Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03/21/2006 - Minutes (2)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, March 21, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Dan Mule, City Treasurer; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Gaylord Smith Engineering Project Manager Consultant; Janet Wolf, Youth City Program Director; Mary Guy-Sell, Intermodal Hub Consultant; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Jerry Burton, Police Administration Manager; Mary Johnston, City Courts Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Rocky Fluhart, Mayor' s Chief Administrative Officer; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Jan Aramaki, Council Constituent Liaison/Research and Policy Analyst; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst; Orion Goff, Building Official; Edna Drake, License Administrator; Mary Tull, Leonardo Representative; Philippe Wyffels, Leonard Building and Project Manager; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 35 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5 : 35 :51 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 4; INCLUDING RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND REVENUE FORECAST FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 . (ITEM C2) View Attachments Gordon Hoskins , D. J. Baxter and Sylvia Jones briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Ms . Gust-Jenson said the administration supported using left over funding to fund a Wasatch Front Regional Council Lobbyist. #2 . 5 : 51 : 47 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ENACT A TEMPORARY 50-CENT SURCHARGE ON TAXICAB FARES . See Attachments Edna Drake, Orion Goff and Russell Weeks briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Jergensen said it made sense to use a formula which would allow for adjustment in flag drop prices when gas 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MARCH 21 , 2006 prices spiked. Councilmember Buhler said a public hearing would be held in April . #3 . 6 : 05 :25 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE BRIEFING REGARDING THE LEONARDO' S PROGRESS IN SECURING THE $10 MILLION IN MATCHING FUNDS AND DEVELOPING A RENOVATION PROGRAM FOR THE OLD LIBRARY BUILDING. View Attachments Mary Tull, Philippe Wyffels, Rick Graham, and Lehua Weaver briefed the Council with the attached handout . Councilmember Simonsen stated that he was former board member of the Center of Documentary Arts, a Leonardo partner. He said he had resigned when he became a City Councilmember. #4 . (TENTATIVE) CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 52-4-4 AND 52-4-5) (1) (a) (ii) An Executive Session was not held. #5 REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS . No announcements and no report given. 6 : 40 :22 PM Councilmember Love said she was comfortable with moving forward with street lighting, Item 4 of the budget motion sheet. Councilmember Jergensen said he was not comfortable with the interoperable radio communications being a fund balance item. Councilmember Buhler asked Council Members if they were satisfied with using the national study vs . the local study for wage analysis for Justice Court. All Council Members were in favor of the national study. Councilmember Love asked that in the future a briefing be held regarding fund balance requests . The meeting adjourned at 6 : 51 p.m. Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held March 21, 2006 . cm 06 - 2 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT #4-FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 DATE: March 17, 2006 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #4 STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones CC: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, DJ Baxter, Steve Fawcett, Chief Dinse, Chief Querry, LeRoy Hooton, Louis Zunguze, Rick Graham, Mary Guy- Sell, Tim Harpst, Jerry Burton, Jim Lewis, Gordon Hoskins, Luann Clark, Greg Davis, Krista Dunn, Shannon Ashby, Sherrie Collins, Laurie Donnell, Susi Kontgis, Kay Christensen POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. ("I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2005-2006 budget as proposed by the Administration with the following exceptions and clarifications: a)Item A-2, Wasatch Front Regional Council Lobbying: The assessment of $5,000 will not be paid out of the General Fund (fund balance). The Council recommends that the Administration consider adding this item to the Mayor's Recommended Budget if it is an annual assessment. b)Item A-23, Additional Legal Support: The Council authorizes the increase of 0.25 FTE in the Attorney's Office budget without a funding appropriation. The General Fund portion of$3,300 will be absorbed by the Attorney's Office. Two- thirds of the 0.25 FTE will be charged to Public Utilities. c)Item A-25 Justice Court Staffing: The Council authorizes the appropriation of$54,025 from the General Fund (fund balance) to increase Justice Court staffing by 4.0 contract FTE for the purpose of hiring clerks on a contract basis until the results of the study are available. d) Item G-2, Portable Digital Recording System and expansion of existing public address system: The Council authorizes the purchase of a portable digital recording system and the expansion of the existing public address system in the amount of$11,500 for neighborhood outreach and City board meetings. Page 1 2. Item A-12, Citywide Interoperable Communications System request of 81,470,000 from the General Fund: a) ["I move that the Council"] authorize the appropriation of$1,470,000 from the General Fund for the final phase of the Citywide Interoperable Communications System. OR... b) ("I move that the Council"] defer the funding of the Citywide Interoperable Communications System, and recommend that this be considered for inclusion in the Mayor's Recommended Budget. 3. Item A-15. Grant Tower Railroad Realignment a) ["I move that the Council"] authorize the appropriation of$4,000,000 from the General Fund for the Grant Tower Railroad Realignment. OR . . . b) ["I move that the Council"] defer the funding of the Grant Tower Railroad Realignment, and recommend that this be considered for inclusion in the Mayor's Recommended Budget. 4. Item A-27 Street Lighting Funding Analysis a) ("I move that the Council"] authorize the appropriation of$75,000 from the General Fund for the Street Lighting Funding Analysis. OR . . b) ["I move that the Council"] defer funding of the Street Lighting Funding Analysis and recommend that this be considered for inclusion in the Mayor's Recommended Budget. 5. Item A-28 Ground Transportation Administrator a) ["I move that the Council"] authorize an appropriation of$26,405 from the General Fund and add 1.0 FTE, a Ground Transportation Administrator, to the Building Services and Licensing Division's staff. This appropriation includes salary and benefits for the remaining months of FY 2005-06 as well as computer, phone, and cubicle expenses. Additionally, the appropriation funds additional third party enforcement for the remaining months of FY 2005-06. OR . . . b. ("I move that the Council"] defer funding of the Ground Transportation Administrator in the Building Services and Licensing Division as well as the Page 2 additional third party enforcement. The Council recommends that these be considered for inclusion in the Mayor's Recommended Budget. 6. G-1 Remove Unspecified Donations Budget a) ("I move that the Council") reduce the $400,000 appropriation and leave $25,000 of funding in order to allow the Administration to accept and spend small donations expeditiously. I further move that the Administration report to the Council on a quarterly basis regarding the status of the donations. OR . . b) ["I move that the Council"] reduce the $400,000 appropriation and leave $50,000 of funding, and request that the Administration report to the Council on a quarterly basis regarding the status of the donations. 7. ("I move that the Council"] Request additional information or refer the budget adoption to the March 23rd meeting for discussion or for further consideration. WORK SESSION SUMMARY: The Council requested additional information during the budget amendment briefing on March 7, 2006. New information and responses to Council Member's questions are included on pages three through six of this staff report. 1. Fund Balance: Council staff has updated the fund balance information and provided it as attachments at the back of the staff report. 2. Item A-2 Wasatch Front Regional Council Lobbying- During the briefing, the Council recommended that the assessment of$5,000 not be funded from the General Fund (fund balance). As such, the expenditure would be absorbed by the Administration. 3. Item A-12 Citywide Interoperable Communications ($3,000,000) $1.,470,000 from fund balance; $1,170,000 from Airport; $360,000 from Public Utilities: During the briefing, the Council asked the following questions: a. Is the School District considering an upgrade or implementation or any sort of investment in radio communication in the near future and might there be an opportunity for cost sharing? b. How long is the current pricing estimate available? c. What would be the likely price increase? d. Why is this request coming to the Council now as opposed to being included in the Mayor's Recommended Budget? e. Please clarify the Airport's role and financial commitment to this project. f. In emergency situations, can the City communicate with the school district, as in the past? g. Does the school district need to upgrade their systems, or is there some way to integrate systems? Page 3 In response the first question, Council staff spoke with John Taylor, the school district's executive director of auxiliary services. He said that at present, the school district has no plans to change or upgrade their system, but they would be very willing to have a conversation with the City about sharing costs, and then approach the Superintendent and Board. Regarding the potential for increased pricing, according to the Administration, Motorola has extended its current price estimate for the project through April 18, 2006 with the understanding that the Council would be considering this item in March, allowing time for a contract to be processed. The Administration indicates that Motorola consistently increases its pricing annually; however, at the City's request, Motorola did not initiate a price increase in December of 2005 in anticipation of the Council making a decision in March. The Administration indicates that after April 18th, Motorola's prices could increase between 8% and 17% which equates to a project cost increase of approximately $240,000 to $510,000. In regards to the timing of this request, the Administration indicates that the price increase is one factor to consider, and a second factor is a delay of the project. According to the Administration, certain weather conditions make most of the radio sites inaccessible in winter months until late spring. Further, the project may also be delayed due to a requirement by the FCC to make changes to the current 800 MHZ radio spectrum to eliminate call interference for public safety agencies nationwide, according to the Administration. Given the new requirement and timing of this nationwide effort it may be difficult to enlist Motorola's technical service during this time. The Administration indicates that the Airport is committed to this project and to contributing its maximum fair share of the allowable costs as determined through an assessment by the Federal Aviation Administration. The Administration is asking the Council to appropriate the money necessary to finalize the last phase of this project with the understanding that the enterprise funds will reimburse the General Fund for their share of the costs associated with their use of the system. Should the detailed analysis show that the Airport cannot cover the estimated costs due to federal regulations, the Administration will return to the Council with a request to reallocate costs among the General Fund, Public Utilities and the Airport. In response to the last two questions, a school district representative indicated that the school district can communicate with the City via the Police Department resource officers using a specific radio frequency, but not all schools have resource officers, and given the occasional turnover, not all of them are aware of this option. As far as integration is concerned, in order for the school district system to become more interoperable, it means replacing the school district's current communications equipment such as the repeater, radios, etc.., and this may correspond with a major expenditure which the school district would have to seriously consider given the budgetary implications. As of the date of this staff report, Council staff has not received information from the Administration on any follow-up with the school district. 3. Items A-16/A-17 Fuel cost increases for Public Services, Police Department and Fire Department: During the briefing discussion, the Council inquired regarding the Page 4 amounts that dropped to fund balance over that last several years from Public Service, Fire and Police. The following information identifies the amount of surplus monies that have dropped to fund balance at the end of the fiscal year: Amount dropped to Police Fire Public Services Fund Balance FY 05 $305,381 $124,877 $539,189 FY 04 $ 69,573 $ 22,551 $269,785 FY 03 $145,760 $172,332 $980,383 The Council may wish to ask Public Services, Police and Fire to identify savings in their current budget for these costs rather than appropriating fund balance. 4. Item A-23 Additional Legal Support (Request for additional 0.25 FTE): Most Council Members were in agreement to authorize the additional 0.25 FTE in the Attorney's Office budget without a funding appropriation. The General Fund portion of $3,300 will be absorbed by the Attorney's Office. Two-thirds of the 0.25 FTE will be charged to Public Utilities. 5. Item A-25 Justice Court Staffing (Request for S54,025 from the General Fund): During the briefing, Council Members asked for the number of clerks which are associated with the new judge. The Council also inquired as to the training for new judges. The Administration indicated that three clerks would be assigned to the new judge, and that training for new judges is offered three times each year, with the next available option in September. After the budget amendment briefing, the Administration indicated that the request for an additional judge will be included as part of the Mayor's Recommended Budget. The Administration is requesting $54,025 to hire 4 contract employees (512 hours per employee at $16.40/hour), the purchase of 4 software licenses ($10,000), 3 months of computer rental ($138.00), the purchase of a chair ($300), and the purchase a high speed scanner ($10,000). The Council may wish to note that IMS staff indicated that the cost for a high speed scanner could be less, given the decrease in costs for technology. The Council expressed interest in proceeding with an analysis of the Court using Council Office budget monies and directed Council staff to gather additional information regarding the benefits of conducting a local study as compared to the national weighted caseload study. According to the Auditor, the major difference between the two studies is that the local study is based on existing weighted caseload standards developed by the State of Utah for state courts, while the national weighted caseload study is based upon caseload measures and standards unique to the Salt Lake City Justice Court. The standards developed for the national weighted caseload study would be based on actual measurements of the caseloads experienced by the Justice Court, whereas, for the local study, existing state standards would be selectively reviewed as opposed to developed from scratch. Council staff asked whether a national weighted caseload study would be necessary after the local study is conducted. The Auditor indicated that the local study could be developed with sufficient testing of state caseload standards so a high level of confidence Page 5 would be obtained ensuring the results reflected the unique nature of Salt Lake's Justice Court and its workloads. When asked about the difference in timeframe, the Auditor indicated that they could begin the local study in April and complete the study within 3 to 4 months, while the national weighted caseload study would take between 5 to 6 months. As mentioned during the budget briefing, the results of the local study will not be available during the annual budget process; however, the results may be available for an early budget opening in FY 2006-07. (For more details, please refer to the attached response from the Auditor.) The Auditor recommends the national weighted caseload study, and indicates that it would be of more long term value to the City, given that local standards may not be very useful or applicable to the unique cases and caseload of Salt Lake City's Justice Court. Given that it was difficult to find local comparable courts during the audit process, the same circumstance may exist when conducting the local study, according to the Auditor. 6. Item A-27 Street Lighting Funding Analysis ($75,000 from General Fund): During the briefing, the Council indicated they would defer action on this item until the briefing for this issue on March 9th. During the March 9th Work Session, most Council Members appeared to be in agreement to authorize the appropriation for the Street Lighting Funding Analysis. 7. Item A-28 Ground Transportation Administrator (S26,405 from General Fund): New paperwork was submitted by the Administration the night of the briefing. (See attachment.) The Administration is requesting that the Council authorize an appropriation of $26,405 from the General Fund and add 1.0 FTE, a Ground Transportation Administrator, to the Building Services and Licensing Division's staff. This appropriation includes salary and benefits for the remaining months of FY 2005-06 as well as computer, phone, and cubicle expense. Additionally, the appropriation requests funds for additional third party enforcement for the remaining months of FY 2005-06. Council staff has clarified that should this staff member have available time, it will be devoted to tasks within the Community Development Department's Building Services and Licensing Division. 8. Item G-a. Remove Unspecified Donations Budget (Special Revenue Donation Fund): During the budget briefing, the Council asked the Administration to submit protocols as well as a recommendation relating to this item. The Administration recommends that the Council appropriate $50,000 in the donation fund with the understanding that each budget opening the Council will be informed of the appropriations that were used in the prior quarter which would bring the budget amount back to the $50.000 level. As of March 10, 2006, appropriations of about $235,000 remain in the "budget only cost center" for future donations. (Please see updated attachment for this item.) The following information was provided in Council packets for the March 7th Work Session discussion. It is provided again for your reference. The Administration's transmittal contains 44 proposed adjustments including 10 relating to Page 6 grants. A. Twelve of the adjustments propose the use of fund balance for a total decrease in fund balance of$6,525,955. 1. Fund balance as of June 30, 2005 (less encumbrances and current-year appropriations) is $25,628,000, which is 15% of general fund revenue. (See attached schedule provided by the Administration.) 2. If all of the proposed uses of fund balance are approved, fund balance will be $19,102,307 or 11.12% of general fund revenue. Although this amount is in excess of the Council's 10% minimum policy, for the last several years, the City's fund balance has been between 14% and 17%. 3. Fund balance could be further impacted once the Council considers full funding of the Grant Tower project and the funding of the TRAX project. This is not reflected in this budget amendment, although a full report of Grant Tower funding options has been provided by the Administration. 4. The City's financial advisor has cautioned the City in the past that a downward trend in fund balance may be a red flag to the rating agencies. 5. In view of a possible large general obligation bond for public safety, the Council may wish to consider whether it is prudent to appropriate over $6 million of fund balance. 6. Two of the budget amendment requests involve appropriations of CIP funds for costs that are not included in the 10-year CIP plan (A-1 and A-6). CIP funding for these projects totals $70,000. B. Due to the significant funding issues currently facing the City, the Council may wish to ask the Administration for a comprehensive funding recommendation relating to Grant Tower, TRAX, Justice Court, Fleet Facility and other projects currently being recommended prior to taking action on the most significant aspects of this budget opening. Acting on one or more of the items in this budget opening prior to receiving complete infoinnation on TRAX and Fleet Facility funding options may limit the Council's flexibility in addressing those issues. Further, acting on the significant issues in this budget opening prior to considering in detail the potential impact on the Redevelopment Agency resources may also limit the Council's flexibility. C. The Administration's revenue forecast through December 2005 projects that the City's revenues will be $934,000 greater than anticipated. (See attachment.) D. The Administration projects that property tax revenue will be $2,612,000 less than budget by year end; sales tax will be $2,065,000 greater than budget; franchise tax will be $466,000 less than budget; license and permit fees will be $1,075,000 greater than budget; and interest income will be $823,000 greater than budget. E. There is a possibility that the shortfall in property tax revenue could be more than the Page 7 the Administration's estimate due to the fact that property tax revenue is down from previous projections. For example, Delta Airlines and others are apparently delinquent in their property taxes. F. The final property tax settlement statement from the County is expected by the end of March. After receiving the final settlement, the Administration will have a better estimate on revenue and available fund balance. FUND BALANCE Percent of General Fund Revenue Fund Balance 6/30/05 $29,158,147 Less amount reserved for encumbrances (2,526,885) Unreserved fund balance 6/30/05 $26,631,262 15.50% Less appropriations in FY06 original adopted budget (887,300) Less appropriations in budget amendment #1 (115,700) Remaining fund balance $25,628,262 14.91% Less proposed appropriations in budget amendment #4 (6,525,955) Remaining fund balance if all proposed uses of fund balance are appropriated. $19,102,307 11.12% The headings for some of the more significant items, as well as items that add FTE's in this budget opening, are underlined. MATTERS AT ISSUE A-1: Pavement Condition Inventory ($15,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") source: Class C over-run account The fiscal year 2005-06 CIP budget included an appropriation for $100,000 from Class C road funds to update the Cit_y's street pavement condition inventory. Traditionally, the City hires a pavement management consultant every five years to assess pavement condition. This data is utilized by the Engineering Division to develop pavement maintenance and rehabilitation strategies. During the selection of a consultant, the Engineering Division determined that an additional $15,000 was needed. The Engineering Division suggests the source of funds be from the Class C over-run account. A-2: Wasatch Front Regional Council Lobbying ($5,000 - General Fund)fund balance ("New Item") The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) hired a lobbyist to advance their interests during the 2006 legislative session. The lobbyist is to keep WFRC informed and alert the WFRC if mayors are needed to lobby and testify. Based on the same formula used to calculate the COG assessment, WFRC has assessed Salt Lake City $5,000. The Page 8 Administration proposes funding this assessment from fund balance. Please see the Administration's transmittal for the priorities outlined by WFRC. The Council may wish to consider whether it will allocate additional funds when the request is made after funds have been expended, rather than in advance. Rather than allocating fund balance, the Council could decline to act on this item and the result would be that the Administration would absorb this expenditure within their existing budget. The Council may wish to ask whether this is anticipated to be a one-time expense versus an on-going expense during future legislative sessions, and whether this item should be included in the annual budget process. A-3: Jordan River Trail -Rose Park Bridge ($25,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") The City received a Federal Highway Grant from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) in the amount of $405,000 to use towards the development of the Jordan River Trailway between the Rose Park Bridge and the Davis County line. The City's match for the grant is $175,000 which will be requested during the 2006-07 CIP process. The Engineering Division is requesting $25,000 of the match be allocated now from the CIP cost overrun account to move forward with the design study report to allow the project to be constructed in 2007. (This item is included under `trail development' in the 10-year CIP plan.) A-4: Jordan River Trail Security Lighting (two broken lights and Sherwood Park power distribution panels) ($50,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") As a result of recent vandalism, the Administration is requesting $50,000 from the CIP cost overrun account to replace wiring for the Jordan River Trail Security Lighting System light poles and fixtures and power distribution panels at Sherwood Park in order to be prepared for the baseball leagues scheduled to use Sherwood Park in early spring. (This item is included in the 10-year CIP plan.) A-5: Jordan River Trail Security Lighting 1000 North to Golf Course ($62,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") In FY 2005-06, the Council appropriated $62,000 for security lighting on the Jordan River Trail from North Temple to the State Agriculture Building. Engineering is currently working on the trailway portion from 1000 North to the Rose Park Golf Course Bridge, and is requesting to use the 2005-06 funding allocated for the North Temple to the State Agriculture Building project on their current trailway project. Some cost savings may be achieved by installing power and security lighting conduit while the trail is being built. The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the use of previously appropriated CIP funding for the trailway security lighting. A CIP funding request has been submitted for the CIP 2006-07 process for trailway security lighting from North Temple to the State Agriculture Building. (This item is included in the 10-year CIP plan.) A-6: Fremont & Remington Street Improvements ($55,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") In 2005-06 this project was awarded $372,000 of CDBG funds for street improvements on Fremont and Remington Street. The original proposal did not include funding for underground conduit for future street lighting, and due to significant increases in construction and materials, the current budget is inadequate. Engineering is requesting Page 9 $55,000 from the CDBG CIP cost overrun account to assist with the project deficit. (This item was funded in fiscal year 2005-06 with CDBG funds.) A-7: 1100 West Jordan River Bridge Replacement ($23,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") S900,000 of Federal Highway funding was used in 2004 for the completion of the 1 100 West Jordan River Bridge replacement project. A final cost adjustment request, including additional consultant construction engineering costs, was submitted to the City from UDOT in the amount of$27,410. There is a remaining balance of available funds for this project of $4,900. This request is to use $23,000 of Class C cost overrun monies to fund the final costs adjustments. The Administration recommends that the Council increase the budget for this project and decrease the Class C cost overrun account to facilitate final payment to UDOT. (This item is included in the 10-year CIP plan.) A-8: Class C Asphalt Overlay on Various City Streets ($1,500,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") As in prior years, the Administration is requesting approval to bid and begin work on Class C road projects in advance of receiving Class C road funds in the next fiscal year. This expedited process allows work to begin in the spring of 2006 and be completed during the 2006-07 construction season. The asphalt overlay will be performed on various City streets. (The specific street locations are included as an attachment to this staff report.) The work will increase pavement life, provide smoother street surfaces and enhance streetscape appearance. ADA ramps will be constructed and deteriorated curb and gutter will be replaced. This request also includes $100,000 to design the FY 07-08 Overlay Project. This request is consistent with the Council's policy of making appropriations available in advance of receiving the funds so that the City can receive favorable construction bids. A-9: Class C 1300 South Viaduct ($300,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") The City has received preliminary approval for $4.4 million of Federal Bridge Replacement funding for the rehabilitation and seismic upgrade of the 1300 South viaduct. Public Services Engineering is requesting $300,000 of 2006-07 Class C funds now to proceed with the environmental and design study report as mandated by the Federal Highway Administration. This project is included in the 2006-07 CIP applications for Class C funds, as well as in the 10-year CIP plan. A-10: 1300 East Crossing ($285,652 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") source: two existing CIP projects The Federal Highway Bill SAFETEA-LU approved $10.5 million for the Parley's Creek Trail project. The trail includes a bike/recreation trail from the mouth of Parley's Canyon to the Jordan River. Combining the federal grant monies with the local matches from the County (approximately $2,345,000) and the City ($285,652), the construction will be funded for the trail from Parley's Historic Nature Park to Hidden Hollow in Sugarhouse, including the Sugar House "Draw" crossing at 1300 East. The County indicated they will fund a majority of the local match. The first step in the process is to perform an environmental study and design study report. The Engineering Division is proposing the City's match of $285,652 be met by the $200,000 that was allocated for the 1300 East Crossing and $85,652 in the Sugar House Rails to Trails project account. This will allow the City to participate with Salt Lake County in Page 10 preparation of required environmental and design study documents. The Administration recommends that the Council allow the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. An interlocal agreement will be prepared for Council approval outlining the federal funding and local match responsibilities of the participants. The Council may wish to discuss the policy issue of using monies left over from one CIP project for another project, and whether this sets a precedent to allow other City departments to do the same. Typically funds left in accounts are reallocated through the formal CIP process. A-11: Class C Street Rehabilitation - 900 South from Main St. to 700 East ($900,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") Approximately $1,800,000 was previously allocated for reconstruction of 900 South Street from Main Street to 700 East. Due to significant increases in materials and construction costs, $900,000 of additional funding is needed. $700,000 of 2006-07 CIP Class C funds is being requested now to allow the project to begin in the spring of 2006 and complete the project in the 2006-07 construction season. The Administration is requesting that the 900 South Main Street to Jordan River CIP project budget be reduced in the amount of $200,000 for the remaining funding. (According to the transmittal, funds are available for use as a result of minimal change orders and material quantity overruns, as well as good bids.) As noted in A-10, the Council may wish to discuss the policy issue of using monies left over from one CIP project for another project, and whether this sets a precedent to allow other City departments to do the same. Typically funds left in accounts are reallocated through the formal CIP process. A-12: Citywide Interoperable Communications ($3,000,000) $1,470,000 from fund balance; S1,170,000 from Airport; S360,000 from Public Utilities ("New Item") In February 2004, the City decided to purchase and construct a new public safety communication system since use of the County system was no longer an option. Phase 1 consisted of the purchase of a smart zone controller and 10 channels. An existing tower on City Creek Peak was utilized. The cost for Phase One was $1.2 million of which about half was funded from a federal grant and the other half from CIP. This system is utilized by both the Police and Fire Departments. In June 2005, four grants were received to upgrade the communication system by adding an additional tower on Farnsworth Peak at a cost of$1.3 million all from grants. The 10 channels were split with 6 channels remaining at City Creek Peak and 4 channels at the Farnsworth site. Phase 2 also added Omnilink, which allowed Salt Lake City to communicate with other Utah state and local public safety agencies via the Utah Communications Agency Network (UCAN). Phase 3 of the project was adopted by the Council during the last budget amendment. In 2005, the City received a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services under the Law Enforcement Technology Grant Program of $493,322 to enhance the City's radio communication system. The improvements included an increase to the number of channels at each of the two towers. Simulcast capabilities Page 11 were added, which increased the coverage area and provided better quality radio communication. Microwave links were added between the two towers and the Public Safety Building. Phase 4 is the final phase of the project. It adds another tower site and creates seamless interoperability between all City departments, and includes implementing the hardware infrastructure necessary to place the Airport, Public Utilities/Public Services, and Community Development on the existing public safety network. The total cost of Phase 4 is $3,000,000. The Administration is proposing to use $1,470,000 of General Fund fund balance to fund Phase 4. The Administration indicates that during the next five years, the Airport and Public Utilities Enterprise Funds will fund their share of this phase of the project. Based on the number of radios operating on the system, the Airport's share of the cost is $1,170,000 (approximately 39%) and Public Utilities' share is $360,000 (approximately 12%). In the explanation attached to the transmittal, the Administration mentions that although Salt Lake City is the largest city in Utah, Salt Lake is generally not eligible for large Homeland Security Grants. The Administration recommends that the Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the final phase of this project. The Council may wish to inquire as to the necessity and advantage of completing Phase 4 now, versus including this request in the Mayor's Recommended Budget for FY 2006-07. This budget amendment appropriates the General Fund portion but it does not appropriate the portion for the Airport or Public Utilities. A-13: Main Street Flower Project ($54,560 - General Fund) source: RDA ("New Item") In response to the RDA's request, Public Services provided flower pots and hanging flower baskets from streetlights on Main Street between South Temple and 400 South in August of 2005. The RDA agreed to pay for flower pots, baskets, seeds, soil and the necessary hardware. This action reflects the expenses incurred by Public Services and the funding received by the RDA. While this is termed a 'new item' it could also be referred to as `housekeeping' since the Council has previously considered this item as the RDA Board. A-14: Airport Property Insurance Increase ($219,939 - Insurance & Risk Management Fund) source:Airport reimbursement ("New Item") Property insurance premiums for the City's airports have increased partially due to a reappraisal of airport property, which showed that values have increased. The total premium is $1,207,487, which leaves the City's Insurance &> Risk Management Fund short by $219,939. The premiums are reimbursed by the Airport. A-15: Grant Tower Railroad Realignment ($4,000,000 - CI? Fund & General Fund) fund balance ("New Item") The Administration's transmittal indicates that this would be a loan from the General Fund until bonding is approved and provided. Funding would be used for property acquisition and construction design to realign the Grant Tower railroad curves. Bonding is only one of a number of options. The Administration's comprehensive transmittal reviews each of the options in detail. Page 12 The timing of this project is sensitive in nature given that funding is being provided by several different sources. The land acquisition needs to take place first to allow the project to move forward. Prior to committing City resources or moving forward with a bonding approach, the Council may wish to request detailed information on the proposed TRAX station funding. The Administration will provide additional detail and information to the Council during the March 7t1, Work Session. A-16: Police Department Fleet Fuel Cost Increase ($290,000 - General Fund) fund balance ("New Item") Fuel prices for vehicles have increased significantly over what was originally budgeted. The Police Department is requesting an additional appropriation of $290,000 for fuel based on actual usage for the first six months. Council staff confirmed this need by reviewing actual expenditures as of January 31, 2006. The Police Department expended 80% of its fuel budget in the first seven months of the fiscal year. The budget for fuel is $622,000 and fuel use through January 2006 has been $497,700. Council staff has noted that during FY 2004- 05, the Police Department experienced a budget surplus of $305,381 which dropped to fund balance at the end of the fiscal year. The Council could ask the Police Depar Intent to identify savings in their current budget for these costs rather than appropriating fund balance. If the department is unable to identify savings, this request could come back to the Council during the last budget amendment of the fiscal year(in June). A-17: Public Services Fleet Fuel Cost Increase ($470,000 - Fleet Fund) $79,000 from fund balance for Public Services; $30,000 from fund balance for Fire .Department; $13,000 from Golf Course Fund ("New Item") The Fleet Manager is requesting an additional $470,000 for gasoline and fuel to be appropriated from Fleet Management Fund reserves. Council staff confirmed this need by reviewing actual expenditures as of January 31, 2006. The Fleet Management Fund expended 76% of its budget for fuel in the first seven months of the fiscal year. The budget for fuel is $1,747,000 and fuel purchases through January 2006 have been $1,327,000. The Public Services Department is requesting an additional $79,000 for fuel to be appropriated from fund balance. The Public Services Department has expended 71% of its fuel budget in the first seven months of the fiscal year. The budget for fuel is $462,600 and fuel use through January 2006 is $329,300. The Fire Department is requesting an additional $30,000 for fuel to be appropriated from fund balance. The Fire Department has expended 69% of its fuel budget in the first seven months of the fiscal year. The budget for fuel is $181,000 and fuel use through January 2006 has been $124,600. The Golf Course Fund is requesting an additional appropriation of $13,000 from the Golf Course accumulated reserves. The Golf Course Fund expended 73% of its fuel budget in the first six months of the fiscal year. The budget for fuel is $51,900 and fuel used through December 2005 was $37,940. As noted in A-16, the Council may wish to ask Public Services and the Fire Department to identify savings in their current budgets for these costs rather than appropriating fund balance. During FY 2004-05, the Fire Department experienced a budget surplus of $124,877 which dropped to fund balance at the end of the fiscal year. Public Services experienced a budget surplus of $539,189 which dropped to fund balance at the end of the fiscal year. If the departments are unable to identify savings, this request could come back to the Council during the last budget amendment of this fiscal year(in June). Page 13 A-18: Landscape on State Road SR201 ($12,500 - General Fund) source: fund balance ("New Item") The State of Utah is upgrading State Road 201 and would like to upgrade landscaping at Redwood Road and Bangerter exits if the City will agree to pay for water and power meter hookups and maintain the property at City expense. West Valley City has agreed to maintain the landscaping on the south side of the intersections. One-time costs for water and power meter hookups are $8,500. The Department of Public Services estimates the cost of annual maintenance would be $10,300 including labor and materials of$8,300 and water and electricity of $2,000. For fiscal year 2005-06, only three months of ongoing maintenance will be needed at a cost of $4,000. The Administration is requesting that the $8,500 of one-time expenses and the current-year maintenance costs be funded from fund balance. Future year's maintenance will be included in the annual budget to be funded from on-going revenue. A-19: Public Services Natural Gas Increase ($295,836 - fund balance of General Fund; $25,878 - Golf Fund reserves, $9,121 - Fleet Fund reserves) ("New Item") Natural gas prices have increased twice since the budget for fiscal year 2005-06 was developed. Effective June 2005, natural gas prices increased 14.4%. An increase of 20.3% took effect in November 2005. The Public Services Department is requesting an additional $295,836 appropriation from fund balance. Council staff checked the actual expenditures for the first six months of the current fiscal year. The Public Services Department's general fund divisions have expended 64% of their natural gas budget in the first six months of the fiscal year. The budget for natural gas is $596,000 and cost of natural gas used through December 2005 is 8381,970. The Council may wish to ask the Public Services Department to identify savings in their current budget for the General Fund portion of this request rather than appropriate fund balance. If the department is unable to identify savings, this request could come back to the Council in the next budget amendment. The Administration is requesting an additional appropriation of $25,878 from Golf Course reserves. The Golf Course Fund has expended 65% of its natural gas budget in the first six months of the fiscal year. The budget for natural gas is $35,900 and the cost of natural gas use through December 2005 is $23,310. The Public Services Department is requesting an additional appropriation of $9,121 from Fleet Management reserves. The Fleet Management Fund has expended 70% of its natural gas budget in the first six months of the fiscal year. The budget for natural gas is $30,000 and the cost of natural gas used through December 2005 is $21,038. A-20: Tree Spraying ($112,000 - General Fund) --fund balance ("New Item") During the 2005 calendar year, the City's London Plane trees were severely affected by disease and insects, causing leaf dieback and shedding throughout the spring and summer. The trees were damaged in appearance and in health. To provide the trees protection from further damage, Public Services proposes they be sprayed in a series of three treatments during the upcoming spring season. Page 14 The Administration recommends that the Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate these treatments. A-21: 900 South 900 East Streetscape ($215,000 - CIP Fund) source: $130,000 from Class C Road funds, $85,000 property owner assessments ("New Item") The original bid for this project did not include the alternatives of median island lighting and colored concrete pavement in the 900 South 900 East intersection. Property owners indicated their interest in proceeding with these options. When the 22 property owners were polled regarding an increase to their assessment, 8 responded; 7 were in favor and 1 opposed the increase. Given that a majority of respondents were in favor of the increased assessment, the Administration is requesting that the property owners' assessment budget be increased by $85,000 for the construction of median lighting, and that the Class C budget be increased by $130,000 for the colored concrete in the intersection. According to the transmittal, excess Class C funds are available from the 900 South - Main Street to Jordan River CIP project as a result of bids received, minimal change orders and material quantity overruns. This action would also decrease the 900 South - Main Street to Jordan River CIP project in the amount of$130,000. As noted in item A-10, the Council may wish to discuss the policy issue of using monies left over from one CIP project for another project, and whether this sets a precedent to allow other City departments to do the same. Typically funds left in accounts are reallocated through the formal CIP process. A-22: Police Department Automatic Vehicle Locater System ($350,197 - Asset Forfeiture Fund) ("New Item") The Police Department is proposing that accumulated asset forfeiture money be used to purchase an Automatic Vehicle Locater (AVL) System. An AVL system uses satellite Global Position System (GPS) capabilities on police vehicles to automatically relay the precise location of each police vehicle to console maps of dispatchers. The status of each unit and the current call assignment is also displayed. When emergency calls are received, dispatchers are able to tell which officer is closest to help dispatchers in identifying what unit to dispatch, drastically improving call response time. The Police Department intends to install the locators in all first responder vehicles (i.e. patrol, traffic, and gang units). A-23: Additional Legal Support ($10,000 - General Fund) source: ;$3_,300 from fund balance, $6,700 from Public Utilities ("New Item") In June 2005, the City Council authorized an additional part-time attorney (0.75 FTE) primarily for Redevelopment Agency matters. The City Attorney is now requesting that the position be made full time because of the amount of legal work required for the Department of Public Utilities and for franchise matters in the Department of Management Services. The Department of Public Utilities will reimburse the general fund for approximately two-thirds of the cost of the additional one-quarter position. The Council has previously expressed a preference to consider additional staffing requests during the annual budget process where each request can be considered in relation to all funding requests from the various City departments. Page 15 A-24: E-911 Workstation Upgrade ($150,000 -E-911 Fund) ("New Item") Per state law, telephone users (including cell phone users) are assessed a monthly fee to pay for operation and maintenance of the Emergency 911 call-taking system. The E911 funds collected for billing addresses in Salt Lake City reimburse the City for the cost of answering emergency calls and related equipment. Dispatching expenses are not eligible for reimbursement. The E911 fund balance was about $2,440,000 as of June 30, 2005. The fund balance is accumulated for the replacement of equipment. The Police Department is requesting an appropriation of $150,000 of the accumulated balance in the E911 Fund to replace consoles and work stations. Some rewiring will also be required. The upgrades will take place without interruption of service to the community. A-25: Justice Court Staffing ($130.294 - General FundJfund balance ("New Item") The Administration is requesting $130,294 from the General Fund (fund balance) to increase Justice Court staffing levels and provide one-time set up costs for additional employees. The request is for 8 clerks and authorization to hire an additional judge now so that recruitment can begin with a summer start date. Additionally, there are one-time start up costs for the extra clerks. The Administration would like the Council's approval to hire one full-time judge now so as to take advantage of the mandatory training in September for new judges. The new judge's salary and benefits will be requested in the Mayor's Recommended Budget. The Administration estimates that it will take three months to hire a judge. Another option is to hire a judge who has already been through the training (one of the part time judges, or another court's judge) allowing the judge to work with new staff immediately and take over calendars if the staff is already trained. FY06 FY07 8 additional clerks $81,800 $327,198 1 additional judge S113,988 one-time set up costs S48.495 $441,186 $130,295 It appears that the Justice Court agrees that a weighted caseload analysis would be helpful; however, the Administration requests that this study be held off until FY 2007-08. Court staff intends to do an in-house analysis using local weighted caseload data. If the study indicates that the court has too many staff, necessary adjustments will be made to decrease staff. The auditor suggested that contract staff could be hired while the study is being conducted. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to conduct an analysis to see whether the City would be better off going back to the district court, given this request for additional staff. A-26: Cemetery Historical Survey ($5,000 - CIP cost Overrun Account) ("New Item") The Parks Division is eligible for a $2,500 grant from the Utah Humanities Council for a historical survey of the Salt Lake City Cemetery. The grant requires a match of $11,635 of which the Parks Division can partially meet with in-kind services of personnel time and supplies. The Parks Division is requesting an appropriation of $5,000 from CIP accumulated balance. A private donor may provide an additional $2,500. This budget amendment includes a separate item for appropriation of the grant funds. (See E-2.) Page 16 The Council may wish to consider whether the CIP cost overrun account is the appropriate funding source for this request. Typically CIP funding is invested in tangible assets. A-27: Street Lighting Funding Analysis ($75,000 - General Fund)fund balance ("New Item") The Administration is requesting funding to hire a consultant for a citywide street lighting analysis. According to the transmittal, the City's current lighting infrastructure is not currently being funded sufficiently to maintain and replace the lighting. The study would identify and evaluate funding methods and sources, advantages and disadvantages of each, to fund the capital, operating and maintenance costs and determine which options to offer and the associated funding level and source. (The Council will receive a separate briefing on street lighting issues and recommendations.) A-28: Ground Transportation Administrator (S26,405 - General Fund) fund"balance ("New Item") The Administration is requesting monies from the General Fund (fund balance) to hire one full time FTE as the Ground Transportation Administrator. This individual will provide oversight of the transportation industry ordinances, including the new contract form of regulation which was recently adopted by the City Council. The Administration indicates that this position is needed to create a program for enforcement under the new contract, as well as development of the RFP that is now required based on the adopted resolution. The position will be housed under Community Development and report to the Director of Building Services and Licensing. The cost for FY 2005-06 is $26,405, which includes $17,224 for salary and benefits and $3,083 for a computer, cell phone and cubicle installation, and $6,096 for third party enforcement and staff overtime. A full year of salary at mid-point, plus benefits and expenses totals $68,897. An additional $3,085 is needed for computer lease, telephone, cell phone and cubicle installation. The total cost for a full year would be $71,982. Providing funding for vehicle expense for this level of employee will create a precedent and is inconsistent with previous Council actions. B-1: Police Department Victim Advocate Grant (S18,161 - Grants Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") The Salt Lake City Police Department receives this grant annually from the State of Utah, Office of Crime Victims Reparations under the Violence Against Women Grant Program. The Police Department uses the grant to fund one part-time victim advocate position. The in- kind match of $6,651 is met with the program coordinator's salary. The victim advocate responds nightly and on weekends to calls for service on behalf of victims of violent crime. Additionally, the position provides resources, referrals, support, education, court advocacy, case history research, and information to prosecutors and court staff. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant; grant funding is paying for the benefits and wages for an existing FTE. B-2: Police Department Crisis Intervention Team Grant ($50,000 - Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") Two City police officers have received specialized training in the recognition of persons who have serious mental illness or developmental disabilities, and are trained to intervene in a way that differs from traditional police procedures. Along with accomplishing other police duties, the two police officers train additional officers in dealing with persons experiencing a Page 17 mental health crisis, as well as every day interaction of persons with mental illness or developmental disabilities. The Police Department received a $50,000 grant from the State of Utah Department of Health to promote Crisis Intervention Team training throughout the state. The funds will be used to reimburse the director and the coordinator for partial salaries, for travel, training, workshops, manuals, certification pins, and food provided during the training. The grant also pays for additional training for the two police officers coordinating this training effort. This is a new grant that would require the City Council to adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant. The Council may wish to inquire as to whether a fee is charged to non-City police officers for the training. B-3: Justice Court Victim Advocate Grant ($39,928 - Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") The Justice Court received a grant from the State of Utah, Office of Crime Victim Reparations under the Violence Against Women Grant Program. This annual grant will be used to continue funding the full-time court clerk position to process domestic violence cases. The clerk tracks, manages and provides follow-up on each case to ensure offender compliance with probation, community service, counseling, drug treatment, etc. The City's match of$20,578 will be met by the Justice Court's budget. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed the resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and any additional grants. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant; grant funding is paying partially for the benefits and wages for an existing FTE. B-4: Local Emergency Planning Committee Grant ($2,500 - Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) were established so that local communities could be aware of hazardous substances being used or manufactured by various entities in or adjacent to the community. Reportable quantities of hazardous materials must be reported regularly to the LEPC. Management Services Emergency Preparedness Office received at grant from the Utah State Department of Public Safety to offset some of the personnel expenses of the Emergency Manager salary for activities with the Local Emergency Planning Committee. The grant requires a 20% match of $625.00 which will be met through the Management Services budget. The Council previously passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and any future grants. B-5: U.S. Department of Education Grant to Leonardo/Global Artways ($99,200 - Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") The Leonardo received a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, arid is collaborating with the City's Global Artways program to use a portion of the grant for art education and programming at the Leonardo. The grant money is pass-through funds from the U.S. Department of Education. Global Artways will use $22,500 for seasonal teachers for the Summer Arts Apprentice Program and Shakespeare in the Park productions, $37,700 for equipment including a sound studio and production materials, and $38,000 contractual services. Page 18 The Council previously passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the original grant and any future grants. B-6: Leonardo grant from U.S. Department of Education - HAND Administration ($8,710 - Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") This is the same grant mentioned in Item B-5. The total amount of the grant from the U.S. Department of Education is $297,600. The grant requires monitoring of grant disbursements and certain federal reporting. Since the City monitors other grants, the Leonardo is requesting that the City provide the monitoring and federal reporting for this grant with reimbursement by the Leonardo of $8,710 over the next five years. The City's grant monitoring is handled by Housing & Neighborhood Development Division (HAND). The Council previously passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept this original grant and any future grants. D-1: Youth City-Program Income ($36,430 - Grant Fund) ("Housekeeping") Salt Lake City's YouthCity program (funded in part by a U.S. Department of Education grant) received program income generated from fees. This action will establish a budget for the funds and allow program income to be reallocated back into the grant program for continued programming. D-2: Economic Development Loans - Program Income ($1,279,088 - Grant Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Small Business Revolving Loan Fund has received principal and interest of $217,748 from repayment of loans. In addition, the City uses loan repayments from an old Urban Development Action Grant loan (City Center Project) for its Small Business Revolving Loan Program. Principal and interest repayments of $1,061,340 have accumulated. The Administration is requesting that the Council appropriate both the $217,748 and $1,061,340 to the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund. D-3: Move CDBG CIP projects from the CDBG special revenue fund to the CIP Fund ($731,219 - CIP Fund) ("Housekeeping") The City uses the CDBG special revenue fund to account for monies received from the Community Development Block Grant program for salaries, supplies and other operating costs of eligible nonprofit organizations and for salaries of eligible City employees. Those CDBG monies for construction projects are accounted for in the Capital Projects Fund. In the past, construction projects of nonprofit groups were accounted for in the CDBG operating fund rather than in the Capital Projects Fund. The Administration is requesting that open capital projects for non-profit organizations that are within the CDBG special revenue fund be transferred to the CIP Fund. D-4: Housing Loans - Program Income ($819,487 - Housing Trust Fund) ("Housekeeping") Three Housing and Urban Development programs have received program income in the form of principal and interest from repayment of loans. This action establishes a budget for those funds and allows the program income to be reallocated into the individual programs for continued programming. HUD Federal Guidelines require program income to be reallocated to programs that have the same eligible activity. The requested appropriation will allow the Page 19 will allow the program income to be allocated back to the Multi-Family Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program ($249,793), the Single-Family Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program ($487,067), and the First-Time Homebuyer Loan Program ($82,627). E-1: Improving Crime Data Grant ($34,920 - Grant Fund) ("Grants requiring No New Staff Resources") The Police Department received a grant from Georgia State University, Department of Criminal Justice. The funds will enable the City's IMS division to develop a computer software system to interface with the Records Management System software (RMS) in continuing the City's capability to transfer and retrieve crime data to and from the Crime Data Management System (a universal database which shares crime data valley-wide with various law enforcement agencies). E-2: Cemetery Historic Survey Grant ($2,500 - Grant Fund) ("Grants requiring No New Staff Resources") The Parks Division has received a $2,500 grant from the Utah Humanities Council for a historical survey of the Salt Lake City Cemetery. The grant requires a match of $11,635 of which the Parks Division can partially meet with in-kind services of personnel time and supplies. The Parks Division is requesting an appropriation of $5,000 from CIP accumulated balance as part of the match. (See A-26.) A private donor may provide an additional $2,500. As mentioned previously, the Council may wish to consider whether the CIP cost overrun account is the appropriate funding source for this request. Typically CIP funding is invested in tangible assets. E-3: Kennedy Center Global Artways Grant ($7,500 - Grant Fund) ("Grants requiring No New Staff Resources") YouthCity Global Artways received a $7,500 grant from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for the Imagination Celebration, which is an on-going art workshop program that includes exhibits and public art-making activities. This grant requires a dollar-for- dollar cash match, which will be met from within Global Artways' general fund budget for personnel expenses. E-4: State of Utah. VAWA Grant ($16,875 - Grant Fund) ("Grants requiring No New Staff Resources") The Prosecutor's Office received grant funding from the State of Utah Office of Crime Victim Reparations. The funds will be used (in collaboration with Salt Lake County Probation Services, the Trauma Awareness Center and the YWCA) to develop and implement a victim empowerment counseling program for women who are reluctant to participate in court proceedings against their abusers. The grant monies will provide counseling services for approximately 150 victims. The grant requires a $7,000 in-kind match which will be met with the grant program coordinator's salary and use of equipment from the Prosecutor's Office budget. The Council previously passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept this and any additional grants. F-1: Ottinger Hall Renovation ($5,000 - Donation Fund) ("Donations") The Rotary Club of Salt Lake donated the initial $100,000 for this project, and the City's match of $200,000 came from a federal education grant. The anticipated project completion Page 20 date is the second week in March. During renovation, some unplanned changes were necessary. These funds will allow the replacement of an exterior door, the addition of a small storage closet, and cabinet upgrades. The Administration has a letter of intent stating that the Rotary Club has indicated their interest in donating funds to complete the project. Typically, the Council would not appropriate funds unless a donation is already received, but in this case, the Council is being asked to make an exception due to the timing of construction. F-2: Wayfinding Signs for Emigration Visitors' District (EVD) ($15,518 - Donation Fund) ("Donations") In February of 2006, the Transportation Division received a donation in the amount of $15,518 required as a match to the City's funding for the purpose of installing wayfinding signs for the Emigration Visitors District (EVD). The design and placement of the signs is complete. Given that the costs for fabrication and installation of the signs will be increasing as early as April, the Transportation Division is asking for approval to purchase the signs now to ensure there is adequate funding for the project. Additional Items that the Council May Wish to Consider including in the amendment: G-1 Remove unspecified donations budaet (Special Revenue Donation Fund) decrease appropriation by w224,OOO A donation fund is used to account for contributions held in trust by the City for contributions received for a specific purpose. For the last few years, the Administration requested and the Council appropriate $400,000 annually for donations with the understanding that the appropriations will be held in a "budget only cost center" until cash is received. As contributions are received and interest earned, appropriations are moved from the "budget only cost center" to the project to match the actual amount of available cash. The Council Chair and Vice Chair have suggested that the Council may wish to be informed of each new donation via budget amendment rather than appropriate an unspecified $400,000 each year. The Council may wish to consider eliminating remaining appropriations in the Donations Fund and not appropriating $400,000 in future years. As of January 31, 2006, appropriations of about $224,000 remain in the "budget only cost center" for future donations. Salt Lake City received the following donations and interest on trust fund cash (excluding the Unity Center, Library plaza pavement replacement, Elizabeth Smart reward fund, Gilgal Garden and other major items separately appropriated by budget amendments): Donations Interest FY2002-03 $207,264 $29,312 FY2003-04 $332,525 $23,427 FY2004-05 $178,685 $27,815 FY2005-06 (first 7 months) $152,795 $23,090 Most of the donations for the current fiscal year (2005-06) are for delivering the Torino message ($70,000), youth programs ($61,000), and from State Farm Insurance for crime Page 21 prevention and home safety education ($10,000). Administrative staff expressed concern that waiting for a budget opening might present issues if a project were waiting for additional monies to continue work. G-2 Portable digital recording system for Neighborhood Outreach.Meetings and City Board meetings ($9,900) (IMS Fund) ("New Item") The FTR system used by the Recorder's Office can be installed on a notebook computer that would have similar abilities as the computers in the Council Chamber and the committee room. The cost for the hardware and software would be a one time purchase price of about $8,600. In addition there would be about $1,100 per year in software maintenance charges. This would not be a live system to the internet as currently available, but the public would be able to listen to each meeting after it has been published to the internet. The portable system would also be available for other meetings where a digital recording might be needed such as meetings of City boards, presentations, etc. Further, IMS is purchasing a channel mixer, 6 microphones with stands, and microphone cable for the neighborhood outreach meetings at an estimated cost of$1,300. The equipment could be rented; however, it would be more cost effective to purchase it given the cost to rent and the anticipated number of times it will be used. Another option is to make an audio CD the next morning from the TV recording and the Recorder's Office can transfer the CD into the digital system and add links. This is what we are planning to do for the first neighborhood meeting. This approach would not have the added value of availability for City board meetings. The digital recording system in Room 126 does not have all the capabilities as the systems in the Chamber and the Committee Room. A portable digital recording system could also be used in Room 126, but perhaps a better solution would be to upgrade the system in Room 126 with the "log note template" software at a cost of$500. Options: 1. The Council could appropriate $9,900 now for a portable digital recording system and other equipment with the understanding that the purchase would not occur until after the inexpensive method is tested and evaluated. 2. The Council may wish to appropriate $500 to upgrade the digital recording system in Room 126. 3. Should the Council decide to accept all options mentioned above, the total dollar figure would be $11,500. Page 22 FUND BALANCE (IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES ALL FUND BALANCE REQUESTS AS PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION) Percent of General Fund Revenue Fund Balance 6/30/05 $29,158,147 Less amount reserved for encumbrances (2.526.885) Unreserved fund balance 6/30/05 $26,631,262 15.50% Less appropriations in FY06 original adopted budget (887,300) Less appropriations in budget amendment #1 (115.700) Remaining fund balance $25,628,262 14.91% Less proposed appropriations in budget amendment #4 (6,456,266) Remaining fund balance if all proposed uses of fund balance are appropriated. $19,171,996 11.15% (#1) : 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 I 1 { 1 t i t I : l i I : , 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 : 1 , 1 1 . 1 FUND BALANCE (NOT FUNDING THE INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM OF $1,470,000, BUT FUNDING EVERYTHING ELSE AS PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION) Percent of General Fund Revenue Fund Balance 6/30/05 829,158,147 Less amount reserved for encumbrances (2.526,885) Unreserved fund balance 6/30/05 $26,631,262 15.50% Less appropriations in FY06 original adopted budget (88 7,300) Less appropriations in budget amendment #1 (115.700) Remaining fund balance $25,628,262 14.91% Less proposed appropriations in budget amendment #4 (4,986,266) (with the exception of the citywide interoperable communications system of$1,470,000) Remaining fund balance $20,641,996 12.01% (#2) FUND BALANCE (IF GRANT TOWER'S $6.7 MILLION WERE FUNDED BY FUND BALANCE, AND ALL OTHER FUND BALANCE REQUESTS AS PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION) Percent of General Fund Revenue Fund Balance 6/30/05 $29,158,147 Less amount reserved for encumbrances (2,526,885) Unreserved fund balance 6/30/05 $26,631,262 15.50% Less appropriations in FY06 original adopted budget (887,300) Less appropriations in budget amendment #1 (115.700) Remaining fund balance $25,628,262 14.91% Less proposed appropriations in budget amendment #4 (6,456,266) Less $2.7 million to fund the entire $6.7 million for (2,700.000) Grant Tower Remaining fund balance $16,471,996 4.58% (#3) FUND BALANCE (IF GRANT TOWER'S $6.7 MILLION WERE FUNDED BY FUND BALANCE BUT NOT FUNDING THE INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM $1,470,000) Percent of General Fund Revenue Fund Balance 6/30/05 $29,158,147 Less amount reserved for encumbrances (2.526,885) Unreserved fund balance 6/30/05 $26,631,262 15.50% Less appropriations in FY06 original adopted budget (887,300) Less appropriations in budget amendment #1 (115,700) Remaining fund balance $25,628,262 14.91% Less proposed appropriations in budget amendment #4 (4,986,266) (with the exception of the citywide interoperable communications system of$1,470,000) Less $2.7 million to fund the entire $6.7 million for (2,700.000) Remaining fund balance $17,941,996 10.44% (#4) Page 1 of 2 /1? Memo response to Council questions regarding inferoperabie radio communications 1) Will the City's communications system be able to communicate with the School District radios in an emergency situation? Answer: The school district can communicate with the City's simulcast thinking system via two ways, (1) Create a permanent or a temporary radio patch between the school districts 450mhz system and the City's 800mhz simulcast system, (2)the school district can migrate from their current 450mhz to the 800mhz City-wide simulcast and therefore be on the same City communication system, or a less expensive alternative for the School District may be to purchase an 800mhz control base station which will allow each school that has one to communicate directly with any City department operating on the City's simulcast system. Under the state's contract the cost for the each base station is currently $3650, and this may provide a great alternative for everyday safety, or emergency, communications for the school di stri ct. In addition, all secondary schools have a police officer, equipped with the current 800mhz radios already implemented on the City system, stationed within the schools. These officers will have a seamless connection with all other City/public safety communications. Since the elementary schools no longer have the DARE officers, the elementary schools do not currently have this direct public safety link, and would have to rely on the patch mentioned in option#1 if the school district does not upgrade or supplement its communication system in the near future. 2) In your estimation, how long will the current project cost estimate be valid before an increase in price? Answer: Motorola's standard proposal price validation is 90 days from the date of the proposal;however; Motorola has extended price validity on this project to 120 days from the date of this proposal (12/19/05),blowing that the city council would possibly be making a decision in March of 2006,therefore allowing time for a contract to be processed. Motorola has been very supportive of this initiative and has worked closely with the City on this pricing.Motorola consistently implements a price increase every year. Last December, the City negotiated vehemently with Motorola to hold the price that was sent out in our grant request last summer—June 2005. Although we were not successful in acquiring federal assistance during last year's round of grant requests,we asked Motorola to hold the price while we asked the City Council to appropriate surplus funds in order to complete the final phase of this multi-year project.In response to our requests,Motorola did hold the price and did not implement a price increase last December. 3) If the cost of the project increases before the Council appropriates funding,what is the estimate of the price increase? Answer:Motorola's pricing varies according to labor cost increases, material price increases etc.,Motorola estimates a reasonable price increase on this project to be between 8%and 17%, as pricing on some items in this quote are well over a year old. At a minimum the City could expect at least a$240,000 increase, and possibly as high as $510,000. In addition to the three questions Council staff has asked the Administration to address two other issues that were raised the night of the Council briefing. Council asked the Administration why it should consider this initiative now rather than waiting for the Mayor's recommended budget, and clarify the file://C:\Documents and Settings\js8573\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK60\_.. 3/14/2006 Page 2 of 2 Airport's role and financial commitment to the project. In response to these two issues the Administration offers the following response: 1) The Administration is asking the Council to consider this initiative now rather than waiting for the Mayor's recommended budget primarily for the following reasons; a) Anticipation of a Motorola price increase associated with delaying the signing of the contract. (Addressed in#3 above); and b)If we wait until July to update the price list, order the equipment, get it built, staged and shipped we are into mid Nov/Dec rendering most of the sites inaccessible until late June of 2007. There is a short window of time when the radio sites are accessible due to weather conditions on the peaks where the cell towers are located. If we wait we will incur additional costs from Motorola and lost time will put this project into the spring of next year at the earliest. In addition,the FCC has mandated the rebanding of the 800 MHZ radio spectrum which will affect public safety agencies nationwide.Motorola's resources will be very taxed during this process and could delay the project even further as they will be providing technical service to support this process. 2) In regards to clarifying the Airport's role in the financing of phase IV,the Airport remains totally committed to this project and to contributing its maximum fair share of the allowable costs as determined through a legal assessment by the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA). The Administration is asking the Council to appropriate the money necessary to finalize the implementation of the interoperable communication system,with the understanding that the enterprise funds will reimburse the General Fund for their fair share of the costs associated with their system utilization.No one lmows,to the penny,what those exact costs will be until the system is implemented and operational and a legal review has been completed by the FAA. If the City desires to implement the final phase of the City-wide interoperable communication system, departmental costs have been estimated using the best information available to date, based upon system utilization. Currently system utilization has been derived using the number of radios each department will utilize on the system. To this end,the Airport and Public Utilities have begun planning for this in their upcoming budget requests starting with FY 07. file://C:\Documents and Settings\j s8573\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK60\... 3/14/2006 matrix consulting group 2470 El Camino Real,Suite 210 Palo Alto, CA 94306 v.650.858.0507 f.650.858.0509 March 13, 2006 To: Sylvia Jones, Salt Lake City Council Office From: Richard Brady SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR THE CONDUCT OF A WEIGHTED CASELOAD STUDY The points, below, provide responses to the questions you raised in your e-mail to me on March 8th regarding the differences between the `local study' and the `national weighted caseload study'. If, upon review of this memorandum, you require additional information please do not hesitate to call or e-mail me. 1. What are the major differences between the local versus the national study? The principle difference between the `local study' and the `national weighted caseload study' is that the former is based on the weighted caseload standards developed by the State of Utah for state courts while the latter builds up caseload measures and standards unique to the Salt Lake City Justice Court. Even though the SLCJC operates in the same state, case handling measures reflect actual processes of each court, which vary, including service level targets (a reason why the Justice Court was created), automation, court jurisdiction (i.e., the kinds of cases handled), etc. The local study is designed to accept the state standards though to test the validity of many of them on a selected basis. 2. If the Council requests the local study, would they eventually need to request the national weighted caseload study anyway? No, the local study would need to be developed with sufficient testing of state caseload standards so a high level of confidence would be obtained ensuring that they reflected the unique nature of the Salt Lake City Justice Court and its workloads. 3. Given that the local study will now cost between $60,000 - $70,000, does the original cost estimate of the weighted caseload analysis for $125,000 - $175,000 need to be modified? No, the higher cost of the weighted caseload study reflects the fact that the standards developed would be based on actual measurements of the unique case workloads experienced in the Salt Lake City Justice Court. The fact that state standards would be Page 1 selectively reviewed rather than developed from `scratch' makes a significant difference in proposed project costs. It should be noted, however, that the Matrix CG report identified a top cost for the 'national study' of$125,000, not$175,000. 4. Understanding that the Council is wanting to have results to assist them in making staffing changes to the Justice Court, which study make more sense at this point? The issue of which study alternative makes sense depends of three things: (1) the time in which the City needs the answer (see #6 below), (2) the level of confidence in the answers obtained (see #2 above), and (3) the cost (see #3 above). Matrix Consulting Group and the National Center for State Courts believe that we could provide sufficient testing for the local option, which provides a defensible answer for lower costs and more quickly than the national study. 5. Can you describe for us what the study and scope will be for both options? The table, below, provides a comparison of the scope of work for both studies. We would be pleased to provide a more detailed description for either option. The comparative table highlights (through bolding) key differences between the two approaches and scopes of work. National Study Local Study • Document current caseloads by type of case. • Collect Utah state court case standards; • Document weekly, monthly and annual review the basis for the standards and the variations in caseloads by type of case. analytical process behind them. • With staff, define case handling activities for • Document current caseloads by type of case. each case type. • Document weekly, monthly and annual • Through sampling of case files,develop variations in caseloads by type of case. estimates of the number of activities for • Match case activities in the SLCJC with each case type. state definitions. Make adjustments,as • Through observation and interviews with necessary. staff, develop estimates of the average • With staff, challenge the count and time time associated with each activity for each standards associated with selective case case type. activities in the state standards. • With staff, define appropriate staff productivity • With staff, define appropriate staff productivity target ranges for each case staff classification target ranges for each case staff classification and function. and function. - Analyze staffing needs given current • Analyze staffing needs given current caseloads for each staff classification derived caseloads for each staff classification derived from the analysis described above. from the analysis described above. • • Analyze opportunities to improve on the • Analyze opportunities to improve on the efficiency of case processing having an efficiency of case processing having an impact on staffing and service needs. I impact on staffing and service needs. As can be seen in the table, the principle difference between the two approaches relate to the time needed to develop time and count standards rather than adapting other standards for Salt Lake City's use. Page 2 Throughout this process the project team would work closely with the Justice Court to review data, assumptions, results of preliminary analysis and recommendations, 6. How soon could you and the National State Courts begin on the local study and what is your estimated time of completion? The Matrix Consulting Group and the National Center for State Courts could initiate this study sometime in April. The local study could be completed in 3 — 4 months; the weighted caseload study would take between 5—6 months. We appreciate this potential opportunity to continue working with the City of Salt Lake City and its Justice Court. Again, if we need to provide additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at 650-858-0507 or by e-mail at rbradv5,matrixcg.net Matrix Consulting Group Richard P. Brady President • Page 3 initiative Name: Ground Transportation, Administrator initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-28 Initiative Type: New Item !initiative Discussion: lit IS.'propated that 1U6i4.01,5 he appropriated frowthe .aenerai Fund fund b ll t r e ltitiE . df j� 1�11 ti a posit m ,togp .ov rsig t 0e triti ' 0: 4'ndu t y C rdjr`ian s1 wi11'inQiva fi hed:�i� l t f m of ri;i gulatior� k, e o t on i rwe yo� } a , sin ss ris'ing The e, n e'r it C3tl� W �� K1 i 1400316 W, ..pdint r muter:! set tie hone .cei phone ant 0 a f MTh total cost t r 11 fisaei y�ear�would`-.b:$rtl; 2: �Currentiy the grt uri transportation industry li? tll i through th Brush sa.Li niS Glib iusirr C.C3 mien n a r>a , ntly un I,ad �, y n1 Is�4axa1 This *uv �Ern',for u r he _p01.0 k't t> a � �$4.� e bu{�/� � �--�:y�+arlft�rO�tiona� �� iYrfl�l''�11 GKA. ��R6C����iY=s, I � "�`ST h .. � i i spa tles , , fir° ti ff "G° third}D'� aY e d �u oli ')f;aer of I eticrity it s Th des `foC the first l woul f be 6109 . ,,f.i`1 � Mr l��, it 5 `'.6 i i, , 2.. •1 li. o*tiff* 'iTi r 2005.0t is',t � " - i ano' n itt;'forr o i rt r v f, he e Ii i72 4 bmpUt9r. tt l hone.;�<Ph sne and cubIcle;..ins Batt WF ft�'. f Y 4 ithir patty enforcement and staff overtime. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate:the necessary budget to facilit to hi project.' y . • i _ 'i r• , Ground Transportatiart £ drministrator I 1 Initiative Name I Bb.#L FY"200.6•:Initiative#:L.-28 , 2005.06 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year a.ttlf� M ,- t.fa „ y°r In - ly .7� .. . ltiew.item E I Department I I Initiative Type F�� 53i*7668't r Prepared By i Phone Contact 1 I j I General Fund ( Fund Balance) imps ($26,405) I Revenue ilmpactBy Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year TY2DD5D6 'FY2DDb D7 IGeneral Fund - II i � � I Total'; $0 $0! ;Internal Service Fund i I Total; $0 $0; Enterprise Fund i i j I � 1 Total! ' $01 $0! • j Other Fund I I, I I Total j 0 $01 Staffing impact: I New Number of FTE's OI 01 , I Existing Number of FTE's 01~ 0' 'Total 0 01 Description _ � I II 11 1 1 �. I I I IAccounting Detail Brant*.and CfDA#:If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number j I Amount 1 - -1 I i I I I i Rfxpenditure: Cost Center Number j Object Code Number Amount 106-New Cost Center 2100 $ 17,224.00 106- New Cost Center 2300 $ 9,181.00 � I $ 26,405.00 U Add itiona I;Accounting Details: !I ID-rant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A j Its there a potential for grant to continue? N/A j Ilf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? I N/A I !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A I Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? I N/A , Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? I i N/A initiative Name: Reduce Donation Budget(Special Revenue Donation Fund) initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #G-1 Initiative Type: New Item added by request of City Council j initiative Discussion: A donation fund is,used to account for contributions held in trust by the City, for, contributions received for a specific purpose. For the last few yea.:' , the4 Administration .:requested and the Couxil appropriate $400,000 annually for donations with the understanding that the appropriations will be held in a "budge only cost center" until cash is received. As contributions are received and interes earned, appropriations are moved from the "budget only cost center" to the project toi match the actual amount of available cash. The Council Chair and Vice Chair have suggested that the Council may wish to be4 informed of each new donation via budget amendment rather than appropriate ari4 unspecified $400,000 each year. The Administration recommends :that the Council; appropriate $50,000 in the donation fund:with the understanding that &trips each\ budget opening the Council will be informed of the appropriations that were used iru the prior quarter which would bring the.budget amount back to the $50,000 level.; As of March 10, 2006, appropriations of about $235,000 remain in the "budget only, cost center" for future donations. This budget amendment would reduce thati amount by $185,000 leaving the $50,000 appropriation. I Reduce Donation Budget(Special Revenue Donation Fund) _ 1 1 Initiative Name 1 ir BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#G-1 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year _ City Council New Item Department Y Initiative Type Sylvia Jones _ E3... 7856 Prepared By Phone Contact 1 General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact _Revenue'ImpactBv Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY20D5D6 FY 2006 D7 I 'General Fund Total SO 'Internal Service Fund 1 Total) $0' $0'' I Enterprise Fund I Total'' $0 $0. (Other Fund _ 77-77001 Donation Fund (185,000_00) _ — Total' S (185,000.00) II I $01 Staffing'Impact: —_— I New Number of FTE's 0 I 01 _ (Existing Number of FTE's 0' 0;_ 'Total I 0 01 -„ Description _ 1 I I . I I Amounting Detail Xrant#rnd Di=DA*Jf-Applirable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount F _ 77 77001 1895 $ (185,000.00) I I 1 I I Exppenditure: I Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 77-77001 2590 ' S .(185,000.00 1 .rsiditionaI,Accounting Details: _ I Grant Information_ II Grant funds employee positions? NIA potential _ - [s there a for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected p cted the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? - N/A !Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A I Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _ _— leliminated? _--.. N/A ___._....-�--- Does grant duplicate services provided by private or 1 _-_,- Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Portable Digital Recording System for Neighborhood Outreach Meetings and City Board Meetings initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #G-2 Initiative Type: New Item added by request of City Council initiative Discussion: The FTR system used by the Recorder's Office can be installed on a noteboo- computer that would have similar abilities as the computers in the Council. Chambe and+the committee room. The cost for the hardware and software would be a one time purchase price of about $8,600. In addition there would be about $1,100 per year in software maintenance charges. This would not be a live system to the internet as currently available, but the public would be able to listen to each meetin_; after it has been published to the internet. The portable system would also be available for other meetings where a digital recording might be needed such as meetings of City boards, presentations, etc. Further, IMS is purchasing .a channel. mixer, 6 microphones with stands, and microphone cable at an estimated cost o ($1,300. The equipment could be rented; however, it would be more cost effective to purchase it given the cost to rent and the anticipated number of times it will b- used. The digital recording system in Room 126 does not have all the capabilities as the systems in the 'Chamber and the Committee Room. A portable digital recording system could also be used in Room 125, but perhaps a better solution would be to upgrade the system in Room 126 with the "log note template" software at a cost o $500. At the Work Session March 7th, the Council generally was in favor of budgeting fo these items for a total cost of$11,500. .-- 1 ! 1 1 1 Portable Digital Recording System for Neighborhood and City Board Meetings . - Initiative Name ', BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#G-2 2005-06 -- Initiative Number Fiscal Year _ . City Council New Item Department [ 1 Initiative Type 1 _ .. SvIvia.Jones ! 536-7656 - 1 -- Prepared By Phone Contact 1 1 !General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp; ($11,500)1 . ' I Revenue'Impa ct Bv Fund: lst-Year 2nel Year FY201354:6 FY.2006-.07 - - !General Fund _ ! ! Total' I $O $0 Internal Service Fund 1 .I_ 65 Fund Transfer from General $ 1,300.00 Fund I 1 1 I I I TotWI ; $ 1,300.00 ' $01 Enterprise Fund . 1 I Total $01 $0' Other Fund . . , Total O. $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's , 0' I 0 1 Existi ng Number of FTE's 0; 0 Total 0 0 -- 1 Description , , . 1 . 1 , 1 ._. 1 1 - , . I I 1 1 Accounting Detail Drant*and CfDA4i If Applicable: _ Revenue: Cost Center Number I Object Code Number I Amount 65-03550 1974-01 S 1,300.00 - _ Expenditure: Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount - ... $ 10,200.00 07-00041 2100 j 09-00700 2321 $ 1,300.00 - I65-03550 2300 $ 1,300.00- _! .i •• -I ingDar' j -- Trant'Informativn: Grant funds employee positions? I L. N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? i , N/A I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? - N/A - ' —j-- --- I Willgrant program be in grant -__. P 9 complete 9 ntfund� g N/A m time frame? �, 1 Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ,eliminated? N/A - 1 u (Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _ Non-profit sector? I I N/A j ill!. ' UPDATE TO BUDGET AMENDMENT PAPERWORK Item A-12 Citywide Interoperable Communications: Council staff received an email stating that the Airport would need to complete legal review to determine what portion of the Airport's allocation can be paid under Federal law, and that the Airport's portion would be limited to that eligible amount. Legal review can't be completed until a business plan has been completed for the project. (See attached.) Item A-25 Justice Court Staffing: The Administration made the attached analysis of net revenue from the Justice Court compared to revenue that the City would have received from the District Court if the City hadn't established a separate court. The analysis included the request of$13 0,000 for 8 clerks for three months and shows that the Justice Court will bring in $340,000 more net revenue in fiscal year 2006 than the City would have received from the district court. If a full year cost of the 8 clerks and the additional judge is considered along with the additional revenue that the Administration is forecasting that the Court will collect next year, the net revenue will be approximately $150,000 greater than the revenue that the City would have received from the District Court. In other words, the analysis concludes that the Court will be at breakeven or slightly above breakeven after hiring the additional judge and 8 clerks. Item A-28 Ground Transportation Administrator: The Council received an updated request this afternoon for the Ground Transportation Administrator. The new paperwork removes the request for car expense, adds funding for additional enforcement provided by 3rd parties (off duty police/security), and increases the budget amendment fund balance request by approximately $3,400. (See attached.) ITEM A-12 CITYWIDE I[NTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS From: Pack, Russ Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2006 12:52 PM To:Jones,,Sylvia Cc: Howick, Jodi; Bingham, Jay; Kontgis, Susi; Mumford, Gary Subject: Budget Amendment Sylvia, We read the staff report for Budget Amendment No.4 dated February 21, 2006, and noted in your description at A-12 for the City-wide interoperable communications that a specific sum has been allocated to the Airport Department for that project. The department stills needs to complete a legal review as to how much we can pay under Federal law, and it should be noted that the Airport's contribution will necessarily be limited to that eligible amount. We cannot complete the legal review until such time as a business plan has been completed for this project. Please let me know if I can provide other detail. Thank you, Russ !TEM EM A-25 Justice Court and District Court Comparisons Estimated FY 2005-06 Projected Estimated Projected 50/50 Split (based on 50/50 Split Actual from Dist Ct Feb06 data) from Dist Ct FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2005-06 Revenue Criminal non-traffic- Fines $1,355,293 $677,647 $1,159,425 $579,713 Security Surcharge-City $24,699 $0 $35,387 $0 Late&Warrant Fees, Court Costs $201,607 $0 $275,243 $0 Accident Surcharge $3,031 $0 $4,838 $0 Traffic-- Fines $2,694,231 $2,079,302 Projected 50/50 revenue adjusted $733,050 $565,739 for different dismissal rates(1.5% for Justice Court,33%for District Court)and 20%of traffic citations from other jurisdictions,and not eligible for District Court revenue. Security surcharge $188,793 $0 $214,533 $0 Late Fees $222,735 $0 $339,744 $0 Accident Surcharge $63,727 $0 $73,359 $0 Traffic Mitigation $310,322 $310,322 $359,483 $359,483 • Small Claims $86,108 $0 $61,524 $0 Traffic School $342,065 $553,806 Baseline of fees collected in FY1999 $129,620 $172,395 used for District Court projection, increased by 33%for increased fees approved by City. Total Revenue $5,492,611 $1,850,638 $5,176,641 $1,677,329 Expenses Personnel and Operating* $2,489,324 "Includes Budget Amendment#4 $2,636,314 request of$130,294 Proportionate share of Court expenses $230,006 $161,780 in Parking cost center Debt Service $376,714 $349,495 Proportionate share of parking office expenses (82%for JC, 18%for parking) ($67,809) ($62,909) Building Maintenance and Utilities $65,219 $91,011 Proportionate share of parking office expenses(82%for JC, 18%for parking) ($11,835) ($16,382) Total Expenses $3,081,619 $3,159,309 Net Revenue $2,410,992 $1,850,638 $2,017,332 $1,677,329 Prepared March 7,2006 Laurie Donnell initiative Name: Ground Transportation Administrator initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #A-28 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: it is:proposed f at 25,,,445!beAp r pria r,the General-Fund fund balance � }, i � the :hirtrle A:sf 'AO' iitiiie. 1 ;'' 6 ttieIran `t 'lkri ! L, prdanarfo ,, J � will I nQk, S th W ut , ..rfli 04of 1r u, tt a 'The; fo r �. �, -j q'; direotlyrtorf0(.!" es ri�f Buiir�1 ' ,:, , k t A U , I: . e p of i'. i y � r,9e r r : 1 .y�j.�[ �v'n � ,yqt,. r#' - �} )�1 �i �+y� ,�� �}yy� 60C 346, r, j r,,. y1{`� t .i i.i'^"`S�,R�yy 'r� �fri��yl,�� -,-,,,V S �u y t �yss,[,�y i ]'��/'�4iiiii,i/t), r riti��.ttiii, , imldDoIht 'ji 1 ` renefi th Jl y r at the+'':mid L5 point .woi�1i : 1 adpitlo t 3 ' "lis i edeo To or putaf� x tteieptions call phone, nt l ` .{ ! ]�].�,.�y�1x � , +�y� t�w (yam} y�� i{r�c 4'� !� � �� : � � yt � The to i cc4l ru i.,:0iai y,e—itr+ of i •`b, 1 2. St gat,' Currentlyn ;040 tr nsportationi.industr ri+s- ul d tthrough the Busir �Lrcer?ii e! r" t � 5 C i r .' s 0 t ! r� a Y � a t 4 � � � / 5 1 i of:i h1 �,` t + rWI!, re uIPP REAP all bid tt! u r � 1 1„ ser rat` _, , �,; Aci1 >r t l ,i w '. fo t / 1 e 1dev� : i ice' ` begin tot $rpr 'F,:;ern for iOnfor u 10,i1 n w aril a it is tkratsan�addjtio, 'v itm4bf S ;304$ bu ' _ ,ear ffr adtlitionet.iO� iital i t44 panes an 1eov e r stat'a�, The thirdip i ; : , e off-du - ohrt e i �ii ter DrI ii � is le J � 4 � � t.r IeI _ �0.secu i.0:Ii s, o or theirs''f : e ��uId bet400e. i u 1,. 11 zip u. , 'r' , O r n. , *y,, r.,1.,I b fl for one 5, rl rlo,1, , 4,0 ,, iii..7,t17.224.,,t,�33i otiotip►ut4r, 'teI i .,, '# Ur e` anti l btcfe •tits'tallatibn-with ;i e6 a ' third party�.,enforderherit and staff:oVertir ie , It is recommended that the City Council appropriate.the necessary budgat-to,facilitateeThis proiect. LL I I I I ,Ground Transpottgion Administrator Initiative Name BA#4 PY2PO6:Initiative#A-28 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year I Devi` Ineps ti .Nalir! tetth Department I Initiative Type 5a516861; Prepared By 1 1 Phone Contact !General Fund (Fund Balance) Imp, ($26,405) Revenue Impact Bv Fi nd: 1st Year 2nd Year (2OO5-D6 F i'2006-D7 General Fund ! 1 1 1 1 Totals $01 $01 Ilnternal Service Fund L I I I 1 Total! I i! $0i $0! !Enterprise Fund I- I Total!, SO1 $0 ;Other Fund 1 1 i Totals 01 SO! 1I 1 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 01 01 I (Existing Number of FTE's 01 0 ,Total 01 01 Description ! I I i I t H 7 ^I I j C I AccountingDetail Drarrt4tandDFDA*If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I I ' I � I ! I I I I i i I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 06-New Cost Center 2100 $ 17,224.00 06- New Cost Center 2300 $ 9,181.00 I i $ 26;405.00 — I i I I I B e e t • 1 - et• II�U e 6:fir. �' I i I I � I Drant Information: )Grant funds employee positions? N/A ' I Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A if grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? ' N/A iWili grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A I i I II Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A FY 2006/2007 Capital Improvement Program Engineering Division Asphalt Overlay Streets "G" Street from 11th Avenue to 12th Avenue 1700 South from 1500 East to 1700 East 1730 South from 4250 West to 4130 West 1980 South from 4250 West to 560 Feet of 4650 West 2300 North from I-15 Southbound Ramp to Redwood Road(North Half) 4130 West from 1980 South to 2100 South 4250 West from 1730 South to 2100 South 5600 West from 700 North to Amelia Earhart Drive Challenger Road from Harold Gatty Drive to North Cul-de-sac End Jimmy Doolittle Road from Amelia Earhart Drive to Harold Gatty Drive SLAB'LAia CORPORkTION F-LLIHAR7 ROSE 1.71. ANne.Rs=r,; t“IEF POP,71, COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Dave Buhler, Chair Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rocky J. Fluhartt Chief Administrative Officer DATE: 'February 241. 2006 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 4 Recommendation: We recommend that on March 7,2006, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on March 14. 2006 to discuss Budget Amendment No. 4. Discussion and Background: The attached amendment packet is transmitted to the City Council Office for the briefing on February 21, 2006, I.enisiative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by the City Attorney. cc: Dan Mukt City Treasurer Shannon Ashby 45., SOUTH STATE STRET, ROCHA zse, SALT LAKE CiTY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: MO1-S35-6426 FAX: SC1-535-6190 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of'006 Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake CAP,. including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2005-2006) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 26 OF 2005 WHICH ADOPTED THE FINAL BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, ANT ORDINANCE NO. LIS OF 2005 WHICH RATIFIED AND RE-ADOPTED THE FINAL BUDGET THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING I-LILY I, 2005 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2006. PREAMBLE On tuneD 2005, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake Coy, Utah, including the emplayment staffing document for the fiscal year beginning July I, 2005 and ending lone 30. 2006, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget, includino. in: employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City Utah. On August 23,2005, the City Council ratified and re-adopted the final budget. The City olicy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget including the employment staffing document,have been accomplished. , , Be IT ordained hiv the City Conned of Salt Lake Civ. 1,jut: SECTION I. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the fulfil bUCiit'l of Salt Lake City, including the employ-meat staffimz document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake Cav Ordinance No. 26 o42005 and Ordinance Na„ 4.,s of 1005. SECTION 2. Adoptionyr.!,,,..inendments. The budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document,:attached hereto and made a pan of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby arc adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal year beginning July I. 2005 and ending June 30, 2006, in accordance with the requirements of Section 12S, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code zNdmotaied. Certification to Utah Sane Auditor. The Chy's Policy and Budget Director. actin° as the Citv's Boded Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said bander amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing he conies of the Budizet AMelidnienIs. The said Budpet Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing, document, in the office of said Buhoet Officer and in the office of the Ctv Recorder which.amendments shall he available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date, This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. - 2 Passed by the City Council of Sait Lake City_ Ulan_ this day o20(16. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's i\dtion: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office Date Z-11 ).' CHET DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: If,Ordmanct OC,Buctgel:Buditc;Amtndmcnt t—t 2005-2006.,10;.: 3 MEMORANDUM TO: ROCKY FLI.JHAP,T, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FROM: STEVE FAWCETT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DATE: 2714/2006 RE: DECEMBER REVENIZE FORECAST in compliance with Council Resolution#59. of 2003. I'm providing an F12006 revenue update. This update is in conjunction with Budget Amendment #4. The Finance Division analyzes revenue each month and provides written updates each month beginning with the August analysis. This analysis, through December, shows that property tax revenue is projected to be under budget by year end. This is due to very large judgments awarded. Additionally, other factors arc impacting property taxes and we are awaiting details from Sal Lake County that may explain why collections were not as expected, Sales Taxes are expected to generate a substantial increase over budget due to solid growth and increased revenue from Questar Gas, resulting from their rate increases. You may know we anticipated a 14% rate increase in their rates when we set the budget last year. Franchise Taxes are projected to be less than budget, primarily due to a refund requested by Qs es Although this amount has not been paid we, are projecting year end revenue as if it were. License and Permit Fees continue to rise substantially, and none of this increase is the result of permits taken out for the downtown mall projects. Interest income is recovering as rates rise, and we expect them to continue to rise each quarter over the next year. Fines and Forfeitures, although improvitut, continue to be projected less than budget at year end. Parking meter revenue is not keeping pace with projections. At this time of year we also monitor the activity of the State Legislature. There are several bills that could negatively impact Sales Taxes substantially. We will continue to monitor revenue collections closely and provide monthly analysis. 3., 1 i FY 05/06 FY 05106 I FY 05106 1 Variance i 1 Annual ! Revised Favorable 1 Revenue Budget I Forecast fUnfavorable! I . Total General Fund 171,868.358 172.851,6921 934,125 i . . 1 . I !Total Property Taxes 62,986,6491 60,374,9031 (2,611,746) ' 1 Discussion: I i ! i , 1 i iProperiy Taxes are down cue to.1.)a judgement of 1.iii million awarded 1 i , 1 primarily to Owest ant Southwest Airlines,The balance is in the ! I I I 1 difference between our normal collections front tne County and this year 1 i collections. We have inquired but nave not yet received any oats to 1 I fully analyze what may cause the difference. It is possibie,.from past 1 1 I experience,that some is simply an over withrmiding by the County I 1 pending any last minute adjustments in dispersements to RDA.etc. 1 1 . Total Sales and Use Tax 1, 42,675,979 44,640,7081 2,064,72B Discussion: 1 I Sales tax is approximately li7.', I, hicher then Inc last three years 1 average resulting in a slight increase in revenue with the major categories of change being durable-goods,auto sales,and a small portion coming frorn retail sales. Addtionaliy,revenue is up as I i anticipated because of rate increases in Questar Gas service. This 1 increase is offset by increases in the expenses the City will pay for i natural gas service this year. I 1 i Total Franchise Tax 22,956,972 22,490,504i (466 468) Discussion: Utah Power has had an increase in rate which has resulted in an increase in fracnise fees for the city. Qwest has asked for an amout 1 that tie y believe is owed to therri This amount,although not paid,has I i been computed as a reduction in revenue and contributes to Inc oroiecte.d tieficiet. 1 1 License and Permits: 10,169,815 11,287,9981 1,075,1E3 Discussion: i -I Plan check tees and building permits have a surplus in revenue due to the increase in commercial building_This increase,is not tne result of the remade the malts. 1 interest income 2,235,575' 13,-059,944, 822,369 Discussion: -1 1 interest Income has anIncrease neczuse of risinc interest rates. I 1 i Total Fines&Forfeiture 9,949,300 '8,852,505 i (96,795) 1 Discussion: I Fines and Forfeitures have a deficit due to the number of parking tickets 1 being slightly down. I Parking Meters 1,493,000 1,450,490 (42,510) Discussion: Charges and Services 2,967,960 '24040,359 79,481 Discussion: Budgeted Fund Balance running total for the General Fund For-FYOS Beriinriinc,Fund Balance a::of rune 3+a,2005 $29.155,}sri 7 Budget booK: Total budgeted revenue 171,850.357 Total budgeted expenses I`72 ' `7) Total budget book sources/(uses)of fund balanve ,58s ,3C3) Budget amendment#1 changes: Initiative 4D-3 Encumbrance carrj,forward 526,885 Initiative 4A-1 impa tee waivers 1 ,5.7va31 'Total budget amendment 41 changes P2.6. 2.J8's Budder,amendment 42 changes. None Tote!budge:amendment 42 oranges SO Budget amendment#3 changes: None Total budget amendment�43 changes SC Budget amendment 44changes: initiative 4A-2 Wasatch Front Regional Council Lobbying `5,003) Initiative 4A- 2 Citywide intercaerable Communications •,rz-^„0;; initiative#A15 Grant Tower Railroac Realignment ' 030,833"% nt5atrve 4A-16 Police Set Fleet Fuel Cost increase B .003} initiative 44-17 Public Service Dept Fleet Fuel Cost Increase ,0001 initiative 4A-18 Landscape on State Road SR2O i (12,500) initiative 4A-1 g Public Service Dept Natural Gas increase (2 S-y30) Initiative 4A-20*-ublicService DeptTree Spraying (112.000) initiative 4A-23 Attorneys Office Additional Legal Support i3.333f Initiative#A-25 justice Court Staffing '138 29=4 Initiative 4A-27 Street Lighting-Funding'Anavisis (75,000) Initiative 4A-28 Ground Transportation Administrator c23.025) Total budget amendment#4 changes -5 55i Budget amendment 45 changes: Total budget amendmer:i 45 changes SC' Budget amendment 46 changes_ 'Tole!budget amendment 45 changes So Budget amendment 47 changes: Total budget amendment4-7 changes SO Miscellaneous administrative changes to fund balance; `G BuogeteJ Fund Balance runninc total tor tne venera Func I t ;Car^"(ib 3 'TOtal rnlsceU aneoUs admen strat1Ve CnanCleS tb tUno oaianc e SC Estimatec Fund Baian e�.f:J` un 3.);2336 519 i3 30't i 1;7,a io Percentage to Budget=revenues '1 7:,25G:357) FY 2006 Initiatives in Budget Amendinenz #4 — March FY 2006 FY 200( Gen. Fund initiative Gen. Fund Fund Initiative Name FTL Amount Impact Balance Impact Section A New Items 1. CIP - Pavement S15.000.00 Condition Inventory 2. Wasatch Front Regional 55,000.00 55,000.00 S.5,000.00 Council Lobbying 3. CIP—Jordan River Tail 525.000.00 Rose Park Bridge 4. CIP—Jordan River Trail 550.000.00 Security Lighting Sherwood Park 5. OP —Jordan River Trail S62.000.00 Securit:‘, Lighting IMO North to Golf Course 6. CIP Fremont 555,000.00 &Remington Street improvement 7. CIP— 1100 W Jordan S23,000.00 River Bridge Replacement S. CIP—Class C Asphalt 51,500,000.00 overlay 9. CIP—Class C 1300 S 5300.000.00 Viaduct 10. CIP— 1300 East Crossing 5285.652.15 11. CIP—Class C 900 S 5900.000.00 Rehab Main to 700 E 12. Citywide Interoperable S3.000.000.00 53,000,000.00 S1,470,000.00 Communications 13. Main Street Flower 554,860.00 554,860.00 Project 14. Airport Property S2I9,939.00 Insurance Increase 15. CIP and General Fund S4,000,000.00 54,000,000.00 54,000,000.00 Grant Tower Railroad Realignment 16. Police Dept Fleet Fuel S'90.000.00 — , 5290,000.00 5290,0011.00 Cost Increase 17. Public Service Fleet Fuel 5470,000.00 5109,000.00 5109,000.00 Cost increase 18. Landscape on State Road S12,500.00 S12,500.00 S12,500.00 SR2.01 FT 2006 Initiatives in Budget.4mendment 44 — March F) 2006 FY 2006 Gen. Fund Initiative Gen. Fund ! Fund Initiative Name FTE Amount Impact ! Balance Impact 19. Public Services Natural S330,835.00 S295.836.00 S295,836.00 Gas Increase 20. Tree Spraying S112,000.00 S112,000.00 S112,000.00 21. CIP- 900 S 900 F S215.000.00 Streetscape 22. Police Dept. Automatic S350,197.00 Vehicle Locater System 23. Additional Legal Support Si 0.000.00 S3.300.00 .25 S3,300.00 24. E-911 Furniture Upgrade S150,000.00 25. Justice Court Staffing 5130,294.00 S130,294.00 9.0 S130,294.00 26. CI?—Cemetery 55,000.00 Historical Survey 27. Street Lighting Funding S75,000.00 S75,000.00 575,000.00 Analysis 28. Ground Transportation 523,025.00 S23,025.00 1.0 523,025.00 Administrator Section B Grants For Existing,Staff Resources 1. Police Dept Victim 518,161.21 Advocate Grant 2. Police Dept Crisis 550,000.00 Intervention Team Grant 3. Justice Court Victim 539927.84 Advocate Grant 4. Local Emery- Planning S2.500.00 Committee Grant 5. Leonardo Dept of Ed S99.200.00 (;rant to Global Artways 6. Leonardo Dept of Ed S8.710.00 Grant to HAND Admin Section C Grants For New Staff Resources Section D Housekeeping 1. Youth City Program S36,430.20 Income 2. Economic Development S1,279,088.00 Loan Program Income 3. Move CDBG CIP from 71 S731,219.41 Fund to 83 Fund 4. Housing Loans Program S1,306,554.00 Income FY 2006 Initiatives in Budget Amendment #4 — March FY 2006 pi 2006 Gen. Fund Initiative Gen.Fund Fund Initiative Name rTE Balance Amount impact 1 Impact Section F Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources I. Improving Crime Data Grant 2. Cemetery Historic Survey S1,500.00 Grant 3, Kennedy Center Global S7.500.00 Artways Grant 4. Victim Empowerment S 6,875.00 Program Grant Section F Donations L Ottinger Hall Renovation S5,000.00 2. Wayfinding Signs for S15,518.00 Emigration Visitors District 3 initiative Name: Pavement Condition Inventory -Job No. 104018 initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-1 initiative Type: New item Initiative Discussion: ,Funding in the amount of $100,000 was awarded in the FY 200512006 CIP Process to/ :perform a detailed pavement condition inventory of the 575 miles of street pavement in Sat'4 Lake City. This survey is performed every five years and forms a basis for determining street /resurfacing strategies and CIP needs. During selection of the survey consultant, it wasi 'determined that an additional $15,000 would be needed to provide upgrades to the pavement survey method and to include digital pavement crack analysis, an enhanced method of rating', pavement conditions. !There is a current budget in the amount of $100,000 for this project. This request is tol, 'increase the budget and cash in cost center 83-06040 in the amount of $15,000 and to' reduce the cash and budget in the Class "C" cost over-run account by the same amount, lt is recommended that the City Council increase the cash and budget of cost center 83- ' 06040 in the amount of$15,000 and reduce the 04 Class "C" cost over-run account by the same amount to facilitate this project. Pavement Condition inventory -Job No. 104018 initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-1 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscai Year Community Development New Item Department Type of initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-61361535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) impact Revenue ImpactBv fund: 9t''Yr 2ruiYear , Y 1lLi -D a fY &D7 General Fund Total SO $0 internal Service Fund Total $0 S0 Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund Total SO $0 Staffing : New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0.00 0 Description I iticrxtunting Detail Zr nt #and CfDA*if ApPslicable: NA Revenane: Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number _W Expenditure Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount i)4097 2700 ._ __. (15,000.00) .,_ _ . £3-06040 2700 S._ 15,000.00 e-I16+it.. '_ =+r+ III11111+ iz;tx:-ti• atoil it information Grant funds employee positions? NIA is there a potential for grant to continues NIA ..,.... if Grant is funding a position is it expected the position will �.... be eliminated at the end of the grant? NIA Wilt grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NIA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ___.. , ...._. ,__._.., h _ eliminated? __............._... Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _ .._... . �. _........_...... . _. _.._ Non profit sector? _.,._, NIA initiative Name: Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) Lobbying initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #A-2 initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: ANFRC has hired a lobbyist for the legislative session to advance the interests of the WFR.C. They have "assessed"the member cities for a share of the lobbyists fee, according to a formula based on assessed property value. They used this formula because it is the same way they calculate COG dues. According to this formula, Salt Lake City's portion of the lobbying fee is $5,000. Here are the current WFRC priorities for lobbying the 2006 legislature: Oppose any legislation that would bring local transit funding under the legislature or a state government agency; Support Transportation investment Fund funding (new highway capacity fund authorized in the last session); Support extra funds for the Centennial Highway Fund project on 115 in Weber County to allow the project to reach 2700 North per the original scope; 'Support legislation to allow private investment in highway (and transit?) facilities based on -tolls: Support corridor preservation funding (authorized last session but may need tweaks to get counties to pass). The purpose for hiring a lobbyist is to keep an ear out and let WFRC know if they need to schedule the Mayors to testify and lobby when necessary. Wasatch Front Regional Council Lobbying Initiative Name q 200 -[?� BA#4 Y2006 Initiative# :-z '=isca Yea; Inivatve Nurnber Mayor's Office New Item Department Type of Initiative 535-7735 DJ'Baxter _ Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) impa ($5,000).-- Revenue 1i>'nreantBv fxmtf 1st Year 2nd Year FY20D 2005-1)6 General Fund Total SO Sly internal Service Fund ..... _.. Total SD SO Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund SO' SOi Total Staffing Jmpa4t. New Number of FIE s 00 0 'Existing Numberof FT `s... 0 Total Description Aou ntingDetaiil Brant**nd CThA*If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount i Expenditure Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 09-00416E.000.00 i i I"4 .'4 Aril r."I 1♦.♦a♦ Iil 11• el_4 r'.c_' Grant : Grant funds employee positions N/A is there a potential for grant to continue? NIA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant?' N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A initiative Name: Jordan River Trail - Rose Park Bridge to Davis County Line initiative plumber: BA#4 FY 2006 initiative#A-3 initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: The City has received a $405,000 Federal Highway Enhancement Grant from UDDT, for us..' in developing the Jordan River Traiiway between Rose Park Bridge and the Davis Count Line. The City's matching amount for the grant is $175,000 which is being requested in the 2006/2007 CIP process. Engineering is requesting `$25,000 of the match be allocated from the CIP general fund cost overrun account now in order to proceed with the design stud report and documents, so the project can be constructed in 2007. and the City can enter into the cooperative agreement with UDOT. It is recommended that tine City Council appropriate $25,0000 of necessary budget to facilitate this project. Jordan River Trail -Rose park Bridge to Davis County Line Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative#A-3 2005-06 Initiative Number Ftscal Year Public Services New Department Type of Initiative, LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-61361535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue 21)ruJaL1.33v fund: 1st Year 2nd Year TY2005-116 ;FY 2006477 ,General Fund Total $0 $0 internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund ' • otal C SO ngtact: • New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total i 0.00 0 Description _ . tWsixatt'ting Detail rarrt-#anti A*if Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number .___._. .. �._.._ Obfe- t Code Number Amount . . E cpenditute: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83 fl40992700 (25.000.00) 00 . 83 2700 000 New Cost Center 1...1.1. 1 letailsx grant.information: Grant funds employee positions? NIA is there a potential for grant to continues .,. NIA. if grant is funding a position is it expected the position Will be eliminated at the end of the grants �..__.._ _..___ NIA _ _.�.. Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NIA ;Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NIA initiative Name: Jordan River Parkway Trail Security Lighting - Sherwood Park initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 initiative#A-4 initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: Over tne past several months, vandals have stolen wire from the Jordan River Trail Securit. Lighting System and destroyed power distribution panels at Sherwood Park. Two light poles and fixtures were broken off at the ground along the trailway at approximate' 900 So. and 300 West and one pole west of the Kaboom playground in Glendale/Modesto Park. This leaves much of the trailway along this section without lighting and has complete' removed the power feed for the Sherwood Park baseball fields, security lighting, restrooms pavilions etc. These sites are highly used by the public and baseball leagues are scheduled to use Sherwood Park in early spring This request is to create a new project by appropriating $50.000 of budget and cash from the CIP cost over-run account to address the need improvements immediately. It is recommended that the City Council adopt tne necessary budget adjustment to facilitate -tnis project / _ Jordan"River Tram Security Lightino Sherwood Park" _ inibatjv.,Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative#A-5 2005-06 li initiative Number Fis:;al Yea- Community Development New Item Department -Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6 36/535-61i 50 Prepared By Teleonone Conta^'. General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact �. "fs#'tar FY,an5- ► General Fund I Total m O SO internal Service Fund i oral SO SO Enterprise Fund Total $0I SCE Other Fund Total SO SO 515:ithitgititilict. New Number of FTE's 0 G Existing Number of FTE's 1 Total 0.00' 0 Description 3 { ArmauntingDe'tail S'antltan 1 MA4fffApplicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount —.,•• ditur Cost Center Number Object Code Number ,amount L14v9� 2700 ;50,C�CID_ ga' �3 Ne Cost Center 27 � 50.000 00 IAz111itipnal amounting Details: 1 tJllturluatlorr i Grant funds employee positions? N/A is there a potential for grant to continue N/A If Grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant?__._. N/A Will grant program be complete it gran:funding time frame's N/A tNil, grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A initiative Name: Jordan River Parkway Trail Security Lighting - 1000 North to Rose Park Golf Course Bridge initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 initiative #A-6 Initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: in FY 2005/2006, the City Council appropriated $62,000 for security lighting to the Jorgang River Parkway Trail from No. Temple to the State Agriculture Building. Engineering is currently working on the part of the traiiway from 1000 North to the Rose Park Golf Course! Bridge. The trail along this section between the fencing/property lines and the river is very narrow. The conduits for power and security lighting should be placed at the same time thei trail is being built. Engineering is requesting to use the security lighting funds allocated in FY 2005/2006 for the No. Temple to the State Agriculture Building project, on the trailway between 1000 North andi the Rose Park Golf Course Bridge in an effort to save time and funds by installing the conduit now. A CI? request has been submitted for the FY 2006/2007 process for security lighting for the section of trail from North Temple to the State Agriculture Building. it is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. G Jordan River Trail Security Lightine - I 1000 North to Rose Part, Golf Course Bridge Initiative Name BA#A FY2006 initiative#A-5 2005-06 Initiative Number Fisch;Year Co mmunity DevelopmentNew item 8 Department Type of initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 I Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) impact Revenue inics3utSv and 1st Vim 2nd Year Y2IMS-D6 TY20126-07 General Fund Total SO SO Internal Service Fund Total SO SO Enterprise Fund Total SO' SO Other Fund Total 0 SO New Number of FTE s 0 d Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0.00 0 Description imtist2D3etait 33TentItand 3A ,Applictd3le:: NA 1evenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 8`,;-00020 2700 S ._. . IO2 000,00) 62 New Cost Center 2700 3 62,000.00 I 1 _ 3 i 'Garrett.1%.):eua• ion: I Grant funds employee positions? NIA is there a potential for grant to continue? NIA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NIA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A ;initiative Name: Fremont Ave./Remington Way Street improvements - Project No. 102122 ;initiative Number: SA#4 FY 2006 initiative#A-6 initiative Type: New Item tinitiative Discussion: !This project was awarded $372,000 of CDBG funds for the street improvements to Fremont and Remington. The anginal proposal did not include funds to provide underground conduit for futur- street lightinc and due to significant cost increases in construction and materials the current budoet not adequate to facilitate the project. !Engineering is proposing that the current budget be increased by $55,000 from the CDBG cost over Irun account to facilitate the cost increases and the underground conduit is recommended that the City Council appropriate $55,000 of CDBG cost over-run funds to facilitate Itnts project, Fremont Ave.'r eminaton Way - project No. 102122 initiative Name BA#4 F112006 Initiative#A-6 2005-06 initiative Numbe Fiscal Yea- Commuriit s Development Nev4 Item Department Type of initiative LuAnn Ctark'Sberrie'Cotiins __. _..., , ._._ _ 535-61361535-6150 T eleohone Contact Preparsa B�- _ _ __ General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Ittpu.tBvT ti: 1st Year 2ndY ear PF4(21D5- FY 2DD6 O7 General Fund _.._..____._..._ Total SO SO Internal Service Fund Total SO SO Enterprise Fund Total SO S0 Other Fund :63-CDBG Total 0 SOE Staffing tel: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0.000 Description __ , Anceutifing Detail Zrant4tand tfl3A4tif•Anplicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-05098 2700 (55,000.00) E3-06053 2700 55.000.00 UL Stant infounation: Grant funds employee positions? N/A is there a potential for grant to continue? NIA I f grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the orant? NIA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NIA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NIA initiative Name: 1100 West Jordan River Bridge Replacement Job No. 107006 initiative Number BA#4 EY 2006 initiative #A-7 initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: The 1100 West Jordan River Bridge replacement was awarded $900,000 of Federal Highway' funding and construction was completed in 2004. Final cost adjustments, which include additional consultant construction engineering costs, have been submitted to the City by1 UDOT for final payment to UDOT of$27,410.13. Currently there is a balance of $4,904.92 for this project This request is to increase tie! budget and cash in cost center 83-01044 in the amount of $23,000. and to reduce the cash: and budget in the Class "C" cost over-run account by the same amount. ; It is recommended that the City Council increase the cash and budget of COST center 83- 01044 in the amount $23,000 and reduce the 04 Class "<.'," cost over-run account by the same amount to facilitate final payment to UDOT. 100 West Jordan River_Bridae { Replacement Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-7 200:+-06 . initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development New Item Department Type of initiative LuAnn-Clark/Sherrie'Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By 'Telephone Contact . . .. _...._ General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact Revenue rn adtBVTimd: 1st Year Year fV2DD5.O6 '22DDhi4Jf General Fund _.. Total SO SO internal Service Fund Total $0 SO Enterprise Fund i Total $0 SO Other Fund Total $0 $0 Stiff"mp Impart New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of F'f 's 0 Total O.00 0 Description Accotmtin9 Detail 'Grant#and tFDA*elf Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-04097 (23,000.00) 83-01044 2700 �.... . ... 23.000.00 Additional Artnuntins Details: Scant h fonuation: Grant funds employee positions N/A is there a potential for grant to continue? NIA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete it grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A initiative Name: Asphalt Overlay -Class "C" Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-8 Initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: This project is included in FY 2006/2007 CIP request for funding within the Class "C" Fund. As in prior years, expedited budget approval of this project is being proposed to allow the work to begin in the spring of 2006 and be completed during the 2006/2007 construction season. This project will increase pavement life, provide smoother street surfaces to improved ride ability and will enhance streetscape appearance. In addition, ADA barriers will be removed and sidewalk access ramps constructed and deteriorated curb and gutte replaced. This request also includes approximately $100,000 to design the fiscal yea 2007/2008 overlay project. This request is to appropriate 61,500,000 of 2006/2007 Class "C"fund. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $1,500,000 of FY05/07 Class "C"fund to facilitate this project. Asphalt Overlay-Class "C" Initiative Name BAD+ FY2006 initiative#A-8 2005-06 initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development New Item Department Type of initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-61361535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue=Impact i3v fund; 1st Year 2rd Year FY 20D5-D6 Fy'2Oob-IT7 General Fund Total SO SO internal Service Fund Total SD S0 Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund 03-viass"C" Fund $ 1 500,000.00 Total S 1,500,000.00 $0 tifntu Impart New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FT s 0 Total 0.00 0 Description AtcountiniDetail ant#anti*If 1pplicable: NA Revenue. Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83 New Cost Center 1381 1 500 00 t 0 E ernUtttre Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount...., . ... ._.83 Nev;' Cos Center 2700 9,5C10.0DL).C10 Grant information: Grant funds employee positions? NA is there a potential for grant to continue? _... NA .._..._...... . _. If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _ . .._ be eliminated at the end of the grants NA_._._.. Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact thecommunity once the grant funds are. eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? _�_ _ !Initiative Name: 1300 So. Viaduct-Job No. 107010 !Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 initiative #A-9 iinitiative Type: New Item iinitiative Discussion: Engineering has received preliminary approval for Federal Bridge Replacement funding in th amount of $4A million for the rehab and seismic upgrade of the 1300 So, Viaduct. This request is to appropriate $300,000 of 2006/2007 Class "C" Funds now, in order to proceed with the environmental and design study report which is mandated by the Federal Highwa Administration. This project is included in the 2006/2007 CIP request for funding within th . Class "C" Fund, It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $300,000 of FY06/07 Class "C" fund to facilitate this project. 130D So. Viaduct-Job 10701D Initiative Name BAIt4 FY2006 Initiative#A-9 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal yea: Community Development New Item Department Type c initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 prepared By _ __ Telephone Canter:: General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact Revenue fnpaut By fund: 1st Year 2nd Year 20I 5- FY DS- General Fund Total SD SO Internal Service Fund .._� S _._ Total D SO Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund 83-CP Class"C" - and S 300,000.00 ..... �. Total....,,. 30,0,000.00 $0 Staffing impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTF's 0 Total 0.00 0 Description counting Detail Zrarrt*.and 14 11f Applicable: _ NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83- New Cost Center 1381 $ 300,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83- New Cost Center 2700 300.000.00 • Ikant lnf n tuation: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NIA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NIA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _..._..._ Non-profit sector? N/A initiative Name: 1300 East CrossingiSugarhouse Rails to Trails initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 initiative #A-1O initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: :The recent Federal Highway Bill (SAFETEA-LU) approved $10.5 million for the Parley's Creek; ;Trail project. This trail, which was recently master planned by Salt Lake County in, coordination with the City and the Parley's Rails, Trails and Tunnels Coalition (PRA i 'defines a bicycle/recreation trail running from the mouth of Parley's Canyon to the Jordan, River, It is estimated that the federal grant combined with a local match contribution of, approximately $2,345,000 from the County and the $285,652 of City match will fund construction of the trail from Parley's Historic Nature Park to Hidden Hollow in Sugarhouse,' ;including the Sugarhouse "Draw" crossing at 1300 East. The County has indicated they plan to fund the major portion of the local match requirement. The first step in the Federal Highway/UDOT project delivery process is to proceed with the, environmental study and design study report. The City currently has approximately $285,652, of ClP funds for these projects. $200,000 was allocated for the 1300 East Crossing and there, its a balance of $85,652 left in the Sugarhouse Rails to Trails project. Engineering ts 'proposing that these funds be combined and the project scope be expanded to allow for tne- !City to participate with Salt Lake County in preparation of the Federal Highway/UDO1' irequired environmental and design study documents. An interlocal agreement between the City, County and UDOT will be prepared for Council approval which outlines the federal funding and local match responsibilities of the participants; It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. 1300 East Crossing!Sugarhouse Rails to Trails Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative#A-10 2005-06 initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn CiarklSherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telepncne Contac General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue<ImtartBv Ftmd: 1stYear 2nd Year General Fund Total SD SO'i internal Service Fund Total SO S0 Enterprise Fund Total SO SG Other Fund Total 0 SO Stalliill ►c ustGE: New Number of FTE's 0 D Existing Number of FTE s 0 Total 0.00 0 Description ActuuntingDetail Tratt.4tandCfDA ff Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center NumberObject Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83 04Q22 2700 $ _ (200,000 00) 83-05033 2700 $ (85 652.15) 83-New Cost Center 2700 285,652.15 I"a 1• '- n�sa Ifi II!! create New Cost Center Grant lnfururadtion. Grant funds employee positions N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A initiative Name: 900 South Rehab - Main Street to 700 East Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 initiative #A-11 initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: This project will provide major rehabilitation of 900 South from Main Street to 700 East. .'Approximately $1,800,000 has been previously allocated for this project. Due to significant increases recently experienced in materials and construction costs, $900,000 of additional CIF funds are needed to complete this project, This request is to appropriate $700,000 of 2006/2007 CIP Class "C" funds now, in order to begin the project in the spring of 2006 and complete the project during the 2006/2007 construction season. This project is included in the 2006/2007 CIP request for funding within the Class "C" Fund. Also included in this proposal, is reducing the budget by $200,000 in the 900 So. Main Street to Jordan River CIP project which is substantially complete. Excess funds are available due to good bids received and minimal change orders and material quantity overruns. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustments to facilitate this project . . ..._.._..._........ .__. . ........._ 900 South Rehab -Main Street to 700 East initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative#A-11 2005-06 initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-61361535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact 'General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impar t$yFund: istYear 2nd Veer TY2005-1 S FY 200B$37 General Fund Total SO SO ;internal Service Fund Total SO SO Enterprise Fund Total SO $0 Other Fund 83 CIP Class C Funds 700.000.00 Total $ 700.000,00 SO Staffing 11,10461: New Number of FIFA ._,__......_ __.._. ... 0 Existing Number of FTE s 0 Total 0,00 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and C DA*.ffApplicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83 CIP New Cost Center 1381 S 700,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-04035 2700 .._ (200,OOO.00) 83- New Cost Center 2700 8 900,000.00 Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A is there a potential for grant to continue' N/A ;If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will Abe eliminated at the end of the grant? NIA.. . Will grant program be complete in grantWfunding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NIA initiative Name: City-wide interoperabie Communications initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #A-12 initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: The administration is proposing to use some of last year's surplus revenue to fund phase IV the final phase, of the interoperabie communication system. This last phase will totall intergrate all the City's communication systems into one -totally integrated- City-wide telecommunication network_ Phase IV will implement the hardware infrastructure necessary t place the Airport and Public Utilities/Public Services and Community Development on th:. existing public safety network. The complete narrative is attached in the Council transmittal documentation. Initially, the administration is asking the Council to appropriate the entire $3,000,000 needed to complete the implementation and training to get the entire City up on the existing system, however, the enterprise funds will be required to pay back the General Fund for their pro- rated share of the remaining $3,000,000 needed to complete the system build-out and integration. The enterprise funds will be given the next five years to implement a repayment plan for reimbursing the General Fund_ Based upon the number of radios operating on the system, the Airport's share of the $3,000,000 is $1,170,000 or approximately 39 percent, and Public Utilities will reimburse the General Fund $360,000, or approximately 12 percent. _-- -_--_- --'- (ntermpecabke /Communications - - - - -� - - ---- �--� . ---- ----r -- ' Initiative Name BA#4FY2D08 Initiative#A- 2 L 2OO5~8S �-- Initiative �emvm�o ��a Year _ -- N8�nmgenment6erwk:es � a�ew/�tenn _ — Depsrtman � / Type ofInitiative L_ _ SusiKmntqhs � _ 535~6414 Prepared By Teiephone Contact -eneral Fund Fund Balance Total so Internal Service Pund Total so so Enterprise Fund Other Fund New Number of FTE's 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0 Description �. . _L _1 / � | �-L- ' | Ar-rotmting Detail Brant-It end CFDA-* Auoplicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount General Fund Fund Balance 1470 000.00 General Fund Acct Rec AiTort 1,170 000.00 General Fund Acct Rec Public Utilities 360.000 DO 83 CIF New Cast Center 1974-01 3,000,000,00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 09-00700 2910-01 S 3,000,000.00 83 -CIP nevv cast center 2700 S 3,000,000.00 = Vt14 ItFuhu11 t GEdi it Information: Grant funds employee positions? NIA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NIA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or N/A Non-profit sector? TO: Rocky J. Fiuhart DATE: Feb. 14.2006 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Susi Kontais SUBJECT: City-wide Interoperable Communication System STAFF CONTACT: Susi Kontais 535-6414 or I,-.rista Dunn 799-3265 DOCUMENT TXTE:Memo BUDGET IMPACT:$3.000.000 for System installation/integration of which Airport will reimburse the General Fund S1.170,000 for its share of the infrastructure costs, and Public Utilities will reimburse the General Fund S360000. DISCUSSION: SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT APPLICATION COPS Interoperable Communications Technology FY 2005 Program EXECUTIVF SUMMARY The ultimate goal of Salt Lake City (SLC)Public Safety is to establish a model, Project 25-compliant. multi-disciplinary/multi-jurisdictional 800 MHz communications system that is interoperable across Salt Lake City Departments and statewide. This system enables SL,C. to have Police. Fire, Public Services/Utilities, Salt Lake International Airport, Airport Tv2, and Tonic Airport on the same radio system, and talk to each other during emergency events, while maintaining., their own frequencies and channels. Like:wise,the system links Salt Lake City departments with the existing UCAN (Utah Communications Agency Network) while maintaining independent systems. This also moves us toward creating statewide redundancy. It has been accomplished by establishing an OMNILINK connection between SLC arid the UCAN systems, Further benefits are achieved because the connection includes the UWIN (Thah Wireless Integrated Network)project and creates a link with the National Guard,health and medical facilities, and federal and regional public safety agencies across Utah. Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. To date. Salt Lake City has been the missing link in achieving statewide interoperability. The reasons for this have been varied, hut justified. SLC could not rationalize joining IICAN, v,there redundancy is accomplished through a second zone controller within the same building as the first. This means that. in the event of a catastrophic disaster where that building is destroyed, communications across Utah would be severely hampered. or would cease. This project enables both systems to operate independently,provide redundancy, and address ongoing coverage issues. Salt Lake City has been actively engaged in addressing interoperable communications challenges for many years. To date, SLC Public Safety has acquired a combination of local and federal funding to implement the first three of a four-phase project. This first phase constructed a one-site,ten channel radio system that serves Public Safety (police and fire) only. Tins enables SLC to provide basic communications senices. The second phase constructed a second tower site and split the ten channels between the two sites. It also enabled us to implement OmniLink, which enables us to achieve interoperability with UCAN and I. The third phase implemented"Simulcast', increasing the coverage area by searching out all repeaters instead of just the closest one. Each site was then increased to ten channels. The purpose of this proposal is to implement Phase 4. In this phase, SLC enhances the system to a three-site,21 channel, Simulcast system. with interoperability between all SLC Departments, as well as UCAN and UWIN. In this phase, the third control site (Prime Site) will be constructed at the airport or another location. The system will have 20 channels on each site. While interoperabilityi,vas established with other Public Safety agencies during the first three phases of the project,this phase will create seamless interoperability (without manual patches) between all Salt Lake City Departments. Historically.in catastrophic events from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina,manual patches have consistently failed,rendering communications impossible. While each of the City's departments has efficient, stand-alone systems, seamless interoperability can only be accomplished through this type of project. Further, it will provide space for more Utah agencies to participate (with potential financial revenue)should the Administration and City Council desire to move in that direction. INTRODUCTION: Imeroperable communications is essential in this area of the state. Representatives of Salt Lake City departments have long recognized this need, and have spent considerable time negotiating ways to accomplish it. Regular meetings have been attended by representatives of each SLC department involved in the project. A four-phase plan was established to accomplish the goal. and phases one through three have now been funded and are in the final stages of construction and testing. When Salt Lake County opted to join UCAN three years ago, that left SLC without a Zone Controller or the ability to operate its basic radio communications. Phase I addressed this issue. While Salt Lake County found it in their best interest to join UCAN, Salt Lake City still could not justify joint Operations. One of SLC's major concerns was the ongoing costs of operation under UCAN, and believed that operating its own system would be more cost effective. Further, as long as UCAN operated both it's controllers within the same site, true redundancy could not be achieved. In the event of a major catastrophic event in which the building was destroyed, communications across the state would be severely hampered, or would possibly cease. By remaining independent, the two separate entities could become the redundancy for one another if the need arose. Additionally, first responding agencies in Utah will be interoperable if this proposal comes to fruition. This includes all city_ county, state and federal auencics with operations in Utah, as well as private industry that are response or critical infrastructure in nature. This includes medical chemical, utility, treatment plants,transportation, etc. A. Problem Identification and Justification & Use of Federal Funds: On August 11, 1999 Salt Lake City experienced a rare and destructive disaster. In the middle of the workday, a tornado tore through the downtown area, wreaking havoc on buildings, cars.trees. and people. One person was killed, hundreds injured, and the destruction was devastating. Public Safety officials converged on the area,but their inability to communicate adequately severely hampered the response effort. Law enforcement and emergency personnel arrived from across the Salt Lake Valley, but were unable to determine where they were needed or how they could help. Ultimately a command post was set up in the middle of a street where representatives from each police and fire agency could meet together and then direct their own troops. Likewise,public services and utilities were unable to communicate with public safety. Salt Lake international Airport was also unable to communicate with City service providers. This was caused by separate systems utilizing various stages of technology that were incompatible at the time. The result was confusion, delays, and inefficiency. This proposal addresses seven communications challenges faced by SLC; Citywide Interoperabilitv. SLC Police,Fire,Public Services,Public Utilities, Community and Economic Development and SLC international Airport have operated on different communications systems for many years. The result is that these departments cannot coordinate services in the event of an emergency or even a large-scale event. if manual patches fail, as has consistently been the case across the country . Prior planning prevents many issues in large- scale, planned events, but radio communications are still an important issue. Statewide Interoperability. Salt Lake City has remained separate from the statewide UCAN system over the years due to redundancy issues and administrative and philosophical differences in the needs of each entity. SLC has maintained a desire to operate its own communications system while achieving interoperahility with other agencies,and providing redundancy for each other. The need still exists for all State agencies to achieve interoperahility. Regional Interoperabilitv. In the event of a catastrophic event, it becomes necessary for Public Safety, Health,Utility, Military, Medical and other agencies to have essential communications capabilities. Salt Lake City, as the States' capital and largest city does not have the capability of achieving Regional Interoperable Communications in its current capacity. Lack of adequate local, state and federal fluidity_ While SLC understands the need for interoperable communications,the cost of accomplishing it has been insurmountable. The technology required to accomplish this objective is extremely costly. Previous Communications Agreement. In the past, SLC and SL County operated a joint communications system, in which the Control site was operated in County facilities. When Salt Lake County opted to join UCAN two years ago, that left SLC without a Zone Controller or the ability to operate its basic radio communications. SLC obtained fwiding,to implement Phasel of the project to establish basic communications, and subsequently has received funding to implement Phases 2 and 3, Public Safety Building Infrastructure, SLC Police and Fire Administration operate from the same building. That structure was built in 1958 by Northwest Pipeline, and purchased by SLC in 1988, All Public Safet Communications equipment sits in this aging structure, and would he rendered useless if the building collapsed. There is a need to move the "Prime Site" location to a more stable structure. Political Climate. As SLC and UCAN have remained firm in their desire to operate their own communications systems. many municipal and State Agencies have seen the City as unwilling to cooperate with other Public Safety entities. In order to validate legitimate concerns, there is a need to create interoperability, while allowing individual entities to retain control of their own systems. Funding Request Justification: in order to justify this request, it is necessary to give some history of Salt Lake City's pursuit of interoperable communications. SLC has studied this need since the mid- 1980's. in I 997 SLC began negotiations with agencies statewide regarding the implementation of a-Statewide Radio Communications System" or UCAN. SLC and SL, County opted out. These two entities joined together to create their own radio communications system. In 2003. SL County joined UCAN, and broke away from SLC. Since the joint communications system operated from the same zone controller, SLC was without a communications system. In 2002. SLC received a Technology grant from COPS Office for S640,000. along with a one-time appropriation from the Salt Lake City Council of approximately 51600.000 to implement Phase 1 of the SLC Communications System plan. This provides basic Public Safety Communications, along with manual links to other agencies. In 2004, SLC received funding from Homeland Security to construct an additional site. and split the existing 10 channels between those sites. In addition, Omni Link was implemented to create interoperahility with UCAN and UWIN. The third phase, funded with a 2005 COPS Technology Grant, increased each of the existing sites to ten channels, and implemented "Simulcast-. Through simulcast. the system coverage area is increased and enhanced by searching out all repeaters instead of just the closest one. in the fourth phase. the communications system will be upgraded to 21 channel, and will relocate the Prime Control Site to a more stable location, in this phase. the new site will be constructed. and each of the three sites will be enhanced to 10 or more channels. This phase creates complete interoperability across all SLC departments and with all UCAN and I7WIN agencies. It is understood that most of the country has experienced economic difficulties during the nast several vears. SLC is no different. The budget has been continually lean and ever department has been asked to do more with less. We believe that this project provides an opportunity for SLC to complete the Radio Communications Plan while developing a model multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional communications system. Finally, due to the size of Salt Lake City, we have found ourselves in a precarious position. While we are the major commercial/business/government center and largest city in the state of Utah.we are still relatively small in comparison to other cities across the country. Further, our location does not generally make us a prime target for terrorist attacks. While we feel fortunate in this position, wc don't seem to make the list of cities eligible for large Homeland Security Grants. This would make little difference except for the fact that all other Department ofiustice funding has been cut dramatically. This places cities like SLC at a disadvantage as we continue to address arising critical issues. Multi-disciplinary and Multi-jurisdictional Approach: As we look to our ability to pro-vide basic services to our citizens on a daily basis, from minor infractions or requests to emergency response, natural disasters.and terrorist threats or attack$. interoperability is i crucial obligation that must he accomplished to serve those CitiZC11S. The proposed SLC project brings interoperability to all players. For example, if a high magnitude earthquake were to hit Salt Lake City, first responders, military, medical and ethical infrastructure experts from across the state and region would be able to communicate, send aide. and assist in providing critical operations to respond successfully. without creating major communications disparities. Further, an emergency operations center could be set up at one of the communications headquarters where dispatchers could actually set. on their consoles all available responders (from all participating agencies). This will enable administrative personnel to assign, with reasonable accuracy and surety, all participation responders to the most critical areas. Previously, as outlined in the last federal grant request. each City department was responsible for its portion of the 25°,4) match, as well as ongoing maintenance costs (although those costs have not yet been assessed and are not yet determined). Currently each departments' portion of the system has been determined by the number of radios each operates on the system; however,this utilization allocation may be modified as the departments actually begin operating on the system and the airport reviews the legal funding,restrictions which may be imposed under federal guidelines. SLC Departmental Break-out of Costs: *Airport A 39% (980 radios)= S1,170,000** Public Safety Cist, 37% (930 radios) = $1,110,000 Public Scrv. (a-. 12% (293 radios)= $ 360,000 *Public Utilities Ca. 12% (295 radios) $ 360.000 SLC Proposed Project Cost= S3,000,000 *Enterprise Funds SE530,000 ** Airport allocation may be subject to revision if mandated by federal law. TOTAL PROJECT (4 PHASES.) $6„373,322 PREVIOUSLY FUNDED S3,373,322 TOTAL CURRENT PROJECT S3,080,000 RECOMMENDATION: Implement Phase IV of the City-wide Interoperable Communication System. Initiative Name: Main Street Flower Project Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-13 Initiative Type; New Item initiative Discussion: The RDA requested that Public Services provide flower pots and hang flower baskets from street lights on Main Street between South Temple Street and 400 South. The RDA agreed to pay for flower pots, baskets, seeds, soil, and hardware associated with this initiative. An interlocal agreement was entered into between the RDA and Public Services. This budget amendment provides budget for the revenue the RDA will pay Public Services. This budget amendment also provides budget for the expense Public Services incurred to provide the requested services for the RDA. Main Street Flower Project Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative#A-13 2005-06 initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services New Item Department Type of initiative Grea Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue impact$v Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY2DD5-E FY2D0&37 General Fund RDA S 54.860.00 Total S 54.860.00 SO Internal Service fund Total SO SO Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund Total 0 SO Staffing, .impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE`s 0 0 Total 0 0 Description Accounting Dotal I 'Sidut and rFDA#if Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 2 1955 20 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 04_1277 2277 $ 5,085.00 2775 2730-20 $ 49,775 00 iditianel AccountingDetails: Ghiut tnformatinn: Grant funds employee positions N/A is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will____._.. be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or N/A Non profit sector? N/A initiative Name: Airport Property Insurance increase Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #A-14 initiative Type: New item initiative Discussion: in 2004, an appraisal was done on the Airport property and the values went up. This caused an increase in the Airport's insurance premium to a new total to $1,207,486.78, leaving them with a shorage of $219,939. This amount will be billed to the Airport. Airport administration has been invloved in this new appraisal of the properties, ............. Airport Property Insurance increase Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-14 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Attorney Risk Mgmt New Item Department Type of initiative Timothy Rodriquez 535-6020 Prepared By._.. Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) impact�_.__.... Revenue;Impact$y Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year fY2O115-1) F 2post)7 General Fund Total SO $0 internal Service Fund 87 Risk Airport Premiums S 219,939 00 Total S 219.939.00 $0 Enterprise Fund Total Other Fund Total 0 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of i=tE's 0 0 Total 0 0 Description Accounting Detail Zrant*and CfDA4t if Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 67870-01 1860 219,939.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 87870-01 2549 219,939.00 Additional Description: Brant Infonnation: Grant funds employee positions? N/A is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A initiative Name: Grant Towers Railroad Realignment initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-'15 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Realignment of Grant Tower railroad curves. This would be a loan from the General Fund until bonding is provided. These funds would be used for property acquisition and construction design. The project would eventually be bonded for. The loan from the General Fund would be paidi back from those bond processes. It is estimated that the bonding for the total project would be about $11 million. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. Grant Towers Railroad Realignment Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative#A-15 2005-06 initiative Number Fiscal Year Mayor's Office New Item Department Type of Initiative DJ Baxter 535-7735 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund Fund Balance) Im Revenue Impact By fund 1st Year 2nd Year f'►2005-D6 FY2DD6-D7 General Fund Total S0 SD Internal Service Fund Total SO $0 Enterprise Fund Total; SD SO Other Fund Total 0 $0' Staffing Impact New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTi_"s 0 Total 0.00 0 Description Accounting Deihl Grant-Wand Cfl3A4l if Applicable: ' NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 197'401 , 83 New Cost Center 4000,000.00 Eentli : Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 09-00700 2910.01. ... 4,000,000.00 83- New Cost Center_.._._ 2700 __...__. 4,000,000 00 dditional Accounting Details: r_.._Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NIA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NIA if grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NIA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NIA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NiA initiative Name: Fleet Fuel Cost Increase Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #A-16 Initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: The Police Department continues to experience nigher than budgeted fleet fuel costs. Request an additional appropriation of$ 290,000 for FY 06 to provide sufficient funding using 6 months expense projections, During the budget adoption process for both FY 05 and FY 06 the department represented best estimate increases available to provide full year funding. Pricing increased at higher than anticipated rates, Miles drive have remained relatively consistent with miles driven for Year 2003 - 350,474, Year 2004- 351,707, Year 2005 - 371,793 Fleet Fuel Costs increase Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-16 2005-06 Initiative NLmber r=iscal Year Police New Item Department Type of Initiative Jerry Burton (Contact Number) prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp ($290,000) Revenue;ImpactBy Fiord tat blear 2nd Year fY2OD5 D6 FY2DD6-D7 General Fund Total SO SO Internal Service Fund Total SO SO Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund 0 Total 0 SO Staffing Impact: New Number of FTB's none none Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 0 Description Overtime Accounting Detail trant#and CfDA#If Applicable: '. Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 02-01000...... 2390 01 290,000.00 Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? NIA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NIA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A initiative Name: Fuel for Vehicles !initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative#A-17 initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: In the current fiscal year fuel prices for vehicles have risen significantly higher than originall budgeted. Unleaded fuel has averaged $1.80 a gallon and Diesel fuel $2.15 a gallon through December 2005. While fuel prices are very volatile and unpredictable, Fleet projects fuel costs will continue to remain at a high level through the end of the fiscal year. This budget amendment will increase the expense and revenue budget for Fleet and increase the expense budget for Public Services, Fire, and Golf. I Fuel for Vehicles . Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative.#A-17 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services New item Type of initiative Department _.._. ... .. __ _ Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Telephone Contact GeneralBalance) Im ''.._..__. (. Fund Fund Revenue Impact$vfund: 1st Year 2nd Year . fY2005 FY20D6-f17 General Fund Total SO SO internal Service Fund ,Fleet Fund 470,000,00 Total S 470,000.00 Enterprise Fund 59 Golf Fund Balance S I13,1700.00. Total S t13,000.00) SO Other Fund .. ..Total 0 SO 5ta'firua Invact: 0.. New Number of FTE's 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 1 Total 0 0 Description Accounting .Grant#antl CFDA-4 if Applicable: Revenue: Amount Cost Center Object Code Number 61 OOOflB 1953 -0.._.... _, 47L�,000.00 Expenditure Amount Cost Center Number �..�.._. . Object Code Number 2231 01 —__ 2Q,000 00 6100008 ,... 2231 04 S_. 250,000.00 610000$._,_....,..... ...._ .__._. ..., _ _ . 3 470,OOO.O0 03-10300 2 390 01. ..... 100 00 03-1 fl610:�. 2390 01 3 2�.00Ofl0_. 03-10620 ....._.... 2394 01 5,350.00 2390-01 .._ .... $ 350.00 03 10 30.__,........ B,�JOO.fl0 03-11410 �.�._e �._ . 2390-01 $ .- 03-11530 .. ___.� 390 01 _._.__ 6,300.00 _ ___ 03-11900 2390-01 3 1.750.00 03 12000. 2390-01 _.. $ 2,550.00 03 1210Q__...,__. 2390-01 $ 3,550.00 _ _-12 2 250.00 03 12^20 ,...� _ .. _... _. 2390-01 $ . 1 b0.00 __00 2390-01 a $ 03 _. .. . ___ -.. 2390-01 ._. $ 100.00 03-12400 07-Ofl09�i _.. �,. 4,500.00 2394 01_..__ ,.._ .. .._ $ m __�. ... ___._.._ ____ 1,350.00 .......04 10630,..._...,, 2390-01 ....._ $ 04-12300 2390.01 __._ ....._ 16.400.00 04 13600 2390-01 S ...._, _.... 04-81102 2390-01 $ __.. _..... ._ 2,70fl 00 07-00091 2390-01 ._.. n $ 50 00 0411510 $ 1,750.00 . 2390-01 _._. . _:. $ 79,000.00 12-flfl06fl 2390-01 $ 30.000 00 .._ . __- _._ 59-01 fl00 2390-01 $ 1.300 00 ...... 59 01015 2390-01 $ 1,100 t10 2390-01 70 59-01£l25 S �, CLOD 5 2390-01 ... ._ 1,300.00 59 01 t735 1,550 Ofl '59 01045 ;__ _.. 2390-01 : $_. 59-01055 2390-01 $ 3,800.00 .._ 59 01065 239fl-01 $ $ 13.000.00 grant information: Grant funds employee positions? NIA is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A !Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A linitiative Name: Landscape on State Road SR201 initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #A-18 initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: The State of Utah is upgrading State Road 201from the Jordan River to Bangerter Highway. UDOT approached the City with an proposition for upgrading their property at the Redwood Road and Bangerter exits. They would be willing to pay for substantially upgraded landscaping that they designed in exchange for our agreement to pay for 'the water and power meter hookups and maintain the property at City expense after it was landscaped. :The City limits only include the exit on the north of SR-201 and the south side of the road is in West Valley City, West Valley City has entered into an interlocal agreement to participate for their side. Public Services estimates the costs for this interlocal (agreement to be as follows: One time water meter hookup for both locations = 8,000 One time power meter hookup for both locations = 500 Total one time costs = 8,500 ,'Ongoing annual (8 months) maintenance costs: IMaintenance staffing & materials = 8,000 Snow Removal staffing & materials= 300 lUtilities: water & electricity = 2,000 Total annual costs = 10,300 For fiscal year 2005-06, only 3 months of ongoing maintenance will be needed is$4,000 Landscape on State Road SR201 initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative 4#A-18 2005-06 Initiative Number Flsoa Year Public Services New item Department Type of Initiative Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared$y_.. . Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) imp; ($12,500) Revenue,Impact By fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY2DC -D6 FY20D6-D7 General Fund Total SO S0 internal Service Fund Total SO SO Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund Total 0 SO Staffing Impact New Number of FTE`s 0 . . ._._._._ 0 Existing Number of FTE s 0 0 Total 0 0 Description BA#4 FY2006 initiative#A-1$landscape on SR201.xis2122120061 40 PM 1 Aa.r.ounting Detail t-rant*rrtd 3A*if Applicable: Revenue: Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number .... . .. Expenditure: Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number 04-13100 District#r Park Maint 2590 $ 8500�7C} 04-13100 District#1 Park Maint 25 iC. 5 4,000.00 �_N _.m_. -.. .. ._ . 12.500,00 Additional;Accounting ails: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A �. �.. is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will ....__be eliminated at the end of the grants NIA .... Will grant p ro ram be complete in_grant funding time frame? N/A 'Will grant impact the community once the grantfunds are �__._.. _. � ...�....._ ...,.. NIA eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private_or . .. NIA Non-profit sector? 3 ._..�...___.. .... BA#4 FY2006Initiative#A-18 landscape on SR201.xis212212006140 'M ...__....___....__-.......__....__. initiative Name: Natural Gas Price increase Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative#A-19 initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: During 2005, Questar Gas who provides natural gas to Salt Lake City Corporation, received approval to increase natural gas rates on two separate occasions from the Public Utilities Commission. The first increase of 14.4% took effect as of June 2005. The second increase of 20.3% took effect in November 2005. The compound effect of these two rate increases is 37.62%, This is an average rate impact across all rates. The impact SLC Public Services is experiencing is 45.6% ($6.63klecatherm in Dec 2004 vs $9.65/decatherrn in Dec 2005.) This budget amendment will increase the expense budget for SLC Public Services to cover the impact of the rate increases. Natural Gas Price increase __ _.__... Initiative Name BM$FY2006 initiatvie#A-19 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services Department New Item Department Type of initiative Greg Davis 535-6397 Telephone Contact Prepared Sy.__.. . _._._P _- General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp ...__. ($295,836) Revenue Impact By fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY2OI5-DE TY20015-D7 General Fund _t Total SO SO inter ..._.-. .__ 9 61 Fleet Fund Balance _-_ ( 129 00)_._...... Total $ (9,11211.00) SO Enterprise Fund _ 59 Golf Fund Balance (25,876 00 Total $ (26:678.00) SO Other Fund Total 0 $0 Staffing impact: !New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 'Total 0` 0 Description ._ ._...... BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-19 Natural Gas Increase.x1s2/22120061 t40 PM 4ccourrting Detail Ssent#and CFDA*tf Applicable: .............. Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 03-10600 2332-01 $ 17,274,00 03-12190 2332 01 $ 2,905 00 04-10610 2332-01 26,875.00 04-10630 2332-01... $ 11,857.00 04-12245 2332-01 $ 30,052,00 07-00093 2332-01 $ 13,664.00 07-00091 2332-01 S 181,121 00 ;._. 07-00927 2332-01 S 8134.00 07-00095 2332-01 $ 3,954.00 S 295,836.00 59-01000 _.. 2332-01 $ 1,505,00 59-01010 2332-01 ...._. S 2,246.00 59-01015 2332-01 S 295.00 59-01020 _._ _a. �.... 2332-01 $ 4,150 00 F 59-01025 2332-01 S 295.00 59-01030 2332-0 —_ _ 4.560.00 59 01035..__._. _.... -__.... -_. ..___..._ .n..-. 2332-01 $ .�._._ 143.00 59-01040 ._..._ _.. .. 2332-01....... $._.. 5,542.00 .... 59-01045 2332-01 581,00 59--01050 2332-01 $ 82.00 59-01060 _ ___ _ ___, ._-_ —_ -_ .. 332.01_._.. . .. 2,845 00 59-01065 2332-01 $ 295.00.,. 59-010713 2332-01 ,,.... $ 2,968 00 59-0107 5 .. . . 2332-01 $ 295,00 59-01095 2332-01 $ 76.00 25.878 00 61-00001 2332-01 $ 9,121.00 Additional Accounting Details: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-19'Naturat Gas lncrease.xts212212 0 06 1:40 PM Grant Information: .__ N/A Grant funds employee positions? �_..: �.. Is there a potential for grant to continue? NIA_. .. If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _.._._,. be eliminated at the end of the grant? N1A... Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NIA 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ,eliminated? NIA. ....,.. _.. . Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NIA BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-19 Natural Gas increase.xts2122120061:40 PM initiative Name: Tree Spraying initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #A-20 initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: This past season (calendar 2005) London plane trees have been host to unusually severe combinations of disease and insects. Anthracnose is a fungus organism that proliferates in cool, wet spring weather. It caused leaf dieback and shedding throughout the spring. During the summer powdery mildew became very severe and produced additional leaf shed and further tree decline. Leaves that remained on the trees, which were uncharacteristically sparse, then became host to plant bugs.The combined effect of these problems not only damaged the appearance of the city's largest and most beautiful planetrees but also impaired their health. Although severity of anthracnose and powdery mildew are related to weather conditions, a repeat in this outbreak in 2006 could result in dieback of large branches and for some trees, already in advanced decline, death.To provide the planetrees some protection from further stress and loss of vitality. Public Services proposes they be sprayed. The intervention is a series of three treatments, all to be applied in the spring, during fiscal year 2006. Projected cost of the treatments is $112.000. (2500trees, $44.80 per tree, or 614.93 per application for 3 applications each tree). Tree spraying Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-20 2005-06 .......... ....... Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services New Item Department Type of initiative Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund Fund Balance) Imp _.___._ ..__. ($112,000)_ Revenue Imps By fund: -1st Year 2nd Year fY20055-06 FY 20D6-1I7 General Fund _.� Total SO $0 .._. ;Internal Service Fund SO $0' Total Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund ._.____._._... Total 0 SO Staffing-Impact: New Number of FTE's none 0 Existing Number of FTE s 0 Total Description • BA#4 FY2006 initiative#A-20 Tree spraying,xls2/22/20051:41 PM Accounting Detail Drant#and CFI/A 4t if Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 0 -81102 Forestry .._ 232 $ 112.000.00 � �a Mditional Accounting Details: 'Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A BA#4 FY2006 initiative#A-20 Tree spreying.xis2122120061.41 PM initiative Name: 900 South 900 East Streetscape initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 initiative #A-21 initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: Sufficient funds were available to award the base bid, but did not include the alternates which include the median island lighting and colored concrete pavement in the 900 So. 900 East intersection. A polling of the property owners indicated their desire to complete all phases of* the project, Ali owners were asked to comment on an increase to their assessment, Eight of twenty-two owners responded, Seven were in favor with one opposed to the increase. With the majority of responses approving an increase to the assessment, it is recommended; that the City approve the increase of $85,000 to the property owners assessment budget to! provide for construction of the median island lighting and increase the Class "C" budget bye 130,000 to provide colored concrete in the intersection. Excess Class 'C" funds are available in the 900 So., Main Street to Jordan River ClP Project due to good bids received and minimal change orders and material quantity overruns. It is proposed that this project budget be reduced by $130,000 to increase the current budget for the 900 So. 900 East ;project. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget increases to facilitate this project. 900 South 900 East Streetscape -Job No. 106018 initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-21 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact . . ._. Revenue Impact By Fund. 1st Year ` 2nd Year 2D0 s-D6 fV2006-37 General Fund Total SO SO Internal Service Fund Total SO SO Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund 83-04035 CIP,Assessments S 85,000.00 Total S 85,000.00 SO Stiffing'-Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0.00 0 Description Accounting Detail BrantIt and Cf DAB ifApplicable: NA Revenue. Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-05041 1125 $ 85,000 00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 25 2700 $_.. (130,000 00) 83-03036 2700 . 130,000.00 83-05041 2700 - _.. S :._._ 85 000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grantinformation: Grant funds employee positions? N/A is there anote potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NIA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame's NIA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NIA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NIA initiative Name: Automatic Vehicle Locater initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #A-22 initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Versaterrn ANT/GPS system AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATION SYSTEM The need for efficient, safe and expedient police response to crises has most certainly been heightenedi in light of the tragic events of September 11. 2001 and current world situations. These circumstancesil have reinforced the need for an integrated logistics information tool capable of coordinating -the4 movement oipersonnel resources when responding to emergencies. Aumrnatic vehicle location s:i.,stems (AVLI are computer-based vehicle'tracking systems. These systems are used extensively both for military and civilian purposes. including police, vehicles and ambulances. Their use and application within law enforcement environments continues to grey driven fonvard by numerous expected benefits. Automatic vehicle location systems operate by measuring- the actual real-time position of each vehicle and relaying the information to a central location. Actual measurement and relay techniques vary, depending on the needs of the transit system, and the available technology systems, Automatic vehicic location allows for enhanced police service to the community 11:. providing the dispatch center with precise locations of available units. minimizing officer en-route time. Officer safety, a critical concern of the Police Association and the Department, is expanded. Officer location is immediately available in the event additional assistance is required or if an officer becomes incapacitated or unable to use their radio. Our agencies computer program provider"Versaterm-provides the AVL with the new MDT version (7.01. \ersaterm provides ANT as a visual aid to help dispatchers in locating and/or identifying current unit location(as well as unit status and the current call theN are assigned to. if an)) -to help dispatchers in identifying what unit to send/dispatch to a call. Deployment Strategy; tkVI.,units would be placed in all first responder vehicles,this would include patrol,traffic. and gang iuntt. Estimated First Year Cost ,r ersaterm S 225 000 Placer units - $ 127,600 25 ft cable $4.840 Antenna-$F,250 Bracket-S 1.290 Installation- 27,500 Monitors- 10,000 Total-S 404.480 Estimate approximately 9°A cantina-enc.) for unknown items in implementation. Project cost estimate at$442,905. Assumes first year maintenance covered under`°arrant)°with future years estimate to be included in PD general fund department request for FY 0 Automatic Vehicle Locater initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-22 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Police New Item Department Type of initiative Terry Fritz (Contact Number) Prepared S}' Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue tmpactBv fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-116 FY D6-I!77 General Fund Total SO $0 Internal Service Fund Total 50 S0 Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund 73 Fund Fund Balance S 350.197,00 0 Total $ 350,197.O0 50 Staff impact: New Number of FTE's none none Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 0 Description Overtime 1 Accounting Detail arant*and DFDA*If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 73-73002 2700 $ 117 117.00 ...,. . 73-73005 2700 $ 5.00 ... 73-73010 2700 $ 233.000.00 73-73012 2700 $ 2200. 73-73015 2700 $ 53,00 ........_ .._ . $ 350 197,00 Additional Accounting Details: Asset Forfeiture Fund Budget available of $92,660.32 in CC 73-73002 for a total project cost estimate of$442,857. Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NIA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NIA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are .,.. eliminated? N/A - _ _...„ Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A n; V G C - f-vh'.' •7 _ 4f-: Ct 3 7. 3.1GN EV-. _ csT-, _L c, C N M< cwe _C ur^ , :' cLu �U � F4 G G Tc 0 M T. Vt C r mo ; roD iC'C N 'G - o v1x ow @) m r ......."G a -� av lc d a m tL cyN c 'C�•. C1 O r_ G tGr- 711) Tg v , . = ,N ac u, 62 6 a Q Q d O a O. 0 © Coc OG o o C] M to o fRN3 Ifl D, VA 2 �4 _ £R EAY - fh tsi 40 3 � rJ G7 O G3 "J^ O C p O 37 cl O 6 a .6 C' t7 b o d a O O 6 G O D ` o n o 0 N L; it? L•3 D 3 L'? it, T LU In - N"t ' ff WV r t>ri N N R ' N W V IL Cy a p 0 0 0 0 1 , o a o " " %i a i _,.0 Z < !n of N C O b4 V 0 it G G J D 0 m. [i r rh c r � ad en y , ? r m ram. m Cf G. Q .1 4? LLI tll J '.) L _1 i3 to m > '4 to t&- > > F� < j • .< - ui `v 20_ > > O-_ .tom: iii j n 41 2css try rn Gi 0 u) Q o z C7s (2 O D,.U C) -' w°r a Q - + m -j }- cc 8 I3J; 0' C rn o •LtC o, m t. E a t: C a n - -, tt? = Q" �' to .,. f c, c to c e 0 E . „" m .f fl t P C3 ` }:. ,set initiative Name: Additional Legal Support for Public Utilities and Mgmt Services Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-23 Initiative Type: New New item initiative Discussion: The Attorney's Office is asking for an additional one-quarter (1/4) FTE for additional legal work for, Public Utilities and Management Services (franchises) matters, Current staffing levels are insufficient to perform this work in a timely manner. The cost of the one-quarter FTE on an annual basis would be $30.000. If approved effective March 1, 2006, the FY 2005-2006 cost would be $10,000: Administrative fees will charge two-thirds of the costs to Public Utilities and the general fund will be charged for one-third the costs. This one-quarter time would be added to the attorney that was added' for the RDA three-quarter time to make one full time attorney. ADDITIONAL LEGAL SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES initiative Title BA#d FY2006 initiative#A-23 2005-06 _ Fiscal Year __. Initiative dumber Necal ear Attorneys Office �___. _...__..____.___.._,�_.__.__w._ Department Type of initiative 35-762$t�3�-7fs98 Ed Rutan!Sandra"Stanger .. Telephone Contact Prepared By ., _ ($3,300) General Fund ( Fund Balance) imp.., . .. __...___ staler 2 ' ar Revenue impactBy = Y2D D5 FY20DE417 General Fund Admen Fees Public Utilities $ 6,700.00 20,000,00__. ... -_.._ .._ Total 6.700.00 20,000.00 internal Service Fund Total $0. S0 Enterprise Fund . Total SO SO . Other Fund _ �_ ...._. _ ...._ . _... Total 0 SO Staffing Impact: J.2 fl.25 New Number of FTE's Existing Number of FTE s 0 0 Total Description Accounting Retail Grant*and CcDA*if Applicable: Revenue: Amount 15-0140D Cost Center Number ObjectCode Number _._. - _- ... 1900 5 6,700.00 ._ .- . . _ Expenditure: Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number ".__. 15-0140D 2111-01 $ 10,000.00.." 6, •i s p,. 6 !t i 1:fir. Grant information: _ _ Grant funds employee positions? No " Is there a potential for grant to continue? If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the rant' N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _ __.._ eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? i initiative Name: Communication's E-911 Furniture & Workstations 1 1 initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #A-24 Initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: 'Through the collection of E911 funds to support upgrades and improvements to level of E91 1. service provided to the community. We are asking to use fund balance to replace the;i furniture in the 911 Area. rThe furniture in the center is used 24 hours a day, 365 days a year taking a lot of use being adjust by 47 different people. in order to provide an ergonomic work stations for the call; takers, We request consoles in the dispatch area be replaced. Also due to extensive wiring under the sub floor we are required to rewire and have vendors move their specific equipment 'meeting the manufacturers specifications. Cost in this area are also to have someone move the old furniture out, pay for any additional wiring issues and monitoring of the 911 phone , system while the installation takes place. Without interruption of service to the community. It is recommended that the City Council allow the use $ 150,000 of fund balance added to existing line item capital budget of $ 270,000 for a total project cost of $ 420,000. This will. 'purchase new stations for the Police (16) and Fire (4) as they serve as an overflow if the PD gets busy, ..... - - - ----^---- <communication's E-911 Furniture & ! ! Workstations --r—'---- , \ Initiative Name ^ BA#4FY2008Initiad 2OO6-OGvp#A^24 - -- _ _-__ -_-��� -�-- '���� . F'aua|v�ar r--- ` initiative Number | __-__�� ____/ New Item Police - | r---- ----- T;pe,�mu��,e � _. uopumnn . --------T-- �78B-3Q24 ! Jern/Burbmn _ Telephone Contact Prepared GeneralFund ( Fund Balance _,_IM so Total internal Service Fund- Total Enterprise Fund Total $0 Other. —'- Total SOM0.00 none New Number of FTE's none Existing Number of FTE's Overtime . - � - - '- ` �~ ~ Accounting Detail Brant*arid CDA##if Applicable: Revenue:Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount nt _. Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 60-00620__. 2700 ... . ....... 150,000 00..,,. .._. _. Additional mounting Details: Grant information: 'Grant funds employee positions NIA inu Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A.. . .._ _ If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant .__ �_..: N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are N/A ;eliminated? __.___ . ___..._.. Does grant duplicate services provided by private or..., �.._.__. �.._� ..._.. Non-profit sector' NIA initiative Name: Justice Court Staffing initiative Number: SA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-25 initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion; The Administration proposes that $130,294 from the General Fund (fund balance) be. appropriated to increase staffling levels at the Justice Court, The recent management audit of the Justice Court recognized that the court is operating at a much higher level of caseload per judge and caseload per staff member than any of the other courts surveyed. The auditi also recommended a weighted caseload study to determine whether staffing levels should be, increased. However, in the discussion of the Justice Court it was noted that because the, 'caseload to staffing levels are so much higher than the the other courts surveyed (377% of the average), additional staff are needed now. The immediate staffing needs are 9 positions:1 an additional judge with 3 clerks, one additional clerk for each of the 4 current full-time judges, and a file clerk to scan completed cases. The Court would like to get the authorization for another full-time judge position immediately in order to begin the hiring process. The next available mandatory trainings for a new judge are in either May or in September, and a typical hiring time frame is at least three months. Because of this hiring time frame, no budget for personal services for the judge position is requested in the 'F'Y 2005-06 budget. Authorizing the judge position now would allow the Court to have a judge in place to take advantage of the September training. The part-time "udge positions are expected to remain in place. These judges fill in when the full-time judges are not available, and also hold regularly scheduled calendars to relieve the workload of full time judges, although cases cannot be assigned to those judges for the purpose of case management and probation supervision. The new clerk positions will be housed on the second floor of the building. The four Attorney- Client rooms on that level will be remodeled to house a total of six clerks. Two small walls will need to be removed, office cubicle furniture will be installed, and key card access will be installed for security. Remodeling costs will also include relocating the Attorney-Client areas to new cubicles on the second floor in the public open area. The other new positions will be able to use the computers and desk areas in the courtrooms. The judge position, as noted above, will not require a computer and phone until the FY 2006-07 budget year. The clerk positions would be trained in-house to be ready for the new judge. The duties for` the additional clerk for each full-time judge would be updating calendars, following up on, tickler files, filing, and performing case management tasks (e.g.monitoring probation and fines). The two clerks currently assigned to each judge are not usually able to keep up with all of these tasks. In addition to the current staffing of two clerks per judge, the criminal section also has five pool clerks who issue warrants, take phone calls, work at the counter to answer questions from the public, pull calendars, coordinate juries and interpreters, and do, some case management. These clerks will continue to perform these functions, and no increase is requested. The breakdown of costs is as follows: Personal Services: 7 Justice Court Clerks for 3 months - $72,300 1 File Clerk for 3 months - $9,500 Equipment(object codes 2340 and 2506): High Speed Scanner (one time expense) - $1`0,000 1 Printer/copier/fax machine (one time expense) - $4,000 6 Computers (leased for $46 I month for 3 months $828 6 Telephone lines ($37 / month for 3 months) - $666 Software licensing for JEMS (object code 2225 05): 8 New users at $2500 per license (one time expense) - $20,000 Remodeling (object codes 2760 50 and 2299)_ Furniture, cubicles -$10,000 Key card access for offices - $3000 The Justice Court agrees that a weighted caseload analysis would be helpful, and Court staff intends to do an in-house analysis using local weighted caseload data. The Court would also' welcome an independent study with the help of the National Center for State Courts in the_ next budget year. If either weighted caseload study should show staffing levels too high in any of the areas in which staff are added, adjustments will be made to decrease the staffing levels as needed. Additional staff now will also alleviate some of the workload so the staff will have the time to participate in a weighted caseload analysis. Revenue from the criminal caseload will be increased by adding a full-time judge, but it takes quite some time before that revenue is realized. ',Bringing more cases to a disposition wilt eventually increase revenue, but the cases will take at least three to six months to be completed. The increase in revenue from criminal cases is expected no sooner than mid-year in FY 2006-07. An increase of $130,000 (20%for half of the year), is estimated. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this increase in staffing. Justice Court Staffing initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-25 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Manadement Services New Item Department initiative Type Mary Johnston 535-7173 Prepared By Phone Contact _ ___ _ — _ General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact ..... .. __... (130,294) __: Revenue impact BVFund: `1st Year 2nd Year =Y200 F Y201)6.4? General Fund Justice Court Criminal Fines $0 S 130,000.00 Total internal Service Fund Total SO $0 Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund _ __._ __,_.... � � Total SO SO Staff`=nq impact New Number of FTE's 9,00 9-00 Existingg Number of FTE's 48.10 48.10 Total 57,10 57.10. Description New Positions Criminal Court Judge 006 1 00 1.00 Justice Court Clerk 218 7.00 7.00 Fil1.00 e Clerk 216 1.00`.__ _ ._ _ Existing Positions (comparable to new positions) Criminal Court Judge 006 4.00 4 00 __._. 1.0fl , ...-_... -__ Justice Court Judge PT.. Justice Court Clerk, 218 13.00 13.00 File Clerk... PT 0.50 U.SU,. Accounting Detail ant*and LF_LIA4t if Applicable: Revenue: Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number Expenditure Cos_t Center Number Object Code Number Amount 01-00028 ......._ Personal Services 799 60 81 2506 . $ _... 666.01)._ fl1-�D028.. ..-_ 828 00 fl1 00028 _ _ 2340 1 _.. 2760 60 $ 10,000,00 fl1-40028 _... - _ 20,OOfl.00_ fl 1-00028 _.. 2225 a� _0 2299 $ 3,000.00 fl1-fl0028 _ 130.293,50... Additional 4lccountingDetail Grant Information: _______ N/A Grant funds employee positions? Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A�_... ._,„ . if grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the rant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frames N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or ____...__...... .. _._. ... w Non-profit sector? N/A initiative Name: CIP Cemetery Historical Survey Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 initiative #A-26 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The Public Services Parks Division received a $2,500 grant from the Utah Humanities Council for a historical survey of the Salt Lake City Cemetery. The grant requires a match of $11635, which will be met with $5,045 of in-kind services of personnel time, supplies, printing, etc., within the Public Services Park Division, a cash match of $5,000 which is being proposed to be funded with CIP general fund cost over-run monies and the consultant, who will perform the study is requesting private donor's provide an additional $2,500 to match the grant. This request is to appropriate $5,000 of Cl? general fund cost over-run funds to be used as match for the Utah Humanities grant. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. . ............_ CIP- Cemetery Historical Study Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-26 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 ....... Prepared BY...._._.._.� , Telephone Contact General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact __........_ Revenue:ImpactByFund: Istfcar 2nd Year =Y2005-D6 F'2006-D7 General Fund —..__._ Total SO SO Internal Service Fund _..._.. Total $0 $0 ;Enterprise Fund Total SO $0 . :Other Fund Total SO SO' Staffing Impact: New Number of FTI='s 0' 0 Existing Number ofFTE s 0 Total 0.00 0 Description Accounting Dail 1rant#and CFDA#if Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 9 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-04099 2700 S (5,000.00) 83 New Cost Center • Additional Accounting Details: Gear:t Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? .. . ... .NIA.._ Iff grant is funding a position is it expected cted the position will p N/Aeliminated at the end of the grant? Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A ... 3 Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? _ NIA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or.._... ___ _W. N/A Non-profit sector? _.._..._ ....__ initiative Name: Street Lighting Funding Analysis Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-27 initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: It is proposed that $75,000 be appropriated from fund balance to facilitate the hiring of a specialized consultant to analyze options for funding a city-wide street lighting program. The current lighting program is funded from several sources, none of which is guaranteed. The existing lighting infrastructure is not currently being funded sufficiently to adequately maintain and replace lighting. Citizens are also interested in converting to decorative lighting. Funding methods and sources, with associated pros and cons, to fund the capital, operating and maintenance costs need to be identified and evaluated to provide the information needed to determine the type of lighting program(s) to be offered and the associated funding level and source. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this project. Street Lighting Funding Analysis Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative#A-27 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development/Transportation New Item Department Initiative Type Tim Harpst 535-6630 Prepared By ._.__ Phone Contact General Fund Fund Balance) imp ($75,000) Revenue impact By fund: 1st Year 2nd'fear fY 20DS-DS CY200B-D7 General Fund S0 Total: SO internal Service Fund Total SO SO Enterprise Fund Total $0` SO Other Fund Total' 0 SO Staffing impact: New Number of FTE`s 0 0 Existing Number of FTE s 0 Total 0 0 Description Accounting Detail g nt4/and C+DA*if Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number ObjectCode Number Amount 01 974 . ..._ 75,000.00 B3-Hero cost center 1 ._. __. . ..._�.... Object Code Number Amount Cost Center Number __.._ 7.._.. ... .____ .._._..___. _. ._.. ___.... Expenditure: 83-new cast center _.. 2;=90 7 ,DDD.Dfl 5,00D 00 09-00700 __-__.2910 01 7 ��.. � _.. .__ -. Additional Accounting Details: • Brant Information; Grant funds employee positions? NiA Is there a potential for grant to continue? . .. _.. N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will.. .. ._,. . be eliminated at the end of the granter NIA.._ . .... ..... Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NIA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _ -.. . Non-profit sector? NIA Initiative Name: Ground Transportation Administrator Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #A-28 initiative Type: New Item initiative Discussion: It is proposed that $23,025 be appropriated from the General Fund fund balance to facilitat- the hiring of an full time position to provide oversight of the transportation Indust Ordinances, which will include the new contract form of regulation. The position will repo directly to the Director of Building Services and Business Licensing. The position would be a 606 level employee, the range of pay far this pay class, is $42,390 (entry) to $52,998 (midpoint), Salary and benefits for the full year at the mid point would be $68,558, An additional $5,885 is needed for Vehicle expenses, computer lease, cubicle installation. Th-.1 total cost for a full fiscal year wouid be $74,443. The cost for fiscal year 2005-06 is $23,025. Salary and benefits for one quarterly of the yea is $17,140 and the $5,885 for vehicle, computer and cubicle installation. Currently the ground transportation industry is regulated through the Business License Office using Certificates of Convenience and Necessity. Recently Council adopted a resolution to change to a contract form of regulation. That change will require an RFP and bids from several potential providers. This new position is vital to oversee the development of the RFP and begin to fashion a program for enforcement under the new contract. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this project. Ground Transportation Administrator Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-28 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development/Business Licensing New Item Department Initiative Type Orion Goff 535-6681 Prepared By .... ._.,_, Phone Contact General Fund (Fund Balance) Imp _-.-- ($23,025) Revenue Impact By fund: 1st Year 2nd Veal' FY2DOS-DE FY2DD6. 7 General Fund Total SO SO Internal`-Service Fund Total SO $0 Enterprise Fund Total; $0 SO Other Fund Total; 0 SO Staffing Impact: - ?New Number of FTE's 0 0 'Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total a 0; Description Accounting Detail Grant ttand CEDA if Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 06-New Cost Center 2100 17140.00 06- New Cost Center 2300 5,885.00 23.025.00 Additional Accounting Details: • Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions NIA Is there a potential for grant to continues N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frames N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NIA initiative Name: State of Utah VAVVA Grant - Police Dept Victim Advocate Position initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative#8-1 initiative Type: Grants For Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received, $18,161.21 of grant funding from the State of Utah. Office of Crime Victim Reparations under the Violence Against Women Grant Program. The PD receives this grant annually and funds will continue to be used to pay th- salary and benefits of 1 existing PTE Victim Advocate Position. This Program currently has FTE's and 1 PTE that are budgeted within the PD's general fund budget and 4 PTE's who ar- grant funded. The grant requires a $6,651. in-kind match which will be met with the Program Coordinators salary and budgeted for within the PD's general fund budget. This program provides services that include resources, referrals, information support, community education, court advocacy and crisis intervention to victims of domestic violence. Of the 4,792 temporary protective orders and the 2,263 permanent protective orders issued in 2004 on behalf of victims of domestic violence, 40% of each category were issued from the 3rd District Court which serves residents of Salt Lake City. From Jan 1 to October 15, 2005 the SLC PD responded to 2,805 domestic violence incidents. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants. State of Utah VAWA Grant Police Dept Victim Advocate Position initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative#B-1 2005-06 initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Police Staff Resources Department Type of initiative Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 799-37291535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue impact ByFund; 1st Year 2nd-Year FY 2005-DS FY2006417 General Fund Total SO SO internal Service Fund Total SO $0 Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund 72 Fund Grants 18.161.21 Total S 18.161.21 So Staffing Impact: New Number of FTC's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE s 0.50 Total 0.50 0 Description 1040 hours at S16 76 per hr Plus benefits Accounting Detail 33rant*and CFDA*If Applicable: 05-11AWA-24 16.588 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 7 2- New Cost Center . 1 37D. ..._._ _._ __. �.... __. 21 . - Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount ..:. 72- New Cost Center 211101 5 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: _...:Grant funds employee positions? Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes if grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grants Yes Will grant program be complete.._in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ,eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No 3 initiative Name: Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) - State of Utah - Grant Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #B-2 initiative Type: Grant for Existing Staff Resources initiative Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received this $50,000 grant from the State of Utah, Department of Health for their Crisis Intervention Team (Cif) Program to administer, coordinate, and promote CIT training efforts throughout the State. This program was initiated to assist Law Enforcement Officers in effectively dealing with a person experiencing a mental health crisis, as well as every day interaction with mental health consumers. These funds will be used as follows: $25,165 for partial salaries and benefits of the SLCPD Program Director and Coordinator who administer the Statewide CIT Program; $10,320 for travel, training, workshop and conference expenses which include remote CIT presentations, trainings for the Director and Coordinator and workshops and conferences; and $14,515 for supplies to include manuals, certification pins, lanyards, and food provided during the trainings and equipment necessary for conducting CIT trainings It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the grant agreement and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. Crisis Intervention Team(CIT) *State of Utah-Grant Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#B-2 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grant for Existing Staff Police Resources Department Type of Initiative _ Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 799-37291635-6 I SO Prepared By_ Telephone Contact 'General Fund Fund Balance) aim act_ . .. .._._ . . Revenue impact By fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY20115-I16 FY 2DD6-117 General Fund _�__ Total SO SO Internal Service Fund Total S0 SO Enterprise Fund Total S0 SO Other Fund 72 Fund Grant $ 5O,0O0.00 Total S 50,000.00 SO Stiffing impact: New Number of FTE's lExisting Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant*.and i A#ifApplicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 1370 $ 50,000 00 expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2590 $ _.. 50,000 00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant information: 'Grant funds employee positions Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? :.-_. Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No • Does grant duplicate services provided byprivate or Non-profit sector? No Initiative Name: State of Utah VAWA Grant-Justice Court Clerk Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 initiative #8-3 Initiative Type: Grants For Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Management Services City Courts Division applied for and received, $39,927.84. of grant funding from the State of Utah, Office of Crime Victim Reparations under the Violence Against Women Grant Program. The Justice Court receives this grant annually and funds will be used to continue to fund the full-time court clerk position to process domestic violence cases filed with the with Salt Lake City Justice Court/ This position tracks, manages and provides follow-up on each domestic violence case to monitor offender compliance with court ordered probation, community service, counseling, drug treatment, etc. A 25% city match or $20,578.65 is required and will be met within the personnel services of the Justice Court Director, the Criminal Section Manger, the Domestic Violence Court Judge, and is currently budgeted for within the courts general fund budget, It is recommended that the City Council adopt the appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants. • State of Utah VAWA Grant-Justice Court Clerk _ . __.__._ Initiative blame BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#B-3 2005-06 .. initiative Number Fisca':Year Grants for Existing Management Services Staff Resources Department Type of Initiative Mary Johnston/Sherrie Collins 535-7173/535-6150 1 .. Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue impactBvFund: 1st Year 2nd Year TY 20105-D6 FY 2005►-07 General Fund Total D' Internal Service Fund Total; D Enterprise Fund Total -Other Fund 72 Fund Grant $ 39,927.84_____.... __._. .___..._. _—_.�__... 39,927.84 S0 Total: _ _: Staffing impact: New Number of FTI:'s _ ._ .0 .. .._..�._. __..._. ._ 1 {30" Existing.__..Number of FTE's ;Total 1.00', Description _._ _.._ �.... AccountingDetail Grant*and cF A if Applicable; ' O5 VAWA-23 16.58E Revenue: Amount 1370 $ 39 �32 Cost Center Number Object Code Number . . 84 72- New Coss Center __. Expenditure: AmountOb Object Code Number Cost Center Number.___.:__.___. w ._ �_.. ... 39 927 84 72 New Cost Center ._.___-___ _.�_.____.2111-Ci1 S_ Additional AccountingDetails: _..... _. .. Grant'Information: Yes Grant funds employee positions? _._._ . Yes _ __. Is there a potential for grant to continue? �_........ _.. ;If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will Yes be eliminated at the end of the grant? ...._ Yes Will grant program be complete in grant fundingtime frame? Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _._ No eliminated? �___..� .___.. ..__ Does grant duplicate services provided by private or No Non-profit sector? Initiative Name: Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Grant Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 initiative #B-4 Initiative Type: Grant For Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: Management Services Emergency Preparedness Office applied for and received this $2,500. Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) grant from the State Department of Put:ilia Safety. This grant is received on an annual basis and is used to offset some of the personnel expenses of the Emergency Manager salary for activities with the LEPC and web-site expenses. The $2,500 grant requires a 20°,70 or$625.00 match which will be met within Management Services general fund budget in the personnel expense. These It is recommended that the City Council adopt the appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants. Local Emergency Planning Committee(LEPC)Grant Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative#B-4 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Management Services Staff'Resources Department Type of tnitiative Michael Stever/Sherrie Collins 535-6030/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact Revenue:impact Div fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY20i 5-.06 FY2006-07 General Fund Total $0 $0 internal Service Fund Total Enterprise Fund —_. ..: ._ Total $0 0 Other Fund _ . . __._.___.. 72 Fund Grants 2,50000 Total 5 2,500,00 SO Staffing impact: - New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE s Total Description Accounting Detail Grant4tand If Applicable: 20.703 Revenue: Amount Cost Center Number Object cede Number _.. . 72 New Cost Center 1370 Expenditure: Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number 72- New Cost Center - AdditionalAccounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Na - Is there a potential for grant to continue? No If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end cif the grants NiA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? .__ __ Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are .... _... _ __... No =eliminated Does grant duplicate services provided by private or NoNon-profit sector? Initiative Name: Leonardo Dept of Education Pass through to Global Artways initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative#B-5 initiative Type: Grant For Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Leonardo received a US Department of Education Grant and is contracting with the City's Global Artways program for collaboration of arts education and programming at the Leonardo. The Leonardo awarded Global Artways $99,200 for arts programming. Global will use $22,500 for seasonal teachers for the Summer Arts Aprentice Program and Shapkepeare in the Park productions, $38,700 for equipment which includes a sound studio and production materials needed, and $38,000 for contractual components which include a Performance Art Piece with SLC Bicycle Coalition, 21st Century Play Festival and the workshop for Children's Opera, It is recommended that the City Council adopt the appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants. Leonardo Dept of Ed Pass through to Global Artways initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#B-5 __...... . 2005-06 Fiscal Year Initiative Number _._. ... Grant For Existing Staff Public Services YouthCltY Resources ________ _ . Department Type of Initiative Janet WolflSherrie Collins 535 77121535-6!6U Telephone Contact Prepared By _.. Fund Balance) Impact_ _ _. .General Fund ( _._._ 1st 2n1 ' ar _. Revenue impactBvfund: .. _ General Fund '. Total Co S0 Internal Service Fund Total SO SO __ _ 'Enterprise Fund _ .___._.. . .._..._ _ Total S0 S0 Other Fund 72 Fund Grants 99,200.00 Total99,200,00 SO ', _ ..._... _ - $ Staffing Impact: 0 New Number ofFTE's 0 . . ._.____. .,_ ._ Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total .00' Description Seasonal employees/teachers for 'specific programs Accounting Retail 'Grant#and tom#if Applicable: Revenue: Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number . _.. 72 New Cost Center 99.200 00 1360 Expenditure: Amount 72- Cost Center Number Object Code Number .._ New Cost Center 2590 9Q,20U.fl0 Additional Accounting Details. Grant;Information: Noto Grant fun s employee positions?y W...,.... ._. . _�. � e� is there a potential for grant to continue? No If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are .....__ No eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private or No Non-profit sector Initiative Name: Leonardo Dept of Education Pass through to Housing and Neighborhood Development for Grant Consultation Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #B-6 Initiative Type: Grant For Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Leonardo received a US Department of Education Grant and is contracting with the City' Housing and Neighborhood Development for grant consultation. The Leonardo will pay Housing and Neighborhood Development over a period of 5 years, funds totaling $8,710. for grant consultation pertaining to the Leonardo's Department o Education Grant. More specific, HAND will monitor project fund disbursements and required Federal reporting by Leonardo. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants. Leonardo Dept of Ed Pass through to Housing and Neighborhood Development Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative# 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Community Development Staff Resources Department Type of irutiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-61361535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact Gen eral Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact 3v end: 1st Year 2nd Year 1Y2005 D6 FY2006-D7 General Fund Total SO SO - - Internal Service Fund Total SO SO Enterprise Fund Total SO S0 Other Fund $ 72 Fund Grants _ .... .... . .. .8,710.00 8.710.00 Total, $ SO Staffing impact 0 0 New Number of FTE s Existing Number of FTE's 0_. Total 0,0D Description Accounting Detail Grant*anti CFDA*If Applicable: Revenue: Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number 72- New Cost Center ._. .00 Expenditure Amount Cost Center Number �.._.. Object Code Number 72- New Cost Center Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Yes is there a potential for grant to continue? No If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will fillA Abe eliminated at the end of the grant? _ ... _..._.., Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? _ N initiative Name: US Department of Education -YouthCity Program income Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #D-1 initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: 'YouthCity Programs generate program income from fees collected for programming services provided to y6uth at Ottinger, Liberty, Fairmont and Central City YouthCity sites. This request is to create budget to facilitate the expenditure of the program income. Program Income is re- 'allocated back into the programs where it was received. It is recommended that the Council appropriate the necessary budgets to continue facilitation of these programs.. US Department of Education Proaram Income-YouthCity Program Income Initiative Name 2005-06 BA#4 FY2006 In iiti ative#D- _ __ Fiscal Year Initiative Number Housekeeping Community Development Type of initiativeDepartment _._, _ .. __ 636-5'i361�S�5-S15t1 LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins __........ ____. . _. Telephone Contact Prepared B .. ... _ -.... :General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact t ( 2nd'Yar �2evenue'Impact Bv Fund: 'FY2005 FY2DO -D7 General Fund ' Total 0 $a_ . internalService Fund Total 0 SO Enterprise Fund Total 0 SO Other Fund 36,43fl.2t) 72 Fund-Program Fees Total, $ 36,430.20 $0 Staffin i impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE'S 0 0 Total Description Atm:muting Detail Grant#and tThA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number 72-66003 1305 $ 7,364.60 _...-. 72-66004 1305 _. _.. . 11,058.00 72-66005 _.. _ _.. 1305 ..... _.. 170.00 72 66006 1305 $ 12,216.00 72-66005 1305 $ 3000... _. 72-66005 1305 $ 156.50 1305 $ 78 0 „ 72-66002 _. __ - -_ 1,767.25 72-66004 1305 $ 72 66006 1305 2,884.45 $ 36,430.20 Expenditure: Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number 72-66003.., 7,364.50 2590 � .......... $ �. ._. 12,$25.25 72-66004 2590 $ 72-66005 2590 _._._ 356.5072-66006 2590 $ 15,100 45 72-66002 2590 $ ... . 783.50 36,430.20 dditional Description: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions NIA Is there a potential for grant to continue __ NIA If grant is. ._.s funding,. a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the rant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NIA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are N/A eliminated? .._ __ Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A initiative Name: Economic Development Loan Program income Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#D-2 initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: The City Center Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) loan has generated program income from payments received from the borrower. The reallocation of these funds is directed by Resolution Number 93 of 1991 which states repayments of the City Center UDAG be used as a source of funding to support the Neighborhood Revitalization Element of the Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund. In addition, the UDAG Revolving Loan Fund has generated program income from the repayments of principal and interest made to the City from borrowers. The Council has traditionally re-appropriated this program income back to the UDAG Revolving Loan Fund program to fund additional loans for economic development. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary adjustments to the budgets to continue facilitation of these programs. Economic Development Loan Program Income Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative#D-2 2006-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 635-61361535-6150 Prepared BY_._., __....... Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY2005-D6 FY2OOE-137 General Fund Total 0 Internal Service Fund Total 0 SO Enterprise Fund Total 0 $0, Other Fund 72 Fund UDAG Revolving $ 1,O61.340.00 Payback 7 1 .._ 72 FundCityCenter Loan Fund v 217,748.00 (7200720) Total $ 1.279,088,00 S0 Staling Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 0 Description Accounting Detail grant#and C1 DA4 tf Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-15607 1306 ,t�61,340 OCt 72-15607 �1305 217,74i3.(l0 . Y �_ _ ____. __: $ 1,279,088.00 Expenditure: ___ Cost Object Code`Number Amount ___ Number �____ w 72 1 2950 $ 1,061,340.00 __ __a___. . 7_. 156fl7 2960 $ 217,748.00 $ ._. _„ ...1,279,08£00 Additional Description: I Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NiA _.. _ __ _ ., potential l _ o grant to continue? NiA Is there a for If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _._..be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A ..._. ... . Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are -, ___..___ eliminated? NIA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NIA Initiative Name: Move CDBG CIP from 71 to 83 Fund Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #D-3 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: These projects are CDBG Public Building improvement projects. This action will move budgets and cash of these capital improvement projects from the 71 fund to the 83 fund which includes all capital improvement projects. This will allow Housing and Neighborhood Development to easier track and monitor all CIP Projects. It is recommended that the Council appropriate the necessary adjustments to the budgets to continue facilitation of these projects. Move CDBG CIP From 71 to 83 Fund Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 initiative#D-3 2005-06 Fiscal Year Initiative Number Housekeeping Community Development .._.._ . ..___ ___ Department Type of Initiative _.. LuAnn'Clark(Sherrie Collins 58516136753rs-6150 Telephone Contact Prepared By • General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact _... Est tear 2nd Year Revenue Impact By Fund: =General Fund �. .. _.b___._ Total SO Internal Service Fund Total 0 SO ;ante rise Fund .... . _. ,._... Total 0', 50 Other Fund Total 0 50, Staffing Impact: 0 0 . New Number of FTE s ., �_ ,Existing Number of FTC's 0 0 Total Description _ Accounting Detail Srant*2nd cFnA4t If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount . .___.71-31013 1310 (107,400.00) 71-31018 (15,000.00) 71-31052 1310 - �.__ ___ 1310 7 3 (19.600.00) ______ 71-31030 1310 (41,564.00).._.... . 71-31058 1310 (62.982.00) 71-31057 1310 (10.000.00) 71-31043 1310 (17,300.00) 71-31059 , 1310 (59.400,00) 71-31060 1310 (60.000.00) 71-31044 1310 (8,000.00) 71-31055 1310 _. ...: . .._,. . (5,500.00)._._._ 71-31045 1310 (27,723.00 .r 71-31054 1310 (3,400.00) 71-31056 1310 (16,975 00)._. 71-31036 1310 (118,000.00) _. . _ 71-30054 1310 (15,000.00) 71-30055 1310 (7,500.00) _. 71-30057 1310 (10,000.00) ._71-30059 1310 (7,975.41) 1310 (120,000.00)..,,. . _ 71 30fl60 71-30063 1310 (18,000.00) (761,219.41) 83-New Cost Center 1310 107,400 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 15,000.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 9,900 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 19,600,00 83-New Cost Center 1310 41,564 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 62,982 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 10,000 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 17,300.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 59,400.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 60,000 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 8,000 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 5,500 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 27,723.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 3,400.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 16,975 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 118,000 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 15,000 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 7,500 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 10,000 00 83-New Cost Center 1310 7,975 41 83-New Cost Center 1310 120.000 00 .83-New Cost Center 761.219.41 Expenditure; Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number 71-31013 2590 ...(10 7,400.08).... 71-31018 2590 (15,000.00) 71-31052 2590 (9,900.00) _ 2590 71 31fl53 (19,600.00) ... ., . 71-31030 2590 (41,564.00) _._ 71-31058 2590 (fig,982.00) 2590 (10,00fl 00) ...._- 71-31057 71-31043 2590 (17,300.00) ... 71 31059 2590 (59,400 00) 71 31060 2590 (60,000 00) _... 71 31{)44 2590 (8.000 00) 71-31055 2590 (5,500.00) _.._ 2590 (27.723.00) 71 31045 2590 {3,400 00} 71 31054 . _ _ 2590 (16,975.00) 71 31{l5fi _..�... 71-31036 2590 (118,000,00)_ _.__71_300_..__54 2590 (15,000,00) 71 _._ _...... _._ 2590 (7,500 00) 30055 _.,.._71-30057 2590 (10,000,00), 71-30059 2590 (7,975 41) 71-30060 2590 (120,000 00). 71-30063 2590 (18,000.00)_. �._.._... .._._._� ._.__..._.. _._ 761 219.41) 83-New Cost Center 107,400.00 _. 83-New Cost Center 2590 15,000.00 83 New Cost Center 2590 9,900.00 83 New Cost Center 259019,600 00 83-New Cost Center 2590 41,564 00 62.982.00 83-New Cost Center 2590 ...___ _.. 1� atio flo , 83 New Cost Center 9 z 00..__ _. _ . 63-New Cost Center 2590 17300 �83-New Cost Center 2590 59,400.00 2590 80,000_fl0 83 New'Cost Center 0 2590 8,000.00 83-New Cost Center _... _....._.. -83-New Cost Center 2590 5,500.00 27,723 00 83-New Cost Center 2590 �_ 83-New Cost Center3 _..��. .� �. 16 975 00 83 New Cost Center 590 6, 83-New Cost Center0 118,000.00 �_____ 2590 15.000.00 83-New Cost Center 83-New Cost Center 2590 7,500 00 83-New Cost Center 2590 10,000.00 __. __ . 2590 7,975.41 83-New Cost Center _ ._ _.... . ...... _ . 83-New Cost Center 2590 120,000.00 83-New Cost Center_... . 2590 18,000.00 761,219.41 Additional Description: = _._. .___.. Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? initiative Name: Housing Loans Program Income Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 initiative #D-4 initiative Type. Housekeeping initiative Discussion: The Housing Section of Housing and Neighborhood Development has generated program income from principal and interest payments received from borrowers. The Council ha traditionally re-appropriated this program income back to the Housing section to fund additional bans. It is requested that the Council again follow this practice and appropriate this program income to fund additional loans for use by the Housing section in its Rente Rehabilitation, CDBG and Home programs. NOTE: The $487,067 appears twice due to the accounting system established for CDBG with mirror accounts. There is only $487,067 of cash available for expense by HAND. It is recommended that the Council appropriate the necessary adjustments to these budgets to continue facilitation of these programs. Housing Loans Program income Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#D-4 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-613615356150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By fund: 1st Year 2nd'Year fY201)5-DE fY2006-1)7 General Fund Total 0 SO Internal Service Fund Total aSO Enterprise Fund Total 0 SO Other Fund 78 Fund Program Income 819,487.00 71 Fund Program Income 487,067.00 Total 1,306,554 00 SO Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 0 Description Accounting Detail - rant and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Number Object Code Amount ' Cost Center Number Ob e.. 1 1305 $ 249793 00 ....,. 7$ 00201 1974 03 � 4$7,067 00 7$-31010 v__.. : _.w_.,..u, _. ..._.___.. ___._._._ _ 487 067 DO .a.. 1310_-._. 71-31010_.._ _._., 7$-7$325 1974-78 $ 82_627.00.._ _._ . . . .. 1,306,554.00 Expenditure: Amount Cost Center Number Object Code`Number 780201 ....__ 2950 249,793.00 291071 487,067.00 783101f} ___ __.____._ �_ 487,067.00...._. 291015 713101(?._,._„_ _____ 2950 82,627 00 7878325__. .. .._._.... 1,306,554.00 Additional Description: .._... ._. . Grant Information: _. Grant funds employee positions Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA_., __ __. If grant is funding aposition is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA _...__ Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA ...... Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NA Initiative Name: Improving Crime Data (ICD) - Georgia State University Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative#E-1 Initiative Type: Grant Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received this $34,920 grant from Georgia State University, It is a pass-through grant from the Department of Justice and will be used to upgrade the PD's Interoperable data communications equipment, pay IMS to create a program application, and a consultant to provide in-house training to access and analyze shared data generated by the new system. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the grant agreement and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. Improving Crime Data(ICD)Georgia State University Grant Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#E-1 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grant Requiring No Police New Staff Resources Department Type of lnit:ative _krista'''Dunn/Sherrie"Collins 799-37291335-6150 _.._,_. ; Prepared By Telephone Contact .__. _..._ General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact ... __ _..,,_ __ ......._..___...._.................. Revenue Impacti By Fund: let Year 2nd Year '20Dr-t1 FY 200E4 7 GeneralFund Total SO SO Internal Service Fund Total SO SO Enterprise Fund Total SO SO Other Fund 72 Fund Grant 34920.00 _920.00 $0, Total: $ Staffing Impact:New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's Total Description .. _ _ :F Accounting Detail Grant*andMIA*if Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 1360 .__ 34,92fl 00 Expenditure; Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72 New Cost Center 2690...__. ._. .._.....__ ! . Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions ___. . .. No is there a potential for grant to continue? No If gfundingrant itexpected the position a position is will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No 'Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? Na Initiative Name: Cemetery Historic Survey - Utah Humanities Council Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 initiative#E-2 Initiative Type: Grant Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Public Services Department applied for and received this $2500 grant from the Utah Humanitie Council. These funds, and the required $11,635 match, will be used to conduct historical research, field work, and produce documentation for the Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) of th:, Salt Lake City Cemetery. The information documented in this study will be used to educate youth groups, school classes and general public about the importance of cemeteries as historical places. The required $11,635 match will be met with $5,045 of in-kind services of personnel time, supplies, printing, etc., within the Public Services, Parks Division, a cash match of $5,000 is being requested a a separate item within the CIP General Fund contingency, and the consultant, who will perform th- study is requesting private donor's provide an additional $2,500 to match the grant application. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants, and appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. Cemetery Historic Survey Utah Humanities-Salt Lake City Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#E-2 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grant Requirinq No Public Services New Staff Resources Department Type of Initiative Rick Graham/Sherrie Collins 535-7774/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact ..___. _. General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st'Year 2nd Year Y 2DII5-D6 FY2006It7 General Fund Total SO internal Service Fund Total SO $0 Enterprise Fund Total S0, SO Other Fund 72 fund Grant $ 2,500 00 Total. _.. S 2,500.00 $0 Staffing Impact New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0.00 Total 0.00 0 Description Grant4tand CFDA #tfApplicable: 12007 001 2103 0604 Accounting Detail ,_ .. Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number _.. Amount 9a 2,b00.00 72- New Cost Center 1895 .__ __. Expenditure: 2,500.00 2590 Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount .._ 72- New. Cost Center Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: ,Grant funds employee positions? No _ Is there a potential for grant to continues __. �._ _.. N°_.. ,_, ' If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame?..-.. Yes. -- ..:..... 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are __..... ._..__._ eliminated? NIA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Nonprofit sector? _ _....;___.,..._ Initiative Name: Global Artways -The Kennedy Center for Performing Art Grant Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative#E-3 initiative Type: Grant Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: Global Artways received a $7,500 grant from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Education Department for their imagination Celebration program. The grant must be met with a one- for one one match which will be met within Global Artways general fund budget for personnel expenses. The Kennedy Center Imagination Celebration (KCIC) at Salt Lake City is an arts education festival that engages young people, teachers and families in exploring and celebrating the creative process. The KCIC brings world-class artists, performances and events into schools and communities, to create powerful experiences for all participants. Global Artways will use these funds to conduct the imagination celebration art workshop which is an exhibit and public art making activity designed to bring young people and their caregivers together in an enriching experiences. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants, and appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. Global Artways -The Kenneth'Center for Performing Arts Grant Initiative Name BA#4'FY2006 initiative#E-3 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grant Requiring No Public Services New Staff Resources Department Type of Initiative Janet WolflSherrie:Collins 535-77121535-6150 ... _By Telephone Contact Prepared _ �__,_ ��_. _, General Fund (Fund Balance) impact _._..... Revenue Impact$v fund: 1st Year 2nd Year fY2OD5-DE, 6D7 General Fund SO $0` Total internal Service Fund Total SO $O' Enterprise Fund Total SO', SO Other Fund 72 Fund Grants 7,500.00 Total $ 7,500.00 SO! Staffinq Impact: 0 New Number of FTE's 0 ..... ... .. .... ._._,,...,.._. _ .l".. Existing Number of FTE s Total 0,00 0 Description Accounting Detail >3rant#.and:Cf=DA#1FApplicable: `, 84.351 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 1300 7,500 00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center .u_2590_a. . 7,500 00 . _.w.. Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continu& No If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NIA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? _ No Initiative Name: State of Utah VAWA Grant- Prosecutors Victim Empowerment Program Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 initiative#E-4 Initiative Type: Grant Requiring No New Staff Resoruces Initiative Discussion: The Prosecutors Office applied for and received $16,875 from the State of Utah, Office of Crime Victim Reparations and will be used to contract with an outside agency to provide counseling services to women who are victims of domestic violence. The Prosecutors Office, collaborating with Salt Lake County Probation Services, the Trauma Awareness Center, and the YWCA, will develop and implement a victim empowerment counseling program for women who are reluctant to participate in trial proceedings against their abusers. Victims routinely seek dismissal of the perpetrator's charges, assert marital privilege, recant or otherwise make themselves unavailable so as not to testify and hold the offenders accountable. These grant funds will provide for counseling services of approximately 150 victims. The grant requires a $7,001.09. in-kind match which will be met with the Program Coordinators salary and use of equipment which is budgeted for within the Prosecutor's general fund budget. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants, State of Utah VAWA Grant- Prosecutors Victim Empowerment Program initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#E-4 2005-06 initiative Number Fiscal Year Grant Requiring No Prosecutors Office New Staff Resources Department Type of initiative Padma Collings/Sherrie Collins 535-77621535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By fund. 1st Year 2nd Year fY2ODS-tt6 Y2OO6-D7 General Fund Total SO $0 Internal Service Fund Total so so ' Enterprise Fund Total SD' SD Other Fund 72 Fund Misc Grant S 16.875 00 Total S 16.875.00 SO Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE`s 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0.00' 0 Description Accounting Detail Srant#anti C DAlt If Applicable: 05-VAWA-25 16.588 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 1370 S 16,875.00 72- New Cost Center .... Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 7 2-New Cost Center. _._ 2590 16,875 00 . .......__ . .... ...._.._.. .__..... __ • Additional Accounting Details. Grant Information. Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continues Possibly .__..._. If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grants NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frames Yes ._ Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No initiative Name: Ottinger Hall Renovation Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#F-1 initiative Type: Donation Initiative Discussion: The renovation of Ottinger Hall was initially funded by a $100,000 donation from the Rotary- Club of Salt Lake and the City's matching funds of $200,000 from a federal education grant. The completion of the project is expected to be complete the first two weeks of March 2006, The Ottinger Hall renovation project is very close to exhausting its funds. During the course of the renovation project some unplanned changes were needed in the design, The Public Services Department is requesting an additional funding of $5,000, The $5,000 will be donation by the Rotary Club of Salt Lake. The Rotary Club of Salt Lake is willing to donate up to $5,000 to make sure the project is completed. Ottincier Hall Renovation Initiative Name BA##4 FY2006 Initiative#F-1 2004-05 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services Department Donation Department Type of Initiative Greg Davis, 535-6397 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact Revenue-impact$v Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY2004-D5 f(2O1}S»D& General Fund Total SO SO Internal Service Fund Total SO SO Enterprise Fund Total $0 SO Other Fund CIP Fund 83-05042 5,000.00 Total $ 5,000.00 $0; Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE`s ` O 0= Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 0 Description Accounting Detail trarrt#and cFl3A#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-05042 1895 5 5,000.00 Expenditure' Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number -. . 83-05042 2700 5.000 00_.,... _ . . ._._ Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue N/A I be eliminated at the end of the i grant? N/A the position will fg t i funding position - — N!A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ...__.. . _...... ._ N/A eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector' N/A 11 itgo Page 1 of 2 It? WI? Memo response to Council questions regarding interoperable radio communications 1) Will the City's communications system be able to communicate with the School District radios in an emergency situation? Answer: The school district can communicate with the City's simulcast trunking system via two ways, (1) Create a permanent or a temporary radio patch between the school districts 450mhz system and the City's 800mhz simulcast system, (2)the school district can migrate from their current 450mhz to the 800mhz City-wide simulcast and therefore be on the same City communication system, or a less expensive alternative for the School District may be to purchase an 800mhz control base station which will allow each school that has one to communicate directly with any City department operating on the City's simulcast system. Under the state's contract the cost for the each base station is currently $3650, and this may provide a great alternative for everyday safety, or emergency, communications for the school district. In addition, all secondary schools have a police officer, equipped with the current 800mhz radios already implemented on the City system, stationed within the schools. These officers will have a seamless connection with all other City/public safety communications. Since the elementary schools no longer have the DARE officers,the elementary schools do not currently have this direct public safety link, and would have to rely on the patch mentioned in option #1 if the school district does not upgrade or supplement its communication system in the near future. 2) In your estimation, how long will the current project cost estimate be valid before an increase in price? Answer: Motorola's standard proposal price validation is 90 days from the date of the proposal; however, Motorola has extended price validity on this project to 120 days from the date of this proposal (12/19/05), knowing that the city council would possibly be making a decision in March of 2006,therefore allowing time for a contract to be processed. Motorola has been very supportive of this initiative and has worked closely with the City on this pricing. Motorola consistently implements a price increase every year. Last December, the City negotiated vehemently with Motorola to hold the price that was sent out in our grant request last summer—June 2005. Although we were not successful in acquiring federal assistance during last year's round of grant requests, we asked Motorola to hold the price while we asked the City Council to appropriate surplus funds in order to complete the final phase of this multi-year project. In response to our requests, Motorola did hold the price and did not implement a price increase last December. 3) If the cost of the project increases before the Council appropriates funding,what is the estimate of the price increase? Answer:Motorola's pricing varies according to labor cost increases, material price increases etc.,Motorola estimates a reasonable price increase on this project to be between 8% and 17%, as pricing on some items in this quote are well over a year old. At a minimum the City could expect at least a $240,000 increase, and possibly as high as $510,000. In addition to the three questions Council staff has asked the Administration to address two other issues that were raised the night of the Council briefing. Council asked the Administration why it should consider this initiative now rather than waiting for the Mayor's recommended budget, and clarify the file://C:\Documents and Settings\j s8573\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK60\... 3/14/2006 Page 2 of 2 Airport's role and financial commitment to the project. In response to these two issues the Administration offers the following response: 1) The Administration is asking the Council to consider this initiative now rather than waiting for the Mayor's recommended budget primarily for the following reasons; a) Anticipation of a Motorola price increase associated with delaying the signing of the contract. (Addressed in#3 above); and b)If we wait until July to update the price list, order the equipment, get it built, staged and shipped we are into mid Nov/Dec rendering most of the sites inaccessible until late June of 2007. There is a short window of time when the radio sites are accessible due to weather conditions on the peaks where the cell towers are located. If we wait we will incur additional costs from Motorola and lost time will put this project into the spring of next year at the earliest. In addition, the FCC has mandated the rebanding of the 800 MHZ radio spectrum which will affect public safety agencies nationwide. Motorola's resources will be very taxed during this process and could delay the project even further as they will be providing technical service to support this process. 2) In regards to clarifying the Airport's role in the financing of phase IV,the Airport remains totally committed to this project and to contributing its maximum fair share of the allowable costs as determined through a legal assessment by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Administration is asking the Council to appropriate the money necessary to finalize the implementation of the interoperable communication system,with the understanding that the enterprise funds will reimburse the General Fund for their fair share of the costs associated with their system utilization.No one knows, to the penny,what those exact costs will be until the system is implemented and operational and a legal review has been completed by the FAA. If the City desires to implement the final phase of the City-wide interoperable communication system, departmental costs have been estimated using the best information available to date,based upon system utilization. Currently system utilization has been derived using the number of radios each department will utilize on the system. To this end,the Airport and Public Utilities have begun planning for this in their upcoming budget requests starting with FY 07. file://C:\Documents and Settings\js8573\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK60\... 3/14/2006 - zs" matrix ;` consulting group 2470 El Camino Real, Suite 210 Palo Alto,CA 94306 v.650.858.0507 f.650.858.0509 March 13, 2006 To: Sylvia Jones, Salt Lake City Council Office From: Richard Brady SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR THE CONDUCT OF A WEIGHTED CASELOAD STUDY The points, below, provide responses to the questions you raised in your e-mail to me on March 8th regarding the differences between the 'local study' and the 'national weighted caseload study'. If, upon review of this memorandum, you require additional information please do not hesitate to call or e-mail me. 1. What are the major differences between the local versus the national study? The principle difference between the 'local study' and the 'national weighted caseload study' is that the former is based on the weighted caseload standards developed by the State of Utah for state courts while the latter builds up caseload measures and standards unique to the Salt Lake City Justice Court. Even though the SLCJC operates in the same state, case handling measures reflect actual processes of each court, which vary, including service level targets (a reason why the Justice Court was created), automation, court jurisdiction (i.e., the kinds of cases handled), etc. The local study is designed to accept the state standards though to test the validity of many of them on a selected basis. 2. If the Council requests the local study, would they eventually need to request the national weighted caseload study anyway? No, the local study would need to be developed with sufficient testing of state caseload standards so a high level of confidence would be obtained ensuring that they reflected the unique nature of the Salt Lake City Justice Court and its workloads. 3. Given that the local study will now cost between $60,000 - $70,000, does the original cost estimate of the weighted caseload analysis for $125,000 - $175,000 need to be modified? No, the higher cost of the weighted caseload study reflects the fact that the standards developed would be based on actual measurements of the unique case workloads experienced in the Salt Lake City Justice Court. The fact that state standards would be Page 1 selectively reviewed rather than developed from `scratch' makes a significant difference in proposed project costs. It should be noted, however, that the Matrix CG report identified a top cost for the `national study' of$125,000, not$175,000. 4. Understanding that the Council is wanting to have results to assist them in making staffing changes to the Justice Court, which study make more sense at this point? The issue of which study alternative makes sense depends of three things: (1) the time in which the City needs the answer (see #6 below), (2) the level of confidence in the answers obtained (see #2 above), and (3) the cost (see #3 above). Matrix Consulting Group and the National Center for State Courts believe that we could provide sufficient testing for the local option, which provides a defensible answer for lower costs and more quickly than the national study. 5. Can you describe for us what the study and scope will be for both options? The table, below, provides a comparison of the scope of work for both studies. We would be pleased to provide a more detailed description for either option. The comparative table highlights (through bolding) key differences between the two approaches and scopes of work. National Study Local Study • Document current caseloads by type of case. • Collect Utah state court case standards; • Document weekly, monthly and annual review the basis for the standards and the variations in caseloads by type of case. analytical process behind them. • With staff, define case handling activities for • Document current caseloads by type of case. each case type. • Document weekly, monthly and annual • Through sampling of case files, develop variations in caseloads by type of case. estimates of the number of activities for • Match case activities in the SLCJC with each case type. state definitions. Make adjustments, as • Through observation and interviews with necessary. staff, develop estimates of the average • With staff, challenge the count and time time associated with each activity for each standards associated with selective case case type. activities in the state standards. • With staff, define appropriate staff productivity • With staff, define appropriate staff productivity target ranges for each case staff classification target ranges for each case staff classification and function. and function. • Analyze staffing needs given current • Analyze staffing needs given current caseloads for each staff classification derived caseloads for each staff classification derived from the analysis described above. from the analysis described above. • Analyze opportunities to improve on the • Analyze opportunities to improve on the efficiency of case processing having an efficiency of case processing having an impact on staffing and service needs. impact on staffing and service needs. As can be seen in the table, the principle difference between the two approaches relate to the time needed to develop time and count standards rather than adapting other standards for Salt Lake City's use. Page 2 Throughout this process the project team would work closely with the Justice Court to review data, assumptions, results of preliminary analysis and recommendations. 6. How soon could you and the National State Courts begin on the local study and what is your estimated time of completion? The Matrix Consulting Group and the National Center for State Courts could initiate this study sometime in April. The local study could be completed in 3 — 4 months; the weighted caseload study would take between 5— 6 months. We appreciate this potential opportunity to continue working with the City of Salt Lake City and its Justice Court. Again, if we need to provide additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at 650-858-0507 or by e-mail at rbradymatrixcg.net Matrix Consulting Group Richard P. Brady President Page 3 Initiative Name: Ground Transportation Administrator Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-28 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: It.is propoed that 26,405 be ,p reps ated f om the ra Futli � :r ,R hl g of R ` :lime�' a _r��! , a 49v .aa i -v� �f4 - e li � xe x -� „' - !�. Ordin;.0,-- J Ar 't ,v Y J J ^�.ws 1 r k anceswhich z � � i3 t 5 rr�� �€�§ �) T Sz r t� g .+rec j s to th it r 4`s { . : Y;.� g .> { h,,. 4"t: ' ''' _ : f f " f. m�asst k s or � � �, x � ,,�5g'-{" 3"' R"�^?" � ?rie�" s''� a 'S� �,��,E. s�wf i�` z�,�-Fr�,WIiIi.:41:4?-'11i4TV'?:1' } 4� F`a,xy;�r3: i ��� i.r. '�- " �.',4 t r 1} `4, a� i `� t,&Ev'i4N� �1� k� f y ''+ �;' -N R t f l 4 S - tS S k t F(t4q{�r� � �2 - �' �r �... t -�3hw� S�><�er i f-x�� E i., ti' ` �,.& . vg "P- v additio al $3, 85 eed c_ input y e 4 e hot y � 3' 67 ri r-+` F N h � xx �f�yak } -s t � �a � �w� � � 1 s< ar:31 4 �'"�i # $t �'•��a e tots cost •t * # C I � ld ^' r .tx ;•, x �`�'� '� 3 zE ,=Kt -a{ 3,�k"s,r' -1' xi t x `' i SJFF r tF , f N 4 S F> - 7F t h m`F t '7 Currently the groundt spt rti titt id0,� .1 gu `j x gthroug the i ice � ��, �l � s� �' K yyr, f� ,y- '.�. i�,5�x .s °t,��-n� _ �'t ���`����� rl * � ti ( � � r . fi d.�r�Vv�j � �.�'f�ej ch` g a� ,rac orm of uta io if } r�,,, , _ f5 uit � ' { � i SPA {� ._.:, , f F r`�. -4441. .(�j� y�' ,�7yr k �'"yq.9/l ♦{to r yy:2,•;,,,, ,,,,, S 4 •1 .a, hi 1 Doera of ntial p o ides ne FT is 1 t er nth 3 ve �3g 0,,� T ` d.�� ,d Down R: �ti'�``�¢s�' , .y�v5� yj �Y -� _ � �Y't .a .y��{'' �k i �£'4 r y7�,c.. .t- '+n-.s-t� r� �'£{�. a begs t �f shion ram for i tip 4` , t r d � new contract i4 � ` end :E; ..�a t .h F t :z ` d- ,�" '"` g, ;t�`yr x t z p a di i tat are additional sum 24,3 be bur geted each if rradditiona t t ,-G �, s s r -i y s ,� a,. x a - .0 parties +�d ove ti e i h t d rt es a ff t �� �� { 11 ,k ,f 3. r # i- .� 'ra, i - ?;�3. .c; Lav ub f t� .y� z,k•." a - '` §. '4 is 3 b. t securi tart ins. for the first fi � ea :o ld try � _I �✓Ri �. .. s 3' � � �,yt �€� t � ,x, �,Od ,q y r� i � f er �r ��-tip � �:. ! +r�. # r a 3 rty j. >_t.' xr`,z{E ESi (e £ x �p 4 .� J h k y ! • r + `z~s i✓�` The most sr�; r 005-o is$26,4O . Baby "b n i for one ,quarterly� " is�$�17, `4, ,$3,08s. c+'.41puter, tele hoe ph ner` rt ub le ins# it £` 6,0 1Ar thud party enforcement ;end staff overtime. it is recommended diet the City Council appropriate n the ecessary budget to facilitate.this project° `g1+.ttw�A'741.N k Initiative Name ad Initiative Number Fiscal Year d t5'�,iA! ��Ys�_� Department Initiative Type Prepared By Phone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impi ($26,405) Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $OL Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0, Other Fund Total 0 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total p 7 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I111 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 06- New Cost Center 2100 $ 17,224.00 06- New Cost Center 2300 $ 9,181.00 $ 26,405.00 I Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A 4If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A j Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? 1 N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A I - Initiative Name: Reduce Donation Budget (Special Revenue Donation Fund) Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #G-1 Initiative Type: New Item added by request of City Council Initiative Discussion: A donation fund is used to account for contributions held in trust by the City for contributions received for a specific purpose. For the last few years, the Administration requested and the Council appropriate $400,000 annually for donations with the understanding that the appropriations will be held in a "budget only cost center" until cash is received. As contributions are received and interest earned, appropriations are moved from the "budget only cost center" to the project to match the actual amount of available cash. The Council Chair and Vice Chair have suggested that the Council may wish to be informed of each new donation via budget amendment rather than appropriate an unspecified $400,000 each year. The Administration recommends that the Council appropriate $50,000 in the donation fund with the understanding that during each budget opening the Council will be informed of the appropriations that were used in the prior quarter which would bring the budget amount back to the $50,000 level. As of March 10, 2006, appropriations of about $235,000 remain in the "budget only cost center" for future donations. This budget amendment would reduce that amount by $185,000 leaving the $50,000 appropriation. Reduce Donation Budget(Special Revenue Donation Fund) Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#G-1 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year City Council New Item Department Initiative Type Sylvia Jones 535-7656 Prepared By Phone Contact 'General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund - -------- ---- Total $0 $0 Other Fund 77-77001 Donation Fund $ (185,000.00) Total $ (185,000.00) $0' Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0! Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA # If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 77-77001 1895 $ (185,000.00) Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 77-77001 2590 $ (185,000.00) Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Portable Digital Recording System for Neighborhood Outreach Meetings and City Board Meetings Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #G-2 Initiative Type: New Item added by request of City Council Initiative Discussion: The FTR system used by the Recorder's Office can be installed on a notebook computer that would have similar abilities as the computers in the Council Chamber and the committee room. The cost for the hardware and software would be a one time purchase price of about $8,600. In addition there would be about $1,100 per year in software maintenance charges. This would not be a live system to the internet as currently available, but the public would be able to listen to each meeting after it has been published to the internet. The portable system would also be available for other meetings where a digital recording might be needed such as meetings of City boards, presentations, etc. Further, IMS is purchasing a channel mixer, 6 microphones with stands, and microphone cable at an estimated cost of $1,300. The equipment could be rented; however, it would be more cost effective to purchase it given the cost to rent and the anticipated number of times it will be used. The digital recording system in Room 126 does not have all the capabilities as the systems in the Chamber and the Committee Room. A portable digital recording system could also be used in Room 126, but perhaps a better solution would be to upgrade the system in Room 126 with the "log note template" software at a cost of $500. At the Work Session March 7th, the Council generally was in favor of budgeting for these items for a total cost of$11,500. Portable Digital Recording System for Neighborhood and City Board Meetings Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#G-2 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year _ City Council New Item Department Initiative Type Sylvia Jones 535-7656 Prepared By Phone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp; ($11,500) Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total', $0 $0; Internal Service Fund 65 Fund Transfer from General $ 1,300.00 Fund Total $ 1,300.00 $0 Enterprise Fund Total', $0'i $0'. Other Fund Total 01 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0'. Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0', 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 65-03550 1974-01 $ 1,300.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 07-00041 2100 $ 10,200.00 09-00700 2321 $ 1,300.00 65-03550 2300 $ 1,300.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A Ifgrant is fundingaposition is it expected p cted the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A FY 2006/2007 Capital Improvement Program Engineering Division Asphalt Overlay Streets "G" Street from 11th Avenue to 12th Avenue 1700 South from 1500 East to 1700 East 1730 South from 4250 West to 4130 West 1980 South from 4250 West to 560 Feet of 4650 West 2300 North from I-15 Southbound Ramp to Redwood Road(North Half) 4130 West from 1980 South to 2100 South 4250 West from 1730 South to 2100 South 5600 West from 700 North to Amelia Earhart Drive Challenger Road from Harold Gatty Drive to North Cul-de-sac End Jimmy Doolittle Road from Amelia Earhart Drive to Harold Gatty Drive MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Ordinance to Enact a Temporary 50-cent Surcharge on Taxicab Fares CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Ed Rutan, Louis Zunguze, Orion Goff, Edna Drake, Gary Mumford,Melanie Reif This memorandum pertains to a proposed ordinance that would increase Salt Lake City taxicab flag-drop rates from$2 to $2.50 for six months. According to taxicab industry representatives' testimony, the increase would go to cab drivers to compensate them for a gasoline price spike last fall. The proposed ordinance is scheduled for a City Council briefing on March 21. The City Council generally has held public hearings on issues involving proposed changes to taxicab industry regulation when they have arisen because it is an industry currently regulated under certificates of public convenience and necessity. OPTIONS • Forward the proposed ordinance for a public hearing and formal consideration. • Do not forward the proposed ordinance for formal consideration. • If the proposed ordinance is forwarded for formal consideration, schedule a public hearing. • If the City Council formally considers the proposed ordinance, it could: • Adopt the ordinance. • Not adopt the ordinance. • Amend the ordinance to reflect a higher or lower increase than the one proposed or a time longer or shorter than the six-month period proposed. • Indicate to the City Attorney's Office that the City Council would like to consider a different procedure for considering rate changes when gasoline prices fluctuate. • Adopt the ordinance but amend it to require taxicab companies to freeze lease rates during the time the surcharge is in effect to help make sure taxicab drivers collect the entire surcharge. • Not adopt the ordinance but consider mechanisms to address rates and gasoline price fluctuations in the planned revision of ground transportation ordinances that will implement a contract method of regulating the taxicab industry. 1 POTENTIAL MOTIONS • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance amending Section 5.72.455 pertaining to maximum taxicab rates. • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance amending Section 5.72.455 pertaining to maximum taxicab rates with the following amendments: • That the proposed flag-drop hike be (decreased/increased)by (ten cents, twenty cents, thirty cents, forty cents, fifty cents). • That the proposed six-month period be (decreased/increased)by (one month, two months, three months, four months, five months, six months). • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda, and that the City Attorney's Office prepare an amendment to Section 5.72.457, titled Annual Review of Maximum Rates,that either would eliminate Paragraph E or substitute Paragraph E with a more flexible procedure than is now in the ordinance. • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance amending Section 5.72.455 pertaining to maximum taxicab rates with the following amendment: That during the time the surcharge is in effect the rates taxicab companies they charge drivers to lease vehicles or the companies' name shall be frozen to make sure that drivers receive the benefit of the surcharge. • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda but direct City Council staff to work with the Administration to implement a mechanism for dealing with the fluctuation of gasoline prices as part of the City's revision of ordinances to move to a contract method of regulating the taxicab industry. KEY POINTS • The taxicab industry is seeking a 50-cent surcharge on taxicab flag-drop rates for six months. The industry contends that the surcharge would compensate taxicab drivers for an increase in gasoline prices that occurred at the same time Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast in late August 2005. • The surcharge would be in addition to the maximum rate increase for the flag- drop rate that the City Council adopted in May 2005.The other rates would remain the same as adopted in May 2005. • The proposed ordinance is based on recommendations made January 20, 2006, by an administrative hearing officer after a hearing on November 23, 2005. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • Is it sound and equitable policy to increase a fee or charge to make up for an event that occurred in the past? • Given the potential for fluctuations in gasoline prices, do the City's ordinances regulating the taxicab industry provide enough flexibility to address circumstances involving gas price fluctuation, or should City government take a longer view of price fluctuations before determining a need to increase fares? • What effect would a six-month, 50-cent increase in the drop fare rate have on local taxicab customers, many of whom have fixed incomes? 2 • Given that the taxicab companies on November 23, 2005, changed their request from a $1 surcharge in the drop-fare to a 50-cent surcharge, how did the companies arrive at price for a surcharge? • If an increase is adopted, should the increase be as long as the six months recommended by the administrative hearing officer? • If the City Council adopts the proposed increase, how will the City know that the entire increase ultimately went to taxicab drivers? • When the City Council enacted fare increases on May 3, 2005, the cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Rocky Mountain Region was $2.265. When the taxicab companies petitioned on September 20, 2005, for a $1 surcharge on drop rates the cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Rocky Mountain Region was $2.873 —an increase of 60.8 cents per gallon.' • The cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline appeared to have peaked in the Rocky Mountain Region at$2.978 on September 5. When the administrative hearing officer heard the taxicab companies' petition on November 23, 2005, the cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Rocky Mountain Region was $2.252—a decrease of 72.6 cents. When the administrative hearing officer signed the recommendations on January 20, 2006 the per gallon cost of regular unleaded gasoline was roughly$2.20 to $2.22.2 • The fare increases the City Council enacted on May 3, 2005 were the first fare increases for taxicab drivers since April 6, 1999. Again, when the City Council enacted fare increases on May 3, 2005, the cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Rocky Mountain Region was$2.265. When the City Council enacted fare increases on April 6, 1999, the cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Rocky Mountain Region was $1.162—a difference of$1.103 between April 1999 and May 2005.3 • Given the above, at what point is it necessary to consider an increase in gasoline prices as a special circumstance warranting action? Discussion/Background The proposed ordinance stems from a September 20,2005, written request from the taxicab industry for a$1 surcharge on the flag-drop rate. The request was made in response to a surge in gasoline prices after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005. According to a September20 letter to the City's business and licensing administrator, the companies proposed "the increased flag drop rate remain in effect until the gas prices retreat to the price levels that existed at the time the maximum rates were last increased."4 The City Council on May 3,2005, adopted the following maximum rates for taxicabs: A$2 flag-drop rate (an increase of 40 cents from the previous $1.60 rate); a 20- cent increase in the per mile rate(from$1.60 per mile to $1.80 per mile); a $1 increase in waiting time rate (from$21 to $22); and a$2 increase in the minimum airport rate (from $10 to $12). The increases were the first since April 6, 1999. It should be noted that when the City Council adopted the maximum rates, the rate was higher than the taxicab industry originally sought.5 The taxicab industry petitioned for a flag-drop rate of$1.75 —a 15-cent increase over the then existing flag- drop rate of$1.60. Earlier versions of the petitions also sought a lower increase in the per mileage rate than the City Council ultimately approved.6 3 It also should be noted that the taxicab industry suggested alternate rates "to provide for the future and to avoid repeated requests for increases."'The proposed alternate rates were: Flag-drop -- $2.05;per mile rate -- $2; Waiting time -- $25; and minimum fare from the airport$15. Finally, it might be noted that the City Council on April 6, 1999, adopted the following maximum rates for the taxicab industry: The flag-drop rate was increased from $1.25 to $1.60 (a 35-cent increase), and the per-mile rate was increased from$1.50 per mile to $1.60 per mile (a 10-cent per mile increase). The ordinance adopted in April 1999 also instituted the waiting time rate and the minimum airport rate. At the time of the taxicab industry's September 20, 2005, request, Salt Lake City did not have a legal mechanism in its ordinances to increase taxicab rates in what might be considered emergency or special circumstances. On November 1, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 64 which contained the following language: E. If in the determination of the mayor or the city council it is decided that certain special circumstances warrant an additional hearing during a calendar year,then either the mayor or the city council may direct that a hearing be scheduled. A holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate a taxicab within the city who has already received a hearing under subsection A of this ordinance may petition the mayor or city council at any time under this provision. Neither the mayor nor the city council is required to grant the petition for a hearing. All other provisions governing fees and hearing procedures shall be the same as set forth above. The taxicab industry then renewed its petition for a temporary flag-drop increase, and the petition was heard on November 23, 2005,by Administrative Hearing Officer Michael W. Crippen. At the hearing the taxicab companies told Mr. Crippen that instead of a temporary$1 increase to remain in effect"until the gas prices retreat to the price levels that existed at the time the maximum rates were last increased,"the companies sought a 50-cent increase for six months "to allow a catch-up for the high gas prices over the last six months."' Some of the testimony included an economists' written view that, "The taxicab industry depends heavily on gasoline. The take-home income of taxicab drivers is a function of the fares they earn and the costs they undertake. The two main costs that taxicab drivers undertake are the cost of renting the cab from the companies and the cost of gasoline."9 During After hearing testimony from the taxicab companies and their representatives, Mr. Crippen recommended that: • "The current flag-drop rate of$2 should be increased to $2.50 for a period of six months. • "One hundred percent of the increase in the flag-drop rate should go to the taxicab drivers, and none of it should go to the Cab Companies"10 According to the hearing officer: 4 Although gasoline prices have now retreated, it is fair,reasonable and necessary to compensate the taxicab drivers for the loss they suffered during the recent period of increased gasoline costs.As set forth in(Exhibit 5), gas prices peaked at$2.90 per gallon in the fall of 2005,increasing by nearly$.75 per gallon from mid-summer,requiring the cab drivers to absorb this expense without any relief. Therefore, a temporary increase in the flag drop rate to compensate them retroactively is justified. ... It is fair and reasonable for the flag drop rate to be increased by$.50 for a period of six months to cover the gas price index from at least August 2005 to November 2005 and maybe going back as far as April 2005.1' The hearing officer appears to have based some conclusions on a graphic depiction of gasoline prices similar to the following one: Price(US StG) 12 Month Average Retail Price Chart-Regular Gasoline — SaltLake USA Average 3.10 3.10 2.97 2.97 2.84 - - 2.84 2.71 2.71 2.58 2.58 2.45 . - - 2.45 2.32 2.06 - - 2.06 1.93 - 1.93 1.80 W A A A Vl (fi m m V V 00 00 W fD (D , ' 2, , i i N N u,1.80 o ' 5; 0 - w A 0) CO W u, 2005 2006 Date(Month/Day) 02006-GasBuddy.com A few things might be of interest from the chart: • The top line represents the U.S. average for the cost of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline over 12 months. The bottom line is the average cost for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in Salt Lake City over the same period. • The chart seems to indicate that gasoline prices started to climb precipitously about August 15,peaked at about September 3 and declined sharply October 26—roughly a 14-week period. • When the City Council City Council enacted fare increases on May 3, 2005, the cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Rocky Mountain Region was $2.265. (The period between 4/29 and 5/11 on the chart.)The cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Rocky Mountain region reached$2.25 on the week of November 21.12 (That roughly corresponds with the period between 11/7 and 11/19 on the chart.) • The cost per gallon peaked in the Rocky Mountain Region the week of September 5 but had declined significantly by the week of October 24. • Gasoline prices in the Salt Lake City area continued to fall even below the cost per gallon of gasoline on May 3, 2005 until about mid-February. Prices now are near the May 3, 2005 level or slightly higher. (The chart 5 appears to indicate that Salt Lake City gasoline prices always were a few cents lower than the national average. The chart also appears to show prices lower than figures compiled for the Rocky Mountain region. In addition,the website where the chart was created consistently lists Utah and Salt Lake City as having some of the lowest prices in the nation.) • The hearing officers' interpretation of similar information appears to indicate that the proposed 50-cent surcharge was warranted before the City Council enacted new maximum rates on May 3, 2005.13 It appears to City Council staff that the period of steep increases in gasoline prices occurred more over a three-month period than a six-month period. It also appears that from late November to mid-February taxicab drivers paid for gasoline at levels lower • than those on May 3,2005. If a 50-cent surcharge is authorized the drop-flag rate would rise from$2 to $2.50. It should be noted that when the City Council enacted the new maximum rates on May 3, 2005 the $2 drop-flag rate brought the rate to the median point of 61 cities in the West. The average flag-drop rate of the 61 cities was $2.30. It also should be noted that the Council raised the per mile charge to the median per mile rate for the 61 cities. In addition, Salt Lake City is one of the few cities in the nation to charge an airport minimum fee. The City Council staff report for the May 3, 2005,public hearing on taxicab maximum rates quoted taxicab company representatives as saying Los Angeles charges a$38 flat rate for trips to and from the Los Angeles International Airport, and the cities of Memphis, Tennessee, and Pensacola, Florida, respectively charge airport minimum fees of$8 and$6. According to an Internet website operated by Schaller Consulting, the flag-drop rate in 10 of 23 major U.S. cities is$2.50. Another 11 cities have flag drop rates lower than $2.50, and two have flag-drop rates higher than$2.50.14 Schaller Consulting noted that"12 of the 23 cities increased fares in 2005,partly in response to rising gasoline prices, and also as a result of many cities holding off on fare increases during the recession earlier in this decade." The twelve cities are Honolulu (May), Miami (October), Los Angeles (November), Seattle (April), Las Vegas (April), Philadelphia (July),Atlanta(October), Minneapolis (September),Houston (August), Chicago (May), Dallas (November), and Baltimore (July). Boston also apparently added a charge in December to bring up its flag-drop rate to $2.50. During the hearing in November, taxicab industry representatives discussed tying taxicab rates to fluctuations in gasoline prices. They proposed to implement a flag-drop rate that would be adjusted monthly to account for fluctuations in gasoline prices of more than $.50, either up or down based on a base price of$2 per gallon. The hearing officer recommended that the issue"should be appropriately left for decision by the City Council or Budget Office as a policy matter."15 The issue has a variety of facets to explore. First, City representatives at the hearing noted that current ordinances allow taxicab companies to lower maximum fares without hearings. Second, a sliding scale that would rise or fall 50 cents based on a $2 floor appears weighted in favor of increasing flag-drop rates. The last time a gallon of regular gasoline's average cost was less than $1.50 in the Rocky Mountain Regions was 6 the first week in January 2004.16 Third, it would seem necessary to explore the effect fluctuating drop fees may have on local residents who use taxicabs for reasons other than going to the Salt Lake City International Airport. In particular, the City Council may wish to study what effect a higher drop-flag rate might have on local taxicab customers. Finally, as indicated earlier in this memorandum taxicab drivers appear to have two major costs: fuel for their vehicles and "renting the cab from the companies."The hearing officer recommended that if the City Council enacts a surcharge the "increase in the flag-drop rate should go to the taxicab drivers, and none of it should go to the Cab Companies."If the City Council wanted to make absolutely sure that an increase would go to taxicab drivers, it might wish to explore amending the ordinance to freeze taxicab lease rates at current levels until the proposed need for a surcharge ends. Another method of monitoring whether a surcharge went directly to drivers would be the taxicab companies could provide verification that it did in the companies' annual report to the City. Section 5.72.457 reads in part: Each person holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate taxicabs within the city shall(Italics:Council staff)file with the city business license supervisor once during the calendar year a petition regarding the adequacy of the existing maximum rates as set forth in section 5.72.455 of this chapter, or its successor section. Said petition shall state whether, in the opinion of the certificate holder,the existing maximum rates are at an appropriate level, or whether such rates should be increased or decreased. 7 Please see Attachment No. 1,Page 3. 2 Please see Attachment No. 1,Page 3. 3 Please see Attachment No. 1,Page 2. a Please see Attachment No.2 5 Please see Attachment No. 3. 6 Please see Attachment No.4. Please see Attachment No.4. 8 Please see Administration Transmittal,Michael W. Crippen ... Recommendation,Page 2. 9 Please see Administration Transmittal,Theodor P.Tatos,Review of Proposed Flag Drop Fee Increase, Page 4. 1°Please see Administration Transmittal,Michael W. Crippen ... Recommendation,Page 8. 11 Please see Administration Transmittal,Michael W. Crippen ... Recommendation,Page 6 Paragraph 14, Page 7 Paragraph 17. 12 Please see Attachment No. 1,Page 3. 13 Please see Administration Transmittal,Michael W. Crippen ... Recommendation,Page 7 Paragraph 17 14 Please see Attachment No. 5. 15 Please see Administration Transmittal,Michael W. Crippen ... Recommendation,Page 8. 16 Please see Attachment No. 1,Page 3. 8 Rocky Mountain Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Cents per Gallon) Page 1 of 3 +f4 Civn end- 1 6j91 Ever, r llll "tn n l �rll r ion �_ R:: E gotoot?vVS,Ogoremot Energy Glossary Home > Petroleum > Navigator View History: 19 Weekly 0 Monthly 0 Annual Rocky Mountain Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Cents per Gallon) Week 1,, Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Year-Month End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1992-May 05/11 111.7 05/18 116.9 05/25 115.9 1992-Jun 06/01 115.5 06/08 117.8 06/15 121.2 06/22 121.9 06/29 121.2 1992-Jul 07/06 120.0 07/13 120.0 07/20 120.8 07/27 119.8 1992-Aug 08/03 118.9 08/10 118.7 08/17 118.0 08/24 121.3 08/31 120.3 1992-Sep 09/07 120.2 09/14 118.8 09/21 117.8 09/28 117.3 1992-Oct 10/05 116.7 10/12 118.3 10/19 117.7 10/26 115.8 1992-Nov 11/02 120.6 11/09 119.5 11/16 118.2 11/23 117.1 11/30 115.7 1992-Dec 12/07 114.9 12/14 113.6 12/21 112.7 12/28 111.7 1993-Jan 01/04 110.5 01/11 109.2 01/18 107.6 01/25 111.9 1993-Feb 02/01 110.6 02/08 109.9 02/15 108.6 02/22 107.8 1993-Mar 03/01 108.4 03/08 108.0 03/15 108.1 03/22 110.8 03/29 110.3 1993-Apr 04/05 109.3 04/12 111.8 04/19 112.0 04/26 116.9 1993-May 05/03 116.1 05/10 114.3 05/17 113.6 05/24 117.0 05/31 116.4 1993-Jun 06/07 114.9 06/14 113.7 06/21 113.2 06/28 112.0 1993-Jul 07/05 111.1 07/12 113.4 07/19 112.4 07/26 111.4 1993-Aug 08/02 110.3 08/09 109.2 08/16 113.4 08/23 112.9 08/30 112.1 1993-Sep 09/06 110.8 09/13 110.8 09/20 109.3 09/27 113.2 1993-Oct 10/04 115.5 10/11 114.4 10/18 114.9 10/25 120.2 1993-Nov 11/01 118.6 11/08 116.9 11/15 115.8 11/22 117.1 11/29 115.8 1993-Dec 12/06 115.4 12/13 113.5 12/20 111.5 12/27 109.8 1994-Jan 01/03 108.5 01/10 106.5 01/17 109.2 01/24 107.5 01/31 106.3 1994-Feb 02/07 105.6 02/14 109.7 02/21 107.3 02/28 106.2 1994-Mar 03/07 104.2 03/14 108.9 03/21 106.4 03/28 103.6 1994-Apr 04/04 102.7 04/11 108.1 04/18 105.9 04/25 103.9 1994-May 05/02 103.9 05/09 110.4 05/16 109.1 05/23 106.9 05/30 107.6 1994-Jun 06/06 113.5 06/13 112.6 06/20 112.8 06/27 115.6 1994-Jul 07/04 114.2 07/11 119.4 07/18 117.9 07/25 116.3 1994-Aug 08/01 121.5 08/08 123.5 08/15 123.4 08/22 123.0 08/29 129.3 1994-Sep 09/05 128.2 09/12 126.6 09/19 124.9 09/26 123.0 1994-Oct 10/03 120.5 10/10 117.8 10/17 116.0 10/24 121.3 10/31 118.9 1994-Nov 11/07 117.4 11/14 120.9 11/21 118.6 11/28 115.6 1994-Dec 12/05 116.9 12/12 116.9 12/19 114.4 12/26 112.1 1995-Jan 01/02 114.4 01/09 112.6 01/16 110.4 01/23 113.2 01/30 111.1 1995-Feb 02/06 109.1 02/13 111.9 02/20 109.9 02/27 108.2 1995-Mar 03/06 112.1 03/13 110.1 03/20 108.4 03/27 113.1 1995-Apr 04/03 111.7 04/10 114.8 04/17 114.1 04/24 112.3 1995-May 05/01 116.6 05/08 114.6 05/15 119.0 05/22 117.6 05/29 118.0 1995-Jun 06/05 117.1 06/12 118.5 06/19 117.6 06/26 116.8 1995-Jul 07/03 117.9 07/10 115.8 07/17 114.6 07/24 116.9 07/31 115.2 1995-Aug 08/07 113.1 08/14 116.3 08/21 115.0 08/28 113.3 1995-Sep 09/04 113.0 09/11 116.6 09/18 116.3 09/25 115.1 1995-Oct 10/02 117.7 10/09 115.8 10/16 112.9 10/23 111.6 10/30 115.4 1995-Nov 11/06 113.4 11/13 111.6 11/20 116.0 11/27 114.7 1995-Dec 12/04 112.2 12/11 114.0 12/18 112.3 12/25 112.6 1996-Jan 01/01 111.3 01/08 112.6 01/15 111.9 01/22 109.1 01/29 113.0 1996-Feb 02/05 111.5 02/12 108.5 02/19 113.8 02/26 111.8 1996-Mar 03/04 116.0 03/11 114.3 03/18 112.2 03/25 117.8 1996-Apr 04/01 117.4 04/08 122.5 04/15 123.2 04/22 123.7 04/29 131.1 1996-May 05/06 131.6 05/13 129.8 05/20 133.3 05/27 131.9 1996-Jun 06/03 129.0 06/10 126.7 06/17 130.4 06/24 127.7 1996-Jul 07/01 127.9 07/08 126.6 07/15 123.7 07/22 127.1 07/29 125.2 1996-Aug 08/05 123.9 08/12 127.7 08/19 125.4 08/26 127.8 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mg_rt_p4w.htm 3/7/2006 Rocky Mountain Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Cents per Gallon) Page 2 of 3 1996-Sep 09/02 126.5 09/09 125.0 09/16 128.4 09/23 126.7 09/30 125.0 1996-Oct 10/07 127.7 10/14 126.1 10/21 125.1 10/28 127.4 1996-Nov 11/04 127.0 11/11 126.4 11/18 129.7 11/25 127.9 1996-Dec 12/02 126.3 12/09 124.8 12/16 128.3 12/23 126.5 12/30 124.5 1997-Jan 01/06 123.6 01/13 126.0 01/20 124.7 01/27 126.0 1997-Feb '02/03 124.0 02/10 126.3 02/17 124.8 02/24 124.2 1997-Mar 03/03 126.1 03/10 124.2 03/17 125.9 03/24 123.5 03/31 121.9 1997;Apr 04/07 126.7 04/14 125.4 04/21 127.5 04/28 124.7 1997-May 05/05 122.4 05/12 127.3 05/19 125.3 05/26 123.1 1997-Jun 06/02 127.9 06/09 125.7 06/16 123.0 06/23 120.8 06/30 126.5 1997-Jul 07/07 125.2 07/14 127.5 07/21 125.3 07/28 122.7 1997-Aug 08/04 125.3 08/11 125.5 08/18 128.0 08/25 128.1 1997-Sep 09/01 126.5 09/08 130.5 09/15 128.5 09/22 125.9 09/29 124.6 1997-Oct 10/06 124.2 10/13 129.0 10/20 127.2 10/27 125.8 1997-Nov 11/03 124.4 11/10 128.7 11/17 127.2 11/24 124.2 1997-Dec 12/01 122.1 12/08 126.2 12/15 126.7 12/22 124.5 12/29 122.3 1998-Jan 01/05 120.1 01/12 117.8 01/19 120.3 01/26 117.7 1998-Feb 02/02 114.6 02/09 109.8 02/16 105.3 02/23 109.7 1998-Mar 03/02 105.3 03/09 103.1 03/16 101.6 03/23 99.3 03/30 104.3 1998-Apr 04/06 103.2 04/13 105.4 04/20 105.9 04/27 105.5 1998-May 05/04 106.5 05/11 110.1 05/18 112.7 05/25 112.2 1998-Jun 06/01 111.5 06/08 116.9 06/15 115.6 06/22 115.1 06/29 113.0 1998-Jul 07/06 112.1 07/13 111.8 07/20 112.3 07/27 111.9 1998-Aug 08/03 111.1 08/10 110.5 08/17 112.2 08/24 111.8 08/31 110.8 1998-Sep 09/07 109.4 09/14 110.9 09/21 110.8 09/28 109.5 1998-Oct 10/05 108.8 10/12 110.7 10/19 109.7 10/26 109.5 1998-Nov 11/02 108.7 11/09 108.1 11/16 109.5 11/23 107.9 11/30 106.5 1998-Dec 12/07 103.8 12/14 100.2 12/21 97.2 12/28 95.9 1999-Jan 01/04 95.6 01/11 95.3 01/18 96.7 01/25 96.0 1999-Feb 02/01 96.1 02/08 95.2 02/15 95.8 02/22 95.6 1999-Mar 03/01 95.6 03/08 96.2 03/15 100.4 03/22 103.4 03/29 111.2 Jf-3 1999-Apr 04/05 1116.i1 04/12 118.2 04/19 118.9 04/26 119.2 1999-May 05/03 119.6 05/10 121.6 05/17 121.3 05/24 120.9 05/31 119.9 1999-Jun 06/07 119.3 06/14 118.9 06/21 119.4 06/28 120.1 1999-Jul 07/05 120.4 07/12 120.2 07/19 122.8 07/26 126.7 1999-Aug 08/02 127.9 08/09 131.0 08/16 133.2 08/23 135.4 08/30 135.7 1999-Sep 09/06 136.0 09/13 136.2 09/20 136.1 09/27 135.7 1999-Oct 10/04 135.2 10/11 134.7 10/18 134.7 10/25 133.6 1999-Nov 11/01 132.6 11/08 131.7 11/15 131.5 11/22 130.7 11/29 130.6 1999-Dec 12/06 131.6 12/13 131.7 12/20 130.8 12/27 130.1 2000-Jan 01/03 129.7 01/10 128.9 01/17 128.3 01/24 128.3 01/31 131.6 2000-Feb 02/07 131.6 02/14 132.9 02/21 135.6 02/28 138.1 2000-Mar 03/06 145.0 03/13 150.6 03/20 154.1 03/27 154.5 2000-Apr 04/03 154.1 04/10 153.0 04/17 151.1 04/24 149.3 2000-May 05/01 147.3 05/08 146.1 05/15 148.5 05/22 150.5 05/29 150.9 2000-Jun 06/05 152.0 06/12 154.4 06/19 158.8 06/26 160.8 2000-Jul 07/03 160.6 07/10 162.2 07/17 161.0 07/24 159.0 07/31 157.5 2000-Aug 08/07 156.0 08/14 154.5 08/21 153.8 08/28 154.5 2000-Sep 09/04 154.8 09/11 158.4 09/18 161.2 09/25 161.7 2000-Oct 10/02 160.8 10/09 159.7 10/16 159.7 10/23 161.1 10/30 162.7 2000-Nov 11/06 161.4 11/13 159.9 11/20 158.4 11/27 156.7 2000-Dec 12/04 155.1 12/11 151.3 12/18 147.7 12/25 145.2 2001-Jan 01/01 143.3 01/08 142.7 01/15 142.3 01/22 142.6 01/29 142.5 2001-Feb 02/05 143.8 02/12 144.0 02/19 143.7 02/26 143.3 2001-Mar 03/05 142.4 03/12 143.4 03/19 142.8 03/26 143.3 2001-Apr 04/02 145.8 04/09 148.3 04/16 150.5 04/23 155.0 04/30 159.1 2001-May 05/07 164.3 05/14 165.9 05/21 166.2 05/28 167.7 2001-Jun 06/04 168.0 06/11 167.0 06/18 165.3 06/25 161.6 2001-Jul 07/02 158.0 07/09 154.1 07/16 150.1 07/23 146.0 07/30 142.6 2001-Aug 08/06 139.5 08/13 139.4 08/20 143.1 08/27 149.5 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mg_rt_p4w.htm 'I/7/')nnti Rocky Mountain Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Cents per Gallon) Page 3 of 3 • 2001-Sep 09/03 156.8 09/10 157.5 09/17 157.7 09/24 155.8 2001-Oct 10/01 152.8 10/08 149.7 10/15 146.5 10/22 141.8 10/29 137.3 2001-Nov 11/05 132.4 11/12 127.5 11/19 123.5 11/26 119.5 2001-Dec 12/03 115.5 12/10 112.6 12/17 109.7 12/24 108.6 12/31 108.7 2002-Jan 01/07 109.4 01/14 112.1 01/21 112.5 01/28 111.7 2002-Feb 02/04 110.9 02/11 110.4 02/18 110.1 02/25 111.6 2002-Mar 03/04 111.9 03/11 116.9 03/18 124.3 03/25 131.4 2002-Apr 04/01 136.2 04/08 138.0 04/15 139.0 04/22 138.8 04/29 139.6 2002-May 05/06 139.2 05/13 138.3 05/20 138.0 05/27 138.9 2002-Jun 06/03 138.4 06/10 137.6 06/17 136.7 06/24 138.6 2002-Jul 07/01 140.0 07/08 140.3 07/15 140.0 07/22 145.5 07/29 146.3 2002-Aug 08/05 146.3 08/12 145.6 08/19 144.9 08/26 145.0 2002-Sep 09/02 144.6 09/09 144.4 09/16 144.0 09/23 143.7 09/30 144.2 2002-Oct 10/07 146.1 10/14 146.5 10/21 146.4 10/28 146.5 2002-Nov 11/04 146.2 11/11 145.5 11/18 144.3 11/25 142.3 2002-Dec 12/02 141.0 12/09 139.1 12/16 137.3 12/23 138.2 12/30 138.9 2003-Jan 01/06 141.1 01/13 141.3 01/20 141.4 01/27 143.8 2003-Feb 02/03 148.3 02/10 155.9 02/17 161.8 02/24 162.6 2003-Mar 03/03 164.6 03/10 166.7 03/17 168.0 03/24 167.1 03/31 164.7 2003-Apr 04/07 162.7 04/14 159.5 04/21 157.0 04/28 155.3 2003-May 05/05 153.1 05/12 151.1 05/19 150.7 05/26 149.5 2003-Jun 06/02 148.3 06/09 147.8 06/16 151.3 06/23 152.0 06/30 151.7 2003-Jul 07/07 151.9 07/14 152.1 07/21 154.1 07/28 157.1 2003-Aug 08/04 158.2 08/11 162.1 08/18 164.9 08/25 171.0 2003-Sep 09/01 174.9 09/08 174.0 09/15 172.0 09/22 167.8 09/29 163.3 2003-Oct 10/06 160.0 10/13 157.3 10/20 157.0 10/27 158.7 2003-Nov 11/03 157.4 11/10 155.5 11/17 154.2 11/24 153.3 2003-Dec 12/01 151.4 12/08 149.6 12/15 148.1 12/22 150.6 12/29 149.8 1 4 2004-Jan 01/05 1149.31 01/12 152.2 01/19 154.0 01/26 156.9 2004-Feb 02/02 156.6 02/09 157.2 02/16 158.9 02/23 160.3 2004-Mar 03/01 163.9 03/08 170.7 03/15 172.5 03/22 174.4 03/29 177.5 2004-Apr 04/05 178.8 04/12 180.4 04/19 185.8 04/26 187.2 2004-May 05/03 189.1 05/10 196.8 05/17 198.7 05/24 201.7 05/31 201.5 2004-Jun 06/07 200.6 06/14 198.2 06/21 194.7 06/28 192.5 2004-Jul 07/05 190.3 07/12 190.7 07/19 192.6 07/26 192.0 2004-Aug 08/02 190.8 08/09 190.0 08/16 188.9 08/23 190.1 08/30 189.6 2004-Sep 09/06 188.6 09/13 187.7 09/20 187.7 09/27 189.5 2004-Oct 10/04 192.1 10/11 195.0 10/18 199.2 10/25 200.7 2004-Nov 11/01 200.2 11/08 199.1 11/15 196.8 11/22 194.7 11/29 193.7 2004-Dec 12/06 191.9 12/13 187.7 12/20 185.4 12/27 182.0 2005-Jan 01/03 180.0 01/10 177.6 01/17 177.7 01/24 179.2 01/31 182.7 2005-Feb 02/07 184.7 02/14 185.1 02/21 188.3 02/28 190.8 2005-Mar 03/07 198.3 03/14 204.2 03/21 207.3 03/28 213.3 2005-Apr 04/04 ra1.6,24 04/11 225.8 04/18 225.8 04/25 225.2 /J-J 2005-May 05/02 I 226.51 05/09 224.7 05/16 222.5 05/23 219.9 05/30 216.5 2005-Jun 06/06 215.4 06/13 215.8 06/20 215.8 06/27 218.4 2005-Jul 07/04 221.5 07/11 227.7 07/18 229.6 07/25 228.7 2005--Aeg 08/01 227.9 08/08 231.8 08/15 244.0 09/05 [297.8 ) 09/12 294.7 09/19 1 287.3� 09/226 285.6 2 254.6 08/29 258.3 2005-0 10/03 289.0 10/10 284.5 10/17 278.5 10/24 270.5 10/31 258.6 ,, .j. 2005-Nov 11/07 246.4 11/14 234.7 11/21 225.2 11/28 218.2 Rrn l 2005-Dec 12/05 211.5 12/12 210.5 12/19 212.0 12/26 211.3 N-a, 2006-Jan 01/02 212.3 01/09 220.0 01/16 220.1 01/23 r222.01 01/30 223.8 2006-Feb 02/06 224.3 02/13 223.4 02/20 221.6 02/27 223.5 2006-Mar 03/06 227.5 Updated on 3/6/2006 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration Contact Us • Feedback • Privacy/Security • Jobs • About Us http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mg_rt_p4w.htm 3/7/2(1M I JOHN W HOLT WINDER & HASLAM PC Suite 4000 175 West 200 South BUSINESS AND TRIAL ATTORNEYS PO Box 2668 Salt Lake City,Utah 84110-2668 801 322-2222/phone 801 322-2282/fax jholt@winhas.com wwwwinhas.com September 20, 2005 VIA HAND-DELIVERY Edna Drake, Administrator ,Business & Licensing Division Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Rm 225 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: PETITION FOR TEMPORARY TAXICAB RATE INCREASE (FLAG DROP) Dear Ms. Drake: Our law fine represents Yellow Cab Drivers Association, Inc. ("Yellow Cab"), Ute Cab Company ("Ute") and City Cab Company ("City Cab"). The three cab companies would like to promptly increase the current flag drop from $2.00 to $3.00—a $1.00 increase. This proposed temporary maximum rate increase impacts Section 5.72.422A of the Salt Lake City Code. The cab companies request only a temporary increase in the flag drop rate in order to react to the recent surge in gasoline prices. The cab companies propose the increased flag drop rate remain in effect until the gas prices retreat to the price levels that existed at the time the maximum rates were last increased. While all of the maximum rates were recently increased, those increases were based in part upon gasoline prices being about $2.00 per gallon. See Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation entered by Hearing Officer Michael Crippen on February 16, 2005, at p. 3, paragraph 9. See also Exhibits 7 and 9 offered at the January 20, 2005 hearing before Mr. Crippen. Since then, gasoline prices have increased substantially and now approach $3.00 per gallon. This rapid and severe increase in gas prices has severely impacted taxicab drivers. Due to the exigent circumstances presented by the current gasoline prices, the cab companies would appreciate having a hearing scheduled on this petition at the City's earliest convenience. A check for the filing fee is Submitted with this petition. MAIMS Member,International Society of Primerus Law Firms•Best's Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys•Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers Edna Drake September 20, 2005 Page 2 Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Don Winder or me. Sincerely yours, HNW. HOLT J :jlj cc: Larry Spendlove Aii-aci-vvYven+ MAR-01-2006 WED 04:21 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO, 4 P, 07 UmnInJ.HhNl,ln WINDER&FIASLAM PC Sufic AM _ _ 17$Welt 200 South ROSINESS AND TRIAL ATTORNEYS ate+, rn Pox 2608 Pdh I At euy.ulah u110.2GPS NUI}22.222210m1x POI 122,2292l(Ax dwtndrorowinhot.cum h WW ki,1111s.r0111 January 10, 2005 • Edna Drake,Administrator Business&Licensing Division Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street,Rm 225 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Re; SECOND RENEWED PETITION FOR TAXICAB MAXIMUM RATE INCREASES Dear Edna: As you know,our law firm represents Yellow Cab Drivers Association,Inc. ("Yellow Cab"),the I''"'"`, Cab Company("Ute")and City Cab Company("City Cab"). Those taxicab companies would like to promptly increase their rates to the following levels: Flag drop: from$1.60 to$1,75 ($,15 increase) Per mile rate: from$1.60 to$1.80 ($.20 increase) Waiting time: from$21.00 to$22,00 ($1.00 increase) Minimum fare from airport: from$I0.00 to$12,00 ($2.00 increase) Those proposed rate increases will impact Section 5,72,422 A and B of the Salt Lake City Ordinances, As you know,the last time rates were increased was seven years ago, Since the last increase in 1997, the costs of doing business have increased substantially,making it necessary for the taxicab companies to petition for the current increases, Most notably,the cost of gasoline is now $2.00 per gallon, Insurance costs,the cost of living,and other expenses have also increased dramatically. We would appreciate having a hearing scheduled in this petition at Salt Lake City's earliest convenience. We previously submitted a$100.00 check for the filing fee, 1i1E't �itin Moan,ri,metus LAW Puma•Seleetnl,Ihel Ldwyen m Ammo•Mrnib,Y.AlnePOWn POW 0!Nal A60(4111•Pil,lun,,t,tvi0orlxl Paid of T,ia Adrt,rnry s( •r ,,.+"/' `, MAR-01-2006 WED 04:21 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P. 08 Edna Drake January 10,2005 Page 2 • rr... Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns,please feel free to contact us, Sincerely yours, DONALD J.WINDER DJW/pcs cc: Ross C.Anderson, Mayor Larry Spendlove,City Attorney Melanie Reif, City Attorney Ac k wre n+ II 11AR-01-2006 WED 04:20 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO, 4 P. 05 E(e lib e', . brk lour W,J1 WINDER&I�A,SI,AM PC Sae 4000 Its hc.ra,Smile BUSINESS AND TRIAL ATTORNEYS y..,. 10 tau?fine Sell Lake Li c[)uh 14110.2648 11013T2•1221/plmne $01 322.22821fe: I1nollOs iahu•cum W'WWInhae earn December 22,2004 Edna Drake,Administrator Business& Licensing Division Sall Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street,Rm 225 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Re: RENEWED PETITION FOR TAXICAB MAXIMUM RATE INCREASES Dear Ms. Drake: - As you know,our law firm represents Yellow Cab Drivers Association,Inc. ("Yellow Cab"),tile Cab Company("Utc") and City Cab Company("City Cab"), These taxicab companies would t.�. like to promptly increase their rates to the following levels: Flag drop: from$1,60 to $1.75 ($.15 increase) Per mile rate: from$1.60 to$1.70 ($.10 increase) Waiting time: from$21.00 to$22.00 Minimum fare from ($1.00 increase) airport: from$10.00 to$12.00 ($2.00 increase) I.1owever, to provide for the future and to avoid repeated requests for increases,request is hereby made to establish the following maximum rates taxicabs may not exceed: Flag drop: $ 2.05 Ptr mile rate: $ 2.00 Waiting time: $25.00 Minimum fare from airport: $15.00 These proposed rate increases will impact Section 5.72.422 A and B of the Salt Lake City Ordinances. As you know,the last time rates were increased was seven years ago. Since the last increase in 1997, the costs of doing business have increased substantially,making it necessary for thetaxicab companies to petition for the current increases. Most notably,the cost of gasoline is now ,tyres Mrn,1,.r.Internat,a,I Snriny of rtimert.,Lae Firm,•anlf Direuaty of llec a tea nded I' uo,nre Anornry,•Der gegieler of Preeminent Lewyrr, ( • L ' MAR-01-2006 WED 04:20 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P. 06 Edna Drake December 22, 2004 Pace 2 $2.00 per gallon. Insurance costs, the cost of living, and other expenses have also increased dramatically. We would appreciate having a hearing scheduled in this petition at Salt Lake City's earliest convenience. We previously submitted a$100.00 check for the filing fee. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns,please feel fret to contact us. Sincerely yours, DONA J. WINDER ., .,,, Wipes c. Larry Spcndlove • Taxi Fares in Major U.S. Cities Page 1 of 2 d fa c14,v,,,,,,i4- 5 P 4 ' ' 3 .. "`" Schaller Consulting Customer-Focused Solutions Home Consulting Projects Publications Transit Web Sites Taxi Research Site Map Taxi Fares in Major U.S. Cities The chart below compares taxicab fares in the central city of 23 major U.S. metro areas, selected based on metro area size and number of licensed taxicabs. The list includes: • Central cities in metro areas with 2.5 million or more population • Las Vegas,New Orleans and Orlando, which are in smaller metro areas but have 1,000 or more cabs • Counties in suburban Washington DC. Washington DC uses zones to calculate fares and cannot be compared directly with metered fares. The chart shows that: • The fare for an average trip ranges from under$11 in Cleveland to over $18 in Honolulu. • Cities with relatively high rates of fare tend to be in metro areas with high living costs (highlighted in blue and green). • Cab fares in New York and Chicago are about average, however, despite these being high-cost locales. The high demand for cab service in Manhattan and in Chicago's Loop and Near North Side generates relatively high fare revenues for drivers in these cities. • Twelve of the 23 cities increased fares in 2005, partly in response to rising gasoline prices, and also as a result of many cities holding off on fare increases during the recession earlier in this decade. Fares for typical trips Components of the fare Area Avg. Initial Initial Mileage Mileage Wait time costs...City U.S. trip Short trip Long trip charge distance charge distance per houi **Honolulu $ 18.35 $ 12.09 $ 37.95 2.45 1/8 0.35 1/8 28.00 **San Diego 16.17 10.59 33.67 2.25 1/10 0.25 1/10 20.00 *Miami 16.10 10.73 32.90 2.50 1/6 0.40 1/6 24.00 **San Francisco 15.90 10.85 31.65 2.85 1/5 0.45 1/5 27.00 **Boston 15.45 10.08 32.25 1.75 1/8 0.30 1/8 24.00 **Los Angeles 15.00 10.07 30.40 2.20 1/11 0.20 1/11 24.00 *Seattle 14.80 10.29 28.80 2.50 1/10 0.20 1/10 30.00 Las Vegas 14.75 10.27 28.75 3.20 1/8 0.25 1/8 22.00 St. Louis 14.30 9.81 28.30 2.50 1/10 0.20 1/10 24.00 http://www.schallerconsult.comitaxi/faresl.htm 1/R/7nm Taxi Fares in Major U.S. Cities Page 2 of 2 "Philadelphia 14.17 9.47 28.87 2.30 1/7 0.30 1/7 20.00 Atlanta 14.00 9.52 28.00 2.50 1/8 0.25 1/8 21.00 Orlando 13.38 8.89 27.38 2.00 1/4 0.25 1/8 22.50 Minneapolis 13.37 9.11 26.67 2.50 1/5 0.38 1/5 21.00 Denver 13.23 8.74 27.23 1.60 1/8 0.25 1/8 22.50 **New York 13.10 8.65 27.10 2.50 1/5 0.40 1/5 12.00 Phoenix 12.87 8.83 27.10 2.50 1/6 0.30 1/6 20.00 Houston 12.85 8.81 25.45 2.50 1/6 0.30 1/6 20.00 **Chicago 12.70 8.66 25.30 2.25 1/9 0.20 1/9 20.00 **DC suburbs 12.08 8.35 23.70 Dallas 12.55 8.52 25.15 2.25 1/9 0.20 1/9 18.00 New Orleans 11.80 8.21 23.00 2.50 1/8 0.20 1/8 18.00 Detroit 11.65 8.07 22.85 2.50 1/8 0.20 1/8 16.00 Baltimore 11.60 7.99 22.80 1.80 1/8 0.20 1/8 24.00 Cleveland 10.78 7.21 21.98 1.80 1/6 0.40 1/4 15.00 Washington zones Notes: "Area costs" reflect cost of living in the metro area. Two stars indicates costs at least 25% above U.S. average; one star indicates living costs are 15-24% above U.S. average. Source: ACCRA produces the Cost of Living Index (www.coli.org). Fares shown exclude additional charges for extra passengers, luggage, time of day surcharges, airport fees, temporary gasoline surcharges, etc. Trip lengths: • Average U.S. trip = 5 miles and 5 minutes of wait time. • Short trip = 2.8 miles and 4.77 minutes of wait time (New York City average trip) • Long trip = 12 miles and 5 minutes of wait time Fares for DC suburbs is the average rate for surrounding counties in Maryland and Virginia. Rate shown for Denver is for Yellow Cab; rates vary by company. Rate shown for Phoenix is for AAA Cab (city rate); rates vary by company. Rates shown for San Diego and St. Louis are maximum rates. Updated January 2006 Home I Consulting I Projects I Publications I Transit Web Sites I Taxi Research I Site Map I What's New http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/faresl.htm 3/8/2006 Hi• hest Re•ular Gas Prices in the Last 48 Hours Price Station Area Time Thanks 'Cfievrii, x F t7d a Lake Ttite, Ban ..,.9 Eat 330b South 1fy South 11;24 AM t Chevron i nd youth Salt Tue n U 181IV 3300•So\, , , Lake ,'41 24 AM -- : Con o ' 't ^ Tue Spunk UT 4800 S State St. Mray 8 07 ANI nclair: Find i toU8day Mon Spa T 4 0� 0b ` ,,..,,Cottonwood.' ` 8 Q9 AM 7�btar�+M l , QM e Uee SPt T • : v y V e ry .6 • L � i�. `.1Ce n �� 4. SatkeTUe �t318 QF � � �� o . , t� ,2� . Sesa �e ple . y mo �tral . �� ie �Vf . k e � ` . • Cie nn : a ake xTt � I io A* 47 P '8W 10Q i?hiil > �� .: ..� "o,Utl1 malt � Tus , ch•evron Ttf * Ba 0, 2 1300 East 1* 4*M ▪ Sug�rhio ;k, , 5 Clair • • Fin Tue ZF spa UT t § t #e St. • Mur 07 M flips 66:ki ;, ,:. Satt hakes , lon x LAG P 3�j. ►e",st bb utl • 'itV West 7 02 Pri at S�0Q 4 ti g "- t' ,fix • l 3 A[ , We#1 D tier'S colt Igo r . f i#° 1,fk S49 U .>.'. 1Vortl� 1200 W st ,N . 6.4 q PI . t.1 i �. iipsi8 } � tl(• lti • s 5. t E ., reek To S#ap # ,,! South'SatThe z4t gaia2Up , ' Ake 11.24AM r, Lowest Re•ular Gas Prices in the Last 48 Hours Price Station Area Time Thanks Costco Murray Mon SCB1970 5201_S Intermountain Dr(Membership Reqd) 9:42 AM tilial Costco Find Salt Lake Tue SCB1970 181 S S 300 W city- 2:46 PM Central Common Cents Find Salt Lake Tue Cl65cpt kti-ii7f.i(4 Redwood at 700N City-NW 2:02 PM O• lol Maverik Find Salt Lake Tue Cl65cpt • Redwood at 700N City-NW 2:01 PM • Maverik Find North Salt Tue C185cpt Redwood at Center Lake 2:01 Plvl Chevron Find Tue" Chachkesal Midvale 72nd So&3rd West 12:56 PM ibael Phillips"66 Find Tue Ghachkesal Midvale 72ndSo&3rd West . 12:ru PM Maverik Fi tad "Salt Lake Tue quizno43 678 N Redwood Rd City-NW" 12:33 PM i Common Cents Find Salt Lake Tue quizno43 726 N Redwood Rd City-NW; 12:33 PM r • Maverik Find Salt Lake Tue quizno43 1692 W North Temple City- 12:33 PM West ' City- Flying J Salt.Lake Mon SLC_ J- EEP j� 1-215&Redwood Rd Exit 28 North 7:02 PM i Gonoco(Smith's) Find West Tue quizno43 ; 1820 W 9000 S Jordan 12:33 PM " Eitto Maverik Find West Tue quizno43 ',4 2714 W 9000 S Jordan 12:33 PM 1 Maverik Fi tgd Midvale Tue' SCB1970 875E 7200 S" 8:23 AM Maverik Find Tue SC 425'N 9000 S Sandy 8:22 AM i r, Page 1 of 1 Price(US VG) 9 Month Average Retail Price Chart - Regular Gasoline — SaitLake — USA Average 3.10 3.10 !! I !! I I I I I I 2.84 i I i I i ; ; iii ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.58 2A5 ---•-• 2.45 • i I ; i ; ii ; 2.32 ----.1•-•-•-1-•-•-•Ir- •••;•-• •-•I• •-•-• 2.32 • i ; • 2.19 11111 / 111141 2.06 iii ; i ; i , ; i , iii „ „ 1.80 --J --J CO CO CO CO CO CO CO o o o h.) " 0 CD CO CI 1 h.) " 0 CJ1 h.) - CO CO -NI la. CO 0 CD 2006 2006 Date(MonthiDay) C2006-GasBuddy.com f http://www.gasbuddy.corrilimages/charts/xchart66.png?ii=55847 3/21/2006 DoNA`D I.WINDER WINDER &HASLAM PC Suite 4000 175 West 200 South BUSINESS AND TRIAL ATTORNEYS PO Box 2668 Salt Lake City,Utah 84110-2668 801 322-2222/phone 801 322-2282/fax dwinder@winhas.com www.winhas.com March 21, 2005 " VIA E-MAIL Salt Lake City Council Members (russell.weeks@slcgov.com) " c/o Russell Weeks (carlton.christensen@slcgov.com) 451 South State Street,RM 304 (van.turner@slcgov.com) Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (eric.jergensen@slcgov.com) (nancy.saxton@slcgov.com) (jill.love@slcgov.com) (dave.buhler@slcgov.com) (soren.simonsen@slcgov.com) Re: Cab Companies'Request for Temporary Rate Increase Dear City Council Members: As you know, Winder & Haslam is legal counsel for Salt Lake City's licensed taxicab companies. We just received Russell Weeks' March 8, 2006 memorandum concerning the proposed ordinance to enact a temporary surcharge on the flag drop rate. Mr. Weeks' memorandum, at page 2, sets forth certain questions and issues for consideration. The following are the cab companies' responses to the specific questions raised in the memorandum. ❑ Is it sound and equitable policy to increase a fee or charge to make up for an event that occurred in the past? The cab companies believe it is sound and equitable policy to adopt Hearing Officer Crippen's recommendation. The cab drivers had to bear the cost of the severe increases in gasoline prices. Due to their inability under Salt Lake City ordinances to seek adjustments in rates, it was impossible to obtain immediate relief at the time gas prices soared to nearly $3.00 per gallon. ❑ Given the potential for fluctuations in gasoline prices, do the City's ordinances regulating the taxicab industry provide enough flexibility to address circumstances involving gas price fluctuation, or should City government take a longer view of price fluctuations before determining a need for increased fares? [10 PRIMeaus Member.Primerus Law Firms•Selected,Best Lawyers in America•Member,American Board of Trial Advocates•Diplomate,National Board of Trial Advocacy ` Salt Lake City Council Members c/o Russell Weeks March 21, 2006 Page# 2 The cab companies strongly believe flexibility should be built into the ordinance governing maximum rates so there can be a more immediate response to severe swings in fuel costs. At the hearing, the cab companies suggested a sliding scale approach, tied to 50-cent increases or decreases in gasoline prices based upon a $2.00 per gallon floor. The Hearing Officer declined to adopt this approach, stating: The question of benchmarking future increases in the flag drop rate to respond to changes in gasoline prices should be appropriately left for decision by the City Council or Budget Office as a policy matter, rather than the Hearing Officer. The only alternative under current ordinances is to request a special hearing each time gas prices spike. ❑ What effect would a six-month, 50-cent increase in the drop fare rate have on local taxicab customers, many of whom have fixed incomes? The cab companies' economist, Ted Tatos, presented two alternatives in his report to react to gasoline price fluctuations. The first was to adjust the flag drop rate, which is a simple approach to implement. This approach has been adopted by other municipalities throughout the United States. The second approach is to tie per-mile rates to gasoline prices. Under this approach, a customer would be affected in direct proportion to the mileage traveled. However, there would be a greater cost of implementing this approach because of the need to reset the taxicab meters and change mileage decals on each cab each time the mileage rate is adjusted. ❑ Given that the taxicab companies on November 23, 2005, changed their request from a $1.00 surcharge in the drop fare to a 50-cent surcharge, how did the companies arrive at price for a surcharge? The cab companies had no idea where gas prices would come to rest in September of last year when their petition was filed, but hoped it wouldn't exceed $3.00 per gallon. When the hearing before Mr. Crippen occurred the end of November, 2005, gas prices had peaked and the cab companies, correspondingly, reduced their original petition for relief on behalf of their drivers. ❑ If an increase is adopted, should the increase be as long as the six months recommended by the administrative hearing officer? Salt Lake City Council Members c/o Russell Weeks March 21, 2006 Page#3 The graph cited in Mr. Weeks' memorandum, and taken from the report of the cab companies' economist, shows gas prices were on the rise even before Hurricane Katrina hit. Prices leveled off in November, but have again been increasing since mid-December 2005. Additionally, during their most elevated period, gas prices were substantially higher than what had been experienced previously. Hearing Officer Crippen, in his finding No. 17, even recognizes that a six-month increase in the flag drop rate would be appropriate to compensate cab drivers for increasing gas prices going back to April, 2005. There's been much more than just a 14-week spike in prices. 0 If the City Council adopts the proposed increase, how will the City know that the entire increase ultimately went to the taxicab drivers? The cab companies already committed at the hearing that any temporary increase in the rate will be as a catch-up to compensate drivers for the high gasoline prices. Lease rates will not be increased by virtue of any temporary increase. Judge Crippen's order so provides. ❑ When the City Council enacted fare increases on May 3, 2005, the cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Rocky Mountain Region was $2.265. When the taxicab companies petitioned on September 20, 2005,for a $1.00 surcharge on drop rates the cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Rocky Mountain Region was $2.873 — an increase of 60.8 cents per gallon. One thing to keep in mind is that whenever the cab companies petition the City for an adjustment in rates, there is a significant lag time between when the petition is filed and when there is actually a public hearing on the issue. In the interim, the matter has to be presented to the Hearing Officer, and the Hearing Officer's recommendations need to be prepared. In the months it can take for the matter to be presented to the City Council for action, things can change, including gasoline prices. When the last fare increases were actually enacted by the City Council on May 3, 2005, gasoline prices had substantially increased from the time the petition was originally filed in December 2004. Again, Hearing Officer Crippen found a temporary increase was fair and reasonable not only because of the spike in prices after Hurricane Katrina, but because of gas price increases dating back to April, 2005. ❑ The cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline appeared to have peaked in the Rocky Mountain Region at $2.978 on September 5. When the administrative hearing officer heard the Salt Lake City Council Members c/o Russell Weeks March 21,2006 Page#4 taxicab companies' petition on November 23, 2005, the cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Rocky Mountain Region was $2.252 — a decrease of 72.6 cents. When the administrative hearing officer signed the recommendations on January 20, 2006 the per gallon cost of regular unleaded gasoline was roughly$2.20 to$2.22. See foregoing comment. ❑ The fare increases the City Council enacted on May 3, 2005 were the first fare increases for taxicab drivers since April 6, 1999. Again, when the City Council enacted the fare increases on May 3, 2005, the cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Rocky Mountain Region was $2.265. When the City Council enacted fare increases on April 6, 1999, the cost per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Rocky Mountain Region was $1.162—a difference of$1.103 between April 1999 and May 2005. See foregoing comment. Additionally, when the fares were adjusted in May 2005, it was unforeseeable that Hurricane Katrina would hit and have such a dramatic impact on gasoline prices. Again, the cab companies are merely seeking a temporary increase to allow cab drivers to recoup some of their losses for the period gas prices jumped so unexpectedly. ❑ Given the above, at what point is it necessary to consider an increase in gasoline prices as a special circumstance warranting action? As mentioned above, the cab companies would favor a sliding scale approach that would allow them to react quickly to fluctuations in gasoline prices and avoid the cumbersome and lengthy process of petitioning for rate adjustments under current procedures. Adjustments in the rate should be made according to an established sliding scale, as opposed to having to define a "special circumstance." Salt Lake City Council Members do Russell Weeks March 21, 2006 Page # 5 We hope these responses to Mr. Weeks' issues and concerns are helpful. We would be happy to provide additional information. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely yours, 7):)...dr)20e). DONALD J. WINDER DJW:jlj cc: Mayor Rocky Anderson(mayor@slcgov.com) Sam Guevara (sam.guevara@slcgov.com) MAR-01-2006 WED 04:19 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P. 02 • I_ NOTICE OF HEARING Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Section 5.72.457, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, that a public hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 10 a.m., or as soon thereafter as can be heard, in the Roger F. Cutler Conference Room, Room 542, in the City & County Building located at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84111, regarding the petition filed by Yellow Cab Drivers Association, Ute Cab Company, and City Cab Company for an increase in taxicab rates and for other changes in the City's taxicab ordinances, more specifically set forth in a letter dated December 22, 2004, from Donald J. Winder to Edna Drake, City Business License Administrator, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. Said hearing will be held before a hearing examiner appointed by the Mayor of Salt Lake City. All interested persons are invited to attend and present evidence and/or arguments on behalf of or in opposition to the said petition. The findings and decision of the hearing officer shall act as recommendations to the Salt Lake .... City Council for possible changes in the City's ordinances. Dated this 61day of January 2005, f DRAK Business License Supervisor Salt Lake City Corporation Enclosure cc: Donald J. Winder, Esq. Yellow Cab Drivers Association, Ute Cab Company, and City Cab Company Larry Bowers, Ground Transportation Manager, Airport Kendrick Cowley, Salt Lake City Recorder Michael Crippen, Esq., Hearing Examiner Laurie Donnell, Budget Analyst Terry Fuessel, Commercial Vehicle Inspections, Airport Sam Guevara, Chief of Staff Jodi Howick, Senior City Attorney, Airport ,,,, G.1S1.48011J4rwAry 2005 NotiC4 01 Hnnrin0 Re TexicobbAoe 11AR-01-2006 WED 04:19 PH WINDER & HASLAN FAX NO. 4 P. 03 143 SOUTH MAIN ST• -. � tt�uJcturi6unc 'mace _ CUSTOMER'S P.O.DOX 45838 Morning News copy SALT LA-la CITY, U'xAH 84245 PROOF OF PUBLICATION FED.TAX I.D.# 87-0217663 „ ., ^`' CUSTOMER NAME AND ADDRESS a • t'01714•`NRMI7ER .,. DATE .. f 1 CITY RECORDER C55357671x,-07 01/10`05 4 51CITYSO. DG STATEL�RM #415 R T 1.� VED SLC O'I 04111 t. s__._ �--- JAN 19 2005 Ho, bf HEARING Notice Is hereby 001, C pursuant to Section p •• -- ,•--, 5.72_457, Soli Ink; City 1 ' .CGUUNT•NAI4F :••„*„••.Y::P.E:> •z":.'.•,' t..::. Coda, hot o pubtk hoorfor y C;,,i,;Ry-. E9 hw boon sdMsary of /'�j"r� V U 2005,oa January 20, ; V� � t r � 2a05 0{ 10 a.m.,of o$ CITY RECORDER soon Ihcreaftcr as can be heard,In Ilse Roger F.Cat- y I A C ongt aren cCeb do om CRoin yL.::'. ? .. TELEPHONE• >:' , - 1'A OICE•itRi�L a • . .••^c. �• — lair thIenayd 8a nAS1 1 801-535-7671 Lakin slat; shed Salt Lake dt Uf 0.11 i'1,re• M---: TLr58020,7IY1 relow genllan Fllad .,.. •SCHEIy17L,E ',.`;?`:.>,:.y • i • ? �:' • c by Yel Ca Drlrne As. Y '•'•. ::J .ate` gr':1'Y sodomy', Dia Cob Com- " ppoy.and Gly Cab Cam- 5 nanny Pot on k,croase in p taaicob rotor and tot aa,or y , _ START 01/10J05 v END 01j0/05 cob ors Id lbeordinances, Oft Ipa. T "�7�- ,sl. -• c cob aly Lei afa Note!pa. C S,...•,.< • • •ss:'• GtIST�r'RELY,^NO.,:::i•.',Y.C{y_aYC::<,•i::). :, :�" lac &I •I fads old. C --• '°;�-?;•-� °; :1; lee doled December 22 it 2001, ham Donald J: C Wearier to Edna Drake,Cay A Iluraness License Admires. A - Ueyr a cop of which is A 1 ,3-1 ''J..C:' s '. .�PTTQN:. ".t? �::i:.',• •'c ;`.t: `'7. ;.'::;: :Igor't neroof by!hi;rot- 8 G Said Marko will be hold - NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS H Wore a hooting examiner s jat "T; op ainted by me Mayor of .. - -- • •{.ST Jus1K'% •>_ x,::•0.: : ' •" SeP Lake on a Inner. • `• �• •- --�- ':.._ used persons are Invited to otlnd gad present evi- 57 LINES dence and/or ap Onbakol 1.00 COLUMN beholt or or ion to the sold petition. llan, �TTbIES•• i.,i.• :j;;,c z-" �. findh,us and aedGon of Lao RATE,i',,:%�:;. ::::fP,`...::!r.,y•'":.; hearing aFFicar shall ocl as es'., - ,ecomasendntlons Io Asa Sall Lac Cily Council lot ossibfe dlopael In the l — --,' 1 ,.....- - ,,-•��? 7 0 �ry'sordlnoios - _.._ -:Mr9C :CN•ARGES --� •'�- .. 'Ab",C ©ES Y-i'Y "`r Dated nes 6m day of °' January 2005, Edna Droka '00 62.70 husksess UMW Superrlsor ,.. San lake Cily Corporation - ^:Y ._T_T__:..COST;..,;,..5::i..�,- - i-; ' 50020)IY 62.70 AFFIDAVIT OP PUBLICATION AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION LEGAL BOOKKEEPER, I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED ADV>~RTISE'MENT of NOTICE_OF HEARING NOTICE IS H FOR CITY RECORDER WAS PUBLISRRp BY 'THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION, AGENT VOR THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE AND DESERET NEWS,DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE XNGLISIi LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH,AND PUBLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OP UTAH. pTJBLI$ XEn ON START 01/10/05 END 01/10.05 STGNATUREr 4 h, ",.""`,,, 'N '3 al DATE __.01/10/05 f •I 1 i TH7:S IS NOT A STATEMENT BUT A "PROOF OF PUBLICA'I'ION" y .,,,•� PLEASE PAY FROM BILLING STATEMENT_ :)-/ MAR-01-2006 WED 04:21 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P. 09 • • 2005 Addendum to Report of Theodor P. Tatos Managing E conomis t LECG Review of Proposed Flag Drop Fee Increase Prepared at the Request of the Salt Lake City Taxicab Industry MAR-01-2006 WED 04:21 PM WINDER & HASLAN FAX NO. 4 P. 10 T. Introduction I have been engaged by the Salt Lake Taxicab Industry(City Cab,Ute Cab, and Yellow Cab)in order to review the reasonableness of the proposal to increase the flag drop rate as a result of increased gas prices. This report is an addendum to the report that I submitted at the end of 2004 in regard to the issue of raising taxicab rates. This report describes my work to date and summarizes my opinions and the bases for those opinions,The opinions and findings expressed herein are based upon my work to date and upon the facts and data I observed from my research of the issues involved in this matter.The materials I have specifically relied upon are listed in Exhibit 1 to this report. If new relevant facts are produced,I expect to update my analysis accordingly, II. Professional Qualifications I am a Managing Economist in the international professional services firm of LECG. I have over nine years of experience in economic consulting for both public and private sector clients. I have provided consulting sex-vices in healthcare matters requiring statistical sampling and mathennirical analysis,high-profile antitrust cases,business valuations, employment discrimination litigation matters,and others. I have taught both undergraduate and graduate-level economics classes at the University of Utah as an Adjunct Professor. I have also made presentations to graduate classes in the Finance Department and to the Executive MBA Program at the University of Utah as well as presentations to organizations such as the American Agricultural Economics Association. I have also published a chapter in the 2004 Supplement to the book Intellectual Property Damages:Guidelines and Analysis. A copy of my Curriculum Vitae is detailed in Exhibit 2 of this report. 2 • MAR-01-2006 WED 04:21 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P. 11 1I1. Analysis i . A. Gasoline Price Fluctuations As a result of the recent increases in gasoline prices,the taxicab companies in Salt Lake City had requested an immediate,but temporary increase in the flag drop from $2,00 to$3.00, This fall,gasoline prices in Utah reached$3.00. The chart below illustrates the average regular gasoline prices in Utah and Salt Lake City over the past year: Price(US$1G) 12 Month Average Retail Price Chart-Regular Gasoline — Se 4.eke 2 utesh 2-7±�7 290 2Gt ' • I. . ' -t..;. -r._' r-i• •� _' t wl..J•.•2.77 241 • ••.r--,.. ••! r••s-•1... .. ••1-•• . . i 186 , • .. .. 1 99 ; Zoo+ co �, 2 °° gSaw 2806 Q(Month/Pay) C2eo6-WeeuddyCom Source: http://www,saltlakemasprices.cornl Recently, the gas prices have retreated,due to several factors,including lighter- than-expected damage from Hurricane Rita as well as political pressure. A comparison of current gas prices with those of a year ago is shown below: t This web site depends on reports from visitors,who enter in the prices they sec at various gas stations throughout tlx:Salt Lake area. 3 MAR-01-2006 WED 04:22 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P. 12 Salt Lake City- Ogden Regular Mid Premium Diesel Cur nt $2.10 $2.22 52.31 $2.87 Yesterday $2.13 $2.25 $2.35 $2,90 Month Ago $2.70 $2.85 $2.97 $3.25 Year Ago $1.95 $2.06 $2.15 $2.29 Highest Recorded Price: Regular Un1. $2.88 9/8/2005 Dsl. $3.33 10/28/2005 Source:AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report2 As shown above,prices have dropped significantly in the last month. However, despite the recent drop, the effects of the price increases have been felt across the country,both by commuters and by industries heavily dependent on gasoline. B. Bench/narking Taxicab Rates The taxicab industry depends heavily on gasoline. The take-home income of taxicab drivers is a function of the fares they earn and the costs they undertake, The two main costs that taxicab drivers undertake are the cost of renting the cab from the companies and the cost of gasoline, Thus, gasoline price increases affect the taxicab drivers' costs of doing business. The gasoline price increases experienced over the last year underscore the importance of benchmarking taxicab rates to gasoline prices. Other 2 htrp://198.6.95.31/UTnietro.asp Note on methodology:AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge Report is updated each business day and is the most comprehensive retail gasoline survey available.Every day up to 85,000 self-serve stations are surveyed. This methodology is described below: Prices shown on Wednesday are based on the last credit card swipe at each station on Tuesday. Prices shown on Thursday are based on the last credit card swipe at each station on Wednesday. Prices shown on Friday are based on the last credit card swipe at each station on Thursday. • Prices shown on Saturday are based on the last credit card swipe at each station on Friday Prices shown on Sunday arc based on the last credit card swipe at each station on Saturday • Prices shown on Monday are based on the last credit card swipe at each station on Sunday. Prices shown on Tuesdays are based on the last credit card swipe at each station on Monday. ` t)Copyright,Oil Price Information Service 4 MAR-01-2006 WED 04:22 PN WINDER & HASLAN FAX NO. 4 P. 13 industries that are highly dependent on gasoline have measures to compensate for such cost increases. The airline industry can levy fuel surcharges. The retail transportation industry can pass along its costs to the retail industry. The taxicab industry has no such outlet,absent approval from municipal authorities. Other cities and municipalities have adopted this same approach. These municipalities include: Seattle(WA),Arlington(VA),Fairfax County(VA), and Philadelphia(PA). Below is a chart detailing the surcharges imposed by several municipalities in the United States in response to rising gasoline prices. Annapolis(MD) has responded to gas price increases by tying fare increases to fluctuations in gas prices.3 The chart below illustrates how municipalities have administered fuel surcharges. As the chart below illustrates,the effects of the gasoline price increases on the taxicab industry is not a phenomenon indigenous to the United States. Rather,countries across the world have had to address the fuel surcharge issues. The chart also underscores that,unlike other industries that can adjust to cost increases,the taxicab industry generally depends on intervention from municipal authorities in order to respond to cost increases. Y have not found the methodology used by the municipalities. Surcharges Proposed or Levied by Municipalities in Response to Gasoline Price Increases Arlington,VA $ 0.50 Additional Increase $ 1.00 (Later repealed in favor of per-mile increase of$0.20) Fairfax Co.,VA $ 1.00 NYC $ 0.50 if gas>$2.00 $ 1.00 if gas>$3.00 Pennsylvania $ 0.55 Reviewed on monthly basis to $ 0.90 Other Countries China $ 1.00 yuan Australia $ 0,50 dollars Canada(BC) 4.50% increase on metered rated US Virgin Islands $ 1.00 4,s0"4, 3 http:l/www.baltimoresun.cam/business/bat-ar.taxis14oct14,1.2004039.story?coil=bal-business- headlines 5 MAR-01-2006 WED 04:22 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P. 14 As shown above,several municipalities have considered or incorporate adjustments that vary according to the fuel price increases("sliding scale price indices"). The existence of such an index would prevent taxicab drivers from bearing the full burden of gasoline mice increases. The advantage of such a sliding scale is that approval from local jurisdictions often takes considerable time. While the wheels of government grind through the approval process,the taxicab drivers are forced to bear the burden of cost increases. The existence of a sliding scale would allow for a faster response to gasoline price increases. There are several ways to implement a taxicab rate schedule that is tied to changes in gasoline prices: • Tie flag drop rates to gasoline prices. This approach appears to be the simplest method of compensating for fuel costs increases. This method has been chosen by many municipalities in the United States and abroad. Furthermore,patrons can know upfront what the impact of the fuel surcharge is. However,the main problem with this approach is that it disproportionately affects patrons who take taxicabs for short trips. For example,patrons who take longer trips have a greater impact on the fuel costs paid by taxicab drivers, • Tie per-mile rates to gasoline prices. If this approach is implemented,taxicab patrons would be affected in direct proportion to the mileage traveled. However, based on my discussions with taxicab personnel,the transaction costs of implementing this method are greater that adjusting the flag drop,because, if the flag drop is adjusted,the decals on each taxi could state"Subject to gasoline tax surcharge.", rather than having to decal for each change in the mileage rate. • Allow a percentage increase to the overall fare, This approach has been implemented in other municipalities as well. This approach levies a fuel surcharge as a percentage of the total fare. For example,a 5%surcharge on a$10 fare would equal $0,50. 6 • MAR-01-2006 WED 04:22 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P, 15 C. Proposed Sliding Scale In order to obtain a measure of the impact on taxicab drivers in Salt Lake City,I have analyzed trip sheets obtained from Yellow Cab. These sheets consisted of airport and city trips for a two-week period from October I2 through October 26,2005. I have relied upon the trip sheets as presented to me,and I have brought the trip sheets to the hearing. These trip sheets were not selected according to a statistically random plan, therefore I cannot make any statements as to the degree to which they are representative of the entire population of trips undertaken by Salt Lake City taxi drivers. However, these trips sheets provide a snapshot in time of the type of trips taken by taxicab drivers during this time. The results of my analysis are attached in Exhibits 3 and 4. These exhibits illustrate trip sheet results for Airport and Non-Airport trips. These figures arc based on the trip sheet data provided to me by Yellow Cab. I have also received trip sheet data from City Cab. However, these data were provided to me as summaries only,so I did not see the actual trip sheets. For this reason,I have not relied upon the data provided by City Cab, However, the summary sheets from City Cab indicated a substantially higher total miles traveled by airport and non-airport drivers. The City Cab indicated between 82 and 89 miles per day traveled by airport drivers and between 152 and 167 miles traveled by non-airport drivers.° Ifthese figures are correct,they imply that the gasoline price increases have a greater impact upon taxicab drivers than the Yellow Cab trip sheets indicate. Conclusion After reviewing the fuel price data and trip sheets from taxicab drivers in Salt Lake City,I have arrived at the following conclusions: 1. The current gasoline prices have reached the same levels upon which the previous rate increase was implemented. However,during the previous six months, fuel "These are actual figures and not doubled to reflect empty return trips. 7 MAR-01-2006 WED 04:23 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P, 16 prices have ranged from$2.00 to$3,00. For this reason,a six-month temporary 000.1 increase in flag drop rates of$0.50 is reasonable. 2. Gasoline price spikes can have a substantial impact upon taxicab drivers. This phenomenon has been illustrated nationwide as well as worldwide, 3, The taxicab drivers have no recourse from rising gasoline prices except to petition . the municipal government. 4. A sliding scale for fuel surcharges would permit taxicab drivers to adjust their rates when fuel costs reach certain levels. Levels used by other municipal governments have boon in the$.50 increment range. These have been generally applied to the flag drop fee. I respectfully submit this report to the City Council of Salt Lake City on this day of November 23,2005. / /i/I.A__. Theod rc! I'. T os Managing Economist I,I.CG,I,LC 8 MAR-01-2006 WED 04:23 PH WINDER & HASLAN FAX NO. 4 P. 17 Documents Considered Exhibit 7 Trip Sheets from Yellow Cab Trip Sheets from City Cab Various newspaper articles regarding fuel surcharges www.saltlakegasprices.corn AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report f • MAR-01-2006 WED 04:23 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P. 18 Le(::.G Theodor P,Tatos, Managing Economist,LECG 201 South Main Street,Suite 450 Salt Lake City,Utah,84111 United States of America Phone: (801)321-6329 Fax: (801)364-6230 L-'ma it: Itatos@lecg.com Summery of Credentials Mr,Taros is a managing economist in the Salt Lake City,UT office of LECG.He has over nine years of experience in litigation and non-litigation consulting, specializing in econometric and statistical analysis.Mr,Tatos has been involved in matters requiring complex statistical analysis,among which are matters involving employment discrimination,statistical sampling for medical claim cases,wage and hour cases,employment benefits consulting, lost profits,stock valuation,and others. Mr. Tacos has been involved in several high-profile antitrust cases as well as numerous economic damage assessments, in addition to his consulting practice, Mr. Tatos has taught as adjunct professor for graduate and undergraduate economics classes at the University of Utah.Mr.Tatos has completed the coursework and thesis for the MS in statistics from the University of Utah and has RA in economics from Duke University. Employment I Iistory September 2001 Li;CG to present Managing Economist Washington,DC and Salt Lake City,Utah January,2001 DynCorp—l Iealthcare Information Technology Services to September 2001 Statistical Analyst Reston,Virginia March 1997 LECG to January 2001 Research Analyst,Associate Washington,DC August 1995 Triangle Economic Research To February 1997 Associate Economist Durham,NC too"4,_ 6n 1I2ooy ww:v I(c:y cam Page 1 at 7 MAR-01-2006 WED 04:23 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P. 19 • �. .e (.t Education Duke University,Durham,NC BA Economics, 1995 University of Utah,Salt Lake City,Utah MS Statistics-Econometrics,2004 (courscwork completed, degree to be awarded spring 2005 — Thesis was published in Intellectual Property Damages: Guidelines and Analysis 2004 Supplement -- Applying Statistical Analysis to the Market Approach) Teaching Credentials ■ Adjunct Professor--Economics 3640—University of Utah—Spring 2005 • Adjunct Professor—Economics 7801 —University of Utah—Spring 2005 • Guest Lecturer —Executive MIJA Program—University of Utah—Summer 2004 * Adjunct Professor—Economics 7801 —University of Utah—Spring 2004 ," '' ■ Guest Lecturer—industrial Organization—University of Utah—Spring 2003 • Adjunct Professor—Undergraduate Econometrics-University of Utah—Spring 2002 Testifying Credentials • Testified before Administrative Law Judge on the matter of whether Salt bake City should isyue additional taxicab licenses--November 2004 • Testified before Administrative Law Judge on the matter of whether taxicab rates in Salt Lake City should be increased to reflect inflationary trends—January 2005 • Deposition for Terrntnet Investments v,The Gap,Inc,— April 2005 Publications and Presentations; • Applying Statistical Analysis to the Market Approach(with Rick Koffman)in Intellectual Property Damages;Guidelines and Analysis,2004 Supplement • Determining the Choice Set in a Random Utility Model(with Steven Waters)-Presentation to American Agricultural Economics Association,Toronto,Ontario,Canada,July 1997 5/11/005 www Iecg cum Pogo 2 of 7 FAX NO. 4 P. 20 t1AR-01-2006 WED 04:23 PM WINDER & HASLAMLeC COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENT CONSULTING AND LITIGATION EXPERIENCE Employment Discrimination and Benefits Consulting • Developed regression models to test for statistically significant differences in pay rates among men and women for big four accounting firm. • Used parametric and nonparametric statistical techniques to compare promotion rates among men and women in employment discrimination litigation case. • Critiqued expert report in employment discrimination litigation case. Developed statistical model to show flaws in expert report. • Used statistical tests to determine inter-year differences between proportions of employees electing benefits. • Used logistic regression to determine trends in benefits elections. • Critiqued expert report analyzing employment benefits elections in financial sector litigation. • Provided consulting advice to employer in employment discrimination litigation matter. • Developed statistical models to be.used in testing for employment discrimination in litigation matters. • Developed statistical models to ensure a company undertaking layoffs is conducting the process randomly without discriminating with respect to gender,race,or age. Sint Wien!Analysis -(Sampling,Regression,Forecasting etc.) • Prepared statistical sampling analysis to critique expert report in case involving business interruption damages in grocery store industry. • Prepared sales forecasting analysis in grocery industry matter. • Prepared sales forecasting analysis in retail clothing industry. • Performed regression analysis to critique expert report and prepare damages analysis in retail store litigation matter, • Analyzed sub-grade loan portfolio to determine monthly gross loss percentage during the life of the portfolio. Performed regression analysis to validate model performance, • Performed statistical analysis to determine fixed versus variable costs at oil refinery. 5tiini05 www lecy coin E'r+gc3ut7 FAX NO. 4 P. 21 MAR-01-2006 WED 04:24 PM WINDER & HASLAM ram' Lec ; • Used regression analysis to predict hospital purchase price per bed based on historical hospital/medical center transactions in litigation involving failed hospital market entry. • Performed regression analysis to forecast subgrade gasoline production in business Interruption case involving explosion at an oil refinery. • Estimated statistical relationship between mortgage lending activity and loan officer salaries in rebuttal of expert report. • Created statistical sampling plan in order to estimate overcharges or undercharges in insurance reimbursement case. • Compared difference in resulting weighted average cost of capital(WACC)from using the arithmetic vs.geometric mean to calculate the equity risk premium. • Critiqued expert's Monte Carlo analysis with respect to appropriate value ranges and distribution of values in defense industry litigation. • Performed Monte Carlo analysis to determine end-of-lease residual value guarantee for leased tractors for trucking company. i j • Critiqued sampling design performed by statistical expert with regard to sample size and representativeness in medical claims case. • Developed forecasting model to predict air ambulance flights in the presence and absence of accreditation, • Prepared revenue foreca.ting model for matter involving sales of nutritional supplements, • Performed survival analysis for case involving kidney dialysis patients. • Performed survival analysis for case involving time until retirement for optometrists still working after age 70 in Utah, • Developed forecasting model to predict sales of tiles used for building courts in domestic and commercial sports facilities in Canada. • Performed statistical analysis to critique expert's forecasting methodology using regression analysis techniques in multi-level marketing case. • Performed statistical sampling analysis of insurance claims in asbestos litigation and critiqued expert report of statistician. • Created statistical sampling design for study of automobile purchase records for major U.S.auto retailer. 5)11/2.00G ww•w levy cum Page 4 01 7 MAR-01-2006 WED 04:24 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P. 22 it ,e c; • Performed nonparametric statistical analysis and developed regression models to assess sampling accuracy and analyze potential damages in asbestos litigation. • Assisted in creating sampling design for hospital study in Florida. • Assisted in creating sampling design for heath services administration in Hawaii. • Performed statistical analysis for U.S.Department of Defense hospitals in regard to Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations(JCAHO)Oryx measures. • Developed statistical models of lower-extremity amputations(LGA)in diabetics. • Developed statistical models of congestive heart failure(CHF)rates. • Developed statistical models of hospital readmission rates in eases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPU). • Developed statistical models to analyze prescription pick-up rates at pharmacies in states throughout the nation for major U.S.pharmacy. • Performed analysis of retail outlets in contact lens litigation. Analysis of Large Databases • Developed pricing analysis of long-distance domestic and international calls in litigation involving major long-distance telephone service provider. • Performed data extraction from databases of several U.S.commercial tissue manufacturers and compiled databases for statistical analysis. • Compiled data from several U.S.and foreign ferrosilicon and silicon metal manufacturers and retailers for statistical forecasting analysis. • Created database programs and macros to extract data from various databases in response to requests from opt-out claimants in ferrosilicon litigation. Antitrust Cases • Performed market analysis and researched relevant market issues in case involving private versus public water companies. • Perfonmed market analysis for aircraft engine services merger. • Performed market analysis and research,determined relevant markets and market concentrations in major defense industry merger, 51r117005 www lacy coin Paco 5 of 7 FAX NO. 4 P. 23 MAR-01-2006 WED 04:24 PM WINDER & HASLAM i.•ec V • Developed geographic market and performed statistical analysis for Canadian sanitary services company merger. • Developed geographic market analysis for merger of Utah radiology services providers. • Developed econometric forecasting model and provided statistical analysis in fermsiiicon and silicon metal price-fixing litigation, Rebutted regression models of opposing experts. • Analyzed pricing patterns and provided statistical categorical data analysis in commercial tissue litigation matter. Perforated econometric analysis to determine existence of disparate impacts in class certification. • Developed statistical and econometric models for analyzing pricing patters in vitamin price- fixing litigation. • Provided geographic market analysis and statistical analysis in contact lens price-fixing litigation • Developed econometric analysis to analyze brand name erosion in clothing industry. • Analyzed pricing patterns and performed statistical analysis in tobacco industry price-fixing litigation. • Analyzed antitrust issues associated with entry of new members into physician network in Utah. • Calculated market effects and performed statistical testing in analysis of gasoline market in a Utah city. • Determined effects of tariff regulation on watch imports for American Watch Association. Damages Analysis • Provided statistical review and rebuttal of opposing expert's regression model and analysis of damages in litigation regarding furniture manufacturer, Developed econometric analysis. • Calculated damages arising from breach of contract in litigation regarding mining company. • Determined value of option to purchase real estate in Utah. • Determined the value of trademark in trademark infringement litigation involving a restaurant and bakery. • Calculated lost profits stemming from breach of contract in sports industry. • Prepared damages analysis in breach-of-contract matter in insurance industry. 5I1 Trapp, www Iraq coin Pa9H 6 of 7 MAR-01-2006 WED 04:24 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P. 24 LeCG J Environmental Litigation • Performed Preliminary Natural Resource Damage Analysis(PNRDA)at river in Massachusetts. • Performed Preliminary Natural Resource Damage Analysis(PNRDA)at river in New York State. • Performed demographic analysis for survey purposes in Natural Resources Damage Analysis at Superfund site in northwestern U.S. • Provided survey supervision and analysis in damages analysis stemming from oil spill in Florida. • Provided market analysis in analysis of damages stemming from oil spill in Rhode Island. Business Valuation • Performed statistical analysis to determine comparable companies to benchmark firm in medical products industry. • Performed statistical analysis to determine comparable companies to benchmark firm in pre- packaged software industry. • Performed statistical analysis to determine comparable companies to benchmark firm in Internet company valuation. • Performed multivariate statistical analysis using various methods to determine proximity of comparable companies in high-technology government consulting company valuation. • Developed statistical regression model to forecast loans for major U.S.bank. • Usud survival analysis methods to determine expected lifetime of firm in loan industry. • Used option valuation techniques(Black-Scholes,Binomial Tree Models)to value options in pre- 11'0 Internet company, • Used statistical analysis to value option to purchase land in future ski resort. • Used regression model to determine accuracy of retail sales forecasts in valuation of store damaged by fire. 5111/2005 www lacy coin Nadu 7 of 7 11AR-01-2006 WED 04:25 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX N0. 4 P. 25 • Analysis of Airport Trips ;'""',Evaluation of Proposed Flag Drop Increase LECG,LLC Exhibit 3 Date Trips Total Fare 10/16/2005 5 $ 93 10/17/2005 8 $ 174 10/18/2005 11 $ 188 10/19/2005 14 $ 268 10/20/2005 9 $ 153 10/21/2005 6 $ 105 10/22/2005 7 $ 135 10/23/2005 11 $ 208 10/24/2005 14 $ 256 10/25/2005 22 $ 356 10/26/2005 5 $ 94 Total 112 $ 2,027 Average$/Trip $ 18.10 Average Trips/Day 10.18 Average$/Day $ 184.31 Average Miles Traveled 106.85 <1> Assumed MPG 15.04 (from Taxicab Fact Book) Gallons Used Per Day 7.10 Effect of$.50 Gas Price Increase $ 3.55 Effect of$1.00 Gas Price Increase $ 7.10 Benefit of$0.50 increase $ 5.09 Benefit of$1.00 increase $ 10.18 Notes: <1> This figure is equal to double of the actual miles listed on the trip sheets. The reason for this is that taxicab drivers serving the airport must return to the airport. Based on the trip sheets I have seen,they generally appear to return empty to the airport. Furthermore,this figure does not include idling time and time spend driving to and from the Yellow Cab location. MAR-01-2006 WED 04:25 PM WINDER & HASLAM FAX NO. 4 P, 26 Analysis of Non-Airport Trips ^""'`Evaluatlon of Proposed Flag Drop Increase ECG,LLC Exhibit 4 1 _ 4 Date Trips Total Fare 10/13/2005 5 38.41 10/14/2005 6 83.89 10/17/2005 13 205.7 _ 10/20/2005 6 109.34 10/21/2005 6 44.1 10/22/2005 5 43.82 10/23/2005 4 61.86 10/24/2005 12 162.54 10/25/2005 10 82.09 10/25/2005 _ 6 69.36 Grand Total 73 901.11 Average$/Trip $ 12.34 Average Trips/Day 7,3 Average$lDay $ 90,11 Average Miles Traveled 96.90 <1> Assumed MPG 15.04 (from Taxicab Fact Book) Gallons Used Per Day 6.44 Effect of$.50 Gas Price Increase $ 3.22 Effect of$1.00 Gas Price Increase $ 6.44 deneft of$0.50 increase $ 3.65 Benefit of$1.00 Increase $ 7.30 Notes: <1> This figure Is equal to double of the actual miles listed on the trip sheets. The reason for this is that taxicab drivers are not guaranteed to pick up a fare when they drop one off,so they must drive to another location to pick up fares. They must also drive to and from the Yellow Cab location, as well as leave the car idling during various times. F i A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ,..,;` '�' _i�aJ vr�i��-.l. �J� O�e�'ION ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR BRENT B. WILDE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAI 7 .' TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer Date: February 24, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director RE: Request to amend Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.45 : Maximum Rates STAFF CONTACT: Edna Drake, Business License Administrator, at 535-6473 or edna.drake@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Donald J. Winder, on behalf of Yellow Cab Drivers Association, Ute Cab Company, and City Cab Company requested a hearing for a temporary increase in the flag drop rate of taxicabs for the next six (6)months to allow adjustments in line with present high gas prices. Analysis: Per Section 5.72.457 of the Salt Lake City Code, a Public Hearing was held on November 23, 2005, before Michael W. Crippen, Hearing Officer,pertaining to the petition filed by Yellow Cab Drivers Association, Inc. (Yellow Cab), Ute Cab Company (Ute Cab), and City Cab Company(City Cab) for a temporary increase in the flag drop rate. Attached is a copy of the"Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendation" signed by the hearing officer, Michael W. Crippen. The Hearing Officer recommends: 1. The current flag drop rate of$2.00 should be increased to $2.50 for a period of six months. After the six (6) month time period the flag drop rate will return to the original rate of$2.00. 2. One hundred percent(100%) of the increase in the flag drop rate should go to the taxicab drivers and none of it should go to the Cab Companies. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 041 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01.535-7105 FAX: B01-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM � accvc�co vnaea 3. The question of benchmarking future increases in the flag drop rate to respond to changes in gasoline prices should be appropriately left to the City Council or Budget Office as a policy matter,rather that the Hearing Officer. Administration Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council approve the increased taxicab flag drop rate based on the findings outlined in Hearing Officer Crippen's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendation." PUBLIC PROCESS: Pursuant to Section 5.72.457(D) of the Salt Lake City Code, the recommendations of the Hearing Officer are subject to acceptance,modification, or rejection by the City Council following a Public Hearing. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Code Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.455: Maximum Rates Request to Amend Section 5.72.455—Flag Drop Rate Page 2 of 2 Table of Contents Attachment A: Michael W. Crippen Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation Attachment B: Section 5.72.455 Maximum Taxicab Rates Attachment A: Michael W. Crippen Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation Donald J. Winder(#3519) John W. Holt (#5720) WINDER & HASLAM, P.C. 175 West 200 South, Suite 4000 Post Office Box 2668 Salt Lake City,UT 84110-2668 Telephone: (801) 322-2222 Facsimile: (801) 322-2282 Attorneys for Yellow Cab Drivers Association, Inc., City Cab Company and Ute Cab Company BEFORE THE DESIGNEE OF THE MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH IN RE: MATTER OF FINDINGS OF FACT, TEMPORARY TAXICAB CONCLUSIONS AND FLAG DROP RATE INCREASE RECOMMENDATION Hearing Officer: Michael W. Crippen Pursuant to Sections 5.72.457 and 5.72.455(A) of the Salt Lake City Code, a public hearing was held on November 23, 2005, before Michael W. Crippen, Hearing Officer, to determine whether the November 2, 2005 Renewed Petition for Temporary Taxicab Rate Increase filed by Yellow Cab Drivers Association, Inc. ("Yellow Cab"), Ute Cab Company ("Ute Cab"), and City Cab Company ("City Cab") (referred to herein collectively as the "Cab Companies") for a temporary increase in the flag drop rate should be forwarded as a recommendation to the City Council. Representatives of the Cab Companies were present at the hearing, testimony was introduced, exhibits ("Ex.") were offered and received, and arguments were made to the Hearing Officer in support of the petition. Donald J. Winder, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Cab Companies. Melanie Reif, Assistant City Attorney, and Jim Benton, Business Licensing Enforcement, appeared on behalf of Salt Lake City. Counsel for the Cab Companies and the City each provided procedural and statutory background information pertinent to this petition and the City Council's recent legislative action authorizing the procedure for this proceeding. Counsel for the Cab Companies clarified during the hearing that although their original petition requested a temporary increase of$1.00 in the flag drop rate, they are now proposing the following recommendation given the recent recess in gas prices: That a fifty-cent ($.50) increase in the flag drop rate for the next six (6) months be implemented to allow a catch-up for the high gas prices over the last six (6) months. Implementing this change will include no prospective increase because gas prices have retreated. The Cab Companies also suggested the following recommendation to address future fluctuations in gas prices: That a sliding scale be implemented that would allow the flag drop rate to change based on the fluctuation of more than $.50 in gas prices. Under this system, the flag drop rate will be adjusted on a monthly basis to account for the 2 , fluctuations of more than $.50, either upward or downward, in gas prices from a base price of $2.00/gallon. This process, as proposed, would be implemented without additional hearings and would be initiated by the Cab Companies providing notice to the Business Licensing Administrator in advance of the rate change. Gas prices would be determined by those published by the American Automobile Association("AAA"). With respect to the Cab Companies' proposal for a sliding scale, the City noted that as a practical matter a recommendation could be drafted to include a sliding scale but Section 5.72.455(A) of the Salt Lake City Code provides an alternative to that approach which, theoretically, would allow the rates to be set at an amount that would allow the Cab Companies or taxicab drivers to lower the rates on their own. Thus, hypothetically speaking, if the flag drop rate were raised to $3.00 as requested in the Cab Companies' renewed petition, and if gas prices went to $2.50 per gallon, then the Cab Companies or taxicab drivers could lower the rate on their own pursuant to Section 5.72.455 which states that owners or taxicab drivers may establish rates that are lower but not higher than those established by ordinance. The City noted that it was not making a recommendation but was simply noting this as an alternative that seemed more in keeping with Section 5.72.457 as presently drafted. 3 The Cab Companies offered testimony on their own behalf and also presented the testimony of their expert, Ted Tatos ("Mr. Tatos"). Yellow Cab testified that it is operating approximately 120 cabs per day; Ute Cab testified that it is operating about 60- 68 cabs per day; and City Cab testified that it is operating approximately 45 cabs per day. They also testified that their drivers buy their own gas and that they do not provide gas to the drivers. Mr. Tatos testified that he was proposing adoption of the sliding scale. Mr. Tatos explained that a sliding scale could be based on gas prices or could be based on a per mile charge. Mr. Tatos testified that basing the sliding scale on gas prices was easier and less expensive than basing it on a per mile charge which would involve frequent changes to the taxicab meters. Mr. Tatos presented fifteen (15) trip sheets to support his proposal to adopt a sliding scale, but he later acknowledged that those sheets were not a representative sample and were only relied on by him as a statistical model. The Hearing Officer, having considered the evidence, arguments and the Cab Companies' proposal, being fully advised in the premises and for good cause appearing, hereby issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Cab Companies filed a petition for temporary taxicab rate increase on or about September 20, 2005. Ex. 3. 2. The petition was rejected on the basis that the Salt Lake City Code only permitted one review of rates in a calendar year and the rates had previously been reviewed and increased during the 2005 calendar year. 4 • 3. The Salt Lake City Council, in order to respond to special circumstances justifying additional reviews of rates during a particular calendar year, amended the Salt Lake City Code Section 5.27.457 to permit additional reviews based upon the approval of either the City Council or the Mayor. This amendment was passed on November 1, 2005 and published on November 5, 2005. 4. Following the action of the City Council, the Cab Companies filed a renewed petition for temporary taxicab rate increase on or about November 2, 2005. This petition seeks a temporary $1.00 increase in the current flag drop rate from $2.00 to $3.00. Ex. 4. 5. Pursuant to newly enacted subsection (E) of Section 4.72.457 of the Salt Lake City Code, the Mayor directed that this hearing be scheduled. 6. A notice of hearing in connection with the Cab Companies' renewed petition was mailed to the Cab Companies and duly published. Exs. 1 and 2. 7. The City previously increased taxicab rates in late May 2005. These rate increases included an increase in the flag drop rate from $1.60 to $2.00 and a per mile change from 1/16 mile to 1/18 mile. This increase reflects a twenty-five cent ($.25) increase above the requested and recommended flag drop rate as set forth in the Cab Companies' January 10, 2005 petition and this hearing examiner's February 15, 2005 recommendation. 8. At the time the Hearing Officer previously recommended an increase in taxicab rates, the cost of regular gasoline was approximately$2.00 per gallon. Ex. 5. 5 9. Gasoline prices peaked at $2.90 per gallon in the fall of 2005. Id. 10. The taxicab industry depends heavily upon gasoline. Id. 11. As of the date of the hearing in this matter, gasoline prices have retreated to about $1.96 per gallon. 12. Cab drivers for each of the Cab Companies pay for their own gasoline costs. Cab drivers are not compensated or reimbursed by the Cab Companies for gasoline costs. This means that the taxicab drivers had to absorb 100% of the increase in gas prices. 13. The Hearing Officer takes judicial notice of the testimony given by taxicab drivers at a hearing conducted in the matter of Eagle Limo & Cab, LLC and additional applications, which testimony established the reduced income being received by taxicab drivers due to inflation and the increased costs of operating a taxicab. 14. Although gasoline prices have now retreated, it is fair, reasonable and necessary to compensate the taxicab drivers for the loss they suffered during the recent period of increased gasoline costs. As set forth in Ex. 5, gas prices peaked at $2.90 per gallon in the fall of 2005, increasing by nearly $.75 per gallon from mid-summer, requiring the cab drivers to absorb this expense without any relief. Therefore, a temporary increase in the flag drop rate to compensate them retroactively is justified. 15. The Cab Companies agree that 100% of any temporary increase in the flag drop rate will be passed on to the taxicab drivers to help compensate them for the recent increase in gasoline prices. 6 16. Other jurisdictions, including but not limited to Seattle, Washington, Fairfax County, Virginia, Arlington, Virginia, Annapolis, Maryland, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have responded to the sudden and unexpected increases in gasoline prices by implementing gasoline surcharges ranging from $.50 to $1.00. Some of these surcharges are based upon a sliding scale tied to gasoline prices. Ex. 5. 17. It is fair and reasonable for the flag drop rate to be increased by$.50 for a period of six months to cover the gas price increase from at least August 2005 to November 2005 and maybe going back as far as April 2005, to be made effective upon the approval by the City Council. 18. The question of benchmarking future increases in the flag drop rate to respond to changes in gasoline prices is more appropriately left for decision by the City Council or Budget Office as a policy matter, rather than the Hearing Officer. 19. Section 5.72.455 supports the City's hypothetical that the rates could be raised to the maximum $3.00 flag drop rate requested in the Cab Companies' renewed petition, which could then be lowered by the owners or drivers when gas prices fluctuate. However, as a practical matter, this route should not be put into practice for the reason that a$3.00 ceiling may become the floor after a change is implemented. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Cab Companies' renewed petition for temporary rate increase was appropriately and timely filed. 7 2. The November 23, 2005, public hearing concerning the Cab Companies' petition was timely and properly noticed by Salt Lake City. 3. The flag drop rate, which is currently $2.00, should be increased to $2.50 for a period of six months, to compensate taxicab drivers for the recent period of increased gasoline prices. 4. One hundred percent (100%) of the increase in the flag drop rate should go to the taxicab drivers and none of it should go to the Cab Companies. 5. The foregoing temporary increase should become effective upon approval by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions, this Hearing Officer does hereby RECOMMEND the following: 1. The current flag drop rate of $2.00 should be increased to $2.50 for a period of six months. 2. One hundred percent (100%) of the increase in the flag drop rate should go to the taxicab drivers and none of it should go to the Cab Companies. 3. The question of benchmarking future increases in the flag drop rate to respond to changes in gasoline prices should be appropriately left for decision by the City Council or Budget Office as a policy matter, rather than the Hearing Officer. 8 4. Pursuant to Section 5.72.457(D) of the Salt Lake City Code, this recommendation is subject to the acceptance, modification, or rejection by the City Council. Entered this,e) day of ,_J�L/4 „NO- 7 7 s MICHAEL V . CRIPPEN .Hearing Officer Approved as to form: , (i . ME NIE A. REIF Assista t City Atto e Salt Lake City Corp r on 9 CERTIFICATE OF HAND-DELIVERY I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing proposed FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUONS OF LAW AND ORDER, to be sent via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this \� day of December, 2005, to the following: Melanie A. Reif Assistant City Attorney Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, #505A Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Edna Drake Business License Supervisor Business & Licensing Division Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Rm 225 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Sam Guevara Mayor's Chief of Staff Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, #306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 10 Attachment B: Section 5.72.455 Maximum Taxicab Rates SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Maximum Taxicab Rates) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.72.455, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO MAXIMUM TAXICAB RATES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 5.72.455, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to maximum taxicab rates be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.72.455 Maximum Rates: A. Except as otherwise provided herein, an owner or driver of a taxicab may establish and charge mileage rates lower than, but shall not establish and charge any mileage rate for the use of a taxicab greater than, two and a half dollars ($2.50) for flag drop and ten cents ($0.10) for each one-eighteenth(1/18) mile or fraction thereof for a period of six (6)months starting on [date to be determined at time of Council consideration] and ending on [date to be determined at time of Council consideration], and thereafter the flag drop rate shall be adjusted to two dollars ($2.00) and the per mile rate shall remain the same. An owner or driver of a taxicab may establish and charge a rate for waiting time lower than, but shall not establish any rate for waiting time greater than twenty two dollars ($22.00) per hour. B. The foregoing notwithstanding, an owner or driver of a taxicab who is charged a fee by the City to deliver a passenger or to pick up a passenger at the Salt Lake City International Airport may, in addition to the rates allowed by subsection A of this Section, or its successor, charge an additional sum in the exact amount of such fee to be used to pay such fee. Further, an owner or driver of a taxicab may charge a minimum airport rate of twelve dollars ($12.00) for service from the Salt Lake City International Airport. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Salt �kee�Cty AAttor FORM Date B (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Amending 5.72.455 Maximum Rates for Taxicabs-02-08-06 clean.doc 2 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Airport Director Selection Committee 2005-2006 Potential Members — Not Yet Contacted or Confirmed Keith S. Christensen Airport Board Member Micro Industries 2990 South Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Office contact: Becky Phone 466-3334 cell# 580-5588 FAX: 466-1441 Email: keith@ci-aviation.com Nancy Huntsman Airport Board Member 7 South Wolcott Street Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Phone: 328-9976 Cell: 916-9976 Email: huntsmann©comcast.net John H. Short, Ph.D. Airport Board Member Managing Partner, Phase 2 Consulting 2120 South 1300 East, 3rd Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Phone: 363-3046 Fax: 596-2127 Cellular: 558-9712 Contact: Loretta Peterson E-mail: jhshorte..phase2consulting.com Russ Pack Acting Director, Dept. of Airports Acting Director, Airports Salt Lake International Airport AMF Box 22084 Salt Lake City, UT 84122 Phone: 575-2915 E-mail: russ.pack a(�slcgov.com • Rocky Fluhart Deputy Mayor Deputy Mayor Salt Lake City 451 South State St. # 228 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone 535-5426 Contact: Robyn E-mail: rocky.fluhartslcgov.com Ted Wilson Former Mayor Address Phone E-mail: Connie Leonardakis Community Curtis Brunson Community SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 15, 2006 SUBJECT: Issuance and Sale of the General Obligation Bond for The Leonardo at Library Square STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver CC: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, DJ Baxter, Gordon Hoskins, Rick Graham, Max Peterson, Gaylord Smith, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen The Leonardo is now requesting,per the terms of the Matching Funds Agreement and the Special Bond Election Resolution,that the City issue the $10 million General Obligation Bonds so that The Leonardo can move ahead as quickly as possible with their plans for renovation and seismic retrofitting of the old library building. '" If the Council is willing to move ahead with issuance of the bond, a Parameters Resolution would be prepared for consideration during an April Council Meeting, and the release of the bond proceeds would also be scheduled as close as possible to the Budget Amendment scheduled in June. (A brief history of the bond process and a chronology are provided near the end of this report.) KEY ELEMENTS The Leonardo has submitted its documentation of$10 million raised in matching funds, and the City Administration has verified that this meets the requirements for the match in order for the City to issue the General Obligation bonds. According to the information provided by The Leonardo,the $10 million in matching funds are comprised of: Cash Received $2,304,574 Pledges 5,646,967 Stocks 1,496,597 In-kind Donations 838,057 - Leonardo on Wheels (238,639) Total $10,047,556 The bond proceeds would be used along with other monies raised by The Leonardo toward the renovation of the old library building. The Leonardo serves as an umbrella organization for the Center for Documentary Arts, Utah Science Center, and Global Artways. (Note: According to the paperwork provided by The Leonardo, Council Member Simonsen is on the Board of Directors for the Center for Documentary Arts.)Each of these three organizations will occupy the building, and the space needs to be updated for exhibits, programming, and galleries. The building is also in need of seismic upgrades. The Leonardo originally planned that the $10 million in matching funds were to be used for the exhibits and programming, and the $10 million in bond funds would be used for building renovation, seismic upgrades, and improvements. Some construction estimates have increased ! since the original 2003 discussions, due to inflation and a necessary expanded scope for the seismic retrofit of the building. The Leonardo has retained two architectural firms and an engineering firm to provide two Options for seismic improvements. Either of these two options would increase the construction estimates from the planned $10 million. The Leonardo Board has identified $5 million to offset the increase, but Option B would still exceed that amount, as its price tag is $17.8 million. The information provided by The Leonardo does not include a request for additional City funds. However, they do request that, "if the City Council prefers [Option B], as does The Leonardo Board of Directors, we hope to jointly seek creative solutions to make it happen." The two options are summarized here, but a more detailed description and schematic drawings are in the attached Transmittal packet from the Administration. As an additional note, both options either meet or exceed LEED certification level. Option A Cost: $14.8 million Brief Description: exterior bracing system at each of the building's four corners. This would include removal of some of the existing exterior panels on the building. Potential Issues: Concern about the aesthetic view of the building with external bracing pillars. Option B Cost: $17.8 million Brief Description: includes a physical addition of 11,000 sq. ft. to the north side of the building (facing onto Library Square); uses an"internal south shear wall"to stabilize the building; and allows a better interior building layout for circulation, exhibit placement, etc. Potential Issues: (a) Exceeds available funds by roughly $2.8 million. (b) The cost of internal shear walls have an element of uncertainty. (c) Uses additional land on Library Square for building space rather than open space. MATTERS AT ISSUE 1. Given that the 10-year CIP does not include any additional funding for this building, and given that there are significant competing demands for the City's fund balance, the Council may wish to ask the representatives from The Leonardo about potential options to fund the $2.8 million if Option B is selected. 2. The Council may wish to ask how the "Pledges" collected by The Leonardo ($5,646,967 of the $10 million match)will be handled. 3. The Council may wish to confirm with the Administration that the donations are secured in an account consistent with City policy. 2 wr HISTORY In late summer of 2003,the City Council and the City Administration identified several projects for which to issue General Obligation bonds. These bond propositions were placed on the November 4, 2003 ballot for the voters of Salt Lake City to consider. Proposition Number 2 (The Leonardo at Library Square)was approved by the voters. According to the Special Bond Election Resolution language,which was also used for the ballot language,the bond amount was for"an amount not to exceed Ten Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($10,200,000)." (Note: It was estimated that there would be approximately $200,000 of costs associated with issuing the bonds.)Further, the bond language specified that the bond proceeds were "for the purpose of paying the costs of renovating, improving and preserving the old main library building and providing related facilities located at approximately 5th South Street and 2nd East Street to establish a science, culture and art education center currently known as The Leonardo at Library Square." Bond Eligibility -Included in the discussions about issuing a General Obligation Bond for The Leonardo, was a requirement that The Leonardo raise $10 million in matching funds in order for the bonds to be issued. To establish the terms of this agreement, the City and The Leonardo entered into a Matching Funds Agreement. According to this agreement,the City agreed that "when that total [of required matching funds] matches or exceeds $10 million, the City will proceed to expeditiously provide the bond funds for the remodeling of the old library building." (A copy of the Matching Funds Agreement is attached.) Brief Chronology October 7, 2003 Special Bond Election Resolution Adopted by the City Council November 4, 2003 General Elections—"Proposition Number 2"passed September 8, 2004 Matching Funds Agreement recorded between the City and The Leonardo finalized December, 2005 The Leonardo met its $10 million match requirement February 1, 2006 The City issued a letter verifying that the funds met the match requirement [future timeline] April 15, 2006 Building Design Phase April, 2007 Begin Construction June, 2008 Construction completed and programs occupy building. C C M'i. ;l f U ' P`S AGREEMENT THIS MATCHING F MAIEEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of , 2004, by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPP i 'i al corporation (the "City"), and the LIBRARY SQUARM O v R ART, CULTURE, AND SCIENCE (the "Foundation"), a Utah non-profit corporation, with its principal offices at 210 East 400 South, do The City Library, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. RECITALS 1. In November 2003 the citizens of Salt Lake City, at a bond election, authorized the issuance of up to $10.2 million of general obligation bonds (the "Bonds") to retrofit and renovate the City-owned former main library building. That building, now vacated, would house The Leonardo at Library Square. The Library Square Foundation for Art, Culture, and Science (the "Foundation"), the nonprofit entity responsible for operating The Leonardo, is charged with matching dollar for dollar the par amount of the Bonds up to $10 million (excluding costs of issuing the Bonds). Currently, the Foundation is soliciting matching funds through private donors, foundations, federal grants, and corporate sponsorships. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the following mutual promises and consideration, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. Purpose. This Agreement is intended to define which funds raised by the Foundation for The Leonardo project qualify as Bond matching funds. This Agreement will guide both parties as they monitor progress toward the match via monthly and quarterly reports. Each month, the Foundation will present the City with an accounting of total funds and pledges raised during the preceding month that meet the agreed upon criteria for matching funds. At the conclusion of each quarter, no later than the 15th of January, April, July, and October, the Foundation shall present to the City a written report detailing all individual pledges and donations secured during the quarter, as well as a cumulative total of matching funds and pledges. The quarterly reports shall detail the date, amount, and name of donor for each entry, but the monthly reports need only provide total amounts for the month. No later than the last day of January, April, July, and October, the City shall verify in writing that the criteria have been met for the donations reported in the most recent • quarterly report, and that the Foundation's repoKted•tot*of,matching funds raised to date is consistent with City records. When that total matches or exceeds $10 million, the City will proceed to expeditiou1y provide the bond funds for the remodeling of the old library building. SECTION 2. Criteria for.Qualifying Matching Funds The City and the Foundation agree that the following description accurately states the criteria for qualifying matching funds. A. Cash, goods, stock, or services donated, or written and enforceable pledges therefore, for, 1)building remodeling and renovation to prepare the building for The Leonardo's occupancy and programs; 2)programming related to the occupancy and operation of the building; 3) capital improvements and expenses relating to exhibits and on-going functions of The Leonardo and its tenants. This includes donations toward any and all capital improvements, planning, and program needs of any of The Leonardo partner organizations—Global Artways, The Center for Documentary Arts, and The Utah Science Center—so long as those donations are designated for the partner organizations' use at Library Square. Qualifying donations shall include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Funds donated to develop exhibits and related materials and programs for The Leonardo and its partners (GA, CDA, USC) 2. Funds donated to support the development of The Leonardo's organizational infrastructure and facility features. 3. State, County, or Federal funds raised for The Leonardo's capital improvement, exhibit or program development. 4. In-kind donations approved by Salt Lake City that provide goods or services included in The Leonardo or partner organization budgets for building renovation, exhibit and program development. B. Only cash, goods, stock, or services donated, or written enforceable pledges therefor, provided to The Foundation on or after January 1, 2002, shall qualify as matching funds. 2 C. Examples of Anticipated Qualifying Funds 1. Corporate sponsorship of Utah Science Center Exhibits 2. Foundation grants, private donations for Utah Science Center Exhibits 3. A National Endowment for Humanities grant awarded The Center for Documentary Arts, a portion of which will provide funds for The Leonardo opening exhibit"Crossing the Tracks." SECTION 3. Funds That Are Not Qualifying Matching Funds The City and the Foundation agree that the following description accurately states the criteria for non-qualifying matching funds. A. Independent operating expenses for the current programming and administration of partner organizations (GA, CDA, USC) to the extent those expenses are not incurred in furtherance of The Leonardo project. B. Any public funds raised by partners for current operations, to the extent those expenses are not incurred in furtherance of The Leonardo project. C, Examples of Funds That Are Not Qualifying Funds 1. Micron Technology Foundation grants for USC Discovery on Wheels program in the Lehi area; 2. Kennedy Center Imagination Celebration donation for ongoing Global Artways programs; 3. Center for Documentary Arts ZAP funding for programs prior to occupancy of the building. SECTION 4. Deadline for Raising Funds The parties agree that the Foundation shall have no more than five (5) years from the date of this agreement to raise the full $10 million in matching funds. If the matching funds are not secured and documented according to the terms of this agreement within five (5) years of this agreement's execution date, the Foundation shall relinquish any and all claims to the bond funds approved by the voters. This 3 • deadline is an outer limit, and this provision shall not be interpreted to preclude Salt Lake City from negotiating with the Foundation an earlier deadline for securing the matching funds, or from setting fundraising milestones that would require the $10 million in matching funds to be raised sooner than five (5) years from the date of this agreement. Any such milestones shall be negotiated with the Foundation and committed to writing in an agreement between the Foundation and Salt Lake City. Until such time as matching funds are secured under the terms of this agreement, Salt Lake City shall have the right to use the former main library building as it sees fit. SECTION 5. Amendments. This Agreement, as amended hereby, may not be amended without written consent of both parties hereto. SECTION 6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and the attached and incorporated exhibits, constitutes the entire agreement between City and the Foundation. SECTION 7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by the substantive laws of, the State of Utah, without reference to principles governing choice or conflicts of laws. SECTION 8. Severability. If any provisions or portions thereof of this Agreement shall to any extent be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such provisions or portions thereof shall not be affected thereby and each provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by the law, so long as the intent of the parties can be maintained. 4 n / e \' SECTION 9. No Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned. SECTION 10. No Third Party Beneficiaries This Agreement is intended for the sole benefit of City and the Foundation and there are no third party beneficiaries to this Agreement. SECTION 11. Representation Regarding Ethical Standards For City Officers And Employees And Former City Officers And'Employees: The Foundation represents that it has not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City'officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained anycperson to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for,a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or (4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year first written above. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION RECORDED SEP 0 8 2004 CITY RECORDER By. Name: oss C. Anderson Title: Mayor Arts.: Crry�� `{h :. „141i��; :s ' y. thi2 . y�y ��paw� Name: Jill Remington Love el ,�`+�.r��-►�'` Title: Chair, Salt Lake City Council TTEST: APPROVED AATOnB°y,SMO tce Salt Lake City _O Date hiRrapik. By DEPUTY TY RECORDER LIBRARY SQUARE FOUNDATION FOR ART, CULTURE, AND SCIENCE By Name: zdz_(___±_(t/ J Andrade Title: C air and Director STATE OF UTAH } . ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) The foregoing Matching F nds Agreement was acknowledged before me this Lc( day of .-1--,241k , 2004, by\JoE ANDR -De' , the 6 0_;j4 i R. 1)1 QC-1`b of the Library Square Foundation for Art, Culture, and Science, a Utah non-profit corporation. . NOT Y PUBLIC • • My Commission Expires: ,a°Pfua NOTARY PUBLIC CHRISTINE K.CORDWELL +� 'i I 451 SO,STATE ST.,AM 306 o j� .?�"�� r� SALT LAKE Cf7'Y,UT 84111 v�r u"i ,. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES teao • FEBRUARY 15,2005 STATE OF UTAH Leonardo matching fund agreement 08-18-04 REVISED FINAL-2.doc • • • MEP# A E r§G' T kk CORPORATION, RICHARD GRAHAM s ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart inA7 DATE: March 14, 2006 Chief Administration Officer FROM: Mary Tull, Executive Director The Leonardo THROUGH: Rick Graham, Director I U Public Services Department STAFF CONTRACT: Mary Tull, The Leonardo 531-9800 Rick Graham, Public Services Dept. 535-7774 Gaylord Smith, Engineering Division 535-6344 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing paper prepared by The Leonardo to update the City Council on Leonardo's progress in securing the $10 million in matching funds and developing a renovation program for the old Library building. RECOMMENDATION: The Leonardo is requesting that the City Council acknowledge that it has met its obligation to raise matching funds, and as a result, approves a process to sell and release the bonds at a time close to the next budget amendment scheduled for June 2006. BUDGET IMPACT: No impact at this time. BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION: In May 2001, Mayor Anderson announced that the old Salt Lake City Library Building would be occupied by the Center for Documentary Arts,Utah Science Center and Global Artways. The three partner organizations were charged with developing a civic and educational community center. The three partners formed an"umbrella" entity to manage the building and to develop a program and development plan. The entity incorporated under the name, Library Square Foundation for Art, Culture and Science. It later took the name, The Leonardo. A capital fund raising campaigned was started immediately after incorporation. In 2003, the Mayor and City Council chose to include a proposal for a$10 million general obligation bond for The Leonardo in its bond initiative. In November 2003,Proposition 2 passed authorizing the City to bond for the project. Prior to selling the bonds, The Leonardo remained obligated to raise a dollar-for-dollar$10 million match for program and 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 14B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH H41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: SO1-535-77E19 WWW.SLCGOV.COM Accvceo cwaea Introduction The Leonardo Board of Directors, staff, and partner organizations report to the Salt Lake City Council and citizens, that we have raised the $10 million required to match the bonds authorized at a special bond election held on November 4, 2003. The enclosed copy of the bond match certification of matching funds letter by Gordon Hoskins, Salt Lake City's Finance Director, and the following project update, are intended to verify our success and progress. With the City Council's authorization to begin the bond issuance process, the design and remodel of the old Salt Lake City Library can begin and The Leonardo's exhibits and programs can move forward. The Leonardo board and staff are honored to be a part of Salt Lake City's magnificent Library Square. The City Library, along with organizations such as KCPW, The Salt Lake City Film Center, The Community Writing Project and others are forming what is becoming a new Civic Center in Utah's Capital City. On any given day, the Square and its facilities are buzzing with people in discussion, listening, reading, communicating via cyberspace, attending events, and participating in community meetings. With the opening of The Leonardo, the entire plaza will achieve the dream of becoming a civic and cultural destination. The housing, businesses, and urban vitality that have sprung up around it will continue to expand and help bring to fruition a dream of a vital downtown where people live, work, socialize, and enjoy educational and cultural pursuits. The Leonardo: Background On May 18, 2001, Mayor Anderson publicly announced that the old Salt Lake City Library Building would be occupied by the Center for Documentary Arts, Global Artways, and the Utah Science Center. He charged the three partner organizations with developing a community education center that would enrich the civic experience and serve as an educational resource in art, culture, and science. The partners and the City immediately realized the best way to achieve this goal was through a unique, umbrella entity that would manage the building, coordinate activities and programs, and build on the partners' individual strengths and missions to achieve a whole greater than the sum of its parts. This umbrella entity became the Library Square Foundation for Art, Culture, and Science, an independent 501c3 organization with broad community representation. The name, "The Leonardo" was adopted using Leonardo da Vinci's notebook pages as metaphors to convey the way art, culture, and science inform the project's mission and programming. From that initial launch, The Leonardo and its partners began working to bring the project to life—including the challenge of renovating the building for safety, sustainability, and its new purpose. 1 The Leonardo Capital Campaign The Leonardo Capital Campaign began when Salt Lake City agreed to lease the old main library building to The Leonardo and its partners and charged them with raising the necessary funds to both renovate the building and fund exhibits and programs. In 2001 the total budget was estimated at $25 million. The Salt Lake City Bond: Challenge and Match During initial capital campaign donor cultivation efforts, The Leonardo team met with individuals and foundations to discuss their commitment to supporting the project. They repeatedly raised issues related to committing private resources for the renovation of a City-owned building. Due to this feedback, we began exploring a bond or other public funding mechanism to address costs of upgrading the building. After meeting with Mayor Anderson, the Salt Lake City Council, and reviewing a Dan Jones poll showing strong citizen support, the City agreed to include a proposition for a not-to-exceed $10.2 million general obligation bond to refurbish the former main City Library as The Leonardo. Because The Leonardo is a private entity, the Mayor and City Council required that the organization raise a dollar-for-dollar $10 million match before any general obligation bonds would be issued. On Nov. 4, 2003, Proposition 2 passed with almost 60 percent of voters in support of this proposition. Between November 2003 and December 2005, The Leonardo worked to achieve the $10 million match. The Leonardo and the Salt Lake City Council agreed to a process of verifying funds raised each quarter. This process enabled the Salt Lake City's Finance Director to work with The Leonardo team to ensure they were meeting the conditions of the match. The Council also set a deadline of five years within which The Leonardo must accomplish the match. On February 1, 2006, Salt Lake City's, Finance Director, Gordon Hoskins, confirmed in writing that The Leonardo had met the $10 million match. The matching funds included contributions and pledges from individuals, corporations, foundations, County Government, and Federal appropriations. The Bond Issuance Process According to City officials, the bond issuance process includes several factors, some of which overlap per the following general schedule. • Events Entities Time Frame Certification of Gordon Hoskins, Salt February 1, 2006 matching funds Lake City's Finance Officer Briefing Document to The Leonardo Team March 14, 2006 Council City Council authorizes The Salt Lake City March 21, 2006 the issuance process to Council begin Adoption of Bond The Salt Lake City April 2006 Parameters Resolution Council Legal Review of The The Leonardo Counsel Completed by March 21, Leonardo's 501c3 status and City Bond Counsel 2006 Salt Lake City and The The Leonardo and City Completed by June 2006 Leonardo Lease Representatives Agreement Budget Amendment The Salt Lake City June Budget Opening Council Bond Funds and Building Renovation Per the authorization given by Salt Lake City voters, (Proposition 2, the $10.2 million in bond funds will be dedicated to the retrofit and remodel of the old Main Library. This will include a seismic upgrade, asbestos removal, and basic renovation of the building. Options related to building remodeling, budget and timeline are detailed below. Exhibit and Program Funds: Ongoing Capital Campaign The Leonardo's $10 million in matching funds were intended for exhibits and programming. The capital campaign continues with grants, donations, and corporate sponsorships tied directly to specific exhibits and programs. The total exhibits and programs capital campaign budget was estimated four years ago at $15 million. Per the discussion below, a rise in building costs will require some portion of exhibit funds to be added to bond funds and used for building renovation. However, avenues for sponsorships of exhibits, galleries, and program features are vigorously being pursued and appear extremely promising. We expect to make up the exhibit funds over the next two years while the building is being renovated. The Building: Challenges and Options The Cost Gap: The Leonardo Building Contribution In 2002, the estimate for the seismic retrofit and remodeling of the old Main Library for The Leonardo's occupancy was $10 million. Bond funds were intended to cover these costs. Now in 2006, due to inflation and increased 3 seismic requirements, the total minimal building budget (Option A— see below) is $15 million. The Leonardo Board of Directors voted to address these increased building costs by authorizing up to $5 million of its funds to be used for building renovation. Each of the following building design and renovation options has implications for cost, seismic solution, visitor circulation, aesthetics, sustainability, and original building preservation issues. Architects EwingCole and ajc architects developed these options during the building Preliminary Planning Phase completed last month. To begin the upcoming Design Phase, The Leonardo and the City will need to identify a preferred building scenario. History: 2002 Original Seismic Solution The original scheme and budget for the building developed by Valentiner, Crane, Brunjes, Onyon (VCBO) in 2002 called for strengthening the connection between exterior pre-cast panels of the building to achieve a minimal seismic upgrade at a cost of$100,000. That early decision was based on the concept of"no change of use" for the building per seismic regulations. Later analysis of this approach made clear that seismic safety for The Leonardo visitors and staff could not be addressed in this way. Both of the following building options accomplish the necessary seismic upgrades with elegant, cost-effective solutions. At the request of The Leonardo, Reaveley Engineers of Salt Lake City conducted a study of seismic solutions for the building. They suggested interior four-corner concrete sheer walls from the 2nd basement to the roof, at a cost of$3 million. This approach would not only be very costly, but very invasive and significantly alter the historic exterior facade. Option A: Exterior Bracing Scheme: $14.8 Million The Leonardo hired architectural firms EwingCole of Philadelphia and ajc architects of Salt Lake City to develop a preliminary building planning document. Their approach to seismic intervention was exterior rather than interior. Reaveley Engineers joined the team as seismic consultants and endorsed all new exterior options (options A and B). Both exterior options are less invasive to the building and less costly than the $3 million originally suggested. Option A (see page 2 in Appendix) is based on a four-corner exterior seismic bracing scheme. It offers several advantages in terms of reducing the uncertainty in cost of any interior shear wall solution. Furthermore, the braces better preserve the integrity of the building, with the exception of the removal of some pre-cast panels on each of the corners. The exact number will be defined at a later stage of design. 4 The exterior braces could be more or less prominent, depending upon the final design. On one hand, they could be subtly expressed by designing them to blend with surrounding vegetation. The other option is to design them as artistic expressions, or to use them to create displays or signage, highlighting the new use of the facility. In Option A, all vertical visitor circulation will be concentrated in the west side interior, with access from the third floor to the first basement The escalators will be removed and new large stairs will be added as well as a large group-sized elevator. The mechanical infrastructure will be upgraded, allowing for an efficient operation. The scheme achieves LEED certification. Hazmat remediation is also included. Four levels (three above ground and one below) will be retrofitted to accommodate exhibits, classrooms, offices, etc. Option B: North Seismic Scheme: $17.8 Million The North Seismic Scheme is a physical addition to the building (see page 3 in Appendix). It offers several advantages. First, it leaves the south, east, and west sides of the building in their original form. It seismically secures the building externally with the help of an internal south shear wall. It concentrates vertical visitor circulation outside the exhibit and program areas, ensuring ideal acoustic conditions and better visitor orientation. Architecturally, it responds to the new library and signals new use. It also adds some 11,000 sq-ft on four levels, postponing the need for any future additions to the facility. Finally, it integrates several sustainability features to the building, with a proper insulation on the north facade and the introduction of natural light on all upper floors. The remainder of the building will see its mechanical infrastructure upgraded allowing for an efficient operation. The scheme achieves LEED certification or higher. Hazmat remediation is included. Four levels (3 above ground and one below) will be retrofitted to receive exhibits, classrooms, offices, etc. 5 Building Comparative Options Chart FEATURES OPTION A OPTION B Name Interior Scheme North Seismic Scheme Use of building as is per a Addition of North facade Concept minimal approach element on 5 floors with large windows on the Plaza. Budget $17.8 Million—Bond plus In both options—FEMA $14.8 Million—Bond plus Leonardo $5M and and Kresge funds could Leonardo $5M additional $3M fundraising have a positive impact with naming opportunity Sustainability LEED Certified LEED Certified+ Floors 3 upper+ 1st basement 3 upper+ 1st basement Remove escalators, add Stairs and elevators in new Circulation large group elevator and install central stairway addition: remove escalator Acoustic Circulation distributed Circulation concentrated in throughout each floor north addition. External bracing at the 4 Concrete shear walls in Seismic corners and reattachment north building addition and of pre cast panels inside. Reattachment of pre-cast panels Current building space - 116,000 gross square feet Space available potentially 116,000 gross plus an addition of 11,000 sq ft square feet for a total of 127,000 gross square feet. Mechanical New/upgrade New/upgrade HazMat Asbestos removal Asbestos removal Site Increase Requires 40 feet additional Requires 80 additional feet property on four sides on the north side Naming Opportunity for Fundraising Potential FEMA, Kresge etc. North Addition plus FEMA, Kresge, etc. 6 Stakeholder Response The Preservation Community: The Leonardo management, the City Engineer and our consultants have had several briefings with the Preservation Community, including representatives of the Landmark Commission, the Utah Heritage Foundation, and the son of the original architect, Jeff Edwards, among others. They suggest whichever scheme is adopted should protect the architectural elements of the building, especially the concept of the floating "cube" between two layers of glass. They also understand and agree that the project must also allow for the seismic retrofit and the projected use requirements—all within a limited budget. Discussions held with the preservation community have enabled the architects to refine their approach at this programmatic stage. The current schemes—A and B—respond to their concerns and represent a significant improvement on initial concepts. Option A Response: The solution of external braces on the four corners, though still in a very initial conceptual phase, aims at a seismic encasing of the building and would require very little intervention inside. The main issue will be to discuss further how to best preserve the pre-cast panels at each corner. Option B Response: There is clearly consensus regarding the North Seismic Scheme. It is viewed as being the most elegant solution. It respects the three main façades of the building, and at the same time links it to the modern Plaza of Library Square through its transparency and opening toward the north. Jeff Edwards remarked that the "North Scheme is something his father would have designed" to upgrade and remodel the building. The Salt Lake City Library Board of Directors: A meeting with the Salt Lake City Library Board of Directors is scheduled for March 16, 2006 at which time they will review the options Decision and Schedule Realities The following timeline developed by EwingCole outlines the project from the beginning of the Building Design Phase, through subsequent phases, to opening in 2008. Delaying the start of the Building Design Phase past April 2006 will create a risk of incurring additional costs due to escalating construction costs. Therefore, determining the bond issuance, selecting a building option, and beginning the renovation process is critically time sensitive. Option B, The North Seismic Scheme, will require an additional $3 million in funding. If the City Council prefers this option, as does The Leonardo Board of Directors, we hope to jointly seek creative solutions to make it happen. Building Timeline: Option A or B PHASE DURATION END DATE Council/Leonardo scope April 15, 2006 and building option approval Building Design Phase 12 months April 18, 2007 Construction and Fit 13 months June 10,2008 Out The timeline above is a conservative one. We hope to reduce the duration by starting the demolition, Hazmat abatement, roof upgrade, and the seismic package earlier than anticipated. The cash flow estimates for the first 12 months require expenditures of$1.5 million. Therefore, the first year is clearly covered by bond funds. 8 Appendix • Certification Letter from Salt Lake City's Finance Director • Building Rendering: Option A: Exterior Bracing Scheme • Building Rendering: Option B: North Seismic Scheme • EwingCole and ajc Architects • The Leonardo and Partner Organization Board of Directors • Project history SALT i Car GdORP® .. :ROCKY J. FLUHART vPmamas re�svz*�1 ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING February 1, 2006 Mary Tull Development Manager The Leonardo at Library Square C/o The City Library 210 East 400 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Ms. Tull: On September 8, 2004, Salt Lake City and The Library Square Foundation for Art, Culture, and Science (the Foundation) executed a Matching Funds Agreement. This agreement requires the Foundation to raise, from non-city sources, $10 million in cash, pledges, stocks and in-kind contributions to qualify for a voter-approved city bond of$10 million. According to the Matching Funds Agreement, the Foundation shall provide quarterly financial reports to Salt Lake City, and Salt Lake City will examine these reports and issue a certification that the funds reported meet the intent of the agreement and qualify as matching funds for the bond. This is meant to help both parties monitor fundraising progress. This letter provides certification of The Foundation achieving their goal of the requirement of$10 million matching funds. The amount of qualified matching funds for the reporting period is reached by adding all of the funds raised and documented by the Foundation up until the last day of the most recent reporting period, and subtracting from that total any expenses during the reporting period that did not qualify under the terms or spirit of the agreement. Based on the information provided for the fourth quarter of 2005, I have certified that the Foundation has met the$10 million match requirement. As of the last day of the fourth quarter of 2005, the Foundation has reached a cumulative total of $10,047,556; this total will qualify The Foundation for the City's bonding. Your fundraising progress is summarized in the table below: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 248, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7576 FAX: 801-535-7682 ®RECVCLEO P*PER Quarter/Year Qualifying Funds Reported Cumulative Total Amount Remaining 3Qtr/2004 $ 5,578,644 $ 5,578,644 $ 4,421,356 4Qtr/2004 $ 341,300 $ 5,919,944 $ 4,080,056 1 Qtr/2005 $ 480,470 $ 6,400,414 $ 3,599,586 2Qtr/2005 $ 72,917 $ 6,473,331 $ 3,526,669 3Qtr/2005 $ 269,819 $ 6,743,150 $ 3,256,850 4Qtr/2005 $ 3,304,406 $10,047,556 $-0- A summary of the cumulative total is as follows: Cash Received $ 2,304,574 Pledges 5,646,967 Stocks 1,496,597 In—Kind Donations 838,057 Total $ 10,286,195 Less Leonardo on Wheels (238,639) Net Total $ 10,047,556 The details of my evaluation for the quarters are included on the attached pages. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, f � Gordon Hoskins, CPA Finance Director Cc: Mayor Ross "Rocky"Anderson Rocky Fluhart D.J. Baxter ,v 'b ' '-d 'v -' '7' 0 4 r' ^5 5 '7/ '11. t:i o n to > > to Z r" H 5v) '0 ()• ay Uq act N w N W .. p1 Q a• y 7. N a' 0 R co '� r~ a ca CQ •--- 11) ?' °' �., °crg � °� z1 r° ?'• y R° p o coo o CD a co co x (ro �.CD ti " CD ?'. x k 0 a. CCD �' C . r cm▪ co cn rn cn ,„ 0 o co D X p 0 co co o rn 4,f) 69 69 kp 69 69 EA EA EA EA 69 H3 EA EA EA EA EA 69 EA EA EA EA Z SiCA -4 O —1 _ _ rnT -' CO .A _. ^1 0) .A CO -• O W O N •A cow N LA-) "' N co co coo 1. 00 0) CO coO -co -.....1 --. (A .� O 0) Cn N to O 00 .I, -CI) (D O) Q) O o) W �, (n Cn �l Cn O (0 O 0. co oto co -4. J 44 CO A CO W O -,. CO Cn O CO -.l O O O O (0 O O N vi •A � COO N) O W O CO 69 69 69 69 EA 69 {A 69 EA EA EA EA 69 69 69 69 N W � N co ..4.. -4 -a co coi N s 0) - v (71 CA -.1 W U1 (Wn O .wA 00 01 O LA IQ w O 4 . N O 1 01 0) (n A 0) N) O O w (n O (0 O N) EA EA EA 69 EA EA 69 69 69 69 EA EA EA EA 69 O W •A 01 --, N co co 00 4 N 01 CO CO -a V O •A •A O -1 00 O -1 O N N -. N J -. t O . o y -• O 0) 01 F. N 00 co ...4 — O .A (o J4. J O -1 -1 O O Cn (0 W (11 •A co W co co O O O O co co EA EA 69 6.9 -to to EA EA 69 69 69 69 69 EA EA 69 69 EA O O) -'.N (j 0o N) N - N 01 O O C.) -" N ,_, N --, N p w N •A O) �1 -a -, O 00 W 0) :r O O v w .-. o CDD oO -co N W OW (n CO -1 CD O 0) O W CD -.1 -1 N --1 01 -1 V o •-1 O CO O N 00 10 O •4I O -J O W O EA EA 69 69 EA Efi EA 6n 69 EA EA EA EA -En 69 O CO co 0) _. -a N) ON) -P s CO - co (D Co — N — co Cn Cn (n CO O N •A N .A •A N O N O -CO (I1 W O W 0o OEA coco — O) -4 Co C)) co coo O0) W O O •A co O CO W Cn N EA EA EH En EA EA EA 69 69 69 EA EA EA 69 69 EA N co 0) ..i _. co - N co co . coON . O - co 1 N ,.r .--. •o. •A co co 00 (A (n N 0o O Cn w 1-, 7-P., .• CO 01 'V i W gyp. 4 U1 co oo -1 O O coo 0) N co -4 -� N LA CO -� O �1 w a\ 0) O) 01 .A C11 N 69 EA 69 Efl EA EA EA 69 69 EA EA EA EA 69 69 69 EA EA En 69 EA EA 69 EA 69 EA EA 69 EA O O s 01 N 0) N O N N co •A o) -co Q co N CO N -o. CO ND _a — _ 4 0) 0) CO CO W CO m .A ,--.- CO A CO N N -I W -I O Cn O 01 CD SD N O -4 N O CO O -co CO N (n -co •A O 00 •A 01 (n i 0) x i -co -CD CO 01 CO 01 CD •�1 0) O -.4 O -i Cn 0) O 4 -4 - O •A -1 0) N) 01 W CO 01 (D O) • 4 00 CD 01 0 01 00 -4 0 1 N) O N) O N 00 0 N) V CO -4 0) CO 01 -4 -1 11 4 o czo co o , 0) CCD 0 )) .n ov0Cr0 - 0 C0o 0 ro o x .0 CD 0) p'_ L: R- < co .o "�•ti co CCD o - m m 0 .w, O �• c• o L1 (D O co co N co x CD cD 0 cn z = 0 z. n w J N w x T -, Ro w o• '? C17 a Cr0 n T w o00 0 0 ti c% .- vc C Q' CrJ -d CO� coC a CA g 2 Ct7 v ' O N co - CDT N 0 0 O 0 0 • �' O ? -� •P CD �' •-I ��-. vcoi N "• �' 0 .co 0' co co 0 Da co 0 oco 0 CA a � 3. O. oJ y CD 0 p) 0 <. • aQ 0 O z O r" CD co 0 CD ' 0 CD 0 EA EA EA EA EA EA 69 EA EA EA EA 69 EA EA EA EA 69 EA " _a N Cl. O W CO 0 O O 03 C) 0 P N � .4 0 - W00 o W -I c i O p O .-. v N UI J N) CD -co W W al Obi - .N-• OD al N Cr) v -' CA) 0 - v CO ~ N O S W w O tJ c0 'J O W .- N O cm 41. oo N EA EA 69 EA EA EA EA EA EA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA Ca) 0) CO -A O ' CA) — N +1 1,J W �I Cll s w r-. Cli N CO .A ..J cn W co cA) O o0 00 w .-- 0 o, N �I 0) N c0 N N 0) O 01 ? ? o N O ,O C)) 0) Oo .p. 0 CO O) CO O A N) O W O, O 1/40 N) EA EA Efl EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA EA 00 00 00) O al .4), W N LA �1 w W N 1J, 7-..I O N O (0 03 .A (0 :� . vi N N — .P O C 1 -4 W O O 0) w CO W s .4 w •-• 0o Cn O CO -P. a O O CO 03 -1 CO C' -P. W C) J O O Oo .-, N CA co EA 69 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA 69 69 EA N 0) ^ -, N _, -. OO 'Ap N) �I 03 — N N) ,._. w O N 4. O) .A �I W N N) N is v' J -. O N C,.) N) � � co N) -P. Cn -' ,-. CT 0o N) o) .a O 0 Co 4. CD 0 -P.. O O o, 0 a O EA 69 EA EA EA EA EA 69 EA EA EA 69 69 69 69 EA 69 EA EA . 0) 1^-. CO -a. N OO N O al " O 01 N W •P O _ U) -I 4. -. N N) ? LA .0 0 La O W N - CCOO -4 v C00 O - vwi w N al O EA 69 69 EA EA Efl EA EA EA EA 69 69 69 69 69 EA CO - N) -P. N CO W � N 00 OD s O i.' W p 0O -> -I 0 � N 0) -CD — v, in w N OO Ov', CJi CO W -I N) — O -, W ,.0 4 .P W C) � J -- col O O co O — W O\ N O O, Cn O EA Efl EA Efl EA E9 EA 69 EA EA -EA EA 69 Efl EA EA EA EA Efl EA EA EA. EA EA EA EA 69 EA Efl N 00 -4 O 01 — � 01 O N) N) -4 0) -a W -4 01 N) 01 CO 'J �I CO CO • . CO -. W N 0) -P 'J O CO N) — 4o. O O) ci N i -N) . O . In .A O 0) 11 CA W CO --t -I O V N W O O U' O N_ O OO O O CD -I CD CO -4 0) . CI a) N)N OW 01 .-A 000 N O O CWJ) -I 03 O CO CT r 1-+ +,- .. 10 '.0 t0 '.0 \0 l0 t0 ON O\ O1 OT O\ O\ WWWWW ply o +N \ N N N N N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N m W W W W W t+W W 0000000 O O O O O O W W N N N N N N N N N N tJ N N N N N N N , , N N N N N N N 0000000 O O O O O O 00000 N N 0000000 0000000 O O O O O O 00000 00 0000000 VI th VI Ut V, VI Vi th Vt VI VI V, VI V, V. Ln to t/h 00 VI VI Vi VI VI VI V1 Ai A o 2 o c 6, 2. co o co O O co co co O O (D 2 .72, o p cn cn n -s i7 c1 `' �f 'i7 III '-f -- FL; n cn F i n n m n w� 0' w m 'Tim w w a m w m o rD m m m v) '•:i td o m w x �` �. tro ao 0 0 5r 5. as o o (xi o o < m - S. croad6; 6; r" C) 0, D, rr rd66 err 00ao ,, rr "' 0 X '~ 0 0 0 O (7 CD (n CD C) n In CD o cA C) CD CD UP o c • 0 0 0 c • 0 0 c . o o road V, � rr � � 0 0 Z 0 9 0 0 1.4 oc c, co co m o w m m m m • m m C J in o o o o -, -� , cn -, cn -, A cn co a s a o co a s cn d a � E co z p, y o w n n o 0 0 5 n o o v n o o co co 0 w n n o o 0 cno cno con cno N CD... con CCDD O n , co co n n r. , n �, - y ti =0 Eli, y • o p c co Cl) C cro to rn c. ~ - ' Crn i `c''t w 0�..} m m m Cl 0 CaQ w� O aQ aQ 1 U0C Ef) E� 0 rn 0 n 0 " O O 0 GG W N J 0 G CO W CO CO O C A CO a) o w O) 00 Cn EA EA EA EA EAEfl 01 -- W A A 03 A O W O A CT A -" C7 O M J C7) A CO a7 J N 00 N 0) CS) CJ1 J -a -a - W -i O CA CJ) Efl _ Ki Efl EA Efl Efl A -a -A N CJ1 O O iV ---4 0) O N OD CO W -Co .) 00 W O CJ) "co co J W A A A CJI —a A A CT N N —x CO J CT CO CT Co O C0 -. CO CO J CT En Efl 69 Efl Efl Efl EA Efl Cx) _a (0 0 0) -1. W N O CNO� CJ) N A N W -x CO N OD CO N CO -4 N 01 N W 01 A A -J A W 01 M CT J J N CJ)V EA) Efl Efl EA Ei9 Efl En Efl .p _i — s JOO N O W -. N -4 W 0) cn N 0) J N -CO J co CD N 0O OOO 0) O W J N O A 0o A A N J J CT J W m J O 0 C) C) N CO N to co co W CD W O O GO L W W N N N N -. N N O N O O O N O O O O O O O O O C)) O CJT CJT CJT O -A. CJT 01KKK oO O O K 0 � CO C0 D O (0 D) CD CU CO ) = r— v c m � C c/� ( � CA W 0 r. v Q) O) , ) m CD � 7 CD C) co 0 0 0 rn 0 0 o 0 °' c c 3 3 CD CD o D rn bo -69 Cz) au O ER N O O W CJ) O Co N O CJT W w_. v W CO co CO o CO (O CO N Op IIMIIIIIIMIPIO- 0 - . - 1\. / w .] • •°.. . CD -2 At,. -,r : ._____ 2 , ,„,,,,, f:, , , ,_• I i Wig, / a s r' '-ft ler; _�� 'i� I /AI, 1 , 1.'41,,,,.;4'4/. , ! ....0 if • ,�'%' -- - CD ,./ 1,' �' /I - i ow trdit w. 0 .. i=iD U) !.. ‘i . .7-' ,,, 4 1 __ ,, • ,..=........zi CD n1 I , ' CD .11i I i - k, ,,,,,, ., t....-i. f i •,,, ,,• -..).. ...r. 1 i itiltV 1 „r. 1 !! '�� • • . , �� 1 , . .. ,itsit 121, ,IA f ''4 W 1 ; m : !IJ 1I N y • * WO- it 1 I \, V fr yn Z cm 1 i4 ., ¢, • 0" : "'"•-"'Ir . --ig-- II "Li," ' I .v - C 'i+l — - to Oirl.,*;.I, MEL 1 1 Mil 1 0 .,. .....___.. It•wf'r'.i 7 4 I'Monstt 0 :',.... •;.1 , t n, :r r I i1 I p� +Jr, U� (( cD cID -I, 1 l� ef'1 n ® trir / 1IM": / - C/D i Ir • 1 _ . li1' • •0 - J. M. . _ , / 14 )1 . f .- 11 _. 1� Mill • 1 1; Y \�' w ., e"' 4.,li..1 , -4211< �I • �.a ' z v / 0 . . I . co 1 , (. APPENDIX Page 4 Exhibit "B" ■ 3. Capacity of the Firm EwingCole is a multi-office firm with substantial depth in all disciplines. N We are an employee-owned company that has created a culture of N disciplines that integrate architecture, engineering, interior design, and ci- planning, with the expertise of athletic facility design. Having completed 0) the design of Monmouth University's multi-use athletic center, our team is �+ available to work on your project immediately Present Number of Employees As a fully integrated architecture, engineering, interior design, and —I planning firm, EwingCole currently employs 284 professionals. O Number of Professional Licenses EwingCole currently employs 48 Registered Architects, 5 Interior Designers with NCIDQ credentials, 6 Professional Electrical Engineers, 1 2 Registered Communications Distribution Designer, 10 Professional O Mechanical Engineers, 1 Professional Plumbing Engineer, 2 Professional J Fire Protection Engineers, and 5 Professional Structural Engineers. N Composition of Staff By Discipline: Administrative 29 ® Architect 57 CADD Technician 57 Computer Programmer 4 Construction Inspector 3 Construction Manager 2 Cost Engineer/Estimator 2 Electrical Engineer 17 Fire Protection Engineer 4 Health Facility Planner 5 • Interior Designer 21 Mechanical Engineer 15 Planner: Urban/Regional 1 Project Manager 23 Sanitary Engineer 4 Specifications Writer 4 Structural Engineer 15 Technician/Analyst 11 Other Employees (Corporate) 10 Total 284 Consultant's Selected Project Stephen Ziegler, the selected Project Architect for this project is currently Architect's Current Workload: working on: Liberty Science Center($104,000,000) 40°/0 Complete Firm's Strong Area As Related to this EwingCole has a practice group focused only on cultural and educational Project: institutions. We have developed a programming and design process that is seamless in approach and focused on helping alternative education facilities make well-informed decisions. We recognize that your Boards need assurance the design can deliver what each institution needs, but within a scope and budget and schedule developed in the early phases of programming. As an architecture and engineering firm, we can provide a tested team who can speak with one voice. Our passion and focus working with established and fledgling organizations adds value to our • clients' thinking through a process that is inclusive, with results that add value to their programmatic and fiscal viability. EwingCole In accordance with copyright laws,EwingCole retains the right of ownership of the design Ideas,concepts,and other information expressed in this document.©EwingCole 2005 APPENDIX Page 5 • Exhibit B 4 Individual Experience Jill A. Jones, AIA, LEEDTM aic architects MANAGING PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT SELECTED EXPERIENCE RECENT AWARDS LICENSES/REGISTRATIONS Utah Fieldhouse of Natural A-Gallery 2004 2004 AIA Utah Merit Award, Architect - 35 States& History Museum 2002 Utah Fieldhouse of Natural NCARB Certified LE EDT"' University of Utah History State Park Museum Sustainable Design 2003 College of Eastern Utah, Gauss Haus (Center for Prehistoric Museum Nuclear Magnetic Research) 2004 AIA Utah Merit Award, © Expansion Programming 2005 A-Gallery PROFESSIONAL 2004 Warnock Engineering Building ORGANIZATIONS Programming 2002 2004 AIA Utah Merit Award, Granite Education Center Health Science Education Mesa Verde Cultural Center American Institute of (retrofit) 2004 Building Programming 2002 Master Plan Architects, Member National Park Service Weber State University 2002 Utah Heritage Salt Lake Chamber of Uinta Research & Collections Lampros Hall Teaching Foundation Award, Fielding Commerce, Member Curatorial Facility 2004 - Learning Technology Center Garr Ranch Renovation 1998 President Utah AIA CI) Mesa Verde Research& Programming 2003 Museum Collection Facility 2002 Utah Business 1995-1999 Board Member 2004 Utah State University/ USDA Magazine"Top 30 Women in Utah AIA Poisonous Plant Research Business" Mesa Verde Cultural Center Laboratory 2004 1995-2004 Board Master Plan 2004 2001 AIA Utah Honor Member for State of Utah Timpanogos Interagency Award, Utah State Capitol Architectural Licensing Board Visitor Center 2004 Renovation Master Plan Central High School National 1995-2000 Board Member • Historic Site Visitor Center 2001 ASLA Utah Honor for Pinebrook Architectural Award, Utah State Capitol Review Board Utah State Capitol ;PIO Renovation Master Plan Renovation Master Plan, . 1995 1999 Planning Commissioner, Summit County Programming,& Design 2001 YWCA Outstanding AA- Planning Commission Guidelines 2001 Achievement Award in .) .• ! Business/Industry City of St.George,Johnson �1�,� Farm Dinosaur Tracks - "!. t `' 'ow Enclosure Visitor Building `` EDUCATION 2004 ..4110 ,1�' 4/1 1p Master of Architecture, University of Utah 1987 Master of Science in Recreation 1985 Bachelor of Science in Recreation/Resource Management 1980 • , 22 l June 1,2005 M a,c architect: 1...R Qualifications for Salt Lake City -The Leonardo:Job #652301 — . APPENDIX Page 6 C Exhibit B 3 Capacity of Firm ABOUT ajC COMPOSITION OF STAFF ajc's four National Park ajc architects is a full This process involves the Licensed architects 6 Service projects that are service architectural firm client and designer form- Architectural interns in schematic design/pre- that has been providing ing a collaborative team. design will have extended complete planning,design, As the process moves into CAD/technical personnel 4 pre-design and design and construction adminis- development of options, Office admin.personnel 3 phase periods.They are not tration services to Utah and we emphasize the use of scheduled to begin con- Construction Project surrounding states since graphics and visuals to Manager 1 struction for several years. 1991.ajc's clients include convey the impact of each ajc's scope of work for the government agencies, com- design option to our client. Total t q CEU Museum and for the • munity service organiza- Sketches,3-D computer Weber State University tions,small businesses, images, and actual scaled NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES Classroom Buildings is WITH PROFESSIONAL retailers,and national models may be used as ARCHITECTURAL LICENSE for programming only. In corporations. Over the needed to allow the client 6 addition,among our staff firm's history, our talent for to provide feedback as the • of six licensed architects, user-responsive designs and design progresses.This ap- WORKLOAD several architects are as- effective project adminis- proach is flexible, allowing Uinta Research & Collections signed to each project to tration has led to repeat each design solution to be Facility $8 million Schematic spread out the workload. clients and steady growth. as intricate or as simple as Design Our Managing Principal We are focused on accom- the client's need dictates. Mesa Verde Research & Architect,Jill A.Jones, plishing our client's goals, Museum Collection Facility $ AIA, is available to par- 11 million Schematic Design providing quality design, ticipate extensively in The and making more mean- FIRM'S STRONG AREAS AS Little Rock Central High Leonardo—Art,Culture, RELATED TOTHIS PROJECT School Visitor Center $2.5 ingful contributions to our Science Center, and she is ajc architects'has previous million Schematic Design environment. committed to devoting as experience and commitment Timpanogos Interagency manyhours as necessaryto A successful design inte- to City projects. gVisitor Center$ 6 million fully service the project. grates many different ele- ajc will have LEED certified Pre-design Studies ments into an optimal solu- architects integrate a sustainable approach into the CEU Prehistoric Museum CLIENT CONTACTS: tion.ajc's design approach Renovation & Expansion design solution. is to start each project by Programming $24 million identifying,with client in- ajc has extensive experience Programming Salt Lake City Corporation collaborating with exhibit Gaylord Smith, Project put, the principles,values, designers and creating flexible Weber State University Manager and drivers of the proj- exhibit space. Replacement Classroom (801) 535-6344 Buildings Programming $20 ect.As the actual design million ProgrammingState of Utah DFCM ajc has vast experience with progresses,design solutions renovation/remodel projects Lynn Hinrichs, Project will be tested against these Administrotor ajc has a stron utation (801) 538-3255 established principles and g re p for quality,professionally values. produced and illustrated programming documents. 18 June 1; 2005 M arc architectsF-R. Qualifications for Salt Lake City -The Leonardo:Job#652301 APPENDIX Page 7 The Leonardo and Partner Organization Boards of Directors The Leonardo Board of Directors Joe Andrade Director Utah Science Center Geralyn Dreyfous Director Salt Lake Film Center Leslie Kelen Director Center for Documentary Arts Nancy Tessman Director Salt Lake City Public Library Ned Weinshenker Director, Life Sciences Cluster State of Utah, Governor's Office of Economic Development Janet Wolf Director Salt Lake City Youth and Family Programs Division Marshall Wright Director, Business Development State of Utah, Governor's Office of Economic Development Center for Documentary Arts Board of Directors Robert Archuleta Administrative Assistant for Minority Affairs (retired) Salt Lake City Mayor's Office Larry Cesspooch Head Start Fatherhood Advocate/Public Relations Liaison Uintah and Ouray Ute reservation APPENDIX Page 8 (Center for Documentary Arts Board of Directors, cont.) Kathleen Christy Area Director Salt Lake City School District Jeffrey L. Davis Architect Architectural NEXUS, Inc. Leslie Kelen Director Center for Documentary Arts Hank Liese Assistant Professor University of Utah Department of Social Work Leticia Medina Executive Director Utah Issues Robert Miller President Lorraine Press Dena Ned Executive Director Indian Walk-In Center O. Fahina Tavake-Pasi Vice President NAPAH Cultural Legacy Soren D. Simonsen Principal Architect Cooper, Robers, Simonsen Architects Natalya Rapoport, Ph.D. Professor of Bioengineering University of Utah APPENDIX Page 9 Raymond S. Uno Judge (retired) Salt Lake City Third District Court Gary M. Watts, M.D. Diagnostic Radiologist Utah Valley Regional Medical Center Utah Science Center Corporation Board Joe Andrade Director Utah Science Center Michael Keene Director, Technology Commercialization Program Westminster College Suzanne Winters State Science Coordinator (former) State of Utah, Governor's Office of Economic Development Jeffrey Unruh Managing Director Alerion Will West CEO Control4 Utah Science Center Authority (USCA) Joseph Andrade Director Utah Science Center Bonnie Jean Beesley State Board of Regents Bill Colbert Utah State Board of Education David Fischer Director of Technology Integration ATK Propulsion Systems APPENDIX Page 10 (Utah Science Center Authority, cont.) Joseph Hatch Councilman Salt Lake County Council Seth Jarvis Director Clark Planetarium Greg Jones State Science Advisor State of Utah Governor's Office of Economic Development James McRea Director of CMC Myriad Genetics John Taylor FEMA Suzanne Winters State Science Coordinator (former) State of Utah, Governor's Office of Economic Development APPENDIX Page 11 The Leonardo - Milestones 1983 The Oral History Institute, later known as the Center for Documentary Arts, is established by Leslie Kelen. 1989 Salt Lake County and Governor N. Bangerter initiate feasibility studies for a Utah science center August 1997 Global Artways, Salt Lake City's arts education program, is established as part of the city's Youth and Family Services Division. 1993 Utah Legislature passes Senate Bill 90 establishing a 17 member Utah Science Center Authority (USCA) charged with creating a Science and Arts Center. 1998 Salt Lake City initiates community discussions regarding reuse of the main library building after the new library is completed. 2000 The Oral History Institute changes its name to the Center for Documentary Arts. Spring 2000 SLC issues requests for proposals for use of the SLC Public Library. Global Artways and the Center for Documentary Arts begin discussions regarding a possible joint proposal for use of the building. Summer 2000 Global Artways and the Center for Documentary Arts submit joint proposal. Utah Science Center (known as Sci-Tech) submits proposal. November 2000 Mayor Anderson commits space in the "old" library for the Utah Science Center (Sci-Tech) and Governor Leavitt endorses and expresses support for the project. APPENDIX Page 12 January 2001 Mayor Anderson issues a letter confirming Utah Science Center (Sci-Tech), Global Artways and the Center for Documentary Arts will be co-partners in the facility. The three partners begin to work closely together to design and develop the building spaces. March 2001 HB 77 passed by Legislature reauthorizing the Utah Science Center Authority and Board. Bill envisions a multidisciplinary facility: "It is the intent of the Legislature that the Utah Science Center Authority shall create a science center ...to provide a means to foster the development of science, technology, engineering, arts, tourism, cultural, and educational facilities in order to further the welfare of the citizens of the state and its economic growth...." May 2001 Sci-Tech name is changed to Utah Science Center. Global Artways, Center for Documentary Arts and Utah Science Center sign a Memo of Understanding to engage VCBO Architects for preliminary architectural services. May 18, 2001 Mayor Anderson publicly announces that the old Library Building will be used by the Center for Documentary Arts, the City's Global Artways program, and the Utah Science Center, and charged the three groups to develop a civic and community center with which to enrich the City and enhance Library Square. The groups and the City almost immediately realized that this vision could best be achieved through a unique `umbrella' entity that will manage the building, coordinate activities and programs, and build on the partners' individual strengths and missions to provide a whole greater than the sum of its parts. January 2002 The Library Square Foundation for Art, Culture and Science is established by the founding partner organizations to serve as an `umbrella' group to manage and operate the facility. APPENDIX Page 13 May 2002 The Library Square Foundation agrees to call the combined activities and facility The Leonardo at Library Square. November 2002 The Leonardo Capital Campaign Leadership Committee, chaired by Jake Garn and Dr. David Gardner, suggests a public/ private partnership, using a bond or related mechanism. February 2003 New City Library opens, generating widespread interest in and enthusiasm for Library Square. July 2003 Completion of Dan Jones' poll exploring public support of potential bond initiatives for November ballot. Poll results indicate strong support for a bond to support renovating the old library for use an art, culture and science center—The Leonardo. Mayor Anderson announces `Renaissance Bond' initiative, which includes $10 million for refurbishment of the old main library building for use as The Leonardo. August 2002 Public hearing on the project results in enthusiastic support and endorsement. Mayor Anderson gives 'green light' to proceed with The Leonardo project. September 2002 Salt Lake City Council formally places Proposition 2 on the ballot: a $10.2 million general obligation bond for the upgrading and remodeling of the old main library for use as The Leonardo. Five other bond initiatives are also placed on the ballot. October 2003 The Leonardo launches a bond awareness campaign. www.theleonardo.org and www.utahsciencecenter.org web sites launched. Nov. 4, 2003 Proposition 2 passes with almost 60 percent of the popular vote. The Leonardo begins fundraising to achieve the $10 million match requirement APPENDIX Page 14 September 2004 The Leonardo announces matching funds agreement with city that defines types of funds that will qualify for the match. October 2004 The Leonardo launches educational outreach program with debut of The Leonardo on Wheels—Science. November 2004 The Leonardo announces it has raised $7.3 million of the $10 million match needed to release voter-approved bond funds. February 2005 The Leonardo sponsors "Flight" event, featuring aviation pioneer Paul MacCready, and art-culture-science exhibits that explore the concept of flight from multiple perspectives. September 2005 The Leonardo announces selection of architects EwingCole, Philadelphia and AJC, Salt Lake City, to develop a comprehensive Building Program for facility The Leonardo hires Gyroscope Inc., Oakland, Calif. to develop exhibit concept design. October—December 2005 The Leonardo hosts Sebastiao Salgado's "Exodus" exhibit. Founding partner the Center for Documentary Arts spearheads project in partnership with the University of Utah College of Humanities and the SLC Film Center. February 2006 The Leonardo receives letter of confirmation from Salt Lake City Finance Director, Gordon Hoskins, verifying it has raised the $10 million in matching funds required to release the bond.