAC-FT - _(11224-fool N'h 'DESIGN CAPACITY: y1 D i y 120 CFS ITB MGDI pp sw•mSell L.Y I dI (2)Oultel Spillway em ' —' / ld• FACILITIES: Iry '�(1)4am0n Plpe / " ,'�II — Terminal 6esennir 'co \ I_ _ DESIG NCAPACIY: • e I _ - ^—� I __ MG _ JDrdanr le 6�Nr Tnir ••same FET: : M 360, In i AC l FACILITIES,lyear yi eld:•'WOSLS Is 20,•.• 0-PT j ll 1 awo South OESION LAPACITY� (1}Darn 11 1TSC',"se„ MGD) 12)LanO,••Reservpu I I 13)ONbI WOMB:nd SpilWey I / FACIL(1)69 RECREATION USE: 11)figlnOh Concrete Pape 1 \ I `/ ( m (2)Alpine Tunnel Managed byT rateP' .Recreel • saoo swm I ®w : o)Krbua Walled Steel Siphons DUTL 300 CFS CAPA I \ (4)42 Miles Total Length Pell Clry 1 16 (5)33 Mites Untreated Water SPILLWAY CAPACITY! Y i ¢ (0)9 Miles Treated Water 5.510 CFS te 1 c ; Bureau of Reclamation Feclllry • M1' ,d Operated by Central Utah Web Con ancy Terminal Reservoir i m A•°m•. troll•' ion Umen Et• s / •• DESIGN CAPACITY: Saud •— I Lillie fnllonnood\{:der Treatment Plant \• 00 MG FACILITIES: / = I DESIGN CAPACITY: 2P MWDSLS 28 MG 1 moo 4 't 14]MGD m a. �� l� Nm 11 • LA 4 Jordan Aqueduct Oraeh No.2 1 •.. `I DESIGN CAPACITY:MG 1 'e �20CFS 11 T5 MGD) 1 Sandy City (1))0-loco Pipe ? ;0141 - Ilrrrlrr 611;1 R srnair1,000 South Pipeline ..:: :, - DESIGN PACITY: ° fDESIGN CAPACITY: y •3N AC-FT O49.200 AL-F 33 MOD(Graviy) 2,054 ACTT -ad Pod�l F GA MOD(POMP Sleeve Klwel Point of the Mountain 4ar009C- Over $05:MWDSLS 100.000 AC c:Mon Sh ref I Iq DESIGN CAP(Treated\later) Normal yea mid to MWDSL'is 61,700 ACTT rout of the 1lnunlain FACILITIES) DESIGNOCAPACITY: 11)Dam lgnrdnrlQDire let\{tiler) nnrosomM1(creviy)-1oDMOD (2)Lend Are dReseroir /` SOYIh ro Na1M1 IPumDetll-SO MOD DESIGN CAPACITY: ® FACILITIES: ;4;Outlet eAeuaduct nleFe • 151 MOD (t)80.1ncb Welded Steel Pipe FACILITIES: El (2)12 Mites in Length / RECR• •Ill USE:Faaleyl / \ (1)25 inch Pipe / • enped Ey Ulan Slate P:• S Recreation(215Miln�n Lengl: Point of Alta MountainOU •ET WORKS CAPACITY: 4 Water Treat men!Plant ILLWAY CAPACITY: 5 DESIGN CAPACITY: 12,,000 CFS .Jordan Taller Rader Trealn . 'lentLA TD McO• , �© a a rR.d IfonF Feel (Provo River Project) rated by Provo Rivera t Users Association DESIGN CAPACITY: • 00 MGDS • �' 10 MWO LS 51 MGD • ` ota .Jordan.Aqueduct heath No.l / Q DESIGN ignrdoCAPACITY: 2ro CPS(125 MOD) . • Provo Reservoir oir Canal FACILITIES)E'hPipe ,� - \\•• .Jordan Aqueduct Beach\o.I / Ilea I.reek I'o3rrrhousr C IS DESIGN CAPACITY: I DESIGN CAPACITY: • 2x0 LF51115 MOM FACILITIES: FACILITIES: MWDSLS SERVICE AREA �' `� II)r2-Inch s 5a-info Welded Steel Pipe , a)szeTS kW Generators Olmsted Siphon 4Z' 5 LAW 0 in .T ❑1 DEER CREEK DAM • 2 'C°• • ❑2 MURDOCK DIVERSION 0 I'roroltesen»irCanal System \� 1 •i IC%'rsi I ❑3 OLMSTED TUNNEL&SIPHON DESIGN CAPACITY: © DESIGN CFS cm: ' 3 �50 CFS Joy. 550 CFS Heed FACILITIES: ' rs ®POINT OF THE MOUNTAIN 350 CFS Jordan Narrows © nl D'wersion Dam WATER TREATMENT PLANT INTAKE SCREENS FACIL1 ot 2 (11 5 miles of canal appmsimaley AJORDAN NARROWS INTAKE&SIPHON (2)4 miles ll^aa jII f J� ©JORDAN NARROWS TURBINE&PUMPING PLANT 131 cnepY. \ �'�b",�f�- \ f;7 ID ALPINE DRAPER TUNNEL(Salt Lake Aqueduct) • Q MURRAY POWER PLANT INTAKE UTAH LAKE • P1OVe I 09 LITTLE COTTONWOOD&BELL CANYON CREEK INTAK Provo River' Li LITTLE COTTONWOOD WATER TREATMENT PLANT • • ❑n 10 MG RESERVOIR • • LI TERMINAL RESERVOIR 13 POINT OF THE MOUNTAIN WATER TREATMENT PLANT SYSTEM FAC I TI E LI OLMSTED DIVERSION 15 JORDAN VALLEY WATER TREATMENT PLANT Metroppolitan Water District Li 100 MG TERMINAL RESERVOIR 0 LITTLE DELL RESERVOIR of Salt Lake & Sandy y tr ...... 11MtM�f'. Sflea,F21NlA4-2001_vbll DISiovIMADSIS-Mlem Fad!as MEMORANDUM DATE: May 3,2011 SUBJECT: METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE&SANDY, Annual Budget,Fiscal Year 2011-12 STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver CC: David Everitt,Mike Wilson,Mike DeVries,Jeff Niermeyer,Tom Ward,Jim Lewis, Gina Chamness,Randy Hillier,Ed Rutan,Rusty Vetter The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake&Sandy(the"District")was created in 1935 by the voters of Salt Lake City in order to provide for additional water management and treatment options from sources in the Salt Lake Valley.In 1990,Sandy City became the second member of the District. Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake&Sandy Proposed Bud•et for FY 2011-12 Percent Ado•ted i ?c ,._�.1_i,,;,; Difference Chance Water sales&other $13,986,158 ' .,r,1 465,321 3.3% o.eratin.revenue ICEEMIME 9,354,819 154,819 MIME EIEN 220 676 36,420 -16.5% Lab fees,power and 808,103 (739,927) -91.6% miscellaneous 1 9,100 IZEME 12,067 105 i r:`i: 0.2% $36 436 861 1.11111111.1111 EIMCIMIEMNIM 0•erations Salaries wa.es&benefits $5,423 080 78,350 1.4% Professional&contractual 2,452,860 (176,771) -7.2% services EMIZZEI 1,348 569 • r 265 128 MIRCUE 52.8% 1,861 080 30 281 -1.6% Property&liability insurance 514,754 2,269 0.4% • - 28,938 5.6% EIMOTEDMITSED $ 12 380 958 113 688 0.9% 131 1,078 340 MIEFECOMME Debt service •rinci.al onl 3 844 700 2 472 300 64.3% EMMEMIZEIEOZIEn 437 304 -3.6% Capital improvements & 4,012,479 12,313,184 306.9% E.ui.ment ota uses o undsj -'..j 14,486,977 43.2% The District collects property tax revenue from Salt Lake and Sandy City residents,water sales revenue from the Cities and other surplus customers,and capital assessment revenue from each City to pay the debt service on master planned capital improvements.Through its various memberships,ownership,and agreements the District receives water from Little Cottonwood Canyon,Bell Canyon,Deer Creek Reservoir,Provo Reservoir nal,Jordanelle Reservoir,Strawberry Reservoir(future),and other sources.(A map of the District system d facilities is attached.In addition,more information is provided in the"Background"Section at the end of this report.) PUBLIC PROCESS&COUNCIL SCHEDULE: Although the Council is not required to take any official action on the District's annual budget, the Council has traditionally received a briefing. The Board of the District reviews the budget and adopts the tentative budget at their Board Meetings,which are open to the public. The Board also separately holds a budget public hearing and adoption. Unless the Council requests a follow-up discussion,this briefing will be the only step of the Salt Lake City Council's involvement. The Sandy City Council also reviews the budget in a briefing. KEY ELEMENTS The tentative budget for 2011-12 is relatively flat from the current year, with operating expenses increasing overall by$113,688 or 0.9%. A few key items included in the District's proposed budget are listed below. • Revenues - the District's primary revenue sources are property taxes, water sales, and member cities' capital assessments among other various smaller revenue sources. o No property tax increase - Property Tax revenues represent 25% of the District's revenues. In years when the property values were growing, the District utilized the Truth in Taxation process to keep their certified tax rate steady at 0.00035.This allowed the District to collect more revenues as the assessed value of homes within their taxing boundaries rose. However,over the past few years,as the assessed value of properties has declined at a significant enough pace,the District has allowed the certified tax rate to be automatically adjusted, since per State Statute, the District is guaranteed to receive at least the same amount of revenue as the previous year. Based on current assessed values, the certified tax rate is estimated at 0.0004. The maximum rate that the District can impose is 0.0005. o Water Sales - The District sells water to member Cities and to other entities. The revenues from these sales make up 40% of the District's revenues. The rate per acre foot of water is proposed to increase by 3%. The District charges variable rates between summer purchases and winter purchases. o Lab fees, power - Last year, the budget included receipt of shared engineering fees for work on the Utah Lake pumping plant.That revenue was based on a one-year project. • Operating Costs- o Salary increases - the District has proposed a 2% merit increase and 1% increase toward salary structure adjustment(to keep ranges competitive with market). Over the past two years,in part due to the Council's request, the District did not include any salary adjustments. The District has been responsive to the City's requests to mirror salary adjustments. The Council will receive information on whether the City has planned salary adjustments on May 3 during the Mayor's budget presentation. o Benefits costs - the total increase for employee benefits is $54,400; a 3.7% increase to the benefits budget. The District anticipates increases in health benefits and retirement costs on January 1, 2012. Medical costs are estimated to increase 15% and dental by 7%. The District pays the 100% of the premiums on medical and dental coverage for each District employee. In addition, a Health Savings Account, life insurance, disability coverage, and retirement programs with matching options are provided. o Staffing - the District is eliminating a vacant General Office Clerk position and restructuring other work groups. Eliminating the vacant position will save the District approximately $55,000. The restructuring involves shifting several employees from the former Operations & Maintenance Department to Engineering or Environmental Services. This restructuring will not affect the budget. • Legislative Changes - During the 2010 Legislative Session, a bill was adopted that chang provisions for Local Districts, including metropolitan water districts. The most significant change was to shift the authority for tax increase approval to elected officials. For the District, this presents two options: approval by the member cities' governing bodies or transitioning the District appointed board positions to elected positions. The change affects budgets beginning in May 2014. If the District proposes a property tax increase, both Sandy City and Salt Lake City Councils must vote to approve the increase. To plan for the taxing changes and/or changes to revenues from water sales, the District has engaged with member city representatives to discuss a 5- or 10-year plan for revenue strategies. The general direction seems to maintain a balance between property tax and water sales revenues. • Profrssional &Contract Services decrease-The decrease to contract services is due to the reduction in the payment to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District for operations and less usage related to the Jordan Aqueduct system. There is also a reduction in funds toward an IT master plan. • Repairs &Maintenance increase-There is an increase in the Repairs&Maintenance budget primarily for a project to remove solids from the drying beds at the Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant. • Capital Projects - the District has increased their capital budget for 2011-12 by $12 million over the current year. Debt service payments will also increase due to the issuance of new bonds. o Terminal Reservoir replacement project - Located at 3300 South and I-215, this 40-million gallon reservoir is nearly 60 years old and slated for replacement. The design phase for the project is nearing completion, and construction is anticipated to take six years, without • interruption to Salt Lake City service. The District proposes bonding in two phases for this project. The proposed capital budget for 2011-12 for this project is$4.6 million. The total project is estimated at$30 million o Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project- Included as a component of the capital budget, $2.5 million will fund costs related to the Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure project. After several years of coordination, the project began in 2010-11. The total enclosure project is approximately $150 million,of which the District's portion is about$25 million. o Other projects include the Utah Lake Pump station replacement project, Salt Lake Aqueduct improvements,and some fleet replacements. • Salt Lake City's Contributions-a snapshot: As a member city,Salt Lake City directly contributes approximately$24 million annually toward the Metropolitan Water District Budget.This budgetary relationship is similar for Sandy City however, their assessments and purchases are proportionately less, due to their smaller population size and cost allocations based on cost of service.These payments include: a. $ 7,021,892 An annual assessment to pay for master planned capital projects included in the Public Utilities Department Budget each year(through 2035). opoi b. $10,379,457 Anticipated annual wholesale water purchase from the District for re-sale through the Public Utilities water service. It is included in the Public Utilities Department Budget. This represents a 3% rate increase. c. $ 6,322,500 Property taxes assessed to Salt Lake City residents. (Not including fees in lieu of taxes, or prior year tax revenues.) 3 QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. The Council may wish to ask about future major projects that the District is planning. 2. The Council may wish to ask about the bonding market for the District and how the portfolio may be managed differently. BACKGROUND In 1935,the voters of Salt Lake City created the Metropolitan Water District in order to enter into long-term agreements to build the Provo River Project including Deer Creek Reservoir. The Bureau of Reclamation built the project,and it was necessary to enter into repayment contracts to reimburse the federal government for the construction costs plus interest. The Metropolitan Water District is a 61.7%owner of the Provo River Project. The water rights for the Provo River Project consist of water from the Provo River and water diverted from the Duchesne and Weber Rivers conveyed through a tunnel and canal system from the two basins to the Provo River for use by the Metropolitan Water District and others. In order to reimburse the Federal Government for the cost of the Provo River Project and Deer Creek Reservoir, the residents of Salt Lake City have paid property taxes since 1935. The District is a participant in the Central Utah Project having petitions for combined water supplies of 25,600 acre feet from Jordanelle and Strawberry reservoirs. The Metropolitan Water District was a local sponsor for the construction of Little Dell Reservoir. (A map of the District system and facilities is attached.) In 1990,Sandy City became the second member of the District. Sandy City sought membership in the District to treat its approximately 34 percent water right in Little Cottonwood Creek. Sandy City's annexation in the District increased efficiencies by consolidating water supplies and delivery systems to most of eastern Salt Lake County. As part of the agreement,the District receives water purchase revenue and ad valorem tax`) revenue from Sandy City. Furthermore,as a part of the annexation Salt Lake City acquired additional water rights in Little Dell Reservoir and$4 million in water transmission mains installed on the City's west side. Also,the 1990 agreement admitting Sandy City established conjunctive water management practices among Salt Lake City,Sandy City,Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District and the Metropolitan Water District. In 1998,the Metropolitan Water District updated its capital improvement master plan and identified more than$250 million in improvements and expansion of water system capacity. In 2001,the District entered into an Interlocal Agreement with Sandy and Salt Lake City for implementation of the master plan.The major project constructed under the master plan was a new water treatment plant near the Point of the Mountain in the Draper area. The master plan improves redundancy in the event of a water treatment plant or aqueduct failure. Improvements include pipeline connections between the Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant, the Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant,and the Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant. This will allow flexibilities in shifting water between major north-south pipelines. The extensive water treatment and delivery functions allow the District to provide water to both member cities through purchase agreements,and sales to other entities,as water is available. The District's Board is made up of two members appointed by the Sandy City Council and five members appointed by the Salt Lake City Council. 1111 DECEIVE : SLC COUNCIL. Or-t=);;r The City Library THE SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM Date April 27, 2011 To: Mayor Ralph Becker David Everitt, Chief of Staff Members of the City Council From: Beth Elder, Director /'>- Re: City Library FY 2011-12 Budget and other matters Please find attached the FY 2011-12 budget request for the City Library. The following items require consideration for approval by the Mayor and City Council. 1. Approval of the FY 2011-12 Operating and Capital Budget (approved by the Library Board on April 21, 2011) Libraries are experiencing great change throughout the U.S. More and more, people are accessing information and communicating via mobile devices. The City Library is supplying content to patrons using their kindles, nooks or I-Pads. The Library's Strategic Plan recognizes the powerful role the Library can play in giving people the tools to make Salt Lake City an even better place to live. We are doing this by balancing traditional library services with opportunities to serve as a platform for community-created content, a center for stimulating dialogue on important issues and a source for the ever-changing information needs of the community. The Library's new web site (slcpl.org) is groundbreaking in re-envisioning how Library services can be navigated and utilized. Many of our resources are within our resident's fingertips no matter where they are. The SLCPL continues to be a leader in innovation and a center of activity. Given FY 2010-11 revenues were estimated conservatively and came in at higher than anticipated levels,The City Library will be cautiously optimistic in forecasting FY 2011-12 revenues. To accomplish the Library's vision described in its Strategic Plan, revenues reflecting an increase of approximately $150,000 along with funds created by a variety of small efficiencies will make it possible to allocate funds in FY 2011-12 as follows: Staffing in management and support service functions has been reduced to place more people in direct contact with the public. ,.lain Library Anderson-Foothill Chapman w Day-Riverside Sprague Corinne&Jack Sweet 210 East 400 South 1135 South 2100 East 577 South 900 West 1575 West 1000 North 2131 South 1100 East 455"F"Street Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Utah 84111 Utah 84108 Utah 84104 z Utah 84116 Utah 84106 Utah 84103 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 Hearing impaired:801-364-4669 ,' F:801-322-8181 F:801-322-8180 x F:801-322-8182 F:801-322-8183 F:801-322-8184 F:801-322-8194 A compensation and benefits study will be initiated to determine if salary/benefits and staffing allocations for personnel are consistent with other comparable libraries. An important strategic initiative to prepare Library employees for the future,called Building the Culture, will be initiated with the budget reflecting a substantial increase in funding for training. This training will provide professional leadership and management skills, training in managing change and creating optimal operating environments. Overall, the training will enhance the professional level of all staff. Public programming will see an increase in funding as audience demand and attendance continues to grow. With the Leonardo opening in 2011, there are numerous opportunities to create a cultural campus for associated events and learning opportunities. Experiments in early 2010 indicate an increase in expenditures for downloadable materials is advisable. The variety of downloadable books, movies and music will be expanded. The new website will make it possible for the Library to be even more transparent with plans, Library Board decisions, Library operating activities and finances. A transparency initiative will be funded to make many more documents instantly accessible to the public. Improvements to technology will create opportunities to automate and reduce repetitive tasks. Potential phase one implementation of a new RFID system (to replace an obsolete ten-year old system) Libraries in Glendale and Marmalade have completed a great deal of community input and planning processes. Design will follow final site approval with construction expected to begin for both branches in this fiscal year. An analysis will be performed of any needed improvements to the Chapman Library 2. Approval of a tax rate increase for the Marmalade Library Construction (approved by the Library Board on April 21, 2011) As per the Council's 2009 legislative intent, a tax rate increase is being requested to fund the construction of the Marmalade Branch Library at 300 West/500 North. This project will serve as Phase One for an RDA planned mixed-use development. The estimated rate increase is .0000383%, to generate $645,000 annually to service sale tax bonds for a twenty-year period. The Library's current tax rate is .000791% and State law provides for a ceiling of.001%. The new tax rate would be .000829%, well within the cap. This increase represents a cost of$5.50/year on a home valued at$260,890 and $38.30 on a business valued at $1m. • Marmalade Branch costs are based on general estimates, as follows: Land Acquisition $ 700,000 Construction ($235 x 20,000 sf) $4,700,000 Collection ($20 x 100,000 items) $2,000,000 Furnishings ($35 x 20,000 sf) $ 700,000 Consulting (8%) $ 376,000 Technology $ 250,000 Art, Landscaping, Misc. $ 210,000 $8,936,000 3. Approval of the Glendale Library site at Concord and California Streets. (approved by the Library Board on April 21, 2011) The Glendale Library Steering Committee (comprised of Library Board representatives, residents and Library personnel) led a process for selecting the Glendale Library site were. Steps in the process included: May-August, 2010-Community engagement with site options by architectural firm, CRSA October, 2010-Elimination of several sites due to restrictions December, 2010-Consideration of a new site at 900 South 1000 West suggested by the City's Community and Economic Development Dept. as a potential link with a future streetcar line. February, 2011-Presentation of the 900 South option to Mayor and City Council to determine if there was a compelling interest to site the library at this location (Mayor and Council did not indicate a preference for the 900 South location). April, 2011-Review of an independent assessment of the 900 South property by CRSA. Due to a large number of issues that would require resolution, the, Steering Committee voted 7 to 1 to recommend the "North" property at Concord and California. 4. Approval of the Marmalade Library site at 300 West between 500 and 600 North in collaboration with the RDA(approved by the Library Board on March 17, 2011) A Joint RDA/City Library Vision Statement for the development at 300 West/500 North This mixed-use development, a collaboration between the RDA, development partners and the City Library will be located along 300 West between 500 North and 600 North. The development, with the Marmalade Library serving as an anchor, will revitalize, activate and create a central gathering place for several neighborhoods including Marmalade, Capitol Hill, Guadalupe, Rose Park and Swedetown.The development will provide a way for residents to connect with each other and to find their everyday needs met by co-located services. Retail might include dining, a coffee shop, an artisanal/local market or a drug store. Housing and office or studio space could also be a component of the design. The development will highlight the unique character of the neighborhood and be a source of pride and a center of activity for those arriving on foot, bike or by car. There will be both indoor and outdoor gathering spaces which will provide opportunities for meetings, performances, concerts, dining or children's activities. The Marmalade Library, as the first tenant, will create excitement and serve as a catalyst for the development's overall identity, attracting compatible mixed-use partners which will evolve with market and design imperatives. The Library will be presenting these items at the May 3 Council work session. Please let me know if we can be helpful with any further detail. '---‘111A. ' .,;ilk ........7z...................•tit ! .,,. It' 1 id _ _ ' tf rti" . -:--- rr . -•--,,-.. it ... • ' ' 11 > tillti\r ' . _ -rr ;',. -. 1 9{ .z. % - Ili r.r. r Il -" . I ' W t '.r, �ith ? The City Library ,, . . , OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET ' FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 The City Library , lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllip • • • • P • • The City Library • TILE SALT LAPP CAT.PUBLICLIBRARY=.S,rM • April 2011 City Council Members,Mayor Becker and Residents of Salt Lake City: • • The Salt Lake City Library continues to be a center of community activity and collaboration,a • source of information for entertainment and enlightenment and a symbol of openness and ideas. • For the last three years,usage at the City Library has shown rapid growth: • •Circulation has increased more than 10%to 3,800,287 items checked out. • • •Circulation per capita at 20.3 items per person is more than double the national average of 9.09. • •Visits to City Library locations are estimated at over 3.86 million per year,outpacing the national • average by 4 tol. • • •With over 964,000 items,The City Library has double the materials for check out per capita than other libraries of its size. P •The Library offered 2,162 programs for adults and children that drew a total of 82,200 attendances. • •Library meeting rooms were booked over 3,000 times for community meetings and events. • • •Library computers continued to experience heavy use,if all the hours of computer use last year • were added together,it would equal 45 years. • •The Salt Lake City Public Library ranks sixth in the Hennen's American Public Library Ranking • which benchmarks libraries of similar population size. • •Locally,the City Library has the highest rating by residents of any City service,scoring 6.33 out of 7. • • The Library is healthy and robust.With the development of new branches well underway,the • Library's role as the cultural center of the community will surely continue to grow. • Sincerely, Sincerely, • Hugh Gillilan Beth Elder • Library Board President Library Director • • Main Library Anderson-Foothill Chapman Day-Riverside Sprague Corinne&Jack Sweet :0210 Fast 400 South 1135 South 2103 East 577 South 900 West 1575 West 1000 North 2131 South 1100 East 455"F"Street Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake CM Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Utah 84111 Utah 84108 Utah 84104 Utah 84116 Utah 84106 Utah 84103 1:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 1:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 1:801-524-8200 • Hearing impaired:801-364-4669 F:801-322-8181 F:801-322-8180 F:801-322.8182 F:801-322-8183 F:801-322-8184 F:801-322-8194 • 1 • • • • Table of pc o nt e nt s Letter From Library Board President • and Director 1 • Mission and Ethics Statements 3 • Library Organization 4 • • Budget Development Timeline 5 • Executive Summary 6 • • Strategic Plan 2009-12 8 • Income and Revenues 10 • • Summary of Operating Budget Expenditures 13 • Personnel • Services • Materials . Buildings and Grounds III Capital Budget Expenditures 23 Timeline Glendale and Marmalade • Branch Construction 25 • Building Descriptions 28 • • Strategic Plan Summary 29 • • • • • • • • • • • b • • 2 • MI • • • Mission "Statement The City Library is a dynamic civic resource that promotes free and open access to • information, materials, and services to all members of the community to advance knowledge, foster creativity, encourage the exchange of ideas, build community, and enhance the • quality of life. • • • Ethics Statement We believe that free and open access to information, ideas and diverse perspectives forms • the foundation of a democratic society. • We promote intellectual freedom and strive to empower our community by facilitating the • information needs of individuals. • We respect our patrons' privacy and honor the trust placed in us. • We engage every patron as an individual with compassion and respect for their uniqueness. • We use our access to library resources judiciously and with honorable intent. • • We hold ourselves accountable for the quality of information and service we provide. We effectively communicate our methods and decision making, in the pursuit of transparency. • We build excellence by supporting our colleagues training, skill-building, education, • personal and professional development. • We continually grow by learning new methods, skills and technologies in order to adapt • to the needs of a changing community. • • We are a collaborative organization that provides a safe environment where staff ideas • or concerns are encouraged and addressed. • • • • • • • • 310 • • 3 a riThe City Library ORGANIZATION CHART THE SALT _AKE CIT'' PUBLIC. IBRRRY S'(STEhM March 28, 2011 Library Board Director Beth Elder Administrative Assistant _ Open I I I I I L Library Exp—Main Library Exp—Branches Information Tech Human Resources Communications Finance & Operations Associate Director Associate Director Manager Assistant Director Manager Associate Director Debbie Ehrman Patty Steed Tebbin Salvesen Open Julianne Hancock Mike Beckstead Exploring Enjoying Life Early Literacy Tech Access j Building Local Solutions/ New Ideas Outcome I Outcome I —I Outcome/Lab II Mktg Media the Culture — —Bridging Divides Outcome I Darrah Rogers Lies' Johnson Gwen Page Outcome/ Relations Outcome II Safi Safiullah Training II Howard Brown L2—Mgr II Anderson- Open g Foothill—Mgr I —Chapman—Mgr II ,_ Computer Browsing/ Brooke Young g Open Services Maintenance Welcome Desk "r Michele Widera — Mgr Mgr II _ BenefitsFranBeighoff Eric lkenouye Day-Riverside I & Payroll Y L4/AV—Mgr I Mgr l _ Sprague—Mgr I Mark Ewing Adriane Juarez Mary Maloney Technical L3/Collection -- — Srvcs—Mgr II Mgr I Becky Butler Lisa Curt Sweet—Mgr II Children's Library Alveeda ...._ Mgr Circ/Call L— Events Lauscher Deanna Romriell — Accounting Center—Mgr Frances Glendale—LT Marmalade—LT Brummett Open Open Grants—as 1 — Funding Allows Branch Cap -tb I I— Leadership Team Positions C Non Leadership Team Functional Areas �—Contract • • • • BUDGET 3111EVELOPMENT TIMELINE • JANUARY • Library administration develops goals and targets for Strategic Outcomes and internal • development projects • FEBRUARY • Outcome leads and managers develop outcome plans for upcoming fiscal year to accomplish • targets—including budgetary needs for staff,programming,technology,equipment and training • MARCH • Library Board reviews preliminary proposed budget revenues and expenditures for next fiscal year,including capital projects • • Budget briefing with Mayor and staff • Budget briefing with City Council staff • • APRIL • Library receives confirmation of property tax revenues • Board approves proposed library budget for next fiscal year 311 City Council office and City Administration receive proposed budget for review • MAY • Library's proposed budget on display at all library public services desks and City Recorder's Office • Proposed budget presented to City Council • • City Council public hearing on proposed budget • JUNE • County provides tax rate to government entities,including library • City Council approves proposed library budget and property tax rate for next fiscal year • • JULY • Library's fiscal year budget effective • AUGUST • Truth-in-taxation hearings for government entities requesting a tax increase • • • • 5 • • • • EXECUTIVE Libraries are experiencing great change throughout the U.S.More and more,people are access- • SUMMARY ing information and communicating via mobile devices.The City Library is now supplying content to patrons via their kindles,nooks or I-Pads.The Library's Strategic Plan recognizes the powerful role the Library can play in giving people the tools and connectivity to make Salt Lake City an even better place to live. By balancing traditional library services with opportunities to serve as a plat- • form for community-created content,a center for stimulating dialogue on important issues and a • source for the ever-changing information needs of the community the Library remains busy and • relevant.The new web site(slcpl.org)is groundbreaking as it re-envisions how library services can be navigated and utilized. Many resources are within resident's fingertips no matter where they • are.The City Library continues to be a leader in innovation and a center of activity. • Given FY 2010-11 revenues came in at budgeted levels,The City Library will be cautiously opti- • mistic in forecasting FY 2011-12 revenues.The large contingency line item will be eliminated in • exchange for a variety of internal controls and monitoring systems to ensure expenditures do not • exceed the budget. • To accomplish the Library's vision described in its Strategic Plan,revenues reflecting an increase • of approximately$150,000 along with funds created by a variety of small efficiencies will make it • possible to allocate funds in FY 2011-12 as follows: • •Staffing in management and support service functions has been reduced to place more • people in direct contact with the public. • •A compensation and benefits study will be initiated to determine if allocations for personnel • are consistent with other comparable libraries. 4 •An important strategic initiative to prepare Library employees for the future,called Building the Culture,will be initiated with a substantial increase in funding for training.This training will • provide professional leadership and management skills,change management and optimizing • operating environments for continual improvement.Overall,the training will enhance the • professional level of all staff. • •Public programming will see an increase in funding as audience demand and attendance - continue to grow.With the Leonardo opening in 2011,there are numerous opportunities to create a cultural campus for associated events and learning opportunities. • • •Experiments in early 2010 indicate an increase in expenditures for downloadable materials • is advisable.The variety of downloadable books,movies and music will be expanded. • •The new web site will make it possible for the Library to be even more transparent with plans, • decisions,operating activities and finances.A transparency initiative will be funded to make • many more documents instantly accessible to the public. • •Improvements to technology will create opportunities to automate and reduce repetitive tasks. • •Libraries in Glendale and Marmalade have completed a great deal of community input and • planning processes.Construction is expected to begin for both branches in this fiscal year. • d • 6 • • • • • • SALT LAKE CITY XUBLIC LIBRARY Salt Lake City Population 183,171 Y THE • NUMBERS Salt Lake City Residents with a Library Card(March 2011) 99,872 • Total Number of Registered Library Card Holders 145,136 • Salt Lake City Library Agencies/Main Library,five branches Hours Open Weekly Systemwide 378 • Items in the Collection 964,193 Items Loaned/Year(April 2009-March 2010) 3,800,287 • • New Library Card Registrations/Year(Apr 2009-Mar 2010) 34,603 • Full-Time Equivalent Staff 176 • Web site Pages Viewed(July 2010-February 2011) 2,463,924 • Public Access Computers 201 • Library Programs(July 2008-June 2009) 1892 • Attendance at Library Programs(July 2008-June 2009) 82,228 • Interlibrary Loan Items Provided to other libraries 2,706 • 311/ The Library Ranked#1 of all City Services in the 2009 Dan Jones Survey One-third of card holders use their card in any given quarter • The City Library provides about 400,000 hours of public internet time • annually—that's more than 45 years of linear time • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 • • • • STRATEGIC The City Library has chosen six community outcomes to provide a focus for developing services, • PLAN collections and programs.Along with community partners,staff has developed a rich array of ini- 2009-12 tiatives and experiences to help achieve these goals. Additional details on The City Library's Stragetic Plan are provided on pages 28-34. • • Building the Culture • Build a culture that sustains the Library's Mission and enables the Library • to grow and adapt to meet the future needs of the community 4140 do" - ? r' The City Library requires a common set of beliefs,values and behaviors • ,. aligned with the Library's Mission to operate effectively and drive the PIP Strategic Plan.Professionalism,creativity,accountability,teamwork, • adaptability,leadership and management skills,and a reward and • recognition system that reinforces these areas is required to create • a cohesive organization with shared vision,values and strategy. • • • iii Enjoying Life • People make time for entertainment to / • lighten up,enjoy life and unlock creativity. Pr The City Library celebrates creativity and inspiration.The facilities i ` *' • are inviting and fun to explore.Collections include movies to i entertain,music to inspire,and books and magazines to learn about • • the newest trends.Programs encourage family and friends to come * \ • together for events,children's paper airplane contests,outdoor V ` • • concerts,Author's Live events,or tango classes.Experiencing The City Library reminds us we live in a smart,active and creative city. • • • • Exploring New Ideas • tr. The community openly explores ideas and engages in • conversation,discussion and dialogue,especially about ideas • _ 4 ' t they may never have encountered before. • Curiosity and engagement are essential to advancing knowledge. • Lifelong learning results when natural curiosity comes in contact • TF- with a neutral venue where all information can be explored without • judgment or bias.The City Library is also the community's urban living room,a place where people engage with one another on `t ,_• any topic,from city planning to medical discoveries to world politics. .. . • 8 • • da • • • • Ensuring Early Literacy Every child has an equal chance to succeed. The youngest children 1 ill • have expansive early literacy and early learning opportunities. • The City Library will step up efforts to provide parents and children with • the language and literacy foundation children need to be ready to read • when they enter kindergarten.A love of books and stories doesn't just 1 add to the richness of one's life,but also builds important reasoning .%0 , • skills,encourages community engagement,and promotes the creativity • necessary for the entire society to tackle important issues. /'" • • • • Ipi • Accessing Technology • _ Everyone in the community has access to computers • and the skills to use them. • Using technology is no longer optional.Without access to technology • and the skills to use it,individuals may be left disconnected from friends, family,work opportunities,news,information,entertainment and much more.The City Library is already a hub of technology access,providing computers and internet access for public use.Further efforts will be • made to identify those in the community without access or the needed • level of skills and provide modern technologies,information and courses to keep everyone up-to-date. • • • • • Local Solutions/Bridging Divides 4•6410._ , • The community works together to address challenges and generate innovative solutions to create and sustain the best place • to live and then makes it happen.Our focus will be on sustainability • and City,State and National urban initiatives. The community �. • finds ways to bridge the east/west racial,cultural and socio-economic divide to strengthen our city. ' = C-10 • • Sustainability requires the attention and hard work of the J • whole community.The City Library will create programs that educate and initiate community activities that foster self-sufficiency • and sustainability.The City Library will be a catalyst for bridging the divides that inhibit positive perceptions and collaboration between so the east/west neighborhoods.By offering encouragement to explore new neighborhoods,meet each other, share personal stories,and collaborate,Salt Lake City residents will find greater opportunities • to value and celebrate the City's collective culture. • 9 • • • INCOME AND Financial Picture and 2010-12 Projections • REVENUES The downturn and resulting shortfall experienced in 2009-10 Property Tax revenue stabilized in 2010-11.This caused the Library to be conservative in property tax estimates.Actual property tax revenues were 1% higher than budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year. Delinquent Collections came in on budget while Motor Vehicle Fees were less than budget. The aggregate actual General • Property Tax revenues of$13,377,951 were higher than budgeted revenues by$46,836 or.4%. • The Library's other revenue(from fines,copier/printer revenue,grants and interest)is forecast to • be under budget primarily due to a shortfall in grant revenue as well as continued reductions in fine revenue. • • With a less uncertain revenue picture going into 2011-12,the Library will anticipate property tax revenue consistent with revenue expected to be generated by the certified tax rate and budget for al expenditures accordingly.The operating contingency line in the 2010-11 budget($210,000)set • up to minimize the impact of a possible shortfall in property tax revenues will be eliminated.The • Library's other revenue for 2011-12 is budgeted lower than the 2010-11 budget to reflect the • average actual grant revenue realized over the prior four years,and the continued reduction in fine revenue. • The capital budget includes funds generated by the current property tax rate.$556,466 is desig- • nated for the construction of the Glendale Branch Library.Additional property tax revenue gener- • ated by a proposed rate increase of.0000383%will generate$645,000 for annual debt service • on sales tax bonds for the construction of the Marmalade Branch Library. This rate increase is • subject to Mayor and City Council approval per the City Council's 2009 legislative intent. A tax increase to operate both Glendale and Marmalade Libraries will be requested in 2012-13. • d • Summary of General Property Tax Request • 2011-12 Budget • • 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 • Actual Budget Budget • Operating $12,374,986 $12,774,649 $12,975,342 • Capital 543,348 556,466 1,201,466 • Total General Property Tax $12,918,334 $ 13,331,115 $14,176,808 • • • • Fund Balance Actual 2009-10 Changes during 2010-11 • Operating Capital • Per 2009 rate increase approve by the City Council, • Restricted $ 0.2 $ 0.6 $1,500,000 of the unrestricted Capital Fund is • Designated-Glendale 0.2 intended to support Glendale construction Designated-Marmalade 0.3 • The Library Board approved the transfer of • Unrestricted 2.5 2.9 $1,000,000 from the Operating Fund to the ($millions) $ 2.7 $ 4.0 Capital Fund on February 17,2011. • 10 • 1111 MP - • • • • Revenue Sources Operating Fund and Capital Fund • 2011-12 Budget 211 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 • Actual Budget Budget • OPERATING REVENUE • General Property Tax $12,374,986 $12,774,649 $12,975,342 • Fines and Collections 359,194 340,000 325,000 • Grants 13,400 50,000 7,000 Interest 44,978 20,000 20,000 • Donations 120,884 75,000 75,000 • Copier/Printer and Sundry Revenue 51,903 45,000 50,000 • Leases 57,748 60,000 60,000 • Events/Conferences 60,395 50,000 50,000 • Total Operating Revenue $13,083,488 $13,414,649 $13,562,342 • CAPITAL REVENUE • General Property Tax $ 543,348 $ 556,466 $ 1.201,466* • RDA Rebate 23,425 23,425 22,000 • Interest 36.166 25,000 25,000 • Prior Year Capital Fund Balance 1,000,000 1,103,000 ID Branch Building Fund Carryover(est.) 450,000 108,534 Donations and Grants;Sundry Revenue 30,568 • Total Capital Revenue $ 633,507 $2,054,891 $ 2,460,000 • • General Property Tax • General Property Tax revenues are consistent with the stabilization of realized revenue in the • current year. Revenue is budgeted at the current certified tax rate,property values and collec- • tion rate. • • Delinquent Collections and Motor Vehicle Fees are budgeted conservatively based on an aver- age of the last three years. • *Additional General Property Tax revenue is included within Capital Revenue from the proposed • property tax increase to support the construction or the Marmalade Branch. • Fines • Fine revenue from lost and overdue materials is expected to continue to decline consistent with • current experience and economic conditions.The Library will maintain its contract with Unique • Management(UMI)collection systems for collecting overdue materials and accounts. Although this has not generated any increased revenues from fines,it has resulted in more materials being • returned which provides better patron service. Grants • Grant revenue for 2011-12 has been significantly reduced consistent with the average realized grant revenue over the prior four years.While the Library submitted five grant requests in 2010-11, none proved successful. Opportunities to improve the Library's success in realizing additional • grant revenue will be explored during the coming year. • 11 • • • • Interest • It is anticipated interest rates will remain low into 2012 and Interest revenue is budgeted consis- tent with the current year's actual experience.As of March 2011,the Library earned.4900%on funds invested in the Public Treasurer's Investment Fund.As a comparison,actual interest rates March of 2010 and March of 2009 were.5605%and 1.246%respectively. • Donations • The Friends of The City Library generously contribute the majority of the Donations received by • the Library to support special programs and projects of the Library.The Library will support the • Friends organization in any enhancements to their fund-raising approaches. • Copier/Printer and Sundry • The Library generates revenue from computer printing,copy machines and fees charged for the use of Library locations for professional photography and filming.The Library is budgeting a slight • increase of$5,000 in budgeted Copier/Printer and Sundry revenue consistent with current year and prior year actuals. • Leases • The City Library receives rent from the shops on Library Square.Lease revenue is budgeted con- • sistent with the current year's actual experience and assumes no vacancies during the year. • During the recent economic downturn, the shops remained 100% occupied with only one • turnover out of nine tenants. • Events/Conferences • Event revenue is generated from the use of facilities both during and after hours.Actual Event rev- enues are under budget in 2010-11, however, it is anticipated that improving economic condi- tions will increase Event revenue to historical levels. Event revenue is budgeted consistent with the prior year budget. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 • 12 • • • • • • Summary of Operating Budget Expenditures :0 2011-12 udget • PERSONNEL . Salaries and Wages $ 6,841,733 $ 6,829,281 $ 7,006,821 Employees'Insurance 905,005 1,042,000 987,481 • Social Security 496,979 513,000 528,191 • Retirement 604,407 710,000 703,856 • State Unemployment Compensation 11,820 12,000 12,000 • Other 11,146 15,000 15,000 • Total Personnel $ 8,871,090 $ 9,121,281 $ 9,253,349 • SERVICES • Cataloging Charges $ 74,510 $ 80,000 $ 80,000• City Administrative Charge 23,125 20,000 20,000 • Copier-Printer Supplies 17,528 25,000 22,000 • Insurance 204,580 208,000 200,000 • Library Supplies 120,633 160,000 160,000 • Office Supplies 6,391 8,000 8,000 Payroll Processing Charge 11,412 15,000 12,500 t) Postage 33,107 40,000 30,000 Professional and Technical 63,964 98,000 123,000 • Professional and Technical-Attorney 9,590 8,000 20,000 • Programming 98,307 126,000 199,425 Publicity 40,536 65,000 50,000 • Staff Training and Development 24,764 20,000 65,000 • Sundry Expense 11,747 20,000 20,000 • Telephone 120,305 128,000 128,000 • Travel 13,287 12,000 15,500 Board Development - 4,000 4,000 • Total Services $ 873,786 $ 1,037,000 $ 1,157,425 • • MATERIALS • Art Prints/Misc. $ - $ 1,000 $ - • Binding 2,320 4,000 3,000 Books and Reference Sources 848,085 735,068 818,025 • Online Databases 193,157 180,000 145,000 • Downloadable Books,Music, Movies 31,000 31,000 170,750 Maps - 1,000 - • Periodicals 117,763 108,000 119,050 11) Music and Audio Books 351,536 360,000 232,543 DVDs 330,510 347,000 380,400 • Total Materials $ 1,874,371 $ 1,767,068 $ 1,868,768 • 13 • al • • • 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 • Actual A..Budget Budget BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS • Buildings-Maintenance $ 196,277 $ 181,100 $ 191,000 City Boiler Operations 91,061 108,900 90,000 • Equipment-Maintenance 28,386 40,000 33,000 • Buildings and Equipment-Contract Services 289,824 282,000 286,000 • Building Security 144,194 150,000 140,000 Equipment Purchases 18,619 25,000 20,000 • Technical Equipment Purchase - - 25,000 • Heating and Fuel 105,140 100,000 105,000 • Lights and Power 337,606 343,000 338,000 • Motor Equipment-Service and Maintenance 11,056 9,000 11,000 • Rent-Property and Equipment 2,045 2,300 2,300 Water 41,162 38,000 41,500 • Total Buildings and Grounds $ 1,265,370 $ 1,279,300 $ 1,282,800 • • TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $12,884,617 $ 13,204,649 $13,562,342 • CONTINGENCY 210,000 • TOTAL OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURES $ 12,884,617 $ 13,414,649 $ 13,562,342 • III: • LL Accomplishments in 2010-11 •Hired outside professional talent for Executive Leardership roles including Finance,HR and Communications. • •Created six Outcome Lead roles dedicated to creating and implementing services and programs • in support of the Library's Strategic Plan. • •Developed and implemented a staffing plan that slightly increased total FTEs but significantly increased FTEs focused on patron service by decreasing FTEs in management and support • services areas. • Priorities 2011-12 • •Improving organizational effectiveness and internal alignment. • •Identifying and developing training programs to improve professional skills. • •Researching and evaluating cost effective benefit alternatives for future year implementation. • (While benefit costs are not increasing significantly in 2011-12,the trend of double digit increas- es is expected to continue). • •Developing and implementing an efficient,effective,standardized staff scheduling tool to opti- • mize staffing levels that deliver superior patron service. •Completing a salary/benefit benchmark study using an outside consultant to assess salary/ben- • efit programs comparable with benchmark libraries. • 14 • • • • • tyt • p� ice. PERSONNEL Salaries and Wages $ 6,841,733 $ 6,829,281 $ 7,006,821 Employees'Insurance 905,005 1,042,000 987,481 Social Security 496,979 513,000 528,191 • Retirement 604,407 710,000 703,856 • State Unemployment Compensation 11,820 12,000 12,000 • Other 11,146 15,000 15,000 • Total Personnel $ 8,871,090 $ 9,121,281 $ 9,253,349 • Salaries and Wages(including Flex) • Staffing levels are budgeted at 185.7 FTEs(full-time equivalents)compared with 184.1 FTEs in • the prior year budget.While the net increase is 1.6 FTEs,there is an increase of 4.0 FTEs in pub- lic services and a reduction in support service positions of 2.4 FTEs. The budget includes a • decrease in full-time positions from 114 to 112 and an increase in part-time positions from 159 • to 172 compared to the prior year budget.With the increase in staffing levels,flexible wages, • which allow for substitutes,have been reduced from$150,000 to$61,000.$160,000 has been included to support a possible wage/merit increase although the decision to do this will be • deferred until the results of the proposed independent salary/benefits study is completed and after • the final reconciliation of Property Tax revenue. • Employee Insurance 3.1) City Library employees are covered by the Public Employees Health Program. Health care costs for 2011-12 will decrease overall by 2%with the Preferred and Advantage plans decreasing 5% • and 8.8%respectively and the Summit plan increasing 3.1%.The Library continues to cover the premium for each employee based on the Advantage program cost plus$45.00 which has • decreased from$652.58 to$590.88.The Library does not pay for family coverage.Workers I Compensation insurance increased by 11%to$63,276. Retirees under 65 who are maintained • on the Library's health insurance have increased from 6 to 9,for an increased cost of$9,000. • Social Security • The rate for Social Security is currently 7.65%. No increase is forecast for 2012. • Retirement • Benefited full-time Library employees are covered under the Utah Retirement Public Employees • Noncontributory Retirement System. For the 2011-12 budget,the pension funding rate for local government employees increased slightly from 13.37%to 13.77%.The number of employees • the Library contributes either 2.65% or 1.4% into a 401(k) plan decreased from 21 to 18. A • reduction in full time positions and the reduction in employees in the 401(k) plan offsets the 4111 increased pension funding rate. • Unemployment Compensation • The City Library's unemployment costs are not anticipated to increase from 2010-11 levels. • Other 3, This budget center supports employee use of public transit by reimbursing a portion of monthly transit pass costs. Funds are also used for flu and hepatitis shots to help reduce illness among • staff members.No change is anticipated. 15 • • • • SERVICES Accomplishments in 2010-11 • • Launched a new web site with significantly expanded content that includes sections featuring materials,online conversations,user-created content,marketing of Library events and programs catalog access,placement of material holds and account management. • Priorities 2011-12 • •To ensure the Library is maintaining a wage and benefit package comparable to benchmark libraries,a salary and benefit analysis will be initiated.The cost to support the study is includ- • ed in the Professional&Technical line item. • •Increased attention to creating and delivering community programs and outreach consistent • with the Library's Strategic Plan is reflected in an increased Programming line item. •Staff and Manager training and development in areas such as performance management, • project management, meeting management and presentations is included within the Staff • Training&Development line item. • • 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 • Actual Budget Budget • SERVICES • Cataloging Charges $ 74,510 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 • City Administrative Charge 23,125 20,000 20,000 • Copier-Printer Supplies 17,528 25,000 22,000 Insurance 204,580 208,000 200,000 • Library Supplies 120,633 160,000 160,000 4 Office Supplies 6,391 8,000 8,000 Payroll Processing Charge 11,412 15,000 12,500 • Postage 33,107 40,000 30,000 Professional and Technical 63,964 98,000 123,000 • Professional and Technical-Attorney 9,590 8,000 20,000 • Programming 98,307 126,000 199,425 • Publicity 40,536 65,000 50,000 • Staff Training and Development 24,764 20,000 65,000 Sundry Expense 11,747 20,000 20,000 • Telephone 120,305 128,000 128,000 111 Travel 13,287 12,000 15,500 5 Board Development - 4,000 4,000 • Total Services $ 873,786 $ 1,037,000 $ 1,157,425 • Cataloging • The majority of these expenditures are applied to The City Library's contract with Online Computer • Library Center, Inc., (OCLC) which provides Bibliographic Center for Research (BCR) pricing • plans for cataloging library materials. In addition to OCLC charges,the Library uses this fund to pay for outsourcing the acquisition and cataloging of many of the 80+ international language • items represented in the Library's collection.No change is anticipated in this expenditure. • City Administrative Charge These charges from Salt Lake City Corporation are administrative fees for the Library's costs for cash management,City Council,and City attorney.No change is anticipated in this expenditure. • 16 • • • • • • Copier/Printer Supplies This budget covers the cost of paper for printers and copiers throughout the system to generate the Copier/Printer revenue.A decrease of$3,000 from the 2010-11 budget based on the current year actual experience is forecast. • • Insurance . The City Library practices careful application of risk management principles and regular compet- itive bidding to ensure the best coverage for the lowest cost resulting in a decrease in Insurance • costs in 2010-11 vs.2009-10.It is anticipated that a slight increase will occur in 2012.Insurance • coverage includes Property,General Liability,Auto,D&0, Identity theft and Umbrella Liability. • Library Supplies • The majority of the Supply line item funds expenditures for material RFID tags used on books and • DVD/CD items for check-out,check-in and security.In addition,supplies for book coverings,bar • code stickers and replacement DVD/CD cases are included in this budget line. No change is anticipated in this expenditure. • • Office Supplies Every effort is made to contain costs by purchasing through vendors with State of Utah negotiated• pricing.No change is anticipated in this expenditure. • • Payroll Processing Charge The City Library uses an independent vendor to process payroll checks. Based on current year • actual experience a decrease from the prior year budget of$2,500 is forecast. Postage The implementation of email and automated calling for patron notification has resulted in a sub- • stantial decrease in postage costs over the prior 3 years.A further reduction of$10,000 is anti- • cipated based on current year experience and the utilization of the new web site as the vehicle to • market programs and communicate with patrons. • Professional and Technical • This budget supports the funding for the annual financial audit, memberships in professional • activities and organizations,and the use of outside consultants for Library projects.Included with- in this budget is the cost for the salary/benefits benchmark study discussed earlier plus costs to • ensure the Library's full compliance with transparency requirements and open records law. An • increase of$25,000 is included in the line item in support of these initiatives (and the use of - experts in areas associated with the Library's Strategic Plan). • Professional and Technical—Attorney • As the Library refines and rewrites policies and guidelines, additional attorney review costs are anticipated to ensure full compliance with all regulations and codes.A budget increase from prior • year budget of$12,000 based on current actual experience is anticipated. • • • • • 17 • A al • • Programming • The quality and quantity of public programs and the community's enthusiasm for programs as reflected in increased program attendance continues to be very high. The Library will create pro- grams based on the Library's Strategic Plan that stimulate dialog and ideas and enhance the fab- ric of the community. With six dedicated Outcome Leads focused on the creation and implemen- tation of such programs, an increase of $73,425 in programming expenditures is anticipated to • allow the Library to expand the number of programs that serve the community. • Publicity • This budget covers the cost of printing the Library's quarterly newsletter and producing promo- • tional material in support of programs and events. A reduction of $15,000 in this line item is anticipated through utilization of the new web site to promote and market programs and events. • Staff Training & Development • The City Library continues to build a professional staff and organization through training programs • that encourage the staff to expand their expertise and knowledge in support of Library goals and • the Strategic Plan. A significant increase of $45,000 in training expenditures is planned in sup- • port of a new Strategic Plan Outcome — Building the Culture. The objective is to establish and • institutionalize a common set of practices, beliefs and systems that support adaptive change and continuous improvement, improve staff skills and capabilities to work in high-performance teams • and improve the overall professionalism of the organization. • Sundry Expense 1111 This account includes such expenses as advertising for job openings and procurement bids, staff identification badges, and other miscellaneous expenses. Sundry expense items are monitored closely and no change is anticipated. Telephone • This budget includes the cost of internet access through high speed fiber optic lines connected • to each branch and at the Main Library, trunk lines for land based telephones, and Dex Media advertising. No change is anticipated. S Travel • An increase of $3,500 is anticipated in this line item associated with the increased focus and funding for staff training and development. r Board Development • This budget item supports the Library Board members' membership fees in professional organi • - zations (ALA, MPLA, ULA, etc.) and travel expenses to attend library conferences. No change is � anticipated. • • • 1111 18 • 11111 • • a • MATERIALS Accomplishments in 2010-11 , :. • Launched an online music download service from Freegal that allows patrons to download three songs per week using their library card. • Launched an online book download service from Overdrive that allows patrons to download III electronic books through the Library's web site to their personal devices. • • Launched a films-on-demand service. • Priorities 2011-12 • • Increase the total materials expenditures by approximately$100,000 to approach a target of • 15%of Operating Revenue.The 2011-12 budget is 13.8%of revenue. • Continue to expand the availability of downloadable music,movies and books. • • Increase lending of materials to smaller Utah libraries. III • Increase children's materials purchases. • 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 • Actual Budget Budget • MATERIALS III• Art Prints $ — $ 1,000 $ — Binding 2,320 4,000 3,000 • Books and Reference Sources 848,085 735,068 818,025 • Online Databases 193,157 180,000 145,000 • Downloadable Books,Music,Movies 31,000 31,000 170,750 Maps — 1,000 — Periodicals 117,763 108,000 119,050 Music and Audio Books 351,536 360,000 232,543 • DVDs 330,510 347,000 380,400 • Total Materials $ 1,874,371 $ 1,767,068 $ 1,868,768 • • Art Prints&Miscellaneous a This budget funds the replacement of popular prints that become damaged with use. Reduced patron demand for these materials allows the elimination of this expenditure in the coming year. • • Binding • This budget funds the binding of back issues of magazines.Binding periodicals is vital to organ- ize and protect the historical magazine collection.As online sources expand,a slight reduction • of$1,000 is planned. • Books and Reference Sources • Books continue to be in high demand within the community. This budget supports new and • replacement adult books, children's books and reference books.An increase of$82,957 from • 2010-11 budgeted levels is forecast. • Online Databases a While a large number of patrons use online databases,overall usage has declined 12%over the 111, last year as patrons access information through other sources on the web.A reduction of$35,000 from the prior year budget is planned to support the increased demand for downloadable books, music and movies. • • 19 • • • • Downloadable Books,Music,Movies • This budget line,previously used for downloadable audio only,has been expanded to include all downloadable materials.To support the growing move to electronic materials and current patron demand,an increase of$139,750 from the prior year budget is planned to support a growing col- lection of downloadable books,movies and music. • Maps • This budget funds the Library's collection of maps. No expenditures are required in the coming • year. • Periodicals • Magazines and newspapers remain a timely and popular source of current and historical infor- • mation.Use of the magazine collection throughout the Library is high.An increase of$11,050 is . planned. • Music and Audio Books • Music and audio books on CD are anticipated to decline in demand with the increased availabil- • ity of materials in the downloadable format. • DVDs • DVDs are one of the most popular items and include both entertainment and educational topics. • An increase of$33,400 is planned to support the high demand. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 20 • • • • • • BUILDING 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ND Actual Budget Budget GROUNDS BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS • Buildings-Maintenance $ 196,277 $ 181,100 $ 191,000• City Boiler Operations 91,061 108,900 90,000 II Equipment-Maintenance 28,386 40,000 33,000 Buildings and Equipment-Contract Services 289,824 282,000 286,000 • Building Security 144,619 150,000 140,000 Equipment Purchases 18,619 25,000 20,000 • Technical Equipment Purchase - - 25,000 • Heating and Fuel 105,140 100,000 105,000 • Lights and Power 337,606 343,000 338,000 • Motor Equipment-Service and Maintenance 11,056 9,000 11,000 • Rent-Property and Equipment 2,045 2,300 2,300 Water 41,162 38,000 41,500 • Total Buildings and Grounds $ 1,265,370 $ 1,279,300 $ 1,282,800 a • Buildings Maintenance • The maintenance and upkeep of Library facilities is a high priority. Increased use of all facilities • has an impact on the wear and tear and associated maintenance costs.The Library will contin- ue to focus on preventative and essential projects and anticipates an increase of$10,000 from 3° prior year budget to maintain the high quality standards of our buildings and grounds. • City Boiler Operations a The City Library is allocated a portion of the City boiler operations.Based on current year actual allocations,a reduction in budget of$18,900 is forecast. • • Equipment Maintenance • This budget supports the ongoing maintenance costs of all equipment and computers not cur- rently on maintenance contracts. The replacement of the public computers in 2009-10 has • reduced computer maintenance expenditures and provides a reduction of$7,000 from the pre- . vious year budget. • Buildings and Equipment Contracted Services III The City Library contracts for a variety of services when outside contractors are a more efficient and economical solution.This line item includes computer service and maintenance contracts, HVAC maintenance,elevator maintenance,garbage removal,copier and alarm service,and win- • dow washing.The Library will maintain the elimination of window washing and plant maintenance • at the branches. A slight increase of$4,000 is anticipated based on inflationary increases in • select service contracts. • Building Security • The security contract with CBI includes a scheduled presence at the Main Library with visits to a, the branches as needed.Based on actual expenditures during the current year,a reduction of $10,000 is planned without diminishing security services or safety. • • 21 • • • • Equipment Purchases • Minor equipment purchases unrelated to computers come from this budget center. Based on currently identified equipment needs,a reduction of$5,000 is planned for this budget item. Technical Equipment Purchases • This is a new budgeted line item for the Library to support the replacement of printers,scanners, • bar code readers and other technical equipment utilized throughout the Library system. . Utilities • Utilities include heating,fuel, lights and power.The Library's Strategic Plan calls for a reduction • in the Library's carbon footprint.With this goal in mind,this budget was reduced in 2009-10 and the Library is maintaining the reduction in the 2011-12 budget The Library will continue to iden- • tify and develop initiatives that reduce utility usage and cost. • Motor Equipment—Service&Maintenance • This budget covers operational and maintenance costs related to the Library's five delivery and • maintenance vehicles. Based on current year and historical expenditures, this line item is • increasing by$2,000. • Rent—Property and Equipment • No change is anticipated for this budget item. • Water • Based on current year actual expenditures,an increase of$3,500 is planned for this budget item. • 4 • • • • • • • • • a a • • • • 22 • • a • M CAPITAL Accomplishments in 2009-10 UDGET The Library implemented projects identified in a prior year program assisted by an architectural design consultant.In addition,a new web site was developed and launched utilizing capital fund- ing.A list of the significant capital expenditures is provided below: • • Development and launch of a new City Library web site • •Various interior cabinetry&shelving upgrades for the branches • Extended fencing along 400 south to deter jay walking from Trax station • • Replacement of 60 chairs in the Main Library • • New interior signage at several branches • • Netting in the Library Plaza to deter pigeons •Various HVAC,door and alarm system replacements • Priorities 2011-12 • The architectural design, permitting and beginning construction on both the Glendale Branch Library and the Marmalade Branch Library is a critical priority for 2011-12. RFPs for the archi- • tectural design phase will be issued in the last quarter of fiscal year 2010-11 to support ground breaking on the Glendale Branch in the first quarter of the calendar year.Significant programs • under consideration include: •Advancing the Glendale and Marmalade Branch building projects • • Upgrading operating systems to MS 2010 • • Replacing computers and servers as required 0 • Exploring Leadership Team productivity improvements with the use of netbooks/laptops • Evaluating DVD dispensing alternatives to improve efficiency and productivity • Evaluating RFID alternatives and automatic material sorting to improve efficiency and 31) productivity in circulation • Replacing damaged glass panels within the Main Library • Replacing HVAC and other equipment within the system,as needed due to age • • Repair and replacement of walkways at Sweet and Sprague branches • • Upgrading of general lighting within the children's area of the Main Library • • Reupholstering 30%soft chairs within the Main Library r • • • • • a • 23 • • CAPITAL 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 • BUDGET Actual Budget Budget SC CAPITAL Glendale Branch Building Project $ 63,684 $ 728,233 $ 700,000 Marmalade Branch Building Project — 278,233 610,000 Capital Improvements 218,591 498,425 775,000 Technology Infrastructure 202,320 200,000 150,000 Qwest Lease Agreement 50,346 50,000 50,000 • Capital Repairs 61,730 200,000 125,000 • Prior Year/Contingency 16,153 100,000 50,000 • Total Capital $ 612,824 $ 2,054,891 $ 2,460,000 a • Glendale Branch Building Project • Funds will be used to complete architectural design,permitting and interest payments on sales • tax bonds for the new Glendale Branch.Construction is anticipated to begin in the first quarter of calendar year 2012.Cost for a Project Manager responsible for coordinating all components of site design, engineering, permitting and construction will be shared by the Glendale and • Marmalade projects. • Marmalade Branch Building Project • Working in partnership with the RDA,funds will be used to complete the site design,architectur- al design,permitting and interest payments on sales tax bonds for the new Marmalade Branch. A rate increase proposal,pending Mayor and Council approval in June 2011,will provide fund- ing for Marmalade construction which is anticipated to begin in the second quarter of calendar • year 2012. • Capital Improvements • The Library has completed many capital improvement projects over the past three years and • anticipates reducing the Capital Improvement budget to reflect actual expenditures. Ongoing projects include the replacement of heavily used furniture, fixtures and equipment along with • interior improvements at the Main and Branch locations. Phase I funding to support potential • replacement of 10 year old RFID technology is included.Funds are also included to determine al long-range capital improvement needs for the Chapman Branch. • Technology Infrastructure • The City Library's computer equipment is heavily used and funds are planned on an annual basis for replacement and upgrades of computers,servers and software. In addition,the Library will . explore an additional portable lab to support the Technology Access Outcome,improve efficien- cy through the use of portable computers/netbooks and upgrade operating systems to MS 2010 • on both the public and the administrative side.To support enhanced transparency and respond to patron needs,improvements to the web site infrastructure will be necessary. • • 24 • • • • • • Qwest Lease Agreement The City Library entered into a contract with Qwest in March 2008 to purchase voice-over IP for all Library locations. Bandwidth increased from 1.544 megabits to 30 megabits resulting in sig- nificantly faster computer access at branch locations.Voice-over IP also provided expanded fea- tures for the Library's phone system,including voicemail and easily customizable messages.The • cost of hardware, installation, and entrance facilities for the Main Library and five branches is included in a five-year lease agreement at 3.73%interest.Fiscal year 2011-12 will be year four • of the five year lease. 0 • Capital Repairs This fund supports ongoing major capital repairs at all locations as needed with a continued • emphasis on repairs at the Main Library. • Prior Year/Contingency This fund is maintained to cover carryover project and emergency or unanticipated expenses. • • TIMELINE FOR GLENDALE AND MARMALADE BRANCH CONSTRUCTION • • CY 2010 2011 2012 2013 ORIGINAL II III IV I II iii IV I II III IV I II III IV Glendale OPEN Marmalade OPEN • 2011-12 BUDGET • Glendale OPEN • Marmalade I. OPEN • ALTERNATE • Glendale OPEN . Marmalade ME 'EN • LEGEND: a Site Select Design •Construction X-Bonds RC-Rate Incr Construction RO-Rate Incr Operating • • The 'Alternate' Scenario would delay the approval of a tax rate increase for Marmalade • Construction to FY 2012-13 and will delay the assumed construction schedule by six months.In • this scenario,a tax rate increase for Marmalade Construction and Glendale Operating would be requested in FY 2012-13 with a request for Marmalade Operating in FY 2013-14. • • Glendale Library Progress Report • The programming process for the Glendale Library,led by local architecture firm CRSA,took place from May-July 2010 and produced a fascinating in-depth look at the community and an inspir- • ing description of the library services the community wants and needs.With more than 40 corn- munity events, eight key areas were identified as priorities:outdoor/connecting, learning,creat- 311 ing,computing, playing,sharing,socializing and eating.The full programming document,avail- able at slcpl.org was approved by the Library Board in December,2010.A site of 1.1 acres located • • 25 • • • • on the east side of Concord Street at California, in the heart of Glendale's primarily residential • neighborhood,has been selected and approved by the Library Board in April,2011.The Library will serve a diverse community,composed in large part by families with young children,represent- ing cultures and languages from every corner over the globe.More than 120 first languages are spoken in Glendale.It is anticipated the Glendale Library will be busy during all open hours and will help to form a civic,commercial and community hub for the neighborhood along with near- • by schools,churches,shops,the Sorenson Unity Center and the Jordan River Parkway.While for planning purposes the building was estimated at 20,000 square feet in size,this may be adjust- • ed depending on the site configuration,architectural design and services offered. It is anticipat- • ed the Library will be designed for maximum flexibility with spaces that flow or open up to adjoin- • ing spaces.The Glendale Steering Committee will select an architect in early summer to complete the design. • • Joint RDA/City Library Vision Statement for the development at 300 West/500 North This mixed-use development,a collaboration between the RDA, development partners and the al City Library will be located along 300 West between 500 North and 600 North.The development, • with the Marmalade Library serving as an anchor,will revitalize,activate and create a central gath- • ering place for several neighborhoods including Marmalade,Capitol Hill,Guadalupe, Rose Park • and Swedetown. • The development will provide a way for residents to connect with each other and to find their • everyday needs met by co-located services. Retail might include dining,a coffee shop,an arti- sanal/local market or a drug store.Housing and office or studio space could also be a component • of the design. The development will highlight the unique character of the neighborhood and become a center of activity for those arriving on foot,bike or by car. • There will be both indoor and outdoor gathering spaces which will provide opportunities for meet- • ings,performances,concerts,dining or children's activities. • The Marmalade Library,as the first tenant,will create excitement and serve as a catalyst for the • development's overall identity, attracting compatible mixed-use partners which will evolve with • market and design imperatives. • • • • • • • • • • • 26 • • • • • • Marmalade Branch costs based on general estimates,as follows: •' Land Acquisition $ 700,000 • Construction($235 x 20,000 sf) 4,700,000 • Collection($20 x 100,000 items) 2,000,000 . Furnishings($35 x 20,000 sf) 700,000 Consulting(8%) 376,000 • Technology 250,000 • Art,Landscaping,Misc. 210,000 • $8,938,000 • Additional property tax revenue of$645,000 per year generated by a • rate increase of.0000383%($5.50 per home with a taxable value of • $260,890 and$38.30 per commercial property valued at$1m)will provide debt service for sale tax bonds.This action is pending approval • of Mayor and Council per the City Council's 2009 legislative intent. • • A tax rate increase to operate both Glendale and Marmalade Libraries will be requested in FY • 2012-13. • • :Ilk - --Y--'---------•-°-°finch Building Fund Balance • 2009-10 Revenue 2009-10 Expenditures Designated Fund Balance • Budget I Actual 1 Variance Budget I Actual I Variance Reserve 6/30/2010 • Glendale $278,233$271,674 $ (6,559) $278,233 $63,684 $214,549 $1,500,000 $ 1,707,990 0 Marmalade 278,233 271,674 (6,559) 278,233 _ 278,233 271,674 • 2010-11 Revenue 2010-11 Expenditures Designated Fund Balance • Budget I Actual I Variance Budget I ate* l Variance { Reserve Est 6/30/2011 • Glendale $556,466$552,320 $ (4,146) $782,233 $34,011 $694,222 $1,707,990 $ 2,226,299 Marmalade _ _ - 278,233 67 278,166 271,674 271,607 • *2010-11 Expenditure Estimate • • • • • • 31/ • 27 • • • Main • Library Anchoring Salt Lake City's civic core, Library Square provides a connec • - _ tion and transition from the Central Business District to the residential ip neighborhoods adjacent to downtown.One of the most heavily used main • libraries in the United States,the Main Library has become a major attrac- tion for residents and visitors since its opening on February 8, 2003. A 240,000 square-foot concrete and glass structure with exceptional views • of Salt Lake City and surrounding mountains, the Main Library features • book,periodical and media collections of over 500,000 items,reading gal- • :'r7DR leries, technology center, 315-seat auditorium and adjoining meeting spaces, small conference rooms, and selected community shops • designed to enhance The City Library's mission.The adjoining plaza fea- tures a reflecting pool,garden,and granite fountain. Underground park- • ing for approximately 600 vehicles provides parking for City and Library employees,as well as Library visitors. • • Anderson-Foothill Branch • The pleasing design of the branch has two unique elements as part of its j plan.The first is a passive solar energy design that includes earth berming, • .y window placement for solar heating,and zone supplemental heating/cool- ' ing. The second element of this 14,900 square foot community library • , built in 1985,expanded in 1992 and in 2002,is a modular design. • Chapman Branch • Considered to be one of the finest Carnegie Libraries in the West, this - 8,900 square foot library has two levels.Since its opening in 1918,it has been an important part of city services to Westside residents.The Library • was completely renovated in 1993.A major remodel of the basement level meeting space in 2002 resulted in a much improved children's area and • • expanded service and collection space for adults on the ground level. • • Corinne and Jack Sweet Branch The Sweet Branch is the sister branch of the Anderson-Foothill Branch • using the same modular design.The branch contains over 8,000 square • feet of service space,including a community program and meeting space. • In 2009,the interior was completely refreshed. • Day-Riverside Branch • This beautiful facility was designed to complement the residential neigh- - borhood with sensitivity to its site on the Jordan River Parkway.An open space plan,with a large community meeting room and outside deck area, • will accommodate this growing neighborhood. • Sprague Branch • 7-7 This high-gabled English Tudor style building has served the Sugar House • f community for three generations. The building was selected by the • i.f e„ American Library Association in 1935 as the 'Most Beautiful Branch • Library in America.'The two-level facility was renovated in 1989-90.The ,.r. iION Reading Room on the first floor was remodeled in 1993-94.A new slate roof was installed in the fall of 1996.An expansion project to add a new, _ larger meeting room and remodel the building was completed in April - 2001,which increased the square footage to 9,700. • 28 • • • • • • = 1 • • CL • C3 • •bO • a) • • }. •• N • • • • • f • • • • • •• • • s; . • ,� • •• �~ • _ • • -11414 • • • • • 29 • Building the Culture Build a culture that sustain the Library's Mission and enable the Library to grow and adapt to meet the future needs of the community The C . Objectives " /Measures •The Library has a common set of beliefs,values and Strategic Measures behaviors that sustain the Library's Mission and drive the •Selected for Work/Life Award: Utah's Best Places to Work Strategic Plan.These are clearly defined,communicated and practiced. Outcome Measures • The Library uses practices and systems that support • Employee Opinion Survey adaptive change and continuous improvement • Positive media related to working at the Library • The Library is highly effective at strategy innovation and •Awards for the Library implementation •Staff have the talents,skills and capabilities to work in Contributing Measures high—performance teams • Employee turnover and exit interview data •Absentee rates Strategies • Involvement and leadership in professional organizations • Involve Staff in designing and implementing the Building • Increased competencies resulting from training the Culture initiatives • Hire, promote and develop employees who exemplify the desired culture • Build leadership skills and enhance staff skills to build effectiveness • Recognize and reward actions supporting the desired culture N 1. • Reinforce that we are all part of one library system;a cohesive organization with shared vision,values and strategy • Develop consensus decision making techniques and ., integrate the concept of collaborative design • Support professional activities and involvement 8 . . .. 1. t..... . . ... . ....A . . ........ .. . . ..%.... D • • • •• ••• • • • •• • AR'► •• AAAAAAA • • •• •••• •• •••• Enjoying Life People make time for entertainment to lighten up, enjoy life and unlock creativity. II I IIII The City Library Objectives " "outcome Measures • The Community finds the Library a place that makes • Number of Enjoying Life programs/attendance/cost them happy per attendee • People discover their creativity because of Library • Results of Patron Satisfaction Survey with children, environments and experiences teens,and adults •Adults and children prefer the Library to other options • Percentage of library cardholders in relation to SLC for fun and entertainment population •The Library is an inviting place to interact and meet • Percentage of cardholders who have used their library others in the community card in the last three months •Circulation of Enjoying Life materials(all children's all Strategies young adult,all AN and downloadable,adult fiction • Provide warm and responsive customer service and magazines) • Provide aesthetically pleasing interior spaces, buildings Contributing Measures and grounds • Eliminate barriers to easy use • Circulation of Enjoying Life adult materials •Create compelling reasons for family and friends to (fiction/AV/periodicals) come together with the Library • Circulation of all young adult materials • Ensure collections provide entertainment and enjoyment • Circulation of all children's materials • Rate of materials turnover •Create unique, interactive programs and experiences •Web site visits/events calendar views/facebook and that are fun and foster creativity twitter friends Measures •Volunteer hours • Average time to complete Maintenance and Computer Strategic Measures Service tickets • Ranking on City Resident Survey a • time from receipt of new material to shelf • Ranking on Literate Cities '� •Average wait time for call center calls • Number of patron compliments about customer service Exploring New Ideas The community openly explores ideas and engages in conversation, discussion and dialogue, TNT especially about ideas they may never have encountered before. TIDE urar,, uu)ecuves ( Measures • People share in dialogue and conversation about timely Strategic Measures and important topics , • Knight Foundation Soul of the City Survey •The Library is a neutral and open place without judgment or bias, many points of view are reflected,encouraged Outcome Measures and shared • Number of Exploring New Ideas programs-gatherings/ •The Library is a place that sparks curiosity and an attendance/cost per attendee interest in learning something new • Program satisfaction as measured by evaluation • People think differently after they've had a library • Number of feature stories highlighting Exploring New experience Ideas Programs • Number of community"experts"recruited Strategies • Provide thought-provoking programs and events with Contributing Measures an opportunity for dialogue • Circulation of Exploring New Ideas adult materials • Encourage engagement in timely and important topics • Number of collaborations and co-sponsors on Exploring • Ensure collections represent many points of view and New Ideas topics inspire curiosity and learning • Number and effectiveness of reference transactions • Create connections with topic experts to contribute to (by sampling) Library offerings • Database pages viewed/cost/utilization • Make Library Square Salt Lake City's center of inquiry • Percentage of room and innovation utilization «� • Deliver program content using new technologies • Events calendar views \ ig (i.e. simulcasts,streaming, podcasts,etc.) 4, • • • I •• . • . . • . . • . . .• . A• . •. • • • • •. •• •• •., •.• . 11 • • • V •• • •• •• • AAIA► AiA •• • •••• • AAA * •••••• •• • • Ensuring Early Literacy Every child has an equal chance to succeed. The youngest children have expansive early literacy and early learning opportunities. The City Library 1. Objectives Measures • Parents have all the tools they need to be their child's Strategic Measures first teacher • Percentage of children who pass the Salt Lake City Public •The Library brings early literacy experiences to School Kindergarten Readiness Test low-income children •The youngest children in the City develop an early strong Outcome Measures connection with the Library • Number of contacts with the parents of newborns •Community awareness is raised about the importance of • Number of Early Literacy Programs in the Library/attendance early literacy to the overall health and sustainability of • Number of Early Literacy Programs outside the the community Library/attendance • Number of books given to children Strategies • Percentage of cardholders in the three zipcodes with the • Make the earliest contact possible with future or new most households with children in the home parents •Take early literacy tools and experiences to young Contributing Measures children,especially those in need •Circulation of children's board books,jp,and jr • Increase number of books in the homes of children birth-5 • Number of Staff who speak languages other than English • Encourage early literacy with creative incentives for parents • Ensure all library policies support, not inhibit family use •Collaborate with community organizations, businesses and the media for whom early literacy is a priority • ,) 1 Accessing Technology Imo' Everyone in the community has access to technology and the skills to use it The City Library Objectives Measures • The target audience—such as high school drop-outs,the Strategic Measures unemployed,the homeless and seniors—have opportuni- •Comparison to same size cities on Pew Internet and ties for training in the use of technology American Life Project •The Library teaches people enhanced technology skills • Percentage of City residents who have never used a computer to be successful in today's wired world • Percentage of users with expanded technology competencies • People learn current software versions and discover new technologies Outcome Measures • People find technology solutions for an improved quality • Number of class types of life • Number of technology classes at the Library/at • There is an increased number of citywide library community locations/attendance/cost per attendee technology access points • Number of certificates of participation issued • Number of certificates issued for attending basic Strategies technology skills classes • Provide classes in locations convenient to the target audi- ence(community centers, housing projects,senior care Contributing Measures centers,workforce training sites,etc.) • Number of internet cards issued/hours of computer use • Identify locations and implement citywide technology • Number of access points access points • Number of staff with enhanced technology competency •Teach technology skills with innovative,user-centered, •Web site visits subject-centered methods • Number and effectiviness _ • Use library website to build patron technology skills of computer answer or • Offer friendly one-on-one technology help questions . . . . P .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. . . . . .. . . . .. .. ..'% . . . . POGO . •• • •• • • • •• • • • •• • • • • • ••••• •• • ••• • •S Creating Local Solutions and Bridging Divides The City Library (-The community works together to address challenges and 7 Create buzz about new Marmalade and Glendale branches generate innovative solutions to create and sustain the best • Promote and market library activities and programs place to live and then makes it happen.Our focus will be across the divide on sustainability and City,State and National urban initia- • Use the website to encourage co-created community tives.The community finds ways to bridge the east/west content racial,cultural and socio-economic divide to strengthen our city. Measures Strategic Measures Objectives • City's carbon footprint to Mayor's goal •The City's self—sufficiency and sustainability is improved • Library's carbon footprint and strengthened • Strategic measure for bridging divides? •The Library is a catalyst for exchange and interaction between SLC east and westside neighborhoods Outcome Measures •The City's collective culture and resources are advanced • Number of Programs/attendance/cost per attendance and celebrated • Number of collaborations and co-sponsors on Local Solutions/Bridging Divides Ideas topics Strategies • Percent of west side zip code attendances at programs • Educate the community and initiate activities and located on the east side and east side zip code resources that enable sustainability in areas such as attendances on west side environment,food, business, natural resources,etc. •Amount of community created Web site content • Create internal energy efficiency programs to reduce • Number of articles about Glendale and Marmalade the Library's energy consumption libraries • Identify community initiatives that unite us and create • Natural gas and electricity sirr. opportunities for the east and west sides to come together usage and recycling amounts around common goals • Number of Staff green commutes • Encourage opportunities for telling of personal stories to • emphasize how we are alike and to honor our differences. • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS—FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 c. IILDATE: May 3,2011 SUBJECT: GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Holladay,Budget and Public Policy Analyst David Terry,Bryce Lindeman,Rick Graham,Greg Davis,Nancy Sanders,David Everitt, Gordon Hoskins,Gina Chamness,Randy Hillier,Cindy Gust-Jenson,Jennifer Bruno, Quin Card,Lehua Weaver The City has provided golf facilities for over 80 years. The City owns and operates eight golf facilities (nine golf courses -Mountain Dell has two 18-hole golf courses) as an Enterprise Fund. The main policies that guide the division are to offer an accessible, reasonably priced recreational opportunity to all sections of the golfing public;to preserve open spaces in an urban setting;and to promote tourism and economic development. Golf participants pay fees that underwrite the cost of providing these services. The Council traditionally balances golf fees at a level necessary to ensure the long-term financial stability of the Golf Enterprise Fund while maintaining the golf program's competitiveness within the market. By policy,the General Fund does not subsidize the Golf Fund. However, during last fiscal year (FY 2011) the City's general fund provided $691,195 in order to purchase 2.64 acres of property which allows the Rose Park golf course to expand the driving range. According to the Administration,a fee increase is not proposed until Fiscal Year(FY)2014. The last fee increase became effective on January 1, 2010. This was the first across-the-board golf fee ncrease since 2004. (NOTE: In paperwork submitted for the Golf Capital Improvement Project (CIP) proposal, the Administration is recommending that a portion of the FY 2014 fee increase (up to$0.50/nine-hole round)be allocated to a"Golf CIP Dedicated Fund"for future capital improvements at the City's golf courses. This item will be presented to the Council at a later date. • II P.Does the Council wish to discuss the benefits and challenges of implementing a CIP fee prior to FY 2014? ►The City does not directly subsidize the Golf Fund,but as noted in this report it is very difficult to stretch resources to properly maintain and improve facilities. The Council may wish to discuss raising fees to more realistically meet the needs of the courses. A fee comparison chart will be available at the briefing. e fiscal year 2011-12 revenue budget of$8,431,088 is estimated to decrease by $183,459, or 2.1% below the revenue budget for fiscal year 2010-11. The proposed FY 2011-12 expenditure budget of $8,843,771 is projected to be $413,726 more than the prior year. Of this amount, $422,782 is the expense budget for the Rose Park driving range expansion. Revenue for this Rose Park driving range expansion was received from a property sale in FY 2011. Total Capital Improvement Projects(CIP)of$639,230 are included in the expenditures of the Golf Fund- 1)Cash Capital Outlay of $135,000 for equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, 2) Debt Service for maintenance equipment and carts of$246,056, and 3) Debt Service (ends FY2014) for golf carts (Pro shop)of$258,174. BUDGET SUMMARY—GOLF FUND • The Golf Fund switched to a new point of sale and tee time reservation system called EZLinks. Advantages of this system include: o Ability to make reservations 24 hours per day. o Attention to customer service. Calls to reserve tee times will be handled by live reservation call center and on-line booking system. o Collection of information to help meet the needs of golfers who use the City's courses. Examples,include emailing/texting reserved tee times,thank you notes,and customer satisfaction surveys. o Zero out-of-pocket annual cost for software,hardware,technical service/support,and live reservation call center services. • No golf fee increases have been proposed for FY2012. • Estimated golf revenues are expected to decrease by$183,459 as compared to the FY 2010- 11 budget. • Estimated golf expenditures,excluding the Rose Park driving range expansion,are expected to have an overall decrease of$9,056 from the prior year. • Cash Capital outlay is budgeted at$25,000 more than the prior year. This allows a net operating income or operating contingency of$10,099 should revenue projections not be met due to inclement weather or continued effects of the recent economy. • The Golf Division is currently replacing maintenance equipment by financing purchases over a three year period. The debt service(FY 2011 thru FY 2013)for the current purchase is $246,056. The next planned debt service payment for maintenance equipment purchase(FY 2014 to FY 2016)is$290,000. One additional purchase is expected to be financed(FY 17 to FY 19)for$280,000. ►Does the Council wish to ask the Administration if Golf Fund Management plans to work with Fleet Management Services in planning the financing and purchasing of equipment needed to care for the City's golf courses. • The Rose Park golf property sale has been completed and additional properties have been purchased. The expansion of the Rose Park driving range has begun and is expected to be completed by November 2011. • The Administration will present its recommendation to fund and address deferred maintenance and improvement projects for the City's golf courses. The identified projects are estimated to cost$22 million. According to the Administration,$23 million could potentially be generated with any excess to be allocated to operating revenue as an offset to lost revenue during construction of major capital improvement projects. • The Administration indicates that a budget of$250,000 in Cash Capital is needed annually through FY 2018 to fund smaller and emergency capital projects(not included in the$2 million CIP proposal). • The Administration states that it needs to budget a net income of at least$200,000 annu to rebuild Cash Reserves and prepare for revenue shortfalls due to inclement spring conditions in some years. _ aa. 2 The following is the FY 2011-12 proposed budget for the Golf Enterprise Fund: GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND PROPOSEDBUDGEr Rewnue&Other Sources _--- Green Fees $ 4,939,804 ij 56.8% $ 150,804 -3.1% Cart Rental 2,019,200 Y, 23.4% 50,000 -2.5% Drivin•Ran•e Fees 345,013 4.1% 2,013 -0.6% Concessions 121,200 1.4% (4,000) -3.3% Retail Sales 809,000 9.5% (8,500) -1.1% Other Golf Fees 83,002 1.6% 54,258 65.4% Advertisin_Fees 23,000 0.1% 14,000 -60.9% Interest lnconv 20,000 0.1% 10,000 -50.0% Miscellaneous Leases/Rental 30,428 0.4% 1,500 4.9% Revenue Season Passes 223,900 2.7% 100 0.0% Other/Admission Sales 0 0.0% -- Total Rewnue&Other $ 8,614,547 100.0% $ (183,459) -2.1% Sources EN. nses&Other Uses --- •.eratin &Maintenance --_ Personal Services $ 3,778,867 $ 139,527 3.7% Materials and Su..lies 1,159,857 14.3% 106,125 9.1% Other(Charges/Services/Fees, 2,592,465 - 29.1% (19,762) -0.8% Admin Service Fee,PILOT, - Y Intradepartmental Chgs,Water, Fuel,Utilities) Transfers Out 21,310 0.3% 3,370 l5,8° Caand Capital Outlay 0.0% and Debt Service Ca.italOutla 110,000 6.3% 447,782 407.1% Debt for Facilities and 0 - i 0.0% -_ Irritation Debt for Maintenance 767,546 .+;` 5C}1.230 5.7% (263,316) -34.3% ui.ment and Golf Carts Total a.•nses&Other Uses $ 8,430,045 '1777M 100.0% $ 413,726 4.9% Chan!e in Net Assets $ 184,502 _;�- $ (597,185) -7.0% BUDGET ITEMS AND POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE Some of the proposed revenue and expenditure changes to the budget are highlighted below. The"►"symbol indicates questions that Council may wish to address or request additional follow-up information. REVENUES 1. Total Revenue and Other Sources-Overall decrease-($183,459) a. Decrease-Green Fees and Cart Rental Fees-($200,804) Cool and wet springtime weather,highway construction projects,a competitive golf market,and challenging economic conditions over the past couple of years have impacted the City's golf fund 3 revenues. As a result,the FY 2012 green fee revenues of$4,789,000 are budgeted at $150,804 less than they were for fiscal year 2011. The revenue budget of$1,969,200 for cart rental has been decreased by$50,000 from the prior year. The FY 2012 projection for rounds of golf is expected to be 468,000,which is 18,000 more rounds than projected for FY 2011. Additionally,driving range fees,advertising,and season pass revenue budgets are expected to decrease by$15,913 over the prior year's budget. According to the Administration,the City's prices,quality product,and pass programs are better or comparable to other golf courses in the community. b. Decrease-Concessions,Merchandise Sales,Other Fees,and Interest Income- ($33,358)Budget revenue for concessions is down by$4,000 and retail sales are also budgeted at$8,500 less than the prior year. Other golf fees show an increase of $54,258 because merchandise certificates are now handled differently after a policy change which allows a certificate to expire if not used by the expiration date. In addition,the budget for interest income has been reduced by$10,000 for fiscal year 2012. The following chart is the golf customer fee-related actual revenues-green fees,cart rentals, driving range,and retail sales-for the past nine years. The current and proposed fiscal year budgets are also provided for your information. Increase Over Driving Prior Year Green Fees Cart Rental Range Retail Sales Total Year 2002 $ 4,610,868 $ 1,751,798 $ 357,797 $ 682,942 $ 7,403,405 2003 $ 4,816,308 $ 1,761,090 $ 328,325 $ 741,442'$ 7,647,165 3.3% 2004 $ 4,592,025 $ 1,711,052 $ 309,484 $ 707,037'$ 7,319,598 -4.3% 2005 $ 4,543,923 $ 1,624,874 $ 309,807 $ 710,631'5 7,189,235 -1.8% 2006 $ 4,710,943 $ 1,763,267 $ 321,525 $ 781,093'$ 7,576,828 5.4% 2007 $ 4,763,272 $ 1,951,157 $ 334,510 $ 827,788'$ 7,876,727 4.0% 2008 $ 4,483,569 $ 1,912,527 $ 328,519 $ 807,905'$ 7,532,520 -4.4% 2009 $ 4,519,334 $ 1,882,413 $ 330,452 $ 772,120'$ 7,504,319 -0.4% 2010 $ 4,398,695 $ 1,793,780 $ 327,872 $ 738,057 $ 7,258,404 -3.3% Budgeted 2011 $ 4,939,804 $ 2,019,200 $ 345,013 $ 809,000 $ 8,113,017 11.8% Proposed 2012 $ 4,789,000 $ 1,969,200 $ 343,000 $ 800,500 $ 7,901,700 -2.6% Note: Green Fees in all years prior to 2009 included the sales of Frequent Player Discount cards. Marketing,Advertising,and Promotion Efforts The Salt Lake City Golf Division plans to host over 100 state-level annual tournaments, corporate and group outings,which are held daily throughout the summer,are also held at the City's golf courses. In addition,the Golf Division plans to market and target their services,courses,and promotions to various groups including,youth,parent/junior,men's and women's clubs,and frequent players. 2. Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011-Projected Revenue and Expenditure Budgets and FY 2008 and 2009 Actuals by Golf Course The following table presents the actual and projected revenue and expense activity for each of the City's golf courses. The expense line includes advertising, cash capital budget, General Fund administrative fees, debt service and Golf Division administrative overhead costs. Golf Division administrative overhead costs include golf fund management and office expenses, including supplies, accounting, information technology,insurance,and other costs of operating the Golf Division. 4 ►A detailed explanation of how the Golf Division plans to fund and address the operational and capital needs of each course will be further addressed in the Capital Improvements Projects briefing which will be scheduled at a later date. FY2012 Proposed FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Budget Budget Total Information Only-Administration-Costs Allocated to Gulf Courses Revenue $ 279,005 $ 227,634 $ 288,244 $ 275,400 $ 292,000 $ 1,362,283 Expense)ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 797,440 $ 862,138 $ 968,371 $ 1,296,726 $ 1,003,793 $ 4,928,468 Net Income after ODA $ 518,435 $ 634,504 $ 680,127 $ 1,021,326 $ (711,793 $ 3,566,185 Bonneville • Revenue $ 1,381,978 $ 1,310,394 $ 1,273,033 $ 1,463,198 $ 1,418,900 $ 6,847,503 " Expense l ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 1,113,862 $ 1,125,593 $ 1,079,759 $ 1,249,258 $ 1,281,409 $ 5,849,881 Net Income after ODA $ 268,116 $ 184,801 $ 193,274 $ 213,940 $ 137,491 $ 997,622 Glendale Revenue $ 1,120,146 $ 1,130,708 $ 1,161,649 $ 1,213,450 $ 1,208,350 $ 5,834,303 Expense l ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 1,268,304 $ 1,091,763 $ 1,074,709 $ 1,195,400 $ 1,169,277 $ 5,799,453 Net Income after ODA $ (148,158) $ 38,945 $ 86,940 $ 18,050 $ 39,073 $ 34,850 Forest Dale $ Revenue $ 677,073 $ 637,635 $ 605,816 $ 658,145 $ 633,276 $ 3,211,945 Expense)ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 524,777 $ 579,622 $ 579,384 $ 631,825 $ 647,055 $ 2,962,663 Net Income after ODA $ 152,296 $ 58,013 $ 26,432 $ 26,320 $ (13,779) $ 249,282 Mountain Dell $ Revenue $ 1,954,402 $ 1,895,441 $ 1,807,935 $ 2,062,100 $ 2,039,403 $ 9,759,278 Expense I ODA•Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 1,706,598 $ 1,579,782 $ 1,629,612 $ 1,789,129 $ 1,832,506 $ 8,537,627 Net Income after ODA $ 247,804 $ 315,659 $ 178,323 $ 272,971 $ 206,894 $ 1,221,651 Nibley Park $ - Revenue $ 585,252 $ 560,271 $ 511,856 $ 572,984 $ 603,662 $ 2,834,025 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 693,052 $ 628,697 $ 646,920 $ 663,302 $ 648,840 $ 3,280,811 Net Income after ODA $ (107,800) $ (68,426) $ (135,064) $ (90,318) $ (45,178) $ (446,786) Rose Park $ Revenue $ 869,941 $ 923,373 $ 915,998 $ 962,400 $ 920,400 $ 4,592,112 Expense l ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 967,810 $ 1,051,369 $ 1,003,542 $ 1,153,314 $ 1,552,827 $ 5,728,862 ' Net l noome atter ODA $ (97,869) $ (127,9%) $ (87,544) $ (193,914) $ (632,427) $ (1,136,750) Wingpulnte $ - Revenue $ 1,153,898 $ 1,211,091 $ 1,134,014 $ 1,316,370 $ 1,228,003 $ 6,043,373 Expense)ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 1,352,294 $ 1,158,491 $ 1,192,695 $ 1,250,807 $ 1,226,885 $ 6,181,172 Net Income after ODA $ (198,396) $ 52,600 $ (58,681) $ 65,563 5 1,115 $ (137,799) Ionian River 5 Revenue $ 65,694 $ 86,324 $ 92,712 $ 90,500 $ 87,100 $ 422,330 Expense l ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 187,642 $ 204,714 $ 198,697 $ 221,609 $ 192,971 $ 1,005,633 Net Income after ODA $ (121,948) $ (118,390) $ (105,985) $ (131,109) $ (105,871) $ (583,303) Total Golf Fund Revenue $ 7,808,384 $ 7,755,237 $ 7,503,013 $ 8,339,147 $ 8,139,088 $ 39,544,869 Expense I ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 8,032,386 $ 7,420,031 $ 7,405,318 $ 8,154,644 $ 8,551,770 $ 39,346,102 Net Income after ODA $ (224,002) $ 335,206 $ 97,695 $ 184,503 $ (412,682) $ 198,767 EXPENDITURES 1. Staffing Changes-Full Time FTEs will remain at 40.4. Part-time seasonal positions are 48.61 FTEs. 2. Increase-Personal Services-$139,527 The FY 2012 personnel costs are proposed to be $3,918,394. 5 3. Increase-Retail Merchandise Purchases-$3,400 Retail sales are expected to slightly decrease in FY 2012. The budget amount for merchandise purchased for resale will increase slightly. �. 4. Increase-Materials and Supplies,excluding retail merchandise$106,125 Other than minor adjustments in certain line items,this is a status quo budget. Some of the budget increases and(decreases)include: • Parts and accessories-$109,570-Golf cart batteries at Mountain Dell and Bonneville need to be replaced. • Repairs-$(2,750) • Athletic supplies-$5,000 • Chemicals-$4,500 5. Increase-Water,Fuel,Maintenance,and Miscellaneous Operating Costs-$26,386 The overall net change to the Charges/Services/Fees budget category is relatively small. Some of the larger budgeted increases include: • Water-$12,000 • Building&Housing Repair and Maintenance-$10,000 • Printing Charges-$4,300 • Advertising-Access Awards-$4,500 • Fleet fuel and maintenance-$24,228-($20,500 of the total is an increase in the amount budgeted for Fleet Fuel.) • Unemployment comp premium-$13,700-The estimate is based on FY 2011 actuals. • Administrative Fees-$5,800-The estimate is based on FY 2011 actual. Some of the larger decreases occurred in the following accounts: • City engineering and architect fees-($15,000) • Software Maintenance Contracts-($26,583)-The City is working with EZLinks point of sale and tee time reservation system. The EZLinks agreement included new computer hardware and live 24/7 tee time reservation call center services. Salt Lake City's payment for the EZLink system is two tee times per course per day. The previous reservation system was$40,000 annually. • Janitorial Service MC-($6,654) • Administrative Service Fee-($30,000) • P.I.L.O.T. (Payment in Lieu of Taxes)-$4,658 • Intradepartmental charges-($13,708) • Risk management property premium-$4,708 6. Decrease-Debt Service-Principal and Interest Expense-($263,316)A portion of the equipment debt service(Debt Schedule#1)has been completed for a FY 2012 budget savings. Currently there are two active debt service schedules: #2 for maintenance equipment and#1 for carts. Additional debt service schedules are planned for FY 2014,FY 2016,and FY 2017. ► The Council may wish to ask about the Administration about the debt service financing terms. 7. Increase-Cash Capital Outlay-$557,782 The Golf Division has budgeted$135,000 in non-financed capital for Equipment and Facilities. Additionally,another$422,782 has been budgeted for the driving range expansion at the Rose Park golf course. The revenue for this project was from the FY 2011 sale of 3.01 acres of land at the Rose Park Golf Course to the 6 • Guadalupe School. This budget is the amount available to spend on needs of the golf division after considering debt service payments,net income,and an operating contingency. According to the Administration,the budget will be used primarily for emergency golf course maintenance equipment purchases and facility repairs. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS-$22,000,000-(Note:A separate staff report will be prepared for the Administration's proposal. A Council briefing will be scheduled at a later date.) In the past,the Golf Fund Manager and Administration have met with Council Members to review various funding options and strategies to fund approximately$22 million in Capital Improvement Projects. A transmittal proposing how the improvements will be funded has been submitted by the Administration. This proposal,which includes options,such as,transferring surplus golf course property to the General Fund or rezoning and selling surplus golf course property,is scheduled to be briefed to the Council at a later date. LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS Fiscal Year 2010-11 Golf Capital Improvement Projects-Further discussion of policies related to use or sale of open space to meet Capital Improvement funding needs.The Administration may wish to forward a proposal or options to consider in advance of a Council discussion on the policy issue. Administration Response-The Public Services Department Director and the Golf Division Manager met with the City Council in September 2010 to discuss the general concept of selling golf property.Five parcels were submitted for discussion,including 10 acres at Bonneville, 13.65 acres and.89 at Glendale,and 17.5 and 3 acres at Rose Park. The majority of the City Council was of the opinion that they would consider the sale of such open space under certain conditions.Those conditions were not determined at this meeting.At that same time,it was suggested that Golfs situation could be used as a case study to help develop a policy for open space sales.City administration plans to forward a proposal in the near future. • 0 0 SALT LAKE CITY EXTENDED MARKET PUBLIC GOLF FEES May 22011 ' STANDARD STANDARD Counfv CJrt r _ GOLF COURSE I HOLES; . GREEN FEE 9Md SENN)R FEE W1d JUNWR FEE GOLF CART RENTAL Davis County Syracuse Glen Eagle 1 Regulation $12.501$25.00 $11.88423.00 $9418 $7) Davis County West Bountiful Lakeside-West Bountiful 1 Regulation $12.50/525 $10.50421 $9.50/$19 $6.50/$13 Salt Lake County North Salt Lake Eaglewood 1 Regulation $13428 510420 $7414 $6/$12 Davis County Bountiful City Bountiful Ridge 1 Regulation $13426 511/522 Na $8.50/$13 Davis County Layton Sun Hills 1 Regulation $13428 $10/$20 $10420 $7/$14 Davis County Kaysville Davie Park 1 Regulation $14428 511/$22 $8.50/$17 $6.50/$13 Davis County won Valley View 1 Regulation $14428 $11/$22 $8.50/$17 $8.50/513 Salt Lake County Murray Mick Riley Par 3 Par 3 $61$12-$7414 $51$10-$8I$12 55/$10-$61$120 $61512 Salt Lake County Murray Mick Riley Regulation $14428 $10/$20-$14/$28 $7I$14-$14S28 $49512 Salt Lake County West Jordan Mountain View 1 Regulation $14/$28 $101$20--$14/$28 $7l$14-$14$28 $6412 Salt Lake County Taylorsville Meadowbrook 1 Regulation $14428 $10I$20-$14I$28� $7/514-$14528 $&$12 'Salt Lake County Riverton Rlverbend 1 Regulation $14l$28--$151$30 $111$22-8151830 $81$16-$15430 S8412 Salt Lake County Draper ""South Mountain 1 Regulation $14/$26--$17/$31 $10.501$21-$171$31 $8/$16-$17/$31 ""S7/$14 Salt Lake County Uninc. Old Mill 1 Regulation $161830 5121524-$16/$30 $101$17-$16/$30 $71$14 Salt Lake County Salt Lake City Jordan River Per 3 Par 3 87/814 $6/$12 S6410 $7414 Salt Lake County Salt Lake City Nibley Park Regulation $121$24� 510/$20' $7414' _ 11" Salt Lake County Salt Lake City Forest Dale Regulation $13/$26 _ $11/$22 $7/$14 Salt Lake County Salt Lake City Glendale 1 Regulation $131s28, $11/522 $71514 Si Salt Lake County Salt Lake City Rose Park 1 Regulation $13/$28 $11/$22 $71$14 Salt Lake County Salt Lake City Wingpointe 1 Reg dioon $15/830 $12/$24 $71$14 Salt Lake County Salt Lake City Bonneville 1 Regulation $16430 -Iiiii $7/$14• Salt Lake County Salt Lake City Mountain Dell 3 Regulation $161S30 $7/$14I Salt Lake County South Jordan Mulligan's Par 3-Meadow, T_ Par 3 67.50/$15 $7/$14 $7/$14 $5410 Salt Lake County Taylorsville Fore Lakes-Par 3 Par 3 $8/$16 $7/$14 $7/$14 55/810 Salt Lake County Taylorsville Fore Lakes-Executive Executive $9/$18 $7/$14 $7414 S5410 Salt Lake County South Jordan Mulligan's Executive-Ridge Executive $9/$18 $8.50417 $8.50417 $5410 Salt Lake County South Salt Lake Central Valley Executive $10/$20 $7.50/$15 $7.50415 $5/$10 Salt Lake County Murray Murray Parkway 1 Regulation $13/$26, $11/$22 $7414 $8.50413 Salt Lake County West Valley City Westridge 1 Regulation $13/$26 $9417 $7413 $7414 Salt Lake County Sandy River Oaks 1 Regulation $13.50/$20-$15/$28 $10/$18• $10418 __$6.50412 Salt Lake County West Valley City Stonebridge 2 Regulation $15/$30 $9/$18-$15/$30 $6.50/$13 $6412 Summit County Heber City ""Homestead 1 Regulation $13/$26-$15.50/$31 Na n/a ""$7414 Summit County Midway Wasatch Mtn State Park 3 ReR gulation $14.50429 $12424 $12424 $8.50413 Summit County Midway Soldier Hollow 3 R9ulation $14.50429 $12/$24 $12/$24 $6.50/$13 Summit County Park City Park City 1 Regulation $18/$32-$21.50443 Na Na $7/$14 Utah County Payson Gladstan 1 Regulation $12424 $11/$22 $11/522 $7414 Utah County Spanish Fork Spanish Oaks 1 emulation 512/$24 $11422 $11/$22 $7414 Utah County Cedar Hills ""Cedar Hills 1 Re ulation $12424 $12424 $12424 ""$7/$14 Utah County Orem Cascade Golf Center 1 Regulation $12427 $11427 $11/$27 $7414 Utah County Provo East Bay. 27 Regulation $13428 $10420 $8/$18 $7/$14 Utah County Provo Riverside 18 Regulation $13428 $12424 $8416 $6412 Utah County Springville Hobble Creek 18 Regulation $13/$26 $12424 812424 S8418 Utah County American Fork Fox Hollow 18 Rgulation $14428 $14428 $14428 $8/$15 Utah County Eagle Mountain ''''""The Ranches, 18 Regulation $17429 $13422 $12420 ""57/$14 Utah County Orem Sleepy Ridge1 18 Regulation $18435 $18435 $18435 55/$10 Salt Lake City Courses Salt Lake County Courses "South Mountain requires a mandatory cart rental —Cedar Hills requires a mandatory cart rental "Homestead requireds a mandatory cart rental --The Ranches requires a mandatory cart rental SCANNED TO: 'i" TY ago° RBI SCANNED BY: SA �� a RICHARD GRAHAM � .��� P DATEAL BECKER PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES XI// DIRECTORS OFFICE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL //Ai/vb./If/ )11 DttC ni6t6 APR 13 2011 Date Received: David Everitt, Chief of Staff Date Sent to C I. Mr: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 13, 2011 Jill Remingtonn / Love, Chair FROM: I w"` 11" Piti01. Rick Graham, Director Public Services Department SUBJECT: Golf Fund CIP Priorities and Funding Proposal STAFF CONTACT: David Terry, Golf Enterprise Fund Manager 485-7831 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing on Legislative Intent Issue RECOMMENDATION: This proposal focuses on securing the long-term financial viability of the Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Fund. Attached is a list of the Golf Enterprise Fund's major capital improvement project priorities. As facility conditioning is the number one factor influencing where golfers play,these improvements are vital to the Golf Fund's ability to control water costs and protect and grow revenues given the competitive market for the public golf dollar. Therefore, the Administration requests that the Council support the menu of revenue solutions recommended in this report, or provide other solutions to the immediate and long-term capital needs of the golf fund with the end goal of authorizing the Golf Enterprise Fund to move forward with the generation of up to $23 million in CIP funds from sources outside of standard golf course operations. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Identified, are nine potential funding sources that, when combined, have the potential to generate the revenue required to fund Golf's major capital improvement projects. We have made progress on each of these potential funding mechanisms. But, until a decision is made concerning the proposed transfer of property to the SLC General Fund for the construction of other recreation facilities, or sale of this property for development purposes, no additional progress can be made on the other funding options. This is because all other funding options are linked to improvement projects at the golf courses. Until we can commit to the scope of the project, we can't ask LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 13B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1.3104 MAILING ADDRESS: P❑ BOX 145469, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 14-5469 TELEPHONE: BO1•535-7775 FAX: B01•535.7963 WWW.SLCGOV.COM `= RECYCLED PAPER potential partners to commit. At this time, none of the following potential revenue sources is committed: PROPOSED GOLF CIP FUNDING SOURCE POTENTIAL FUNDING 1&2. Surplus Property Transfer to the City or Development $13,045,641 3. ESCO Energy Performance Contractor Financing $ 3,300,000 4. Capital Cost Sharing Partnership at Nibley Park $ 100,000 5. Golf Fund Revenue Bond $ 2,500,000 6. University of Utah Partnership $ 2,000,000 7. Private and Corporate Donor Program at Bonneville $ 1,590,000 8. UGA/Utah PGA Golf House Partnership at Bonneville $ 500,000 9. Food & Beverage Concessionaire Partnership $ 155,000 TOTAL POTENTIAL CIP FUNDING $23,190,641 The following are answers to the City Council's most recent questions concerning the Golf CIP issue: "What is the long-term strategy for solving the Golf Fund's financial challenges, staying competitive, maintaining the properties, etc.?" This proposed CIP funding plan positions Salt Lake City Golf to remain financially self- sufficient for the long term by providing quality facility conditions, maintaining a competitive fee structure, and implementing a"Golf CIP Dedicated Fund" in FY14 (with an allocation of up to 50 cents per nine-hole round played)to ensure funds are available in future years for capital improvement projects. "Is there a revised prioritized list of projects with time frames?" This packet includes spreadsheets listing the proposed capital improvement projects by facility, by priority, by type of improvement, and by project start date. Given the Golf Fund's financial position, the prioritized list takes into account the need for improvement projects that will facilitate the generation of the necessary capital funding from outside sources, to decrease irrigation water expenses and conserve culinary water resources, and to increase operating revenues in future years. Therefore, Priority "A"projects are those tied to the generation of CIP funding, Priority "B"projects are those that reduce irrigation water expenses, Priority"C"projects give us the potential to increase future operating revenues (some Priority "A"projects also increase future operating revenues), and Priority "D" projects are other infrastructure improvements at all facilities. "In order to generate the revenues or sales prices as projected, what zoning would be necessary? How would that fit into the City's land use/master plan?" The highest and best use of up to 14.54 acres at Glendale, as determined by NAI Commercial Real Estate, was determined to be commercial. For up to 10 acres at Bonneville, the highest and best use was determined to be residential. As you know, the City is currently considering changes to the open space ordinance and open space zoning. At this time, I am not sure how those changes will impact the City's land use/master plan and this golf course property issue. "Does the Administration support the re-zoning of land so that highest and best land values are achieved?" Yes, if absolutely necessary, that option should be considered. However, effort should be made by the Administration and Council to identify and discuss the merits and values of all available funding options, before rezoning is considered. "Has the City considered entering into long-term leases on the properties proposed to be sold?" We have considered this option. A long-term lease appears to be a viable option for the UGA/UPGA Utah Golf House building that would be located adjacent to a new clubhouse at Bonneville, and for the University of Utah's Indoor Golf Practice Facility that would be located adjacent to the expanded driving range at Bonneville. Leasing may be an option for the 14.54 acres at Glendale and the 10 acres at Bonneville. When we obtain approval to move forward on these property issues, we will continue to work with SLC Community& Economic Development to determine if this is an option that could be included in a request for proposals. We have been told that, due to current economic conditions, it is difficult for developers to obtain loans on leased land. Another option to consider is for these properties to be transferred to the General Fund for future park and/or recreational facility development. The question is how the Golf Enterprise Fund would be compensated for the value of the land. Attached, is a spreadsheet that shows projected "highest and best use"values as determined by NAI Utah Commercial Real Estate Services in October 2009. Also, from our discussions with SLC Property Management, the estimated open space value of the land using local comparables is only approximately $40,000 per acre. While NAI Utah did not conduct an open space valuation study on the property, it confirmed that SLC Property Management's open space valuation appears accurate. At $40,000 per acre, the open space value of the 14.54 acres at Glendale is $581,600. The open space value of the 10 acres at Bonneville is $400,000 for a combined total of$981,600 compared to a combined total value of approximately $13 million using highest and best use estimates. Emy Maloutas, the City's Open Space Lands Program Manager, has experience valuing open space lands. She says that generally speaking, open space that is limited to recreational value only, and is left in a predominantly natural condition can be valued between $5,000-$10,000 per acre. The Jensen-Bowers property near the mouth of Parleys Canyon appraised at approximately $9,000 per acre. She also believes that the most recent open space appraisal that would be comparable to golf property, as far as speculative development within the open space zone, would be the Staker Parsons property south of the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve. That property appraised at approximately $40,000 per acre. It is also important to note that the City has recently purchased commercially zoned (M- 1) property to create the Riverview Preserve along the Jordan River. The City's plan is to rezone and preserve the property as open space. The City paid approximately $110,000 per acre for this land. "Which courses are subsidized?" After allocating Golf Admin net costs to all courses,the following golf courses were subsidized by the other golf courses in our system the past two years: FY09 FY10 Jordan River Par Three ( $95,125) ($ 82,317) Nibley Park GC ( $67,369) ($133,976) Rose Park GC ($132,226) ($ 94,345) Wingpointe GC ($ 65,482) It should be noted that Nibley Park hosts 90% of our junior golf clinics and camps during the summer months. This limits range, green fee, and cart rental revenue during certain times of the day. In other words,Nibley Park takes a hit financially for the very important role it plays in developing new golfers. In FY10, Wingpointe incurred unexpected repair costs totaling over $100,000 as a result of a collapsed canal culvert under the eighteenth fairway and a wild fire that burned down the restroom on hole thirteen. BUDGET IMPACT: The Golf Fund's attached financial projections show that our future operating capital budgets will provide funding for an equipment replacement program and minor and/or emergency facility improvement projects only through FYI5. Beyond FY15, it is projected that no money will be available for even minor and/or emergency facility infrastructure improvements. Therefore,the only way to fund the Golf Division's $22 million in deferred major capital improvement projects is through an infusion of capital dollars from new sources. A significant portion of these projects focus on improvements that will either expand future operating revenues or reduce irrigation water-related expenses. The completion of these projects will enable the Golf Fund to allocate appropriate cash capital dollars on an annual basis for minor and/or emergency facility improvement projects and for the implementation of a maintenance equipment replacement program. Attached are budget pro forma spreadsheets that project the financial future of the SLC Golf Enterprise Fund through FY18 under three scenarios. Pro Forma"A": This projection is a status quo budget scenario without a $22M investment into the Golf Fund's major capital improvement project priorities. The following is a summary: • FY12-FY18 total revenue $62,769,321. • FY12-FY18 total operating expense $58,666,864. • FY12-FY18 total non-financed capital outlay of only $730,000. Cash capital needs to total $1,750,000, an average of$250,000 annually, to handle facility deferred maintenance issues. • Three equipment buys in FY11, FY14, and FY17 each financed over three years total $2,295,000. This is the minimum investment into an equipment replacement program required to handle basic facility maintenance at our nine golf courses. • FY12-FY18 total capital $4,252,579. • Major CIP projects totaling $22M are not funded. Facilities continue to deteriorate as does our competitive position in the public golf market. • By FY16, only $15,000 is available for cash capital. • FY12-FY17 budgets show basically a$0 net income. The budgeted net income in FY18 is -166,335. Budgeted net income should be a minimum of$200,000 to increase cash reserves and allow for potential revenue shortfalls due to inclement weather conditions. Pro Forma"B": This projection shows the increased operating revenue and decreased irrigation water expenses resulting from an investment of$22M, all from outside revenue sources, into the Golf Fund's major capital improvement project priorities. The following is a summary: • FY12-FY18 total revenue of$64,782,307 is +$2,012,986 compared to Pro Forma "A". Revenue increases resulting from capital improvements have been projected conservatively. • Revenue losses due to construction are estimated at $1,000,000. These losses are not included in Pro Forma"B" as the plan is for$1,000,000 in CIP funding to be transferred to the operating budget to offset lost revenue during construction. • FY12-FY18 total operating expense of$57,412,991 is -$1,253,873 compared to Pro Forma"A" as a result of reduced irrigation water expenses. Irrigation water expenses were projected at 50%their current levels. • Three equipment buys in FY11, FY14, and FY17, each financed over three years totaling $2,910,000, total +$615,000 compared to Pro Forma"A". • FY12-FY18 total non-financed capital outlay of$1,835,000 is +$1,105,000 compared to Pro Forma"A" and meets the projected need of an average of $250,000 annually to handle deferred facility infrastructure issues. • FY12-FY18 total capital of$5,887,579 is+$1,635,000 compared to Pro Forma • Major CIP projects totaling $22M are funded totally with outside funding sources. • Net income from FY12-FY18 is projected to total $1,481,737, an average of $211,677 annually, and is $1,631,859 more than the -$150,122 loss projected for the same seven year period on Pro Forma"A". • A "Golf CIP Dedicated Fund" is implemented with the green fee increase in January 2014. It is proposed that 50 cents per nine-hole round would be allocated to this fund to ensure monies are available in the future to complete necessary capital improvement projects on the golf courses, clubhouses, and maintenance facilities. By the end of FY18, it is projected that this fund would total $1,121,904 under this scenario. Pro Forma"C": Revenues and operating expenses are the same as Pro Forma"B". Some cash capital amounts and net income levels decrease as a result of a$210,000 annual bond payment resulting from a$2,500,000/15Y/3%I Golf Fund revenue bond. Bond funds would be used to start top priority projects prior to securing CIP funding from property transactions and partnerships. The $210,000 bond payment is the maximum amount of debt the Golf Fund can handle. Due to the addition of the annual bond payment, only 25 cents per nine-hole round could be allocated to a"Golf CIP Dedicated Fund". In this scenario, the total in this fund at the end of FY18 is only $560,952. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public hearings may be required in association with golf course property decisions. Golf course user group and community council meetings and/or open houses will be held to explain the need for these capital improvement projects, project plans/options, and the details associated with the proposed funding sources. The Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board will be involved throughout this process. Attached is a letter submitted by that board in 2007 recommending the transfer or sale of surplus golf course property as a way to fund the completion of the Golf Fund's deferred CIP priorities. In the Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board's meeting on March 23, 2011, current board members confirmed that their position on this issue has not changed, and they would like to see this progress on this critical issue very soon. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ PRO FORMA"A"(Without$22 minion CIP Investment from Outside Funding Sources) San Lake City Golf Dhlsion 3/21/2011 Fund Summary-Cash Basis • • •a Limn,//I Rounds/Revenue su<P. ,. a 4381,e17 Actual Actual Actual BdglRro)ec8on Budget Projected Projected Prelim-led Projected Projected Projected Total FT-08 FY-09 FY-10 FY-11 FY-12 _FY-13 FY-14 FY-15 FY-16 FY-17 FY-18 2012-2911 Revenue Green Fees 4,483,569 4,519,334 4,398.695 4.569.504 4.439.000 4,527,780 4,527,780 4,527,780 4,618,336 4,710,702 4.710,702 Golf Can Rental 1.912,527 1,882,413 1,793,780 1,889200 1,839,200 1,875,984 1,875,984 1,875.964 1,894,744 1,913,691 1,913,691 Dining Range Fees 328,519 330,452 327,872 345,013 343,000 349,860 349,860 349360 358857 363,994 363,994 Merchandise Sales 807,905 772,120 738,057 809,000 800,500 816,510 816,510 818,510 832,840 849,497 849,497 Concessions 177,816 153,144 126,840 121200 117200 119,544 119,544 119,544 121,935 124,374 124,374 Miscellaneous Revenue 377,051 325,310 406.015 380,330 412,188 420.432 420,432 420,432 428,840 437,417 437,417 Impact of cart fee increases In January 2010 130000 130.000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 Impact of peen lee increases In January 2010 350300 350,000 350000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 Impact of green fee increases In January 2014 - 175,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 Impact of can lee increases in January 2018 65,000 130,000 130,000 Impact of green fee increases in January 2018 175,000 Total Revenue 8,087,387 7,982,773 7,791259 8,611,517 8,431,088 8,590,110 8,765,110 8,940,110 9,148,552 9,359,676 9,534,676 02,769,321 -2.5% -1.3% -24% 3.0% 4t14 1.9% 2,0% 2.0% 2.3% 2.3% 1.9% Expense FYttR%bae,..eo Nona ant: 4ten,o Operating Expenses m %3% rt 31621% � M *wool%harem Personal Services 3,672.967 3,564216 3,591,048 3,778,867 3,879236 3,995,613 4,115.481 4238,946 4,388,114 4,497,098 4,632,011 OSM SODDIles 1,191,807 1,208,580 1,039,305 1,159,857 1265,982 1291,000 1239,000 1284,000 1289,000 1,315,000 1,430,000 0 Charges and Services 2,106,190 2,302,723 2,080,921 2328,776 2,357,380 2,428,000 2,501,000 2,576,000 2,653,000 2,733,000 2,815,000 Transfers out PILOT,Gen Fund.8,PS Dept costs 2138,182 256,218 225,407 284999 240,003 245,000 250,000 255,000 280,000 265,000 270,000 Total Operating Expenses 7238926 7,329,735 6,936,681 7,552,499 7,742,601 7,959,613 8,105,481 8,333,946 8,588,114 8,810,098 9,147,011 56,666364 Fnt ny.sa.,..serve watt: Net Operations before Capital and Debt Service 848,481 653,036 854,578 1,062,048 688,417 830,497 659,628 606,164 580,438 549,578 387,665 Fret Ppueare mar Mae left: ele,s4a Capital Outlay and Debt Service Capital Outlay)non-financed)-Equip.and Facilities 114,070 84,622 239.336 118000 1MI 111601111 110,11101 310,000 15,000 - - 730,000 Debt Service for Inigabon and Construction 698628 - - - - - - - - - - Debt Service for Equipment•Carts 01(Memtenanca) 251,899 259.373 263.315 - - • . Debt Service for Equipment 42(Mamtenaze) 246.056 248,056 250.000 - - - . . gi Debt Service for Equipment 03(Maintenance) - - - 290,000 290,000 290,000 • - & Debt Service for Equipment R4(Maintenaze) - - - - - - 280.000 280,000 x Debt Service for Cans 61(Pro Shop) 259,753 - 258,174 258.174 258.175 258,174 258,174 - - - Debt Service for Carts 82(Pm Shop 8 Maintenance) - - - - - 274,000 274,000 274,000 Total Capital Outlay and Debt Service 1,072,451 338,321 758.883 877,548 679.231 528,174 658.174 600.000 579,000 554,000 554,000 4252,579 M tF.Veree+ea>No.11H1: Net Operations on Cash Basis 5 (223,990)8 316,717 1 97,895 5 184,502 5 8,266 8 2,3Z3 8 1.464 8 6,164 1 1,436 $ (4,422)1 (188335) (150,122) Fyrt Ftst.ae.0 a841aeh ant: Total Revenue 8,087,387 7,982,773 7,791259 8614347 8,431.088 8.590.110 8,755,110 8,940,110 9.148,552 9.359,676 9,534.676 62,769,321 Total Expense 8311,377 7,688,056 7,693,564 8,430,045 8421.832 8.587,787 8763656 8,933,946 9,147,114 9,364,098 9,701,011 62,919,443 Net (223,990) 316,717 97,895 164,502 9256 2,323 1,454 6,164 1,438 (4,422) (166,335) (150,122) Ending Cash Reserves 956,054 1,140,556 965,310 967,633 969087 975251 976,689 972287 Sift FYI/Baete,a•da.ee inn: Three months of operating expense 5 1,832,434 1,734,170 1,888,125 5 1,935,850 5 1,989,903 5 2.026.370 S 2,083,486 5 2.142,029 5 2,202,524 5 2286,753 8 Cart Battery Replacement Cozu In FY3213,18,and 19 ©5710,0001390Y5PEquipmant Pvcliase 8 5810,000/496/3Y,5P Equipment Purchase a$775,00055LOY15P Equipment Purchase PRO FORMA"B"(With$22 million CIP Investment from Outside Funding Sources) Salt Lake City Golf Division 3121/2011 Fund Summary-Cash Basis •ft, e..,.Fa,a,n0.cnee.mRwr,ev7n..,,,.. . 7OM C.O. 0. 1.00% t. rvne-Fide Rome, 07 s to tR a s a 3 4 4 3A11,407 Actual Actual Actual BdgtProfectlon Budget Protected Protected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total FY-08 FY-09 FY-10 FY-11 FY-12 FY-13 FY-14 FY.15 FY-16 FY-17 P018 1$11:3 i Revenue Green Fees 4,483,569 4,519,334 4.398,695 4.589.804 4439.000 4.542,780 4.566.780 4.661.780 4,785,016 4.880.716 4.929.523 Golf Cart Rental 1,912,527 1.882.413 1.793780 1.889,200 1.839,200 1.877,984 1382,984 1.921,984 1.954204 1973.746 1.993.483 Driving Range Fees 328,519 330,452 327,872 345,013 343,000 384,860 434,880 494,860 519,757 530,152 535454 Merchandise Sales 807,905 772,120 738,057 809000 800.500 821,510 824,510 844510 886,400 883,728 892.565 Concessions 177.816 153,144 126.840 121,200 117200 119,544 119,544 134,544 147235 150,180 151,681 kgscellaneaus Revenue 377.051 325,310 406,015 380,330 412,188 420,432 420,432 420,432 428,840 437,417 441,791 .pact of can lee increases in January 2010 130,000 130,000 130,000 130.000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 Impact of green lee increases in January 2010 350.000 359000 350,000 350.000 350,000 350,000 350.000 350,000 Impact of green lee increases In January 2014 - 175.000 350,000 350,000 350.000 350,000 Impact of cart lee increases in January 2016 65,000 130,000 130,000 Impact of green fee increases in January 2018 175.000 Total Revenue 5087,387 7,982,773 7.791259 8,614,547 8,431,088 8,647,110 8,904,110 9,308,110 9,596,452 9,815.939 10,079,499 64,783,307 , -2.5% -1.3% -2.4% tau 4..x 2.8% 3.0% 4.5% 3.1% 2.3% 2.7% Expanse Free Oral.*a of March aerr: ar0eaee Operating Expenses a a sY ss 4..unee r a he Personal Services 3,672,967 3564216 3,591,048 3,775867 3,879.236 3,995.613 4,119.481 4253,065 4,380,657 4,512,077 4,647,439 pain Supplies 1,191.607 1206,580 1,039,305 1,159,857 1265.982 1,301,000 1,249,000 1,281,480 1,307,110 1,333,252 1,450,000 4 Charges and Services 2,106,190 2.302.723 2,080,921 2.328,776 2,357.380 2,430.101 2,401,000 2358,030 2298.771 2.367.734 2438766 Transfers out PILOT.Gan Fund.8 PS Dept costs 268,162 256216 225,407 284,999 240,003 244.803 259000 255,000 260.100 265,302 279608 Total Operating Expenses 7238,926 7.329.735 6,936,681 7,552,499 7,742.601 7,971518 8,019681 8,147,575 8246.638 8,478,365 8,806,814 57,412,1111 CI.R y.*se al II*AM: I,219,000 Net Operations before Capital and Debt Service 848.461 653038 854,578 1,062.048 688,487 675,592 884,629 1,160,534 1,349,814 1,337,574 1272,885 Fr..P1Weeue,maIMnak lent: emaa Capital Outlay and Debt Service Capital Outlay(non-financed)-Equip.and FaalN8s 114070 84,622 239336 110,000 196,6M 19.M6 250.000 350,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 1,635,000 Debt Service for Irrigation and Construction 698,628 - - - - - - - - - Debt Service for Equipment•Carts 81(Malntenance) 251,699 259,373 263,316 - - - Debt Service for Equipment a2lMaintenancel 246,056 246,056 250,000 - - - . - rs Debt Service for Equipment#3(Mainlenance) - - - 360,000 360.000 360,000 - - & Debt Service for Equipment#4(Mainlenance) • - - 440,000 4411,000 a Debt Service for Carts al(Pro Shop) 259,753 - 258,174 258,174 258,175 258,174 258,174 • - - - Debt Service for Carts#2(Pro Shop 8 Maintenance) - - - - - 274,000 274,000 274,000 Total Capital()stay and Debt Service IA72,451 336,321 756,833 877546 879231 668.174 868.174 710,000 984,000 1,014,000 964,000 5,807,579 MIRe..ean mallee tat: Net Operations on Cash Basis $ (223,990)5 316,717 $ 97,695 $ 184,502 $ 87m $ 7,416 $ 16456 $ 450,534 $ 365,814 $ 323,574 5 308,685 1,481,737 FYI/Ry.als,a•af aloeh lee: Total Revenue 8,087,387 7,982,773 7,791259 8,614,547 8.431.088 8,647.110 8,904110 9,308,110 9,596,452 9,815,939 10,079,499 84,782,307 Total Expense 8,311,377 7,666,056 7.693.564 8,430,045 8,421.832 5639,692 8,887,655 8,857,575 9230,638 9,492,365 9,770,814 63,300,570 Net (223,990) 316,717 97,6995 184,502 9256 7,418 18455 450,534 365,814 323,574 308,685 1,481,737 Ending Cash Reserves 956,054 1,140,556 965,310 972,728 989,183 1,439,717 1,805,531 2.129.106 2637291 Fret Ryenm me Mesh rant: 1134164 Three months of operating expense $ 1032.434 1,734,170 1,888.125 $ 1.935.650 $ 1,992879 $ 2,004,870 5 2,036,894 $ 2061,659 $ 2,119,591 $ 2,201,703 O01/CP189Aca4M Fund(800aet.Par 0M.00,9 ro.w9: $ 12038 $ 243,078 $ 248,669 $ 253.642 $ 256,179 $ 363,111 8 812,093 $ 995,725 $ 1,121,901 aCart Battery Replacement Costs in Fy12,13,18,andl9 ®$710,006V3%/3Y/6P Equipment Purdtea 8$1,000,00014%✓JVSP Equipment Puncnese ^$1,200.000,51YJV,5P Equipment Purchase • P.ROYORMA' '(WIth422 mRRtm p►Meeshnent,$2a5M from 13-Yeartiond/Rdanoeham O14Wde'F4am11ng'Soenees) Salt Lake City Goff Division 3/2112011 Fund Summary-Cash Basis • - Base Pe.,em.v.ch.,m aouroam...,..a K 2.00, • /. e"ne8d.eo.,m 458,5e1 e} n a M M s ae,4P ;1HM l , Actual Ac1ua1 A00,221 BdgtNrp)aclott Profacted a attained Projected Projected PtofaCtaa PrOfectad TOW FY-08 FY-09 FY-10 FY-11 t^ FY-13 FY-14 FY-15 FY-16 FY-17 FY-18 2972391C Revenue Green Fees 4.483,569 4,519,334 4.398695 4,589,804 4, 4.542,780 4,566,780 4.661,780 4,785,016 4,880,716 4,929.524 Gab Carl Rental 1,912,527 1,882,413 1,793,780 1,889203 1,877,984 1,882,984 1.921.984 1,954204 1,973,746 1,993,483 Driving Range Fees 328,519 330,452 327,872 345,013 384,880 434,860 494,860 519,757 530,152 535,454 Merchandise Sales 807.905 772,120 738.057 809,003 821,510 824,510 844,510 868,400 883,728 892,585 Concessions 177,816 153,144 126.840 121200 119,544 119,544 134,544 147235 150.180 151,681 Miscellaneous Revenue 377,051 325,310 406.015 380,330 420,432 420.432 420,432 428,840 437,417 441.791 Impact of cart lee increases in January 2010 130.000 130,000 130.000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 Impact of green lee Increases in January 2010 350,000 350.000 350.000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350030 Impact of green lee increases in January 2014 - 175,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 Impact of cart fee increases in January 2016 65.000 130,000 130,000 Impact of green fee Increases in January 2018 175.000 Total Revenue 8.087,387 7,982,773 7,791259 8,614,517 8,617,110 8,904,110 9,308,110 9,598,452 9,815,939 10,07949e 64,782,307 -2.5% -13% -2.4% 10.6% 2.6% 3.0% 4.5% 3.1% 2.3% 2.7% Expense FYI/',Wan ada..e xlt: 8,/110,00. Operating Expenses . - r M a h.. Personal Services 3,872,967 3.564216 3,591,048 3,778,867 3.995.613 4.119,481 0253,065 4,380,657 4.512.077 4,647,439 O&M Supplos 1,191,007 1206,580 1,039,305 1,159,857 1,301,000 1249000 1281,480 1,307.110 1,333252 1,450,000 # Charges and Services 2.106,190 2,302,723 2.080.921 2328778 2430,101 2,401,000 2,358,030 2,298,771 2,367,734 2,438,756 Transfers out PILOT,Gen Fund,8 PS Dept.Goss 2613162 258216 225.407 284.999 244,803 250.000 255,000 260,110 265,302 270,608 Total Operating Expenses 7238,926 7,329,735 6,936.881 7.552.499 7.971,518 8,019.481 8,147,575 8206,538 8478,365 8,806,813 57412,991 FYI,p, 2.e..✓M.ae4a/I: 7Jw,Me Net Operations before Capital and Debt Service 548,461 653,039 854575 1082,016 675,592 884,829 1,180,535 1,349,814 1,337,574 1272,685 FYI,B.ww.eaara.II: MAI Ganda!Outlay and Debt Service .....i Capital Outlay(non-financed)-Equip.and Facilities 110,070 84.822 239,336 110,000 000 50.000 50,000 350.000 300.000 250.000 250,000 1A25411Ie1 Debt Service for Irrigation and Construction 698.628 - - - - 210.000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 II Debt Service for Equipment•Carts81(Maintenance) 251,699 259.373 263.316 - - - Debt Service for Equipment 82(Maintenance) 246.056 .056 250.000 - - - - - Debt Service for Equipment 173(Maintenance) - 360.000 360,030 360.000 - - 8,Debt Service for Ewlpment 84(Maintenance) - - - 440,000 440,000 Debt Setvice for Carts#1(Pro Shop) 259.753 - 258.174 268,174 258,174 258.174 - - - - Debt Seance 8(7 Carts#2(Pro Snag&Maintenance) - - - - 274,000 274,000 274,000 Total Capital Outlay and Debt Service 1,072,451 3313.321 758583 877,546 768.174 878,174 920,000 1,144,000 1,174,000 1,174,000 6,737,579 Fn,Brea.,..data FM: MOO Net Operations on Cash Basis $ (223,990)8 3113,717 $ 97,895 $ 184,502 t (82,562)S 6456 S 240,535 $ 205,814 $ 168,874 8 96,685 631,737 ' MI B0,.a.,..alla.a ant: Total Revenue 8,087,387 7,982,773 7.791259 8,814.547. 8,647,110 8,904.110 9,308,110 9,598,452 9,815,939 10,079,498 64.782,307 Total E00..0. 8,311,377 7,666,056 7,693,584 8,430,045' 8,739,692 8,897,655 9,067,575 9,390,638 9,652,385 9,980,813 64.150,570 Net (223,990) 316,717 97.695 184,502 (92,582) 6,455 240,535 205,814 183,574 98,685 631,737 Ending Cash Reserves 956,054 1,140,558 872,728 879,183 1,119.718 1.325,532 1,489,106 1.5117,701 Fn/wyea.,..dace Mr. MUM Three months of operating expense $ 1.832434 1734.170 1.888.125 8 1.992,879 $ 2,004,870 8 2,036.894 $ 2,061.660 S 2,119,591 0 2,201703 aas7eroauwwiateRs..oe4n.#arb.aafa‘#a: .-i-IaF.s39 $ 1de„u4 a 1'16;ii7'I a 7zaD9s -.-. ;'.�A116 r t 'mosss 43x8t7 $ s64352 It Corr Battery Replacement Costs in FY11,13,t8,and 19 075710.000/3%lJY/6P Equipment Purchase 681,000,001WW3YAPEOJ9#alttPtotts ^81,200.000Fv%/JY,6P Epaipmenl P.ocnase peal: SLC Golf Course Excess reit nil Ittl .el so 4 3:a! Summary of Conclusions Glendale Golf Course Location 2100 South between 1200 West&1600 West Property Size 13.65 acres+(1)0.89 acre non-contiguous pad Current Use/Zone Golf Course Use/Zoned OS Highest&Best Use Commercial(office/high image industrial use) Anticipated Pricing 13.65 Acre Parcel $4.50 PSF-$8.00 PSF($2,675,000-$4,756,000) 0.89 Acre Parcel $8.00 PSF-$10 PSF($314,000-$387,700) Total Pricing Range for Combined Parcels $2,989,000-S5,144,000 -C Bonneville Golf Course Location Approximately 1100 South Foothill Blvd Property Size 10 acres Current Use/Zone Golf Course Use/Zoned OS Highest&Best Use Residential(multi-family,for sale condominiums or single family) Anticipated Pricing 10 Acres Multi-Family= $11.02 PSF(8 units per acre @$60,000 per unit)S4,800,000 =$13.77 PSF(12 units per acre @$50,000 per unit)$6,000,000 10 Acres Single Family=$13.77 PSF(4 units per acre @$150,000 per lot)S6,000,000 =$18.37 PSF(4 units per acre @$200,000 per lot)$8,000,000 Total Pricing Range for Multi-family: $4,800,000-$6,000,000 Single Family: $6,000,000-$8,000,000 O Nil Utah Creating and preserving real estate values." Con.neell Rag Ew.as,ka.wo4w4e 343 East 500 South I Sall Lake City.UT 84111 I Office 801.578.5555 I Fax 801.578.5500 I naiulah.com ,m,s..-....c..,.,...>.vus•c.,.>-,.o,,..,�>.e.•:ru,..sr°,,,M1-,.,.,.",.v,�ar.,p.,.a".,...i...o..,.�,,.Nn>.�..,n,...�,..n.,..�...na..>ni,...,--..,m,.....-...arn. SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION r • OLF MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES /wsLAICBC av 117, .2 F9 u3, b �a"r *t a i l X i� - ,. - 9„vs 47 t .*i w k I }• • s „� s_� I r • • ' VAiT.-. ti �fi" il-e t € . ...* , 1' !,-, ... ,.. . ' ..,...'....,,;-.,,,e.st. it . v y _ It rri ri. I y, 4. u L CU `'$ Ns .air tu A ..f- q a.3}�''fl ly l: p ayrf M w � t d Ito 0 Option 2-C _ Bonneville Gotf Club _ pgyyf' Preliminary Design&Renovation Concept SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAId'CITY GOLF _• cp . ( , a., Cl ' 60 `~ O , $' a` * = p 4'y, i' fv' h • t'" Ar - op CD C . . ' 1 o o , 1 I low , ' t I t 4 1 1 e i_ • i'� d l r r sV I r, 5, t . % I . tic 11 Y. ,� J 1 , y�n. � 4 e ♦ .* '.f 4 i ,�o• .a. 3 r ICR eRvDic GRAHAM S 1 E& i ortov a' RALPH BECKER rOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR November 28,2007 Mayor Ralph Becker Salt Lake City Council Members 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: The citizen members of the Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board respectfully submit the following letter for your consideration. Throughout the'90's,the golf industry experienced unprecedented growth. Then,almost as rapidly as interest had grown in the game,a period of stagnation set in. Theories about the slowdown arose:a sagging economy,the cost of the game in many areas of the country,the proliferation of golf facilities,the inherent difficulty of the game,and an aging golfer population--none of which,when taken alone,adequately accounted for the decline in rounds played at many facilities. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 2,2007,this sobering fact:"Last year,for the first time in 60 years,more courses closed in the U.S.than opened." As dire as that may sound and as stagnant as the national golf market has been in recent years,we in Utah have a number of singular advantages that industry managers in others areas of the country do not have. Our population continues to grow at an accelerated pace,fueled by a continued high birth rate and the desirability of Utah as a preferred place of residence by those relocating from other states—both of which predict good news for the future of golf in Utah. Statistically,our senior population lives longer than those in other states and enjoys a healthier,more active lifestyle well into their 70's,80's and even 90's,a factor that bodes well for golf now and into the future. Compared to facilities around the nation,Utah public golf courses offer their clientele a quality golf experience for a reasonable price. Still,Salt Lake City Golf has not been immune to the decline in rounds played per golf course over the past decade(see attached Total Rounds Spreadsheet),and as new golf course construction continues to advance in Salt Lake County,as well as in neighboring counties to the north,south,east,and west(see attached New Public Golf Course Development List),the City courses find themselves struggling to fund a timely equipment replacement program and major capital improvement projects in the midst of a highly competitive environment. The same Journal article offered a different perspective on one possible solution to the declining numbers:"Golf has tried hard to draw new players. But it may have missed a bigger opportunity:getting more rounds out of its most avid golfers." Golf professionals know this intuitively;just as they know that avid golfers are always looking for ways to get the"best bang for their buck." Locally,the rapid pace of new public golf course openings,which has outpaced the modest increase in demand,has created a competitive GOLF DIVISION 2375 SOUTH ROD EAST,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84106 TELEPHONE:S01-4S5.7730 FAX:SD1-466.67OS • environment where"best bang for the buck"has come to mean green fee discounts. This practice has been a boon to some golfers who hop from course to course looking for the deal of the day. But golf course managers,who have offered discounts hoping to increase their share of an over-supplied market,have discovered that although their efforts might have resulted in a small,short-term increase in rounds,this strategy failed to result in long-term revenue growth. The desirability of maintaining green space in the City demands that we ensure the fiscal health of our Salt Lake City golf courses. If we take into account the Wall Street Journal's suggestion that part of the solution lies with our"most avid golfers,"then the problem can be framed by asking what must be done to attract dedicated patrons to Salt Lake City courses and to encourage their loyalty to our facilities while charging them a fair price for these services? Given that facility conditioning ranks as the top factor influencing where golfers play,Salt Lake City golf courses and associated support facilities must be upgraded and brought current with the atmosphere and services found at the best public facilities locally,statewide,and beyond. Golfers want to feel that their dollar is buying the very best golf experience possible. This experience begins with the amenities provided to anyone walking through the door. What services are offered by the pro shop? Is the clubhouse inviting? Does the restaurant provide quality food service? Are the restrooms clean and attractive? Are the grounds around the clubhouse well maintained? Are practice areas available for driving, iron practice,chipping,and putting? Is the course itself in good condition and enjoyable to play? How is the pace of play? Are golf course employees friendly and helpful—both in the pro shop and on the course? The list goes on. The problem is that too often the money runs out before a course is able to invest into the new maintenance equipment and improved facilities required to provide the very best public golf experience possible. In Salt Lake City,the factor that contributes most seriously to our failure to meet the standards set by the best public golf facilities is the on-going problem of deferred capital improvements:the practice of allowing machinery and infrastructure to deteriorate by postponing prudent but less than critical renewal,renovation,or replacement in an effort to save cost,labor and/or materials in the short term. Salt Lake City Golf has been in a perpetual state of deferring capital improvements,and the continued neglect or postponement of essential projects has brought our system to a near critical point. As a governmentally established"enterprise fund,"Salt Lake City's golf courses are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises. The costs of providing golf-related goods and services to the general public on a continuing basis are intended to be funded through user charges. However,because a substantial portion of the Golf Fund's revenue base has been required annually to service the bond associated with the construction of Wingpointe and eighteen additional holes at Mountain Dell,the task of replacing the machinery and improving the infrastructure of Salt Lake City's golf courses in a prudent manner has proven increasingly difficult over the past decade and will continue to be so without an infusion of capital dollars from new sources. Salt Lake City Golf cannot be financially successful when facilities include such inadequacies as outdated,wasteful,and labor-intensive manual irrigation systems; • clubhouses that are unable to host corporate tournaments,banquets,and other public events;dilapidated permanent and embarrassing portable on-course restroom facilities; driving ranges that do not allow for the use of today's improved golf equipment;a lack of cart paths in key locations required to provide quality turf conditions;a lack of rip rap or gabion baskets to prevent erosion to lake banks;and maintenance facilities without adequate equipment and chemical storage bays and power and water supplies. In order to compete with the surrounding area golf courses and continue to operate as a self- sufficient enterprise fund,Salt Lake City Golf must find the means to upgrade facilities. The Director of Golf,in conjunction with the Golf Course Superintendents,Head Golf Professionals,and Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board,has compiled a list of deferred capital improvement projects that are now critical to the infrastructure if we expect our golf courses to compete in today's marketplace. This attached CIP Potential Funding Sources,Priorities,and Projected Costs Spreadsheet includes both"A"and`B"priority items that will require a preliminary estimate of$17 to$19 million in capital funding. Unfortunately,the costs associated with these pressing capital improvement needs at all Salt Lake City golf courses extend beyond the Golf Fund's ability to generate funding for this purpose through operating revenues. While funding must come from multiple sources,the primary solution lies in the Golf Division divesting itself of surplus property on selected golf courses. By transferring this property to other Salt Lake City divisions • or departments for recreational,open space,or facility needs with a fair market payment going to the Golf Fund,or by selling this surplus property for residential or commercial development purposes,the Salt Lake City Golf Division could fund up to an estimated $14 million of its top-priority capital improvement projects. A preliminary evaluation including formal property appraisals shows the feasibility of taking such action. The improved services provided by our golf facilities as a result of these capital improvement projects will most certainly result in an increase in patronage,which in turn will translate into greater revenues. This increased revenue,combined with the FY2008 retirement of the Wingpointe and Mountain Dell Construction Bond,will allow the Golf Division to fund on-going operations,a long-term equipment replacement program,and third tier capital improvements with revenues generated through normal operations. The citizen members of the Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board strongly urge both the Mayor and the City Council to consider,review,and adopt this innovative solution by allowing the Golf Division to divest itself of land bordering select City courses through transfer or sale for the express purpose of reinvesting all earnings into the Golf Fund. The proceeds from this transfer or sale are to be used solely for implementing and bringing to completion our long-deferred and much needed City golf facility capital improvement projects. Funding of"A"priority Golf CIP items by means of this process is of primary importance;however,after those golf facility infrastructure needs have been met,any surplus funds remaining should then be used to address as many"B"level capital projects as possible. • If the Golf Division is denied the opportunity to generate funding for long-deferred major capital improvement projects through the transfer or sale of surplus golf course property, Salt Lake City's golf courses will be faced with the following two less than acceptable options: 1)ask the City for a general fund subsidy from tax monies to help pay for the completion of deferred capital improvements at the golf courses,or 2)face a grim financial future as deteriorating golf facility conditions coupled with a very competitive public golf market result in a downward spiral of decreasing rounds and revenues. Neither of the above options seems acceptable given Salt Lake City Golfs mandate to remain a self-sufficient enterprise fund free of taxpayer subsidy combined with its potential to be one of the top public golf systems in the country that 1)provides a high- quality,affordable recreational amenity to a significant portion of the community,2) beautifies and preserves valuable open space,and 3)plays a key role in tourism and economic development efforts. The Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board requests that the Mayor and City Council authorize the Golf Director to proceed in solving the problem of deferred capital improvements through the transfer or sale of surplus real property. Concurrently,the potential for the development of partnerships with businesses,educational institutions, golf associations,and private citizens should be explored in an effort to fund additional capital improvement projects and otherwise financially benefit Salt Lake City's golf program. Sincerely, Darian Abegglen Cheri Ause s Burbidge Alan Seko Kir Siddens Thomas Wri +,half.. A` 4 '21 .i ° �ypy .41 • 1 . ...0 : *._, .4411F -,, • N L '4.x. ' —PI* • 0e4r,y ` o) + d Nov Life At .• .y, 4. _ or '� ,,,/ Deltona Club near Orlando, �c'0,�i. 4 +�{ y' R Weed made •b y room for r ��;.. ?- _..• condos on site , (''; '' •.?1 of old practice `. 1 r q� •� • range so the ¢‘ - T f' t .Y new owner 7= 4 ' - could fund �•. yr improvements to the course. WEEDING OUT: A Survival Plan For Struggling Clubs ': • Bobby Weed has been around golf course or 30 years ago,is magnified."Whether it be 91 _ design for 30 years.He has persevered through an inefficient routing,too big a clubhouse, ,c ,7' -. .-. - 15- plenty of economic ups and downs,and he wrong pricing structure,strung out golf holes, •,ru • - 14 doesn't think this one has bottomed out yet. not enough room,too much room,wrong en- .°f o _ c i "I wouldn't be surprised to see 1,000 courses- try,too much overhead,too many layers,too a ; plus close,"he says. much management,"Weed asserts that a , -t_ ' 2 . To Weed,it all comes down to one four-letter plethora of issues have private clubs"bleed- '� word:debt In good times,when rounds are up ing money."Even if these clubs wanted to c. and membership isgrowing,debt is fine,but if update and upgrade,they simply can't take you're not growing your membership,it is very on any more debt. difficult to get the financing or to take on the Further,Weed argues,the idea of funding debt to make capital improvements,to stay capital improvements through debt that and hopes to balance that out by creating$4 competitive and maintain high standards. is serviced by initiation fees or through million worth of condominiums on a 17-acre Weed realized several years ago that the member assessments is"laughable"in this swath that Weed carved out. joyride of the late 1990s—more than 300 environment. Weed believes it is the best of all worlds. course openings a year—was unsustainable. A Weed re-purposing begins with an aerial "We can find a way to keep the course open, He and associate Chris Monti have tried to look photo.The target:wasted space.Perhaps a find a vehicle to fund the improvements to around the comer to divine the next phase for parking lot was poorly sited or the practice make the facility competitive,create a little the industry and for their firm.Their premise: range could be moved.The clubhouse could be more tax base and create some development Architects have lost touch with the business downsized,or a par 5 could be condensed into opportunities that previously never existed," side of the game."People weren't asking the a par4.The idea is to find bits of ill-used land he says. right questions on the front end,"says Weed, within the existing property.Then,by shifting Weed,who is still somewhat protective of "because it's obvious that much of it didn't a hole or moving a piece of the parking lot,or the concept,is expounding on it because he make business sense on the back end." relocating a maintenance barn,all the loose thinks the industry needs it With new constnx- Weed refers to the concept he and Monti bits are condensed into one mass.The owner tion at a standstill and the financial barriers are touting as"re-purposing,"a new financial can then go apply for rezoning,perhaps for to improving existing courses very high,re- model to fund meaningful course improvement. residential housing,maybe for a conservation purposing—whether 10 or 100 acres—could As they see it,the United States has hundreds easement.The resulting increase in land value keep architects and courses in business. of 20-to 40-year-old golf clubs that need im- can then facilitate loans for much-needed "The inventory of courses out there facing provements and updates if for no other reason capital improvements. declining infrastructural issues is huge and than a new or improved course was built down Weed has completed a handful of such growing"Weed says,"and thefinancial pressure the street within the last decade. projects,most notably at the Deltona(Fla.) on them is growing.Meantime,acquisition of Next comes sloppy club management.In Club,near Orlando(known previously as Del- existingfacilities is so much less expensive than good times there is plenty of margin for mistake, tona Hills G&CC).There,the current owner building new golf courses.Those trends aren't but today every error,whether made yesterday invested$4 million in the struggling facility going to change in the near term" —CM. GolfWorld.com March 22,2010 39 • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND POTENTIAL CIP FUNDING SOURCES, PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS-PROJECTS LISTED BY FACILITY 10-Mar-11 ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES 1-2 TRANSFER OR SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PARCELS GROSS ESTIMATED LESS COSTS NET ESTIMATED PROPERTY ASSOCIATED PROPERTY PROCEEDS WITH SALE PROCEEDS FY11 Rose Park 1400 North 1200 West(3 Acres) $425,000 ($3,000) $422,000 FY13 Bonneville Holes#7/#8(10 Acres) $8,000,000 ($560,000) $7,440,000 FY14 Forest Dale South Parking Lot(1.00 Acre) $400,000 $0 $400,000 FY15 Glendale 2100 South Frontage(13.65 Acres) $4,756,000 ($332,920) $4,423,080 FY15 Glendale 2100 South West Portion of Parking Lot(.89 Acre) $387,700 ($27,139) $360,561 Estimated Proceeds from Transfer or Sale of Surplus Golf Prperty: $13,543,700 ($920,059) $13,045,641 3 ESCO ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACT FUNDING FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System,Nibley Park Irrigation System,and Glendale Secondary Water Source 53,300,000 4 CAPITAL COST SHARING PARTNERSHIP AT NIBLEY PARK FY13 Indoor academy addition,driving range expansion,short game practice area development $100,000 5 GOLF FUND REVENUE BOND FY13 15 Years,3%Interest=$210,000 Annual Bond Payment(BV Additional 3.5 Acres Option) 52,500,000 6 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH PARTNERSHIP FY14 Naming Rights Fee and Property Lease at Bonneville 52,000,000 7 PRIVATE DONOR HOLE SPONSORSHIPS AT BONNEVILLE FY14 $100,000 Per Hole x 14 Holes/$125,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes/$150,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes $1,950,000 Less Donor Benefits Requiring Revenue Transfer to Operating Budget(18 x$1,000 x 20 Years) ($360,000) Net Revenue from Donors: 51,590,000 8 UTAH GOLF HOUSE PARTNERSHIP WITH UTAH GOLF ASSOCIATION AND UTAH SECTION PGA AT BONNEVILLE FY14 Options include a stand-alone building that would include banquet space for SLC needs,or leasing space in our new clubhouse 5500,000 9 F B B CONCESSIONAIRE CONTRIBUTION TO FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS FY14 Bonneville(New On-Course Snack Shack) 575,000 FY14 Mountain Dell(Deck Extension) $40,000 FY15 Glendale(Banquet Pavilion) 530,000 FY17 Wingpointe(Sliding Glass Doors and Patio Wind Breaks) 110,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES: $23,190,641 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS-PROJEC BYFACNSiTY YR BONNEVILLE PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System 2,200,000 FY13 Bonneville Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $500,000 FY13 Bonneville Golf Course Improvements(Including 3 New Holes,New Greens,Bunkers,Forward Tees,and Perimeter Fencing) $2,750,000 FY13 Bonneville Driving Range&Short Game Areas $500,000 FY13 Bonneville New Entrance Road from Foothill Drive Directly East into the Parking Lot 8 Parking Lot Improvements $250,000 FY13 Bonneville Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY13 Bonneville Maintenance Relocation $500.000 FY14 Bonneville On-Course Restrooms(Including Snack Shack 150G) $300,000 FY14 Bonneville Cart Path Improvements $200,000 FY14 Bonneville Clubhouse $2,500,000 BONNEVILLE TOTAL $9,750,000 FOREST DALE PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY15 Forest Dale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY15 Forest Dale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY15 Forest Dale On-Course Restroom(At#4 Tee/#6 Tee) $75,000 FY15 Forest Dale Piping of Drainage Streams through Fairway Corridors $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Cart Path Improvements $75,000 FY15 Forest Dale Irrigation Control Upgrade $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Practice Hitting Net $35,000 FY15 Forest Dale Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY15 Forest Dale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $20,000 FOREST DALE TOTAL $1,030,000 9L.ENDALE PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY13 Glendale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $225,000 FY13 Glendale Range Fence Repairs,Target Greens,and North End Teaching Tee $150,000 FY15 Glendale Redesign and Additional Improvements(Includes Forward Tees on Select Holes $1,200,000 FY15 Glendale Maintenance Relocation $600,000 FY15 Glendale On-Course Restrooms(At#6 Green/New#12 Tee) $75,000 FY15 Glendale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY15 Glendale Cart Path Improvements $110,000 FY15 Glendale Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY15 Glendale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $15,000 GLENDALE TOTAL 52,565,000 MOUNTAIN DELL PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY13 Mountain Dell Club House Infrastructure Improvements $200,000 FY14 Mountain Dell Patio Deck Extension $200,000 FY15 Mountain Dell Irrigation Control Upgrade $200,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,Sand Bins,and Cart Storage $600,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Course Improvements(Canyon#12,#14,#15/Lake Retaining Walls,#8 Green Expansion,#14 Old Green Level) $300,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Practice Tee&Range Improvements $100,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Tee Leveling and Ladies Tee Addition $200,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Cart Path Improvements $100,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 MOUNTAIN DELL TOTAL $1,950,000 NIBLEY PARK PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY12 Nibley Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY12 Nibley Park Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $40,000 • FY13 Nibley Park Range Extension,New Fence,and Associated Course Redesign $750,000 FY13 Nibley Park On-Course Restrooms(At New#5 Tee/#9 Tee) $75,000 FY13 Nibley Park Cart Path Improvements $30,000 FY13 Nibley Park Perimeter Fencing Improvements $100,000 FY13 Nibley Park Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements/Cafe Remodel $20,000 FY13 Nibley Park Irrigation System $900,000 FY13 Nibley Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY13 Nibley Park Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY16 Nibley Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY16 Nibley Park Miniature Golf Course&Batting Cages $850,000 NIBLEY PARK TOTAL $3,350,000 ROSE PARK PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY12 Rose Park Range Extension(Includes Range Fencing Both Sides) $500,000 FY14 Rose Park Irrigation System Improvements $900,000 FY14 Rose Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY16 Rose Park On-Course Restrooms-Two Locations(At#5 Tee/#9 Tee and#14 Tee/#16 Tee) $150,000 FY16 Rose Park Cart Path Improvements $65,000 FY16 Rose Park Clubhouse Improvements and Cart Storage Expansion $350,000 FY16 Rose Park Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY16 Rose Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $350,000 FY16 Rose Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY16 Rose Park Forward Tee Addition on Select Holes and Bunker Renovation $225,000 ROSE PARK TOTAL $3,000,000 WINGPOINTE PROJECTS PROJECTED COST FY12 Wingpointe Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $25,000 FY13 Wingpointe Cart Path Improvements $50,000 FY17 Wingpointe Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY17 Wingpointe Clubhouse Restroom Improvements $20,000 FY17 Wingpointe Café Sliding Glass Doors,Roof,and Wind Breaks for Banquet Purposes $50,000 FY17 Wingpointe Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY17 Wingpointe Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $100,000 WINGPOINTE TOTAL $355,000 AL PROJECTED COST ALL PROJECTS: $22 000,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES: $23,190,641 TOTAL PROJECTED COST ALL PROJECTS: $22,000,000 Plus Allocation to Operating Budget for Lost Revenue--Construction Down Time: $1,000,000 TOTAL PROJECTED COST: $23,000,000 CIP FUNDING BALANCE FOR CONTINGENCY AND/OR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS: $190,641 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND POTENTIAL CIP FUNDING SOURCES, PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS-PROJECTS LISTED BY PRIORITY 10-Mar-11 ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES 1-2 TRANSFER OR SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PARCELS GROSS ESTIMATED LESS COSTS NET ESTIMATED PROPERTY ASSOCIATED PROPERTY PROCEEDS WITH SALE PROCEEDS FY11 Rose Park 1400 North 1200 West(3 Acres) $425,000 ($3,000) $422,000 FY13 Bonneville Holes#7/#8(10 Acres) $8,000,000 ($560,000) $7,440,000 FY14 Forest Dale South Parking Lot(1.00 Acre) $400,000 $0 $400,000 FY15 Glendale 2100 South Frontage(13.65 Acres) $4,756,000 ($332,920) $4,423,080 FY15 Glendale 2100 South West Portion of Parking Lot(.89 Acre) $387,700 ($27,139) $360,561 Estimated Proceeds from Transfer or Sale of Surplus Golf Property: $13,543,700 ($920,059) $13,045,641 3 ESCO ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACT FUNDING FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System,Nibley Park Irrigation System,and Glendale Secondary Water Source $3,300,000 4 CAPITAL COST SHARING PARTNERSHIP AT NIBLEY PARK FY13 Indoor academy addition,driving range expansion,short gamepractice area development $100,000 5 GOLF FUND REVENUE BOND FY13 15 Years,3%Interest=$210,000 Annual Bond Payment(BV Additional 3.5 Acres Option) $2,500,000 6 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH PARTNERSHIP FY14 Naming Rights Fee and Property Lease at Bonneville $2,000,000 7 PRIVATE DONOR HOLE SPONSORSHIPS AT BONNEVILLE FY14 $100,000 Per Hole x 14 Holes/$125,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes/$150,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes $1,950,000 Less Donor Benefits Requiring Revenue Transfer to Operating Budget(18 x$1,000 x 20 Years) ($360,000) Net Revenue from Donors: $1,590,000 8 UTAH GOLF HOUSE PARTNERSHIP WITH UTAH GOLF ASSOCIATION AND UTAH SECTION PGA AT BONNEVILLE FY14 Options include a stand-alone building that would include banquet space for SLC needs,or leasing space in our new clubhouse $500,000 9 F 8 B CONCESSIONAIRE CONTRIBUTION TO FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS FY14 Bonneville(New On-Course Snack Shack) $75,000 FY14 Mountain Dell(Deck Extension) $40,000 FY15 Glendale(Banquet Pavilion) $30,000 FY17 Wingpointe(Sliding Glass Doors and Patio Wind Breaks) $10,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES: $23,190,641 • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS-PROJECTS LISTED BY PRIORITY YR PRIORITY"A":IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TIED TO GENERATION OF CIP FUNDING SOURCES 1-8 PROJECTED COST FY12 1 Rose Park Range Extension(Includes Range Fencing Both Sides) $500,000 FY13 2 Nibley Park Range Extension,New Fence,and Associated Course Redesign $750,000 FY13 3 Bonneville Driving Range&Short Game Areas $500,000 FY13 4 Bonneville Golf Course Improvements(Including 3 New Holes,New Greens,Bunkers,Forward Tees,Perimeter Fencing) $2,750,000 FY13 5 Bonneville New Entrance Road from Foothill Drive Directly East into the Parking Lot&Parking Lot Improvements $250,000 FY13 6 Bonneville Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY13 7 Bonneville Maintenance Relocation $500,000 FY14 8 Bonneville Clubhouse $2,500,000 FY15 9 Glendale Redesign and Additional Improvements(Includes Forward Tees on Select Holes) $1,200,000 FY15 10 Glendale Maintenance Relocation $600,000 PRIORITY"A"TOTAL $9,600,000 YR PRIORITY'B":IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS REDUCING FUTURE IRRIGATION WATER COSTS FY13 11 Bonneville Irrigation System $2,200,000 FY13 12 Bonneville Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $500,000 FY13 13 Glendale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $225,000 FY13 14 Nibley Park Irrigation System $900,000 FY13 15 Nibley Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY14 16 Rose Park Irrigation System Improvements $900,000 FY14 17 Rose Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY15 18 Mountain Dell Irrigation Control Upgrade $200,000 FY15 19 Forest Dale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY15 20 Forest Dale Irrigation Control Upgrade $100,000 PRIORITY'B"TOTAL $5,925,000 YR PRIORITY"C":IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS INCREASING FUTURE OPERATING REVENUES(Not Included in Priority A") FY12 21 Nibley Park Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $40,000 FY12 22 Nibley Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY12 23 Wingpointe Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $25,000 FY14 24 Mountain Dell Patio Deck Extension $200,000 FY15 25 Glendale Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY15 26 Rose Park Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY15 27 Forest Dale Piping of Drainage Streams through Fairway Corridors $100,000 FY15 28 Nibley Park Miniature Golf Course&Batting Cages $850,000 FY15 29 Forest Dale Practice Hitting Net $35,000 FY16 30 Mountain Dell Course Improvements(Canyon#12,#14,#15/Retaining Walls/#8 Green Expansion/#14 Old Green Level) $300,000 FY16 31 Mountain Dell Practice Tee&Range Improvements $100,000 FY16 32 Mountain Dell Tee Leveling and Ladies Tee Addition $200,000 FY16 33 Rose Park Forward Tee Addition on Select Holes and Bunker Renovation $225,000 FY16 34 Wingpointe Café Sliding Glass Doors,Roof,and Wind Breaks for Banquet Purposes $50,000 PRIORITY"C"TOTAL $2,435,000 • YR PRIORITY"D":OTHER FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS(All Essential,Difficult to Prioritize) FY13 35 Mountain Dell Club House Infrastructure Improvements $200,000 FY13 36 Glendale Range Fence Repairs,Target Greens,and North End Teaching Tee $150,000 FY13 37 Nibley Park On-Course Restrooms(At New#5 Tee/#9 Tee) $75,000 FY13 38 Nibley Park Perimeter Fencing Improvements $100,000 FY13 39 Nibley Park Cart Path Improvements $30,000 FY13 40 Nibley Park Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY13 41 Nibley Park Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements/Cafe Remodel $20,000 FY13 42 Wingpointe Cart Path Improvements $50,000 FY14 43 Bonneville On-Course Restrooms(Including Snack Shack 150G) $300,000 FY14 44 Bonneville Cart Path Improvements $200,000 FY15 45 Glendale On-Course Restrooms(At#6 Green/New#12 Tee) $75,000 FY15 46 Rose Park On-Course Restrooms-Two Locations(At#5 Tee/#9 Tee and#14 Tee/#16 Tee) $150,000 FY15 47 Forest Dale On-Course Restroom(At#4 Tee/#6 Tee) $75,000 FY16 48 Mountain Dell Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,Sand Bins,and Cart Storage $600,000 FY16 49 Wingpointe Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY15 50 Forest Dale Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY15 51 Glendale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY15 52 Forest Dale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $20,000 FY15 53 Rose Park Clubhouse Improvements and Cart Storage Expansion $350,000 FY15 54 Glendale Cart Path Improvements $110,000 FY15 55 Forest Dale Cart Path Improvements $75,000 FY15 56 Rose Park Cart Path Improvements $65,000 FY15 57 Rose Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $350,000 FY15 58 Forest Dale Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY15 59 Nibley Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY15 60 Glendale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $15,000 FY15 61 Forest Dale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY15 62 Rose Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY16 63 Mountain Dell Cart Path Improvements $100,000 FY16 64 Mountain Dell Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY16 65 Mountain Dell Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY16 66 Wingpointe Clubhouse Restroom Improvements $20,000 FY16 67 Wingpointe Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $100,000 FY16 68 Wingpointe Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 PRIORITY"D"TOTAL $4,040,000 TOTAL PROJECTED COST ALL PROJECTS: $22,000,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES: $23,190,641 TOTAL PROJECTED COST ALL PROJECTS: $22,000,000 Plus Allocation to Operating Budget for Lost Revenue-Construction Down Time: $1,000,000 TOTAL PROJECTED COST: $23,000,000 CIP FUNDING BALANCE FOR CONTINGENCY AND/OR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS: $190,641 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND POTENTIAL CIP FUNDING SOURCES, PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS-PROJECTS LISTED BY TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT 10-Mar-11 ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES 1-2 TRANSFER OR SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PARCELS GROSS ESTIMATED LESS COSTS NET ESTIMATED PROPERTY ASSOCIATED PROPERTY PROCEEDS WITH SALE PROCEEDS FY11 Rose Park 1400 North 1200 West(3 Acres) $425,000 ($3,000) $422,000 FY13 Bonneville Holes#7/#8(10 Acres) $8,000,000 ($560,000) $7,440,000 FY14 Forest Dale South Parking Lot(1.00 Acre) $400,000 $0 $400,000 FY15 Glendale 2100 South Frontage(13.65 Acres) $4,756,000 ($332,920) $4,423,080 FY15 Glendale 2100 South West Portion of Parking Lotj.89 Acre)_ $387,700 ($27,139) $360,561 Estimated Proceeds from Transfer or Sale of Surplus Golf Property: $13,543,700 ($920,059) $13,045,641 3 ESCO ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACT FUNDING FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System,Nibley Park Irrigation System,and Glendale Secondary Water Source $3,300,000 4 CAPITAL COST SHARING PARTNERSHIP AT NIBLEY PARK FY13 Indoor academy addition,driving range expansion,short game practice area development $100,000 5 GOLF FUND REVENUE BOND FY13 15 Years,3%Interest=$210,000 Annual Bond Payment(BV Additional 3.5 Acres Option) $2,500,000 6 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH PARTNERSHIP FY14 Naming Rights Fee and Property Lease at Bonneville $2,000,000 7 PRIVATE DONOR HOLE SPONSORSHIPS AT BONNEVILLE FY14 $100,000 Per Hole x 14 Holes/$125,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes/$150,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes $1,950,000 Less Donor Benefits Requiring Revenue Transfer to Operating Budget(18 x$1,000 x 20 Years) ($360,000) Net Revenue from Donors: $1,590,000 8 UTAH GOLF HOUSE PARTNERSHIP WITH UTAH GOLF ASSOCIATION AND UTAH SECTION PGA AT BONNEVILLE FY14 Options include a stand-alone building that would include banquet space for SLC needs,or leasing space in our new clubhouse $500,000 9 F B B CONCESSIONAIRE CONTRIBUTION TO FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS FY14 Bonneville(New On-Course Snack Shack) $75,000 FY14 Mountain Dell(Deck Extension) $40,000 FY15 Glendale(Banquet Pavilion) $30,000 FY17 Wingpointe(Sliding Glass Doors and Patio Wind Breaks) $10,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES: $23,190,641 Prat IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS-PROJECTS LISTED BY TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT YR OPERATING REVENUE GROWTH IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTED COST FY12 Rose Park Range Extension and JRP3 Changes(Includes Range Fencing Both Sides) $500,000 FY12 Nibley Park Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $40,000 FY12 Wingpointe Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $25,000 FY13 50%Bonneville Golf Course Improvements(Including 3 New Holes,New Greens,Bunkers,Forward Tees,and Perimeter Fencing) $1,375,000 FY13 Bonneville Driving Range&Short Game Areas $500,000 FY13 Nibley Park Range Extension,New Fence,and Associated Course Redesign $750,000 FY14 50%Bonneville Clubhouse $1,250,000 FY14 Mountain Dell Patio Deck Extension $200,000 FY15 25%Glendale Redesign and Additional Improvements(Includes Forward Tees on Select Holes) $300,000 FY15 Glendale Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY15 Forest Dale Piping of Drainage Streams through Fairway Corridors $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Practice Hitting Net $35,000 FY16 Nibley Park Miniature Golf Course&Batting Cages $850,000 FY16 Rose Park Forward Tee Addition on Select Holes and Bunker Renovation $225,000 FY16 Rose Park Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Course Improvements(Canyon#12,#14#15/Lake Retaining Walls,#8 Green Expansion,#14 Old Green Level) $300,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Practice Tee&Range Improvements $100,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Tee Leveling and Ladies Tee Addition $200,000 FY17 Wingpointe Café Sliding Glass Doors,Roo',and Wind Breaks for Banquet Purposes $50,000 OPERATING REVENUE GROWTH IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL 57,100,000 YR CIP FUNDING-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FY13 50%Bonneville Golf Course Improvements(Including 3 New Holes,New Greens,Bunkers,Forward Tees,and Perimeter Fencing) $1,375,000 FY13 Bonneville New Entrance Road from Foothill Drive Directly East into the Parking Lot&Parking Lot Improvements $250,000 FY15 75%Glendale Redesign and Additional Improvements(Includes Forward Tees on Select Holes) $900,000 FY15 Glendale Maintenance Relocation $600,000 CIP FUNDING-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL $3,125,000 YR IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND WATER SOURCE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System $2,200,000 FY13 Bonneville Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $500,000 FY13 Glendale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $225,000 FY13 Nibley Park Irrigation System $900,000 FY13 Nibley Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY14 Rose Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY14 Rose Park Irrigation System Improvements $900,000 FY15 Forest Dale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY15 Forest Dale Irrigation Control Upgrade $100,000 FY15 Mountain Dell Imgation Control Upgrade $200,000 IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND WATER SOURCE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL 55,925,000 YR CLUBHOUSE AND RESTROOM INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FY13 Mountain Dell Club House Infrastructure Improvements $200,000 FY13 Nibley Park On-Course Restrooms(Al New#5 Tee/#9 Tee) $75,000 FY13 Nibley Park Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements/Cafe Remodel $20,000 FY14 50%Bonneville Clubhouse $1,250,000 FY14 Bonneville On-Course Restrooms(Including Snack Shack 150G) $300,000 FY15 Glendale On-Course Restrooms(At#6 Green/New#12 Tee) $75,000 FY15 Glendale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 YR CLUBHOUSE AND RESTROOM INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS[continued] FY15 Forest Dale On-Course Restroom(At 44 Tee/46 Tee) $75,000 FY15 Forest Dale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $20,000 FY16 Rose Park Clubhouse Improvements and Cart Storage Expansion $350,000 FY16 Rose Park On-Course Restrooms-Two Locations(At tt5 Tee/#9 Tee and#14 Tee/#16 Tee) $150,000 FY16 Mountain Dell Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY16 Wingpointe Clubhouse Restroom Improvements $20,000 CLUBHOUSE AND RESTROOM INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL 52,615,000 •LF CO RSE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPR•VEMENT FY12 Nibley Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY13 Bonneville Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY13 Glendale Range Fence Repairs,Target Greens,and North End Teaching Tee $150,000 FY13 Nibley Park Perimeter Fencing Improvements $100,000 FY13 Nibley Park Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY13 Nibley Park Cart Path Improvements $30,000 FY13 Wingpointe Cart Path Improvements $50,000 FY14 Bonneville Cart Path Improvements $200,000 FY15 Forest Dale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY15 Forest Dale Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Cart Path Improvements $75,000 FY15 Glendale Cart Path Improvements $110,000 FY15 Glendale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $15,000 FY16 Rose Park Cart Path Improvements $65,000 FY16 Rose Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY16 Mountain Dell Cart Path Improvements $100,000 FY16 Mountain Dell Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY16 Wingpointe Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY16 Wingpointe Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 GOLF COURSE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL $1,335,000 YR MAINTENANCE FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FY13 Bonneville Maintenance Relocation $500,000 FY15 Forest Dale Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY16 Nibley Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY16 Mountain Dell Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,Sand Bins,and Cart Storage $600,000 FY16 Rose Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $350,000 FY16 Wingpointe Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $100,000 MAINTENANCE FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL $1,900,000 TOTAL PROJECTED COST ALL PROJECTS: $22,000 000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES: $23,190,641 TOTAL PROJECTED COST ALL PROJECTS: $22,000,000 Plus Allocation to Operating Budget for Lost Revenue-Construction Down Time: 1 000 000 TOTAL PROJECTED COST: $23,000,000 CIP FUNDING BALANCE FOR CONTINGENCY AND/OR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS: $190,641 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND POTENTIAL CIP FUNDING SOURCES, PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS - PROJECTS LISTED BY START DATE 10-Mar-11 ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES 1-2 TRANSFER OR SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PARCELS GROSS ESTIMATED LESS COSTS NET ESTIMATED PROPERTY ASSOCIATED PROPERTY PROCEEDS WITH SALE PROCEEDS FY11 Rose Park 1400 North 1200 West(3 Acres) $425,000 ($3,000) $422,000 FY13 Bonneville Holes#7/#8(10 Acres) $8,000,000 ($560,000) $7,440,000 FY14 Forest Dale South Parking Lot(1.00 Acre) $400,000 $0 $400,000 FY15 Glendale 2100 South Frontage(13.65 Acres) $4,756,000 ($332,920) $4,423,080 FY15 Glendale 2100 South West Portion of Parking Lot(.89 Acre) $387,700 ($27,139) $360,561 Estimated Proceeds from Transfer or Sale of Surplus Golf Property: $13,543,700 ($920,059) $13,045,641 3 ESCO ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACT FUNDING FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System, Nibley Park Irrigation System,and Glendale Secondary Water Source $3,300,000 4 CAPITAL COST SHARING PARTNERSHIP AT NIBLEY PARK FY13 Indoor academy addition,driving range expansion, short game practice area development $100,000 5 GOLF FUND REVENUE BOND FY13 15 Years, 3% Interest=$210,000 Annual Bond Payment(BV Additional 3.5 Acres Option) $2,500,000 6 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH PARTNERSHIP FY14 Naming Rights Fee and Property Lease at Bonneville $2,000,000 7 PRIVATE DONOR HOLE SPONSORSHIPS AT BONNEVILLE FY14 $100,000 Per Hole x 14 Holes/$125,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes/$150,000 Per Hole x 2 Holes $1,950,000 Less Donor Benefits Requiring Revenue Transfer to Operating Budget(18 x$1,000 x 20 Years) ($360,000) Net Revenue from Donors: $1,590,000 8 UTAH GOLF HOUSE PARTNERSHIP WITH UTAH GOLF ASSOCIATION AND UTAH SECTION PGA AT BONNEVILLE FY14 Options include a stand-alone building that would include banquet space for SLC needs, or leasing space in our new clubhouse $500,000 9 F&B CONCESSIONAIRE CONTRIBUTION TO FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS FY14 Bonneville(New On-Course Snack Shack) $75,000 FY14 Mountain Dell(Deck Extension) $40,000 FY15 Glendale(Banquet Pavilion) $30,000 FY17 Wingpointe(Sliding Glass Doors and Patio Wind Breaks) $10,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES: $23,190,641 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES AND PROJECTED COSTS- PROJECTS LISTED BY START DATE YR FY12 PROJECT START DATE PROJECTED COST FY12 Rose Park Range Extension(Includes Range Fencing Both Sides) $500,000 FY12 Nibley Park Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $40,000 FY12 Nibley Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY12 Wingpointe Mobile Office Building Retrofit for SLC Golf Academy $25,000 FY12 TOTAL $575,000 YR FY13 PROJECT START DATE FY13 Nibley Park Range Extension,New Fence,and Associated Course Redesign $750,000 FY13 Nibley Park Irrigation System $900,000 FY13 Nibley Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY13 Nibley Park On-Course Restrooms(At New#5 Tee/#9 Tee) $75,000 FY13 Nibley Park Perimeter Fencing Improvements $100,000 FY13 Nibley Park Cart Path Improvements $30,000 FY13 Nibley Park Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY13 Nibley Park Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements/Cafe Remodel $20,000 FY13 Bonneville Irrigation System $2,200,000 FY13 Bonneville Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $500,000 FY13 Bonneville Driving Range&Short Game Areas $500,000 FY13 Bonneville Golf Course Improvements(Including 3 New Holes,New Greens,Bunkers, Forward Tees,and Perimeter Fencing) $2,750,000 FY13 Bonneville New Entrance Road from Foothill Drive Directly East into the Parking Lot&Parking Lot Improvements $250,000 FY13 Bonneville Maintenance Relocation $500,000 FY13 Bonneville Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY13 Glendale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $225,000 FY13 Glendale Range Fence Repairs,Target Greens,and North End Teaching Tee $150,000 FY13 Mountain Dell Club House Infrastructure Improvements $200,000 FY13 Wingpointe Cart Path Improvements $50,000 FY13 TOTAL $9,650,000 YR FY14 PROJECT START DATE FY14 Bonneville Clubhouse $2,500,000 FY14 Bonneville On-Course Restrooms(Including Snack Shack 150G) $300,000 FY14 Bonneville Cart Path Improvements $200,000 FY14 Rose Park Irrigation System Improvements $900,000 FY14 Rose Park Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY14 Mountain Dell Patio Deck Extension $200,000 FY14 TOTAL $4,400,000 YR FY15 PROJECT START DATE FY15 Glendale Redesign and Additional Improvements(Includes Forward Tees on Select Holes) $1,200,000 FY15 Glendale Maintenance Relocation $600,000 FY15 Glendale Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY15 Glendale On-Course Restrooms(At#6 Green/New#12 Tee) $75,000 FY15 Glendale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY15 Glendale Cart Path Improvements $110,000 FY15 Glendale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $15,000 • YR FY15 PROJECT START DATE!continued) FY15 Forest Dale Piping of Drainage Streams through Fairway Corridors $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Pumps,Wells,and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Option $300,000 FY15 Forest Dale Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $50,000 FY15 Forest Dale Practice Hitting Net $35,000 FY15 Forest Dale On-Course Restroom(At#4 Tee/#6 Tee) $75,000 FY15 Forest Dale Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Cart Path Improvements $75,000 FY15 Forest Dale Irrigation Control Upgrade $100,000 FY15 Forest Dale Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY15 Forest Dale Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $20,000 FY15 Mountain Dell Irrigation Control Upgrade $200,000 FY15 TOTAL $3,420,000 YR 16 PROJECT START DATE FY16 Rose Park Forward Tee Addition on Select Holes and Bunker Renovation $225,000 FY16 Rose Park Clubhouse Improvements and Cart Storage Expansion $350,000 FY16 Rose Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $350,000 FY16 Rose Park Banquet Pavilion $150,000 FY16 Rose Park On-Course Restrooms-Two Locations(At#5 Tee/#9 Tee and#14 Tee/#16 Tee) - $150,000 FY16 Rose Park Cart Path Improvements $65,000 FY16 Rose Park Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY16 Nibley Park Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $175,000 FY16 Nibley Park Miniature Golf Course&Batting Cages $850,000 FY16 TOTAL $2,325,000 YR FY17 PROJECT START DATE FY17 Mountain Dell Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,Sand Bins,and Cart Storage $600,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Course Improvements(Canyon#12,#14,#15/Lake Retaining Walls,#8 Green Expansion,#14 Old Green Level) $300,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Practice Tee&Range Improvements $100,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Tee Leveling and Ladies Tee Addition $200,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Clubhouse Restroom/Pro Shop Counter Improvements $40,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Cart Path Improvements $100,000 FY17 Mountain Dell Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY17 Wingpointe Lake Bank Stabilization $100,000 FY17 Wingpointe Clubhouse Restroom Improvements $20,000 FY17 Wingpointe Cafe Sliding Glass Doors,Roof,and Wind Breaks for Banquet Purposes $50,000 FY17 Wingpointe Entrance Signage and Associated Landscaping Improvements $10,000 FY17 Wingpointe Maintenance Building Improvements,Wash Bays,and Sand Bins $100,000 FY17 TOTAL $1,630,000 /OVAL PROJECTED COST ALL PROJECTS: $22,000,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES: $23,190,641 TOTAL PROJECTED COST ALL PROJECTS: $22,000,000 Plus Allocation to Operating Budget for Lost Revenue-Construction Down Time: $1,000,000 TOTAL PROJECTED COST: $23,000,000 CIP FUNDING BALANCE FOR CONTINGENCY AND/OR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS: $190,641 • &ow, "mei 111:111, • Salt Lake City Golf Division Major Capital Improvement I' Project Priorities Basic Project Descriptions SALT LAKE CITY with Visual Supplements GOLF SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LA.CITY GOLF Irrigation System Replacements at Bonneville, Nibley Park and Rose Park. The irrigation systems at Bonneville, Nibley Park and Rose Park are critically in need of replacement. The systems are decades old with Bonneville and Nibley Park operating as manual systems. Projected cost of replacement. BV=$2,200,000, NP=$900,000, RP=$900,000 f -� 'a • N v Y ' I • • �. v 4 •I, Inadequate irrigation upgrades have led to ongoing costly repairs on an annual basis. For example, at Bonneville in the early 1980's, rather than installing the required schedule 40 pipe,the contractor used schedule 20. This has resulted in costly repairs on an annual basis. .;=. .. Much of the current system at Bonneville t r r ' r ' is the original cast iron pipe that was '' !,a installed when the course was first built WV. .' �., �+' over 75 years ago. 4 • • ror S . , SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT IAre Onto GOLF ill rimiaminommpuipimmiummiiii_ Imp Irrigation System Re- fJ' placements at Bonne- Con ville, Nibley Park and . Rose Park continued. iKeeping , This article details the demands of greelTi. anightwaterman at Bonneville and it • • Night waterman a master -. - of low-tech irrigation ' • • • Be Join+Amritsar Siv.elrc 0,rOA0. Tray Kennedy ss e man 0(s®agpsae0 ' BonnevilleGott Course in Salt lake City.Kennedy u%tonigt'enemen Ire a udi ma MEW entrees in Jtahbea 1e Troy they watering need.with timed Irrigation Kennedy K®medy�rovl whole mummery night e - enenedyua keep all 0A2e yards of gram - orates Q look &superb. 'Vow wtogol 4 BplMlldte9a yhvem heft the time School eadY haven theft me one .. a He sereedn a with this prefeeion.•he ., . said.`By the end etym. Kerrie Cie eh ill m. demesne your se dene tired - Irom1979Meal/ aa do anything.^ e Be continue Kennedy has outlasted .� neltinq Mid kiln many counterparts within the twomxn a ,,,,,,din 2 ' . nahmenlornW le ghis nieyeaha of duty ._, - `» .. Unlike many other course Bmse bon eking she WasU.S.tchfor ttenthatm P decay across the➢.�fortN�mat ,.,,t." of fewaursm With.auto- - •� manetrnpnnn timers. - - Theefuinkler ayoem sat likely to change tot - .•I few years,which means more work fur the grounds crew at Bonneville . 'Ira quite a grueling lob—It denNtely take.rare ' See wfegWAlt,Vs Troy Kennedy sets the sorinhlers at Bonnevlle Calif Coon In salt take City. ' I Wgg,µ,rn] ] ate month on the job site,he pin' melts during the bot evening "l just take the dealt]cart's el a buss to Steve[Camplcill, hours wW be cutln half who vldes players with click clerk He brings along one or two W. headlights and shine It who- who knows whet were dealing they get a uew system. green grass on the par-V2 m-52 ounce mugs of water,and ever T working.It's also with,'Kennedy said."Regard. "'What can you do'a all 1green keeps the cow0e there's a hand towel to vice geed inregsuda to not giving less of the issue,the heart day ears any,"Kennedy said.'Bu And B's notUke theraureo way the eutnmer sweet out lot of light Us bunch of it'U be taken care of" [Steve]assured me there'llb. • put gets that way.I1 wears a This is no job for people kids drove by and saw lighting Campbell,the euperinten- a place for me an staffonen grass growing downfYom golfmspleying on who don't like gettingdhly. at the course.they might he dent got his start in golfin change takes effect Pm real: the mrfand from wildlife Said Kennedy:"When runt compelled to trespass after 19111.After working his way happy to have this position... a Continuedfenm VI abusing the gees. arriving.PB survey the dowse hews,"he said through the ranks,Compbed wasn't something)wanted Ir.neve0endbig battle, to see if there's any dead spots Making Kennedy's life now calls the shots. do fore couple of yearstben. below Kennedy says the Ma that need to be attended to or more difficult is the rrhnol- "The plumbing's been move onto something else I tines prepared him to endure, decide what areas need water. ogy on the course.Make that around long time here and Its my profession of breed of person to deal with which is why he's lasted so Then I'll take our hoses, old technology. [manual]maintenanca isn't choosing,and since rne'fent the swapping shifts and man long in a position wherein which are more like 250-foot Bonneville uses its original nearly as efficient as auto. open during winter,l need uallabor."Kennedy geld. many have tailed. Bre hoses,end sanest them irrigation system boar i920 an mans irrigation;'Campbell seasonal job and lye hard be Nicknamed"Hollywood Kennedy stare toe shift et to ow a2[sprinkler]heeds to first nine holes and thegyatam said."But well be able m up cause compemes want you' Marine"after his B.S.mill- 6 p.m.seeming a while cute conduct maintenance the rest from 195i on the back nine. grade In a few yews after permanent or not at all.But' tees enlistment days in Holly, shin,baseball cap and Ion of the night" Problems such as clogging some financial bonds are paid I'm not going to leave berate wood and Bridgeport Calif., shorts.Trying Webb'hit That maintenance can last and tears though old hoses back." I colon my a-workess ands from 1979 to 1tab Kennedy is dieted during the 100degree unt112 or 9fu the morning tend to make the job difficult While an automatic system Job Itself.I take greet pride) noetronger to work ethic.Ar- temperances,Kennedy pre And how does Kermedy 'There's going to he prob. could help Bonnev9le's prof maintaining the mune and rivingafv dayea week ander pawn his golf cart withe fro work with no overhead Bahl lemsduens the age of the its.it won't help Kennedy's the grass looks beauhhil,th bruins over 200 hours per mu lug of water that quickly ]rig? equipment,but we have a hell personal bottom line—his Iimem it's a Job well done."� t 1 1 • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION .-- t'''•• . MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES `4 SALT LAKE CITY C GOLF Pumps, Wells and Other Infrastructure Required to Add Non-Culinary Water Options at Bonneville, Forest Dale, Nibley Park and Glendale Nearly all of Salt Lake City's courses rely solely on culinary water sources. Investing in a number of pumps,wells and various other irrigation infrastructure would allow for the addition of a number of secondary irrigation sources. Projected cost of replacement: $1,625,000 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION FY05-08 WATER EXPENSES 8 COST PER IRRIGATED ACRE FY05 to FY08 FY05 ACTUAL FY06 ACTUAL FY07 ACTUAL •FY08 ACTUAL "•FY09 BUDGET %INCREASE "Bonneville S154,294 5197,998 5217,853 $221,737 5240,000 44% Cost Per la.Acre $1,403 $1,800 $1,980 $2,016 $2,182 1 Coat Per In.Acre Rank 110 irrigated acres 180 total acres Glendale $120,E36 0146,425 0203.K7 $225,951 $215,000 87% Cost Per In.Acre $731 S6E7 -1,232 $1,369 $1,303 6 Cost Per In.Acre Rank 111) 165 irrigated acres 175 total acres Forest Dale $49.361 $54 791 47 414 $60,121 $70,000 22% Cost Per In.Acre $914 $1,015 55.Or $1,113 $1,296 7 Cost Per Is.Acre Rank 54 irrigated acres 61 total acres Mtn.Dell $85,913 $100,392 $117,347 $118,080 $125,000 37% Cost Per In.Acre $477 $558 $652 $656 $694 8 Cost Per Is Acre Rank 180 irrigated acres 381 total acres **Nibley Park 338,066 $44,540 $51,878 553,051 $65,000 39% Cost Per In.Acre $828 $968 S1,123 £1,153 $1,413 3 Cost Per Irr.Acre Rank 46 irrigated acres 50 total acres ••Rose Park 5155,195 3191,843 3211,375 $226,255 5235,000 46% Cost Pet Irr.Acre $1,338 $1,654 $1,822 $1,950 $2,026 2 Cost Per In.Acre Rank 116 irrigated acres 120 total acres Wingpolnte 5129,451 $130,132 $192,226 $193,563 5210,000 50% Cost Per Is.Acre $819 $824 $1,217 $1.225 $1,329 5 Cost Per Is.Acre Rank 158 Irrigated acres 193 total acres Jordan River Par 3 $19,058 $23,659 $28,563 $29,416 $30,000 54% Cost Per In.Acre $867 $1,075 $1,298 $1,337 $1,364 4 Cost Per in.Acre Rank 22 irrigated acres 24 total acres 0 TOTAL. $752,004 $889,780 $1,079,768 $1,128,184 $1,190,000 50% Cost Per In.Acre $687 $1,049 $1,273 $1,330 $1,403 848 irrigated acres 1184 total acres SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION - � MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES 1-9IGOLF Bonneville Clubhouse The clubhouse at Bonneville is in need of replacement. It is inadequate to meet the needs of golfers. Many corporate events would like to move to Bonneville,however we are unable to meet their event needs because there is no banquet space. Projected cost of replacement:$2,500,000 k • . . • 0 Bonneville is one of the busiest courses in the state,yet also has one of the most outdated clubhouses in the state. `zy I., 2 air I' SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT IAKE CIT7 C GOLF Bonneville Clubhouse continued. The pictures below are of a preliminary design concept for the Bonneville clubhouse replacement. p 2, � t 1' F o i I z c s; t; 4 . m ' i, : < . \i, / _- m r ai I' �% �; T ,} ,- 1 i 0 Q of - 1 1 - ') n 1 0 � 5 1j C ' 1 • L i 5 m i ter � I J m I i L_ --i Li 13 r 11;11; 4�2 x . m , r iri 1° att 11 ' z 0:61c 04 41) . , t. U 11 E i III! n n n m 9 I,li n n I; SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION . MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES GOLF Bonneville Maintenance Relocation The maintenance building at Bonneville is in need of replacement. It is inadequate to meet the needs of the maintenance crew Projected cost of replacement: $500,000 The maintenance area at Bonneville is � r c't^,Y ' - inadequate given the scope of its } l�• operations. The placement of the building r ,F, • at the end of the driving range presents a / number of safety concerns to both course ` ;�., �' `` ,, _a maintenance workers and equipment. S,.-1 " 4 Mar ' f' ialik :hex */ • • _.. *". -. _- III '► ' .:. -'. '-.- Oifilarri. it i . .40111gmmiimm, 4, . _ ,_ This picture illustrates the measures that a This picture is of a maintenance building county golf course uses to protect their located at the Old Mill Golf Course. equipment from errant range balls. SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT DUCE CITY �► GOLF Bonneville Golf Course Improvements It is proposed that the Golf Division transfer surplus parcels of the course to Salt Lake City for other recreation uses or to sell this land for development. The funds obtained from surplus course parcels will go to fund a number of course improvements including hole re-routing, improvement of tees on select holes and the installation of perimeter fencing. The fencing is critical for customer and resident safety as well as general course security and protection from vandals. Projected cost of replacement:$2,750,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed course improvements. These pictures illustrate course damage that happens on a regular basis due the lack of perimeter barriers at Bonneville • ip • 4AM'++....�,.ts:•• .- „is ---- ,T These pictures show perimeter fencing at other municipal courses in Salt Lake County. SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION .`- MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES soLT LAKE crro 4) GOLF Bonneville Golf Course Improvements Cont. Bonneville is perceived by many industry experts to be a venerable classic golf course and is often mentioned with the likes of much more renown golf courses with much more advanced operations and amenities. Bringing Bonneville in line with even modest industry standards would further enhance this City treasure. The attached article is from the 2008 edition of the PGA Professionals'Guide to Travel. 111 THE PRICE IS RIGHT Favorite Classic Courses as chosen by PGA Professionals,representing only golf courses that have green fees of S125 or less in peak season. 0 ul~ BETHPAGE STATE PARK ^ - COG HILL GOLF B COUNTRY CLUB o Callaway�rdens Farmingdale,N Y. „y Chicago,Ill. ir Black Course �' Ravines Course http://nysperks.state.ny.us/golf www.coghillgolf.com In• BONNEVILLE GOLF COURSE •a,� '" DEL MONTE GOLF COURSE o Salt Lake City,Utah Monterey,Calif. • wwwslcgov.com/pubilaervices/golf - www.pebblebeach.corn t C . CALLAWAY GARDENS _ =`'' ', SEAVIEW RESORT&SPA r. Pine Mountain,Ga. Galloway,NJ. - a Mountain Course Bay Course wonv.callewaygardens.corn wwwseewewmarriott.com i. _ ..fir -__ 11 �' r. 7e---,._. -.....___ - ` ��_ — / .`• _ i • z SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE(rEv • GOLF Bonneville Driving Range and Short Game Areas The range at Bonneville is small and currently has iron-only hitting restrictions. This limits driving range revenues. The addition of an expanded driving range with a short game practice area would create a top-rate attraction befitting a course like Bonneville in an area that would support and welcome such an addition. Projected cost of replacement: $500,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed course improvements. • Lr. ler • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES GOLF On-Course Restrooms at Bonneville, Forest Dale, Glendale, Nibley Park and Rose Park The restrooms located at Bonneville, Forest Dale, Glendale, Nibley Park and Rose Park need to be replaced, including the on-course snack shack located at Bonneville. Projected cost of replacement: Bonneville$300,000, Forest Dale$75,000,Glendale$75,000, Nibley Park$75,000 and Rose Park$150,000 r, -"It"----,,.:,- ***-:;. ' r pp r te i 4,eur 4444, iii„ . t • iivit, . , ,,,,,,,,, „..-, ..., - ,, , . .. N , , ...„, . .,,,,,,.: , . .‘.____,, i. . k, • • s I a q J�ii�4i•dP, _ ..,►r SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION � • MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES -- SALT IABP Cm GOLF Bonneville Parking Lot Improvements and New Entrance Road from Foothill Blvd. This project would install a new entrance road from Foothill Blvd plus a number of improvements to the existing parking lot. Projected cost of replacement $250,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed changes to entrance road. The current entrance at Bonneville can -> t only be accessed by traveling through a residential area on Connor Street. 3 ^ a « • .• t!I " 1001,411erxne.:..;c:+-•' • • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES4 S,L7 LAZE CITY • GOLF Forest Dale Piping of Drainage Streams through Fairway Corridors The streams that bisect holes 4,5, 7, and 9 create a significant pace-of-play problem at Forest Dale. Piping these streams the width of the fairway will resolve this problem without impacting the drainage corridors. The end result will be a faster pace of play, increased customer satisfaction, more rounds played,and increased revenue on busy days during the summer. Projected cost of project:$100,000 ,- t E .fig _ y • tom. .. r SS . , 411&. F _ Y ♦ ,,* SI _.w... kt. i d11h b , 411111.. SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT IARP CITY r GOLF Glendale Redesign and Additional Improvements A proposed sale of property adjacent to 2100 South would generate funds to make a number of needed course and driving range improvements. Projected cost of replacement.$1,350,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed course improvements. • f? f yam ; 1 • ` S41) a; SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES `` SALT iT • GOLF Glendale Maintenance Relocation A proposed sale of property adjacent to 2100 South would require the relocation of the maintenance building and operations at Glendale. Projected cost of replacement:$600,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed maintenance building relocation. d y •. r • , .4�, �. . " r, L c SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION .'' MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES 'Coil LAKE CITY GOLF Mountain Dell Clubhouse Infrastructure Improvements A number of improvements and upgrades need to be implemented at the Mountain Dell Golf Course. Improvements would include upgrading the bathroom areas and installation of a new boiler system. Projected cost of replacement $200,000 „gills Pliw. • ! Y - ... 16.1,14.Doi Gat Coarse 4E6ems' ,_ yV 4t+ i �ror _______ , ..,. 7.____ ...,,. . _ N imil.._ -___ r >,t f 4 _ - ` it F . "- a ' i- 1 O SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES = L,:P.KP CI, O GOLF Nibley Park Range Extension, New Fence and Associated Golf Course Redesign Extending the range at Nibley Park would allow for increased revenues and reduce safety concerns. Projected cost of replacement and installation:$750,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed course improvements. si r • • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION ._ MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES S Il LAKE CITY OLF G ( Nibley Park Perimeter Fencing Improvements The perimeter fence surrounding the Nibley Park Golf Course needs to be replaced. Projected cost of replacement $100000 `►fir:.. •......20��- fiN ... 1 rr , `. .e. !. • , `� ��'# ,�: +I•+•ri. , , of • .1 Ken c, f w Picture of perimeter fencing at a municipal course in Salt Lake County. • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES ice# GSLLOLF l fern CITY • Rose Park Redesign and Additional Improvements There are a number of proposed improvements to the course at Rose Park including adding forward tees on selected holes. Projected cost of replacement:$225,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed course improvements. • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT L1KF(.ITV GOLF Rose Park Range Extension and Jordan River Par-3 Redesign A proposed extension of the driving range at Rose Park will include a connection from the Jordan River Par-3 from the South. This will increase the revenue potential of the range as well as increase the opportunities to develop a top-rate teaching facility at the Jordan River Par-3 course. The pro- posal includes purchasing vacant homes on Redwood Road between the two courses to allow for the needed range expansion. Projected cost of replacement: $500,000 Refer to enlarged aerial map with detailed proposed range expansion. �y� r k •'•t= 11A � iy • • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION - MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES GOLF Maintenance Building Improvements, Wash Bays and Sand Bins at Mountain Dell, Forest Dale, Nibley Park, Rose Park and Wingpointe Nearly all of Salt Lake City's maintenance facilities lack the adequate structures for storing equip- ment,course supplies such as fertilizers and sand as well as proper wash bays. Projected cost of replacement:$1,400,000 - • • 110 • 1.i ` r,{Gy'•fin 'j7 A 'tA t- - 1111 .W• • vit.okokip' ✓- , ...g • The three photos above are golf course maintenance buildings at Salt Lake County courses. SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES • GOLF Lake Bank Stabilization at Forest Dale, Nibley Park and Wingpointe Lake banks at Forest Dale. Nibley Park and Wingpointe are in need of stabilization in order to prevent further deterioration. Projected cost of replacement:$300,000 • •t:i". � pow , A4 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION t MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES G wa 1A cr,Y • GOLF Pro Shop and Restroom Improvements at Mountain Dell, Forest Dale, Nibley Park, Glendale and Wingpointe Upgrade clubhouse restroom facilities at Mountain Dell, Forest Dale, Nibley Park, Glendale and Wingpointe. i Projected cost of replacement: $140,000 t I14' : • yr ot, r : SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES sua JaB errs �. GOLF Cart Path Improvements at all Courses Install new cart paths and improve conditions of current paths at all courses. Projected cost of replacement: $630,000 1., • Cr, • • • 1'- • SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES ,_: a .. r GOLF . — - — -. - . .-A. Of ' { -sue . y.. t r -:: 't.'..-t., -,& A. II) 'l. 6„iz, ;,7 . .71N.N.r. ,...„„vir. ... . . } LL e - Jd 1� ��T i.,17.,..' : _ I . - , ...ii.' :-4`A t4*.t. ei'4 f -, 1 ,Ie , i 1, ti _,40 ,,7.'it-4.i s.i:-1.-1'''1, -.... 1,,,t-, `. T r 1 4.# .} -.40 ` , 'iii71. .: :_.-: ,,1011 ill'14.0 ,111;74:4f71-.4.. .9'.--4*. 1 54 10,4,1' et uui, n s 8.1 • Option 1 Fi rmrrmerhaus Bonneville Golf Club .- Design Preliminary Design&Renovation Concept ..iiimilimiNIMINIIMIIIMI SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION -,i..4-•.t MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SU I LAKE cm Jr .—c. - GOLF - . .. , i. ...4- -.......,-. .„ . . ... , 41 1 • • , -- - ..... 1 - 4....l ro -. -• --, - t- ,4 - a • 1St - ' -C' , t. _ :01/4,r. .,,L, , • - -' i 4 A 'Irv* i • ' - 'A •t Or ‘...... - - - , A --- ` 4,4: • 41;4 • 11:4 i 4 ii:r, ‘- -- ' -All'''III\ ' \• t..T I 11 % ' II-P '4 44,1 ' • II di 4 • , , - ''. - ,... . ..k, • . ...lir __ • ..„ , . ... .. .. . 4 '' . / 4. t<1.toki4, _ 4-. Z-.--- Aimirr.e. , . , f) . i..,,i -.- •,„,-. ...N," . I. 454i i f ---AU-•-, - '., - '''' ) "., .....40. _ .0i Ify ".t-,,;,.Y.. 46. • i 8 0, ' ' ' 0 . 1 , ;A) -.)-4)0.40,____ `' .E,,; Ilit''i 1 j a id 4, 4t ' 1 - 4, 46.k. t 1 V . - , , ,_der , 4#414'?• ..il t . , 4, 4 kil. ,,,.' I irb, ? + J\ -s• r 4, 41,1, • i' 1 , )) .`C* • , il . •• '41.,r . .- 4, , 1 1 tfi K.; _• „ t42 I(0 t, , -4 1 . ' ii ii • .. 1 ill • 4 4; ' i 1 4 sil ., ‘1,, i..ii. !'t,i , • ; • k 1..t. .... 1! t ., - • - ; i• ,, -.., 04. , - . .4,-; f• ..... .... t - . .- . -:4*4•s, 4 ,,w. •-• ! #1 H. viii --, .. 4... t 4 Elte., 1 . 4 . c_..... . , It, ifirf.•_.,.. "(...i. .4.. li ig . I 1 •- 1., ; ,` i .•,.. -if ' '''\ i . 0 tZ ,1 I • -.‘ . ,•.",, :ii - , ., k is, 4 ,i, . , b ii,,-,.• "4,I ir-, .>1-' ( • ''''"- '; I/'Wij. le il..,••3 ' I'll' 11' A\*. . '. '.. 144141 1' . jr! . '` t\,,N r . ‘-lf ,.• 7. F . , . ,,i , 4%,..„ 14(, N. A / iir 41 t. de 1C(4*"1 ri' f A c-1 __ ---1--.- •, .r. ., ; a ,• Z. ', .. ".• I ' I ) j -.. .. , . - - . ,A - Pi ''• • Option 2-A Par-3 c-timme hayc Bonneville Golf Club — DES/913 Preliminary Design &Renovation Concept imimmiimmar, - SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR - MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY ' I.j. GOLF 0 — ,— i ../. . 1 • . . - +4.4"-'4-' 4 :. . " • .- 6111 4 IA _• . ^ •_ . - " ...' • . i , •-‘. .4• - , . ......- +. ___,,e .. t es • , 1„, ' ..,--7.----t"'"--e_..,..1_,, ' , All . . . . 4,1 . ...{4, , _ , .. 4,, , ik•.1 • I'1, •J'' ' , .4 , k 44' • '. . i •1. .4' 4 '‘ ,r ,,t, ,,• """.10. i 41:1.4.4.64: , „P• 4.II '4,„.• , \ )". . . - i---- "Iti _., vo„- r ll• :-.---v; -,-.- . -gm. ....mir,,,,, - . ,,, ,x,.. v. , ,;,/ • --•,_ i f '-'7431 .4/ s .'.'.*,- • - - . Ix_ - ,,, , ' " : - ,, - •"4, --- -- . : . ., 0z1 •i• e . • t iv • , - , - , 1p••1 l':" ', t 1.4' - u• *4;14: I; $I • l' • . , !,9- ' - 4. ‘1, 2, _: 'x'• 11 ^ , ? k - .,,, • 4 114,4- 1 Id14 1;'' ' ?4-'i . t, ••ji 1 4414,c ,,... * 1p . v.., . ... ..t„. . ,,, 1 r :444 .k 4f4,1•t .;1-‘'` 14 1~ . t , '-' 4-.. -c ,,1: - •• m. f - " -"i - . 1, (.' A ••''"Al •••... f 4 4144: t .7*1-i I'd' ' 41r.: ' ' t( °:(r. , ' ' ,..k.. 075 - , ` • I 'if''''''' •. - ., '; , .,! - ga .• ' • , I \i "r• • - . • , 03 klevg. • -- -:•. ..\ 1 , . i• rc, . - v.. .f. , ‘ • 'P•k ,, *. . v . ,a, \,4',,, , • --, I ' fl - ii,.,1-.. ...r-...'il ' " 1 ' ' • 01/4: . , I Is'I--; •1. of til .1 • , itlit ' -1+ I ____ ..1W4 '1 .c , ,ty V".21,-" I,- t /9Fr • ,6 ‘., ., - dir '4 7.14— ... ,- N..wr.--7,-- ,.. 1• • 4 - .<c:''' ,:. ,k. . im i , 4 4 1-4 !. to , . Jr4........ ( ...... ......... 11 , : 10. , I , c1.• f •:# ' Ill ; Option "-- 2-B ..........•••••- s urninerhays Bonneville Golf Club ;>.•,- -oesign Preliminary Design&Renovation Concept -r SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION ;.---- MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY • ,= r , . �- GOLF it i'.r ,�'-- .0 ' ., .. t '� t ,t • ' fir_1 R_, so it ti, i ,, it /'3 r 1 .--••- I `.1 ♦ ;may r .is *. . H. • i , _ s 1.0 • 'il+' t 4 M...ril . . i 0 • t 4+ 1 s' :. p� a i.r lk 44 'oat 4 : a , .i a tTu ' Ai �,a ;,. . �:e in n { 1'it,' or' L 14). . tic •1 I ..• A . ll.t 1‘44.4 ._ ,, ,.., , ,..t,,1,, 1 40,40,- ;:,:tr:f ',,f, 4 .r or�, t P F jam 11 l,1 .11! i! E I y, y .j Ii i f',Ij .i Y 2 ' �.,I - ti 11 t:111 ..&is.4.';)- I . 4 .0 . .e...1. • -,. ; • 0 Option 2-C Bonneville Golf Club urmmerhays uesrgn Preliminary Design& Renovation Concept SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT 1.A7CF CITY GOLF 0 `s • ' . s 110fritPC.: AN • DaleG•IfCourse• ' ,,. - 'llt. , "..: ' f• . . t -Air 1, ; 1,14r, ��l { , it . 17+�► '' �• 't; ✓ 'a!�, t h. t It s 1' * , - • -- , - it 1114-4.--- r t11 tr-,. ; - If! Irk . ` . . , itkr.--7 1 . 1 ... 1." 4 . ., , .- 010.{ •''..,' 1.'1;a , .-.4-,.. ' f flf ri t t 'T ►, ' v' kaP" • ► 1 Rip iiikail a 7* ,, '. 4 :, ."4.,, ' 101 cal ) . - . ilip 4" irr:, '1 It ..- . .i? - y i r - i t pot ,:..., "t r` fI ",I1mQe�:20Q8DIQ{ta' otie ' _V 1�"•�Y . .,,: +� � J, 4 . (d2QQ,Tele/.nas 1. *.f . . , . - a .. y�'"►:a t-y.. A ir 1.,.,,wa '` nft 5ra<"'te'W ►li 1= 'i m f�i•;�4.,„*Au• 2008. ' M' ye. Forest Dale Golf Course SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION - MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SAi.1 LSXI CITY GOLF ______7....\\,...:,611:41-.1 .• ta ' *' '• -' n"1/1":, '''. -ft., ^tot. . -0 G"') , „ —• CE) : i . . - .. � \ C.,9,*,. ' i.. . # .,,, . .t . ,. ,. , /1��M CI f i, ,3___.........,;.., _ . i,.. . . ,,, f r 14.71 5:1) - - . - ..,' ,... o CD . a OIP I r••••••• CI) it P. } t*le , • 1. + .'.1 / 1 J , . CD / ,.V • 0 n ....... /O O .a i - tp C I -; .- -•:-. -' -*: % ° 1111'.401,e1 '' '' 1 . ..� 1"51-- w • ( ) (I) • t f • if {,�� S! I © ._ . . tI ' w /Way IvM se3 ■ 1) • • r t. - .1.IN p 1 , + T cD i is 1p` ' -� r- SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION -� f MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LAKE CITY GOLF 0 w ,, •.t La �. • \ - ," > , ' ,ram - '. �� r • is .rili0 *.• • Ms • AR 66, t �,e,' • ••Jt,.M .0 •, 44.t '.. Nt ft.:,-11.**iii. . ,. 17.115.1a.9r- ,J• ' .• t4% ,* ''' , � i *' • r; .I.i in; r 1 ' Cal • }, �: s Al • CaP 1 f .#1 7',* •-v , 4 r.. . ' b ` ft _. (, r.ems•1 ••• n+rr+.rA `_•' ,).‘ at • • • = ; , j• 4 «.`,.1* ( ,maee 700E ClipdatGlobe �i. a _ . l. v . ' 1 t .+ '•yy4 .0 t'r .:20D8 Te'e At• ' i .,GOr ♦ ..M - ,GOOg( t e '.. 1 . ,''• 'a"..{I- t. I' t ' r(1 , . 1•-'"' At, •a .fir 7 C7.i Via.. 40'44 52 7C-N 111'41 17 18'W eiev 1771 r• Aup 2006 4 Eye e't 3 45 km k' Mountain Dell Canyon Golf Course .11 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LASE CITY L GOLF .0ulV" ,• •,•{y . ., .,. • , _ •j lire.. a._ E r"i7i` I.. hw •/ ,t. �. • Y t • k'., 41 4- i t,. 1 sy, • ,, •�+ ,. • arr- - r. • * '4 • i ;a v e Ala • .4 7. • { • t Iaf •aI• - 1t• s e i* a ;.. t ,N *• i A1.[ 1 • e '.iNr �` t y1', t `ems + �:. u� i f > i t. > /,fit• ... >. f Y : L - ith - ... ,...1 cal,,,, , !„:, • : ,f,..z.,:r7,,, ... ,. .. ,.tI ' % ,•4••**40`'. • 4.1%•• 1.- ��t �• a r 4.= - le .t -4..i. �� �f • ` 1•i• r1• s .. I P ,' It is '\�_ a¢ sl v . s t h•. I Clb' i 1 A • ® ' y • a ' •y h �. • ' •,; 1. • ,' • 0^"�` ,,.:..'•••• 1,0416,,...1,i 11 4. - • 7....1„. . :... A.,--4):weer' - , , * cal imp 1.4E 't i it cal. iiiii":0,‘.. ; 'j$iSIX3Jip ta,Gto0e•a ., :% jseM OQi a AtiiY 7/ 1 • S� • 40'45 18 05'N 111'42.29 70-V. ©1e:,1694,mow ,� _ ,.._ram '.•Aup4a06 •-• 44EYe elt`c3 27:Am Mountain Dell Lake Golf Course C) 3 SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION f MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT 1 AKE crrs GOLF a i - -- --- - --T'" • fir - . 414I ,11.4�+1R � ,•` ` y.� . . ..,4.4 r k rr•.I.e• .. t•l , iiik.: ......1...4,;___.Lot. ,,,1 ,, 4: , 7.,!:,:. 416. 0, Ilk )6, co:'' , Ir!,.- !' ,, , i7 .1. , .f,. ,i,fak°', ::* .., ii..,. ilk © �. -� , . . I-- 'M 1-.fir Iiik atm' Ili -:-.11.-. rilh 2_. 4.....- :,) i"-- ,r,'",-* ' . ..7 11. '1 ' ' •.'. !pit fl, t 1K ' ''''..-T 1 it .... ,; . thi.iiiir,..•• it .- gyge rt -* • • '''; . 1 t , :itt: ' i '"Akr- .... • -1111', 1,1111P111"6 . d. 444414.:4 4b$4t% - 4* c'' 1) - -.. . . ! IT .1 , al • r _ � ��, ;lu:•x..l;rx.nli?":,,�i:ri'.n:'i ��i�r �_ •r I \ (:x ,l"N;,xi:i�r:•r•1•x.. .r.r — .f} 1;1 � ` S i.� ni:•ii,i�r:�i'��i.ii��i:�.�l�.�r:'•�alr' i w -�r x.'I:H�.� r:In I i 1116:40; t- ' . ,...%, , * iht, 104 '•'if -1..k �A� • " t ttiy hi; .0.:-....NAr0"0/07,6'.:,7.i.fiff.i:1,1:::::M.i.:Y.FF"..-•-- [ e . 'j l{ . •:" • i — ' s si: . %‘ .'%. .4.......Ak -7-4.-1. . :. . 1.k.,16., pi, $��• �. i w— %1. :7♦ .} t. 1 "fir r N ■ bley Golf Date: Novembers 2009 Scale 1" = 100' Preliminary Design & Renovation Concept SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION ,... MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SALT LARE,(Tyr GOLF • . •A, •1,' --lirmr...;"T• . .,.., . 1 , I ON, " 0% :•011N , ''' ' 'f';• . A• •'..... 4.4" ' ,..,.....: . '• , It• • ..•,,,,, , A•••• •••• A.., • . ,-.1 itirst:', ; 1,.. • ,....1. , • „ g, .• -6.0.,',„... • - • . f ‘ ..,, - ,- - ''.46 ,•9-k .k • „ - • ,, . . • •• . .„:-...; ...•pi 41i;.-, ..., ,, . •it A ; • , ;..e,..1,-,,,-;:i.. .,--,,A ..., .,,4 414.! ' •: jilt' , -; ,-,i t ,.,-..-... .;,77".:....„.„, . 0.40, .64 i •,, • ....'' •-1 • LI , ..,;:i , - - ••-o •,,." ,. •,, • i • •. '''* ' -4 i ' `kr't: .. i • • 1-4 ,.t , -,:4":";,; : . - . ,• 1 ,16... __ -- • !•-•••''' ' • - - • is",..• .. ',".., - , .,..44 4 a. .-.-..r._ _______._____•-`,..i I •- ;.,: .;.'' :••••,i . ,• , . i . A • Ir-'' , t : • ••• , !i•• .,,• . ., '• if..? 0: --._..•-• '' ". • ; Vt; ' •-••..‘:. • e.. O'''.. ,.. .,4- ... ....• : . ,t• • - • • - • -, „, • - Jr <• '-;., , — , . , P - . . • ... . , _ "li -:••• k'ne'' '''—... ,. , . , ... t • - tet- . --• . i..., r.., - '• • , .-k' ,..-;`•' ' I A, ,l •' ' . '•11! ,' 6 . . ' - •. - 1, • , - • ,, . a„,.,„zr n :. Am.: IR ,.- is• •P • i 1 filir, r lit .1 '' 1 ,"''' :1 - :-•.L. : . t ...4,4,.irgit i- ,..1.0.1 ..,.,,, , 1%. *' . '.. .. w'.4r.rie•..., ', _•. . -.. ..* . ,., L:•‘-''''''''Ilt,/..; t . .'7 ) ri.' f lb' ' ‘'''.t°' '. % ' •K 1 U.''Pi.• • • 1-•; ... , - ' -111i - a,• ew' ' „.- . r'' 1 .--- . - • 7.., • .• . !.. "`-'ii".. r‘,.. -`,, ;•:,,....E•• 72.,,• t.. •- •---- „,— . •••• ak.. •, , ...: g ,i_ w 1,, ,..,7, . . . , ..,..a...,•r. ,., . , ,--.1..A. ,-..., . •-,,- .._, . , . • i • .. e.../ !lite, ..816 ' *". . , 10. trei.c s.:'• ' .t. ..• .1,:-T..; i!'. - 'a.. 3 V - 'Ng'''. 'w'- • a • 1. , •4,11- llir,-!s•'.;ik . ... •4,. a, pg.-11. 'Fr. ....;:. • ai„4',. , , .!. le. , ., •i ,. .-, „..... "r.„••• •-dP A F..1.• 1:.' JPJA711.- t il.' A'. "11. . ' II 2.:4.:„,— , ,.),, „L.. a '-:—Z .., •1 1 .L.._ * 9't ,...111 -.'S . '....-• ,,..6 10"101.11:, . -.' ' Ir.. • ."*" ....iest.''' -1 a.'4- : ,..,, . . . "... ,li•"r It 4.• d • *.:-- ,I. IN _i - 1 •1°- , •", ,, •arc-_• .."..•1 ::::4 v:.1 .r--!.,,L.,.,...• ---r---, • -',i- . .---,- , , .:, ..•-• 4 ea,: 'la_ :*,_;#..1±E.,d_.76 -Litt .-....,..I .,:ii: , ... --'.1•-,.. -----. --..--' it ".-, ir.- • . s„'• ii, ' —----,fra. . ''''', ..%.• - ''‘.....-- ... f. lot -",,i';•41,..44.. :,-..;,., 7;. ' , tr-- ', --,-,.. - 1f,,t,, .,"...7.•,:• -,_- , ''o„'r._,.. A•...r.-.1.1-,4',,6,' . ',. ,t.._•.-. _ I * • " - .-,-•,,,,.-.S4'i1'V.4:.4Ii^"t. '.S..."4.- i. .. ? C .I 4. — .". . -.1f,i P ''' •47, w .1;:1.11.-4044 1 ,...-::if,-.... ....e.. , II, I... .. ..'. - -.41 . .11 • 1447'-..' -':1 .7 '.. ;K, -4'... -.IX, 1 tak' *11 S.'', . .6. .• , ..... , -.... - A - 44.'' ....II' ,. ..I 1r . ‘ ..t... ' ' Irt. ;a.. a ir: iw ...11 .. '• 1 1 --` i•401 A. , .f.,'• . 1 • , ''' .• - 1 - ...- ,_. • • ' t.-I- f .1 I. I."- ,). ;•-:, "1 . - ' . • Rose Park & Jordan River Par-3 • Preliminary Design & Renovation Concept Datet November 2009 Scale SALT LAKE CITY GOLF DIVISION '' - r MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES SA1.7 LAKE C.rrY GOLF Cli, \ • r V i le, .10 • L , s Q t J 'l - ��•. 114,1,.. 'yam. s "04111111111'.. ..."6"."."---w 1 'I ' - ' . ' -' ' 11101011., Z 4 it. A _ I .' . J r 1• ' mot.\ • �. • E4, t r ' ;111k0 . •• i .t. .•. • �• r �. 0 ...� sli ` 7.• !� • _ r 3-3- — t + ""- - a""- .�.• ., te r ',r • .., �... � o DF•AarObOo X 0110 •-"e , ..If' <0».,.. 5�._�_ .. .i •'� likstii'. eiev 1288m f _- .. •.up?0•-• • Wingpointe Golf Course I SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF'REPORT 'BREW?ANALYSIS-FIRM YEAR 2011-12 DATE: May 3,2011 SUBJECT: REFUSE COLLECTION FUND CLASS- Operations&Recycling Fund,Environmental&Energy Fund STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver CC: David Everitt,Rick Graham,Vicki Bennett,Art Valente,Greg Davis,Nancy Sanders,Gina Chamness,Randy Hillier,Debbie Lyons,Emy Storheim Salt Lake City provides a refuse program of weekly curbside trash collection,recycling(including curbside residential recycling and centralized glass recycling),curbside yard waste collection,and annual neighborhood cleanup. These services are funded through the Operations&Recycling Fund(O&R Fund). In addition to trash collection services,the City's concentrated environmental and sustainability efforts are staffed and funded through the Environmental & Energy Fund (E&E Fund). This includes open space management,outreach,Blue Sky participation,and tree purchasing funds.This budget report provides some overall information,and then some budget changes specific to each of these funds. PUBLIC PROCESS&COUNCIL SCHEDULE: May 3,2011 Council briefing on the Refuse Fund Budget Mayor presents his recommended budget for Salt Lake City. May,June 2011 Annual Budget Public Hearings Council briefings and review of Department budgets,follow-up on budget questions and research June 2011 Adoption of the Annual 2011-12 Budget,including Public Utilities (Adoption date is TBD,but must be complete by June 22 per State Statute) OVERALL KEY ITEMS: The major points of the proposed budget for fiscal year 2011-12 are: • No rate increases,despite projected use of cash reserves in the O&R Fund. • No major program changes. • Offering smaller yard waste and recycling cans to residents. • The budget impact of delaying the decision to change recycling collection service - the 2010-11 budget included steps to have the City take over recycling collections. Mid-year, the Council and Administration revisited that decision,and the Council requested that the Administration pursue a new Request for Proposals(RFP)process to gather updated cost comparison information.Since at that time,the Administration was already working on an RFP for a sorting contract(which could affect the terms of a recycling contract),the exploration of recycling program options is still pending.The new CNG packers(ordered for recycling)will be put to use on the other collection services upon arrival in October.The pre-existing contract for recycling service has been extended.The budgets for staffing and fleet maintenance have been amended based on these changes,and are discussed more below. • Recycling sorting services - As was discussed mid-year, the Administration will be issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for recycling sorting services by the end of this fiscal year. Bid selection should be completed in July or August. • Waste Stream Audit - as proposed last year, the Administration has moved ahead with an audit of the City's waste stream. This process includes several sorting excursions at the Landfill over the next year to evaluate the different types of waste being discarded. This will be used to determine where diversion efforts need to be focused- i.e. food waste, electronic waste, etc. Based on the audit findings, the Administration can evaluate how to direct resources toward new programs and educational efforts. . • Diversion & Contamination Rates - when "accelerated diversion" was rolled out, the goal was to significantly decrease the amount of waste dumped at the Landfill. Year-to-date, 32% of the garbage • collected has been diverted from the Landfill. This is a higher diversion rate than the Administration had anticipated. The following chart shows the different waste types, and the status on diversion and contamination rates: FY1011 Year-to-Date Estimates Actual Total Tonnage Received 79,997.00 52,576.24 Non-Diverted Tons Garbage 45,559.71 30,175.41 Neighborhood Clean-up 8,257.43 3,646.08 Contaminated Recycling 4,426.16 1,610.95 Contaminated Yard Waste 735.70 196.70 Total Non-Div. Tonnage: 58,979.00 35,629.14 Percentage: 73.70% 67.80% Diverted Tons Yard Waste 4,685.30 2,827.56 Neighborhood Clean-up 0.00 1,956.51 Leaves 1,936.00 3,325.63 • Recycling-all types 10,351.70 7,822.47 E Waste 65.00 0.00 Cardboard 120.00 79.40 Glass 3,860.00 935.53 Total Diverted Tonnage: 21,018.00 16,947.10 Percentage: 26.30% 32.20% Total Tons Received: 79,997.00 52,576.24 • Various changes to staffing, including reducing the dependence on seasonal staff by increasing the number of regular part-time and full-time employees, reducing the number of crews dedicated to the Annual Neighborhood Clean-up (this will not affect the way the program is administered), and various other changes listed in the Fund write-ups below. The Council may also wish to discuss use of the one-time payment from the Landfill. The proposed budget does not include any projects or plans. As the Council may recall, the City received $7 million from the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility ("Landfill") as a one-time distribution payment from the "Post- Closure Fund" (designated cash account). As proposed, the Administration received $1.5 million into the O&R Fund cash balances to replenish several years of reserves use. The other $5.5 million, has been held in the E&E Fund cash balance pending decision on a project. 2 • REFUSE FUND CLASS PROPOSED BUDGET Adopted 2010-11 Difference %Chg Revenue&other sources Service Fee Revenues $8,724,019 733,522 8.4% Landfill annual revenue dividends 850,000 (82,600) -9.7% Interest Income 15,500 5,000 32.3% Bond Proceeds&Other Sources 5,396,453 (671,919) -12.5% Landfill One-Time Dividend* 7,000,000 (7,000,000) -100.0% Total revenue&other sources $21,985,972 (7,015,997) -31.9% Operating Expenses Collection Services 8,080,386 (205,417) -2.5% Environmental 822,696 (79,980) -9.7% Total Operating Expenses $8,903,082 (285,397) -3.2% Capital Outlay 9,709,896 (3,037,625) -31.3% Total expenses&capital outlay $18,612,978 (3,323,022) -17.9% Appropriation of reserves $3,372,994 (3,692,975) -109.5% OVERALL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION A. The Council may wish to discuss whether a rate study would be helpful in considering the current rate structure and price points.In past years,the Council has discussed the rate structure and raised questions about the amounts and the spread between the rates for different sized cans.Although there is uncertainty with the pending RFPs,the Council may also decide that a rate study would be a helpful complement to the information that the RFPs will provide.Depending on the timing of the selection process,a rate study could be conducted prior to year end and aid the City in the course of decision making. Based on the rate studies performed for the Department of Public Utilities,an estimate would be$60,000,or up to as much as $120,000 depending on involvement of a constituent group. B. The Council may wish to discuss the Administration's decision to postpone a rate increase and to instead draw on cash reserves in the Operations&Recycling Fund.$1.5 million of the Landfill one-time$7 million payment was placed into the O&R Fund to replenish cash reserves that had been used in previous years. The proposed 2011-12 budget includes taking more than$300,000 from the O&R cash reserves. C. The Council may wish to discuss the successes of increased educational efforts in increasing diversion and minimizing contamination. The Council may also wish to ask how the Administration plans to further develop the educational efforts in the future. The Administration has implemented an educational approach rather than a penalty approach with residents to increase awareness about separating waste types,can maintenance,and service options. D. The Council may wish to ask whether the Administration will make adjustments to the yard waste program in Fall 2011. In the first transition year, the Administration made second yard waste cans available to residents and offered holiday tree pick-up. E. The Council may wish to ask about the status of offering smaller-sized recycling and/or yard waste cans, and offer feedback.The Administration has indicated that they are in the process of placing an initial order of 60-gallon recycling and yard waste cans.Their intent is to distribute these on a first-come,first-served basis,and issue them in pairs.The estimated delivery date is July 2011. 3 OPERATIONS&RECYCLING FUND REFUSE FUND CLASS PROPOSED BUDGET Adopted 2010-11 Difference %Chg Revenue&other sources Refuse fees $8,614,973 842,568 9.8% Yard Waste fees 109,046 (109,046) -100.0% Interfund Reimbursements 273,653 (25,107) -9.2% Sale of vehicles&Misc. 56,000 90,500 161.6% Interest income 10,000 5,000 50.0% Landfill One-Time Dividend 1,500,000 (1,500,000) -100.0% (operations) Bond Proceeds 5,066,800 (737,312) -14.6% III Total revenue&other sources $15,630,472 (1,433,397) -9.2% Operating Expenses Administration"Refuse Collection" 374,203 48,427 12.9% Weekly trash collection"SW col& 3,639,744 (451,636) -12.4% disp" Curbside recycling 1,440 671 (264,862) -18.4% Glass and Cardboard Recycling 365,751 (66,735) -18.2% Annual neighborhood cleanup 1 342,098 (224,217) -16.7% 1Yard Waste Collection 917,919 128,011 13.9% Enforcement - 413,028 Can Maintenance - 212,567 Total Operating Expenses 8,080,386 (205,417) -2.5% Capital Outlay Debt service 2,300,269 (131,955) -5.7% Equipment purchases 7,409,627 (2,921,770) -39.4% Total expenses&capital outlay $17,790,282 (3,259,142) -18.3% Change in Net Assets ($2,159,810) 1,825,745 -84.5% Out of the O&R Fund, the Administration budgets for the cost to provide recycling, yard waste, trash collection,glass recycling locations,and Neighborhood Clean-up.As an Enterprise Fund,the Fund has its own revenue source (collects user fees to pay for the services provided), and does not receive any financial assistance from the City's General Fund. The changes in the proposed budget for the Operations&Recycling Fund include: Revenues • No Rate Increase-In the 2010-11 budget,the Administration anticipated future year rate increases to accommodate then-planned program changes. In light of the recycling RFP and delay of program changes,the Administration is proposing no rate increase for 2011-12. • Fee Revenues-The increase to the amount of revenue received from fees is due to recognizing a full year of the new combined rate.The implementation of citywide yard waste cans and the combined rate was implemented in October. The decrease to the Yard Waste fees is due to combining the fees for all collection services. 4 • • Subscription Rates-The Administration had anticipated that more residents would request smaller size garbage cans,and the fee revenue was budgeted using that assumption.However,the down-grading of sizes has not occurred at the level expected, and most customers who request two 90-gallon waste containers have kept them.The result is higher revenue than expected. Operating Expenses&Capital • Personal Services Changes: o Overall Staffing Allocation Changes-the Administration has changed the way staff is allocated to the different services provided in the O&R Fund. Administration, enforcement, and can maintenance have each been separated out from the different collection services.Supervision has been added to each of the collections.The purpose is to be able to identify the dedicated costs versus the overhead or fixed costs of providing any collection service. o Shift from Seasonal Employees-The budget includes a slight shift from the historic use of seasonal employees.Some of the functions coincide with seasonal work-for example,Neighborhood Clean- up is limited to the summer months during a time when other regular part-time or full-time employees are not available. However, seasonal employees had also been used heavily in Enforcement and can maintenance,and to a lesser degree in yard waste collection and recycling services.In an effort to be more efficient with employees,the Administration reports that they have analyzed the routes,available equipment,number of people,and necessary redundancy to propose a shift of seasonal employees to either regular part-time or full-time positions. o Salaries Adjustments - The Refuse Fund budget includes a placeholder for estimated salary adjustments.In order to complete the Council staff report,the Administration provided the Refuse Fund information with a preliminary personal services budget.Once the Mayor officially presents his budget,the Refuse Fund budget may be updated. o Benefits-The budget for employee benefits is proposed to increase by$72,034 due to increase in benefit premiums.This also factors in any election changes employees have made since last year. o Recycling Collection Changes-The current year budget included staffing to prepare for providing recycling services. Since the decision about recycling collection has been delayed, the proposed budget includes the reduction of the staff and funding for those positions. • o Neighborhood Clean-up Staffing-The Administration proposes reducing the number of crews tasked with the Annual Neighborhood Clean-up program from three to two.They do not anticipate that the change will affect the overall schedule;it is still scheduled from April through the beginning of October.However,whereas in recent years,the crews would be complete with an area early in the week,the area may take more of the week allotted. • Glass Recycling-The Administration significantly increased the number of locations for residents to drop off their glass recycling.Some of the business partners where the bins were located have needed to discontinue their participation for a variety of reasons.However,20 locations remain throughout the City.The reduction in the number of sites has reduced the hauling costs associated with glass.Cardboard recycling sites have been reduced as well. Fleet Budget-CNG Packers- Despite decisions to postpone changes to the recycling collections,the packer trucks that were planned for in-house recycling collection were ordered. Without having an additional collection,the Administration proposes using all of the trucks in lieu of some of the older diesel packers.The old diesel models will likely be used as needed. 5 The cost of CNG fuel at the City's own slow-fill station,and the cost of maintenance on newer trucks is anticipated to reduce the Refuse Fund's fleet fuel and maintenance budgets,so the new packers will be used once they arrive.They are expected in October 2011. The annual debt service payment has been split between the waste collection and yard waste collection budgets. • Capital Purchases-There is also a decrease in the amount budgeted for capital purchases,because no leaf bed trucks will be purchased for the Yard Waste program. • Reserve Funds - If the Council adopts the budget as proposed, the fund would use approximately $334,065 from reserve funds and the balance would be $3,151,583. Based on a midyear estimate, the reserve balance was lower due to the start-up costs associated with the Recycling program changes.With the delay to changing the recycling program,less money was used from fund balance in 2010-11. The $3.2 million includes the$1.5 million received from the one-time Landfill payment. ENVIRONMENTAL&ENERGY FUND REFUSE FUND CLASS ENVIRONMENT ENERGY l - PROPOSED BUDGET Adopted MIT,Tarrq 2010-11 ` :?E w) . Difference %Chg Revenue&other sources Landfill annual revenue dividends $850,000 .s .hF $82,600 -9.7% Interest income 5,500 7 $0 0.0% Landfill One-Time Dividend 5,500,000 M1t i., ($5,500,000) -100.0% (environmental) Total revenue&other sources $6,355,500 ($5,582,600) -87.8% Operating Expenses Environmental-mana•ement 390,450 2,665 0.7% Environmental-outreach 274,875 86,301 -31.4% Environmental-o.ens.ace 100,671 3,656 3.6% Environmental-Blue Sky&Tree 56,700 0 0.0% Planting Total Operating Expenses $822,696 ($79,980) -9.7% Capital Outlay Debt service - 16,100 E.ui•ment.urchases - -- Total expenses&capital outlay $822,696 bpi. ($63,880) -7.8 Change in Net Assets $5,532,804 ($5,518,720) -99.7% Out of the E&E Fund,the Administration budgets for the City's environmental initiatives and staffing,open space management,outreach and education,purchase of Blue Sky credits,and tree purchases for the City's Urban Forest.As an Enterprise Fund,the Fund has its own revenue source,however rather than charging user fees,the E&E Fund is funded through the annual dividend received from the Salt Lake Valley Landfill.This fund does not receive any financial assistance from the City's General Fund. 6 The proposed budget for 2011-12 is relatively flat compared to 2010-11. • Revenues-Based on the amount of tonnage estimated to be received at the Landfill during the year,the annual dividend is expected to decrease by$82,600. • Expenses- Expenses will be reduced in the Materials budget for Outreach functions.The 2010-11 budget had been increased to accommodate educational roll-out materials,and website design.The budget has been reduced and some has been moved to the O&R Enforcement Cost Center. • Capital Purchases -The E&E Fund does not typically incur capital expenses,but will be spending $16,100 to purchase 20 GPS units in 2011-12.The units will be used to track idling,speed,and routes. • Reserve Funds-If the Council adopts the budget as proposed,$14,085 would be transferred to cash reserves.The Reserve Cash balance for the E&E Fund would be$5,706,172.This includes$5.5 million received from the one-time Landfill payment. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The operations of the Landfill are not part of the Refuse Fund budget,but the two functions are closely related. The Solid Waste Facility administers the Landfill,coordinates the transfer station and the long range planning for future landfill sites.The Salt Lake City Council reviews and adopts the budget for the Solid Waste Facility on a calendar year basis,which affects 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. It also reduces the over-all revenue to the landfill, impacting the dividend that the City receives as a result of landfill revenue. :he Refuse Fund Class operates as an enterprise fund,so the General Fund does not subsidize these services. • May 3. 2011 Petition No. PLNPCM2009-01337 Urban Farms. Community Gardens, Seasonal Farm Stands, and Large Renewable Energy Systems POTENTIAL MOTIONS (final) 1. I move that the Council adopt an ordinance changing the City's zoning regulations relating to urban farms, community gardens, seasonal farm stands, and renewable energy systems and remove Community Gardens as a permitted use in the Open Space zone. 2. I further move that the Council request that the Administration address issues relating to whether community gardens should be allowed in the Open Space Zone as part of the open space zoning reevaluation project currently underway in the Planning Division and by providing a broad range of opportunities for community participation and input. 3. I further move that the Council express support for a single temporary sustainability demonstration project to be conducted in Fairmont Park recognizing that the project will be conducted on a temporary basis from year to year, and will not be considered an allowed use in the future unless the Council amends the Open Space Lands Program regulations. (City Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.90) 4. I further move that the Council reaffirm that there will be no expansion of community gardens or new community gardens along the Jordan River Corridor until the City's Jordan River Corridor study is completed. 5. I further move that the Council revise the definition of Community Garden to read: "Community garden'"means an area of land managed and maintained by an identifiable group of community members used to grow and harvest food crops and/or non-food, ornamental crops, such as flowers. for personal or group use, consumption, donation. or sale, or for educational purposes. Generally operated as not-for-profit, limited sales and events may also occur on the site to fund the gardening activities and other charitable purposes. Private use of private land (not intended to benefit the community at large) and horticultural activities by the City on city-owned land do not constitute community garden use. 6. I further move that the Council adopt a Legislative Intent requesting that the Administration address demolitions in a broader context. (or elevating the topic in the Council's list of Policy Priorities) 7. I further move that the Council adopt a Legislative Intent requesting that the Administration continue to review and refine the proposal for wind energy systems with input from the Council. SALT LAKE COUNTY Redistricting Commission Application Applications due to the Council by September 13, 2010 Name: Date: Home Address: City, State, Zip Home Phone: Work Phone: E-Mail: Political Party Affiliation: Unique qualifications and/or perspectives you would bring to the Commission: Are you a registered voter in Salt Lake County? Yes_ No_ Answering 'yes"to any the following questions would render you ineligible to be appointed to the redistricting commission per county ordinance. Have you in the last three years been: A candidate for any partisan office? Yes_ No Appointed or elected to any public office? Yes No An officer of a political party? Yes No_ A registered lobbyist with Salt Lake County or the State of Utah? Yes No An officer of any candidate's campaign committee? Yes_ No Please submit this form with a copy of your resume. Forward Nominations to: Salt Lake County Council Board Coordinator Attn: Redistricting Commission Phone:(801)468-2893 2001 S.State Street N2200 Fax: (801)468-3029 Salt Lake City, Utah 84190 Email: arbradshaw@slco.org Salt Lake County does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, marital status, or disability. /4 9-N' SALT LAKE COUNTY ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. ,2010 COUNTY REDISTRICTING COMMISSION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 2.71.020 AND 2.71.040 OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES, 2001,BY PROVIDING FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION MEMBERS IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE DECENNIAL CENSUS AND MODIFYING CRITERIA FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS TO ALLOW APPOINTMENT OF NON PARTISAN CURRENT AND FORMER PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDERS. The County Legislative Body of Salt Lake County ordains as follows: SECTION I. The amendments made herein are designated by underlining the new enacted words and striking through deleted words. SECTION II. Section 2.71.020 of the Salt Lake County Code of Ordinances,2001,is hereby amended to read as follows: aft 2.71.020 Requirements for Appointment. To be eligible for appointment to the Commission,candidates shall submit applications to the Council which shall be maintained by the Council for purposes of selection of Commission members. Applicants shall meet the following criteria: 1. Must at the time of appointment be a registered voter in Salt Lake County and have • maintained such registration on an uninterrupted basis for three or more years previous to appointment; 2. Must be committed to applying the constitutional and statutory requirements relating to redistricting in an honest, independent and impartial fashion and to upholding public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process; 3. Must not be at the time of appointment nor have been, in the three years prior to appointment,appointed to,elected to, or a candidate for any partisan public office,an officer of • a political party,served as lobbyist registered with Salt Lake County or the state of Utah,or served as an officer of a county candidate's campaign committee. SECTION III Section 2.71.030 of the Salt Lake County Code of Ordinances,2001,is amended to read as follows 2.71.030 Terms of Commission Members 1. 1.With the exception of the county clerk,each commission member shall be appointed for a term commencing January 1 of theyear prior to the year in which the decennial census report is to be published and terminating December 31 two years aft...p.a.prior to the year in which the next decennial census report is to be published. 2.No member may be appointed for more than two complete terms. 3.Upon the resignation or ineligibility of any commission member,the council shall seek applications and appoint a replacement member for the balance of the unexpired term. Applicants shall meet the criteria set forth in Section 2.71.020. SECTION IV. This ordinance shall become effective fifteen(15)days after its passage and upon at least one publication of the ordinance or a summary thereof in a newspaper published and having general circulation in Salt Lake County. APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of ,2010. SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL By JOE HATCH,Chair ATTEST: 2 Sherrie Swensen Salt Lake County Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy District Attorney Date ORDINANCE VOTING HISTORY Council Member Bradley voting Council Member Burdick voting Council Member DeBry voting Council Member Hatch voting Council Member Iwamoto voting Council Member Horiuchi voting Council Member Jensen voting Council Member Wilde voting — Council Member Wilson voting Vetoed and dated this day of ,2007. By Mayor Corroon or Designee (Complete as Applicable) Veto override:Yes No Date Ordinance published in newspaper: Date Effective date of ordinance: 3 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: May 3,2011 SUBJECT: City Council/School Board Redistricting Briefing •"Making Sense of the 2010 Redistricting Data" Pam Perlich-Senior Research Economist Bureau of Economic and Business Research,University of Utah Redistricting Software Demonstration 731s1Mulding Principles and Process AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide' STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Halladay,Budget and Policy Analyst Brady Wheeler,Redistricting Team Member PUBLIC PROCESS: To be determined by the Council 2010 Census Information On February 24th,the U.S.Census Bureau released more detailed 2010 Census population totals and demographic characteristics to the Governor and Leadership of the state legislature in Utah.This data provides the first look at population counts for small areas and includes data about race and voting age from the 2010 Census.The below ble is a summary of population changes from 2000 to 2010 by Salt Lake City Council district.The overall ,opulation of Salt Lake City increased 4,697 residents from 2000 to 2010. Based upon this data,the new boundaries for Council districts should include 26,634 residents. Council District 2000 Census 2010 Census Percent Deviation from Population Population Change from optimal district size 2000 Census (26,634 residents) 1 26,947 iy 28,386 5.34% +1,752 2 26,004 ss 27,858 7.13% +1,224 3 25,668 "4''-':' 24,870 -3.11% -1,764 4 25,652 27,161 5.88% 527 5 25,845 26,165 1.24% -469 6 26,030 26,680 2.50% 46 7 25,597 25,320 -1.08% _ -1,314 181,743 186,440 2.58% Council Decisions Needed Council Staff compiled information and prepared options for the Council's consideration on the following: 1. Determine process for redrawing City Council and Salt Lake City School Board district boundaries based +;: upon the 2010 Census data. 2. Determine Guiding Principles for the redistricting process. ,-- 3. Establish a timeline and public process for redistricting. Redistricting Process There are many steps in the redistricting process. Salt Lake City cannot finalize district boundaries until the State completes redistricting for Congressional,Legislative,and State School Board Districts. By law,the Utah State Legislature has until before the 2012 general session to complete their process.1 Per Utah State Code,10-3-205.5., the City has six months to complete redistricting once the state completes their process. According to initial information from the state officials,new district boundaries are expected to be finalized in the Fall of 2011. ,Iti addition,the County establishes voting districts after the State redistricting process has concluded. For practical purposes,the City's legislative boundaries should follow voting district lines. The State conclusions could come to the City anytime between the end of October and prior to the beginning of the 2012 Legislative General Session in January. County decisions will add value to the City conclusions,but the City probably can't wait for the conclusion of the County process before beginning the City's process. The City's six month deadline under state code could be as early as April 2012 and as late as mid-June 2012. Given the various timelines,the City's redistricting changes would be in effect for the 2013 City Council elections. Atloroach and Structure •Option 1-Working Group • One approach to forming a working group would involve an application process by which members would be selected by the City Council.o Applications could be accepted during budget season-mid May thru the end of June-with selections being made in mid-July. o The full Council would make final selection of working group members. .• All meetings of the working group would be open to the public. • The Salt Lake County Council used the below criteria in their selection of the Redistricting Commission members. It is provided for your consideration. 1. Must be a registered voter at the time of appointment. 2. If an applicant answered yes to any of the following questions their candidacy was invalid: In the last three years have you been: -A candidate for elected office? -Appointed or elected to any public office? -An officer of a political party? -A registered lobbyist? -An officer on any candidate's campaign committee? !Option 2-Independent Commission • Salt Lake County adopted this model. (See Appendix for Salt Lake County's application and resolution.) • Potential commission members were selected through an application process. (See criteria included above.) • The language that the County Council adopted is provided below: "The commission shall assist the council by providing no more than three written redistricting plans for council districts to the council...if the commission submits more than one redistricting plan,the plans shall be' rank ordered. The recommendations of the commission shall be accompanied by an accurate plat or map of the boundary changes. The commission shall also assist the council in performing the council's redistricting responsibilities for local school districts..." • All meetings of the working group would be open to the public. 'On April 6,2011,the Legislature appointed a redistricting committee to begin discussions and conduct public meetings around the state.This Committee met for the first time on April 25th. :option 3-Internal Council Committee • Council Members(3) o Consider using Council Members not up for re-election to avoid conflict , • Administrative and/or Council Staff •Option 4-City Council Work Session Briefings, , •Option 5-School Board Feedback • Include representative(s)on any workn'ggroup or Commission formed. y • Invite Board to submit one or more options by a'certain date. ►Does the City Council want to clarify how they wish to proceed with the process to establish Salt Lake City School Board district boundaries? Guiding Policy Statements for Salt Lake City Council Redistricting Process Table 1 contains policy statements Council Staff has compiled based on current State,County,and City Code. Table 1 Guiding Principles Established by Current Code Item Policy Statement 1 "The City shall be divided into seven council districts of substantially equal population." City Code 2.06.010 '' 2 "Upon reapportionment,the Council Districts should,to the extent practical,remain C. consistent with their original geographical configuration and representation,allowing continuity and ease of contact between residents and district Council Members." • Salt Lake County Code Section 2.04 and 2.71 3 Council Districts be of"substantially"equal populations. Utah Code 10-3-1216 !' ' 4 The current State statute provides that the City Council will reapportion the City School Board Districts so they"...are substantially equal in population and are as contiguous and compact as practicable." Utah Code 20A-14-201 Table 2 contains research compiled by Council Staff of other U.S.municipalities'guiding policy statements for redistricting. These principles have been assembled for your consideration. ►Does the Council wish to consider any of these guiding principles for Salt Lake City's redistricting process? ►When considering guiding principles for redistricting,the Council may want to keep in mind that formally adopting a large number of guiding principles could lead to potential conflict between principles and/or possible legal challenges. Table 2 Guiding Principles adopted by other government subdivisions Location Salt Lake Houston, Providence, Ft.Worth, Salt Lake City County Texas , Rhode Island Texas Population 1,029,655 2,099,451, 178,042 741,206 186,440 '7 Form of Government Council/Mayor Council/ Council/Mayor Council/City Council/Mayor Mayor Manager i Salt Lake Houston, Providence, Ft.Worth, Salt Lake City Location County Texas Rhode Island Texas Guiding Principles-Options Yes/No 1-Define an acceptable level .of population deviation when redrawing Salt Lake City Council and School District boundaries. 2 Maintain neighborhood areas with similar X X X X X characteristics. 3-Consider existing land- use planning areas. X 4-Consider communities of common interest-cultural, demographic,economic and X X X ethnic. 5-Recognize natural boundaries,such as physical X X X separations of areas. 6-Recognize man-made barriers,such as major streets and freeways. 7-Maintain compact and contiguous districts as far as X X X X _ispossible. __ 8-Census blocks are used as the components of Council X X X X and School Board Districts. _ 9-Written information from the meetings will be made X available to the public. 10-The public will be invited to submit written X and oral comments to the X proposed districts during the redistricting process. 11-Ensure that districts do not create unruly favor or X disfavor for an individual or political party Updated Redistricting Process Timeline 'Cable 3 is a presentation of the projected timeline. Salt Lake City specific items are indicated by the non-shaded background. The actual completion dates for the 2000 census are provided for your information. Table 3 Redistricting Timeline Date Description Additional Information 2000 Census Actual Completion Dates December 31, US Census data Statewide counts and reapportionment numbers December 2000 2010 delivered to the were released on December 21,2010.One President by this Congressional seat was added for a total of four date. Congressional seats in Utah. April 1,2011 All states must •The Legislature has until the start of the 2012 Spring 2001 i receive redistricting legislative session to complete the state's data,including redistricting process. population numbers by census block level, •The State of Utah received their data from the by this date. Census Bureau on February 24,2011. April 6,2011 The State Legislature • Six State Senators and thirteen State Four State Senators and appointed Representatives will serve as the Redistricting fifteen State Redistricting Committee for the State of Utah. The committee will Representatives served Committee. meet regularly between April and September of 2011. as the Redistricting Committee for the State •The committee held its first public meeting on April of Utah. 25,2011. To see information and follow the State committee's work,go to their website(address is provided at the end of this report). August October Salt Lake City public •Suggestions for Salt Lake City process are presented 2011 Suggested outreach program in Table 4 of this report. • will begin. •Basic information will be available during the summer. However,any formal presentations may not be well attended in summer. Fall 2011- The State Legislature •The State Legislature expects to consider the A Legislative Special mil Anticipated plans to conclude recommendations from the committee and to Session was convened in their redistricting formally adopt new boundaries in a special session September and October process. this fall. of 2001 to consider recommendations from •Note: Salt Lake City Council will have six months to the committee. The complete its redistricting process once the State Legislature formally Legislature finalizes new boundaries. adopted boundaries at the conclusion of the special session. October- Salt Lake County •Salt Lake County Council formed an external Salt Lake County Council December 2011- Council redistricting commission for redistricting. Seven individuals- members internally Anticipated process is expected three Republicans,three Democrats,and one drafted redistricting to conclude. politically unaffiliated individual-will serve on a plans. redistricting commission. Per resolution,they will make three recommendations to the County Council. •The County Council will also adopt redistricting plans for the School District boundaries that span more than one municipality. October- Salt Lake City Council • Redistricting plan options for Salt Lake City Council November 2011- redistricting process and Salt Lake City School Board districts will be Anticipated will conclude. finalized. (Six Month •Public Hearings will be held to allow the public to Timeline- comment on recommended redistricting plans. March/May 2012) December 6th, Adoption of new Salt Lake City Council will formally approve new A resolution was adopted 2011- boundaries. boundaries for council and school board districts. on December 11,2001 Anticipated for the new City Council i and School Board district (Six Month • boundaries Timeline April/Mid-June 2012) Public Outreach-Suggestions and Proposed Timeline •Dffing the last redistricting briefing,the Council expressed an interest in expanding its outreach to the public. The following public process options are presented for your consideration. Table 4 J Public Process i Date Date Program Description Council, i Decision (If State Legislature Needed and Salt Lake Yes/No - County take longer S than anticipated) July 2011 July 2011 Citizen's Guide Prepare,publish and distribute redistricting guide. July-October 2011 July-October 2011 Community Council Attend community council Meetings meetings to introduce redistricting initiative and software. F st-November August-December Redistricting Software Provide public access to 2011 Program software program by: •Publishing materials and link to software webpage on City Website. •Locating public computers around the city for citizens touse(IMS will check on available hardware andpotential locations).mber- January-March City Council Public The following are potential mber 2011 2012 Hearings dates for Public Hearings to be conducted: November 22^d December 6th. • Redistricting Resources ' • http://2010.census.gov/2010census/ • http://le.utah.gov a. Select"Interim Committees" Pi i' ' b. Select"Redistricting Committee" l How Can I Get Involved? Additionally, legislative committee hearings for bills creating congressional districts are also Meetings of the Joint Select Committee on open to the public. Locations, times, a( Redistricting are open to the public. The agendas for meeting are available on the committee will be meeting periodically throughout Internet. the 2011 legislative session on Wednesdays at A Citizen's Guide to 4:00 p.m. in Senate Committee Room 356. Where Can I Get More Information? The committee will also be traveling around For more information about congressional Congressional the state to gather public testimony from each redistricting, contact the Colorado Legislative congressional district as follows: Council, Room 029, State Capitol Building, Redistricting Denver CO, 80203, (303) 866-3521. Information is also available on the Internet at www.colorado.gov/redistricting. The Select Committee on Redistricting staff can be contacted via e - mail at CongRedist2011@State.co.us. CD 1 Denver 2/28/2011 8 p.m.- Old Supreme Court 9 p.m. Chambers CD 2 Boulder 3/15/2011 6 p.m.- CU Boulder,University 9 p.m. Memorial Center(UMC), Room 235 CD 3 Alamosa 3/12/2011 8 a.m.- Inn of the Rio Grande 10:30 a.m. Pueblo 3/12/2011 2:30 p.m.- Pueblo County Conference 5:00 p.m. Room Grand Junction 3/19/2011 9 a.m.- Mesa State,College noon Center,Ballroom South CD 4 Loveland 2/26/2011 8 a.m.- Loveland City Council 11 a.m. Chambers Fort Morgan 2/26/2011 1 p.m.- Prepared by: Fort Morgan High School 4 p.m. Legislative Council Staff CD Colorado Springs 3/9/2011 6p.m._ State Capitol Building, University of Colorado at 9 p.m. Colorado Springs, University Center,UC 116 Room 029 CD 6 Castle Rock 3/14/2011 6 p.m.- 200 East Colfax Ave. Douglas County 9 p.m. Denver, CO 80203 Fairgrounds and Events Center 303-866-3521 CD7 Golden 3/3/2011 sp.m.- This brochure is also available on Jefferson County 9p.m, the committee's website at: Administration Facility, www.colorado.gov/redistricting Hearing Room 1 Updated: February 28, 2011 What is Congressional Redistricting? Joint Select Committee on Additionally, the federal Voting Rights Act Redistricting. The Joint Select Committee on prohibits a state from enacting a redistricting The state is divided into seven legislati ` edistrictin consists of 10 members of g plan that results in the denial or abridgment of districts for the election of members to the General Assembly, 3 House members a citizen's right to vote on account of race, United States Congress. Redistricting is the appointed by the Speaker, 2 House members color, or status as a member of a language process of redrawing these legislative district appointed by the House Minority Leader, 3 minority. Therefore, the plan must not boundaries to reflect growth patterns and Senate members appointed by the President of unlawfully dilute the votes of minorities. population shifts within the state. This the Senate, and 2 members appointed by the Although not legal requirements, the General process occurs once every ten years after Senate Minority Leader. Assembly may also consider other factors new census information is available. such as: The committee is tasked with evaluating Every ten years the 435 seats of the proposed maps for redistricting, soliciting public = compactness and contiguity; 9 tY; United States House of Representatives are feedback on the redistricting process, and reallocated among the 50 states based upon making recommendations to the General = preservation of local boundaries; and each state's population as determined by the Assembly on redistricting. most recent census. Based on the 2010 preservation of communities of interest. census, Colorado will continue to have seven Committee Members What is the Congressional Redistricting elected representatives. However, the Senator Heath, Representative Timeline? boundaries of the congressional districts will Co-Chair Balmer, Co-Chair be redrawn to reflect population changes. There are no legal deadlines for this Senator Brophy Representative Coram process; however, How Are Congressional Boundaries potential candidates, Drawn? Senator Carroll Representative Nikkel county clerks, and voters will want the plan Senator Scheffel Representative Pabon completed before February, 2012, in time for The Colorado General Assembly is precinct caucuses. The Joint Select responsible for redrawing Colorado Senator Schwartz Representative Vigil Committee on Redistricting is expected to congressional district boundaries. The conclude its work and report to the General House and Senate must pass a bill to b i ' hat Criteria are Used to Draw Assembly by April 14, 2011. signed by the governor describing the ne� congressional Boundaries? • congressional boundaries. The governor has Federal law requires that there be nearly historically called a special legislative session equal population in each of the seven districts. to accomplish this task. However, at the With 5,029,196 people in Colorado (based on beginning of the 2011 legislative session a 2010 census data), the population of each Joint Select Committee on Redistricting was congressional district must be as close as created to complete the task during the practicable to 718,457 citizens. legislative session. While the court is not required to review the plan, the legality of past congressional CD 1 Under b 56,418 plans has been challenged. CD 2 Over b 15,348 CD 3 Under b 12,271 CD 4 Over b 6,584 CD 5 Over b 7,445 CD 6 Over b 79,356 CD 7 Under b 40,047 Strength in Numbers Your Guide to Census 2010 Redistricting Data From the U.S.Census Bureau tr,. • -,•- , . Ile: r. . , . . . . . . • . • , • ' . . , W .., . ,:,;••• . . ., •‘.. • . . , , . , . i ;114 , i ti 1.. • 0 nce every 10 years,Americans stand The fleet census was taken In 1790.Article I. three processing offices,where digital up to be counted.Downtown and out. Section 2,of the U.S.Constitution established scanners read the unique barcode on of-town.in the mountains and on the that the apportionment of the U.S.House each questionnaire through the envelope ID farms.we speak up and let our governments of Representatives shall be based upon a window to record its return status.The know that we intend to be represented in the national census.The census has many other questionnaires were optically scanned and decisions that they make. Important uses.It affects our lives In ways converted to digital images.All Information we don't often realize.The road you take to was further processed and tabulated at the The census gives us an opportunity to be part work each day,the hospital that serves your Census Bureau's secure computer center in of the democratic process.Census numbers community,the schools your children attend, Bowie,Maryland. ensure that our representative districts—for the products your grocery stocks—all these the U.S.Congress and for state legislatures, have been Influenced by the census. Finally,the Census Bureau generates the and in our city and town governments— geographic and summary file data for you reflect our numbers,north or south,east Governments use census statistics,for to use in redistricting.Media to bring you or west. example,in planning needed highways or In the data will Include DVD-ROMs and the locating new services or schools.Businesses American FactFinder,which Is the Census This brochure explains where census use census numbers in marketing new Bureau's data access and dissemination numbers come from and the role those products and locating new stores. system on the Internet at ewww.census.gov, numbers have in the way states and localities redraw the boundaries of their legislative The imagination is the only limit upon the districts.The Information here looks in uses of the statistics that come out of the particular at the maps and numbers that state census. governments and others get from the Census W 1111171 Bureau and use In redistricting. The Census at a Glance Why a Census? In early March 2010,the U.S.Postal Service :. delivered a letter to households announcing ! The U.S.Census Bureau,part of the U.S. that the 2010 Census would be coming and Department of Commerce. _ alerting everyone to watch for conducts the decennial census /- ' - the census form.The 2010 and Issues population Census questionnaire numbers.But the federal . arrived shortly thereafter. government conducted '' , ' -• '--,.1 and the Census Bureau - a census long before the .•. '.1' asked all households Census Bureau was created '''s to return the forms Confidentiality Is a Must in 1902. using April 1,2010,as Title 13 of the U.S.Code contains the laws ' the reference date.Some governing the Census Bureau.Section 9 households in hard•to. of Title 13 assures the confidentiality of 111111411%, .. count areas received the information gathered by the Census Bureau. • 7 "'ilia'‘Insnynnaire and it specifies that neither the Secretary of then redeliveries of Commerce nor any other officer or employee the questionnaire.The of the Department of Commerce—in fact. Census Bureau used no one—may use the Information furnished --......,. ,,,. , enumerators to take the under the provisions of this tide for any 41 - ..... .;.. ".. versus in rural areas and purpose other than the statistical purposes & .,„,' ,,' ,', check on questionnaires for which the Information is supplied. • ..'. . •',i that had not been returned by m all. ... The law also states that no Census Bureau tabulation can identify any particular . The questionnaires establishment or Individual and that no were sent to one of on other than the sworn officers and - —• - employees of the Census Bureau can exams ,�$ T'i Information supplied In response re censusesUktt •- ik, censusschedules opened to public Inspection and use. c t Redistricting Must Aim at • Equality R r The decennial census has played a crucial F 4 role In the apportionment of the Congress s for more than two centuries.But It is only In the last 35 years that the Census Bureau has played a major role In the redistricting process. U.S.Supreme Court decisions handed S down during the 1960s clarified the - y _ 3"1 Constitution's Intention to provide equality the Ws be ry v.S for all Americans.In 1964, `� the Wsby as Is Sanders decision rson'seld vote arty as Is practicable one be wort vote Insa congressional election Is to be worth as much as anther's:That same year,in Reynolds v.Sims,the Court ruled that state legislative districts must be"as nearly of equal population as Is practicable: Both U.S.congressional districts and state centers.People living In populous areas form and extract the data.Once the Census legislative districts must be drawn so that mail their forms directly to a data capture Bureau has completed the processing of the their residents have a fair and equal share in center.In less populous areas,census stag census forms,we begin to compile final data the way they are governed.These Supreme leave a questionnaire at each household In the our Washington offices.Census Day, Court decisions increased the states'need for fora resident to fill out and mall back in• April 1,2010,may be the most conspicuous geographically detailed census Information in postage-paid envelope or staff will perform date on our calendar.but It's not our only the redistricting process. an in-person Interview.In all cases.If a form one.Now we face several deadlines in Is not received.the Census Bureau attempts processing the Anal census counts. The urgency of the states'need for these data to follow up with a personal visit to try to led the Congress to pass Public Law(P.L.I collect the Information.The data capture The Department of Commerce and the 94.171 In December 1975. centers are located in Baltimore,Maryland; Census Bureau provide census counts to the Jeffersonville,Indiana;and Phoenix,Arizona. President and the states by the deadlines Taking the Census set forth In Title 13 of the U.S.code(U.S.C.) M soon as a form reaches a data capture Seaton 141 and(c).Forme 2010 Before we look at the statistics,maps,and center,the clock starts ticking for the Census Census,thehe Secretary of Commerce and the electronic geographic flies that states will Bureau.These centers use scanners to record Census Bureau Director will report the total use In redistricting,let's look at the census the arrival of the questionnaires,so we can population counts by state to the President III itself—the undertaking through which the keep an automated list of forms returned and by December 31,2010,By April 1,2011,the Census Bureau gathers the statistics and those still outstanding. Director will provide the detailed population the important first step in the redistricting counts for all areas within each state to the process. The data capture centers use optical scanners governors and legislative leaders.under the to capture a picture of each questionnaire provisions of Public Law 94-171. The Census Bureau began to prepare for the twenty-third decennial census long before 2010.For the public,however. the process began In March 2010 when .`2010 C,,.' us Lea ,r census questionnaires were mailed to =-- most households In the United States.In - r some rural areas,census takers delivered questionnaires.People filled out the ' Ilk questionnaire using a reference date of April I,2010—Census Day—and returned them ''A. by mall.In some Instances,a census taker / —' visited a household to collect the census 7 y Information. k, To conduct the census,the Census Bureau hires enumerators working out of 494 local t ,. `. census offices nationwide.To process the ,.._.H;' ;".s questionnaires,we use three data capture Director Deputy Director Associate Director for the Decennial Census U.S.Census Bureau , Robert M.Groves is the Director of the U.S.Census Bureau President Barack Obama nominated Robert M.Groves for director of the U.S.Census Bureau on April 2,2009,and the Senate confirmed him on July 13,2009.He began his Dr.Robert M.Groves, tenure as director on July 15.2009.Groves had been a professor at the University of Director Michigan and director of its Survey Research Center.as well as research professor at the Joint Program in Survey Methodology at the University of Maryland.He was the Census r, Bureaus Associate Director for Statistical Design,Methodology and Standards from 1990 Thomas L.Mesenbourg, to 1992.on loan from the University of Michigan. Deputy Director Thomas I..Mesenbuarg is the Deputy Director of the U.S.Census Bureau Since May 2,2005,Mesenbourg has been serving as Deputy Director and Chief Operating Census 2010 Redistricting Officer,overseeing the day-to-day operations of the government's preeminent statistical agency.The Bureau has about 12,000 employees-nearly 5,000 at Suitland,Md.. Data Office headquarters and the rest are based at regional offices and telephone centers across the I country. Cathy C.McCully, Arnold Jackson is the Associate Director for Decennial Census Chief - at the U.S.Census Bureau. III provides executive leadership for all decennial census and related programs, James Whitehorne, and is principal adviser to the executive staff,providing overall direction,planning and coordination for all decennial census operations.He works closely with the six Assistant Chief decennial division chiefs and two program office chiefs to provide overall direction for } reengineering the 2010 Census. 1 r Apportionment/s the Fundamental Use According to the Constitution,the cen- sus has one fundamental purpose:to Changes in Apportionment Resulting from Census 2000 ensure that the representation of each state in the U.S.House of Represents- Total U.S.Baara•antatwaa:sea tines reflects the relative size of its pop- vim. ®5ww•winsw•a'„iu roM• illation as compared with other states. •Na•ro.•m'•.ro,.. There are 435 mates.Each on of these up uo rv• among the states.elected one of these ofacongressional representatives a elected by the voters of a congresalonal tlls[ricL ��� tin Populous states have more represents- ®�� �� 4�. fives than less populous states.In the ��I,�` I1Ith Congress,California had 53 repre- state.had Wyoming,the least populous ®� ` e,ho s st how many map on this .w, gage sows how mans representatives _ I $! state Is entitled to.How does the Census Bureau figure In this process?Our role O. is twofold—to conduct the census and, (fir as a part of the Executive Branch,to m t,•es. •i._,�/� calculate the apportionment based upon e.,..wnaua n.e.•a... _ilt p....1�,,,�. the census results.Once we take the and compile the results,we men In 2000,the South and West Gained Seats! census the method of equal proportions to determine the number of repre entatives 'One person/one vote"court decisions and which state governments redraw U.S.con. each state receives.But our job doesn't legislation have given the Census Bureau a gressional and state legislative districts. end there. major role In redistricting,the process by Off to the President © The Census Bureau must prepare the final. The apportionment section of the U.S.Code Method of[goal Proportions official state population counts required for also tells the steps that are to be followed Guides Apportionment the apportionment of the U.S.House of Rep- after the Congress receives the President's resentatives. report.Within 15 calendar days,the Clerk of the House of Representatives must send to How does the method of equal proportions These UMWcounts are to be reported to the each states governor enlficate showing work? President on or before December 31,2010, how many representatives the state may send Adopted in 1941(U.S.Code,Title 2, a brief 9 months after Census Day.Accord to the next Congress. Section 2a),the method of equal propor- ing to the U.S.Code.the President must then dons requires the Census Bureau to com- rep report these figures to the Congress.He will With this Information and with the data pro- pile a priority list of states.Priority value Is do this In early January 2011,during the first vided by the U.S.Census Bureau,the states determined by dividing a state s population week of the 112th Congress. and nongovernmental organizations—In fact anyone with access to geographic Informs. by the geometric mean of its current and This report will show: Hon system software—will have the ability next House seats. •The population of each stale. todesign district boundaries using desktop For example,following Census 2000,each computers,laptop computers,or the Internet. of the 50 states was awarded 1 seat out of •The number of representatives apportioned the current 435 total.Then,the fifty-first to each seat went to the state that had the highest priority value for its second seat. In computing the apportionment from the 2000 state totals,seat 51 went to Califor- nia,whose priority value under the method _ of equal proportions was 23.992.697.The next seat,number 52,went to Texas,with ��kk rid seat priority value of 14,781,356; �,•."L., - California received seat number 53 with a '1�CC _ p florin value of 13.852.190:and New York received seat number 54 with a priority •� 7— a value of 13 438 545. �! Once the number of seats assigned to the _ individual states is determined,the task of drawing the new congressional districts Is generally that of each state legislature. ill.laj For Census 2000 values,see<www.census .gov/population/wvew/censusdata /apportionment/files/001valueSARR, For additional details on computing apportionment,see<www.census.gov • w A /population/www/censusdata • /apportionment/computing.html>. The Redistricting Process Begins Census 2010 Redistricting Data Program But welt!The clock Is still ticking!The Census SLDL and VTDi BBSI'l Bureau still has another Important deadline -- to meet. VTD IMP SLDU SLOL CD Alabama In December 1975.the Congress passed Alaska x z x x AL Public Law(P.L.)94-171.This law requires Arizona the Census Bureau to make special prepara- x turns to provide redistricting data to the 50 Arkansas states no later than April 1 of the year follow. California % x % Ing a census(so April I,2011.for the 2010 Colorado x x Census).P.L 94-171 specifies Mat within 1 Connecticut x x year of Census Day.the Census Bureau must send each state the small-area data the stale Delaware a x x AL will need to redraw districts for the state District Of Columbia x x ff NV legislature. Florida x x x x x P.L.94-171 sets up a voluntary program Georgia between the Census Bureau and those states Hawaii x x that wish to receive population tabulations Idaho x x x x for voting districts and other state-specified Illinoisx x x x geographic areas. Indiana x_ x Under this program,those responsible for Iowa the legislative apportionment or redistrict. Kansas x x x x ing of each state may devise a plan Identify. Kentucky ing the voting districts for which they want the specific tabulations and submit It to the Louisiana x z Census Bureau. Maine x Beginning In 2005,the Redistricting Data Maryland x Office of the Census Bureau met with Massachusetts state officials In 46 states.These meetings Michigan explained the timeline and programs avall- Minnesota x x x x x able for the 2010 Census,providing states Mississippi x the time to prepare and allocate resources In advance of the census.The states also Missouri x provided the Census Bureau with valuable Montana z(see below) x x AL feedback on census program planning. Nebraska x x x ff The 2010 Census Redistricting Data Pro- Nevada gram is a five-phase program.During Phase New Hampshire 1(2005-2006),the Census Bureau collected New Jersey x a x state legislative district boundaries and New Mexico x x x x x associated updates to tabulate legislative New York x x x X • districts.This phase also Included an aggres. North Carolina sive 2010 Censusions plan, with visits to state Capitals,als,to to make sure the North Dakota x x x AL states were informed and prepared for the Ohio upcoming census. Oklahoma a x x x x Phase 2(2008-2010)consisted of the Voting Oregon x(see below) z District/Block Boundary Suggestion Protect Pennsylvania x x x (VTDBBSP)In which states received TIGER/ Rhode Island Old not participate x z x Unee shapeflles and the MAF/TICER Partner. for Phase 2 ship Software(MTPS)to electronically collect • voting district boundaries,feature updates. South Carolina x z x x suggested block boundaries,and corrected South Dakota x x x AL state legislative district boundaries.Both Tennessee x x Phase 1 and Phase 2 are voluntary programs Texas x x x x that Include a step where the state verifies Utah x the submitted data. Vermont x x x AL Phase 3 constitutes the delivery of the data Virginia x % x for the 2010 Census.The Census Bureau will Washington x x deliver the geographic and data products Wes[Virginia to the majority and minority leadership in the state legislatures,the governors,and Wisconsin any designated P.L.94-171 liaisons.Once Wyoming x x x AL Puerto Rico X x x NV ,1� (V Montana:the following counties submitted VON for Phase 2: ffa r d • I 001,005,007.009,011,013,air,019,023,025.029,031, 'et Ott.031.037.043,049.091,059,095,051.007.069,073, as 015.079,OBI,Og5,OB9,091,093,095,103,1OS,109.111 a ;; Oregon:only county t to submitted VTDs to ase Ph 2. St.Le...Ob..:Original Sibs were collected dudlp Phase 1 of me RDP. d y Delaware.Sarah Dakota,Indiana.and Utah submitted new plans 1n 2008. 'As, - All states contain complete coverage for SONO. ‘ po T.District of Columbia has city council wards.Nebraska,legislature is unicameral.Therefore,these �i\\ rate/sure equivalents have no SLDL coverage. Gpmsional[Nevins:These were last collected for the 1 I0th Congress,and there were no changes for the III th Congressional Districts for Census 2010.t Large Congressional Representation on•Voting Congressional Delegation Cathy McCully,chief,and James Whllehorre, BBSP•Block Boundary Suggestions assistant chief,Redistricting Data Office are CD-Congressional District responsible for ensuring all phases of the RDP-Redistricting Data Pros r redistricting datamanaged SLDL-State Legislative District Lower(House, gprogram are SLDU•State Legislative District Upper(Senate) successfully,including the delivery of the P.L. VTD-Voting District 94.171 data by April 1,2011. bipartisan receipt of the data is confirmed. journey to work:age:income and housing •2010 Census Tabulation Geography TIGER the data will be made available online to the race.Hispanic origin,and language spoken at litre Shapeffies public within 24 hours through the American home:military service:and more. •2010 Census Tabulation Geography Block FactFinder.For this census,the PL.94-171 Assignment Files for Congressional pis- tol data will Include population counts for small While most redistricting plans are based on tricts,State Legislative District Upper the P.L.94.171 data and other statewide clam. areas within each state,as well as housing Chambers,State Legislative District Lower occupied/vacancy counts. the ACS also will be of interest to those draw- ........, Mg plans since plans are routinely analyzed. Chambers.Voting Districts,Elementary After the Census Bureau provides the data, Experts will analyze demographic character. School Districts.Secondary School Dis' the states will begin their redistricting.States Mies such as citizenship and language ability toots,and Unified School Districts are responsible for delineating their own when reviewing congressional and legislative The P.L.94-171 summaries have population congressional and legislative boundaries and plans.ACS estimates are released annually totals and summaries by race,Hispanic or their legislatures.Legislatures,secretaries of as 1-year.3-year and 5.year estimates based Latino.and voting age for all appropriate geo. state,governors,and/or redistricting corn- on population thresholds.The 5.year esti. graphic areas delimited on the maps:state. missions carry out the process. mates provide ACS data at the nationwide counties or equivalent areas,state legislative level down to small geographic areas such districts.voting districts.county subdivi• During Phase 4 12011-20131 the Census as state legislative district,census tract,and sions.school districts,places,American Bureau's Redistricting Dam Office will collect block group.Many redistricting experts will Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian areas. the post-2010 Census state legislative and use 5-year ACS estimates when they review census tracts.block groups,and blocks. congressional district plans.We will retabu. redistricting plans. late the 2010 redistricting data for the I 13th New for the 2010 Census,housing unit Congress and newly drawn state legislative counts will be included as part of the 2010 districts.The American Community Survey Census Redistricting Data IP.L 94-1711 (ACS)will also present data for these new Summary Files.Also for 2010,states recom. areas.(See below for more information an __ _,a10, , mended including school districts as part of the ACS.) the geographic summary levels and a new _... occupancy status. The final phase of the 2010 Census Redis table on housing unit tricting Data Program.Phase 5,will be an Public Law 94-171 Tabulations evaluation and solicitation of recommenda- ro".0 firms for the 2020 Census.Working with the *4E4*. I- While P.L.94-171 requires the Census Bureau National Conference of State Legislatures, *Alli"E:: - - to furnish only counts of the total popula the Census Bureau will conduct a historical it#ft . ' non.additional data items are Included.Since the inception of the Census Redistricting review by the states of Inc successes and ... failures of the Census Bureau to meet the PL. Data Program for the 1980 census.the 94 I 71 mandate.These endings will be used Census Bureau has included summaries to develop recommendations for the 2020 for the major race groups specified by the Census Redistricting Data Program. Tools To Do the Job Statistical Programs and Standards Office of When state officials begin the difficult task of the U.S.Office of Management and Budget MAP/TIGER Partnership redrawing their districts,they'll have in hand (OMB)In Directive 15(as issued in 1977 and Software several important tools resulting from census revised In 19971. Advances in geographic information system redistricting data Originally the tabulation groups included (GIS)software and the wide adoption of the .2010 Census Redistricting Data IP.L White.Black,American Indian/Alaska Native. use of digital geographic data meant that the 94-i 71)Summary Files and Asian/Pacific Islander,plus'some other 2010 Redistricting Data Program(RDP)could race."These race data were also tross•tabto •11 be conducted solely as a digital exchange. 2010 Census P.L.94-171 Voting District/ laced by Hispanic/Non.Hispanic origin. During the years before the 2010 Census,the State Legislative District Reference Maps At the request of the state legislatures and Census Bureau.through a contractor,devel. •2010 Census P.L.94-171 County Block Maps th,o,p,,,,,,,,of J,,,t,,,,rth th,,9. oped a customized GIS to help states update .2010 Census Tract Reference Maps Census Redistricting Data Progmm.voting census-provided geographic data and return the updates to the Census Bureau for inclu •2010 Census School District age(18 years old and over)was added to the sion in the MAT/TIGER database.From this, Sciences Maps cross-tabulation of race and Hispanic origin. the MAF/T1GER Partnership Software(MTPS) was created.All RDP participants received the MTPS,along with stall suite of data files for their state.The MTPS allowed participants Census Statistics for 2010: to add linear features,create or update their The American FactFinder redistricting entity boundaries.apply block boundary suggestions,and update areal water bodies and area landmarks.In addition, The American FactFinder g..w participants could bring In their own Inn- (AFF)Is a data-access graphic data or imagery as a reference tool system that gives users o.... for making their changes.The MTPS featured facts and Information 461.4e7-• 7 IlLS.' .1; "*".••••••••,.. data-quality tools to help identify and dun, about communities.Me rate some commonly occurring data errors, economy,and society. www.w.kow..............•••••••••••• Once participants completed their work,the The interactive electronic MTPS packaged all of the updated informs- system allows data users . lion into a single compressed tile that could access to predefined data .41-4 ................... be sent by file transfer protocol IFTP)to the products,metadata,and , 1009111.9V; Census Bureau for processing. online help.as well as the ability to create custom =! ••••5•=1,==.".."." W.tk —/=••••••• Out Goes the Long Form data products online.This and In In Comes the American dissemination method .v...-..."Tr..=:-.-1"...z..- ._____ allows for a quicker release Community Survey ......--&-:^4.•=•—•• =1.7...11.1.......-- ==..,". of the detailed data users Designed to replace the long form used want.Users may access =......=........•......v.v. In past decennial censuses, I the American data and create their own RE ==••••••...........wi... lar:•'.74::: Community Survey(ACS)is conducted by reports. =.......=7:14===.•'' ZIV.:::=:::::' . the Census Bureau in every county,American Indian and Alaska Native Area,and Hawm• The AFF currently offers The volumes of data collected by the Census Ian Home Land.It began ill 1996 in a sample data from the 2000 decennial census,the Bureau reqUire a large and efficient system ; of counties across the ''' ' .Today the American Community Survey.the Population of dissemination.With AFE Census Bureau r survey is conducted nil. households ' Estimates Program,and the 2002 and 2007 e,e,nme„have.0,,flegmhw,0 ee,,e„ po kl., per month throughout' gl:S.counties and economic censuses,and annual economic the data they need for their geography ii in all municiplos in Puidterltko,where It is surveys.It also will provide data from the of Interest.The AFF provides for a quick . called the Puerto Ricctteiffintelleity Survey. 2010 Census.The 2010 Census Redistricting release of detailed data about the nation's While the 2010 CensuipWsin on counting Data IP.L 94-171]Summary File adll be avail- people and the economy to meet the needs ;.•', . the population far MOMS Of apportiOn- able,by state.through the AFF within 24 of data users.To access the American Fact.• i II0 . merit and redistricting,theACS provides hours after the bipartisan acknowledgement Finder.go to the Census Bureau home page yearly data similar to that Miallable from the of its receipt by each state's designated a.,,,,v,„,mv„,n„. long form used in previOys decennial cen- officials. i- suses.The questions cover such topks as a �� '"" /101 Piedmont ''/ CCD 119 } Wilmingto oa7. County&lock Map 92960 1021 ' 4, Vim(represented by ards areas such ass e:I!II icts.wards.or precinctsIdMe states.They appear onng district/state legislative{� 301u block a maps and on these tool - J �,� s county block maps.States ng pann9 t In Phase 2 of the redistricting data / ;® program provided the boundary,code. k SI D1 _J and naTres e Information the Census I •b,�® Bureau used a depicting these areas on I3-4 3 ® as themaps.Thethismboundary u shown asaslia m blue circles on this map but as a solid blue line on the official Noting District/ Lower Christiana CCD 91924 State Legislative District Reference Map. As they do elsewhere on this map. voting district boundaries may coincide She too' w» with boundaries of other areas,such uo lass as incorporated places,minor civil 1wx _ divisions,or census tracts.Voting 122 district boundaries always follow a 9 • census tabulation block boundary. ' Intl •w• Censa vasds(represented by the heaW solid red line)—statistical ii1° PO a areasaveraging about 4,000 people. a ° Counties and equivalent areas are wo N subdivided Into censustracts.These areas main fairly constant from vAs} ° forcensus tolongitudinal census and thus are useful ki for longitudinal studies and a variety of applic 5 o1a sal Camas tab sot xltl stature sot (represeted by the sow ® (represented by the thin solid SLDL red line)—the areas of all the rd' q geographical area:once me building V blocks for all other geographic areas. ups % y S, L 1w1 Census tabulation blocks nest within \ all other types of geography and follow aaw I 13 • physical features whenever possible. 9-13 �Ae• Elsmere� 3-13 each decennial regenerated during /'°245903002 You Need to Map Things Out! are in Portable document format I.pdb.The This system provides the ability to develop The data presented In the P.L.94-17I data scale varies from county to county depend- nationwide block-level data that legislatures tacit until you look at the ing on area size and population density.and request.Data users easily can review the.pdf set won't mean msupporting geographic products and learn a in many areas Insets are used to ensure a maps or data without ever unfolding a map readable map.We made the maps using our sheet! little about the geographic areas.The Cen- us Bureau has made the Census 2010 maps databaseT system,an automated geographic' Votla N stale le Wtive M.A. as clear as we can to convey the greatest for the Census Bureau first developed refereacr (see e m le, for the 1990 census and updates and main M D shoe 7)raver detail about small areas.The maps ere on astales to support all Census Bureau censuses county or equivalent area and show the t few map sheets as possible.are digital.and and surveys,including the 2010 Census. outline of voting districts llf defined)and TIGER/Line®Shapefiles Think of the TIGER(Topologically integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing system)database,as provided In our TIGER/Line• shapefile products,as a huge map of the United States.That's basically what it is.It includes geographic data for visible features on the earthy surface—features such as roads,railroads,and streams.For most features,the TIGER/line'shapefiles also include attributes, such as the names of the feature,and for streets,the potential address range and associated ZIP Code for each side of the street.The TILER/Line•shapefiles also include the boundaries and codes for all geographic areas for which the Census Bureau tabulates data, including American Indian/Alaska Native areas.states,counties,townships.cities.and similar functioning general-purpose govern- ments.It also has the boundaries and codes for statistical areas(such as census tracts and census blocks)for which the Census Bureau collects and tabulates data. The Census Bureau developed the TIGER system jointly with the U.S.Geological Survey(USGS)in the 1980s.We combined derailed USGS digital data(based on map sheets in which 1 inch equals approximately 1.6 miles)with digital data from the geographic base files used in the 1980 census.We continue to update the TIGER database(streets,address ranges,and political boundaries)based on information we obtain from local and tribal governments,the U.S.Postal Service,and our own field staff. In the 2000s,we undertook a major realignment of the TIGER database,through the MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project,using Imagery to improve Its spatial accuracy.By the time we finished in 2007,TIGER had an accuracy of 7.6 meters or better. Just before we tabulate the 2010 Census data,we will use the TIGER database to assign the census tabulation block numbers for all can. sus blocks in the entire nation,using the updated base features and geographic area boundaries.This will best ensure that Census 2010 tabulation blocks are meaningful and represent the latest possible information. Because the TIGER database contains legal and statistical geographic areas and codes,and the underlying street network,users now have a powerful tool to display demographic data graphically.Using the TIGER/Line•shapefiles the public version of the TIGER data- base)and appropriate software,you can rapidly determine the impact on the demographic makeup of a district when you move a boundary.You can quickly perform this analysis at all levels,from city blocks to congressional districts. TIGER/Line•shapefiles will be available with all of the 2010 Census geographic codes shortly before the 2010 Census summary file data become available.All of the 2009 TIGER/Line'shapefiles for the nation comprise approximately SS gigabytes of compressed data or 92 gigabytes of uncompressed data.The smallest state or state equivalent is about 32 kilobytes uncompressed,while the largest is over 6.7 gigabytes uncompressed.The 2010 TIGER/Line,shapefiles will be in similar sine ranges. 6 toting Dlstrk M• t/State Lepislat C Piedmont CCD 92960 • .�' District Referencewp is Mere we display part of the voting dis- SLDUa ma2stam legialatve msmn reerena 4 'lir map for New Castle County,DeMwart. I The reference maps Identify the voting • t dlstrlcts and state leglslative a15Mns 1-4 4.4‘," antl show their boundaries.They are rs • provided,along with the P.L.94 I]I .'♦ use Went to state process ofr who will use[hem in the of redrawing state legislative boundaries. C,( / ''�. Visible features—the full linear ` IA/iiityr. ers.rai net t r c such as roads,udela railroad tracks,etc.,are included In these maps.The features are also 5_al '�� ��� �� andfea when possible taking Into con4140.M . . � r� s^tlerataion limitations Imposed by scale ' !j p and feature density. Cod eipbiaed—the voting district �'..�.,�.��'�� ,`� reference map ed—Iles each distrct ; (/�/ �� using u0 to a six.charaner code.This r I 1 I Identlfie:sem ss, .* At . I.� k Q� �. eaundhose unqueV 4 ate and ho se legle m a ypes.th for each state.In these map types.Ihe Voting Districts are reprciented by 4• solld blue lines.roe State Legislative ��,� Districts Upper house(SLDUsI are rep- , iellit �4 441 / �� rcsentetl by staggeretl green squares. . •a and the State Legislative Districts frOfP * it Lower house(SLDLs)are represented by staggered green triangles. WtbB distrku—is the 9enedc f term used for areas k4ntlfied by the e states and used by the states and local tp 2-5 ®'��,' governments for conducting elections. They may have other dames,such as election dlstrlcts,wards,or election precincts.Voting district data art orga- nized by county within state. Ill fe 3-13 state legislative districts.These maps pro- areas on the maps.The boundary Is shown Ceuta tabulatros blocks—smallest of cen- vide a quick picture of areas that can be used as a shaded stippled pattern on this map but sus geographic areas.normally bounded by as references for constructing new legislative may be different on the official 2010 Census streets or other prominent physical features districts.These maps also show the bounder. maps.As they do elsewhere on this map, or by the boundaries or geographic areas. ies of the current state legislative districts. voting district boundaries may coincide with They may be as small as a typical city block boundaries of other areas.such an Incorpo- that's bounded by four streets or larger than When greater detail is needed.toasty block rated places,minor civil divisions,or census 100 square miles in some rural areas.Blocks maps(page 6)are the reference to consult. tracts,and they always follow a census block are Identified by a tour-digit number,unique These maps show the smallest tabulation boundary. within census tracts for the 2010 Census. areas—census blocks—that can be used In the Nationally,blocks average about 100peopl e redistricting process.Map sheets are orga' Census trams—statistical areas averaging each.nized by county.For the block map.an index about 4.000 people.Counties and equlva. sheet shows the layout of the relationship lent areas are subdivided Into census tracts. Block groups—a set of census blocks Identi- between individual map sheets within the These areas remain fairly constant from cep. fled by the same first digit within a census county. sus to census and thus are useful for iongitu' tract.For example,all blocks Ina census tract dinal studies and a variety of applications. In the 1000 range define block group 1. Voting districts—areas such as election districts,wards,or precincts identified by Legislaebn dbsrku-districts used to elect Once you study the map series and deMl. the states.They appear on separate vor a member to the upper(senatel or lower bons shown here.you'll be ready to work leg district/state legislative district refer. (house)chambers of state legislatures.As with the statistics for these areas. ence maps and on the county block maps. with voting districts,states could define States participating In the redistricting data these at their option.Please see the chart on program provided the boundary,code,and page 4 for further information on how states name information we used In depicting these participated in the definition of voting dis- tricts and legislative districts. ..s • - -er�lLr• � ,F. 17 o SP .. ..dibato "omotRi • Record Layout for P.L.94-171 Data Hierarchical Relationship of Earlier we mentioned that the Census Bureau Geographic Entities will furnish each governor and the majority and minority leaders of each state legislature with a full set of their state's census redis. n acting data.The law requires us to do this NatiOn by April 1,2011. While P.L.94-171 requires the Census Bureau to furnish only counts of the total popula- tion,additional data also will be Included. Cathy McCully,chief of the Census'Well pro- wa.•\ Redistricting Data Olflce.noles,'We'll pro � vide data on the voting-age population and cam. cross-tabulations of voting age by race char '["' AIfN acteristics,as well as by Hispanic or Latino.' ' ..................... ... �/� For the 2010 Census,the Census Bureau Tasy Ni AMR. Pl.a carried out extensive consultations between 2005 and 2009 with stakeholders In the redistricting process. \:IT/Az. During this period.the Census Bureau conducted the 2010 Census Dress Rehearsal In April 20081n the city of San Joaquin, California.In keeping with the criteria fromI the 2010 Census,each of the-single race' categories(5 plus-some other race').plus the 57 possible categories for those who choose Wools more than one race were included.This approach produced up to 63 racial tallies and will provide users the maximum flexibility for analyzing these new data for any area. This flexible design also meets the needs of Await Mon nar.rrw,rMrwr.w.aliens.. the Department of Justice for enforcement of tuft Amaiena4Y,Tt/8lepi.Im civil tights programs. • "Ms.nn.efsrswros0..r.a Cap.lelsaltaratl During the evaluation phase of the program, wmm.a.a.r..m aarrvala.81.ranian.41 states will make recommendations for the a¢m �laaa .msero census.next James Whitehorne,assistant W.tams.mlysla Eon chief of the 2010 Census Redistricting Data oat uamoawn Am Office notes,"We are including a housing unit MT• Affi Cal.Wasaseun. table on vacancy status In the 2010 P.L.sum. mary levels.This recommendation Is similar to the Inclusion of housing units during the O 1990 Census.' Hispanic/Latino origin is not considered data will be arrayed on DVD,along with the At each step of the process for collecting and a rate category.Race and Hispanic/Latino geography that will link the P.L.redistricting tabulating these P.L.94-1i1 redistricting data, data are obtained trom a separate question data to each block,voting district,census the Census Bureau will take the necessary on the 2010 Census questlonnalre.The tract,city,county,etc. steps to protect the confidentiality of Indf chart starting an page 9 shows•portion of victual responses, the computer record layout for how these ''='-: 1st. (4441 -- ' • i ' 1. • t v 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-1 71) Summary File - EXTRACT SU5*L1AR3 TAW F OUT I INIS Final V2.0 Table cell Indent Count PI. RACE 1211 I PI. Universe:Total population Total: I I PI. I Population of one race: Pl. 3 White alone Pl. 1 Black or African American alone PI. 5 Amencan Indian and Alaska Native alone PI. 6 Asian alone PI. 7 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacllk Islander alone Pl. B Some Other Race alone PI. 9 Two or More Races: Pl. 10 Population of two races: Pl. I 1 White;Black or African American Pl. 12 White;American Indian and Alaska Native PI. 13White;Asian PI. In White:Nacre Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Pl. 15 white;Some Omer Race Pl. 16 Black or African American;American Indian and Alaska Native Pl. 17 Black or African American;Asian Pl. 18 Black or African American;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific IslaMer PI. 19 Black or African American;Some Other Race Pl. 20 American Indian and Alaska Native;Asian PI. 21 American Indian and Alaska Native;Natve Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Pl. 22 American Indian and Alaska Native:Some Other Race Pl. 23Asian;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Pl. 21 Asian:Some Other Race Pr 25 Nat. en and Other Pacific Islander;Some Other Race Pl. 26 Population of three races: 21 White;Black or African American;American Indian and Alaska Nature Pl. 28 White;Black or African American;Asian Pl. 29 _White;Black or African American:Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander PI. 30 White;Black or African American;Some Other Race Pl. 31 White;American Indian and Alaska Native:Asian Pl. 32 White;American Indian and Alaska Native;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Pl. 33 White;American IMlan and Alaska Native:Some Other Race Pl. 34 Wh0e;Asian;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Pl. 35 White;Asian;Some Other Race PI. 36 White;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander;Some Oilier Race PI. 32 Black or African American;American Indian and Alaska Native;Asian PI. 30 Black or African American;American Indian and Alaska Native;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Pl. 39 Black or African American;American Indian and Alaska Na11,Some Other Race Pl. 40 Black or African American;Asian;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander PI. 11 Black or African American;Asian;Some Other Race PI. 42 — Black Pr African American;Native Hawaiian and Other Pudic Islander;Some Other Race Pl. 43 American Indian and Alaska Native:Asian:Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific IslaMer Pl. 44 American Indian and Alaska Native;Asian;Some Other Race PI. 45 American Indian and Alaska Native;Native Hawaiian and Other INC.Islander;Some Other Race 46 Asian; a Hawaiian and Oilier Pacific Islander:Some Other Race Pl. 17 Population of four races: PI. 18 White:Black or African American:American Indian and Alaska Native:Asian Pl. 49 White:Black cc African American;Amerlan Indian and Alaska Nacre:Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Pl. S0 While;Black or African American;American Indian and Alaska Native;Some Other Race Pl. SI White:Black or African American;Asian:Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander PI. 52 White;Black or African American;Asian:Same Other Race Pl. 53 White:Black or African American;Native Hawaiian and Other Pat.Islander:Some Other Race PI. 54 mime:American Indian and Alaska Native:Asian:Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander PI. 55 White;American Indian and Alaska Native;Asian:Some Other Race PI. 56 White:American Indian and Alaska Native:Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander;Some Other Race PI. 57 White;Asian;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander;Some Other Race PI. SB Black or African American;American Indian and Alaska Native;Asian:Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander PI. 59 Black or African American;American Indian and Alaska Native;Asian:Some Other Rae Pl. 60 Back or African American:American 1nd1an and Alaska Native;Native Hawaiian and Otter Pacific Islander;Some Other Race PI. 61 Back or African American;Asian:Native Nav alas and Other Pacific Islander;Some Other Race Pl. 62 American Indian and Alaska Native;Asian;Naas Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander:Some Other Race • PI. 63 PopulatNn ake rues: M Pl. 64 While:Black or African American;Amrican e Ind.and Alaska Native;Assn;Nat.Nat.Hawal W and Other Pacific blander PI. 6S Black or African American;American Indian and Alaska Native;Asian:Some Other Race 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File-EXTRACT • Pl. 66 3 White:Black or African American;American Indian and Alaska Native:Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander;Some Other Race PI. 62 3 White;Black or African American;Asian;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander:Some Other Race PI. 68 3 WHRe;American Indian and Alaska Native:Asian;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander;Some Other Race PI. 69 3 Black or African American:American Indian and Alaska Native:Asian:Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander;Some Other Race PI. TO 2 Population of six races: PI. 21 3 White:Black or African American;American Indian and Alaska Native;Asian:Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Some Other Race P2. HISPANIC OR UTNO,AND NOT HISPANIC OR UTINO BY RACE 1237 P2. Universe:Total population •• 112. 2 Hispanic or Latino P2. 3 Not Hispanic or Latina: 12. 1 Population of one race: P2. 5 White alone n. 6 Black or African American alone 12. ) American Indian and Alaska Native alone P2. B Aslan alone P2. 9 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone n. 10 Some Other Race alone 12. I I 1Wo or More Races: n. 12 Population or two races: n. 13 - White:Black or African American n. 14 Wh0e:American Indian and Alaska Native 12. IS White;Asian n. 16 White;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander P2. 12 d4 Some Other Race n. 18 Black or African American:American Indian and Alaska Native n. 19 Mack or African American;Asian n. 20 Black or African American:Native Hawaiian and Other PacIRc Islander n. 21 Black or African American;Some Other Race P2. 23 American Inman and Alaska Native;Asian P2. 23 American Indian and Alaska Native;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander P2. 21Arne,.Indian and Alaska Nash,:Some Other Rate P2. 25 Aslan'Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander P2. 26 Asian,Some Other Race P2. 27 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander;Some Other Race <CONTINUED> II I I 0 HISPANIC OR LATINO,AND NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO BY RACE FOR THE POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER 1131 0 Universe:TOtal POPutatiOn I years and over Pa. I i Total.Hispanic or PI. 3 1 Not Latino Hispanic or Latino: PI. 1 2 Population or one race: Pc 5 3 Whit alone a. 6 3 Black or African American alone 3 American Indian and Alaska Native alone PA 8 3 an alone 9 3 Native Hawallan and Other Pacific Islander alone M. 10 3 Some Other Race alone M. 11 2 Two or More Races: M. 12 3 Population of two races: M. 13 1 White;Black or African American M. 14 4 White;American Indian and Alaska Native •• M. IS 4 White:Asian N. 16 4 White;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander M. 12 1 White Same Other Race M. 18 4 Black or African American:American Indian and Alaska Native M. 19 1 Black or African American:Asian M. 20 4 Black or African American;Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 14. 21 4 Black or African American:Some Other Race M. 22 I American Indian and Alaska Native;Asian PI. 23 • American Indian and Alaska Native:Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander PI. 21 4 American Indian and Alaska Native:Some Other Race M. 25 Asian; Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander P4. 26 4 Asian:Some Other Race M. 27 4 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander:Some Other Race <CONTINUED, e v 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171 ) Summary File - EXTRACT lO SUMMARY TABLE OUTLINES Final v2.0 6. ®_0 OCCUPANCY STATUS 131 ®_0 Universe:Housing units ®=0 Total: ®©l�l♦Occupied =MM.Vacant 2010 P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Products Delivery Timeline -.2� I- __i2S 2i 19__ i- -1:lilt/2011i3 1�i120n 1Ma November 2010 December 2010 ,January 2011 February 2011 March 1 4 7 5,28111117 i1013161922 283113i6 9121518212/2730�2 5 91114772023�261 / 71013�,16192225283113.6 9 12151821124j7_1301,3 21/11 1t O@1ILM 710ERIUns 1 P.L.94-171 Map Series and Block Assignment Files WOW P.L 14471 R.A etln Data Sunma FYn The 2010 Redistricting TIGER/Line*Shapefiles are spatial extracts from the Census Bureaus MAF/TIGER database. These files contain linear features such as roads,railroads,rivers as well as geographies such as American Indian reservations,places,census tracts,census block groups,and census blocks,in addition to many others. The 2010 P.L.94-171 Map Series includes County Block Maps,Census Tract Reference Maps,School District Reference Maps,and Voting District Reference Maps. The 2010 P.L.94-171 Redistricting Data Summary Files will include four population tables,including total population,total population by race, ethnicity,and voting age(18+). In addition,for the 2010 Census,this file will include a table on occupancy status of housing units i Where to Go to Learn More! particularly the American FactFinder.Just For more information on redistricting data, point your browser to<www.census.gov>. access the the Redistricting Data Office Web Responsive government at all levels begins More information about the 2010 Census page located at<www.census.gov/rdo>and with legislative boundaries that reflect an Redistricting Data Program,can be obtained click on"Redistricting Data"or access the accurate count of the population.We hope by calling 301-763-4039 or sending e-mail National Conference of State Legislatures Web this brochure helps you better understand to or ov><catherine.clark.mccull @census. the data and maps that the Census Bureau <catherine.clark.mccully@census.gov> site at<www.ncsl.org>. <james.whitehorne@census.gov>.You also provides and how you can use them in redis- may write to: Cathy McCully tricting.You can learn more about the design Chief and content of other Census Bureau data U.S.Census Bureau, Census Redistricting Data Office products from the Census Bureau's Web site, Redistricting Data Office,HQ—8H019 catherine.clark.mccully@census.gov Washington,DC 20233. 301-763-4039 James Whitehorne Assistant Chief Census Redistricting Data Office james.whitehorne@census.gov 301-763-4039 • 01.0Z suoisDap paw4oJui not 6uidlay snsue3 11V 21118SI1SNiDS11 s = • I • S_ry :H • • r • 3 A • • • nnaAng snsuaJ *S'n alp room mna Ouuauas:paJ OTOZ snsuaJ oa apInJ anoA UIuC^Inl Panssl s il a q ui n N u t u T u a L l S U.S.Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration FIRST-CLASS MAIL U.S.CENSUS BUREAU POSTAGE&FEES PAID Washington,DC 20233 U.S.Census Bureau Permit No.G-58 OFFICIAL BUSINESS Penalty for vrlvate Use S300 I