salt lake county council - utah. web viewsalt lake county council. committee of the whole &...

Salt Lake County CouncilCommittee of the Whole

&Budget Workshop

~Minutes~Tuesday, November 5, 2013

9:17:58 AM

Committee Members Present: Randy Horiuchi

Richard SnelgroveJim BradleyArlyn BradshawDavid WildeSam GranatoSteven DeBry, Chair

Excused: Michael JensenMax Burdick

Citizen Public Input (9:18:30 AM)

No one appeared for Citizen Public Input.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Review of Proposed Hires ( 9:18:39 AM )

Mr. Brad Kendrick, Assistant Fiscal Analyst, Council Office, reviewed the following requests for hires, which have been placed on the Council agenda for formal consideration:

Aging Services Division

Requests to fill a .75 Office Specialist 15 position, and a Driver 13 position. These positions are grant funded.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Assessor’s Office

Requests to fill a CAMA Division Administrator position.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="09:18:39"?Data="9f9f2299"

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="09:18:30"?Data="e2976d13"

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="09:17:58"?Data="0071fd6c"

Committee of the Whole &Budget Workshop SessionNovember 5, 2013

Public Works Operations Division

Requests to fill a Traffic Signal Specialist 19 position.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Salt Lake County Health Department

Requests to fill a Program Specialist 16 position, a Public Health Nutritionist 23/25 position, and a Public Health Nurse 24/30 position.

Council Member Granato, seconded by Council Member Bradshaw, moved to approve the requests and forward them to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Interim Budget Adjustments ( 9:19:18 AM )

Mr. Brad Kendrick, Assistant Fiscal Analyst, Council Office, reviewed the following interim budget adjustment requests, which have been placed on the Council agenda for formal consideration:

Facilities Management Services Division

Requests an interim budget adjustment of $30,000 for the Draper Library roof repairs.

Mr. Kendrick stated the original request was to be funded from contingency funds. However, since that is in the General Fund, the request was changed to take the money from the Library Revolving Fund.

Council Member Bradley asked how old the Draper Library was.

Council Member Horiuchi stated the library opened in 2005. He asked that theDirector of Library Services speak to the Council about the architectural problems with the building. Local residents do not like the design.

Council Member Bradley stated this should be covered by some warranty due to the age of the facility.

Ms. Pamela Park, Human Resources Manager, Library Services Division, stated Library Services did not request this interim budget adjustment. A post occupancy test was done on the facility, and there is a problem with birds getting into the roof through the eaves.

Council Member DeBry stated this item will be pulled and clarified next week.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

2

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="09:19:18"?Data="85298fc9"


Flood Control & Engineering Division

Requests an interim budget adjustment of $600,000 to cover storm drains on Serpentine Way, Amaryllis Street, and Galena Drive. The original project was a capital project, but divided into three smaller projects puts each below the $500,000 threshold for capital projects. Therefore, this is a technical adjustment to move funds from capitalized projects to non-capitalized projects.

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to approve the request and forward it to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Human Resource Policies and Procedures ( 9:24:19 AM )

The Council reviewed the following Human Resources policies and procedures. The policies and procedures have been placed on the Council agenda for final approval and execution:

#1-100 – HR Policies Disclaimer#1-200 – HR General Definitions#2-100 – Employment Status#2-200 – Allocation and Classification of Merit Positions#2-300 – Recruitment & Selection#2-400 – New Hire Requirements#2-500 – Background Check Requirements#2-600 – Work Hours, Telecommuting and Remote Access#2-700 – Employment Practices#2-800 – Resignation and Exit Interviews#2-900 – Reduction in Force Separations#2-1000 – Privatization#2-1100 – Personnel Records#3-100 – Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and

Retaliation#3-200 – Reasonable Accommodations#3-300 – Standards of Conduct#3-400 – Discipline#3-500 – Grievance Procedure#3-600 – Alcohol and Drug Screening, Testing & Treatment#3-700 – CDL & Safety Sensitive Alcohol & Drug Screening,

Testing & Treatment#3-800 – Violence in the Workplace#3-900 – Fitness for Duty Evaluations#3-1000 – Drug-Free Workplace#3-1100 – Political Activities#4-100 – Employee Discounts at County Facilities#4-200 – Leave Practices#4-300 – Insurance and Retirement Programs

3

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="09:24:19"?Data="bff5b1ec"


#4-400 – Worker’s Compensation#4-500 – Return to Work After Injury or Illness#4-600 – Family and Medical Leave (FMLA)#4-700 – Employee Assistance Program#4-800 – Service Awards#4-900 – Retirement Policy#4-1000 – Long Term Disability#5-100 – Pay Practices#5-200 – Sworn Employee Compensation#5-300 – Payroll#6-100 – Performance, Development & Improvement Plans#6-200 – Training & Training Repayments#6-300 – Tuition Reimbursement Program

The Council also reviewed the following policies and procedures to be rescinded:

#5000 – Human Resources Policies#5025 – Policy General Definitions#5100 – Employment Status#5110 – Minimum Employment Age#5120 – Nepotism – Employment of Relatives#5130 – Career Mobility Assignments#5200 – Allocation and Classification of Merit Positions#5210 – Filling County Job Vacancies#5220 – Merit Employment Examinations#5230 – Merit Employment Registers#5240 – Certification of Applicants for Job Interviews#5250 – New Hire Requirements#5251 – Background Check Requirements#5300 – Termination of Employment#5310 – Reduction-in-Force Separations#5320 – Reduction-in-Force Reappointment

Register/Certification#5330 – Privatization#5340 – County Contribution to Employees Retirement#5400 – Pay Practices#5410 – Payroll#5415 – Training Repayment Agreements#5420 – Overtime and Compensatory Time#5430 – Employee Incentive Procedure#5440 – Bonus Plan#5450 – 20% Employee Discount at County Facilities#5500 – Insurance Eligibility#5510 – Leave Practices#5512 – Family and Medical Leave#5520 – Workers’ Compensation#5525 – Return to Work after Injury or Illness#5540 – Employee Assistance Program#5545 – Fitness for Duty Evaluations#5550 – Training

4


#5560 – Tuition Reimbursement Program#5600 – Performance & Development Process#5610 – Work Hours#5615 – Telecommuting#5625 – Reasonable Accommodations Guidelines#5630 – Drug-Free Workplace#5640 – Alcohol and Drug Screening, Testing and Treatment#5660 – Political Activities#5665 – Personnel Records#5700 – Discipline#5702 – Standards of Conduct#5705 – Grievance Procedure#5706 – Resolution of Employee Complaints Procedure#5708 – Classification Appeals#5710 – Appeal Procedure for Career Service Council#5730 – Sexual Harassment#5740 – Discrimination#5745 – Retaliation

Council Member Bradshaw stated during the October 29, 2013, Committee of the Whole meeting, Council staff recommended the following changes, which have been added to the proposed Human Resources Policies & Procedures:

1. Modify section F.3.b to state “employees who retire on or after January 31, 2014” cannot reinstate insurance that has been discontinued. The purpose is to allow more time (30 extra days) to communicate this change to employees in case it impacts their retirement decision.

2. Add the word “motivate” to the policy statement (Section I)

The goal is to adopt the new policies and move forward. Council Member Jensen was concerned about compensation issues. Most of these new policies are current County practices. There is some need for change regarding compensation, and he proposed the following legislative intent be adopted along with the policies:

It is the intent of the County Council to review and refine compensation, pay practices, and related policies during 2014. Specifically, the County Council would like to work with the Administration to develop new proposed compensation and pay practice policies by June, 2014 that:

Define the overall compensation policy of the County – market, longevity, a combination, or a completely different approach

Address the differences between the tier 1 and tier 2 retirement systems as they impact overall compensation and consider policy alternatives

Update and re-define processes for reclassifications, equity adjustments, market adjustments etc.

Address pay for performance

5


Address bonuses

Address tuition reimbursement

Re-affirm or alter the County’s paid time off policies (i.e. traditional sick/vacation versus general PTO)

Establish a rational policy and process for paying elected officials and their appointed staff members (.i.e. should elected officials be able to decline pay increase? Should there be consistency in pay between elected officials and their key staff? Should the compensation of Mayor, Sheriff, and DA more closely relate to each other and be higher than other officials based on spans of control, risk to the organization etc? What role does/should longevity play in the compensation of appointed officials?)

The Council should spend the next year examining compensation policies. However, the Council should not hold up the entire rewrite based on compensation. That will be modified as the process moves forward. Approving the policies would also get them into a uniform format.

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Wilde, moved to adopt the Human Resources Policies & Procedures with the recommended changes, adopt the proposed legislative intent, recognize that specific concerns can continue to be made as the process moves forward, and to forward the policies and procedures to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

BUDGET WORKSHOP

2014 Employee Compensation – Human Resources and Employee Groups ( 9:35:27 AM )

During the October 29, 2013, Committee of the Whole meeting, Mayor Ben McAdams recommended the following 2014 employee compensation and benefits:

Compensation

- Overall merit increase of 2.5 percent for those meeting expectations- 401k restoration to full 2009 year levels for employees in the

contributory and non-contributory retirement system

Benefits- 20 percent discount card- Employee payroll deduction for utilizing daycare

Medical- 5 percent increase for medical - No dental increase

6

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="09:35:27"?Data="add99320"


- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) fee and Transitional Reinsurance Tax (TRA) for the Affordable Care Act of approximately $572,000 ($65 per member), equating to 1.63 percent of current health plan budget

- Autism benefit - Replace Altius with Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah, effective

April 2014- Replace Direct MD for 2014 (Direct MD has cancelled its contract)- New vendors for Long Term Disability (Cigna Health Insurance) and

flexible spending (USBA Flex) is expected to save the County over $206,000

- Frontload Health Saving Accounts contributions (currently $600 for single; $1,200 for a family), effective April 1, 2014, and encourage High Deductible Health Plan enrollment with a higher incentive dollar

Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, introduced the following employee group representatives:

Utah Public Employees Association (UPEA) (9:35:44 AM)

Ms. Christine House, Utah Public Employees Association (UPEA), stated UPEA supports the Mayor’s proposal. In addition, UPEA supports the proposal to hire a compensation expert, and the purchase of the required software in order to do a rigorous analysis to find solutions to future compensation packages.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Utah Alliance of Government Employees (UAGE) (9:37:08 AM)

Ms. Jan Johnson, Executive Director, Utah Alliance of Government Employees (UAGE), stated UAGE is recommending that the County adopt a compensation policy that offers a better view of how compensation will be provided. In the absence of such a policy and the fact that Salt Lake County employees have not had a pay increase in four or five years, UAGE is recommending that an across the board pay increase be given to all employees, as well as the 2 percent 401(k) restoration.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) (9:51:18 AM )

Ms. Patty Rich, Executive Director, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), stated AFSCME supports the Mayor’s compensation recommendations.

Council Member Bradshaw stated the main components of the Mayor’s recommendations are the restoration of the 2 percent 401(k) that was cut in 2009, and the 2.5 percent merit increase for employees who are not under any disciplinary action.

Council Member Wilde asked what the cost to the County would be in giving all employees a 2.5 percent across the board increase, not a merit increase.

7

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="09:51:18"?Data="95f8f442"

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="09:37:08"?Data="bc87f240"

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="09:35:44"?Data="6935dfd3"


Council Member DeBry stated he would like to know the impact this increase would have on pay inequities and compression before he could make a decision.

Mr. Michael Ongkiko, Director, Human Resources Division, stated the 2.5 percent increase will not alleviate compression issues, just prolong them. The County has compensation issues that need to be addressed, but before that can happen, it needs additional data and a compensation policy in place.

Council Member Horiuchi stated that cost-of-living (COLA) does not zero in on compression. So the best thing to do would be the merit increase.

Council Member Bradshaw stated the legislative intent adopted earlier today regarding compensation should help address issues. He asked how many employees would not be eligible for a merit increase due to a discipline action.

Mr. Ongkiko stated currently, there are 50 employees who did not meet expectations on their annual review and an additional 27 employees who are under disciplinary action.

Council Member DeBry asked if the discipline action was corrected prior to the implementation date of January 1, 2014, whether the employee would receive the increase.

Mr. Ongkiko stated it would be up to the agency and/or department. It would depend on how severe the discipline action was.

Council Member DeBry stated the Council committed to restoring the 401(k) when the economy got better, so he is on board with that. However, he questioned if the 2.5 percent merit increase was a prudent thing to do.

Mayor Ben McAdams stated the recommended budget included funding for a new FTE in the Human Resources Division in order to hire a compensation analyst and obtain software. The position is needed to help the County address its compensation issues. County employees have not received a salary adjustment since 2009, so he is confident in providing a 2.5 percent across-the-board increase. The 2.5 percent does not address compression issues; however, it does not make them worse. This year it is appropriate to give the adjustment to employees who are not subject to disciplinary action.

Council Member Wilde stated he wanted this to be fair to all employees and was concerned that an employee who just came off a disciplinary action would get the increase, while an employee who had not completed their 6-month probation period would not.

Mr. Ongkiko submitted the following two options for the Council’s consideration that would cover this possibility:

Option 1 – across the board merit increase- Across the board merit increase for all SLCo employees- Increase would not be given to any employees who do not “meet expectations” under

the performance management system

8


- Increase would not be given to any employee(s) who is on LDIS (leave without pay for discipline) pay status.

Option 2 – prorating 2013 probationary new hires – recommended- Provide merit increase for all SLCo employees who are not in probationary status- Increase would not be given to any employee(s) who does not ‘Meet Expectations”

under the performance management system- Increase would not be given to any employee(s) who is on LDIS (leave without Pay for

discipline) pay status- Probationary employees would have merit increase prorated.- Probationary employees would receive the prorated increase after successful completion

of probationary period of 6 full months.

Ms. Nichole Dunn, Deputy Mayor, stated the second option includes a prorated pay increase for probationary new hire employees. Some of the confusion between the merit and across the board is because the proposal includes employees who are redlined, who normally would not receive a merit increase.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Fraternal Order of Police (9:55:07 AM)

Mr. Matthew Thompson, Trustee, Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), stated FOP supports the Mayor’s proposal. However, the sworn officers’ pay plan is inherently different than what the County’s pay plan is. The sworn officers’ pay plan requires a full 2.75 percent pay increase in order to advance to a new step. A partial increase will not move officers who have been at a step one for four years up to a step two, which will affect compression issues as well. Four years of new hires are currently sitting in step one. Providing a 2.75 percent increase would move them to a step two, which would help with compression. If this increase was given on anniversary dates, then it would not cost the County as much money as providing the increase at the beginning of the year.

Council Member Bradshaw suggested this budget request be considered as part of the Sheriff’s budget.

Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, stated there are three paths towards a pay raise from a merit standpoint: 1) Grade increase from one grade to another where the employee’s current salary is below the range of the new grade; 2) move within the grade to get a merit increase; and, 3) adjust the pay range of the grades, adjusting the pay schedule by whatever percentage the Council decides. He asked if the Council believes the County is paying market based salaries for new hires, then why new hires should receive the prorated 2.5 percent merit increase.

[This item was discussed during the November 12, 2013, and November 26, 2013, Budget Workshop sessions.]

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

401(k) Restoration (10:11:42 AM)

9

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="10:11:42"?Data="9ba706d5"

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="09:55:07"?Data="0f2c97cb"


Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, stated restoring the 401(k) has both pros and cons. The pro of restoring the 401(k) is that it fulfills a promise the Council made a long time ago. The con is that the County is treating its Tier One employees differently than its tier two employees. Tier two employees are contributing to help fund the actuarial of the tier one system. An option for the Council to consider would be to extend the 401(k) contribution to tier two employees as well. The flat cost of giving the 400 Tier Two employees, who are currently enrolled, would be $300,000.

Council Member Snelgrove asked for a definition of tier one and tier two.

Mr. Delquadro stated tier two employees are individuals who were hired after June 2010 when the new retirement system was put into place by legislation. Another option would be the County’s match of the 401(k). The Council could match the 401(k) at 100 percent if the employees put in 2 percent, or the Council could decide to match the 401(k) contribution at 2 percent if the employee puts in 4 percent. It would also match the contribution by 100 percent for the first 1 percent and 50 percent for the next 2 percent the employee puts in. If the County did match the 401(k), it should assume all employees want to enroll. If they do not then they would need to opt out.

[This item was discussed during the November 12, 2013, November 19, 2013, and November 26, 2013, Budget Workshop sessions.]

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Health Insurance Premiums – Dental Benefits (10:18:11 AM )

Mr. Michael Ongkiko, Director, Human Resources Division, stated currently the County has 2,700 employees who are not eligible for any type of insurance. If these employees enrolled for dental benefits, it would cost the County $1.5 million. If only 40 percent of these employees enrolled, the cost would be $617,000. There would also be an increase in COBRA to cover insurance for employees who leave County employment.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Tuition Reimbursement (10:19:35 AM )

Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, stated in October 2012, the Council revised the Tuition Reimbursement Program by increasing the maximum reimbursement allowed per calendar year from $3,000 to $5,250, required employees to submit grades and proof of payment within 30 calendar days, expanded eligible programs to include certifications, and extended the tuition benefit to part-time merit employees. At the time of this action, the Council adopted the following legislative intent:

It is the intent of the Council to review in October 2013, the budgetary consequences of the higher payments provided for County employees eligible to receive tuition reimbursement under Policy 5560, as reviewed.

Mr. Michael Ongkiko, Director, Human Resources Division, stated there are currently 12 part-time participants who were not eligible in 2012. There are 18 more participants in 2013 than 2012. The total program costs over the last three years has gone from $281,322 in

10

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="10:19:35"?Data="08a24e20"

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="10:18:11"?Data="25ca1342"


2011 to a projected $550,000 in 2013. The County budgeted $460,000 for 2013, so the program will be short by approximately $90,000 this year.

Council Member Wilde asked if that was because more people were taking advantage of this program than expected.

Mr. Ongkiko stated the number of participants have been pretty stationary. The upsurge is due to the increase of the maximum reimbursement from $3,000 to $5,250 per year.

Mr. Delquadro stated in January the Council might want to discuss changes to the program to only pay for classes where the participant receives a B grade or higher, approve only those certifications relating to positions for which the County hires, and initiate an annual cap for the tuition reimbursement program.

Council Member Snelgrove asked how many employees benefit from the tuition reimbursement program

Mr. Ongkiko stated this year there are 152 employees; last year there were 134 employees.

Council Member Wilde asked if there was a requirement that the employee had to stay with the County for a period of time after graduation.

Mr. Ongkiko stated yes, employees who graduate using the tuition reimbursement program have to stay with the County for at least two years or they must repay the cost of the tuition.

Council Member Snelgrove asked if this helps with longevity

Mr. Ongkiko stated yes, there is less turnover with employees who have used the tuition reimbursement program.

Council Member DeBry stated he used this program to further his education. It is a good program and serves the County well. The program needs to be viable and within budget restraints.

Council Member Snelgrove asked if the tuition reimbursement can be used for any school.

Mr. Ongkiko stated the schools must be accredited

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Long-Range Projections (2:37:23 PM)

Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, presented the long-range projections for the General Fund through 2017. The purpose of this presentation is to show plusses and minuses on the expenditure side, so the Council can decide how to offset cost increases in the future. For example, the projections include a 2.75 percent merit increase and a 1 percent COLA increase in years 2015, 2016, and 2017. However, the 10 percent

11


minimum in the projected fund balance is going to be an issue by 2016, and it is all compensation driven. So by eliminating the 1 percent COLA, the problem would drop almost $4 million, and by eliminating the 2.75 percent merit increase, the problem would be cut in half.

In 2014, the County is going to reduce its under-expend and use it to pay real time to temporary employees, so under-expend for 2014 will be low. Then, for 2015-2017, there is a three percent assumption built in.

In 2015, insurance premiums will be back up to double digit rates, and the actuaries have said the County cannot continue to be sustainable with double digit increases. Therefore, it is going to have to exercise oversight in terms of its benefit package, i.e. increase co-pays and/or deductibles, look at different ways to administer drug formularies, and educate employees to make wise healthcare decisions.

The baseline projection for prescription drugs is over 20 percent. However, over the next two years, over half of the health care expenditures could be prescription drugs. Traditionally, expenditures have been hospitalization. This change is due to new technology in pharmaceuticals. Also there are a lot of empty hospital beds, so hospitals are trying to make up that deficit through outpatient services, so outpatient services are going to cost more.

Council Member Snelgrove asked if these numbers were difficult to predict with the Affordable Care Act employer mandate.

Mr. Delquadro stated yes. The County will have to pay taxes that come with the Affordable Care Act, and they are embedded into the baseline. In January next year, there will be a comprehensive ceiling on out-of-pocket expenses, which will include pharmaceuticals. In the past, the catastrophic limit only applied to hospital and medical, not to prescription drugs, and individuals who exceeded the insurance amount did not do so with prescription drugs. This comprehensive ceiling will create more stress on the County’s insurance plan, especially if prescription drugs go up in excess of 20 percent. The question is how many people will be impacted by those high costs of pharmaceuticals. Also, the County does not know what premiums for Affordable Health Care Act alternatives will be for employees eligible for retirement.

Council Member Wilde stated every year, the County reviews the long-range projections, and the numbers always look bad two or three years out. However, revenues come in higher than expected, so it is never quite as bad as it looked. The County is on shaky ground now, but he hoped things would be less bleak in a year or two.

Mr. Delquadro stated true, but the Federal Government is encouraging inflation. It views inflation as a good thing saying it helps stimulate the economy from the standpoint that people who owe money will be able to pay their debt with cheaper dollars. Inflation is going to impact the County’s operating budget after 2014. For 2015, he assumed a 1 percent inflation rate, but if it doubled to a 2 percent inflation rate, the County would have another $3 million problem by 2016.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Elected Officials

12


Treasurer (10:57:35 AM)

2013 Budget 2014 Proposed Change

Tax Admin Fund – Org. 1251 $3,265,622 $3,410,424 4.43 percent

Mr. K. Wayne Cushing, Treasurer, delivered a PowerPoint presentation showing budget requests for 2014. Over the past two years, the Treasurer’s Office has reduced FTEs, and reduced its budget. For 2014, the budget increased due to the reinstatement of the 401k, the 2.5 merit increase, and a telephone increase. The Treasurer’s Office was charged for the new phones in 2013, and was able to absorb that for 2013, but needs more for 2014. There are also some minor decreases as well.

In preparation for the budget, the Treasurer’s Office was asked to show the Council what is has collected compared to what its budget has been. Every year the Treasurer is asked to collect a little bit more money, generally from tax increases or other entities. He reviewed the following points of interest:

Property tax bills were sent out bill three weeks earlier than in prior years. As a result, the County is up $50 million from what it collected this time last year. This allowed more time to find correct addresses for taxpayers with bad addresses. The Treasurer’s Office worked with the Auditor’s Office in this endeavor.

This year, the Treasurer’s Office focused on notifying eligible people they qualified for tax relief. A lot of people do not know about the program. In 2014, the active duty relief program will also go into effect. This will enable people who were on active duty for 200 days within a calendar year to get tax relief the following year.

Property tax delinquencies have gone down due to increased efforts to collect the taxes. In addition to statutory required mailings for tax delinquencies, the Treasurer’s Office sent reminders throughout the year. The economy also played a role in delinquencies being paid. Additionally, a lot of developers who delayed their payments reached the five-year deadline for paying their taxes. Developers waiting until the five-year deadline also have to pay a penalty, and 7 percent interest.

Increased camera enhancement has resulted in better security.

The Treasurer’s Office charges $25 per hour for complicated research, but most things are done for free. In 2012, it collected $528.

There will be very little under-expend in the Treasurer’s budget for 2013, due to budget cuts every year for years.

The Treasurer’s Office worked with the Assessor’s Office this year, allowing taxpayers to pay personal property taxes in the Treasurer’s Office.

The Treasurer’s Office met with other offices using credit/debit cards to see about consolidating County credit card processes.

13

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="10:57:35"?Data="156d45ec"


Colorado CustomWare Inc. (CCI), the County’s tax administration system vendor has gone through bankruptcy and another buyer is going to buy it out of bankruptcy. The buyout is scheduled the end of November. This week, the County will meet with CCI to restructure its contract so the contract can be absorbed when the purchase happens.

Goals

Include an option for the 10-payment automatic withdrawal to sign up on a continual basis, as opposed to having to do it each year.

Start sending tax notices by email instead of by mail. It will be an opt in program, whereby those who do not sign up or whose email kicks it back to the County will get their notice by mail. This will require a statutory change, and the Utah Association of Counties is working on that.

Create an opportunity for taxpayers to pay online, and enable them to print forms from the Treasurer’s website.

The County receives a certain percentage of the total revenue from the Motor Vehicle Tax; however, that revenue has steadily been decreasing because the rate has not changed since 1997, even though the price of cars has gone up significantly. That fee should be looked at and potentially increased. He talked to Kara Trevino, Legislative Specialist, Council Office, about having the Legislature consider this, but the Council would need to request it since it is a revenue issue.

Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, stated Council Member Snelgrove had asked the County to leverage its size and make sure it was getting the best deal it could on merchant accounts. Mr. Randy Wightman, Chief Deputy Treasurer, coordinated this and talked with individual fiscal managers who deal with credit card payments to see if the County can get a merchant rebate. He asked Mr. Wightman to review this project.

Mr. Randy Wightman, Chief Deputy Treasurer, stated the first goal was to find out which vendor each agency was working with because they are all working with different ones. The goal now is to get everyone using the same vendor, so the County can get a better overall rate. In a few cases, merchant accounts are tied to specific software at certain locations, so those agencies will not be able to change.

Council Member Snelgrove asked what the average percent discount rate was that the County pays on its merchant accounts.

Mr. Wightman stated he discovered there were many different rates, but did not know the average rate. He would try to find out what that was.

Council Member Bradley, seconded by Council Member Horiuchi, moved to approve the Treasurer’s budget as recommended by the Mayor. The motion passed unanimously.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Surveyor (11:22:44 AM)

14

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="11:22:44"?Data="8c0da16b"



General Fund – Org. 1350 $2,187,398 $2,243,811 2.58 percentTax Admin Fund – Org. 1351 $ 534,153 $ 578,889 8.38 percent

Mr. Reid Demman, Surveyor, reviewed the Surveyor’s budget stating initially he asked for a $34,000 budget increase, but the Mayor only recommended a $1,700 increase. He is asking the Council to reinstate $29,500 of his original request, $13,000 of which is one-time money for a temporary employee to assist in providing statutory duties. The remaining amount is for GIS services and mapping. These are statutory duties for which the Surveyor’s Office is getting more requests. He also needs to purchase safety equipment for his crews, and gas to run the forest survey vehicle year-round.

Council Member Wilde asked if the Surveyor’s Office charged County agencies a fee.

Mr. Demman stated the Surveyor’s Office collaborates with numerous agencies in the County, and it does charge agencies a fee for projects. However, the Surveyor’s Office does not always charge agencies for a $10 map because it would cost more than $10 to collect it through the County’s Journal Voucher (JV) process, and statutory funding provides for those. The mapping fees cover the cost for the most part. Other fees for monuments and record surveys are subsidized, and do not cover the costs. However, those are statutorily required.

Council Member Wilde stated he noticed the Surveyor’s Office is asking for $6,000 to attend a conference in St. George, and asked if there were some local conferences the Surveyor’s Office could go to instead that would cost less.

Mr. Demman stated this year the Utah Council of Land Surveyor’s conference was held in Salt Lake; and next year, it will be held in St. George. It is more cost effective to get the bulk of training at this conference, rather than scheduling a few hours here and there for other local conferences. However, it is not the highest priority in his budget.

Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, asked Mr. Demman to touch on the legislative intent regarding the County GIS consolidation.

Mr. Demman stated since 2009, the County’s GIS system has improved significantly due to a collaborative effort among elected officials, department heads, and division heads. However, it still needs improvement. The County has a policy that mandates how to create GIS data to maximize a return on investment, but the GIS system is decentralized so everyone can access it, and there are so many people using it that the County does not have a handle on how people are creating that data. There has been some discussion about moving the GIS Steering Committee into IT Governance to give the GIS system a higher profile. Some things that need to be discussed are centralization in order to maintain the integrity of County data, consolidating software licensing, and developing a way to fund GIS software and hardware purchases for infrastructure purposes, as a lot of these purchases are costly. The needs of the County are exploding, and it does not have the resources it needs. Those things will be discussed and recommendations will come to the Council at some point.

15


Council Member Bradley, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to approve the Surveyor’s budget as recommended by the Mayor, and include the $29,500 as requested. The motion passed unanimously.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Clerk (11:35:14 AM)


General Fund – Org. 1050 $1,314,118 $1,351,816 2.87 percentElections – Org. 1051 $4,154,557 $4,540,807 9.30 percent

Ms. Sherrie Swensen, Clerk, reviewed the Clerk’s budget stating the Clerk’s Office is asking for three high-speed scanners for its Election Division to feed paper ballots into the system. Currently, paper ballots have to be hand-fed one at a time using precinct scanners, which are old technology, and for which parts are no longer available. Last year, the Clerk’s Office had over 103,000 vote-by-mail ballots, and 21,000 paper provisional ballots, with ten people scanning. It was very labor intensive. As the population increases, so will the number of vote-by-mail and provisional paper ballots. It will become impossible to accomplish this task. The current electronic voting machines are expected to last through 2016. To extend the life of these machines, the Clerk’s Office needs paper ballot tabulation processes in place. The high-speed scanners will extend the life of the current voting system. They were certified in 2009, and the vendor has guaranteed parts will be available through 2020.

The Clerk’s Office is also asking for a ballot-on-demand, which will enable the Elections Division to print ballots in-house on a particular ballot stock. This will eliminate the need to order an over-supply of ballots, which is usually the case to ensure there are enough provisional ballots due to the 200 ballot types in a big election. This is a lease option. It is very cost effective and should pay for itself.

Council Member Bradshaw asked if there were any changes from the Mayor’s recommendation.

Ms. Swensen stated no. These are included in the Mayor’s recommendation.

Council Member DeBry asked what the initial cost was for the scanners.

Ms. Swensen stated $288,000, plus a $15,000 service maintenance contract, which will be an ongoing charge over the years.

Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, stated this is going to be paid out of the $1.7 million Regional Fund. It is not coming out of the Clerk’s budget.

Council Member Wilde stated he read the voting machines are falling apart.

Ms. Swensen stated they are not falling apart; they are just not being made any longer. Purchasing the scanners is a cost effective way to prolong their life. There are vendors who have developed new electronic voting machines, but the machines have not yet been

16

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="11:35:14"?Data="a5b967ce"


certified by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). A new system would cost $10 to $13 million. The Federal Government will not fund new machines, and the State never gave the County money to fund the electronic voting system.

Council Member Wilde stated the County may need to move back to the paper-based voting system. He asked if the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) allowed that.

Ms. Swensen stated HAVA does allow the choice between an electronic voting system and a paper-based system with scanners that would notify the voter if they over-voted or under-voted. However, the Lieutenant Governor’s Office made the decision to go with the electronic voting machine to have a uniform statewide system, and it was a wise choice. It would be very cumbersome to use the district paper ballot scanners at each polling location with as many voters as there were last year. There would be a line of people just to feed the ballot, and if they under-voted or over-voted, it would pop the ballot back out. The other issue with a paper ballot is all of the early voting locations would have to supply with each of the 200 ballot types. With the electronic system, the correct ballot type comes up on the voter access card. The electronic voting system also accommodates people with disabilities; for example, a person with a visual impairment can put on a headset and vote a ballot privately and independently.

Council Member Wilde stated two cities have gone to vote-by-mail only. He asked if the cities were saving money by doing that.

Ms. Swensen stated the law was changed to allow municipal and local service district elections to use vote-by-mail only, and West Jordan City and Cottonwood Heights City opted to do that. It is not allowed for countywide elections. Turnout for those two cities has already surpassed that of 2009, and the votes have not all been counted. She did not yet know if it saved the cities money, but that will be known once all the bills have come in. One of the costs of vote-by-mail is the signature verification process. Each signature on each ballot has to be compared against the signature on the voter registration record.

Council Member DeBry stated he wondered how the Clerk’s employees could verify signatures legally; they were not hand-writing experts. He thought down the road someone was going to contest an election using that as a reason.

Ms. Swensen stated if someone thinks a signature does not match, the ballot is set aside, and the voter is contacted. Sometimes signatures change. One of the benefits of doing vote-by-mail is the voters get their ballot in advance of the election, which allows them time to study the issues and the candidates.

Council Member Bradley stated it sounded like vote-by-mail does not save time and effort, just increased participation.

Ms. Swensen stated it saves time and effort by not having to prepare the voting machines, test them, deploy them, build a data base, hire poll workers, and train poll workers. In the long run it is cheaper, and it is much cheaper than implementing and purchasing a brand new voting system.

Council Member DeBry asked if vote-by-mail was the only way a resident of a city opting to do vote-by-mail could vote.

17


Ms. Swensen stated cities that opt to do vote-by-mail do not have polling locations, but they have vote centers. Residents who do not receive or send in their vote-by-mail ballot can go to an early vote location to vote, or they can vote or drop off their ballot on Election Day at a vote center.

Council Member Granato, seconded by Council Member Horiuchi, moved to approve the Clerk’s budget as recommended by the Mayor. The motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Swensen stated the Clerk’s Office has been collaborating with the Surveyor’s Office on boundary changes. When the State decided to use GIS coding to do the redistricting, the Clerk’s Office did not have an employee with GIS expertise. So rather than hiring a consultant or training an employee, which would take years to get up to the proficiency level necessary, the Clerk’s Office collaborated with the Surveyor’s Office. This was so successful, the two offices are moving forward with an agreement to do the same thing next year.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

[The Council recessed for lunch at 11:50:05 AM and reconvened at 1:37:52 PM]

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Assessor (1:37:52 PM ) 2013 Budget 2014 Proposed Change

General Fund – Org. 1300 $12,544,178 $12,998,962 3.63 percentTax Admin. Fund – Org. 1301 $ 0 $ 993,808 0

Mr. Richard Burgi, Chief Deputy Assessor, stated the increase in the Assessor’s 2014 budget is due to two items. The first of which is the purchase of a commercial sales/lease database that will help assessors sort and analyze commercial properties. The second item is a $22,000 contract with Pictometry, an aerial photography company already under contract. The 2013 contract mistakenly asked for six inch resolution on aerial photography. Three inch resolution is much clearer and allows appraisers to do a lot of their work from their desks.

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Wilde, moved to approve the Assessor’s budget as recommended by the Mayor. The motion passed unanimously. Council Members Horiuchi and Snelgrove were absent for the vote.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Auditor (1:45:52 PM ) 2013 Budget 2014 Proposed Change

General Fund – Org. 1100 $1,814,864 $1,975,306 8.84 percentTax Admin. Fund – Org. 1101 $1,585,541 $1,527,143 -3.68 percent

Mr. Lonn Litchfield, Chief Deputy Auditor, stated the 2014 Auditor’s budget is very close to last year’s approved budget.

18

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="13:45:52"?Data="e87bb6e8"

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="13:37:52"?Data="98168f5a"

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="13:37:52"?Data="98168f5a"

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="11:50:05"?Data="df4dbdaa"


Council Member DeBry asked about the one FTE the Auditor is requesting.

Mr. Litchfield stated in the last two years, the Auditor has asked for six new FTEs, which were denied. Last year, the office was reorganized to meet the critical need for help with audits. These moves allowed the office to absorb one new FTE without an additional budget increase.

Council Member DeBry stated the budget has a net increase of $7,000.

Mr. Litchfield stated that is due to the pay raises and benefits proposed by the Mayor.

Mr. Brad Rogers, Fiscal Manager, Auditor’s Office, stated rolling vacancies and some retirements allowed money to be consolidated and put towards an additional FTE.

Council Member Bradshaw asked if that additional FTE would increase the budget base in the long term.

Mr. Litchfield stated with retirements and turnover, employees have been hired at lower wages. There will be a savings each year because the office has less expensive employees.

Mr. Rogers stated the office has hired a number of temporary employees because the audits still need to be done. The temp budget has been reduced to help pay for the new FTE.

Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, stated that is not true. The Auditor has $17,500 in addition to this new FTE in the audit part of the budget.

Mr. Darrin Casper, Chief Financial Officer, Mayor’s Office, stated the Auditor’s Office lowered the grades on two positions that turned over. Much of the savings is attributable to that. There is an ongoing savings associated with those lower grades.

Council Member Bradley stated the Council has been allocated two performance auditor positions, neither of which has been filled. The Mayor’s budget has funded one. He would like to look at the possibility of funding both of those positions. He would like to hold off on approving the Auditor’s budget until the Council’s budget is reviewed.

Council Member Bradley, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to postpone the decision on the Auditor’s budget until after the Council’s budget has been reviewed.

Council Member DeBry stated the County went through a tax increase last year, but he still wanted to be certain the Council scrutinized every penny in the budget.

Mr. Litchfield stated his office has been very frugal with its budget in order to get the extra FTE. In 2001, his office did four reported audits. In 2013, that number will be over 100. The extra position is needed.

19


Council Member Bradshaw asked how many audits would be conducted in 2014, and what the philosophy was behind that drastic increase. He would like to know what concrete steps have been taken resulting from those 147 audits and what savings they are producing.

Mr. Litchfield stated the audits have resulted in over 800 findings and about 1,000 recommendations, virtually all of which have been implemented. Most audits have positive results and the managers are grateful for the advice. The auditors look at five or six different risk systems that filter into more detailed audits. The plan is for about 20 detailed audits in 2014.

Mr. Delquadro stated there have been previous discussions about how to inform the Council when audits are done. He has tried to sign up online for email alerts on the Auditor’s website, but it does not work

Mr. Litchfield stated he would look into it.

Council Member Bradley, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to postpone the decision on the Auditor’s budget until after the Council’s budget has been reviewed. The motion passed unanimously. Council Members Snelgrove and Horiuchi were absent for the vote.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Recorder (2:02:48 PM )


General Fund – Org. 1150 $2,529,578 $2,589,507 2.37 percentTax Admin. Fund – Org. 1151 $2,575,410 $2,676,160 3.91 percent

Mr. Gary Ott, County Recorder, stated his budget is virtually the same as 2013. It has had a good year and improved efficiencies.

Council Member Wilde, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to approve the Recorder’s budget as recommended by the Mayor.

Council Member Bradshaw stated he is not seeing fees included in several of these budgets. He asked if the Council was going to have a holistic review of all fees.

Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, stated the Council reviewed all fees in 2010. The issue can be addressed again with discussions of the pros and cons of considering another increase and what other counties are doing with fees.

Council Member Bradley asked if it was time for a review of fees in the Recorder’s Office.

Mr. Ott stated he would not rule it out, but the office is working very well at the moment with its current fee structure.

20

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="14:02:48"?Data="50b95d5a"


Council Member Wilde asked how the 2010 increase from one cent to two cents per page affected its revenue.

Mr. Rocky Hansen, Fiscal Manager, Recorder’s Office, stated the extra penny per page increased revenue by $20,000 annually.

Council Member Bradley asked if the volume of requests for recorder information has gone down.

Mr. Hansen stated yes. The number of customers and the amount of revenue are down.

Mr. Ott stated the downturn in real estate sales affected the number of people needing access to the Recorder’s system. As the economy rebounds, so do the requests.

Council Member DeBry stated the County should not make money off the public, but it should charge enough to make sure operating costs are covered.

Mr. Ott asked the Council to give his office one more year before raising fees.

Council Member Horiuchi stated Mr. Ott should be given a free hand in this; he will not hesitate to ask the Council for an increase when it is needed.

Council Member Bradshaw stated he would like to see an analysis of all fees next year; it should be part of the annual budget process. He asked what else the Recorder charged for other than data fees.

Mr. Ott stated his office charges for almost everything it does.

Mr. Hansen stated this year the data services far exceeded the recorder fees. This has not happened before.

Mr. Ott stated his office would investigate that issue.

Council Member Wilde stated he also wanted to see an annual comprehensive review of County fees and asked that the issue be included in legislative intent.

Mr. Delquadro asked that the review of the fees be assigned to the Revenue Committee.

Council Member Wilde, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to approve the Recorder’s budget as recommended by the Mayor, and the following legislative intent: It is the intent of the Council to conduct an annual comprehensive review of all County fees, and this review be assigned to the Revenue Committee. The motion passed unanimously. Council Member Snelgrove was absent for the vote.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Justice Court (2:21:10 PM)

21

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="14:21:10"?Data="c2ccc19a"



General Fund – Org. 1500 $1,503,345 $1,597,406 6.26 percent

Mr. Richard Yerbury, Accountant, Justice Courts, reviewed the Justice Court’s budget stating the only request the Justice Court is asking for is additional money for postage. Last year, it budgeted $10,000 for postage, but had to request a budget adjustment mid-year of $5,000, and it is still short. This year, it is asking for an additional $1,000, bringing the total to $16,000. The Justice Court is statutorily required to send out notices to clients, and has been sending out a lot of them. In addition, next year, a postage rate increase will go into effect. The Justice Court also needs $3,000 for the new digital telephones and $10,000 for Contact Center charges. Information Services Division (IS) is now charging for the Contact Center. It did not do so in the past.

Council Member Debry asked if the Contact Center charges were a shift from somewhere else to the Justice Court.

Mr. Darrin Casper, Chief Financial Officer, Mayor’s Office, stated this particular charge is associated with the phones. It is a one-time shift from IS.

Mr. Yerbury stated he is also requesting authorization to start charging an administrative fee to clients who paid with a credit card over the phone. These phone calls are tying up the clerks’ time. The idea is to try to deter such phone calls and get clients using the web services instead.

Council Member DeBry asked how long the phone calls took, and how many phone calls the Justice Court was getting.

Mr. Yerbury stated the phone calls can take up to 20 minutes. He did not know how many of these calls the Justice Court was getting.

Council Member Bradshaw stated if it is taking 20 minutes per phone call to take credit card information over the phone, the Justice Court clerks are probably dealing with individuals who are not technologically savvy enough to use the website and pay online. If that is case, he would hate to penalize those individuals. He asked if this request was vetted by the Mayor.

Mr. Yerbury stated no.

Mr. Jason Rose, Legal Counsel, Council Office, stated County ordinance requires that fees be tied to the cost of the service provided. He was not sure if that analysis had been done for this proposed fee.

Council Member Horiuchi stated it is already difficult to get people to pay fees. Adding an administrative fee on top of it would be counterproductive.

Mr. Delquadro stated there were two issues he asked the Justice Court to address. A while back the Justice Court was allowing clients to pay a lesser amount than their full fine in an effort to collect debts. For example someone who owed $100 only had to pay $80. He asked whether the County received a windfall from a resolution of cases, which resulted in a

22


reduction in the amount of outstanding indebtedness. The other question is why the Justice Court is asking to fill a vacant FTE position. There is an indication its workload has decreased because of fewer citations.

Mr. Yerbury stated the Justice Court’s caseload is similar to what it was last year. The vacancy is going to be filled by a current employee. It is basically a promotion.

Mr. Delquadro stated that would still leave an excess position. The salary of the vacant position for salary, benefits, and operating costs is about $45,000. He suggested reducing the budget by $40,000, taking it from the personnel appropriation unit, and taking away an FTE. That should give the Justice Court enough of a cushion to still promote an employee.

Council Member Horiuchi asked how many caseloads there were per judge, and if any of the courts were helping.

Mr. Yerbury stated the Justice Court only has one judge, but it budgeted for 1.5 judges. When the current judge is not available, a temporary judge is brought in.

Mr. Delquadro stated there is a .5 judge vacancy that has not been filled.

Council Member Wilde stated the Justice Court is asking for an increase in the current judge’s salary. He asked what the judge’s salary was without the increase.

Mr. Yerbury stated it is $113,000; the request is for $116,000.

Mr. Delquadro stated the judge receives a $3,000 stipend for being the presiding judge. That is recorded as salary, and is not available to be adjusted down. He asked if the request included that stipend.

Mr. Yerbury stated the request does not include the stipend.

Mr. Casper stated that salary increase was not part of the Mayor’s recommendation.

Council Member Horiuchi, seconded by Council Member Bradshaw, moved to approve the Justice Court budget as recommended by the Mayor, with the exception of $40,000, which will be taken away from the personnel appropriate unit, along with one FTE. The motion passed unanimously.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Capital Improvements ( 2:51:06 PM )

Capital Project 3rd Quarter Update

Mr. Wayne Marion, Director, Facilities Management Services Division, delivered a PowerPoint presentation updating the Council on the progress of 2013 capital projects. He stated the Capitol Theatre construction project will be completed on November 28, 2013, as scheduled. The first performance at the theatre is scheduled for December 4, 2013. The other major project is the fleet building, which is located where the old administration building was.

23

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="14:51:06"?Data="5863a46c"


The project is processing very rapidly. He delivered a list of the capital building projects for this year showing the progress on each project, the cost of the project, and what has been spent and how much is left. This list is reviewed monthly to determine what needs to happen in order to complete each project.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Deferred Maintenance (2:59:46 PM)

Mr. Wayne Marion, Director, Facilities Management Services Division, presented a list of projects completed in 2013, which cost approximately $20 million. Employees have been working as hard as possible to get these projects completed. In addition to these projects, the Facilities Management Services Division committed to do a building assessment on all buildings. This assessment is not as far along as projected. The employees who are working on deferred maintenance are also the ones who are doing the assessments.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Capital Projects (3:04:47 PM)

General Fund (450-500-5050)

Rebudget & Revenue Requests

Adult Detention Center – HVAC Heating Valve Replacement $ 99,400 Big Cottonwood Park – Big Cottonwood Area Replace Pavilion Roofing $ 163,130Big Cottonwood Park – Creekside Area Replace Pavilion Roofing $ 169,100Capitol Theatre – Surveillance Camera System $ 55,000County Wide – Audits of Building Systems (Phase 1) $ 68,700Equestrian Park – Storm Drainage Improvements $ 488,191Government Center – ADA Parking (South Building) $ 140,550Government Center – Wayfinding / Signage $ 85,000Jordan River Little Cottonwood – Site Improvements $ 65,500Jordan River Trail – Stabilization & Ecosystem Enhancement $ 389,907Jordan River Trail – Water Quality Sampling Stations $ 5,000Jordan River Trail – Bank Stabilization $ 182,000Jordan River Trail – Streamflow Gaging System Upgrade $ 108,811Jordan River Trail – Reconstruct Trail Under 12400 S Riverton $ 303,753Liberty Swimming Pool – Resurface Pool $ 125,000Magna Copper Park – Reconstruct Parking Lot $ 166,000Murray Fields – Parking Lot Expansion $ 78,853Oxbow Jail – Cooling Tower Replacement (Admin Area) $ 51,500Pleasant Green Park – Additional Parking $ 207,550Sheriff’s Office Building – HVAC Control Upgrade (Phase 2) $ 35,000SLC Sports Complex - Enlarge Swimming Pool Backwash Sump $ 117,573SLC Sports Complex - Resurface Indoor Swimming Pool $ 175,000Steiner West/Unity Ctr – Replace Fire Alarm System $ 50,000Sugarhouse Park – Replace Fabian Lakeside Restroom $ 118,066Utah & SL Canal Trail – 4800 S 5600 S (Phase II) $ 45,508Yellowfork/Rose Canyon – Trailhead Parking (Phase 1) $ 542,154

24

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="15:04:47"?Data="abacacda"

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="14:59:46"?Data="d025a68e"


The following two projects will be financed through the Parks and Recreation bond.

Parks & Recreation/Public Works Development – Purchase Land $2,985,602

Parks & Recreation/Public Works Development – Construction $4,737,545

New Requests

Required by Law, Ordinance, Code or Contract

Valley Mental Health North – Clinic Remodel $ 71,000

Council Member Wilde asked if the County was leasing the space at Valley Mental Health.

Mr. Marion stated yes; however, the County will be paying to remodel the building.

Council Member DeBry stated that did not make sense to him. The landlord should be responsible for the upkeep of the facility.

Mr. Marion stated the contract states the County will remodel the building.

Council Member DeBry asked why the County would sign a contract that indicates it is responsible to fix up a facility it is renting.

Council Member Wilde stated maybe the County gets a lower rent in return.

Council Member DeBry stated if the County is getting a lower rent in return, then it would be okay with him; however, he would like to know the answer.

Correct Developing Health or Safety Problem

Adult Detention Center – Unit Station counter Top Replacement $ 265,000Government Center – Parking Lot Crack Repair $ 20,000Government Center – VOIP Emergency Notification (Phase 1 – North Building) $ 75,000Jordan River – Debris and Trash Boom Collection System $ 30,000Sheriff’s Office Building – Fire Alarm Upgrade $ 22,000Special Ops and Evidence – Overhead Door Replacement $ 60,600Youth Services – Security Camera Replacement/Upgrade $ 315,149

Protect Previous Investments

Butler Park – Replace Pavilion Roofing, Repair Electrical $ 175,000Government Center – Carpet Replacement (Mayor’s Office) $ 25,000Government Center – Ceiling Painting in Hallways $ 50,500

25


Government Center – Parking Structure Waterproofing (Phase 2) $ 100,000Government Center – Renovate Public Restrooms (Phase 1 1st floor) $ 150,000Holladay Lions Rec Center – Replace Natatorium Doors/Frames $ 45,000

Council Member DeBry stated the $28,000 for the security system upgrade at the Shooting Range is not recommended for funding. The County just constructed a new training center at this location and he wanted to make sure it was protected.

Council Member Wilde stated the Council could request Sheriff Winder come in and discuss this request.

Council Member DeBry requested that this happen.

Long-term Cost Savings

County Wide – Update County Construction Standards $ 50,000Equestrian Park – Replace 3 Furnace Units and Condensing Unit $ 26,000Government Center – Chiller Optimization $ 225,500Special Ops and Evidence – Lighting Upgrade $ 25,250

Required for Facilities Intended Function

Government Center – Sound System Upgrade in N2003 $ 35,000Government Center – Council Chambers Remodel (Phase 2) $ 100,000Government Center – Wayfinding/Signage $ 50,000Multiple Facilities – Signage Replacement (Phase 1) $ 150,000Multiple Senior Centers – Upgrade Data Lines (Phase 1) $ 54,727

Council Member DeBry asked if the remodel included new cushions.

Mr. Wayne Marion, Director, Facilities Management Services Division, stated yes. After the December 10, 2013, budget hearing, he would like to reschedule all meetings in the Council Chambers to a different room, in order to do the remodel. His staff will need time to replace the carpet and chairs.

Deferred Maintenance Requests

Required by Law, Ordinance, Code or Contract

Government Center – Kitchen Remodel with Refrigeration Unit $ 50,000Acord Ice – Make Up Air Unit for Locker Rooms (Design Phase) $ 15,000Adult Detention Center – Control Room Renovation (Phase 2) $

1,500,000Adult Detention Center – Fire Alarm Upgrade (Phase 2) $ 45,000Adult Detention Center – Housing Unit Ceiling Insulation (Phase 2) $ 125,000Animal Shelter – Solar Water Heating System $ 80,000County Wide – Recommissioning/Audits of Building Systems $ 100,000

Fairmont Swimming Pool – Replace Burner on Boilers (Phase 2) $ 22,000Gene Fulmer Rec – Replace Fire Alarm System $ 68,800

26


Government Center – Carpet Replacement (2nd Floor South Building) $ 180,000Government Center – Carpet Replacement 2nd Floor No Building $ 165,000Government Center – Roof Replacement (North Building) $ 500,000Government Center – Sheetrock Overlay (Phase 2) $ 100,000Mount Olympus Senior Center – Replace Fire Alarm System $ 35,000Multiple Facilities – Power Factor System (Phase 1) $ 75,000Special Ops/Evidence – Replace Fire Alarm System $ 22,600

The following projects are recommended for funding through the TRCC Fund.

Copperview Rec Center – Replace Water Lines in Building $ 300,000Redwood Rec Center – Replace Water Lines in Building $ 108,000

The following projects are recommended for funding through the Golf Fund.

Meadowbrook Golf Course – Repair HVAC Controls $ 25,000South Mountain Golf Course – Parking Lot Overlay $ 136,000

Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, stated the roof replacement for the Government Center north building in the amount of $500,000 is coming out of the General Fund. There is not enough money in the Government Center expenditures to fund this reroofing project.

Mr. Marion stated the building is 28 years old and is starting to leak. There are several ways to handle this cost; a rent increase at the Government Center is one possibility.

Mr. Delquadro stated that would be a better approach. Everyone who benefits from it would pay for it. The current rent does not generate enough revenue to satisfy all deferred maintenance needs in the Government Center.

Other General Fund Cost

Interest $ 5,000Indirect Costs $ 137,197Warranty $ 10,000Construction Contingency $ 100,000Roofing Contingency $ 75,000Paving Contingency $ 25,000HVAC Contingency $ 60,000Electrical Contingency $ 50,000

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Municipal Services Fund (230-500-5600)

Rebudget Requests

Bicycle Projects – Various Unincorporated County $ 1,000Dimple Dell Road – Sight Line $ 54,525Dimple Dell Road – Sight Line $ 47,000

27


Emigration Canyon – Guardrail $ 60,000Kearns Multipurpose Field–Reconstruction $1,200,000Killyons Canyon – Widen Road Burrs Lane to End $ 100,000Lodestone Park – Lodestone Detention Basin $ 28,414Millcreek Salt Yard – Salt Yard Improvements $ 325,313Millcreek Salt Yard – Salt Yard Improvements $ 71,000Municipal Services – Overpass From UDOT Roads $ 500,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – 1100 East 3000 South to 3900 South $ 108,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – 3900 South 3250 East to Wasatch Blvd $ 1,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – 900 E 3900 S to 4500 S $ 199,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – 3300 S 1100 E to 1200 E $ 295,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – 2700 E 3500 S S-Curve $ 216,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – 1850 E 3650 S to 3540 S Siggard to Millbrook $ 353,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – 3900 S 2850 E to 3100 E $ 44,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – Garnet Drive 9500 S to 9820 S $ 506,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – 1300 E; 3900 S to 4500 S $ 118,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – 3500 S; 8400 W to 8600 W $ 73,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – Mount Jordan Rd; 2600 E to 3100 E $ 60,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – Orchard St ; Woodland to 3300 S $ 120,000Storm Drain – Riches Avenue $ 5,000Storm Drain – Kearns Master Plan $ 10,000Storm Drain – Cyprus Master Plan Phase 1 & 2 $ 5,000Storm Drain – 9800 S Master (Bear Park) Area 3 $ 575,000Storm Drain Pipe Inspection – Various Unincorporated County $ 25,000Storm Drain Repairs – Various Unincorporated County $ 278,158Traffic Calming – Various Unincorporated County $ 65,000Willow Creek Road – Road Regrading $ 97,000

Council Member Wilde asked about the Millcreek Salt Yard expenditures. He asked since the County will not have that property for much longer, why it paying for improvements.

Mr. Russ Wall, Director, Public Works Department, stated the County is no longer pursuing the Millcreek property. When the budget was submitted the County was looking at property in Millcreek, but it is now looking at property further up Parley’s Canyon. This is just a placeholder.

Mr. Delquadro stated the money will be held in advance until such time as it is needed for whatever property the County purchases.

Council Member DeBry asked if the County fixed all the issues with storm drains that flooded the residents in Murray City.

Council Member Wilde stated there were two different issues: the storm drain that flooded, and then there was a canal that broke. The County had nothing to do with the canal.

Mr. Wall stated there is still a considerable amount of work that needs to be done on the storm drain, but it should hold for now. The canal failed due to encroachments by adjacent property owners. It was not due to a problem with the design. The County had put a

28


liner in the canal where it failed; however, the property owners immediately encroached on the property so the liner is no longer under warranty. The County has no jurisdiction over this issue, and it is struggling with Murray City to get it to enforce its ordinances. It is the intention of the County to notify Murray City and homeowners that the encroachments have created a potential hazard and they will be liable.

Council Member DeBry asked if the County could enact an ordinance, which would stop the encroachment or if it was something that Murray City had to do.

Mr. Jason Rose, Legal Counsel, Council Office, stated there are two obstacles the County needs to overcome: first, it is not within the County’s jurisdiction, and second, canals are governed under State law.

Council Member DeBry asked for clarification – Murray City is not working with the County to keep homeowners from encroaching on the property.

Mr. Wall stated yes, Murray City has told them it is not willing to enforce its ordinance. Salt Lake County requested a meeting with Murray City to discuss this, and the Murray City Attorney turned down the request.

Council Member Wilde stated he assumes the Attorney was given direction by somebody other than himself.

Mr. Wall stated he is sure this is a political decision.

Mr. Scott Baird, Director, Flood Control and Engineering Division, stated he would like to see the property owners work with Murray City to obtain grading permits showing that engineering has been done and the slope is stable. This would apply to canals throughout the entire County and not just Murray City.

Council Member DeBry requested Kara Trevino, Legislative Specialist, Council Office, look into this and see what can be done.

New Requests

Bicycle Projects – Various Unincorporated County $ 350,000Concrete Replacmnt & Maint. $1,000,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – 2700 E 3500 S-Curve $ 155,000Sidewalk Curb & Gutter – Various Unincorporated County $ 941,000Storm Drain – White City $ 375,000Storm Drain Inspection – Various Unincorporated County $ 200,000Storm Drain Repairs – 5400 South Kearns Area $ 231,913Traffic Calming – Various Unincorporated County $ 92,000

Other Municipal Fund Costs

Interest $ 5,000Indirect Costs $ 58,286Contingency $ 50,000

29


− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Health Fund (370-200-2150)

Environmental Health – Parking Lot Repairs $ 43,904

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Golf Fund (520-300-)

Mountain View Golf Course – Parking Lot Overlay $ 175,000South Mountain Golf Course – Hole 12 Storm Drainage Repair $ 70,000South Mountain Golf Course – Replace Cart Paths (Phase 1) $ 44,000

New Requests

MeadowBrook Golf Course – Replace HVAC Controls $ 25,000MeadowBrook Golf Course – Replace 3 Irrigation Pumps $ 40,000Old Mill Golf Course – Install Metal Cover Over Outdoor Maint. $ 50,000Old Mill Golf Course – Replace Curb Wall Safety Raining #8 #9 #18 $ 25,000Old Mill Golf Course – Replace Entrance Gate $ 20,000South Mountain Golf Course – Asphalt Overlay Parking Lot $ 136,000South Mountain Golf Course – Repair Clubhouse Stucco $ 15,000South Mountain Golf Course – Repair Patio Deck $ 25,000

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Bonds Fund (474/475/476-500-)

Rebudget Requests

District Attorney Downtown – District Attorney Building $14,071,365Fleet Shops – Heavy Duty Shop $ 6,400,000Health Center – Health Center $15,095,000Midvale Senior Center – Midvale Senior Center $ 5,170,000

New Requests

District Attorney Downtown – District Attorney Building $10,400,000Health Center – Health Center $ 3,000,000Parks & Rec/Public Works Dev. – Phase 1 (Land purchase) $ 5,785,000

Mr. Wayne Marion, Director, Facilities Management Services Division, stated the actual offer for the District Attorney building was $9,135,000. Included in the new requests is

30


an additional $3 million to help fund the health building, and $5.7 million to acquire property for parks and recreational facilities.

Council Member DeBry asked why the additional $3 million was needed for the health building.

Mr. Marion stated the additional $3 million is needed because:

- The original project budget was established at $16,409,375, however only $15,100,000 was requested. The additional $1,309,376 would come from the sale of the Health Department’s downtown parcel. Part of the money would also come from the Health Department’s Operations Fund. The additional funds are no longer available for the project.

- According to Turner Building Cost Index, construction costs have increased by 8 percent since 2010 when the project budget was established. This results in the need to increase the project budget by $1,200,000.

- It is estimated that construction costs are going to continue to increase in 2014 at a rate of 4.3 percent. This would result in the need to increase the project budget by an additional $700,000.

Ms. Nichole Dunn, Deputy Mayor, stated this money is just a placeholder. The actual number will not be known until the property and design of the building has been finalized. The actual proposal will need to be approved by the Council.

Council Member DeBry asked about the location of the property the County would purchase for the park.

Mr. Marion stated it is the ATK property at 3900 S 7200 W.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Solid Waste Management Fund (540-400-4750)

Rebudget Requests

Solid Waste – Citizen Unloading Facility Study $ 100,000

New Requests

Recycling Education Building – Recycling Education Building $ 400,000Solid Waste – Landfill Methane Recovery Lines $ 350,000

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Salt Palace Fund (580-300-3554)31


Rebudget Requests

Salt Palace – Escalators from Meeting Rooms 155, 255, 355 $ 3,134,843Salt Palace – Rigging points $ 191,381Salt Palace – Asbestos Abatement – Transformer Room Vault $ 138,136

New Requests

Salt Palace – Replace Cleaver Brooks Water Level Control $ 24,872Salt Palace – Stainless Handrails at Tower and Public Areas $ 102,937Salt Palace – Water Softener Maintenance $ 16,771Salt Palace – West Lobby Fans $ 37,067

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

TRCC Fund (581-500-3557)

New Requests

Bonneville Shoreline Trail – Acquire Land – 4500 S Mt Olympus $ 250,000Bonneville Shoreline Trail – Mt Olympus to Hueghs Canyon $ 130,000Bonneville Shoreline Trail – Stabilize Rock Cliff $ 675,000Copperview Rec Center – Replace Doors for ADA Entrance Gym $ 25,000Copperview Rec Center – Replace Water Lines in Bldg (Phase 2) $ 300,000County Ice – Repair Ice Compressor Control Panels $ 20,000Fairmont Pool – Replace Current Channel Bridge $ 25,000Fairmont Pool – Replace Shower Fixtures $ 45,000Flight Park – Replace Restroom Heater $ 10,000Hillsdale Park – Resurface/Remodel Tennis Court $ 65,000Holladay Lions Rec Center – Replace Pool Sand Filters $ 85,000 Hunter Park – Replace Restroom/Concession/Pressbox $ 680,000Magna Copper Park – Replace Restroom $ 290,000Magna Pool – Enclose Chemical Storage Area $ 38,000Marv Jensen Rec Center – ADA Modifications Family Change Rm $ 45,000Marv Jensen Rec Center – Asphalt Overlay Front Parking Lot $ 50,000Multiple Ice Centers – Purchase 2 Zambonis $ 190,000Multiple Rec Centers – Increase Internet/Data Capacity $ 218,000Multiple Rec Centers – Division Time Clock System Replacement $ 240,000Oquirrh Park – Replace Skate Park Security Fence $ 128,000Parks & Recreation – Master Plan $ 50,000Parleys Trail – Repair Erosion, Fence, Trail Surface $ 79,000Pleasant Green Park – Repair Restroom Walls $ 35,000Redwood Rec Center – Replace Waterlines in Building (Phase 2) $ 108,000SLC Sports Complex – Epoxy Locker room Floors/Hallways $ 40,000Sugarhouse Park – Replace Restroom (Phase 2 of 3) $ 350,000Sugarhouse Park – Replace Drinking Fountains $ 90,000Valley Regional Park – Replace Playground Equipment $ 150,000Western Springs Park – Replace Playground Surfacing $ 50,000Wheeler Farm – Repair Historic House $ 75,000

32


Council Member Snelgrove asked if the two Zambonis are in addition to what the County already has, or if they would replace the current machines.

Mr. Marion stated they would replace the two aging machines.

Council Member Horiuchi asked how many sheets of ice the County has.

Mr. Marion stated there are three sites with two ice sheets at each site.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

South Towne Expo Fund (582-300-3555)

Rebudget Requests

South Towne – Marquee $ 281,485

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Center for the Arts Fund (585-300-3500)

Rebudget Requests

Abravanel Hall – Auditorium Lighting Conversion $ 79,500Abravanel Hall – Plaza Concrete Replacement/Masterplan $ 263,950Abravanel Hall – Fire Protection System (Phase 2) $ 135,500

New Requests

Abravanel Hall – ADA Seating Upgrade $ 18,610Abravanel Hall – Fire Protection System (Phase 3) $ 311,520Abravanel Hall – Plaza Concrete Replacement $1,652,000Abravanel Hall – Stage Dimming & Control $ 141,465Abravanel Hall – Steam Station Rebuild $ 30,700Capitol Theatre – Ballet West Building $9,000,000Rose Wagner – Service Carpet Replacement $ 36,260

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Library Fund (360-200-2502)

New Requests

Computer Servers – Various Locations $ 78,000Hunter Library – Remodel $1,275,000Library Services – Technology $ 794,869Overhead – Various Locations $ 54,131Taylorsville Library – Relocation of ADA Parking $ 65,000

33


Whitmore Library – Public Meeting Spaces $ 150,000

Council Member Horiuchi stated West Valley City would like a new library. He asked if money could be set aside as a placeholder for the design of the library.

Ms. Nichole Dunn, Deputy Mayor, stated the Mayor’s Office is working with West Valley on a new library. The project is not ready for any funding.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Other Funds

Rebudget Requests

Criminal Justice Advisory Council – Integrated Justice Info System $ 783,398Property Tax System – Software $ 993,808Capital Theatre Project – Capital Theatre Project $10,241,272Financial System $ 1,552,557

New Requests

IT Projects – Technology $ 500,000

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

ZAP II Fund (430-500-)

Rebudget Requests

Parley’s Creek Trail – Trail from BST to Hidden Hollow Park $ 231,760Jordan River Trail – Trail Development - Land Acquisition $ 599,392Park & Facilities Maint $ 28,398Other Project Costs – Overhead $ 10,000

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Park Bond Fund (431-500-)

Rebudget Requests

Jordan River Trail – Trail Development $11,337,500Lodestone Regional Park – Park Development (Phase 2) $ 4,702,084Magna Area Regional Park – Land Acquisition $ 322,667Parleys Trail – Trail Development $ 8,075,658Southwest Regional Park – Park Development (Phase 1) $ 9,489,562Wheadon Farm Park – Park Development (Phase 1) $ 5,642,529

34


Council Member Horiuchi, seconded by Council Member Bradshaw moved to approve the about listed funds as recommended by the Mayor, subject to additional questions and true-ups. The motion passed unanimously.

[Additional true-ups were discussed during the November 26, 2013, Budget Workshop Session.]

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

CONSENT AGENDA: (3:48:32 PM)

Returned Uncollectible Checks

Mr. K. Wayne Cushing, County Treasurer, submitted a letter requesting approval that 35 uncollectible returned checks totaling $3,563.46 and uncollectible returned check fees and charges totaling $3,852.86 be purged from the records, and the items and related files transmitted to archives for destruction.

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Wilde, moved to approve the request and forward it to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Other Business

Acceptance of Minutes

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Wilde, moved to accept the October 22, 2013, Committee of the Whole minutes. The motion passed unanimously.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

The meeting was adjourned at 3:48:38 PM .

_____________________________________ Chair, Committee of the Whole

_____________________________________ Deputy Clerk

35

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="15:48:38"?Data="f7f057c5"

ftr://?location="COW"?date="05-Nov-2013"?path=""?position="15:48:32"?Data="984db7a1"


♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

36

salt lake county council - utah. web viewsalt lake county council. committee of the whole &...

Documents