Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05/24/2011 - Work Session - Minutes
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, May 24 , 2011, at 2 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street . In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Stan Penfold, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love, JT Martin and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Cassie Fairbourn, Council Budget Analyst; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Research and Policy Analyst; Neil Lindberg, Council Legal Director; Orion Goff, Building Official; Skye Garcia, Risk Manager; Quin Card; Council Policy Analyst; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; Mary Beth Thompson, Payroll Accounting; Bill Height, Information Management Services Director; Kym Edman, Information Management Services Accounting and Budget Analyst; Gina Chamness, Budget Director; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; Padma Veeru-Collings, City Prosecutor; David Everitt, Chief of Staff; Richard Scott, Chapman and Cutler, Bond Counsel; Dale Okerlund, Lewis, Young, Robertson and Burningham; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; David Childress, Fleet Maintenance; Greg Davis, Public Service Finance Director; Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Fire Chief Cook; John Vuyk Fire Administration, and Chris Meeker, City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 2 : 00 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 2 : 04 : 12 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachments See File M 11-5 for announcements . #2 . 3 : 35 : 33 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING CHANGES MADE BY THE UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE TO THE PROCESS FOR ISSUING MUNICIPAL BONDS. View Attachments Richard Scott and Dale Okerlund briefed the Council with the attached handout . Councilmember Christensen asked that the Mayor and 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011 the Council Chair or their designee review the final documents at the point of sale. Mr. Scott said the statute permitted delegation to any officer of the City. #3 . 3 : 47 : 00 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011. (BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 4 CONTAINS 34 PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS, AS SUGGESTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION. BUDGET AMENDMENTS ARE ADJUSTMENTS/CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO THE ANNUAL BUDGET. )View Attachments Jennifer Bruno and Cassie Fairbourn briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms . Bruno said the amendment had 29 proposed adjustments including seven initiatives for a net decrease of fund balance of $148, 000 . She said there were two major Capital Improvement Project (CIP) items . Councilmember Garrott said he was concerned with public access to Plaza 349 . He said at a Board of Equalization hearing after business hours, the doors were locked and the building was unwelcoming to the public. He suggested if the Board of Equalization hearings were held after business hours they be moved to another location. Councilmember Christensen said he had concerns with using sustainability funds from the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility (SLVSWMF) without a clear policy and a sufficient fund balance for future needs . Councilmember Love said the Council could come back to the issue. Councilmember Love said the Council would come back to the request for Solar Project Assessment. Councilmember Penfold referred to Item D-8, Library contingency moved to operation expense. He asked what the total of the Libraries contingency was . Ms . Bruno said she would come back to Council with the figure . She said she would confirm that salary adjustments were for the next year. #4 . 4 : 35 : 25 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . View Attachments Jennifer Bruno, Fire Chief Cook and John Vuyk briefed the Council with the attached handout. Chief Cook said fuel consumption was down. #5. 4 : 49 : 50 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET RELATING TO THE FLEET DIVISION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . (THE CITY' S FLEET MANAGEMENT INTERNAL SERVICE FUND PROVIDES VEHICLES, FUEL, ANF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES FOR ALL 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011 CITY DEPARTMENTS. (The only exception is the department of airports, which owns and provides for its own fleet services. ) View Attachments Rick Graham, Cassie Fairbourn, Davis Childress and Greg Davis briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen asked if there was a need for cranes in the large truck service area. Mr. Graham said a crane was not needed for the south end of the facility and the north side had mobile floor lifts . Councilmember Christensen asked if Fleet lost money on small equipment repair. Mr. Davis said currently the rate was less for small equipment but Fleet was not losing money. #6. 5 : 03 : 20 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET RELATING TO THE PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . (The Public Services Department provides many of the direct, day-to-day services Salt Lake City residents and visitors receive. They repair streets, maintain traffic signs and signals, enforce parking ordinances, and maintain the City' s building and other activities. ) View Attachments Karen Halladay, Rick Graham and Greg Davis briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Graham said grass cutting and water reductions had been managed. #7 . 5 : 30 : 24 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011- 2012 . (The City Attorney' s Office includes four divisions: Civil Practice, City Prosecutor' s Office, Recorder' s Office, and Risk Management. Budgets relating to the Risk Management Division are analyzed separately with the Governmental Immunity Fund and the Insurance and Risk Management Fund. ) View Attachments Lehua Weaver, Ed Rutan, Padma Veeru-Collings and Lynn Pace briefed the Council with the attached handouts . #8. 5 : 36 : 58 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . (The Risk Management Division of the City Attorney' s Office administers the Governmental Immunity Fund, which is the City' s self-insurance fund for liability claims. ) View Attachments Cassie Fairbourn, Skye Garcia, Mary Beth Thompson, Ed Rutan and Lynn Pace briefed the Council with the attached handouts. Councilmember Christensen asked why the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) used insurance other than the City' s insurance or risk pool . Mr. 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011 Rutan said Ms . Garcia was looking into providing insurance for the RDA. 9 . 6 : 24 : 08 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET RELATING TO THE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES (IMS) DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . (The Department of Information Management Services provides technical support for all General Fund services and all Enterprise Funds in the City. The department is operated as an Internal Service Fund with division including Administration, Software Engineering, Network/Infrastructure, Technology Consulting, and Multimedia Services. )View Attachments Quin Card, Bill Haight, Kym Edman and Gina Chamness briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Card said there were three major changes in the IMS budget. He said web services went down 82 . 6%, a decrease in the IFAS accounting system of 41 . 07% and increase of 100% in the computer lease program. He said the increase was due to the trend toward notebook computers which were more expensive. Councilmember Love asked what the division needed. Mr. Haight said currently the document management system needed to be replaced. Councilmember Garrott asked Mr. Haight to keep the Council notified regarding resources needed for IMS to handle increasing demands . #10 . 6 : 48 : 18 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET PERTAINING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LANDLORD/TENANT INITIATIVE ("Good Landlord Program") , INCLUDING A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND THE COST ANALYSIS STUDY. (The Landlord Tenant Initiative is a program designed to encourage good management of rental properties. )View Attachments Lehua Weaver, Gina Chamness, Orion Goff, Neil Lindberg, Wilf Sommerkorn' LuAnn Clark and Mary Beth Thompson briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Ms . Weaver said comments had been received from the focus group which was comprised of community members, owners, landlords and housing and rental advocates and a brief presentation of recommendations would be given by Ms . Thompson. #11. 6 : 33 : 21 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011- 2012 . )THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LANDLORD/TENANT INITIATIVE AFFECTS BOTH THE CITY' S FINANCE DEPARTMENT BUDGET AND THE COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUDGET. View Attachments Lehua Weaver, Gordon Hoskins and Mary Beth Thompson briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Christensen asked 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011 how the Business Licensing system was working. Ms . Thompson said the conversion was completed and renewals had been sent out. She said the online renewal system was also running. #12 . 7 : 54 : 51 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE REGARDING THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2010-2012 . LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS, ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL AT THE START OF EACH FISCAL YEAR, IDENTIFY THE COUNCIL'S POLICY DIRECTION FOR PROJECTS OR ITEMS RELATED TO THE BUDGET IN THE TERM AHEAD AND HOW THEY MIGHT BEST SERVICE THE NEEDS OF THE SALT LAKE CITY RESIDENTS. View Attachments Jennifer Bruno and Lehua Weaver briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Love asked the Council if an inventory of City property should be placed on the legislative intent list. All Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Love asked the Council if establishing a new urban design position should be placed on the legislative intent list . All Council Members were in favor of asking the administration to address priorities first and look at them globally. Councilmember Love asked the Council if a rate study for the refuse fund should be placed on the legislative intent list . All Council Members were in favor waiting until a briefing was held. Councilmember Love asked the Council if streaminglining/technology should be placed on the legislative intent list. Ms . Gust-Jenson said this was a place holder and the Council could come back to it later. Councilmember Love asked Council Members if the following should stay on the legislative intent statement: Golf Capital Improvement Projects, Transportation Related Benefits and Transit Passes, Facilities Charge on Spring Mobile Ticket Sales, Fleet Usage/Replacement, Special Events, Transaction Fees, Business License Fees, Streets Response Team time study, Data Tracking and Collection, Economic Development Incentive program, Economic Development Neighborhood Grant program, PEC, Arts Grant, Youth Program Fees, Collection, Parking Meter upgrades, Fuel Usage Reduction, Fire Vehicles, Cemetery Budget and Master Plan, Public Art Maintenance, Open Space Maintenance, City Master Plans, Golf Update, Fund Balance, Citywide Emergency Preparedness Plan, Take-home Vehicles, Overtime within the Fire Department, Semiannual reports on Legislative Intent Statements and Action Items. All Council Members were in favor of keeping Golf Capital Improvement Projects on the statement and broadening the language. All Council Members were in favor of scheduling the Transportation Related Benefits and Transit Passes report for a briefing. All Council Members were in favor of keeping Facilities Charge on Spring Mobile Ticket Sales on the list and request that the administration brief the 11 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011 Council. All Council Members were in favor of keeping Fleet Usage/Replacement. All Council Members were in favor of removing Special Events. All Council Members were in favor of leaving Transaction Fees. All Council Members were in favor of Business License Fees being removed. All Council Members were in favor of removing Streets Response Team Time Study. All Council Members were in favor of removing Data Tracking and Collection. All Council Members were in favor of keeping the Economic Development Incentive program open. All Council Members were in favor of Economic Development Neighborhood Grant program and putting it in the budget . Council staff will confirm that the Administration would put the program in the Revolving Loan fund. All Council Members were in favor of removing PEC from the list . All Council Members were in favor of keeping Arts Grant. All Council Members were in favor of removing Collections. All Council Members were in favor of keeping Parking Meter upgrades. All Council Members were in favor of removing Fuel Usage Reduction. All Council Members were in favor of removing Fire Vehicles. All Council Members were in favor of keeping the Cemetery Budget and Master Plan. All Council Members were in favor of closing Public Art Maintenance. All Council Members were in favor of keeping Open Space Maintenance. All Council Members were in favor of removing City Master Plans. Golf Update was not addressed. All Council Members were in favor of removing Fund Balance and changing the goal in the policy manual . All Council Members were in favor of removing Citywide Emergency Preparedness Plan. All Council Members were in favor of removing Take-home Vehicles. All Council Members were in favor of removing Overtime within the Fire Department. All Council Members were in favor of keeping Semiannual reports on Legislative Intent Statements and Action Items. #13 . CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: (a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §54-2-205 (1) (B) ; (b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (C) ; (c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; 11 - 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011 (d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION UNDER THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; (e) FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78b-1-137; AND (f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (F) . Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Martin seconded to go into Closed Session, a roll call vote was taken, which all members voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 8 :37 p.m. car •'+ VIR? ?•Y- • pyr- Nv Council ChairR ATV, �'c Vb ty Record This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held May 24 , 2011 . cm 11 - 7 e , s-:;' 1 -' �;,, SCANNED TO:rVC h 4``� SCANNED BY:qt- Stiff MOWDANIEL A. MULE' ""` S` *``Fier&- DATEALP BBEC)�KER I� CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES r-a . TP/H0// gs-e4 - TREASURER'S DIVISION r9TCH TT / �_ CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL j MAY 9 2011 It /� '� Date Received: BY •Davis veritt, Chi-f of Staff Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 19, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer T ----. SUBJECT: Utah Legislature 2011 General Session—S.B. 300 Government Bonding Amendments STAFF CONTACT: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer 801-535-6411 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Discussion RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a discussion on May 24, 2011 to address the delegation of authority to an officer of the City in matters relating to the final terms of bonds to be issued as provided in S.B. 300 of the 2011 legislative session. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Senate Bill 300 authorizes the governing body of a local political subdivision to delegate to an officer of the entity, via resolution, the authority to approve final bond terms without further action of the governing body, provided that the final bond terms fall within certain parameters established by the governing body. In anticipation of this discussion, I asked the City's Financial Advisor, Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc. to summarize the practical consequences to the City of implementing the changes authorized by S.B. 300. Our Financial Advisor's memo is attached. Also attached is a memo from Chapman and Cutler, Bond Counsel, who was asked to prepare a memo highlighting the features of S.B. 300. Attachments cc: Boyd Ferguson, Gordon Hoskins, Ed Rutan H:\Treas\DansDocs\Council Cover Letters\S.B 300 Briefing.doc LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4111 I MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. SOX 145462, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5462 • TELEPHONE: 801-535-7946 FAX: 801-535-6082 WWW.SLCGOV.COM m RECYCLED PAPER it=ir • LEWIS 11l1f1I11 YOUNG ROBERTSON & BURNINGHAM, INC. MEMORANDUM To: Dan Mule, Salt Lake City Treasurer FROM: Dale M. Okerlund, Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham DATE: May 19, 2011 RE: Application of Statutory Amendments (SB 300) regarding sale of bonds of Salt Lake City. This memorandum briefly summarizes the practical consequences to the City of implementing the changes authorized by the amendments. In addition, attached for your reference is a brief legal summary from Chapman and Cutler of the amendments. First, being able to sell on a date other than a council meeting date could be of material advantage to the City, leaving City officers and its financial advisor scope to conduct the sale at a date deemed most advantageous to the City, rather than being confined to Tuesdays. Second, most of the parameters, other than interest rate and its related variable, price, are generally known ahead of time (subject to small changes). To our knowledge, the Council has never failed to approve a bond sale, once it has occurred, for reasons of rate or price. Were it to do so, the transaction would not proceed and the project to be financed would not be financed. Accordingly, delegation to an officer of the City is not a substantial change in effective policy or practice. Third, while any officer or officers of the City can be chosen to approve the final sale terms, the City has, in the City Treasurer, an officer expert in these matters to whom pricing authority may be delegated. Fourth, in many situations delegation of this authority will shorten the time from sale to closing from what it may otherwise be. Chapman and Cutler LLP oleew MEMORANDUM To: Daniel A. Mule,Salt Lake City Treasurer FRoMt: Chapman and Cutler LLP DATE: May 18, 20I 1 RE: Summary of Final Bond Pricing Statutory Amendments At the 2011 General Session, the Utah Legislature adopted Senate Bill 300 that amended government bonding provisions to provide local political subdivisions (each a "Municipality") with an alternative method for approving final bond terms. Under the amendments, a Municipality would have flexibility in the timing of the pricing of the bonds since the pricing date would no longer have to coincide with a meeting date of the governing body of the Municipality (the "Council"). Depending on the structure that is followed, the process of delegating authority described below may shorten or lengthen the time required to finalize a bond financing. WHAT ARE THE AMENDMENTS? , ,, Senate Bill 300 amended various bonding provisions to authorize the Council to delegate by resolution to one or more officers of the Municipality authority to approve final bond pricing terms without further action of the Council. The final bond pricing terms that may be delegated are: (a) final interest rate or rates; (b) price; (c) principal amount; (d) maturity or maturities; (e) redemption features; and (f) other terms of the bonds.* Approval of the final bond pricing terms by the officer must be within the parameters established by the Council in the resolution that delegated such authority. "Officer" is not defined by statute, but presumably would include the Mayor, members of the Council, the City Treasurer or other officers with experience and good judgment regarding the pricing of the bonds. The establishment of appropriate parameters should be thoughtfully considered We would be pleased to discuss strategies designed to best achieve the Municipality's objectives. oltoft 3008122.01.0.1.doc 870 3753/RDB/ Chapman and Cutler LLP These amendments apply to bonds issued pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Bonding Act, the Utah Refunding Bond Act, the Assessment Area Act, the Interlocal Cooperation Act and the Utah Industrial Facilities and Development Act. WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR DELEGATING AUTHORITY? As with bonds issued prior to the amendments, the Council would initiate the process by adopting an initial resolution (often referred to as a parameters resolution) that (a) sets forth certain parameters relating to the bonds, (b) authorizes a publication of a notice of bonds to be issued and, (c) if necessary, calls a public hearing and provides for publication of a notice thereof. After holding any necessary public hearing, the Council would consider a second resolution (the "Final Bond Resolution"). The Final Bond Resolution would, among other things: (1) contain all the typical terms and provisions of a final bond resolution except the final bond pricing terms referenced above; (2) designate one or more officers (the "Designee") to make final bond pricing determinations; and (3) specify parameters for making such determinations. The Final Bond Resolution would need to have attached as exhibits substantially final forms of any documents that need to be approved by the Council, including any Preliminary Official Statement. Following the adoption of the Final Bond Resolution, the bonds would price and the Designee would approve the final pricing terms of the bonds; provided that such terms were within the parameters set forth in the Final Bond Resolution. Thereafter,the Municipality would proceed to closing as it has done with previous bond issues. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT#4—FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: MAY 24,2011 SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT#4—ADDED#A-20 STAFF REPORT BY: CASSIE FAIRBOURN,LEHUA WEAVER,KAREN HALLADAY AND JENNIFER BRUNO CC: DAVID EVERITT,GINA CHAMNESS,GORDON HOSKINS,FRANK GRAY,LUANN CLARK, CHIEF CHRIS BURBANK,CHIEF KURT COOK, RICK GRAHAM,KAY CHRISTENSEN, SHANNON ASHBY,AND SHERRIE COLLINS Additional Item—This item arrived late Friday afternoon. Additional information on this item will be prepared for your Council meeting. Item: A—20: Request to fund Outside Counsel for Oil Spill Litigation($200,000—Source: General Fund) SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT#4-FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: May 24,2011 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment#4 STAFF REPORT BY: Cassie Fairboum,Lehua Weaver,Karen Halladay and Jennifer Bruno CC: David Everitt,Gina Chamness,Gordon Hoskins,Frank Gray,LuAnn Clark, Chief Chris Burbank,Chief Kurt Cook,Rick Graham,Kay Christensen, Shannon Ashby,and Sherrie Collins Budget Amendment Number Four contains 29 proposed adjustments,as suggested by the Administration. The amendment includes seven initiatives affecting fund balance,for a net decrease to fund balance of$148,000. The Council requests a current-year revenue forecast with each budget amendment. The Administration's forecast shows a deficit of approximately$270,000 due to multiple decreases in revenue.A decline in property tax is a result from judgments settled earlier this year. Franchise taxes are lower than anticipated due to a decrease in revenue received from telecommunication companies.The number of commercial and residential permits is higher as impared to last year;however,the value of the permits is significantly lower. In intergovernmental billings, revenue is slightly lower than anticipated.The number of parking tickets issued is lower on average than in prior years. Parking meter revenue is lower due to the completion of City Creek and not as many meters need bagging. Charges and Services Revenue is lower due to a decline in Public Safety Revenue. Inter-fund revenue is lower than anticipated. These declines are slightly offset by revenue increases. Sales tax revenue increased by $534,000 as the sales tax trends increase 3%.Interest income is$100,000 higher than anticipated. Other reimbursements have resulted in an increase of$93,000. This budget amendment includes the addition of 11 grant-funded positions related to the SAFER Hiring Grant in the Fire Department which was discussed previously with the Council. There are two major Capital Improvement Project (CIP)items in this budget opening. The Council may wish to consider these items in context of the new 10-Year CIP Plan, which will be briefed next week,and the overall CIP budget. Both plans use Jordan River Trail surplus. In an effort to make the review of the budget openings more expedient,the Administration has attempted to categorize budget opening items as follows: A. "New"-those items that are new issues. B. "Grant requiring existing staff resources"--those grants that will require the City's existing staff to complete a specific project. (Employees involved with these projects may have less time to focus on other projects within the scope of their work.) Page 1 C. "Grant requiring additional staff resources"-those grants that provide additional staff positions and require a City match. These generally have policy implications because they may add a new service or create an expectation that the City will fund the position after the grant has expired. D. "Housekeeping"--those items classified by the Administration as strictly accounting actions that do not have policy implications. E. "Grants requiring No New Staff Resources"-those grants that provide funding for costs that are not associated with positions. F. "Donation"--those items that are donations that require Council appropriation to be used,are consistent with previous Council discussions,or do not have policy implications. G. "Council Consent Agenda-Grant Awards"-These items have been previously approved on the Council's Consent Agenda. H. "Follow-up on Previously Approved Items"-those items that were approved in a previous budget amendment but require some additional adjustments. I. "Council Added"-items which have been added by the City Council. MATTERS AT ISSUE The Administration classified the following as: New Items: A-1: Adjustment for Sidewalk Rehab Special Assessment Area FY 08-09($4,714.15- Source: Decrease to the FY09 CIP cost overrun account of the General Fund) The adjustment is needed to cover the City's bond counsel services for the Special Assessment Area ISidewalk Rehabilitations project that did not pass.Typically these charges are paid by the property owners but since the district was not created there is no budget authorization nor funds to pay the invoice. This budget amendment would create budget and allocate cash in the amount of the invoice and will decrease the remaining balance in the CIP cost overrun account. A-2: Request to establish budgets for costs of implementing CORIS System for Justice Courts($60,000-Source:fund balance of the City's General Fund) The Salt Lake City Justice Court has been preparing to implement a new case management system called CORIS. This is a change required by the State Administrative Office of the Court in order to increase coordination with local Justice Court files and cases.In order to meet the timeline imposed by the State, a contract employee was hired by IMS. Normally, as per policy for software development,this would be a billable item to Justice Courts.However,the funding was not included in the current year budget and the Administration does not anticipate a surplus to cover these costs. ➢ The Council may wish to note that this expenditure may already have been made since the system is being implemented this weekend. 3: Request to use IMS fund balance for IMS Employee Retirement Costs($55,000-Source: L S fund balance) the IMS department,several employees have decided to retire this fiscal year instead of waiting til FY12.It is requested to use IMS fund balance to meet this obligation. Page 2 ➢ The Council may wish to note that the Mayor's proposed 2011-12 budget includes reductions to the amount centrally budgeted in non-departmental for retirement costs,with the rationale that individual departments would continue to find funding within their budgets for the expense. That recommendation,coupled with this request could lead to the assumption that there may be more such requests in the coming year. A-4: Request for city owned building assessment($111,500-Source:CIP Surplus Land Account) The Administration is requesting$111,500 to perform Structural Condition Assessments,further structural reports,environmental studies,historic structures report and cleaning for the New Hope Center,the Wasatch Springs Plunge and other city-owned building as necessary.The Structural Condition Assessment is a preliminary overview on the structure including seismic issues, foundation settlement,and any structural elements showing failure.The structural and building environmental studies will be used by the Administration in preparing the buildings for disposition or renovation.Historic structures reports need to be performed since both buildings are on the city's historic register and the Wasatch Springs Plunge is on the national registry.Both buildings have been vacant for years and are in need of cleaning and trash removal.These funds will come from the CIP Surplus Land Account,which is usually used to acquire property,not maintain property. ➢ The Council may wish to consider this item in the context of the FY12 CIP discussion, especially pertaining to the Administration's proposal for funds to be set aside for larger city-owned building improvements. ➢ The Council may also wish to ask what the remaining balance is in the Surplus Land Account. -5: Request for CIP PSB Tenant Expenses($205,000-Source:rental income from purchased properties) The City's bond counsel has determined that the expenses related to maintaining the properties associated with the new Public Safety Building cannot be charged to the Public Safety Bond.These were properties purchased in preparation for the construction of the Public Safety Building. The City collected rents from the tenants who occupied the buildings and requests that this revenue is used to cover the expenses, including utilities, groundskeeping, and the refund of deposits. The Administration is requesting that the rental income be placed in a new cost center and used to cover the property management expenses. ➢ The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the status of the buildings and confirm whether there will be rental income generated in the future sufficient to cover the ongoing expenses. ➢ The Council may also wish to ask how the budget for use of the bonds will be adjusted by eliminating this expense. A-6: Request to fund 900 South Corridor Trail and Bike Lanes($700,000-Source:General Fund CIP) As the Council may remember,the City recently received ownership of the rail corridor from Union Pacific Railroad.Included in the current fiscal year CIP budget was$100,000 for a planning and community engagement process that has not been used.This$700,000 request would build an asphalt trail along the length of the corridor(700 West to Redwood Road,approximately 1.5 miles) ( 'nd bicycle lanes between 700 West and 200 West. ,'o fund this project,funds would be re-allocated from other completed CIP projects: • $300,000 from the Jordan River Trail restoration project(section between 1800 North and the Davis County line).(This project came in under the engineering estimate due Page 3 to the favorable bidding climate.The City also receive a grant to help pay for the project.) • $200,000 from the Intermodal Hub Warehouse, • $183,629 additional from old and completed Jordan River Trail projects,and • $16,270.74 from the general fund CIP cost over-run account. > The Council may wish to consider this issue as part of the City CIP discussion. > The Council may wish to consider whether the paved trail should be constructed prior to a more extensive public process on the options for the trail and amenities. > If the Council wishes to move ahead with this request, they may wish to ask what type of public process will be used on this portion of the project. ➢ The Council may wish to ask about other funding that may be available for this project, specifically funds from the Utah Paperbox transaction that were to be set aside for a portion of this project,and any funding from the Grant Tower money. > The Council may wish to confirm what approvals are needed for the project. > If the Council elects not to fund this project at this time, the$700,000 from other projects could be used to fund other pending CIP projects. A-7: Request additional funding for increase in Credit Card Fees ($35,000 - Source:fund balance of the City's General Fund) Two very significant impact fee transactions were paid with credit cards, and the associated credit card fees total approximately $33,200. The Administration is requesting funding of$35,000 from fund balance to cover this increase in expense. There is also a request in the FY11-12 budget to increase their ongoing budget for credit card fees. A-8: Request additional funding for Unemployment Cost($203,000-Source:Risk Fund) Unemployment charges for CED and the Airport have exceeded the amounts budgeted in the Risk Fund due to higher than expected layoffs.This budget amendment requests two steps:additional Iexpense budget for the Risk Fund to cover the projected unemployment charges,and also requests revenue budget adjustments for the increased billings to the departments. A-9: Request funds to demolish Wasatch Hollow house($50,000-Source:surplus land account) The Department of Public Services is requesting$50,000 to cover the cost of demolishing a Wasatch Hollow house. The request is to take the funds from the surplus land account. ➢ The Council may wish to ask what the balance is in the Surplus Land Account. Does the Council wish to clarify the use of Surplus Land Account Funds? A-10: Request for funding of Plaza 349 Security Guard Services($16,000-Source:fund balance of the General Fund) This request is to cover a half year of costs related to full-time security guard service at Plaza 349. The service had been reduced in recent budgets,but was requested to be restored by the Mayor's Office as a result of incidents that have employees concerned for their safety.Full year cost is included in the Mayor's 2011-12 budget. > Given that this is a half-year cost and it appears that this funding has largely been expended and is a request for reimbursement,does the Council wish to ask the Administration if the cost can be absorbed? - --- Page A-11: Request funding for Phase I Pilot program-200 South Bicycle Corridor-U of U to Downtown($620,000-Source:General Fund CIP) 'he Administration's paperwork indicates that the 200 South Bicycle Corridor project will create a centerline bikeway that functions similarly to the centerline TRAX,with"green wave"signal timing for bicyclists.Motorists will be restricted from turning left at the same time bicyclists are proceeding straight.As Salt Lake City considers 200 South for the possible addition of a downtown streetcar, the streetcar tracks in the curb lane will present a further challenge to bicyclists.In the eastern part of the 200 South corridor,the existing bike lanes are not wide enough to meet current safety design standards. The Administration proposes to implement the project in two phases: Phase 1: Considered a"Pilot Program"the 200 South bikeway,will use traffic paint to create a buffered bikeway between 200 East and 1300 East and traffic signal modifications to add bicycle signals. This would be installed similar to the trial with mid-block parking on 300 South and then, pending success of the trial,would be installed in a more permanent fully developed manner. Community concerns have included:reduction of traffic lanes,impact to the center islands, congestion with future streetcar route,public process,and incorporation of comments. Phase 2: Estimated cost is$5.9 million(with a 15%contingency).This would include permanent vegetated median islands from State St.to 1300 East. This request is to re-allocate$220,000 from the Jordan River Trail,$300,000 from the Intermodal Hub Warehouse project,and the remaining$100,000 to be allocated from three general fund CIP cost over-run accounts to provide the$620,000 for the pilot phase of the project.The Jordan River Trail project came in under the engineering estimate due to the favorable bidding climate.The City also received a grant to help pay for the project. ➢ The Council may wish to ask about the use of funds from the Intermodal Hub Warehouse and how those funds were intended to be used,and what impact it will have.(The 900 South trail request,Item A-6, also proposes using Intermodal Hub funds.) ➢ The Council may wish to ask about the status of the overall Jordan River Trail Project. ➢ The Council may wish to consider this issue as part of the City CIP discussion. A-12: Request funding for street lighting repairs-($30,000-Source:fund balance of the General Fund) During Budget Amendment No.3,the City Council approved a legislative intent to provide$30,000 Ia to repair non-functioning mid-block lights which have been reported by citizens to the city. According to the Administration,the amount would not repair all non-functioning mid-block lights, but is sufficient to repair most mid-block lights through the remainder of the fiscal year given that the pace for requests does not increase. • A-I3: Request funds to replace Dispatch Phone recording System($40,000-Source:E-911 reserve) Total replacement cost of the obsolete recording system in dispatch is$77,000.Of the total cost, $37,000 was budgeted and$40,000 is being requested in this amendment.This budget amendment requests additional expense budget from the E-911 reserve. A-14: Request to fund a Community Food Assessment($110,000-Source:a portion of the $7M distribution from the SLVSWMF) he Sustainability Division proposes to use$110,000 for a Community Food Assessment that will last approximately one year.In 2009,the Administration established a Food Policy Task Force comprised of volunteers,to evaluate the existing ordinances or City policies that either promotes or prohibits expanding food production in Salt Lake City.This includes both individual/private Page 5 gardening food sources,and larger scale industrial or public food processing and distribution.The assessment would help direct the future efforts of the Task Force. The assessment,performed by a consultant,would further identify key challenges,determine barriers and unmet needs,and help guide future policy and program development. According to the Administration,"the areas that will be investigated include food productions, processing and distributions,consumption,nutrition and health,nutrition education and food waste.Methods of investigation will range from interviews with stakeholders,data collection on the source and sources of food(groceries,restaurants,markets),obtaining nutritional information and information on the charitable food system in the City." The Administration proposes taking the$110,000 out of the$5.5 one-time payment received from the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility,which was set aside for Environmental and Sustainability projects. ➢ The Council may wish to ask what City projects are anticipated from this process. ➢ The Council may wish to have a broader discussion regarding the use of the$5.5 million, including a discussion of potential uses for the funding and identification of priorities. A-15: Request for CERT Program Increase($7,000-Source:fund balance of the General Fund) During Budget Amendment#3,the Council gave Emergency Management Services the authorization to spend$7,000 to continue Emergency Management CERT Program through the end of the current fiscal year due to the uncertain nature of grant funding. The$7,000 is proposed to come from fund balance,and,according to the Administration,will be used to cover the costs of the instructors,kits and manuals for the remainder of FY11. A-16: Request to accept grant funds for Bomb Detection and Disposal Equipment($8,200- fund balance of the General Fund) The State received federal funding toward the purchasing of bomb detection/disposal equipment and has agreed to reimburse the Police Department for the cost of equipment purchases. A-17: Request to increase projected revenues to reimburse Police Department Overtime ($57,500-fund balance of the General Fund) This budget amendment request is to increase the projected revenues in anticipation of actual reimbursements that will be received by the end of the fiscal year for law enforcement services provided by Salt Lake City Police Officers.This will cover the overtime the City has already paid the officers in the amount of$57,500. A-18: Request funding for the Solar Project Assessment($100,000-Source:a portion of the $7M distribution from the SLVSWMF) The Sustainability Division proposes to use$100,000 for a Solar Project Assessment.According to the Administration,the assessment would help them to determine the: • Best financing options for a solar facility to support the Public Safety Building net-zero goal. • Benefits of Federal tax issues,grants and other discounts available to the City. • Pricing of electricity we could produce for each option analyzed. • Best way to use the electricity and value it. • Most cost-effective place for the solar panels,including analysis of the old City landfill site. • Ways to assist in creating an RFP(s)to design and build the solar project. Page 6 The funding source proposed would be from the$5.5 million portion of the one-time$7 million distribution from the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility. > As suggested on item A-14,the Council may wish to have a broader discussion regarding the use of the$5.5 million,including a discussion of potential uses for the funding and identification of priorities. > With the approval of this and the other request,the available funding will be$5.39 million remaining for Council policy and budget consideration. > The Council may wish to consider whether the overall goal of the funds could be considered to meet Council priorities,since use of the funds is beginning with this budget opening. The Administration classified the following as: Grants Requiring Existing Staff Resources None. The Administration classified the following as: Grants Requiring Additional Staff Resources C-1:Request for full-time employees- FEMA-US Department of Homeland Security,2010 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response(SAFER)Hiring Program Grant ($266,624-Source:Grant Fund) The City received a$1,236,262 grant from the US Department of Homeland Security under the SAFER program. This award of$969,638 was received in FY 2010,and processed in Budget Amendment#4 of that year. The City has since received the remaining$266,624. This budget mendment will increase the line item of this grant to match the total funds actually received ($1,236,262). In total this grant will pay for the salary and benefits of eleven(11)fire fighters for a two year period. Council staff understands that there is a requirement to fund these positions after the grant expires,and is confirming this understanding with the Finance Department. The Council has previously passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept this grant. The Administration classified the following as: Housekeeping D-1:Recapture CIP Complete and Closed Projects($116,083.68-Source:CIP Fund) 1 This request decreases the remaining budgets of five(5) CIP completed and closed projects totaling $116,083.68, and increases the CIP cost over-run account to cover future unanticipated cost over- runs on CIP projects. CIP completed and closed projects: Safety Light Additions: $ 2,199.83 Traffic Signal Installations: $ 1.361.72 Arterial Lighting Redwood Rd.: $93,868.29 Arterial Lighting California Ave: $ 18.327.08 Jordan River Trail Signals: $ 326.76 otal increase to CIP over-run account: $116,083.68 eM-2: Recapture remaining Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development lock Grant (CDBG) and Housing Opportunity for Persons with Aids (HOPWA) Budgets ($292,772.01 -Source:cost over-run accounts of the respective programs) Once projects are completed, the funding can be recaptured to be reallocated to other project requests consistent with HUD Federal guidelines.The projects currently closed or completed are: Page 7 • (2)HUD,CDBG-R projects in the amount of$136,175.12 • (6)CDBG projects in the amount of$150,578.93 • (2)HOPWA projects totaling$6,017.96 D-3:HUD,CDBG and HOPWA Budget Adjustments($91,609.65) Last fiscal year,funding was recaptured and moved creating a deficit from cash being received but not budgeted.This request corrects that. In addition,this request is establish and create budget for a new HOPWA cost over-run account in the amount of$9,429.98.This will enable the funds to be reprogrammed for future use in accordance with the HUD Federal Guidelines. D-4: Interest Earnings on Sales Tax and General Obligation Bonds($207,589) Interest has been earned over the past year on the unspent bond proceeds of several sales tax revenue bonds which were used to finance City projects. The below table includes details and the interest earned on each project: Interest Bond Series Project Earned this Budget Cycle Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Public Services Maintenance $ 41,522 Series 2009A Facility GO Bonds Series 2009E The Leonardo Project $ 37,330 GO Bonds Series 2010A Public Safety Admin and $ 71,114 Operations Building GO Bonds Series 2010B Public Safety Admin and $ 57,623 Operations Building Interest earnings are considered bond proceeds and can be spent only on project costs for that bond issuance. When the project is completed,any unspent interest earnings can be applied to the interest portion of future debt service payments on the outstanding bonds of the project. This budget amendment is to appropriate the interest earnings to the above listed individual proje Capital Improvement Projects(CIP)accounts. D-5:Special Revenue Housing Development Program Income($1,841,415) The Housing Section of Housing and Neighborhood Development(HAND)has generated program income from principle and interest payments received from borrowers.It is requested that the Council appropriates this program income to fund additional loans for use by the Housing Section in its Renter Rehabilitation,CDBG and Home Programs.This will allow additional loans to the citizens of Salt Lake City. D-6:Land Fill(SLVSWMF)2011 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment The Administration has forwarded the paperwork for a mid-year budget amendment for the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility(Landfill).The proposed mid-year amendment includes the following changes: • Proposed$2.00 per ton fee increase on household trash and construction debris tipping fees for non-commercial and commercial haulers. (Private or individual drop-off fees will stay the same.)The reasons for the increase are: Page 8 o To build up the unrestricted cash balance.Without the proposed fee increase,the balance by the 2011 year-end would be$330,587 and by 2012 year-end the balance would be($1,130,802).With the fee increase,the balance at the end of 2011 would be $777,587.Please see the discussion about closure/post closure below. o Funding planned capital projects and new equipment in future years. o The per-ton fee increase will not affect the City's current year Refuse Fund budget,but will affect and has been accounted for in the 2011-12 Refuse Fund budget.The proposed budget for the Refuse Fund includes an increase for the tipping fee budget of $102,052. • A$152,000 increase to the amount budgeted for post closure expense based on Consumer Price Index(CPI)increases.This additional increase is a result of interest rates for 2011 CPI increasing from 1%to 2%.Although the post-closure funds are not expected to be needed until 2062(51 years of Landfill life left),the cost of the closure activities are magnified because the interest rate is used to calculate the present cost of the expense. • A$23,122 increase to personal service expenses-depending on County decisions for mid- year adjustments to salaries,the Landfill's payroll expenses might be affected. • Last year,the Landfill budget included the new screen for green waste screening,but the actual purchase was delayed.The screen is anticipated to be purchased in 2011. • Equipment exchange-the Landfill proposes to trade in three scrapers for two dirt trucks and one excavator.It is anticipated that this will not be an expense for the Landfill,and could possibly even generate some sale revenue for the Landfill budget depending on how the equipment is valued at sale/trade. The newly acquired equipment would increase the ability of the Landfill staff to work in wet conditions and to move more cubic yards of dirt.If this trade is made it will save in operational costs beginning in 2012. p 7:Municipal Bond Authority(MBA)Transfer to General Fund($147,441) the FY-11 budget a transfer of funds from the MBA Fund was appropriated in the General Fund a transfer in from the MBA Fund in the amount of$147,441.The off-setting amount in the MBA und was not budgeted.This initiative will develop a budget in the MBA Fund for the transfer out to e General Fund in the amount of$147,441. 8:Library Contingency Move to Operations Expense($197,000) is is a request to use approximately$197,000 of the Library's Contingency line item for ditional Operating Expenditures.It is the Library's intent to 1)fund additional Materialexpenditures by$100,000 and 2)fund a one-time salary adjustment as restoration for a prior year wage freeze.Approval of this item will not affect current year internal City budget and/or fmancials, but will be implemented by the City Library. The Administration classified the following as: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for detailed information on each grant. The Administration classified the following as: Donations None. The Administration classified the following as: Council Consent Agenda-Grant Awards already approved by Council action G-1: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation-Jordan River Grant($25,000-Source:Grant Fund) G-2: State of Utah Office of Crime Victim Reparation Grant($18,963.82-Source: Grant Fund) G-3: Federal National Drug Control Drug Trafficking HIDTA Grant($50,000-Source:Grant Fund) G-4: State of Utah Department of Public Safety medical Response System MMRS Grant($317,419-Source: Grant Fund) The Administration classified the following as: Follow-up on Previously Approved Items None Council Added Items I-1: Replacement of funds in Council Office($91,000-source-FY 2011 allocation in Non- Departmental Budget) In the FY 2011 allocation for CDBG,the Council approved$91,000 in CDBG funds to cover expenses in the Council Office that are driven by service to CDBG-eligible areas(constituent liaison response,outreach meetings,etc). Subsequent to that allocation,the Administration discovered that CDBG funds cannot be used on legislative branch expenses.In order to meet the Council's confirmed intent to cover this shortfall,the Council used that$91,000 CDBG allocation to fund the CDBG-eligible portion of the City-wide Concrete Study. This frees up funds in that are currently in the Non-Departmental budget to be shifted back to the Council Office budget,meeting the Council's original intent. This budget amendment request will complete this action. 1-2:Computer Aided Dispatch System for combining Police and Fire Dispatch services ($385,000-source-E-911 Fund) The Administration is requesting an appropriation of$385,000 from the E-911 Fund to move the Fire Department to the same dispatch system as the Police Department uses. (A Versaterm Computer Aided Dispatch or CAD System.) This supports the goal of combining the Police and Fire dispatchers into the same center. Page 10 Easside COMMUNITY COUNCIL May 23,2011 Tim P.Harpst Transportation Director Salt Lake City Transportation Division Page 1 Bicycle Greenway Project—Initial Pilot Phase Dear Tim and Staff, First and foremost the East Central Planning District would like to thank you for your leadership in community outreach and involvement.Involving us early to solicit our input and ideas has been exemplary.That you have listened to each concern and made various modifications to the proposed plans as we went along underscores that our feedback has mattered and will bring about the best possible project.We also appreciate this investment in our community. Already there are many interesting ideas for the second phase of this project.In some cases these even include concept drawings from our very talented neighbors.We have received many good ideas that are worth exploring for this and other portions of the bicycle master plan in our area. We look forward to an ongoing partnership as you refine your plans. To gather feedback for this proposed phase of the project,the ECC distributed detailed emails, supported the Open City Hall process,held numerous committee meetings,distributed flyers, conducted 3 on line straw polls and hosted this topic at the May 12,2011 General Membership Meeting.The final feedback for this letter was taken via an electronic vote of the membership. Notice to the general meeting was given by email,Google Group,mail and hand delivered flyers. The East Central Planning District's policy is to weight feedback in this manner: 1. The neighbors(residential,businesses,etc.)most directly affected(in this case those on 200 South)—weight 1.50 2. The remaining neighbors in the neighborhoods most directly affected(In this case The University Neighborhood Council and Bryant)—weight 1.25 3. The entire ECC Planning District(4 Neighborhood Councils,5 Neighborhoods,3 Business Districts)—weight 1.0 Final Vote Summary and Feedback: 687 Voting 90%o D,I support both phases of the project except for the portions betweens900 and 1200East(existing islands should trot be touched). The East Central Planning District(ECC)extends from South Temple to1700 South,700 East to 1365 East.The ECC includes 9 Neighborhoods& 3 Business Districts: Douglas Neighborhood Association,East Liberty Park Neighborhood 606 Trolley Square Organization,Historic Gilmer Park Neighborhood Association, Salt lake City,Utah 84102 University Neighborhood Council east.central@live.Com Bennion,Bryant,East Emerson,Gilmer,West Emerson Neighborhoods 9'"&9°,Canal,University Neighborhood Business Districts • side COM UNITY COUNCIL 5% H.I oppose all changes to the existing bike lanes on 200 South 3% E.I support the implementation of the project but with the following modifications regarding the existing islands 1. Bike lanes should be shifted next to the islands 2% All other. Page 1 2 Dissenting Reports and other comments of Interest(#indicates times mentioned) 1. Alternate proposal for a more protected path and division between autos and bicycle riders with a detailed proposed option.utilizing roundabouts.(Previous Email)(66) 2. 88%mentioned concerns related to expending funds due to personal and city wide economic hardships or worry about future assessments/fees. 3. 99%oppose a future streetcar on 200 South above 700 East however support South Temple. 4. Bike lanes between 900 and 1200 need to be expanded to live feet for national standards.(4) 5. There is significant congestion and some damage to parked cars due to the bus, auto,bikes,garbage cans and garbe trucks between 900 East and 1200 South. 6. The suggested bike lane helading Enst between Elizabeth and 1200 East proposed next to the existing wall is dangerous and a likely death trap. 7. The islands are a historic feature of the University Historic District.(*) 8. On street parking needs to remain.(55) ,,.,,. 9. Support a bike path to the U for more casual riders.Suggest:from 200 South to South Temple along 1100 East and then East to the U.(13) 10.Support routes that connect the neighborhood parks in the ECC.(85) 11.Expand the islands above 900 East.(7) 12.Shift parking to the center of 200 South putting bike lanes next to the curb.(5) 13.96%of the emails mentioned a concern that the main bus route between downtown and the U is seen as 200 vs 100 South(Fifty three of the same emails mentioned something about the main gate way to the U.It was felt that the main gateway to the U for automotive travel is not Presidents Circle(but rather 100 South since this route travels into parking, middle,upper and the medical facilities on campus). 14. Mentioned that they ride bikes to work and school some of the time all of these mentioned that they take Trax to get around the hills on 200,300,400,500,600, 700,800. (105) In behalf of the Executive Board and General Membership Esther Hunter Gary Felt Co-Chairs East Central Planning District The East Central Planning District(ECC)extends from South Temple 10700 South,700 East to 1365 East.The ECC includes 9 Neighborhoods& 3 Business Districts: Douglas Neighborhood Association,East Liberty Park Neighborhood 606 Trolley Square Organization,Historic Gilmer Park Neighborhood Association, Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 University Neighborhood Council east.central@live.com Bennion,Bryant,East Emerson,Gilmer,West Emerson Neighborhoods 9'h&9'h,Canal,University Neighborhood Business Districts Eas side COMMUNITY COUNCIL cc. Jill Love Luke Garrott "l David Everitt • Frank Gray Pagel 3 ECC Executive Board of Directors&UNC Executive Board of Directors Final Vote Request Dear Neighbors. Thank you so much for your time and active participation in the feedback regarding the proposed change in the 200 South bicycle lane(2004 bicycle master plan implementation). As this phase of the master plan directly impacts our community,we will be writing a summary letter representing our Neighborhood and Community Councils in order to provide our collective feedback to the City. We also appreciate the City asking. While you have participated in many feedback forums up to now and also in several straw polls,this email represents your vote regarding this plan that will be represented in the ECC summary letter. Every voice matters.Please take a moment to vote. The ECC policy is to weight the letter in this order: 1.The neighbors(residential,businesses,etc.)mostdirectly affected(those on 200 South) 2.The neighborhoods most directly affected(The,Oniversity Neighborhood Council and Bryant) 3.The entire ECC Planning District(4 Neighborhood Councils,5 Neighborhoods,3 Business Districts) Our goals is to help keep you informed.There are many different levels of information available from just a little to active participation in the many important topics for our community. You can do just a little or you can do a lot.There is a place for you if your are willing. We have several active committees that would welcome your service(Mobile Watch,Neighborhood Park Angels, ByLaws,Nominating Committee,Neighborhood Watch,Block Captains,Emergency Preparation,Community Development/Land Use,Community Based Master Plan,Transportation,Communication,Annual Fund Raising Event,Historic Preservation,ECC Service Board,etc.) "If every body does just a little,no one does too much." Thank you for all you do to enrich and help our neighborhoods. This is an awesome place to live and work. e and g Gary Felt Esther Hunter Co-Chairs The East Central Planning District(ECC)extends from South Temple to1700 South,700 East to 1365 East.The ECC includes 9 Neiglibortiaods& 3 Business Districts: Douglas Neighborhood Association,East Liberty Park Neighborhood 606 Trolley Square Organization,Historic Gilmer Park Neighborhood Association, Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 University Neighborhood Council east.eentral@live.com Bennion,Bryant,East Emerson,Gilmer,West Emerson Neighborhoods 9th&9',Canal.University Neighborhood Business Districts Ede COMMUNITY COUNCIL Eastside Community Council& East Central Planning District 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City,Utah,84102 east.central@live.com 200 South Bicycle Plan:(please vote for one): Page 4 A.I support the implementation of the initial phase(paint and signs)of the 200 South Project as outlined by the City B.i support the implementation of the initial phase,an,¢nsbesecond phase(islands,planters,etc.)of the project as outlined. C.I support the initial phase except for the porpon,betwepn900 and 1200 East(islands should not be touched). D.I support both phases except for the portion between 900 and 1200 East(islands should not be touched). E.I support the implementation of the project hut with the following modifications regarding the existing islands (please rank) 1.bike lanes should be left as they are next to parked cars 2.bike lanes could be shifted next to the islands 3.bike lanes can be placed on the islands if the trail is permeable and the trees are not hurt in any way in the long run 4.1 would like some other use for the islands such as a winding running path no wider than 5 feet utilizing chips(ie Liberty Park) 5.Other F.I support the 200 South bike lanes but feel the street needs to be modified(such as removal of on street parking, shifting all vehicle travel to one side and bike lanes to the other side,implement other ways of controlling the movement of all traffic such as roundabouts,etc.) G.The bike lane as proposal should be moved to 300 South. r. H.I oppose all changes to the existing bike lanes on 200 South 1.Other(please specify) The East Central Planning District(ECC)extends from South Temple to1700 South,700 East to 1365 East.The ECG includes 9 Neighborhoods& 3 Business Districts: Douglas Neighborhood Association,East Liberty Park Neighborhood 606 Trolley Square Organization,Historic Gilmer Park Neighborhood Association, Salt Take City,Utah 84102 eft, University Neighborhood Council east.central@live.com Bennion,Bryant,East Emerson,Gilmer,West Emerson Neighborhoods 9'h&9th,Canal,University Neighborhood Business Districts Easside COMMUNITY COUNCIL (*)National Register of Historic Places Registration Form Oct. 6, 1995 http://pdfhostfocus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/95001430.pdf Narrative Description-Page 5 page 15 "The grass medians,or"parkings"that exist on 1200 East and 200 South are distinctive features within the neighborhood that date from c.1905." Page 7 "With the alterations of some city streets to accommodate the new street car system(1906- 1911)electrical wires and poles were moved from the center to the sides of the street or buried underground.Concurrent with those alterations was the creation of"parkings"or grass medians,down the center of several streets introduced for the benefit of those who could not see recreation elsewhere. The parking at1200 East between 100 and 200 south was developed as a block play center.A retaining wall was built and plans were made for wading pools,ball diamonds,winter toboggan slides and shelter houses.Although the play'center continued to be operated by the city though out the 1930's,most of those plans were not realized. All of these improvements-zoning,better utilities,and the availability of more green space are examples of public works efforts that were instigated at the insistence of residents of SLC and the University Neighborhood Historic District during the first quarter of the twentieth century." The East Central Planning District(ECG)extends from South Temple to1700 South,700 East to 1365 East.The ECC includes 9 Neighborhoods& 3 Business Districts: Douglas Neighborhood Association,East Liberty Park Neighborhood 606 Trolley Square Organization,historic Gilmer Park Neighborhood Association, Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 University Neighborhood Council easl.central@live.com Bennion,Bryant,East Emerson,Gilmer,West Emerson Neighborhoods 9'"&9'",Canal,University Neighborhood Business Districts 52 General Fund Impact Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative 11. 200 South Bicycle $620,000.00 Corridor U of U to Downtown 12. Street Lighting Repairs $30,000.00 $-30,000.00 $-30,000.00 13. Dispatch Phone $40,000.00 Recording System 14. Community Food $110,000.00 Assessment 15. Cert Program Increase $7,000.00 $-7,000.00 $-7,000.00 16. Bomb Detection and $8,200.00 $8,200.00 Disposal Equipment 17. Police Dept Overtime $57,500.00 $57,500.00 Reimbursement 18. Solar Project Assessment $100,000.00 Section B Grants for Existing Staff Resources 53 General Fund Impact Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative Section C Grants for New Staff Resources 1. Fire FEMA Safer Hiring $266,624.00 11 Grant Section D Housekeeping 1. Recapture CIP Complete $116,083.68 and Closed Projects 2. Recapture HUD and $292,772.01 CDBG Completed Projects 3. HUD CDBG and $.00 HOPWA Budget Adjustments 4. Interest Income on $207,589.00 Bonding 5. Special Revenue Housing $1,841,415.00 Develop Program Income 6. Landfill 2011 Mid-Year $.00 Budget Adjustment 7. MBA Transfer to $147,441.00 General Fund 54 General Fund Impact Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance # Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative 8. Library Contingency $197,000.00 Move to Operations Expense Section E Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1. St of Utah Dept of Public $369,000.00 Safety UASI Grant Increase 2. Additional FY2008 $49,000.00 Homeland Security Grant 3. Fisher Mansion Roof $150,000.00 Section F Donations Section G Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards 1. National Fish and $25,000.00 Wildlife Foundation— Jordan River Grant 2. St of Utah Office of $18,963.82 Crime Victim Reparation Grant 3. Federal National Drug $50,000.00 Control Drug Trafficking Grant—HIDTA 4. St of Utah Dept of Public $317,419.00 Safety Medical Response System MMRS Grant 55 General Fund Impact Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance # Initiative Name Impact Amount FIE General Fund Impact Impact Amount (If Different) Impact positive Negative Section I Council Added Items 1 FY10-11 Variance Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total General Fund 188,559,916 188,289,938 (269.978) Selected Discussion Items Total Property Taxes 63,304,511 63,222,792 (81,719) Discussion: A decline in property is due to two judgments that were settled earlier this year. Total Sales and Use Tax 43,493,122 44,027,775 534,653 Discussion: Reviewing the sales tax trends have an average increase of 3%in FY 2011 Total Franchise Tax 27,953,800 27,753,800 (200,000) Discussion: The decrease is due to a decrease in revenue received from telecommunication companies. License and Permits: 15,790,598 15,782,914 (7,684) Discussion: The number of commercial and residential permits are up from last fiscal year,but the values for residential is significantly lower. Total Intergovernmental 5,441,103 5,393,991 (47,112) Discussion: Interest income 480,000 580,000 100,000 Discussion: Total Fines&Forfeiture 10,808,566 10,572,656 (235,910) Discussion: The issuance of parking tickets are bwer on average than in previous years. Parking Meters 1,599,000 1,470,788 (128.212) Discussion: Parking meter revenue will come in lower due to a the completion of City Creek and not as many meter needing bagged. Charges and Services 3,756,784 3,519,769 (237,015) Discussion: Charges and Services has a decline due to a decrease in Public Safety Revenues Miscellaneous Revenue 2,123,396 2,216,417 93,021 Discussion: Other reimbursements have resulted in an increase in revenue. Total lnterfund 9,647,265 9,587,265 (60,000) Discussion: Transfers 4,161,771 4,161,771 0 Discussion: Initiative Name: FY 2008/2009 Sidewalk Rehabilitation SAA Budget Adjustment Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#Al New Item Initiative Discussion: During FY 2009/2010 CIP Process, funding was allocated for a Special Assessment Area (SAA) Sidewalk Rehabilitation project from 1500 to 2100 East, 1300 to 1700 South. The SAA did not pass and the budget that was created to accept the property owners portion of the SAA was recaptured as wet as the general fund monies allocated for the project. Subsequent to the recapture of funds the City's bond council submitted an invoice for their services. The costs were for preparation of the SAA "Notice of Intention"documents. These charges are normally paid by the property owners. Since the district was not created there is no budget authorization nor funds to pay the,invoice. The invoice was received after the SAA had been cancelled and the budget recaptured. This request is to create budget and allocate cash in the amount of the invoice,$4,714.15,and will decrease the FY-09 CIP cost over run account. Initiative#A-1 I I Recapture Remaining General Fund CIP Completed and Closed Projects I Initiative Name I BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#Al 2010-11 Initiative Number I I Fiscal Year CED-HAND New Item Department I Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 Total $0 ..► Total $0 Total $0 Staffin. Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative A-1-a , I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number r Amount I I I I I . T r• I I i Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP 83-09099 CF CIP Cost over run I 2700 $ (4,714.15)! 83-10040 Sidewalk Rehabilitation SAA I 2700 I $ 4,714.15 I 1 Additional Accounting Details: I I I i I Grant funds employee positions? I NA I I I Is there a potential for grant to continue? J NA j l I_ If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? I NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA I I Will grant impact the community once the rant funds are eliminated? I I NA i I Does grant duplicate services provided by private or i INon-profit sector? NA I I 7 j Initiative#.A-1-b Initiative Name: CORIS System for Justice Courts Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-2 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: At the beginning of the year we were faced with a critical timeline imposed on us by the State Administrative Office of the Court to move the Justice Courts over to the State's CORIS system.In order to accomplish this in the timeline and to meet the deliverables needed to continue to service the public at a minimal level,a significant amount of work needed to be accomplished.As we looked at the situation,the requirements,and the due date,it was decided that the only way we could pull this off was to engage a contract programmer to work with the AOC IT staff to develop the web services needed.IMS did not have the expertise in the tool set,IBM WebSphere,used by AOC and there was not sufficient time to develop the skill intemally.A contract employee with a very specific skill set was engaged at a cost of about$60K to IMS.As is our policy for software development,this would be a billable item to the department,in this case the Justice Court. However,in my conversations with Mary Johnston,it was apparent that they had no funding for this but it absolutely needed to happen.I have not spoken with Curtis Preece on this topic.We were waiting to get to the 6 month mark to see if it was possible for the Gouts to absorb this cost internally. They are not projecting to have surplus to cover these costs. We are requesting the fund from the general fund fund balance. Initiative#A-2 1 1 I r l 1 CORIS System for Justice Courts Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-2 ; 2010-11 1 Initiative Number I I Fiscal Year Information Management Services New Item I Department I Type of Initiative Kvm Edman 801-535-6343 Prepared By I I 1 Telephone Contact L (Negative) ! Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- $ (60,000.00)I Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund I Total, $01 l $01 Internal Service Fund I I 1 T- 0 I I Total $0i $01 Enterprise Fund I 1 I I I I I Total, $01 $01 Other Fund I - 1 0 L 0, i Total $0 $01 I I i Requested Number of { 01 0 I Position Title: ! I no staffing changes ' J -1- 1 ' I ' i I I I 1 ! — T I-- 1-- I I 1 I Initiative#A-2-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable- Revenue Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 65-03200 1954-09 $ 60,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 09-00700 2321 $ 60,000.00 65-03200 2328 $ 60,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: -" Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE Grant funds employee positions? Is there a potential for grant to continue? I I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _ be eliminated at the end of the grant? Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? 1 I Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? Initiative#A-2-b Initiative Name: IMS Employee Retirement Costs Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-3 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Several long term employees have announced their decision to retire this fiscal year instead of waiting until next year. Our Office Facilitator, Mary Fumess and our Document Management Team Lead Steve Minnick.They have both been with the city 30 plus years and the retirement payout will cause an additional strain on IMS's bottom line. We would like to request to use IMS fund balance to meet this obligation. Initiative#A-3 I I IMS Employee Retirement Costs L Initiative Name I BA#4 2011 Initiative#A3 2010-11 Initiative Number I I I Fiscal Year Information Management Services New Item Department I I I Type of Initiative Kvm Edman 801-535-6343 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- Impact General Fund • Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 0 0 Total $0 $0 Staffin Impact Requested Number of 0 0 Position Title: no staffing changes Initiative#A-3a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:_ Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number L Amount I I I � I I I —J i � I 1 I � I j Expenditure: Cost Center Number j Object Code Number i Amount 1 _ _L I 1 165-03600 2111-01 I$ 20,000.00 I 165-03700 2111-01 $ 35.000.00 Additional Accounting Details: I I NOT APPLICABLE [Grant funds employee positions? i !,Is there a potential for rang tto continue? i I I ilf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? s I- ,Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are I eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private or !Non-profit sector? I j Initiative#A-3-b Initiative Name: Building Assessments on City-Owned Assets-CIP Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A4 New Item Initiative Discussion: The Administration is requesting funding to perform structural and building environmental studies for the New Hope Center located at 1102 West and 400 South,the Wasatch Springs Plunge located at 840 North and 300 West and other city-owned buildings as necessary. The reports will be used by the ,w Administration in preparing the buildings for disposition or renovation. The Structural Condition Assessment is a preliminary overview on the structure of the buildings including seismic issues, foundation settlement, and any structural elements showing failure. A second structural assessment may be performed after review of the first study that will give greater detail and the condition of the building. The environmental assessment will determine the levels of asbestos,lead,and mold in the buildings. Since both buildings are on the city's historic register and the Wasatch Springs Plunge is on the national registry,a historic structures report would also need to be performed. Both buildings have been vacant for years and are in need of cleaning and trash removal. The cost to have the Structural Condition Assessments, further structural reports, environmental studies,historic structures report,and cleaning will be$111,500. These funds will come from the CIP Surplus Land Account. Initiative#A-4 i Building Assessments on City-Owned Assets-CIP Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A4 2010-11 Initiative Number j I Fiscal Year CED-H.A.N.D. i New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Mike Akerlow i 535-6136 1535-7966 Prepared By__. r r Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- ! Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund I I l Total $0 i $01 Internal Service Fund - i Total $01 SOJ Enterprise Fund I ii it � I I Total j_Other Fund r I I Total i$ - I $01 Requested Number of 0, FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#A-4-a Accounting Detail 3rant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-81100 1840 $ (111,500.00) 83 New Cost Center 1840 $ 111,500.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-81100 2590 $ (111,500.00) 83 New Cost Center 2590 $ 111,500.00 ANN. Additional Accounting Details: 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 grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA I Will grant Impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or_ Non-profit sector? NA .wn Initiative#A-4-b Initiative Name: CIP PSB Tenant Expenses Budget Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A5 New Item Initiative Discussion: Salt Lake City purchased several properties in preparation for the construction of the new Public Safety Building. The City owned and was responsible for the management of these properties which included the payment of utilities to companies such as Questar and Rocky Mountain Power; maintenance such as groundskeeping, snow removal, etc.; and other associated costs. The City's bond counsel has determined that the expenses associated with the management of these properties cannot be charged to the Public Safety Bond used to acquire the properties. The City also collected rents from the tenants who occupied the buildings totaling approximately$205,000. The Administration is requesting that the rental income from these properties be placed in a new cost center and used to cover property management expenses including the refund of deposits. Initiative#A-5 CIP PSB Tenant Expenses Budget i Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A5 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year CED-H.A.N.D. New Item Department I I I Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Mike Akerlow 535-6136/535-7966 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total - $0 F Other Fund 83-10082 $ 205,000.00 Total $ 205,000.00 $0 Staffin. Im.act: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#A-5-a I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-10082 1807 $ 205,000.00 _ I I I I I I I + I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount 83-10082 2700 I $ 205,000.00 t _ I I I I I Additional Accounting Details: 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 I be eliminated at the end of the grant?I NA I Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA I Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are leliminated? j NA I I 'Does grant grant duplicate services provided by private or i 'Non-profit sector? �__� NA --�_^ i I Initiative#A-5-b Initiative Name: 900 South Corridor Trail and Bike Lanes Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-6 New Item Initiative Discussion: In November of 2007,the 900 South rail line in Salt Lake City was deactivated. Just recently,the rail corridor property ownership was transferred from Union Pacific Railroad to the City. The rail corridor is generally 70 feet wide but varies in width from 50 to about 170 feet. The corridor extends from Redwood Road to 700 West,a distance of approximately 1.5 miles. The 1992 Salt Lake City Open Space Plan and the 1995 West Salt Lake Community Master Plan identify the corridor as a pedestrian-bicycle corridor/trail. A trail connection utilizing the 900 South rail corridor connects the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods to the Jordan River Trail and other open space amenities along the Jordan River Trail. It also provides convenient non-motorized access to downtown. The 900 South rail corridor is identified in the Open Space plan as a key element of the Transvalley Corridor which is a bicycle/pedestrian route connecting several existing open space amenities on the City's east side. The project includes improved bicycle access to the 900 South UTA TRAX Light Rail station by adding bicycle lanes on 900 South between 700 and 200 West. Construction of the 900 South rail corridor trail between Redwood Road and 700 West and the extension of bicycle lanes on 900 South between 700 West and 200 West are in accordance with the desires of the City Council and Administration to improve the safety and convenience of bicycling and walking within the city. Construction of an asphalt trail and the addition of bicycle lanes are estimated to cost$700,000. To fund this project,$300,000 is proposed to be re-allocated from the Jordan River Trail,north of Redwood Road between 1800 North and Davis County,$200,000 from the Intermodal Hub Warehouse,$183,629.26 from old and completed Jordan River Trail projects and the remainder of$16,370.74 from the general fund CIP cost over-run account. The Jordan River Trail, north of Redwood Road between 1800 North and Davis County project came in under the engineering estimate due to the favorable bidding climate. The City also received a grant to help pay for the project. .w+ Initiative#A-6 I I 900 South Corridor Trail and Bike Lanes Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-6 i 2010-11 Initiative Number I I Fiscal Year L CED-H.A.N.D. I New Item Department Type of Initiative I� LuAnn Clark I Mike Akerlow 535-6136 1535-7966 -.--I-.--_--Prepared B__y____-_ -------------_.—.--ITelephone Contact +L (Negative) Positive ;General Fund-Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount ;General Fund f _l 1 I I I Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund L— Total $01 $0I Enterprise Fund I � I Total $01 0' Other Fund _ H__ I I I I I I Total 1$ - $01 Staffin• Im.act: ;Requested Number of 01 FTE's: Position Title: i I I Initiative#A-6-a Accounting Detail 3rant#and CFDA#It Applicable. NA Revenue' Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP 8310025 Jordan River Trail 2700 (300,000.00) 83-09042 Intermodel Hub Warehouse 2700 (200,000.00) 83-05017 Jordan River Trailhead I 2700 (178,629.26) 83-08013 Jordan River Trail Lighting 2700 (5,000.00) 83-10099 CIP Cost Over-run (16,370.74) 83-New Cost Center 2700 $ (700,000.00) Additional Accounting Details' Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? _ NA I i _ If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA VVIII 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#A-6-b Initiative Name: Increase in Credit Card Fees Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A7 New Item Initiative Discussion: To cover the increase in credit card charges. The Treasurer's Office is projecting to be approximately$35,000 over budget at the end of FY 2011 in this cost center/object code. In addition to credit card fees,this cost center/object code combination also includes charges for bank fees,armored car services and mandatory credit card compliance testing. We have achieved cost reductions as a result of new cash management processes we've implemented this fiscal year by eliminating lockbox processing for parking tickets,business licenses and special assessments and instead processing these payments in-house. We have also switched to imaging all checks received and uploading a file to the bank rather than sending paper checks to the bank for deposit via our armored car company. This imaging process had also resulted in a slight reduction in bank processing fees as well as savings on our armored car contract by reducing the number of pickups from 5 days per week to 2 days per week. However,these cost reduction measurers do not come close to covering the increase in credit card fees,which are also applied to this cost center/object code. We had two very significant impact fee transactions that were paid with credit cards. One transaction totaled$552,212.79;the other transaction totaled$1,110,922.07. Combined, these transactions totaled$1,663,134.86 and the associated credit card fees total approximately$33,200 We are requesting funding of$35,000 from the fund balance to cover these additional costs. Initiative#A-7 I I Increase in Credit Card Fees Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A7 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Finance New Item Department I _ Type of Initiative Daniel Mule' 535-6411 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- $ (35,000.00) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 - Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Ask Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total $ $0 Requested Number of 0 FTE's: _ Position Title: Initiative#A-7-a • Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount I � I I I I I --4 �J � I 1 I i I I I I i I I I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 01-00021 2329 $ 35,000.00 I I I ! I I I t j I I I I I r _ _Additional Accounting Details: I 1 i i I I I !Grant P employee fundspositions?, NA _ _ Its there a potential for grant to continue? NA I I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _ _j__ ,be eliminated at the end of the grant?I I NA ,Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA I —_I 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _ I T eliminated? _I I NA I Does grant duplicate services_provided by private or Non-profit sector? _ _ NA Initiative#A-7-b Initiative Name: Increase in Unemployment Costs Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-8 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Unemployment charges for CED and the Airport have exceeded the amounts budgeted in the Risk Fund. The following shows the current budget,current expense and projected expenses through the end of Fiscal Year 2010-11: CED-Curr.Bud.$8,040-Curr.Exp.$64,401 -Projected Exp.$112,000 Airport-Curr.Bud.$26,004-Curr.Exp.$46,689-Projected Exp.$125,000 The expenditures have exceeded budgets due to higher than expected layoffs. It should be noted that approximately 40%of the layoffs in CED resulted from shifting Ground Transportation to the Airport. The majority of the Airport layoffs were the result of a restructuring in the Fall of 2010 that was not anticipated when the budget was set for the Fiscal Year. This budget amendment requests additional expense budget for the Risk Fund to cover the projected unemployment charges and also requests budget adjustments to Risk Fund revenue for the increased billings to the departments. Initiative#A-8 I I Increase in Unemployment Costs Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-8 2010-11 Initiative Number j j Fiscal Year L Finance New Item Department I Type of Initiative Kimball Ball 535-6420 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive [General Fund-Fund Balance- $ - Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount (General Fund I I I I Total $0) $0 Internal Service Fund 87-Risk Fund $ 203,000.00 I I Total $ 203,000.00 I I $0 Enterprise Fund Total) f $0 0$4I____, pther Fund — I i I Total $0 $01 I I I Requested Number of 01i o, Position Title: Initiative#A-B-a Accounting Detail 3rant#and CFDA#If Applicable. Revenue Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 87-40060 1860-60 $ 104,000.00 87-40540 1860-60 $ 99,000.00 Total $ 203,000.00 • Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 87-40060 2196 $ 104,000.00 87-40540 2196 $ 99,000.00 _ Total $ 203,000.00 r.� Additional Accounting Details: 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 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#AA-b Initiative Name: Open Space-Wasatch Hollow house demolition Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-9 Initiative Type: New item Initiative Discussion: The Department of Public Services requests budget for the demolition of the residence in Wasatch Hollow open space. The final plan for this property recommends the demo of the house and the septic infrastructure.The cost is estimated to be$50,000. This request is to take the funds from the surplus land account. Initiative#A-9 I - Open Space-Wasatch Hollow house demolition Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-9 2010-11 Initiative Number I I I Fiscal Year Public Services New Item Department I I 1 Type of Initiative Grea Davis 801-535-6123 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund 0 Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 0 0 Total $0, $0 Staffin.Im.act: Requested Number of 0 0 Position Title: no stating changes • Initiative PA-9-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-81100 I 1840 I ($50,000.00) 83 New Cost Center 1840 j ! $50,000.00 i I I I I I I I I I I r a 1 I i I i I I I Expenditure: Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount 83-81100 J 2590 $ (50,000.0D)I 83 New Cost Center 2590 7 $50,000.00 I i � I I I I I I Additional Accounting Details: I i i i I I _ Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE Grant funds employee positions? I I I I 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 grant? i —�Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? ? Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ::eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _ I Non-profit sector? Initiative#A-9-b Initiative Name: Plaza 349 Security Guard Services Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-10 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: This budget amendment is needed to adjust Facilities'budget due to the need to add back full ,,,,, time security guard service at Plaza 349.This service was requested by the Mayor's Office as a result of incidents that have empoyees concerned for their safety and to keep homeless and vagrants from finding a place to sleep in the building.John Naser,City Engineer, indicated in an email to the Mayor's Office that"It seems like daily we have transients or drunks coming into the first floor looking for restrooms,maybe a place to get warm or to ask for food or money. Again yesterday 12/21 afternoon we had a drunken man enter the first floor and bounce off the walls until the Engineering permits people could get him out of the building. On the way out he fell and hit his head requiring us to call for an ambulance and the Fire Department. The man became quite belligerent so the Police came and arrested him." This request is seek for funding relief for half year of costs at$16,000 from the General Fund fund balance. Full year cost will be requested in next year budget submission. Initiative#A-10 1 1 Plaza 349 Security Guard Services Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-10 2010-11 Initiative Number i Fiscal Year Public Services Dept. I New Item Department Type of Initiative (Employee Name) 801-535-6123 Prepared By Telephone Contact I (Negative) _ Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- $ (16,000.00), Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund 1 1 I I Total J0' SDI Internal Service Fund 7 i I I I _ Total) $0 $01 Enterprise Fund 1 Total) $0i I $01 Other Fund I I � Total $01 $01_ 1 StaffingImpact: Requested Number of 0 01 Position Title: • - Initiative#A-10-a —Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: —Revenue: - Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount _Expenditure: - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount III 10700923 2383 $ 16,000.00■ II III —Additional Accounting Details: Full-year services is estimated at$32,000 —Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? (Yes or No) Is there a potential for grant to continue? (Yes or No) r 1 If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? (Yes or N) 1 Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Yes or No I I Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? (Yes or No) Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? (Yes or NO) 1 Aeeio Initiative#A-10-b Initiative Name: 200 South--Bicycle Corridor-University of Utah to Downtown Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-11 New Item Initiative Discussion: The Salt Lake City Transportation Division is requesting the City Council approve $620,000 for the Phase I Pilot program of the bicycle-priority(Beyond Bike Lanes)corridor on 200 South between the University of Utah and Downtown. The project will create a centerline bikeway that functions similarly to the centerline TRAX,with"green wave"signal timing for bicyclists. Motorists will be restricted from turning left at the same time bicyclists are proceeding straight. Currently, Downtown and the University of Utah are connected by the 200 South bike lanes. Bike lanes generally improve the bicycling experience for those who are already fairly comfortable on the road. A "beyond bike lanes" approach such as a separated path or buffered bike lane has been shown to increase the number of people who feel safe riding bicycles in an urban environment. The University is the state's primary bicycle commuting destination, with many students and faculty traveling by bicycle.The 200 South bike lanes facility,although widely used, has several challenges. 200 South is a primary bus route,with frequent service provided by UTA's"2 to the U"and other local and express buses. As Salt Lake City considers 200 South for the possible addition of a downtown streetcar, the streetcar tracks in the curb lane will present a further challenge to bicyclists. In the eastern part of the 200 South corridor,the existing bike lanes are not wide enough to meet current safety design standards. Initiative#A-11 Aft Initiative Name: 200 South--Bicycle Corridor-University of Utah to Downtown Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-11 New Item In the initial phase of this project,which would be funded by this budget request,the Transportation Division proposes to implement a trial version of the 200 S bikeway, using traffic paint to create a buffered bikeway between 200 East and 1300 East and traffic signal modifications to add bicycle signals. The primary cost of the project is in adjusting the traffic signals for bicycles,including signal timing(a bicycle"green wave")to progress bicycle traffic and controlling motor vehicle left turns with turn signals. Following this initial phase,the project could be further and more formally developed as Au% a linear park with the centerline bikeway within raised medians that would be landscaped and enlivened with park benches, community gardens, pocket parks, public art, etc. and used for programmed activities.This trial implementation allows the project to be implemented quickly,in 2011, such as was done with the 300 South median parking area downtown;and then a formal design and median/bikeway construction implemented in following year(s)as funding is made available. The trial implementation will also provide insight on desired design details. The project is envisioned as reducing the number of travel lanes on 200 South to one travel lane in each direction with turn lanes. The travel lanes would be sized to host the existing"2 to the U"bus route and the future streetcar. The recaptured space would be used to construct the bikeway and linear park. Project stakeholders would likely include Salt Lake City, the Downtown Alliance, the Convention and Visitor's Bureau, Wasatch Community Gardens,area residents and businesses,and the affected community councils. The second phase of this project is estimated at$5.9 Million(with a 15%contingency)and will be to construct permanent vegetated median islands creating the linear park from State St.to 1300 East. The expenditures for the pilot phase for signal timing/road restriping would contribute to the final project implementation and would not need to be redone. This request is to re-allocate$220,000 from the Jordan River Trail,north of Redwood Road between 1800 North and Davis County,$300,000 from the Intermodal Hub Warehouse project, and the remaining $100,000 to be allocated from three general fund CIP cost over-run accounts to provide the$620,000 for the pilot phase of this project. The Jordan River Trail,north of Redwood Road between 1800 North and Davis County,project came in under the engineering estimate due to the favorable bidding climate. The City also received a grant to help pay for the project. Initiative#A-11 I 200 South--Bicycle Corridor- University of Utah to Downtown Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-11 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year CED-Transportation New Item _—- Department — --_ --- i Type of Initiative Tim Harpst 535-6630 Prepared By Ne ative Telephone Contact 9 Positive - General Fund-Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 I Internal Service Fund Totalt fi $01 $0 Enterprise Fund F _ Total I $0 $0l Other Fund t I I Total $0 $0 Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: I i i I l Initiative#A-11-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-10025 Jordan River Trail 2700 $ (220,000.00) 83-09042 Intermodal HUB Warehouse 2700 $ (300,000.00) 83-07099 CIP Cost Over-run 2700 $ (6,185.75) 83-09099 CIP Cost Over-run 2700 $ (91,532.19) _J 83-10099 CIP Cost Over-run 2700 _ $ (2,282.06) 83-New Cost Center 2700 $ 620,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: 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 grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA I 1 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#A-11-b Initiative Name: Street Lighting Repairs Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-12 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: For the fiscal year 2010-11,funding for street light operation and maintenance was reduced by$400,000. In order to meet this budget shortfall,it was necessary to defer maintenance on mid-block street lights. On March 1,2011,the City Council approved a legislative intent to provide$30,000 to repair non-functioning mid-block lights which have been reported by citizens to the city.Although the funding needed to repair all non-functioning mid-block lights would exceed$30,000,it is estimated that$30,000 is sufficient to repair most if not all mid- block lights through the remainder of the fiscal year given that the pace for requests does not increase. Initiative#A-12 Street Lighting Repairs Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-12 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year CED-Transporation New Item Department I Type of Initiative Brent Beck-Michael Barry 535-7107 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- $ (30,000.00) , $ Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 ',0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 ',0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 0 Other Fund Total $0 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of FTE's: Initiative#A-12-a I � I Accounting Detail Grant it and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I ' 1 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code umber i$ Amount 09.00 Oo 30,000.00 - I I � I I I I 1 1 _ I Additional Accounting Details: j L � Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA IIf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will ,be eliminated at the end of the grant?I I NA 'Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are +-- I eliminated? NA I I Does grant duplicate services provided by private or '_- Non-profit sector? NA I I Initiative#A-12-b Initiative Name: Dispatch Phone Recording System Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #A-13 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: All 911 call that come in have to be recorded. The recording system that is in place has been obsolete and has had several patches. At this time the system cannot be repaired any longer or upgraded. The total replacement cost is $77,000.00 of which we have $37,000 budgeted. The total of this amendment is $40,000.00 This budget amendment requests additional expense budget from the E-911 to cover the new recording system. E-911 reserve will be used to offset this expenditure. Initiative#A-13 I I Dispatch Phone Recording System Initiative Name 1 BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-13 2010-11 Initiative Number 1 I Fiscal Year Police New Item Department I r I Type of Initiative r _ Krista Dunn 799-3625 Prepared ByI __Telephone Contact (Negative) r Positive (General Fund-Fund Balance- $ - - (- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount (General Fund r Total. $0 $0 Internal Service Fund 1 { Total's $0 $0, Enterprise Fund 1 _ r Total _ $0 $0 Other Fund � I Total! $0 $0 L Staffin.Im.act: Requested Number of 0 0 (Position Title: r I II I Initiative#A-13-a III Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue:Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Total $ -Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 60-00620 2750 $ 40,000.00 -Additional Accounting Details: 111 -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 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 InitiativeA-13-b Initiative Name: Community Food Assessment Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-14 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: t he Sustainability Division proposes to use $110,000 tor a Community Food Assessment. The funding source would be the$5,500,000 portion of the one-time$7M distribution from the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility(SLVSWMF)which was received the first part of Feb 2011. Salt Lake City has had a Food Policy 1 ask Force in place tor over one year now, which comprises of a group of local volunteers from various food-related areas. The task force is managed by the Sustainability Division. While some ideas and actions have come from this group, it is time to complete a comprehensive analysis of our food systems to better guide their future work. Salt Lake City,with assistance trom members of our Food Policy Task Force,will hire a consultant to compile data and conduct a full analysis of our current food system in order to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the food system.This assessment will allow us to identify key challenges,determine barriers and unmet needs,and help guide future policy and program development. I ne areas tnat will De investigated include mod production,processing and distnbution, consumption,nutrition and health,nutrition education and food waste.Methods of investigation will range from interviews with stakeholders,data collection on the source and type of food we purchase and eat,obtaining processing and distribution data,identifying sources of food(groceries,restaurants,markets),obtaining nutritional information and information on the charitable food system in the City. The entire study will last approximately one year.Funding will be encumbered in FY 2011 and periodic payments made to the consultant as project tasks are completed. Initiative#A-14 I Community Food Assessment Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-14 2010-11 Initiative Number I } Fiscal Year Public Services New Item Department I 1 Type of Initiative Greg Davis 801-535-6123 Prepared By _ Telephone Contact _ (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund _ Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0— $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total $0 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 0 Position Title: .«v Initiative#A-14-a I UAccounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount -Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 57-11700 2329 $ 110,000.00 -Additional Accounting Details: -Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE IGrant funds employee positions? 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 grant? Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? Initiative#A-1 4-b Initiative Name: CERT Program Increase Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #A-15 New Item Initiative Discussion: During Budget Amendment#3, the Council gave Emergency Management Services the ability to spend $7,000 for the Emergency Management CERT Program from General Fund fund balance. This initiative will appropriate funds from the General Fund Fund Balance The following is the justification for this request. Last year the program received approximately$14,000 in student fees and $28,000 from a combination of EMPG and Citizen Corps grants. The office supplies and staff support were covered by the general fund and are not part of the $42,000. Emergency Management Services has been advised that the EMPG Program grant ($12,500)will not continue in Federal FY-11 and has no indication as to the amount, if any, of the other Federal FY-11 EMPG ($15,000) or Citizen Corp ($2,300) grants that the City typically receives. Current grant funding ends March 31, 2011. The loss of the EMPG grants results in a revenue shortfall of approximately$7,000 to continue the program through the end of FY-11. Emergency Management Services currently has five new classes scheduled for the remainder of FY-11. The anticipated expense for the five classes is $10,750. This request is for a fund balance appropriation of$7,000 to complete the CERT program and will be used to cover the costs of the instructors, kits and manuals for the remainder of FY-11. Initiative#A-15 I 1 i I i CERT Program Increase Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-15 2010-11 Initiative Number j 1 _ Fiscal Year Emergency Management Services New Item Department Type of Initiative Cory Lyman 1 Sherrie Collins 799-3601/535-6136 Prepared By 1 Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- i $ (7,000.00) I Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $1O I $0 Internal Service Fund I I i I TotalF $0! I $0 Enterprise Fund J Total $01 Other Fund Total $ - - $0 I 1 Staffin• Im•act: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: i I I I I Initiative#A-15-a s IIIAccounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 02-00340 2590 $ 7,000.00 •dditional Accounting Details: Arec 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 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#A-15-b Initiative Name: Bomb Detection and Disposal Equipment Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-16 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The State of Utah received a federal grant to purchase bomb detection/disposal equipment. The SLCPD responds to any of the calls in the SLC area, and has been designated as the agency for bomb response for the State in the capitol city. As such, they have agreed to reimburse for the expense of the equipment,and we have received the funds. This request is to open the budget to accept the amount of$8,200. Initiative#A-16 Bomb Detection and Disposal Equipment Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-16 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Police New Item Department - Type of Initiative Krista Dunn 799-3625 Prepared By 11111 Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- $ - - Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund $ 8,200.00 Total 8 200.00 0 Internal Service Fund Fund 60 Total 0 Enterprise Fund Total 0 0 Other Fund Total 0 0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 0 Position Title: . Initiative#A-16-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 02-00055 1380 _$ 8,200.00 Total _ $ 8,200.00 I I I Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount 02-00055 2254-08 $ 8,200.00 Total I$ 8,200.00 Additional Accounting Details: I Grant funds employee positions?H NA 'Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA I _ If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant?I NA _ I Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA I _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#A-16-b Initiative Name: Police Department Overtime Reimbursements Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #A-17 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The Police Department has contracted with multiple agencies to provide law enforcement functions within the community that address major public safety issues above and beyond everyday policing. These services are performed on an overtime basis, and the city is reimbursed for the officers' time. These are issues including gang, narcotics, underage drinking, street racing, and other types of enforcment. This budget amendment request is to increase the projected revenues to reimburse the overtime expenses of these officers to reflect the actual reimbursements that will be received by the end of the fiscal year, and cover the overtime the City has already paid the officers. The total amount of these reimbursements should be approximately$57,500. Initiative#A-1 7 Police Department Overtime Reimbursements I I Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-17 2010-11 Initiative Number I i i Fiscal Year Police _ New Item Department I I Type of Initiative Krista Dunn 799-3625 Prepared By L_ J L _Telephone Contact I (Negative) I Positive _ General Fund-Fund Balance- $ - i i_ Impact AMBIIIIIIIIEEIME MIIIIIWEE General Fund $ ,57,500.00 Total $ 57,500.00 $0 _ IInternal Service Fund (Fund 60 Total jr $0 1 Enterprise Fund _ Total $0 $0 Other Fund T Total) $0 $0 • •'Requested Number of 0 0 — Position Title: 1 H j H Initiative#A-17-a Amor, ■Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 02-00055 1446-08 $ 500.00 02-00013 1446-03 $ 4,300.00 02-00013 1446 $ 2,600.00 02-00013 1446-13 $ 3,200.00 0-200031 1446-10 $ 4,100.00 02-00031 1446-07 $ 2,600.00 02-00031 1446-14 $ 2,900.00 02-00045 1446-02 $ 2,700.00 02-00045 1446-05 $ 30,000.00 02-00047 1446-09 $ 4,600.00 Total $ 57,500.00 -Expenditure: - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 02-00055 2133 $ 500.00 02-00013 2133 $ 10,100.00 0-200031 2133 $ 9,600.00 02-00045 2133 $ 32 700.00 02-00047 2133 $ 4,600.00 Total $ 57,500.00 _Additional Accounting Details: II II -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 grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA i 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#A-17-b Initiative Name: Solar Project Assessment Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #A-18 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The Sustainability Division proposes to use $100,000 for a Solar Project Assessment. The funding source would be from the $5,500,000 portion of the one-time $7 million distribution from the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility (SLVSWMF) which was received in Feb 2011. The solar project assessment would help the Sustainability Division to determine the: 1. best financing options for a solar facility to support the Public Safety Building net-zero goal (Power Purchase Agreements, leasing, purchase, or some combination thereof) 2. benefits of Federal tax issues, solar grants, Brownfield grants and any other discounts are available to the City 3. resulting price of electricity we would produce for each option analyzed 4. best way to use the electricity and value it (Qualified Facility, Net-metered or direct) 5. most cost-effective site to place the solar panels, including analysis of the old City landfill site 6. ways to assist in creating an RFP(s) to design and build the solar project Initiative#A-18 Solar Project Assessment Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-18 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services New Item Department I Type of Initiative Greg Davis 801-535-6123 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 Enterprise Fund .ear, Refuse Fund Note-funded by the 5.5M already received from the SLVSWMF Total, $0 $0 Other Fund Total $0 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 0 Position Title: Initiative#A-18-a •ccounting Detail ►rant#and CFDA#If Applicable evenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount xpenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 57-11700 2329 $ 100,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE Grant funds employee positions? 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 grant? Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? Initiative#A-18-b Initiative Name: FEMA-US Department of Homeland Security,2010 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response(SAFER)Hiring Grant Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#C1 Grants for New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Fire Department applied for and received a $1,236,262 grant from the US Department of Homeland Security,Federal Emergency Management Agency, under the 2010 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response(SAFER)Hiring program. The purpose of the grant is to provide funding directly to fire departments and volunteer firefighter interest organizations in order to help increase the number of trained,"front-line"firefighters available in the community. These funds will pay for the salary and benefits of eleven(11)new front-line personnel for a two year period. The grant does not require that the positions be retained after the grant end date,however it is anticipated that the positions may be retained depending on budgetary circumstances at the time the grant ends. This grant was originally brought in under budget opening#4 FY10. At that time the Fire Department expected to receive$969,638. This request will increase the budget for this grant by the difference of $266,624 received. There is no required match. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#C-1 . ft FEMA-US Department of Homeland Security.2010 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER)Hiring Grant Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#C1 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Grants for New Staff Fire Department Resources Department I Type of Initiative John Vuyk/Sherrie Collins 799-4210/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- _ None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 Total $0 Total $0 72-Grant Fund $ 266,624.00 Total _$ 266,624.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: 0004 Initiative C-1-a I _Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: MW-2010-FH-00741 -97.044 -Revenue: _ Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-71001 1360 I $ 266,624.00 -Expenditure: - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP 17271001 2121-01 $ 266,624.00 -Additional Accounting Details: To create additional budget of$266,624 in cost center 7271001 -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 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? Yes Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative#C-1-b Initiative Name: Recapture Remaining General Fund CIP Completed and Closed Projects Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative# D1 Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: This request decreases the remaining budgets of five (5) general fund CIP completed and closed projects totaling $116,083.68, and increases the general fund CIP cost over run account to cover future unanticipated cost over-runs on CIP projects. Initiative#D-1 I I I Recapture Remaining General Fund CIP Completed and Closed Projects Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D1 I__ 2010-11 Initiative Number J Fiscal Year CED-HAND Housekeeping Department _ Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark I Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 --I Prepared By -I Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- j None I Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total I Class C Total $0� I Impact Fees Total: $0 Totall $0j r I I Staffin•Im•act: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: I I i I I I � Initiative D-1-a Accounting Detail Srant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP 8306023-Safety Light Additions 2700 $ (2,199.83) 8307028-Traffic Signal Installations 2700 $ (1,361.72) 8309019-Arterial Lighting Redwood Rd 2700 $ (93,868.29) 8309024-Arterial Lighting California Ave 2700 $ (18,327.08) 8398048-Jordan River Trail Signals 2700 $ (326.76) 83-11099 GF cost over-run 2700 $ 116,083.68 Additional Accounting Details: ems, rant 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 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#D-1-b Initiative Name: Recapture-Remaining Housing and Urban Development(HUD)Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)and Housing Opportunity for Persons with Aids (HOPWA) Budgets Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D2 Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: This request decreases the remaining budgets of two (2) completed and/or closed HUD, CDBG R projects in the amount of$136,175.12; six(6)CDBG projects in the amount of$150,578.93 totaling $286,754.05; and two (2) HOPWA projects totaling $6,017.96, and increases the cost over run accounts of the respective programs for future reprogramming as per HUD Federal Guidelines. Initiative#D-2 Ank Recapture Remaining Housing and Urban Development(HUD)Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)and Housing Opportunity for Persons with Aids (HOPWA) Budgets Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D2 2010-2011 Initiative Number I I Fiscal Year CED-HAND Housekeeping Department I I Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Jennifer Schumann 535-6136/535-7276 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total $ - $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative D-2-a I l Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Community Development Block Grant 1 L83-10071 Bell Ave(CDBG-R) I 2700 I$ 50,724.10 83-10072 Burbank Ave(CDBG-R) 2700 $ '85,451.02) __i83-10074 CDBG-R Cost Overrun i ) 2700 i$ 136,175.12 172-61011 Community Action ProgLamH 2590 $ (754.78)11 172-61014 Utah AIDS Foundation HOPW_ 2590 $ (5,263.18)j 172-61020 HOPWA Cost Overrun I 2590 $ 6,017.96 i I 171-34039 Boys&Girls Club Cap West P. 2590 $ (1,882.95)1 71-34045 Utah Alco Found/House of Hot 2590 $ (34,695.00) '71.34099 CDBG Cost Overrun—7� 2590 L$ 36,577.95 71-35048 Neighborhood House PSBI 2590 $ (353.32)j 71-35051 Salvation Army Roof Rehab PI 2590 $ (40,567.78) 171-35002 Finance Support 2590 _ $ (6,555.88) 71-35099 CDBG Cost Overrun 2590 $ 47,476.98 71.36054 Salvation Army Basement He e 2590 L$ (66,524.00) 71-36099 CDBG Cost Overrun 2590 $ 66,524.00 I Total Recapture $ 292,772.01 Additional Accounting Details: I Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue'? NA 1--- If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA _ I Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are __, _ eliminated? i 1 I NA —Does grant duplicate services provided by private or 1-Does sector? NA Initiative#D-2-b Initiative Name: HUD CDBG and HOPWA Budget Adjustments Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2011 Initiative #D3 Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: This request is to establish budget in the amount of $82,179.67 in cost center 7135060. During Budget Amendment #4, FY10, Community Development Corp (CDC) program income received, was recaptured and moved from 7135060, to a cost over run account for reprogramming. This created a 004. budget deficit in cost center 7135060 where the cash was received but not budgeted for. This action will create budget for the deficit and balance the account. In addition, this request is to create budget in the amount of $9,429.98 and establish a new HOPWA cost over run cost center for the year the HOPWA funds were allocated from HUD. This will enable the funds to be reprogrammed for future use in accordance with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) Federal Guidelines Initiative#D-3 I I I Recapture Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Completed and Closed Protects I Initiative Name BA#1 FY2011 Initiative#D3 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year L CED-HAND Housekeeping Department 1 Type of Initiative ,-, LuAnn Clark I Jennifer Schumann 535-6136/535-7276 Prepared By Telephone Contact T (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $01 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total] $0I $0 Other Fund Total 1$ - $0 Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: I i j I I I Initiative D-3-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount CDBG 71-35060 CDC Program Income 2590 $ 82,179.67 Budget Only HOPWA 72-606XX HOPWA Cost Overrun 2590 $ 9,429.98 Budget Only •dditional Accounting Details: To create budget in 71-35060.Cash was previously moved creating a budget deficit. To create budget in a new HOPWA Cost Overrun account.Cash was identified in cost center 71-60612 from left over program funds,however,there is no budget identified. 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 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 Aistoisit Initiative#D-3-b • Initiative Name: Interest Income on Bonding Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D-4 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2009A, were issued in 1-ebruary 2009 to tund Salt Lake City's Public Services Maintenance Facility project,and the Office Building construction project(Barnes Bank Building Project).At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Trustee. Since then, the proceeds have been earning interest. This amendment is to appropriate interest earned during the last quater of fiscal year 2010 and the first two quaters of fiscal year 2011. Totals of$21,732 for the Public Services Maintenance Facility project and$19,790 for the Office Building construction project have accumulated in each respective fund since the previous amendment which was calculated through the third quarter of fiscal year 2010. General Obligation Bonds Series 2009B,were issued in June 2009 to fund Salt Lake City's cost of renovating,improving and preserving the old main library building and providing related facilities located approximately 5th South Street and 2nd East Street to establish a science,culture and art education center known as The Leonardo.At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Paying Agent.Since then,the unspent proceeds have been earning interest.This amendment is to appropriate interest earned during the last quater of fiscal year 2010 and the first two quaters of fiscal year 2011. A total of$37,330 for The Leonardo Project have accumulated since since the previous amendment which was calculated through the third quarter of fiscal year 2010. Initiative#D-4 Initiative Name: Interest Income on Bonding Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #D-4 Initiative Type: Housekeeping General Obligation Bonds Series 2010A, were issued in April 2010 for the purpose of providing a public safety administration and operations building, an emergency operations center, and related facilities. The total par amount of bonds issued was $25,000,000. The bonds in the aggregate principal amount of$5,845,000 were designated as 'Tax-Exempt Bonds."The bonds in the aggregate principal amount of$19,155,000 were designated as "Federally Taxable-Direct Pay-Build America Bonds."At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Paying Agent. Since then, the unspent proceeds have been earning interest. This amendment is to appropriate interest earned during the last quater of fiscal year 2010 and the first two quaters of fiscal year 2011. A total of$21,541 for the "tax-exempt bonds" has accumulated since the bonds were issued. A total of$49,573 for the "Federally Taxable-Direct Pay-Build America Bonds" has accumulated since the bonds were issued. General Obligation Bonds Series 2010B, were issued in November 2010 tor the purpose of providing a public safety administration and operations building, an emergency operations center, and related facilities. The total par amount of bonds issued was $100,000,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Paying Agent. Since then, the unspent proceeds have been earning interest.This amendment is to appropriate interest earned during the second quater of fiscal year 2011. A total of$57,623 for the General Obligation Bonds Series 2010B has accumulated since the bonds were issued. Initiative#D-4 Interest Income on Bonding Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D-4 2010-11 Initiative Number L Fiscal Year Finance Housekeeping Department L_ Type of Initiative Dan Mule'l Marina Scott 535-6411/535-6565 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 _ $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 83-CIP Fund 207,589 Total $207,589 $0 I Requested•Number of 0 0 Position Title: Initiative#D-4-a Afte Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-09064 1830 $ 21,732.00 83-09071 1830 $ 19,790.00 83-06081 1830 $ 37,330.00 83-10081 1830 $ 21,541.00 83-10083 1830 $ 49,573.00 83-11084 1830 $ 57,623.00 $ 207,589.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-09064 2700 $ 21,732.00 83-09071 2700 $ 19,790.00 83-06081 2700 $ 37,330.00 83-10081 2700 $ 21,541.00 83-10083 2700 $ 49,573.00 83-11084 2700 $ 57,623.00 $ 207,589.00 Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? (Yes or No) Is there a potential for grant to continue? (Yes or No) If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? (Yes or No) Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Yes or No) Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? (Yes or No) Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? (Yes or NO) % Initiative#D-4-b Initiative Name: Special Revenue Housing Development Program Income Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2011 Initiative#D-5 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: The Housing Section of Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) has generated program income from principle and interest payments received from borrowers. The Council usually appropriates this program income in the House Section to fund additional loans. It is requested that the Council once again appropriates this program income to fund additional loans for use by the Housing Section in its Renter Rehabilitation,CDBG and Home Programs. This will allow additional loans to the citizens of Salt Lake City. Initiative#D-5 Special Revenue Housing Development Program Income Initiative Name BA#4 FY 2011 Initiative#D-5 2010-11 Initiative Number I MIFiscal Year Finance Housekeeping Department I - Type of Initiative I Elwin Hellmann 801-535-6424 Prepared By EllTelephone Contact MI (Negative) MIPositive General Fund -Fund Balance- - Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total ',0 0 Internal Service Fund Total ',0 0 Enter.rise Fund 78 Housin• Loans Fund 940,797 Total ',940 797 0 Other Fund 71 CDBG 0•-ratin• Fund 900,618 Total 900 618 0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 0 Position Title: Initiative#D-5-a -Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: .1.1.1110.111111111111 -Revenue: - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 78.00201 Renter Rehab. 1305 $ 40,179.00 78-36010 CDBG Loans 1974-03 $ 900,618.00 Total Enterprise $ 940,797.00 , 171-36010 CDBG Housing Loans 1 1310 I $ 900,618.00 {Total Special Revenue t $_ _ _ 900,618.00 I L -Expenditure: - Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount 78-00201 Renter Rehab. 2950 $ 40,179.00 78-00101 CDBG Clearing 2910-71 - $ 900,618.00 78-00101 CDBG Clearing 2950 $ (900,618.00) 78-36010 CDBG Loans 2950 $ 900,618.00 Total Enterprise $ 940 797.00 71-36010 CDBG Housing Loans 2910-15 $ 900,618.00 Total Special Revenue I$ 900,618.00 I Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? (Yes or No Is there a potential for grant to continue? (Yes or No) If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? (Yes or No) 1 ,Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Yes or No) Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are 1 (eliminated? (Yes or No `Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? F-1-- 1 (Yes or NO) I I I 1 Initiative#D-5-b Initiative Name: Land Fill (SLVSWMF) 2011 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #D-6 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: The Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility (SLVSWMF) Board approved a $2.00/ton fee increase to the household trash and construction debris tipping fees, to be effective on 1 July 2011. Please see attached sheet which compares current prices with the fee increase approved by the SLVSWMF. The fee increase was approved by the SLVSWMF Board on 11 March 2011. The fee increase is now being presented to both the Salt Lake City Council and the Salt Lake County Council for their approval. The rationale for the fee increase includes: Maintaining a favorable bond rating. Parameters for the SLVSWMF bond rating stipulate that the unrestricted cash balance be five percent of expenditures. Based on the approved 2011 budget for the SLVSWMF, five percent of expenditures is $633,885. Without a fee increase, unrestricted cash is projected to be $333,587 by year-end 2011; by year-end 2012 it is projected to be ($826,802). With a $2.00/ton fee increase beginning on 1 July 2011, unrestricted cash is projected to be $780,587 by year-end 2011. The fee increase as approved by the SLVSWMF Board would not effect FY2010-2011 Salt Lake City budgets. The impact of the $2.00/ton fee increase to the Refuse Fund FY2011- 2012 budget is currently estimated to be $102,052. The number of tons in 2011 at the SLVSWMF is projected to be 447,000; no change from the 2011 budget presentation. Initiative#D-6 Initiative Name: Land Fill(SLVSWMF)2011 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D-6 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: The SLVSWMF is adding a new revenue account.It will separately track greenwaste tonnage.The additional revenue budget is$357,000.This revenue stream was known when the 2011 budget was pulled together last fall.However,a revenue code did not exist at that time.Therefore the SLVSWMF was advised to add this revenue stream in as a mid-year adjustment.They are doing so now. The CPI used for post closure expenses has increased.An adjustment is required.Therefore $5,033 increase in post closure expense budget is proposed. Currently there is potential that the SLVSWMF will be adding back an additional 1%to some specific payroll expenses.If the economic conditions in the near future do not warrant these additions the change will not be made.The impact of this change would be$23,122 based on known factors.It is possible that this amount could change. A$200,000 trommel screen,for greenwaste screening,was approved in 2010.Delays occurred in the contracting process;it was not purchased in 2010.The need for the trommel screen remains.Hence,$208,075 in budget for the trommel screen is now being requested in 2011.This is an expense increase of$8,075. It is recommended that the mid-year revenue and expense adjustments for the SLVSWMF be approved. Approval of this item will not affect current year intemal City budget and/or financials,but will be implemented by SLVSWMF. Initiative#D-6 I 04, Land Fill (SLVSWMF)2011 Mid-Year Budget Adiustment Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#13-6 2011 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Public Services Housekeeping Department I Type of Initiative Gress Davis 801-535-6123 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund , 0 0 Total $0 $0 Other Fund Landfill Fees $ 447,000.00 $ 894,000.00 Greenwaste Fees $ 357,000.00 $ 357,000.00 Total $ 804,000.00 $ 1,251,000.00 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 0 Position Title: Initiative#D-6-a I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount SLVSWMF Calendar Year 2011 impacts Landfill Fees $ 447,000.00 Greenwaste Fees $ 357,000.00 $ 804,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount SLVSWMF Calendar Year 2011 impacts Post Closure expense $ 5,033.00 • Payroll increases $ 23,121.79 Trommel screen:previously approved for 2010,with price increase $ 208,075.00 $ 236,229.79 Additional Accounting Details: Refuse Fund FY2010-FY2011: impact 5711200 2396 $ - 5711400 2396 $ - 5711600 2396 $ - Refuse Fund FY2011-FY2012: estimated impact _ 5711200 2396 $ 86,400.00 5711400 2396 $ 2,252.00 5711600 2396 $ 13,400.00 This will be taken into account for the FY11-12 Refuse Fund budget. $ 102,052.00 Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE Grant funds employee positions? 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 grant? _ Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? _ Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _ I eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private or i I Non-profit sector? I I Initiative#D-6-b SLVSWMF Fee Comparison Changes highlighted Pick-Up Truck Single Axle Trailers Double Axle Trailers Commercial Transfer Station Flat Rate Flat Rate Flat Rate By Ton By Ton 2011 July 2011 2011 July 2011 2011 July 2011 2011 July 2011 2011 July 2011 Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed household trash $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 24.00 $ 26.00 $ 26.00 $ 28.00 household trash, SLCity and SLCounty n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 24.00 $ 26.00 $ 24.00 $ 26.00 clean green waste $ 5.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 16.00 16.00 construction debris $ 10.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ n/a n/a $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 24.00 clean soil n clean sod $ $ 26.00 n/a n/a $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 n/a n/a clean asphalt n concrete $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 n/a n/a leaves,debagged $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 n/a n/a deceased animals n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 100.75 100.75 n/a special/medical waste n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 100.75 $ n/a asbestos N friable n/a n/a n/a n a $ $ 100.75 n/a n/a asbestos � non-friable / / / n/a n/a $ 500.75 $ 500.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 100.75 $ 100.75 n/a n/a household hazardous waste- determined by I-ID n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a compost sale- per scoop(green waste ground to mulch-like product) $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 n/a n/a Initiative Name: Transfer of Funds From the MBA Fund to the General Fund Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2011 Initiative#D-7 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: In the Fiscal Year 2011 budget a transfer of funds from the MBA Fund was appropriated in the General Fund as a transfer in from the MBA Fund in the amount of$147,441. The off setting amount in the MBA Fund was not budgeted. This initiative will develop a budget in the MBA Fund for the transfer out to the General Fund in the amount of$147.441. Initiative#D-7 Transfer of Funds From the MBA Fund to the General Fund Initiative Name BA#4 FY 2011 Initiative#D-7 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Finance Housekeeping Department I I Type of Initiative Teresa Beckstrand 801-535-6416 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total $0 - $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 0 Position Title: Initiative#D-7-a I I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable- Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 4 Expenditure: Cost Center Number _ Object Code Number L Amount 66-00033 2910-05 $ 147,441:00 Grant funds employee positions? (Yes or No) is there a potential for grant to continue? (Yes or No) If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant?I (Yes or No) Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Yes or No) i Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _ __ Ieliminated? r (Yes or No) I Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? i (Yes or NO) 'niaalive#D-7-b Ainw Initiative Name: Move Library's Contingency to Operational Expenses Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #D-8 Initiative Type: House Keeping Initiative Discussion: 2010-11 Approved Operating Revenue Budget of$13,414,649 2010-11 Approved Operating Expenditure Budget of$13,414,649 including a $210,000 contingency. Avow Given prior year shortfalls in Library Property Tax revenue and the associated uncertainty of 2010-11 Property Tax revenue, the Library has managed Total Operating Expenditures at $13,204,649 during the year. With the final reconciliation of 2010 property tax complete and 3 months remaining on the Library's other revenues, the Library is confident 2010-11 Operating Revenues will be approximately$13,401,629 allowing approximately$197,000 of the Contingency line item to be used for additional Operating Expenditures. It is the Library's intent to 1)fund additional Materials expenditures by$100,000 and 2)fund a one-time offset for prior year wage freeze for Library personnel. Approval of this item will not affect current year internal City budget and/or financials, but will be implemented by the City Library Initiative#D-8 I I Move Library's Contingency to Operational Expenses Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D-8 T 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Library House Keeping 1 Department Type of Initiative Beth Elder 801-524-8201 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- _ Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total r $0 I $0I Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund I 1 Total _4 $01 I $0 Other Fund Total) $01 I I Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 0! Position Title: L Initiative#D-8-a Accounting Detail 3rant#and CFDA#If Applicable.: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount xpenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Aivistk, dditional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? (Yes or No) Is there a potential for grant to continue? (Yes or No) If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? (Yes or No) Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Yes or No) Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? (Yes or No) Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? (Yes or NO) imek, Initiative#D-8-b Initiative Name: State of Utah,Department of Public Safety,Division of Homeland Security,FY 2008 Urban Area Security Initiative(UASI) Grant Allocation Increase Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2011 Initiative#E-1 Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Emergency Management Services Division applied for and received $1,476,000 of grant funding from the State of Utah Division of Homeland Security under the 2008 UASI program. This grant was brought in under budget amendment#2 FY 2009,Initiative#E-7. Of these funds, $330,000 is being used to pay full time staff to coordinate and plan the program, $40,000 to develop and implement homeland security support programs and adopt ongoing DHS National Initiatives; $75,000 for materials required to conduct planning activities;and$800,000 was used to purchase Stocked Mobile Interoperable Tactical Solution Vehicle. $231,000 of these funds were to be a contractual component with the State of Utah. The State of Utah has since decided to allow the City to use the$231,000 for equipment and allocate an additional $369,000, also to be used for equipment, bringing the total grant allocation to$1,845,000. The equipment is to be purchased under the UASI Fusion Center Investment Program component under the grant. This request is to allocate the additional$369,000 of budget to facilitate the grant increase. Initiative#E-1 Ask State of Utah. Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security, FY 2008 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Allocation Increase Initiative Name BA#1 FY2011 Initiative#E-1 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Grants Requiring No Emergency Management Services New Staff Resources Department I Type of Initiative Alicia Johnson/Sherrie Collins 799-3602/535-6136 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72-Grant Fund $ 369,000.00 Total $ 369,000.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Amok Initiative#E-1-a I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: DES-2008-UASI-001 97.067 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number j Amount 172-10906 1 1370 i $ 369,000.00 1 Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount '72-10906 2700 _ $ 369,000.00 1 � f I ! � I _ Additional Accounting Details: I Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? I _ NA B 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? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or 'Non-profit sector? r I I NA Initiative 14E-1-b Initiative Name: FY 2008 Homeland Security Pass Thru Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #E-2 Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: Salt Lake City has an existing contract with Beck Disaster Recover (BDR) to provide Valley-wide training, plan development, plan implementation training and exercise for evacuation of large venues. The initial training, Phase I, was completed in December 2010. The funding for Phase I was provided by the City's 2009 Homeland Security Grant and contributions from local law enforcement entities who are members of the Salt Lake Police Alliance. The City administers the BDR contract and invoices the other agencies. The Salt Lake County Homeland Security Grants Council directs the distribution of the State Homeland Security Grants to entities in the Salt Lake Valley. Based on projects that were under budget, the Council identified $49,000 in unused grant funds from the 2008 Homeland Security Grant. The Council voted to use those funds, which are administered by Unified Fire Authority, to complete Plan Development (Phase II) and Plan Implementation Training, (Phase III) of the venue evacuation training and exercise program, Since the City administers the BDR contract and will implement the venue plan development, training and exercise for Phases II and III of the program, the County agreed to pass the funding through to the City for continuation of the exercises. This request is to establish budget in the amount of$49,000 which will be used to pay the Consultant, BDR for their services. Initiative#E-2 ! i FY 2008 Homeland Security Pass Thru ! 1 Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#E-2 2010-11 L Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Grants Requiring No CED-H.A.N.D. New Staff Resources Department I I I Type of Initiative Cory Lyman/Sherrie Collins 799-3602/535-6050 Prepared By I I ( Telephone Contact I L (Negative) Positive !General Fund-Fund Balance- 1 I Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $01 $,11, Internal Service Fund Total $01 I $0 !Enterprise Fund Total $01 Other Fund 72-61132 I $ 49,000.00 _ Total $ 49,000.00 $0 Staffin. Im.act: !Requested Number of 0 I FTE's: Position Title: _ i I Initiative#E-2-a Accounting Detail 3rant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-61132 1370 $ 49,000.00 xpenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-61132 2590 $ 49,000.00 Alosth dditional Accounting Details: rant 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 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#E-2-b Initiative Name: US Department of Interior - Fisher Mansion Carriage House Preservation Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative # E3 Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Mayor's Office along with the CED Engineering Division applied for and received a $150,000 grant from the US Department of Interior, Historic Preservation fund under the Save America's Treasures grant program. These funds were awarded for preservation of the Fisher Mansion Carriage House. Preservation improvements include replacement and repair of roof, bracing existing chimney to meet seismic requirements and restore damaged chimney masonry, repair and replace gutter and roof drainage system, reinforcement and repair of cracks in existing exterior masonry walls, upgrade existing floor and roof diaphragms to meet current seismic criteria, paint doors and windows and upgrade and install electrical and mechanical infrastructure. The grant requires a $150,000 match which will be met with the $120,000 Fisher Mansion CIP allocation and private and public donations. Initiative#E-3 AO* : US Department of Interior-Fisher Mansion Carriage House Preservation Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#E3 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants Requiring No CED Engineering/Mayors Office New Staff Resources Department I Type of Initiative Sean Fvfe/Sherrie Collins 535-6344!535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total �0 .4004. Total �0 Total L. 72-Grant Fund $ 150,000.00 Total $ 150,000.00 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative E-3-a IIIAccounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 49-10-ML-2044 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72 New Cost Center 1360 $ 150,000.00 -Expenditure: Cost Center NumberII Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP 72 New Cost Center 2700 $ 150,000.00 _Additional Accounting Details: 11 -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 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? No Initiative#E-3-b Initiative Name: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation-Pulling Together for the Jordan River Grant Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#G-1 Council Consent Agenda-Grant Awards Initiative Discussion: The Public Services Open Space Division applied for and received a$25,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. These funds were awarded to create a strategy for public and private partnerships and develop a plan to control invasive plants and noxious weeds threatening the Jordan River. The 52 river mile riparian corridor of the Jordan River runs through 15 municipalities and provides an ecological connection between Utah Lake and the Great Sat lake . The project team and steering committee by local cooperators from the South Shore Cooperative Weed Management Area will develop an Integrated Pest management Plan,native plant restoration guides,training programs and educational materials to increase public awareness. Outcomes include an Integrated Pest Management Plan that provides a framework, including weed maps and identification guides, for public and private land owners to implement a sustained early detection and rapid response to noxious and invasive weed; increased quality riparian habitat for land birds, shore bids and neo tropical migratory song birds;and evaluation,mapping,and prioritizing of invasive and noxious weeds along nine liner miles of Salt Lake City owned property on the Jordan River, and increase public awareness about the adverse impacts of invasive and noxious plants through staff and volunteer training programs and coordinated volunteer weed pulls. This request will replenish the grant holding account. The$25,000 grant funds will be used to secure the services of a environmental consultant to provide project facilitation,steering committee coordination,weed mapping,IPMP development,training manuals,guides and document development. The grant requires a$25,145 match which will come from the City's Open Space fund. These funds will be combined with the grant funds for the contractual services. Initiative#G-1 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation- Pulling Together for the Jordan River Grant Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#G-1 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Council Consent CED Agenda-Grant Awards Type of Initiative Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund ,000016 Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72-99999 $ 25,000.00 Total $ 25,000.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#G-1-a 1 1 1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-99999 1370 $ 25,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-99999 2590 $ 25,000.00 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? NA 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 IDoes grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A I � Initiative#G-1-b Initiative Name: State Office of Crime Victim Reparations, 2010 VAWA Grant Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #G-2 Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards Initiative Discussion: The Police Department received a $18,963.82 grant from the State of Utah, Office of Crime Victim Reparations for the continuation of their VAWA funded Victim Advocate Program. Of these funds, Amoop $18,763.83 will be used to pay the salary and benefits of (.50) FTE victim advocate who provides on scene crisis counseling and information pertaining to resource services to victims of domestic violence; and $200 will be used for emergency victim assistance needs such as food, clothing, transportation, etc. The PD receives this grant on an annual basis. A $6,356.54 match is required which will be satisfied by the payment of salary and benefits of the victim advocate program coordinator. These funds are budgeted for within the Police Departments general fund budget. This request will replenish the grant holding account. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#G-2 State Office of Crime Victim Reparations, 2010 VAWA Grant Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#G-2 2010-11 Initiative Number L Fiscal Year Council Consent CED Agenda-Grant Awards Type of Initiative Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total _ $0 $0 Other Fund 72-99999 $ 18,963.82 Total $ 18,963.82 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#G-2-a lk Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-99999 1370 $ 18,963.82 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-99999 2590 ,$ 18,963.82 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? NA 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#G-2-b Initiative Name: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control - Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Agency (HIDTA) Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #G-3 Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received an additional $50,000 Rocky Mountain HIDTA grant from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control under their FY 10 program. The SLCPD receives this grant on an annual basis and funds the salary and benefits of an Investigative Law Enforcement Officers assigned to the Metro Narcotics/Drug Enforcement Task Force to address drug issues throughout the Valley. Of the additional funds awarded, $20,000 will be used for travel to local and regional community prevention events that focus on training and educating the medical community in using the Utah Controlled Substance Database, and site visits to other states to review their efforts in combating pharmaceutical drug crime issues; $30,000 will be used for contractual components including awarding an additional $10,000 to the required program evaluation contract; and $20,000 will be awarded to the Department of Occupational and Professional Licensing to conduct educational classes to medical professionals of the changes made to the Controlled Substance Database during the 2010 Utah Legislative Session and the requirement of medical providers to register on the system. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. This request will replenish the grant holding account. Initiative#G-3 Amok Executive Office of the President. Office of National Drug Control-Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Agency(HIDTA) I I Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#G-3 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Council Consent CED Agenda-Grant Awards Type of Initiative Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund-Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72-99999 $ 50,000.00 Total $ 50,000.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#G-3-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72_99999 1370 $ 50,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-99999 2590 $ 50,000.00 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? NA 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#G-3-b isk Initiative Name: State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security- Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) Grant Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #G-4 Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards Initiative Discussion: The Fire Department applied for and received $317,419 from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, under the FEMA Homeland Security Metropolitan Medical Response (MMRS) grant program. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions across the County to plan and implement a Aloe medical response mechanism in the event of a mass casualty or a weapons of mass destruction terrorist attack. The SLC Fire Department is the lead agency partnering with local health, police, fire, hospitals, ambulance and other agencies who make up the MMRS team. Of these funds, $174,271 will be used to purchase equipment; $30,000 will be used for required travel and training to regional and national training workshops by the MMRS Steering Committee and coordinators; $30,000 of the grant funding will be used to plan and coordinate MMRS activities, drills and grant preparation as is required by the grant regulations; and $83,148 will be used to pay for the Doctor contracted by the Fire Department who provides pharmaceutical oversight as is State regulated in order for the Fire Department to disburse pharmaceuticals. This request will replenish the grant holding account. No match is required. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Initiative#G-4 State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security- Metropolitan Medical Response System(MMRS) Grant Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#G-4 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Council Consent CED Agenda-Grant Awards Type of Initiative Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund -Fund Balance- None Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total 0 0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund _ _ 72_99999 $ 317,419.00 Total $ 317,419.00 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 FTE's: Position Title: Initiative#G-4-a Accounting Detail Grant# and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-99999 1370 $ 317,419.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-99999 2590 $ 317,419.00 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? NA 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#G-4-b Initiative Name: Fire Department Move to Versaterm Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) for combined System with Police Department Initiative Number: Initiative Type: Initiative Discussion: This is an amendment of the original contract with Versaterm, which provided a CAD system for the Salt Lake City Police Department. The purpose of the amendment is to include the Salt Lake City Fire Department on the CAD system as the first step in combining the Police and Fire Departments' into a single dispatch center. This budget amendment requests additional expense budget from the E-911 fund balance to cover the upgrade of the system to add Fire. E-911 fund balance will be used to offset this expenditure. Initiative Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)for combined System with Police Department Initiative Name 0 2010-11 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Police 0 Department I Type of Initiative • Krista Dunn 799-3625 Prepared By Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- $ - Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Fund 60 385,000 Total $385,000 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total $0 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 0 Position Title: Initiative-a Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Total $ - Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 60-00620 235202 $ 385,000.00 Total $ 385,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: 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 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-b Initiative Name: Outside Counsel -- Oil Spill Litigation Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #A-20 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The Administration is requesting $200,000 for external counsel to engage in litigation related to two oil spills that have occurred during the last year. These funds are being requested from the General Fund Fund Balance. Initiative#A-20 Outside Counsel --Oil Spill Litigation Initiative Name BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-20 2010-11 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year (City Department) New Item Department Type of Initiative (Employee Name) (Contact Number) Ed Rutan Telephone Contact (Negative) Positive General Fund - Fund Balance- $ (200,000.00) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual Impact Amount Impact Amount General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Ask Total _ _ $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total $0 $0 Staffing Impact: Requested Number of 0 0 Position Title: A Initiative#A-20-a Accounting Detail 'Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable_ Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 15-01430 2390 $ 200,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: r-- Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? (Yes or No) Is there a potential for grant to continue? (Yes or No) If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? (Yes or No) Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Yes or No) Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? I (Yes or No) Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? (Yes or NO) Initiative#A-20-b Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Amendment #4 April Getiertil�->{a�dd-..:,1%nt�a�ct�. Fiscal Year A: t nt tl`Iimr.`act ; .. - p Fitrait�l.B 'Fitts l3atatiee act Amount' FTEImPae • , mots Ili# - .. e ve A " it f` rerit) t?o�it� �1`����ive Section A New items 1. Sidewalk Rehab SAA FY $4,714.15 2008-09 Adjustment 2. CORIS System For $60,000.00 $-60,000.00 $-60,000.00 Justice Courts 3. IMS Employee $55,000.00 Retirement Costs 4. City Owned Building $111,500.00 Assessment 5. CIP PSB Tenant $205,000.00 Expenses 6. 900 South Corridor Trail $700,000.00 and Bike Lanes 7. Credit Card Fees $35,000.00 $-35,000.00 $-35,000.00 Increase 8. Unemployment Cost $203,000.00 Increase in Risk Fund 9. Wasatch Hollow House $50,000.00 Demolition 10. Plaza 349 Security Guard $16,000.00 $32,000.00 $-16,000.00 $-16,000.00 Services d scai l'i��r�� �A. d �l.F� et �j uv. 'mac • - yv. =# �Ii e a � ``411.1)4�f° LL� ���. • _ �'`I' �.�._. .. -=..r,s4.. J. -.dos 11. 200 South Bicycle $620,000.00 Corridor U of U to Downtown 12. Street Lighting Repairs $30,000.00 $-30,000.00 $-30,000.00 13. Dispatch Phone $40,000.00 Recording System 14. Community Food $110,000.00 Assessment 15. Cert Program Increase $7,000.00 $-7,000.00 $-7,000.00 16. Bomb Detection and $8,200.00 $8,200.00 Disposal Equipment 17. Police Dept Overtime $57,500.00 $57,500.00 Reimbursement 18. Solar Project Assessment $100,000.00 19. Combine Fire Dispatch $385,000.00 with Police Dispatch Genla�ad Ic#'. Fi ca1;'Y4r Anninil I i aet • ;G er E 'trli d� dce #ifi r k `ifanee # Itii alive is a 1rtt act A ouii Otta ct ;It ct f • Auuount (If ►I: ent r II t 20. Outside Council—Oil $200,000.00 $-200,000.00 $-200,000.00 Spill Litigation Section :B Gra t for.E fisting S a tte our'ces .. Section G • 4 GtahtS,ff�rl ew.Staff.Resourci ` 1. Fire FEMA Safer Hiring $266,624.00 11 Grant Section. h us ke ping . 1. Recapture CIP Complete $116,083.68 and Closed Projects 2. Recapture HUD and $292,772.01 CDBG Completed Projects 3. HUD CDBG and $.00 HOPWA Budget Adjustments 5a General Fetid fltae heal Year Antta1�tnpaet ' uith'f � �7tf - i?t8t1tti7i � # I16t5i�Velsldi�eti s�iiipaint FFE �f ` ,daunt Ofb�tieiftj Ph ftfpt 4. Interest Income on $207,589.00 Bonding 5. Special Revenue Housing $1,841,415.00 Develop Program Income 6. Landfill 2011 Mid-Year $.00 Budget Adjustment 7. MBA Transfer to $147,441.00 General Fund 8. Library Contingency $197,000.00 Move to Operations Expense Section, E, Grants Reghiting No New Staff Resources 1. St of Utah Dept of Public $369,000.00 Safety UASI Grant Increase 2. Additional FY2008 $49,000.00 Homeland Security Grant 3. Fisher Mansion Roof $150,000.00 Section F• Donations SSeetiof G Council Cotisunt Agenda -. Grant Awards 1. National Fish and $25,000.00 Wildlife Foundation— Jordan River Grant 1 55- �e��raTs�hittll� I�i���t - fiscal Year :Animal Iin 'ait ' Gc�ieial l��tnt� lF';u�� ativ�e Nafnii : Impact Amount FTE. I �di� at�t ifipa��t �` A bent f ifferent) Prt'siti+ve' fv ive . . . 2. St of Utah Office of $18,963.82 Crime Victim Reparation Grant 3. Federal National Drug $50,000.00 Control Drug Trafficking Grant—HIDTA 4. St of Utah Dept of Public $317,419.00 Safety Medical Response System MMRS Grant Section is Council_Added.Items A ' SCANNED TO: {'~ SCANNED BY: RALPH BECKER R _F,7�(A`uT��'1 ,11 T1{p1��y]�`' ,,�/,V�lj��jT l0// MAYOR 1 1ECr'1,j' N�Fi mot\ 1rtrome i�l�i-r► r DATE: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR SLC COUNCIL OFFICItITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 1) MAY 03 2011 / Date Received: By Davi, veritt, "ef of Staff Date sent to Council: S , _All TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 28,2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Budget Opening#4 for Fiscal Year 2010-11 STAFF CONTACT: Gina Chamness(801) 535-7766 Gordon Hoskins(801) 535-6394 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a public hearing date to discuss the budget amendment#4 for Fiscal Year 2010-11. BUDGET IMPACT: General Fund $ 213,700.00 Other Funds $4,232,634.83 CIP Fund $2,014,886.83 Total Request $6,461,221.66 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com There are 18 new items, 7 of which have an impact on the General Fund. Item A-2 is a request to cover the extra IMS costs for the conversion to the CORIS system in the Justice Courts. Item A-3 IMS is requesting funding to cover the cost of two employees retirement. Item A-4 is a request for funding to perform structural study of City owned properties. Item A-5 will establish a budget for both revenue and expenses for properties at the Public Safety Bldg location until the properties are relocated. Item A-6 a request for reallocation of CIP funds for the 900 South trail and bike lanes. Item A-7 request for funding to cover the increase cost of credit card use fees for bldg permits. Item A-8 request funding for the demolition of the old house on the Wasatch Hollow property from the surplus land account. Item A-10 is a request to increase the security guard presents at Plaza 349. Item A-11 requests reallocation of CIP funds to fund 200 South bicycle corridor from the U of U to downtown. Item A-12 request to increase the street lighting repairs for additional$30,000. Item A-15 in budget opening #3 the Council gave the okay for the CERT program to spend additional funds. This opening addresses those funds of$7,000. Item A-16 the Police Department has received$8,200 from the State of Utah for bomb detection and disposal equipment. Item A-17 the Police Department is requesting additional expenses for overtime that have been reimbursement in the amount of$57,500. Item A-18 is a request of$100,000 to fund a solar project assessment from the funds the City received from the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility in February 2011. Adpow There are 8 housekeeping items. There are 2 items dealing with project recapture of funds. One item is budgeting for the interest on bonds. Item#D-6 is for information only on the Land Fill midyear budget adjustments. Item #D-7 is establishing a budget in the MBA fund for funds transferred to the general fund. The General Fund has already budgeted for that transfer.Number #D-8 is a request from the Library to use their contingency funds in the operations. There are 8 grants which require an appropriation, of those requests 4 items are for grants that were funded from the grants holding account. These budgets will replenish the holding account. Also attached is a revenue projection for FY 2010-11, prepared by the Department of Finance. The projections are showing a deficit of $(270,000). The major decreases are $(631,000) in parking ticket revenue and Ground Transportation move to the Airport Department for $(224,000). These are offset with an increase of$534,000 in Sales Tax revenue which is a 4% increase over last year revenues: PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2010-2011) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 67 of 2010 which Adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City,Utah,for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2010 and Ending June 30, 2011. PREAMBLE On August 10,2010, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,Utah,including the employment staffing document,for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2010 and ending June 30,2011,in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated,and said budget, including the employment staffing document,was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City,Utah. The City's 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 necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, 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 as provided above,have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City Utah: . SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City,including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No.67 of 2010. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments,including amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah,including the amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2010 and ending June 30,2011,in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6,Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Alek 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 Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY RECORDER Salt Lake City Attorney's Mee Date By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: HB ATTY-#13907-v2-Budget Amendment FY10-11.DOC 3 Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Amendment #4 April General Fund Impact Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance # Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative Section A New Items 1. Sidewalk Rehab SAA FY $4,714.15 2008-09 Adjustment 2. CORIS System For $60,000.00 $-60,000.00 $-60,000.00 Justice Courts 3. IMS Employee $55,000.00 Retirement Costs 4. City Owned Building $111,500.00 Assessment 5. CIP PSB Tenant $205,000.00 Expenses 6. 900 South Corridor Trail $700,000.00 and Bike Lanes 7. Credit Card Fees $35,000.00 $-35,000.00 $-35,000.00 Increase 8. Unemployment Cost $203,000.00 Increase in Risk Fund 9. Wasatch Hollow House $50,000.00 Demolition 10. Plaza 349 Security Guard $16,000.00 $32,000.00 $-16,000.00 $-16,000.00 Services SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS — FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: May 24, 2011 BUDGET FOR: FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director . cc: David Everitt,Chief Cook,John Vuyk,Gordon Hoskins,Gina Chamness, Kay Christensen The proposed fiscal year 2011-12 budget for the Fire Department is $34,879,031, with 356.5 FTEs. This represents an increase of$1,416,493 (4.2%) over fiscal year 2010-11. FIRE DEPARTMENT PROPOSED BUDGET FY 2011-12 Adopted" ' Proposed Difference Percent" -Explanation of 201.0.t11,1:- ,2Q11-12. . Change. ;Cl ange Office of the Chief $ 1,778,925 :4 ,498,131 $ (280,794) -15.8% Shifting expenses to Support Services Division (including financial management, purchasing,inventory,research, Pro posed salary increases human resource management) Operations 25,003,553 -25,921,447 $ 917,894 3.7% Proposed salary increases (includng airport operations) Support Services Division 1,592,764 " 2,031,849 $ 439,085 27.6% Equip New Apparatus (emergency management,facility Expenses shifted from maintenance,fleet acquisitions, Office of the Chief maintenance and supply) y • Communications 1,455,756 1,693,998 $ 238,240 16.4% Shift Fire Captain from Fire Prevention to (dispatch,public information) Communications(Public Information Officer) Training&Apparatus Division 958,268 '"888,560 $ (69,708) -7.3% (recreuit training,certifications, Haz Mat/Spec ial Operations) Technology Division 574,978 669,884_ $ 94,886 16.5% Fire Station Alerting (communication equipment System(one timetunds) maintenance and repair,technical support,records management) Fire Prevention 1,286,556 .'1'71,338,708 $ 49,152 3.8% Proposed salary increases (business inspections,hazardous materials permits,new construction, special events,fire investigations) Emergency Medical Services 811,738 `_ 80076 $ 27,738 3.4% Cardiac Monitor (including medical training, replacement certification,quality assurance,CPR Training) Total I $33,462,538 $34,8.79,031 $ 1,416,493 4.2% 1 POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE A. Summary of Budget Changes- The following chart is a list of the budget changes and the various amounts attributable to those changes: Fire Department Proposed Budget Changes- FY 2011-12 Relating to Staffing Base to Base adjustment $ 794,491 Pension rate changes $ 122,650 Insurance rate changes $ 479,556 Salary Adjustments $ 740,826 • Transfer Payroll position to HR(1 FTE-BA#2) $ (71,052) SAFER Grant-Funded Positions $ (576,928) Convert Fire Captain to Public Information Officer $ - Convert Administrative Secretary(appointed)to merit(see matters at issue) $ - Transfer 50%of Paramedic Coordinator salary to grant $ (45,450) Vacancy Savings $ (200,000) Other 3 year replacement cycle for cardiac monitors (on-going funds) $ 75,000 Operation budget reduction $ (12,600) Equip new apparatus (one-time funds) $ 60,000 Fire Station alerting system(one-time funds) $ 50,000 B. Vacancy Savings- ($200,000 savings) -The Administration is proposing to reduce the Fire 40.40. Department budget by$200,000,to reflect savings realized over the course of the year due to vacant positions. Positions may be vacant due to retirement or turnover. Because of the hiring and training process the Fire Department cannot fill positions immediately. 1. If necessary,existing Fire fighters are called back on duty and paid overtime, although in the past this has put a strain on the department's overall budget. Fire fighters are called back on duty to allow the department to maintain four-handed staffing (four fire-fighters per apparatus). 2. In FY 2011 the department incurred additional overtime expenses. 11 positions were held vacant while the department waited to hear the results of the SAFER Grant. Because of the City's commitment to four-handed staffing,this required the department to spend resources and hire fire-fighters back at an overtime rate. The City has since received word that the grant has been awarded,and these positions will be filled at the start of FY 2012,which should significantly help with overtime expenditures next year. 3. Despite the additional expenses in overtime in FY 2011,the department still projects to finish the year within budget and finish the year having 100% four-handed staffing. The department indicates that the positions that will be filled in the next few weeks will also help ensure four-handed staffing 100% of the time. ➢ The Council may wish to consider the implication these vacancies will have on the department's overall overtime expenditures. ➢ The Council may wish to have a policy discussion regarding the commitment to four-handed staffing and potential budget implications if the vacancy rates are too high. 2 C. Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant-$576,928 grant-funds 11 positions previously held vacant. It is Council Staff's understanding from when this grant was originally pursued,that like the Police Department COPS grant, this grant comes with a requirement that the City cover the cost for these positions once the grant funds run out in FY 2014($600,000 budget addition in that year). Staff is confirming this understanding with the Finance Department. D. Staffing reassignments-no budget impact-The Administration is proposing to shift one Fire Captain to the position of"Communications Captain," to serve as a Public Information Officer (PIO) for the Fire Department. There is no budget impact and the pay class is the same. The Administration is also proposing to shift one Administrative Secretary from "appointed" to "merit." There is no budget impact,although this does mean that this person does have additional job security during the time of an administrative transition. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to come back with analysis of having all City Department Director's secretarial position be appointed or merit. The Council may wish to hold off on making this change until a review of this policy is completed city-wide. The Fire Department has confirmed that they are ok to delay this action. E. Fire False Alarm Fee-The Administration has transmitted a proposed ordinance (separate from the budget transmittal) to enact a fee for false fire alarms caused by negligence or the intentional misuse of an automatic fire alert system,mechanical failure, or lack of proper maintenance. These fees are not proposed to be charged if the response is caused by heat, smoke,fire or water flow,or for calls from constituents for suspicion of fire. 1. In the FY 2011 budget process the Council indicated its support for such a fee, recognizing that the Fire Department budget,as well as response times for other emergency calls,is negatively impacted by nuisance false alarm calls. 2. The Fire Department indicated that in most cases,these regular false alarms are caused by lack of proper system use in a commercial structure,particularly if the property is under construction. They indicated that some commercial structures are consistent repeat offenders. 3. The intent of the ordinance is to promote better fire alarm system maintenance and use by owners,thereby reducing incidents of false alarm, and enabling a better response for other fire department calls. 4. The details of the ordinance are as follows: i. Owners will not be assessed any fees for calls that are not deemed "nuisance false alarms." These are defined in the ordinance as follows: "The activation of any monitored fire alarm,monitored suppression alarm, or other FD notification system,which results in a response by the FD, caused by mechanical failure,lack of proper maintenance,malfunction, improper installation,or any other response for which emergency officials cannot determine the cause of the alarm. " These systems are largely found in commercial structures and not in residential structures. ii. A person calling to report a suspicion of fire is not considered a "nuisance fire alarm." iii. A property will get a warning notice if two"nuisance fire alarm" calls (as determined by the enforcement official) are received in a year period. iv. Calls within the year period,after the second warning notice, shall result in fees being assessed to the owner of the property with the following schedule: • Third nuisance false alarm-$125 • Fourth nuisance false alarm-$250 • Fifth nuisance false alarm-$375 3 • Sixth nuisance false alarm-$500 ii. The owner may appeal any fee to the enforcement official (Fire Chief or designee). If appeal is not granted,the owner must pay an appeal fee. iii. The owner will not be charged if a fire alarm activation is not deemed a "nuisance" false alarm(i.e. caused by heat/smoke/water/etc.) 2. The Administration has recommended a revenue budget of$30,000 for collection of these fees for FY 2012. The Council had estimated an initial amount of revenue for FY 2011 (assuming fees would start in January 2011),but the development of the ordinance took longer than expected. ➢ The Council may wish to schedule a separate briefing to discuss this item, or schedule a public hearing prior to the adoption of these fees (option for public hearing date-July 19th). • > The Council may wish to ask if the Administration has provided notice to those who might be interested (alarm companies, organizations that currently have frequent false alarms,etc.) F. Fire Station Alerting System($50,000-one-time) -The Administration is recommending $50,000 in one-time funds be used to begin a project to update the fire station alerting system to transition from phone line transmission (current procedure) to internet-protocol based transmission(to interface with the City network). This project will need to be completed to allow each fire station to more efficiently communicate with the new Public Safety Building dispatch center. The total project cost is$200,000. The remaining$150,000 will be requested as a part of the FY 2013 budget,in time for a summer 2013 opening of the new Public Safety Building. G. Pension Changes-$122,650-In FY 2011,the contribution to the Utah State Retirement system for firefighters increased from 9.68% to 16.18%,to help the URS deal with a significant funding shortfall due to the economic contraction. For FY 2012 this amount is proposed to stay the same for existing employees. Employees hired after July 1,2011 will participate in another benefit program. The city is required to contribute 12.19% for these new employees. 1. The Utah State Retirement System(URS) calculates the rates that the City must pay into the system in order to fund future retirement needs. Salt Lake City cannot determine or adjust these rates. 2. The retirement program for sworn police officers is slightly different, and does not receive a separate contribution from a state fund (like fire). Currently the City is paying 36.31% of base salary for pensions of sworn police officers. The percentage is increasing to 36.71% for FY 2011 (27.37% for officers hired after July 1,2011). H. Fuel-No Change-The Administration is not recommending an increase in the Fire Department's fuel budget. The Police Department is requesting a$174,774 increase in fuel. > The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the budget projections allow for fluctuation in fuel prices. I. Retirement - The Fire Department continues to face challenges planning for and anticipating employee retirement. Current union contract specifies that two weeks of notice are necessary for a firefighter to retire. As a result, the lag time between a retirement of a firefighter and the hiring of a new class can leave the department with multiple vacancies. The Council may wish to note that the Administration is reducing the Non-Departmental contribution towards retirement to $250,000, potentially adding to the problem of having sufficient funds to cover retiring employees. 4 ➢ The Council may wish to ask the Administration if they are planning to continue investigating some form of retirement incentive programs in order to better manage retirements, thereby assisting the department with four-handed crews. J. Landlord/Tenant Initiative - Fire Department implications: The goal of the Landlord/Tenant Initiative (adopted by the Council in 2009) is to incentivize good management and substantial compliance by landlords of rental dwellings. It is anticipated that in the first few years of the program, landlords may not immediately be in compliance with all city regulations. CED has added two zoning enforcement personnel to handle the additional workload they believe will come now that the City will be licensing 1 and 2-unit rental dwellings. While the fire inspectors may not see as large of an increase in workload (due to the size/structural requirements of 1 and 2 unit buildings), they may see some increase due to this initiative. The Administration has indicated that they will track their time in the coming year to monitor the impact of this initiative, and request additional resources if necessary. The Council may wish to discuss the addition of a fire inspector position. Alternately, the Council may wish to ask that Fire Inspectors track their time in the upcoming fiscal year so that this workload issue may be reviewed in conjunction with the FY 2013 budget. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Call Volume-The following chart shows the number of calls received by the Fire Department(by Fiscal Year),by type of call. 25,000 20,000 - - Medical 15,000 - Fire Handled by Dispatch 10,000 911 Hang Up 5,000 I 1 1 I I 1 I FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 The following chart shows the average number of calls per day,by type of call: Calls by Type FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Avg per Avg per Avg per Avg per Avg per Avg per Year day Year day Year day Year day Year day Year day Medical 19,956 55 r 20,590 56 r 21,792 60 r 22,175 61 21,142 58 20,189 55 Fire 5,114 14 r 5,481 15' 5,754 16 r 5,900 16' 5,711 16 r 5,260 14 Handled by Dispatch(w/out other resources) 892 2 r 978 3 r 1,135 3 r 1,657 5 1,522 4 1,446 4 911 Hang Up 1,111 3' 1,067 3' 938 3 r 1,449 4 1,521 4' 1,489 4 Total 27,073 74 r 28,116 77 29,619 81 31,181 85 29,896 82 28,384 78 Both data sets show that the majority of the responses handled by the Salt Lake City Fire Department are medical in nature, and that the number of calls over the years in each type have remained relatively stable(slight decrease over the past fiscal year). 5 B. Audit-The Council initiated an audit of the Salt Lake City Fire Department,which was completed in May,2005. The audit was discussed at a Council briefing on January 17,2006. A number of the recommendations from that Audit have been implemented since then,or have been addressed to the degree that they are no longer relevant. Council Staff can provide copies of this audit to the Council upon request. LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS A. In FY 2009, the Council adopted the following legislative intent relating to fuel efficient vehicles and medical calls: "It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration report to the Council • regarding how a more fuel efficient vehicle could be used on medical calls with the current staffing and operational models." The Administration's Response is as follows: The Department successfully negotiated a response plan with Gold Cross Ambulance that allows for an ambulance only response on the Alpha medical calls. This change in response has reduced the fire department response by more than 2,000 calls per year, greatly reducing fuel consumption and carbon exhaust. The Medical Division is developing its alternative response types for all medical calls, which will most likely include smaller vehicles responding. This will allow for less of the larger vehicles (engines and trucks) to respond. The smaller vehicles will have a significantly better fuel economy than the engines and trucks. B. In 2008 the Council adopted the following legislative intent relating to fitness for duty: "It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration provide the Council with a progress report on implementation of the physical fitness requirement for City Fire and Police positions." The Administration's Response is as follows: The Fire Department's Task Performance Test (TPT) is now a multi-year program that is well established. The Department continues to have a 95% pass rate. This year, the Department is partnering with the University of Utah to implement the Get Fit program. This program will assist firefighters in developing an individualised personal fitness program. There is no cost to the City or the firefighter or this program. C. In 2008,the Council adopted the following legislative intent relating to overtime: "It is the intent of the City Council that the Fire Department continue to take measures to reduce the reliance on overtime and submit a written report to the Council outlining total amount spent for constant staffing at a straight-time rate and amount spent at an overtime rate." The Fire Department implemented the resource allocation change on February 1, 2010. The first two months (March and April) have shown that the Department's use of overtime has been reduced. A detailed report on overtime use will be provided at the beginning of FY 11 after several months of tracking. 6 EXECUTIVE ORDER - Relating to Fire Department Combat Crews Revised March 2007 Fire Department Combat Crews RESPONSIBLE CITY AGENCY: Fire Department 1. General 1.1 The City has created a Vacation/Holiday Buy Back program within the Fire Department to provide staffing of four firefighters per engine or truck to the extent possible. The Fire Chief shall maintain the Vacation/Holiday Buy Back program as one of the highest budget priorities of the Fire Department and shall manage the Fire Department budget with a goal of adequately funding that program. 1.2 When staffing levels would otherwise be reduced, the Fire Chief shall solicit volunteers from the Vacation/Holiday Buy Back program only. The Fire Chief is not obligated to solicit other employees from the Department employee roster to provide staffing of four firefighters per engine or truck. 1.3 Fire Department personnel working either under the Vacation/Holiday Buy Back program or otherwise off the employee roster shall be compensated as required by City ordinance or by any memorandum of understanding between the City and the employees' representative organization. CURRENT REFERENCES: None EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2002 EFFECTIVE DATE OF CURRENT REVISION (Date signed by Mayor): March 29, 2007 7 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 .. DATE: May 24,2011 SUBJECT: FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Cassie Fairbourn,Budget Analyst Karen Halladay,Budget and Public Policy Analyst CC: Rick Graham,Greg Davis,David Childress,Mark Valantine,Bryce Lindeman,Denise Sorensen,Gina Chamness,David Everitt,Cindy Gust- Jenson,Jennifer Bruno,Lehua Weaver KEY ISSUES •For the past year, the Fleet Management Division has been in a period of transition. The Division, under new management, and have moved into the Public Services Maintenance Facility,sometimes referred to as the Fleet and Streets Complex. •Fuel budgets reflect an increase in fuel prices over the prior year,but also reflect that 53,000 fewer gallons are planned to be purchased. This decrease can be attributed to the purchase and use of 16 CNG packers for the Refuse fund,which are planned to be put into service in August 2011. •The General Fund transfer for equipment purchases is $3,200,000. An overall decrease of $800,000 from the prior year. •A decrease in maintenance billings to City departments of $855,000 is a result of restructuring and other cost-efficiency and environmental strategies.The decrease also reflects the reduction in billings to the Refuse Fund based on the 16 new CNG packers that are currently under warranty. Slightly offset by $99, 900 in additional revenue from billings to outside agencies.Current outside agencies include the Library and Tracy Aviary,however Fleet Management is actively pursuing other agencies such as United Fire, Salt Lake City School Board and others. Of the $99,900, Tracy Aviary and the Library attribute to $7,500 of the review according to FY 2011 budget and the remaining$92,400 is estimated for other outside agencies for which contacts have not been signed. The City's Fleet Management Internal Service Fund facilitates purchases of vehicles (for General Fund programs), and provides fuel, and vehicle maintenance and repair services for all City departments. The only exception is the Department of Airport, which owns and rovides for its own fleet services. General Fund departments and enterprise funds reimburse -the Fleet Management Fund for these services to a significant extent, but Fleet has not implemented a full cost recovery system yet. Vehicle purchases for General Fund departments are funded by a transfer from the Non-departmental budget.The FY 2012 operating budget for e Fleet Management Fund is proposed to be$17,068,497, a decrease of$943,881 (5.24%) over FY 2011. According to data provided by Fleet Management,there are approximately 3,600 total pieces of equipment which consists of approximately 2,000 rolling stock items/vehicles and 1,600 light vehicles,which include cars,pickup trucks,and sedans. Currently, approximately 10%of the equipment is alternative fuel vehicles. Fleet Management uses life cycle cost analysis to set replacement parameters within classes of equipment. The 15-point replacement component of FASTER (Fleet Management Software program) applies life cycle parameters to individual units. This vehicle replacement point system is designed to generate an optimum time (maximum use of vehicle at lowest cost) to replace a vehicle based on the following criteria: miles,vehicle condition, maintenance costs, depreciation, original purchase price, and anticipated resale value. For unmarked administrative and police cars this is likely to occur at seven years and for marked police cars this is likely to occur at five years. After the list is generated,items on the replacement list are reviewed and prioriti7Pd based on department needs and the possibility of extending the life of particular vehicles a bit longer. Fuel prices are in constant fluctuation and difficult to predict. The following information is intended to provide a bit of background on recent and current fuel prices. According to the AAA website,the highest recorded average retail prices for Salt Lake City residents were$4.22 for regular unleaded gas which occurred in July of 2008 and$4.81 for diesel which occurred in June of 2008. As of May 10,2011,Salt Lake City consumers are paying$3.73/gallon for regular unleaded and$4.15/gallon for diesel-decreases of$0.49 and$0.66 respectively from ,the 2008 peak prices,but increases of$0.45/gallon for mid-level unleaded and$0.98/gallon for diesel from exactly one year ago. The City's Fleet Management Fund purchases its fuel at cost and without tax from a state contract provider. As of May 06, 2011, the Fleet fuel prices were $3.20/gallon for mid- unleaded and $3.50/gallon for diesel. The Mayor's recommended budget for FY 2012 was prepared using $3.14/gallon for unleaded and $3.39/gallon for diesel. (See table below for past price and gallons purchased information used in preparing the budget.) City departments and enterprise funds are billed on a monthly basis using the average monthly fuel cost plus a $0.20/gallon overhead charge. According to the Fleet Management this overhead charge is reviewed annually, and adjusted as necessary to cover Fleet costs; including environmental testing, site maintenance, and distribution to 14 City owned fueling sites. For Fiscal Year 2011-12,Fleet Management has budgeted for the purchase of 1.045 million gallons.According to Fleet Management personnel, 650,000 (670,000 FY 2011) gallons of unleaded and 380,000 (440,000 FY 2011)gallons of diesel fuel are expected to be purchased in Fiscal Year 2012. Fleet Fuel-Budget Projections-Gallons and Fuel Prices FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Gallons-Projected Usage 1.12 million 1.13 million 1.11 million 1.045 million (Used to prepare budget) Unleaded-Fleet Purchase Price (Used to prepare budget) $3.35 $1.80 $2.33 $3.14 Diesel-Fleet Purchase Price $4.20 $2.30 $2.46 $3.39 (Used to prepare budget) 2 The following is the proposed Fleet Management Fund Budget for 2011-12: FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND PROPOSED BUDGET 2011-12 Actual Adopted Recommended Difference Percent 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Change Revenue 8s Other sources Maintenance fees $5,409,268 $6,440,395 $5,678,173 ($762,222) -11.8% Fuel fees 2,487,023 2,874,800 3,562,920 688,120 23.9% Sale of vehicles 436,989 550,000 550,000 - 0.0% General Fund transfer 4,270,381 4,000,000 3,200,000 (800,000) -20.0% Other revenue 929,215 88,100 87,600 (500) 0.6% Debt Proceeds- Lease purch 2,524,905 3,000,000 4,000,000 1,000,000 33.3% Total revenue&other sources $16,157,781 $16,953,295 $17,078,693 $125,398 0.7% Expenses&other uses Personal services $3,058,620 $3,300,886 $2,727,917 ($572,969) -17.4% Parts and supplies 5,018,574 5,783,729 6,035,271 251,542 4.3% Charges for services 957,776 703,864 824,156 120,292 17.1% Debt service and interest 2,586,725 2,685,863 2,892,842 206,979 7.7% Capital Expenditures- 2,450,538 3,351,000 4,000,000 649,000 19.4% Lease purchase Capital outlay-Cash 3,169,766 1,840,000 235,000 (1,605,000) 87.2% purchases Transfers Out 338,642 347,036 353,311 6,275 1.8% Total expenses 8s other uses $17,580,641 $18,012,378 $17,068,497 ($943,881) 5.2% inge in net assets ($1,422,860) ($1,059,083) $10,196 $1,069,279 BUDGET ITEMS AND POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE Some of the proposed revenue and expenditure changes to the budget are highlighted below. The"►"symbol indicates questions that Council may wish to address or request additional follow-up information. Revenues and Other Sources 1. Decrease-Maintenance Fees-$762,222-The reduction in Maintenance fees can be attributed to a projected decrease on maintenance on the 16 new CNG packers that are still under warranty,a change in labor rates(details below),restructuring and other cost-efficiencies.Some cost-efficiencies come from combining the small equipment shop with the main shop,position reductions,using State and city contracts for parts,and aggressive preventive maintenance. The total decrease of$855,000 to Maintenance billings to City departments is slightly offset by approximately$99,900 in additional revenue from billings to outside agencies.Current outside agencies include the Library and Tracy Aviary, which attribute to about$7,500 in the FY 2011 budget.Fleet Management is actively pursuing other agencies such as United Fire,Salt Lake City School Board and others,which would account for the remaining$92,400 in additional revenue. A future goal in the fleet department is to change the current trend in maintenance of 20%preventative maintenance and 80%repair to 80%preventative maintenance 3 and 20%repair.The costs of fleet repairs are more expensive and some repairs can be prevented with routine scheduled preventative maintenance. • Labor Rate-The Fleet Management labor rate for service and repair has been split into three labor rate types;heavy shop,light shop and small equipment to be more competitive to non-City service shops.Currently,the labor rate is $80/hour.For FY12 budget,the labor rates are projected to be$89/hour for heavy shop,$79 per hour for light shop and$67 per hour for small equipment. According to a November 2010 market study performed by Fleet Management, the proposed labor rates are still under market rates of approximately$100-108 heavy shop,$98-103 light shop,$74-85 small equipment shop plus/hour charged by non-City service garages. • Part and Supplies-According to the Administration,the markup on parts is 33% and 5%on work that is sublet. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if this revenue should be included in FY 2012 based on contracts that have not been signed and revenue is an estimate. If it is included, what is the Fleet Management Division's planned approach for billing outside agencies regarding billing rates for labor and parts. For instance, how will rates to outside agencies be determined, will revenue cover other expenses, how much markup should be charged,etc. F1. t. 2. Increase-Fleet Fuel Fees-$702,000-During the summer of 2008,fuel prices reached their peak. Regular unleaded gasoline reached$4.22/gallon in July and diesel fuel was$4.81 in June. During 2009,fuel prices decreased but have steadily increased over 2010 and 2011 and the revenue and expenditure budgets reflect the higher prices. (See above table for fuel prices used in recent budget calculations.) City departments and enterprise funds are billed for fuel costs based on the prior month's averaged actual costs with a$.20/gallon overhead charge. This overhead charged is reviewed and adjusted annually,if needed. This charge is used to cover Fleet costs;including environmental testing,site maintenance and distribution to 14 City owned fueling sites. ►The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the Fleet Management Division's comfort level with the gas prices used to determine the budget. The budget used$3.14/gallon for unleaded and$3.39/gallon for diesel, which is currently priced at$3.20/gallon for mid-unleaded and$3.50/gallon for diesel and continues to climb. 3. Net Decrease-General Fund Transfer for Replacement Fund-($800,000)The amount of the General Fund transfer for replacing items in Fleet is$3,200,000 for FY 2012. The fiscal year 2011 adopted budget transfer from the General Fund was $4,000,000. ►Council Staff has requested the Fleet Management Division's planned and approved equipment purchases for FY 2012.Currently,the division is purchasing equipment for FY 2011 and does not have an FY 2012 list of planned purchases. Fleet Management supports a legislative intent to return to the Council for reviews when this plan, and associated purchases for FY 2012 when that plan is developed.Does the Council wish to make the FY 2012 appropriation contingent on review of equipment purchases list prior to purchase? 4 Expenditures The major changes and some of the issues relating to the proposed budget are as follows: 1. Decrease - Personal Services - $572,969 -The Fleet Fund has been in a transition stage for the past year including a restructuring of staffing for better cost efficiency. The reduction is related to an elimination of eight staff positions and one position transfer to the General Fund in the Public Services Department. Other personal services changes include insurance, pension, and base-to-base salary adjustments. 2. Increase - Parts and Supplies - Fuel - $251,542 - Recent fuel prices have increased. The fuel budgets reflect the increased cost to purchase fuel for the City's fleet. 3. Increase - Charges and Services - $120,292 The Charges for Services line item, includes electrical, natural gas, and water utility costs. This line item is budgeted for more than in FY 2011 based on increased electric and gas cost at the new facility. However, although the facility is larger, it is more energy efficient and employee safety has improved. 4. Capital Equipment Purchases - The Administration indicates that the Flee Replacement budget would allow for $4.2 million in equipment purchases; $235,000 cash purchases and $4 million in financed purchases. Additional details are as follows: 5. Increase - Capital Equipment - Debt Service Payments $206,979 In FY 2012, the Administration increased the amount of equipment purchases that are financed from $3.3 million to $4.0 million. The increase to the debt service budget reflects this change. These equipment purchases are financed over a five years for cars, seven years for pickups/heavy duty vehicles and equipment, ten years for fire apparatus period. Decrease - Capital Equipment - Cash Payments - $1,550,000 The Administration is recommending that some cash purchases / replacements be postponed and have decreased the Cash purchases budget by $1,550,000. Financed purchases were increased, but a reduction in funding from the General Fund decreases purchases overall-whether cash or financed. ►The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the Fleet Management Division's planned approach for fleet replacement since a schedule of planned purchases have not been provided. 6. Old Fleet Facility - The Administration indicates that the old fleet facility has been deemed surplus and has been turned over to the RDA to market. Currently, $30,000 has been budgeted for minimum utilities and security in the Public Services budget. Currently, per Engineering the available construction budget is approximately $282,000. The following are some additional items needed that could be considered. Lifting equipment for the shops - two units - $60,000 Truck lifts - two lifts at 85,000 each - $170,000 Small Equipment hoists and lift tables - $50,000 Install additional sensors (To service CNG packers) - $128,000 (plus additional Refuse contribution) ►The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update. 5 Other Budget-Related Items A. Alternative Fuel Vehicles-Fleet Management has been utilizing alternative fuel vehicles since purchasing a Compressed Natural Gas(CNG)vehicle in the mid-1990s. Alternative fuel sources used include: Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Ethanol (both E85 and E10), Bio Diesel and Electrical. Currently there are 370 alternative fuel vehicles which includes 280 E85 flex-fuel vehicles,40 CNG vehicles and 50 hybrids.Of these current vehicles, 130 are new in FY 2011,including 90 E85 vehicles,30 CNG vehicles and 10 Hybrids. Currently, both bio-diesel and E85 bio-fuels are hard to come by in the Salt Lake Valley. Bio-Diesel is very poor during the winter and will only be used from March to October. E10 bio-fuel,which is 10%ethanol and 90%gasoline,has recently been available and will be purchased in the future for unleaded fuel to use in the City's vehicles.In addition,E85, which is fuel that has an 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline mix, has also been recently available. Fleet is converting one of their new diesel tanks in order to start using it in the flex fuel vehicles.At that time,flex fuel vehicles will be restricted to E85 fuel. ►The Council may wish to ask Fleet Management about how is it currently working with the various City departments in order to find solutions that address equipment needs, conservation efforts,and address environmental issues. B. New Hours-In a few weeks, the fleet maintenance shop will be changing their hours to two shifts, 5:30am to 2:00pm and 1:00pm to 9:30pm, to meet the needs of their City customers.When a vehicle needs to be repaired,it is more efficient to have the work done while the vehicle is not being used during non-working hours. Another plan by the new management is to have a few mobile mechanics that can help service the fleet vehicles throughout the city.These ideas were taken from the Fleet staff to help be more customer service oriented. 10.The Council may wish to ask Fleet Management about how this will save the City money in the future. C. Fleet Leadership Council Fleet Management is currently in the process of creating a Fleet Leadership Council consisting City departments that utilize the City fleet. The goal of this leadership council is to make sure the fleet is being utilized efficiently and find out the fleet needs of the City as a whole. ►The Council may wish to ask Fleet Management for further details on the Fleet Leadership Council. Who will be on the Fleet Leadership Council?What is the purpose and initiatives of the Fleet Leadership Council? •• �, il 1 A 1 RECEIVE!) RALPH BECKER MAYOR Y+w� �J'��i, �,y,�v��,��M�i1 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR MAY 2 4 2011 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake Ci may, 1' RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2011 Date Received: 6gI24 2pJ( David veritt, C ief of Staf LC COUNCIL OFFICE Date sent to Council: os/Zy I?-al1 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 24, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Parking Enforcement Audit STAFF CONTACT: Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing—Information only BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In September 2010 the City Council and Administration created the parking taskforce. This taskforce was made up of individuals from various departments to draw upon their expertise and insights. The taskforce conducted an operational review to gain an understanding of the ticket process, evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiencies of the procedures, and to attempt to determine why the number of tickets issued has decreased yearly from 140,194 tickets in FY2006 to a projected 106,108 in FY2011. In addition, the review looked at reasons for ticket revenue decreases other than the number of tickets issued. Based on the operational review a number of recommendations emerged that may-help ensure compliance with current parking ordinances and lead to procedural improvements. A compilation of observances, complaints and issues regarding Salt Lake City parking ticket procedures has been structured into three categories; Human Resources, Justice Court and Parking Enforcement. The Finance Department is forwarding the audit results to the Mayor's Office and City Council prior to receiving comments from the City divisions involved. The Finance Department will distribute the audit to Human Resources, Justice Court and Parking Enforcement for responses to the recommendations. Once responses have been received, the audit will be re-transmitted to the Mayor's Office and City Council. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com RECYCLED PAPER Parking Enforcement April 2011 The Finance Department completed an operational review of the Parking Enforcement ticketing processes and procedures. The objectives of this review were to gain an understanding of the ticket process, evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiencies of the procedures, and to attempt to determine why the number of tickets issued has decreased from 140,194 tickets in FY2006 to a projected 106,108 in FY2011. Condition The Parking Taskforce was created by the City Council and Administration in September 2010. This taskforce was made up of individuals from various departments to draw upon their expertise and insights. Salt Lake City experienced a significant decrease in the number of tickets issued in fiscal year 2010. 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr YTD FY2011 28,381 25,781 25,971 26,315 106,448 FY2010 29,212 27,516 28,642 31,576 116,946 FY2009 32,195 32,035 31,481 33,622 129,333 "" FY2008 32,470 29,874 30,698 33,237 126,279 FY2007 32,079 32,528 31,972 31,917 128,496 FY2006 36,319 33,022 35,350 35,503 140,194 The decrease of 12,387 tickets (projected) could not be easily attributed to any one cause. Other cities are also experiencing a loss in not only the number of tickets written but also in their total ticket revenue. These cities have increased their enforcement efforts to insure compliance. The cities include San Francisco, New York, Washington DC, Seattle and Chicago. Based on the operational review, however, a number of recommendations emerged that may help ensure compliance with current parking ordinances. A compilation of observances, complaints and issues regarding Salt Lake City has been broken down into 3 categories; Human Resources, Justice Court and Parking Enforcement. Human Resources It is the current practice of Human Resources (HR) to give out free parking passes to the Council and Recorders office to use when there is a late night meeting. Passes are also given to Interns working within the City and County Building (CCB), HR personnel who work at the Police Department or Airport who comes to the CCB Building on official business or for meetings and the in/out parking is full. Employees who come for new employee orientation are also given passes for parking around the CCB until their parking pass to park under the library arrives. When passes are given out it's for a two week period and some are for the entire fiscal year. In order to get a pass no documentation is necessary and the only passes that are being tracked are for (six) Non-Employee Board Members. The loss of the available parking spaces on the street for public use is not only creating customer complaints but is also reducing the amount of tickets that can be given. The recommendations are: • To establish a tracking system for parking passes given out by the Enforcement Office. Parking passes will need to be numbered and contain an expiration date related to the individuals business at the CCB. They should also include a limited area of where the pass is valid. Beginning July 1, all parking passes issued with be numbered, contain an expiration date and an area where passes are valid. • All city Employees should be given a validation pass to park under the library until a parking pass can be obtained. This should include those working at the Airport, Public Safety Building, new hires and interns. Justice Courts After a review of the reductions performed by Hearing Officers on the parking ticket amounts, it was determined that the reductions do not explain the recent decline in parking revenue. Hearing Officers were reducing parking tickets on an average of 45% of the actual ticket amount prior to the time when the current reduction pattern became evident. A) Annual total reductions for parking tickets have been as follows: 2009 $1,039,871 2010 $1,008,101 2011 thru March 31st $512,170 compared to 2010 To Date $492,756 B) When reviewing all tickets from July 2010 through December 2010, with the base fees at$15, $30, $55, the average reduction is 56%. Combined tickets with multiple violations had an average reduction of 38%. While, the parking ticket reductions allowed by Hearing Officers do not appear to be a significant factor in the recent parking ticket revenue decline, the reductions are a factor in general, and during the course of this review, the Justice Court was reminded of the City ordinance regarding appeals on tickets (City Code 12.56.570).. In November 2010 the average number of reductions went from 93,306 to 88,199 (a 5% decrease) and down to 85,362 by the end of December making a total of 9% decrease in reductions. . Recommendations: • Consistent criteria for reducing tickets should be developed by the Justice Court. There are a variety of reasons and circumstances that could prompt the Hearing Officer to reduce tickets. However by establishing guidelines it should take the guess work out of how, when and why reductions are taking place. The Justice Court should develop procedures to ensure they are not reducing tickets below the base ticket for meter violations and other tickets unless: o At the time of receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been acquired pursuant to the written lease agreement or similar written agreement; o The subject vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved from such location; o Any markings, signs or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible or comprehensible; o Such other mitigating circumstances as may be approved by the city law department. • Jurors called to jury duty in the Justice Court will be given validations to park under the Library, rather than being issued parking passes for on-street parking at meters surrounding the Justice Court This change was implemented beginning April 1, 2010. • Justice Court management should review reductions of parking tickets per individual officer on a monthly basis. Parking Enforcement Parking Enforcement currently operates on a beat schedule that is rotated on a weekly basis. If an Enforcement Officer is absent from his/her rotation, there is no order to who can take the shift. Favoritism is often perceived by the Officers in this type of a situation. Upon month end, a posting of the number of violations each officer enforced upon, is displayed on what Officers refer to as the "Wall of Shame". Reports and productivity can be easily perceived on an individual effort but there doesn't seem to be any correlation with the number of officers per month and the number of tickets they give. Nor can a single beat be reported on to show an accurate picture of how many tickets were given there at any one particular time due to a technology restraint. There is no consistency in the number of tickets, the beats, or rotations. There is a definite need for upgraded technology (which will be available with the new Pay Stations) as well as an in-depth review of the current beats. The beat evaluation should establish the effectiveness of the enforcement officer. Currently, the average number of tickets written per hour is 3.74; however the average per enforcer varies from 6.04 to 2.37. The national average of parking tickets written per hour is about 6 per hour in a 6.5 per work day, according to data obtained from one of the industry leaders in parking enforcement management. In FY2010 there was a total of 110,305 parking tickets reported with an average of 9,468 tickets per month and through a projected FY2011 the average is expected to go down to 8,707 tickets per month. PYTD 2010: Average Tickets Per Month 9,468 Per Month/Officer 541 (High 714/Low 368) Per Hour/Officer 3.98 (High 7.04/Low 2.22) FYTD 2011(Projected): Average Tickets Per Month 8,480 Per Month/Officer 551 (High 765/Low 341) Per Hour/Officer 3.20 (High 6.30/Low 2.09) *Boulder Colorado has a new directive to write an average of 900 tickets per month per officer.Which is equal to 45 tickets a day or one every 11 minutes.(www.dailycamera.com/ci15009955,05/03/2010) Voids have been consistent, at an average of 458 and 427 voids per month for 2010 and 2011 respectively. Various reasons why voids are created but a high number seem to be not reissued. Parking Enforcement Recommendations: • Establish standards for productivity per officer. • Require officers to enter a beat in the handheld device prior to working the beat. This will require an upgraded handheld and this issue will be fixed in conjunction with the RFP for the new Parking Pay Stations. • Explanation of voids and why they weren't reissued. A supervisor should review these on a frequent basis and find commonalities in reasons that could lead to additional training for the officers. • The need for a Field Supervisory that can be on call for to go out on the field to be on the scene and fully understand the challenges and obstacles the officers face. • More training from high producers to the lower producers on all ticketing aspects (What to look for, Picture taking, tricks of the trade, etc) While the taskforce believes that these recommendations will help ensure violations and city ordinances are properly cited, the taskforce felt that there was still not enough information to ascertain why the numbers of tickets being written were still consistently falling. Interviews were conducted with each Enforcement Officer to get their input on what they felt the areas of concern where,what issues they had and what, if anything was driving the substantial difference in the number of tickets each officer wrote. The majority of the interviews were conducted in one day, with 3 interviews going on simultaneously. This was in an attempt to cut down on the opportunity the interviewees had to share the questions with their fellow officers. Findings: 1. Interviewees consistently expressed a lack of understanding of the Enforcement Officers Field Supervisors job duties. They felt as if no one was available to discuss issues that arise such as if an officer has a close call with an irate citizens, after being in a wreck and being shaken up there was no one to talk to. Officers also expressed a desire for an afternoon and weekend supervisor. Officers working on Sundays are out on the assigned beat by themselves with no one in the office to check in on them. This is a safety issue and Officers need someone available to communicate their whereabouts. Recommendations: a. Clarify all roles within the organization so everyone understands what each other does. If necessary alter job responsibilities to ensure the supervisory needs of the officers are met. b. Change the job description of the Field Supervisor to include the job task of going out into the field on a regular basis and as part of their main duties. Also by creating an additional Field Supervisor position it would aid in providing additional oversight to the afternoon and weekend shifts. A supervisor could help to establish consistency and guidelines in ticketing. Public Services should evaluate whether an additional position to act as a afternoon/weekend supervisor is necessary, or whether a shift in job assignments could accommodate this need. c. Implement a remedy where Officers' don't work a beat alone. Someone should be there working with them throughout their shift thus creating immediate help should a situation arise. 2. Currently, parking enforcement does not have a dedicated dispatcher. Rather, Officers rotate responsibility for dispatch on a weekly (?) basis. Lunch-time back-up for the officer assigned to act as dispatcher is provided by other parking enforcement officers. Interviewees expressed the difficulty they felt toward losing hours of work. Current practice consists of officers having to cross beats in order to cover the lunch shift for the dispatcher on duty. This often results in a minimum three hour block of time that an officer cannot be out enforcing. In addition, officers believe that an 8 hour shift makes it difficult to efficiently enforce a beat. There has also been expressed confusion on the flexibility of schedules (lunch, break and end times). It is perceived that the rules are different from one Officer to another as well as what situations could alter the time they actually are taking said breaks. If Officers are required to take a lunch at a certain time, it creates stress when they have marked cars that they need to enforce. Often times leaving those cars so they can make their lunch time. There were also frequent complaints of favoritism on the ability to leave their shifts early and in the scheduling of beats. Officers consistently felt that the change in staffing patterns could improve efficiency. Recommendations: a. Hire a full time Dispatcher. A full time dispatcher,with field knowledge would be of great benefit. This would cut down on the need to fill people in each week as the rotation changes. Given current practice, this could be tried without an additional FTE and b. Explore whether 10 hour shifts would create greater efficiency in the parking enforcement unit. This change would allow for the ability to enforce during prime times when they would usually be on their way back to the office to clean out the jeeps and get ready to end their day. The current schedule ends at 5pm and so the practice is to leave their beats around 4:30pm often leaving their marked tires and enforceable violations. When the new shift begins, the tires marked in the handhelds are all lost due to the technology of not being able to transfer the marked tires as well as the two hours being up by the time the next Officer gets to them. c. Develop procedures for taking breaks and lunches with an eye toward improving morale among parking enforcement officers. d. Explore a rotation for event scheduling and open shifts. This will ensure that Officers are given a fair chance at prime shifts as well as overtime shifts, and may help improve morale in the division. e. Equip vehicles that are used by Enforcement Officers with GPS. This will ensure that we can more efficiently directly associate the beats as well as the officers' location. f. Explore with the City Council the feasibility of expanding meters times of enforcement to 8:00pm or 9:00pm. This would allow for additional enforcement time. 3. There is a lack of consistency in some of the procedures currently in place for marking tires. Currently, there are two ways Parking Enforcement can mark tires to ensure compliance with parking time restrictions. The first is chalking where they simply put a chalk mark on the tire and then come back after two hours (defined by ordinance) to see if the vehicle has moved. This is an easy process but causes problems in the rain or snow and night time because the chalk isn't easily visible. Another problem of chalking is that towards the end of a shift an officer would be required to write down where the vehicle is and the time it was chalked so that the next crew could go and find the vehicle. Most likely not having that vehicle enforceable, because of time constraints. The second way to mark tires is in the handheld devices, which are used to issue tickets. This allows for an easy list of marked cars,. Currently, however, the markings are unique to each Officer's handheld. Markings also expire if tickets are not issued within 21/2 hours and cannot be transferred from one handheld to another . Thus, markings are lost at the end of each Officers lunch or shift change. Of note is that the steep decline in the number of parking tickets issued began about the same time that the new handheld system was implemented. Recommendations: a. Establish a best practice for marking vehicles. Don't allow for either chalking or handheld option to marking the vehicle. Consistency in the process could help to determine if the process is efficient and should be rethought out. Consider a short term experiment to determine whether the move to the handheld devices has contributed to the decline in parking tickets. b. Explore whether software changes could allow for a longer period of time before the markings are lost and for transfer of markings between devices and Officers. c. Looking into better marking resources. Different chalk colors and or waterproof options if possible and available. d. Mark tires after 1:00pm. This will allow for the Officers to have sufficient time to go back and pick up their marks. 4. There is a lack of communication between Zoning/Engineering and the Enforcement Division. Consistency in the enforcing (or not enforcing) of parking ordinances are not clearly defined. There are several areas in the City where parking ordinances apply but where enforcement is not encouraged. Examples include the e area around Judge Memorial High School and 3rd South businesses on Saturday. Discussion of areas of that could be enforceable also was emphasized several times. By updating the ordinance to include these areas it would create additional enforcement opportunities. Recommendations: a. Clarify and if necessary update the process and procedure for determining a non-enforceable area. This may even include an ordinance update as well, for these particular areas if necessary. b. Consider expanding new areas of parking limitations areas and/or put up signs to allow for the additional enforcement opportunities. Possible additional areas include: 2.) Gateway 1st south between 5th and 6th West 3.) Ken Garff Sales Area 4.) Guardsmen Way 5. It was determined through thorough analysis that the numbers of pictures on each citation do not aid in the validity of an issued ticket. Officers are required to take approximately 4 to 5 pictures of the vehicles they ticket. This takes up a lot of time and as the analysis has proven regardless of how many pictures are taken the amount of reductions is still at 45%. Recommendations: a. We suggest that in order to save time, officers should only take 1 to 2 GOOD pictures of each violation. Additional training on picture taking is also a suggestion as there are still a lot of Officers that struggle with that job task. 6. Officers expressed a need for positive reinforcement as well as recognition in their job performance. Current practice is to have a daily Line-up that is supposed to brief Officers on the issues that may have come up during the prior shift and various items the Officers need to be made aware of to efficiently work their shift for that day. The Lines Ups are often viewed as gripe session where Officers complained about each other or were negative feedback is received. It was also discovered that upon month end, a posting of the number of violations each officer enforced upon, is displayed on an official bulletin board that they Officers refer to as the "Wall of Shame". The dysfunctionality in the work group occurs due to the lack of management oversight. The responses of the Officers, both high and low producers,were that they like management but felt there was little to no guidance. Officers also consistently stated that they felt that there was no room for advancement in their position. They felt that any kind of recognition would aid in increasing morale within the organization. Recommendations: a. Establish Line Up guidelines to create a productive work environment. Within these guidelines a time structure should be established. This should ensure efficient time management and dissemination of information. b. Consider eliminating what Officers call the "Wall of Shame." Instead of displaying individual numbers which creates conflict and hostility, create a team environment which promotes team work, i.e. team goal and awards. c. Management should create disciplinary actions for those individuals falling below the standard. d. Team building retreats or activities could be implemented in order to possibly mend work relationships and build trust. e. Formation of a career ladder would reward them for time spent on the job with a title change and possible small step up in pay. Additional suggestions are that of a patch for years of service like the Police Officers earn. 7. Miscellaneous Findings a. Impounds usually take 1 to 2 hours from start to finish. The practice is for the Enforcement officer to stay with the vehicle until a tow truck arrives. Tow trucks on rotation should be required to be able to respond and be on site within a certain amount of time. By an Officer having to wait for the tow truck it makes it difficult to enforce other violations and therefore lowering the number of tickets an Officer can give. The Enforcement Division untilzes a State contract of tow companies which has companies located throughout Salt Lake City and adjoining counties. Recommendation: Determine if an ordinance change is necessary in regards to tow trucks. 8. There is a lack of proper vehicle equipment available for the Enforcement Officers to do their jobs efficiently. Although there are enough vehicles for each officer, the number of actual jeeps available with the right side steering wheels is not sufficient. These Jeeps are needed for safety reasons so the Officers can give tickets opposite of traffic. The two additional cars they have with the steering wheel on the left hand side causes a dangerous situation as the officers get in and out of the vehicle. Recommendation: a. As vehicles are replaced, eliminate the two vehicles with left side steering wheels and replace them with right side steering wheel Jeeps. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: May 24, 2011 BUDGET FOR: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES - GENERAL FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Halladay, Budget and Public Policy Analyst cc: Rick Graham, Greg Davis, Nancy Sanders, Gordon Hoskins, Gina Chamness, Randy Hillier, David Everitt, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Quin Card, and Lehua Weaver During Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, the Department of Public Services was reorganized into four divisions: Sustainability and Environment, Operations, Finance and Accounting, and Administrative Services. The chart on the following page presents the Divisions and Department programs. This staff report discusses the budget for only the General Fund portion of the Department's proposed budget. The Department also has two Enterprise Funds - Golf and Refuse, and one Internal Service Fund - Fleet Management. These budgets are discussed in separate Council briefings. The Public Services Department provides many of the direct, day-to-day services Salt Lake City residents and visitors receive. They repair streets, maintain parks and public open spaces, provide recreation activities for youth and families, remove snow, trim trees, sweep streets, remove graffiti, maintain traffic signs and signals, enforce parking ordinances, maintain the City's buildings and provide many other services for the City. lie general fund budget for the Department of Public Services for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12 is proposed J be $31,510,010. This represents an increase of 4.5% or a proposed budget increase $1,354,648 more than in Fiscal Year FY 2011. The table below details the proposed budget as compared to the adopted budget of FY 2010-11, and includes brief explanations for major changes. KEY ISSUES • The Gallivan is scheduled to reopen on June 1, ,2011. The revenue budget has been increased by $200,000 to reflect the increase in facility rental and related sales. • Facilities expenditure budgets have been increased to reflect contractual and rate increase for Rocky Mountain Power, and a proposed increase for Questar. Additionally, the Administration proposes additional security for Plaza 349. • Last year the Public Services Department was reorganized. The Administration indicates that offers for two of the positions are expected to be made by the end of May. Interviews for a third position are also expected to happen in May. ▪Does the Council wish to ask the Administration if the salary savings from these positions could be reallocated for FY 2011 budget amendment#4? ►Does the Council wish to ask the Administration if the resources and position additions will be adequate to enhance the oversight of the Divisions and functions to continue identifying efficiencies and reducing operational risks, or whether additional resources may be needed? • While current service levels will continue, it should be noted that this Department's program budgets have been reduced regularly due to financial constraints. The budget does not contain adequate funding to fully maintain every City park, paint all City crosswalks with ideal regularity, and maintain City assets to an above average standard. • There are several large projects in various planning, design, and construction phases that will have a future impact on the yearly repair and maintenance budgets. These projects include: Sports Complex, Public Safety Building, and North Temple Boulevard. 1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR FY 2011-12 * 'Act-UAW 11 itsp*e i -; ^'�146 yf r asjsta0.'ipeiblik_i* 7 liaaif$1416i I ";,4 �`' Office of the Director $ 576,183 $ 611,761 $ 46,278 7.6% Operations Director and Special Projects (Customer Service,Planning, ''�?=•" .%'? positions were added.Two positions,Deputy Special Projects,Capital DkBctor and Reguier PT/Off ice Facilitator Now, -t'` were transferred to the Administrative Improvements) - _ Services Division,and Finance and '..---,,,,d-,, 1,--,':�',-"' Accounting Division. Administrative $ - $ =P 8 � .prt $ 338,982 Four positions were transfened during the Services Division .�" •�="�`'.;°."���� reorgan'ietlon.Positions transferred Include Contracts,Emergency Deputy Director,nowcall Admininstrative _ - Services Director,Finance and Contract M anagement,Policy,Program Coordinator,Safety Program Coordinator, Performance,Property and Information and Data Analyst. Management.Safety,Strategic Planning,Technology `s+is,•`° -ui:' ,' Finance and $ 443,388 $ 722,923 i* =R` $ (269,534) -37.3% The poskion title changed from Administrative ,- 3"-''7' "- -,;- Services Director to Finance and Accounting Accounting Division r _c " Accounting,Auditing, Division Director,one FTE was added for an Budgeting,Financial Analysis, '`' ,} Accountant position added during the t,-"„' -.-' reo rganimtio n,two FTEs were transferred to Forecasting.Grants,Payroll, ,' ,." the Administrative Services DMsion,one FTE P urc hasing,Risk M anagement ., - - was transferred to Human Resources,and.63 FTE was transferred from the Office of the ^%e Director. Operations Division- 8,295,841 8,899,252 4 rt7 ; 399,645 4.5% Increase ln fleet expense,speedboardexpense Streets and Concrete will be absorbed byedstlrgstaff Program(Formerly Streets) M aintenance of Streets. Sidewalks&Signals;Snow Removal;Signing and M arking; ' . ,- .'ig . Street Sweeping 3 y-��0w,��r:n�,.��,�, Operations Division- 9,197,267 9,364,386 ;°k,'?,fi99w3'-tj5SO 167,169 1.8% Fleet expenses increased for Forestry,but Parks and Public were reduced for Parks,due to the elimination Lands - of seven vehicles. Park Maintenance,Open - ' Space Land Management.City , Cemetery,Forestry and Graffiti .> - Removal Program . _,,.;;as ,._,,, Operations Division- 5,659,412 6,079,388 - `"8,5v32,;J154, 453,566 7.5% Several of the Facilities expense budgets were Facility Management increased.Some for inflationary clauses in M aintenance of City-owned _ contracts,others for expanded service,and some were due to regulatory rate Increases. Buildings,Franklin Covey Field, - Most of the Increase is due to The Leonardo Downtown and Sugarho use portion of the utilitycosts,which will be Business Districts reimbursed to the Cky per agreement. Operations Division- 2,301,650 2,368,358 ,;;'-`,`',-2,,`386,134 17,776 0.8% No significant changes.Fits remain at2' the Corn pliance same as the prior year. Compliance,Facility Management,Fleet,Gallivan and Special Events.Golf,Parks and Public Lands,Project ' Management, Streets/Concrete,YouthCity "' '`'-�- ." Operations Division- 1,426,478 1,658,624 w.,..:-::"'.,-1-,8a11,862 173,238 10.4% The revenue and expense budgets have been Gallivan and Events - Increased due to the re-opening and expansion of facilities at the Gallivan Center.The RDA Community and Special Events and tenants will provide the funding for the -Partially Reimbursed by increased emerses,which includes the Redevelopment Agency addition of one FTE to handle marketing responsibilities for the Division. Operations Division- 732,980 450,670 ° '" '4T8,198' 27,528 6.1% No significant changes.FTEs remain at 6,the Youth&Family same as the prior year. Programs Provides Intervention ` Activities and Assistance for At-Risk Youth and Families ,. Transfer-Engineering 4,658,198 - - - The Engineering Division vas transferred to to CED CED in FY 201t Engineering,Surveying, if-r'= Mapping,Design of City-owned Facilities,Oversight of Work In _- the Public Way,Review of - Private Development Projects Sustainabiiity-Energy - - _ _ -a - See Refuse Fund Staff Report datedMay3, and Environment ' _ 20YIforFY2012 budget information. Division Energy,Environmental • { Management and Compliance, - lik, Neighborhood Cleanup, Outreach,Sustainabllity, - " " , { Recycling.Refuse Collection, - , Yard Waste Collection ` Total $ 33,291,397 $ 30,155,362 ',`'$3L 510,t31b- $ 1,354,648 4.5% I 2 BUDGET ITEMS AND POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE Some of the proposed revenue and expenditure changes to the budget are highlighted below. The "►" symbol indicates questions that Council may wish to address or request additional follow-up Information. REVENUES- Changes to Public Service revenues that are larger in amount and/or have policy implications are highlighted as follows: 1. Cemetery Revenue - Decrease - ($8,240) During FY 2010, the Administration and Council recommended increasing all cemetery fees, effective July 1, 2009. Since the 2009 fee increase, the estimated revenue associated with burial plots and costs has not materialized. This year, the Administration is proposing to adjust the FY 2012 revenue budget for cemetery fees by $8,240. The adjustment for the FY 2011 cemetery fee revenue budget was a decrease of$125,990. Total FY 2012 budgeted revenue for cemetery fees is $611,776. • • The City does provide a 12-month fmancing plan at 6% for gravesite purchases. Approximately 5% to 10% are fmanced with the City's program. • The annual cost of maintaining the cemetery for FY 2010 was $1.23 million. The FY 2011 adopted expenditure budget is $1.26 million. For FY 2012, the Administration is proposing a $1.32 million budget. ►The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a Salt Lake City Cemetery business plan in order to fully understand the Cemetery's increasing costs and plans to fund and maintain the City's cemetery. ►At one time the City discussed funding a Cemetery Master Plan. The Council may wish to ask whether that would still serve a purpose in identifying capital needs and long-term plans for the Cemetery. • According to information provided by the Administration, there are approximately 20,000 gravesites that have been pre-sold and are not yet utilized. There are roughly 3,000 plots remaining to be sold, provided the remaining plot locations are usable. At one time the City launched a program to reclaim unused grave sites. The Council may wish to ask whether that program is feasible. 2. Impound Fees and Sale of Vehicles- Revenue Increases - $35,000 and $20,000 During the FY 2011 budget discussions, the Administration made recommendations regarding Salt Lake City ordinance 12.96. The Council adopted changes that allowed vehicles with two outstanding parking ticket notices, thirty days or older, to be subject to immediate impoundment by towing or booting. Additionally, the ordinance allows the City to charge the owner of the vehicle if the immobilization device is damaged or destroyed. The booting program, implemented on March 23, 2011, has been effective in getting delinquent parking tickets paid and encouraging timely payment of parking tickets. The revenue budget for Impound Fees/Overpay/Refunds is proposed to increase by $35,000. Additionally, the sale of vehicles and sale of vehicles for scrap metal is proposed to increase by $20,000. The estimated revenue increase is based on recent experience and trends. 3. Special Events Fees - Revenue Increase $20,000 - In FY 2009, the Administration proposed to recover some of its additional costs of providing police and public services for special events hosted in the City. City Code Chapter 3.50 allows cost recovery. During FY 2010 the Public Services Department developed, communicated with event organizers, and implemented a cost recovery system for special events held in Salt Lake City. The Administration has been communicating and negotiating event costs and billing plans with event organizers. Fiscal Year 2010 special event applications received prior to May 1, 2009 were exempt from the cost recovery charges. According to the Administration, the billing and collection processes, as well as the special event grant awards process, have been established 3 and were fully implemented in FY 2011. Special event revenue of $170,000 has been budgeted for in FY 2012. The year-to-date (YTD) actual amount collected per financial report dated May 13, 2011 is $163,449. ,0040, • All special event applications, except for Salt Lake City Corporation organizations, at charged a processing fee. The special event and film permit application fee is $100. The free expression application fee is $5 per application. • Proposed expenditure budget items related to special events will be presented in the Expenditures section of this report. • The following table is the number of special events or activities held in the City in 2002 - 2010 that require police and/or public services over and above the basic level of service normally provided by the City. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Free 86 94 99 102 124 138 153 160 144 Expression Filming 95 111 124 109 176 55 51 56 68 Special 171 190 169 137 151 155 159 166 207 Events Total 352 395 392 348 451 348 363 382 419 • During FY 2010, the Administration developed a sponsorship program, Signature Event Fund Awards, and process to assist organizations in providing community events for Salt Lake City. The sponsorship expenditure budget is proposed to remain at $150,000 for FY 2012. According to paperwork provided by the Administration, 56 proposals were reviewed and considered. Proposals were "'" ' selected based on: public and community benefit, economic impact, cultural and civic contribution, relationship to Salt Lake City's mission and goals, and financial position or need of event organizer. 4 The following chart presents the 2011 Signature Events selected and amount of sponsorship they will receive for FY 2011-12. Fiscal Year 2010-11 award recipient information is also presented. Signature Event Fund Awards FY 2011-12 Category Event FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 Sponsorship Sponsorship Tier 1 - $10,001 to $15,000 Utah Pride $15,000 $15,000 Utah Arts Festival $15,000 $15,000 Downtown FannersMaiiset $15,000 $15,000 Sir lnt1JaaFestival $15,000 $15,000 Tour of Utah $15,000 _ EVE $15,000 _ Total Tier 1 $90,000 $60,000 Tier 2 - $5,001 to $10,000 FSestadePueblo $10,000 _ Twilight $5,000 _ Sugarhouse Fireworks $5,000 _ °aIr Lake City Marathon $5,000 _ People Market $5,000 $2,500 Total Tier 2 $30,000 $2,500 Tier 3 - Up to $5,000 Urban Fiat Market $4,000 _ 9th&9thFestival $2,500 Sugarhouse Farmers Market $2,500 _ Utah Beer Festival $2,500 _ living Traditions Festival $2,500 $1,500 Utah lanFestival $2,500 $2,000 Nihon Matsuri Festival $2,500 _ Native American Celebration in the Park $2,500 $2,500 Unified Bouklering Championship $2,500 $2,500 WeekdayWorkouts $2,500 _ Hidden Hollow Concert Seties $2,000 _ Days of'47 Youth Festival $1,500 $2,500 Earth Fi st $1,500 Total Tier 3 $30,000 $12,500 Total All Tiers $150,000 $75,000 ► The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether or not a daily set-up charge has been considered for events that limit the public's access to the City and County Building during the days prior to the event. Some events have shifted to take more set-up time and avoid paying over-time to vendors for setting up the event. The organizations have reduced cost, but the general public's access to the building is somewhat inconvenient for a longer period of time. 5 4. Library Square Parking Garage - Revenue Decrease - ($11,200) Effective on July 1, 2009, the Facilities Division of Public Services assumed responsibility for the Library Square Parking Garage. The parking operation, managed by an outside company, collects parking revenues, pays expenses, and then issues a check to the City for any excess. The overa' " expected profit proposed for the FY 2012 budget is approximately $4,000. Additionally, for fiscal year 2012, the Administration is proposing the following: • Library Square Parking Pass - Revenue Decrease ($15,000) - The FY 2012 revenue budget for monthly non-City employee parking passes is proposed to be reduced to $15,000 - 25 parking spaces at $50 per month. The FY 2011 expected revenue was $30,000 for 50 parking spaces. Ten-Year CIP Plan Item - The Administration indicated that several maintenance issues would surface in the next couple of years, including replacement of expansion joints for waterproofing the structure; resurfacing metal stairwells; and replacement of entry gates and equipment. This item has been included on the 10-year CIP Plan, which is scheduled to be briefed to the Council on May 31st. 5. Charges and Fees for Services and Miscellaneous Revenues. • Gallivan Center Facility - RDA-Related Operations Subsidy - Revenue Increase - $168,286 The increase in the RDA's coverage of net costs Gallivan Center for community building and operations is $168,286. • Gallivan Center Facility Rental Income and Related Sales - Revenue Increase $200,000 - The Gallivan Center has been under construction during FY 2011. According to the Administration, the facility, which is expected to open on June 1, 2011, is almost completely booked for the summer season. The revenue budget reflects the increases in facility rental, concession, and other revenues associated with the Gallivan event ofilk operations. The Administration indicates that revenues related to the ice rink have been budgeted for conservatively in the first year of the rink's re-opening. Additionally, prices are proposed to be set at a flat rate of$5.00, which may bring in more skating and concession revenues. ►The Council may wish to ask the Administration if City ordinances include fees charged by Gallivan, and, if so, is there flexibility to allow for discounts, specials and/or promotions. EXPENDITURES • Personnel Costs and Staffing Changes - Increase - $910,633 There are many changes to the personal services costs for the Public Services Department. The chart presented below is a summary of the staffing changes and changes to employee costs that affect the Public Services Department- General Fund. Position FTE Amount Additional Information FY 2011 to FY 2012—Base Adjustment (127,476) Base to base changes compare the FY2011 personal services budget to actual costs paid during the last pay period of calendar year 2010. Changes incorporate changes at the individual staff level,including pay increases or decreases,reclassifications,career ladders,and benefits changes that happen in the first part of the current fiscal year. Pension Changes 85,593 Currently the City is paying for contributory and for non-contributory of base salary for pension plans of non-public safety employees. The percentage rates are increasing for FY 2012. Insurance Rate Changes 202,428 Adjustments were made to the City's health insurance plan for employees. The Administration is proposing two plans: a traditional insurance plan and a High Deductible Health Plan with a Health 40.014, Savings Account. The premiums paid by employees will be either 20% (5%more than the prior year)or 5%depending on the plan they select. This amount reflects the department's share of the insurance cost increase. Salary Changes 331,697 The Administration is recommending increases in compensation for 6 Position FTE Amount Additional Information all employee groups. This is the projected increase to the Department should the Council approve the Mayor's Recommended Budget changes. acilities—Workers Compensation Budget Adjustment (12,900) The Administration proposes a reduction in the Workers' Compensation Budget to reflect the recent history of payments made for Facilities employees. Streets—Reimbursement for Snowfighter Pay 10,000 The Administration proposes an increase to reimburse the Refuse Fund for Snowfighter pay received by Refuse Fund employees. According to the Administration,some Neighborhood Cleanup staff also helps with snow removal. Streets—Reimbursement for Seasonal Labor Related to 18,000 The Administration proposes an increase to reimburse the Refuse Snow Removal Fund for Refuse Fund employee labor costs related to snow removal. Administration—Transfer to Human Resources—Payroll (1.00) (59,948) During FY 2011,Budget Amendment#2,the payroll functions from and Personnel Administrator several departments,including one FTE from Public Services, were transferred to the Department of Human Resources. Administration—Addition—Accountant 1.00 69,632 During FY 2011, Budget Amendment #3, the Council approved a reorganization of the Public Services Department. This position manages financial records and systems within the Public Services Department. Administration—Addition—Special Projects 1.00 99,750 During FY 2011, Budget Amendment #3, the Council approved a reorganization of the Public Services Department. This position's responsibilities include managing and coordinating: large scale projects,new initiatives,public policy issues,inter-governmental and public relations. Administration—Addition—Operations Manager 1.00 148,528 During FY 2011, Budget Amendment #3, the Council approved a reorganization of the Public Services Department. This position will oversee the newly created Division. According to the Administration, a decision on the Director position is expected soon. 0-Does the Council wish to ask the Administration for an update? Gallivan—Addition-Events Advertising/Marketing 1.00 70,752 According to the Mayor's Recommended Budget,the Redevelopment Manager Agency(RDA)and tenants of the Gallivan will provide funding to cover expense increases, including the addition of a full-time employee who will assist with facility rentals. Revenue and expense budgets of$168,286 will offset one another. Administration—Transfer—Safety Coordinator position 1.00 74,577 The Administration is proposing that the Safety Coordinator position moved into the General Fund be moved into the Department of Public Services. According to the Administration,this department receives nearly all the benefit of this position. Does the Council wish to ask the Administration how other departments address safety in the workplace issues, and if this role could/should be handled on a City-wide basis. Proposed Total Staffing and Employee Costs FY 4.00 $910,633 2011-Public Services—General Fund • Non-Personnel Changes to Expenditures by Division - The following section reflects non-personnel expenditure changes to the budget. The expenditures in this section are organized by Divisions within the Public Services - General Fund. a. Administration - Staffing changes included in above chart. • Fuel Adjustment - Increase - $78,622 - The Administration is proposing to increase the Fuel budgets to cover the rising fuel costs. Per information provided by the Administration, the Department will continue in their efforts to: practice conservation, reduce of vehicle usage, purchase of equipment that uses less fuel, develop more efficient travel routes, and carpool. 7 • Fleet Maintenance Adjustment - Increase - $22,350 - The • Administration is proposing that General Fund Fleet Maintenance expenditure budgets match the revenue budgets of the Fleet Fund. b. Engineering Division- Decrease - ($32,500) - Budgets Related to Last Year's Transfer - In FY 2011, the Engineering Division was Transferred to Community and Economic Development - (CED). During the transfer of the Division, the General Fund capital and revenue budgets were overlooked. This item was addressed during Budget Amendment #2. c. Facility Management Division In addition to taking care of the City's properties, the Facilities Division provides services to the Central Business District (CBD) and Sugarhouse Business District (SBD). Services provided include landscaping; planter boxes; sprinkler system repair and maintenance; street sweeping; snow removal; sidewalk cleaning, repair and maintenance; and electrical services. Questions arise frequently about the nature of and costs for the services provided to these districts. The FY 2012 budgeted costs are proposed to be $1.2 million for both the Central and Sugarhouse Business Districts. • Electricity and Natural Gas - Increase - $54,000 - The Administration is recommending an increase to cover the electricity increase of 6.85% for Rocky Mountain Power, which has been approved by the Public Service Commission. Additionally, an increase of .048% has been proposed byw*, Questar. • Contractual Services - Increase -$43,400 - The proposed budget adjustment is to cover inflationary contractual increases and the cost of "green cleaning" for two janitorial contracts for City buildings. • City and County Building Lease Agreement - Increase - $7,400 - The City has a lease agreement and pays Salt Lake County for use of the first floor. Each year the annual lease increases. The yearly lease payment is $248,000, but will increase by $7,400 for FY 2012. Does the Council wish to ask the Administration when they will report back to the Council on the options for the use of the Barnes Bank Building bond funds, which include options relating to the City and County Building preservation? • Ground Transportation Facilities - Decrease - ($94,400) - Ground transportation services are now provided by the Airport. ►Does the Council wish to receive an update on recent Ground Transportation issues? • Deferred Maintenance CIP Budget - Decrease - ($186,777) - The Administration is proposing to transfer the General Fund maintenance budget to the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) program. According to the paperwork, these CIP funds, a total of$490,000, are to address deferred maintenance needs. 8 Does the Council wish to ask the Administration about the process for allocation of these "deferred maintenance" CIP funds? For example, who will determine how to prioritize projects? ►CIP funds for larger projects are limited. Is there a chance that these funds will not be used for deferred maintenance needs, but will be used for larger capital needs? ►Does the Council wish to ask the Administration if this is considered a best practice for handling on-going repair and maintenance needs of the City? • Janitorial Service Sorenson Center Facility - Increase - $3,100 - The Administration is proposing that janitorial service at the Sorenson Center be increased to five days a week. The current service is for three days per week. • Utility Costs Sorenson Center Facility - Increase for Revenue and Expense Accounts - $104,260 - The Council approved an increase for electric, gas, and water for the Sorenson Center during budget amendment #3. The City pays the utility costs and then bills Salt Lake County. The FY 2012 revenue and expense budgets have been adjusted by $104,260 to reflect this increase. • Fleet and Streets Complex Maintenance Services - Increase - $23,800 -The Administration is proposing an expenditure budget increase for maintaining the new facility. • Utility and Security Costs for Former Fleet Facility - Increase - $30,000 - The Administration is proposing an increase to maintain minimal security and utilities. According to the Administration, additional utility costs would be incurred if the facility were occupied by either City or non-City tenants. • Security for Plaza 349 - Increase - $32,000 - According to the Administration, employee safety at this location continues to be a concern. Does the Council wish to inquire about the concerns? • The Leonardo - According to information from The Leonardo, the expected opening date is for "later this summer". The Administration indicates the Building Contractor and Leonardo staffs are working side-by-side in order to prepare for the opening. Pre-installation of exhibits is currently occurring. o Boiler Plant Electrical, Gas, and Steam Costs - Increase to Revenue and Expense Budgets - $323,000 - The Administration is proposing that revenue and expenditure budgets be increased to reflect the additional utility costs incurred with the opening of The Leonardo later this year. These utility costs will be billed to and reimbursed by The Leonardo. Per the Mayor's Recommended Budget, the budget 9 projected a June 2011 opening, so the revenue and expense budgets may be overestimated. o City Provided Maintenance - Increase - $21,300 - Th,' Administration recommends adding a FY 2012 expenditure' budget to cover the City's portion of maintenance, including roof, photocells, electrical and plumbing, for one year. (The Contractor's Warranty covers the first half of the year.) • Spring Mobile BallPark (Formerly Franklin Covey Field) - Salt Lake City entered into a naming rights agreement with Spring Mobile. Information regarding the agreement: • The City (60%) and Salt Lake Bees (40%) will split the naming rights payments. • The 15-year agreement is for $2.1 million. (Franklin was a 10-year term for $1.4 million.) For most years, there is a 3% annual adjustment. The agreement allows Spring Mobile to not renew the agreement after the first five years-written notice must be provided 18 months in advance. • The City received $27,000 for FY 2009 and $109,500 for FY 2010. Payments begin in April of 2009. The annual revenue average is approximately $140,000, which is similar to the Franklin Covey agreement. • These funds have been set aside for the Spring Mobile Ballpark maintenance needs. ►In addition to the above need, Public Services Administration indicate; that several large facility projects, including HVAC upgrades, water proofing, and building steel repainting will need to be completed in the coming years. These projects have an estimated cost of$2.3 million ►The Administration studied and prepared its findings on the Facilities charge on Spring Mobile ticket sales. Interim Study information, including this topic, can be found near the end of this report. ►Ten-Year CIP Plan Item - The Council may wish to discuss the City's current and long term repairs and maintenance needs with the Administration. Ballpark items are included in the 10-Year CIP Plan, which is scheduled to be briefed to the Council on May 31 st. d. Parks and Public Lands (PPL) Division Forestry Program -The Administration has not recommended any changes. Parks Maintenance Program - This division was formerly the Parks Maintenance Division. • Contingency Budget for Supplies - Decrease - ($14,500) - The Administration recommends eliminating the supplies contingency budget. • Vehicle Usage - Decrease - ($27,600) - The Administration recommends that seven vehicles be eliminated from the Division. The 10 plan is to surplus the seven (7) park vehicles. Prior to sale Fleet will consider keeping some of the vehicles because they have value to another division, but if kept another vehicle will take its place on the surplus list. e. Gallivan and Events Division • Gallivan Operations - Increase Revenue and Expenditure Budgets - $168,286 - The remodel of the Gallivan Center is nearly complete. According to the Mayor's Recommended Budget, the RDA and tenants will provide revenue to cover a variety of expense increases, including the addition of a full-time employee at a cost of $70,752 who will assist with facility rental duties, including marketing. Revenue and expense budgets are proposed to increase by $168,286. f. Streets Division • Speedboard Placement Eliminated During Winter - Decrease - ($18,000) - The Administration proposes that speedboards not be placed during the months of December, January, and February, when the response team is providing 24/7 phone coverage. The resulting savings of $18,000 is a result of not using seasonal staff to place the speedboards. The Response Team would be responsible for placement of the speedboards. ►Does the Council wish to ask the Administration about this service level reduction and whether or not the Response Team could place speedboards all days, except for snow days. • Bike Lane Maintenance (Additional 12 miles) - Increase - $4,500 - The Administration proposes the budget be increased to annually maintain the addition of twelve miles of bike lanes added in 2010. The FY 2011 budget was increased by $11,300 to maintain the thirty-four (34) miles of bike lanes added in 2009. g. Youth and Family Programs Division • Artways FY 2011 One-Time Funding - Decrease - ($27,474) Youth City Operating Costs - The Administration recommends removing the one-time funding for two months of operating costs for Youth City Artways. The program is now coordinated by the Salt Lake School District Foundation using grants from the Salt Lake City Arts Council. h. Compliance Division - The Administration has not recommended any changes. However, the number of parking tickets has been declining. 11 ►The Administration has indicated that they will be providing a report to the • Council on an internal Parking Study conducted during FY 2011. i. Sustainability Environmental and Energy Division — This division was transferred from Administrative Services and will be a stand-alone division within Public Services. It is funded by the Refuse Enterprise Fund. This fund's annual budget was briefed to the City Council on May 4, 2011 and a follow-up briefing is scheduled. The Refuse Fund is within the Department of Public Services. INTERIM STUDY ITEMS - MID-YEAR RESPONSE 1. Facilities charge on Spring Mobile Ticket Sales Administration Response—As the Administration reported previously, Utah Code Section 10-1- 203(5)(a)(i)(B)permits a municipality to levy a license fee or tax to raise revenue "on a public assembly or other related facility in an amount that is no less than or equal to $5 per ticket purchased from the public assembly or other related facility". A"public assembly or other related facility" is defined in Section 10-1- 203(5)(b)(iii) as one that is: (1) wholly or partially funded by public monies; (2) operated by a business; and (3) requires a person to buy a ticket to attend an event. If the City were to adopt a tax under this section, the tax would have to apply to all facilities falling under the definition. The City could not single out one such facility to be taxed and not tax any of the other facilities covered by the definition. Whether a particular facility is covered by the definition depends on the precise facts. Each of the three Amok elements of the definition would have to be met. For example, the facility must be operated by a"business". If the facility is operated by a not for profit entity,the City Attorney's office does not believe it would be covered by the definition. Facilities such as Spring Mobile Ballpark and the Energy Solutions Arena would potentially be covered depending on the facts. Adoption of such a tax by the City could have an impact on contracts that the City might have with such an entity if covered by the tax. Further analysis of any such contracts would be necessary. 2. Special Events—"grant"program criteria and administration—the Council is requesting a report on how the first rounds of grants and sponsorships went and a report on revenue collections in 2010-11. Administration Response-As of 12/31/2010, the amount collected this fiscal year was $42,800. We anticipate additional revenue this fiscal year as we enter event season. In February 2010, a letter was sent to local event organizers inviting them to send in sponsorship proposals to the City requesting sponsorship amounts of between$10,000 and $25,000. They were informed that considerations for sponsorship would be made based on the following criteria: 1)public and community benefit; 2) economic impact; 3) cultural and civic contribution; 4)relationship to Salt Lake City's mission and goals; 5) financial position and need. A March 1st deadline was given for submissions and we received 22 sponsorship proposals (plus one more that came over a week late). A small group consisting of David Everitt, Bianca Shreeve, Bob Farrington and Tyler Curtis read and considered each proposal and created recommendations for Mayor Becker's consideration. After Mayor Becker's review of the proposals, and a brief review of the designated amounts by Council members, we asked the event organizers to resubmit proposals based on the new dollar amounts allocated to "" them. Instead of the proposed amounts, it was decided to offer a few $15,000 sponsorships and then a number of smaller, $1,500 to $2,500 sponsorships. 12 . We worked with each of the 11 events to coordinate the agreed upon sponsorship elements (logos on print materials, booths at events, "green"initiatives at events, etc.) and distributed checks in spring/early summer of 2010. The allocation of the $75,000 was as follows: $15,000 sponsorships: Salt Lake International Jazz Festival Downtown Alliance's Farmers Market Utah Pride Festival Utah Arts Festival $2,500 sponsorships: Unified Bouldering Championships People's Market Days of'47 Youth Festival Native American Celebration $2,000 sponsorships: Brazilian Festival $1,500 sponsorships: Living Traditions (SLC Arts Council) Earth Fest (Gallivan Center) The sponsorships were successful and the program will function in 2010-2011 as it did In FY 2009-2010. I LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS — MID-YEAR RESPONSE Iiscal Year 2010-11 Streets Response Team Time Study— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration conduct a time study or develop a tracking approach over the course of a year on the Streets Response Team's duties and efforts, especially attributable to other Enterprise Funds. Administration Response-For the current fiscal year, the Streets Division has complete records of services provided by the Streets Response Team (SRT). To support this recordkeeping, the Division has implemented a new software system designed with IMS. The system allows the Division to record costs for personnel, materials, and equipment usage and provides reports that track General Fund expenses and will facilitate billings to non-General Fund entities. Year-to-date costs for the services have been reported to the Department's Finance Division and will be billed. Entities to be billed include the Public Utilities Department. The broad categories of services provided by the SRT as per the Group Summary Report below total $109,935 for the first seven months of the fiscal year and are as follows: restocking of the street-crossing orange flags, closing and locking gates in City parks, responding to "trouble calls" (emergency response for a variety of services), missed garbage or yard-waste cans (when citizens claim that their cans were placed timely on the curb but City trucks missed them), emergency barricading,bike lane sweeping, requested sweeping, tree trimming, pothole/road repair, sign installation or replacement, other can pick-ups for special events and circumstances, snow plowing and ice control, snow watch, and flag making/construction. The following is a summary of services and costs for the time period of July 2010 through January 2011, condensed from a detailed report which can be made available to the City Council if requested: 13 Group: Streets-Response Team Group Summary Report-by Activities From 7/1/10 through 1/31/11 Report Date: 2/1/11 Costs for Material,Personnel,and Equipment Activity Cost Flags $ 4,982.15 Gates $ 26,864.31 Customer Service $ 11,050.30 Trouble Calls $ 13,155.93 Sanitation Can Pickup $ 1,202.26 Barricading $ 5,517.52 Bike Lane Sweeping $ 23,297.87 • Request Sweeping $ 467.56 Tree Trimming $ 461.88 Pothole/Road Repair $ 38.25 Install or Replace Sign $ 41.04 Charity Can Pickup $ 1,711.03 Farmers Market Can Pickup $ 1,394.51 City and County/Special Events $ 1,296.46 Plowing/Ice Control $ 8,059.30 Snow Watch $ 3,997.16 Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance $ 3,257.50 Flag Making $ 3,005.37 Training $ 134.89 Total $109,935.29 Two Billable entities/"accounts"included in above: Sanitation for Can Pickup $ 1,202.26 Public Utilities for various $ 960.09 Total of these two accounts $ 2,162.35 Data Tracking& Collection—It is the intent of the Council that the Administration collects more detailed accounting data,particularly with regard to expenditures relating to Public Services function including parks maintenance, youth programs, support to enterprise funds, etc. Administration Response-The Public Services Department continues in its efforts to separate and detail its costs as completely as possible. New cost centers have been established to further break out costs, including those of payroll. The Department is working on ways to read and monitor water flow to a greater degree. Other utilities are also being split out in more detail between programs, locations, etc. The Department has taken measures to improve employee cost breakout, including making sure that the correct cost center is used with requests for hire. These are all improvements to prior practices. Beginning in July 2010, Public Services has information for billing the enterprise funds for services provided by its Streets Response Team. Year-to-date costs for the services have been reported to the Department's Finance Division and will be billed. Entities to be billed include the Public Utilities Department. (Also see legislative intent B for the Streets Response Team.) With regard to youth programs, the Department is providing information to the City's Finance Department and Auk a study is being conducted (see legislative intent H for youth programs). 14 Youth Program Fees— It is the intent of the Council that for all remaining youth programs funded by the General Fund, any non-city resident participants pay the full direct cost of services as identified by the City's Finance Department and authorized by the Mayor. Administrative Response-The Finance Department has been conducting an analysis of the program costs, with some assistance from Public Services. The analysis is not yet complete. A preliminary review had been conducted but the cost structure has not yet been determined, but will be complete prior to the submission of the FY12 Mayor's Recommended Budget. Ongoing Items 2009 - Parking Meter Upgrades Administration Response-An RFP to replace 2,000 parking meters with 345 pay stations that accept credit/debit cards was published Jan 12. A pre-bid meeting was held Jan 26. Bids are due Feb 23. 2009 - Cemetery Budget&Master Plan-It is the intent of the City Council that the cemetery master plan and financial report include an evaluation of appropriate fees (taking into account inflation). In addition, the Administration and the City Council should evaluate and discuss on-going cemetery needs and how to fund them. Administration Response-Phase I of the Cemetery Master Plan is complete and gives recommendations for decisions at the cemetery. The Public Services Department submitted a funding application for Phase II of the study in the FY10-11 CIP, but it was not funded. This project will be 'on hold' until funding is provided. 2009-Public Art Maintenance It is the intent of the City Council to have the Administration develop a financial plan to handle the on-going repair and maintenance of the City's Public Art Collection. Administration Response-Inspections and condition reports for more than 52 artworks in the City's public art collection have been completed. Based on this work, a priority list for maintenance and repairs was developed, determined by both the urgency of the need and the budget available. To date,more than two dozen 10 projects have been addressed with a combination of cleaning, repair, surface treatment and other work as dictated by condition. A significant effort has been made at the International Peace Gardens in Jordan Park, including the repair,restoration and re-installation of the"Little Mermaid." Several other pieces in the Peace Gardens have been repaired and there is more work to be done there. Other projects have arisen over time, including the repair of the Peter Max Olympic painting in the mayor's meeting room. This maintenance and repair of the City's public art collection is being tracked and addressed on an ongoing basis. 2008 - Open Space Maintenance Administration Response-Currently the Parks and Public Lands Division, Property Management and the Public Utilities Department are collaboratively working to address open space management/maintenance issue in the interim of developing a plan and staff to manage natural lands. The Open Space Program within Parks and Public Lands is currently working on an Open Space Strategy Plan that clarifies process and acquisition priorities. Additionally, the Open Space Program is developing an Integrated Pest Management Plan, and will develop individual site management plans as necessary to address long-term priorities for management, monitoring and maintenance. In the future the Open Space Program and Parks and Trails will coordinate with the Planning Department and Planning Commission to update the Open Space Master Plan and related City policy. 15 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: May 24,2011 BUDGET FOR: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Padma Veeru-Collings,Lynn Pace,Gina Chamness,Kay Christensen The City Attorney's Office includes four divisions: Civil Practice, City Prosecutor's Office, Recorder's Office, and Risk Management. (Budgets relating to the Risk Management Division are analyzed separately with the Governmental Immunity Fund and the Insurance & Risk Management Fund.) In November of 2010, then-City Prosecutor Sim Gill was elected as the County's District Attorney. His successor, Padma Veeru-Collings,was appointed as the new City Prosecutor in March 2011. The Mayor's Recommended Budget for the City Attorney's Office (General Fund portion) for fiscal year 2011-12 is as follows: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PROPOSED BUDGET (General Fund) Adopted Proposed Percent 2010-11 2011-12 Difference Change Civil Practice Personal Services 1,806,364 1,896,296 89,932 5.0% Other Operating Expenses 164,025 159,021 -5,004 -3.1% Civil Practice Total $ 1,970,389 $ 2,055,317 84,928 4.3% City Prosecutor's Office Personal Services 2,405,566 2,536,148 130,582 5.4% Other Operating Expenses 195,172 190,172 -5,000 -2.6% Prosecutor's Office Total $ 2,600,738 $ 2,726,320 125,582 4.8% 4,571,127 4,781,637 210,510 4.6% City Recorder's Office Personal Services 387,741 395,828 8,087 2.1 Other Operating Expenses 118,810 93,360 -25,450 -21.4% City Recorder's Total $ 506,551 $ 489,188 -17,363 -3.4% Attorney's Office Total $ 5,077,678 $ 5,270,825 193,147 3.8% 1 OVERVIEW OF DEPARTMENT-WIDE CHANGES The Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Attorney's Office does not include any major staffing or policy changes.The key points include: • Salary Savings: The Department's Personal Services budget also has a reduction of-$49,550 related to turnover of senior staff. As more senior staff have left City employment for other positions,newer staff at a lower salary have been hired and this has resulted in some salary savings.(For the Civil Division,this amount was-$24,700.In the Prosecutor's Office,this was- $24,850.) • Reduction in Operating Budget The Administration proposes reducing the Attorney's Office non-personal services budgets by-$25,000. o The Civil Division portion was-$15,000 and will affect stationery supplies,copy center charges,postage,and furniture/equipment replacements. o The Prosecutor's Office portion was -$10,000 and will affect Process Service and furniture/equipment purchases.Not reduce The Council may wish to ask what impact this reduction will have on efforts in the Prosecutor's Office to transition to paperless file sharing systems. • Cell phone reimbursements: The Administration proposes to increase the Attorney's Office budget by $18,000 for employee cell phone reimbursements. This will be $5,000 in the Prosecutor's Office,$10,000 in the Civil Division,and$3,000 in the Recorder's Office. • Salary&Benefits Increases: $107,001 Salary adjustments relating to the Mayor's proposed cost of living increase, and an adjustment to the salaries of paralegals (in both the Civil Division and Prosecutor's Office) as recommended by the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee. $39,292 Insurance rate changes $27,266 Pension changes related to the Utah State Retirement System MATTERS AT ISSUE 1. The City Administration and Council have indicated to the Library it is possible to share City resources.If the Library elects to more regularly use services of the City Attorneys Office that could be accomplished through inter-fund charges. It would be less expensive hourly to the Library Fund than outside resources. Depending upon the level of services needed by the Library,the Council may later need to address resource issues in the Attorneys Office. 2. Given tight budgets the City has not made significant investments in technology to improve efficiency in recent years.The Council's Streamlining Priority will bring more focus to potential opportunities for investments in technology.As the Council moves this priority project ahead, and if the Council provides funding, it is very likely that opportunities to enhance record access,storage and retrieval will become more available to the City Recorder's Office. 2 CIVIL PRACTICE DIVISION-KEY ELEMENTS The Civil Practice Division provides legal support for the City's departments, including the City Council and Mayor,and litigation defense of state and federal court lawsuits filed against the City as well as bringing lawsuits and administrative proceedings on behalf of the City. The Division provides the following service:Departmental Legal Support,Litigation,State Legislative Advocacy,Paralegal Support,and Administrative Support. Some of the attorneys'time is spent on the Governmental Immunity Fund and the Insurance and Risk Management Fund. Council staff will prepare separate staff reports on the budgets for these two separate funds. > Budget Items specific to the Civil Practice Division: • In addition to the items mentioned above, the amount of attorney time to Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)related activities has been decreasing,which in turn reduces the amount of the reimbursement from the CDBG funds.This results in a$34,432 increase to the Division's personal services budget. CITY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE-KEY ELEMENTS The City Prosecutor's Office screens, charges, files, and prosecutes criminal violations. The City Prosecutor's Office is organized into teams as follows: City Prosecutor Teams 2011-12 Paralegal& Team Attorneys Support Staff Justice Court 10 4 District Court 3 1 Domestic Violence (1 pending (grant funded by the State of approval of Utah) grant funds) Screening (also cover traffic 3 4 calendars) Filing, reception, other 6 support Management 1 1 Total 17 16 ➢ Budget Items specific to the Prosecutor's Office: • In addition to the items mentioned above,the Administration proposes some changes to the staffing document to reflect the advancement of prosecutors through the Department's career ladder program.The career ladder program has been utilized in the Prosecutor's Office and Civil Division to recognize performance,experience,and tenure. Although, the Prosecutor's Office has struggled with higher levels of turnover over the years,the career ladder program is an important recognition of the attorneys who continue to build their tenure with the Office. One of the more notable staffing document reclassifications is to authorize an FTE in the"First Assistant City Prosecutor"position for a prosecutor who has been with the Office for over 15 years. 3 RECORDERS OFFICE - KEY ELEMENTS The Recorder's Office provides public meeting notification, City Council meeting minutes, coordination of city elections including candidate forms, support for contract execution, and records maintenance. To provide these functions to the various City Departments, the Recorder's Office has five full-time employees and one part-time employee. The largest budget item in the Recorder's Office, aside from personal services, is the cost for printing public notices. This budget item is$67,654 of their$118,810'other operating expenses' budget. > Budget Items specific to the Recorder's Office: • In addition to the items mentioned above, the cost of publishing notices for CDBG, Special Assessment Areas (SAA), and bond related items will be reimbursed by those funds or projects. This will reduce the general fund cost for publishing notices by -$24,700. (This will not reduce the number of notices that require publication,just the funding source for the costs.) 4 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 4111 BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: May 24, 2011 SUBJECT: GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Cassie Fairbourn CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, David Everitt, Ed Rutan, Gordon Hoskins, Gina Chamness, Jennifer Bruno, Mary Beth Thompson, Skye Garcia, Karen Halladay, Russell Weeks The Risk Management Division of the City Attorney's Office administers the Governmental Immunity Fund, which is the City's self-insurance fund for liability claims. This fund is used to protect the City against invalid claims, and to appropriately compensate peoples' claims when justified. Governmental Immunity Fund Adopted Budget Proposed Budget Percent FY2010-11 FY2011-12 Difference Change Revenue Transfer from General Fund $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ - 0% Reimbursements/Rebates 20,000 20,000 - 0% TOTAL $ 920,000 $ 920,000 $ - 0% Expenses Employee Wages & Benefits $ 254,220 $ 271,872 17,652 6% Claims & Damages 481,518 407,366 (74,152) -18% Administrative Service Fee 103,112 103,112 - 0% Technical Services 10,000 10,000 - 0% Court Costs 4,000 30,000 26,000 87% Other Costs 67,150 97,650 30,500 31% Transfer to General Fund 325,000 400,000 75,000 19% TOTAL $ 1,245,000 $ 1,320,000 $ 75,000 6% The Governmental Immunity Fund is financed by the general fund. The table above reflects an overall increase in expenses of$75,000 (+6%). The decrease in claims and damages is offset by an increase in personnel costs, court costs and other costs. The $75,000 increase to the overall expenses can be attributed to an increase in the transfer to the General Fund. In FY10, the transfer back to the General Fund was created because the Governmental Immunity Fund had developed large fund balances in prior years. The Administration recommended a transfer back to the General Fund a portion of this balance. mai The claims and damages line item attributes to 44% of the projected $920,000 in revenue, which is a decrease from 52% in FY11 budget. The budget has decreased by 18% compared to FY11. Current Utah law limits negligence claims to $2 million per occurrence. Claims and Damages Expense History $900,000 $826,280 $800,000 $721,035 $721,845 $700,000 — - $635,759 $600,000 $586,542 $594,919 $500,000 - $407,366 $400,000 $307,802 $254,094 $300,000 $219,742 $100,000 $200,000 - FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 01-03 FY2012 FY2011 Budget According to the City Attorney's Office, the reason for the higher amounts paid in prior years were settlements of a larger-than-expected claim that should be viewed as a one-time occurrence. The Governmental Immunity Fund is established as a reserve and not based upon actuarial analysis. The chart above reflects the amount of claims and damages varies year-to- year. The City has an option to raise taxes to cover the costs of these claims and damages. Court costs budget was increased from $4,000 to $30,000 to align budget with actual expenditures. For the past three fiscal years, court costs have averaged $30,000 per year. In these years when court costs ran over budget, it was balanced with the claims and damages line item. Issues / Questions for Consideration The City Council may wish to the Administration to increase allocated for claims and damages. FY10 claims were $721,845 and budget for FY12 is only $407,366. The City Council may wish to ask about Governmental Immunity Fund current fund balance and whether the Transfer Out to the General Fund in the amount of$400,000 is appropriate? 2 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS — FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: May 19, 2011 BUDGET FOR: DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT BY: Quin Card, City Council Staff cc: David Everitt, Gordon Hoskins, Bill Haight, Gina Chamness, Teresa Beckstrand, Kym Edman, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Karen Halladay, Lehua Weaver, Cassie Fairbourn DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES (IMS) The Department of Information Management Services (IMS) provides technical support for all General Fund services and all Enterprise Funds in the City. The department is operated as an Internal Service Fund with divisions including Administration, Software Engineering, Network/Infrastructure, Technology Consulting, and Multimedia Services. The Department currently has 59 full-time equivalent employees. Revenue for the Department of Information Management Services for fiscal year 2011-12 is proposed to increase by $520,509 or 6.35% as compared to fiscal year 2010-11. Expenses are also proposed to increase by $90,509 or 1.05%. Budgeted revenues balance with expenses. DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES PROPOSED BUDGET Adopted Proposed Difference Percent 2010-11 2011-12 Change Revenue & other sources Fees from departments/funds $2,810,458 $2,857,332 $46,874 1.67% Miscellaneous revenue & sale of 15,000 15,000 $0 0.00% equipment Transfer from General Fund 5,370,876 5,844,511 $473,635 8.82% Total revenue $8,196,334 $8,716,843 $520,509 6.35% Expenses & other uses Network/infrastructure $3,492,131 $3,668,382 $176,251 5.05% Software engineering 1,282,394 1,374,596 $92,202 7.19% Web services 282,896 51,988 ($230,908) -81.62% Consulting team(coordinate with 1,557,175 1,732,223 $175,048 11.24% customers) IFAS (accounting system) 814,433 479,975 ($334,458) -41.07% SLCTV—video processing 189,791 190,351 $560 0.30% Administration 739,432 749,203 $9,771 1.32% Computer lease program 143,582 345,625 $202,043 140.72% Accela 124,500 124,500 $0 0.00% Total expenses $8,626,334 $8,716,843 $90,509 1.05% 1 a Key Budget Changes 1. Computer Lease Program The Computer lease program shows an increase of$202,043 or 140.72%. The reason for the increase in funding for this program is due to increased demand for notebook computers instead of desktop computers. Notebook computers cost more than desktops and therefore require more funding. The Council may wish to ask what portion of the City uses notebooks and take this into consideration for improving employee and information accessibility in case of an emergency. 2. IFAS . Funding for IFAS shows a decrease of($334,458) or -41.07%. This is in large part due to a one-time transfer of$400,000 to the General Fund as part of the FY 2010-2011 budget. The decrease is offset by a slight increase of$65,542 used mostly for software, software development, and training. 3. Web Services Funding for web services is proposed to decrease by ($230,908) or -81.62%. This is in large part due to the City's website maintenance being contracted out to Penna Powers. Funding for the contract has not yet been identified and will likely be included in a future budget amendment. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for the contract cost and possible proposal for funding. New Budget & Technology Items 1. Committee of the Whole Room Audio-Visual Upgrades The Administration recommends $33,000 in one-time money for audio-visual upgrades in the City Council Committee of the Whole Room. These upgrades would include a large-screen television to improve visibility of presentations as well as 10-12 iPads and software for Council Member and Staff use to improve electronic access to meeting materials. 2. Fiber Optic Connection to Airport The Administration recommends $120,000 in one-time funding to complete a fiber-optic connection to Salt Lake City International Airport and the City's new Streets and Fleet Building. Funding this connection now would allow the City to utilize a portion of the conduits being placed under North Temple as TRAX is extended to the airport. 3. Kronos Timekeeping System The Administration recommends $75,000 in one-time funding to implement a uniform timekeeping system. This system is already used in some departments. This money would be used to expand use to the general fund departments not already using an automated system. Police, Fire 86 Airport already have their own electronic timekeeping systems. Public Utilities and IMS are not included under this funding and will have to fund their share of the project to implement the system. The Council may wish to consider asking the administration what the cost would be to include IMS and Public Utilities in the implementation. 4. Voice-over-Internet Protocol The Administration recommends $75,000 in one-time funding to complete the implementation of voice-over Internet protocol in the City 86 County Building and in the Justice Court. This funding will provide for new phones currently running the old 2 rr. system and provides network infrastructure dollars. It will allow for telephone system consolidation and efficiency. 5. Changes to Personal Services: a. Addition of Two Regular Part-Time Employees The Administration recommends increasing their personal services budget by $5,000 to fund two regular part-time employees. IMS currently uses SOS Staffing Services for two part-time positions helping with filming for SLCTV. The proposed funding would allow those two employees to be brought on as regular part-time employees instead of being under contract. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether or not the current number of employee positions for filming are adequate to address the increased filming requests. b. CCAC Recommended Salary Adjustments Upon recommendation by the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee, the Administration recommends $26,611 in salary adjustments for software engineers to meet market levels. c. Compensation and Health Insurance Changes The Administration recommends $246,442 to the IMS Service Fund to allow for compensation and health insurance changes. Additional Questions for Consideration A. The Council may wish to discuss whether the proposed projects (i.e. VoIP phones) are a higher priority than other projects that have been discussed,for example an issue automatic notification system similar to the State's website. The Council may wish to ask for an update on the Administration's progress on the notification system. B. The Council may wish to ask what other projects or technology upgrades are on the horizon. LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS 1. During the briefing on the proposed budget, the Council may wish to identify legislative intents relating to the Information Management Services Fund. Some items the Council may consider include: • Planning for other technology advances to support the City's communication, notification, and transparency initiatives. 2. In keeping with the Council's adopted priority of streamlining and improving efficiency, the Council may wish to request that the Administration evaluate software and hardware programs that enhance efficiency of City processes, allow for greater collaboration with the Administration, provide greater transparency, reduce duplication of efforts and help clarify and update ordinances. The City Council could elect to use the City's short-term financing program to address these needs. Improvements of this nature will facilitate more efficient use of staff resources. 3 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: May 24,2011 BUDGET FOR: Additional Information regarding the Landlord Tenant Initiative STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: David Everitt,Gina Chamness,Gordon Hoskins, Mary Beth Thompson As the Council knows, the Administration has forwarded the disproportionate fee study for the Landlord / Tenant Initiative Program (the "Program"). This has been included as a major part in the Mayor's Recommended Budget for 2011-12 for staffing expense and anticipated revenues. The staffing affects both the Finance Department budget and the Community & Economic Development budget. Due to the community interest in the Program, the discussion has been pulled out of the Finance or CED budget reports and will be addressed as a stand-alone item in this staff report. Beginning on page 6, staff has copied the information provided from the Finance Department report, which explains some basics of the Program structure and budget components. ATTACHMENTS: A. December 2009 Ordinance - Ordinance adopted by the City Council on December 8, 2009 establishing the Landlord / Tenant Initiative Program. When the ordinance was adopted, its enactment was subject to adoption a disproportionate fee study (which under state law must be done by ordinance). Note:The 2009 ordinance is not yet "effective" because it is subject to adoption of the fee study. As a result, it is not posted on City's searchable Salt Lake City Code website. It is however posted with this staff report and the December 2009 report on the City website. B. Council staff report from December of 2009 for background explanations. C. Disproportionate Fee Study- Included in the annual budget paperwork is a copy of the fee study and an ordinance to adopt the study. D. Worksheets showing calculation of anticipated participation and revenue. CHRONOLOGY/HISTORY: Fall 2008 Proposed by the then-Council Subcommittee on Planning&Land Use Issues Spring 2009 Council Office organized and met with focus group, comprised of community members, owners,landlords, Housing and rental advocates, etc. December 2009 Council held Public Hearing and adopted the ordinance establishing the Program kri 2010 Administration performed the disproportionate fee study 1 • May 3,2011 Transmitted by the Mayor to the City Council Office as part of the 2011-12 Annual Budget May 17,2011 Council Public Hearing held to consider all ordinances and proposals related to the Annual Budget. May 24,2011 Work Session briefing June 7,2011 Continued Council Public Hearing June 14 or 22 (TBD)Council adoption of the annual budget Sept 1,2011 Effective date of new fees,Program start MATTERS AT ISSUE QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION A. Calculation of the Disproportionate Fee-The cost study compiled the costs for different City services already provided related to rental properties.(See Attachment C) 1. The services included: Police services,apartment inspectors,business licensing, permitting,zoning enforcement,and community liaison support for the Mayor's and Council Offices. 2. The purpose of the study was to collect all costs,a"fully-loaded"tally,therefore it also calculated administrative costs,building space,fleet vehicle usage,etc. } 3. The study also added in the cost of the five new proposed positions. 4. For each of these items,the Administration assigned the estimated percentage of those employees or services directly related to rental properties.For example,within the Council Office,the study tallied the cost of various staff members involved in rental issues,and assigned 2.5%of their salary toward the calculation of service cost 5. The total cost including each of these parts equals$2,503,822.75.Based on the estimated number of participants in the Program,the Administration set the fees to generate$2,193,372 in revenue for a full year of the program(this would be $1,804,631 for September-June). B. New proposed fee amounts-several comments have been received regarding the proposed disproportionate fee and reduced fee. 1. The Council may wish to consider whether the disproportionate fee should be set to recover 100%of costs associated with services provided to rental properties. 2. The current fee for rental units is$15.00 per unit The proposed reduced rate fee is $25.00.Some have voiced concern about this Program resulting in a fee increase for landlords/owners who are willing to participate in the Program. 3. If the Council elects to change the proposed fee amounts,it might reduce the budgeted revenues as well. 4. The Council may wish to consider how this fee structure folds into the Council policy priority of encouraging and supporting Neighborhood Quality of Life. 5. The Council may wish to ask which other City fees are eligible for total cost recovery,and of those,how many are set to recover 100%of the costs? C. Program Training Requirement-The Administration reports that the details of the training will be worked out by June or July. Based on questions raised by some community 2 members,the Council may wish to provide their preference or intent on some of these issues: 1. Some community members have asked if there will be an additional charge for the training. 2. Other renter and housing advocate groups have asked whether the outside organizations will have the opportunity to conduct the training. 3. A Council Member asked whether the training will be offered in Spanish. D. Templates-the Administration has indicated that the Rental lease agreement and safety checklist have yet to be developed. E. Assumptions-the Council may wish to evaluate some of the assumptions made to estimate revenues,because if some of those assumptions vary too widely,the revenue estimates could be significantly affected. 1. Number of 1-and 2-unit landlords that would get a license.Since landlords of l- and 2-unit rentals are not currently required to obtain a business license,assuming that 70%of them may come and get one could be too high of an estimate. Potential revenue impact if only 50%of 1-and 2-unit landlords obtain a license,the estimated revenue for 2011-12 would decrease by$115,000. 2. Participation rate in the Program.The Administration has estimated that based on the landlords/owners getting a business license,80%of rental units in the City would be charged at the$25 per-unit fee. Although 80%is probably a reasonable assumption(benchmarked by other cities with Programs),the disproportionate fee may provide more motivation for landlords to participate in the Program.If so, revenues would decrease,because fewer landlords would pay the$342 per unit Potential revenue impact if 90%of all units(1 unit and up)were charged at the lower rate,the estimated revenue for 2011-12 would decrease by$707,517. 3. Implementation of program and new fees by September 1,2011.The staff positions and estimated revenue is based on an implementation of the Program by September 1.If the lease agreement,training arrangements,public notification,etc.changes the implementation date,the revenues could be affected.A delay in implementation could also reduce the staffing expense,if the delay were determined in time to postpone hiring decisions. Potential Revenue impact the$1.8 million in estimated revenues assumes the Program operating for 10-months of the year. This equals an average of$180,463 per month,although revenues may actually fluctuate month to month.The Council may wish to clarify whether landlords who have already obtained their licenses by the start of the Program will be charged. 4. Number of Police Calls.The Cost study evaluated the cost of City services related to rental properties,including Police responses.According to the study,the Police cost was calculated using the number of calls assigned in their database to"Apartments" multiplied by the average number of officers involved at an hourly rate.The Council may wish to confirm whether the database recognizes all rental units as apartment complexes,including 1-and 2-unit rentals(single-family rented homes or duplexes). If the calculation did not include those types of rental properties,the cost of services would go up and the fees would not be as close to 100%of recovering full costs. This would not necessarily affect the revenue estimated in the budget,but would be 3 • a piece of information for the Council's consideration of whether the disproportionate fee is truly recovering all costs. F. It should be noted that at this time fraternities and sororities are not included in this ordinance. It is anticipated that an amendment will be brought to the Council for consideration. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. Number of Rental Units Q: How many 1 and 2 unit rental dwellings are in the City and how many will participate? A: Since 1-and 2-unit rentals have not previously been required to obtain a business license, the City has estimated that there may be 5,0001-and 2- unit rentals in the City. In order to calculate the participation rates, the City has estimated that 70% of those, or 3,500, of those owners / landlords would obtain a business license. Lastly, the Administration has estimated that of the 3,5001-and 2-unit owners/ landlords getting a business license, 80% would participate in the Landlord / Tenant Initiative and 20% would not. Q: How many rental properties have 3 or more rental units and how many of those will participate? A: Properties with 3 or more units are currently required to obtain a business license, so the City has a more accurate number of how many of those exist 23,283. Of those 23,283, the Administration has estimated that 80% would participate in the Landlord Tenant Initiative and 20% would not. 2. License and Per-Unit Fees Q: How do the licenses and per-unit fees work? A: Owners/ Landlords with rental units obtain a Business License for a base (or "regulatory")fee and on top of that, pay a"per-unit" fee for each rental unit. Q: What is the CURRENT base (or "regulatory")fee? A: $100.00 for properties with 3 or more units (Licenses have not been previously required for owners/ landlord with 1 or 2 units.) Q: What is the CURRENT per-unit fee? A: $15.00 per unit(Licenses have not been previously required for owners / landlord with 1 or 2 units.) Q: What is the PROPOSED base (or "regulatory")fre? A: $100.00 for owners / landlords with 3 or more units and $50.00 for owners / landlord with 1-or 2-units. (The$50.00 fee for 1-and 2-unit owners is a discounted rate.) Q: What is the PROPOSED per-unit fee? A: There will be two per-unit fees depending on whether the owner / landlord is participating in the Landlord / Tenant Initiative Program: > $25.00 per unit for owners / landlords who participate in the Landlord / Tenant Initiative Program (regardless of the number of rental units). 4 • ➢ $342.00 per unit for owners/landlords who do NOT participate in the Landlord/ Tenant Initiative Program(regardless of the number of rental units).This is the "disproportionate fee"based on the cost analysis of the cost for City services provided to rental properties. Q: Is a base fee charged for each address or each legal entity(owner/landlord)? A: The base license fee is charged on a per owner basis,not by separate building or address.So,each owner/landlord would only be charged on base license fee($100 or$50). Q: What does the base fee recover? A: The City Business License fees are allowed by State Code to be set at an amount that recovers the City's costs for providing the service.(There are other fees/rates that must comply with this limit,too.) This means that the City must evaluate the cost of issuing business licenses.For example,this could include the business license staff who issues the license,the inspector who may need to inspect the property(depending on the type of license,inspection requirements vary),plan or City Code review(depending on the type of license,plan and/or Code review requirements vary),and other related services. The fee can be set to recover up to 100%of those services necessary to provide the Business License function for the City. Q: What does the per-unit fee cover? A: Similar to the base fee,the per-unit fee is also governed by State Code to ensure that it does not generate more revenue than how much it costs the City to provide the related services.Since rental properties require a different level of inspection and service than other types of businesses,there is a fee in addition to the base fee that recovers the cost to the City. 111/1 3. Definitions/Glossary Base Fee("Regulatory Fee"):these terms are synonymous and refer to the basic fee a Business owner(and in this case,an owner/landlord)would pay the City for a Business License to cover the City's regulatory costs. Disproportionate Fee: a license fee charged to a business for certain municipal services incurred by the City which relate to that business.(Municipal services are defined by Utah State Code.) Disproportionate Rental Fee: a license fee on rental housing based on the disproportionate costs of certain municipal services caused by the rental housing. A disproportionate rental fee may also include the City's disproportionate costs of providing an enhanced level of municipal services provided to rental housing.However,the Landlord Tenant Program does not include any disproportionate fee for providing enhanced City services. (Municipal services are defined by Utah State Code.) Regulatory Fee("Base Fee"):these terms are synonymous and refer to the basic fee a Business owner(and in this case,an owner/landlord)would pay the City for a Business License to cover the City's regulatory costs. Rental Dwelling:a building or portion of a building that is rented,loaned,leased,or hired out for one month or longer. 5 The information below is an excerpt from the Finance Department staff report: 1. Landlord/Tenant Initiative (also known as the "Good Landlord Program") The Mayor's Recommended Budget includes the final steps to implement the Landlord / Tenant Initiative for landlords of rental units within Salt Lake City. What is commonly referred to as the "Good Landlord Program" was adopted by the City Council in December of 2009 as the "Landlord / Tenant Initiative," a Program to incentivize good management of multi- unit rental dwellings. The last piece of implementing the program included calculating a disproportionate fee based on a cost analysis of the true cost to the City of providing additional services and responses for issues with rental properties. Description of the Program: All owners of rental dwellings (single units to multi-units) will be required to obtain a business license. (One-and two-unit apartment owners/landlords have not previously been required to obtain business licenses.) The fee for the license will include a base fee plus a per-unit fee (see Licensing Structure below). Owners/ landlords can choose to comply with the Program requirements in order to reduce the per-unit fee for their license. The Program requirements include certification by the owner of property compliance, management agreements, contact information, training, tenant meetings, and use of the City's lease template. For owners / landlords who elect not to participate in the Program,a higher disproportionate fee will be assessed for business licenses. The disproportionate fee was determined using the cost analysis performed by the Administration. The$25.00 fee was calculated based on the cost of the new staff divided by those participating in the program. (This new fee structure would be effective September 1, 2011.) Licensing Structure: For Properties with 1 or 2 rental units: • Base Fee: $ 50.00 + Per Unit Fee: $342.00"disproportionate fee" if not participating in the program OR +Per Unit Fee: $ 25.00 if the landlord is participating in the program For Properties with 3 or more rental units: Base Fee: $100.00 + Per Unit Fee: $342.00 "disproportionate fee" if not participating in the program OR +Per Unit Fee: $ 25.00 if the landlord is participating in the program Budget Components: o Staffing: The Mayor's total recommended budget includes$291,704 for five new staff positions associated with the Landlord / Tenant Initiative. This includes: • $108,780 for two Business Licensing Staff: one Supervisor and one Business Licensing Processor included in the Finance Department budget. This budget assumes hiring for the positions in September; the full year cost for the two positions in Business Licensing will be$130,536. 6 • $182,924 for three permitting and inspection staff: two Housing&Zoning Enforcement staff and one Planner at the Permits Counter (these are included 11. in the Community &Economic Development budget) o Revenue Estimates: $1,804,631 increase in business license revenue. This anticipates an 80% participation rate of landlords / owners in the Program. For the newly • licensed 1- and 2-unit landlords / owners, the Administration has estimated that approximately 3,500 of those landlords will obtain the newly required license. 3,500 is 70% of the estimated number of units existing in the City. Questions for Consideration: ` c o During the revenue outlook briefing on May 10th, the Administration presented that the disproportionate fee was set to recover 100% of the cost of the City services for rental issues. Also provided by the Administration was a comparison to other local jurisdictions with a"Good Landlord Program." According to the comparison, that • the City's proposed disproportionate fee (of$342 per unit) is higher than the disproportionate fees charged by the other cities. (Ogden,West Valley,South Salt Lake,Clearfield, and Midvale were shown.) A comment was made during the • briefing about the incentive this provides to landlords / owners to participate in th City's initiative. The Council may wish to ask for additional information from the other cities on how their fees were calculated and confirm whether or not they are recovering 100% of the related costs. The Council may also wish to consider whether the fee should be fully cost recoverable. Na 1 i . • Original Message From: Tarbet, Nick Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 2:04 PM To: City Council Members Cc: City Council Staff Subject: FW: Housing concerns- Fees "Landlord/Tenant Initiative" Council Members- Francisca Blanc with the Utah Housing Coalition sent you the email below, detailing their concerns about the proposed fees for the Landlord Tenant Initiative. She then called and asked me to reiterate her concern that if the proposed fees are adopted, the Legislature may preempt the entire program in the next legislative session. Nick Tarbet Salt Lake City Council Office Policy Analyst / Constituent Liaison (801) 535-7603 nick.tarbet(slcgov.com To assure proper attention to your email, please 'Reply to All' or include CityCouncilLiaisons(slcgov.com on the address line of this email. If you would like to receive email updates about important City events and issues from your Council Member please reply to this email and say "yes."or scan the QR Code with your phone. Sign up for District Email Updates. Original Message From: Francisca Blanc [mailto:fblanc@xmission.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:41 PM To: Christensen, Carlton; Turner, Van; Penfold, Stan; Garrott@xmission.com; Luke@xmission.com; Love@xmission.com; Jill@xmission.com; Martin, JT; Simonsen, Soren; Everitt@xmission.com; David@xmission.com; Gray, Frank; Clark, Luann; Tarbet@xmission.com; Nick@xmission.com; Jardine, Janice; Weaver, Lehua; City Council Liaisons Cc: trollins@xmission.com Subject: Housing concerns- Fees "Landlord/Tenant Initiative" Dear Salt Lake City Council members and City Staff, As the working session is looking at the budget as proposed by the Mayor, I would like to bring up to your attention several items of concern regarding the proposed disproportionate rental fess vis-a-vis the Landlord/Tenant Initiative. Utah Housing Coalition worked diligently with the Salt Lake City Council members throughout 2009 to have a good Landlord/Tenant Initiative aka ?Good Landlord Program?. We support the ordinance 100%. It is the most inclusive of all ordinances of this nature among the other nine cities who adopted this policy. We present Salt Lake City?s ordinance as a model other cities can adopt. For your information, I attached our fact sheet on ?Good Landlord Program? as it is implemented statewide. However, the proposed disproportionate rental fees based on the recently released fee study raises concerns for our organization. Succinctly, I will enumerate few of them: 1. Disproportionate rental fees (as defined in Utah code 1-10-203) don?t seem to allow cities to recover costs to public services by 100% 2. The proposed reduced fee (from $342 to $25 per unit per year) might result in a financial burden for rental properties overseen by the Road Home, Salt Lake City Housing Authority, and Salt Lake County Housing Authority; one solution might be to provide a significant reduction for these properties or a complete exemption (be part of the program, but exempt from fees) 3. Salt Lake City has a significant number of affordable housing units (tax credit properties); as with the properties mentioned above, the owners will see a financial burden because they cannot just raise the rent on their residents due to strict regulations; one solution might be a significant reduction bellow $25 fee if they are part of the program 4. The $342 fee might be interpreted as too high and will create a tremendous burden on small property owners who might decide for whatever reasons to not be part of the program; at the moment the highest disproportionate rental ..tea► fee in the state is West Jordan?s at $170 5. Because the Landlord/Tenant Initiative program is intended as a voluntary program for landlords, the $342 fee may be successfully argued in court that it is not a voluntary program or an incentive: landlords have no choice but be part of the program 6. Also, because of the high fee, we might significant rent increases for all renters 7. We are concerned about judicial actions or future legislative repercussions which might result in gutting a very good public policy We hope that these concerns will be taken into consideration as the Council moves forward with budget discussions. Our concerns might be considered to be points of discussion, as it is very possible some of them require more legal research. Please don?t hesitate to contact me. We thank you for your service to Salt Lake City community. Francisca Blanc Policy Analyst Utah Housing Coalition 230 South 500 West 260 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (0) 801-364-0077 (C) 801-244-4700 (F) 801-596-2011 fblanc@xmission.com ootftv www.utahhousing.org U T A H HOUSING' Utah Housing Coalition 230 South 500 West, Suite 260 ISM ".. Salt Lake City, UT 84101 �� 4 P:801-364-0077 SOA L I T 1 O N I F:801-596-2011 www.utahhousing.org Promoting affordable housing to ensure healthy and stable communities. What is the"Good Landlord Program" • Local governments have been imposing disproportionate rental fees to rental units due to increased costs to municipalities.The increased costs come from numerous police calls, need for fire fighters,etc. In response to .those types of fees,several years ago Utah Apartment Association(UAA)designed the good landlord program which is unique to Utah. • A disproportionate rental fee means a license fee or a tax on rental housing based on the disproportionate costs of municipal services caused by the rental housing or on an enhanced level of municipal services provided to rental housing(Utah Code 10-1-203). • Currently, Utah statute requires cities that impose a disproportionate rental fee for the first time or cities that increase or decrease the fees,to establish a good landlord program allowing the landlord to qualify for a reduction in fees. • The state law allows enough flexibility for local governments to create a program that's realistic for their jurisdiction. Utah Code 10-1-203 mandates that the only criteria for the "good landlord program"is: • Landlord completes a landlord training program approved by the city; • Landlord implements measures to reduce crime in rental housing;and • Landlord operates and manages rental housing in accordance with applicable city ordinances. • During the 2011 Utah General Legislative Session,a bill was passed that addresses some of the unintended consequences of this local policy. House Bill 403,which will become law in May 2011,mandates the following: • Prohibits an owner from taking action against a renter for requesting assistance from a public safety agency(defined as a governmental entity that provides fire protection, law enforcement, ambulance, medical,or similar services),and • Prohibits municipalities with a good landlord program from limiting owner participation in or benefits from the program under certain circumstances Public Policies Across the State • The overall elements of the ordinances passed already by Brigham City,Clearfield,Ogden City,Midvale, Washington Terrace,West Jordan City,and West Valley City are: • Mandatory Background Check; • Mandatory Credit Check; • Mandatory Driver's License or State Identification; • Mandatory Employment/Income verification; • Mandatory rental references for the last three years; • Landlords must refuse to rent to individuals that: • Have been convicted of any drug or alcohol related crime and any crime related to property damage, prostitution,violence of any kind,assault,or crimes that involve weaponry of any kind in the past 3 (three)years,or is on probation or parole in the case of West Jordan City;and Utah Housing Coalition Good Landlord Program April 19,2011 • Appear on the Utah Sex Offender Registry • Landlord can evict in three days tenants that are involved in drugs,criminal activity,or other illegal activities;and ,00044 • Landlords are terminated from the program if: • Landlord fails to fulfill its obligations;or • Landlord has more than 2 violations of the ordinance;or • There are two calls for service(police) per door(Brigham City, Clearfield and West Valley City).There are no exceptions if the calls are made due to domestic violence situations. o With the new law that will take effect in May 2011,this specific issue will be addressed directly so renters will not be evicted for calling public agencies,and landlords will not be dropped from the program if their renters make the calls. • -Other cities that implemented good landlord programs are Salt Lake City(Landlord/Tenant Initiative),South Salt Lake,and Taylorsville: o Salt Lake City has the most inclusive ordinance.Some of its provisions require: • Mandatory lease; • Require non-discrimination and fair housing as provided in local,state,and federal law; • Prohibit retaliation against any tenant as the result of reporting violations of a lease agreement, rental dwelling management agreement,or the City Code; • Require two semi-annual meetings between landlords and tenants; • Encourage, but not require criminal background check;and • Direction on the content of the landlord training. o The South Salt Lake ordinance requires the landlord to serve notice of eviction upon a tenant within 5 days of receiving substantial evidence that a tenant or tenant's guest has been involved in criminal or nuisance activity on the premise.ACLU of Utah raised issues with such clause when another city was in the process of adopting such ordinance.The clause might violate the procedural due process rights of landlords. o Landlords in Taylorsville who want to be part of this program have to conduct criminal background checks,assure that landlord doesn't allow any crime on the property and initiate prompt eviction where legally permissible of any tenant committing any crime.Taylorsville's ordinance is the only one so far that has detailed requirements regarding the structure of the building.Some of them are: • Provide adequate locks to all exterior doors; • Provide kitchen facility with at least one operative sink,free from leaks with hot water of at least one hundred ten degrees Fahrenheit and cooking oven or stove;or • Maintain paint,siding,stucco, brick,etc., in good repair,free from peeling, holes or cracks. Potential Issues- Unintended consequences • The good landlord program is promoted as a voluntary program.A disproportionate rental fee can be as high as $170/year per rental unit and is applied to all landlords, no matter of the crime statistics for a specific rental unit property. If the landlord decides to be part of the program,the fee,for example,can be reduced to$10. Due to such significant financial incentive,the voluntary argument doesn't really have any standing anymore: The landlord doesn't have much of a choice but to opt into the program. • Except Salt Lake City,these ordinances have no mention of disclosing renters'rights,exclusions,or discretionary practices. • Housing advocates strongly believe that a disparate impact is created by denying housing to certain at-risk populations: o Formerly homeless population (alcohol or drug crime) o Domestic violence victims (calls to police) o People with a mental illness(public nuisances or disturbances) o People with disabilities due to drug usage(criminal record) Utah Housing Coalition Good Landlord Program April 19,2011 • The policies that mandate landlords to not rent to someone with a criminal record don't help rehabilitating the individual and reintegrating him or her into society.Worse, it puts the individual back in the vicious criminal cycle. • Some of the policies result in many mandates for landlords and their businesses. • We are not aware of any proposed ordinance that will require landlords to require the submission of evidence of citizenship or eligible immigration status,and/or denying housing based on the immigration status. • Another trend that is clearly emerging supports the argument that such programs don't fix crime, but relocates crime.The following information is a short analysis based on the statistics available on the FBI Web site just for one crime issue(property crime). Ogden implemented their GLP ordinance in 2006-2007,and the other cities don't have it yet. Roy and Layton are neighboring cities. o OGDEN 2006 Total population 80,861 Property Crime ONLY 5,029 o ROY 2006 Total population 36,377 Property Crime ONLY 685 o LAYTON 2006 Total Population 63,795 Property Crime ONLY 1,953 o OGDEN 2008 Total population 83,353 Property Crime ONLY 4,200 o ROY 2008 total population 35,279 Property Crime ONLY 802 o LAYTON 2008 Total Population 65,029 Property Crime ONLY 2,148 Other Information • The cities that adopted this program partner with UAA to provide the mandatory landlord training. UAA provides 70%of the training,and the police and other city staff teach the rest. UAA is charging a fee(an average of$60)per participant to provide the classes. More information is available on their Web site http://www.uaahq.org/good-landlord-program.php • Housing advocates have been successful in collaborating with Salt Lake City and Taylorsville to have broader and more renter-friendly ordinances.These two cities didn't include the pre-emptive statement on denying housing to individuals with a crime on their record in the past three years. • North Ogden, Provo,and St. George are some of the cities looking at creating good landlord programs. Recommendations to improve the program Goals Identify goals in order to fulfill Utah code requirements(10-1-203)when imposing disproportionate rental fees on property owners. Standardized Lease Require the use of a standardized lease for property owners according to Utah's law;the lease shall have a clear statement of fair housing and non-discrimination policies based on local,state,and federal laws. Crime Free Lease Addendum Renters have to sign a Crime Free Lease Addendum to make sure they are fully aware that illegal activities are not tolerated on the property and are cause for eviction;illegal and criminal activities shall be defined. Public Nuisance "Public Nuisance"as being one of the causes for eviction,shall be explicitly defined and reasonably enumerated. Fit Premises Act Property owners and renters must abide by the Fit Premises Act;the Act must be attached to the lease;a reasonable timeline shall be created for the property owners to fulfill their responsibilities;fee charges shall be applied if the problems are not taken care of in a fashionable manner. Utah Housing Coalition Good Landlord Program April 19,2011 No Retaliation Prohibit retaliation against any tenant as the result of reporting violations of a lease agreement, rental dwelling management agreement,City Code or state and federal laws. Ask Measures to Reduce Crime Define what"implement measures to reduce crime"will involve. Crime Victims No retaliation against victims of crimes committed against them;a crime victim shall have the right to sign a new lease;same criteria shall be applied as for any other prospective renter; property owner shall have the right to evict the adult leasee who committed the crime. Criminal Background Check Allow flexibility to property owners to create specific partnerships and additional agreements with renters that have a history on their criminal background check;renters shall bring all necessary documentation to prove time served,good behavior, integration in society,efforts to cease drug usage,etc. Supportive Housing Constitutionally fit exclusions on supportive housing. Record of Housing Denials and Evictions Property owners must be required to keep a log of all of the housing denials and evictions when the Good Landlord Program is used as a premise for eviction or denial;the log shall be available to the city when requested. Communication Encourage at least two annual general meetings between the property owner and renters. Training Program for Property Owners The property owner training program shall be taught in three equal parts by the property owners association, housing advocates or renters association,and city staff;the programs'curriculum shall be clearly defined and enumerated;a reasonable charge fee can be applied to property owners to attend the training. Disproportionate Rental Fees The disproportionate rental fees applied to property owners shall be structured on an increasing scale based on different criteria,such as non-compliance with fit premises act,allowing crime on the property,complaints from neighbors,etc. Incentive to Property Owners A clear incentive has to be identified and provided to the property owners who chose to be part of this program. Elimination from the Program Clearly defined reasons for eliminating a property owner from this program. Taskforce A taskforce shall be created to address grievances from property owners and renters in regards to this program, including elimination of a property owner, housing denial or eviction of a renter;the taskforce shall be represented equally by the property owners, renters,city staff and a local elected official. Responsible Property Owners Create an award system for responsible property owners;outline consequences for repetitive violations of the ordinance, including revoking the license. Enforcement A city office has to be identified to implement this program. Property Owners and Renters Rights A summary of the property owners'and renters' rights have to be made available in a conspicuous place on the property. Utah Housing Coalition Good Landlord Program April 19,2011 This policy review on the "good landlord program"is a work in progress and is a collaboration between Utah Housing Coalition and Salt Lake Community Action Program. In spring 2009, Utah Housing Coalition collaborated with a number of agencies and individuals to address this specific public policy. The result was the above recommendations sent to Salt Lake City Council. For more information,please contact: Francisca Blanc Utah Housing Coalition 801-244-4700 fblanc@xmission.com Sonya Martinez Salt Lake Community Action Program 801-214-3148 smartinez(a)slcap.orq • Utah Housing Coalition Good Landlord Program April 19,2011 r�► go gg May 24,2011 HOUSING AUTH0RITY City Council Members OF ma LAKE cm Salt Lake City Council Office 176 South Wot rumple 451 South State Street, Room 304 San Lake 1.1n',Utah 84115 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5476 VOICE(SO1)4h"-3ib1 FAX(801)4W1"-3641 MD(8014 48"-33fxl Dear Council Members: The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City would appreciate the opportunity to provide the City Council with information to be considered before adopting a fee schedule for implementation of the"Good Landlord Program". Between the Housing Authority and its two non-profits, Housing Assistance Management Enterprise(NAME)and Housing Development Corporation (HDC), we own about 900 rental units in Salt Lake City that we currently pay$100 license fee and$15 per unit disproportionate fee. It is our understanding that the City is considering an increase of the disproportionate fee to $25.09,an increase to us of $10.09. It may not sound like much to the City but we don't have the ability to pass those fees on to our renters like market landlords do. Our rents are determined by both Housing and Urban Development(HUD)and,the Internal Revenue Service(Tax Credits). This increase is a financial burden to our already narrow margins and we would ask that the City consider no more than a$3.00 per unit increase for non-profits who are tax exempt. High density complexes are more cost effective to the City compared to single family dwellings for municipal services. Our decision to sell off our single family dwellings and replacing them with multi-family has already provided a cost savings to the City. Please consider this action when assessing disproportionate fees. Another area of concern is the cost for training and what the training curriculum includes. Our staff has been professionally trained in property management and Fair Housing. We also send our staff to annual update trainings. We are trained professionals that maintain stable housing values,we respond quickly to neighborhood problems,we work closely with the police to ensure crime rates are low and we consider ourselves to be an asset to our community. Would consideration for this accredited training be given, or would we be required to complete the City's training program. What would be the cost for the City's training program? 1,. , i'•.0 • Equal!lousing Opportunity Good Landlord Program Page 2 In our opinion, if the City's training is required, it should be conducted by nationally accredited trainers with a standard criterion. Training should not be conducted by a local entity and should not have a disproportionate benefit to the training entity. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request and please don't hesitate to contact us with any questions you may have. We support the Good Landlord Program as an incentive to Landlords who have been less than desirable neighbors in our community but not if it negatively impacts our ability to maintain our properties. Sincerely, °he' � Bill Nighswonger Executive Director 4110*, v.fl.t�t� 0,64/C,(4,te4A__ I Terry Feveryear Deputy Director • 5/24/2011 Good Landlord Program City Council Overview May 24, 2011 • Total Disproportionate costs for rental units Housing Inspectors/Permits $ 1,041,264 Business Licensing 281,116 Police 1,069,703 City Council 68,36o Mayor's Office 43,379 $ 2,503,822 (See Exhibit A) 1 • 5/24/2011 Ank Per Unit Cost Justification: Housing Inspectors/Permits New FTE Total Cost $427,713 Business Licensing New FTE Total Cost $139,896 Total Costs $567,608 Per Unit Cost Participating 22,626/units $25.09 Total Disproportionate Costs $2,503,822 (Less Participating) $567,608 Total $1,936,214 Per Unit Cost of Non-participating 5,656/units $342.26 Fees Per Unit: Good Landlord Fee's per unit based on recovery of the new FTE's necessary for program implementation. Remainder of costs allocated those who chose not to participate in the program in order to recover t00% of the disproportionate cost associated with rental housing. 8o% Good Landlord 22,626 $ 25.09 2o% Non Good Landlord 5,657 $ 342.26 Total Costs $2,503,822 2 5/24/2011 Projected Revenue: Assumes implementation date of September 1 Revenue Generated From Unit Fees $ 1,941,628 (Less) Unit fees existing in Business Lic. (282,830) Additional Base Fee From l's &2's 145,000 New Good Landlord Revenue $ 1,804,631 3 0 09-1 0 09-39 Attachment A SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 74. of 2009 (Amending Chapters 5.04 and 5.14, and enacting Chapter 5.15 to Establish a Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5.04 AND 5.14, AND ENACTING CHAPTER 5.15,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, TO ESTABLISH A LANDLORD/TENANT INITIATIVE PROGRAM. WHEREAS, it is proposed that Chapters 5.04 (Business Licenses) and Chapter 5.14 (Apartment Houses) of the Salt Lake City Code be amended and that Chapter 5.15 (Landlord/Tenant Initiative) of the Salt Lake City Code be enacted to establish a landlord/tenant program; WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, finds(i) the Landlord/Tenant Initiative program, as set forth below, should be established to encourage better management of rental dwellings in the City, and(ii) adoption of this Ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending Chapter 5.04. That Chapter 5.04 of the Salt Lake City Code, shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: CcTN?i•-744us Chapter 5.04 Aa er RA Usk BUSINESS LICENSES . 11S—Gt dy T I £ se_ e_ i S Article I. Administration irretr d fit:r 5.04.020 LICENSE-ISSUANCE: The ordinance codified herein is enacted to establish the base license fee for general businesses and to establish additional fees for businesses receiving a disproportionate level of the city's services. No license may be issued for a business operation which, on the face of the license application, would be in violation of criminal laws or ordinances or where the place of business would be located in an area not zoned for such business activity unless it is a legal nonconforming use as provided in Chapter 21 A.38 of this code. 5.04.040 LICENSE-NOT REQUIRED WHEN: A. Exemptions:No seventy dollar($70.00)base license fee shall be imposed under this chapter upon any person: 1. Engaged in business for solely religious, charitable, eleemosynary or other types of strictly nonprofit purpose who is tax exempt in such activities under the laws of the United States and the state of Utah; 2. Engaged in a business specifically exempted from municipal taxation and fees by the laws of the United States or the state; 3. Engaged in a business operated under the supervision of the division of exposition of the Utah state department of development services and located exclusively at the Utah state fairgrounds during the period of the annual Utah state fair; or 4. Not maintaining a place of business within the city who has paid a like or similar license tax or fee to some other taxing unit within the state, and which taxing unit exempts from its license tax or fee,by reciprocal agreement, businesses domiciled in the city and doing business in such taxing unit. B. Disproportionate Fees: No disproportionate fee shall be imposed under this chapter on any person who is exempt from a business license under Subsections Al or A2 of this section. With regard to SubsectionA4 of this section,this exemption shall not apply to any disproportionate fees which may be applicable under Section 5.04.070 of this article to a person doing business in the City, nor to any other fees or charges which may be required under this code. C. Reciprocal Agreement: The Mayor may, with approval of the City Council, enter into reciprocal agreements with the proper officials of other taxing units, as may be deemed equitable and proper in effecting the exemption provided for in Subsection A of this section. Nothing in this section shall preclude the city from reviewing and investigating a business license application under such a reciprocal agreement, and requiring payment of disproportionate regulatory fees or other fees or taxes imposed by any other provisions of the ordinances of the city, in the discretion of the city council. 5.04.050 BASE LICENSE ADDITIONAL TO ALL OTHER TAXES OR LICENSES: The base license fee and disproportionate fee imposed by Section 5.04.070 of this article shall be in addition to any and all other taxes or licenses imposed by any other provisions of the ordinances of Salt Lake City. 5.04.060 FEE-NO UNDUE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE: None of the license fees provided for by this chapter shall be applied as to occasion an undue burden on interstate commerce. In any case where a license fee is believed by a licensee or applicant for license to place an undue burden upon such commerce, such person may apply to the mayor for an adjustment of the fee so that it shall not be discriminatory, unreasonable or unfair as to such commerce. Such application may be made before, at or within six (6) months after payment of the prescribed license fee. The applicant shall, by affidavit and supporting testimony, show the method of applicant's business, the gross volume or estimated gross volume of business, and such other information as the mayor may deem necessary in order to determine the extent, if any, of such undue burden on such commerce. The mayor may designate a person ohoik to conduct an investigation,comparing applicant's business with other businesses of like nature. The mayor's designee shall make findings of facts; shall determine whether the fee fixed by this chapter is discriminatory, unreasonable or unfair as to applicant's business; and shall recommend to the mayor a license fee for the applicant in an amount that is nondiscriminatory, reasonable and fair. If the mayor is satisfied that such license fee is the amount that the applicant should pay, the license fee shall be fixed in such amount. If the regular license fee has already been paid, the mayor shall order a refund of the amount over and above the fee fixed by the mayor. In fixing the fee to be charged, the mayor shall have the power to use any method which will assure that the fee assessed shall be uniform with that assessed on businesses of like nature. 5.04.070: LICENSE FEES LEVIED: A. Fees For Businesses Located In The City: There is levied upon the business of every person engaged in business in the city at a place of business within the city, an annual business '' ' license fee per place of business except as otherwise set forth in Subsection F of this section. The amount of the fee shall be the base license fee imposed under Subsection B of this section, plus: 1. The regulatory fee imposed under Subsection C of this section, if applicable; and 2. The disproportionate impact fee imposed under Subsection D of this section, if applicable; and 3. The enhanced services fee imposed under Subsection E of this section, if applicable. B. Base License Fee: The base license fee levied and imposed, covering licensing, inspection (if applicable), and related administrative costs shall be as follows: 1. Home occupation businesses: Seventy five dollars ($75.00). 2. Nonhome occupation businesses: One hundred dollars ($100.00). C. Regulatory Fee: The regulatory fee levied and imposed, for direct costs associated with doing business within the city, covering licenses listed under Section 5.90.010, "Schedule 1", of this title shall be as set forth thereunder. D. Disproportionate Cost Fee: 1. It is determined by the City Council that a disproportionate level of municipal services are provided to certain businesses and residences within the City in comparison with that level of services provided to other businesses and to residences within the City, based on additional municipal services provided to such businesses and on disproportionate use of public utilities and services for police, fire, storm water runoff, traffic control, parking, transportation,beautification, and snow removal. 2. The fee determined to be related to the disproportionate cost of such municipal services is fifteen dollars ($15.00)per employee for each and every full-time and part- time employee exceeding one(1), engaged in the operation of said business, based upon the "number of employees" defined in Section 5.02.005 of this title, or its successor section. 3. Additional fees for disproportionate costs related to a specific business are listed under Section 5.90.020, "Schedule 2", of this title. E. Enhanced Services: It is determined by the City Council that municipal services are provided to businesses within the central business district and the Sugar House business district, as defined in the zoning ordinance, at a level which exceeds other geographic areas of the city. No enhanced service fee shall be charged said businesses at the present time. F. Multiple Rental Dwellings: An owner of multiple rental dwellings or multiple buildings containing rental dwellings within the city shall be required to obtain only one(1) base license and to pay one(I) base license fee for the operation and maintenance of all such rental dwellings plus a disproportionate costs fee as set forth, respectively, in Subsections B and D of this section. G. Fee For Businesses Located Outside The City: There is levied upon every person engaged in business in the city,not having a place of business in the city, and not exempt as provided by Section 5.04.040 of this chapter, or its successor section, the same license fee as if such place of business were located within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. H.Nonrefundable Application Fee: In the event any initial or renewal business license application is denied by the city or is withdrawn by the applicant, the city shall be entitled to retain the sum of thirty five dollars ($35.00) as a nonrefundable business license application fee from any license fees paid or payable to the city, unless another nonrefundable business license application fee is otherwise provided for under the ordinances of the city. I. Renewal Notices: Any notice or renewal reminder provided by the city in connection with this section may be sent by ordinary mail, addressed to the address of the business as shown on the records of the city's licensing office, or, if no such address is shown, to such address as the licensing office is able to ascertain by reasonable effort. Failure of a business to receive any such notice or reminder shall not release such business from any fee or any penalty, nor shall such failure operate to extend any time limit set by the provisions of this chapter. 5.04.080 JOINT LICENSES: Whenever any person is engaged in two(2)or more businesses at the same location within the city, such person shall not be required to obtain separate licenses for conducting each of such businesses,but shall be issued one (1)license which shall specify on its face all such businesses. The license fee to be paid shall be computed as if all of said businesses were one business being conducted at such location. Where two (2)or more persons conduct separate businesses at the same location, each such person shall obtain a license for such business and pay the required license fee for such business. 5.04.090 BRANCH ESTABLISHMENTS: Except as otherwise provided in Section 5.04.070F, a separate license shall be obtained for each branch establishment or location of business engaged in, within the city, as if such branch establishment or location were a separate business, and each license shall authorize the licensee to engage only in the business licensed thereby at the location or in the manner designated in such license. Warehouses and distributing places shall be deemed to be separate places of business or branch establishments,regardless of whether or not such are used in connection with or incident to a business licensed under this chapter. 5.04.094 LICENSE-FEE REFUND PROHIBITED: No license fee, or any part thereof, shall be returned for any reason whatsoever once the license has been granted or issued. 5.04.100 LICENSE FEES-DEBT TO CITY-COLLECTION: Any license fee due and unpaid under this chapter and all penalties thereon shall constitute a debt to Salt Lake City, and shall be collected by court proceedings in the same manner as any other debt in like amount, which remedy shall be in addition to all other existing remedies. 5.04.110 FEES-DELINQUENT PAYMENTS-PENALTY: All license fees imposed by this chapter shall be due and payable upon approval by the city of issuance of an initial business license or, in the event of renewal of an existing license, on the day following expiration of the annual business license as set forth in Section 5.02.120 of this division, or its successor section. In the event any fee is not paid on or before such date, a penalty shall be assessed pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.04.114 of this article, or its successor section, which penalty shall become part of the license fee imposed by this chapter. 5.04.114 LICENSE-LATE PAYMENT-PENALTY: A. Late Renewal Fee-Penalties: If any license renewal fee is not paid by the due date, a penalty of twenty five percent(25%) of the amount of such license fee shall be added to the original amount thereof, and, if such amount is not paid within two (2)months of the due date, an additional penalty of seventy five percent(75%) shall be added to the original amount thereof for a total of one hundred percent(100%)of such license fee. In addition, any licensee whose license renewal fee is not paid within sixty(60) days of the due date shall terminate business operations at the previously licensed location. No business shall be conducted thereafter at said location unless and until the mayor or the mayor's designee approves an application, notice or petition for renewal of a license or for a new license. B. Initial Fee Nonpayment-Penalty: When any person, firm or corporation engages in any occupation covered by the provisions of this title, or adds anything to an existing business which requires an additional license fee,without first paying the required license fee, a penalty of one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of such license fee shall be added to the original amount thereof. C. Collection: All penalties provided for in this section shall be collected by the license supervisor and the payment thereof shall be enforced by him or her in the same manner as the license fees arc collected and payment enforced. D. No License Issuance: No license shall issue until all penalties legally assessed have been paid in full. E. Other Enforcement Not Precluded: Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or in any manner interfere with the enforcement of any criminal or civil penalty provision contained in any ordinance of the city, including,but not limited to, those provisions pertaining to operation of businesses without an unexpired and valid business license. 5.04.116 LICENSE-FEE COLLECTION-CIVIL ACTIONS AUTHORIZED: A. Civil Actions: In all cases where a city ordinance requires that a license be obtained to carry on or to engage in any business, occupation or calling within the city, and the fee for such license is fixed by such ordinance, and the fee is not paid at the time or in the manner provided in said ordinance, a civil action may be brought in the name of Salt Lake City against the person failing to pay such license fee, in any court of this state having jurisdiction of such action, to recover the fee. And in any case where several or diverse amounts of license fees remain due and unpaid by any such person, such several amounts of unpaid license fees may be joined as separate causes of action in the same complaint in such civil actions. B. Other Enforcement: Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or in any manner interfere with the enforcement of any penalty provision contained in any ordinance of the city. 5.04.120 RETURNS NOT TO BE MADE PUBLIC: A. Returns Not Public: Returns made to the license supervisor, as required by this chapter, shall not be made public nor shall they be subject to the inspection of any person except the City supervisor or the supervisor's authorized agent, or to those persons first authorized to do so by order of the mayor. B. Release Unlawful: It is unlawful for any person to make public or to inform any other person as to the contents of any information contained in, or permit the inspection of, any return, except as in this section authorized. C. Release Subject To Records Laws: The foregoing notwithstanding, the retention, disclosure and release of all records received or kept by the license supervisor shall be subject to the requirements of the Utah Governmental Records Access and Management Act, Section 63-2- 201 et seq.,Utah Code Annotated, and Title 2, Chapter 2.64 of this code, or its successor chapter. 5.04.130 RECORDKEEPING REQUIRED: Every person liable for the payment of any license fee imposed by this chapter shall keep for three (3) years records which accurately state the amount of such person's gross annual sales of goods and services for any year for which such information is required by any ordinance of " " the city. Such records shall also state the number of employees of the business such that the amount of any license fee for which such person may be liable under the provisions of this chapter may be determined. 5.04.140 FILING FALSE RETURN PROHIBITED: It is unlawful for any person to make a return that is false,knowing the same to be so. SECTION 2. Amending Chapter 5.14. That Chapter 5.14 of the Salt Lake City Code, shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: Chapter 5.14 RENTAL DWELLINGS 5.14.010 DEFINITIONS: A. "Dwelling" means a building or portion thereof which is used or designated for residential purposes of a family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living space within hotels, motels, bed and breakfast establishments, apartment hotels, boarding houses, and lodging houses. B. 'Rental dwelling"means a building or portion of a building that is: 1. Used or designated for use as a dwelling by one(1) or more persons; and 2. i. Available to be rented, loaned, leased, or hired out for a period of one (1) month or longer; or ii. Arranged, designed, or built to be rented, loaned, leased, or hired out for a period of one(1)month or longer. 5.14.020 LICENSE-REQUIRED FOR RENTAL DWELLINGS: A. Rental Dwellings: It is unlawful for any person, as owner, lessee or agent thereof to keep, conduct, operate, or maintain any rental dwelling within the limits of Salt Lake City, or cause or permit the same to be done, unless such person holds a current, unrevoked business license for such dwelling. B. Business License-Inspection Permit: 1. An owner of a building or buildings containingone (1)or more rental dwellings is required to obtain only one(1) business license for the operation and maintenance of all of such dwellings as provided in Subsection 5.04.070F of this title. 2. In addition to a business license, an inspection permit shall be required for each building containing three(3) or more rental dwellings, regardless of whether it is part of a complex located upon the same parcel or upon separate parcels of property owned by the same property owner. Licenses and permits shall be issued as provided in Section 5.02.120 of this title or its successor. C. Transfer Of Licensed Premises: A rental dwelling business license is not transferable between persons or structures, and persons holding such licenses shall give notice in writing within forty eight(48) hours to the license office after having transferred or otherwise disposed of the legal or equitable control of any premises licensed under these provisions. Such notice of transferred interest shall be deemed a request to transfer the business license, and shall include the name, address, and information regarding persons succeeding to the ownership of control of the premises as required under Section 5.14.030 of this chapter, or its successor. 5.14.030 LICENSE-APPLICATION: An application for a rental dwelling business license shall be made to the license office of the City, and shall include the following information: A. The location and address of said rental dwelling(s); '" B. The number of units located in said rental dwelling(s); C. The name, address, and telephone number of each of the following: 1. the applicant, 2. the owner of the fee title interest, 3. the owners of any equitable interest, 4. the local operating agent, 5. the resident manager, if any, and 6. for each corporate and out-of-state resident rental dwelling owner, the designation of a legal representative and agent forservice of process as provided in Section 5.14.050 of this chapter; D. A certification by the owner,or owner's agent, that the premises complies with applicable ordinance requirements based on a checklist provided by the City as part of the application; and E. The signature of the owners of the premises, and the operator if different, agreeing to comply with applicable ordinances and to authorize inspections as provided in this chapter. 5.14.040 LICENSE-FEES: The license fee for a rental dwelling business license shall be the sum as set forth in Section 5.04.070 of this title, or its successor section, including any applicable disproportionate fee for each rental dwelling per annum or any portion thereof as provided in said section. 5.14.050 LICENSE-ISSUANCE RESTRICTIONS: A. No business license shall be issued or renewed for a City nonresident applicant unless such applicant formally designates in writing with a power of attorney in the name of the applicant's resident agent for receipt of service for notice of violation of the provisions of this chapter or any other applicable ordinances, and for service of process pursuant to this chapter, acknowledged by said agent. B. No business license shall be issued or renewed for a rental dwelling unless the applicant, owner, and operator agree as a condition precedent, by signing the license application, to such inspections, and the City may require, pursuant to Section 5.14.060 et seq., of this chapter, or its successor, to determine whether the rental dwelling is in compliance with applicable requirements. The failure of the applicant and/or operator to consent to such inspection shall be grounds for the denial and/or revocation of the renewal of a regulatory license. 5.14.060 INVESTIGATION-BY CITY: The original application for a rental dwelling business license and all renewals thereof shall be referred for approval to the departments listed in the following sections. The directors of such departments shall determine, based on the self-certification provided by an applicant under Subsection 5.14.030D and any other relevant information, if an inspectionis needed to determine whether or not applicable laws, ordinances,and regulations pertaining to life/fire safety, fire protection and prevention, and applicable codes have been and are being complied with. 5.14.070 INVESTIGATION-BY FIRE DEPARTMENT: The original application for a rental dwelling business license, and renewals thereof, shall be referred to the Fire Department for investigation as to whether or not applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to life/fire safety and fire protection and prevention have been and are being complied with. The Fire Department shall report to the license office within seven (7)days as to the fitness of the applicant regarding compliance with said laws and Allok ordinanceslt shall further be the duty of the Fire Department, after a license has been granted, to continually, and at least annually, examine and inspect the licensed premises with regard to code compliance to approve renewal of such licenses. Should it subsequently appear that any law or ordinance is violated, such fact shall be at once reported to the License Office, at which time such office will inform the Mayor and take action in regards to the revocation of the license as the Mayor deems just and proper in light of the facts of the case and applicable provisions of this chapter. 5.14.080 INVESTIGATION-BY BUILDING SERVICES AND ZONING ENFORCEMENT DIVISION: A. Code Requirements: The original application for a rental dwelling business license shall be referred to the Building Services and Zoning Enforcement Division for investigation as to whether or not the applicable requirements of the Existing Residential Housing Ordinance, International Building Code, International Residential Code, and Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as adopted and amended in Title 18 of this Code, or its successor, are being complied with. The Building Services and Zoning Enforcement Division shall report to the License Office within seven(7)days as to the fitness of the applicant regarding compliance with said ordinances and regulations. B. Limitation on Reinspections: If the City inspects a rental dwelling and thereafter approves a rental dwelling business license, the City may not inspect that rental dwelling during the next thirty-six (36)months, unless reasonable cause exists to believe that a condition in the rental dwelling is in violation of an applicable law or ordinance. C. Violations: Should it subsequently appear that applicable law or ordinanceof the City is being violated, that fact shall at once be reported to the license office, at which time the license office shall inform the Mayor and take action regarding the revocation of said license as the Mayor deems just and proper in light of the facts of the case and applicable provisions of this chapter. 5.14.090 ISSUANCE OF LICENSE: The Mayor, after receiving recommendations from the Fire Department and the Building Services and Zoning Enforcement Division, shall act upon a rental dwelling license application in respect to granting or denying the same, as provided under Chapter 5.02 of this title. 5.14.100 EFFECT OF LICENSE ISSUANCE: The issuance of a rental dwelling business license shall not have the effect of changing the legal status of a rental dwelling, including, but not limited to: A. Legalizing an illegally created rental dwelling or other circumstance, or B. Recognizing the existence of a legal nonconforming use, noncomplying structure, or nw . other nonconformity. 5.14.110 TENANT APPLICATION FEES: A. The City Council finds: 1. That there is at present a shortage of available rental dwellings within Salt Lake City, particularly for low- and middle-income persons. 2. Some rental dwelling landlords or managers have been charging potential tenants a nonrefundable application fee which far exceeds the landlords'or managers' out-of-pocket costs of processing such applications. 3. The effect of such excessive application fees is that a significant number of low-and middle-income persons are unable to obtain housing in the City, resulting in a serious housing crisis within the City. 4. It is necessary and proper that Salt Lake City prohibit such application fees in Ask order to provide for the safety,preserve the health,promote the prosperity and improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort and convenience of the City and its inhabitants. B. For purposes of this section, "tenant application fee" means the fee charged by a holder of a rental dwelling business license, or by any owner, operator, or manager of a rental dwelling within Salt Lake City, in connection with or as a condition of processing, handling, or considering an application for tenancy at such premises. A tenant application fee shall not include refundable cleaning deposits, refundable security deposits, or other refundable deposits required as a condition of entering into a rental or lease agreement. C. It is unlawful for any holder of a rental dwelling business license,or any owner, operator, or manager of a rental dwelling within Salt Lake City, to require any person or persons applying for tenancy at such premises to pay any tenant application fee whatsoever in connection with such application, whether refundable or otherwise. D. A violation of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be grounds for the denial of a regulatory business license application or the revocation of an existing license. 5.14.120 ENFORCEMENT-VIOLATION-PENALTY: A. The provisions of this chapter may be enforced pursuant to applicable provisions of Chapterl 8.50 of this Code. B. Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter, any person or party who violates any provision of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof may be punishable as set out in Section 1.12.050 of this Code, or its successor. SECTION 3. Enacting Chapter 5.15. That Chapter 5.15 of the Salt Lake City Code, shall be, and hereby is, enacted to read as follows: Chapter 5.15 LANDLORD/TENANT INITIATIVE 5.15.010 ESTABLISHMENT OF LANDLORD/TENANT INITIATIVE PROGRAM: A. Purpose and Intent: The City Council finds: 1. A significant portion of the City's housing stock consists of rental dwellings; 2. Proper management of rental dwelling housing is important to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing in such housing as well as to City residents generally; and 3. Any rental dwelling owner who manages the owner's rental dwellings in accordance with applicable provisions of this chapter, thereby reducing demand for City services to such dwellings, should receive a discount in the disproportionate cost fee payable under Section 5.04.070 of this title. B. Establishment of Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program: There is hereby established a voluntary incentive program, to be known as the Landlord/Tenant Initiative, wherein disproportionate cost fees payable under Section 5.04.070 of this Code will be discounted for any owner of a rental dwelling who meets the requirements of this chapter. 1. All applicants for a rental dwelling license shall be informed of the availability of the program. 2. The costs that constitute disproportionate costs and the amounts that are reasonably related to the costs of services provided by the City shall be as set forth in a disproportionate costs study adopted by the City Council by ordinance. 5.15.020 PROGRAM ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS: A. Application: An owner of a rental dwelling who meets the requirements set forth in this section may apply for admission to the Landlord/Tenant Initiative program and, if admitted, Amok shall receive a disproportionate fee discount as provided in Section 5.90.020 of this title. B. Admission Requirements: The following requirements shall apply to the rental dwelling owner or agent of the owner responsible for day-to-day management of the owner's rental dwellings. In order to be admitted to the program, the owner or the owner's agent shall: 1. Complete an application which provides rental dwelling owner and management information deemed necessary by the Mayor to meet the requirements of this chapter; 2. Complete an eight(8) hour training program having the content provided in Section 5.15.040 of this chapter; 3. Complete a similar four(4)hour training program every two (2) years after completion of the initial eight (8) hour program; and 4. Execute a written agreement with the City regarding the management of the owner's rental dwellings as provided in Section 5.15.030 of this chapter. 5.15.030 CONTENT OF RENTAL DWELLING MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT: A. Agreement Provisions: A rental dwelling management agreement referred to in the Section 5.15.020 of this chapter shall include provisions that: 1. Require use of lease provisions, approved by the Mayor, intended to reduce crime on the premises; 2. Specify measures, approved by the Mayor,to be taken at the rental dwelling premises intended to reduce crime; 3. Require compliance with City code provisions referenced in Sections 5.14.070 (Investigation by Fire Department) and 5.14.080 (Investigation by Building Services and Zoning Enforcement Division) of this title; 4. Require nondiscrimination and fair housing as provided in local, state, and federal law; 5. Prohibit retaliation against any tenant as the result of reporting violations of a lease agreement, rental dwelling management agreement, or the City code; 6. Require the rental dwelling owner to track annually occupancy denials and evictions, and provide a record thereof to the City on request; 7. Require two semi-annual meetings for rental dwelling tenants, initiated by the rental dwelling owner or the owner's agent, to discuss tenant concerns and review rental dwelling licensing rules; 8. Encourage, but not require, tenant background and credit checks; and 9. Require the rental dwelling owner to be excluded from the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program upon non-compliance with the provisions of this chapter or the rental dwelling management agreement. B. Compliance: A rental dwelling owner shall be considered in compliance with this section if a violation is corrected in the time required under any notice of violation issued by the City. 5.15.040 CONTENT OF TRAINING PROGRAM-TRAINERS: A. Content: The training program required under Section 5.15.020 of this chapter shall advise rental dwelling owners about steps that may be taken to reduce crime, including, but not limited to, actions recommended by the International Crime-Free Association and the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design program. The program also may provide training regarding best management practices, fair housing law, applicable City ordinance requirements, and any other subject deemed appropriate by the Mayor which is consistent with the purpose of ' mo this chapter. B. Trainers: The training program required under Section 5.15.020 of this chapter may, as determined by the Mayor, be taught by City personnel or by other persons or entities with expertise in the subject matter required under Subsection A of this section. A person who completes a training program which includes some or all of the content required under Subsection A of this section may, as approved by the Mayor, receive credit for the training required under Section 5.15.020. 5.15.050 COMPLETION OF TRAINING PROGRAM: A. First-Time Applicants: A first-time applicant to the Landlord/Tenant Initiative program shall complete required training within six (6)months after the applicant's rental dwelling license is approved.Failure by the rental dwelling owner or the owner's agents and/or managers to timely complete the program shall be grounds for disqualifying the owner from participating in the program. B. License Renewal Applicants: A rental dwelling owner who renewed the owner's business license for calendar year 2010 is automatically eligible for admission into the Landlord/Tenant Initiative program for 2011 upon completion of aforementioned applications and training within the year. A rental dwelling owner who needs to obtain a business license shall,upon application,be allowed to pay the discounted disproportionate cost fee but shall complete the obligations of the program within the same calendar year or shall pay the remaining rental dwelling business license fee. C. New Rental Properties: A rental dwelling owner who acquires one (1) or more new rental properties or misses an admission deadline as described herein may request a review for admission by the Licensing Office. The Licensing Office shall review all such requests and make a determination of admission within thirty(30)days after a review request is received. 5.15.060 CONTINUING COMPLIANCE REQUIRED: The disproportionate cost fee discount authorized under this chapter is conditioned upon the rental dwelling owner's compliance with the requirements of the Landlord/Tenant Initiative program during the term of the licensing year for which the discount is granted. No disproportionate cost fee discount shall be given to any owner of a rental dwelling unless the City finds these requirements of this chapter have been met. 5.15.070 DISQUALIFICATION: A. License Office Duties: If the License Office receives evidence that a rental dwelling owner or the owner's agents have violated the provisions of this chapter or the owner's rental dwelling management agreement with the City,the License Supervisor shall: 1. By certified mail, notify the rental dwelling license holder of the violation and the basis for such action; and 2. Assess the rental dwelling license holder for any disproportionate cost fees discounted under this chapter for the currently applicable license period. B. Appeal: A rental dwelling owner or agent who receives a notification and assessment as provided in Subsection A of this section may appeal such action to the Mayor as provided in Chapter 5.02 of this title. C. Finding of Noncompliance: If it is determined that a rental dwelling owner, or any of the owners'rental dwelling units, have not complied with the requirements of the Landlord/Tenant Initiative program during any portion of the licensing period for which a discount was provided, the owner, together with all of the owner's rental dwelling units, shall be disqualified from the program, and the disproportionate cost fee discount shall be disallowed for Ask the entirety of the term of such license. The rental dwelling owner shall pay the full fee for every rental dwelling unit listed on the owner's license application for that year. D. Readmission: After disqualification, the rental dwelling owner may qualify for readmission to the Landlord/Tenant Initiative program in the next licensing year only if the owner has corrected the problems leading to disqualification and has paid all amounts due in the prior year. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall not become effective until a disproportionate costs study, adopted by the City Council by ordinance, becomes effective. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this gth day of December 2009. iI2,i4e,r (7_CSto,-71. CHAIRPERSO ATTEST: E R Transmitted to Mayor on December 11, 7009 • Mayor's Action: X Approved. Vetoed. 141 ' dal* MAYO' • -1:-'- 41i 4 A_ i i" ' . / .....„s‘ww.,,,4 CITY ' ORDE- 4, .4-''�� (SEAL) oor • APPROVED i':•5 TO FORM Vii.e), '••. �'y I Salt l.aka ity tlornuy'a QiEice `.,'�I?As''''' onto lZ 09 Bill No. 74 of 2009. � '��•�� " 0Y 1-_=13_ Published: ,2 NFL uivo&ov+ Attachment B MEMORANDUM DATE: December 3, 2009 TO: Council Members FROM: Council Planning Subcommittee Janice Jardine and Nick Tarbet SUBJECT: Proposed Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program and related changes to City Code, Chapter 5.04—Business Licenses and Chapter 5.14—Rental Dwellings POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending sections of the City Code, Title 5, Chapters 5.04, 5.14 and 5.15—relating to business licenses, rental dwellings and establishing the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance amending sections of the City Code, Title 5, Chapters 5.04, 5.14 and 5.15—relating to business licenses, rental dwellings and establishing the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program. During the Council's discussion of this item on November 5, the Council supported moving this item forward for a public hearing and additional public comment. The draft ordinance was distributed for review and comment in early November 2009. The groups contacted included a focus group comprised of landlords/property owners/housing developers, neighborhood advocates, non-profit service providers, and community council representatives; City boards and commissions such as Housing Advisory and Appeals Board, Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission; Community Council Chairs; and representatives in the City Administration. A summary of comments received as of November 25 is attached at the end of this memo. The following is a brief summary of the key points of the Landlord Tenant Initiative. It is provided here for background. A. The new ordinance amends chapters of the Salt Lake City Business License Code pertaining to rental dwellings. B. The Landlord/Tenant Initiative program is a voluntary program designed to incentivize good management of rental dwellings and to reduce cost to the City taxpayers for regulation of rental units. C. Requires owners of multiple rental dwellings or multiple buildings containing rental dwellings to obtain one basic business license for all rental dwellings. D. Rental owners will be charged a basic business license fee plus a disproportionate fee for each rental dwelling unit. 1 E. Owners are not required to participate in the Landlord/Tenant Initiative. However,those who choose to opt out must pay a disproportionate fee—a fee that helps cover the cost of additional City services that could be avoided with greater oversight by the property owner. F. Owners who choose to participate in the program and meet its requirements receive a lower fee. G. Participants in the program will be required to: 1. Certify that the premises are in compliance with ordinance requirements based on a checklist provided by the City as part of the application. 2. Execute a written agreement with the City regarding management of the owner's property 3. Provide contact information;current email and phone number,to better enable communication between the city and the Property Owner. 4. Complete the City's landlord training program. 5. Hold the required bi-annual tenant meetings. 6. Use the City approved lease. H. Redefines"rental dwelling"as a building or portion of a building that is: 1. Used or designated for use as a dwelling by one or more persons;and 2. Available to be rented,loaned,leased,or hired out for a period of one month or longer; or 3. Arranged,designed,or built to be rented,loaned,leased, or hired out for a period of one month or longer. 4. Re-inspections are limited to a 36-month time limit on the City inspections unless reasonable cause exists to believe that a condition in the rental dwelling is in violation of an applicable law or ordinance,or if the City receives safety issue complaints. The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on November 5,2009. It is provided again for background purposes. .0004 The following is a brief summary of key items from the attached draft ordinance regarding the creation of a Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program and related amendments to the City's business license and rental dwelling regulations. They are provided here to assist in the Council's discussion on November 5. The intent is to receive feedback from the Council and identify steps to move this item forward further action. Additional items may be identified and discussed by Council Members. Administrative staff has indicated concern with some of the proposed changes and will be prepared to discuss their issues with the Council. • ATTACHMENTS: The following attachments are provided for background purposes: A. Proposed draft ordinance B. Required and Optional Elements for a Good Landlord Program outlined in State law provided by Neil Lindberg C. Elements of a Quality Rental Housing Program provided by the Utah Housing Coalition D. Focus Group meeting notes for April 7 & 13, 2009 and initial elements identified by the Council's Planning Subcommittee with comments from Administrative staff and Focus Group Amok E. Information provided to the Council by the Utah Apartment Association at the Council Work Session on September 9, 2008. 2 F. Summary of research regarding issues, alternatives and options related to Good Landlord/Quality Housing legislation • POTENTIAL PROCESS OPTIONS • City Council Work Session discussion(November 5) • Staff prepare fmal draft ordinance • Provide for public review and comment • City Council public hearing(December) • Other options identified by the Council (Please note- The following are only key items included in the proposed ordinance. All changes included in the draft are not listed here.) Chapter 5.04—Business Licenses 5.04.070—License Fees Levied, Sec. F—Multiple Rental Dwellings (See draft ordinance-pg.3, lines# 128-132) • Requires an owner of multiple rental dwellings or multiple buildings containing rental dwellings to obtain one base license and pay one base license fee for all rental dwelling plus a disproportionate costs fee. Chapter 5.14—Rental Dwellings A. 5.14.010—Definitions (See draft ordinance-pg.8, lines#278-289) • Redefines "rental dwelling" as a building or portion of a building that is: o Used or designated for use as a dwelling by one (1) or more persons; and o Available to be rented, loaned, leased, or hired out for a period of one (1) month or longer; or o Arranged, designed, or built to be rented, loaned, leased, or hired out for a period of one (1)month or longer. B. 5.14.020—License Application (See draft ordinance-pg.8, lines#300-303) • Changes the requirement to obtain a business licenses for three or more rental dwellings to one or more rental dwellings. C. 5.14.030—License Required for Rental Dwellings (See draft ordinance-pg.9, lines# 345-347) • Requires certification by the owner, or owner's agent,that the premises regarding compliance with applicable ordinance requirements based on a checklist provided by the City as part of the application. D. 5.14.080—Investigation by Building Services and Zoning Enforcement Division (See draft ordinance -pg.11, lines#413-416) 3 Amok • Places a 36-month time limit on re-inspections by the City unless reasonable cause exists to believe that a condition in the rental dwelling is in violation of an applicable law or ordinance. E. 5.14.100—Effect of License Issuance (See draft ordinance-pg.11, lines#431-439) • Recognizes that issuance of a rental dwelling business license shall not have the effect of changing the legal status of a rental dwelling,including,but not limited to: o Legalizing an illegally created rental dwelling or other circumstance, or o Recognizing the existence of a legal nonconforming use,noncomplying structure, or other nonconformity. F. 5.15—Landlord/Tenant Initiative (See draft ordinance-pgs.13 to 16, lines#485-652) • Establishes the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program. Please see the draft ordinance for details. Sections include: o 5.15.010 Establishment of Landlord/Tenant Program o 5.15.020 Program Admission Requirements o 5.15.030 Content of Rental Dwelling Management Agreement o 5.15.040 Content of Training Program—Trainers o 5.15.050 Completion of Training Program o 5.15.060 Continuing Compliance Required o 5.15.070 Disqualification G. 5.60—Fee Schedules (See draft ordinance—pg. 17, lines# 685-689) • Adds rental dwellings to the Disproportionate Fee Schedule 4 Attachm C Attachment C Good Landlord Program Cost Analysis Methodology Hourly Rates for Housing Inspections DIRECT COSTS Add:Depreciation Expense on Fleet Vehicles Note 1 22,276.91 Add:Unallocated General Fund Administrative Fees Note 2 137,168.09 Add:Housing Inspectors Administration It CET)Admits Note 3 71,607.72 Add:Apartment Inspection Staff k Building Costs Note 4 733,847.49 733,847.49 Add:Legalization Planner k Building Costs Note 5 76,364.00 76,364.00 Net Expenditures $ 1,041,26422 $ 810,211.49 Add:Depreciation Expense on Fleet Vehicles Note 6 Fully Depreciated Add:Unallocated General Fund Administrative Fees Note 7 54,07133 Add:Business License Administration Note 8 1536713 Add:Business License Staff k Building Costs Note 9 189,217.38 189,217.38 add:Business-License Support Sm0f and Building Costs Note 10 222,26532 22,265.32 Net Expenditures 281,116.36 211,48270 Add:Depreciation Expense on Fleet Vehicles Utilizes Motor Pool Vehicles Add:Unallocated General Fund Administrative Fee, Note 11 6,65453 Add.City Council Administration Note 12 5,228.15 Add:City Council Members k Building Costs Note 13 56,477.66 56,477.66 Net Expenditures 68,36034 56,477.66 Add:Depreciation Expense on Fleet Vehicles Utilizes Motor Pool Vehicles Add:Unallocated General Fund Administrative Fees Note 14 9,926.40 Add:Mayors'Office Administration Note 15 299.84 AifirMi0iMR"'"Mblif il&@tv19{G T Note 16 33,15279 33,152.79 Net Expenditures 43 379.03 33,15279 Add:Polke Officer Call out costs Note 17 13,069,703 $1,069,703 Total Costs 5 2503,82275 Revenuer received for Business Licensing 5 424,245.00 total Expenses 5 2079,577.75 Proposed Fee per Unit Based on recovery of FTEo only from those 80%On Good landlord 22,626 5 25.00 pattklpadng In the GLL program,with the 20%Not on Good Landlord 5,657 5 34200 • Note St Business License Staff Good Landlord Good landlord Salary per FY10 POPS Annual Cost pro rate share Costs Business Licenses Admin $78,232 125% 59,77900 License Enforcement Officer $64,856 12-5% $8,107.00 License Enforcement Officer $64,856 125% 58,107.00 License Processor $42,544 125% 55,318.00 Combination Processor $51,239 125% $6,404.88 License Processor $60,916 12.5% $7,614.50 Business Sery A Licensing Mgr-For Goodlandli Business Licensing Supr $70,000 100.0% 570,000.00 Dev.Rev Com Processor 1099-For Goodlandlot Business Licensing Processor 560536 100.0% 560536.00 Total Salary 5493,179 5175,866.38 Allocated Building 35.66% Costs-Business License Staff est.260 sf per empl $18 psi(per Prop Mgt) $4,680 Times 8 employee(s) 8 $37,440 35.66% 513,351.01 Tidal Business License Staff $189,21736 Note It Business License Support Staff Good landlord Good landlord Salary per FY10 POPS Report Animal Cost Po rate share Costs Finance Director $81,260 5% 54,063.00 Rev Analyst/Auditing Mgr $84,822 20% 517,014.44 Total Salary $166,082 521,057.44 Allocated Building 12.69% Costs-Business License Support Staff est 260 sf per empl $18 psi(per Prop Mgt) $4,680 Times 2 employee(s) 2 $9,360 12-69% 51,187.88 Total Business License Support Staff 522,265.32 Note11: Unallocated General Fond Administrative Fees-City Council $to he Derived Good Landlord Fen per FY09 Admits Fee allocated Percentage 5$ All City Depb(except lMS) 5361,006 58.82% 5212-3.56 IMS Admin $8.5,612 58.82% 550.360 Risk Management $5,890 58.82% 53465 Total Admm bees 5452,508 S266,181 Percentage of Good landlord Time 250% 56,655 City Council Members FTEs 1S Total City Council FTEs 2'_1 AN 0 © • Note 131 Mayors Office Administration S to be Derived Good Landlord AdminLs native allocated Percentage $9 FY10 Actual Expenses 0800100 5238.2511 18.18% S43,319.55 FY10 Actual Expenses 0801000 S20,009 18.18% 3,638.05 Percentage of Good landlord Time 824% 5300 Alayors Office FTFs 4 Total Alayors Office FFEs 22 Note 161 Mayors Personel and Building Costs Good Landlord Good Landlord Salary per FY10 POPS Amoal Cost pro rate share Costs Communication Director S141,112 3.8% S5,291.70 Community Liaison S71,832 20.0% 114,366.40 Cots Affairs/ADA Analyst S75,356 3.8% $2,825.85 Community Liaison $72,652 10.0% S7,265.20 Total Salary 5360,952 S29,749.15 Allocated Building Costs-Mayors Office est 260 sf per empl $18 psi(per Prop Mgt) $4,680 Times 10 employee(s) 4 S18,720 18.18% S3AO3.64 Total Mayors Office 133,15279 Note 17: f to be Good Landlord Administrative allocated SS FY11 Estimated Expenses(current hrly ate for 2004) 51,069,703 $1,069,703 Hourly Per 2004 Business Licenseing Cost Anal) $95.80 Apartment calls per VERSADEX database 1/117 5583 ..Per Melissa Pehaon-2 officers per call avg 60 min Attachme___c, D Attachment D Good Landlord Projected Revenue For Year Ending June 30,2012 Number of Units-3+ 23,283 Estimated Number of Units-1 and 2's 3,500 *Total#of 1&2 units estimated at 5,000-this estimates 70%would obtain license TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS 26,783 Based on recovery of FTEs only from those g0%On Good Landlord 21,426.40 $ 25.00 participating in the GLL program,with the remainder amount allocated to no participating. 20%Not on Good Landlord 5,356.60 $ 342.00 535,660.00 1,831,957.20 New Good Landlord Revenue $ 2,367,617.20 (Less)Current Business License Revenue From Existing Apartments (349,245.00) base fee for multi-units Revenue Generated By Good LandLord Pr -80.6% $ 2,018,372.20 New Revenue for the Base Fee For 1's and 2's 175,000.00 Total Yearly Revenue Generated -87.6% $ 2,193,372.20 10/12 Of Total Revenue Generated -0.730007812 $ 1,827,810.17 We are only anticipated that it will be in effect 10 of the 12 months of 2012 $ (2,503,822.75) Less Expenses calculated through Cost Analysis (676,012.58) Because we are not implementing the program until Sept 2011 we are not anticipating a revenue neutral year. (310,450.55) Full Year revenue per month: $ 180,463.10 Fee Options Fully Loaded Direct Costs TOTAL ANTICIPATED COST OF GOOD LANDLORD PROGRAM $ 2,503,822.75 Number of Units-3+ 23,283 Estimated Number of Units-1 and 2's 5,000 TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS 28,283 **Apartment units based on report pulled by Kent Overly Based on recovery of FTEs only from those participating in the GLL program, 80%On Good Landlord 22,626.00 $ 25.00 with the remainder amount allocated to no participating. 20%Not on Good Landlord 5,656.00 $ 342.00 **80/20 Compliancy rate based on benchmark study performed.City's surveyed:Ogden,West Jordan,West Valley,Clearfield,South Salt Lake and Midvale. base fee for multi-uni Current Costs to Operate an Apartment 80%On Good Landlord 22,626.40 $ 339,396.00 20%Not on Good Landlord 5,656.00 $ 84,840.00 $ 424,236.00 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: May 17,2011 BUDGET FOR: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: David Everitt,Gina Chamness,Gordon Hoskins,Bryan Hemsley,Dan Mule, Teresa Beckstrand,Mary Beth Thompson,Elwin Hellmann The Department of Finance indudes the functions of the former Finance Division (Revenue Auditing,Accounting,Financial Reporting),as well as Business Licensing, the Purchasing and Contracts Division,and the Office of the City Treasurer. In total, there are 49.5 FTE's in this Department(.3 of an r'1'E is funded through the Risk Fund). Department of Finance Adopted Proposed FTEs 2010-11 Budget 2011-12 Budget Difference % Accounting (Payroll, Accounts 8.5 $792,652 $827,965 $35,313 4.5% Payable and Grants Acquisition) Financial Reporting & Budget 4.0 359,494 340,998 ($18,496) -5.1% (Financial Reporting, Budget Facilitation, Capital/Fixed Asset Reporting) Auditing of Revenue/Business 20.0 1,384,488 1,552,638 $168,150 12.1% License (Revenue Auditing and Business Licensing) Purchasing/Contracts(Purchasing 10.0 739,456 872,951 $133,495 18.1% and Contract Development) Treasurer's Office (Cashiering, Cash 7.0 985,257 1,063,256 $77,999 7.9% & Debt Management and Special Assessments) Total(General Fund) 49.5 $4,261,347 $4,657,808 $396,461 9.3% IFAS Maintenance (Funding Source: 814,433 479,975 ($334,458) -41.1% IMS Fund) OVERALL KEY ITEMS: 1. Landlord/Tenant Initiative (also known as the"Good Landlord Program") The Mayor's Recommended Budget includes the final steps to implement the Landlord / Tenant Initiative for landlords of rental units within Salt Lake City. What is commonly referred to as the "Good Landlord Program" was adopted by the City Council in December of 2009 as the"Landlord / Tenant Initiative," a Program to incentivize good management of multi- unit rental dwellings. The last piece of implementing the program included calculating a 1 disproportionate fee based on a cost analysis of the true cost to the City of providing additional services and responses for issues with rental properties. Description of the Program: All owners of rental dwellings (single units to multi-units) will be required to obtain a business license. (One-and two-unit apartment owners/landlords have not previously been required to obtain business licenses.)The fee for the license will include a base fee plus a per-unit fee (see Licensing Structure below). Owners / landlords can choose to comply with the Program requirements in order to reduce the per-unit fee for their license. The Program requirements include certification by the owner of property compliance,management agreements,contact information, training, tenant meetings,and • use of the City's lease template. For owners/ landlords who elect not to participate in the Program,a higher disproportionate fee will be assessed for business licenses. The disproportionate fee was determined using the cost analysis performed by the Administration and is set to fully recover the cost of services provided by the City. The $25.09 fee was calculated based on the cost of the new staff divided by those participating in the program. (This new fee structure would be effective September 1, 2011.) Licensing Structure: For Properties with 1 or 2 rental units: Base Fee: $ 50.00 + Per Unit Fee: $342.29"disproportionate fee" if not participating in the program OR +Per Unit Fee: $ 25.09 if the landlord is participating in the program For Properties with 3 or more rental units: Base Fee: $100.00 + Per Unit Fee: $342.29"disproportionate fee" if not participating in the program OR +Per Unit Fee: $ 25.09 if the landlord is participating in the program Budget Components: o Staffing: The Mayor's total recommended budget includes$291,704 for five new staff positions associated with the Landlord / Tenant Initiative. This indudes: • $108,780 for two Business Licensing Staff: one Supervisor and one Business Licensing Processor included in the Finance Department budget. This budget assumes hiring for the positions in September; the full year cost for the two positions in Business Licensing will be$130,536. • $182,924 for three permitting and inspection staff: two Housing&Zoning Enforcement staff and one Planner at the Permits Counter (these are included in the Community&Economic Development budget) o Revenue Estimates: $1,804,631 increase in business license revenue. This anticipates an 80% participation rate of current multi-unit landlords / owners in the Program. For the newly licensed 1- and 2-unit landlords/ owners, the Administration has estimated that approximately 3,500 of those landlords will obtain the newly required license. 3,500 is 70% of the estimated number of units existing in the City. The 2 Council may wish to note that if participation rates vary from the 80% multi-unit and 70% one-and two-unit landlords, the revenue numbers will change. 2. Business License Fees-The Administration is proposing a 10% increase to all Business License fees charged by the City for regulatory, disproportionate,and per employee fees. This will generate $416,667 in additional revenue. The fee increases would be effective September 1,2011. For a list of the proposed fee changes,please refer to the ordinance in item C18. 3. Collections Unit-The Council requested and approved the development of a Collections Unit in the 2010-11 Finance Department Budget. In order to address the volume and value of aging receivables for the City, the Administration proposed assigning 8.0 nibs (an addition of six new positions and two positions transferred from the Justice Court) toward collecting outstanding debts to the City. The FY10-11 cost for the new positions and some related materials was budgeted at$505,543 (this was an increase to the City's budget of $350,000,because of the reduction to the Justice Court budget). To manage the work, the Administration left one of the eight positions vacant and purchased a collection management and tracking system for$54,600. The Council may wish to note that this was an additional financial management tool that was not available in the City's existing financial software. The Council may wish to ask whether the Administration will fill the position and how the annual maintenance costs for the new software will be handled. In the May 10th revenue outlook presentation by the Administration,it was reported that due to the efforts of the Collections staff, the overall outstanding receivables have decreased by$489,414. The collection efforts resulted in receipt of$1,091,738 of outstanding receivables. (The$489,414 is the net change between the amount collected and new receivables.) 4. Overall Staffing and Salary Changes: o $793,801 of the Department's total increase is due to Salary and Benefit increases. Of this amount,$76,372 is due to insurance rate changes and$82,548 is due to the proposed salary adjustments. o $20,833 of the increase is to fund a new part-time position to help with accounting records and storage. o $108,780,as mentioned above,is due to the new positions for the Landlord / Tenant Initiative. NOTE:all new positions are budgeted assuming a hire date in September, which means that in future years, the cost of the positions will be higher. For the part-time records management position, a full year cost will be$27,800 and the full year cost for the Landlord/Tenant related positions will be$130,536. o The Administration also proposes converting a grant writer position to a Purchasing / Contract specialist There would be two grant writer positions remaining in the Finance Department. The Police Department has increased their internal grant writing functions with existing staff. Historically, the Council had requested that the grant writers be centrally located and available to any City department; however,there are generally a higher number of grants related to the Police Department. Although the staffing assignments is an Administrative role, the Council may wish to consider its previous discussions of centralizing all three 3 positions within the Finance Department to assure that every potential grant • opportunity is explored. If the Council did want to maintain three grant writing positions,it would necessitate adding an FTE or not converting this position to Contracts. o For a list of the positions in the Finance Department,please see the last page of this report. 5. Credit Card Charges-as in previous years,the amount the City pays in credit card fees is increasing and the Administration is requesting an additional increase of$35,000 for 2011- 12. Amounts vary based on how much residents or customers charge for City permit fees. • (For the current budget year, the Administration has also included a request for$35,000 in Budget Amendment No.4.) QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION/MAI FRS AT ISSUE: o During the revenue outlook briefing on May 10t,the Administration presented that the disproportionate fee was set to recover 100% of the cost of the City services for rental issues. Also provided by the Administration was a comparison to other local jurisdictions with a "Good Landlord Program." According to the comparison, the City's proposed disproportionate fee (of$342 per unit) is higher than the disproportionate fees charged by the other cities. (Ogden, West Valley,South Salt Lake,Clearfield,and Midvale were shown.) A comment was made during the briefing about the incentive this provides to landlords/ owners to participate in the City's initiative. The Council may also wish to consider whether the fee should be fully cost recoverable. The Council could weigh the incentive this may be for landlords to participate against the policy of setting this fee to fully recover costs when other fees in the City are not. The Council could consider how this folds into the Council's Policy priority of encouraging and supporting Neighborhood Quality of Life. o The Council has discussed including fraternities and sororities in the definition of"rental dwelling" and include them in the new Landlord/ Tenant Initiative as well. This would require an amendment to the base ordinance. o In keeping with the Council's Streamlining and Oversight priority, the Council may wish to ask: o Whether the City's Business Licensing Division has been fully trained to use the Accela software to its maximum and whether all business licensing information is now being successfully managed through and available through that system so it is available to all City Departments. o The status of the Administration's efforts to investigate software,hardware or other tools that would save time and money in the City's financial management LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS /INTERIM STUDY ITEMS 4 1. Collections: The Council had adopted a legislative intent statement and interim study item for the City's collections efforts. As reported above, this has largely been satisfied and significant progress is being made. 2. Transaction Fees Study Item-Encourage environmentally-friendly payment options for City-related transactions. In response to the City Council's expressed interest in assuring environmentally-friendly payment options for all City-related transactions, the Administration has been working to identify areas that currently do not offer online or paperless transactions. At the mid-year report, the Administration indicated that a work group would be tasked with further review of this issue. There was no update provided for this item in the annual update transmitted with the Mayor's Recommended Budget 3. Business License Fees -Research business license fees in order to develop a methodology that is equitable for both large and small businesses.At the mid-year report,the Administration indicated that a work group would be tasked with further analysis of this issue. There was no update provided for this item in the annual update transmitted with the Mayor's Recommended Budget. Information from last year's staff report: The Administration is aware of the City Council's interest in developing a methodology for calculating business license fees that is equitable for both large and small businesses. At this time, the Administration, along with Business License staff, is working to insure that data,following the conversion from the Legacy System to Accela, is up-to-date and correct. At this point, there is not enough accurate data to conduct an analysis. As soon as the Business License database in Accela is error free and fully functional, the Administration will begin an analysis of the methodology for calculating fees and consider potential changes to the fee structure. The Administration will keep the Council informed as this process continues, but at this point, the Administration is still working on the data necessary to develop the methodology. 5 , FTEs Accounting(Payroll,Accounts Payable and Grants Acquisition) Finance Director 1.00 Controller 1.00 Systems Support Admin 1.00 Grants Acquisition/Project Coordinator 2.00 Payroll Administrator 1.00 Accoutnant II 2.00 *New*'Records'&Storage 0:50 Accounting Total: &50 Financial Reporting&Budget(Financial Reporting,Budget Facilitation, Capital/Fixed Asset Reporting) Budget&Reporting Manager 1.00 Accountant IV 1.00 Staffing/Position Control Specialist 1.00 Property Control Agent 1.00 Financial Reporting&Budget Total: 4.00 Revenue Auditing&Business License(Revenue Auditing and Business Licensing) Revenue Analyst/Auditor Manager 1.00 Revenue Analyst&Auditor 2.00 Revenue Analyst&Administrative Internal 1.00 Auditor Busines License Administrator 1.00 *NEW*Good Landlord Business Licensing 1.00 '®""• Supervisor Business License Enforcement Officer 2.00 Development Review Combniation Processor 1.00 Collections Manager 1.00 Collections Officer 7.00 *NEW*Good Landlord Business Licensing 1.00 Processor Business Licensing Processor 2.00 Revenue Auditing&Business License Total: 20.00 Purchasing/Contracts(Purchasing and Contract Development) Chief Procurement Officer 1.00 City Contracts Administrator 1.00 Purchasing Consultant 1.00 Procurement Specialist 2.00 Procurement/Contract Specialist 1.00 Contract Development Specialist 2.00 Contracts Processing Coordinator 1.00 Office Facilitator 1.00 Purchasing/Contracts Total: 10.00 Treasurer's Office(Cashiering,Cash&Debt Management and Special Assessments) City Treasurer 1.00 Deputy Treasurer 1.00 Cash Management/Investment Analyst 1.00 Cash Management Assessments Analyst 1.00 City Payment Processor 2.00 Office Facilitator 1.00 Treasurer's Office Total: 7.00 Finance Department Total: 49.50 6 `-FY2O.i yProp iSe .=, . ) x _ Difference Fee Type Salt Lake Salt Lake Slf� ` aia Salt Lake Salt Lake City City �a ` .. City City Disprop. Regulatory `D p ' Regulatory Disprop. Regulatory BASE FEE: qs%" Non-Home Occupation License $ 100 " ' ," 1;` :;, 10 Under$50,000 Gross Revenue ' t - - - $50,000 or more Gross Revenue . ? ,.1;. - - - _Commercial Base Rate 1 to 5 employees Commercial :;SydY-y,;: "2': '" Base Rate 5 to 10 employees Commercial Base Rate 11 to 50 employees , , - - - - - Commercial Base Rate 51 to 250 employees }�" •` �'" - - - - Commercial Base Rate 251 to 500 employees � } f Commercial Base Rate 500+employees Home Occupation License 75 " :: 8 Under$50,000 Gross Revenue • ` - - $50,000 or more Gross Revenue EMPLOYEE FEE: r r Employees - - - - - 15 1° a, : , y,; - - - - 2 0-250 employees • - - - 251 or more employees `a - SPECIAL REGULATORY AND DISPROPORTIONATE FEES: ALCOHOL LICENSES - s::-``-, _ , _ti:�: Beer Class A, -'- = ..2., i.e., sold by grocery and convenience stores 238 - _ - `°' `i. 24 Beer Class B, i.e., served in restaurants 188 -`_t(s_i ',"` "`�" Beer Class C, i.e., bars and taverns = 'k { 266 1ti 27 Beer Class D Special Events 188 - "- "r� :-' ---: �` 213 Beer Class E vNX '-245. 22 Beer Class F Brew Pubs and Microbreweries 188 -`- 19 Seasonal Beer License 1 gg -t "-' :', , "f`¢ '-•:'2]- -"_ 2 Liquor Consumption, mixed drinks/wine 20 'YL "`" "C sum tion i.e., 'v' -' *i - ; -0),5 ``',SI C-w Government Beer :v y:',4�y,F4 z , .z .::t5 ,}.: :-.:. 4,. .. 1 14 Beer Wholesaler ;,• - 4 .. r `'4,;.= x AUCTION -: . ', Y: *Z'; Auction Business 188 ;-,• : __t% . . 1r'y` `"'° >-,2 1, 19 Auctioneer 100 -`-3 k 3 ....• TOWING AND WRECKING ,4.'-__. ,3 `-,,; ,y. Automobile Towingand Wrecking : ' m .;S ` ,"-rt, ., '', HOUSING ;,;.,='. „ -t . 1 yT./If .>_.. Apartments 15 --:_a' 0`Y'-} =`r ' -. I1 T. . R y 1 2 One dwelling unit `''};;:' ' \ --FY20"i:• ro set Fee Type Salt Lake Difference Yp Salt Lake 1. ke�e' k lte Salt Lake Salt Lake City City t� ►` City City Dis ro Regulatoryx YRegulatory Two dwelling units p p' ,,t, r a '',.-.'; r ' rr ;;: Disprop. Three or more dwelling units Hotels/Motels - - - ----- -- - - --- --""• " ":' ;';r.;:.',;�:.x: -- - - - -- - - - - 4 ' ,fik4•5.; *t.: - -- - I Bed &Breakfast 4 5 1 Rooming and Boarding Houses ,.': :. RV Parks and Campgrounds _ 20 - �` .� - -- ----- SECOND HAND_ _ 2 CD Exchange Stores - - - - - _ - - s • '.- - - _ _ _ 375 'r# _ 38 C17 omputer Exchange Stores _ _ 166 Y ={ 125 Pawnbrokers a f r � - - - -- 1,250 - - - - _ Antique Dealers Other Used Merchandise - - - - - - SEXUALLY ORIENTED - - - --Outcall Agencies - -- -- --- 1,000 1 1Oa 100 Outcall Employees-Performer 750 : '$,, • ,- 1820� --- - - - 75 Seminude Dance Agencies - 290 t#;- - — 29 Seminude Dance Bar 222 r- -°' ,3 t Nude Agency �= 23 750 ": ' .825: Nude Entertainment/Adult Business !" -,_ t, 75 288 �.' ` F :��' 29 SOB Employees-Performer 200 , :., , 20‘ 20 SOB Employees-Non-Performer 175 .. .<. 18 SOB Photo Adult 140 4, - '`'-4 SOB Transfer70 = •7', 14 SOLICITORS `, Solicitors i `', -. :; jx.. . .-; ; . 100 , '::; <, _ Sidewalk Vending/Snow Cart(new) - 4�-, �} ` t- _a_ 10 TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS "`' s.y,.;r,;,n-:;. Taxi Cab/Other Trans ortation for hire `i,'; °'-i" .r' Certificate of Convenience 140 ''"`'""`=x:; '} "_ '� Carriage(Horse) 40 ,m . 4 ._:,,,t ,_a:.-:r,F. K <r =- 4 MISC Class A-Private Club, i.e., country clubs 334 r i-= -- #'4'"" `"`'C ''``:'"``A"`'t Class B-Privatefraternal _ `y '�s;. y� ;�.°`' '��•" ;; .Y 34 Club, i.e., nal club *,, `° ',' `::',] .` " ...y.• Class C-Private Club, i.e., 334 ;.4, >�.;3,: - : :% 34 dining club �.. `.' •,,:.:r,., �: �; 334 "s- -s.z_,�. 34 Class D-Private Club 8 334 ` ; :..: 'g i• 34 Class E-Private Club 70 __y'""';"k`--~' .` Tobacco. Includes Grocery, Bars, Private Clubs, Hotels &Motel 85 , 9 ; :u,.~. ',;3'l 9 .,':‘,:.,.." N.°:.:',_1'.•',6 ,,,blades. Difference Fee Type Salt Lake Salt Lake �1 u ; £"y=; 1 1 Salt Lake Salt Lake City City :Glt). City City Disprop. Regulatory ;Disprop .;• , ,M Disprop. Regulatory Businesses with Amusement Devices and/or Billiards20 _ M *; 2 - _ Amusement Devices/Billiards 2.50 ' 1 Dance Hall - - -- - —- - ▪ ,'ti. _ 2 2 '3 --- - 15 13 Y . Motion Picture/Theater _ 75 100 l ';'' - . `,4.10 8 10 1-500 Seats 501-949 Seats _950 or more Seats Live Entertainment/Concerts 15 70 . ' "F'itl; , ' ;' - -2 7 Mass Gathering: 1-100 attendance �+ x ° �� y y -- - - - 100-500 attendance 500-4000 attendance -- - 4,001-8,000 attendance - - - - 8,001-16,000 attendance 16,001-25,000 attendance 25,001 &greater attendance OTHER - - 45 9 Automobile Dealers 5 Automobile Parts Sales 45 Automobile Repair R � 5 Automobile Rental Agencies 202 Banks 100 - Barber Shop/Beauty Salon/Personal Care - xz``` - 8 Child Care Facilities 100 10 Clothing Sales 75 ` Commercial Rental Unit n' ; Construction Businesses 20 ';' u R'` °` '- Constables ;4�:' • '. -w i . 2 Convalescent Home/Retirement ,' .5r-s, ,.:w.Y;,�: ;-,_,,f .A.. Dating/Marriage "'y 1:.; = 23:• * .x it,'' ,.,1 :, 12 Service 80 . ' K_ :- .. :° r ',,.x ,- `L`4. .,. Detective A"''`.;,:` "4;_ iir s- x=7,.' ;- 8 Dry Cleaning and Laundry 100 - ' = y°j g. o Goods Sales :-` 'V`"^,:1,i- ; `r: -::,,.-1. • t .A , ..mac , Electronic 120 = :,; Employment Agency :,.:, M _," . .,t„ Engineering 20sr si-v ;. , 2 Escort Bureau ' £a' Escort/Runner , ` = : , , , Fireworks .g8_, 7 - -- ! 0y.2--0itti,iat:it40:: i Difference ,..,,▪':• 4-'-:',,,,,:' :„...;t6tatilifit4'. ': Salt Lake "aiiitfteRael,': ,- '..,,,:: Salt Lake ,?-,- ,...,.j.,,,.,::•. _,,icc ,,.,;,,,,,ttliv.. .. City Salt Lake ,-,-..,ke *,', '...,-.--5;,--.,,,A,,,..,,:,: ,-,7.,".-.-, :,... ,, ,..„ ..4,, Itividatoey- Disprop.5 RegulatorySaCity ak e3 City City pa ulatorY 4.4 Fee Type Disp• rop . Regulatory ,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,..,:: ,,,....,:- ...,,.' ,:': , 25 .,'',,,,:.--= -• -.'„rv, ,-• •,,,,:, 12- '" -: ':.,'",,,,t,(2'%.!,-f.,,, ', ::: 45 • : -'-,,.4,32-: ': ,.,..'" '-:. 10.'.- ' :•- ' ,..,,- , ,..i.-,i,-;., ,. -,. .„,,; Freight Sticker — 120 ,..<.,"-T....•-• ,17410A::„,-,•,.:•-';*,)6,-„,-,, '''t- '' ''' .-. ''--',;;,,..z,.;.•,---..,..-, ._, Furniture Sales 100 , !.r•--";,r- ' /0 ,..'; ,• .,--",-,....-'ile)'.'!..`::.y.:1-",,,..'"' :`:, .. — Gasoline Stations . 100 4, i,,,,...,___ .-:i, : ,,,,..;;; ;,,;!,„.„,.„.;„,.1. 3 Grocery and Convenience Stores; includes gasoline with conver - ,,, .'::':.".'?.if..-.'i3.9,,Q.11.,7:.".. . --' '''.'::, iii: 25 Group Homes 35 ,-,, . ,, :-...'',,.v ,':':1-''.;'.',. ,-..''-: • ' 2 Hardware Sales — . :-..,.,1 l'.._ :'vs...,.. ,,,,-,;,,',..,,:c ''-',-;',.:.,, .' 6 Hazardous Materials . 20 If ,;•.:. 1' : `..,..'-.A4 , -‘ .`,.•';'"::-' - - • ., , .•-;-, ' .,,,,,r,-:-...p..-, Health Care Facilities Ind Hospitals 55 2 Ice Cream Vendor 4 -Interior Design Businesses 15 ,. Janitorial Businesses 35 , '.„ , '.;-; Z.?•:-.. ;1,1 - .;'-'• ''''.= ' Kennels 17 ,, '' .. ', ' ` :- Lawyers Manufacturing Businesses 2 Mobile Painting ..,,..--•i--- -...,..',-.-',,,...-...; .. .%-,.= --- ,.,: - 2.., f,..,..2--,,s. -,..•`,-s•,-,k--' Pre-School •- =, J.--F....1?--..7-•.'ll- .,-=. -..•"-,-- ,:'''..-. -..'-', 15 sr ,!:.;,,.;!-:s-) -, -,,,•:;., -,,, 8 Racetrack :7,.-...-. .,-.=,-.-,-T.',,:-.8,55%;=-•:•;..g".-;',--s:!.•- 4?''' '. '----='!..:_''.. ,:---',:',-&, Recreation and Sporting Activities 75 ,:= , - ='.-gg'-" ,.= -, -`..'-_,",_•:. -, Real Estate Businesses 35 .--,-,-. ;-= _ __,,..:::,,:, „••••.-„:-js : .:-',:f:-;,-i,z,,,-.. Refuse Haulers . ';'7:•,,,-,',-,'e;1'-:,:;',',-;,.f?"';,--7'., '. '.,..,. ".,:c "''';'-- .:^'';'•_,:':''','=:- ,,''-',5-;'.:',,;;',, ; -,..,_:F• (e: 4.`'' ,,.::'' ' .,.,' —"i-K L;'.t . '';r Restaurants, including Cafeterias. - ...-...:,--=•• ''..;=-49'.',,,,-_---, :,_....,=•,...-=.5,-.4ve,;..,..: Shipping Companies -1, ..;=, ;-, . -,---.. 35 ., ,-',-"' ---.0.,..44 .r',,F. 5 Spa/Massage ,,•.r:-,2,-z. )i.-44,-',,,,,,,,-,,,,, .-..'.....,:e.;: .'...,.. ,:-,4;3:',,-- "Zitt ,c.;;•.i..,4„.?4,7„;;;TP.,-,-:.,-, Short term loans ,s•,.. ..,1_',`-4:: ,..!:-'1,,,,?;:.t!'4.,..''"157 ,1`,i Sporting Goods Sales 45 ',..„:l'.;•,.....,-;:-.„,,,,-:".f-,2'.-..f;.:::;.=-,ii ,-.17 ....'„-,2,•--,- . Stable ,-f-,,,,..1,':•,,,--,,,,,-:=',,,r7-;,,,.., ,:... .;„:.,-,„,,,-,,;-;,,,,,.,.,,, ,- Storage Services „,..1,--.s........,,-,..--, ;.A,,,*--......•%?,-Th Swap Meet: -7 z:.,-' • %- ,..- v,-,:.•s i.: eA*▪ !--1.).-,•••.44:..-:-..-..'•=.•f)-,:)-.'`i Operator ,.;, ,,,. ,..-,-„:.,,,,,,.,, 44:,, Individual Sellers =.....3:*-c--• -„,,:-._,,- 2,-,i,.....-4-•.,r-....4.r..",- .•---, ...... Tattoo Parlor ,- , -,,- . .,,,, 22 Temporary Vendor -,, . - '4,'-12=':' ... :,."..,..,-,,-_-_,,-- -'..-. Z`'''7•- ' - ": , Vehicle Fees-per vehicle ) 6000 GVW and under 6001 to 9000 1. I 9001 to 12000 12001 to 15000 !Ir ) E1iirspset>fi f,: Difference Fee Type Salt Lake Salt Lake S `If' .=a�- i � ic Salt Lake Salt Lake City City i � F„' i :' City City Disprop. Regulatory :Slpi '== Reg1.':..„,k�t+ t Disprop. Regulatory 15001 to 18000 hi_ � i ��.. 4, 18001 to 21000 21001 to 24000 `:a 24001 to 27000 -- - - - - --- - -- - - - -- - - . , `' ---- - 27001 to 30000 Greater than 30000 Vending Machines a� Gumball Machine — - - - '. ''-. r;-,:~ `- -. 4, Food Vending Machine ,. ,'',° -.w P 4 Miscellaneous Vending Machine Wholesale Gas and Oil Businesses(natural resource businesse 20 203 . ': 2 21 All Other Retail/Wholesale Sales 20 35 4 All Other Services - - — - - - 2 f SLC COUNCIL OFFICE ,, RALPH BECKER �.� �� ,(fj� R • 1RECEIVED ";mil `5 altaipi �:5�e• MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR MAY 0 9 2011 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: OC 0 !�<< David eritt, Ch of Staff Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 9, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Quarterly Report on Interim Study Items and Semiannual Report on Legislative Intents STAFF CONTACT: Kay Christensen Office of Policy and Budget (801)535-7677 The Administration is forwarding to the City Council the quarterly response to the City Council's Adopted Interim Study Items and the semiannual response to the City Council's Adopted Legislative Intent Statements for Fiscal Year 2010-11 This response is due to the Council by the first Tuesday in May 2011. The Administration welcomes further discussion on any of the responses offered in this transmittal. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com RECVC,ED P PEa Salt Lake City Council Fiscal Year 2010-11 Legislative Intent Statements and Interim Study Items FY 2010-11 Interim Study Items A. Golf Capital Improvement Projects—further discussion of policies related to use or sale of open space to meet Capital Improvement funding needs. The Administration may wish to forward a proposal or options to consider in advance of a Council discussion on the policy issue. Administration Response April 2011- Golf has submitted an updated proposal to the City Council via the transmittal process. Project priorities, operating budget projections, and construction schedules were updated in this proposal. The funding portion of this proposal is generally the same as previous editions with the exception that the 17.5 acres of property at Rose Park have been removed from the discussion due to the current status of the levee issue. The Administration remains open to creative and novel ideas for addressing Golfs CIP funding challenges. Golf will be discussing the Golf CIP issue with the City Council during their meeting on Tuesday, May 3, 2011. B. Transportation Related Benefits &Transit Passes— study ways to encourage employees to use transit passes including analysis of transportation options, parking options, and proposal of changes with the policy goal of encouraging the use of public transportation. Administration Response- A'transit pass report' has been provided by the Sustainability Division to City Administration. FY 2010-11 Legislative Intent Statements A. Public Utilities Engineer stationed at One Stop Permit Counter Administration Response-On September 13, 2010 the Department of Public Utilities hired an Engineer IV to assist at the one stop permit counter. This new position along with three existing Public Utilities engineering positions rotates at the permit counter on a daily basis. B. Streets Response Team time study— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration conduct a time study or develop a tracking approach over the course of a year on the Streets Response Team's duties and efforts, especially attributable to other Enterprise Funds. Administrative Response—The Streets Division continues to keep detailed records for services provided by the Streets Response Team (SRT). The total cost of services recorded from July 2010 through April 13, 2011 is $164,777. (See Appendix A for a summary report.) 1 C. Data Tracking & Collection — It is the intent of the Council that the Administration collect more detailed accounting data, particularly with regard to expenditures relating to Public Services function including parks maintenance, youth programs, support to enterprise funds, etc. Administration Response —The Department has continued it efforts with data and cost tracking. Another accountant has been hired, which will help in giving more attention to detailed accounting data. Furthermore, due to the success and satisfaction from the tracking program developed in Streets, consideration is being given to further expanding the use of the system in other programs of the Department. D. Economic Development— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration prepare criteria and options for the Council's consideration and approval for economic development tools before any additional offers are extended. Administration Response-Salt Lake City Economic Development Division is currently undertaking an analysis, with the assistance of the City Financial Advisor and various City departments and City Council staff, of all potential incentive tools permissible in Utah, the economic costs and benefits of those various tools for potential Salt Lake City incentives, as well as the fiscal impact to Salt Lake City Corporation in utilizing various potential incentives for business recruitment and expansion purposes. This economic and fiscal impact analysis will help the Administration and Council determine '"'"""'t policies and priorities for potential Salt Lake City economic development incentives. While that analysis is being conducted, Salt Lake City Economic Development Division will continue to work with businesses using standard and current business incentive tools such as the Salt Lake Revolving Loan Fund, the State of Utah incentives provided by the Governor's Office of Economic Development, state and federal incentives available to Salt Lake City such as Industrial Development Bond financing, and Redevelopment Agency tax increment financing. Prior to the completion of the study, analysis and policy recommendation, the Division will consult in advance with the Mayor and Salt Lake City Council prior to any potential incentive offer being proffered to a company relocating or expanding in Salt Lake City or for those that currently require City Council approval, (e.g. revolving loan funds over $250,000). The Economic Development Division is currently negotiating with the City Financial Advisor, Lewis Burningham et. al, to undertake the study. The initial scope and cost were greater than the budget available to complete the project and the Division is now discussing modifications to the scope to complete the work under budget. We will begin the study in May and it should be completed in two months. E. Economic Development— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration earmark $10,000 of the current interest income in the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund for the neighborhood grant program. Administration Response- It is our intention that the interest income from the Loan Fund be mok used this year for the Neighborhood Business District (NBD) grants. We intend to initiate the 2 second round of Neighborhood Business District Grants utilizing funds from the City Revolving Loan Fund. F. PEC— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration identify how to receive input from employee groups, such as the PEC and others, and suggest how to clarify their role in providing input from employees. Administration Response- The PEC is represented on the Benefits Committee and, along with represented employees, is invited to attend all Citizen Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) meetings. The Human Resources Director has met with the PEC to discuss their role in providing employee input and to receive employee input. The Compensation Program Administrator has met with them to review compensation data and to receive their input. He will be meeting with them for the same purpose periodically throughout the budget process. G.Arts Grant- It is the intent of the City Council in appropriating the funding for youth art grants that the Arts Council Board establish criteria for grant distribution that includes but is not limited to: • Providing opportunities to children throughout the City at various locations. • Providing access and exposure to a very wide variety of quality arts experiences / art forms. • Providing increased opportunities for children who face multiple risk factors. • Providing funding that will assist organizations in leveraging other funds that will allow the quality of the experience to be enhanced and/or the number of children served to be maximized. • Providing grants to new or existing arts programs that would allow them to take their programs further in to the community and expose children of all income levels. • Providing grants to new or existing arts programs that would allow the programs to establish sliding scale fees or scholarships to lower income children. It is the intent of the Council that the funds be focused directly on City residents since they are City taxpayer funds. It is further the intent of the Council that: a. The Administration require reporting that will allow the City to determine number of clients served, address of each client and other demographic information that is deemed relevant and reasonable by the City's grant reporting professionals. b. The staff person assigned to the Arts Council confirm that all grant recipients have an internet presence and centralize grant recipients'contact information in a list of providers with direct links (if possible) on the City's web site and in other City materials. Administration Response-The City Arts Council, after consulting with various constituencies and review by the Arts Council Board, developed guidelines and an application for a new City Arts Grants category: "Arts Learning." The information regarding this new category was well- distributed, resulting in a significant number of applications, from both previous and new City Arts Grants applicants. Following a rigorous application review and discussion, the City Arts Council Board awarded 29 matching grants, ranging from $2,500 to $7,500. 3 Thanks to a community-wide distribution of information, the projects supported by these grants are located throughout the City, serve children and young people of all ages and backgrounds, and are offered in every art form, including visual arts, literary arts, theatre, dance, music, folk arts, film and video. The programs are available either free of charge or with a scholarship or sliding fee scale to enable access for children of all income levels. Tracking of demographic data on the participating children will be submitted in the evaluation report from each grant recipient following the grant period which ends June 30, 2011. Preliminary Grant Programs by District (See Appendix B for a list of grant awards): Citywide: 8 Programs District One: 8 Programs District Two: 7 Programs District Three: 1 Program District Four: 6 Programs District Five: 1 Program District Six: 3 Programs District Seven: 3 Programs The number of programs reported here is greater than the number of grant recipients as some organizations provide programming in more than one district. The staff position was filled in February, and one of the responsibilities of this staff person is to create an internet presence for information on these and other opportunities for arts education and arts learning experience for Salt Lake City parents and their children. That process has Ask begun. H. Youth Program Fees— It is the intent of the Council that for all remaining youth programs funded by the General Fund, any non-city resident participants pay the full direct cost of services as identified by the City's Finance Department and authorized by the Mayor. Administration Response—YouthCity, with the assistance of the Finance Department, is currently conducting an analysis of the fully loaded program costs. I. Collections- It is the intent of the Council that the Administration would move forward with plans to enhance collections of debts owed to the City as outlined in the June 1st Work Session briefing. Including: anticipated $1 million in additional revenue, additional $350,000 toward staffing costs within the Finance Department, which will include eight (8) FTEs (8 new Collection positions). With the further understanding that: a. The Mayor and City Council have indicated that collecting funds owed to the City is a matter of equity to taxpayers. b. The City has a wide range of types of funds owed. c. The City has the authority to collect funds owed. d. Judges have the absolute authority to sentence and order a plea in abeyance which is not collectible by the City during the time of abeyance. Judges have complete authority to set the terms of payment and those terms cannot be changed by collections staff without going back to Court for a judicial order. 4 e. The following are clear categories that the City can collect on without stepping in to the Judicial area: i. All civil fines including parking. ii. All criminal fines that are due and payable within the parameters set by the Court. On all criminal cases, only the Court can alter the amount of the fine. f. It is within the City Council's authority to allocate budget and approve a staffing document that specifies within which division / office / department the City's collection function resides. g. It is within the City Council and Mayor's authority to elect to have general fund collections managed from a single department/ division / office. h. The Court Administrator and the staff members who report to the Court Administrator are Salt Lake City Administrative employees. Administrative Response-The new Collections Unit was up and running by September 2010 with 7 employees. The Unit used one FTE to fund a revenue/collection management system called REVQ. As of March 31, 2011, the Unit had collected $700,000. The new electronic booting program is in place and has generated over $100,000 in the first month. 5 Appendix A Workgroup Summary Report- by Activity Group: Streets Response Team Costs for Material, Personnel, Equipment Fiscal Year-to-date Amounts Activity YTD 4/13/11 Flags 7,530.44 Gates 40,196.64 Customer Service 13,554.57 Trouble Calls 20,122.78 Sanitation Can Pick-up 1,202.26 Barricading 8,435.94 Bike Lane Sweeping 36,965.05 Request Sweeping 991.61 Tree Trimming 461.88 Pothole/ Road Repair 38.25 Install or Replace Sign 41.04 Charity Can Pickup 2,655.79 Farmers' Market Can Pickup 1,394.51 City &County/ Special Events 1,296.46 Plowing/ Ice Control 11,960.88 Snow Watch 7,070.27 Vehicle/ Equipment Maintenance 6,576.08 Flag Making 3,857.65 Training 134.89 Tar Pots 290.30 Total of all activities 164,777.29 6 "Accounts" included in costs above Refuse Fund: Sanitation for Can Pickup 1,202.26 Charity Can Pick-up 2,655.79 Farmers Market Can Pick-up 1,394.51 Total Refuse Fund 5,252.56 Public Utilities for various activities 1,224.19 Total of these two accounts 6,476.75 7 Appendix B Art Grant Awards Art Access/VSA Utah $7,500 Programs for public school students with disabilities Gina Bachauer International Piano Foundation 5,000 Music-in-Our-Schools program Bad Dog Rediscovers America 7,500 After school and summer programs Boys&Girls Clubs of Greater Salt Lake 5,000 After school and summer programs at three locations Brolly Arts 5,000 Dance workshops and performances for hearing impaired students Center for Documentary Arts 7,500 Photography and oral history project at three elementary schools Children's Alliance for Education (CAFE) 2,500 Mural projects at three locations Children's Media Workshop 5,000 Visual arts and design projects at elementary schools Community Writing Center 2,500 Literary artist-in-residence for under-served students at several locations Discovery Gateway 7,500 Community ArtWorks classes for children and parents Gifted Music School 2,500 Musical training at downtown location Great West Institute 5,000 Neighborhood-based public art project at Sorenson Unity Center Kingsbury Hall 5,000 Ethnic performances for elementary students Mariachi Juvenil de Utah 5,000 Education and performances by youth mariachi band The Mundi Project 2,500 Multidisciplinary workshops at three locations Pioneer Theatre Company 7,500 Student matinees of four productions on campus for secondary students Repertory Dance Theatre- 2,500 Ring Around the Rose program for children and families Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company 7,500 Comprehensive dance education activities at several locations Salt Lake Art Center 7,500 Art Truck and ARTbytes, visual arts programs for young people Salt Lake Education Foundation 2,500 After school music education program at Backman Elementary Samba Fogo 2,500 Samba Crianca Cultural education through multi-ethnicmusic and dance SB Dance/ Sugar Space 2,500 Art in Body program, teaching dance and health education Spy Hop Productions 7,500 Community Partnerships Program in film, video and music Tanner Dance Program 2,500 Creative dance residencies at six elementary schools University Neighborhood Partners 2,500 Multidiscipline projects in partnership with Mestizo Arts Utah Arts Alliance 2,500 Youth Arts Alliance program in visual arts, music and dance Utah Symphony/Utah Opera 2,500 8 Music! Words!Opera!program for elementary students .0011* Visual Arts Alliance 5,000 Sharing Our Stories program, documenting our community's diversity Roger Whiting 2,500 Ceramic mosaic mural project at Riley Elementary 9 RECEIVED RALPH BECKER MUM�l=1 M l( CJ :�..` " t FEB 0 1 2011 MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Salt Lake City Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL I 0 `�, Date Received: p2/cYt/2 I Day'. Everitt, C Id of Staff Date sent to Council: I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 1, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Quarterly Report on Interim Study Items and Semiannual Report on Legislative Intents STAFF CONTACT: Kay Christensen Office of Policy and Budget (801)535-7677 DOCUMENT TYPE: Legislative Intent Statements BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Administration is forwarding to the City Council the quarterly response to the City Council's Adopted Interim Study Items and the semiannual response to the City Council's Adopted Legislative Intent Statements for Fiscal Year 2010-11. The transmittal also includes the Administration's response to open Interim Study Items and Legislative Intent Statements from previous years. This response is due to the Council at the end of January 2011. The Administration welcomes further discussion on any of the responses offered in this transmittal. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P,O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535.6331 www.siccgov.corn Salt Lake City Council Fiscal Year 2010-11 Legislative Intent Statements and Interim Study Items FY 2010-11 Interim Study Items A. Golf Capital Improvement Projects — further discussion of policies related to use or sale of open space to meet Capital Improvement funding needs. The Administration may wish to forward a proposal or options to consider in advance of a Council discussion on the policy issue. Administration Response-The Public Services Department Director and the Golf Division Manager met with the City Council in September 2010 to discuss the general concept of selling golf property. Five parcels were submitted for discussion, including 10 acres at Bonneville, 13.65 acres and .89 at Glendale, and 17.5 and 3 acres at Rose Park. The majority of the City Council was of the opinion that they would consider the sale of such open space under certain conditions. Those conditions were not determined at this meeting. At that same time, it was suggested that Golfs situation could be used as a case study to help develop a policy for open space sales. City administration plans to forward a proposal in the near future. B. Transportation Related Benefits &Transit Passes—study ways to encourage employees to use transit passes including analysis of transportation options, parking options, and proposal of changes with the policy goal of encouraging the use of public transportation. Administration Response- The Sustainability Division of Public Services will perform further study and analysis of options the City may employ to promote the use of public transit and other alternative transportation means, in addition to the analysis of the transportation benefits program previously provided to the Council. Policy and Budget will assist in this analysis. Areas of study may include, but not be limited to, sharing the cost of parking with employees, further incentivizing the use of public transit and incentivizing the use of alternatives such as biking or carpooling. An update of the costs associated with the existing parking and transit pass program will also be included in the analysis. Onaoinci Interim Study Items 1. Facilities charge on Spring Mobile Ticket sales Administration Response-As the Administration reported previously, Utah Code Section 10-1-203(5)(a)(i)(B) permits a municipality to levy a license fee or tax to raise revenue"on a public assembly or other related facility in an amount that is no less than or equal to $5 per ticket purchased from the public assembly or other related facility". A"public assembly or other related facility"is defined in Section 10-1-203(5)(b)(iii) as one that is: (1) wholly or partially funded by public monies; (2) operated by a business; and (3) requires a person to buy a ticket to attend an event. 1 If the City were to adopt a tax under this section, the tax would have to apply to all facilities falling under the definition. The City could not single out one such facility to be taxed and not tax any of the other facilities covered by the definition. Whether a particular facility is covered by the definition depends on the precise facts. Each of the three elements of the definition would have to be met. For example, the facility must be operated by a "business". If the facility is operated by a not for profit entity, the City Attorney's office does not believe it would be covered by the definition. Facilities such as Spring Mobile Ballpark and the Energy Solutions Arena would potentially be covered depending on the facts. Adoption of such a tax by the City could have an impact on contracts that the City might have with such an entity if covered by the tax. Further analysis of any such contracts would be necessary. 2. Fleet Usage/Replacement Administration Response-Final audit findings and the Administration's response has been transmitted to the City Council. A briefing with the Council is anticipated in February 2011. 3. Special Events—"grant"program criteria and administration —the Council is requesting a report on how the first rounds of grants and sponsorships went and a report on revenue collections in 2010-11. Administration Response-As of 12/31/2010, the amount collected this fiscal year was $42,800. We anticipate additional revenue this fiscal year as we enter event season. In February 2010, a letter was sent to local event organizers inviting them to send in sponsorship proposals to the City requesting sponsorship amounts of between $10,000 and $25,000. They were informed that considerations for sponsorship would be made based on the following criteria: 1) public and community benefit; 2) economic impact; 3) cultural and civic contribution; 4) relationship to Salt Lake City's mission and goals; 5) financial position and need. A March 1st deadline was given for submissions and we received 22 sponsorship proposals (plus one more that came over a week late). A small group consisting of David Everitt, Bianca Shreeve, Bob Farrington and Tyler Curtis read and considered each proposal and created recommendations for Mayor Becker's consideration. After Mayor Becker's review of the proposals, and a brief review of the designated amounts by Council members, we asked the event organizers to resubmit proposals based on the new dollar amounts allocated to them. Instead of the proposed amounts, it was decided to offer a few $15,000 sponsorships and then a number of smaller, $1,500 to $2,500 sponsorships. 2 We worked with each of the 11 events to coordinate the agreed upon sponsorship elements (logos on print materials, booths at events, "green"initiatives at events, etc.) and distributed checks in spring/early summer of 2010. The allocation of the $75,000 was as follows: $15,000 sponsorships: Salt Lake International Jazz Festival Downtown Alliance's Farmers Market Utah Pride Festival Utah Arts Festival $2,500 sponsorships: Unified Bouldering Championships People's Market Days of'47 Youth Festival Native American Celebration $2,000 sponsorships: Brazilian Festival $1,500 sponsorships: Living Traditions (SLC Arts Council)Earth Fest (Gallivan Center) The sponsorships were successful and the program will function in 2010-2011 as it did In FY 2009-2010. 4. Ground Transportation —additional enforcement, fees evaluation, ordinance updates, RFP Administration Response-The Department of Airports assumed responsibility for City wide ground transportation operations in August of 2010. Since that time staff has worked with the Council providing recommended revisions of ordinance, which has resulted in the Council adopting the revisions to City Ordinance 5.71, 5.72 and 16.60, which were signed into law by Mayor Becker on December 3rd, 2010. These revisions among other things allow the City, through the Department of Airports to move forward with an RFP for taxicab services for both the Airport and City. This RFP is in the final stages of draft and is expected to be announced early February, with award expected in July of this year. The Department of Airports has revised procedures within the program that have resulted in greater efficiencies and have put in place procedures and policies to safeguard the transaction of funds and fees. With the changes to ordinance, the ground transportation staff is working with the department's financial division to re-evaluate fees at this time so as to capture all related expenses. These fees will be set forth in a published schedule and a description of the method used in determining the fees will be included in the department's rules and regulations which will be posted for public comment previous to adoption in the very near future. Lastly, the ground transportation staff is working with the industry to educate the service providers regarding the new ordinance changes and actively enforcing the provisions of the ordinance. 3 5. Transaction Fees— Encourage environmentally-friendly payment options for City-related transactions. Administration Response-There are no new developments to report. Over the next 3 months, a working group will be formed to explore ideas and encourage these payment options. 6. Business License Fees—— Research business license fees in order to develop a methodology that is equitable for both large and small businesses. Administration Response-Business Licensing has just completed the conversion to Accela, and will be conducting this analysis over the next several months in preparation for the Mayor's Recommended Budget. FY 2010-11 Legislative Intent Statements Newly Adopted Legislative Intent Statements A. Public Utilities Engineer stationed at One Stop Permit Counter Administration Response-On September 13, 2010 the Department of Public Utilities hired an Engineer IV to assist at the one stop permit counter. This new position along with three existing Public Utilities engineering positions rotates at the permit counter on a daily basis. B. Streets Response Team time study—It is the intent of the Council that the Administration conduct a time study or develop a tracking approach over the course of a year on the Streets Response Team's duties and efforts, especially attributable to other Enterprise Funds. Administration Response-For the current fiscal year, the Streets Division has complete records of services provided by the Streets Response Team (SRT). To support this recordkeeping, the Division has implemented a new software system designed with IMS. The system allows the Division to record costs for personnel, materials, and equipment usage and provides reports that track General Fund expenses and will facilitate billings to non-General Fund entities. Year-to-date costs for the services have been reported to the Department's Finance Division and will be billed. Entities to be billed include the Public Utilities Department. The broad categories of services provided by the SRT as per the Group Summary Report below total $109,935 for the first seven months of the fiscal year and are as follows: restocking of the street-crossing orange flags, closing and locking gates in City parks, responding to"trouble calls" (emergency response for a variety of services), missed garbage or yard-waste cans (when citizens claim that their cans were placed timely on the curb but City trucks missed them), emergency barricading, bike lane sweeping, requested sweeping, tree trimming, pothole/road repair, sign installation or replacement, other can pick-ups for special events and circumstances, snow plowing and ice control, snow watch, and flag making/ construction. 4 • The following is a summary of services and costs for the time period of July 2010 through January 2011, condensed from a detailed report which can be made available to the City Council if requested: Group: Streets Response Team Group Summary Report- by Activities From 7/1/10 through 1/31/11 Report Date 2/1/11 Costs for Material, Personnel, Equipment Activity Cost Flags 4,982.15 Gates 26,864.31 Customer Service 11,050.30 Trouble Calls 13,155.93 Sanitation Can Pick-up 1,202.26 o Fyx' Barricading 5,517.52 Bike Lane Sweeping 23,297.87 Request Sweeping 467.56 Tree Trimming 461.88 Pothole/ Road Repair 38.25 Install or Replace Sign 41.04 Charity Can Pickup 1,711.03 Farmers Market Can Pickup 1,394.51 City &County/ Special Events 1,296.46 Plowing / Ice Control 8,059.30 Snow Watch 3,997.16 Vehicle/ Equipment Maintenance 3,257.50 5 Flag Making 3,005.37 Training 134.89 Total 109,935.29 Two billable entities / "accounts" included in • above: Sanitation for Can Pickup 1,202.26 Public Utilities for various 960.09 Total of these two accounts 2,162.35 C. Data Tracking &Collection—It is the intent of the Council that the Administration collect more detailed accounting data, particularly with regard to expenditures relating to Public Services function including parks maintenance, youth programs, support to enterprise funds, etc. Administration Response-The Public Services Department continues in its efforts to separate and detail its costs as completely as possible. New cost centers have been established to further break out costs, including those of payroll. The Department is working on ways to read and monitor water flow to a greater degree. Other utilities are also being split out in more detail between programs, locations, etc. The Department has taken measures to improve employee cost breakout, including making sure that the correct cost center is used with requests for hire. These are all improvements to prior practices. Beginning in July 2010, Public Services has information for billing the enterprise funds for services provided by its Streets Response Team. Year-to-date costs for the services have been reported to the Department's Finance Division and will be billed. Entities to be billed include the Public Utilities Department. (Also see legislative intent B for the Streets Response Team.) With regard to youth programs, the Department is providing information to the City's Finance Department and a study is being conducted (see legislative intent H for youth programs). D. Economic Development— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration prepare criteria and options for the Council's consideration and approval for economic development tools before any additional offers are extended. Administration Response-Salt Lake City Economic Development Division is currently undertaking an analysis, with the assistance of the City Financial Advisor and various City departments and City Council staff, of all potential incentive tools permissible in Utah, the economic costs and benefits of those various tools for potential Salt Lake City 6 incentives, as well as the fiscal impact to Salt Lake City Corporation in utilizing various potential incentives for business recruitment and expansion purposes. This economic and fiscal impact analysis will help the Administration and Council determine policies and priorities for potential Salt Lake City economic development incentives. While that analysis is being conducted, Salt Lake City Economic Development Division will continue to work with businesses using standard and current business incentive tools such as the Salt Lake Revolving Loan Fund, the State of Utah incentives provided by the Governor's Office of Economic Development, state and federal incentives available to Salt Lake City such as Industrial Development Bond financing, and Redevelopment Agency tax increment financing. Prior to the completion of the study, analysis and policy recommendation, the Division will consult in advance with the Mayor and Salt Lake City Council prior to any potential incentive offer being proffered to a company relocating or expanding in Salt Lake City or for those that currently require City Council approval, (e.g. revolving loan funds over $250,000). E. Economic Development— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration earmark $10,000 of the current interest income in the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund for the neighborhood grant program. Administration Response- It is our intention that the interest income from the Loan Fund be used this year for the Neighborhood Business District (NBD) grants. mak F. PEC— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration identify how to receive input =Ke y from employee groups, such as the PEC and others, and suggest how to clarify their role in providing input from employees. Administration Response-The PEC is represented on the Benefits Committee and, along with represented employees, is invited to attend all Citizen Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) meetings. The Human Resources Director has met with the PEC to discuss their role in providing employee input and to receive employee input. The Compensation Program Administrator has met with them to review compensation data and to receive their input. He will be meeting with them for the same purpose periodically throughout the budget process. G.Arts Grants Administration Response-The City Arts Council, after consulting with various constituencies and review by the Arts Council Board, developed guidelines and an application for a new City Arts Grants category: "Arts Learning." The information regarding this new category was well-distributed, resulting in a significant number of applications, from both previous and new City Arts Grants applicants. Following a rigorous application review and discussion, the City Arts Council Board awarded 29 matching grants, ranging from $2,500 to $7,500. Thanks to a community-wide distribution of information, the projects supported by these grants are located throughout the City, serve children and young people of all ages and backgrounds, and are offered in every art form, including visual arts, literary arts, theatre, dance, music, folk arts, film and video. The programs are available either free of charge 7 or with a scholarship or sliding fee scale to enable access for children of all income levels. Tracking of demographic data on the participating children will be submitted in the evaluation report from each grant recipient following the grant period which ends June 30, 2011. The staff position will be filled shortly and one of the responsibilities of this staff person will be to create an Internet presence for information on these and other opportunities for arts education and arts learning experience for Salt Lake City parents and their children. • H. Youth Program Fees— It is the intent of the Council that for all remaining youth programs funded by the General Fund, any non-city resident participants pay the full direct cost of services as identified by the City's Finance Department and authorized by the Mayor. Administrative Response-The Finance Department has been conducting an analysis of the program costs, with some assistance from Public Services. The analysis is not yet complete. A preliminary review had been conducted but the cost structure has not yet been determined, but will be complete prior to the submission of the FY12 Mayor's Recommended Budget. I. Collections Administrative Response-The new Collections Unit was up and running by September 2010 with 7 employees. The Unit used one FTE to fund a revenue/collection management system called REVQ. As of December 31, 2010, the Unit had collected $350,000. The new electronic booting program will be functional by the first week in March (writing the computer interface between Paylock and ALE is taking longer than expected). A publicity effort, beginning in mid-February will encourage people to pay their outstanding tickets and avoid being booted (cars will be booted if the license plate has 2 tickets over 30 days old). The electronic booting itself will add an additional $147 to the cost of having a car booted along with the cost of outstanding tickets. In addition, there is a bill at the legislature that would authorize the Division of Motor Vehicles to rescind or refuse registration of cars with 4 tickets over 30 days old. If this bill passes, it will give the City a significant new tool to use in our efforts to increase collections. Ongoina Leaislative Intent Statements 2009 Parking Meter Upgrades Administration Response-An RFP to replace 2,000 parking meters with 345 pay stations that accept credit/debit cards was published Jan 12. A pre-bid meeting was held Jan 26. Bids are due Feb 23. 8 2009 Fuel Usage Reduction Administrative Response-City Fleet is continuing to work with departments to explore every possibility for using alternative fuel vehicles. The Streets Division has obtained three battery-powered vehicles for their use, the Police Department has purchased some hybrid vehicles for detectives and the Chief, the purchase of CNG packers for Refuse is in process, and the purchase of 13 CNG trucks was recently approved for Facilities, Parks and Streets. Additional opportunities in other departments are being explored and further details regarding alternative vehicle needs and potential purchase plans will be provided when the Fleet Audit is presented to the Council in February. 2009 Fire Vehicles-It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration report to the Council regarding how a more fuel efficient vehicle could be used on medical calls with the current staffing and operational models. Administrative Response -The Department successfully negotiated a response plan with Gold Cross Ambulance that allows for an ambulance only response on the Alpha medical calls. This change in response has reduced the Fire Department response by more than 2,000 calls per year, greatly reducing fuel consumption and carbon exhaust. The Medical Division is reviewing alternative response models for all medical calls. This modified response will result in fuel efficiencies without impacting patient care and outcomes. The Department has instituted other changes to continue to reduce its carbon footprint and impact to City services. This includes an agreement with Gold Cross Ambulance to assist with the retrieval of paramedics assisting on the transport of patients to hospitals outside the City limits. 2009 Cemetery Budget& Master Plan-It is the intent of the City Council that the cemetery master plan and financial report include an evaluation of appropriate fees (taking into account inflation). In addition, the Administration and the City Council should evaluate and discuss on-going cemetery needs and how to fund them. Administration Response-Phase I of the Cemetery Master Plan is complete and gives recommendations for decisions at the cemetery. The Public Services Department submitted a funding application for Phase II of the study in the FY10-11 CIP, but it was not funded. This project will be'on hold' until funding is provided. 2009 Public Art Maintenance It is the intent of the City Council to have the Administration develop a financial plan to handle the on-going repair and maintenance of the City's Public Art Collection. Administration Response-Inspections and condition reports for more than 52 artworks in the City's public art collection have been completed. Based on this work, a priority list for maintenance and repairs was developed, determined by both the urgency of the need and the budget available. To date, more than two dozen 9 projects have been addressed with a combination of cleaning, repair, surface treatment and other work as dictated by condition. A significant effort has been made at the International Peace Gardens in Jordan Park, including the repair, restoration and re-installation of the"Little Mermaid." Several other pieces in the Peace Gardens have been repaired and there is more work to be done there. Other projects have arisen over time, including the repair of the Peter Max Olympic painting in the mayor's meeting room. This maintenance and repair of the City's public art collection is being tracked and addressed on an ongoing basis. . 2008 Open Space Maintenance Administration Response-Currently the Parks and Public Lands Division, Property Management and the Public Utilities Department are collaboratively working to address open space management/maintenance issue in the interim of developing a plan and staff to manage natural lands. The Open Space Program within Parks and Public Lands is currently working on an Open Space Strategy Plan that clarifies process and acquisition priorities. Additionally, the Open Space Program is developing an Integrated Pest Management Plan, and will develop individual site management plans as necessary to address long-term priorities for management, monitoring and maintenance. In the future the Open Space Program and Parks and Trails will coordinate with the Planning Department and Planning Commission to update the Open Space Master Plan and related City policy. 2008 City Master Plans Administration Response-The Downtown Master Plan — Planning staff began work to update the Downtown Master Plan in November 2008, but halted the effort when the North Temple plan became a priority. It is anticipated that work will begin again on the Downtown Master Plan update toward the end of 2011. Northwest Quadrant Master Plan —At the end of 2010, the administration proposed a public process to provide information and gather additional feedback from the public with regard to the recommended Northwest Quadrant Plan. The process outline was approved by the City Council in early 2011, and it is anticipated that the process will be completed by fall 2011. Upon completion of the process, the City Council will move forward to consider the Northwest Quadrant Plan. Historic Preservation Master Plan —The City Council held a public hearing on the Historic Preservation Plan on March 30, 2010 and tabled the hearing until a future date. The West Salt Lake Plan —The Planning Division has begun work on this policy document. The project team is currently gathering data and public input. The first public meeting is scheduled for January 25, 2011 at which time the project team will present an overview of the current state of West Salt Lake, identify the master plan process and state how feedback will be sought throughout the process. The team has already begun gathering demographic and GIS data for the plan and is looking at potential areas to focus on throughout the process and in the plan. 10 Euclid Small Area Plan — Due to its unique relationship with the North Temple Corridor and specifically the proximity to the 800 West and Fairpark stations, the area covered by the former Euclid Small Area plan was incorporated into the North Temple Corridor Transit Area Stations plan which was adopted by the City Council in August 2010. Westminster Small Area Plan —The Planning Division is awaiting a final campus plan from Westminster College, scheduled to be published in early 2011, before determining how to proceed. Staff has questioned the draft small area plan's ability to adequately respond to the community's primary concern, which is the growth and operation of Westminster College. The Planning Division staff met with representatives of Westminster College on March 11, 2010, to discuss the possibility of amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan to address the interests of the college and concerns of the community rather than completing this small area plan. Staff also requested information on the anticipated reuse of existing parcels owned by Westminster that are adjacent to or near the college. It is anticipated that staff will begin work in 2011 to either modify and adopt the Westminster Small Area Plan, or as an alternative include those recommendations directly into the Sugar House Community Master Plan. City-wide General Plan-The City does have a General Plan, though we do not call it that, but rather refer to various geographic and topic plans individually. If one reviews the State law's definition of general plan elements, we have most of them, i.e., land use plans (e.g., community and neighborhood plans), transportation plan, housing — plan, open space plan, historic preservation plan (pending adoption), etc. Staff has discussed with City Council a proposal to create for the City a set of citywide plan principles that would serve as overarching principles to be included in the formulation or amendment of any future community plans, but no decision has been made to move forward with this idea. Staff will continue discussion with the Mayor and City Council about whether to implement this concept. Zoning Amendments Although not a master plan, the Planning Division has committed a great deal of time rewriting major sections of the zoning ordinance. Two major projects are noted below. Zoning Rewrite Project- As an outcome of the Conditional Use Amendment project from 2008 the staff worked with a task force comprised of community council, businesses, and other representatives that had been suggested by the City Council. The Task Force's work is complete. All but two parts of this project have been transmitted to the City Council. The remaining two parts of the project include revisions to the Nonconforming / Noncomplying sections of the zoning ordinance and the Use Tables/ Definitions sections. The Nonconforming/ Noncomplying section will be taken back to the Planning Commission this spring for final review and recommendation before being transmitted to the City Council. The Use Table/Definition petition is an enormous undertaking. The first phase of the project, identifying all the uses and defining them is near completion and internal reviews will occur in February. 11 Sustainable City Code Initiative- The Mayor and City Council have requested the Planning Division work on the Sustainable City Code Initiative which is a group of proposed amendments to the Zoning, Subdivision, and Site Development ordinances to remove barriers, create incentives, and enact standards to work towards making Salt Lake City a leader in sustainable city development. As part of this project, the City Council has adopted a Transit Oriented Development regulation and is reviewing water conserving landscaping, tree protection, renewable energy, and urban agriculture regulations. The Planning Commission is scheduled to have made a recommendation on the remaining topics of the project by June of 2011. 2008 Golf Update—capital project needs Administration Response-The Public Services Department Director and the Golf Division Manager met with the City Council in September 2010 to discuss the general concept of selling open space. The majority of the City Council was of the opinion that they would consider the sale of open space under certain conditions. Those conditions were not determined at this meeting. At that same time, it was suggested that Golfs situation could be used as a case study to help develop a policy. City administration plans to forward a proposal in the near future. 2008 Fund Balance- It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration identify a process to restore fund balance to 15% of General Fund revenue as reserves for unforeseen events or emergencies, and establish 15% of fund balance as a target for the minimum amount allowable (rather than the previous 10%). Administration Response-Given current economic conditions, the Administration is committed to maintaining a fund balance of no less than 10%. At the end of FY 2009- 10, fund balance was 14%, prior to encumbrances approved in the first budget opening after FY210-11. As economic conditions improve, a revised target of 15% will be considered. 2008 Citywide Emergency Preparedness Plan Administration Response The Administration will continue to brief the Council on a regular basis. Each department in the City has accountabilities and responsibilities in times of disaster. The emergency management program facilitates the coordination of emergency preparation, response and recovery efforts of all City departments. The emergency management program is on task to complete its goal of training 400 new CERT volunteers this year. With the assistance of IMS, the new CERT online registration and database should be completed by the end of February. This tool will enable the City, division CERT leaders, and local neighborhood leaders to track and contact CERT trained persons in their areas using map based or list based tools. The database will track completed training, home and work locations, and other volunteer interests and skills. It also allows new CERT volunteers to register and pay fees 12 online. This will allow emergency management staff to focus more time on other necessary activities. The program is also in the process of documenting communications pre-plans for CERT and other neighborhood response activities with Amateur Radio Emergency Services (ARES) at the State, County, City and neighborhood levels. This will facilitate communications between all levels of response after a catastrophic event. The City continues as a major partner in a collaborative planning, training, and exercise effort including agencies from the entire county. The effort is funded by State Homeland Security grants and facilitated by a contracted consulting firm. At the conclusion, the City will have revised or implemented planning, training and exercise in emergency response, continuity of operations and government and community recovery. This city-county effort is occurring in collaboration with planning and exercise efforts at the State and Federal (FEMA Region VIII) levels. These efforts are intended to culminate in a national through local full scale earthquake exercise in April of 2012. Challenges facing the program are real. Collaboration with our many partners is critical to success, but the pace is often set by the organizations with the greatest challenges. Progress is not always as fast or smooth as we would hope. The Grants that fund most of our efforts are currently held up with the rest of the IOW federal budget. We have been told we will NOT receive the grants we have been using to fund out CERT trainers in the upcoming year. This will require the City to look hard at our current training goals. Also, the Homeland Security and UASI grants anticipated for 2011 may not be awarded in the time or amount needed to complete the April 2012 Earthquake exercise. 2008 Fitness for Duty Administration Response- The Fire Department's Task Performance Test (TPT) is now a multi-year program that is well established. The Department continues to have a thriving program with a 95% pass rate. The Department believes the testing has reached a successful plateau. The Department continues to review other health and wellness initiatives beyond the current fitness program to further enhance the quality of our workforce. One such program is the Get Fit program established with the University of Utah. This program assists firefighters in developing an individualized personal fitness program. There is no cost to the City or the firefighter for this program. 2008 Take-home Vehicles Administration Response The Fleet audit included the take-home vehicle issue. Final audit findings and the Administration's response have been transmitted to the City Council. A briefing with the Council is anticipated in February 2011. 13 2008 Overtime within the Fire Department Administration Response-Within the Fire Department, maintaining staffing levels is challenged by current staffing levels, training and other needs. The Department's application for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant has limited the Department's ability to manage staffing levels. The Department has used overtime to maintain required daily staffing levels while staying at levels consistent with the requirements of the grant application. In 2010 the Fire Department implemented a resource allocation model that changed the way it operates in the City. The HazMat Company was relocated from one to two locations and now operates as one major incident mitigation team, and as two individual companies capable of responding independently to more common hazardous materials incidents, including basic HazMat screening, air monitoring, and spill and leak control. This change reduced the daily staffing requirements and response capability by four firefighters within the City while maintaining the ability to respond to all emergencies. 2008 Semiannual Reports on the Status of Legislative Intent Statements and Action Items It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration provides reports regarding the status of all active legislative intent statements (including unresolved statements from previous years and statements adopted outside of the official budget process) and all active legislative action items. The semiannual reports are to be submitted to the Council Office by January 31 and the first Tuesday in May each year. Administration Response-The Administration will continue to work to provide responsive and informative reports in a timely fashion. 14 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 DATE: May 24,2011 SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS& INTERIM STUDY ITEMS FROM: Jennifer Bruno,Lehua Weaver,Karen Halladay,Cassie Fairborn, Quin Card,and Russell Weeks CC: David Everitt,Gordon Hoskins,Gina Chamness,Kay Christensen,Randy Hillier In conjunction with the budget,the Administration has provided an annual report on the Legislative Intent Statements and Interim Study items adopted by the Council in June 2010. The current transmittal dated May 2011 includes those items newly adopted in June 2010,but does not include items adopted in 2009 or before.The Administration's mid-year report(in February)included updates on all items. The Council may wish to take an opportunity to review each item,from previous years as well,and take straw polls to identify those that are a)satisfied or outdated and need to be closed,or those that are b)still relevant and should be re-adopted(and possibly updated). In addition to reviewing previously adopted items,the Council may also wish to suggest new ' items based on the department briefings that have occurred so far this year. There are two sections of information in this report: 1. New items for consideration 2. Previously adopted items for review NEW ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION-Legislative Intent Statements or Interim Studies 1. Inventory of City Property-It is the intent of the Council that the Administration include all enterprise fund properties in City property inventory. 2. New Urban Design Position-It is the intent of the Council that the Administration establish ## priorities for new Urban Design Professional position in the Planning Division. - 3. Rate Study for Refuse Fund-The Council may wish to consider an intent statement and appropriate funding for a Rate Study for the City's waste collection services. 4. Streamlining/Technology ADOPTED LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS AND INTERIM STUDY ITEMS: A. Golf Capital Improvement Projects-Interim Study Item-to evaluate policies related to selling open space in order to fund CIP needs. Administration update(May 2011):An updated plan was provided to the Council through the annual budget process,and the Administration has indicated they will be providing additional information for discussions with the Council. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider keeping this item open pending the follow-up briefing regarding the Golf CIP funding and project priorities scheduled for May 31st.Depending on the discussion and future plans for the Golf Fund's CIP,the Council may wish to revisit the discussion about a Citywide policy regarding selling open space to fund CIP or other projects(broader than just Golf). B. Transportation Related Benefits&Transit Passes-Interim Study Item-to encourage employees to utilize alternative transportation. Administration update(May 2011):The Sustainability Division staff has provided a"transit pass report"to the Administration. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to add this to the list of upcoming briefings for the Chair and Vice Chair to schedule. C. Facilities Charge on Spring Mobile Ticket Sales-Interim Study Item-to evaluate adding a fee to the sale of event tickets to generate money for facility improvements for which the City is responsible. Administration update(February 2011):A charge could be added to the tickets sold at Spring Mobile ball park,because the facility qualifies as a"public assembly or other related facility"as defined in the Utah Code.However,the City could not establish this charge and only apply it at Spring Mobile;the fee would have to be applied across the board on tickets sold for other facilities meeting the same definition of"public assembly or other related facility."This would have a potential complication with the other facilities and any contracts in place for the management of the facility. Council staff recommendation:During the Council's discussion of the February updates, the Council's request was to proceed with the options to implement this charge.Although the ticket charge at Spring Mobile would generate needed funding for the City's portion of facility maintenance,the broader application to other like-facilities may impair support for this issue.Many of those other like-facilities are County facilities,which may cause objections similar to the parking tax issue a few years ago.The Council could consider approaching this topic with the County Council at the next joint City-County Councils meeting. D. Fleet Usage/Replacement-Interim Study Item-to update the fleet replacement analysis to optimal replacement schedules considering budget restraints,and provide a report to the Council with recommendations. Administration update(February 2011):The audit report was transmitted to the Council. -+. Council staff recommendation:(The Fleet Fund budget briefing is scheduled earlier on this same May 24th agenda.)The Administration has mentioned that the new Fleet Director will be evaluating fleet replacement cycles and funding options to maximize the City's resources. The Council may consider keeping this item open until a briefing can be scheduled with the new Director regarding a newly developed strategy. Any changes would also likely have budget implications. E. Special Events - Interim Study Item-information regarding the grants / sponsorship program handled by the Administration. Administration update (February 2011): The Administration has completed two rounds of the grant/ scholarship program-Spring 2010 and Spring 2011, and the program seems to have been successful at providing funding to organized events. Council staff recommendation: The Council may consider closing this item, since any funding for the Special Events sponsorship program would be included in the Non- Departmental Budget each year. Updates and requests to change the program could be reviewed every year in conjunction with the annual budget. F. Transaction Fees - Interim Study Item- to explore ways to encourage environmentally- friendly payment options for City-related transactions. Administration update (February 2011): An administrative working group will be established. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to consider closing this item, unless the Administration indicates that they may have some recommendations forthcoming. This is a difficult issue to balance, because as more residents and customers pay fees online,the City incurs higher credit card charges. (The amount budgeted for credit card fees has been steadily increasing.) Of course, charging a fee to offset the City's expense for accepting credit cards may prove to be a disincentive. The offsetting environmental benefits are also a consideration. The Council could consider raising license and permit fees across the board (regardless of payment method) to help cover these related City expenses. G. Business License Fees - Interim Study Item- to research business license fees to develop an equitable methodology for large and small businesses. Administration update (February 2011): conducting analysis in preparation for the Mayor's Recommended Budget. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to renew this study item as business license revenue is a significant source of revenue for the City, and is a significant issue for business owners. The Mayor's Recommended Budget included an across the board 10% increase to all business license fees,which results in$416,667 additional license revenue. During the Administration's Revenue Outlook presentation on May 10, 2011, a comparison to other local jurisdictions showed that Salt Lake City license fees were approximately 10% lower. To further evaluate the City's licensing structure, the Council may wish to update this item and / or identify funding for an outside consultant to assist with parts of the study and propose options. H. Streets Response Team time study- Legislative Intent Statement- to increase the detail of allocating the Team's time to various tasks, including other Enterprise Funds. Administration update(May 2011):the Streets Division has been taking a more detailed accounting of their tasks and billable services to Enterprise Funds. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item.The amount proposed to be cut in the FY10-11 budget was$233,840 for the cost of the three positions.The services provided by the Team include: park gate closures,sanitation can pick-ups-including the collection at the Farmer's Market and for residents needing assistance,sweeping bike lanes,and other behind the scenes services to assist residents and other City departments. I. Data Tracking&Collection-Legislative Intent Statement-to collect more detailed accounting data for Public Services expenditures(park maintenance,youth programs,etc.) Administration update(May 2011):the Department continues to improve the data collection and has hired another accountant to assist. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item. To continue to develop this practice of tracking expenses,additional investment in technology will likely be necessary. J. Economic Development Incentive program-Legislative Intent Statement-to prepare criteria and options for the Council's consideration and approval for economic development tools or incentives before any additional offers are extended. Administration update(May 2011):the study is currently being conducted. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider leaving this item open and may also consider whether any additional criteria or suggestions should be offered. K. Economic Development Neighborhood Grant program-Legislative Intent Statement- earmark$10,000 of the current interest income in the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund for the Neighborhood Grant program. Administration update(May 2011): the Administration proposes to use the interest income from the Loan Fund toward the grant program,and plans to initiate the second round of the grants for Neighborhood Business Districts. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to ask when the second round will be noticed,and whether the Administration intends to continue the program.Based on the Council's satisfaction with the program,the Council may wish to consider closing this item. L. PEC-Legislative Intent Statement-to identify how to receive input from employee groups,such as the PEC and others,and suggest how to clarify their role in providing input from employees. Administrations update(May 2011):the PEC is represented on the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee and has met with the Human Resources Director to discuss exchange of employee input. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item. p M.Arts Grant-Legislative Intent Statement- to establish criteria for distribution of youth art grants and focus the funds toward City residents. Administration update (May 2011): The Arts Council has developed a strong program and made a successful use of the grant funds, through awarding 29 grants. Council staff recommendation: The Council may consider closing this item, since funding for the Youth Arts grant program would be included in the Non-Departmental Budget each year. Updates and requests to change the program could be reviewed every year in conjunction with the annual budget. N. Youth Program Fees - Legislative Intent Statement-to ensure that any non-City resident participant is charged a fully recoverable fee for the program. Administration update (May 2011): The Finance Department is assisting YouthCity staff in determining the fully loaded cost of the program. Council staff recommendation: The Council may consider keeping this item open until the results of the study have been reported. O. Collections - Legislative Intent Statement- to enhance collection of debts owed to the City. Administration update (May 2011): Collection Unit in place and receivables have been collected upon. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to consider closing this item. P. Parking Meter upgrades - Legislative Intent Statements- to move toward replacing coin parking meters with units that accept credit card payments as soon as possible. Administration update (February 2011): an RFP was issued. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to consider leaving this item open until the Administration has selected a vendor. The Council may wish to add this to the list of upcoming briefings for the Chair and Vice Chair to schedule. Q. Fuel Usage Reduction - Legislative Intent Statement- to maximize use of alternative fuel vehicles and reduce fuel usage. Administration update (February 2011): Fleet staff is working with Departments to take advantage of any opportunity to increase the use of alternative fuel vehicles. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to consider whether the steps taken are adequate to warrant closing the intent statement. In addition to exploring possible use of alternative fuel vehicles, the Administration has also implemented the usage of GPS units in City cars to monitor and reduce idle time,which has also had a favorable impact on reducing fuel consumption. R. Fire Vehicles -Legislative Intent Statement- evaluate vehicle options for medical response to reduce fuel usage. Administration update (February 2011): Gold Cross ambulance began taking over Alpha medical calls,which significantly reduced the number of calls for Fire Department response. In addition, the Fire Department is evaluating other options for response patterns that would help reduce fuel usage. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item. S. Cemetery Budget&Master Plan-Legislative Intent Statement-use the next phase of the cemetery master plan and financial report to evaluate fees and future cemetery needs. Administration update(February 2011):the next phase of the plan is on hold pending funding. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to discuss whether funds are available to move forward with the plans Phase II.Based on the Council's direction,this item may be closed or updated.The Council may also wish to ask for a formal briefing on Phase I,more than what was included during previous annual budget discussions. T. Public Art Maintenance-Legislative Intent Statement-develop a financial plan to handle the ongoing repair and maintenance of the City's Public Art Collection. Administration update(February 2011):inspections have been performed on over 52 of the City's public art collection,and a priority list has been established for the maintenance to occur. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item,as it seems to have been satisfied. U. Open Space Maintenance-Legislative Intent Statement-hire a parks maintenance employee with expertise in natural open space and vegetative areas,and identify any opportunity to coordinate with Public Utilities. Administration update(February 2011):The Open Space program has been moved under the Parks&Public Lands Division in Public Services,and is coordinating with other City departments on management and maintenance for natural lands. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider keeping this item open pending consideration of the amendments to the Open Space Lands Program section of the Code and Open Space Acquisition Strategy.The transmittal for these items was received in the Council office in May. This will likely include a funding component. V. City Master Plans-Legislative Intent Statement-status of the City Master Plans and City- wide general plan. Administration update(February 2011):Working on Northwest Quadrant,West Salt Lake, the Historic Preservation toolbox,and others. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to consider how best to handle this ongoing request,and how to keep this recurring dialogue going. W.Golf Update-Legislative Intent Statement-capital needs. Note:this item is satisfied by item A,an Interim Study Item.The Council may wish to consider closing this item. X. Fund Balance-Legislative Intent Statement-identify a process to restore fund balance to 15%of General Fund revenues. AMIN • Administration update(February 2011):The Administration commits to a fund balance of no less than 10%due to economic conditions,and will reconsider as conditions improve. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider whether this item should be kept open,and if so,whether it should be updated. Y. Citywide Emergency Preparedness Plan-Legislative Intent Statement-submit quarterly written briefings regarding the status of the City's emergency preparedness efforts and plan,including training status,coordination with entities,and other updates. Administration update(February 2011):The Administration will continue to brief the Council regularly. Council staff recommendation: The Council may wish to consider closing this item with the understanding that briefings will continue. Z. Take-home Vehicles-Legislative Intent Statement-provide an analysis of fleet costs related to take-home vehicles in conjunction with the annual budget. Administration update(February 2011):Fleet Audit • Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item with th= understanding that if costs associated with the program require updating,then the Administration will bring the issue to the Council in a budget. AA. Overtime within the Fire Department-Legislative Intent Statement-take measures to reduce the dependence on staffing shifts on an overtime basis. Administration update(February 2011):The Administration reports that the Department continues to utilize overtime,and indicated that the SAFER grant has"limited the Department's ability to manage staffing levels." Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider keeping this item open and whether it should be updated.The Council may include this as part of their discussion during the Fire Department budget briefing(also scheduled for May 24),or holding a follow-up budget discussion. BB. Semiannual reports on Legislative Intent Statements and Action Items-Legislative Intent Statement-provide reports. Administrative update(February 2011):they will continue to provide reports. Council staff recommendation:The Council may wish to consider closing this item with the understanding that briefings will continue.