But there are some neighborhoods that get more money from the city for such capital improvements than others. The extremes are represented by District 3, which includes the Avenues and Capitol Hill neighborhoods, and District 5, east of Interstate 15 between 900 South and 2100 South.

For every $1 spent in District 3, nearly $17 were spent in District 5 during the past four years, according to an analysis by The Salt Lake Tribune.

While there is an easy explanation for that gap - District 5's Liberty Park, for example, has received millions of dollars for renovations because it's considered a regional playground and a priority for the entire city - funding is lopsided citywide.

It raises the question: Should every district share equally in the capital-improvement pie?

"It's probably a fair question," says Councilman Carlton Christensen (whose District 1 ranks at No. 3).

But most council members answer "No" - even the ones who snag the least money. They say they are looking out for the entire city, not just their districts, and some neighborhoods have more pressing problems.

"Everybody realizes one district's going to get more money than another in a given year. That's OK," says Councilman Eric Jergensen, who represents District 3, which received the least money. "It will come around."

But no one knows for sure. The city hasn't tracked capital-improvement projects by district until this year.

The Salt Lake Tribune analyzed improvements paid for by three pots of money that fund bricks-and-mortar projects from fiscal 2002-03 to 2005-06. Those are years when all seven current City Council members have been in office.

Excluding money spent on debt and on projects that sit in more than one district (such as renovations scheduled for 900 East and 900 South, which straddle Districts 4 and 5), the numbers show council members look out for citywide needs first.

Most of the money - $19 million or 41 percent - fuels general obligations such as asphalt for streets and upgrades to sidewalks. That money is spread throughout the city based on a separate ranking system.

Then there's the "pork."

Unlike congressional pork - projects funded by circumventing the federal competitive process - City Council members cannot give money to capital improvements that aren't on the city's 20-year master plan. But they can - and do - accelerate projects ranked low by city departments, Mayor Rocky Anderson and the city's volunteer capital-improvement board.

Jill Remington Love brought her District 5 the most bacon, at $7.6 million. Most of that has funded improvements to Liberty Park. But she also touts her lobbying efforts to set aside almost $600,000 for new sidewalks on 1100 East.

"I fought to put the funding there so they could be restored or improved," she says.

Councilman Van Turner came in second, pulling $6.1 million. The number is high because most of his District 2, in the southwest portion of the city, is low-income and thus eligible for federal funding.

Community activists also deserve the credit, notes Jay Ingleby. The Glendale resident says he fills out capital-improvement application forms each year to give his neighborhood a better chance at collecting the cash. His community has received money to upgrade streets that were built without storm drains, which has become a health hazard.

"We're just trying to help ourselves better our community. We can justify our claims by having people come out and look at the streets," Ingleby says. "Everyone should lobby their City Council person. They were elected; they're getting paid. Go down there and do the damn job."

Christensen's District 1, in the northwest part of the city, pulled in about $4 million less than Turner's. District 1 has fewer neighborhoods eligible for federal funds. And Christensen says he didn't think he could ask for high-priced items this year so soon after the council recently put $1.1 million toward streetÂlights in Rose Park, a neighborhood he represents.

Leslie Reynolds-Benns is running against Christensen to represent District 1 - so far the only contested race out of this year's four council races - and suggests the amount of capital-improvement cash could become an election issue.

"I want to bring capital-improvement money in here," she says.

Jergensen, also running for re-election, said his district's low ranking doesn't mean he's an ineffective lobbyist. Several streets in his district are owned by the state and aren't eligible for city funds. And projects have been funded in his district that don't show up in the rankings, such as adding off-leash dog areas to Avenues parks.

The distribution of funds "doesn't mean anything. District 1 and District 2 probably have more needs," he says.

District 7 resident Kathy Wheadon says she doesn't feel cheated, even though Sugar House ranks second to last.

"I don't think because we fall at the bottom that we're short-shrifted."

But Wheadon, chairwoman of the city's capital-improvement board, which makes funding recommendations to the council, says the distribution of funds is telling and should be looked at.

"I don't know [that] every district needs to receive the same amount of money," she says. But, "There should be no favoritism to one district over another."

hmay@sltrib.com

The City Council will vote Aug. 9 on the 2005-06 capital- improvement budget. It has tentatively agreed to spend:

* $1.5 million to fix deteriorated streets.

* $1 million on Liberty Park.

* $600,000 to renovate Pioneer Park.

* $400,000 to build pedestrian ramps throughout the city.

* $255,000 to improve railroad crossings on 700 South.

* $40,000 on plan to rebuild East Capitol Street from State Street to 300 North.

* $25,000 on Sugar House Park master plan.