Further analysis on a per tax parcel and debt level comparisons with other mountain resort towns

1. City Financial Comparison
Sun Valley & Ketchum 2009
Version 2

2. • Economic Comparisons of any two cities is challenging because
cities use “fund” accounting (essentially separate accounts with
transfers in and out) and typically do not have the same funds
(e.g. Sun Valley has a “streets” fund and Ketchum puts streets
under the General Fund, but both do street capital projects via a
separate capital improvement fund). There are also disparate
entities: Sun Valley has a separate Sewer & Water district that
has levies that don’t appear in city accounts, Ketchum has an
Urban Renewal Authority that is separate from the city. Sewer
and Water have been removed from this analysis to aid
comparability.
• To aid in comparison, we have used an “all Funds” approach,
lumping together all revenues collected and expenditures made
and removing intra-fund transfers. We have tried to group like
accounts (e.g. building permit fees) together, but 1:1
correspondence is necessarily imperfect.

3. City Comparison Summary--Population and Total
Revenues (2009 Budget)
Tax & Fees
69
,2
5
47
4496
,
11
2881 3,495
1
83
,
86
7
5,
1,654
Tax parcels
Population
SV Sun Valley* Ketchum*
Ketchum
•Government revenues for 2009 exclude transfers in from prior year fund balances of $1,235,216 for Sun Valley
and $224,487 for Ketchum

4. City Comparison Summary -Government Revenues Per
Person and Tax Parcel
All Government Revenue 1,822 Property Tax
3,499
3,283
982
2,552 1046
2009
764
PropTax/capita
Rev/person
PropTax/parcel
Rev/tax parcel
Sun Valley
Sun Valley
Ketchum
Ketchum
With greater diversity in business revenues, Ketchum is less dependent on property
taxes

5. City Comparison Summary Propery Tax Per Tax
Parcel--Detail
$1046 URA Portion Not
URA debt-no incremental
incremental tax
Taxpayer burden*
burden
$216
$672
$92
PropTax/parcel addtl
PropTax/parcel base
$830
$672
Sun Valley Ketchum
* The URA levy comes out of “the county’s share” and so is not actually an incremental levy on Ketchum
citizens as shown. The city keeps part of the taxes that would normally go to the County within the URA
district on the growth in assessed value for a limited (20 year) period.

6. City Comparison: Businesses Paying Property Tax
Businesses w/lots (cat 42)
217
7
Sun Valley* Ketchum
*Sun Valley businesses include the Sun Valley Company’s Sun Valley operations

7. City Revenue Sources-All Funds Basis, 2009 Adopted
$7.02M $11.7M
100%
90%
80%
Transfers In
70% Interest
Other Revenues
60% Fire & Amb Contract
State Revenues
50% Impact Fees
Charges for Services
40% Licenses & Permits
Franchise Fees
30% LOT Tax
Property Taxes
20%
10%
0%
Sun Valley Ketchum
Ketchum receives a greater share of its revenues from charges for services and other
business fees, but otherwise the towns are similar

8. City Revenue Sources-All Funds Basis, 2009 Per Capita and per Tax Parcel
Per Person Per Tax Parcel
64 50
Transfers In Transfers In
747 429
22 Interest 17
Interest 36 21
374 291
Other Revenues Other Revenues
71 41
305 237
Fire & Amb Contract - Fire & Amb Contract 0
416 323
State Revenues State Revenues
473 271
Ketchum Per Capita
Impact Fees - 65 Impact Fees 0 50
SV Per Capita
Charges for Services - 206 160
Charges for Services 0
132 103
Licenses & Permits Licenses & Permits
131 75
148 115
Franchise Fees Franchise Fees
89 51
635 493
LOT Tax LOT Tax
877 503
982 764
Property Taxes Property Taxes
1,822 1046
- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

9. City Revenues: Local Option Tax 2008 & 2009
Sun Valley Ketchum
300,000 300,000
250,000 250,000
200,000 200,000
2007/08 Sun Valley 2007/08 Ketchum
150,000 150,000 Sun Valley
$
$
2008/09 2008/09 Ketchum
100,000 100,000
50,000 50,000
0 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Monthy 2007/2008, 2008/2009 Monthly 2007/08, 2008/09
Both towns are subject to the same base economic drivers: visitors, real estate and
construction

10. Comparison to Other Resorts--Occupancy & Rates
56
42
32
26
O ccupa ncy
SV & Ke tchum Ja ck son Aspe n Uta h Re sorts
Avg
565
272
228
174
Room Rate
SV & Jackson Aspen Utah
Ketchum Resorts
Avg
Our common core business is not fairing as well as it might in comparison to
competitive resort communities

11. Comparison to Other Resorts--Hotel & Condo Units
11% Decline, but 3-5 new Ketchum
Projects could add 20% or more
1 ,8 0 0
1573
1 ,6 0 0 1490
1443 1412
1 ,4 0 0
1 ,2 0 0
1 ,0 0 0 C ondo
Units
H ote l
800
600
400
200
-
2 ,0 0 3 2004 2006 2007

12. City Comparison: Use of Funds (all funds basis, 2009)
$7.02m $11.7m Unallocated
100%
Other
90%
Community
Contracts
80%
Urban Renewal
70% Hous ing
Debt Service
60%
Capital
50% Improvement
Parks & Rec
40%
Streets
30% Community Dev
Ambulance
20%
Fire
10%
Police
0%
Legal/Admin
1 2
Sun Valley Ketchum

13. City Comparison Per Capita and Per Tax Parcel 2009 (all funds basis)
Per Capita Per Tax Parcel
19
Unallocated0 14
Unallocated
-
88 69
Other Other
266 153
388 302
Community Contracts Community Contracts
476 273
208 162
Urban Renewal Urban Renewal0
-
20
Housing 616
Housing 10
43 33
Debt Service Debt Service
549 315
252 196
Capital Improvement Capital Improvement
550 316
Ketchum Per Capita
SV Per Capita
225 175
Parks & -
Rec Parks & Rec0
438 340
Streets Streets
443 254
263 204
Community Dev Community Dev
295 169
236 183
Ambulance Ambulance0
-
250 194
Fire Fire
323 186
497 386
Police Police 430
750
327
421
Legal/Admin
Legal/Admin
335
583
- 200 400 600 800 0 100 200 300 400 500
City spending per capita or per tax parcel is more similar than different

14. City Comparison: Employees per Capita
Comparison with similar resort towns*
Employees/Capita
0.1067
0.0563
0.0251
0.0175 0.0152
Sun Valley Ketchum Park City Breckenridge Steamboat
Ketchum
* Permanent population only

15. City Comparison: General Fund over Time
Sun Valley Ketchum
8 0 0 00 0 0
12000000
7 0 0 00 0 0
10000000
6 0 0 00 0 0
8000000
5 0 0 00 0 0
Revenue
4 0 0 00 0 0
6000000
E xpenditure
Revenue
3 0 0 00 0 0
Expenditure
4000000
2 0 0 00 0 0
2000000
1 0 0 00 0 0
0
0
2 0 0 4/0 5 2 0 0 5/0 6 2 0 0 6/0 7 2 0 0 7/0 8 2 0 0 8/0 9
2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
• City Budgets are required by law to balance
• Excess of spending over revenues drawn from reserves or debt

16. City Comparison: Debt (non-sewer & water)
Neither city has onerous debt repayment issues $5,256,000
1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
$1,970,000 Shafran
2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
I D D ebt
275,000
M t. Wes t
G O Bond
Note 2004
GO Bond 2003
SV
1,695,000
2 ,2 5 6 ,0 0 0
1 ,3 9 2 ,3 4 4
Ketchum URA debt
Sun Valley Debt Ketchum General
Obligation Debt $1504
1 ,1 9 1
$1351
1,504
$398
398
Percapita City Debt Percapita URA
Sun Valley
Ketchum Per capita debt
Per capita debt
Note: Urban Renewal Authority Debt is paid out of monies that would
Otherwise go to the county; it is not in general an incremental burden on taxpayers

17. City Comparison: General Obligation Debt as a Percent
of Assessed Value
GO Debt/Assessed Value
2.24%
Neither city has high debt
0.54%
0.35%
0.06% 0.04%
Sun Valley Park City Breckenridge Steamboat
Ketchum

18. City Comparison: Budget Reductions 2007/08 & 2008/09
Sun Valley (Total funds basis) Ketchum (General Fund)
$1.63m reduction
$1m reduction
8 ,0 5 7,3 6 3
10,111,177
9,380,018
7 ,0 2 2,0 4 7
8,476,930
2007/08 Adopted 2008/09 Adopted 2008/09 Revised
2007/08 Actual 2008/09 Adopted
Both cities have reduced planned expenditure in anticipation and reaction
To difficult economic situation